1972/06/2772 -413
City Hall. Anaheim. California COUNCIL MIJ UTES June 27. 1972. 100 P.M.
The City Council of the City of Anaheim met in regular session.
PRESENT: COUNCILMEN: Sneegas, Stephenson, Pebley, Thom and Dutton
ABSENT: COUNCILMEN: None
PRESENT: CITY MANAGER: Keith A. Murdoch
ASSISTANT CITY MANAGER: Robert M. Davis
ASSISTANT CITY ATTORNEY: Alan Watts,
CITY CLERK: Dene M. Daoust
DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC UTILITIES: Gordon Hoyt
DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC WORKS: Thornton Piersall
FINANCE DIRECTOR: M.R. Ringer
CITY ENGINEER: James P. Maddox
ASSISTANT DIRECTOR OF DEVELOPMENT SERVICES: Ronald Thompson
ZONING SUPERVISOR: Charles Roberts
Mayor Dutton called the meeting to order.
INVOCAT ;ON: Reverend John K. Saville, of St. Michael's Espiscopal Church,
gave the Invocation.
FLAG SALUTE: Councilman Mark A. Stephenson led the Assembly in the Pledge
of Allegiance to the Flag.
GRAND JURY INVESTIGATION KEITH A. MURDOCH AND THORNTON E. 7IERSALL: Following
is a verbatim transcript of discussions held on a requested Grand Jury in-
vestigation into the personal holdings of City Manager Keith A. Murdoch and
Public Works Director Thornton E. Piersall:
MAYOR. DUTTON: "In light of some very bad publicity that this City unwar-
rantly received beginning last Friday in the Los Angeles Times, and sub-
sequently built upon by the local Anaheim Bulletin and the Santa Ana Regis-
ter, I am going to deviate and clear some matters up here before we get
into the general order of business.
I am deeply saddened and disgusted with the things that operate, particu-
larly in the news media, relative to government. I was born and raised in
this town. I have been in this City longer than any man sitting up here.
I enjoy seniority over any man here, having served 10 years, and now in
my llth. I have worked with the people that are involved in the newspaper,
and I am always distressed to find in the news media constant talk about
the perils of power of government, never once dwelling on the perils of
power of the news media. It's a horrible thing to me to sit idly by, which
I have no intention of doing, and watch a City attempted to be destroyed
by muckrakers who are looking for sensationalism in the news media, who,
not by charges but by inference and innuendo, trying to prove a different
philosophy politically than that which has been expressed forever in the
City of Anaheim. And it's a very distressing thing to see this operate
because, unfortunately, the man in the street can only belive what he reads
in the news media.
More unfortunately, many people have come to the City of Anaheim
from the Midwest, the East and the South, where they have seen some degree
of corruption in government, and when they see incessantly in the local news
media and I refer specifically to the Hoiles regime the people are daily,
almost daily, spoon -fed about the corruption of government, and that all
government is corrupt and all government is unnecessary.
This same paper in the editorials by their own, if you take
it piecemeal by piecemeal and you assemble it you will find that they
advocate anarchy, no government; you'll find that they say if you want
a policeman, hire your own; if you want a fireman, hire your own. They
say they look upon every elected representative as just short of contempt-
uous, And that includes all five of us up here, included in all degrees
of government. They say if you want your street swept, sweep your own.
This goes on ad infinitum. I suppose they advocate that in the sanita-
tion division you continue to dig a hole and move your Chic Sale period-
ically needed. This is the type of thing that goes. And to see this
day after day in the local community, reflecting the political philosophy
from their viewpoint that all government is corrupt, and them attempting
to prove that it is corrupt by half- truths, by inference, by innuendoes,
by outright falsehoods is very sickening to me.
72 -414
City Hall. 'Anaheim Chi ifornia COUNCIL M MJ' S June 27. 1972. 1:
As I've said, I've been up here over 10 years and worked for this
city. I've been all over this nation promoting the City; of Anaheim and the
fine people that are here and the fine things that we have, and I tell each
of you that all you have to do is to go to some other city in this nation
and you'll be so happy to live in Anaheim that you couldn't even understand
it It's a beautiful city, it's a well run government, it's more success-
ful in its operation than most corporations operate in this United States
of ours. I've worked with Keith Murdoch; I've worked with every department
head here, and I can say without exception that they are above and beyond
reproach that they have worked diligently to accomplish the good for this
City that all of us derive the benefits from. So 1 am sic ened and saddened
by what has occurred. No charges actually, but by inference and innuendo
that something is wrong.
his part."
Now, I would like to turn this over to Mr. Murdoch to respond for
COUNCILMAN THOM: "Before you do, Mr. Dutton, in that I am so far the member
of this Council that had formally requested of the Grand Jury an investiga-
tion into the allegations and individuals named in the rather extensive ar-
ticle of last Friday, I would like to make a couple of comments somewhat,
but not exactly paralleling yours.
The recent revelations concerning the financial transactions of
Mr. Murdoch and Mr. Piersall, as they are further investigated, I feel it
may be well discovered that the utilities services mentioned and the align-
ment of La Palma Avenue in the eastern portions of Anaheim were eminently
reasonable actions in and for themselves. Other City Managers and other
Public Works Directors may well judge their Anaheim peers as behaving in a
very reasonable manner from an engineering and a management standpoint, and
undoubtedly had their peers in other cities been faced with the same ques-
tions, or the same management questions of how to extend city services into
the areas desiring to develop, these peers could have reasonably made the
same choices as did Mr. Murdoch and Mr. Piersall.
The reasonableness of these decisions by these officials on the
development is not the issue. The crucial issue is what is the effect of
men in high administrative positions of.this city serving two masters the
interests of the city and their own personal interests at the same time.
It would seem that in at least two ways the public interest is placed in
jeopardy by the personal ownership of land by two appointed officials:
First, how can Councilmen here and citizens of the City be certain
that taxpayers' moneys are being allocated to public works projects in all parts
of the City as needed and strictly on the basis of a public interest priority?
For example, would the improvement of La Palma Avenue have the same high prior-
ity in the City even if Messrs. Murdoch and Piersall had not owned any lands
in the path of the extension of La Palma Avenue? Perhaps this same high prior
it would have been obtained, at least so far as the extension to the Autonetics
facility is concerned; however, had either of these two officials not owned any
land east of Imperial, would La Palma Avenue have been extended east of Imperial,
and would the same high priority have been given to such an extension? Perhaps,
but certainly there will always be a nagging doubt on the part of the Council and
the taxpayers of the City, Without such land ownership by these two officials,
is it possible that a greater priority would have been given to expenditures
to expand city facilities and services in other areas?
In short, it is at least possible that personal ownership of real
property by officials can affect budgeting of taxpers' moneys and determine
the priorities of such expenditures, rather than having such priorities de-
termined by an objective consideration of overall public needs.
Secondly, to permit city employed officials to profit from inside
information by permitting personal ownership of property within the city by
p, such officials detracts, in my view, of the ability of such employed officials
to always act in a completely 8114864g$ fashion. At least such personal ow-
nership casts a doubt. This city should and does, I feel, pay these officials
an adequate and handsome compensation for their services. And having paid such
a sum, the City can in fairness demand full and undivided loyalty to the city
and the interests of all its citizens that the position demands.
City Hall. Anaheim. California COUNCIL MINUTES June 27, 1972. 1:30 P.M.
72-415
As further investigation is conducted, it may be discovered that
no violations of law have occurred, nor have any violations been committed
by either Mr. Murdoch or Mr. Piersall. If so, such a lack of legal viola-
tion does not answer the deeper moral and ethical issues. In the event no
legal violations are disclosed, the Council may simply have to chalk up these
activities of these men to experience, and to consider the enactment of some
legislation to regulate future conduct of this type. One thing seems certain
in the present case, in my opinion Mr. Murdoch and Mr. Piersall were in-
siders in fact, if not in law, having knowledge of pending developments in
the City prior to general knowledge on the part of the public of such pro-
jects. And as insiders, this information was available to them in advance
of the general public.
Even if a private citizen hired his own engineer, his own attor-
ney, it is virtually impossible to believe that such a private individual
could have known of the pending Autonetics locating at the particular site
it chose by merely visiting City Hall with these experts. Only a very few
people in the City had any knowledge of this proposal by Autonetics to lo-
cate in the city. Prior to this knowledge becoming generally public, it
seems that Mr. Murdoch purchased land immediately adjacent to the site de-
sired by Autonetics. In my own humble opinion, there is very little dif-
ference of using private knowledge of the use of private knowledge in in-
vesting your own funds for a profit or selling the knowledge to somebody
else for a price.
After looking at the paper this morning, I did some checking, and
there are some very interesting provisions of, and language of State law,
and the lauguage set forth in Section 1120 of the Government Code; and there
are very interesting sections of language in 1121 of the Government Code.
It appears to apply to all public employees, and refers to the return of
profits to the public agency as a result of gains made by advance knowledge
imparted to such insiders. One wonders whether the section of this Code
will be found to apply in this case, or to any property which these gentle-
men may now own. But in private law, or in general law, I guess, is a bet-
ter descriptive word, it seems that fiduciaries, usually directors or offi-
cers of private companies, may not use the influence and advantages of their
office for any but the common interest. Courts have observed that a direc-
tor or other corporate officer will not be permitted to derive any personal
profit or advantage by reason. of his position distinct from that of his co-
shareholders. And if this rule has been delineated and enunciated in private
corporate affairs I can't see that public law could be any less restrictive n n
or any less 4161rs
Gentlemen, these things worry me they bother me as a public of-
ficial. It's for some of this type of reasons that I requested that the
Grand Jury investigate this matter, and what really bothers me is how we
as elected public officials can expect to regain or retain the public trust.
You have seen me quoted that possibly I would ask the gentlemen
for a voluntary suspension during the term of this investigation. I honestly
feel that anything less than this would be construed as an attempt on my
part to whitewash or to cover up the allegations that have been presented.
I think the fairest thing to everybody involved, including the two gentle-
men, is a full and complete investigation of all of the allegations and in-
dividuals as described, and I feel that the fairest thing that Keith could
do, or Thorny could do, would be to voluntarily take a leave of absence
during the term of this, because I, for my part, can and feel I must set
myself apart from the types of innuendoes that are bound to come down the
pike, even if it offends my own particular sense of fair play, because no-
body likes to be accused of trying, convicting and punishing somebody sum-
marily, least of all myself. But as an elected representative of the people,
I have to keep myself and my actions completely divorced, and I must re-
nounce anyone who colludes or attempts to collude in an action such as this.
And I think this is a matter that this Council should be involved in dis-
cussing just what the punitive measures should be, or could be how far
do we want to take them whether, as the Times editorial outlined Sunday,
whether it should be immediate dismissal, whether it should be a suspension
but I'feel that we must get into these areas to restore the public trust
in government. And as I said, Jack, I am taking a parallel but opposite
course from yours."
72-416
City Hall. Anaheim. California COUNCIL MINUTES June 27. 1972. 1 :30 P.M.
MAYOR DUTTON: "Yes, I understand that. Are you through
COUNCILMAN THOM: "So far "
MAYOR DUTTON: "Well,
COUNCILMAN THOM "There is always more to come."
MAYOR DUTTON: "Yes, I understand that, and I would like to in some degree
respond to Mr. Thom. And that is one of the unfortunate things that is
the irreparable damage that is done to the people and the city itself and
its reputation and the character assassination of these. I guess you could
call them allegations I don't even know whether they're that. And it's
all so sickening to me to see how so many people want to get on the political
bandwagon and want to be the prosecuting attorney, the jury,and the judge and
hang somebody on the basis of an article that was written by some people in
Los Angeles, who, in my opinion, are muckrakers. I don't understand that
at all. Now, you talk about personal interest in other words, anyone who
gets in government has to immediately go on welfare. I think that when they
accept a paycheck that's a personal interest. And certainly their only crime,
if any crime there is, would be that somebody made some money on some land
acquisitions and sale thereof. And anyone knows that's been around here at
all that the only way to make money is to get out in the boonies, so to speak,
and wait to be engulfed by civilization. And this is not knowledge that is
privy to any particular one. If anybody knows anything about this area and
the fantastic growth that we have had, if they know anything about the Stan-
ford Research report on the population growth back in 1949 and 1950....In
1949, 1950 they were whispering up in Los Angeles and Beverly Hills "buy in
Anaheim." Well, it became common public knowledge that the growth was as
expected. You have to know that the utilities companies, whether it be Edison
Company, the gas company, the telephone company they have to have projec-
tions of population growth so they can prepare for the future. Anyone knows
that here, and it's been public information, that the City of Anaheim for
years has intended to annex out to the County line. And when you get in the
path of progress, hopefully, that somebody will come along, somebody has some
land for sale, you buy it and sell it. That's public knowledge, that is not
knowledge that is privy to anyone in this government. All these things will
be borne out. But that's the thing that really frosts me, that people, and
church people, if you will people who attend church and profess to be Chris-
tians, are the first to throw the stone. For heaven sakes, why don't they
give this a chance to work itself out and find out? The only crime that I
can see is that somebody made some money somewhere, not by special knowledge
that was only privy to themselves at all. Mr. Thom, I know of course, I
don't have a prepared speech as you always do because you have foreknowledge
of what's going on. We recognize that up here, that your close relationship
to the Anaheim Bulletin we recognize that and how you're operating with
that to the political advantage of the man on the white horse charging through
town to the people's choice. That's very plaits to all of us has been for
a long time. We have proof of that. We know that.
C9VNCILMA,N THOM: "Why don't we compare our plurality records in the recent
election?
MAYOR DUTTON: "Let me I'm speaking, I didn't interrupt you. Let me tell you
something about some of the other things that every Councilman up here who, if he
has been here any while at all and that includes Mr. Thom himself, and I'm sure
he doesn't know that he's been investigated. I've been investigated numerous
times by filthy allegations by would -be politicians and small- minded people within
the community that have accused me of the most malicious things. I've been inves-
tigated by the top investigators in the Attorney General's office; the Santa Ana
Register themselves spent hundreds of hours working on one allegation against
the former Chief of Police and the present Vice Mayor before they found out
there was no substance in it. I have been investigated by the D.A.'s office
who spent over a thousand dollars of the taxpayers' money to prove that this
vicious story about me was untrue. It would curl your hair to hear the things
that I've been accused of. And the longer you are in this political game, and
that's part of it but the unfortunate part, there are people who get interested
in politics and say and it's been said to me: 'I don't care who I step on, who
I cost or who I hurt to promote myself politically. That is the name of the game.'
And I answer, bI don't play games with my city, but there are people here that do.'
72 -417
City Hall. Anaheim. Caljfornia COUNCIL MINUTES June 27. 1972. 1 :30 P.M.
I don't believe in that sort of thing, so I would like to have Mr. Murdoch
respond, since he is the key figure in here. They brought in Mr. Pebley.
All the things said in the paper about Mr. Pebley. Nothing is charged
against Mr. Pebley because he made it public knowledge not once, but sev-
eral times up here so that's a bunch of nothing they put in the paper.
There is no charge against Mr. Pebley whatsoever, except the only charge
is he's a multi-millionaire, and unfortunately in the minds of a lot of
small people anyone who makes over $500.00 a month has to be a crook. This
is not necessarily so in my belief. So I would like to have Mr. Murdoch
respond."
MR. MJRDOCH: "Mr. Mayor, and gentlemen of the Council. As has been sugges-
ted, I am not about to resign or consider voluntary suspension for something
that I've been unjustly accused of doing or not doing. I have done nothing
illegal, immoral or unethical, and I highly resent the implication that I
have. I do, however, join with Mr. Thom and Mr. Dutton in their request for
a Grand Jury investigation as soon as possible, to clear up the inference of
wrong-doing on my part. I'm sure that Mr. Piersall is just as anxious to
clear his name. If there is any way to insist upon such an investigation,
we would insist upon it! If the Grand Jury won't investigate, then I ask
that the Council do so.
It is tragically easy for the news media to "investigate" something,
gather considerable factual information, and then place totally unrelated
facts together to form an incorrect but damaging conclusion or inference.
Many people are very quick to accept derogatory comments about others, par-
ticularly government officials. That is precisely what has been done in
this case by the two Times reporters, Rood and Pryor.That is exactly what
our local paper, The Bulletin, has done with glee and vengeance.
And now here are presumably well-meaning citizens, accepting the
newspapers' accusations and inferences as the truth. They are not true, and
I know they are not true.
I doubt that any of you realize how difficult it is to prove that
you haven't done something. Documentation of actions taken is usually avail-
able. But who keeps records of things they didn't do or didn't know?
I am accused of using information to which I was privy, for my per-
sonal gain. That's a lot of hogwash! The first local area in which I made
property investments was proposed publicly for industrial development 3 years
before I invested. The land was annexed, the physical facilities for service
of the entire area were outlined in considerable detail, and the area was
approved for zoning all in 1957. I invested in 1960.
Because of a series of very large aerospace contracts obtained by
North American after I invested, their activity required immediate expansion.
I had no knowledge of those contracts or the resultant expansion, and I doubt
that even the North American executives did. I am obviously not privy to
that type of information.
Mr. Piersall and I have also been accused by inference of planning
physical facilities such as roads, sewers and water lines so that our proper-
ties would enhance in value.
Design and implementation of such facilities is our responsibility
if the City's economic growth is to occur in accordance with Council policy.
This is particularly true for industrial growth. Anaheim has actively attemp-
ted to attract and serve industry since the 1930's. None of the designs or
implementations were any different because of ownership than they would have
been otherwise.
Orange County, and more particularly Anaheim, is our area of inter-
est and allegiance. I find it hard to countenance a point of view which calls
for investments away from this area in which we both have evidenced time and
time again our faith in its future.
72 -418
City Hall Anaheim. California COUNCIL MINUTES June 27. 1972. 1:30 P.M.
The charge that I have 'profited from City sponsored public works
projects with which investments have been closely timed' is particularly vi-
cious. Either public records show that plans for the facilities substantially
predate the purchases, or common sense available to anyone dictated such pro-
jects. Furthermore, as the Council itself knows, costs of off -site facili-
ties are paid by owners or developers through acreage charges, not by the
public. On-site costs are borne directly by owners or developers.
I am currently having to research many events and public considera-
tions as a result of the newspapers' contentions. This takes considerable
time. I have found quite a few of the evidences of public information that
bear directly on this situation, but I haven't completed that. Rather than
cover those points today in detail, I would plan to present them in logical
order at the appropriate time, and presumably that would be to the Grand
Jury of Orange County."
MAYOR DUTTON: "You are accused of doing your job, and so that's a crime.
Mr. Piersall would like to say something."
MR. PIERSALL: Mr. Mayor and fellow Councilmen, I wish to concur in Mr. Mur-
doch's request regarding the Grand Jury. As he has indicated, the public
works projects that have been planned for the city were planned to serve
the general welfare of this City of Anaheim, and I certainly concur in the
comments that he made."
MAYOR DUTTON: "I know that because I was here during this thing, too, but
not as long as a letter has indicated by a former Mayor of this City. The
City Clerk has the letter. Would you care to read that, please
CITY CLERK, MRS. DAOUST•. READ IN FULL THE FOLLOWING LETTER:
"Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council of Anaheim
Dear Sirs:
After reading the most unjust accusation against Mr. Murdoch and Mr. Piersall,
I feel it's my duty to speak to you about it.
I was Mayor of Anaheim at the time Autonetics bought the first 80 acres and
worked very closely with Mr. Murdoch to bring the firm to Anaheim.
I am the only remaining member of the City Council of that era, and can speak
with authority of what happened at that time. I feel it my duty to clarify
some of these accusations.
I am certain that if Autonetics would have believed that they needed more
land they would have bought more.
Mr. Murdoch had a legal and moral right to purchase any land he wanted to if
there was someone who wanted to sell it.
It is a constitutional right to buy and own land in the United States and
that is all Mr. Murdoch did.
I will agree that Mr. Murdoch made one very serious mistake, he should have
held it longer and made more profit on the land he bought.
I know of other 10 acres of land bought at the same price of $8,000 per acre
that later sold for $45,000 an acre.
As far as the opening up of La Palma Avenue, we had planned that for a long
time. The buying of land in that area by Mr. Murdoch and Mr. Piersall had
nothing to do with the opening of that street.
There were hundreds of acres of industrial land available in the Autonetics
area at the same time Mr. Murdoch bought his first parcel. There still is
today.
So the ten acres Mr. Murdoch bought was just a drop in the bucket as to the
available land in that area.
72 -419
City Hall. Anaheim. California COUNCIL MINUTES June 27. 1972. 1 :30 P.M,
The twenty years I worked with Mr. Murdoch were busy ones and I found him
to be an honest and able man and one who gave every ounce of his talent to
the development of Anaheim.
He burned a lot of midnight oil to get the job done. I know because I often
was with him and I remember we worked until 4 :00 A.M. to finish a job because
the next day brought something else to do.
I often warned Keith not to overdo, as a human being could stand just so
much.
As far as going to Disneyworld in Florida, he made just one trip as a con-
sultant and had the full approval of all the Council. When that was ques-
tioned by the Press at the following Council meeting on motion made by my-
self and seconded by Ralph Clark and approved by Councilmen Krein, Dutton
and Pebley, we expressed satisfaction that Disneyland respected his judge-
ment as a consultant.
As to Mr. Murdoch's salary, I know he could get more money from larger cities.
But Mr. Murdoch is a dedicated man to the City of Anaheim and wants to see
the continued development right here.
I was impressed mostly by our City Manager. He is a man of action and good
judgement and he gets things done.
I met some of the Los Angeles Councilmen and they just could not understand
how quickly we got our Convention Center built. They bemoaned the fact that
they spent 25 years talking about building until they finally got one built.
Some people are overly concerned about the baseball stadium, while at pres-
ent it shows an annual cost for amortization but they never mention the
$1,000,000 equity we gain every year.
There are many ways it returns money to Anaheim. The first year of its op-
eration was the first time we received greater sales tax than Santa Ana.
The Billy Graham Crusade held there was declared the most successful Crusade
they ever held anywhere. What an honor!
The great high school band contest is just 'out of this world.'
So in closing I say with all the sincerity I possess that if the people fully
understood about all the things this fine gentleman has done for Anaheim, I
am certain the 186,300 citizens of the community would stand shoulder -to-
shoulder and refute the false accusations that have been against Mr. Murdoch
and Mr. Piersall.
So I am asking Anaheim to stand by these honest able men.
S/ A.J. SCHUTTE"
MAYOR DUTTON: Thank you very much. I ask that that letter be spread upon
the minutes in its entirety. I would like to add this, that I certainly know
that there is nothing illegal. It has been inferred it may be immoral, but
I would remind the people that the five men on this Council or any previous
Council are the ones that make the decisions, and there has been no real al-
legation, let alone proof that either Mt. Murdoch or Mr. Piersall, in the pro
cess of doing the job for this city, has recommended to any Council and re-
ceived any favorable vote that would add some value to their own land. It
just didn't happen and it doesn't happen. And in light of this, I would move
that this City Council vote a vote of confidence in favor of Mr. Murdoch and
Mr. Piersall. That's a motion."
COUNCILMAN STEPHENSON: "I'll second the motion."
MAYOR DUTTON: "It's moved and seconded. I'd like to have this on the roll
call, wi, ;h the Council vote on it."
72-420
Cit Hall. Anaheim. California COUNCIL MINUTES June 27. 1972. 1:30 P.M.
MAYOR DUTTON: (Noting a delay in recording the vote.) "Is the machine
working
CITY CLERK. )I S. DAOUST: "One member hasn't voted yet."
COUNCILMAN THOM: "I'm trying to figure out what position this puts me in,
having asked for a Grand Jury investigation."
MAYOR DUTTON: "We concur, I'm sure, in that."
COUNCILMAN THOM: "You want a hit
MAYQR DUTTON: "Immediately."
CITY CLERK. MRS. DAOUST: "AYES: COUNCILMEN: Stephenson, Dutton, Pebley
and Thom
NOES: COUNCILMAN: Sneegas
MOTION CARRIED."
COUNCILMAN THOM: "I will speak to Councilman Sneegas' 'no' vote. I sat
here as long as I did, vacillating between the red and the green button,
but, pending the outcome of the Grand Jury investigation and in that it
seems there will be no suspension, and in that I'm going to be forced to
act on recommendations by Mr. Murdoch, I will sustain him during the in-
vestigation and until the investigation is over. At that time I will ei-
ther continue sustaining him or take a completely opposite stand. But I
can speak for Jerry's concern he and I have been in contact and talked
about this at length, ,and we are both torn as to what our responsibilities
are and I won't put words in his mouth, but I feel mine are to the people
that elected me. I'm sure he feels the same way. Let him comment from
there."
COUNCILMAN SNEEGAS: I would very much like to. I'm afraid my confidence
has been shaken just a little bit, and I can't betray my own self and voice
or indicate something that I don't feel deep in my heart. I think in view
of the fact that over the past few years we've seen many public officials,
not only in our own state but other states that have sometimes allegedly
abused their opportunities. And in some cases it has come out that they
actually have abused their opportunities and been chastised for it. I think
that I have to follow my own conscience and say that I certainly can't look
at this and have the same confidence that I had before. To say the least,
I'm a little shocked. I hope the Grand Jury investigation will completely
detail all the problems involved, and I certainly share the hope that it
comes out very, very clean and that there are no problems in it. But no
way can I betray my own feeling that is in my heart that I am just a little
concerned, more than just to be able to say it has made no difference to
me, and I'll proceed with the same thoughts that I always have before. It
has made a difference to me."
MAYOR DUTTON: "Well, I'll go back to the same thing the City Council
makes the decisions up here and, of course, we are talking to novices on
either side of me, over here on the far left and the far right, and one's
only been here since 1970 in terms of being on this board. (Comment to a
member of the audience who sought recognition) I'm not opening this to
a public hearing, this is a closed meeting."
COUNCILMAN THOM: "Are you speaking of novices as far as this type of thing
goes? or novices as far as efforts go
MAYOR DUTTON: "As far as experience in dealing with the people in this city
government they are relatively novices two years by you (Councilman Thom)
and since April by Mr. Sneegas and I can well understand and appreciate
their concern. It's a natural thing and I certainly don't hold it against
either one of them for that. I would expect that, but with experience comes
a little more understanding, and living with the business as I have for over
10 years I would undoubtedly take a different view than they would."
72 -421
Cjty Hall. Anaheim. lifornia COUNCIL MINUTES June 27. 1972. 1:30 P.M.
MUTES: Minutes of the Anaheim City Council Regular Meeting held June 6, 1972,
and the Adjourned Regular Meeting held June 13, 1972, were approved on mo-
tion by Councilman Stephenson, seconded by Councilman Pebley. MOTION CARRIED.
WAIVER OF READING ORDINANCES AND RESOLUTIONS: Councilman Pebley moved to
waive the reading in full of all ordinances and resolutions, and that con-
sent to the waiver of reading is hereby given by all Councilmen unless, af-
ter reading of the title, specific request is made by a Councilman for the
reading of such ordinance or resolution. Councilman Thom seconded the mo-
tion. IOTTION UNANIMOUSLY CARRIED.
REPORT FINANCIAL DEMANDS AGAINST THE CITY: Demands against the City, in the
amount of $200,209.87, in accordance with the 1971 -72 Budget, were approved.
CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING 1972 -73 BUDGET: Public hearing on the proposed City
of Anaheim Fiscal Year 1972-73 Budget was held June 6, 1972, and continued
to this date, with a work session on the subject held June 13, 1972.
Mayor Dutton asked if anyone wished to address the Council.
Thomas Wood, 700 North Helena Street, referred to the City Mana-
ger's Budget Message and made the following notations: He suggested that
hereafter the specific dates of the fiscal year be spelled out; that the
population growth figures be compared to specific time periods; that the
tax rate could have been decreased since additional revenues now are avail-
able; that the figures should have shown a true comparison with last year's
rather than stating the figures are misleading since this year's figures
include fringe benefits; that the statement about the "heavy work load"
of the Public Works Department should have had statistics to back it up;
the 665 vehicles serviced by Mechanical Maintenance shows no comparison
to the number serviced the previous year, as is also true of the street
seal coating mentioned for the Street Maintenance Department. He felt
the statement about two miles of alley reconstruction being done per year
was meaningless and recounted the small amount of work done to the alley
behind his home.
Mr. Wood suggested the statement that it is questionable whether
a complete cost accounting system is worth the cost reflects the innefi-
ciency of the Accounting Department.
He asked why the "Newsletter" was printed by an outside firm at
a greater cost than estimated for in -house printing and was advised by
Mr. lydoch that the estimates had been based on using a secondhand
Heidelberg press that had been purchased two years earlier for such
printing jobs at a cost of $8,000.00. However, there is no space avail-
able to set the press up and so the printing will have to be done by an
outside firm until the press can be put into service.
Mr. Wood questioned showing "Unappropriated Reserves" in the bud-
get, and Mr. Murdoch advised those funds are carried forward from year to
year since they will be expended at some future date. Finance Director
M.R. Ringer explained the Unappropriated Reserve Account in greater detail
and advised that it was anticipated there still would be $1,000,000.00
that could be carried over to the next budget at the end of the coming
fiscal year.
Mr. Wood requested an explanation of the 16% increase in salaries
and wages over last year's figures. Mr. Ringer advised that the only salary
increase shown is 6% for safety employees in accordance with their contract,
and that this budget's figure reflects Federally-funded PEP employees, for
which the City has received approximately $1,000,000.00 in grant. He added
that the California Highway Patrol coverage has been adopted for the safety
employees which explains why Anaheim's retirement provision costs are
higher than Fullerton's or any other city that has not adopted the Cali-
fornia Highway Patrol retirement benefits.
In reply to Mr. Wood, Mr. Ringer explained the $930,000.00 Build-
ing Bond Retirement item is the annual lease payment the City makes to the
Community Center Authority to the year 2000 for the Convention Center Bonds,
and noted that the impending Convention Center expansion will increase that
figure over the next twenty years, funds for this obligation to be derived
from the Room Occupancy Tax.
72 -422
City Hall. Anaheim. Calj.fornia COUNCIL MINUTES June 27. 1972. 130 P,M.
George Kerdus, 1737 Redwood, asked what "Fees and Charges would
be increased as noted in the budget statement, and was informed by Councilman
Pebley this could include park fees, charges to subdividers for sewer lines,
etc. Mr. Kerdus also questioned whether the Anaheim Hills Golf Course was a
necessary asset to the City.
Referring to the salaries and wages budget, Mr. Kerdus asked if
possible employee increases had been provided in the budget, and was informed
by the City Manager such figures are not included since they would provide
a basis on which employee organizations would begin their negotiations. Any
raises in salaries are taken from the Unappropriated Reserve after employee
negotiations.
Mr. Kerdus suggested all employees with an annual salary of $21,000
and over decline to accept an increase for the coming year, to keep expenses
down.
Councilman Thom stated that at the time of the last employee in-
crease granted by the Council, he had attempted to have department head and
first -level supervisors' salary increases lowered from 7% to 3
Councilman Stephenson noted Councilman Thom's suggestion had been
made at the last moment, after all negotiations were completed, and thus was
considered too late to be acted upon.'
Mr. Kerdus commented on the evident disagreements among Council
members, perhaps caused by events earlier in the meeting, and suggested no
action be taken on the budget until these matters have been resolved.
Bob McQueen, 4831 McKinnon Drive, noted the need for additional li-
braries, parks, police protection and services for the community, etc., and
suggested more attention be given to studying priorities during the coming
fiscal year.
Jim Proctor, 724 Geneva Street, stated he felt the City only needed
to provide security and safety services to the public, and thus asked that
the $1.05 tax rate be eliminated and the budget and services decreased accord-
ingly.
Ray Cook, 807 South Dickel Street, suggested the budget for future
years could be cut by selling the Anaheim Stadium to the Los Angeles Rams.
Joe White, 809 West Broadway, and Donald Kirk, 2109, No. 3, West
prot Drive, asked for the source of funds to construct the Anaheim Hills
Golf Course and purchase the land therefor.
M.R. Ringer advised that the Council authorized transfer of approxi-
mately $400,000.00 of revenues from the existing Anaheim Municipal Golf Course
for construction, plus about $300,000.00 from the Unappropriated Reserves and
approximately $300,000.00 in last year's budget. He added that the moneys
used from the General Fund for construction will be returned to that account
when revenues are received from the new golf course; that the land also will
be paid for from revenues received from operation of the two City courses.
It was determined there had been sufficient discussion; thereupon
Mayor Dutton declared the hearing closed.
On motion by Councilman Stephenson, seconded by Councilman Dutton,
the Fiscal Year 1972-73 Budget for the City of Anaheim was approved as pre-
sented. Councilman Thom excepted the Electrical Marketing, Anaheim Hills
Golf Course, and Data Processing accounts from his approving vote. MOTION
CARRIED.
Councilman Stephenson stated he also could disapprove the $216,000.00
Helicopter Program from his vote, but he would not do this.
RECESS: Councilman Stephenson moved for a five-minute Recess. Councilman Pebley
seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. (3:15; P.M.).
72 -423
City Hal], Anaheim. Californ a COUNCIL MINUTES June 27. 1972. 1:30 P.M.
AFTER RECESS: Mayor Dutton called the meeting to order, all Councilmen being
present. (3:27 P.M.).
COWTINUED PUBLIC HEARING CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 1309: Submitted by Roy W.
Mabee, to establish a travel trailer park on C -1 zoned property located on
the north side of Lincoln Avenue, west of Magnolia Avenue.
The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC72- 105,
denied said conditional use permit.
Appeal from action taken by the City Planning Commission was filed
by Roy W. Mabee, Applicant, and public hearing scheduled June 13, 1972, at
which time it was continued to this date, at the request of Harry Knisely,
Attorney for the Applicant.
Zoning Supervisor Charles Roberts noted the location of subject
property, existing uses and zoning in the immediate area, and read the find-
ings of the City Planning Commission.
In reply to Council .questioning, Mr. Roberts advised that travel
trailer parks previously have been approved for C-R, C -1 and R -A Zones.
Mayor Dutton asked if the Applicant or his Agent was present and
wished to address the Council.
Harry Knisely, 1741 South Euclid Street, Attorney for the Appli-
cant, stated in his opinion some of the uses allowed under the existing
zoning were more intense than the one requested.
He advised that the Applicant would stipulate to eliminating pro
posed Space Humber 15, which abuts the residential homes to the north, and
also would stipulate to "beefing" up the landscaping, providing more area
for landscaping and using fully -grown trees in the landscaping to assure
effective buffering for the residential homes.
Mr. Knisely presented a favorable petition purportedly containing
21 signatures, including some residents of a similar park located about
two blocks south of subject property.
The Mayor asked if anyone else wished to address the Council.
Charles Hamilton, 2656 Yale Avenue, whose home abuts subject pro-
perty on the north, presented and read an opposing petition, purportedly
signed by 12 people who live closest to the proposed trailer park, object-
ing to the noise that such an operation would create, and also the health
and odor problems that could result from servicing holding tanks on the
trailers.
Council discussion noted that eliminating Space No. 15, as sug-
gested by W. Knisely, would result in five feet of landscaping, plus 25
feet of open space between the northern boundary and the closest trailer
space.
Councilman Sneegas noted that a denial of subject application
could result in the proposal to construct a two -story apartment complex
on the property, and he felt the residents might prefer trailers to a second
story apartment development.
Mayor Dutton invited the Applicant to again address the Council
briefly.
Mr. Knisely, in response to Mr. Hamilton's concern about possible
noise and odors from the proposed operation, cited the Municipal Code pro-
hibiting such things, and advised that the Applicant intends to own and
operate the trailer park himself and will agree to place late- arriving and
early-departing trailers at the front of the park, away from the residen
tial area. He also offered to agree to a shut -down time, such as 11:00
P.M., if the Council desired.
72-424
City Hall. Anaheim. California COUNCIL MINUTES June 27. 1972. 1 :30 P.M.
Council discussion noted that few travel trailers arrive at a park
after 10:00 P.M., and a conditional use permit can be terminated any time by
action of the Council.
It was determined sufficient evidence had been presented, and Mayor
Dutton declared the hearing closed.
Councilman Thom requested clarification of the buffering stipula-
tions of the Applicant.
Joseph E. Bonadiman, 1265 Kendall Drive, San Bernardino, Engineer
for the Applicant, offered to either workout the details with the Planning
Department or specify at this time that specimen trees would be used in the
landscaping buffering the residential area to the north, and that these trees
would be placed on 10 or 15 -foot centers, rather than the required 30 -foot
centers.
In reply to Councilman Pebley, Mr. Bonadiman stated they also would
be willing to erect an 8 -foot masonry wall along the northern boundary, rather
than the originally-required 6 -foot wall.
RESOLUTION NO. 72R-259: Councilman Thom offered Resolution No. 72R -259 for
adoption, granting Conditional Use Permit No. 1309, subject to the following
Interdepartmental Committee recommendations, and further subject to elimina-
tion of proposed Space No. 15, construction of an 8 -foot masonry wall along
the northern boundary, and more intense landscaping, plans for which are to
be submitted to the City Council for final approval, as stipulated by the Ap-
plicant:
1. That street lighting facilities along Lincoln Avenue shall be
installed as required by the Director of Public Utilities and in accordance
with standard plans and specifications on file in the office of the Director
of Public Utilities and that a bond in an amount and form satisfactory to the
City of Anaheim shall be posted with the City to guarantee the installation
of the above mentioned requirement.
2. That the owner(s) of subject property shall pay to the City of
Anaheim the sum of 15 cents per front foot along Lincoln Avenue for tree plant-
ing purposes.
3. That the sidewalks and driveways shall be relocated along Lin-
coln Avenue as required by the City Engineer and in accordance with standard
plans and specifications on file in the office of the City Engineer.
4. That trash storage areas shall be provided in accordance with
approved plans on file with the office of the Director of Public Works.
5. That fire hydrants shall be installed as required and determined
to be necessary by the Chief of the Fire Department.
6. That a 6-foot masonry wall shall be constructed along the east
property line adjacent to the R -A property.
7. That a 5 -foot chainlink fence shall be constructed on the east
property line adjacent to the Orange County Flood Control Channel in accord-
ance with the standards of the Orange County Flood Control District.
8. That any parking area lighting proposed within 120 feet of the
adjacent R -1 Zone shall be down lighting of a maximum height of 8 feet, which
lighting shall be directed away from the property lines to protect the resi-
dential integrity of the area.
9. That subject property shall be served by underground utilities.
10. That the proposed development shall be in accordance with the
requirements of the State Trailer Act and that plumbing shall be provided in
order that the mobilehome park will accommodate all trailers and not be re-
stricted to :'California approved trailers" only.
11. That drainage of subject property shall be disposed of in a man-
ner satisfactory to the City Engineer.
12. That subject property shall be developed substantially in ac-
cordance with plans and specifications on file with the City of Anaheim marked
Exhibit Nos. 1 and 2.
13. That Condition Nos. 1 and 2, above mentioned, shall be complied
with prior to the commencement of the activity authorized under this resolu-
tion, or prior ima the time that the building permit is issued, or within a
period of 180 days, whichever occurs first, or such further time as the City
Council may grant.
7 2- 425
City Hall. Anaheim. California COUNCIL MINUTES June 27, 1972. 1 :30 P.M.
14. That Condition Nos. 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 and 11, above men-
tioned, 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 ANAHEIM GRANTING CONDITIONAL
USE PERMIT NO. 1309.
Roll Call Vote:
AYES: COUNCILMEN: Sneegas, Stephenson, Pebley, Thom and Dutton
NOES: COUNCILMEN: None
ABSENT: COUNCILMEN: None
The Mayor declared Resolution No. 72R -259 duly passed and adopted.
In reply to a query, Mr. Roberts was advised it was not the Coun-
cil's intent to require a 20-foot wide landscaping buffer along the northern
boundary.
PUBLIC HEARING RECLASSIFICATION NO. 71- 72 -48: Submitted by Leo Rose, request-
ing a change of zone from R- A to C-1, on property located on the southeast
corner of Dale Avenue and Lincoln Avenue.
The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC72 -113,
recommended said reclassification be approved, subject to the following con-
ditions:
1. That trash storage areas shall be provided in accordance with
approved plans on file with the office of the Director of Public Works.
2. That fire hydrants shall be installed as required and deter-
mined to be necessary by the Chief of the Fire Department.
3. That all air conditioning facilities shall be properly shielded
from view, and the sound buffered from adjacent properties.
4. That subject property shall be served by underground utilities.
5. That drainage of subject property shall be disposed of in a
manner satisfactory to the City Engineer.
6. That a 6-foot masonry wall shall be constructed along the south
property line.
7. That subject property shall be developed substantially in ac-
cordance with plans and specifications on file with the City of Anaheim mar-
ked Exhibit No. 1.
8. That Condition Nos. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, and 7, above mentioned,
shall be complied with prior to final building and zoning inspections.
Zoning Supervisor Charles Roberts noted the location of subject
property, existing uses and zoning in the immediate area, and briefed the
evidence submitted to and considered by the City Planning Commission. He
added that the Applicant has stated his desire to change this zoning to
enable him to expand an existing restaurant on the property.
Mayor Dutton asked if anyone was present who wished to address
the Council; there being no response, declared the hearing closed.
RESOLUTION NO. 72R-260: Councilman Pebley offered Resolution No. 72R -260
for adoption, authorizing preparation of necessary ordinance changing the
zone to C-1, as requested, subject to the conditions recommended by the
City Planning Commission.
Refer to Resolution Book.
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM FINDING AND DETER-
MINING THAT TITLE 18 OF THE ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO ZONING SHOULD
BE AMENDED AND THAT THE BOUNDARIES OF CERTAIN ZONES SHOULD BE CHANGED.
(71 -72 -48 C-1)
Roll Call Vote:
72 -426
City Hall. Anaheim. California COUNCIL MINUTES June 27. 1972. 1 :30 P.M.
AYES: COUNCILMEN: Sneegas, Stephenson, Pebley, Thom and Dutton
NOES: COUNCILMEN: None
ABSENT: COUNCILMEN: None
The Mayor declared Resolution No. 72R -260 duly passed and adopted.
PUBLIC HEARIJG RECLASSIFICATION NO. 71-72-50 AND VARIANCE NO. 2374: Submitted
by Dominick and Nellie N. Freno, requesting a change of zone from R -A to C-1,
to utilize two existing residences for both living quarters and real estate
offices on the east side of Beach Boulevard, north of Orange Avenue, with
waivers of:
a. Parking area location to the rear of the residential structure
required.
b. Front setback landscaping required.
c. Minimum side setback.
d. Maximum building height.
e. Parking area design standards.
The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC72 -115,
denied said Variance, and pursuant to Resolution No. PC72-114, recommended
said Reclassification be approved, subject to the following conditions:
1. That the owners of subject property shall pay to the City of
Anaheim the sum of $2.00 per front foot along Beach Boulevard for street
lighting purposes.
2. That the owners of subject property shall pay to the City of
Anaheim the sum of 15 cents per front foot along Beach Boulevard for tree
planting purposes.
3. That trash storage areas shall be provided in accordance with
approved plans on file with the office of the Director of Public Works.
4. That fire hydrants shall be installed as required and deter-
mined to be necessary by the Chief of the Fire Department.
5. That a 6 -foot masonry wall shall be constructed along the east
property line.
6. That all air conditioning facilities shall be properly shielded
from view, and the sound buffered from adjacent properties.
7. That a final parking plan shall be approved by the Development
Services Department and any landscaped areas in the parking area shall be
protected with 6-inch high concrete curbs and concrete wheel stops shall be
provided for parking spaces as required by the Development Services Depart-
ment.
8. Prior to the introduction of an ordinance rezoning subject pro-
perty, Condition Nos. 1 and 2, above mentioned, shall be completed. The pro-
visions or rights granted by this resolution shall become null and void by
action of the City Council unless said conditions are complied with within
180 days from the date hereof or such further time as the City Council may
grant.
9. That Condition Nos. 3, 4, 5, 6, and 7, above mentioned, shall
be complied with prior to final building and zoning inspections.
Zoning Supervisor Charles Roberts noted the location of subject
property, existing uses and zoning in the immediate area, and briefed the
evidence submitted to and considered by the City Planning Commission. He
added that the City Planning Commission, while recommending the zoning be
approved, felt that the requested use would not be compatible.
Mayor Dutton asked if the Applicant or his Agent was present and
wished to address the Council.
Dominick Freno, 426 South Beach Boulevard, Applicant, advised that
he proposed to blacktop the front yard to provide more than the required
parking spaces, and also would add 410 square feet to the existing home on
the rear of the property to bring it up to the required 950-square feet. He
added that he would construct a 6 -foot masonry wall at the eastern boundary
of his property to separate it from the single family residential homes.
Refer to Resolution Book.
Roll Call Vote:
72 -427
City Hall. Anaheim. California COUNCIL MINUTES June 27. 1972. 1 :30 P.M.
In reply to Council questioning, Mr. Freno advised that he proposed
to use a portion of one dwelling for a real estate office, and the other for
an escrow office, living in one of the houses and having a tenant live in
the other; that he did not want to provide any parking space at the rear
because he wanted to retain a patio area, although there is access to the
rear building from the proposed front parking area. He added that although
he did not want to, if necessary he could eliminate two or four of the park-
ing spaces that are not required in order to provide landscaping.
The Mayor asked if anyone else wished to address the Council; there
being no response, declared the hearing closed.
Councilman Pebley stated he would prefer the Applicant use the
rear building as an escrow office only, and not provide the additional space
for a tenant to also live there.
RESOLUTION NO. 72R -261: Councilman Dutton offered Resolution No. 72R -261
for adoption, authorizing preparation of necessary ordinance changing the
zone to C -1, as requested, subject to the conditions recommended by the
City Planning Commission.
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM FINDING AND DETER-
MINING THAT TITLE 18 OF THE ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO ZONING SHOULD
BE AMENDED AND THAT THE BOUNDARIES OF CERTAIN ZONES SHOULD BE CHANGED.
(71 -72 -50 C -1)
Roll Call Vote:
AYES: COUNCILMEN: Sneegas, Stephenson, Pebley, Thom and Dutton
NOES: COUNCILMEN: None
ABSENT: COUNCILMEN: None
The Mayor declared Resolution No. 72R -261 duly passed and adopted.
RESOLUTION NO. 72R -262: Councilman Dutton offered Resolution No. 72R -262
for adoption, denying Variance No. 2374.
Refer to Resolution Book.
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM DENYING VARIANCE
NO. 2374.
AYES: COUNCILMEN: Sneegas, Stephenson, Pebley, Thom and Dutton
NOES: COUNCILMEN: None
ABSENT: COUNCILMEN: None
The Mayor declared Resolution No. 72R -262 duly passed and adopted.
PUBLIC HEARING RECLASSIFICATION NO. 71-72 -51: Submitted by Donald A. Nielsen,
et al, requesting a change of zone from R-A to C -1 on property located on
the north side of Lincoln Avenue, east of Brookhurst Street.
The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC72 -116,
recommended said reclassification be approved, subject to the following con-
ditions:
the owner(s) of subject property shall pay to the City of
$2.00 per front foot along Lincoln Avenue for street light
the owners) of subject property shall pay to the City of
15 cents per front foot along Lincoln Avenue for tree
1. That
Anaheim the sum of
ing purposes.
2. That
Anaheim the sum of
planting purposes.
3. That the sidewalks and driveways shall be installed along Lin-
coln Avenue as required by the City Engineer and in accordance with standard
plans and specifications on file in the office of the City Engineer.
7 2- 428
City Hall. Anaheim. California COUNCIL MINUTES June 27. 1972. 1:30 P.M.
4. That trash storage areas shall be provided in accordance with
approved plans on file with the office of the Director of Public Works.
5. That fire hydrants shall be installed as required and determined
to be necessary by the Chief of the Fire Department.
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 8 feet within 120 feet of the surrounding R -1 property,
which lighting shall be directed away from the property lines to protect the
residential integrity of the area.
8. That subject property shall be served by underground utilities.
9. That drainage of subject property shall be disposed of in a man-
ner satisfactory to the City Engineer.
10. That subject property shall be developed substantially in accord-
ance with plans and specifications on file with the City of Anaheim marked Ex-
hibit Nos. 1, 2 and 3.
11. Prior to the introduction of an ordinance rezoning subject pro-
perty, Condition Nos. 1 and 2, above mentioned, shall be completed. The pro-
visions or rights granted by this resolution shall become null and void by ac-
tion of the City Council unless said conditions are complied with within one
year from the date hereof or such further time as the City Council may grant.
12. That Condition Nos. 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9 and 10, above mentioned,
shall be complied with prior to final building and zoning inspections.
Zoning Supervisor Charles Roberts noted the location of subject pro-
perty, existing uses and zoning in the immediate area, and briefed the evidence
submitted to and considered by the City Planning Commission. He added that the
Applicant had expressed a desire to operate a camping supply retail business
on subject property.
Mayor Dutton asked if the Applicant was present and satisfied with
the recommendations of the City Planning Commission, to which he received an
affirmative reply.
The Mayor asked if anyone wished to address the Council in opposition;
there being no response, declared the hearing closed.
RESOLUTION NO. 72R-263: Councilman Stephenson offered Resolution No. 72R -263
for adoption, authorizing preparation of necessary ordinance changing the zone
to C-1, as requested, subject to the conditions recommended by the City Planning
Commission.
Refer to Resolution Book.
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM FINDING AND DETERMINING
THAT TITLE 18 OF THE ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE REALTING TO ZONING SHOULD BE AMENDED
AND THAT THE BOUNDARIES OF CERTAIN ZONES SHOULD BE CHANGED. (71 -72 -51 C-1)
Roll Call Vote:
AYES: COUNCILMEN: Sneegas, Stephenson, Pebley, Thom and Dutton
NOES: COUNCILMEN: None
ABSENT: COUNCILMEN: None
The Mayor declared Resolution No. 72R -263 duly passed and adopted.
PUBLIC HEARING VARIANCE NO. 2375 (TENTATIVE TRACTS NO. 7617. 7730.
7733. AND 7734): Submitted by Ernest L. Danker, et al, to establish
single family tract on County of Orange property (Resolution of
located on the south side of the Riverside Freeway, on the north
Ana Canyon Road, east of the intersection of Walnut Canyon Road
Canyon Road, and extending easterly to the intersection of Santa
Road and the Riverside Freeway, with waivers of:
a. Minimum front yard.
b. Minimum lot width.
c. Minimum lot area.
7731. 7732.
a 454 -lot,
Intent to R-1)
side of Santa
and Santa Ana
Ana Canyon
72 -429
City Hall. Anahej,g. California COUNCIL MINUTES June 27.1972. 1 :30 P.M.
The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC72 -120,
denied said variance.
Appeal from action taken by the City Planning Commission was filed
by M.C. Nickle, Agent, and public hearing scheduled this date.
Zoning Supervisor Charles Roberts noted the location of subject
property, which consists of approximately 100 acres, existing uses and zon-
ing in the immediate area, and briefed the evidence submitted to and con-
sidered by the City Planning Commission.
He pointed out that the minimum front yard waiver request would
affect only one lot; that 30°h of the proposed lots would be 6,000 to 6,490
square feet, 127° would be 6,590 to 7,100 square feet, and 517. or 233 lots
would be 7,200 square feet and larger. He advised that Item 4 of the City
Planning Commission Resolution No. PC72-120, stating 51% of the lots would
be less than 7,200- square feet, was in error, and that figure should have
been 497.
Mayor Dutton asked if the Applicant or his Agent was present and
wished to address the Council.
Morrie Nickle, Classic Development Corporation, 12700 Knott Ave-
nue, Garden Grove, Agent for -the Applicant, displayed plans, tract maps,
and a mock-up of the proposed development and circulated some exhibits.
He advised that the entire parcel is under nine separate ownerships, rang-
ing from 1 /2-acre to 44 or 45 acres.
Mr. Nickle contended that there was a hardship situation in sub-
ject proposal in that the property has 3,000 -feet of freeway frontage for
which an earthen berm 20 feet wide at the base, 6 feet high and 6 feet across
must be provided, requiring more than 12,000 yards of fill and costing ap-
proximately $50,000.00, including the land that is taken for this; the re-
quired drainage system will cost approximately $150,000.00, although some
of this would be reimbursed as other properties develop; cost of under
grounding the SAVI Irrigation System in concrete construction is approxi-
mately $85,000.00, and the required 30 -foot wide strip of landscaping along
the Scenic Corridor, including cost of land for this, would be approximately
$100,000.00.
He stated his calculations showed that 5270 of the proposed lots
would be 7,200-square feet or larger, with the overall average of all lots
7,200 square feet; that the largest lot is 15,000 square feet, and several
along the old Santa Ana Canyon Road are around 8,000 to 8,400- square feet.
He added that the streets also would eliminate 18 acres of land that would
be undevelopable.
Mr. Nickle noted that his company has been working for over a
year in an attempt to develop an approvable map.
In reply to Councilmen Pebley and Sneegas, Mr. Nickle stated he
would stipulate to placing only 3- bedroom homes on the 165, 6,000 to 6,490
square foot lots; however, they preferred to offer homes on a preconstruc-
tion basis, with the buyer having the option to select his lot. He added
that, if necessary, he would stipulate to a maximum of 507o, or slightly
more, of the homes being 2 -story structures.
Mr. Nickle stated that five of the model homes they would offer
are 2- story, and three are 1- story; that the sizes of the 2-story homes
range from 1,730 to 2,100- square feet.
He again stipulated that only 3- bedroom homes would be built on
the 6,000 to 6,490-square foot lots.
sition.
The Mayor asked if anyone wished to address the Council in oppo-
Frank Raczek, 5917 Hadrians Crescent, stated that, in his opinion,
there is no hardship connected with the property because of the cost of the
homes in the area, and he felt that by eliminating a few lots all lots
could meet the 7,200- square foot requirement.
72 -430
City Hall. Anaheim. California- C iCIL MINUTES June 27. 1972. 1:30 P.M.
Bob McQueen, 4831 McKinnon Drive, representing the Santa Ana Can
yon Improvement Association, stated he felt the model homes proposed were
attractive and they appreciated the stipulation of only 3-bedroom homes on
the small lots; however, they objected to anything less than strictly R-1
development with 7,200-square foot lots in the Canyon.
Mayor Dutton asked if anyone else wished to address the Council;
there being no immediate response, declared the hearing closed.
Upon a request from the audience, the Mayor reopened the hearing.
Ernest Danker, 7513 South Ohio, Yorba Linda, one of the Applicants,
advised that two other developers had withdrawn after unsuccessfully attempt-
ing to plan a development for subject property. He noted that taxes on the
27 acres he owns in this parcel have risen to $10,000.00 a year, and this
year's price of oranges grown on the property is less than last year's, and
expenses could not be met last year.
He stated he believed the proposed development would greatly im-
prove the Canyon area and the Scenic Corridor.
In reply to Councilman Dutton, Mr. Danker advised that his property
lying north of the Santa Ana Canyon Road is 70 to 80 feet below grade level,
and is adjacent to the Freeway, and thus he did not feel an R -1 development
there was practicable.
It was determined sufficient evidence had been presented, and the
Mayor declared the hearing closed.
Councilman Stephenson stated he understood the problems of the
landowners in the area; however, the Council had agreed to maintain R -1 zon-
ing with 7,200-square foot lots in the area, and he felt that granting this
variance would set a precedent for other developers' requests. To this state-
ment, Councilman Thom expressed agreement.
RESOLUTION NO. 72R-264: Councilman Stephenson offered Resolution No. 72R-
264 for adoption, denying Variance No. 2375, as recommended by the City Plan-
ning Commission.
Refer to Resolution Book.
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM DENYING VARIANCE
NO. 2375.
Roll Call Voter
AYES: COUNCILMEN: Stephenson, Pebley, Thom and Dutton
NOES: COUNCILMEN: Sneegas
ABSENT: COUNCILMEN: None
The Mayor declared Resolution No. 72R-264 duly passed and adopted.
REVISION NO. 2 OF TENTATIVE TRACT MAPS NO. 7617. 7730. 7731. 7732. 7733. AND 7734
(VARIANCE NO. 2375) Developer Classic Development Corporation. Property lo-
cated on the north side of Santa Ana Canyon Road, east of the intersection
of Walnut Canyon and Santa Ana Canyon Roads, and contains:
Tract No. 7617 75 proposed R -1 zoned lots.
Tract No. 7730 80 proposed R -1 zoned lots.
Tract No. 7731 67 proposed R -1 zoned lots.
Tract No. 7732 68 proposed R-1 zoned lots.
Tract No. 7733 94 proposed R-1 zoned lots.
Tract No. 7734 70 proposed R-1 zoned lots.
City Hall. Anaheim. California COUNCIJ MINUTES June 27. 1972. 1:30 P.M.
The City Planning Commission, at their meeting held May 31, 1972,
denied subject tract maps, along with their denial of Variance No. 2375.
On motion by Councilman Thom, seconded by Councilman Stephenson,
Revision No. 2 of Tentative Tract Maps Nos. 7617, 7730, 7731, 7732, 7733
and 7734 were denied, inasmuch as Variance No. 2375 covering the same pro-
perty had been denied. MOTION CARRIED.
PUBLIC HEARING KATHRYN LINDSAY ANNEXATION (INHABITED): Pursuant to Resolution
No. 72R -232, duly published in the Anaheim Bulletin June 15 and 22, 1972,
public hearing was held on proposed annexation of inhabited territory
known and designated as the Kathryn-Lindsay Annexation.
The City Clerk reported that no written protests had been filed
in her office.
Mayor Dutton asked if anyone wished to address the Council; there
being no response, declared the hearing closed.
RESOLUTION NO. 72R-265: Councilman Pebley offered Resolution No. 72R -265
for adoption.
Refer to Resolution Book.
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM FINDING AND DETER-
MINING THAT NO PROTESTS WERE MADE IN THE PROCEEDINGS FOR THE ANNEXATION OF
CERTAIN INHABITED TERRITORY TO THE CITY OF ANAHEIM KNOWN AS KATHRYN-LINDSAY
ANNEXATION.
Roll Call Vote:
Refer to Resolution Book.
Roll Call Vote:
72 -431
AYES: COUNCILMEN: Sneegas, Stephenson, Pebley, Thom and Dutton
NOES: COUNCILMEN: None
ABSENT: COUNCILMEN: None
The Mayor declared Resolution No. 72R-265 duly passed and adopted.
RESOLUTION NO. 72R-266: Councilman Pebley offered Resolution No. 72R -266
for adoption, calling a Special Election on the Kathryn Lindsay Annexation,
for September 5, 1972.
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM CALLING AND GIVING
NOTICE OF A SPECIAL ELECTION PURSUANT TO GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION NO. 35122,
RELATING TO KATHRYN-LINDSAY ANNEXATION (INHABITED).
AYES: COUNCILMEN: Sneegas, Stephenson, Pebley, Thom and Dutton
NOES: COUNCILMEN: None
ABSENT: COUNCILMEN: None
The Mayor declared Resolution No. 72R-266 duly passed and adopted.
PUBLIC HEARING REFORMATION OF STREET LIGHTING MAINTENANCE DISTRICT 1967-1 AS
1967 -1 -B: Public hearing was held to receive any objections to the proposed
Reformation of Street Lighting Maintenance District 1967 -1 as 1967 -1 -B,
pursuant to Resolution No. 72R-201, duly published in the Anaheim Bulletin,
and notices thereof posted in accordance with law.
Mayor Dutton asked if anyone wished to address the City Council;
there being no response, declared the hearing closed.
RESOLUTION NO. 72R-267: Councilman Stephenson offered Resolution No.72R -267
for addlâ–ºtion.
72 -432
City Hall. Anaheim. California COUNCIL MINUTES June 27. 1972. 1 :30 P.M.
Refer to Resolution Book.
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM FINDING AND DETER-
MINING THAT NO PROTESTS, EITHER WRITTEN OR ORAL, WERE MADE IN THE PROCEED-
INGS FOR THE IMPROVEMENTS CONTEMPLATED TO BE MADE BY THE CITY OF ANAHEIM
UNDER THE STREET LIGHTING ACT OF 1931 STREET LIGHTING MAINTENANCE DISTRICT
1967 1-B. (Tract No. 2309)
Roll Call Vote:
AYES: COUNCILMEN: Sneegas, Stephenson, Pebley, Thom and Dutton
NOES: COUNCILMEN: None
ABSENT: COUNCILMEN: None
The Mayor declared Resolution No. 72R -267 duly passed and adopted.
PUBLIC HEADING PROPOSED STREET LIGHTING DISTRICT 72 -1 (TRACT NO. 1959):. Public
hearing was held to receive any objections to the proposed Street Lighting
Assessment District 1972 -1, pursuant to Resolution No. 72R -203, duly published
in the Anaheim Bulletin, and notices thereof posted in accordance with law.
Mayor Dutton asked if anyone wished to address the City Council;
there being no response, declared the hearing closed.
RESOLUTION NO. 72R -268: Councilman Thom offered Resolution No. 72R -268 for
adoption.
Refer to Resolution Book.
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM FINDING AND DETER-
MINING THAT NO PROTESTS, EITHER WRITTEN OR ORAL, WERE MADE IN THE PROCEED-
INGS FOR THE IMPROVEMENTS CONTEMPLATED TO BE MADE BY THE CITY OF ANAHEIN
UNDER THE STREET LIGHTING ACT OF 1931 STREET LIGHTING ASSESSMENT DISTRICT
1972 -1, TRACT NO. 1959.
Roll Call Vote:
AYES: COUNCILMEN: Sneegas, Stephenson, Pebley, Thom and Dutton
NOES: COUNCILMEN: None
ABSENT: COUNCILMEN: None
The Mayor declared Resolution No. 72R -268 duly passed and adopted.
RESOLUTION NO. 72R-269 WORK ORDER NO. 5284: Councilman Thom offered Reso-
lution No. 72R-269 for adoption.
Refer to Resolution Book.
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM FINDING AND DETER-
MINING THAT PUBLIC CONVENIENCE AND NECESSITY REQUIRE THE CONSTRUCTION AND
COMPLETION OF A PUBLIC IMPROVEMENT, TO WIT: INSTALLATION OF STREET LIGHTING
IN TRACT NO. 1959, IN THE CITY OF ANAHEIM, STREET LIGHTING DISTRICT 72 -1,
WORK ORDER NO. 5284. APPROVING THE DESIGNS, PLANS, PROFILES, DRAWINGS AND
SPECIFICATIONS FOR THE CONSTRUCTION THEREOF; AUTHORIZING THE CONSTRUCTION
OF SAID PUBLIC IMPROVEMENT IN ACCORDANCE WITH SAID PLANS, SPECIFICATIONS,
ETC.; AND AUTHORIZING AND DIRECTING THE CITY CLERK TO PUBLISH A NOTICE IN-
VITING SEALED PROPOSALS FOR THE CONSTRUCTION THEREOF. (Bids to be Opened
July 20, 1972, 2:00 P.M.)
Roll Call Vote:
AYES: COUNCILMEN: Sneegas, Stephenson, Pebley, Thom and Dutton
NOES: COUNCILMEN: None
ABSENT: COUNCILMEN: None
The Mayor declared Resolution No. 72R -269 duly passed and adopted.
City Hall. Apaheim California COUNCIL MINUTES June 27. 1972. 1 :30 P.M.
PRIVATE PATROL PERMIT SHAMROCK SECURITY PATROL: Application for private patrol
permit filed by Roy M. Hill, dba Shamrock Security Patrol, for private se-
curity patrol within the City of Anaheim was submitted and granted, subject
to provisions of Chapter 4.60 of the Anaheim Municipal Code, as recommended
by the Chief of Police, on motion by Councilman Pebley, seconded by Council-
man Stephenson. MOTION CARRIED.
REQUEST WEST ANAHEIM COMMUNITY HOSPITAL: Request was submitted by Truman L.
Gates, Administrative Assistant of the West Anaheim Community Hospital, for
permission to sell entertainment tickets for a "Dunking Machine" at an em-
ployees' picnic, to be held at Pearson Park, July 2, 1972. Also submitted
was report of the Parks and Recreation Department, recommending permission
be granted, and report of the License Department, stating no objection, and
of the City Attorney's office, stating no objection provided all applic-
able safety requirements are complied with.
On motion by Councilman Thom, seconded by Councilman Pebley, re-
quest of the West Anaheim Community Hospital was granted, all applicable
safety requirements to be complied with, as recommended by the City Attorney.
MOTION CARRIED.
NON-CONFQRMING BILLBOARDS REMOVAL: Report of the Development Services Depart-
ment was submitted, recommending the City Council ratify the schedules of
the following firms for removal of non-conforming billboards, such ratifi-
cation to become void in event of non-compliance by January 1, 1973:
Pacific Outdoor Advertising Company, dated May 4, 1972.
Kennedy Outdoor Advertising, dated April 27, 1972.
Foster Kleiser, dated March 22, 1972.
Max Berger, received March 13, 1972.
Southern California Gas Company, dated March 24, 1972.
On motion by Councilman Thom, seconded by Councilman Stephenson,
schedule for removal of non conforming billboards was ratified, as recom-
mended by the Development Services Department. MOTION CARRIED.
RESOLUTION NO. 72R-270 RECLASSIFICATION N0. 71-72-24 AMENDMENT:, Councilman
Stephenson offered Resolution No.72R -270 for adoption, amending Resolution
No. 72R -22 to correct the description pertaining to Reclassification No.
71- 72 -24.
Refer to Resolution Book.
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AMENDING RESOLUTION
NO. 72R-22. (Correcting Legal Description of Property)
Roll Call Vote:
AYES: COUNCILMEN: Sneegas, Stephenson, Pebley, Thom and Dutton
NOES: COUNCILMEN: None
ABSENT: COUNCILMEN: None
The Mayor declared Resolution No.
RESOLUTION NO. 72117271 AWARD OF WORK ORDER NO.
mendations of the City Engineer, Councilman
72R-271 for adoption.
Refer to Resolution Book.
72 -433
72R -270 duly passed and adopted.
649-B: In accordance with recom-
Pebley offered Resolution No.
72-434
City Hall. Anaheim. California COUNCIL MINUTES June 27. 1972. 1:30 P.M.
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM ACCEPTING A SEALED
PROPOSAL AND AWARDING A CONTRACT TO THE LOWEST RESPONSIBLE BIDDER FOR THE
FURNISHING OF ALL PLANT, LABOR, SERVICES, MATERIALS AND EQUIPMENT AND ALL
UTILITIES AND TRANSPORTATION, INCLUDING POWER, FUEL AND WATER, AND PERFORMING
ALL WORK NECESSARY TO CONSTRUCT AND COMPLETE THE FOLLOWING PUBLIC IMPROVEMENT:
CONSTRUCTION, MODIFICATION AND INTERCONNECTION OF TRAFFIC SIGNALS ON BROOK
HURST STREET, HARBOR BOULEVARD AND LA PALMA AVENUE, IN THE CITY OF ANAHEIM,
WORK ORDER NO. 649 -B. (Grissom Johnson $238,831.00)
Roll Call Vote:
AYES: COUNCILMEN: Sneegas,
NOES: COUNCILMEN: None
ABSENT: COUNCILMEN: None
The Mayor declared Resolution
RESOLUTION NO& 72R-272 WORK ORDER NO. 794:
lution No. 72R -272 for adoption.
Refer to Resolution Book.
Roll Call Vote:
Stephenson, Pebley, Thom and Dutton
No. 72R -271 duly passed and adopted.
Councilman Stephenson offered Reso-
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM FINDING AND DETER-
MINING THAT PUBLIC CONVENIENCE AND NECESSITY REQUIRE THE CONSTRUCTION AND
COMPLETION OF A PUBLIC IMPROVEMENT, TO WIT: MANZANITA PARK CONCRETE MASONRY
WALL, NORTH OF RIVIERA STREET, IN THE CITY OF ANAHEIM, WORK ORDER NO. 794.
APPROVING THE DESIGNS, PLANS, PROFILES, DRAWINGS AND SPECIFICATIONS FOR THE
CONSTRUCTION THEREOF; AUTHORIZING THE CONSTRUCTION OF SAID PUBLIC IMPROVE
MENT IN ACCORDANCE WITH SAID PLANS, SPECIFICATIONS, ETC.; AND AUTHORIZING
AND DIRECTING THE CITY CLERK TO PUBLISH A NOTICE INVITING SEALED PROPOSALS
FOR THE CONSTRUCTION THEREOF. (Bids to be Opened July 20, 1972, 2 :00 P.M.)
AYES: COUNCILMEN: Sneegas, Stephenson, Pebley, Thom and Dutton
NOES: COUNCILMEN: None
ABSENT: COUNCILMEN: None
The Mayor declared Resolution No. 72R -272 duly passed and adopted.
RESOLUTION NO. 72R -273 DEEDS OF EASEMENT: Councilman Thom offered Resolution
No. 72R-273 for adoption.
Refer to Resolution Book.
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM ACCEPTING CERTAIN
DEEDS AND ORDERING THEIR RECORDATION. (Mervyn A. Phelan; General American
Life Insurance Company; Henry B. Wesseln)
Roll Call Vote:
AYES: COUNCILMEN: Sneegas, Stephenson, Pebley, Thom and Dutton
NOES: COUNCILMEN: None
ABSENT: COUNCILMEN: None
The Mayor declared Resolution No. 72R -273 duly passed and adopted.
PROPOSED ABANDONMENT RESOLUTION NO. 72R-274: Councilman Thom offered Resolution
No. 72R -274 for adoption.
Refer to Resolution Book.
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM DECLARING ITS INTEN-
TION TO VACATE CERTAIN REAL PROPERTY AND FIXING A DATE FOR HEARING THEREON.
(No. 71-11A Tract No. 7754, east side of Sunkist Street, south of South
Street. Public Hearing July 18, 1972, 1:30 P.M.)
Roll Call Vote:
72 -435
City Hall. Anaheim. California COUNCIL MINUTES June 27. 1972. 1:30 P.M.
AYES: COUNCILMEN: Sneegas, Stephenson,Pebley, Thom and Dutton
NOES: COUNCILMEN: None
ABSENT: COUNCILMEN: None
The Mayor declared Resolution No. 72R-274 duly passed and adopted.
RANCH
TRANSFER OF FUNDS LIBRARY SITE. NOHL CANYON ROAD AND IMPERIAL HIGHWAY: Report
of the City Manager was submitted recommending $25,000.00 be transferred
from the Fiscal Year 1971 -72 Council Contingency Fund to the Capital Outlay
Fund, for the purchase of 3 net acres of property located at Nohl Canyon Ranch
Road and Imperial Highway for a future library site, in accordance with
the October, 1970 agreement with the Grant Corporation relative to purchase
of park land and building certain recreational facilities in the Santa Ana
Canyon area.
On motion by Councilman Thom, seconded by Councilman Pebley, trans-
fer of funds was authorized, as recommended by the City Manager. MOTION
CARRIED.
CLAIMS AGAWSZ THE CITY: The following claims were denied, as recommended by the
City Attorney, and ordered referred to the insurance carrier, on motion by
Councilman Thom, seconded by Councilman Pebley:
a. Claim submitted by Fernando and Adelina Palacios, Kruse
Katsky, for purported wrongful death of their minor son Richard Aguilar
Palacios, in alleged improperly designed and maintained facilities of the
Orange County Flood Control installation, located within the City of Ana-
heim, on or about May 10, 1972.
b. Claim submitted by George J. Jolly, for purported personal
property damages sustained as result of City power failure, on or about
June 9, 1972.
c. Claim submitted by Karen Lynn Griffith, Isman and Giss, for
purported arrest at the Lancers Restaurant in Anaheim, no further details
given, on or about April 9, 1972.
MOTION CARRIED.
CORRESPONDENCE: The following correspondence was ordered received and filed, on
motion by Councilman Pebley, seconded by Councilman Thom:
a. Orange County Board of Supervisors Resolution Approving
the application for land and water conservation funds for the 5 Coves Regional
Park, and further authorizing submission of a grant proposal to the State
by June 30, 1972.
b. Community Redevelopment Commission Minutes May 17, 1972.
c. Financial and Operating Reports for the month of May, 1972:
Electrical Division Utilities Department
Engineering Division Public Works Department
d. City of Westminster Resolutions Nos. 1392, 1393 and 1394
Urging the State Legislature to adopt laws simplifying and modernizing the
judicial process.
MOTION CARRIED.
ORDINANCE NO. 3056: Councilman Thom offered Ordinance No. 3056 for adoption.
Refer to Ordinance Book.
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AMENDING TITLE 18 OF THE ANAHEIM
MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO ZONING. (71-72-19 M-1)
Roll Call Vote:
AYES: COUNCILMEN: Sneegas, Stephenson, Pebley, Thom and Dutton
NOES: COUNCILMEN: None
ABSENT: COUNCILMEN: None
The Mayor declared Ordinance No. 3056 duly passed and adopted.
72 -436
City Hall. Anaheim. California COUNCIL MINUTES June 27. 1972. 1 :30 P.M.
ORDINANCE NO. 3057: Councilman Dutton offered Ordinance No. 3057 for adoption.
Refer to Ordinance Book.
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AMENDING TITLE 18 OF THE ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL
CODE RELATING TO ZONING. (68-69-35 R-3)
Roll Call Vote:
AYES: COUNCILMEN: Sneegas, Stephenson, Pebley, Thom and Dutton
NOES: COUNCILMEN: None
ABSENT: COUNCILMEN: None
The Mayor declared Ordinance No. 3057 duly passed and adopted.
ORDINANCE NO. 3058: Councilman Stephenson offered Ordinance No. 3058 for adoption.
Refer to Ordinance Book.
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AMENDING TITLE 18 OF THE ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL
CODE RELATING TO ZONING. (71-72-33 R-3)
Roll Call Vote:
AYES: COUNCILMEN: Sneegas, Stephenson, Pebley, Thom and Dutton
NOES: COUNCILMEN: None
ABSENT: COUNCILMEN: None
The Mayor declared Ordinance No. 3058 duly passed and adopted.
ORDINANCE NO. 3059: Councilman Pebley offered Ordinance No. 3059 for first reading.
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AMENDING TITLE 18 OF THE ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL
CODE RELATING TO ZONING. (71-72-12 (1) R-3)
ORDINANCE NO. 3060: Councilman Dutton offered Ordinance No. 3060 for first reading.
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AMENDING TITLE 18 OF THE ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL
CODE RELATING TO ZONING. (63-64-62(14) R-3)
ORDINANCE NO. 3061: Councilman Stephenson offered Ordinance No. 3061 for first
reading.
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AMENDING TITLE 18 OF THE ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL
CODE RELATING TO ZONING. (71-72-31 R-1)
ORDINANCE N0. 3062: Councilman Dutton offered Ordinance No. 3062 for first reading.
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AMENDING TITLE 18 OF THE ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL
CODE RELATING TO ZONING. (71-72-15(2) R- H-10,000 Tract No. 7569)
UNDERGROUND UTILITIES HILL AND CANYON AREA PROPOSED POLICY: Consideration of
proposed policy to underground electrical facilities in the Hill and Canyon
area was continued from the Joint Meeting with the City Planning Commission,
held June 6, 1972, to further explore the following:
(a) The possibility of some 12 KV overhead lines where they can be
relatively obscure.
(b) An analysis of the Assessment District approach.
(c) Investigation of what the residential policy should be to apply
throughout the City.
(d) An analysis of a City-wide policy.
Excerpts of the City Planning Commission meeting held June 26, 1972,
were submitted recommending, prior to vote on the proposed Underground Utilities
72-437
City Hall. Anaheim. California COUNCIL MINUTES June 27. 1972. 1 :30 P.M.
Policy, that consideration be given to the undergrounding of the 12 KV
distribution feeder lines where new development was to occur.
Addendum dated June 26, 1972, to the June 6, 1972 Development
Services and Public Utilities report was also submitted.
Mr. Gordon Hoyt, Utilities Director, regarding those areas that
may not need undergrounding, advised,because of the uncertainty of the type
of developments that might take place,it would be difficult to identify
in advance of construction those particular areas that may not require an-
dergrounding, and from the standpoint of a utility, they were not particu-
larly enthusiastic about the utility corridor scheme for a certain area
as put forth by Anaheim Hills, as there would be real problems in locating
lines in the bottom of a canyon to serve residences at the top of the hill,
and as a result, it could not be intelligently determined this far in ad-
vance those areas where undergrounding of feeders would not be required.
Mr. Hoyt reported undergrounding in -tract facilities in the City
began in 1963 and 1964, at a cost of approximately $228.00 per lot, and to-
day that cost has been reduced to $60.00 per lot. In his opinion, cost of
undergrounding main feeder systems will also decrease in the future as manu-
facturers of this kind of equipment see the demand.
As to the Assessment District approach, Mr. Hoyt personally agreed
with the remarks contained in the report, and agreed it was a method of fi-
nancing, but felt it cumbersome and costly.
Attention was directed to a map posted on the wall of the Council
Chambers, noting the relatively few undeveloped areas of the City where
the undergrounding policy might apply, and Mr. Hoyt reported that in most
cases these areas are where overhead feeder lines presently exist, and the
aesthetic benefit of undergrounding the remaining undeveloped areas would
be questionable.
Reference was made to an industrial park development, and Mr.
Hoyt explained the circumstances and guidelines followed when waiving un-
derground requirements, as permitted by Council Policy.
Mr. Ronald Thompson, Assistant Director of Development Services,
reported they worked closely with the Utilities Department in drafting the
report in answer to some of the Council's questions. He further advised
that other cities are undergrounding and nationally better than 90% of the
assessments that are charged are charged to the developer. As to mainten-
ance costs, over a period of time underground facilities would be compar-
able, or less expensive than overhead facilities to maintain.
Councilman Thom moved the City incorporate the recommendations
of the Development Services Department and Public Utilities Department,
as outlined in their report dated June 6, 1972. (There was no second to
this motion.)
Mr. Bill Stark, representing Anaheim Hills, requested considera-
tion of a compromise, whereby the aesthetics desired could be accomplished.
Mr. Stark presented pictures of new development on the Irvine
Ranch and the models of their Westridge Homes, depicting pole lines and
what could be seen in each area. He reported, as can be seen from the
pictures, the Irvine Company was not requiring undergrounding in every
case.
Mr. Stark also submitted a scaled model of a utility corridor,
indicating visual line of sight should pole lines be placed in the utility
corridor or on the side or ridge of the hill.
Mr. Stark again advised that their concern was the competitive
disadvantage in which they would be placed, and if all cities were requir-
ing undergrounding, they would have no objections.
72 -438
City Hall. Anaheim. California COUNCIL MINUTES June 27. 1972, 1:30 P.M.
As a solution, Mr. Stark stated that they, in fact, were building
neighborhoods and each one will have their own association, and the C.C.
R's could contain a requirement that they vote on undergrounding the utili-
ties at that date.
Chart of estimated cost of 1,660 lineal feet of major utility ser-
vices was presented and explained by Mr. Stark.
Mr. Murdoch noted the fact that park facilities have been planned
for two or three of the Canyon areas, and in these areas there would be a
dual visual situation, from above, and also from the surface. Regardless
of what the policy might be, Mr. Murdoch felt in these situations we would
want to be very careful.
Mr. Stark agreed to work with the Utilities Department to mitigate
the effect of pole lines, and requested an opportunity to do this to be re-
viewed again in eighteen months. He stated they dislike the mandatory re-
quirement and would prefer to work it out and see what happens.
Mr. Warren Toman, 1665 South Brookhurst Street, representing Robert
H. Grant Company, referred to their 224 -home Westridge development where, if
undergrounding were required, an expenditure in excess of $150,000.00 would
result to the benefit of only fifteen lots. He felt ecology and aesthetics
could best be served by a $200.00 or $300.00 -per acre tax, the funds to be
used to screen the freeway and interchanges, or further develop the natural
park areas for everyones' benefit, and not just a relatively few in a tract
development.
Mr. Hoyt noted some of the problems in locating and maintaining
feeder lines in canyons, and then coming up very steep slopes to serve
houses.
Mr. Murdoch, in explaining the problem, advised that if a develop-
ment and topography is known they can determine if a utility corridor can
be utilized for a pole line, but until these facts are known the report can-
not be precise.
As to the vote of an association to install an underground system,
Mr. Murdoch advised this would be an assessment district procedure, which
would best be determined when the original system is installed, rather than
incur the additional cost of removing the backbone pole line system.
In considering both overhead and underground installations, Mr.
Hoyt advised that one of the problems in administering such a policy would
be spreading the cost of the facilities.
Mr. Watts, Assistant City Attorney, noted problems that might occur
in an assessment district in the context referred to, especially as to costs
and how they would apply to the undeveloped property in the area.
Councilman Stephenson moved that the policy requiring underground
ing the 12KV feeder lines in the Canyon area not be required, and that de-
velopers in the area strive to hide and camouflage the poles to the best of
their ability. This action to no way change the present in -tract policy
requiring underground facilities.
Councilman Pebley noted the developer had already agreed to work-
ing with the Public Utilities Department, and that anything in the way they
would put under.
Mr. Stark stipulated that they would work with the City's Utilities
Department, and that they would do their best to mitigate the effects of the
visual impact of the overhead electricallines, and that they will try to
come to some common concurrence with the Electrical Department so that the
service is rendered and the visual impact is kept down.
Mr. Stark further stipulated, at the request of Mayor Dutton, that
they would ndt run the feeder lines along the ridge routes. He noted the
Edison lines and some 66 -KV lines on the ridge route, but stated he would
not install any there.
72 -439
City Hall. Anaheim. California COUNCIL MINUTES June 27. 1972. 1:30 P.M.
Councilman Stephenson requested the stipulation of Mr. Stark be
included in his motion. Councilman Dutton seconded the motion.
Mr. Hoyt asked if the stipulation made by Mr. Stark meant that
the Developer would voluntarily pay the cost to bury any lines that are
required on the ridge route. He further reported that the Developer
does not install these lines, that they are installed by the City.
It was the understanding of Councilman Pebley that the pole lines
would be constructed in a canyon wherever possible, and if required to be
placed on a ridge route the Developer would pay to underground them. To
this understanding and explanation Mr. Stark agreed.
Councilman Thom requested a Roll Call Vote.
Mr. Phil Joujon-Roche, 21527 Mohler Drive, asked who would be
the enforcing agency, and who would determine if construction of a line
would be obnoxious or not obnoxious to the viewer.
Mayor Dutton replied that hopefully it would be a joint coopera-
tive effort and undergrounding was not ruled out in certain cases. Under
the policy, as he understood it, in no case would overhead lines be in-
stalled on the ridges. As to obtaining Council approval, this would be
required only in those cases where agreement between the Utilities Depart-
ment and Developer cannot be reached.
Mr. Watts noted in the event the Utilities Department and De-
velopers did not agree on undergrounding, before the Council could require
undergrounding and determine who would pay for it, the authority would have
to be established by ordinance. He suggested the Staff draft a proposed
ordinance to efffectuate the purpose of the motion, giving the Utilities
Director certain initial discretion, and if, at the discretion of the
Utilities Director undergrounding is required,payment therefor would be
the responsibility of the Developer.
Councilman Stephenson asked this to be included in his motion,
that the Staff draft an'ordinance along the lines of the discussion for
future Council consideration. (This addition was agreed to by the second
to the original motion.)
Roll Call Vote:
AYES: COUNCILMEN: Sneegas, Stephenson, Pebley and Dutton
NOES: COUNCILMEN: Thom
ABSENT: COUNCILMEN: None
MOTION CARRIED.
CONVENTION CENTER EXPANSION: Assistant City Attorney Alan Watts reported that
the Anaheim Union High School District Board of Trustees, at its last
meeting, had approved the amendment to the Joint Powers Agreement, and
thus the Community Center Authority has advertised for bids for the pro-
posed Convention Center expansion.
LEASE OF PROPERTY JOLLY ROGER INN: Assistant City Attorney Alan Watts ad-
vised that in negotiation for lease of City -owned property lying between
the present Royal Inns Hotel and the Jolly Roger Inn, Mr. Duffy, owner
of the Jolly Roger Inn had suggested that, along with payment of a lump
sum covering the period from August, 1971 to the present, after execution
of the lease he be permitted to make the minimum payment (of approximately
$916,00 per month) for the first six months, to allow him to get construc
tion under way.
In reply to Councilman Thom, Mr. Watts advised that the regular
lease payment terms would be the same as that with Royal Inns of America.
By general Council consent, the City Attorney's office was au-
thorized to prepare for consideration a lease document encompassing the
suggestions of Mr. Duffy.
2- 440
City Hall. 4naheim. California COUNCIL MINUTES June 27. 1972. 1:30 P.M.
CONCESSIONAIRE AND GOLF PRO- ANAHEIM HILLS GOLF COURSE: The City Manager submitted
memoranda dated June 27, 1972, from H.C. Molion, Superintendent of Golf Courses,
requesting approval of procedures and contract for selection of the restaurant
concessionaire and golf pro at Anaheim Hills Golf Course.
On motion by Councilman Stephenson, seconded by Councilman Pebley,
procedures were approved as set forth by Mr. Mollon and authorization to com-
mence such procedings was granted. MOTION CARRIED.
PUBLIC DANCE, PF T: Application filed by Odis E. West, on behalf of the Orange
County Firemen's Association, for permit to conduct public dance July 8, 1972,
from 9:00 P.M. to 1:00 A.M., at the Anaheim Convention Center was submitted
and granted, on motion by Councilman Pebley, seconded by Councilman Stephen-
son, subject to provisions of Chapter 4.16 of the Anaheim Municipal Code, and
that six officers be hired to police the dance, as recommended by the Chief
of Police. MOTION CARRIED.
PUBLIC DANCE PERMIT: Application filed by Edward A. Slagle, on behalf of Servic-
men's Center for Orange County, Inc., for permit to conduct public dance July
9, 1972, from 10:00 P.M. to 12 :00 midnight, at the Anaheim Convention Center
was submitted and granted on motion by Councilman Pebley, seconded by Council-
man Stephenson, subject to provisions of Chapter 4.16 of the Anaheim Municipal
Code, and that six officers be hired to police the dance, as recommended by
the Chief of Police. MOTION CARRIED.
ADJODUM T Councilman Stephenson moved to adjourn. Councilman Pebley seconded
the motion. MOTION CARRIED.
Adjourned: 5:55 P.M.
Signed
City Clerk