1974/09/1774-923
City Hall,, Anaheim~ California
PRESENT:
ABSENT:
PRESENT:
- COUNCIL MINUTEs.- September 17, 1974~ 1:30 P.M.
The City Council of the City of Anaheim met in regular session.
COUNCIL MEMBERS: Kaywood, SeYmOur, Pebley, Sneegas and Thom
COUNCIL MEHBERS: None
CITY MANAGER: Keith A. Murd°ch
CITY ATTOIt~EY: Alan R. Watts
CITY CLERK: Alona M. Hougard
ADMINISTRATIVE ASSISTANT: John Harding
ASSISTANT DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DIRECTOR:
ZONING SUPERVISOR: Charles Roberts
PI~ING SUPERVISOR: Don McDaniel
CITY ENGINEER: James P. Maddox
FINANCE DIRECTOR: M. R. Ringer
ASSISTANT PLANNER: G. Alan Daum
ASSISTANT PLANNER: Robert Kelley
Ronald Thompson
Mayor Thom called the meeting to order.
INVOCATION: Lieutenant Neal Hogan of the Salvation Army gave the Invocation.
FLAG SALUTE: Councilmen John Seymour led the Assembly in the Pledge of Allegiance
to the Flag.
PROCI~TION: Mayor Thom proclaimed the month of October, 1974, as "United Way
Month".
On behalf of the United Way, Mr. Robert Nease accepted the proclamation.
MINUTES: Approval of the City Council Minutes for regular meetings held August 20,
August 27, September 3.and September 10, 1974, was deferred until September 24,
1974.
WAIVER OF READING - ORDIltANCES AND RESOLUTIONS: Councilman Seymour moved to waive the
reading in full of all ordinances and resolutions, and that consent to the waiver
of reading is hereby given by all Council Members unless, after reading of the
title, specific request is made by a Council M~ber for the reading of such
ordinance or resolution. Councilman Pebley seconded the motion. MOTION UNANI-
MOUSLY CARRIED.
REPORT - FINANCIAL DEMANDS AGAINST THE CITY: Demands against the City in the amount
of $633,399,27, in accordance with the 1974-75 Budget, were approved.
CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING - HOUSEMOVING PERHIT: Submitted by G. Fronseca, requesting
a permit to move a structure from 3630 West 17th Street, Santa Ann to 1619
Pounders Lane, Anaheim. Said hearing wascontinued from the meetings of July 16
and 23, and August 20, 1974, to allow the Applicant time to purchase another
dwelling to move onto the Pounders Lane site.
Mayor Thom asked if the Applicant was present; there was no response.
On motion by Councilman Pebley, seconded by Councilman Sneegas,public
hearing was continued to November 26, 1974, 1:30 P.M. MOTION CARRIED.
CONTII/UgD PUBLIC HEARING - HOUSEHOVING PERHIT: Submitted by John KraJacic, requesting
permits to move a structure from 2174 West Catalpa Avenue, Anaheim to 1407 Damon
Street, Anaheim, and to move a strUcture from 2189 Catalpa Avenue, Anaheim to 1503
South Nutwood Street, Anaheim. Said hearings were continued from the meeting of
August 20, 1974, to allow the Applicant an opportunity to purchase move-on dwell-
ings of a better grade.
Mayor Thom'asked if the Applicant wished to address the City Council.
Mr. John KraJacic, 1677 West Beacon Avenue, advised that he has been
unable to locate suitable dwellings to ~ove onto subject properties and requested
that the public hearings be continued for 120 days to allow him time to cOntinue
his search. He further indicated that several of the neighbors in the vicinity
of the Nutwood Street property had indicated to him that they wished they had
attended the previous public hearings and supported his original request.
74-924
City Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - September 17, 1974, 1:.30 P.M.
Councilman Pebley commented that it was his recollection that the Build-
ing Division had previously approved both structures proposed to be moved, subject
to the condition that structural modifications be made to meet requirements of
the Anaheim Municipal Code; and he noted that when more than 50% of the residents
within 300 feet of the property sign a petition in opposition to a move-on, it has
been the policy of the Council to deny the permit. He suggested that when the
Applicant selects different dwellings for moving, that he take pictures thereof
and show them to the residents in the area prior to the continued public hearing.
Councilman Seymour replied that the two dwellings originally proposed
for subject properties were unsatisfactory, both to the neighbors and to the City
Council.
Councilman Pebley moved that the public hearings be continued to
January 21, 1975, 1:30 P.M. Councilwoman Kmywood seconded the motion. MOTION
CARRIED.
CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING~ GgNERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 132: Public hearing was continued
from the meeting of September 3, 1974, to allow time for further study on General
Plan Amendment No. 132, for adoption of said amendment as the Seismic and Safety
Element of the Anaheim General Plan.
The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC74-167,
recommended adoption of General Plan Amendment No. 132.
Planning Supervisor Don McDaniel briefly reviewed the content of the
proposed Seismic and Safety Element, advising that in accordance with State law,
said Elements should be adopted by Septmeber 20, 1974. He pointed out that as
with other elements, this one is intended to be a policy statement regarding seis-
mic and safety factors as they relate to the City of Anaheim, and is not meant to
be an implementation tool reflecting actual technical studies, but rather, sets
the guidelines for such studies. As City staff is not available to conduct the
type of geo-technical studies suggested by the proposed Element as future imple-
mentation tools, said studies would probably require the aid and expertise of a
consultant.
Assistant Planner G. Alan Daum reported that the proposed Element con-
tains the required identification and appraisal of local geo-technical and seismic
conditions, as well as consideration of the main safety hazards in the City, and
the intent is to provide a basic understanding of these hazards and to establish
a framework from which a continuing program of seismic and safety objectives may
be undertaken. Further, the Element provides the essential basis for recognizing
major hazards and establishing a commitment to pursue in-depth research and
specific investigation of hazards where necessary.
At this stage, in-depth geo-technical research is not necessary; upon
adoption of the Element, a program of safety objectives encompassing possible
safety ordinances, structural inspections and risk analysis of specific plans for
projects may be initiated. The adoption of the proposed Element would be the
first step towards an effective program of identification and evaluation of seis-
mic and safety hazards, the Element being a required and essential planning pol-
icy tool with which the City may initiate future policy guidelines and safety
objectives pursuant to community development.
In conclusion, Mr. Daum called attention to certain references contained
in the proposed Element and to the Orange County Seismic and Public Safety Ele-
ment, advising that although the proposed City Element would stand on its own
merits, the Orange County Element will contain pertinent geo-technical investiga-
tion and analysis of the Anaheim area. It is recommended that upon adoption of
the Orange County Seismic and Public Safety Element (anticipated by January 1,
1975), the study be reviewed and, if appropriate, adopted as a supplement to the
City Element.
Mayor Thom asked if anyone wished to address the City Council concerning
General Plan Amendment No. 132.
Mr. Jack Eagen, Chairman of the Southern California Section of the
Association of Engineering Geologists, addressed the Council representing the
Association, expressing concern that insufficient time has been applied to the
74-925
City ~a11~ A~aheim~ Calif0rnia - COUNCIL MINUTES - September 17~ 1974~ 1:30. P.M.
proposed element, and that there is no indication that registered geologists or
civil engineers had worked on the proposal. That a number of errors in the
document have been observed, and it is strongly recommended that adoption thereof
be deferred until members of the Association have an opportunity to meet with
representatives of the Development Services Department.
Responding to a question, by Mayor Thom for specific examples of such'
errors, Mr. Eagen called attention to Page No. lla of the document, consisting of
a chart of "Maxinnnn Probable Earthquakes", and advised that many of the estimated
total fault length distances are inaccurate, and the maximum probable earthquake
magnitude does not agree with the reference given on the page. In addition,
there is more recent material available than the 1966 references given, and in
general the document needs to be refined, even though it is intended to be used
only as a guideline; guidelines have a way of becoming policy.
Other points noted by Mr. Eagen were that on Page Nos. 25 and Z6 under
"Critical Landslide Hazard Areas", Item No. 1 should contain the requirement of
an evaluation by a registered or certified Engineering Geologist and a Civil
Engineer who is competent in soils engineering; Item No. 2, if implemented as
· rritten, would have the result that a developer could not use a buttress to
support the hillside; regarding Item No. 3, it was his opinion that due to econom-
ics, it would be worthwhile to consider high density residential development in
critical landslide areas which cannot be acquired for public ownership, but it is
likely to remain open space if limited to low density; Item No. 4, he failed to
see any reason why facilities such as hospitals, schools and utility structures
should not be built within the critical landslide area if they are properly
designed. He commended the Risk Analysis portion of the proposal and s,,m-~rized
the position of the Association by advising that they feel there are errors and
omissions, maps are inadequate, and the proposed Element needs critical review as
it is felt the document does not meet the Interim Guidelines established by the
California Council on Intergovernmental Relations.
Councilman Seymour inquired whether Mr. Ealen was offering the services
of his Association to assist the City in perfecting the proposed amendment.
Mr. Eagen replied he was unable to obligate the membership and noted
that they had had time for only a cursory review of the document, however, they
would be willing to pass along comments after review by their Seismic and Safety
Committee.
The Mayor asked if anyone else desired to address the Council; there
was no response.
Councilwoman Kaywood referred to Page No. 22 of the document under
.Fault Special Studies Zones, being of the opinion that the last sentence should
be amended to read that in al! cases the continued agricultural use of land
directly over an active fault should be encouraged, rather than in some cases.
In response to question by Councilman Pebley, Mr. Eagen replied that
the errors contained in the proposal could be eliminated within a period of 3 to
4 days.
Mayor Thom fmlt it would be worthwhile to continue the public hearing
for further review and comnents by the Staff, after receiving suggestions from
the Association Committee.
Councilman Sneegas moved that public hearing be continued to October 1,
1974.
In response to question by Councilwoman Kaywood, Mr. Eagen reported
that the Committee would gladly point out errors, but could not take the place of
a consultant on a volunteer basis. He noted that fees charged for consulting
services.to the County of Santa Barbara amounted to approximately $30,000.
Councilman Seymour stated he did not intend to vote for a large expen-
diture of taxpayers' money to produce such a very general document. He felt that
Mr. Eagen's offer on behalf of the Association to make critical comments relative
to the shortcomings in this plan was not the same as his earlier statement offer-
lng to make recommendations as to how the proposal could be polished and improved.
74-926
Cit7 Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - September 17~ 1974~ 1:30 P.M.
In his opinion, if the Seismic and Safety Committee of the Association was only
going to point our errors in the amendment and then illustrate the reasons why
the City should pay a sizable fee for professional assistance, then he would
rather adopt the proposal as it exists and consider the possibilities of creating
a task force type of relationship with a group, such as the Association, which
would help us to do the job.
Mayor Thom was of the opinion that the continuance should be effected
to allow for a written statement as to the errors to be submitted from the Associa-
tion for review by the staff and report.
Councilman Sneegas repeated his motion to continue subject public
hearing to October 1, 1974, 1:30 P.M. Councilman Pebley seconded the motion.
MOTION CARRIED.
Councilwoman Kaywood suggested adopting the proposed Element at this
time subject to further amendment.
It was the consensus of the other Council Members that the public hear-
should be continued for further review by the staff.
PUBLIC HEARING - VARIANCE NO. 2627: Submitted by The Atchison, Topeka and Santa Fe
Railway Company, to establish an outdoor storage yard on M-1 zoned property located
at the southeast corner of Lincoln Avenue and Atchison Street, with waivers of:
a. Permitted outdoor uses.
b. Minimum landscaping adjacent to a local street.
c. Maximum fence height.
d. Required fencing material.
e. Minimum tree landscaping to screen outdoor uses.
The City Planning Commission, pursuant to their Resolution No. PC74-164,
fpund that the Director of Development Services has determined that the proposed
activity falls within the definition of Section 3.01, Class 5 of the City of
Anaheim Guidelines to the requirements for an environmental impact report and is,
therefore, categorically exempt from the requirement to file an environmental im-
pact report, and further granted said variance in part, denying waivers "b", "d"
and "e", subject to the following conditions:
1. That the owner(s) of subject property shall deed to the City of
Anahei~ a strip of land 30 feet in width from the centerline of the Street along
Atchison Street for street widening purposes.
2. That trash storage areas shall be provided in accordance with
approved plans on file with the office of the Director of Public Works.
3. That subject property shall be developed substantially in accor-
dance with plans and specifications on file with the City of Anaheim marked
Exhibit No. 1.
4. That Condition Nos. 1, 2 and 3, above-mentioned, shall be complied
with prior to the commencement of the activity authorized under this resolution,
or prior to the time that the building permit is issued, or within a period of
one year from the date hereof, whichever occurs first, or such further time as
the City Planning Commission or City Council may grant.
Appeal from action taken by the City Planning Commission was filed by
Mr. Bill Silzle, Silzle Properties, Inc., Agent~ and public hearing scheduled
this date.
Zoning Supervisor Charles Roberts noted the location of subject property.
and the existing uses and zoning in the immediate area, summarizing the evidence
submitted to and considered by the City Planning Commission. He advised that the
storage needs of the adjacent fruit processing plant to the south have been
extended to subject property and inside and outside the former railroad depot
without conforming to site development standards required for the M-1 Zone, and
that some items are currently being stored to a height exceeding the proposed
10-foot fence.
In answer to Councilman Pebley's question, Mr. Roberts advised that the
materials being stored to a height greater than 10 feet were palletized items,
such as empty cans and cartons, used in connection with the Citrus Packing Plant
to the south. The Silzle Company is requesting permission to expand their stor-
age to this property.
74-927
Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - September 17.~ 1974t 1:30 P.M..
Responding to question by Mayor Thom, Mr. Roberts advised that this
application was not brought to the attention of the Anaheim Redevelopment 'Commis-
sion although the property is located within the Project "Alpha" Area; that there
is no specific provision in the redevelopment plan that matters of this nature
must be brought before the Redevelopment Commission before coming to the Redevelop-
ment Agency, however, the plan provides that the Redevelopment Agency Executive
Director, after consulting with the Planning Commission, shall prepare a report
with regard to such a proposal.
Councilman Seymour noted that a letter from The Atchison, Topeka and
Santa Fe Railway Company, on file with the variance application, states that if
Condition No. 1 imposed by the City Planning Commission in their partial approval
of subject application in Resolution No. PC74-164 is not waived, they intend to
withdraw the variance application.
Mayor Thom asked if the Applicant or his Agent wished to address the
City Council.
Councilwoman Kaywood left the meeting. (2:32 P.M.)
Mr. Bill Silzle, 3125 Aguacate Road, San Juan Capistrano, advised that
they have been doing business at subject location for approximately 37 years;
that they are satisfied with recommendations of the City Planning Commission, but
the Santa Fe Railway Company does not wish to dedicate an additional 10 feet of
their property for the widening of Atchison Street (Condition No. 1).
Mr. Joe White, 809 West Broadway, addressed the City Council expressing
the opinion that should redevelopment occur, the expansion of the storage use
could present a problem for removal, and matters of this nature should be referred
to the Redevelopment Commission as a matter of policy.
The Mayor asked if anyone else wished to address the't[[y COunCil;.
there being no response, he declared the hearing closed.
In answer to Council questioning, the City Engineer reported that
Atchison Street was recently reconstructed completely throughout the area in
question, and currently there are no plans for widening or other construction.
Councilwoman Kaywood returned to the meeting. (2:35 P.M.)
Councilman Pebley reiterated that if the dedication for street widening
was not waived, in effect, the variance would be denied, and he was reluctant to
discourage the continued operation of a business which was established 37 years
ago.
In answer to question by Councilman Seymour, Mr. Harding reported that
at the present time, it is not known what role Atchison Street would play in
street patterns and plans for Project "Alpha".
Councilman Seymour questioned whether the City would be responsible for
payment of relocation expenses should subject property be needed for the redevel-
opment program after the expiration of the variance..
Mr. Watts advised that basically this request is for use of land with-
out construction or expansion of structures, and if and when the variance expires,
the expansion of the storage yard as permitted by that variance will be termi-
nated, and in effect, will no longer exist. This would not apply, however, to
the existing Citrus Plant on the adjacent property.
ENVIRONNENTAL IMPACT REPORT - CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION: On motion by Councilman
Sneegas, seconded by Councilman Seymour, the City Council ratified the determina-
tion of the Director of Development Services that the proposed activity falls
within the definition of Section 3.01, Class 5 of the City of Anaheim Guidelines
to the requireamnts for an environmental impact report, and is, therefore, cate-
gorically exempt from the requirement to file said report. MOTION CARRIED.
74-928
City Hall~ Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - September 17~ 1974~ 1:30 P.M.
RESOLUTION NO. 74R-456: Councilman Seymour offered Resolution No. 74R-456 for
adoption, granting Variance No. 2627 in part, waivers "a" and "c" only, for a
period of two years, subject to the conditions recommended by the City Planning
Commission, omitting therefrom Condition No. 1.
Refer to Resolution Book.
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM GRANTING VARIANCE NO.
2627 IN PART.
Roll Call Vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
COUNCIL MEMBERS: Kaywood, Seymour, Pebley, Sneegas and Thom
COUNCIL MEMBERS: None
COUNCIL MEMBERS: None
The Mayor declared Resolution No. 74R-456 duly passed and adopted.
Councilman Seymour again explained to Mr. Silzle that in the opinion
of the City Attorney, the City would not be responsible for moving the portion
of the business contained on subject property only, subsequent to the expiration
of the variance.
Councilman Sneegas left the meeting. (2:42 P.M.)
ZONING MATTERS - PROJECT "ALPHA" AREA: Mayor Thom expressed the opinion that the
Redevelopment Commission should be notified of zoning applications on properties
within the Project "Alpha" Area, such as reclassifications, variances and condi-
tional use permits, so that they might have an opportunity to offer any pertinent
comments.
Council Members seYmOur and Kaywood concurred, providing the applica-
tions were of a substantial nature.
City Attorney Alan Watts noted that the distinction has been that only
when the application included substantial, new or additional construction was the
matter referred to the Redevelopment Commission.
Councilman Sneegas returned to the meeting. (2:44 P.M.)
PUBLIC HEARING - RECLASSIFICATION NO. 74-75-1: Submitted by Joan Berry, et al, request-
ing a change in zone from R-A to C-1 on property located at the southwest corner
of Crescent Avenue and Magnolia Avenue. (Proposed Alpha Beta Shopping Center)
Pursuant to Resolution No. PC74-173, the City Planning Commission recom-
mended denial of subject reclassification.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT NO. 99: At the City Council meeting of March 19,
1974, the City Council certified said Environmental Impact Report No. 99 in con-
junction with Reclassification No. 73-74-20. The City Planning Commission deter-
mined that no additional action would be necessary to its action taken on
September 17, 1973, recommending certification of said E.I.R.
The City Clerk reported that of the several communications received and
copied for the Council, 18 were in favor and 2 Opposed to the proposed reclassifi-
cation.
Mr. Roberts noted the location of subject property and the existing
uses and zoning in the immediate area, summarizing the evidence submitted to and
considered by the City Planning Commission. He pointed out that in March 1974,
the same request was denied by the City Council under Reclassification No.
73-74-20; subsequently a rehearing was authorized on the basis that new Planning
Commissioners had not had an opportunity to review the entire proposal including
a noise study submitted by the Applicant, and subject application was filed.
In response to question by Councilman Pebley, Mr. Roberts stated that
on the west property line adjacent to the R-1 homes, there is projected a 10-foot
wall behind which would be 20 feet of landscaped area, and adjacent to the land-
scaping there is to be an access driveway, a portion of which would be depressed
at the loading dock area.
74-929
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - September 17.~ 1974~ 1:30 P..M.
The Mayor asked if the Applicant or Agent wished to address the City
Council.
Mr. William H. Miller, 9732 Hazard Avenue, Santa Ana, Authorized Agent,
addressed the Council describing the quality construction proposed for the shop-
ping center with attractive landscaping, bicycle racks, extra wide parking stalls
and other amenities. He advised that the major tenants would be the Alpha Beta
Markets, and the center would include various small shops and services.
Mr. Miller submitted for Council review a color coded, four quadrant
map of the area surrounding subject property, depicting the properties visited to
determine whether they were in favor or opposed to the proposed development (cor-
responds to petition on file). He noted that they had approached 722 units in
addition to those where no one was home, and they received 604 "yes" votes (83%),
79 "no" votes (111) and 39 "no opinion".(6%). He advised that when subject
application came before the City Planning Commission, the Chairman complimented
the efforts made by the Petitioners and suggested that in addition, statements be
obtained from adjacent property owners and also a letter from Alpha Beta Markets
indicating that they would not receive night deliveries at subject location.
At a later date they again appeared before the Planning Commission at
which time the statements from the adjoining property owners and the Alpha Beta
Markets, as well as other statements from property owners, were submitted, how-
ever, the hearing was not reopened. He was of the opinion that the signatures of
the 600 people who signed the petition in favor of the proposed shopping center
were ignored.
Mr. Miller then reviewed and responded to the findings contained in
City Planning Commission Resolution No. PC74-174, recommending denial of subject
reclassification, as follows:
Finding No. 2. He noted General Plan Area '~" depictions of commercial
and other zoning in the area in question and was of the opinion that their request
for a change in the General Plan for this area, where there is a need for such
development, was not out of line.
Finding No. 4. An in depth study was made of schools in Anaheim by the
Petitioners, and it can be demonstrated that schools and cam~_ercial development
are compatible. With the Traffic Engineer's assistance, they have made recom-
mendations for safe routes to and from the Dr. Peter Marshall Elementary School,
and Hr. Miller pointed out these routes, noting that the only children that would
necessarily walk by the shopping center would be those living in The Commons, an
apartment complex located on the west side of Magnolia Avenue, south of Crescent
Avenue. A petition in favor of the shopping center signed by 94% of The Commons
residents is on file. In addition, the Anaheim Traffic Department states there
has not been an accident involving a child going to or from school and in connec-
tion with ingress or egress to a shopping area in 14 years, and he referred to
Exhibit Nos. 2 through 8, colored photographs illustrating various schools.
Mr. Miller then read letters from the new owners of The Cocoons Apart-
ments located at 425 North Magnolia Avenue, dated September 5, 1974, and from the
owners of the Viva Apartments located at 2611 Baylor Avenue, dated August 29,
1974, urging approval of the proposed shopping center. He further advised that
relative to the increased traffic expected to be generated by the proposed devel-
opment, the Traffic Engineer has informed him that he did not state than an in-
crease of from 4,000 to 5,000 vehicles a day would be generated, as set forth in
Finding No. 4, and that to give such a figure would first require an in depth
study. He noted that Herman Kimmel and Associates, Inc., Traffic Engineering
Consultants, had made an impartial study in connection with Environmental Impact
Report No. 99, and estimated an increase of 3,200 cars per day. Further the
Anaheim Traffic Division breakdown of traffic accidents reported at this inter
section of Magnolia and Crescent Avenues records 11 in 1968, 25 in 1969, 28 in
1970, 17 in 1971, 24 in 1972, and 7 in 1973, and in his opinion, the reason for
the sharp decline was the off-site improvements on subject properties for which
the Petitioner was responsible.
74-930
City Hall~ .Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - September 17~ 1974~ 1:30 P.M.
Finding No. 5. With reference to Finding No. 5, he pointed out that
they have provided a 20-foot setback from the R-1 properties, which is not re-
quired by the City, and landscaping, plus a 4-foot well for trucks at the loading
docks which will effectively reduce the noise level. At full throttle, the large
trucks Produce a sound level of 75 dBA at the source, which is reduced by dis-
tance, by walls of dwellings, and by fences. He described the proposed routing
of the delivery trucks as agreed to by Alpha Beta, and depicted on a plot plan
which he thereupon submitted for Council review. There would be no necessity for
full throttle use except when the trucks leave the well. Immediately adjacent to
the proposed docking area there is 151 feet of garages which serve the Viva
Apartments.
Finding No. 6. The Petitioners have made an honest attempt to solve
the technical problems of the developments and feel that any further objections
are arbitrary.
Finding No. 7. He cited the reasons for the necessity of the proposed
reclassifications; that it is necessary for the proper development of the com-
munity, and within a one-mile radius of this site reside nearly 40,000 people
with only two-full service markets to serve their needs. He felt if subject
application were denied, additional substandard small markets would be developed
on some of the remaining small parcels of land. The existing small shopping cen-
ter directly across the street from subject property does not meet the needs of
the community, and he described the various small stores and larger markets in
the surrounding area amd referred to the revenues which would come to the City if
the proposed market and small shops were approved.
Finding No. 8. He thought the proposed zoning would be compatible'to
the area, high density apartments to the south, commercial to the east, R-1 to
the west, and the school to the north, which is similar to many other areas in
the City near food markets.
Finding No. 9. In his opinion, the Planning Commission ignored the
fact that over 80% of the people in the affected area want a shopping center, and
100% of those in the R-1 area have signed petitions and letters in favor.
Mr. Miller called attention to the fact that it is extremely difficult
for working people to take time to attend these afternoon hearings, and the pro-
ponents have expressed the opinion that signing the petitions or writing the let-
ters should be sufficient to make their desires known. He thereupon presented a
supplemental petition in favor of the proposed development, containing an addi-
tional 69 signatures. He advised of changes made in some of the small businesses
which had been proposed for the subject property as result of meetings with the
Principal of Dr. Peter Marshall School and Members of the School Board.
In conclusion, he submitted a letter in favor of the reclassification
fromM rs. Joseph Germain, 2606 West Yale Avenue. He requested favorable action
by the City Council.
The.Mayor asked if anyone else wished to address the City Council in
support of subject application.
The following people addressed the City Council in favor of the proposed
reclassification and shopping center:
Mrs. Shirley Clark, 2645 Bruce Avenue; Mrs. M. C. Jenks, 525 North
Gilbert Street, representing Casa Hermosa, a mobile home park located at the
southwest corner of Gilbert Street and Crescent Avenue; Mr. Tom LittleJohn, 307
North La Reina Street, representing the "Villagers Club", comprised of approxi-
mately 60 families residing in the subdivision. The property owners stated that
there was a need for an adequate food market and shopping center in the area,
that this convenience would help save gasoline and expenses, and approximately
95% of the people residing in the subdivision in the vicinity of La Reina Street
had indicated they were in favor of the shopping center.
Mr. Thomas F. Mayer, 2626 Baylor Circle, Manager of the Viva Apartments,
advised approximately 95% of the residents of the apartment development are in
favor of the proposed market and he submitteda list for Council review.
74-931
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - September !7, 1974~ 1:30 P.M.
Also addressing the Council in favor of subject request was Mr. Stephen
F. Gallagher, 1400 East Alto Lane, Fullerton. He advised that he had practiced
law in the E1 Camino Bank Building for some 40 years and had watched the area in
question develop, and in his opinion an apartment development would generate
noise 24 hours a day which would not be true of a shopping center. He felt the
proposed development would be an asset to the neighborhood.
Mr. Andrew Fox, 2441 West Lincoln Avenue, Anaheim, Assistant Superin-
tendent of Business Services for the Magnolia School District, called attention
to a letter dated September 6, 1974, from the Governing Board of Trustees oppos-
ing subject reclassification on the basis of safety for the school children, as
well as all persons associated with Dr. Peter Marshall School, due to the in-
creased traffic.
Mayor Thom asked if anyone else wished to speak in favor; there being
no response, asked for opposition.
Appearing in opposition to the proposed reclassification were: Mrs.
Richard Young, 2665 Crescent Avenue; Patricia Bennett, 2656 Crescent Avenue; Mrs.
Georgia Schweppe, 2653 Stockton; Mrs. Barbara Teitelbaum, 511 North Hanover; Mrs.
Teresa Geblin, 502 North Hanover; Mrs. Gloria Aranda, 2653 Crescent Avenue; and
Dr. Sol Teitelbaum, 511 North Hanover. These property owners advised that even
though the Alpha Beta Markets agree to having no night deliveries, there are
bound to be early morning deliveries with accompanying truck noises; that most of
the people who are in favor do not live immediately adjacent to subject property;
that the increased traffic generated by the shopping center would be detrimental
and create a safety hazard; that many petitions of opposition to the proposed
development had been submitted; that there is a playground at the Dr. Peter
Marshall School used in the summer for Park and Recreation Programs, as well as
during the school year; that the Fed Mart and Gemco stores on Lincoln Avenue
offer groceries at discount prices; that one of the residences marked on the map
,submitted by the Petitioner as favoring, the proposed development is now vacant
(2648 Crescent Avenue, adjacent to subject property); that the projected figures
of 4,000 to 5,000 vehicles per day increase had been obtained from the former
Traffic Engineer, Mr. Granzow, and that traffic leaving and entering the shopping
center at all hours would depreciate the neighborhood, and cause litter and
broken glass in the vicinity of the parking lots.
Mr. John Peek, 2625 West Baylor Circle, No. 246, stated that it was his
understanding that the basis for subject rehearing was that at the previous hear-
ing (Reclassification No. 73-74-20) the statements he made with reference to the
projected delivery truck noise were erroneous. He referred to the acoustics
report contained in Environmental Impact Report No. 99, noting Section 6.70.010,
Anaheim Municipal Code, which prohibits creating any sound radiating for extended
periods from any premise which produces a sound pressure level at any point on
the property line in excess of 60 decibels, and called attention to information
on a noise study conducted on similar markets in another area (on file with the
City of Anaheim). He quoted from said study that in one instance the noise
level, measured 20 feet from the exhaust stack of asemi-trailer truck, peaked at
78 dBA measured at the property line. In addition, the report stated that trees
used as a buffer actually have a negligible effect on sounds; that the noise only
see~ less when the source of the noise cannot be seen. If fences are to be
employed as a buffer, to be effective, they should reach a height of 12 feet
above the delivery area lower grade.
Mr. Peek advised that although he resides in the affected area, he had
not been contacted for his opinion on the proposed development. He agreed with
the Petitioner that subject property is a difficult parcel to develop due, in
part, to the items Just noted, and also to the fact that commercial development
of this nature has no place across the street from an elementary school, and dir-
ectly adjacent to single family residential and high density R-3 development. In
his opinion, noise pollution affects the learning of children in school. Surveys
and petitions tend to be misleading, and he felt that there is a need for people
to unite for the creation of a harmonious atmosphere.
Mayor Thom asked if the City Council felt they needed more information
from other persons present in opposition to the reclassification; the Council
indicating they had heard a good cross section of the evidence, the Mayor offered
the Petitioner an opportunity for rebuttal.
74-932
City Hall, Anaheim, .Ca%ifornia - COUNCIL MINUTES - September 17~ 197.4m 1:30 P.M.
Mr. Miller's rebuttal consisted of the following statements: There is
an existing neighborhood shopping center next door to the Mattie Lou Maxwell Ele-
mentary School; that he felt the concentration of "No" votes on Crescent Avenue
adjacent to subject property occurred as a result of the additional 10-foot set-
back for off-site improvements required for future street widening; that when
making the survey of residents in the area, if the people were not in, they were
called on twice, amd every attempt was made to reflect an accurate showing; that
they would not be in violation of Section 6.70.010 of the Anaheim Municipal Code
since truck sounds would not be prolonged and trucks will be routed away from the
Viva Apartments and use Crescent Avenue for ingress and egress, turning in the
vicinity of the Dr. Peter Marshall School auditorium and parking lot; and that
Mr. Singer, the City Traffic Engineer, has advised that his office could not give
a reliable estimate of the projected traffic.
Mayor Thom declared the hearing closed.
Councilwoman Kaywood asked the following questions of Mr. Miller:
regarding the reference to Maxwell School, what was the connection, since the
School's entrance is on Orange Avenue and there is no shopping center near it;
that she failed to see how Mr. Miller could say that trucks turning in and out of
the shopping center on Crescent Avenue would not affect the noise and public
safety at the School, and the noise of their turning in front of the auditorium
would drown out any event taking place therein; and 'she pointed out that the
parking lot of the Alpha Beta Shopping Center located at Brookhurst Street and
Ball Road is extremely hazardous, and the store at Magnolia Avenue and Ball Road
has an unsightly parking lot.
Mr. Miller replied as follows: the Maxwell School example was cited to
illustrate designated safe routes to school, and there is a service station
across the street; that approximately 75 children in the area would walk past the
Shopping Center; that the Dr. Peter Marshall School is protected by a fence and
childrmm do mot leave the grounds except at designated times; that theauditorium
was a closed building with almost no windows; that the Gemco Store was somewhat
difficult to reach since there was no sidewalk along the south side of Lincoln
Avenue. He gave the example of Lincoln School, which is located across the
street from a shopping center and other commercial uses, and noted that the
Riverdale School is located across the street from a 300-bed hospital.
Councilman Sneegas called attention to the Hansen School located at
Knott Avenue and Ball Road across the street from a high school, and on another
corner a shopping center with apartments to the left, and he suggested it would
be of interest to research the number of accidents at that location involving
childrem with vehicles on route to or from the shopping area. Also noted was the
Adelaide Price School located across the street from the Anaheim Plaza Shopping
Center. He was of the opinion that traffic complaints from apartment areas out-
number those from shopping centers at a ratio of at least 25 to 1, and with
proper child education by parents, they will adjust to traffic conditions along
with adults.
In answer to question by Councilman Seymour, Mr. Roberts reported that
there are 128 dwelling units within The Commons Apartment complex, that property
immediately to the south of the proposed shopping center contains 124 dwelling
units, and it is estimated that subject property could be developed with from 120
to 125 dwelling units.
Councilman Seymour pointed out that subject property is designated on
the Anaheim General Plan for R-3 development, and this seemed a logical extension
of the R-3 to the south.
Mr. Stephen Gallagher, one of the owners of subject property, advised
that they had never received an offer for R-3 development, but they do have a
firm co~itment from the developers of the proposed shopping center. He was of
the opinion that there is too much traffic and noise at the intersection to
afford logical development of the property for apartments, and if apartments were
constructed, they should be limited to adult occupancy, as is the case on property
to the south. In his opinion, construction costs are very high, and there is no
demand for this type of development.
74-933
City Hall~ Anaheim~ ,California - COUNCIL MINUTES - September ,17~ 1974~ 1:30 p.M.
Coumcilman SeYmOur asked those in the audience who were in opposition
to ~he subject reclassification whether they preferred commercial or apartment
development of the property; the response was unanimous for apartments. He felt
that the issue was one of land use; that subject property was one which was
difficult to develop commercially and maintain the integrity of the neighborhood.
Councilman Seymour failed to see the difference between the costs of
apartment and commercial construction and felt it was not a valid argument that
construction costs would prohibit apartment development. In his opinion, the
argument that apartments would overcrowd the schools was also invalid since the
City's studies show that a larger school population comes from single-family
residences than from apartments.
Councilman Sneegas pointed out that the study results indicating less
children in apartments than in single-family homes referred to numbers of children
per dwelling unit and not children per acre.
It was noted that the Environmental Impact Report had been certified
previously in connection with Reclassification No. 73-74-20, and the City Attorney
advised said action was valid.
RESOLUTION NO. 74R-457: Councilman Seymour offered Resolution No. 74R-457 for
adoption, denying Reclassification No. 74'75-1.
Refer to Resolution Book.
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM FINDING AND DETERMINING
THAT A CHANGE OF ZONE SHOULD NOT BE GRANTED IN A CERTAIN AREA OF THE CITY HERE-
INAFTER DESCRIBED. (74-75-1)
Roll Call Vote:
AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS:
NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS:
ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS:
Kay~ood, Seymour, and Thom
Pebleyand Sneegas
None
The Mayor declared Resolution No. 74R-457 dulypassed and adopted.
RECESS: Councilman Seymour moved for a ten-minute recess. Councilman Thom seconded
the motion. MOTION CARRIED. (4:19 P.M.)
AFTER RECESS: Mayor Thom called the meeting to order, all Members of the City Council
being present. (4:29 P.M.)
PUBLIC. H~ARING - RECLASSIFICATION NO. 74-75-8 AND CONUITIONAL USE PE~_MIT NO. 1488:
Submitted by Sam Hamilton, Lestel M~ Hamilton and Daisy Kaye, for a change in
zone from R-A to C-I, to permit a motor vehicle leasing and sales agency between
Manchester Avenue. and Mountain View Avenue, southeast of Katella Way, with Code
waivers of:
a. Maximum eave projection.
b. Maximum fence height.
c. Maximum building height.
d. Minimtna parking layout dimensions.
e. Required masonry wall. adjacent to a residential zone.
The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC74-175 found
that the Director of Development Services has determined that the proposed activ-
ity falls within the definition of Section 3.01, Class 1 and 5 of the City of
Aaaheim Guidelines to-the requirements for an Environmental Impact Report and is,
therefore, categorically exempt from the requirement to file an E.I.R. and recom-
mended approval of subject reclassification for a maximum of 25 vehicles for sale
or lease, to be stored on subject property at any one time, subject to the
following conditions:
74-934
City Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - September 17~ 1974~ 1:30 P.M.
1. That all engineering requirements of the City of Anaheim along
Manchester Avenue and Mountain View Avenue including preparation of improvement
plans and installation of all improvements such as curbs and gutters, sidewalks,
street grading and paving, drainage facilities, or other appurtenant work shall
be complied with as required by the City Engineer and in accordance with standard
plans and specifications on file in the office of the City Engineer; that street
lighting facilities along Manchester Avenue and Mountain View Avenue shall be in-
stalled 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
Utilities; 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 requirements.
2. That the owner(s) of subject property shall pay to the City of
Anaheim the sum of 60¢ per front foot along Manchester Avenue and Mountain View
Avenue for tree planting purposes.
3. That trash storage areas shall be provided in accordance with
approved plans on file with the office of the Director of Public Works.
4. That the proposed access gate to Mountain View Avenue shall be for
emergency purposes only, and that vehicular ingress and egress shall not be taken
to the subject property from that street, as stipulated to by the petitioner.
5. That drainage of subject property shall be disposed of in a manner
satisfactory to the City Engineer.
6. That appropriate water assessment fees as determined by the Director
of Public Utilities shall be paid to the City of Anaheim prior to the issuance of
a building permit.
7. A parcel map to record the approved division of subject property
shall be submitted to and approved by the City of Anaheim and then be recorded in
the office of the Orange County Recorder.
8. That the existing structure shall be brought up to the minimum stan-
dards of the City of Anaheim, including the Uniform Building, Plumbing, Electri-
cal, Housing, Mechanical and Fire Codes, as adopted by the City of Anaheim.
9. That all air-conditioning facilities shall be properly shielded from
view, and the sound buffered from adjacent properties.
10. That any parking area lighting proposed shall be down-lighted from
a maximum height of 6 feet, which lighting shall be directed away from the prop-
erty lines to protect the residential integrity of the area.
11. Prior to the introduction of an ordinance rezoning subject property,
Condition Nos. 1, 2 and 7, above-mentioned, shall be completed. The provisions
or rights granted by this resolution shall become null and void by action of the
City Council unless said conditions are complied with within one year from the
date hereof, or such further time as the City Council may grant..
12. That Condition Nos. 3, 5, 8, 9 and 10, above-mentioned, shall be
complied with prior to the co~nencement of the activity authorized under this resolu-
tion, or prior to final building and zoning inspections, or within a period of
one year from date hereof, whichever occurs first, or such further time as the
City Council may grant.
The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC74-176 found
that the Director of Development Services has determined that thm proposed activ-
ity falls within the definition of Section 3.01, Class I and '5, of the City of
Anaheim Guidelines to the requirements for an Environmental Impact Report and is,
therefore, categorically exempt from the requirement to file an E.I.R. Said
resolution further granted Conditional Use Permit No. 1488, subject to the follow-
ing conditions:
1. That this Conditional Use Permit is granted subject to the comple-
tion of Reclassification No. 74-75-8, now pending.
2. That the proposed vehicular access gate to Mountain View Avenue
shall be for emergency purposes only, and that.ingress and egress shall not be
taken to the subject property from that street, as stipulated to by the petitioner.
3. That subject property shall be developed substantially in accor-
dance with plans and specifications on file with the City of Anaheim marked
Exhibit Nos. 1 and 2.
4. That no vehicles taken in trade shall be stored on the subject prop-
erty, as stipulated to by the petitioner.
5. That the sales of vehicles at the subject location shall be restricted
to those vehicles originally assigned to the Intercontinental Leasing Corpora-
tion located at 1809 South Manchester Avenue.
7~-935
City Hall~ Anaheimt California - COUNCIL MINUTES - September 17~ !974~ 1:30 P.M~
6. That no prices shall be placed on the windshields or other parts
of the vehicles being offered for sale.
7. That no boats, airplanes, air-conditioning equipment, or other
.personal property for sale or lease shall be stored on the subject property, but
that the items permitted to be stored shall consist of automobiles, panel trucks
and pickup trucks, as stipulated to by the petitioner.
8. That no more than twenty-five (25) vehicles for sale or lease shall
be stored on the subject property at any one time, to allow the remaining ten
(10) parking spaces for employee and customer use, as stipulated to by the peti-
tioner.
9. That this conditional use permit shall become null and void at such
time as the leasing and rental facility terminates operations on the subject
property.
Zoning Supervisor Charles Roberts noted the location of subject prop-
erty and the existing uses and zoning in the immediate area, and summarized the
evidence submitted to and considered by the City Planning Commission. He reported
that the existing building on the Manchester Avenue frontage is intended to be
used for office space which would necessitate the requested waivers.
Mayor Thom asked if the Applicants were satisfied with the recommenda-
tions of the City Planning Commission.
Mr. Roger K. Patterson, 1267 West Woodcrest, Brea, Attorney representing
the Applicants, advised that they were generally in agreement with the Planning
Commission action and conditions, with the exception of Condition No. 4, of
Resolution No. PC74-176, granting the Conditional Use Permit. He failed to see
the Justification for this condition and felt the imposition thereof was not in
the interest of the health, safety, and general welfare of the citizens of the
City of Anaheim. With that exception, they were in accordance with the recom-
mendations of the Planning Commission.
The Mayor asked if anyone else wished to address the City Council,
there being no response, declared the hearing closed.
Councilman Seymour asked for an interpretation of the Planning Commis-
sion's thinking in regard to said Condition No. 4.
Mr. Roberts reported that the primary concern was that the proposed use
could take on the appearance of a used car lot. He noted that when a leasing
agency was proposed for the southeast corner of Mountain View Avenue and Katella
Way, north of subject property, similar restrictions were imposed.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT - CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION: On motion by Councilman Thom,
Seconded by Councilman Seymour, the City Council ratified the determination of
the Director of Development Services that the proposed activity falls within the
definition of Section 3.01, Class I and 5, of the City of Anaheim Guidelines to
the requirements, for an Environmental Impact Report, and is, therefore, categori-
cally exempt from the requirement to file said report. MOTION CARRIED.
Councilwoman Kaywood remarked that Mr. Patterson indicated the use
would not become a used car lot, however, he does not want to stipulate to this
or to the provision that no vehicles taken in trade shall be stored on the prop-
erty. She suggested that if the Applicant wants a used car lot, he should go to
a C-3 Zone.
RESOLUTION NO. 74R-458: Councilman Thom offered Resolution No. 74R-458 for adop-
tion, authorizing preparation of necessary ordinance changing the zone as request-
ed subject to the conditions as recommended by the City Planning Commission.
Refer to Resolution Book.
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM FINDING AND DETERMINING
THAT TITLE 18 OF THE ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO ZONING SHOULD BE AMENDED
AND THAT THE BOUNDARIES OF CERTAIN ZONES SHOULD BE CHANGED. (74-75-8 - C-l)
Roll Call Vote:
74-936
City Hall~.Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - September 17~ 1974.~ 1:30 P.M.
AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS:
NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS:
ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS:
Kmywood, Seymour, Pebley and Thom
Sneegas
None
The Mayor declared Resolution No. 74R-458 duly passed and adopted.
RESOLUTION NO. 74R-459: Councilman Thom offered Resolution No. 74R-459 for adop-
tion, granting Conditional Use Permit No. 1488, subject to the conditions recom-
mended by the City Planning Commission.
Refer to Resolution Book.
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM GRANTING CONDITIONAL USE
PERMIT NO. 1488.
Roll Call Vote:
AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS:
NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS:
ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS:
Kaywood, Seymour, Pebley and Thom
Sneegas
None
The Mayor declared Resolution No. 74R-459 duly passed and adopted.
PUBLIC HEARING - AMENDMENT TO TITLE 18 OF THE ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE~ RELATING TO
ZONING: Public hearing was held to consider an amendment to Title 18, Zoning, of the
Anaheim Municipal Code pertaining to site development standards of all one-family
residential zone districts, relating to garage setbacks and parking standards.
The City Planning Commission, pursuant to their Resolution No. PC74-156,
recommended the adoption of said amendment to the Anaheim Municipal Code, as set
forth in Exhibit "A" attached thereto and made a part of said resolution.
Planning Supervisor Don McDaniel briefed the history of the proposed
amendment, advising that the proposal was initiated by a request of the City
Council that the City Planning Commission and Development Services Department staff
investigate the possibilities of amending the 6- to 10-foot setback which is cur-
rently allowed in all one-family residential zones.
Assistant Planner Bill Young reported that in preparing the proposed
amendment, the staff worked with representatives of Anaheim Hills to determine
where adjustments might be affected. He noted that there are two sections of sub-
Ject amendment, one referring to the front structural setbacks, and the other
referring to the number of parking spaces required in the one-family residential
zones. Although the proposed ordinance may effect changes which are comparable
to the Code requirements of several years back, the staff feels that if more park-
ing spaces are required than the number which can be obtained with the existing
setbacks, then the adoption of the proposal would be a logical step.
Mayor Thom asked if anyone in the audience wished to address the City
Council.
Mr. John Millick, Vice President of Anaheim Hills, Inc., addressed the
Council advising they had reviewed the proposal, and, as an exercise, had pre-
pared 3 presentations of a typical street scape, using 20 houses to a block; the
first depicting 30% of the houses with less than 25-foot setback, the second
showing 40% of the houses with less than 25 feet, and the third with all houses
at 25 feet or more.
Mr. Millick called attention to two recommendations contained in the
original staff report, one that the number of ~ehicles per residence be designated
at four, for which the justification seemed to be based on statistics in a
report by the County of Orange derived from a computation using the number of
registered voters. Although Anaheim Hills, Inc., was not opposed to that par-
ticular figure, he did not feel that four was necessarily a valid number.
The other staff recommendation was that the livable building setbacks
for R-1 zoned dwellings be 25 feet from the street, however, the estate sized
lots and some of the other larger lots would be allowed a 15-foot building set-
back. He failed to see the justification for this recommendation.
74-937
Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - Sept-mber 17~ 1974~ 1:30 P.M.
A 20-lot graphic study prepared by Anaheim Hills, Inc., was posted on
the east wall of the City Council Chambe~ and Mr. Millick discussed the study.
The first depiction illustrated 60-foot lots, a width used to determine how many
on-street parking Spaces could be gained'with the narrow lots, which resulted in
6 lots with setbacks of less than 25 feet, 40 cars in 2-car garages (plus a few
extra, considering some houses could have 3-car garages), 28 cars in driveways,
plus on-street parking, resulting in a minimum total of 90 parking spaces, aver-
aging 4.5 vehicles for each dwelling. With 3-car garages, there would be a mini-
mum of 100 parking spaces, or 5 per unit. In the s~me situation, using the 70-
foot standard lot width, the results would be 100 parking spaces total, with 5
spaces per unit, including the 2-car garages, and with 3-car garages, 5.5 spaces
per unit.
Mr. Millick continued to the second illustration of the study where
40% of the houses were depicted at less than 25-foot setbacks, advising that with
60-foot lots, 85 parking spaces were derived, or 4.25 per unit; and using a 70-
foot lot, the results were 99 parking spaces or 4.95 per unit. Going to the bare
minimum under the existing ordinance, where all lots would have 6- to 10-foot
front setbacks, on the 60-foot lots there would be 61 parking spaces for the 20-
house block, or 3.05 per unit, while with 70-foot lots there would be 75..spaces
or 3.75 per unit. Based on these figures, he felt that the arrangement of 40%
of the homes having less than 25-foot front setbacks would provide the recommended
number of cars and also provide a very pleasing street scape; that there was not
a great deal of difference between the 30% and the 40% study results as depicted
on the graphic studies.
In answer to question by Councilman Seymour, Hr. Millick advised there
had not been a study made using 50-foot lots.
Councilwoman Kaywood asked about the widths used in the studies for
cul-de-sac lots, as many of those submitted have been 45-foot lots.
Hr. Millick advised that these lots were shown at 60 feet, with 6,000
sq. ft. lots as a minimum. He cited existing family type developments in Anaheim
Hills having slightly more than 3 parking spaces per unit, advising that although
he viewed these neighborhoods at different'times during the week, he had never
found a crowded parking situation.
Councilwoman Kaywood noted that the cul-de-sac street where she resides
is wide and the homes have 2¥.car garages, which was more than adequate when the
homes were new; however, the small children have grown and all seem to own some
sort of vehicle, resulting in driveways and streets lined with cars and other
conveyances, including boats and recreational vehicles, even though the garages
are also used; further, vehicles are often parked improperly in the cul-de-sac
areas.
Hr. Millick was of the opinion chat if an excessive number of off-
street parking spaces were provided, residents would be tempted to convert their
garages for other uses. He reiterated that they did not agree with the method
used to arrive at the number of 4 for required off-street parking provisions.
The Mayor asked if anyone else wished to address the City Council.
Hr. Hike B. Jaegger, with the firm of Frank H. Ayres and Son, who
has developments under construction under the name of Tustin Village, Inc.,
~,~4 who .has been in business since 1905 in approximately 60 cmmunities in
the Southern California area, displayed a diagram showing that certain houses
have an attached garage in the front of the house, while others contain a garage
~rlthin the house, and if limited to a 25-foot setback, the li~able portion'of'
the two dwellings would be at different setbacks. He advised that he had per-
sonally spoken with approximately 5,000 purchasers of the Ayres homes over a
period of 17 years, and all of them seemed to desire larger rear yards.
Hr. Jaegger stated that they preferred to design their subdivisions
in such a manner that a person is unable to pick out two homes of the same plan,
and he was of the opinion that it was possible to design a home having a 16-foot
setback with a turn-in drive which would be more attractive than something having
74- 938
City Hall. Anaheim. Californ%a - COUNCIL MINUTES - SeDtember 17. 1974. 1:30 P.M.
a 25-foot setback. They prefer to work with the cities in a manner whereby
they can come in and work together with the staff relative to setbacks for an
acceptable plot plan, which gives them the flexibility they desire.
In conclusion, Mr. Jaegger noted that under the proposed ordinance
in the RS-5000 zone, 5 to 10-foot setbacks would be allowable on a 5,000-foot
lot, h~wever, this would not be allowed in the R-1 zone without a variance.
They are asking for a vehicle which WOuld allow them to come to the staff
and show what they can do, then present their precise plans for approval.
Councilwoman Kaywood asked how much of~street parking would be avail-
able in the turn-in driveways where the setbacks were less than 25 feet.
Mr. Jaegger advised that there would be space for 3 cars on the drive,
plus 2 in the garage, using a 15-foot setback. If a 10-foot setback were provided,
they would use a straight-in driveway. He pointed out the difficulties of placing
the garage at the rear of the lot, since the side yard setbacks would have to be
provided, and on one side an additional 10 feet for the driveway; on a 60-foot lot
this would not leave much room for the house. Further, people tend to use their
backyards for swimming pools rather than for garages.
Councilman Seymour agreed that flexibility was needed and asked how
this could be provided to the developers and still prevent the sort of thing
which exists in some of the RS-5000 zoned areas where parking is inadequate due
to the short setbacks with straight-in drives, and narrow lots which preclude
sufficient on-street parking, etc.
Mr. Jaegger suggested following the method used by the City of
Huntington Beach, using a variety of setbacks, as illustrated by Mr. Millick.
He was of the opinion that any flexibility to be provided would be accomplished
by means of established instructions to the staff; that often there is heavy
opposition to a request simply because it requires a variance aPplication..
Councilwoman Kaywood asked if Mr. Jaegger had followed through by re-
turning to one of their subdivisions at a later time to see what the living
conditions might be.
Mr. Jaegger replied that his office window opens onto Tract No. 7019
in the City of Huntington Beach, and he observed the conditions there daily; that
the lots in that development were 6,000 square feet, and there seemed to be no
parking problem.
The Mayor asked if anyone else had conments to offer'; there being no
response, declared the hearing closed.
Discussion was held by the City Council, and Councilwoman Kaywood
called attention to figures presented in the staff repor~ dated August 5, 1974,
page 4e, that the total number of vehicles registered in Orange County in 1972
was 1,048,000; she noted that a check with the Department of Motor Vehicles this
date revealed that in 1973 the figure rose to 1,220,700, and she again expressed
concern about providing sufficient parking, particularly in the hillside areas.
Councilman Seymour stated he too was concerned, however he felt some
flexibility must be provided to produce a product which meets the needs of the
market and at the same time provides a variety in the dwellings that would be
pleasing to the eye. He preferred to refer the proposed Code amendment
back to the staff once more for consideration along the lines of the concept used
in Huntington Beach, and including insurance against the abuses which have been
evident.
Mayor Thom concurred with Councilman Seymour's remarks and noted that
he has spoken with a member of the City Planning Commission who was also concerned
about developing suitable criteria to affect a marketable and viable product.
Councilman Pebley suggested that the decision be continued two weeks
and that the staff confer with Mr. Millick and Mr. Jaegger to get input which
would be helpful .in making some changes in the proposal. He called attention to
several existing .subdivisions in the City which had been constructed under the
74- 939
City Rail. Anaheim. ,Califgrnia - COUnCiL MINU~S - SeptemBer 17. 1974. 1:30
25-foot front setback regulations, and how they were situated in a straight row
down the streets with large asphalt paved driveways in front of each house; and
he noted that the reason for the change to the 6 to 10-foot setbacks had been to
allow some flexibility.
Councilwoman Kaywood noted that there is a much greater problem with
a 50-foot lot than with those of estate size, which allow room to vary position
of the houses on the lot. Further, when 6 to 10-foot setbacks were instituted
in order to allow the variations, it did not necessarily work out that way; in
some instances, the same row of houses were built as before, only they were much
closer to the property line.
Councilman ineegas was of the opinion that approximately 2 subdivisions
had been built in the manner described, and in the hillside area there was a very
small percentage of houses with from 6 to 10-foot setbacks; that the people who
are selling the houses are in a better position to determine how people are going
to live. He remarked that it seems the more space people have available, the
more space they tend to fill up; and if theY have off-street parking for several
cars, they somehow seem to have that many and more.
Councilman Sneegas thereupon moved that the decision on theproposed
amendment to the Anaheim Municipal Code be continued two weeks (October 1, 1974,
1:30 P.M.) to allow changes to provide an ordinance that would be more agreeable,
resulting in homes that would be more livable and saleable. Councilman Thom
seconded the motion, noting that he would like to see the percentage factors
worked into the proposal, similar to what Mr. Millick used in his studies, pro-
posed alternatives to be determined as a result of discussions with the developers
and the Planning Commission.
Councilwoman Kaywood stated that she would be in favor of percentages as
discusse~ly if small percentages were used.
MOTION CARRIED.
TE1/TATIVE MAP. TRACT NO. 8533. REVISION NO. 2. AND REOUEST F01~ WAIVER OF ANA~mIM
~INICIPAL CODE (continued): Developer, R. H. Grant Corporation; property located on
the south side of Nohl Ranch .Road and on the west side of Imperial' Highway, and
contains 41 proposed RH-10,000 zoned lots (Reclassification No. 73-74-56,
Variance No. 2600, Tentative Tract No. 8672, and EIR 125).
Council consideration of said tentative tract map was continued from
the meetings of June 11, July 2, July 30, August 13, August 27, and September 3,
1974, to determine whether revisions would be necessary due to the possible
realignment of Imperial Highway. Also continued was request submitted by
Donald H. Frederickson, Director of Engineering for Grant Corporation of
California, for an exception to Sect{on 17.06.110(b), requiring the entire
area of a cut slope to be confined within one lot or parcel.
The City Planning Commission, at their meeting held May 13, 1974,
approved said tentative map, subject to conditions.
Zoning Supervisor Charles Roberts briefed the history of subject
tentative tract and called attention to additional conditions recomended by
the City Engineer (report dated June 10, 1974).
Mr. Maddox reported' that the County of Orange has reviewed and approved
the altgmnent of Imperial Highway as shown on the tentative map and although
some minor changes were required for grades, theywould not affect the street
width nor the tract'layout. He stated that all problems connected with Imperial
Highway have been resolved and with the additional recommended conditions', he
recou~ended approval of subject tentative map.
Mr. Roberts further advised that the staff was proposing a modifica-
tion to Condition No. 3 to allow a decorativ~ open-work wall which would
coordinate with others in the vicinity.
?4- 940
City Hall. Anaheim. C~lifornia - COUNCIL MII~UTES - September 17. 1974, 1:30 P.M.
On motion by Councilman Sneegas, seconded by Councilman Seymour,
Tentative Map, Tract No. 8533, Revision No. 2, was approved subject to the
recommendations of the City Planning Commission with amendments, as follows:
MOTION CARRIED.
1. That the approval of Tentative Map of Tract No. 8533 is granted
subject to the approval of Reclassification No. 73-74-56 and Variance No. 2600.
2. That should this subdivision be developed as more than one sub-
division, each subdivision thereof shall be submitted in tentative form for
approval.
3. That a 6-foot high, decorative, open-work wall shall be con-
structed at the top of the slope adjacent to Nohl Ranch Road on Lot Nos. 1,
2, 3, 4, 44 and 45, and adjacent to Imperial Highway on Lot Nos. 4, 5, 6, 7, 8,
9, 10, 11, 12, 13 and 14, except that said wall may be reduced in height to
42 inches in the front yard of Lot No. 14. Plans for said wall shall be
submitted to the Planning Commission and/or City Council for approval prior to
approval of the final tract map. Reasonable landscaping, including irrigation
facilities, shall be installed within the slope areas of each lot adjacent to
the roadway and in the uncemented portion of the arterial highway parkway the
full distance of said wall. Plans for said landscaping shall be submitted to
and subject to the approval of the Superintendent of Parkway Maintenance.
Following installation and acceptance, the property owner(s) shall assume
responsibility for maintenance of said landscaping to the lot lines, and the
City of Anaheim shall assume the responsibility for maintenance of the land-
scaping in the Nohl Ranch Road and Imperial Highway parkways.
4. That all lots within this tract shall be served by underground
utilities.
5. That a final tract map of subject property, shall be submitted to
and approved by the City Council and then be recorded in the office of the
Orange County Recorder.
6. That any proposed covenants, conditions and restrictions shall be
submitted to and approved by the City Attorney's Office prior to City Council
approval of the final tract map, and, further, that the approved covenants,
conditions and restrictions shall be recorded concurrently with the final
tract map.
7. That prior to approval of the final tract map, the applicant
shall submit to the City Attorney for approval or denial a complete synopsis
of the proposed functioning of any planned operating corporation, including
but not limited to the articles of incorporation bylaws, proposed methods of
management, bonding to insure maintenance of common property and buildings,
and such other information as the City Attorney may desire to protect the City,
its citizens, and the purchasers of the project.
8. That street names shall be approved by the City of Anaheim prior
to approval of a final tract map.
9. That the owner(s) of subject property shall pay to the City of
Anaheim the appropriate park and recreation in-lieu fees as determined to be
appropriate by the City Council, said fees to be paid at the time the building
permit is issued.
10. That drainage of said property shall be disposed of in a manner
satisfactory to the City Engineer. If, in the preparation of the site, suffi-
cient grading is required to necessitate a grading permit, no work on grading
will be permitted between October 15th and April 15th unless all required off-
site drainage facilities have been installed and are operative. Positive
assurance shall be provided the City that such drainage facilities will be
completed prior to October 15th. Necessary right-of-way for off-site drainage
facilities shall be dedicated to the City, or the City Council shall have
initiated condemnation proceedings therefor (the costs of which shall be borne
by the developer) prior to commencement of grading operations. The required
drainage facilities shall be of a size and type sufficient to carry runoff
waters originating from higher properties through said property to ultimate
disposal as approved by the City Engineer. Said drainage facilities shall be
the first item of construction and shall be Completed and be functional
throughout the tract and from the downstream boundary of the property to the
ultimate point of disposal prior to the issuance of any final building inspec-
tions or occupancy per,its. Drainage district reimbursement agreements may be
made available to the developers of said property upon their request.
74- 941
City Hall. A. lheim. California - COUNCIL HrNUTES - Seotmmber 17. 197&.'1:30 P~M.
11. That grading, excavation, and all other constructi°n activities'
shall be conducted in such a manner so as to minimize the possibility of.any
silt originating from this project being carried into the Santa Aha River by
storm water originating from or flowing through this project.
12. That all streets shall be constructed in accordance with City
of Anaheim standard details.
13. That fire hydrants shall be installed and charged as required
and determined to be necessary by the Chief of the Fire Department prior to
commencement of structural framing.
14. That vehicular access rights, except at street and/or alley
openings, to Imperial Highway and Nohl Ranch Road shall be dedicated to
the City of Anaheim.
15. That the vertical and horizontal alignment of Imperial Highway
south of Nohl Ranch Road shall be approved by the Orange County.Road
Department.
16. That a minimum 20 scale plot plan showing all on-site improve-
ment~ including save overhang and proposed location of air-conditioning.
equipment be submitted for building permits.
17. That the developer of Tract No. 8533 shall construct the
westerly parkway, curb and gutter, and street pavement to within 12 feet
of the centerline of Imperial Highway and grade only from that point to
the centerline. In accordance with City Council Policy No. 209, the City
of Anaheim will assume responsibility to construct the center 24 feet of
Imperial Highway at a future date.
18. That the owner of the property on the east side of Imperial
Highway shall conditionally dedicate the ultimate Imperial Highway right of
way to become effective upon demand of the City of Anaheim. The owner of
the property on the east side of Imperial Highway shall also grant the City
of Anaheim a license to grade slopes beyond the easterly right'of way line
of Imperial Highway as necessary to construct Imperial Highway.
19. That the developer of Tract No. 8533 shall pay to the City of
Anaheim $0.35 per square foot of area of the westerly half of the Imperial
Highway median island as. the tract's shar~ of the cost of landscapingS[he" ·
median island. The City of Anaheim will landscape and provide irrigation
facilities for the median island when the parcel on the east side of Imperial
Highway is developed.
20. That prior to approval of the final tract map, the petitioner
shall submit final floor plans and elevations to the City Council for approval.
21. That prior to approval of the final tract map, the petitioner
sh~11 make some provision acceptable to the City Council for landscapin~ and
maintenance of the slopes within and/or created by the development of this.
property.
Councilman Seymour moved that waiver of Anaheim b~nicipal Code,
Section 17.06.110 (b) as it applies to Tentative Tract Map No. 8533,
ReVision No. 2, be approved, subject to the folloving condition:
1. That the southerly line of Lots Nos. 32, 33, and 34 of
Tract No. 8533 be adjusted prior to final approval of the final map of
Tract No. 8533 to a location that will be the top of slope when the parcel
adjacent to the south is graded and developed. The location of the property
line shall be agreed upon by the landowners and the office of the City Engineer.
Councilman Thom seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED.
REOUF~T - B~RIS J. BARANiMSKI: Request of Boris J. Baranowski, Attorney at Law,
representing Ceorge Williams, for permission to appear before the City
Council to discuss the constitutionality of Section 4.40.010 of the Anaheim
Municipal Code, prohibiting fortune tellin~ in the City of Anaheim, was
sub~itted to the City Council at their regular meeting held August .6, 1974,
at .~hich time no action was taken inasmuch a~ neither interested party was
present. At Mr. Baranowski's request, the matter was re-scheduled at this
time.
74-942
CitvHall. Anaheim. California - COUNCIL MINUTES - Seot~mher 17. 1974. 1:30 P.M.
Mr. Baranowski came forward and advised that he was unable to be
present at the pre~iously scheduled time due to the fact that he was
unexpectedly hospitalized. He stated'that his client's proposal to practice
fortune telling in the City of Anaheim was a bona-fide request, and he noted that
at the time the initial request was submitted to the City Attorney, copies
of briefs and Memorandum of Points and Authorities with reference to the
Case of Adams vs. the City of Menlo Park, were included. In that matter,
the Superior Court of the County of San Marco found that the Menlo Park
Ordinance prohibiting fortune telling and related activities was a violation
of 'the First Amendment rights of the plaintiffs in the case.
In addition, Mr. Baranowski advised that he had appeared before a number
of City Councils in the State, and the Cities of Menlo Park, San Meteo and San Bruno
have chosen to amend their ordinances relative to fortune telling, and it was his
understanding that the City of San Francisco was planning to amend their ordinance
as well. He stated that he has filed actions against the County of Alameda and the
City of Newport Beach to determine the constitutionality of their ordinances. He
expressed the opinion that Anaheim's ordinance was Unfair and unconstitutional, and
if it were applied to every person included therein, many would be found in viola-
tion, such as sales people who sell "Double Bubble" gum, which includes a fortune
inside the wrapper,-and the newspaper boys who sell or deliver papers which contain
a Horoscope predicting the future, for example. If Jesus Christ appeared in Anaheim
today, his prophesies would place him in violation, as well as priests, rabbis and
other ministers in the city. In Mr. Baranowski's opinion, the ordinance is over-
broad, and people cannot be prohibited from coming into any part of this country
on the basis of dislike.
'Councilman Pebley left the meeting (5:35 P.M.)
Mr. Baranowski continued, statin~ that Sypsies are a separate ethnic group
which best can be compared to some of the ~oma~tc Hebrew trtbas in the Sahara; they
have 'their own religion and, in some cases, believe they have powers to help people
who are in pain. The exact location of their origins in antiquity has been lost.
The following methods of preventing a charlatan from coming in and de-
frauding the citizens were suggested by Mr. Baranowski: that an annual business
license fee of $400 to $500 be charged; that the applicants for fortune telling
licenses be required to submit to photographing and fingerprinting, which would
give the Police control; and that they post inside the place of business a list of
prices of whatever services they propose to provide.
Most of the gypsies represented by Mr. Baranowski belong to a tribe whose
name translates to mean, "the people who stay", and the Adams family have been in
Menlo Park for thirty years, and the Williams family have been in California since
their grandfather immigrated to the United States from the Balkan countries.
Councilman Sneegas asked whether the request was to amend the Code to
allow gYPsy fortune tellers or any fortune tellers.
Mr. Baranowski-~plied that the law of the State of California is explicit
dealing with what constitutes a religion and withwhom one has the right to asso-
ciate, stating that if one's belief in his God, or any object of worship, occupies
the same place as in a conventional religion, then whatever form the object of
worship takes, whether it is Astrology, Phrenology, Mysticism, etc., it is a
religion.
Councilman Sneegas stated itwas his position that there is no way to
differentiate between a fortune teller and a "con" man, and he was in favor of con-
tinuing under the existing ordinance.
Mr. BaranowSki was of the opinion that according to the City's ordinance,
there is nothingwrong with fortune telling per se, but merely with the activity of
telling fortunes for a fee is prohibited; that there is an advertisement on a bus
74- 9~3
'City HaX1. Anaheim. California- COUNCIL HI1Tt~S - Seotmnber 17.. 1974.. 1;30 P.M.
stand bench at Lincoln Avenue and Harbor Boulevard for a fortune teller in La Habra.
Religion is a big business and to tell a gypsy that he cannot collect a fee or
donation for his services tn this city would be tantamount to telling someOne of
any other faith that he could not collect a donation for performing his religious
beliefs. On these grounds the ordinance was a violation of the First Amendment,
and the U. S. Supreme Court has made it very clear that no matter how bizzare a
belief may be, if it occupies a place in the heart and soul of a person that accepts
that role, then it is a religion.
Councilman Pebley returned to the meetin~ (5:45 P.H.)
Hr. Baranowski inquired when he could expect some response to his
letter dated June 28, 1974, and the results of the staff study as requested by
the City Council.
Councilwoman Kay~ood was of the opinion that fortune telling is not
limited to ~5~psies, that licensing these people in the manner suggested was
discrimivator¥, and she asked whether theproponent was inferring that ~ypsies
were incapable of any other activities and are, therefore, being discriminated
against by the City of Anaheim.
Hr. Baranowski answered that this was not his intent Ilthough it was
probably true; that the Federal government has recosnized iypsies as a minority
Stoup, and foretelling the future is a religious belief of these STpsies. He
was of the opinion that everyone who proposed any of these activities listed
under Section 4.40.010 of the Code should be licensed as he had suggested.
In discussions held with a member of the City Attorney's staff, Hr.
Baranowski stated he had learned that these activities were allowable if performed
as entertainment in front of an audience at a theater or restaurant, subject to
an entertainment license. He noted tha.ts~ws~es are family-orie~ed psop~e~who
~ave been chased from place to place as recently as World War II..'~i
Hayor Thom requested that the City Attorney address himself to the
inference that the ordinance is an infringement on someone's rights.
'Councilwoman Kay~ood left the meeting. (5:49 P.M.)
City Attorney Alan Watts stated that his staff had reviewed the Points
and Authorities submitted by Hr. Baranowski, however they remain unconvinced
that the ordinance is unconstitutional. The exception:to the ordinance referred
.to was the fact that the ordinance prohibits the activities to be practiced for
a fee, except if conducted for entertainment purposes in locations properly zoned
and licensed for entertainment; therefore, there is not an outright prohibition
of fortune telling and related activities in the City of Anaheim.
In response to Hr. Baranowski's question as to an answer to his initial
letter of request, Hr. Watts called attention to reports from his office and the
Police Department contained in the file, outlining the basic reasons vhy the
ordinance had been adopted in 1944.
Hr. Watts pointed out that the proponent had made reference to religious
beliefs, however in his opiniov this was not the issue; the issue was that for-
tune telling is an act. He gave as an example the fact that the ~ormons at one
time believed in polygamy, however', the U. S. Supreme Court declared that the
practice was an illegal act which could be prohibited by a State.
~CouncilwomanKaywood returned to the meeting, (5:54 P.M.)
Nayor Thom stated he would be interested to see how analogous the
subject request is to a previous request to allow hypnotism.
Hr. Watts recalled that several years ago the question was raised with
respect to the use of hypnotism as a medical practice, which is a recognized
medical technique used by some doctors. An amendment to the Anaheim Nunicipal
Code ~ enacted at that time, indicating that 8o far as utilizing hypnotic
techniques was concerned, as provided for by Section 29,08 of the ausiness and
Professions Code, that the Chapter was to be construed not to prohibit that
type of activity.
?4-944
City Hall. A-~heim. California - COUNCIL MINUTES - SeDtember 17. 1974. 1:30 P.M.
Mr. Baranowski was of the opinion that the City Attorney's reference
to the fact that the U. S. Supreme Court has held that polygamy is not con-
stitutional was not strong, as another Court decision has held that in one's
religious practices, an Indian can smoke a prohibited dangerous drug; further,
the Court recently stated that if necessary, they would evaluate on a case
by case basis each case to see whether or not a bonafide religious belief
was involved. He advised that the State has passed 141 ordinances dealing
with fraud and bunco, and it was his feeling that for the City to prohibit
fortune telling for a fee was entirely different from saying fortune telling
was undesirable and must not be allowed. He noted devious devices which
could have been employed, however, pointed out that subject request is being
made openly.
Mayor Thom stated he would not want anyone to have legal or just
grounds for saying that the City Council of the City of Anaheim was infringing
on the constitutional rights of anyone.
Councilman Sneegas advised that he held no adverse feelings toward
the petitioners; his only concern was the determination of whether a person is
a gypsy offering the service as a religious practice or someone out to take
money from the public. He noted that according to Police records, fortune
telling brings problems which otherwise do not occur, and until such time as
the U. S. Supreme Court rules that there is a religious aspect to the activity,
he preferred to retain the ordinance in its present form. He suggested it might
be advantageous to meet with one of the vice officers from the Police Department
to 'review past problems.
Mayor Thom was of the opinion that fortune telling would cause .fewer
problems than adult book stores, and he expressed an interest in learning more
about the background events leading to the original adoption of the ordinance
governing the activities, together with comments from the legal staff and
Police Department relative to recommended safeguards and controls which could
be applied if the ordinance were amended.
Councilman Seymour concurred with the Mayor's remarks, and pointed
out that it seemed the major concern was not the activity itself but what
might occur as a result thereof. It seemed to him there should be a method
whereby the activity could be allowed without creating problems.
The City Attorney advised that the only records of events leading
to the adoption of the ordinance prohibiting these activities would be the
City Council minutes.
Mr. Baranowsktrequested an opportunity to review any further
reports prior to the time the matter is rescheduled on the Agenda in order
that he would be able to respond.
Councilman Seymour moved that subject request be continued to
October 29, 1974, fo~ supplemental reports from the City Attorney and Police
Department with reference to the background of the existing ordinance, and
recommended safeguards and controls. Councilman Thom seconded the motion.
M0~IOlq CARRIED.
RE~UEST - ESTABLISHMENT OF AGRICULTUI~AL PRESERVE: Request of Hiroshi Fujishige
and Masao FuJishige to establish an agricultural preserve under the California
Land Conservation Act of 1965 (Willtamson Act) on property located at 1854
South Harbor Boulevard. was submitted, together with reports from the Develop-
meat Services Department and the City Attorney.
Mayor Thom called attention to procedures for the establishment of
an A~ricultural Preserve as outlined on the City Attorney's report, and asked
whether the Petitioner had been apprised or,these procedures.
City Manager Keith Murdoch reported that he had discussed the
procedures with Hr. FuJishige, who indicated that although he could wait for
a time, he would like to have the matter pursued. His basic reason for
subject request'was a firm feeling that, rather than going ahead with attempts
to develop the property because of the heavy tax load on subject property he
would prefer to continue with agricultural pursuits for a minimum 10-year
period, taking into consideration the high cost of developing property.
74-
Cit~ ~11. Anaha~. California- COUNCIL MINUTES- Seat,--her 17. 197~. 1:30 P.M.
Hr. Hurdoch pointed out that the question is whether or not there
is an interest on the part of the City to retain some of the open agricultUral
~p&ces for a time and encourage property owners to continue agricultural uses
Within the City limits. If so, it would be worthwhile to pursue the idea of
establishing a specific Agricultural Preserve.
Councilman Pebley questioned the requirements under the Williamson
Act, such as the property retaining the Agricultural Preserve status for a
minimum of 10 years, unless the property owners make a request to remove the
property from that status, and in such cases, it was his understanding that
all the tax savings which would be allowed for the duration of the Agricul-
tural Preserve status would have to be repaid.
Hr. Murdoch advised that such a request to remove the agricultural
property from the preserve status would have to be for reasons in the best
interest of the community.
Discussion was held by the City Council, and Hr. Watts explained
that the City of Anaheim does not provide an "agricultural" zone, and to
i~plement subject request, rules and regulations must be adopted to govern
the length of time properties would have to remain in the status, etc.
~tr. Hasao FuJishige, 1844 Margie Lane, addressed the Council advising
that he understood that once a property is designated an Agricultural Preserve,
it cannot be removed until 10 years has passed, and then only at the request
of the property owners; that the law was established in this manner in order
to implement orderly growth in the co~nity. He further advised that approxi-
merely 2% years previously, there had been some discussion about the possibility
of using his 58-acre parcel of land for the development of a transportation
center, and it seemed to him that there was a genuine need for such an opera-
tion in Anaheim. However, after looking into the matter further, it becam~
evident to him that it would be 9 or 10 years before such a deve~op.n~.nt 9ould
'take place, and he had applied for Agricultural Preserve status ~n~e~ '~tiC'le 2,
Section 51220 (c) of the Williamson Act because he did not feel able to con-
tinue paying the high taxes for that length of time. In 1970, the State
Legislature amended the law to include parcels of less than 100 aCres
(Article 2.5, Section 51230).
Mr. Fujishige stated he had a strong feeling that the land would'be
needed for public purposes in the ~uture, and he was of the opinion that the
law was enacted for a specific purpose, which fits well into his future plans.
Mayor Thom felt that what was needed was some type of vehicle to
accomplish Hr. FuJishige's goal and stated he would be interested in
pursuing the matter to determine what would be involved in establishing the
proper procedures.
Councilwoman Kay~ood recalled that the Council had recently adopted
a resolution encouraging the retention and preservation of agricultural land.
Hr. Murdoch pointed out that although the City does not have an
agricultural zone, subject request was placed on the Agenda in order to
determine whether there was any interest on the part of the City Council.
Hr. Watts suggested that the matter be referred to the City Planning
Co~ssion for a report, calling attention to the fact that the City Council
~st find that the use for agricultural purposes is consistent with the General
Plan, whereas at the present time, the General Plan designates the property in
question for future con~ercial-recreation use.
Councilman Thom moved that request for designation of property at
185& South Harbor Boulevard, as an Agricultural Preserve, be referred to the
I~velop~ent Services Department staff and the City Planning Commission for
r~Port and reco~endations. Councilwoman Kayvood seconded the motion. MOTION
74- 9~6
City Hall. Anaheim. California - COUNCIL MINUTES - SeDtm~ber 17. 1974. 1:30 P.M.
ENCI~OACH~iN; ~gRMIT NO, 74-1~: Submitted by T. Eugene Dahlgren, Assistant Secretary,
Martin Luther Hospital, to permit the installation of conduit pipe for utility lines
(underground) crossing the street, and for a change in sewer line connections
within a portion of future Romneya Drive, west of Euclid Street. Also submitted
was report of City Engineer recommending approval of said request.
RESOLUTION NO, 74R-460: Councilman Sneegas offered Resolution No. 74R-460 for
adoption.
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 MARTIN LUTHER HOSPITAL. (74-1E)
Roll Call Vote:
AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS:
NOES:' COUNCIL MEMBERS:
ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS:
Kaywood, Seymour, Pebley, Sneegas and Thom
None
None
The Mayor declared Resolution No. 74R-460 duly passed and adopted.
REPORT-- ENVIRON~NTAL IMPACT REPORT PROCESSING FEES: The City Council, at their regular
meeting held August 13, 1974, heard report from the Development Services Department
staff relating to preparation and review of Environmental Impact Reports, offering
options available in order to improve the quality of draft EIRs. At the conclusion
of the presentation and discussion, the Development Services Department staff was
instructed to increase the scope of the EIR Committee action, with more strict
interpretation of the guidelines and possibly to expand the contents of the Staff
Reports. In addition, discussion was held relative to current fees charged for
the processing of the EIRs.
Report dated September 10, 1974 from the Development Services Department
was submitted, noting that thirty Environmental Impact Reports had been processed
during the fiscal year 1973-74, at an average cost of $446 each for the staff time,
plus the time spent by Councilmen and Planning Commissioners. Said report recom-
mended that the individual project applicant bear a larger share of the cost and
that the processing of all EIRs be increased to $250, with a $25 fee for Negative
Declarations.
Councilman Seymour took exception to statement contained in the introduc-
tion of the Development Services Department report that the City Council, at the
August 13, 1974 meeting, had requested the staff to consider a possible increase in
fees charged for the processing of the reports in order to more adequately reflect
the cost. He referred to the minutes of said meeting, and read from paragraph 3,
page 74-808, wherein the only reference to the fees was made by Assistant Planner
Robert Kelley that if Option "N' were elected, there would be no increase in
staff time or cost; that the current fees are lower than most jurisdictions and
do not cover present costs, and perhaps a re-evaluation would be in order. He
further read from said minute paragraph where, in answer to Councilman Seymour's
question, Mr. Kelley had reported that no additions to the staff were expected to
be required, however, there would be some additional increase in time spent which
could be absorbed into the present staff time; that the cost of EIR processing would
probably remain approximately the same under Option "N'.
Councilman Seymour emphasized that his high priority item in approving
the implementation of Option "~' had been that there would be no additional expendi-
tures or costs. He felt he had been assured of that at the time, but now a recom-
mendation for increasing the fees has been submitted. He stated he would not have
voted for Option "A" if he had thought it might'lead to a recommendation for in-
creasin~ EIR fees and advised he would prefer to receive suggestions from the
department reco~ending ways to cut costs and revenue needs.
Mr. Kelley stated that at the time today's report was prepared, he had
not seen the minutes of the August 13th meeting. It was staff's understanding they
had been requested by the Council to make an analysis of the costs involved and
present a report for Council consideration. The staff continues to stand by the
position that whatever additional time is required can be absorbed into the
present system and staff.
7~- 967
City Hall. A, Ah~tm. California - COUNCIL MII~TES - September 17. 1974. 1:30 P.M.
Mayor Thom recalled that at the previous meeting there had been
some discussion about the fees, but did not recall any direction for an
analysis and report; and he shared Councilman Seymour's concern about the
recommended increase in fees.
Councilwoman Kaywood failed to see the contradiction and felt that
the costs of processing EIRs should be absorbed by the applicants, rather than
the taxpayers. She pointed out that at the previous meeting: she had under-
stood that Option "~' would not require additional employees, but the exact
processing costs were not set forth at that time, and, therefore, the report
now under consideration was a direct outgrowth of Counctl discussion at the
time.
Councilman Seymour did not agree and felt the Council minutes did
not reflect the matter that way. He indicated it seemed to him that the
Development Services Department should have brought their request for proposed
increase in fees to the City Council during the time of the budget hearings.
He was of the opinion that it had been made clear that he and other Council
Members were trying to cut taxes, revenues and costs.
Mayor Thom concurred and stated he would like to know how today's
report had come about.
Mr. Hurdoch advised he also recalled a request for an analysis of
the fees, which would not be inconsistent with past continuing analyses of
costs. He was of the opinion that fees could be reduced by minimizing the
requirements of EIRs, and the recon~nendation before the City Council does not
contradict that, but only points out what the current costs are.
Councilman Seymour reiterated that the Council had previously been
apprised that there would be no increase in the requirements. He stated he
did desire to see what the actual figures are, but disagreed withthe phlloa~
0phywhich recommended an increase in fees; that it was inconsistent to
receive recommendations for such an increase in fees or revenues, when the
City Council is endeavoring to find ways to cut down on costs.
Councilman Pebley pointed out that in the past when costs of
processing various types of applications have risen, the fees have been
increased to compensate for the costs to the City.
Councilman Seymour replied that in his opinion the time had come
to find a way to roll back the costs and perhaps, when considering the options
for the preparation of EIRs, the Council should have been seeking an option
which would increase the quality and decrease the cost.
Councilman Sneegas advised that he recalled some concern had been
expressed regarding the processing costs; in his opinion, the taxpayers
should not have to carry the burden, and user fees probably would be the
most simple method of reducing costs to the City.
Councilman Seymour remarked that he was not opposed to that
philosophy, but to increase fees was to increase revenue.
Councilman Sneegas noted that the additional fees would not go into
the Development Services Department budget, but rather would go into a seneral
fund, and should there be a remainder at the end of the year, it would be
applied towards next year's taxes, or as determined by the City Council.
Councilman Pebley inquired whether there 'was any method whereby the
guidelines for EIRs could be changed and costs reduced.
Mr, Kelley advised that he could see no way to accomplish that and
still meet the State Guidelines required by law; that the City has been using
a minimal, streamlined operation.
Councilman Sneegas was of the opinion that one of the items which
mist be considered in the next budget was the workload imposed on the staff
caused by research on matters which have previously been determined and
prolonging others much longer than necessary.
74-948
City Hal~. Anaheim. California - COUNCIL MINUTES - Sentember 17. 1974. 1:30 P.M
Councilwoman Kaywood moved that the recon~endation of the Development
Services Department to increase fees for EIR processing be accepted. There was no
second to said motion.
Councilman Sneegas commented that he would not vote for tax increases;
it appears, however, to be popular, you should vote with the majority and not
necessarily vote as to necessity.
It was determined that the matter be taken under advisement.
Councilwoman Kaywood and Councilman Seymour left to attend the Canyon
Area General Planning Task Force meeting. (6:55 P.M.)
PUBLIC DANCE pERMIT: Application filed by Pamela M. Sheppard, on behalf of Stanton
Junior All-American Football, for permit to conduct a public dance October 5, 1974,
at St. Justin Martyr Church Parish Hall, 2050 West Ball Road~ froTM
8:00 P.M. to 1:00 A.M., was submitted and granted, subject to provisions of
Chapter 4.16 of the Anaheim Municipal Code, as recommended by the Chief of Police,
on motion by Councilman Sneegas, seconded by Councilman Pebley. (Council Members
Seymour and Kaywood absent.) MOTION CARRIED.
AMUSE~B~f DEVICES PERMITS: The following Amusement Devices Permits were submitted and
granted, subject to provisions of Chapter 4.20 of the Anaheim Municipal Code as
recommended by the Chief of Police, on motion by Councilman Sneegas, seconded by
Councilman Pebley. ~ouncil Members Seymour and Kaywood absent.)
a. Application submitted by Gary L. Krumwiede for permit to allow
two pinball machines, one juke box and one electric control game
at the Pizza Pub, 1887 West Lincoln Avenue.
b. Application submitted by John F. Butler for permit to allow one
pool table and one juke box at the Sirloin Inn, 3244 West Lincoln
Avenue.
MOTION CARRIED.
.AP.I~OVAL OF FLO(~ PLAI~S ~ ~L~VATIO~S AND FINAL MAP. TRACT ~0. 8672: Developer, Grant
Company of California; property located on the west side of Imperial Highway and
the north side of Nohl Ranch Road, and contains 40 RH-10,000 zoned lots (Reclassifica-
tion No. 73-74-56 and Variance No. 2600). Pursuant to conditions imposed by the City
when Tentative Tract No. 8672 was approved, floor plans and elevations were submitted
for Council consideration, together with reports from the Development Services Depart-
ment and the City Engineer.
The City Engineer recommended approval and reported that said final map
conforms substantially with the tentative ~ap previously approved, that bonds have
been forwarded to the City Attorney for approval, and required fees paid.
Zoning Supervisor Charles Roberts briefed the staff report, advising
that the plans submitted are identical to those approved for the Westridge Develop-
merit to the west of subject property. He noted that Resolution No. 74R-281, ap-
proving RH-10,000 zoning for subject property, specifically indicated all lots
along the west boundary of the tract must be limited to single-story construction
with the exception of Lot 29. The plans submitted include two-story construction
for Lots 28 and 29, however, Lot 28 also abuts the westerly property line of the
tract. He illustrated the location thereof on the mapi
Mr. Donald Frederickson, representing the Grant Company of California,
addressed the Council advising that as shown on the tentative map, Lot 28 was
oriented away from the westerly boundary, and there was a slope to the rear; there-
fo~e, there was no concern as to the view from the lots on the adjoining property
to the west. He was of the opinion that the plot plans submitted conformed to the
Exhibits 1 and 2 as stipulated in Resolution No. 74R-281.
Councilman Pebley moved that floor plans and elevations submitted for
Tract No. 8672 be approved, including two-story construction for Lot 28. Councilman
Sneegas seconded the motion. (Council Members Seymour and Kaywood absent.) MOTION
CARRIED.
On the recommendation of the City Engineer, it was moved by Councilman
Sneegas, seconded by Councilman Pebley, that final map, Tract No. 8672, be approved
Council Members Seymour and Kaywood absent). MOTION CARRIED.
?4- 949
City Hall. Anaheim. California - COUNCIL M~_.NU~gS - Seot~mher 17. 1974, 1:30
RAYMOND AVENUE RESURFACING: In accordance with report and recommendation of the
City Engineer, Councilman Pebley moved that the City Engineer be authorized
to sign a Letter of Agreement with the City of Fullerton for the resurfacing
of Raymond Avenue from the north City limits to the Riverside Freeway, at an
estimated cost of $15,130.00. Councilman Sneegas seconded the motion ~ouncil
Members Seymour and Kaywood absent). MOTION CARRIED.
RESOLUTION NO. 74R-461 - DEEDS OF EASEMENT:
No. 74R-461 for adoption.
Refer to Resolution Book.
Councilman Sneegas offered Resolution
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM ACCEPTING CERTAIN
DEEDS AND ORDERING THEIR RECORDATION. (Ronald Peoples and Betty Moglia;
Owen L. Carroll and wife; Charlotte W. Caterson, et al; Wm. H. Townley;
Catherine Alongi; and Albert U. Millspaugh and wife)
Roll Call Vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
COIrNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
Pebley, Sneegas and Thom
None
Kaywood and Seymour
The Mayor declared Resolution No. 74R-461 duly passed and adopted.
CANCELLATION QF COU~ TAXES: On motion by Councilman Pebley, seconded by Council-
man Sneegas, the Orange County Board of Supervisors was requested to cancel
County taxes on property acquired by the City of Anaheim. for ~ntcipal purposes,
pursuant to Resolution No. 74R-416, formerly assessed to John Von BaJor and
Veronica Von Bajor, and Henry Wilczkowiak and Euginia Wilczkowiak, recorded
August 29, 1974, as Document 28179, in Book 11232 at page 1058, Official
Records of Orange County, California (Council Members Seymour a~d Kaywood
'absent). MOTION CARRIED.
RESOLIFfloN NO. 74R-&62: Councilman Sneegas offered Resolution No. 74R-462 for
adoption.
Refer to Resolution Book.
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM ACCEPTING AN OFFER
TO PURCHASE CERTAIN CITY-OWNEDPROPERTYANDAUTHORIZINGAND DIRECTING THE
HAYOR AND CITY CLERK TO EXECUTE A DEED COtlVEYING SAID FROPERTYTO THE CitANGE
COUNTY WATER DISTRICT. (east side of Lakeview, south of La Palma Avenue -
$27,200100)
Roll Call Vote:
AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS:
NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS:
ABSENT: .COUNCIL MEMBERS:
Pebley, Sneegas and Thom
None
Kaywood and Seymour
The Mayor declared Resolution No. 74R-462 duly passed and adopted.
~ESOLUTION NO. 74R-463: Councilman Pebley offered Resolution No. 74R-463 for
adoption.
Refer to Resolution Book.
A RESOLUTION OF TME CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AUTHORIZING THE
MAYOR AND CITY CLERK TO EXECUTE AN INTERIM REIMMURSE~NT ADREE~NT RELATING
TO DRAINAGE FACILITIES (WITTENBERG COR~3RATION).
Roll Call Vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEHBERS:
COUNCILMEMBERS:
Pebley, Sneegas and Thom
None
Kaywood and Seymour
'~'~e Mayor declared Resolution No. 74R-463 duly passed and adopted.
eeSOLIrfI~NO. 74R-464: On report and recommendation of the City Manager,
Councilman Sneegas offered Resolution No. 74R-464 for adoption.
74- 950
City Mall. Anaheim; Californ~- COUNCIL M!_NUTES- September 17. 1974. 1:30 P.M
Refer to Resolution Book.
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM APPROVING THE TERMS AND
CONDITIONS OF AN AGREEMENT WITH NORTHROP SERVICES, INC. AND AUTHORIZING THE
MAYOR AND CITY CLERK TO EXECUTE SAID AGREEMENT. (Four Cities Technology
Transfer Program)
Roll Call Vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
Pebley, Sneegas and Thom
None
Kaywood and Seymour
The Mayor declared Resolution No. 7411-464 duly passed and adopted·
PURCHASE OF EQUIPMENT- ~ADM~U. NT TRA~.SFORMERg: The City Manager reported on informal
bids received for the purchase of Pad Mount Transformers for the Electrical Divi-
sion and reconunended the acceptance of the lowest and/or best evaluated bids, as
follows:
24 from Westinghouse Electric Supply Company - $50,846.08 including tax.
39 from General Electric Company - $158,987.28 including tax.
On motion by Councilman Pebley, seconded by Councilman Sneegas, the
bids of Westinghouse Electric Supply Company and General Electric Company were
accepted and purchase authorized in the respective amounts of $50,846.08, including
tax, and $158,987.28, including tax (Council Members Seymour and Kaywood absent).
MOTION CARRIED.
PURCHASE O~ MATERIALS - SULFUR HRXAFLOURIDE GAg: The City Manager reported on informal
bids received for the purchase of 10 cylinders of Sulfur Hexaflouride Gas for the
Electrical Division and recommended acceptance of the low bid:
Total Amount - Includin= Taw
Allied Chemical Fabricated Products - Los Angeles .
Air Products and Chemicals - Long Beach ......
· $3,391.51- Including $600.0b
cylinder deposit.
$2,809.00- Including freight,
plus $. 08/day/cylinder
On a motion by Councilman Pebley, seconded by Councilman Sneegas, the
low bid of Allied Chemical Fabricated Products was accepted, and'purchase was
authorized in the amount of $3,391.51, including tax and $600.00 cylinder deposit
(Council Members Seymour and Kaywood absent). MOTION CARRIED.
CLAI~ 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
Pebley, seconded by Councilman Sneegas (Council Members Seymour and Kaywood absent).
1. Claim filed by the State of California, Department of Transportation,
for damages to conduit and wire, purportedly resulting from work being done at the
eastbound Riverside Freeway, ½ mile west of Lakeview, by contractor for the City on
or about January 31, 1974.
2. Submitted by David Edward Scott for personal damages, purportedly
resulting from arrest and seizure of motorcycle by Anaheim Police on or about
May 30, 1974.
3. Submitted by Dennis Ralph Garofolo for personal injuries and
damages, purportedly resulting from actions by Anaheim Police Department on or
about July 14, 1974.
4. Filed by Southern California Gas Company, for damages to gas main
located at 545 South Clementine Stree~ purportedly resulting during installation
of water service by City crews on or about August 9, 1974.
5. Submitted by Sambo's Restaurant for damages purportedly resulting
from City Public Utilities crew in connection with construction job at Orange
Avenue and Brookhurst Street on or about August 30, 1974.
6. Submitted by Steven Hurley for damages to vehicle, purportedly
resulti~ from a drop in pavement on Kraemer Avenue near Coronado intersection
on or about September 2, 1974.
7. Submitted by Lou A. Faircloth for loss purportedly resulting from
electricity turnoff on or about September 5, 1974.
MOTION CARRIED.
74-951
City Hall. Anaheim. California - COUNCIL MINUTES - Seotember 17. 1974. 1:30 P.M.
RESOLUTION NO. 74R-465: On the recon~nendations of the City Manager and Utilities
Director, Councilman Sneegas offered Resolution No. 74R-465 for adoption.
Refer to Resolution Book.
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM APPROVING THE TERMS
AND CONDITIONS OF ANAGREE~TqTWITH TOUPS ENGINEERING, INC., TO PREPARE A
REPORT ON THE WATER SYSTEM IN ANAHEIM AND AUTHORIZING THE MAY(~ AND CITY
CLERK TO EXECUTE SAID AGREEMENT ON BEHALF OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM.
Roll Call Vote;
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
Pebley, Sneegas and Thom
None
Kaywood and Seymour
The Mayor declared Resolution No. 74R-465 duly passed and adopted.
COP, P~SPO~E: The following correspondence was ordered received and filed on
motion by Councilman Pebley and seconded by Councilman Sneegas (Council
Members Seymour and Kaywood absent):
a. Intergovernmental Coordinating Council of Orange County
Resolution Service: Garden Grove Resolution Nos. 4627'74, 4626-74, 4636-74:
Huntington Beach Resolution No. 3944; Yorba Ltnda Resolutions Nos. 671, 672,
673, 682; and Fullerton Resolutions Nos. 5764 and 5763.
b. Airport and Land Use Commission for Orange County - Notice of
Meeting - September 5, 1974.
Airport and Land Use Con~nission for Orange County - Minutes -
August 15, 1974.
c. Comnuntty Center Authority - Minutes - August 19, 1974.
d. Santa Ama River/Santiago Creek Greenbelt Commission - Progress
Report - 7/27/74 - 8/30/74.
e. Financial and Operating reports for the Month of AUgust, 1974 -
Building Division.
MOTION CARRIED.
ORDI~--%NCE NO. 3349: Councilman Pebley offered Ordinance No. 3349 for adoption
Refer to Ordinance Book.
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM REPEALING SECTION 6.40.030; ADDING
SECTION 6.40.030; 6.40.045; AND AMENDING 6.40.060 TO THE ANAHEIM MDNICIPAL
CODE. (Fireworks - restrictions of sale and discharge; age limitation)
Roll Call Vote:
AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS:
NOES :.. COUNCIL MEMBERS:
ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS:
Pebley, Sneegas and Thom
None
Kaywood and Seymour
The Mayor declared Ordinance No. 3349 duly passed and adopted.
ORDINANCE NO. 3951: Councilman Pebley offered Ordinance No. 3351 for adoption.
Refer to Ordinance Book.
AN O~DINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AMENDING TITLE 18 OF THE ANAHEIM
N~NICIPAL CODE RELATING TO ZONING. (70-71-49(1) - RS 5,000, Tract No. 8080)
Roll Call Vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
C(~dNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
Pebley, Sneegas and Thom
None
Kayvood and Seymour
The Mayor declared Ordinance No. 3351 duly passed and adopted.
74-952
City Hall. A--helm. California - COUNCIL MINUTES - September 17~ 1974, 1:30 ~,M
ORDINANCE NO. 335?: Councilman Sneegas offered Ordinance No. 3352 for adoption.
Refer to Ordinance Book.
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AI~NDING TITLE 14, CHAPTER 14.32, SECTION
14.32.190 PERTAINING TO PARKING. (No parking at any time - }fable Street, south
side, from 360 feet west of centerline of Adams Street to 180 feet west of
centerline of Adams Street)
Roll Call Vote:
AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Pebley, Sneegas and Thom
NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: None
ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Kaywood and Seymour
The Mayor declared Ordinance No. 3352 duly passed and adopted.
ORDINANCE NO. 3353: Councilman Pebley offered Ordinance No. 3353 for adoption.
Refer to Ordinance Book.
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AMENDING~TITLE 18 OF THE ANAHEIM~/NICIPAL
CODE RELATING TO ZONING. (74-74-7 - R-3)
Roll Call Vote:
AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Pebley, Sneegas and Thom
NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: None
ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Kaywood and Seymour
The Mayor declared Ordinance No. 3353 duly passed and adopted.
ORDINANCE NO. 3354: Councilman Sneegas offered Ordinance No. 3354 for adoption.
Refer to Ordinance Book.
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AMENDING TITLE 18 OF THE ANAHEIM~3NICIPAL
,CODE RELATING TO ZONING. (73-74-63 - R-A)
Roll Call Vote:
AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Pebley, Sneegas and Thom
NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: None
ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Kaywood and Seymour
The Mayor declared Ordinance No. 3354 duly passed and adopted.
ORDINANCE NO. 3355: Councilman Sneegas offered Ordinance No. 3355 for first reading.
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AMENDING TITLE 18 OF THE ANAHEIM~JNICIPAL
CODE RELATING TO ZONING. (71-72-44(10) - R-3)
ORDINANCE NO. 3356: Councilman Pebley offered Ordinance No. 3356 for first reading.
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AMENDING TITLE 18 OF THE ANAHEIM~3NICIPAL
CODE RELATING TO ZONING. (65-66-24(19) - M-I)
ORDINANCE NO. 3357: Councilman Thom offered Ordinance No. 3357 for first reading.
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OFANAHEIMAI~NDING TITLE 18 OF THE ANAHEIM~3NICIPAL
CODE RELATINGTO ZONING. (73-74-9(2) - C-l)
SANTA AHA CANYON ~RO ~P~R. _Ty OWNR~' S ASSOCIATION - WA~R S.E~tV!C~ INSTAT.TATION ASSESSMENTS:
Consnun~cation dated August 20, 1974 from Stewart B. Moss, representing the Santa
Aha Canyon Property Owner's Association, requesting an extended payment program
of water service installation assessments, was submitted September 10, 1974, and
continued to this date for report from the City Attorney.
74- 95 3
City Hall. Anaheim. California - COUNCIL MINUTES - September 17. 1974. 1:30 P.M.
Report dated September 13, 1974, was submitted from the City Attorney
concluding that the Constitution of the State of California prohibits the City
from lending its credit, and that there is no method of deferring the costs to
the property owners in the Mohler Drive area at this time.
No action was taken on the foregoing request.
I~SOLUTION - LEASE OF PARKING .SPACES, ANAHEIM COLLEG~ OF LAW: Pursuant to action
taken by the City Council at their regular meeting held July 30, 1974, directing
the City Attorney to draft an agreement with Madison Real Estate, Inc., for use
of 40 City parking spaces in Parking Lot No. 5 by the tenant at 135 South Lemon
Street (Anaheim College of Law), resolution was presented for Council considera-
tion, authorizing the least of said spaces.
At the request of Mayor Thom, it was determined that action of the
matter be deferred to allow the staff to contact interested parties for possible
relocation to Parking Lot No. 4 to avoid conflict with the Lincoln Avenue
businesses.
A~AHEI~UNION HIGH SCHOOL DISTRICT - REQUEST TO CONDUCT RAFFLES: The City Manager
reported on cou~mmicattons received from local schools requesting permission to
conduct raffles of footballs used in the games, and also to raffle a new auto-
mobile.
Upon report by Mr. Watts that the activities would be in violation
of the Code, the foregoing requests were referred to the City Attorney's Office.
LIBRARy ~OARD - JOINT MEETING: Request by William J. Griffith, Secretary to the
Library Board, for joint meeting of the Library Board with the City Council on
Tuesday, October 8, 1974, at 9:30 A.M., was submitted and scheduled as requested.
RESOLUTIO~ NO. 74R-466: Councilman Sneegas offered Resolution No. 74R-466 for
adoption.
Refer to Resolution Book.
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM DECLARING CERTAIN
UNCLAIMED PROPERTY IS NEEDED FOR PUBLIC USE AND TRANSFERRING THE SAME TO
THE CITY PURCHASING DEPARTMENT.
Roll Call Vote:
AYES:
NOES:
AB SENT:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
Pebley, Sneegas and Thom
None
Kaywood and Seymour
The Mayor declared Resolution No. 74R-466 duly passed and adopted.
AIIAHEIHCULTURA~. ART%.COMMISSION ApPOINTMEI~T: On motion by Councilman Sneegas,
seconded by Councilman Pebley, Llewellyn Overholt, Jr. was appointed to the
Anaheim Cultural Arts Commission as representative of the Parks and Recreation
Commission, term ending June 30, 1975 (Council Members Kaywood and Seymour
absent).~ MOTION CARRIED.
REOUEST - WAIVER OF BUSINESS LICENSE TAX LATE PE1/ALTY: Councilman Pebley called
attention to comm~nication dated September 10, 1974, from Lawrence W. Allen of
the Peter Pan Motor Lodge, requesting waiver of penalty for late payment of
business license fee, due to unexpected hospitalization while away from the
City. Also submitted was verification of the hospital stay and report from
the City Attorney.
On motion by Councilman Pebley, seconded by Councilman Sneegas,
waiver of penalty for late payment of room tax for the month of July, 1974,
was &,ranted (Council Members Kaywood and Seymour absent). MOTION CARRIED.
~L~~: Councilman Pebley moved to adjourn to Tuesday, September 24, 1974,
at 10:00 A.M. Councilman Thom seconded the motion (Council Members Kaywood
and Seymour absent). MOTION CARRIED.
Adjourned: 7:30 P.M.
Signed
City Clerk