1973/09/2573-764
City Hall, A~.aheim!. ..... California - COUNCIL MINUTES - september 18t 197.~! 1:30 P.M.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, on behalf of the City Family who
Joe always stood ready to assist, that a special thanks be given to
a "Very Special Friend".
DATED this 18th day of September, 1973.
ATTEST:
/s/. Jack C. Dutton
JACK C. DUTTON, MAYOR
/s/ ,,Den~ M. Daoust
Councilman Sneegas left the meeting. (5:25 P.M.)
RECESS ? EXEGUTXVE SESSION: Councilman Pebley moved to recess to Executive Session.
Co~ctl~an 'Dutton seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. (5:25 P.M.)
AFTER P,~CESS L' AILIO~NT: Mayor I)utton called the meeting to order, all Councilmen
being present, with'-ihe exception of Councilmen Stephenson and Sneegas.
Councilman Dutton moved to adjourn, Councilman Thom seconded the motion. MOTION
CARRIED.
Adjourned: 5:45 P.M.
" City Clerk
City Hallt ~uaheimt California - COt~qCIL MINUFES _-SepCem. ber.~25~ 1973, 1:30 P.M.
The City Council of the City of Anaheim met in regular session,
COblqCII, HEN: Sneegas, Pebley, Thom and Dutton
COUNCIIIIEN: Stephenson
ADNINIS~TI~ ASSISTAHT: John Harding
ACTING CITY ATTORNEY: Alan R. Watts
I~PUTY CITY CLERK: Aloha M. 'Fattens
CITY ENGINEER: James P. Maddox
ASSISTANT DIRECTOR OF DEVELOPNENT SERVICES~ ROnald Thompson
ZONING SUPERVISOR: Charles Roberts
'TRAFFIC ENGINEER: Edvard (;ranzow
Mayor Dutton called the meeting to order.
I,NVOCATION: Reverend John Bucka of the Zion. Lutheran Church~gave the Invocation.
F~ .SA~._trl~: Councilman Calvin L. Pebley led the Assembly in the Pledge of
~legiance to the Flag.
RESOLUTION OF CONDOLgNC~: The following Resolution of Coudolence was unanimously
........ a~Pted by the City Council:
73-763
City Hal~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES -,Septembe~ 18~ 1973~ 1:30 P.M.
Mr. Murdoch pointed out that the City Council has authorized a call
for bids on the remodeling of the former Bank of America building and although
it is doubtful that the use requested by the Halloween Festival Committee on
October 27 and 28, 1973 would interfere,he advised that the show would have to
be removed prior to Monday, October 29, 1973, on which date the contractor
would begin the remodeling project. In addition, he noted that the City Council
has not previously permitted the use of public property for fund raising act-
ivities, however, if Mrs. Jackson would stipulate that the Chamber does intend
to utilize the proceeds for expenses related to the Halloween Parade and Fes-
tival, which is jointly sponsored by the City and the Chamber of Commerce, this
should not present a problem.
Mrs. Jackson advised that the exhibits in the Bank of America building
would be removed prior to the parade on Saturday evenin~ and she assured Council
that the profits derived from the arts and crafts show would be used solely for
expenses associated with the Halloween Festival and parade.
Councilman Dutton moved that the Halloween Festival Committee be
granted use of the parking lot between Claudin& Street and Anaheim Boulevard
and the former Bank of America building on October 27 and 28, 1973, as requested,
with the stipulation that any proceeds derived are to be used for expenses of
youth activities connected with the Halloween Festival, an event which is
jointly sponsored by the City of Anaheim and the Anaheim Chamber of Commerce,
subject to the details being worked out with City administration. Councilman
Thom seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED.
Councilman Pebley returned to Council Chambers. (4:30 P.M.)
RECESS - EXECUTIVE SESSION: Councilman Sneegas moved to recess to Executive Session.
' COuncilman Dutton secOnded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. (4:30 P.M.)
AFTER RECESS: Mayor Dutton called the meeting to order, all Councilmen being pre-
~ent with the exception of Councilman Stephenson. (5:20 P.M.)
~OTICE OF FILING FOR DISABILITY RETIREMENT - JOSEPH~B. GEISL~R.I_CITY ATTORNEY:
MaYor Dutton read a statement from City Attorney JosePh B. Geisler advising of
his filing for disability r~tirement as of September 11, 1973, for reasons of
health.
APPOINTMENT - ALAN R. WATTS~ ACTING CITY ATTORNEY: On motion by Councilman Dutton,
Seconded by Councilman Sneegas, Mr. Alan R. Watts was appointed Acting City
Attorney. MOTION CARRIED.
RESOLUTION OF APPRECIATION - JOSEPH B. GEISLER: The following Resolution of Appre-
ciation was unanimously adopted by the City CoUncil for presentation to Mr.
Joseph B. Geisler:
RESOLUTION OF APPRECIATION
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Anaheim accepts
with 'regrets the resignation of Joseph B. Geisler; and
WHEREAS, Joe served the City of Anaheim since 1957, and
as City Attorney since 1963, during the most active period of
Anaheim's history; and
WHEREAS, his keen knowledge of law and professional
efficiency has protected and greatly benefitted the citizens of
Anaheim.
NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that I, Jack C. Dutton,
Mayor of the City of Anaheim, on behalf of the City Council, co-
workers and citizens of Anaheim, do hereby express sincere apprecia-
tion for dedication and services rendered; and
73-765
city Hall, ~naheim, California - .COUNCIL MlNtrI~$ -_ Sep.tmbe~- 2~,. !973, [:3.0. P:M.
RESOLUTION OF ¢0NDOLEN _CE
~EREAS, the City Council of the City of Anaheim has
learned with sorrow of the death of
JOSEPH B. GEISLER
WHEREAS, Joseph B. Geisler served th~ City of A~mh~im
since April of 1956, and as City Attorney since January of 19.63~
and
WHEREAS, durin~ this period of time, Anaheim grew from
a population of approximately 50,000 to the present 184,000; and
WHEREAS, in the City's many accomplishnents there is
reflected the legal counseling of this dedicated and most knowl-
edgeable gentleman; and
WHEREAS, the loss of the association and helpful guidance
of Joe, as a friend and public official, will be keenly felt by
members of the City Council and City Family who held him in high
esteem for his integrity and clear Judgment.
NO~., THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City CounCil of
the City of Anaheim, that it deeply mourns the passin~ of
Joseph B. Geisler, and extends heartfelt and sincere sympathy to
his wife, Hattie, and daughter, Martha; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that this resolution be spread
upon the Minutes of the City Council and a copy thereof forwarded
to his wife, Hattie.
The foregoin~ Resolution is unanimously approved and
signed this 25th day of September, 1973.
ATTEST:
{s/ Dene M. Ilao,ust
~s/ Jack C.
/s~ Ralph C. Sn~elas
RAI~Pi~O. 'Sb'EEGAS,'NAYOR-PRO'TEN
~s/ Calvin L. ~b~ey
/s[ aark ~. Stephe~son
Followi~ the readini in full of the ~solution of ~ndolence, Mayor
~tton requested a m~nt of silence in~ of Ne. Joseph B.
~~TI~: ~e follo~ procl~ation was issued by Mayor ~tton ~d unani-
~usly aPproved by the City ~uncil=
~Ora~e ~unty iconic ~velo~nt '~y" - ~to~e I1, 1973.
~SOL~I~ OF CO~~TI~S~ A ~solution of ~ratulations to the National
~tti~ ~SoCiatton on. the occasion ,of t~ Marital ~lf Show and
National ~en ~tti~ ~ionship, ~s ~~usly a~ted by the
City ~uncil.
.73-766
Cit},_Hallt _A~heim! California - COUNCI'L M,LNUT~S -. ~e~tember ~it .1~97~1~ il, t,~O, P,M,,
NINUTES: Ninutes of the Anaheim City Council Regular Neetin~s held August 28 and
"September 4, 1973 and Adjourned Regular Neetin~ held September 4, I973, were
approved on motion by Councilman Thom, seconded by Councilman Sneega:s. MOTION
CARRIED.
WAIVER OF ,RE,~ING - ORDINANCES AHDRES,OLUTI~OHS= Councilman Thommoved to waive the
'readi~ in full of all OrdinanCes and resolutions, and that consent to the
waiver of readtn~ is hereby given by all CouncilmEn unless, after reading of the
title, specific request is made by a Councilman for the readi~ of such ordin-
ance or resolution. Councilman Sneegas seconded the motion. MOTION U~ANIHOUSLY
CARRIED.
REPORT - FIItAHC~ DENAIqDS AGAINST THE CITY: Demands against, the City in the amount
'of $2,2]"8,8~7'26, in accordance with-~he 1973-74 Budget, were approved.
PUBLIC HEARING - AREA DEVELOPMENT PLAN NO. 98: To consider alternate secondary cir-
culation for'property on the west side of State College Boulevard, between Savoy
Avenue and South Steer, and on the north side of South Street, between State
College Boulevard and Dover Street.
The City Planning Co,~_ission pursuant to Resolution No. PC73=167,
recommended adoption of A~ea Development Plan No. 98, Exhibit No. F.
Zonin~ sUpervisor Roberts reported that Area Development Plan No. 98
was readverttsed as a result of Reclassification Vetition No. 72-73-46 which
concerns t~w lots on the east side of State College Boulevard, between Savoy and
South Street.
Mr. Roberts advised that Area Development Plan No. 98 was ori&inally
initiated in 1968 following a report regardin~ homes frontin~ on arterial high-
ways, which report concluded that there ~ere 17 different sin~le-family areas
throughout the City which~ould be appropriate for conversion tO counercial uses
and subject area was one of these 17. In an effort to implement the reco~fnenda-
tion resulting from the study, the City Planning Conlnission initiated area devel-
opment plans and zone chan~es, however it was the opinion of the City Council at
that time (1968) that the comnerctal zonin~ on this property was pre~a'tur~, pri-
marily lmcause none of the property owners were interested in commercial zonin~
at that time. Consequently Area Development Plan No. 98 Was disapproved,
as was the general plan ~mengment and the reclassification prop0sal to C-lzoning.
Since that time the Anaheim General Plan has been amended to indicate this area
appropriate for commercial-professional uses.
Nr. Roberts' described the location and extent of the study area and the
land uses immediately adjacent. He reported that State CollegeBoulevard is a
primary arterial high~ay which carries 34,000 vehicles per day currentiy, which
is projected in ten years to increase to an excess of 44,000 vehicles per day,
not a~countin~ for any decreasir~ effect which the opentn~ of the Orar~e Freeway
might have. ~e advised that there is an alley located to the vest of the seven
lots included in the study area, for vehicular access, none of the lots havir~
driveways directly onto State College ~oulevard.
l~hen the request for rezonin~ (Reclassification No. 72-73-46) was re-
ceived the City Plannin~ Comnission was apprised of the fact that an area develop-
meat plan had been considered previously (Exhibit Ho. A) which referred to sub-
Ject parcels and the Countssioners felt that the area warranted additional study
for possible vehicular access alternatives. Therefore, the Exhibit Nos. B, C,
D and E, as posted in the Council Chambers, were developed for consideration.
Nr. Roberts explained the proposals' presented in each exhibit and gave
a brief smw~ary'of the merits and disadvanta~es of these plans as follovs~
EXHIBIT NO. B= This exhibit proposes the closin~ of the intersection of Savoy
Street~and State College Boulevard vith a cul-de-sac at the easterly terminus of
Savoy Street. This plan~ould provide as much protection as possible to the in-
tegrity of the sin~le-family residential'tract by pre~entinSln~ress ofco~ner=
cia1 traffic into Savoy Street. The disadvantage to this planwould be that a
portion of the R-1 lot located on the west side of the alleY, the soutlneest cor-
ner of Savoy and the alley vould be removed for construction of the cul-de-sac,
73-767
C~ty.~alLI Inaheim~California - COUNCIL ~INUI2$ -..SeFt~_.i~z 2~, _1973~
In addition, 40% of one of the t~o lots proposed .for conversion to
C-O under Reclassification No. 72-73-46 would be used for public right-of-way,
EXHIBIT NO. C: Exhibit No. C proposes that Savoy Street be blocked off by
construction of a block vail to stub this street 40 feet east of the intersec-
tion of the alley with Savoy Street. This plan ~ould also place a block wall
across the existing alley 40 feet south of Savoy. This would create a haa~ner-
head drive whtch~ould accommodate trash and fire vehicles in. lieu of a full
cul-de-sac as sho~n in Exhibit No. B. Under this. plan.the City~ou~dabandon
that portion of the alley south of the block wall and one, half ofthis
property ~ould revert back to the R-1 property owner on. the..~est side-and one-
half to the parcels proposed for commercial conversion to the east. This plan
provides for an alley return to State College Boulevarddirectly opposite the
South Street intersection at the traffic light. The disadvantage to this al-
ternative is that it would require approximately the 20 southerly feet of the
two lots involved in Reclassification No. 72-74-46. This alternative would pro-
vide circulation and access for all properties in the study area should these
wish to convert.
EXHIBIT NO. D= Exhibit No. D is a variation of Exhibit No. C ~hich proposes
to place a block wall across Savoy Street directly opposite from the ~est side
of the alley. With this alternate the Savoy Street intersection ~ould remain
uncon~nercial and other traffic ~ould use the alleyway to the rear of subject
.parcels. The negative aspects of this plan are that this would require a cul-
de-sac at the terminus of Savoy Street and the turn-around would not be adequate
for City fire and trash vehicles.
EXHIBIT NO. E: This alternative is a slight variation of Exhibit No. C, which
prOPoSes that a block wall be located across Savoy Street approximately 40 feet
easterly of the intersection of the'alley with Savoy. With this plan, the
Savoy Street intersection with State College Boulevard would be blocked off and
an alley return would be provided onto State College Boulevard running along
the southerly 20 feet of subject properties. A negative constdaration~rith
this alternate, is that no portion of the north-south alley would be proposed
for abandonment and commercial traffic would be able to exit out through the
R-1 tract by using Savoy and Dover Streets.
EXHIBIT NO..Fi. This desiKnates retention of existing-secondary access and
retainin~ subject area for singLe-f~nily residential uses,
Nr. Roberts advised that the conclusion of the PLanning Coumission,
follo~rlng review of Exhibit Nos. A through F as above described, was that the
proposal for conxnercial zoning on this property is premature at this time.
This decision was based principally on the traffic projection for State College
Boulevard follo~rlng the opening of the Orange Freeway,. specifically that the
traffic volume is expected to be reduced, thereby enhaucin~ the environment for
single-family lots on State College Boulevard. The City Planning Commission
therefore recommended adoption of Area Development Plan No. 98, Exhibit No. F
and recommended denial of the request for commercial-office use.
Councilman Dutton stressed that the request being made is for conver-
sion to the C-O Zone and not Col, and that there is a vast difference between
the uses permitted in these zones. He remarked that staff reports and discu-
si°ns tend to generalize and use the term 'commercial'' which could be
taken to mean the C-1 designation. Further he stated that thageneral plan was
revised in 1969 to allow specifically what the Applicant is requesting in Re-
classification No. 72-73-46.
Hr, Roberts advised that it was.nOt his intention to give the impres-
sion that he was discussin~ any other than a C-O use and that CoO was what had
been considered by the Plannins Com~ssion.
Councilman Sneegas inquired if it is the viewof the Planning Connts-
sion that a projected decrease of traffic on~tate ~ollese Boulevard to 17,000
or 20,000 cars per day would be conducive-tolt residential atmosphere. Hr.
Roberts advised that the Planning Commission indicated they felt that these
parcels currently are no longer adequate or have an environment conducive to
73-768
City .HallI .Anaheim! California - CO,U~IC~L M..Zl/!JT~S - September 2§~'1~731 '.1:30 P,M.
residential uses but if the Orange greeway reduces the traf:ft'c ilow on State
College Boulevard by one-half, then the condition as it exists today~rllI .net
be as severe a problem.
Councilman Sneegas asked the Traffic Engineer for average traffic fig-
..utes on a residential street in comparision.
Mr. Granzow answered that, dependent upon the type Of area set3red, a
residential through street may carry 3,000 to 5,000 cars per day, and a §O0-foot
cul-de-sac would carry 250 to 300 vehicles. A normal residential street would
be expected to carry an average of 1,000 to 2,000 cars per day.
Councilman Thom requested traffic figures for West. and North'Streets
which he remarked are primarily residential, and Mr. Granzow replied that West
Street carries 10,O00 vehicles per day and North Street 6,000.
In conclusion Mr. Roberts advised that the staff recon~eendation, should
the property be approved for coelnercial zoning, vould be that Area Development
Plan No. 98, Exhibit No. C be adopted.
The Deputy City Clerk submitted a letter received at open~eeting from
Wayne E. and Audrey F. Norris, 1931 Savoy Street, in oppositioa to Area Develop-
ment Plan No. 98 and further in opposition to reclassification of the .property
to C-O zoning.
The Mayor asked if anyone wished to address the Council relative to
Area Development Plan No. 98.
Mr. Troy Pewthers, 1915 Dover Place, advised that the property owners
are not as much opposed to the commercial use on subject property as they are to the
changes recommended under the area development plan, which they feelvould divert
more traffic into the residential tract and/or make the alleyway a thoroughfare,
~htch ~ould be ultimately detrimental to those properties fronting onto the west
side of the alley. He requested that the Council accept the City Planning Com-
mission recommendation against the reaonin& of the property and against any change
in the area per Exhibit No. F.
Hr. Joseph Davidson, one of the Applicants in ReclaSsification No.
72-73-46, advised that as a realtor on State Collage Boulevard':for I1 years, dur-
ing this period he has watched the gradual conversion of state Collese Boulevard
between La Palms Avenue and Ball Road to Conmercial. Inpart!cular he referred
to the Frederick's con~nercial properties built on State Collese Boulevard, which
have essentially the same access situation as those under consideration. He re-
marked that these properties ~ere develOpedwithout difficulties to the adjacent
R-1 homeowners. Further he commented said alleys, such as the one under discus-
sion, have been utilized in conjunction vith commercial uses for parking. He con-
tended that the type of uses proposed for these two lots~ould generate less
traffic trips than there ~ould be with a residence. He remarked that the 'pattern
to coemercial has already been set and stated that there are only a few homes left
in between the existing commercial structures on State College Boulevard. He
advised that he does not considermasaive cOnstruction or changes to the alley
necessary, since the impact on the residential neighborhood frO~ the operation
of this office would be minimal.
Mrs. A1 Collins, 1913 East Savoy, commented that she~ as a property
ovner, vould prefer not to have any additional con~n~rcial uses at all, and would
like to see theatre remain as it is. She advised that the Fredeelck's properties
referred to by Hr. Bavidson do experience considerable ~arkin$ problems due to
an inadequate amount of parking spaces.
Mr. Gene Lackey, 719 South State College Boulevard, advised thathe has
lived at this address for ten years and kno~s fr°mpersonal experience that the
livin~ conditions for residents on State College Boulevard have becm abnomal.
He remarb~d that the noise on State College Boulevard.~is the single biggest prob-
lem. -He disagreed vlth the opinion that'the traf~ic:~ill decrease leith the open-
ing of the Orange Free~ay, but feels it viii increase. ~e advised that there are
seven residential structures remaining on State College Boulevard and that he is
73-769
representin~ the two other homeowners aside from himself who tive on their pro-
perry (both of ~d~om~re present) and that the remainder of the residential
structures are now rentals. There is no opposition from these homeowners or
himself to the reclassification of this area to co~nercial use, since in their
opinion, the property is not appropriate for residential, use and they have
discovered that they cannot sell it as residential property.
Hr. Ceorge Rochford, 705 Dover Street, advised that one of the most
important factors in the consideration of this area development plan and the
proposed rezonir~ is that there is no through street. He 'advised that the
tract rill have a perpetual problem because of the lack of a through street and
because of the blind corner vhich creates a traffic hazard. He-expressed the
opinion that the injection of any additional traffic into this area will only
a$sravate the existin~ problem. Further he remarked that there is no guarantee
that the requested use would remain in operation and that it is likely that
other commercial uses which~enerate greater amounts of traffic might occupy the
buildinss.
Hr. James Olson, 875 Hilda Street, one of the Applicants in Reclassif-
ication No. 72-?3-46, stated that he has personally observed the corner of
Savoy and State College Boulevard both before and after the placement of the
traffic signal and he has been assured by the Traffic En$ineer's Office that
since installation of the signal the corner presents no immediate hazard. He
expressed the opinion, from his personal investtEation of the situation, that
the new Orange Freeway will increase the traffic volume on State College Boule-
vard, He cited the growth of the City, the development of large industrial
parcels whicheach house several thousand employees and the later student body
at Ca1 State Fulle=ton as factors whichwould precipitate the additional traffic.
Mr. Olson remarked that it is important to consider each of the par-
ties involved and he feels the R-1 homeowners to the west have been given con-
stderationwhen the C-O designation was suggested whichwould not permit a
heavy commercial use of the property. In addition, he advised that the property
owners on State Collese Boulevard should receive due consideration and it is
presently very difficult for them to maintain their properties by renting them,
The noise level on State Collese Boulevard he reported exceeds'the acceptable
Government standards. In conclusion he remarked that Area Development Plan
No. 98 which was first considered in 1968 is even more necessary to the City
and the neighborhood today.
Hr. David Brown, advised that he lives at the corner of South Street
and State College Boulevard and attested to the facts that the noise and dirt
~enerated by State Collese Boulevard make livin~.conditions extremely unpleasant,
if not impossible, for him. Further, he feels that it is dar~erous for his
child to play in the front yard because of the traffic. .He also referred to
the various nuisances experienced because, of the location of the shoppin~ cen-
ter opposite his home. He advised that it is not practical for him to keep his
property as a residence any lor~er.
Hrs. RaJendra Desat, owner of the property at 715 South State College
Boulevard, related the difficulties she has encountered in rentin~ this four-
bedroom house since families with children do not care to live on State College
Boulevard. Consequently her rentals on the property do not equal her expenses
and taxes, She remarked that she definitely approves a chan~e to commercial
use for the area, and that she does.not feel it is fair to penalize property
owners on State College Boulevard by retainin~ the residential zonir~.
Hfs. Loy Cox, 1926 East Savoy, inquired as to why the coUncil has
pet~nitted the large condomini~n complex and sl~le-f~nily.uses unde~ construc-
tion to the south of their area, and ie~nediat~ly adjacent to State College
Boulevard, if the noise factor is as detrimental as has been described. She
advised that she is opposed to Exhibit No. B and noted that 9§7° of the property
o~a~ers si~ned a petition subecttted to the Plannin~ Comission ~hich was in sup-
port of the Exhibit No. C. She also referre~.~to increased traffic in the
tract and insufficient space to provide adeqUate parkin~ on the two lots pro-
posed for co~rcial use.
Hayor Dutton closed the hearing.
73-770
Ci_t~ Hallr An etm - September
.~h _ ~ Cali£ornia COUNC]:~. NI:NUT~S- _
Councilman Sneegas stated that from the remarks presented by the home-
owners, it appears that their prime concern is the additional traffic going
throush their neighborhood. He remarked that he felt the traffic .problem in
this area should be alleviated now if at all possible since it will undoubtedly
become a serious problem, and that he felt Exhibit No. C would be the alternate
plan to accomplish this objective.
Councilman Sneegas referred to the residential structures located on
Brookhurst Street, north of Lincoln Avenue, and south of Ball Road and their
state of deterioration and compared the conditions in the study area, drawing
the conclusion that this area will also ultimately face the same type of delet-
erious effect if.some action is not taken to alter the-existing conditions. He
indicated that he personally ~ould not want to live on a street with 15,000 to
18,000 cars per day traveling on it and certainly not one ~rlth ~0,000 cats. He
reminded Council that the property o~ners to the ~est of State College Boulevard
who appeared at this meeti.n& expressed concern about increased traffic in their
residential neighborhood which carries approximately l~000 cars per day and
therefore no one should be expected to live on State College Boulevard.
In answer to Hrs. Cox's remark regardin~ the new residential construc-
tion at Wagner and State College Boulevard, Councilman 8neegas advised that these
residential units will not be permitted to front on State College Boulevard,
and further will be protected with sound bufferin~ devices such a block walls.
Further, Councilman Sneegas remarked that even if the traffic volume
on State College Boulevard~ere to decrease as a result of the completion of the
0range Freeway, in his estimation 'this would not solve the problem, since he has
observed that drivers tend. to drive faster on less crowded streets, thus making
the conditions more hazardous. For all of these reasons, Councilman Sneegas felt
adoption of Area Development Plan No. 98, Exhibit No, C vould be the best alter-
native.
Administrative Assistant John Harding cautioned that Exhibit No. C as
proposed with a block wall across Savoy Street would remove the pedestrian access-
way to State College Boulevard and it ~ould require pedestrians to use South and
Dover Streets for ingress and egress.
Traffic Engineer Edward Cranzow advised that pedestrian access was one
of the reasons for his original recommendation for so~e type Of. cul-de-sac at
Savoy street.
Discussion ensued relative to the proposed abando~nentof Savoy Street,
included in Exhibit No. C, and it ~a.$ felt,follovin~ discussion :of the~tmplica-
tions, that if a modified cul-de-sac ~ere installed at Savoy Street, it ~ould be
better for all concerned if Savoy Street remained a public right-of-way for pur-
poses of pedestrian access.
Councilman Sneegas asked the Traffic Engineer if perhaps allotting only
one-way traffic in the alley ~ould restrict use of this by the residents to the
west seekin~ to exit onto State College Boulevard at the si~nalized intersection
or by drivers attempting to miss the traffic signal at Savoy Street.
Nr. Granzow replied that he did not think this would be that much of a
problem and further that conditions at the South Street intersection with State
College Boulevard rill most likely warrant a traffic signal in the near future,
Nr. Roberts summarized the area development plan proposal under Exhibit
No. C, with its required abando~ents and dedication,.~rith the ~odification of a
cul-de-sac ko be placed at the present entrance to SaVOy Street rather than a
block wall as originally proposed.
Councihaan Snee$&8 offered ltesolutionNo. 73R,419 for
Development Plan No. 98, I~hibit ~Io. C, ~nended to reflect
placement of a modified cul-de-sac rather than a block wail, 40 feet east of the
intersection of the alley vith Savoy Street; said ,$tt~et robe retained as a pub-
lic right-of-way.
Refer to Resolution Book.
73-77l
City_ aall.~ ~na. he.hn~ Californi.a - CO~ClL M .~, S .- ,septembe~[ .,~}~_ 1973~ 1:30
A RESOLUTION OF TH]~ CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIH APPROVll~I AREA
DEVELOI~ENT PLAN NO. 98, EXHIBIT "C".
Roll Call Vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
COUNCILMEN: Sneegas, Pebley and Dutton
COUNCIL~N: Thom
COUNCILI~N= Stephenson
The Hayor declared Resolution No. 73R-419 duly passed and adopted.
PUBLIC ..,.I~.ARING - RECIa~SIF~CATION NO. 72-73-46t COifOITZ~ USE PERHZT NO. L398 AND.
ENV ,~j[tOt~i~TAL INPACTREPORTEX~NPTION STATUS: (Area l~Ve'[0Mnent Plan No. 98) Appli
cation by James A. and Erana Olson and Joseph and Belie K. Davidson requesting
a charge in zone from R-l-to C-O and the followin~ Code waivers to establish a
co~__etcial office complex in t~o single-family residences located at the south-
~est corner of State College Boulevard and Savoy Street, was submitted together
~rlth application for Exemption Declaration Status~
a. Types of signs permitted.
b. Ninimum site area.
c. Required setback area along site boundary line not abuttin~ a
street or high~ay.
d. Naximum buildin~ height within 300 feet of a single-family resi-
dential zone boundary.
The City Plannin/ Co~nission pursuant to Resolution Nos. PC73-177
and PC73-178, recommended that no environmental impact report be required; that
Reclassification No. 72-73-46 be disapproved, and denied Conditional Use Permit
No. 1398.
ENVIRONMENTAL INPACT REPORT EXENPTION STATUS: On motion by Councilman Sneegas,
seconded by COuncilman Pebley, it was the findin~ of the City Council that the
impact of said project ~ould be trivial in nature and that no enviromnental im-
pact report or statement is required. MOTION CARRIED.
The City COuncil revieved the Interdepartmental reports relative to
the proposed reclassification and conditional use permit and had no further
questions of the Zoning Supervisor.
The Mayor asked if the Applicant or his A~ent vere present and wished
to address the Council.
Mr. Joseph Davidson advised that the buildin~ they propose to con-
struct on the property is an extremely attractive one-story office buildin~
whichvould house the real estate and insurance businesses, and appropriate
landscaptn~ would be provided, so that in his opinion, the structure ~ould en-
hance rather than detract from the community appearance. He voiced the opinion
that the particular businesses proposed for this location~ould be compatible
with the residential con~nunity to the ~est. Mr. Davidson advised however that
if they are required to eliminate one structure and dedicate 20 feet of the
south portion for an alley, the plan submitted mtiht not be the one they ~ould
use,
The Applicant's plot plan was reviewed at the Council Table.
Mr. Davidson inquired vhether the Petitioners, in this instance, Mr.
01son. and himself, ~ould be required to absorb the costs of construction of the
alley, modified cul-de-sac and other i~rovem~nts as mentioned in Area Develop-
ment Plan No. 98, Exhibit No. C. He remarked that if this is the case, he could
certainly state that the cost of same vould be prohibitive to their development
of the property. He remarked that he could not understand vhy the development
he proposes should prove to be such a complex problem, and reiterated that this
use ~ould be more coe~atible with the existin~ R-1 area to the ~est than much
of the commercial activity existin$ on State '~ollele Boulevard. He advised that
they proposed to black top the entire area and provide 12 parkin~ spaces, ~hich
should be more than adequate. Therefore they ~lll not impose any additional.
73-772
Cit~ Hallt ,A~ ahetm! Califoz~ia - COUNCIl. MINUTI:$ - September 2§1,~l.9/7~3L 1~.=30 P,M.
parking problem on the residential area, He felt the si~waiverwas Justified by
the fact that the two businesses do require identification, and they wished to
have the same opportunity to advertise as the la other real estate offices on
State College Boulevard,
The Mayor asked if anyone either in favor or opposition wished to
address the Council.
Mr. George Rochford, 705 Dover Street, inquired how many waivers from
site development standards were requested .by the Applicants, con~nentin& that per-
haps a review of the City's criteria should be undertaken, to which Codncilman
Dutton replied four, three of which are standard, waivers necessary to the con-
version of residential dwellin&s to comnercial offices.
The Mayor asked if anyone else wished to address the Council, there
being no response, declared the hearin& closed.
Councilman Sneegas requested clarification as to whether the dedication
for a 20-foot alley required pursuant to Area Development Plan No. 98, Exhibit
No, C would be taken entirely from subject property, to which Mr. Roberts re-
plied affiz~natively, the reason being that this weuld alisa the centerline of
the.proposed alley with the centerline of South Street.
Councilman Pebley commented that the dedication and construction re-
quired to accomplish the Exhibit No. C plan as adopted ~ould preclude development
at all on subject property.
Mr. Roberts advised that the plans submitted by the Applicant assume
the alley and streets to remain as they exist without any chan~e, and if Council
wishes the area to remain without change, the method to accomplish this is with
Area Development Plan No. 98, Exhibit No. F. '
Councilman Dutton noted that Exhibit No. C was the recomnendation of
the Traffic Engineer, in the event that the subject 1ors were approved for re-
zonin~ for C-O uses.
Mr. Granzow explained that if the Council's objectiVe is to protect the
residential enviromnent,the recomended method is to provide a cul-de-sac. It
is also their position that the elimination of the left turn at Savoy Street from
State College Boulevard would solve an additional traffic problem.
Councilman Dutton was of the opinion that the area residents would not
be pleased with this plan as it would require that they use Dover and South Streets
for ingress and e&ress to the tract.
In answer to Councilman Snee&as, Nr. Roberts advised that the proposed
12 parkini spaces meet Code requirements. Further he reported that the plan which
was submitted would definitely not work with the street changes imposed under
Exhibit No. C.
Councilman Sneegas inquired as to why the Applicants' proposals'-were
not taken into consideration when the recomnendation on an area development plan
was made.
Mr. Roberts' advised that the function of the area development plan study
is not to accon~nodate any specific developer's plans but to explore various alter-
nate access possibilities.
The Mayor recognized Hr. ~ene Lackey who s~ested :hat Exhibit No. D
might be the most suitable for c_omma_.rcial conversion of the subject lots.
Mr. Roberts reported that Exhibit No. D was not satisfactory for access
by the sanitation trucks.
73-773
Hr. Troy Pevthers was reco~nized by the Nayor and he remarked that
he could not understand vhy it is not possible to. leave the area as residential.
Councilman Sneesas reiterated that neither himself nor Hr. Pevthers
nor anyone else ~ould care to live on a street with as much traffic as State
Collese Boulevard. Further, that he was not certain that Exhibit~ No, C, as
adopted, ~ould not create more of a traffic problem:than it 'wuld relieva~
since blockin~ Savoy Street ~ould necessitate that all of the people livin~
on Savoy and Dover use Dover and South Streets, thereby creatin~ .more traffic
con~estion on these streets.
Councilman Sneegas stated that iris apparent that adoption of Exhibit
No. C~rlll not solve any of the problems inherent in the development of these
t~o properties and that the benefits to be derived from it by the residential
area are minute if not questionable.
Nr. John Hardin~ related an additional problem~hich~ould be encountered
under Exhibit No. C in that an alley cut off to provide access for fire and
sanitation trucks vould be necessary, vhich either the Applicant or the City
~ould have to purchase or the ovner of the south lot dedicate. In addition,
a one-foot holdin~ strip could be obtained on the south side of the east-vest
alley and if the property to the south ever wanted access they ~ould be re-
quired to pay their share of the alley construction.
RECESS OF PUBLIC HEARING: On.motion by Councilman Dutton,.seconded by Councilman
.... Sneesas, public hearin~ on Reclassification No. 72-'73,~6 and Conditional Use
Permit No. 1398 was recessed for five minutes. HOTIONCARRTF. D. (3:15 P.H.)
AR~,AD~V~LOP~HT P..~A~ NO. 98:. Nayor Dutton reopened the hearin~ on Area Development
P1an -No. 9'8 and asked Whether anyone had anything new and different to offer,
there betn~ no response, declared the hearin~ closed.
RESOLUTION NO. 73R-420: CounciLman Dutton offered Resolution No. 73R-420 for
adoption, rescindi~ adoption of Area Development Plan'No. 98, Exhibit No. C
previously adopted per Resolution No. 73R-419.
Refer to Resolution Book.
A P. ESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAi~IX RESCIIfl)INC
RESOLUTION NO. 73R-419 PKRTAINII~ TO AREA DEVELOPNENT PLAN NO. 98.
Roll Call Vote:
AYES: COUNCILI4EN: Sneegas, Pebley, Thom andDUtton
NOES: COUNCIl: None
ABSENT: COiINCI~: Stephenson
The Mayor declared Resolution No. 73R-$20 duly passed and adopted.
RESOLUTION NO. 73R-421: Councilman Dutton offered Resolution No. 73R-421 for
adoption, adoptin~ Area Development Plan No. 98, Exhibit .No. F, subject to the
follovtn~ condition=
1. That vehicular access rights to State College Boulevard from the
subject properties shall be dedicated to the City of Auaheim.
Refer to Resolution Book.
A aZSOLUTION OF THE CITY cOUnCIL OF ~ ClT~ ~ ~m ~r~ ~A
~~ ~ NO. 98, ~IT 'F'.
Roll Call Vote=
AYES: COU~C~: Sneegas, Pebleys Thom end l~ttou
NO~S: COdICIl: None
ABS'~IT: COONC~= Stephenson
The Mayor declared ResolUtion No. 73R-&21 duly passed and adopted.
73-774
AFTEI I:tECESS,,- I~I~CL/I~SIFZC~TZON NO.. 72-73-4~ ~ C~.~ USE, ~ ~. ~398~.
' '-NaYor'~tton reopened the heari~ on ReclassificatiOn N0'~ 72'73~46 ~d ~ndi
tional Use pe~ No. 1398 and asked ~e~her anyone had any~ht~ new and dif-
ferent. ~o offer; ~he~e bei~ no response, declared the heari~ closed. (3:20 P.M.)
RE~OLUTIONNO. 73R-622: Councilman I)utton offered Resolution No. 73R-622 for
adOPtion, aUthoriZing the preparation of the necessary ordinance, changin~ the
zone as requested, subject to the follovin~ conditions:
1. That the owner(s) of subject property shall deed to the City of
Anaheim a strip o'f land 53 feet in width from the centerline of the street along
State Collese Boulevard for street widening purposes.
2. That the owners of subject property shall dedicate to the City of
Anaheim all vehicular access rights to State College Boulevard.
3. That trash storage areas shall be provided in accordance with
approved plans on file with the office of the Director of Public Works.
6. That fi~e hydrants shall be installed and charged as required and
detemined to be.necessary by the Chief of the Fire Department.
5. That a 6-foot masonry wall shall be constructed along the south
property line and also on the R-1 zoned properties on the Mst side of the alley
directly opposite the subject parcels if the R-1 homeowners consent to the con-
struction of said wall. If the R-i homeowners do not consent to the wall being
located .on their property, the owners of subject property shall be absolved of
the responsibility for constructing such a wall.
6. That all air conditioning facilities shall be properly shielded
from view, and the sound buffered from adjacent properties.
7. That any parking area lighting proposed shall be down-lighting of
a maximum height of 6 feet, which lighting shall be directed away from the pro-
perty lines to protect the residential integrity of the area.
8, That the existing structures shall be brought up"eo'~the minimum
standards of the City of Anaheim, including the Uniform Buildin~, Plumbing,
Electrical, Housing, Mechanical and Fire Codes as adopted by the City of Anaheim.
9. That the final parking plan shall be approved by the Development
Services Department, and any landscaped areas in the parking area shall be pro-
tatted with 6-inch high concrete curbs, and concrete wheel stops shall'be pro-
vided for parkir~ spaces as required.
10. Prior to .the introduction of an ordinance rezoning subject property,
Condition No. I and 2, above mentioned, shall be c~pleted. The provisions or
rights granted by this resolution shall become null and void by action of the
City Council unless said conditions are complied with within one year from the
date hereof or such further time as the City Council may grant.
11. That Condition Nos. 3, 6, 5, 6, 7, 8, and 9, above mentioned, shall
be complied with prior to final building and zoning inspections.
Refer to Resolution Book.
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAI~IM FINDING AND DETER-
MINING THAT TITLE 18 OF THE ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE RELATII~ TO ZONING SHOULD
BE AMENIIED AND THAT THE BOUNDARIES OF CERTAIN ZONES SHOULD BE CHANGED.
(72-73-66 - C-O)
Roll Call Vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
COUNCIIC/EN: Sneegas, Pebley and Dutton
COUNCII24EN: Thom
COUNCILMEN: Stephenson
The Mayor declared ResolutionNo. 73R-622 duly passed and adopted.
RE~0L~rt0N NO, 73R-423: Councilman l)utton offered Resolution No, 73R-623 for
adoption, granting Conditional Use Permit No. 1398, subject to the following
conditions:
1. That this conditional use Per, nit is grahted subject to the comple-
tion of Reclassification No. 72-73-66, now pending. -
2, That subject property shall be developed sUbstantially in acCOrdance
with pl~ and specifications on file with the City of Anaheim umrked ReviSion
No. 1 of Exhibits Nos. 1, 2, 3 and 6..
73-775
Refer to Resolution Book,
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIN GRANTINC CONDI-
TIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 1398.
Roll Call Vote:
AYES: COUNCILNIN: $neegas, Pebley and Dutton
NOES: COUNCIII~N: Thom
ABSENT: COUNCILMEN: Stephenson
The Nayor declared Resolution No. 73R-423 duly passed and adopted.
RECESS: Councilman Dutton moved for a ten-minute recess. Councilman Pebley seconded
the motion. NOTION CARRIED. (3:25 P.M.)
hNayor Dutton called the meetin~ to order, all Councilmen being pre-
the exception of Councilman Stephenson. (3:35
PUBLIC ........ ~~ ' ~ ~~T PLAN NO° 113 - RECLASSIFIC~TION, NO. ,73'74'2 AND
AREA I~VELOI~ENT PLAN NO. 113: To consider secondary access solution for pro-
.per~Y on the nOrth 'side of Lincoln Avenue, east of State College Boulevard and
vest of Paradise Lane.
The City Plannin~ Commission pursuant to Resolution No. PC73-179,
recounended that the City Council adopt Area Development Plan No. ll3, Exhibit
No. A, subject to the [ollo~n~ conditions:
1. That the o~ner(s) of 'property located on the south side of the
subject alley shall conditionally dedicate to the City of Anaheim a strip of
land 5 feet in width from the centerltne of the alley for elley videnir~purposes.
2. That the vehicular access rights to Lincoln Avenue shall be dedi-
cated to the City of Anaheim.
Zonin~ Supervisor Roberts su~ested that the scheduled public hearint
on Area Development Plan No. ll3 be considered in con~unctionwith Reclassifi-
cation No. 73-74-2 and Conditional Use Pemit No. 1412..
RECLAS~SIFICATION NO. 73-74-2 AND ¢0ND1T~ONAL USE PERH~.T NOw 1412: Application
bY Albert' R.-Bradley requestin& a chanse i'n 'zone from'R-'l 6o C-O and the follow-
in~ Code waivers to establish a comercial office in an existin~ single-family
residence, located on the north side of Lincoln Avenue, east of State College
Boulevard, was submitted together~rlth application for Exe~ption Declaration
Status:
a. Nlnimum lot area.
b. Ninimum side yard setback.
c. Maximum buildins height within 300 feet of a single family resi-
dential zone boundary.
d. Required masonry wall.abuttinS a residential zone.
The City Planntn~ Co~ission pursuant to Resolution No. PC73-180,
reco~Mnded that no E.I.R. be required and that Reclassification No. 73-74-2
be approved subject to the followin~ conditions:
1,. That the owner(s) of subject property sh~ll deed to the City of
Anaheim a strip of land 53 feet in vtdth from the centerli~e of the street
alou~ Lincoln Avenue for street widenin~ purposes.
2. That the owner(s) of subject property shall pay to the City of
~naheim the sum of $2.00 per front foot a'lon~ Lincoln Avenue for street lightin~
purposes.
3. That tim owner(s) of subject property shall conditionally dedicate
to the City. of Anaheim a strip of 'lend 5 feet in width from the centerline of
the alley alons the north side of subject property for alley widenin~ purposes
in accordance wtth Area Development Plan No. 113.
73-776
¢tty..Ha!l, __..~e.im~ Cllifot'~ia - COU~IIL {OlI~$, }ep~mb~r 25~ 1973~ 1:}0
4. ~at the vehicular access ri~ts to Lincoln lven~ shall be dedi-
cated to th~ 2ity of ~~, in accord~ce ~th ~a ~velo~nt Plan No. 113.
5. ~at trash storage areas shall be provided in accor~nce ~th
appro~d plus on file ~th the office of t~ ~rectoz of ~bltc
6. ~at all air conditioni~ facilities shall be pro,fly shielded
f=~vi~, and the sound buffe~ed ~=~ adjacent prope~ties.
7. ~at the existi~ structure shall be brousht up to ~e min~
st~dards of the City of ~e~, inc~udi~ the ~ifom Buildi~, Pl~bins,
Electrical, ~u~inS, Hech~ical, and Fire ~des as adopted ~ the City of
~e~.
8. ~at the final parki~ plan shall be approved by the ~velo~ent
Se~icea ~par~nt, and any landscaped areas in the parkl~ area shall be pro-
tected~th 6-inch hish, concrete curbs, and concrete ~eel stops shall be pro-
vided fo~ parki~ spaces as required.
9. ~at the sidewalks shall be repaired alo~ Lincoln Avenue as re-
quired by the City E~ineer. and in accordance ~th standard plans and specifi-
cations on file in the office of the City E~ineer.
10. ~at the extsti~ sarase shall be r~ved, as stipulated to by
the petttio~r.
11. ~io~ to the introduction of ~ o=din~ce ~ezo~ subject pro-
perty, ~dition ~s. 1, 2, 3 ~d 4, a~ve ~ntio~d,shall ~ c~leted.
provisions o= rishts sranted by this resolution shall bec~ null ~d void by
action of the City ~uncil unless said conditions are c~lied ~th within one
yea= fr~ the date he=eof or such further t~ as the City ~uncil may s~ant.
12. ~at ~ndition Nos. 5, 6, 7, 8, 9 ~d 10, above mentioned, shall
be co, lied ~th prior to final buildins and zoni~ inspections.
13. ~at prior to the introduction of an ordin~ce rezoni~ subject
property to t~ C-O zone, precise develo~nt plans shall be su~tted to the
Pl~i~ ~ission ~d City ~uncil for approval.
~e City Pl~i~ C~ssion pursuant to Resolution No. ~73-181,
reco~aded that ~ enviro~ntal ~act report be required and sranted ~ndi-
tional Use ~t ~. 1412 subject to the foll~ condttion~
1. ~at this ~nditional Use ~t is stated' subject to the comple-
tion of Reclassification No. 73-74-2, ~w pendi~.
a~O~de~ ~ ~ci~ Snee~as, it was t~ findi~ of the City ~cil that the
~act of said project ~uld be trivial in nature and that no enViro~ental
pact report or state,hr is requi~ed. ~I~ ~D.
~e ~puty City Clerk su~tted o~ let~r indicati~ op~sition
ceived fronts. ~ily A. ~lly, 210~ ~ard Terrace.
~e ~uncil felt that they ~re su~ficiently'f~tliar ~th the subject
fr~ review of the City Pla~i~ ~ssion resolutions and staff reports and
t~refo~e ,the ~yor waived the report fr~ the ~i~ Supe~tso~.
~e ~yor as~d if the ~plic~t or any other party in fair of the pro-
~sed area develo~nt plan or reclassification ~d conditional use ~titions
~shed to ~dress the ~uncil.
'~a. Ba~l ~rs, 2308 Paradise Road, asked'if t~ pro~sed area
develo~nt pl~ could ~ e~lai~d.
At the request of ~yor ~tton, ~. ~ts e~ained that A~ea ~velop-
~nt Plan ~. 113 was initiated to consider seco~a~ access for t~ area
of t~ residential properties alo~ the ~rth side o~ Lincoln Avenue, east
State ~lle~e Boulevard ~d~st off P~ise ~e~ze develo~d as c~=cial
uses. ~e study was initiated directly aa a result of t~ request fo~ cha~e
zo~ u~er hclassification ~titiou ~. 73-74-2. Foll~ coMideration of the
various alte~atives and diacussion~th t~ Traffic E~i~e~, t~ indicationwas
that it ~uld ~ best not to provide additional alley reruns to Lincoln Avenue
fr~'this area ~d therefoze the Pl~i~ ~ssion eec~n~d that ~bit No.
"~'~adopted~ichpro~ses no ch~e except fo= five. f~t ~ditional rtsht-of-way
alo~ said alley to ~ obtal~d as the probity ~lops.
73-77'7
F
~tty Hall zlkaa~e~I Cali~o,~lia - CO[f)IC~ M[NU~S - Se~temi~,,~ 25t 1973t 1:30 P.M~
,, :~ ~ ~ ,, ,
Nayor Dutton asked if anyone else either in favor or in oppositionwtshed
to address the Council; there being no response, declared the hearin$ on Area
Development Plan No. 113~ ReclasSification No. 73-74-2 and Conditional Use
Permit No. 1412 closed.
,.RESOLU?ION NO. 73R-424: Councihnan Pebley offered Resolution No. 73R-424 for
adoption, approving Area Development Plan No. 113 in accordance with Exhibit
No. A, as recon~ended by the City Plannin~ Comnission.
Refer to Resolution Book.
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM APPROVING AREA
DEVELOPMENT PLAN NO. 113, EXHIBIT "~'.
Roll Call Vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
COUNCILMEN: Sneesas, Pebley, Thom and Dutton
COUNC~: None
COUNCILMEN: Stephenson
The Mayor declared Resolution No. 73R-424 duly passed and adopted.
RESOIJJTION NO. 73R-425: Councilman Pebley offered Resolution No. 73R-425 for
.adoPtiOn, authorizing the preparation of the necessary ordinance, changing the
zone as requested subject to the conditions recon~nded by the City Planning
Co.n~tssion.
Refer to.Resolution Book.
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIMFIRDINC AND DETER-
MINING THAT TITLE 18 OF THE ANA~IMMI~ICIPAL CODE RELATING TO ZONING SHOULD
BE ANEN~D AND THAT THE BOUNDARIES OF CERTAIN ZONES SHOULD BE CHANGED.
(73-74-2 - C-O)
Roll Call Vote:
AYES: COUNCILNEN: Sneegas, Pebley, Thom and Dutton
NOES: COUNC~N: None
ABSENT: COUNC~N: Stephenson
The Mayor declared Resolution No. 73R-425 duly passed and adopted.
.RESOLUTION NO 73R-&26: Councilman Pebley offered Resolution No. 73R-426 for
adoption, granting Conditional Use Permit No. 1412, subject to the conditions
recomnended'by the City Planning Commission.
Refer to Resolution Book.
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM GRANTING CONDI-
TIONAL USE PER.NIT NO. 1412.
Roll Call Vote:
AYES: COUNC~N:
NO~S: C0[1NC~:
ABSENT: C0tlNCILNEN:
Sneegas, Pebley,~ Thom and Dutton
None
Stephenson
The Nayor declared Resolution No, 73R-426 duly passed and adopted.
PUBLIC HEARII~ -.RECLASSlFICATION NO. 73-74-15 AND ENVIRONNE~AL DIPACT REPORT
~lO~ STATUS. Petition initiated by the CitY Planning Co~tssion for achange
'in ~one from R-A (Urgency Ordinance) to R-A on property located on both the
east and vest sides of Brookhurst Street, southerly of Catalina Avenue and its
vesterly exta~sion; including a 2§0 foot length of Eatht~n I~ive at'the north-
vest corner of Lincoln Avenue and Brookhurst Street, vas submitted tosether
with application for ExemptionDeclaration Status prepared by City staff.
73-778
Cit~,Hall~ ~A~h_ e!mt California- COUNCIL N~,~ - ~egtelb~r
The City Plannin& Co~ission pursuant to ReSolutionRo. PC73-186,
reco~lended approval of Reclassification No. 73-7&-1§ and that,-noK,l~R., be
required.
ENVI~<---- AL IliPACT I~PORT F~ENPTIO~ STA .S~ O~otion by Counci~ Pebley,
secon indi~& of the Clty Couacil that the
impact of said reclassi£ication~uld be trivial in nature and.th&t'nO..environ-
mental impact report or statement is required. MOTION CARRIED.
The Hayer asked if anyone vished to address the Council either in favor
or opposition to the proposed reclassification.
Mr. A. Bakst, 210 North Brookhurst, advised that he is not opposed
to R-A zonin~ per se, but to a permanent R-A desi~l~tion for subject
at this time. Since the City Council has requested that the City Pla~nin~
missibn reconsider the zoni.n~ plan for properties in this area, he suuested
that the Council consider the chan~e from R-A (Urgency Ordinance) to City of
Anaheim R-A for those properties behind the Brookhurst Street frontqe proper-
ties as ~ell, so as not to separate the rear parcels. He referred to the fact
that a petition has been submitted by the property ovuer8 requesti~ a C-1 des-
i~nation from street to street and consequently it ~ould seem to him inadvisable
to separate the parcels at this time. He felt they should be considered to-
sether or that consideration of these frontage lots should be deferred to be
determined in conJunctton~lth the remainder of the property.
Follo~rln~ discussion as to the term of the Urgency Ordinance No. 3109
adopted December 12, 1972, it was moved by Councilman Pebley, seconded by
Councilman Snee~as, that public hearin~ on Reclassification No. 73-74-I~ be
continued to November 6, 1973, and the description emended to also include the
lots on Ranchito to Bircher Streets at the rear of the Brookhurat Street front-
age, and be considered in conJunctionvith public hearin~ on Reclessi£ication
Nos. 73-7~-1, 73-7~-9, 73-7~-10 and Area Development Plan No..112. NOTIO~
CARRIED.
'INPACT [EPORT EX~iPTION STATUS: Application by 'guy F. 'and -Ada Arnett, requestin~ a
c~e --'n zone ~rom R-A to R-3 and the follo~rln~ Code waiver to establish a
unit apartment complex .on the east side of Knott Avenue, south of Orange Avenue
was submitted tosether ~rlth application for Exemption Declaratt,cm Status;
a. Ntnimum distance hat. ten buildin&s.
The City Plannin& Commission pursuant to Resolution No. PC73-18&,
recommended that no environmental impact report be required and that ReclaSsifi-
cation No. 73-74-12 be approved subject to the follovt~ conditi~
1. That the ovner(s) of subject property shall deed to the City of
Anaheim a strip of land 53 feet in vidth from the centerline of the street alon~
Knott Avenue for street videntns purposes.
2. That all en~ineerin~ requirements of tb~ C~ty of A~aheim alon~
Enott Avenue, includin~ preparation of t~provement plans and'installation of all
improve~ents, such as curbs and gutters, sidewalks, street $eadin~ and pavin~,
drainage facilities, or other appurtenant york shall be con, lied ~thas required
by the City Engineer and in accordance vith standard plans and specifications on
file in the office of the City En~ineer; and that street ltshtl~ facilities alon~
~uott Avenue shall be installed as required by the Director of l~blic Utilities
and in accordance with standard plans and specifications on file in the office
of the Director of Public Utilities and that a be~d in an-~mount
factory to the City of Anaheim shall he posted ~rlth the City to guarantee the
installation of the above ~entionsd
3. That the ovner(s) of subject property shall pay to the ~i~y of
Anaheim the sum of 60¢ per front foot alon~ Knott Avenue for t~ea pl~tin~
poses,
· .,., 73-779
cit , Hall. Anaheina California- alSl s -' ·
4. That trash storage areas shall be Pr°~bd.,in accord~c~ With
approved plans on file ~h ~he office of ~'~rec~or of'~bl~c
~. ~a~ f~re h~dran~s sha~l be iua~led~ ~rsed ~'requ~red
and de~em~ned ~o be necessa~ by ~he ~ef of ~he Y~ce
conncemen~ o~ s~ruc~ural
6. ~a~ all a~r cond~on~ fac~ies shall be properl~ shielded
fF~ view~ ~d ~he sound buffered fr~ ~acen~ properC~ea,
7. ~a~ sub~ec~ proper~ shall be se~ed ~ u~e~o~d u~i!i~ies.
8. ~a~ ~he ~er(s) o~ sub~ec~ prope~y sha~
~e~ appropriate park and recreation ~n-lieu fees
p~a~e by ~he C~ Counc~ sa~d ~ees ~o be paid a~ ~ ~iM ~he bui~di~ per-
m~ ~s ~ssued.
9. ~a~ dra~nase o~ sub~ec~ proper~ shall be d~s~sed of ~n a~n-
net that ~s sat~sfacto~ to the City ~ineer. ·
~0. ~or to the ~ntroduct~on of an ordinance re~n~ subject pro.
party, ~nd~t~on ~s. ~ 2~ ~ 3~ above ~nt~oned~ shall ~ c~eted. ~e
provisions or r~ts ~r~ted by th~s resolution shal~ bec~ nul~ and void by
ac~on of the C~ty ~unc~l unless sa~d conditions are c~ed ~th~h~n one
year from the date hereof or such further ~ as the C~ ~uncil may s~an~.
~. ~at Condition Nos. 4~ 6~ 7 and 9~ a~ve ~nt~oned~ shall be com-
p~ied ~th prior to f~na~bu~d~ and zon~ ~nspect~ons.
~e C~ty P~a~ ~ss~on pursuit ~o Re~u~on~.
reco~nded that no env~ro~nta~ ~act report ~ required and Stated Vari-
ance No. 2544~ subject to ~he fol~ow~ conditions=
1. That this Variance is granted subject to the completion of
Reclassification No. 73-74-1 2, now pendinS.
2. That subject property shall be developed substantially in accor-
dance w~th plans and specifications on file with the City of Anaheim marked
Exhibit No. l, Revision No. l, Exhibit Nos. 2 and 3 provided, however, that
sufficient access shall he provided to the rear patio areas and that adequate
escape routes shall be provided for all units in case of a fire, as stipulated
to by the petitioner.
ENVIROnmENTAL IMPACT REPORT EXEMPTION STA -_S: On motion by Councilman Sueegas,
secon ndin~ of the City Council that the
impact of said. project would be trivial in nature and that no environmental im-
pact report or statement is required. MOTION CARRIED.
Mr. Roberts reported that the lots to the north and south of subject
parcalare already in the R~2 Zone and that the area is dest&qlated.on the Gen-
eral Plan as appropriate for medium density residential uses.
The Mayor asked if the Applicant or his A~ent.were present and satis-
fied with the recommendations of the City Pl~,~in~ Coa~tssion, to which Nr.
Phelps the Applicant's A~ent replied affirmatively.
The Mayor asked if anyone either in favor or opposition wished to
address the City Council; there bein~ no response, declared the hearins closed.
RESOLUTION NO. 73R-&27: Councilman Pebley offered Resolution No. 73R-&27 for
adOptiOn, authorizin~ the preparation of the necessary ordinance, chan~in~ the
zOne as requested, subject to the conditions recommended by the City Plannin~.
Coan~ssion.
Refer to Resolution Book.
A RESOLUTION OFT HE CITY COUNCIL OF THE ClTY OFANAH~IMFINDINGAND~TER-
MINING THAT TITLE 18 OF THE AHAHBIMMUNIClPAL C013~, i~/~L~]:~ TO ~ SHOULD
BE AMENI~DANDTHAT THE BOUNIIARIES OP CERTAIN Z(~ES ~ BE CHAN~EDo
(73-7&-12 - R-3)
ROll Call Yore=
AYES: COUHCILMEH~
NOES: COUNC~:
ABSENT: CO~HCILHEN=
The Mayor declared Resolution Bo. 73R-~27 duly passed end adopted.
Sneezes, Pebley, Thom and lMtton
None
Stephen&on
73-780
City Hall, .&~;he._im, California -.¢O~qCIL ~S - September 25~. 1975; l=~0 PoN~
Council~an Pebley offered Resolution No. 73R-&28 for
mce No. 2544,.subject to the conditions recoe~ended by
the City Plannin~ Co~ssion.
Refer to Resolution Book.
A I~SOI,gTION OF TI~ CITY COUHCIL OF T~ CITY OF ANA~ZI~GRANTZI~ VARZ. AH~
NO. 2544.
Roll Call Vote:
AYES: COUNCILNEN~ Sneesas, Pebley, Thom and Dutton
NOES: COUNCILNEN: None
ABSENT: COUNCILNEN: Stephenson
' The Mayor declared Resolution No. 73R-428 duly passed a~d adopted.
~lqYBLlC ~AR? - RECL4SSIFXCATIOH NO. 73-74-13 AND EHV~H?AL Dfl? ~ACT REI~iT EXEHP-
SYATU~: Application by Bruce C. Annstrong andN~chae! J. Geran, requesting a
ch~ngein zone from R-1, Parcel No. l, and R-3, Parcel No. 2, to RS-§000, Parcel
Nos. 1 and 2; on the north side of Vermont Avenue, south side of Tyrol Place,
~est o£ State Collese Boulevard, was submitted tosetherwith application for
Exemption Declaration Status. (Tentative Tract No. 8417)
The City Planning Commission pursuant to Resolution Ho. 1~73-182,
recommended that no environmental ~n?act report be required' and that Reclassifi-
cation No. 73-74-13 be approved subject to the following conditions=
l. That a final tract map of subject property shall be sub~Ltted to
and approved by the City Council and then be recorded in the office of the Orange
County Recorder.
2. That the o~ner(s) of subject property shall deed to the City of
Anaheim a strip of land 30 feet in width from the centerline of the street along
Tyrol Avenue and Tyrol Place for street widening purposes as stipulated to by the
petitioner.
3. Prior to the introduction of an Ordinance rezoning subject pro-
perty, Condition Nos. 1 and 2, above mentioned, shall be completed. The provi-
sions or riEhts sranted by this resolution shall become null and void by action
of the City Council unless said conditions are complied wtth within one year from
the date hereof or such further time as the City Council may stent.
EHV~NT,,~I, DiPACT RElenT EXEHPT~ STATUS: On motion by ~oUncilnum Sueesas,
secOn~e~ bY"conncilmanPebley, it was the 'finding of'the City Council that the
impact of said project ~ould be trivial in nature and that no environmental im-
pact report or statement is required. NOTION CARRIED.
NE. Roberts briefed the location of subject property~ immediate uses
and zoning in the area and the findings of_the City Planning C~xnmission.
The Mayor asked if the Applicant or his Agent were present and satis-
fied ~ith the recomnendations of the City Planning Ccan~ssiono to which the Appli-
cant replied affirmatively.
The Mayor asked if anyone wished to address the ~ouncil either in favor
or opposition to the proposed reclassification; there being no response, declared
the hearing closed.
RESOLI~IONHO, 73R-429= Councilman Sneesas offeredRosolutiouNo, 73R-~29 for
a pt on, ant r z ng the preparation of the nee~Ssary, ordinance' changing the
zone as requested, subject to the conditions recoamended by the City Pl~ng
C~mnission.
Refer to Resolution Book.
A RESOLUTZOHOFTHE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF AHAHi~]M'FJ~DII~AHD~-
,gZNlgG THAT TZTT.~ 18 OF~~~~CZP~ ~~~~.S~
BE ~D~T~T~ B~~S ~ ~~ ~ ~~~gD,
(73-76-13 - ~-5000)
73-781
City Hal.....ll Anahe~ im! California- .C.~ ..~. ~$- Sep. tembe~i 2~I 19731 1=30 PoN.
Roll Call Vote:
AYES: CO~CI~: Sueegas, Pebley, Tho~ and Dutton
HOES: COV~CI~: ~ne
~: CO~CI~: Stephenson
~e hyor declared Resolution Ho. 73R-~29 duly passed ~ adopted.
~ATI~ ~f ~ HO. 8417: ~veloper - E~ard F. Foley, Foley ~ruc~ion
~Yl pEoper~y loca~e~ on ~be ~r~h side of Ve~nt Avenue, sou~h of ~tol
Place; con~aini~ 12 proposed ~-5000 ~ned lo~s.
~e City Pl~i~ ~ission a~ ~hei~ ~e~i~ held ~gus~ 20~ 1973,
approved said ~en~a~ive ~p sub~ec~ ~o the ~o11~ conditions:
1. ~at ~he o~(s) of subject p~ope~ty shall deed to the City of
~e~ a strip of land 30 feet in ~dth fr~ the cente~line of the street alo~
~ol Avenue ~d ~rol Place for street wideni~ purposes.
2. ~at t~ approval of Tentative hp of Tract ~. 8417 is ~=anted
subject to the approval of Reclassification ~. 73-74-13.
3. ~at should this subdivision be developed as ~re'than one sub-
division~ each subdivision thereof shall be snorted in tentative rom ~o~
approval.
4. ~at all lots ~ithin this ~ract shall ~ se~ed by undersround
utilities.
5. ~at a final tract ~p of subjeCt proPerty shall be su~tted to
and approved by the City ~uncil and then be recorded in the office of the
Orate ~unty Recoider.
~. ~at the '~r(s) of subject property shall pay to the ait~
~eim approp~iate park and ~ecreation in-lieu fees as dete~ined to be appro-
pri,te by the City ~uncil~ said fees to ~ paid at the t~ the buildl~ p~-
~t is issued.
7. ~at drainage of subject prope=ty shall be disposed of in a ~nne=
that is satisfacto~ to the City
~ ~tion by ~uncila~ ~tton~ seconded by ~cilma ~bley~ Tenta-
tivt ~p~ Tract ~. 8417 ~as app=o~d~ subject to the ~ec~ndations of the
City Pla~i~ ~ssion. ~I~ ~D.'
~C - ~S~ ~M~ l~lYI~: Request. of Hr.' Harold C. F~, o~er, ~este~
~bul~e ~ice to address the ~=cil relative to ~mit for operation of
an ~bulance semite ~thin the City of ~ahe~, vas continued to ~tober 30,
1973, as requested by the ~pLicant's AttorneY, ~. ~ence Buckley, on ~tion
~ ~uncilm SneeEas, seconded by 2ouncilmn ~bley. N~I~ ~D.
~~-~ ~~~ ~T ~ 73-5~: SnOrted by ~. N. Sickler,
~ nto a portion of a dedicated
road~ located south of Santa Ann Canyon Road~ west of Anaheim Hills Road~ north
of llohl Ranch Road, for the purpose of pemittin~ motor vehicle access~ parkin~
roof overhan~ and landscapit~ for a private tennis club.
Also suhaitted was report of the City g~ineer recon~__endin~ approval
of. said encroacl~ent subject to the folLowi, n~ .conditions:
1. That the Conditional Use Permit lto. 1406 presently bei~ processed
be approved~ and all conditions contained therein be complitd with.
2. The llectrical 'Division of the City of Anshai~a requires that no
sttmcture be pemitted to encroach closer than thirty feet (30t) to the existin~
pole line and that adequate access be provided at all times to maintain said
facilities.
3. The Pacific Telephone & Telegraph Co. maintains aerial plant with-
in a portion of said encroachaent, and .requests that existin~ aerial pole line
viii remain in the s~e location~ and also access to any and all extstin~ facili-
ties be provided at &Il ti~es.
4.. That applicant wili suhait standard street i;.nrovement plans to
the City E~ineer for reviev and approval~ and also all .required street i~?rove- .
~ents be ecco~plished at no cost to the City of Anaheim.
73-782
..~ity .Hall, ..A~eimt California - COUNC. IL NINUTES - Septe~her 25t 1975f !:30
5. The Orange County Flood Control District has approved this request
subject to a 5-foot hish chain link fence being installed separating the proposed
parking area from the existing fl6od control channel at no cost to said District
and/or said City. In addition, the existing service road at the south end of
the subject parcel remain as is vith a chain barrier.
6. The applicant ~r111 at all times provide a minimum of 12-feet ~rlde
accessway clear of any obstruction in orde~ to maintain theexisttng flood con-
trol channel.
7. Applicant rill bear all cost of any and all relocation, revision
and/or ~elocation of existingvater line and utilities.
RESOLUTION NO. 73R-430: Councilman Dutton offered Resolution No. 73R-430 for
ad0ptio~, approving Encroachment Permit No. 73-5E, subject to the conditions
reconmended by the City Eu$iueer.
Refer to Resolution Book.
A RESOLUtiON oF THE CITY COt~ClL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEI~ API~OVlN~ T~ ~
~ CO~ITIONS OF ~ ~~ ~IT ~ ~H~IZ~ ~ ~Y~ ~ C~
C~ ~ ~C~' SAID EN~O~ ~IT W~H ~~ HILLS, ~C. ~ ~CO
~S, ~C. (73-5E)
Roll Call Vote:
AYES: COUNCILNEN: Sneegas, Pebley, Thom and Dutton
NOES: COU~CILHEN: None
ABSENT: COU~CI~N: Stephenson
The Nayor declared Resolution No. 73R-430 duly passed and adopted.
CITy,,p~~.!~: Actions taken by the CityPlanning
held september 5, 1973, pertaining to the rolls,ring applications
-for City Council information and consideration:
E~IR.O.~NTAL 124PA~'T REPORT EXEHPTION STATUS: As recommended by'the City Planning
coemils'tou, on motion by Councilman Pebley, seconded by Councilman Sneegas, it
was the fildin~ of the City Council that the impact of the project in ~he follow-
ing zoning applications vould be trivial in nature and that no environmental fin.
pact reports or statements be required:
Variance No. 2543 Conditional Use Permit No. 1422'
Variance No. 2546 Conditional Use Permit No. '1~23
Conditional Use Permit No. 939
MOTION CARRIED.
Sub~itted by Shields Krutzsch and Kenneth Ross, .to estab-
lib-h a-~aini-warehouse on N-~l zoned property located on the south side of Via
Burton 'Street, ~ast of Placentia~ Avenue, with waiver of:
a. lttnfinum required number of parking spaces.
The City Planning Goeniasion pursuant to Resolution No. PC73-~96,
denied said va~iance.
2.. VARI~(~,. NO. 25.~6: Suhedtted by Central Lin-~rook Hardware., to establish an
aUto an~ recreation vehicle storage facility on H 1 zoned property, located at
the northeast corner of Broadway and Loara Street wtthvatvers Of~.'.
a. Permitted uses,..
b. Front setback.
c. Location of billboard.
d. Billboard setback.
e. Billboard support.
The City PI~iu~ Coaniaalon pursuant to Resolution !1o. PC73-200,
granted said vartence in Part o~ly, iranting vaiwrs 'a" and "b" and denying
waivers 'c', 'd' and 'e', subject' to conditions.
73-783
citx Hall, Anaheim~ California - COUNC~ ~:- Se{temb~,,m {Se, 1973e 1~30 P.M.
3. CONDITIONAL USE I:~T NO. 1~22= Subad. tted by Douald L Pierotti, Wesley
Co~lier and Dierk D. Peters, .to install radio trausmiSsi0u towers and transmit-
ter unit on R-A zoned property located east of Lakeview AvenUe, south of Oranse-
thorpe Avenue.
The City Plannin~ Co~Ission pursuant to ReSolution No. PC73-199,
granted said conditional use permit subject to conditions.
4. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 1423: Sub~itted by Knott Avenue Christian
Church to expand church facifities and construct a two-story educational class-
room buildtn~ with offices and storage facilities on R-A zoned property located
on the west side of Knott Avenue, north of Oran~e Avenue.
The City Plannin~ Commission pursuant to Resolution No. PC73-201,
granted said conditional use permit subject to conditions.
5. CONDITIONAL use PERMIT NO. 922: Submitted by Mark J, Hepp, Architect, re-
questin~ approval of revised plans for expansion of Servite High School and
further requestin~ a determination that they are substantially in accordance
with the' plans approved under Conditional Use Permit No. 922 which permitted
the construction of a new gymnasium buildtn~ and remodelin~ of .the. shower and
locker room facility. The property is zoned R-A and located on the south side
of La Palms Avenue, west of Onondaga Avenue.
The City Planning Cone!ssion by motion, approved the revised plans
submitted in conJunction with Conditional Use Permit No. 922.
6. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 939: Submitted by ff~tmeth W. and Helen L. Holt,
to permit the move-On of two educational classroom buildings, to construct a
restroom facility and to provide an asphalt parking lot on M-1 zoned property
located on the east side of Loafs Street, south of Mable Street.
The City Planning Coantssion pursuant to Resolution No. PC73-203,
granted ~aid conditional use permit subject to conditions.
The foregoing actions were reviewed by the City 'CoUncil and no further
action taken.
STANDARDSFORPR!VATE STREETS: The proposed standards for construction of private
streets within the City of Anaheim, prepared and submitted by the Engineering
Division, which meets the requirements of the Sanitation Division, Fire Depart-
ment and Water Division,' was submitted for City Council consideration. The
City Pl-nning Commission has reviewed sa~e and recoe~ended they be adopted as
policy and criteria for construction of private streets within the City.
On motion by Councilnmn Pebley, seconded byCouncihnan Sneegas, the
standards for private streets as set forth in the February 28, 1973 memorandum
to the Anaheim City Planning Co~nissionfrma-.th~tneerin~Division was approved
as recomnended by the City Pl~rmtn& ~tssion. MOTZOItCARRreD.
PROPOSED AMENDMENT TO TM AIIAI~I~NUNICIPALC(~ = R'E Z(~E: .On motionby Councilman.
Dutton, seconds lc hearth, was scheduled for
October 30, 1973, 1:30 P.M., to consider e~endments to the Anaheim Municipal
Code, Title 18, Zoning, Chapter 18.18, R-E'Re~idential Estate Zone as follows:
Section 18.18.020 - Permitted primary structures and uses
Section 18.18.021 ' Permitted accessory structures and land uses.
Section 18.18.030 - Subsection (2) (c) front on lots.
MOTION CAI~I~D.
RESOLUTION NO. 73R.-43L - AMARD OF WORK ORI:IR NO 701-B: In accordance with recon~n-
e~as offered Resolution No. 73R-431
for adoption.
Refer to Resolution Book.
73-784
Cit~' Hall~..,,A~_q,tz~ California - COUNCI:LMIIIUTIIS - Sep~ r ~5,a 19~3. I~IP.H.
A I~ESOLUTION O~ TH~ CITY COUNCIL OF T[~ CITY
~ITI[S ~ ~SP~TATION~ HCL~I~ ~, F~L
F~I~ ~L WO~ ~SS~Y TO C~S~U~ ~ C~~ ~ F~I~ ~LIC
~O~, ~ H~LL A~ ~ET ~, ~ 118 ~T S~"OF
S~IST ~ ~ 4 ~ET N~TH OF SIN~ S~ET,
W~ O~ NO. 701-B. (Jim's Blade Se~ice - $4,216,60)
Roll Call Vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
COL~CI~N: Sneegas, PebleY, Thom and Dutton
COUNCILNEN: None
COUNCI~N: Stephenson
The Nayor declared Resolution No. 73R-431 duly passed and adopted.
itESO~T.~ON~N~. 7~R-432 - WORK ORI~R N0. 2065: Councilman Dutton offered Resolution
No.'73R' 432f0r adoPtion.
Refer to Resolution Book.
A RI~SOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM FINDING AND DETER-
MINING THAT PUBLIC CONVENIENCE AND NECESSITY REQUIRE THE CONSTRUCTION AND
CC~J?LETZON OF A PUBLIC 124PRO~, TO WIT: TH~ WAIIq~ CANYON CHAN~L
PAIR, N/O AIiAHE~ HILLS ROAD, IN THE CITY OF AIIAHE~ WORK ORI~R NO. 2065.
APPROVING THE DESIGNS, PLANS, PROFILES, DRAWINGS AND SPECIFICATIONS FOR
THE CONSTRUCTION THEREOF; 'AUTHORIZING THE CONSTRUCTION OF SAID PUBLIC
PROVENENT IN ACCORDANCE WITH SAID PLANS~ SPECIFICATIONS~. ETC, I AND AUTH-
ORIZING AND DIRECTING THE CITY CLERX TO PUBLISH A NOTICE INVITING SEALED
PROPOSALS FOR THE CONSTRUCTION THEREOF. (Bids to be Opened - October 18,
1973, 2~00
Roll Call Vote:
AYES: COUNCII21EN:
NOES: COUNCII2~EN:
ABSENT: COU~CIIiiEN:
Sneeias, Pebley, Thom and l)utton
None
Stephenson
The Mayor declared Resolution No. 73R-432 duly passed .and adopted.
RESOI~IITION N~, 73R-~33 - WORK ORDI~ NO. 680-A: Upon receipt of certification f.rom
' 'th~-Di'rictol,;' Of Public works, CounCilman Dutton offered Resolution No. 73R 433
for adoption..
Refer to Resolution Book.
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COIINCIL OF ~ CITY OF ~l)! FINALLY ACCEPTING
THE C~TI~ ~ T~ F~ISHI~ OF g P~, ~, SEIVI~S, .~R~
~ E~I~ ~ ~L ~IT~S ~ ~$~TATI~ IN~I~ ~ F~L
~D WA~, ~D ~ ~~~ OF ~ W~ ~S~Y ~ C~$~ ~ C~-
P~ T~ FO~I~ ~LIC ~0~~ TO ~: ~ RIC~ RO~ S~T
~O~~. ~ ~ P~ A~ TO ~~LY 635 ~ET $~ OF~
Const~ction ~any).
Roll Call Vote:
AYF-S: COUNCI~N:
NOES: COUNCIIJ~N~
ABSENT: COUnCIl:
Sneegas, P~bley, Thom arid Dutton
None
Stephenson
The ltayor declared Resolution No. 73R-6~3. duly pos'sed-s~d adOpted.
R~SOI~UT~ON-NO? 73R-434 - DEEDS OF EAS~N~; CounciLeau Pebley offered. ~eeolution No.
' -731['434 ~for adoption. '
Refer to Resolution Book.
73-785
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIN 'ACCEPTINC CERTAIN
D~DS AlqD ORDERX~ THE~IR RECOItDATION, (Hazel I. Maag; American National
Housin~ Corporation)
Roll Call Vote~
AYES: COUNCILIq~:
NOES: COUNCIIIq~
ABSENT: COUIqCI~:
Sneegas, Pebley, Thom and Dutton
Hone
Stephenson
The Nayor declared Resolution No. 73R-434 duly passed and adopted.
PU~ OF EOUIPNENT - SUPERVISORy. ¢0NT~L S.YST~,,N~ i~_nistrative Assistant John
Ha{din~ reported on the recoo~ended purchase 'of one master and one remote
REDAC V Supervisory Control System from Westin~house Electric Corporation in
the amount of ~16,844.46, includinS tax, as the sole vendor.
Mr. Hardin~ advised that this purchase is recommended from Westin~-
house on a sole vendor basis since this unit must be compatible with the exist-
in~ Westin~house master unit at the Lewis Substation.
On motion by Councilman Sneesas, seconded by Councilman Pebley, pur-
chase was authorized in the amount of ~16,8&4.46, including tax, as recommended
.by the City ltana~er's Office. NOTION CARRIED.
PUR· ~E ......... OF NATERIAL - ANNUAL RYE CRASS' SEED: The Administ~ative Assistant reported
on informal bids' received for the purchase of 32,000 pOunds of annual rye grass
seed as follovs, and recounended acceptance of the lo, bid:
TOTAL ~ ,~ lSCLUDIN~ ~ TAX
Wilbur Ellis Co., Los Angeles -
Stover Seed CO., Los Angeles ........ ....
Ferry-Norse Co., Anaheim ..............
Robinson Fertilizer, Orange ........... '- -
Ge~nain, Inc., Los Angeles .............
$11,363.20
.11,448.00
11,872.00
12,482.56
12,550'.~0
On motion by Councilman Sneegas, seconded by Councilman Dutton, the
low bid of Wilbur Ellis Company was accepted andpurchase authorized in the
amount of ~11,363.20, includin~ tax. NOTION CARRIED.
R~.P.~. OF PITNAN LINE TRUCK NO. 102§: i__~inistrattve Assistant John Hardin5 sub-
mi~ted memor'andum~romNr. A1 Nerriam, Mechanical Natntenance Superintendent,
requestin~ Council authorization for payment of invoice ~eceived for repairs
to Pitman Line Truck No. 1025 by A. B. Chance Company i~ the amount of ~4,016.72,
repairs due to accident totalin~ ~2.,743.32 and repairs due to .nOt, hal ~ear
~1,273.~0. Hr Hardin~ advised that the unit was sent out for repairs since
liechanical Naintenance Division is not equipped for this type of repair and .
rec~nded the payment be authorized.
On motion by Councilman Sneegas, seconded by Councilman Dutton, pay-
ment in the amount of $&,016.72, includin~ tax for repair of Line Truck No.
1025 vas authorized to be forwarded to A. B. Chance Company, Pitman Division.
NOTION C~mXEDo
~"~o~-Hardtn~ submitted'the'i~ice recei~d 'from Highland SprtnSs Resort,
Bea~_w~__nt, California, in the ~aount of $2,661~99, inCludias tax, for ~he lodgir~
and ~eals of 67 persons attendin~ Police traiEing sessions,and advised that this
sum is entirely reimbursable th~oush the P.O;S.ToPrOgrdsn.
On motion by Councilaum Pebley, seconded by Councilman Sueegas, the
City Council authorized payment in the mount of $2,6&~°99, includin~ tax, to
HIshland Sprin~s Resort for expenses associated b-lth Police trainin~ sessions.
HOTXOH CARRIED.
C._~S ~4~T THE` CITY: The follovin~ claims ~ere denied 80 recouneuded by the
City Atto~ and ordered. refer~ed to the insurance c&Erier, on motion by
Councilman Dutton, seconded by Councilnum Sneesas~
73-786
a. Claim 8uhatttted by Hazel J. Erom ~or personal inJurypurPOrtedly
sustained as a result of irregulari~y on sidewalk, BroadvayandHe'lena Street,
on or about July 2, 1973.
b. Claim submitted by Jack Prather for personal injurY-sustained pur-
portedly as a result of the condition of steps at No, 2 tee, ~$xaheim Hills Golf
Course, on or about August 28, 1973.
c. Claim submitted by Harry Holoboski for personalpropeEty dama6e
purportedly caused by City of Anaheim N erst Resder, o~or' abo~'Septe~ber 17,
1973.
NOTION CARRIED.
73R-435 - ~ TO TOP C'
ofiered ResOlUtiOn No. '73R-11§ ~or adOption.
Refer to Resolution Book.
A RI~SOLUTIO~ OF T~ CITY COUNCIL OF TI~ CITY OF ANA~IN AUTHO~IZII~I ~
DI~I~CTII~ TI~ NAYO~ ~ CITY CI~RK TO ~CIFI~ AN AI~NT TO TOPICS
PRO~ECT T-3041 WITH THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA.
Roll Call Vote:
AYES= COUHCIIiqEN: Sneegas, Pebley, Thom and Dutton
NOES; COUHCI~N: Hone
ABSENT: COUNCILI~N: Stephenson
The Nayor declared Resolution No. 73R-435 duly passed and adopted.
.RE$OLUTION..I~,, ~}I~-436 - .E~..LOYII~.CONVERSE, DAVIS AN~ ASSOC~S -.,~GEO~LOGIC AND
Refer to Resolution Book.
A RESOLUTXOM OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE. CTTY OF AIqAHEIN APPROVING AND AUTH-
Ott[ZllR~ THE EXECUTION OF AN ACREENENT ENPLOYII~ C~E, DAVIS AND ASSOCIATES
TO PERFOtH A GEOLOGIC AND SOXL SURVEY IN COiqh~CTIOtq ~ITTH THE SANTA ANACANYON
ROAD.
Roll Call Vote:
AYES:
NOES:
AB~NT:
COUNCIl: Sneezes, Pebley, Thom a~d Dutton
COUNCI~g Hone
COUNCI~: Stepheasoa
The Hayor declared Resolution Ro. 73R-&36 duly passed and adopted.
~]fer to Resolution Book.
A I~SOI,UTIOH OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANA~IN AIITHOitIZ;ING ~
D~~ ~ ~Y~ ~ C~ ~ ~ ~C~ ~ILIT~ ~~ NO.
7~,~39 ~l~ ~ STA~ ~ ~~,. (0,2 miles s~th to 0,2 ~les
north of Br~rst Street, Utilities qre~n~ ~. ~-~39 = 07~5)
R~ll Call Vote
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT =
(IIXINCILI~N: SneeZes, Pebley, Thom and Duttou
COUHCI~ Stephousou .
The Haysr declared Resolution HO. 731-~37 duly passed and adopted.
73~787
C°tmCihaan PebleY offered' ResolUtion ~ . T 73R'438 f0r'adop~ion. ' -
Refer to Resolution Book.
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEINAUTHORIZING
AND DIRECTING THE HAYORAHDCITY CLERK TO EXECUTE UTILITIES AGREENENT
NO. 7Ut-4838 WITH THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA. (0.2 miles south to 0.2
miles north of Brookhurst Street -. Utilities Asreement No. 7Ut-4838 -
07-OILA-5)
Roll Call Vote{
AYES: C(XINCILI~N: Sneegas, Pebley, Tho~ and Dutton
NOES: COUNCILNEN: None
ABSENT~ COUNCILNEN~ Stephenson
The Nayor declared Resolution No. 73R-438 duly passed and adopted.
75R-459 - ~~~ C~ O~ O~ ~ - ~C~S~U~!ON OF
~ci~n '~bley offered` Resoluti°n ~' 73~-439 fo· adOption.
Refe~ to ~solution ~ok.
A IL{SOLUTION OF TH~ CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF AIL4d~IN AUTHORIZING AND
DII~CTI2~ TH~ EXECUTION OF AN A/IREENENT WITH THE CITY OF OARD~ GROV~
RELATIV~ TO THE RECONSTRUCTION OF KATELLA AVENUE.
Roll Call Vote~
AYES: COU~II.~N:
NOES: COUNCILI~N:
ABSENT: COONCTLi~II:
Sneesas, Pebley, Thom and Dutt°n
Hone
$tephensou
· The Mayor declared Resolution No. 73R-439 duly-passed and adopted.
RE$OLU~{0N NO~ 73R-4~) - TOUpS EI~I~,RING mC. - REPORTm WATER REVENUE SER~ES 1971
~-'/~l FiS'.'.C~-- 19~2-73, Counci~ Pebley °ffered" ~ioI'ution ~o. 73R.440
[Or aaopt~On.
Refer to Resolution Book.
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COIJNCXL OF THE CITY OF ANAI4E~ PA~PROVlNG THE
TER)IS ~ CONDITIONS OF AN AOREENEHT WITH TOUPS ENGIN~i]I~ TO PREPiRE
A REPORT ON THE WATER SYSTEI/ l~I ANAHEIN AND AUTHORXZIltO THE I/AYOR AND
CITY CLEI~ TO EXECUTE SAID AOREENENT ON BEHALF OF THE CXTY OF ANAHE~.
Roll Call Yore:
AYES: C0t~ICI~ Sneegas, Pebley, Thom and I)utton
NOES: COUNCIl: Hone
ABSENT: COIINCILI~N: Stephenson
The Mayor declared ResolutionNo.' 73R-440 duly passed and adopted.
CO~SULTI2RG SERV~CE~, - A]~ C01IDIT!ONTIIG.°' 222 ~ ~~: ~sttative ~sistant
~e~ ~tdi~ ~tted that alodiations have bel co~ucted ~th F.;T- ~dtevs,
Inc., for cousultiq semites in c~ecti~~ ~he desi~ of e air condition-
i~ syst~ for ~ Sanior Citi~ns ~creatio~l buildi~, 222 East ~artres
Strut ~d the fee quoted Is $6,2~. ~ est~d cost 'for the air condition-
i~ syst~ ts $6~,0~ to
1~. Mardia~ explained that the asreemnt calls for F. T. Andrews,
Inc., to furnish pl~, ~orkin~ dravin~ and specifica~ion and to assist, the
City in obtainin~ bids,as veil aS in revievtn~ and analyzin~ the bids.
73-788
On motion by ~ouncilman Sneesas, seconded by Councilman Dutton, the
City Council authorized the City Attorney to prepare an a~reement employin~
F. T. Andrews, Inc., for design and engineerin~ services in connectionwith the
air conditionin~ system for 222 Bast Chartres Street. MOTION C, qRRLED.
CORIt~S~: The followin~ correspondence was ordered received and filed, on
n~tiOn~oy Councilman Dutton, seconded by CouncihnanThom:
a. Financial and 0peratin~ Reports for the Month of Au&ust, [973 for
the Police Department.
NOTION CAP~I~D.
0RDIN.A~CE NOw_ 3211; Councilman Sueesas offered Ordinance No. 3211 for adoption.
Refer to Resolution Book.
AN ORDnaNCE OF T~ crrY OF ANAaEmi~U~ TIT~ 18 oF THE ANAHEm
MUNICIPAL COI~ I~LATZNC TO zoul'l~. (56-57-76 (5) - N-l)
Roll Call Vote:
AYeS: COUNCILNEN:
NOES: COUNCILMEN:
ABSBh'T: COUNCILMEN:
Sneegas, Pebley, Thom and Dutton
None
Stephens.on
The Mayor declared Ordinance No. 3211 duly passed and adopted.
ORD,IN,A~E~ NOw 3212: Counci[man Sneesas offered Ordinance No. 3212 for adoption.
Refer to Ordinance Book. " ......
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AMENDZNG TITLE 18 OF THE ANAHEIM
MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO ZONII~. (69-70-55 (5) - M-l)
Roll Call Vote:
AYES: COIINCI~N: Sneegas, Pebley, Thom and Dutton
NOES: COU~CI~N: None
ABSENT: COUNCI~N: Stephenson
The Mayor declared Ordinance No. 3212 duly passed and adOpted.
ORD,.~NO~,~ 32~,13: Councilman Dutton offered Ordinance No. 3213 for first reading.
AN ORDIItANCE OF T}~ CITY OF' ANAHEIM AMENDING TITLE 18 OF THE ANA~IM
MUNICIPAL CODE RELATZNC TO ZONING. (70-71-47 (6) - M-l)
ORD~ N01..321~: Councilman sneesas offered Ordinance No. 3214 for first reading.
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEINANENDII~TITLE 18 OF THE ANAHEIM
MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO ZONlllC. (70-71-47 (7) -
Discussion of the six-
Tract No. 6569.in the R=3
development on Ward Terrace Street, was continued from September 18,. 1973 to this
date to allow time for inspection by Councilmen, City Attorney and City' Engineer.
Mr. John Mardin~ reported that the site was~-inspected by himself alont
with Mr. Watts, Mr. Maddox and ~ouncilman Dutton. Followin~ the field inspection,
the City Engineer reported that the Job superintendent, Mr. E. L. Z!-w-~nan, had
contacted hfln and informed him that the developer, John Klu~, had instructed that
the area where the present wall is approximately one fooff hi&h on the R-1 tract
side be filled in. In resard to addin~ two feet to .the heisht of the oritinal
wall,-Mr. Klu~ indicated concern resardin~ the adequacy of the foundation to sup-
port the addttional'wei~ht,as well as the additional cost. He did, however, a~ree
to investi~ate further and advise the City En~ineer.
73-789
)ir. Watts remarked that if the one foot area~ere built up as is pro-
posed, than the entire wall would be between 40 to 48 im~hes on the R-1 tract
side and that it would take an intentional act for either a child or adult to
climb over a wall of this heisht, therefore this would preclude the danier of
fallin~ over the wall and do~n six feet as previously discussed.
Councihnan Sneegas remarked that one of the complaints reCeived from
the R-3 property owners was that of visual intrusion from tho R-1 tract and
inquirad what could be done to alleviate this situation.
Mr. Watts reported that from the inspection undertaken it' appears
that tho sisht intrusion problem vould omly apply to those R-3.-tmits which front
on Sunkist Street. He further advised that behind their3 emits thore:'.!s an
alley which runs alon~ the boundaries of the R-1 tract, and beyond that are
garages so that no difficulty should be encountered 'alon~ the rear property
line.
1~. Maddox advised that to block the sight line from the second story
of the R-1 tract, because of the grade differences and the fact that the upper
grade contains two-story structures, would require a vail of higher than 20
feat.
The City Council took no further action regardin~ the wall situation.
~-~tr. John Hardin~ submitted the draft a~reeme~iurlth Nation J.
varner"for architectural services, the fee bein~ 11% of construction costs.
Further Ne. Hardin~ reported that the original a~reement provided that the
initial $2,500 paid to Nation J. Varner and Associates for the preliminary
study would be returned by the architect to tho City if the project ~ent for-
ward, The fee proposed in this a~raement reflects a-reduction of one per-
cent of the total amount to compensate for this $2,500,
,,I~0LUT~0N NOT 73R-441: Councilman Sneegas offered ResolutionNo. 73R-441 for
adoption.~
Refer to Resolution Book.
i IISOLUTION OF THE CIT~ COUNCIL OF TH~ CITY OF ~IN. AFI~tOVlNC ~D
AUTHOIIZllt~ T~ ~X~CUTION OF A~ /~]P~IqENT EIa~X~I~ 8i~ZOS J. V,~ZR &
~/ITll TI~ COII~TItUCTZOII OF'NODIFICATIOtqS, ADDITIONS AND ALTIRATIONS TO
TH~ AMAHEZN POLXC~ D~PAItTNBNT BUXLDXNG,
Roll Call Vote:
AY~S~ .COOtlCII,,I~N:
NO~S: CO(IIK:~:
SneeSas, Pebley, Thom and, Dutton
None
SteplMmaon
The l~yor declared ResoluttonHo. 73R-~ldutyPa%ed and adopted.
a ~n ofCoUncii[On Au~;ust L4, 1973. M:.
~atts re,reed t~t ess~ttally t~-~i~.~ll8 ~r~rt~Xex,~c. h~ pro-
~sed that t~ City of ~~ enter into a Joint ~s.~re~nt ~th one or
~re ot~r cities for the pulsar of creati~ ~ alert ~tho~ity,.~ich ~uld
co~titute a public ~ency eligible to apply for ~ FmderalPl~nnl~ Cr~t, ~der
"~ ~rt ~d ~ ~lO~t ~tof lg~".
Mr. Watts has reviewed tho Chino Hills Airport aomPlex, Inc. proposal
as to ~bat should be included in the feasibility report and the cost of this is
estimated to be betwen nine hundred thousand to one million dollars. However,
'it is proposed that two-thirds of this costwo, uLdbefundedbytheFederal Grant
and the remainiu~ one-third (three hundred thousand tothree hundred andthiry-
three thousand dollars) would be raised by thectties[fom~ the Joint powers
asency. Mr. Watts advised that Chino Hills Airport Complex, Inc. is prepared
to raise or otherwise contribute the City of Anaheim*s share of the master plan
cost, however the various .rmaificatione of acceptinS suchcontributionhave not
yet been explored*
73-790
City ~11, i~ah~im, California - C .O~IL ~ ~9t~z
~ci~ ~tton r~r~d that the area o~ pr~ c~e~ to
~cil at last discussion was t~ cost .of the ~eastbllity stu~'~ ~d ~ce this'
~di~ was dete~d, the City could pro,ed ~th the
E.Z.R. ~ t~arked tha~ t~' fi~l
t~ direction ~ich t~ City Atto~ey
Councilman Thom moved that the report sube~ltted be received'and filed,
Councilman Sneesas seconded the motion, NOTZON.CARRIND.
ADD~D~L~-~.- ~ .-~. ':_ ~o Watts reported that.~as, a r~s~t
Sour e~nation ~o.. 8,..the CitY'has acquired.:t~
cai installations vhich had been installed by the EdisonCon~my~on~,2he.:cUsto~ers'
premises vhich are described as "added facilities". The EdiSOn .Co~pany had' asree-
manta vith these customers kno~m as Added Facilities A~reements ~nd throush these
recovered one and one-half percent of the investment that the company makes,
collected monthly. The £acilities are over and abov~ that ~hichwould be normally
provided and are installed due to peculiarities in usage by the electrical cue-
Nr. Watts advised that the City has acquired tvs such added facilities
and under Rule No. 2, Section No. H, the City provides that ~dded [acilities be
governed by an agreement between the customer and the utility. An agreement has
been prepared and is no~ submitted £or Council approval, which is, in effects
identical to that ~hich is used by the ~dison Company except that the rate is
lo~ered from l~. per month to 1.35% per month.
In answer to Councilman Pebley, Mr. Watts advised that the rate reduc-
tion was ~rritten into the a~reement since the City o~ Anaheim's investn~nt was
loseer and therefore the savin~s ~ere passed onto the electrical customer. He
further noted that there may be additional added facilitiesCaete~e~s, angel-
though the a~ounts o~ added investment in the facility may be different, the
a~reements ~ould be the same.
P~SO.I~ION_NO. 73R-~_2: Councilman Sneegas of[ered ResOlution No. 73R-~2 for
adoPti~n~'
Refer to Resolution Book.
Roll Call Vote:
AYES: COUNCIIIqEN: Sneegas, Pebley, Thom and Duttou
goes: COUIqCI~: None
ABSENT: COUI~ZI.~EN= Stephenson
The Nayor declared ResolutiOn No. 73R-~2 dulypassed ead adopted.
~il~an--ThO~ stated that he vOUld like to c~ear 'upso~
~sc~eptio~ havi~ ~en attributed to hyor ~tt~ in ~ article in t~ Santa
Council~n ~ ad, sad tha~ alth~h he w~ the ~ci!~~intro-
duced the ~y~nt ~oE direct election of the Nayo~ at ~o~cil level, tt is the
SEoup ~ as I.C.E,B,E.R.G, ~ich carried this cuEEent ~titiou initiative to
success, ~d no~ h~el~. ~ related that this ~up
Ject ~his ~roup elected to ~dert~ ~d i~ success vas spea~he~ ~ ~. ~h~l~.
~t~~did r~rk that he is flattered to ha~e ~en able to he~ be~n
of s~ aalist~ce'to t~ I,C,E.B,E.R,G, or~ization.
73-791
The second misconception which Councilman Thc~fel~'req~ired'clarif-
icatton is that the I.C.E.B.E.ReG. proponents advocate: a..stro~Mayor. He
advised that the petition initiative deals only with the ~e~hodof'se~ection
and seeks to change nothing in the City Charter but ~he.~e~hod of Seiecting
the Mayor. He advised that the wording use in the petition initiative proposed
by the proponents was drawn up by the then City Attogney~ Mr. Gels'let,
Councilman Thom again referred to the artic~elu.~he.Sa~aAz~.:Regis.
tar which indicated that it was Mayor Dutton's opinton:'that't~e:direg~ e~ec21on
would provide the only way in which he (CouncilmanTho~)¢ould'beco~e::the')~ayor.
Councilman Thom stated that election by the people is the.tr&di2~o~al.t£ot~no~
American goverament and is, in his opinion,~ the only way '~ta~OnaahoU~d be-
come Mayor. He added that he would not accept the offiCe'in.its .preSent for~
since he violently disagrees with the current method used for:~eeleC2ion of the
Mayor.
Councilman Thom remarked that Mayor Dutton alleged statement that the
elected representatives of the people are better qualified to selac~ the Mayor
than the electorate itself, was what prompted his P~'thy statement regarding the
Mayor's sanity. He expressed the opinion that Councilman Dutton's sug~estion
that the Mayor be paid $~§,000 to $~§,000 per year is an obvious attempt to dis-
credit the petition initiative, which addresses itself only to placing this
question on the ballot for the voters to decide.
Councilman Dutton advised that due to the necessity for ma Executive
Session. to deal with urgent business, and the lack of time, he ~uld withhold
his remarks relative to Councilman Thom's allegations to a futUre date.
RECESS - EXECUTIVE SESS~Og: Councilman Pebley moved to recess to Executive Session.
~°uncilman Sneegas seconded the motion. MOTTON CARRZED. (~:29 P.H.)
,AFTEB IU~GES$: Mayor Dutton called the meeting to order, all Councilman being present,
' vlt~'~he exception of Councilman Stephenson. (5:08 P.M.)
AD30~: Councilman Sueegas moved to adjourn. Councilman Thom seconded the
m0tibi1. MOTION CARR~D.
Adjourned: 5~09 P.M.
Signed ~ ~ ~
Deputy City Clerk ·
73-792
Cit~ Hall~ Anaheim! California - COUNCIL MINUTES - October 2t 1973t 1:30 P.M.
The City Council of the City of Anaheim met in regular session.
PRESENT
ABSENT:
PRESENT
COUNCILMEN: Stephenson, Sneegas~.(arrived 1:35 P.M.), Pebley, Thom
and Dutton ~
COUNCII~EN: None
ASSISTANT CITY MANAGER: Robert M. Davis
DEPUTY CITY ATTORNEY: William Hopkins
CITY CLERK: Dene M. Daoust
CITY ENGINEER: James P, Maddox
ASSISTANT DIBECTOR OF DEVELOPMENT SERVICES: Ronald Thompson
ZONING SUPERVISOR: Cha~tes Roberts
PLANNING SUPERVISOR: Don McDaniel
Mayor Dutton called the meeting to order.
INVOCAT, ION: Reverend Holland Lewis of the First Church of the Nazarene gave the
Invocation.
FLAG SALUTE: Councilman W. J. (Bill) Thom led the Assembly in the Pledge of
Allegiance to the Flag.
INTROD~CTION OF NEW EMPLOYEES: Mr. Frank Campagnoni, of the City Personnel
Department, introduced 33 new employees attending the Council meeting
as part of the City's orientation program.
Mayor Duttonwelcomed the new employees.
MINUTES: Minutes of the Anaheim City Council Regular Meeting held September 11, 1973,
and Adjourned Regular Meeting held September 12, 1973 were approved, on motion
by Councilman Thom, seconded by Councilman Sneegas. MOTION CARRIED.
WAIVER OF RE~D, ING - ORDINANCES AND RESOLUTIONS: Councilman Thom moved to waive the
reading in full of all ordinances and resolutions, and that consent to the waiver
of reading is hereby given by all Councilmen unless, after reading of the title,
specific request is made by a Councilman for the reading of such ordinance or
resolution. Councilman Duttonoseconded the motion. MOTION UNANIMOUSLY CARRIED.
REPORT - FINANCIAL DEHANDS AGAINST THE CITY: Demands against the City in the amount
of $2~0';329.95, in accordance with the 1973-74 Budget, were approved.
PUBLIC DANCE PERMIT: Application filed by Janet G. Amezcua, on behalf of the Mexican
American Youth Advancement Society for permit to conduct public dance on
October 27, 1973, from 9:00 p.m. to 1:00 a.m. at CarPenter's Hall, 608 West Ver-
mont Avenue was submitted and granted subject to provisions of Chapter 4.16 of
the Anaheim Nunicipal Code and that four private security officers be hired to
police the dance, as reco~nended by the Chief of Police, on motion by Councilman
Dutton, seconded by Councilman Sneegas. MOTIO~ CARRIED.
AMUSEMENT DEVICES PERMITS: The following applications for amusement devices permits
were submitted for City Council consideration:
a. Application filed by Lawrence H. Horowitz for amusement devices per-
mit to allow five pool tables at Pistol. Pete's, 937 South Knott Avenue.
b. Application filed by William A. Tomp' for amusement devices petnctt
to alloy three pin game machines, one bo~ler, one rally machine and one Juke box
at Ntmi's, 3148~ West Lincoln Avenue.
c. Application filed by Bernard Pines for amusement devices permit to
allow three pool tables at Ntmt's, 3148~West Lincoln Avenue.
Also suhnitted together with the applications ~ere the recommendations
from the Chief of Police that said permits be granted.
On motion by CounciLman Pebley, seconded by Councilman Sneesas, amuse-
merit devices permits as outlined .above were granted, sUbject to. provisions of
Chapter ~.2& of the Anaheim NuniciPal Code as recommended by the Chief of Police,
MOTION CARRIED.