1974/08/2074-815
Ci.t~ Hall, Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - August, 20~ 1974~ 1:30 P.M.
The City. Council of the City of Anaheim met in regular session.
ABSENT:
PRESENT:
COUNCIL HEMMERS: Kaywood, Seymour (arrived 1:35 P.M.), Pebley, Sneegas
and Thom
COUNCIL MEMBERS: None
CITY MANAGER: Keith A. Murdoch
CITY ATTORNEY: Alan R. Watts
CITY CLERK: Aloha M. Houiard
DEPUTY CITY CLERK: Linda D. Roberts
UTILITIES DIRECTOR: Gordon W. Hoyt
FINANCE DIRECTOR: M. R. Ringer
PERSONNEL DIRECTOR: Garry O. McRae
CITY ENGINEER: James P. Haddox
ASSISTANT DIRECTOR OF DEVELOPMENT SERVICES: Ronald Thompson
CHIEF BUILDING INSPECTOR: Dan.Van Dorpe
ZONING SUPERVISOR: Charles Roberts
FIRE HARSHAL: B. C. Phillips
Mayor Thom called the meeting to order.
INVOCATION: Reverend Jack Troutman of the West Anaheim United Methodist Church
gave the Invocation.
FLAG SALUTE: Councilman Calvin L. Pebley led the Assembly in the Pledge of
Allegiance to the Flag.
MINUTES: Minutes of the Anaheim City Council Regular Meeting held July 23, 1974 were
approved as corrected, deleting the words "as an alternative" from Page 74-749,
Paragraph No. 5 of said Minutes, and inserting "on November 5,' 1974, in prefer-
ence to direct appointment by the Governor", on motion by Councilwoman Kaywood,
seconded by Councilman Sneegas. MOTION CARRIED.
WAIVER QF 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. Councilwoman. Kaywood .seconded the motion. MOTION
UNANIMOUSLY CARRIED.
REPORT - FINANCIAL DEMANDS AGAINST THE CITY: Demands against the City in the amount
of $748,397.07, in accordance with the 1974-75 Budget, were approved.
CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING - HOUSEMOVING: Submitted by G. Fronseca requesting a permit
to move a structure from 3630 West 17th Street, Santa Ann to 1619 Pounders Lane,
Anaheim. (Continued from the meetings of July 16 and 23, 1974, to allow the
applicant time to purchase another house to move onto the Pounders Lane site.)
The Deputy City Clerk advised that Mr. Fronseca, by telephone, reques-
ted this public hearing be continued until such time as he had located a suitable
structure, and that a letter would follow, however, to date no written communica-
tion has been received.
Councilwoman Kaywood moved that the public hearing on housemoving per-
mit requested by Hr. Fronseca be continued for six weeks, and following Council
discussion, restated the motion to continue said public hearing for four weeks to
the meeting of September 17, 1974. Councilman Sneegas seconded the motion.
MOTION CARRIED.
~LIC ~ING - HOUSEMOVING: Application by John KraJacic, requesting permit to move
a structure from 2174 West Catalpa Avenue, Anaheim, to 1407'Damon Avenue, Anaheim,
was submitted for review by the City Council together with report from Development
Services Department, recommending that structural modifications be brought into
conformance with the Building Code if the request for housemoving is approved.
Hr. Roberts reported a discrepancy re~arding Finding No. 3 of the
Development SerVices Department report which stated that the .plot planwotttd be
in compliance with the Zoning Code, as the house proposed to be moved does not
meet the specified minimum square footagein floor area for a single-fa~ily resi-
dence. The original house was 1,000-square feet and there was a 180-square foot
74-816
City Hall~ A~heim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - August 20~ ~974~ 1:30 P.M.
room addition, for a total of 1,180-square feet, whereas the minimum required
square footage is 1,225. In addition, he reported that the plot plan indicates
the garage on the dwelling unit would be set back ten feet from the front property
line and there is no indication as to whether the garage would be entered directly
from the street or by a swing drive. Mr. Roberts stated that if the applicant is
proposing a swing drive, then the front setback requirement, pursuant to the R-1
site development standards, would be 25 feet.
The Mayor asked if the applicant were present and wished to address the
Council.
Mr. John KraJacic, 1677 West Beacon Avenue, advised he would, like to
locate the garage ten feet from the front property line with a swing drive, as he
wishes to retain as large a rear yard as possible. In answer to the Mayor, Mr.
Krajacic advised that if it is necessary, he would make the modifications_re-
quired,'possibly by the addition of closets, to add the additional 30- to 40-
square feet which would bring the square footage up to the Code minimum.
Mr. Roberts noted that a six- to ten-foot setback is only permitted by
Code when the garage door is parallel to the center line of the street and the
garage is equipped with an automatic electric door opener, and this would apply
if Mr. KraJacic elects to change the garage door orientation from what is indica-
ted on his plot plan.
Mr. Krajacic advised he would change his plans and comply with the Code
requirements for a ten-foot setback.
The Council reviewed the file and the photographs of the proposed move-
on structure.
Councilman Seymour took exception to Finding No. 6 of the Development
Services Department report, advising that he has extensive personal knowledge of
both the move-on structure and the homes on Damon Street and their respective
values, and, in his opinion, the basic structure and the value would not be
comparable.
In answer to Councilman Seymour, Mr. KraJacic advised that he intends
to either rent or sell subject move-on structure. He contended that a home was
recently sold on Damon Street for the sum of $27,000, whereas he felt he could
realize $35,000 for subject move-on when complete. Further, Mr. KraJacic asser-
ted that he could not build a structure on subject property at the cost of con-
struction plus the price which he paid for the lot and still have a price which
would be competitive with the neighborhood. He referred to the move-on house
which he completed at North Street'upon which he received many compliments.
Councilman Seymour stated that the house which Mr. KraJacic moved to
the North Street location was initially a better quality structure whereas the
basic structure of the subject proposed move-on is not of similar quality.
The Mayor asked if anyone wished to address the Council, either in
favor or in opposition to the proposed housemoving.
Mr. L. B. Shultz, 1431 Damon Avenue, reported that he had viewed the
proposed move-on house and that he concurred with Councilman Seymour that it is
not compatible with homes existing in the Damon Street neighborhood. He stated
· that the subject move-on appears to be one of the lower priced tract homes built
in the late 1940's or early 1950's and has a iow profile roof. He stated that
the homes in this particular block have cedar shingle roofs and that he could not
see how structurally the subject house could be brought up to Code requirements
and to the neighborhood standards without completely dismantling and rebuilding
the home.
Mr. Paul Yorde, 1422 Damon Avenue, spoke in opposition to the proposed
move-on citing that the existing homes on Damon Avenue were all custom built,
with cement driveways, block walls and are maintained in excellent condition.
That in the area eastof Pythias Street on Damon Avenue, here are older homes,
however, the newer area west of Pythias Street contains all custom homes. He
advised.that he would not object to a move-on structure per se, but feels that
this particular house would detract from the area and lower the property values.
74-817
F
F
City Ha11, Anaheim.~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - August 20~ 1974~ 1:30 P.M.
The Mayor asked if anyone else wished to address the Council and' hear-
inS no response offered the applicant a few minutes for rebuttal.
Mr. KraJacic stated that although his own home Originally cost $11,000,
it is now worth considerably more, and that subject move-on, in similar ~anner,
is today worth more money and would be of comparable value when complete.
Mayor Thom closed the hearing.
Councilman Seymour reiterated that being familiar with the values of
both the move-on structure, which was built with very inexpensive construction
techniques, and the houses on Damon Street, that he could not agree that this
move-on structure would be compatible, and therefore, he would oppose a permit to
conduct said housemovtng.
Councilman Sneegas agreed with Councilman Seymour, noting that it would
take considerable upgrading to bring the move-on intothe same values and stan-
dards of the area.
RESOLUTION NO. 74R-397: Councilman Seymour offered Resolution No. 74R-397 for
adOption, denying permit to move a structure from 2174 West Catalpa Avenue .to
1407 Damon Street, Anaheim.
Refer to Resolution Book.
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM DENYING A HOUSEMOVING
PERMIT TO JOHN KRAJACIC (1407 DAMON STREET).
Roll Call Vote:
AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS:
NOES: COUNCIL HEHBERS:
ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS:
Kaywood, Seymour, Pebley, Sneesas and Thom
None
None
The Mayor declared Resolution No. 74R-397 duly passed and adopted.
Later in the meeting, following public hearing and discussion on appli-
cation for housemoving permit to move a structure from 2189 Catalpa Avenue,
Anaheim, to 1503 South Nutwood Street, .Anaheim, .also submitted byJohn EraJacic,
Cotmcil indicated they would most likely approve housemoving permits for subject
sites if the structures proposed were suitable and compatible, .and, therefore,
continued both house~oving permits rather than deny same, saving, the applicant
the necessity of refiling and paying additional fees. Therefore, Resolution No.
74R-398 was adopted rescinding the foregoing Resolution No. 74R-397, and said
matter was continued to the meeting of September 17, 1974. (See Hinute Page 74-
819)
PUBLIC ~ - HOUS~I~OVING: Application by John KraJacic requesting permit to move'
a structure frma 2189 Catalpa Avenue, Anaheim, to 1503 South Nutwood Street,
Anaheim, was submitted together with report from Development Services Department
recommending said permit be approved.
The Deputy City Clerk submitted the following correspondence which was
received in opposition to said housemoving:
1. Co~unication from HMS. Paul L. Anders, 1511 South Nutwood Street,
dated August 13, 1974.
2. Co~unication from Mrs. Lynn S. Bednark, 1882 Lullaby Lane, Anaheim,
dated August 10, 1974.
3. Communication received fromMr, and Mrs. Richard LeBahn, 1456 South
Iva~hoe Street, Anaheim, received August 15, 1974.
4. Com~ication from HM. John T. Cooper, 1916 weSt'cerritos Avenue,
dated August 9, 1974.
5. Co~unications from S. G. and Charlotte Hollin~sworth, 1457 South
Nut~ood, dated August 10 and 12, 1974.
HM. Roberts reported that as far as site development standards are con
termed, the structure and placement on the property WOtttd be in cmepliance, as
proposed.
The Mayor asked if anyone wished to address the Council, either in
favor or in opposition to said housemoving.
74-818
City Rall~ A, rmheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - August 20~ 1,974~ 1:30 P.M.
Appearing in opposition to the proposed move-on were Mrs. Michael
Bednark, 1882 West Lullaby Lane, and Mr. William L. Richardson, 1922 West
Cerritos, property owners in the immediate area. Their main point of opposition
was that the home proposed to be moved in was far exceeded in both square footage
and value by those existing in the neighborhood. Hrs. Bednark advised that she
had recently been offered $49,500 for her home which is in excess of 2,300-square
feet.
Hr. Richardson indicated that he would also be opposed to the moving
into the neighborhood of any structure which would tend to downgrade the com-
munity and, in his opinion, this structure would do so. He submitted an additional
letter in opposition to this move-in from Mr. and Mrs. John E. Salisbury, 1925
West Cerritos, and requested a show of hands of those in the audience who were
attending the Council meeting to indicate their disapproval of subject housemovtng
permit. (Approximately eight to nine persons indicated their presence.)
The Mayor asked if anyone else wished to address the Council, there
being no response, offered the applicant a few minutes for rebuttal.
Hr. John KraJacic, 1677 West Beacon Avenue, contended that the neighbors
in the vicinity of Nutwood Street had indicated they would be willing to have
anything moved onto that property so that the problems associated with a vacant
lot such as weeds, refuse and children playing on same, would be alleviated. He
asserted that the structure he intends to move onto this site would be superior
to that existing immediately adjacent to it; that once the move-on was complete,
he would be able to sell it for $32,000; that the Council itself agreed when he
purchased subject property from the City that it would be suitable for a move-on.
He further felt that the residents .in the area were being unfair in that they had
not given him the opportunity to show what he could do with this property. He
was of the opinion that he could upgrade the property to standards which would be
compatible with the existing homes.
Councilman Seymour replied that, in his opinion, there was a discre-
pancy in value between the structure proposed to be moved onto 1407 D-mon Street
and the existing property surrounding it and that there is an even greater discrep-
ancy between the structure proposed to be moved onto this sitewith those sur-
rounding. He pointed out that the range of .property.values in this area extend
frem a low of $27,000 for a smaller home which might be in bad condition into the
mid $50,000 or $60,000 range. .He noted that none of the residents has opposed
Mr. KraJacic personally nor have they rejected the idea of a move-on but their
position is based primarily on the quality of the home to be moved in. He stated
that although Council might have agreed with Hr. KraJacic that the lot was suit-
able for a move-on structure, they certainly did not indicate that he could move
in Just any-structure -;regardless-of quality into the neighborhood.
Hr. KraJacic stated that he could not construct a new home on the prop-
erty because of the high cost of construction and that it is very difficult to
find any move-on homes for sale.
Mayor Thom closed the hearing.
Councilman Seymour noted that he found the same conditions to exist in
this situation as in the previous housemoving permit request, only to a greater
de~ree ~md, therefore, offered a resolution to deny said application for housemov-
lng permit.
Prior to voting on the foregoing resolution, Councilman Sneegas wished
to e~phasize that he for one did intend to approve a move-on structure for this
site, provided that the structure is appropriate for the area. He stated that he
co~curred that the proposed house is not of sufficient quality to be moved into
the Nutwood Street area because of its rather economical construction features,
and indicated he was not happy in having to deny Mr. KraJacic's request to use
his property in a certain manner, but that he had to do so since he felt that a
better subject could be found for the neighborhood.
Councilman Sneegas further advised Mr. KraJacic that prior to submitting
another proposed move-on structure for Council approval, that he first attempt to
74-819
F
City H alit Anaheim, California - COUNCIL HINUTES - August 20t 1974, 1:30 P~M.
gain the approval of the area residents, and if he does feel he can improve the
property to a great extent, to produce plans which reflect his intentions.
Councilman Pebley suggested, since there is evidently no rejection of
the idea of a house move-on per se, that the Council continue subject application
as well as the previous application for permit to move a structure to 1407 Damon
Street, rather than deny s~me, to allow the applicant an opportunity to obtain
higher quality move-on structures, thereby saving him the expense and difficulty
of refiling for new permits.
Following brief discussion the concensus of Council opinion was that
this would be the fair way to handle both applications submitted by Mr. [raJacic.
In answer to a gentleman 'from the audience who asked whether or not the
surrounding property owners in each of these two instances would once again be
notified of the public hearing on housemoving permits, the Mayor replied that
since this hearing is being continued to a date certain, this is the only notice
which will be given. However, since some individuals may have left from the pre-
vious public hearing prior to this action, notices would once again be sent to
the individuals on that list within 300 feet of subject property.
Councilman Seymour, in further explanation, outlined the remedy which
the surrounding property owners might employ if they wish to register further
objections to another proposed move-on structure, noting that if 50I or more of
property owners living within 300 feet of subject property are in opposition to a
house~oving that the Council has no prerogative but to endorse their opposition
and deny the permit.
Councilman Seymour withdrew his previous resolution to deny subject
hoUSe~oving permit.
On motion by Councilman Pebley, seconded by Councilman Sneegas, .the
application for permit to move a structure to 1503 South Nutwood Street was con-
tinued to September 17, 1974, to allow the applicant an opportunity to abeatn a
better grade home which would be more compatible~rlth those existing in. the pro-
posed relocation area. MOTION CARRIED.
The Council advised Hr. KraJacic that in both applications, it would be
in his best interest, upon locating different dwellings for move.'on, if he would
contact the adjacent property owners and advise them of his plans, prior to the
September 17, 1974 meeting.
RE~O. LUTION NO. 74R-398: Councilman Seymour offered ReSolution No. 74R-398 fOr
adoption rescinding Resolution No. 74R-397 which denied application for a per,it
to move a structure from 2174 West Catalpa Avenue to 1407 Damon Street, Anaheim.
Refer to Resolution Book.
A R~SOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM RESCINDING RESOLUTION
NO. 74R-397.
Roll Call Vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
COUNCIL I~BERS: Kayvood, Seymour, Pebley, Sneegas and Thom
COUNCIL MD~BEI~: None
COUNCIL NEHBERS: None
The Hayor declared Resolution No. 74R-398 duly passed and adopted.
On motion by Council~an Sneegas, seconded by CounCilv°~an Kayvood, the
application for permit to move a structure to 1407 Damon Street, Anaheim, was
continued to the meetingof September 17, 1974, to allow the applicant time to
obtain a better grade move-on structure which would be compatible with existing
ho~ea tn the neighborhood, NOTION CARRIED.
PU~IC ~ - CO~D. ITIO~AL USE PERMIT NOS. 1479 AND 1480: Zoning Supervisor Roberts
rePOrted that Conditional Use Permit Nos. 1479 and 1480 are similar in nature
although they apply to different parcels, but that any testhnony offered would
.aPPly toboth and both hearings could be condUcted concurrently.
74-820 o ~ ~_~, ~:'
City Hall~ Av~._heim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - August 20, 1974, 1:30 P.M.
By general consent, the Council indicated they would consider Conditional
Use Permit Nos. 1479 and 1480 together.
CONDITIi~AL USE PERMIT NO. 1479: Submitted by Gulf Oil Company to permit the
continued use of an existing billboard on C-2 zoned property located at the
southwest corner of Broadway and Anaheim Boulevard, with the following Code
waivers, was submitted together with application for exemption from requirement
to prepare an environmental impact report:
a. Permitted location.
b. Maximum height within 300 feet of a residential structure.
The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC74-147,
recommended that the City Council ratify the determination made by the Director
of Development Services that the proposed activity falls within the definition of
Section 3.01, Class No. 3 of the City of Anaheim Guidelines to the requirements
for an environmental impact report and are therefore categorically exempt, and
further granted said conditional use permit for a period of one year, retro-
actively from April 1, 1974 and expiring April 1, 1975, subject to the following
conditions:
1. That subject property shall be developed substantially in accordance
with plans and specifications on file with the City of Anaheim marked Exhibit No.
1.
2. That this conditional use permit is granted for a period of one (1)
year, retroactive to April 1, 1974 and to expire on April 1, 1975, at which time
the billboard shall be removed from the subject property.
Appeal from action taken by the City Planning Commission was filed by
Mr. Jay Kingry, District Representative, Pacific Outdoor Advertising Company and
public hearing scheduled this date.
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 1480: Application by Barbara Gilliam to permit the
continued use of two (2) existing billboards on C-2 zoned property located at the
northeast corner of Broadway and Anaheim Boulevard with the following Code waivers,
was submitted together with applicationfor exemption from the requirement to
prepare an environmental impact report:
a. Permitted location.
The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC74-148,
recommended that the City Council ratify the determination made by the Director
of Development Services that the proposed activity falls within the definition of
Section 3.01, Class No. 3 of the dity of Anaheim Guidelines to the requirements
for an environmental impact report and are, therefore, categorically exempt, and
further granted said conditional use permit for a period of one year, retro-
actively from April 1, 1974 and expiring April 1, 1975, subject to the following
conditions:
1. That subject property shall be developed substantially in accordance
with plans and spegifications on file with the City of Anaheim marked Exhibit No.
1.
2. That the owner(s) shall dedicate to the City of Anaheim a 25-foot
property line return for street purposes within a period of sixty (60) days
hereof.
3. That this conditional use permit is granted for a period of one (1)
year, retroactive to April 1, 1974 and to expire April 1, 1975, at which time the
billboards shall be removed from the subject property.
4. That, in the event the Community Redevelopment Agency acquires the
subject property for redevelopment, prior to expiration of this conditional use
pe~mit, all rights to severance d~m"ges for removal of the billboards are hereby
waived, as stipulated to by the petitioner.
Appeal from actions taken by the City Planning Commission was filed.by
Mr. Jay Kingry, District Representative, Pacific Outdoor Advertising Company and
public hearing scheduled this date.
74-821
F
City Ha..ll, Anaheimt California - COUNCIL MINUTES - August 20, 1974, 1:30 P.M.
Mr. Roberts reported that Conditional Use Permit No. 1479 refers, to
property located at the southwest corner of Anaheim Boulevard and Broadway. He
briefly described the surrounding land .uses and the Code waivers requested. He
noted in particular that waiver "a" in both conditional use permits is necessary
since the Anahe/mMuntcipal Code specifies locations in which billboards are per-
mitred and subject properties, being in the center city area, are specifically
excluded as permissible locations.
Mr. Roberts reported that building permits for these particular bill-
boards were issued in error, despite the restrictions listed in the Anaheim
Municipal Code. Following considerable discussion, the Planning Commission,
acted to permit the billboards to remain for one year retroactively to April 1,
1974 and expiring April 1, 1975.
In connection with the two billboards requested pursuant to Conditional
Use Permit No. 1480, (northeast corner of Broadway and Anaheim Boulevard) Mr.
Roberts reported that this particular parcel is located within the ProJect."Alpha"
area, however, Mr. Ktngry of Pacific Outdoor Advertising stipulated, that if they
are permitted to retain these two billboards, to vaive any rights to severance or
other damages should the Redevelopment Agency seek to acquire the property before
April 1, 1975, and the conditional use permit was approved by the Planning.Com-
mission on that basis.
The Mayor asked if the applicant or his agent were present and wished
to address the Council.
Mr. Jay Kingry representing Pacific 'Outdoor Advertising Company, advised
that the history of Conditional Use Permit Nos. 1479 and 1480 as related by Mr.
Roberts was correct. He stated that his purpose in appealing the Planning Con, nas-
sion decision was to ascertain whether or not Council would grant permission for
his company to obtain an electrical permit to install indirect lighting on the
two billboard signs immediately adjacent to Anaheim Boulevard only. The sign
adjacent to Broadway would not be so illuminated. He stated that without Council's
approval he would have difficulty obtaining the necessary permit since these are
non-conforming signs.
Mr. Kingry was of the opinion that Condition No. 2 of Planning Com-
mission Resolution No. PC74-148, Conditional Use Permit No. 1480, requiring that
the owner of the property dedicate a 25-foot property line return to the City of
Anaheim for street purposes within 60 days, would be more appropriate when the
property is developed to a more substantial use than the temporary installation
of a billboard. In conclusion, Hr. Kingry indicated that a portion of this
property is currently vacant and any further extension of time which Council
might 'wish to consider would be appreciated by his firm in order to regain some
part of the cost for the installation of these sisns. He added that a minimum of
complaints has been received relative to these sisns, only one letter having been
addressed to the City Planning Commission.
The Mayor asked if anyone in favor or in opposition to either Condi-
tional Use Permit Nos. 1479 or 1480wished to address the Council, and there
bein~ no response, declared the hearings closed.
Councilwoman Kaywood inquired of Hr. KinirY how long it takes his firm
to install a billboard sign, to which he replied that such a si~n could be
insta/led in one day but generally is accomplished over a two-day period.
Councilman Seymour stated that he would concur with the Plannin$ Com-
mission recoumendations, hovever, it did not seem to him that construction of a
billboard vould be the-appropriate time to obtain dedicatiOn of 'the radius return.
Further, he felt their request to illuminate the signs adjacent to Anaheim Boule-.
yard uae not unreasonable.
Councilwoman Kaywood asked the City Attorney if the City is.bound to
honor butldin~ pereits issued in error, as in this instance, to which Mr. Watts
replied that the Ctty would not have to honor same, ti issued in obvious error.
74-822
City Hall, Auahe~m~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - Ausust 20, 1974~ 1:30 P.M.
Councilwoman Kaywood voiced the opinion that to allow the installation
of electric lighting on these signs would be compounding the error and permitting
further misuse.
Both Councilmen Sneegas and Pebley indicated they viewed no problem in
this situation because of the stipulation made that all three billboards would be
removed either in April of 1975 or when the Redevelopment Agency acquires the
property, if sooner.
CAT~COR%;~_ ~TION FROM ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT
NOS. 1479 ~ 1480: On motion by Councilman Seymour, seconded by Councilman
Pebley, the City Council ratified the determination of the Director of. Development
Services that the proposed activities fall within the definition of Section 3.01,
Class No. 3 of the City of Anaheim Guidelines to the requirements for an environ-
mental impact report and are therefore categorically exempt from the requirement
to file said report. MOTION CARRIED.
RE.SOLUTiON NO. 74R-399: Councilman Seymour offered Resolution No. 74R-399 for
adoption, granting Conditional Use Permit N°. 1479, subject to the conditions
recommended by the City Planning Commission, and further granting permission for
the applicant to illuminate said billboard.
Refer to Resolution Book.
A KESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM GRANTING CONDITIONAL USE
PERMIT NO. 1479.
Roll Call Vote:
AYES: 'COUNCIL MEMBERS: Seymour, Pebley, Sneegas and Thom
NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Kaywood
ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: None
The Mayor declared Resolution No. 74R-399 duly passed and adopted.
RESOLUTION NO. 74R-400: Councilman Seymour offered Resolution No.'74R-400 for
adoption granting Conditional Use Permit 1480, with the understanding and stipula-
tion as made by Mr. Kingry that subject billboards would be removed at the time
that the Redevelopment Agency acquires the property or April 1, 1975, as recom-
mended by the City Planning Commission; further, granting permission for the
applicant to illuminate the billboard located adjacent to Anaheim Boulevard; and,
subject to the conditions recommended by the City Planning Commission, deleting
Condition No. 2 thereof.
Refer to Resolution BoOk.
A~SOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM GRANTING CONDITIONAL USE
PERMIT NO. 1480.
Roll Call Vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
Seymour, Pebley, Sneegas and Thom
Kaywood
None
The Mayor declared Resolution No. 74R-400 duly passed and adopted.
Councilwoman Kaywood leftthe Council Chambers. (2:45 P.M.)
..P~BL~C ~R.~ - VARIANCE NO. 2601, ENVIRONMmTfAL IMPACT REPORT NO. !24 - SUPPLEM~N-
,TO,,,,I~~AL IMPACT ICEPORT NO. 80 (%~NTATIV~ TRACT NO. 7918, K~VISION NO.
Application by Woodbine Corporation for the following Code waivers to establish
.an 87-1ot R-1 subdivision on R-A zoned property located on the north side of
Serrano Avenue, east of Nohl Ranch Road, was submitted together with E.I.R. No.
124 (Supplementary to E.I.R. No. 80):
74-823
Cit7 Hall~ Anaheimt California - COUNCIL MINUTES - August 20t 1974~ 1:30 P.M.
a. Requirement that single-family residential structures rear on an
arterial highway,
b. M/nimum lot width on a cul-de-sac. (Withdrawn)
c. Minimum lot width. (Withdrawn)
d. M/n/mum lot area. (Withdrawn)
The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC74-139,
recommended that the City Council certify Environmental Impact Report No. 124 as
in c~pltance with the California Envtromaental Quality Act and further granted
said variance in part, grantingwaiver "a", waivers "b", "c" and "d" having been
withdrawn by the petitioner, and reco~nding to the City Council that an ordin-
ance for RS-5000 zoning be read for subject property, thereby rendering unneces-
sary the afore mentioned withdrawn waivers. The City Planning Commission imposed
the following conditions pursuant to Resolution No. PC74-139:
1. That this Variance is granted subject to the completion of Reclass-
ification No. 71-72-44 and Tentative Tract No. 7918 (Revision 1), now pending.
2. 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 thru 50.
Review of action taken by the City Planning Commission was requested by
Councilwoman Kayvood at the City Council meeting of July 30, 1974 and public
hearing scheduled this date. The Deputy City Clerk advised that a communication
fro~Mr. Elias John Garcia, Vice President, S & S Construction, dated August 16,
1974, was copied and distributed to each member of the Council prior to this
meeting.
Zoning Supervisor Roberts reported that the subject property, comprised
of 25.8 acres, is located in the Anaheim Hills project area.
Councilwoman Kaywood returned to Council Chamber. (2:50 P.M.)
Nr. Roberts explained that initially the applicant 'requested a total of
four .Code waivers, however, on recomendation from the Planning Cozission, they
hav~ requested RS-5000 zoning, rather than R-l, which eliminates the need for all
requested waivers except for waiver "al'. They propose seven homes would side
onto an arterial highway, however in these instances, the grade differential is
significant between Serrano Avenue and the pad elevations of the/adjoining lots.
Nr. Roberts advised that S & S Construction, the proposed developer,
al~o owns the property immediately adjacent to subJectparcel on the east, west
and north, and has submitted proposals for development of all of this property
under 'the R-1 site development standards. He reported that when the Anaheim
Hills PC Zone was approved this particular parcel, as well as those surrounding
parcels, all were designated for R-2 zoning. The density of the proposed project
is 3.4 dwelling units per acre and the developer indicates he intends to comply
with all site development standards of the RS-5000 Zone. Rt..Roberts further
noted that the plot plans submitted indicated that 15 of the 87 homes would have
garage setbacks at 6 feet, the remainderwould be 25 feet. He reiterated that
tha City Planning Commission recommends to the Council that an ordinance be read
for RS-SO00 zoning on this property, rather than R-2 or R-1.
The Mayor asked if the applicant or his agent were present and wished
to address the Council.
Mr. Garcia, Vice President, S & S Construction, noted that on the
g~ral plan for this particular area, subject property was desismated for a
d~tty of 7.2 units to the acre, whereas his company proposes to develop 3.4
units to the acre. He stated that the 3 proposed subdivisions surrounding this
property are nov recorded tract maps and conform exactly to the same criteria as
this particular plan. Since the adjacent tracts were approved for R-1 zoning
with various variances, the same technique was also originally applied to subject
project. However, because it was the con,sensus of the Planning Commission that
they should change to RS-5000 and withdraw the variances, this approach was
take~. He indicated that they intend to construct $55,000 to $80,000homes on the
87 lots, and said lots will have an average of 8,200 plus square feet.
74_82&~ ~ ~
City .Hal~ i_,=~.beim~ Califo~ni~ - COUNCIL HINUTES - August 20~ 1974~ ~:30 P.M.
In answer to Councilwoman Kay~ood, Mr. Garcia advised that they could.
charge an additional $8,000 to $10,000 per home if the property was developed
under the l-1 Zone rather than the RS-5000.
Councilwoman Kayvood observed that in viewing the tract of homes built
by this firm at State College Boulevard and Wagner, it is very hard to notice
that they are really very nice homes because they are so close together'and so
large in proportion to the lot size. She stated that she felt more space is
definitely needed.
Mr. Garcia replied that the proposed average square footage per lot is
8,200-square feet, 50 lots will be.in excess of 7,200-square feet, and all lots
contain over 5,000 to 6,000 square feet of usable land. In further reply, Hr.
Garcia stated that 15 of the 87 homes are proposed with 6-foot front setbacks;
that most of these homes will have 3 bedrooms;' that some of these will have 3-car
garages'and also some will be located on cul-de-sac streets.
Councilwoman Kaywood indicated that it is her position that this sets
up the very situation which has caused numerous difficulties to the homeowners
and entire neighborhood, i.e., the developer is not providing.sufficient parking
on the lot nor on the street. She stated that she was very much concerned over
the l$ proposed homes with short setbacks because these will create an every-day
problem with the residents and she would like to see that changed.
Mr. Garcia replied that they could not change the setback on thesel5
homes because of the terrain involved and that in their opinion 15 out of 87
presents a minor problem. In further answer to Councilwoman Kaywood specifically
regarding the 15 proposed homes with shortened setbacks, Mr. Garcia stated that
they could add a 3-car garage to 7 or 8 of these homes and this would leave
approximately one-half of the remaining 8 homes on a cul-de-sac without a 3-car
garage.
Councilwoman Kaywood stated that would be an improvement, but that she
would still like to see this problem eliminated completely.
Councilman Seymour pointed out that if the developer is required to
construct 3-car garages the project which will ultimately be created will be ex-
actlywhat happened at the Nagner and State College Boulevard subdivision~ since
a 3~car garage uses most of the lot width and if the garage is turned.with a
swing driveway, then it is next to impossible to park in it and the garage is
rendered useless. He further pointed out that in the hillside areas, because of
the terrain~ requiring a larger pad area means in effect that more grading has to
be performed. Councilman Seymour stated that 15 homes with 6- to 10-foot set-
backs out Of 87 homes amounts to 17~, and in his opinion up to 20~ 6- to 10-foot
front setbacks would be reasonable.
Councilman Seymour stated that although this project carries an RS-5000
label he did not think it was truly an RS-5000 project and this together with the
alternative of R-2 development on this property must be taken into consideration.
Councilwoman Kay~ood noted that in the staff report to the Planning
Co~mission dated July 8, 1974, there was some concern regarding the provision of.
downspouts and eave gutters and she asked Nr. Garcia if he would stipulate to
providin$ same on subject homes for drainage and erosion control.
Mr. Carcia replied that he would not stipulate to same. He added that
they h~ve stipulated that all Code requirements of the City.of Anaheim would be
met in this subdivision and that if the Uniform Building Code required downspouts
and ~utters then they would'be installed, however, requiring these t° be installed
by them and not by any other developer places their firm in a poor competitive
position.
Councilman Seymour inquired whether there are unusual drainage condi-
tions existing in this particular tract which would warrant that these garters
and downspouts be required.
City Engineer James Naddox replied that it is his understanding the
homes in this subdivision will essentially be the same type house which S & S has
been building, with peaked roofs and normal eaves. He advised that most homes
74 -82.5
City Hall, Anahe/m, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - August 20, 1974* 1:30 P.M.
~ould probably be better off if they had gutters and downspouts, however, .this
has become a rarity in new construction. He also noted that perhaps the ultimate
homeowner could install these himself at a more reasonable cost. That unless
certain precautions are taken,-the concentrated flow from.gutters and downspouts
could cause more erosion damage than the series of drops from the eaves.
The Nayor asked if anyone else wished to address the C°uncil, either in
favor or in opposition to Variance No. 2601, there being no response, declared
the hearing closed.
CERTIFICATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT NO. 124: Environmental Impact
Report No. 124, supplementing Haster Environmental Impact Report No. 80, having
been reviewed by the City staff and reconnended by the City Plannin$ Commission
to be in compliance with City and State Guidelines and the State of California
Environmental ~uality Act, the City Council acting upon such information and
belief does hereby certify that E.I.R. No. 124 is in compliance with the California
Environmental ~uality Act and the City and State Guidelines, on motion by
Councilmen Pebley, seconded by Councilman Sneegas. ~0TION CARRIED.
RF~OLUTION NO. 74R-401: COuncilman Pebley offered Resolution No. 74R-401 for
adoption, granting Variance No. 2601, subject to the conditions recommended by
the City Planning Commission and further directing, in accordance with City
Planning Commission recommendations, that an ordinance for RS-5000 zoning be read
on the property.
In answer to Hr. Roberts' question regarding possible additional setback
requirements as discussed dUring the hearing, Councilman Pebley stated his resolu-
tion was to grant the variance, subject only to the conditions as recommnded by
the City Planning Commission.
Refer to Resolution Book.
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM GRANTING VARIANCE NO.
2601.
Roll Call Vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
COUNCIL MEMBERS: Kaywood, Seymour, Pebley, Sneegas and Thom
COUNCIL MEMBERS: None
COUNCIL MEMBERS: None
The Nayor declared Resolution No. 74R-401 duly passed and adopted.
TE~ATIVE MAP, TRACT NO. 7918, REVISION NO. 1 (VARIINCE NO. 2601, ENV!RONN~AT.
IMPACT REPORT NO. 124): Developer, S & S Construction Company; property located
on the'north side of Serrano Avenue, east of Nohl Ranch Road; containing 87
proposed R-1 zoned lots.
The City Planning Commission, at their meeting held July 8, 1974,
approved said tentative map, recounending that an ordinance for RS-5000 zoning be
read for subject property, subject to the following conditionS:
1. That the approval of Tentative Hap of Tract No. 7918 (Revision 1)
is iranted subject to the completion of Reclassification No. 71-72-44 and Vari-
ance No. 2601.
2. That should this subdivision be developed as more than one subdivi-
sion, each subdivision thereof shall be submitted in tentative form for approval.
3. That a 6-foot, decorative, openvorkvall shall be constructed at
the top of the slope adjacent to Serrano Avenue on the south property lines of
Lot Nos. 38, 43, 44, 55, 56, 65, 66, 69 and 87. Except that for corner Lot No.
38 said wall shall be stepped down to a height of thirty (30) inches in the
required front yard setback.. Reasonable landscaping, including irrigation
facilities, shall be installed in the uncemented portion of the arterial highway
parkway the full distance of said wall, plans for said landscaping to be submit-
ted to and subject to the approval of the Superintendent of Parkway Maintenance.
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
Or,se County Recorder.
6. That street names shall be approved by the City of Anaheim prior to
approval of a final tract map.
City HaL1~ A~aheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - Ausust 20~ 1974~ 1:30 P.M.
7. That the ovmer(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
per~/t is issued.
8. That drainage of said property shall be disposed of in a manner
satisfactory to the City Engineer. If, in the preparation of the site sufficient
gr~din$ is required to necessitate a grading permit, no ~ork on grading will be
per~itted 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
t° the commencement of grading operations. The required drainage facilities
shall be of a size and type sufficient to carry runOff waters originating, from
hisher properties through said property to ultimate disposal as approved by the
City En$ineer. Said drainage facilities shall be the first item of construction
and shall be completed and be functional throughout the tract and from the
downstream boundary of the property to the ultimate point of disposal prior to
the issuance of any final bUilding inspections or occupancy permits. Drainage
district reimbursement agreements may be made available to the developers of said
property Upon their request.
9. That grading, excavation, and all other construction activities
shall be conducted in such a manner so'as to minimize the possibility of' any silt
originating from this project being carried into the Santa Aha River by storm
water originatin$ from or flowing through this project.
10. That Serrano Avenue shall be'dedicated to 38 feet north of the
centerline of the street.
11. That parking bays be provided along Serrano Avenue in' accordance
with City of Anaheim standard details.
12. That a minimum 20 scale plot Plan showing all on-site improvements
includi~ cave overhang and proposed location of air-conditioning equipment be.
submitted for building permits.
13. That fire hydrants shall be installed and'charged as requiredand
determined to be necessary by the Chief of the Fire Department prior to commence-
ment of structural framing.
14. That prior to the approval of.the final tract map, final floor
plans and elevations shall be submitted to and approved by the City Council~
On motion by Councilman Pebley, seconded by Councilman Sneegas, Tenta-
tive Map, Tract No. 7918, Revision No. 1, was approVed, subject to the recommenda-
tions of the City Plannin$ Commission, to be developed in accordance with RS-5000
site development standards. MOTION.CARRIED.
PUBLIC .HEARING - 1973 EDITION OF THE INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE OF BUILDING OFFIcIALs,
UNIFORM BUIL~ING CODE~ VOLUME I: To consider repealing Title 15, Chapter 15.04 of the
Anaheim Nunicipal Code and adopting the 1973 Edition of the International Confer-
ence of Building Officials, Uniform Building Code, Volume I with amendments
thereto and amending Title 15, by adding thereto a new Chapter 15~04.
Chief Building Inspector Dan Van Dorpe reported that there are three
actions necessary on the part of the Council to adopt the 1973 Uniform Building
Code, these being to adopt the Code, a fee schedule and aresolution setting
forth local conditions which Justify certain amendments to the Buildin$ Code. He
explain~d that State law requires all local JuriSdictions adopt the Uniforml
BUfldin~ Code without amendments unless these can be Justified by local conditions.
Th~ City of Anaheimhas four very minor amendments and these amendments, and the
Justification therefor, are set forth in the resolution.
Mr. Dan Van Dorpe briefly outlined the si~nificant chanies in the 1973
Uniform kildin~ Code, Voltme I, as follows:
1. Provisions for the handicapped are required now in all buildings.
2. Life safety provisions for high-rise structures - it is proposed to
as~nd the City Code to make this applicable in Anaheim for any buildins in ~hich
the uppermost floor ismore than 55 feet above the ground, whereas the Uniform
Buildi~ Code states 75 feet above the ground.
74-827
City l~..~l~ Anahe./~ Califoraia - COUNCIL I/INUTES - August 20~ 1974, 1:30 P.M.
3. Chanses in the structural design of concrete reinforced bui!dinss
which were compiled as a result of the SylAar earthquake.
4. Requirements for sound insulation which are mandated by State law.
5. Requirement that all dwellin$ units be provided with smoke detec-
tors.
Hr. Van Dorpe explained that the last item requirin$ smoke detectors
will become effective for all residential construction. This device is designed
to en~Lt a warning sound and can detect smoke and invisible products of combustion
and provide an early warnins to anyone in the buildin$ of fire. In answer to
Council, he advised that the cost of this device is between $60 and $120 and
would be the maximum number needed to service a single,family residential struc-
ture. He also explained that this.requirement would be applicable to new construc-
tion, and on any additions or alterations to existinS buildinss which amount to
more than 50% of the value.
The Hayor asked if anyone w~shed to address the Council relative, to
adoption of the 1973 Edition of the International Conference of Building Offi-
cials, Uniform BuildinS Code, Volume I, there being no response, declared the
hearin$ closed.
Councilman Seymour inquired if the new fee schedule differed at all
from the existin$ schedule, to ~hich Hr. Van Dorpe replied nesatively,
In answer to Councilwoman Kay~ood, Mr. Murdoch explained that the fees
outlined in subject fee schedule cover the cost'of inspection but there is sub-
stantial cost of zoning activities which are not covered by the building fees nor
by the combination of buildin$ and zoning fees.
ORDINANCE NO. 3336: Councilwoman Kayvood offered Ordinance No. 3336 for adoption.
Refer to Ordinance Book.
AN.ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIH REPEALING TITLE 15, CHAPTER 15.04 OF THE
ANAHEI2fMUNICIPAL CODE AND ADOPTING THE 1973 EDITION OF THE INTERNATIONAL CON-
FEKENCE OF BUILDING OFFICIALS UNIFORH BUILDING CODE, VOLUHE I, WITH AHENDHEK~S
THERETO, AND AMENDING TITLE 15, BY ADDING THERETO A NEW CHAPTER 15.04.
Roll Call Vote:'
AYES: COUNCIL HEHBERS: Kayvood, Seymour, Pebley, Sneesas and Thom
NOES: COUNCIL HEHB~: None
ABSENT: COUNCIL HKHBERS: None
The Hayor declared Ordinance No. 3336 duly passed and adopted.
R~O..LUTION NO. 74R-402: Councilwoman Kay~ood offered Resolution No. 74R-402 for
adoption.
Refer to Resolution Book.
A~ESOLUTIONOF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM SE~TING THE FEE SCHEDULE
oF I~E UNIFORM BUILDING CODE, VOLUME I, 1973 EDITION.
Roll Call Vote:
AYES:
NOgS:
ABSENT':
COUNCIL H~HBERS: Kayvood, Seymour,, Pebley, Sneegaa and Thom
COUNCIL MEHBERS: None
COUNCIL HKMBERS: None
The Hayor declared Resolu~ion No. 74R-402 duly passed and adopted.
Councilman Pebley left the Council Chambers. (3:25 P.M.)
RA~N~flOH HO. 74R-403: Councilvoman Kaywood offered Resolution No. 74R-403 for
adoption.
Refer to Resolution Book.
City Hallt ~hetm, California- COUNCIL MINUTES -. Au&ust 20~ 1974a 1:30 P.M.
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THB CITY OF ANAHEIM S~.TTING FORTH LOCAL CONDI-
TIONS JUSTIFYING AMENDMENTS TO THE UNIFORM BUILDING CODE, 1973 'EDITION.
Roll Call Vote:
AYES:
NOES:
TEHPORILY ABSENT:
ABSENT:
COUNCIL MEMBERS: Kaywood, Seymour, Sneegas and Thom
COUNCIL MEMBERS: None
COUNCIL MEMBERS: Pebley
COUNCIL MEMBERS: None
The Mayor declared Resolution No. 74R-403 duly passed and adopted.
PUBLIC ~ANCE PERMITS: The following application for permits to conduct public dances
was submitted and granted, subject to provisions of Chapter 4.16 of the Anaheim
Municipal Code, as recommended by the Chief of Police, with final~ arrangements
to be made with the Anaheim Police Department, on motion by Councilman Thom,
seconded by Councihnan Seymour.
1. Application filed by Lloyd L. Lowry, on behalf of the Costa Mesa
police A~sociation for their Third Annual Benefit Show to be held at the Anaheim
Convention Center, September 1, 1974, 9:30 p.m. to 11:30 p.m.
2. Application filed by Lloyd L. Lowry, on behalf of the Anaheim
Police Officer's Association for their Sixth Annual Benefit Show to be held at
the Anaheim Convention Center, September 8, 1974 from 9:30 p.m. to 11:30 p.m..
MOTION CARRIED. (Councilman Pebley absent)'
Councilman Pebley returned to Council Chambers. (3:28 P.M.)
· F~~ DISPLAY PERMIT (SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA SUN HALF TINE SHOW): Application filed
by Mr. R. Bob Souza, General Manager, California Fireworks Display Company for
permit to conduct public fireworks display on September 2, 1974 at the Anaheim-
Stadium, at half time of-the Southern California Sun football game was submitted
for Council consideration.
Councilwoman Kaywood, noting that 197 assorted shells in sizes ranging
from 3 inches tc 6 inches was proposed, registered her objection on the basis of
the noise and attendant disturbance to A__r~_heim residents living near the Stadium.
She inquired whether there is any possible way to subdue the noise imPact from
such fireworks displays.
Fire Marshal Bob Phillips explained that in comparison to the nightly
Dieneyland fireworks display the shells proposed in this application would be not
quite as loud since they would not' have the same explosive power. He also advised
that it is possible to reduce the noise entirely and have only avisual fireworks
effect.
Councilman Sneegas noted that the City Council has received only one or two
complaints relative to noise from fireworks at the Anaheim Stadium and therefore
it would not appear to be a problma at this time.
On motion by Councilman Pebley, seconded by Councilman Sneegas, the City
Council granted the request of California Fireworks Display Company for permit to
conduct public fireworks display at half time of the Southern California Sun foot-
ball ga~, September 2, 1974 at Anaheim Stadium. To this motion, Councilwoman
Kaywood voted "no", indicating that she has no objection to the visual enjoyment
of fireworks themselves, but to their attendant noise. MOTION CARRIED.
FIREWORKSDIS~I~.AY PERMIT (BUENA PARK OPTIMIST CLUB - SPECIAL OLYMPICS):. APplication
filg bins. B~tty Sweet, Astro Pyrotechnics for permit to conduct public fire-
works display on August 22, 1974, at Handel Stadium, Western High School, was sub-
mitred for Council consideration.
In answer to Councilwoman Kaywood, Mayor Thom explained that the event
at which these fireworks will be displayed.is the Handicapped Children's~Special
Olyupics~ sponsored by the Buena Park Optimist's Club.
74-829
C~ty Nall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - August 20~ 1974~ 1:30 P.M.
CouncilwosmnKaywood moved that the Council approve subject fireworks
display permits provided that these be displayed without noise. Said motion died
for lack of a second.
Councilman Sneegas moved that the application submitted by Hs. Betty
Sweet, Astro Pyrotechnics for permit to conduct public fireworks display at Handel
Stadima, Western High School on August 22, 1974, be approved. Councilman Pebley
seconded the motion. To this motion, Councilwoman ~aywood voted "yes" but quali-
fied her vote in that she approves of the visual fireworks display but not the
associated noise. NOTION CARRIED.
RF~_UES~ - EXTENSION OF TIHB~ RECLASSIFICATION NO. 71-72-27~.VARIA~CE NO. 2324: Appli-
cation by Stephen F. Gallagher, Attorney, representing the Muckenthaler'family,.
owners, requesting a retroactive extension of time for R-3 zoning to establish a
182-unit, 3-story apartment complex onProperty located at 1619 West Crescent
Avenue, was presented for Council consideration together with reports from Devel-
opment Services Department indicating that one previous retroactive extension of
thae has been granted which expired February 22, 1974.
Also submitted was report from the City Engineer which recommends should
CoUncil grant the requested extension of time that the additional right-of-way on
Loara Street be dedicated and sidewalks constructed within 60 days.
Councilwoman Kay~ood observed that none of the conditions.originally
imposed were met and no revised plans have been submitted.
Councilman Seymour voiced the opinion that since the original approval
for this project was granted in February of 1972, he would, not. be in favor of
granting an additional extension of time without a public hearing.
Mr. Stephen F. Gallagher was recognized by the Hayor and advised that
the property was in escrow, however the proposed lessee had requested 187 units
where 182 were approved and the sale was never consuemated. He reported that
a different developer and lessee are now interested in the project. He' requested,
should Council desire further information in addition to his remarks thatthey
defer action on this request for two weeks so that the proposed developer could
respond. He introduced Hr. Dan Evans of Coldwell Banker Company who represents
thc lessee, and who advised that they wish a continuance of the 182 units approved
in February, 1972.
Hr. ~berts advised that when originally considered, the waiver of
imm land area per unit was not granted so that although the original plan sub-
mitred indicates 182 dwelling units, the maximum number which would have been
pemitted was 156 units in .order to co~ply with lot coverage and minimum land area
per unit in the R-3 Zone.
Hayor Thom advised that he is not at this time convinced that R-3 would
still be appropriate zoning for this particular property.
On motion by Councilman Thom, seconded by Councilman Seymour, the
request for extension of time to Reclassification N°. 71-72-27 and Variance No.
2324 was denied. NOTION CARRIED.
RE~gEST ~ SOLICITATION OF CHARITABLE FUNDS - CO~IIt/ITY CRUSADE A~INST DRUCS: Request
submitted by Justin F. Drieberg, Community Crusade Against Drugs, to solicit char-
itable funds in the City of Anaheim from the date of approval to September 30,
197&, ~as sub~Ltted for Council consideration.
Also Sulmitted were reports from the Chief of Police.and City Attorney's
Office indicating no objection to the srantin$ of a solicitors permit and report
frm~ the License Collector tndicatins that ntmerous co~latnts have been received
fro~Anahaim residents obJectin~ to door-to-door solicitation.
Hr. Roy Brasher, representing Mr. Drieberg, advised the Council .that
the Co--unity Crusade Against Drugs is conducted under the auspices of the Seventh
Day Adventist Church. The persons who would be soliciting are college members of
the Church wF~ earn scholarships through thio service to the toe,unity. He re-
.poeted~hat they offer booklets one'the subjects of alcohol,-'druss, s~okin$ and
74-830
Cit7 Hall~ Anaheimt California - COUNCIL MINUTES - August 20~ 1974~ 1:30 P.M.
venereal disease in return for donations. He reported that all monies so received
are given to the Church and then returned to the students in the form of scholar-
ships. He stated that these students attend their Lon~a Linda facility or Pacific
Union College.
In answer to Councilman Seymour, Mr. Murdoch explained that Council Pol-
icy relative to solicitation requests was primarily concerned that the group re-
questing permission to solicit be representative of the local area.
Councilman Seymour stated that as he interprets the Council policy're-
lative to granting of solicitation permits, the Seventh Day Adventist Church .
does have a church located within the City of Anaheim and would,therefore,be re-
presentative of a portion of the community. Councilman Seymour thereupon moved
that the request to solicit charitable funds in the City of Anaheim submitted by
Justin Drieberg, Community Crusade Against Drugs, be granted,effective from
August 20, 1974 to September 30, 1974. Councilman Thom seconded the motion.
MOTION CARRIED.
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 132 - SEISMIC AND SAFETY ELEMENT OF THE ANAHEIM GENERAL
PLAN: O~ motion by Councilman Sneegas, seconded by Councilwoman Kay~ood, the City
Council set General Plan Amendment No. 132 for public hearing on September 3,
1974, 1:30 P.M. MOTION CARRIED.
RM-4000 ZONING - RECLASSIFICATION NO, 72-73-10 AND VARIANCE NO. 2426: Mayor Thom
moved that the Council initiate RM-4000 zoning on those remaining undeveloped par-
cels located at the northwest corner of Cerritos Avenue and Walnut Street. (Res-
olution of Intent No. 72R-406 to rezone subject property to R-3 expired on
March 19, 1974.) Councilman Seymour seconded the motion.
Prior to voting on the foregoing motion, Councilman Sneegas questioned
what this action would entail.
Mayor Thom reiterated that the purpose of the motion was to direct staff
to initiate the newly adopted RM-4000 Zone on those parcels at the intersection
of Walnut and Cerritos upon which the resolution of intent to R-3 has expired.
Mr. Watts advised that legal action has been filed against the City re-
garding this particular property by Anaheim Condos and it would be the City's
position that the intent to zone R-3 and the variance have expired.
On Roll Call Vote requested by Councilma~n Pebley, the foregoing motion
carried by the following vote:
AYEs: COUNCIL MEMBERS: 'Kaywood, Seymour and Thom
NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Pebley and Sneegas
ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: None
MOTION CARRIED.
~SO.I~TION NO. 74R-404 - AWARD OF WORK ORDER NO. 725-A: In accordance with recommen-
dations of the City Engineer, Councilwoman Kaywood offered Resolution No. 74R-404
for adoption.
Refer to Resolution Book.
A BESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM ACCEPTING A SEALED PRO-
POSAL AND AWARDING A CONTRACT TO THE LoWEsT RESPONSIBLE BIDDER FOR THE FURNISHING
OF ALL PLANT, LABOR, SERVICES, MATERIALS AND EQUIPMENT AND ALL UTILITIES AND
TRANSPORTATION, INCLUDING POWER, FUEL AND WATER, AND PERFORMING ALL. WORK NECES-
SA~ TO COnSTrUCT AND COMPLETE THE FOLLoWING PUBLIC IMPROVEMENT: THE KATELLA
AV~-~T STREET SIDEWALK IMPROVEMENT, IN THE CITY OF ANAHEIM, WORK ORDER
NO. 725-A. (McGrew Construction Company, Inc. - $14,249.06)
Roll Call Vote:
AYES: COUNCIL I/EMBERS: Kaywood, Seymour, Pebley, Sneegas and Thom
MOES: COUNCIL I~MBERS: None
'ABS~'f: COUNCILM~4BERS: None
The Mayor declared Resolution No. 74R-404 duly passed and adopted.
74-831
City Hall ~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINIngS - August 20 ~ 1974 ~ 1: 30 P .M.
RI/SOLUTION NO. 74R-405 - DEEDS OF EASEHENT: Councilman Sneegas offered Resolution No.
74R-405 for adoption.
Refer to Resolution Book.
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM ACCEPTING CERTAIN DEEDS
AND ORDERING THEIR RECORDATION. (Maude L. johnson; Harvey, Morris and Searles,
et al; S.V. Hunsaker. Jr. and wife; La Jolla Avenue Associates; Pablo V. Domin~uez,
et al; Harry E. Homewood and wife; Ledger T. Smith, et al; Mc Cain Construction
Company; Cecil R. Neely and wife; Albert Handsfield; Dean D. Hesketh and wife;
Tetsuo Ozaki and wife; Frederick W. Handsfield and wife; Herbert Brohn and wife)
Roll Call Vote:
AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS:
NOES: COUNCIL MEHBERS:
ABSENT: COUNC IL MEMBERS:
KaY~ood, Seymour, Pebley,' Sneega8 and Thom
None
None
The Mayor declared Resolution No. 74R-405 duly passed and adopted.
PURCHASE OF MATERIAL - MISCELLANEOUS WATER FITTINGS.: The City Hanaser reportedon in-
formal bids received for the purchase of miscellaneous water fittings for the
Water Division, and recommended acceptance on a split bid basis in order to obtain
the lowest bid price on all acceptable items:
VENDOR
Marden-Susco (Items:
Parkson, Inc. (Items:
Pacific States
Republic Supply
Stoddard Company
TOTAL AMOUNT,. INCLUDING TAX
1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 12, 14, 17~ 18,
23, 24,'25, 26, 28 & 29 - - $5,651.90
15, 16, 19, 20, 21, 22, & 27) .... 7,684.47
NO BID
NO BID
NO BID
On motion by Councilman Sneegas, seconded by Councilman Seymour, the
low bids of Marden-Susco and Parkson, Inc., were accepted and purchases authorized
in the amounts of $5,651.90, including tax and $7,684.47, including tax, respec-
tively. MOTION CARRIED.
PURCHASE OF EQUIPMENT- CATCH BASIN SEWER CLEANER: The City Manager reported on the
recommended purchase of the Meyers-Sherman Model 800 Vactor Catch'Basin Sewer
Cleaner, and advised that the one manufacturer, Haaker Equipment has submitted
a quotation for said equipment in the amount of $55,364.33. He thereupon recom-
mended purchase be authorized..
On motion by Councilwoman Kaywood, seconded by Councilman Sneegas, pur-
chase was authorized in the amount of $55,364'.33, including tax, as recommended
by the City Manager. MOTION CARRIED.
RESOLUTION NO. 74R-406 - EXCLUSION OF CERTAIN TRACTS - SHERWOOD COUNTY STREET LIGHTING
MAINTENANCE DISTRICT: Councilman Sneegas offered Resolution No. 74R-406 for adoption.
Refer to Resolution Book.
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM REQUESTING THE EXCLUSION
OF CERTAIN TRACTS FROM THE SHERWOOD COUNTY STREET LIGHTING MAINTENANCE DISTRICT.
(Tract Nos. 4321, 5000, 5058, 6303 and 5019)
Roll Call Vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
COUNCIL HEHBERS: Kaywood, Seymour, Pebley, Sneegas and Thom
COUNCLLHEHBERS: None
COUNCIL NEHBERS: None
The Hayor declared Resolution No. 74R-406 duly passed and adopted.
ELRCTRIC.~R G~NERATIONREPORT -ANAHEIM CHANBEROF CO~I~RCE: Mr. Bill Woods, 4225
East La Palma, Anaheim, Chairman of the Anaheim Chamber of Co~aerce. Power Gener-
aCtonTask Force,addressed the CoUnct~ and advised that althoush it was hoped
74-832
City Hall, A~eim, California - COUNCIL .MI~.JTES - August 20~ 1~74~ 1:30 P.M.
they could present some conclusions from the four week's of study undertaken so
far on the feasibility and effects of Anaheim's entry into power generating pro-
Jects, this has developed into a study of some complexity, and they are unable to
date to make any recommendations. Therefore, he requested thac the Task Force be
given an additional month in which to complete their study, and they would wish
t° report the conclusions and recommendations to the Council at the meeting of
September 24, 1974. He outlined some of the activities of the Task Force and
some of the industries within the community who have participated and stated that
some of these companies feel the implications of further growth of the Anaheim
electrical system would be of great significance to the industrial community.
On motion by Councilman Seymour, secOnded by Councilwoman Kaywood, the
report from the Power Generation Task Force of the Anaheim chamber of Commerce
was rescheduled for the meeting of September 24, 1974. MOTION CARRIED.
The Mayor extended thanks and appreciation on behalf of the Council for
the many hours already expended by the participants in.this project.
PROPOSED., INCHES IN SANITATION CHARGES~ WATER AND ELECTRICAL RATES: Mr. Murdoch re-
ferred to'discussions conducted during budgetary review sessions at which time he
pointed out that the revenue forecast presented in the 1974-75 Budget did include
a provision for increased sanitation charges, water and electrical rates. In
accordance with these discussions, documentation to implement these increases was
prepared and scheduled for action at this time. However, in regard to sanitation
charges, due to the fact that the Orange County Board of Supervisors is currently
considering a fee approach to transfer and dumping costs which WOuld very likely
have to be passed on to the ultimate consumer, he felt it would be inadvisable
for Council to act on the proposed.City of Anaheim sanitation rate increases at
this time. Mr. Murdoch also requested one additional week in whiCh'to further
prepare information which has been received since adoption of the Budget for
presentation to the Council, relative to the proposed increase in water and
electrical rates.
On motion by Councilman Pebley, seconded by COuncilman Seymour, the
City Coumcil deferred action on the proposed increases in sanitation charges,
water and electrical rates to the meeting of AUgust 27, 1974. MOTION CARRIED.
In answer to Councilwoman Kaywood~s question regarding room occupancy
tax~s, Mr. Mardoch explained that the intent, on implementation of this tax, was
that the first priority for these revenues would be the amortizationof bonds for
construction of the Convention Center facility, and then, if necessary, for any
other operations or costs involved pertaining to the Convention Center.
In further answer to Councilwoman Kaywood, Mr. Murdoch stated that the
last time the room occupancy tax rate was raised, a survey was conductedand it
was ascertained that with a 6% rate, Anaheim was as high as most other cities in
the State of California, with only one other city reporting a higher room occu-
pancy rate. That results from an updated survey would be supplied.to Council.
ORDINANCE NO. 3338 - PROPERTY TAXES: On reco~emndation of the City Manager and Finance
Director, Councilman Pebley offered Ordinance No. 3338 for adoption.
Refer to Ordinance Book.
AN ORDINiNCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIN FIXING AND LEVYING APROPERTY TAX ON ALL
PROPERTY WITHIN THE CORPORATE LIMITS OF THE CITY OF ANAI~I~IM FOR THE FISCAL YEAR
1974-75. ($1.05 on each $100.00 assessed valuation, $00.80 of which goes to the
~eneral Fund, $00.25 to debt service to retire general obligation bonds)
~11 Call Vote:
AYES:
ROES:
ABSENT:
COUNCIL HEHBERS: Kaywood, Seymour, Pebley, Sneegas and Thom
COUNCIL HEHBERS: None
COUNCIL HEHBERS: None
The Mayor declared Ordinance No. 3338 duly passed and adopted.
CORRES~ENC~ The following correspondence vas Ordered received and filed on motion
by CoUnciluo~an Kayvood, seconded by Councilman Sneesas:
74-833
City Hall, Anahetm~ California - COUNCIL ML~JTES - August 20~ 1974~ 1:30 P.M.
a. City of Newport Beach - Suggested Draft Resolution for adoption by
the Orange County Division of the League of California Cities - Opposing the
proposal of the United States Department of Interior to drill'new oil wells off
the coast of Southern California.
b. State of California, Governor's Office - Office of Planning and
Research - Re: General Plan Guidelines.
c. Greyhound Lines, Inc. - Western Division - Notice - Re: Applica-
tion No. 54653 filed with the California Public Utilities Commission, requesting
approval of a proposal to increase its passenger bus fares and package express
rates by 11%.
d. Before the Public Utilities Commission - Application of Southern
California Edison Co., for an order of the Public Utilities Commission of the
State of California authorizing applicant to make effective a special fuel cost
adjustment applicable to billings for the electric service to offset the payment
of fuel oil transportation charges.
e. Financial and Operating Reports for the Months of June, 1974 for the Water
Division and July, 1974 for the Customer Service Division, City Treasurer, Build-
ing Division and Engineering Division.
M~TION CARRIED.
ORDINANCE NO. 3337: Councilman Seymour offered Ordinance No. 3337 for adoption.
Refer to Ordinance Book.
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIMAMENDING TITLE 18 OF THE ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL
CODE RELATING TO ZONING. (73-74-33 - R-3)
Roll Call Vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
COUNCIL HEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL HEHBERS:
KaYW°od, Seymour, Pebley, Sneegas and Thom
None
None
The Mayor declared Ordinance No. 3337 duly passed and' adopted.
UNIFORM FIRE CODE - 1973 EDITION: Proposed ordinance repealing Chapters 16.04, 16.08
and 16.12 of the Anaheim Municipal Code and amending Title 16 by adopting a new
Chapter 16.08, adopting the 1973 Edition of the Uniform Fire Code;With certain
exceptions, was submitted for first reading, and the City Clerk suggested the
date of September 10, 1974 for public hearing on this proposed ordinance.
Mayor Thom stated that he has heard much discUsstonrelative to that
section of the Uniform Fire Code which relates to fireworks, and that he has been
anticipating some recommendation from the Anaheim Fire Department regarding the
handling of fireworks which to date he has not' received.
The City Attorney explained that basically the Uniform Fire Code pro-
hibits "safe and sane fireworks" which have been permitted in the City of Anaheim
for a number of years. He related that the City has granted this pemission via
an exception to the currently adopted Uniform Fire Code and that the Fire Marshal,
in this instance, has submitted the Uniform Fire Code without said exception..
Fire Marshal Bob Phillips advised that a report'and recommendation out-
lining the differences in the 1964 and 1973 Editions of the Uniform Fire Code is
in preparation at this t/me and will be forwarded to Council shortly, and that
safe and sane fireworks are discussed in this report. Fire Marshal Phillips
stated that he is submitting the Uniform Fire Code without amendment at this time
since it is a known fact that the use of these fireworks cause.fires, and in kts
capacity as Fire Marshal it is his duty to prevent-fires,
Mayor Thom stated that he would not even offer the ordinance for first
rea~in~ unless the amendment permitting fireworks was added thereto.
Councilman Pebley concurred with the Fire Marshal's statement that
fireworks do cause fires but remarked that he felt safe and sane fireworks could
be pez~itted in the City with a better result if the sale period were cut down to
74-834 ~'~
City Hall, ~~a~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - August 20v 1974v 1:30 P.H.
only three days and if minors, under the age of 18 years, were expressly prohibi-
ted fro~ buying the~. He advised that he has discussed these changes with repre-
sentatives of the various service clubs in the City and they were agreeable to
such additional restrictions. Further, he indicated this would.place the respon-
sbility for minors under 18 using firworks with the parents or legal guardians.
Mayor Thom related that he has been besieged by service organizations
in the City who derive the bulk of their annual budget from the sales of fire-
works and who would strongly oppose the loss of this source of revenue.. He
voiced the opinion that the many benefits received by the community as a result
of the efforts of these service orianizations must be weighed in this decision.
Councilman Sneegas observed that it is not the fireworks in themselves
which cause fires, but the people who handle them, and if a method could be
employed which would Place the responsibility for a minor's fireworks activity
with the parents, it should be attempted. He further noted that if this method
is not successful then the next step would be to ban the use of fireworks, however,
he would be reluctant to take that drastic step, which would abrogate an indivi-
dual's rights, at this time.
Councilwoman Kaywood stated she would like. to know how much fireworks
actually cost the City in terms of the fire suppression which they necessitate.
She further pointed out that the City of Los Anieles and SantaBarbara County both
have outlawed the use of the fireworks without creating any hardship. She remarked
that in her opinion, it would be too easy for a child under 18 to arrange for
someone of the legal age to purchase their fireworks.
Councilman Seymour stated,that he personally has never overcome his
fear of fireworks and does feel compassion over the tragedy which OCcurred in the
canyon area as a result of misuse of fireworks, however, despite his own fear, he
did not think this gives him the right to ban their use to the rest of the
citizenry. He related he has also heard from the constituency, however, there .
were as many people adopting positions against as in favor. He concurred that
something has to be done to restrict the use of fireworks by children and adults
who are unable to handle them properly, and if an age limitation would achieve
this he would be in favor of same.
The City Attorney suggested, since there appeared to be a majority con-
senSUs that the exception, and the permitting of fireworks, be retained,' that the
Council could offer the proposed ordinance for first reading at this time, together
with the existing exception which would allow the use of safe and sane fireworks
in the City of Anaheim. At the time the public hearing on the matter is held
then, if Council so desires to make any amendments to Chapter 6.40 this could be
a¢Co~plished.
0RD~NCE NO. 3339: As recomended by the City Attorney, Hayor Thom offered
Ordinance No. 3339 for first reading, including the existing exception which
would permit the continued use of safe and sane fireworks within the City of
Anaheim.
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM.REPEALING TITLE 16, CHAPTERS 16.04, 16.08 AND
16.12 OF THE ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE AND ADOPTING THE UNIFORM FIRE CODE 1973 EDI-
TION, WITH AMENDMENTS THERETO, AND AMENDING TITLE 16 OF THE ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL
CODE BY ADDIRG.THERETO ANEW CHAPTER 16.08.
On motion by Councilman Sneegas, seconded by Councilwoman Kaywood,
public hearing on Ordinance No. 3339 was scheduled for the meeting of September 10,
1974, 1:30 P.M. MOTION CARRIED.
O~DINt!.Cl~.~O. 3340 -tlIFO~M)~CIIilCAL CODE~ 1973 EDITION: Counctlwo~an Kaywood
offered Ordinance No. 3340 for firstreading.
AN (I~DINA-~CE OF THE CITY OF ANAI~IN REPFALING TITLE 15, CRAPTER 15.50 OF THE
AliAi~IHI~INICIPAL,CODE AND ADOPTING THE 1973 EDITION OF THE INTERI~TIONAL CON-
~E OF BUILDING OFFICIALS, UNIFORM MECHANICAL CODE, WITRAHENDNENTS THERETO,
A~D AMENDINg TITLE 15, BY ADDINO THERETO A 1~/ CHAPTER 15.50.
on motion by Councilwoman Kaywood, seconded by Mayor Thom, public hear-
ins on Ordinance NO. 3340 was scheduled for the meeting of September 10, 1974,
1:30 P.N.
74-835
City Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - August 20~ ~974t 1:30 P.M.
ORDINANCE NO. 3341: Councilman Thom offered Ordinance No. 3341 for first reading.
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AMENDING TITLE 18 OF THE ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL
CODE RELATING TO ZONING. (70-71-47 (12) - M-l)
ORDINANCE NO. 3342: Councilwoman Kaywood offered Ordinance No. 3342 for first reading.
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM REPEALING TITLE 18, C~,APTER 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 perkins
requirements and minimum dimensions of parking spaces)
ORDINANCE NO. 3343: Councilman Sneegas offered Ordinance No. 3343 for first reading.
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIHAHENDING TITLE 18 OF THE ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL
CODE RELATING TO ZONING. (71-72-44 (9) ~ R-l)
RECESS:. Mayor Thom moved for a five-minute recess. Councilman Pebley seconded'the
motion. MOTION CARRIED. (4:30 P.M.)
AFTER ~ECESS: Mayor Thom called the meeting to order, all Council Members beins pre-
sent. (4:37 P.M.)
OPPOSITION TO BALL ROAD STREET WIDENING PROJECT: Mr. Daniel Miller, 1191 Risa Place,
Santa Ana, owner of property located 1557 and 1563 West Ball Road, submitted a
petition containins approximately 34 sisnatures of individuals residinS on Ball
Road who are opposed to the planned Ball Road Street Widening Project. In addi-
tion he related that he is representinS the followinS property owners:
1. Dr. Paul Beck, owner of property at 1597 and' 1591 West Ball Road.
2. Irene B. Kauppi, representing McGarveny & Clark Realtors, owners
of property at 1585 Wast'Ball Road.
3. Doris and Lowell Williams, owners of property at 1569 and 1575
West Ball Rmad.
4. Cliff Shinn, owner of property at 1541-1545 West Ball Road.
5. Charles P. Armato, owner of property at 1579 West Ball Road.
6. Vern Forsting, owner of proPerty at 1551 West Ball Road.
7. Charles Bavin, 1537 West.Ball Road.
8. Bill Goo4nmn, 1537 West Ball Road.
Mr. Miller advised that these property owners are unanimously opposed
to the widenins of Ball Road because of safety and economic factors as well as
the ecological impact. He submitted photosraphs for Council review of the Ball
Road frontase in the vicinity of the above noted property (that section between
Gilbuck Drive and Loafs Street)'. He stated that Ball Road is currently 75-feet
wide with 2 traffic lanes in either direction, a painted left-turn lane 10-feet
wide in the center and there is room for ample perkins on both sides. The speed
limit is currently 35 m.p.h, and there are 2 schools in the vicinity. He indi-
cated that the present plan is to widen the street an additional 11 feet by re-
movinS the entire parkway on the north side and erectinS a raised median island
in the center of the street.
Mr. Miller asserted that the stated purpose of the widenin$ project is
to ease the flow of traffic thereby makins the street safer. He presented his
own research findinss which indicate that the primary cause of accidents occur-
tins within the block alons Ball Road durins the past few years, was failure to
yield the risht-of-way on left turns both in and out of driveways and the pro-
posed wideninS will not reduce this particular problem, but will encourase faster
traffic. He stated that movins Ball Road 11 feet closer to the apartment com-
plexes alons the frontase will endanser the tenants. He indicated that all of
apartments in this area have bedrooms located adjacent to the street and with the
street widened these bedrooms would be only 21 feet from the 8utter. Further,
althoush the yards are enclosed and have Sates these would also be that much
closer to the street~ He advised that the apartment houses in question are be-
twmen 10 end 15 years old and the averase rent is $110 for a one-bedroom unit.
He felt that permtttin$ the street to be relocated 11 feet closer would cause
colcerned parents to seek housins elsewhere and housin$ in this price tense is at
a premium. Further, they would experience the loss of trees and sreenbelts alons
the parkway which help absorb some of the noise and serve as a buffer. He
stated that the safety of the apartment house tenants and their children, as well
as pedestrians on the sidewalk, will certainly not be increased by this project.
74-836
City Hall, An~heim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - August 20~ 1974~ 1:30 P.M.
Mr. Miller emphasized that when the project is complete there will
still be only four lanes of traffic and he could not see any benefit worth the
price which would have to be paid. He requested that. the City Council look at
the entire problem and determine whether there is not another alternative, so
that the ll-foot parkway as a protective buffer zone can still be retained.
In answer to Councilman Pebley, the City Engineer reported that when
the Ball Road Street Widening Project was proposed in the latter part of December,
1972, the traffic count was 28,400 vehicles per day, whereas the generally accep-
ted limit for a 4-lane roadway would be 24,000 to 26,000 cars per day. He further
advised that since that time the traffic count has decreased slightly to 23,700
cars per day.
Mr. Maddox further outlined what is proposed in this project as follows:
Beginning at West Street on the north side of Ball Road the present curb and gut-
ter would be removed and relocated at 43 feet rather than 32 feet for a widening
of 11 feet; at Walnut Street adjacent to the Lutheran Home there is no widening .
proposed at this time, but to the west of this the curbs and gutters would be re-
located down to Hampstead Street; from Gilbuck to Loara the curbs and gutters
would be relocated the same distances, 11 feet on' the north side. On the south
side of Ball Road there are two areas of relocation, from Feather Street westerly
to opposite of Hampstead and in the easterly direction from Feather Streetto
Walnut Street. He explained that this widening would provide 2-traffic lanes in
each direction and provide parking where there is none available now between
Gilbuck and Loafs, and Walnut and Hampstead.
Mr. Miller reiterated that there is already 'ample parking available on
both sides of Ball Road in his immediate area.
Councilman Pebley stated that from his personal experience he has ob-
served less traffic problems on Ball Road than on other east-west directional
streets.
Councilman Sneegas referred to other sections of Ball Road which he
felt in ~ore critical need of widening and suggested perhaps widening of the sec-
tion under discussion might be somewhat premature.
Councilman Seymour questioned what. is to be gained from this street
widening project specifically for the residents and'property owners on this par-
titular section between Gilbuck and Loara on the north side, who already have 2
lanes of traffic in either dir~ction and parking spaces on both sides, o'f the
street.
Mr. Maddox replied that for some period of time the traffic would be no
closer to the apartments than at present because that area, by removal of the curb
and ~utter, will be used for parking, however, it is anticipated that within the
next ten years it will become necessary to accOmmodate the projected traffic vol-
u~es. He advised that at the present time the widening project in this particu-
lar area will yield full-sized traffic and parking lanes as well as a full-size,
left-turn median.
Councilman Seymour stated that there must be some other alternative to
destroyin~ the living environment for these rental units and voiced his concern
that the dislocation of some families, which this street widening project might
precipitate, and the subsequent rerentals may cause the area to become a slum.
In answer to the Council, Mr. Maddox related that the Ball Road Street
'wid~min$ was approved for A.H.F.P. funds in February or March of 1973 and that
the County approved funds for the work as originally proposed~ i.e., to provide
for ultimate total capacity on Ball Road. He advised of the two previous Ball
Road widming projects (between Euclid and Brookhurst and between State College
and Rarbor) and stated that this section falls between the preVious two. He did
not think that the City could ~odify or alter the project at this stage and re-
Cain the County portion of the A.H.F.P. funds. He indicated, in answer to Council,
that the area adjacent to the Lutheran Home will not be widened at this time
since this would necessiate a remodeling of the major portion of that facility.
and it was elected to eli~inate parking in this area and postpone the widening
until the property is.redeveloped.
Councilman Seymour stated that the ~ previous street widening pro-
Jects referred to by Mr. Naddox concern entirely different types of land use and
that no consideration has been given in this instance to the existing multiple-
74-837
City Halle Anaheim~ C. alifornia - COONCIL HINOTES - August 20e 197&e 1:30 P.H.
family residential uses but plans are to proceed with the same' type of widenin$
as was perforsu~d to the east and to the vest. He conceded that consideration as
to l~ut use ~a8 demonstrated in the decision to postpone videnir~ adjacent co
ch~ Lutheran home, but .reiterated that this consideration'was not applied con-
cerning the environment of the tenants of chose apartment houses on Ball Road.
Mr. William DeviCe, Assistant City Engineer, indicated that much of the
width gained in this widening project would be used Co develop landscaped median
islands which are perhaps even more aesthetically pleasing.
Councilwoman Kaywood voiced the opinion that it would be dissraceful
to move the beautiful 15 year. old crees and wide parkway adjacent to Ball Road,
thereby changing the living environment for those apartment tenants, who live on
a busy arterial highway. She stated that encouraging any faster speed by widen-
inS the road would create more accidents'and not less. She stated she would be
very much. against widening Chis street especially in view of the fact chat the
traffic count is down.
Further Council discussionwas directed cowards withdrawing a portion
of this street widening project and whether or not the county would still approve
matching funds to proceed with widening more critical areas on the south side of
Ball Road.
Hr. Hurdoch suggested chat it might take two weeks co analyze vhac
modifications can be made to the original project and what the likelihood might
be of the County ~rlchdrawin$ from the entire project. He noted that only one
specific.contractual action has been taken by the Council and ChaC was Co employ
be firm of Grissom and Johnson Co move utility poles.
Councilwoman Kaywood stated thaC it seems to her a waste of money to
move utility poles back and thac any such proposed relocation of poles is the
appropriate time to consider undergroundin$.
Utilities Director Gordon Hoyt reported on costs of' underground con-
version to both City and property owners affected and recapitulated the negative
response which has been received from property owners when approached on Chis
subject in the past.
On motion by Councilman Seymour, seconded by Councilman Pebley, action
on the opposition co the Ball Road Street Widening Project was continued for cwo
weeks 'to allow time for further investigation. NOTION CARRIED. (September 3, 1974)
The City Engineer asked Hr. Hiller if he thought the tenants of apart-
ments located between Loafs and Gilbuck Drive on Ball Road would be willing to
accede to elimination of parking entirely on that block, to which he responded
negatively, explaining that when these apartments were built only one parking
space per unit was provided which is grossly inadequate at this time.
The Mayor asked Mr. Miller to provide the City Clerk with names and
addresses of the property owners in the immediate area so that they may be noti-
fied when the report is returned for Council action.
WORKERt~ COHPENSATION-EXCESS INSURANCE: Personnel Director Garry McRae submitted
inmsranca bids for workerts compensation excess insurance coverage and recommend-
ed that the City Council accept the low bid received from State Compensation
Insurance Fund, with $10 million maximum insurance. He reported Ctmt Council may
elect to tak~'a $100,000 or $250,000 deductible and no recomm~ndation has been
offered in this resard.
Mayor Thom inquired whether any statistics are available on the occur-
fences of claims in the area between SI00,000 and $250,000, to which Mr. lithe
replied tl~t the City of Anaheim has never had a compensation claim above
$100,000, and the R. L. Knurl company has had four cases in their entire company
which fell between $100,000 and $250,0001 which would indicate that there.are
not many ~laimo in this tense. Further, Mr. McRae pointed out, if the City
should receive a. claim in excess of $100,000, while under a $250,000 deductible
policy, it would be responsible for such claim. In this connection, however,
ch~ cast is generally spread over a period of time and there uould be an oppor-
tunity to budget for the loss.
City ~allt An~he.~a, California - COUNCIL M~ES '~AuSust 20, 1974.~ 1~30 p.M.
Hr. HcRae noted that experience is limited with claims between $100,000
and $250,000 and, therefore, it ~ould be his reco~aendation that the lower deduc-
tible be taken until such tism as t~he City becomes mOre confident W~th the self-
insurance approach, and an attempt w~ll be madeduring the course of the year to
generate the type of information which possibly would make a higher deductible
sore acceptable in the future.
Councilman Pebley left the meeting. (5:24 P.H.)
Councilwoman Kay~ood inquired as to the annual rate and whether this
~ould be subject to change each year.
Hr. HcRae replied that the price shorn on the tabulation sheet of
$20,573.00 is a competitive bid and is an estimate based on present salary pay,
roll figures. The actual bid was ~0.0883 per hundred dollars of payroll and
therefore the price vould fluctuate with changes in payroll, i.e,, number of
employees or salary increases would affect the cost.
Councilman Seymour mOved that the CitY Council accept the proposal
received 'from the State Compensation Insurance Fund, as ioWbidder, for worker's
compensation excess insurance coverage for the msxtmm of $10 million dollars,
~rlth $100,000 deductible option, effective September 1, 1974. Councilman Thom
seconded the motion. NOTION CARRIED (Councilmsn Pebley absent).
P,F~OLb,,~I~ NO~,~ 74R-407 - APPROVING TERHS AND CONDITIONS OF COKI'RACT, R. L KAUTZ
{~0~'~' C~.SATION-PROGRAH): Councilman Seymour offered ResOlUtion No. 74R-407
for adoption,
Refer to Resolution Book.
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIHAPPROVlNG THE TERNS AND CONDITIONS OF AN
AGREEHENT WITH R. L. KAUTZ & CO., A DIVISION OF PINEHURST CORP., AND AUTHORIZING
THE NAYORAND CITY CLERK TO EXECUTE SAID AGREEHENT.
R°ll Call Vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
COUNCIL HEHBERS: Eaywo0d, Seymour, 'Sneegas and Thom
COUNCIL HEHBERS: None
COUNCIL HEHBERS: Pebley
The Hayor declared Resolution No. 74R-407 duly passed and adopted.
sTUDy r HiII/ICI2AL, ~TER DISTRICT OF ORANGE COUK~ RE: LOaA~-/RF~IO-~L APPROACH, ~
S~TE ~CT ~&~'.~. ~rand~ fromche Utilities Director dat~ Au~dst 16' 197~,
s~riz~ the r~ifications of the propo~l by the ~t~opolit~ ~ater Distiict
of~ ~anse County to provide rater treat~nC facilities on theSantiaso ~teral
and ~nt~so Aqueduct on an area-~de rather t~n local basis, and containing
chere~ the folloving reco~ndation~as submitted for Council consideration:
1. That the City of Anaheim support continued sthdy of'a regional solu-
~i°n to handle State Project ~ater onthe Santiago Lateral; Based on presently
available infor~ation, a regional Treatment plant in the ~alnut Canyon area
(Alternat~ 5) appears to offer the best solution for the City of Anaheim.
2, Since total Project costs are expected to exceed 100 Hillion'D011ars,
that.an intensive study be ~ade ofmethods of financing this project before a
.decision is ~ade to proceed with any of the alternative proposals.
3. Any financing~ethod shall'give equitable treatment to those::~ho..pay
for the project and those who benefit from the project. The reas°n for the recom-
mendation for equity'is that .if the costs of regional treatment are not spread
equitably, then H~OC ~ay feel obligated to become involved in other projects in
other parts of the county, the need of vhich have not yet been detemined, in
order to restore equity. All projects undertaken should be paid for by the'
people vho benefit from the Project so that no Projects of Sub-marginal benefit
vould be undertaken merely to provide some benefit to people who have paid for a
different project from vhich they have received no benefits.
74-839
City ~1~ Anahei~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - Au~us~ 20, 1974, 1:30 P,M.
On ~otion by Councilmen Seymour, seconded by Councilman Tho~, the City
Council approved and adopted the recommendations and position as set forth herein
above, and further authorized the Utilities Director and Water Superintendent to
represent the City of Anaheim at the various public hearings to be held by the
Metropolitan Water District of Orange County and to speak in favor of Alternative
5, as well as convey the above mentioned positions. MOTION CARRIED.(CoUncilman
Pebleyabsent).
CALLING SPECIAL ELECTION - CIVIC CtI~TER PROJECT: The City Attorney reported that sev-
eral meetings have been held recently with Bond Counsel, O'Helveny &Hyers, in
an attempt to resolve problems relating to the potential issuance of bonds to
finance construction of the Civic Center Project. During these meetings consid-
erations as to the timing of the various procedural steps necessary to implement
a special election and issue bonds, as well as the size of the proposed bond
issue were discussed. As a result of these deliberations, Mr. Watts advised that
there are four resolutions recommended for adoption by the Council which would
accomplish the following: 1.) a resolution which would determine that certain
public facilities (therein described as the Civic Center) are of benefit to the
project area of Redevelopment Project Alpha; 2.) a resolution calling a special
election for November 5, 1974, to place the proposed ordinance which would imple-
ment sub-lease of the Civic Center facilities from the Redevelopment Agency
before the voters; 3.) a resolution requesting consolidation of said special.
election with the General Election to be held November 5, 1974; 4..) a resolu-
tion authorizing and naming members of the City Council to w-rite the ballot argu-
ment supporting the proposition.
Mr. Watts advised that while the first three resolutions described
above must be adopted by August 23, 1974 in order to meet the time constraints
for the November election, the fourth resolution is discretionary and may be con-
tinued to another meeting. The exact wording shown in the resolution calling the
special election as it would be shown on the ballot is as follows:
"Shall the City of Anaheim adopt.Ordinance No. , approving
the sublease by the City of a city hall, parking facility and related
public facilities from the Anaheim Redevelopment Agency at an annual base
rental not to exceed $ dollars for a term not to exceed 35 years?"
Mr. Watts stated that the critical element to be determined at this
time is the amount of annual base rental to be inserted into the' ballot measure.
He advised that variations to the language shown above were discussed and, if
Council were interested,.he was prepared to present these as well. In any event,
he stated, Should Council desire to meke any amendment to the proposed ballot
measure, it would have to be accomplished at this time.
In answer to Mayor Thom's request for comment from the Redevelopment
Commission, Commissioner Kenneth Cotler remarked that the Resolution adopted by
the Redevelopment Commission this date, recommending that the Anaheim Redevelop-
ment Agency issue bonds to fiv~nce the proposed city hall complex, should reflect
fairly accurately the position of that body. He related that, at its inception,
the Redevelopment Commission kept itself autonomous from the City Hall project
primarily because they did not want to be mistaken as a vehicle for construction
of a City Hall, and they have meintained this posture throughout. However, the
Redevelopment Commission now realizes that the Civic Center will have a tremend-
ous impact on the Project Alpha area and will even set precedents as to its
future. One of the prime areas of concern to the Commission was that there be
an understanding that Redevelopment funds would not be used for construction of
City Hall and that the Commission~s bonding capacity would not be impaired. They
now feel that they will be protected.in these two monetary areas, although the
a~ree~ent contemplated-will not preclude the Redevelopment A~encyts ability to
utilise redevelopment funds for projects and land parcels within the Civic Center
or other projects which they feel misht enhance their ability to totally redevelOp
the entire area.
Councilwomen Kaywood questioned whether the Redevelopment CommissiOn
could envision.any possibility of redevelopment in the downtown area without the
Civic Center project.
74-840 ~':~ '
City Hall~ Az~, heim~ California - COUNCIL MINt~ES - Aujust 20~ 1974~ 1:30 P.M.
Commissioner Cotler replied by advising that as the Civic Center actur.
ally comes closer to construction the Coamisston has received increasing queries
and indications of interest in develoPment in the dovntovn area, in a much earlier
time frame than was anticipated. He noted that the Civic Center' project will
serve as demonstrable proof to developers that the City of Anaheim itself is com-
mitted to redevelopment.
In answer to Mayor Thom's request for comnent on the prectsewording
of'the initiative proposed to go before the voters, C~issioner Cotler advised
that he could not speak for the Commission since they had not discussed this as-
pect, however, he did advise that the Commission would most likely be interested
in participation together with the.City Council in preparation of the ballot
argument.
Mr. Murdoch advised that the total~$tS,500;000 construction budget,
which was prepared after considerable discussion with the architects, bond counsel,
fi~ancial advisors, Finance Director and City Attorney,' is-based on the assumption
that the project will break ground the latter part of December and that this may
not be a tenable date. He reported that it will be difficult to meet even a
February date which would add an estimated additional $300,000 to the budget.
Mr. Murdoch recommended that it would be Judicious to add these two months to the
time schedule, so that construction would be planned to begin on February 14,
1975, even though this will then bring the parking facility under the Jurisdic-
tion of'the Environmental Protection Agency, since as of January 1, 1975, parking
facilities with 250 spaces or more will require review and approvalby this
federal agency. In addition, Mr. Murdoch stated Chat'according to the tenor of
discussion held by the Redevelopment Commission this date, it would appear that
they are contemplating a different type of parking structure and perhaps even
undergrounding this proposed facility.
Mr. Dan Rowland, Project Architect, corroborated Mr. Murdoch's state-
ment indicating that in order to meet the December 27, 1974 date for start of
construction, the construction plans would have to be completed by October 15,
1974. He advised that it would require 3.75 man-years tO complete'these plans
in the time period extending from August 19 to October 15, 1974, and' there Just
is not the physical space available to increase the number of men as necessary
to complete the plans by that date.
Mr. M. R. Ringer, Finance Director, advised'that a figure for base
annual rental of $1,250,000 was calculated, assuming start of construction on
December 27, 1974, and would cover the $15,500,000 bond issue at an interest rate
of 7Z for 30 years. In order to provide for the additional $300,000 it would
cost the City to start construction on February 14, 1975, the annual base rental
fiEure would have to be increased by $50,000 to $1,300,000 to cover the bond
issue at the 7Z interest rate for 30 years.
Mr. Watts explained that there is a five-year discrepancy between the
terms of the lease and bond issue, the lease being for 35 years and the bonds
issued for 30, so that, ti for any reason the City does not make the annual lease
payment for any given year to retire the bonds, then the lease would still be in
full force and effect. This is a safeguard for the bond holders, which was also
similarly written into the agreement relative to the Stadium and Convention Center
bond issues. The lease also provides that at such time as the bonds are Paid,
the lease, would expire at the end of 30 years rather than 35.
Brief discussion regarding the Environmental Protection Agency regula-
tions as they might affect the proposed Parking facility ensued, during which
Mr. Murdoch r--=rked that he felt the City really had no choice but to submit to
E.P.A. review of the parkin~-faCility due to the time limitations. Mr. Watts
pointed out that it would be possible in order to avoid the effect of any delays
related ~th such review of the parking facility on the construction schedule of
the City Hall facility itself, that the parking facility project could be separ-
ated frum the Civic Center, even though the bonding authorization for both was
~iven in one election, by iasutn~ a different series of bonds for the parking
factlity portton of construction.
..~L~IUITI~ ~0. 74R-408: At the conclusion of'discussion, on report and recommen-
dation e4-.the City Attorney and Bond Cotmeel, Councilmen Sneegas offm=ed Resolu-
tion No, 74R.-408 for adoption.
74-841
City Hal~ Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - August 20~ 1974~ 1:30 P-M'
Refer to Resolution Book.
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM, CALIFORNIA, DETERMINING
THAT CERTAIN PUBLIC FACILITIES ARE OF BENEFIT TO THE PROJECT AREA OF REDEVELOP-
MENT PROJECT ALPHA.
Roll Call Vote:
AYES: COUNCIL HEHBERS: Kaywood, Seymour, Sneesas and'Thom
NOES: COUNCIL HEMBERS: None
ABSENT: COUNCIL HEMBERS: Pebley
The Mayor declared Resolution No. 74R-408 duly passed and adopted.
~.SOLUTION NO. 74R-409: On report and recommendation of-the City Attorney and
Bond Counsel, Councilman Seymour offered Resolution No. 74R-409 for adoption,
insertin$ as the annual base rental fisure the sum of' $1,300,000, based on'
February 14, 1975 as the planned'date for start of construction.
Refer to Resolution Book.
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM,' CALIFORNIA, ORDERING, CALLING, PROVIDING FOR
AND GIVING NOTICE OF A SPECIAL ELECTION TO BE HELD IN SAID CITY ON'NOVEMBER 5,
1974, FOR THE PURPOSE OF SUBMITTING TO THE QUALIFIED VOTERS OF SAID CITY A PRO'
POSITION TO ADOPT AN ORDINANCE APPROVING A CERTAIN SUBLEASE BETWEEN THE CITY
AND THE ANAHEIM REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY, AND CONSOLIDATING SAID ELECTION WITH THE
STATEWIDE GENERAL ELECTION TO BE HELD ON THE SAME DATE.
Roll Call Vote:
AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: KaYW°od, Seymour, Sneegas and Thom
NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: None
ABSENT: COUNCIL HEHBERS: Pebley
The Mayor declared Resolution No. 74R-409 duly passed and adopted.
RF~.OLUTION NO. 74R-410: On recommendation of the City Attorney, Councilwoman
Eay~ood offered ResOlution No. 74R-410 for adoption.
Refer to Resolution Book.
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM,.CALIFORNIA, REQUESTING
TH~ BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF THE COUNTY OF ORANGE TO CONSOLIDATE THE SPECIAL
MUNICIPAL ELECTION OF SAIDCITY TO BE HELD NOVEMBER 5, 1974, WITH THE STATE-
WIDE GENERAL ELECTION TO BE HELD ON THE SAME DATE.
Roll Call Vote:
AYES: COUNCIL HEMBERS: Kaywood, Seymour, Sneesas and Thom
NOES: COUNCIL MRMBERS: None ·
ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Pebley
The Hayor declared Resolution No. 74R-410 duly passed and adopted.
By seneral consent, the City Council continued action on the resolution
to authorize certain of its members to prepare the ballot measure ar&~ment to
the matins of August 27, 1974, for possible inclusion of the Con,unity Redevel-
op~mt Commission in the preparation of said ar~ment.
74a4 - ALTn .,TE STA E , ,coa s oF
~ On report and reco~endation of the Director of public Works' 'C'°unC[lman
Sellout offered Re~olution No. 74R-411 for adoption, indicatin$ Plan '7" as the
preference of the Anaheim.City Council and authorizin$ .the'Director of Public
Works to present this resolUtion in public matins robe held August 20, i974,
by the Aney Corps of En~ineers.
74-842
City ~all~ An~eim~ California - COUNCIL: MINUTES - August 20~ 1974~ 1:30 P.M.
Refer to Resolution Book.
I RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM ENDORSING THE ARMY CORPS
OF BI~DINEERS FLOOD CONTROL REPORT ALTERNATE "F".
Roll Call Vote:
AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Kaywood, Seymour, Sneegas and Thom
NOES: 'COUNCIL MEMBERS': None
ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Pebley
The Mayor declared Resolution No. 74R-411 duly passed and adopted.
C(~NDATIONS - AHAItEIM CO~VE~flON CENTER: Councilwoman Kaywood commended Mr. William
Snyder, President of the Anaheim Visitor and Convention Bureau on'his recent
appointment to the International Association of Convention and Visitor's Bureaus
as co-Chairman for the consulting team; and further, remarked she would like to
publically acknowledge the exemplary manner in which Mr. Liegler and Mr. Stotereau
manage the Anaheim Convention Center, as evidenced by the approbation she received
from the Manager of the Southern California Ceramics and Hobby-Craft Show on the
facility itself and the high degree of interest and attention given by the Manage-
mant.,
CIRCUI~T~O~ OF P~TITIONS - ANAH~I~ CONVENTION CENTER: Dr. Atherton, 2510 South Coast
Hig~s~ay, Laguna Beach, was introduced by Councilwoman Kaywood and he stated that
he is a sponsor of a proposed inititive for the November ballot to establish a
four-acre park standard for county unincorporated areas. He stated that in order
to place this issue on the ballot the proponents of the inititive must collect
46,000 signatures by the deadline of September 15, 1974. In this connection, Dr.
Atherton advised that he asked and was refused permission to circulate his
petition in front of the Anaheim Convention Center. He stated that he views this
as a serious obstruction of his rights and further contended that the legal de-'
part~ent of the City of Anaheim which has ruled for many .years that petitions and
handbills may not be circulated on the Anaheim Convention Center property is 'in
correct. He referred to the Wallace decisionmade in 1974 by the California
State Supreme Court, which dealt with a similar situation, i.e., the right to
circulate leaflets at a fairground, in which'case it was determined that the
California Penal Code, Section 602, Subdivision (J) does not prohibit this conduct.
Therefore, Dr. Atherton contended he had a strong, legal position supporting his
rights to circulate a petition on public property, namely the Anaheim'Convention
Center. Further, he asserted that the City ordinance regulating distribution of
handbills (Chapter 7.24 of the Anaheim Municipal Code) is illegal.
Mayor Thom wished to clarify that Dr. Atherton had contacted him regard-
ing this matter earlier and that in response tohis request he had sought an
opinion from the City Attorney's Office, however, due to his vacation schedule,
this opinion has not been rendered as yet.
City Attorney Watts advised he would be happy to preparesuch an opinion
and further noted that Dr. Atherton has been in contact with his office and has
had relatively lengthy discussions on the subject with the legal staff. He
stated that historically, from the opening of the Anaheim Convention Center, the
Convention Center facilities as well as the parking area, when rented to various
tenants, are not available for booths or individuals picketing or circulating
petitions, since this would be considered an obstruction of the legitimate busi-
'ness activity which the tenant proposes to conduct at said facility. He Pointed
out that ~n individual who wishes to picket or circulate a petition certainly has
the availability of the street frontage on Estella Avenue and Convention Way. He
further pointed out that there are practical traffic problems which would also
precludethis type of 'activity Dr. Atherton is proposing at the Convention Center
and parking area.
Dr. Atherton replied that he has no quarrel with the City's right 'and
laws to re&~tlate against the obstruction of traffic and explained his definiti°n
of petitioning, which in his opinion would not obstruct traffic or business
activities. Re further pointed out that in the case of large shopping centers
and similar areas, the local government should give some thought to retaining the
8idewalk~within as public streets so as to provide individuals the right to
petition on sa~e.
74-843
City Hal~l Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - Aujust 20, 1974, 1:30 P.M.
At the conclusion of discussion, the Mayor advised Dr. Atherton.that
the City AttorneY's Office would prepare an opinion on the matter and that is
the only recourse which the Council could offer.
RECESS - EXECUTIVE SESSION: Councilman Seymour moved to recess to Executive Session,
for the purpose of discussing appointments to the Task Force previously estab-
lished which would review the Hill and Canyon Area General Plan. Councilman Thom
seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. (6:20 P.M.)
AFTER RECESS: Mayor Thom called the meeting to order, all Council Members being pre-
sent with the exception of Councilman Pebley. (6:35 P.H.)
APPOINTMENTS TO CANYON AREA GENERAL PLANNING TASK FO~E: On motion by Councilman
Seymour, seconded by Councilwoman Kaywood, the following members were appointed'
to the Canyon Area General Planning Taak.Force:
Representing the City Council:
Councilman Seymour (Chairman)
Councilwoman Kaywood (Vice-Chairman)
Representing the Planning Commission:
Representing homeo~mer's groups:
Chairman Lewis Herbst
Chairman Pro TemFloyd Farano
Hrs. Mary Dinndorf
131 La Paz Street
Anaheim, Ca. 92806
Hr. Roland F. Krueger
561 Peralta Hills Drive
Anaheim, Ca. 92807
Hrs. Jean H orris
400 Torrey Pines Cir.
Anaheim, Ca. 92807
Hrs. Charlene Barnes
5040 E. Crescent Ave.
Anaheim, Ca. 92807
Hr. Stewart Moss
1.019 Via Vista
Anaheim, Ca. 92807
Representing developers:
Mr. LeRoy Rose Hr. John Millick
Architect Anaheim Hills, Inc.
1440 S. St. College Blvd. 380 Anaheim Hills Rmad
Anaheim, Ca. 92806 Anaheim, Ca. 92807
Hr. W. E. (Bill)Mitchell Mr. John Martin
Market Profiles American Housing Guild
642 S. "B" Street
Tustin, Ca. 92680
Hr. Bill Lusk
John D. Lusk & Sons
P. O. Box 2140
Newport Beach, Ca. 92663
4019 Westerly Place,.Suite 105
Newport Beach, Ca. 92660
MOTION CARRIED.
ADJOURNN~.: Councilman Sneegas moved to adjourn. Councilwoman Kaywood seconded the
motion. MOTION CARRIED.
Adjourned: 6:40 P.M.
Si/ned
City Clerk
74-844
~naheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - Autust 27~ 1974, 1:30 P.M.
The City Council of the City of Anaheim met in regular session.
PRESENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Kaywood, Seymour, Pebley, Sneegas and Thom
ABSENT: COUNCIL MEHBERS: None
PRESENT: ADMINISTRATIVE ASSISTANT: John Harding
DEPUTY CITY ATTORNEY: Frank Lowry, Jr.
CITY CLERK: Aloha M. Hougard
UTILITIES DIRECTOR: Gordon W. Hoyt
FINANCE DIRECTOR: M. R. Ringer
CITY ATTORNEY: Alan R. Watts
PUBLIC WORKS DIRECTOR: Thornton Piersall
CITY ENGINEER: James P. Maddox
ASSISTANT DIRECTOR OF DEVELOPMENT SERVICES: Ronald Thompson
ZONING SUPERVISOR: Charles Roberts
PLANNING SUPERVISOR: Don McDaniel
Mayor Thom called the meeting to order.
FLAG sALUTE: Councilman Calvin L. Pebley led the Assembly in the Pledge of
Allegiance to the Flag.
MINUTES: Minutes of the Anaheim City Council Regular Melting held July 30, 1974 and
Adjourned Regular Meeting held July 29, 1974 were approved, on motion by
coUncilwomen Kaywood, seconded by Mayor Thom. MOTION CARRIED.
WAIVER OF R~ADING - ORDINANCES AND RESOLUTIONS: Councilman Sneegas 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 Pebley seconded the motion. MOTION UNANI-
MOUSLY CARRIED.
REPORT - FIILiNCIAL DEMANDS AGAINST THE CITY: Demands against the City in the amount
of $2,664,898.41, in accordance with the 1974-75 Budget, were approved.
PUBLIC HF~ING - AHENDHENTS TO TITLE 17 OF THE ANAHELM MUNICIPAL CODE - LAND DEVELOP-
HENT AND R~O. UR~ES: To consider amendment to Title 17'of the AnaheimMunicipal Code,
Land D~VeloPment and Resources, Chapter 17.06, Grading, Excavations and Fills in
Hillside Areas.
The City Clerk submitted correspondence received from Don P. Harrington,
Chairman, Governmental Practices Committee, Soil and Foundation Engineer's Assoc-
iation, dated August 23, 1974, and Dennis A. Evans, Chairman, Building and Safety
Advisory Committee, Geo-Technical Engineering Group, Los Angeles Section, American
Society of Civil Engineers, dated August 23, 1974, both requesting that the
public hearing on the proposed amendment to Title 17 be continued to allow the
Governmental Practices Committee of the Soil and Foundation En~ine~r's Association
as well as other appropriate professional societies time to study theproposed
Code changes and submit comments and recommendations prior to adoption.
Upon ascertaining by a show of hands that several individuals in the
audience were in attendance to present their comments regarding Chis proposed
amendment to the Code, by general Council consent, it was determined to proceed
with the public hearing.
City Engineer James Maddox st, m~rized the conclusions and findings as
reported in the Joint memorandum dated August 22, 1974, from the Departments of
Public Works and Development Services. He noted that the reco~mendations included
in the revised ordinance were derived throughmeetings with developers, consulting
engineers and also due to concerns expressed by Council Members regarding the
adequacy of the present grading ordinance. Mr. Maddox outlined the primary
changes as follows:
1. 17.06.110 - 17.06.120 (b) - Cut or fill slopes shall be no steeper
than two horizontal to one vertical - the existing Ordinance permits, one and one-
half horizontal to one vertical. Justification: Required for adequate mainte-
nance.
2. 17.06.110 (c) - 17.06.120 (g) - A twenty (20) foot wide terrace is
required at each fifty (50) foot interval - the existin$ Ordinance permits 'six
(6) foot wide terraces ad infinitumup the slope. Justification: Required for
adequate maintenance.