1974/07/2374-731
City Hall, A,~beim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - July 23a 1974, ~:30 P~M:
The City Council of the City of Anaheim met in regular sesSi°n.
PRESENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Kaywood, Seymour, Pebley, Sneegas and Thom
ABSFTN: COUNCIL MEMBERS: None
PRESENT: CITY MANAGER: Keith A. Murdoch .
CITY ATTORNEY: Alan R. Watts
CITY CLERK: Alone M. Hougard
CITY ENGINEER: James P. Maddox
TRAFFIC ENGINEER: Paul Singer
ZONING SUPERVISOR: Charles Roberts
PLANNING SUPERVISOR: Don McDaniel
ASSISTANT ZONING SUPERVISOR: Phillip Schwartze
FINANCE DIRECTOR: M. R. Ringer
UTILITIES DIRECTOR: Gordon W. Hoyt
The Mayor called the meeting to order.
FLA~ SALUTE: Councilman John Seymour led the Assembly in the Pledge of Allegiance
to the Flag.
MI,NUTES: Approval of the Minutes of the Anaheim City Council Regular Heatings held
June 11, 18 and 25, 1974 and July 2, 9 and 16, 1974, were deferred to the meeting
of July 30, 1974.
WAIVER OF READING - ORDINANCES AND RESOLUTIONS: Councilman Thom moved to waive the
reading in full of all ordinances and resolutions, and that consent to the
waiver of reading is hereby given by all Council Members unless, after reading
of the title, specific request is made by a Council Member for the reading of
such ordinance or resolution. Councilman Seymour seconded the motion. MOTION
UNANIMOUSLY CARRIED.
REPORT - FINANCIAL DEMANDS AGAINST THE CITY: Demands against the City in the amount
Of ~1,119,387.54, in accordance with the 1974-75 Budget, were approved.
CONTINUED. PUBLIC HEARING - HOUSEMOVING PERMIT: Public hearing was held before the
City Council on July 16, 1974 to consider permit to move a dwelling from 3630
West 17th Street, Santa Ann, to 1619 Pounders Lane, Anaheim, requested by'G.
Fronseca. Public hearing was continued to this date to allow the applicant an
opportunity to meet with property owners in the vicinity.
Planning SuperVisor Don McDaniel called attention to a list of names
of those residents opposed to the proposed house~oving who reside within 300
feet of subject property.
Mayor Thom asked if the Applicant wished to address the City Council.
Mr. Fronseca advised of a meeting with residents in the vicinity of
Pounders Lane, and reported that he intends to now purchase a different house,
to which he is confident the residents in the vicinitywoUld not object; that
he was waiting for word from the Housemoving Company as to when the dwelling
would be available for moving.
On the reco~mendations of the City Attorney, Councilman Pebley moved
that public hearing on the proposed housemoving be continued for four weeks
(August 20, 1974) to allow the Applicant time to complete arrangements and
aa~nd his request to reflect the change in structures. Council~an Sneegas
seconded the ~otion. MOTION CARRIED.
PR~POg~.~ TO TITLE 18 - ZOilNG: Public hearing wes hdd ~ovamber 27, 1973,
to consider amenda~nt to Title 18, Chapter 18.28, R-2, Nultiple-lamtly Residen-
tial Zone, Section 18.28.050, Site Developamnt Standards, Subsection 10, Off-
Street Parking Requirements, at which time the hearing was continued to January 2,
1974, to allow time for the hearing.on the transportation element of the Environ-
~ental ProtectionAgency Regulations.
On January 2, 1974, the hearing was again continued to July 9, 1974,
to allow time to consider various changes which are now occurring in transporta-
tion and parking habits; on July 9, 1974 the hearing was closed and decision
continued to this date for a full City Council.
74-732
City Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - July 23~ 1974~ 1:30 P.M.
The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC74-133,
recommended approval of the proposed amendments.
Discussion was held by the City Council, and Councilwoman Kaywood was
of the opinion that 2.25 parking spaces should be provided for all units of
three or more bedrooms, and that the open parking spaces should be enlarged
from 8½ feet by 19 feet to 9 by 19 feet.
Councilman Seymour summ-rized the discussion held at the July 9,
1974, meeting, stating that although he was in favor of increasing the existing
parking standards, he felt that to change from 8~ feet to 9 feet width would
compute to approximate 20% increase in asphalt open space area. That in situa-
tions where the wide~ spaces were needed, developers could require them, and
have done so in the past.
Councilwoman Kaywood expressed concern relative to the storage of
boats, trailers and recreational vehicles in the multiple-family complexes.
In response to question by Mayor Thom, Planning Supervisor Don McDaniel
reported that a survey of recreation vehicle parking areas was made in cities
throughout the County, and only the City of San Juan Capistrano designates a
specified area for parking of these vehicles. It has not been the City's
practice to designate either visitor parking or recreational vehicle storage,
and the proposed amendment does not contain any requirement for this purpose.
Mayor Thom advised he had received many complaints regarding boats,
trailers and recreational vehicles being stored in apartment driveways, and in
his opiniOn, consideration should be given to providing storage areas therefor,
inasmuch as the number of families owning these conveyances has risen to a sub-
stantial percentage.
Councilman Pebley failed to see how such a requirement could be placed
on the multiple-family residential zone without requiring the same in single-
family residential zones.
ORD!NANCz NO. 3324: Councilman Seymour offered Ordinance No. 3324 for first
reading, amending Title 18 changing the minimum number of off-street parking
spaces, as follows: 1.5 spaces for one-bedroom units or less, 2.0 spaces for
two-bedroom units, and 2.25 spaces for three-bedroOm units or more.
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM REPEALING TITLE 18, CHAPTER 18.28, SECTION
18.28.050(10) AND ENACTING A NEW TITLE 18, CHAPTER 18.28, SECTION 18.28.050(10)
RELATING TO ZONING. (R-2 Multiple-Family Residential Zone, Off-Street Parking
Requirements; minimum number and type of parking spaces, minimum dimensions of
parking spaces)
PUBLIC ~.H~ARIN~ - RECLASSIFICATION NO. 73-74-61: Initiated by the Anaheim City
Plannin~ Commisssion for change in zone from County of Orange A-1 to Cityof
Anaheim R-A, on property located on the south side of the Richard M. Nixon
Freeway, northwesterly of the intersection of Orangethorpe Avenue and Imperial
Highway.
The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC74-129,
found the proposed R-A zoning cate$orically exempt from the requirement to file
an environmental impact report, and recommended approval of subject reclassifica-
tion.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT - CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION: On motion by Councilwoman Kaywood,
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 No. 1, of the City of Anaheim Guidelines
to the requirements for environmental impact reports and is therefore categori-
cally exempt from the requirement to file said report. MOTION CARRIED.
Zoning Supervisor Charles Roberts noted that subject reclassification
was initiated by the City Planning Commission for the purpose of assigning
zoning to property recently annexed to the City.
74-733
City Hal. l, Anaheim,. Califo.rnia - COt~CIL MINUTES"- July, 23~ ~'1974, ,1:30' P.M,
The Mayor asked if anyone wished 'to address the City Council, for or
against the proposed reclassification, there being no response, declared the
hearing closed.
R~....~..ION NO. 74R-363: Councilwoman Kaywood offered Resolution. No. 74R-363
for adoption, authorizing preparation of the necessary ordinance, changing the
zo~ as requested, subject to the recommendations of the City Planning Commission.
Refer to Resolution Book.
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM FII/DING AND DETERMININg,
THAT TITLE 18 OF THE ANAItEIHNI~IClPAL CODE RELATING TO ZONING SHOULD BE AMENDED
AND THAT THE BOUNDARIES OF CERTAIN ZONES SHOULD BE CHANGED. (73-74-61 - R-A)
Roll Call Vote:
AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS:
NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS:
ABSENT: COUNCIL MF2~BERS:
Kaywood, Seymour, Pebley, Sneegas and Thom
None
None
TheMayor declared Resolution No. 74R-363 duly passed and .adopted.
PUBLIC .~RING - RECLASSIFICATION NO. 73-74-62 AND VARIANCE NO. 2612a ENVIRONMENTAL
LMPA~T .~PORT NO. 107,. REVISION NO. 1, TENTATIVE TRACT NOS. 8511~ REVISION NO.. 3,
AND 8707 (RECLASSIFICATION NO. 73-74-27 AND VARIANCE NO. 2565): Submitted by The
William Lyon Company for a change in zone from R-A to RS-SO00 (Portion No. A)
andR-2 (Portion No. B), to establish a 26-unit RS-5000 single-family residen-
tial development on Portion No. A, and to establish a 170-unit multiple-family
residential development on Portion No. B. Subject property is located' on the
south side of Imperial Highway, northwesterly of the intersection of Orangethorpe
Avenue and Imperial Highway, with Code waivers of the following:
a. Maximum permitted height within 150 feet of an R-A Zone.
b. Required masonry wall abutting an R-A Zone.
The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution N°. PC74-135,
reco~nded that the City Council certify Environmental I~pact Report No. 107,
Revision No. 1 as being in compliance with the Environmental Quality Act, and
recommmded denial of subject reclassification.
The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC74-136;
denied subject variance.
T.~...A~IYE NAPS, TRACT NOS. 8511, REVISION NO. 3,,ANO 8707: Developer, The
William Lyon Company; property consisting of. approximately 23,7.acres, having a
frontage of approximately 720 feet on the south side of Imperial Highway with a
max/mm depth of approximately 1.,100 feet, ap~ located approximately 3,000 feet
northwesterly of the intersection of Oransethorpe Avenue and Imperial Highway,
is proposed for subdivision into 6 R-2 zoned lots (Tract No. 8511, Revision No.
3) and 26 RS-SO00 zoned lots (Tract No. 8707).
The City PIanuing Commission denied both tentative maps on the' basis
of the reco~nded disapproval of Reclassification No. 73-74-62, and d~nial of
Variance No. 2612, for subject property.
Public hearing was held February 19, 1974, on Reclassification No.
73-74-27 and Variance No. 2565, first submitted for subject property by Prudencio
E. Yorba, at which ti~e the hearing was continued to April 23, 1974 for submis-
sion of revised plans, and further continued to June '18, 1974, at which time
th~ I~velop~nt Services Department 'recommended additional cont'inuation to
allow tt~m for readvertising of revised development plans, under new Reclassifi-
cation No. 73-74-62 for public hearing before the 'City'Plann.~n$'C0mmission.'
The City Clerk called attention to a letter fr°m James,and Vivfan
Drau~hon opposing subject reclassification, and to petition Of.opposition con-
taintn~ approxi~ately 160 signatures.
74-734
City Hall, Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - July 23~ 1974~ 1:30 P.M.
Zoning Supervisor Charles Roberts noted the location of subject prop-
erty, and the existing uses and zoning in the immediate area, and explained the
property's orientation in relation to arterial highways and other land uses in
the vicinity. The northwest portion of the property, designated as Portion No.
A,' consisting of 5.72 acres, is proposed for RS-5000 zoning, detached single-
family units, while the remaining 17.81 acre portion, designated Portion No. B,
is proposed for R-2 zoning with duplex units immediately east of Portion No. A,
and four-plex condominium units on the balance of the property, which would be
identical to those currently under construction on property to the southwest.
Mr. Roberts noted the waivers requested, to allow two-story construc-
tion adjacent to R-A zoned property (6 buildings on the southeast portion of the
property), advising that the R-A zoned land on the southeast is owned by the
developer, who'has expressed the intent to develop said property for apartments
at a later date; and further, to allow omission of required 6-foot masonry wall
adjacent to the golf course and County A-1 property along the Richard M. Nixon
Freeway (Imperial Highway).
Mr. ROberts briefed the history of subject reclassification, the City
Plamning Commission in November, 1973, having recommended approval of the original
232-dwelling unit condominium four-plexes proposed for the entire property
(Reclassification No. 73-74-27, Variance No. 2565); in February of 1974 the City
Council continued the public hearing to allow redesign to provide RS-5000 lots
on.the northwesterly portion of subject property and to confine the condominium
development to the more southeasterly portion. The developer subsequently re-
designed the project and the matter was referred back to the Planning Commission
proposing 26 single-family units on Portion No. A, and 9 single-story duplex
buildings (18 units) plus 38 four-plex buildings (152 units) on Portion No. B.
Also provided was a recreational area near the center of the project, and park-
ing provisions allowing 2.26 covered and open parking spaces for each condominium
unit, and 5.38 spaces for each duplex unit. The overall net density figure was
11.95 dwelling units per acre. A 6-foot masonry wall was indicated to separate
the single-family residential portion from the duplex area, and another6-foot
wall on top of a 6-foot earthen berm along the north boundary of the property
adjoining the freeway.
Proposed circulation through the project WOuld be by means of the north-
easterly extension of two 'streets from the existing condominium property adjacent
on the southwest, together with the extension of Cresthill Drive from the north-
west through the length of the property.
The City Planning Commission recommended denial of the reclassification,
variance and tentative tracts, based on the fact that the proposed development
does not meet standards of the new RM-4000 Zone in floor areas or parking pro-
visions, and the proposed density is higher than the 10.9 units per acre allowed
in the new zone, although it falls within the provisions of the RM-3600 Zone.
Rather than make additional revisions, the developer requested the project be
heard by the City Council as presented to the Planning Commission.
Councilman Pebley pointed out that the proposed development originally
had been brought before the City Planning Commission and City Council prior to
adoption of the RM-4000 Zone, and at that time the City Council asked the develo-,'~r
per to revise the plans to provide buffers, which he has done, along with reduc-
ing the density; and he advised of a letter received from one of the people in
opposition at that time which indicated they would be satisfied with development
if these changes were made. He was of the opinion that the RM-4000 Zone standards
should apply to projects commenced from the time those standards were adopted,
but not apply to a project submitted prior to that time.
Councilwoman Kaywood felt that the developer had not carried out the
direction of the Council to provide a majority of RS-5000 homes in the develop-
ment, noting only26RS-5000 homes have been provided in the new plans, the others
being duplexes and four-plexes.
Mayor Thom asked if the Applicant or his Agent wished to address the
City Council.
74-735
City rial.l.., '-_=_helm, California - couNcIL .MINUTES -. July 23, 1974, 1:30 P.M.
Mr. Peter Ochs, Executive Vice President of the William F. Lyon Company,
Newport Beach, sub~itted reduced copies of the development plot plan (copies fur-
nished each Council Member), and advised that their existing project to the south-
west has been under construction for 15 to. 16 months, is about half completed,
and b~s been well received. Subject development has been in the planning stages
for nearly 2 years, with the first public hearing being held approximately 8
months ago; and when the former City Council requested some changes be made, the
developer took care to note the wishes of the Council so as to conform as closely
as possible.. It was his recollection that the Council at that time desired a
lower density use reflected on the northwesterly portion of the property, basi-
cally north of the extension of the north boundary line of existing development
to the southwest. The new plans provide mostly RS-5000 for Portion No. A with
a few duplex units for transition into the higher density development on Portion
No. B. If the' entire project had been developed under the R-2 Zone only, the
average would be 4,152-square feet per unit, which he felt would be within sub-
stantial conformance of the new RM-4000 Zone.
In s,,~ry, Mr. Ochs stated that they feel the density of the proposed
development is substantially less than originally proposed, and also substan-
tially less than the project currently under development on adjacent properties;
that in their opinion it conforms to what the former City Council requested, and
meets the need for low income housing, and he requested positive action on the
project.
Councilwoman Kaywood reported sh~ had received a letter which noted
that in the existing development, some of the units face the garage area, and
some face each other extremely close by, causing a noise and visual problem.
She inquired whether any of the units were for rent as well as for sale.
Mr. Ochs stated that the company was not renting any units, and any
"for rent" signs have been put on display bY the individual owners of the units.
In answer to further question by Councilwoman Kaywood, he was of the opinion that
the company would refuse to sell any of the four-plax buildings to individuals
for rental purposes, if the issue arose.
He further advised that The William Lyon Company employs the highest
standards of noise control between units, and insulate outside walls to cut down
outside noise; that they have had no sipificant number of complaints from resi-
dents of the existing development. In addition, there is a homeowners' associa-
tion which has already been turned over to the people one year prior to the time
designated in the bylaws, in order to allow them to become familiar with mainte~c,.
since procedures, etc., before the company completes the protect and withdraws.
In response to Councilman Seymour's question, Hr. Ochs reported that
a study of the first 125 units vas recently conducted, and approximately 601 of
those:owners were married, 40I single, and the married couples had from 0 to 3
children, resulting in an average of slightly less than one child per unit,
with approximately 2/3 child per unit on an over-all average. Approximately 151
of the occupants are in the over-forty age group.
Councilman Seymour noted staff report to the Planning COmmission dated
July 8, 1974, page l-c, under Portion No. A, regarding extensive rear yard slopes
on some lots of the proposed development, resulting in a level area depth of
approximately $ feet in the rear yard; and he asked how many of the RS-5000 lots
have a level back yard of only 5 feet.
Mr. Ochs vas of the opinion that the comment in the staff report was
inaccurate, and advised that uinimu~ pad areas in the RS-g000 .portion were 50
by 100 feet, the average pad being 5,428-square feet with setbacks meeting the
City standards; that the mtn~usable area vas approximately 15 feet.
The Mayor asked if anyone else wished to address the Council in favor
of the proposed development, there being no response, asked for opposition.
Mr. Bill Paxton, Planning Director of the City of Yorba Linda, addressed
the Council represeutinS the lorba Lends City Council advising chit he was pre-
sent in the spirit of cities working together to resolve problems along mutual
boundaries. He pointed out that the Yorba Linda ~eneral Plan was developed prior
74-736
City Hall~ Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - July 23~ 1974~ 1:30 P.M.
to annexation of the subject property to Anaheim, and also prior to the Local
Agency Formation Commission setting up spheres of influence; therefore, their
plan covers some areas which are in the City of Anaheim or within its sphere of
influence. The Yorba Linda Plan for the area in question reflected four units
to the acrs on the southwest section, and up to ten units to the area on the
southeast section, the total area having a lower density than that proposed.
Mr. Paxton noted the City boundary generally running along Imperial
Highway in this vicinity, except where it extends southeasterly to encompass the
golf course at the Yorba Linda Country Club. Existing uses and zoning on the
north side of the Imperial Higway include planned communities and RE, small estate
sized lots; a large 240 unit single-family home development on the RE property,
together with a market.
Regarding the golf course, Mr. Paxton advised that the City of Yorba
Linda would not he in favor of a fence in and around the course, and they would
like to see a much lower density that that proposed.
Councilman Seymour asked clarification of Mr. Paxton's reference to
property on the north side of Imperial Highway.
Mr. Paxton advised that he was referring to the areas within the City
of Yorba Linda, not the condominium development which is in Orange County
territory.
In response to question by Councilman Seymour, Mr. Roberts reported
that the golf course appears to be at am approximate 10 foot higher level than
subject property.
The Mayor asked if anyone else wished to address the City Council in
opposition.
Mrs. Mary Dinndorf, 131 South La Paz Street, Secretary of COAL, Coali-
tion of Anaheim Leaders, addressed the Council advising that the organization
consists of homeowners, educational and civic organizations throughout 'the City.
of AnaheIm, the purpose being to form a framework and sounding board for the con-
c~rned citizens to become involved in solving the problems in our City. The ob-
Jectives are to up-date the General Plan for the City and to have the people
represented; to stress quality of growth, not quantity. She stated that Anaheim's
current growth policy is creating problems which other Orange County cities are
spending money to correct.
With the help of Mr. Jim Draughon at the Anaheim General Plan Map, Mrs.
Dinndorf illustrated the location of subject property and how it interfaces with
other projects which are developed or proposed for development. She noted the
amount of additional traffic on Orangethorpe Avenue, Lakeview and the Santa Aha
Canyon-Road which would be generated by the proposed development and advised of
recent smog alerts in the vicinity, calling attention to new smog control laws
going into effect January 1, 1975, relative to emissions from stationary sources.
Further, a bill currently pending before the State legislature would
prevent developers who retain more than 10% of the voting rights from retaining
a majority vote in the Homeowners' Associations and establishing excessive fees
for association dues.
Mrs. Dinndorf noted that $350,000 in funds which will be spent by the
County of Orange on landscaping for equestrian and bicycle trails along the river
from Imperial Highway to Katella Avenue, which is in the vicinity of the property
in question. She failed to see the need for more iow cost housing when there is
the alternative of reconstructing plans to develop RS-5000 homes with adequate
open space.
In conclusion, Mrs. Dtnndorf noted meeting held April 25, 1974, with
the City Council, Planning Commission, department heads and interested homeowners
to get input and suggestions for the up-dating of the General Plan. Early in
May, 1974, a work session was held to implement the plan; however, the citizens
groups have not ba~n notified to ~vork with CitY departments to put any of the
7~-737
City Hall~ !a~het~em California ~ COUNCIL NI~Eg , July 23, 197&,i:30P~N.
suuestions into action, and no progress reports have bean received. She reques-
ted that rather than working fron a crisis &ttitude, the City and interested
citizens plan ahead and ntake this City a model of good planaing and develotanent.
In answer to question by Councilnan Seyaour, Hrs. Dinndorf confirmed
that COAL would not like to see any develolment on subject property having a
density of ~ore than that allowed in the RS-S000 Zone.
Council~an Seymour asked if they had any suuestions as to how the up-
dating of the General Plan could be acco~plished at a more rapid rate.
Hrs. Dinndorf was of the opinion that there was a need for more defini-
tive criteria to present to developers, and COAL would like to see the General
Plan in the canyon area up-dated as soon as possible.
The Mayor asked if anyone else had opposition to present.
Hr. Jim Draughon, 1927 Elder Glen Circle, addressed the Council advis-
ing that at the February 19, 1974 hearing before the City Council, it was node
clear'that the developer should revise plans to show a substantial portion of the
property as RS-5000 development; however, the exact size of that portion was not
clearly defined.
Hr. Draughon opposed the expansion of the existing condominiua develop-
ment in the area as being totally disproportionate to the surroundinA community,
and vould destroy the integrity of the neighborhood. With the aid of
Dinndorf, he noted on the General Plan Map the location of the golf course and
the areas where high density development is proposed. He was of the opinion that
the developer has not gone even half way to carry out directions fro~ the Council.
He failed to see how the community would be served by the development of the pro-
posed plan, and he expressed support of thesu$$estion~ade at the February hear-
in~ that Cresthill Drive be planned with cul-de-sacs end-to-end, separating the
RS-5000 area from the R-2 portion of the property and precluding a great deal
the inevitable traffic problems.
In conclusion, Hr. Draughon called attention to a letter from the Orange
county Planning commission to the Anaheim Planning Com~ission pointing out that
County General Plan desi~nation for subject property, 35Z to be medium density,
and 65Z to be reserved for recreational purposes; therefore, the proposed project
is substantially inconsistent with the County General Plan. He noted the time,
effort and expense incurred by property o~ners to insure a co~atible develop-
ment, and was of the opinion that the City Council should deny the development
as projected.
In response to Council~an Sey~our's question, Hr. Draughon stated he
agreed with COAL that the entire property should be developed as RS-5000; that
the area in question was too snail for medium density development.
Council~an Pebley stated that on February 19, 1974, at least 3 '
Councilmen expressed the~.optnion~thac..~ ~l'iae~sheuld he established so as to
square: off Portion No. A, which should be entirely RS-SO00 homes, and that
Cresthill Drive should not be extended as a through street.
Councilaan Sneegas stated that at that t/nm his intention was that the
approximate 7~ acre Portion No. A (as squared off) would be a buffer zone for the
R-2 on Portion No. B; that he had felt the general quality of the project could
be up-graded. He took exception to a statenant of Hr. Draughon that he favored
carrying the R~-$000 Zone clear dove to the second street, and was of the opinion
that the developer has cons a lon~ way toward an acceptable package. He agreed
with Councilman Pebley that if Creethill Drive vas developed with cul-de-sacs,
and Portion No. A vas entirely R~-5000, the project would be a viable package.
Mayor 'Thou asked if anyone had new and different opposition to present;
there vas no response. He then called for rebuttal.
Hr. OChs reported that for flood control purposes, an earthen berm is
to be placed between subject property and the self course to the northeast, which
will provide a buffer. The property is in close proximity to two arterial streets.
74-738
City Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - July 23~ 1974~ 1:30 P.M.
to the freeway, and to shopPing facilities under construction, and therefore
fits any conceivable planning standards for higher density.' He advised the
developer felt they 'had complied with Council's direction as they understood
it, however he proposed to further revise the plans upon clearer direction at
this time. He suggested RS-5000 for the entire 7% acre Portion No. A, retaining
the 2 duplexes adjacent on the southeast, as a transition into the remainder of
Portion No. B; further, he suggested a'"craSh gate" on Cresthill Drive to
curtail traffic from the higher density areas passing through the single-family
portion, and still allow access for emergency vehicles~
Mayor Thom stated that in February, his original feeling was to place
condominiums only in the section southeast of the extension 'of Willow Woods
Drive, with RS-5000 for the balance of the Property. When one of the other
Councilmen suggested squaring off the northwesterly Portion No. A for RS-5000,
he had then stated he might be willing to compromise by allowing the condominiums
to extend further to Maple Crest Drive; at the present time, he would favor his
original observation with RS-5000 from Willow WoodsDrive northwesterly.
Mr. Ochs stated that the project has reachedthe point where it is
economically m arsenal and would be unfeasible to follow certain of the sugges-
tions; however, they have purchased the land and must go forward, with development.
Councilwoman Kaywood read from the Minutes of February 19, 1974 with
reference to subject property, wherein Councilman Sneegas had commented about
the undesirable appearance of the existing land company condominiums to the
southwest. She asked the price range of the home which would be constructed in
the RS-5000 Zone.
Mr. OChs advised that the market for similar homes in theareawas in
the $35,000 price range. In his opinion, homes constructed under provisions of
the RS-5000 Zone would not necessarily be more compatible with the neighborhood.
He pOinted out that as part of the development, they will be doing considerable
work to overcome flood hazards, and will have spent more than a quarter of a
million dollars for landscaping and amenities, including existing development.
He noted that the area is unique unto itself, having industrial to the south,
and two arterial highways in the immediate vicinity. He referred to a petition
signed by 58 residents of the Windwood community who support subject reclassifi-
cation and variance, and he felt the additional RS-5000 homes suggested for
Portion No. B would be an intrusion into the residential area of those living
in existing and proposed condominiums.
In answer to question by Councilwoman Kaywood, Mr. Ochs advised that
the existing condominium area contains a net density of over 15 units to the
acre, approximately, while the proposed condominium development on Portion No.
B would be 12 units to the acre.
Councilwoman Kaywood remarked that in'1970 when the entire area was
under consideration, the City Planning Commission recommended low density
developmentfor the canyon area, and she felt the vicinity was a rural area
whiCh would be spoiled by high density construction.
Mr. Ochs pointed out that the property was not actually into the
canyon, that there was industrial all along the south side of Orangethorpe
Avenue, · mobile home park to the west, approved R-3 nearby, commercial property,
plus theexisting condominiums, and the General Plan calls for medium density
zoning. In terms of meeting the need for Iow cost housing, he was of the
Opinion that this particular neighborhood was one location where it could be
done with a minimal disturbance to established neighborhoods. Some residents
of the existing condOminiums have indicated that they would prefer more condomin-
ium development on the property in questiOn because single-familY homeowners
are not required to maintain their properties' slope banks and open spaces.
Councilwoman Kaywood felt that 5,000-fo°t lots'would be a compromise
for her, as she preferred an even lower density; that she would agree to condo-
miniums only in the extreme southeast portion of the property.
CounCilman Seymour vas of the oPinion that the hill and canyon general
plan needs'revision in order' to provide definitive standards for development, and
he pointed out the differing opinions of the Council Members regarding subject
74-739
F
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - July 23, 197&t 1:30
property. It was his feeling that the traffic from the higher density areas
should be blocked from the single-family homes, and the entire 7~ acre Portion
No. A be confined to RS-5000, with condominiL-,~ on Portion No. B. Using this
plan, if the entire property is considered as one parcel, it meets provisions
of the medium density standards, and comes very close to meeting the new RM-4000
standards.
Councilman Seymour stated he followed the philosophy of Planning Com-
missioner Rowland, ~hichvas to develop those areas which are developable, and
leave the rest for open space vithout grading them for further construction.
In his opinion, City Council meetings vith canyon area property ovners, home-
ovners' groups, individuals and developers should be resumed in order to imple-
ment amep~ments to the General Plan.
Councilwoman Kaywood, who was also a member of the Planning Commission
at the time Commissioner Rowland expressed his philosophy, pointed out that her
response had been to question how the City could guarantee that the "undevelop-
able" areas would remain open space, and the answer was that it could not. In
her opinion, the land developers were using large densities in all areas with
inmifficient open space, and she felt there was practically no green area pro-
vided for the condominiums in subject project.
Councilman Seymour advised that he had visited the existing land com-
pany condominiums on adjacent property, and had asked residents if they' were
happy living there, if they had any problems with maintenance or with parking
facilities, and he was unable to get any complaints whatsoever.; however this
was not to say he favored a density of 15 units to the acre.
Mr. Ochs again indicated his willingness to revise plans to more
nearly conform to the suggestions of Councilmen Pebley and Seymour, including a
crash gate to block Cresthill Drive; that the result would be approximately 156
condominium units in addition to the RS-5000 portion.
Mr. Roberts referred to the Traffic En~ineer's comments on circulation
in the proposed development, that he felt it very necessary to have Cresthill
Drive extend the length of the property in order to provide circulation for the
area; that there wotttd be less traffic arriving at the intersection of Kellogg
and Cresthill Drives, even with the original 232-unit condominium proposed,
than if the street were blocked, since many residents of the single-family
homes would drive through the condominium area to reach Orangethorpe Avenue,
rather than go out by way of Kellog$ Drive. Further, it has been the experience
of the Traffic Engineering Division that crash gates installed across a public
right-of-way cause circulation problems, and at a later date, the City receives
a request to remove the gates.
Councilman Seymour was of the opinion that the people in the area
need some assurance that they Will not have these traffic problems; that installa-
tion of cul-de-sacs would divide the two portions of the property and protect
those to the north and in Portion No. A from traffic emanating from the condomin-
ium neighborhood. He noted there are two streets which will give access in and
out of the condo~Lnium area.
Councll~m Pebley indicated he favored cul-de-sacing Cresthill on
both sides of the boundary betveen the two zones.
Mr. Draughon returned to the stand to state he felt a crash gate
would cause many problens.
Further discussion was held by the City Council, and it was noted
that statistics show condominiums average 2/3 of a child per unit, while RS-5000
developeents average considerably more.
Mayor Thom stated ha believed sufficient evidence concerning subject
petitions had been presented, and thereupon declared the hearing closed.
Councilman Seymour moved that the decision of the Council on Reclass-
ification No. 73-74-62 and Variance No. 2612, Environmental Impact Report No.
107, ~vtstonNo. 1, and Tentative Tract Nos. 8511, Revision No. 3, and 8707, be
74-740
City Hall, Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - July 23, 1974, 1:30 P.M.
continued two weeks (August 6, 1974) to allow time for the developer to redesign
the project along the lines discussed, RS-5000 for the 7.5 acre northwest portion,
and condominium units on the balance, utilizing cul-de-sac treatment for Cresthill
Drive at the boundary between the two zones. Councilman Pebley seconded the
motion. To this motion, Councilman Thom voted "no". MOTION CARRIED.
Additional discussion was held, with Councilwoman Kaywood strongly
suggesting that Environmental Impact Report No. 107 (Revision No. 1) be revised,
being of the opinion that the revised report represented a masterpiece of eva-
sion and confusion; that it does nothing more than set out the merits of the
revised proposal as compared to the original plan.
Councilman Seymour was of the opinion that if this were true, perhaps
the City Council should establish new instructions for the E.I.R. Review Committee
and for the City Planning Commission, as they are responsible for reviewing these
reports and making recommendations for Council action.
Mayor Thom was of the opinion that it almost takes legal training to
compare these reports with the Environmental Quality Act, and to determine whether
they are in compliance with the Act.
Planning Supervisor Don McDaniel advised that if it were the Council's
intent to require revision of the E.I.R., additional time would be required.
A majority of the Council indicated a revision to the environmental
impact report and reconsideration of the matter by the Planning Commission would
not be necessary.
PROPOSED.AMF~NDMgNT TO HILL AND CANYON GENERAL PLAN: Regarding the proposed amendment
to the Hill and Canyon General Plan, it was determined that the matter would be
a topic'for discussion at the combined City Council-City Planning Commission Work
Session scheduled for Monday, July 29, 1974, 7:30 P.M.
CONTINUED PUBLIC REARING - RECLASSIFICATION NO. 73-74-27 AND VARIANCE NO. 2565: Sub-
mitred by Prudencio E. Yorba for a change in zone from County of Orange A-1 to
City of Anaheim R-2 to establish a 248-unit multiple.residential development with
certain waivers of the Anaheim Municipal Code, on property described in Reclass-
ification No. 73-74-62 and Variance No. 2612.
In accordance with request received from the petitioner, Councilwoman
Kayw0od moved that all proceedings in connection with Reclassification No.
73-74-27 and Variance No. 2565 be terminated. Councilman Pebley seconded the
motion. MOTION CARRIED.
RECESS: Councilwoman Kaywood moved for a 15-minute recess. Councilman Thom seconded
the motion. MOTION CARRIED. (3:40 P.M.)
AFTER RgCESS: Mayor Thom called the meeting to order, all members of the City Council
being present. (3:55 P.M.)
ANAHEIM MULTI-MODAL TRANSPORTATION CENTER: Planning Supervisor Don McDaniei reported
on joint study by the Orange County Transit District and the City of Anaheim cur-
rently underway and authorized by the City Council, March 19, 1974, to consider
and define the need for a multi-modal transportation center in the City's
Commercial-Recreation, Industrial Complex. He advised of two actions taken by
the District, modifying the Transit Corridor Network by adding a major rail cor-
ridor through the Commercial-Recreation, Industrial Complex; and suggestion by the
Chairman of the Board of Directors to the Mayor of Anaheim that a special study
be performed to consider a multi-modal transportation center.
Mr. McDaniel briefed findings as contained in his report to the City
Council (memorandum dated July 23, 1974), recommending that the City Council for-
ward to the Orange County Transit District an indication of their concurrence and
intent to proceed with a Joint study for a multi-modal transportation center in
the Anaheim Commercial-Recreation, Industrial Complex.
Councilwoman Kaywood asked whether the $64,000 consultant fee, which
would be paid out of the funds from an Drban Mass Transit Administration Grant,
was a typical amount for this type of service.
74-741
F
City Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL KINUTES - July 23, 1974, 1:30
Mr. HcDaniel advised that it would be difficult to establish a typical
fee amount for this type of study; that the staff relied on the expertise and
experience of the Orange County Transit District who have been involved in
similar negotiations with other cities and other consultants.
On motion by Councilwoman Kaywood, seconded by Councilman Seymour,
the City Council concurred, and expressed their intent to proceed with the pro-
posed Joint study; and an indication of said action was ordered forwarded to
the Orange County Transit District. MOTION CARRIED.
City Manager KeithHurdoch pointed out that the Council has been con-
termed about transportation fro~ the Commercial-Recreation, Industrial Complex
into the downtown area, and as the staff works with the consultant, the possible
need for linkage from the proposed transportation center to the downtown area
should be discussed, whether it can be done in conjunction with this study or
separately.
REQUEST - NO PARKING RESTRICTIONSt WINSTON ROAD AND VERNON STREET: Communication
dated Jun~ 14, 1974, was received from Robert Haybee, Office Nanager of William
Georse Company, and from William Pal~er, Office Nanaser of Young's Narket
Company, requesting "no parking anytime" restrictions on Vernon Street, both
sides, from Winston Road to Cerritos Avenue, and on Winston Road, both sides,
fro~ State College Boulevard to Vernon Street. Also submitted and reviewed
were reports from the City Attorney voicing no objections, and from the City
Engineer recommending the preparation of an ordinance for Council consideration
whichwould impose the restrictions as requested.
ORDINANCE NO. 3325: Councilwoman Kaywood offered Ordinance No. 3325 for first
reading.
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AMENDING TITLE 14, CHAPTER 14.32, SECTION
14.32.190 PERTAINING TO PARKING. (No Parking Any Time, Streets Designated;
Winston Road, both sides, from State College Boulevard to Vernon Street;
Vernon Street, both sides, from Cerritos Avenue to Winston Road)
REQUEST - ROOM TAX PENALTY~ HOLIDAY INN OF ANAHEIM: .Communication dated June 26,
1974, from Gary J. Porteous, Regional Vice President of Holiday Inn, was submit-
ted requesting Council consideration of $835.17 penalty assessed Holiday Inn of
Anaheim by the City License ColleCtor, due to late payment of the Hatch, 1974
roo~ tax, received by the City Hay 6, 1974, which was due April 30, 1974. Also
submitted and reviewed were reports from the City Attorney and the License Col-
lector.
Hr. Gary Porteous, 1850 South Harbor Boulevard, Anaheim, addressed
the Council advising that the Narch room tax payment was mailed from the Holiday
Inn home office on April 29, 1974; that if necessary he could produce the
cancelled check carrying the April 29, 1974 date; and that payments have previous-
ly been made on time. Further, he reported that steps have been taken to
insure that the future payments will be mailed earlier in the month to avoid
penalties for late delivery.
Council discussion was held, and a check with the License Division
revealed that the envelope in which the room tax payment was mailed had not
been retained after the late penalty was paid.
City Attorney Alan Watts advised that if evidence can be presented
that the payment was mailed on time, the City Council might wish to consider
refund of the penalty which was subsequently paid.
.Councilman SneeZes moved that the penalty payment in the amount of
$835.17 be refunded to Holiday Inn of Anaheim, provided that the cancelled
check bearing the date April 29, 1974, is submitted. Council=an Pebley seconded
the motion. MOTION CARRIED,
At the request of Mayor Thom, the staff was directed to retain all
envelopes received which contain late payments of room taxes.
74-742
Cit~ Hallt Anaheimt California - COUNCIL MINUTES - Jul7 23~ 1974~ 1:30 P.M.
REQUEST - REPAIRS AND MAINTENANCE~ RED CROSS HOUSE DRIVEWAYS AND PARKING AREA: Com-
munication dated July 3, 1974, from Mr. Edward S. Colburn, Manager of the Orange
County Chapter, American Red Cross, was submitted requesting that the City give
assistance in repairing and maintaining access driveways and parking area serving
both the Red Cross House, located at 418 North West Street, and the Mother Colony
House next door. It was pointed out that the two access drives are located on
either side of the Mother Colony House, thenortherly drive being owned by both
the Red Cross and the City, while the southerly drive is a private driveway owned
by Mrs. J. J. Dwyer, who resides on adjacent property to the south, both being
used by the general public to gain access to the parking lot at the rear.
On the recommendations of the Director of Public Works, Councilman
Seymour moved that the matter be referred to the City Attorney and the Public
Works Director, and if the necessary access and easement rights for parking can
be obtained from Mrs. Dwyer, in exchange the City will repair and maintain these
areas. Councilwoman Kaywood seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED.
FINAL HAP~ TRACT NO. 8320: Anaheim Memorial Hospital Assoication, Owner; tract located
at the northwest corner of La Palma Avenue and West Street, and contains two C-O
zoned lots (Reclassification No. 72-73-34 and Conditional Use Permit No. 1375).
The City Engineer recommended approval and reported that said final map
conforms substantially with the tentative map previously approved, that bond has
been posted and forwarded to the City Attorney for approval, and required fees
paid.
On the recommendations of the City Engineer, Councilman Seymour moved
that Final Map, Tract No. 8320, be approved. Councilman Thom seconded the motion.
MOTION CARRIED.
RESOLUTION NO. 74R-364 - AWARD OF ~ORK ORDER NO. 830: In accordance with recommenda-
tions of the City Engineer, Councilman Sneegas offered ResolUtion No. 74R-364 for
adoption.
Refer to Resolution Book.
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM ACCEPTING A SEALED PRO-
POSAL AI~ AWARDING A CONTRACT TO THE LOWEST RESPONSIBLE BIDDER FOR THE FURNISHING
OF ALL PLANT, LABOR, SERVICES, MATERIALS AND EQUIPMENT AND ALL UTILITIES AND
TRANSPORTATION, INCLUDING POWER, FUEL AND WATER, AND PERFORMING ALL WORK NECESSARY
TO CONSTRUCT AND COMPLETE THE FOLLOWING PUBLIC IMPROVEMENT: PARKWAY MAINTENANCE
OFFICE BUILDING ADDITION, 1426 EAST VERMONT AVENUE, IN THE CITY OF ANAHEIM, WORK
ORDER NO. 830. (Orange County Environmental Developers, Inc. - $42,300.00)
Roll Call Vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
Kaywood, Seymour, Pebley, Sneegas and Thom
None
None
TheMayor declared Resolution No. 74R-364 duly passed and adopted.
RESOLUTION NO. 74R-365 - WORK ORDER NO. 708,B: Upon receipt of certification from the
Director of Public Works, Councilman Pebley offered Resolution No. 74R-365 for
adoption.
Refer to Resolution Book.
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM FINALLY ACCEPTING THE
CONFLETIONAND.THE lmJ~NIS~ING OF ALL PLANT, LABOR, SERVICES, MATERIALS AND EQUIP-
MENT AND ALL UTILITIES AND TRANSPORTATION INCLUDING POWER, FUEL AND WATER, AND
THE PERFORMANCE OF ALL WORK NECESSARY TO CONSTRUCT AND COMPLETE THE FOLLOWING
PUBLIC INPROVEMENT TO WIT: NOHL RANCH ROAD STREET IMPROVEMENT, FROM HILLCREST
STREET TO IMPERIAL HIGHWAY, IN THE CITY OF ANAHEIM, WORK ORDER NO. 708-B.
(R. J. Noble Company)
Roll Call Vote:
74-743
City Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - July 23~ 1974., 1:30 P.H.
AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Kaywood, Seymour, Pebley, Sneegas and Thom
NOES: COUNCIL MENBERS: None
ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: None
The Hayor declared Resolution No. 74R,365 duly passed and adopted.
REBOLUT.ION NO. 74R-366 - DEEDS OF EASEMENT: Concilman Pebley offered Resolution No.
741-366 for adoption.
Refer to Resolution Book.
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF Alit/EIM ACCEPTIN~ CERTAIN DEEDS
AND ORDERING THEIR RECORDATION. (Anaheim Hills, Inc., and Texaco Anaheim Hills,
Inc.; AnaheimHills, Inc. and Texaco Anaheim Hills, Inc.; Anaheim, Hills, Inc.,
and Texaco Anaheim Hills, Inc.; Richard B. Campos and wife; National Diversified
Investors; Henry B. Wesseln and wife; Westly Charles Collier and wife; KEZY
Radio, Inc.; KEZY Radio, Inc.; Lee H. Stracner and wife; Jerrold R. Travers and
wife; Thomas W. Bunnel and wife)
Roll Call Vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
COUNCIL HEMMERS: Kaywood, Seymour, Pebley, Sneegas and Thom
COUNCIL MEMBERS: None
COUNCIL MEMBERS: None
The Mayor declared Resolution No. 74R-366 duly passed and adopted.
RESOLUTION NO. 74R-367;, EXECUTION OF DEEDS~ CITY-OWNED PROPERTY: On the recommenda-
tions of the City Attorney, Council~an Seymour offered Resolution No. 74R-367
for adoption.
Refer to Resolution Book.
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AUTHORIZING AND DIRECT-
ING THE EXECUTION OF DEEDS TO CONVEY CERTAIN PARCELS OF CITY-OWNED PROPERTY.
(John KraJacic; John KraJacic; Franz Lazarus; Hobbs Trucking Co.; Hunsaker
Properties)
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-367 duly passed and adopted.
PURCHASE OF PROPERTY- WILLDAN ENGINEERING: The City Manager reported on proposed
acquisition of the Willdan Engineering land and building located at 125 South
Claudina Street, referring to report fr°m the City Engineer dated July 19, 1974,
advising that the owners are in agreement to the purchase of their property for
a total consideration of $205,000, including any and all relocation costs, sub-
Ject .to the following:
1. Eecrow to close within 60 days from acceptance of proposal by
the Council to provide additional cash flow for Willdan to proceed with reloca-
tion program.
2. Willdan be permittad to remain in their present location rent free
from the close of escrow until City takes possession. Said rent free period
will not extend beyond February, 1975.
· 3. Willdan gn~ineering will endeavor to proceed with the purchase of
land at Broadway and AnaheimBoulevard, and take all steps necessary to expedite
the construction and completion of their proposed new facility.
4. Willdanwill endeavor to vacate their present premises within a
time rrm suitable to the City's need. Hopefully by February, 19'75.
The City to provide temporary parking for Willdan personnel during
and after construction of their new facility until such time as parking facili-
ties to be providedas a part of the Civic Center Complex are completed.
74-744
City Hall~ An~,,heim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - July 23~ 1974~ 1:30 P.M.
The Willdan Co. and Redevelopment Agency enter into a suitable
owner-agency agreement; the form and type of which is to be approved by the City
Attorney's office.
5. Willdan will vacate existing tenants prior to February, 1975.
Mr. Hurdoch clarified a point contained in the Engineer's report, advis-
ing that Item No. 4, should be modified to reflect that Wil!dan Engineering will
commit to vacating all tenants of the building by February 1, 1975. He reported
that the firm is to build another facility within the two-block Civic Center area,
at the corner of Broadway and Anaheim Boulevard, and in order to accomplish that
and fit into the City's redevalop~e~t plan, their parking requirements, and
e~ctly how the City will participate therein, will have to be included in the
total parking provisions for the entire Civic Center area, for which precise plan-
ning has not yet been completed; however, they do have a conceptual agreement with
the City that the parking utilization must be worked out so that they do not estab-
lish a parking lot on a portion of the designated building site.
Mr. Murdoch noted that ~here is a possibility of some delay on the
delivery date, should there be inaction or deferred action on the City's part, or
possibly inability to meet the requirements to go ahead for delivery on February 1,
1975, and in that event, it is suggested that the City Council may have to request
an extension for the delivery date.
Councilman Seymour expressed concern that should there be any delay on
the part of Willdan Engineering, the City Council not be obligated to grant an
extension.
Mr. Murdoch advised that the only extension which might be granted would
be on the basis of delayed action or inability on the City's part to meet require-
ments to go ahead; that Willdan Engineering is pointing out that they hope the
City will be reasonable, if and when they might have to seek release on that basis.
On the recommendations of the City Manager, Councilman Thom moved that
the City Attorney be authorized to prepare necessary purchase agreement along the
guidelines as outlined above, and to notify Willdan Engineering of the City's
acceptance of their offer. Councilman Pebley seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED.
Councilwoman Kaywood expressed concern that the agreement should state
that the $205,000 amount includes tenant relocation.
CLAIMAGAINST THE CITY: Claim submitted by Wayne S. Snapp for damages to vehicle,
purportedly resulting from collision with a City truck, on or about July 15, 1974,
was denied as recomended by the City Attorney and ordered referred to the insur-
ance carrier, on motion by Councilman Pebley, seconded by Councilman Sneegas.
MOTION CARRIED.
PROPOSED SID~WAI~ INSTALLATION PROGRAHALONG ARTERIAL STREETS: City Engineer James P.
Maddox b£iefed the contents of his report dated July 2, 1974, recommending that
sidewalks be installed in the Fiscal Year, 1974-75 along those arterial streets
as described in said report, by use of gas tax funds, and advised that Item No.
5 on the list of sidewalk installation projects is to be combined with the side-
walk improvement along the north side of Katella Avenue between Nutwood and
Brookhurst Streets, which is listed as the most urgent requirement.
Reference was made to request for sidewalks along the north side of
Katella Avenue by Mrs. Jean Patterson, and Traffic Engineer Paul Singer reported
that the project in question would fulfill her request.
Hr. ltmddox furthar reported that adjustments may be made to the priority
list contained in his report, since other outside factors may influence the order
of priority.
Councilman Pebleymoved that the City Council accept the recommendation
of the City Ensineer and authorize the implementation of the program for sidewalk
installation along arterial streets during the Fiscal Year, 1974-75, as described
in the report, usin~ gas tax funds. Councilvo~an Kayvood seconded the~otion.
74-745
Cit7 Hal~ ~ Anaheimv California - COUNCIL MIKOTES - July 23~ 1974~ 1:30 P.M.
Further discussion was held by the Council, and Councilman Seymour
asked the cost difference between installing sidewalks in asphalt and in concrete.
The City Engineer noted that the costs would probably be less using
asphalt, in the future, when streets are to be widened, it would be less costly
to remove the asphalt sidewalks than to remove concrete.
Councilwoman Iiay3eood asked if it would be economical, should these
temporary asphalt sidewalks need maintenance prior to the times streets are
widened and permanent sidewalks installed.
Mr. Naddox advised chis would depend on the amount and type of mainte-
nance needed; that for at least a six- to eight-year period, installation of
asphalt sidewalks ~ould be the more economical method.
Councilman Seymour asked if the necessary rights-of-way ~ould be
obtained within six to eight years.
'Mr. Naddox was of the opinion that many of the rights-of-way on those
streets named in the report would be obtained within that length of time.
It was noted that the list of projects indicate some sidewalks to be
constructed of asphalt, while others are designated of concrete.'
In response to question by Councilman Sneesas, the City Attorney repor-
ted that the State's Highways Code provides for maintenance of these sidewalks
by the property ovmers, however in Anaheim there is a City Division that repairs
sidewalks at the City's expense on a limited basis, basically ~here roots of
parkway trees destroy the sidewalks; however if the damage is done by tree roots
from the owner's property, he would be billed for the repairs.
CARRIED,
_.u~__.~Tl_m2_ HO..741L-368 - WORK ORDER NO. 725-A: Councilman Pebley offered
Resolution No. 74R-368 for adoption.
Refer to Resolution Book.
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEL~ FINDING AND DETERMINING
THAT PUBLIC CONVENIENCE AND NECESSITY REQUIRE THE CONSTRUCTION AND COHPLETION OF
'A PUBLIC INPROVEHENT, TO WIT: THE KATELLA AVENUE-BROOK]tURST STREET SIDEWALK
I1~~, IN THE CITY OF ANAHEIH, ~ORK ORDER NO. 725-A. APPROVING THE DESIGNS,
PLANS, PROFILES, DRAWINGS AND SPECIFICATIONS FOR THE CONSTRUCTION THEREOF; AUTHO-
RIZING THE CONSTRUCTION OF SAID PUBLIC IHPROVENENT IN ACCORDANCE WITH'SAID PLANS,
SPECIFICATIONS, ETC.; AND AUTHORIZING AND DIRECTING THE CITY CLERK TO PUBLISH A
NOTICE INVITING SEALED PROPOSALS FOR THE CONSTRUCTION THEREOF. (Bids to be
Opened - August 15, 1974, 2:00 P.M.)
Roll Call Vote:
AYES: COUNCIL HENBERS:
NOES: COUNCIL HEHBERS:
ABSENT: COUNCIL~IiBERS:
Kay~ood, Seymour, Pebley, Sneegas and Thom
None
None
The Hayer declared Resolution'No. 74R-368 duly passed and adopted.
COaDm~PONDEHCE: The following correspondence was ordered received and filed, on
motion by Councilman Sneesas, seconded by Councilman Pebley:
· a. City of Seal Beach - Resolution No. 2338 - Urging the League of
California Cities to promote a Legishtive Program to minimize the effects of
excessive litigation on necessary public works projects.
b. City of Seal Beach , Resolution No. 2339 - Opposing Senate Bill
2408 vhichvould require the licensing of police officers by a statewide com-
mission.
c. Airport Land Use Comnission for OTange County - Notice of Meeting,
July 11, 1974.
74-746
City Hall~ ~h~im~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - July 23~ 1974~ 1:30 P.M.
Airport Land Use Comission for Orange County - Minutes - June 20,
1974.
d. Financial and Operating Reports for the Month of June, 1974 for the
Building and Engineering DivisiOns.
e. Before the Federal Communications Co~ission - Memorandum Opinion
and Order - Theta Cable of California - Anaheim Hills, Anaheim, California -
Request for Special Temporary Authority.
f. Municipal Water District of Orange County - Monthly Meeting Calen-
dar/Annual Meeting Calendar.
g. Anaheim Parks and Recreation Co~mission - Minutes - June 20, 1974.
~OTION CARRIED.
ORDINANCE NO. 3319: Councilman Sneegas offered Ordinance No. 3319 for adoption.
Refer to Ordinance Book.
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AMENDING TITLE 14, CHAPTER 14.32, SECTION
14.32.190 PERTAINING TO PARKING. (No Parking Any Time, Park Vista Street, east
side, fro~ 650 feet north of Dutch Avenue to Dutch Avenue)
Roll Call Vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
Kaywood, Seymour, Pebley, Sneegas and Thom
None
None
The Mayor declared Ordinance No. 3319 duly passed and adopted.
ORDINANCE NO. 3320: Councilwoman Kayvood offered Ordinance No. 3320 for adoption.
Refer to Ordinance Book.
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AMENDING TITLE 18 OF THE. ANAHEIMMUNICIPAL
CODE RELATING TO ZONING. (71-72-44 (8) - Tract No. 8141, RS-5000)
Roll Call Vote:
AYES: COUNCIL HEHBERS: KayWOod, Seymour, Pebley, Sneegas and Thom
NOES: COUNCILMENBBRS: None
ABSENT: COUNCIL HEHBERS: None
The Mayor declared Ordinance No. 3320 duly passed and adopted.
ORDINANCE NO. 3321: Councilman Sneegas offered Ordinance No. 3321 for adoption.
Refer to Ordinance Book.
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM ANENDING TITLE 18 OF THE ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL
CODE RELATING TO ZONING. (71-72-30 (3) - Tract No. 7736, R-i)
Roll Call Vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
COUNCIL I~HBERS: Kaywood, Seymour, Pebley, Sneegas and Thom
COUNCILM~fBERS: None
COUNCIL HEHBERS: None
The Mayor declared Ordinance No. 3321 duly passed and adopted.
ORDINANCE NO.. 3322:. Councilman Thom offered Ordinance No, 3322 for adoption.
Refer to Ordinance Book.
AN ORDI~iNCE OF THE CITY OFAN~_~IMAMENDING TITLE 18 OF THE ANAHELMMUNICIPAL
CODE REIATI~ TO ZONING. (69-70-55 (6) - M-l)
Roil'Call Vote:
74-747
F
City Ha11, Anaheim~ California - CO, IL MINOTES - Jul7 23~ 1974, 1:30 P.M.
AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Kaywood, Seymour, Pebley, Sneegas and Thom
NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: None
ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: None
The Mayor declared Ordinance No. 3322 dUly passed and adopted.
ORDIN~ ~0. 3323: Councilwoman Kayvood offered Ordinance No. 3323 for adoption.
R~fer to Ordinance Book.
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF AN~XlMAMENDING TITLE 18 OF THE ANAIiEIMMUNICIPAL
CODE RELATING TO ZONING. (66-67-61 (61) - C-R)
Roll Call Vote:
AYES: COUNCIL HEHBERS:
NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS:
ABSENT: COUNCIL H EMBERS:
Kaywood, Seymour, Pebley, Sneegas and Thom
None
None
The Mayor declared Ordinance No. 3323 duly passed and adopted.
OIDINAN~.E NO. 3326: Councilman Sneegas offered Ordinance No. 3326 for first reading.
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AMENDING TITLE 18 OF THE ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL
CODE RELATING TO ZONING. (63-64-90 (3) -'C-O)
ORDINANCE NO. 3327: Councilwoman Kaywood offered Ordinance No. 3327 for first reading.
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AHENDING TITLE 18 OF THE ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL
CODE RELATING TO ZONING. (72-73h51 (9) - R-H-22,000)
ORDINAl.E NO. 3328: Councilman Sneegas offered Ordinance No. 3328 for first reading.
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANA~r~_.IMAHENDING TITLE 18 OF THE ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL
CODE RELATING TO ZONING. (70-71-5 (2) - M-I)
FIP~O~ PERM. IT - SOFITfERN CALIFORNIA "SUN": The City Council, at their regular
meeting held July 16, 1974, granted permission for the Southern California "Sun",
World Football'League (California Fireworks Display Company), to display fire-
works during their opening game at the'Anaheim Stadium, July 17, 1974 only. In-
asmuch as the original request was to display fireworks for the duration of the
World Football League season, the matter was taken up again at this time.
The City Hanager reported that no complaints had been received follow-
the openin$ ga~e.
Council discussion was held, and Councilwoman Kaywood stated she found
the fireworks displayed at the first game very loudand disturbing, and although
she raceived no co. plaints from the public, she was concerned about future com-
plaints after school starts.
Council~en Seymour and Pebleyindicated they had no objections to the
permit so lon~ as no co,plaints were received..
Councilman Sneesas pointed out that there have been complaints about
noise of fireworks at Disneyland, especially during school months, and although
the fireworks add color and excitement to the game, he expressed concern that if
the permit were granted with no reservations, and subsequent complaints received,
there would be a serious problem. He stated he would be willing to approve the
permit subject to withdrawal if complaints become excessive, and he was of the
opinion that copies of ail complaints received should be routed to the Southern
California "Sun".
On motion by Councilman Seymour, seconded by Council~an Pebley, fire-
works permit was iranted for the 1974 season, subject to withdrawal at any time
at the option of the Clty Council, should noise complaints become excessive;
copies of all complaints to be forwarded to the Southern California "Sun" To
this motion, Counctlwoman Kaywood voted "no". MOTION CARRIED.
74-748
City Ball~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - July 23~ 1974~ 1:30 P.M.
RESOLUTION NO. 74R-369: On report and recommendation of the Director of Public
Utilities and the City Attorney, Councilman Seymour offered Resolution No.
74R-369 for adoption.
Refer to Resolution Book.
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEI2iAPPROVING THE TERNS AND
CONDITIONS OF AN AGREEMENT NITH ANAHgIM HILLS, INC. TO REIMBURSE ANAHEIM HILLS,
INC. FOR CONSTRUCTING AND DESIGNING VARIOUS WATER TRANSMISSION NAINS AND AUTHO-
RIZING THE MAYOR AND CITY CLERK TO EXECUTE SAID AGREEMENT.
Roll Call Vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
COUNCIL HEHBERS:
COUNCIL HEHBERS:
COUNCIL HEHB~S:
Kaywood, Seymour, Pebley, Sneegas and Thom
None
None
The Hayor declared Resolution No. 74R-369 duly passed and adopted.
CLARIFICATION OF ARTICLES IN THE pRESS: City Nanager leith A. Murdoch called attention
to certain articles appearing in the press, and clarified as followed:
A. Los Angeles Times article by Earl Gutsy, stating that the City con-
tract with the World Football League requires the City to add seating to a total
of 66,000 when attendance warrants. Mr. Murdoch reported that the contract act-
ually provides that after two consecutive years of attendance exceeding 80% of
capacity, negotiations are to be held to determine whether additional seating
will be provided.
B. Anaheim Bulletin article by Ron Kirkpatrick stated that the City
Manager and City Attorney reported to-the Redevelopment Co~mission that the City
Council, in a private Executive Session, determined that the Commission move ahead
with the proposal for the Civic Center and redevelopment of the two-block area,
as recommended. Mr. Murdoch advised that the matter was actually discussed in
the regular City Council meeting of July 16, 1974, as reflected in the Minutes.
RESOLUTION NO. 74R-370 - AMENDMENT TO SALARY RESOLUTION: .Report from the Personnel
Director dated July 18, 1974, recommended amendment to the salary resolution add-
ing six new Job classifications, and establishing salary schedules therefore.
Rayor Thom questioned the Job :classification of Affirmative Employment
Assistant, advising he had anticipated that the present Personnel Department staff
would absorb the additional work.
Mr. Murdoch advised that the projected position was to help implement
the recruiting activity and necessary factors towards carrying out an Affirmative
Action Program, and it is expected it will be necessary to employ someone in this
position under P.E.P. funding, to help with processing of the applicants.
Mr. David Hill, of the Personnel Department, further explained the ex-
pected heavy increase in volume of activity, advising that under the program,
someone must be in the field and in contact with the various groups in order to
meet our Affirmative Action commitments and goals. Further, whenthe program is
established, there will be an extensive increase in record keeping required.
RESOLUTION NO. 74R-370: Councilman Sneegas offered Resolution No. 74R-370 for
adoption.
Refer to Resolution Book.
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHELMAMENDING RESOLUTION NO.
73R-490 AND RESOLUTION NO. 74R-95, ESTABLISHING NEW JOB CLASSIFICATIONS AND RATES
OF PAY.
Poll Call Vote:
AYES: COUNCIL MIg~BERS:
NOES: COUNCIL MEMB~:
ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS:
Kaywood, Seymour, Pebley, Sneegas and Thom
None
None
The Rayor declared Resolution No. 74R-370 duly passed and adopted.
74-749
F
City f~_l__l, Anabeima California - ~NCIL MINUTES - Jul~ 23 ~ 1974 ~ !: 30 P .M.
RE,JEST - WAIVER OF BUSINESS LICENSE FEE: The City Clerk presented request dated
July 12, 1974, from E. R. Fi'~cher, Co-Chairman of the AnaheimActive 20-30
Club, requesting waiver of business license fee for a carnival to be held at
the Euclid Shoppin$ Center, located at Euclid Street and Katella Avenue, July 24
throush 28, 1974, all funds realized by the Club to be used for charity projects.
Mr. Ray Dorfman, President of the Club, addressed the Council advising
that Club Members will operate one game booth, and the central booths to sell
tickets to all rides.
Councilman Seymour moved that the Waiver of license fee be approved
for only those booths and activities operated by members of the 20-30 Club, in
accordance with recommendations of the Chief of Police; that representative of
management from the Christiansen Amusement Company meet with Lt. Dale Wilcox of
the Anaheim Police Department to discuss City and State gamins laws, and the
manner in which the carnival will be conducted. Councilman Thom seconded the
motion. MOTION 'CARRIED.
APPOINTMENT - PARKS AND RECP, EATION CONMISSION: Councilwoman Kaywood called attention
to mppoin~m~nt by the Anaheim'Union High School District Board of Trustees of
Miss R. I. '~olly" McGee to the Parks and Recreation Commission replacing James
P. Bonnell, term end,ins June 30, 1977; and thereupon moved said appointment be
accepted by the City Council. Councilman Thom seconded the motion. MOTION
CARRIED.
ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS - REPLACEMENT OF MEMBERm RO~ GASPERS:
Councilwoman ~ayvood reported that California State Assemblyman JOhn Briggs has
authored Assembly Bill 4493, proposing to bring the issue of a replacement for
Supervisor Ronald Gaspers, deceased, before the electorate on November 5, 1974,
as in preference to direct appointment by the Governor.
Councilman SeymOur moved that the City Council support Assembly Bill
4493. Councilwoman Kayvood seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED.
LITIGATION - ~GE UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICTm ET AL VERSUS THE CITY OF ANAHEI~ BT AL:
Atthe invitation of Councilmen Seymour, Mr. John Millick, Vice President of
Anaheim Hills, Inc., presented:agre~nt signed by representatives of the Orange
Unified School District, Anahe~aHills,~ Inc., and Texaco Anaheim Hills, Inc.;
said agreement resolving three law suits filed by the Orange Unified School
District, et al, asa~nst the City of Anaheim, et al.
Councilman Seymour expressed appreciation of the cooperation received
fro~AnaheimHills, lac., and noted that a great deal can be accomplished when
people sit down and work together.
ADJO~: Councilman Pebleymoved to adjourn to Monday, July 29, 1974, at 7:30
P.M., for the purpose of a Joint work session with the Anaheim City Planning
Co~ssion. Councilmen SneeSas seconded the motion, MOTION CARRIED.
Adjourned: 5:30 P.M.
Si~ned~
City Clerk