1972/11/21City Hall, Anaheim, California COUNCIL MINUTES _November 14, 1972, 1 :30 P.M.
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM DECLARING ITS
INTENTION TO CALL A SPECIAL ELECTION IN CONNECTION WITH THE PROPOSED
ANNEXATION OF CERTAIN TERRITORY. (MOHLER DRIVE ANNEXATION)
ADJOURNMENT: Councilman Pebley moved to adjourn to Tuesday, November 21, 1972,
10:00 a.m., Councilman Sneegas seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED.
Signed
adopted.
Roll Call Vote:
AYES: COUNCILMEN: Sneegas, Pebley, Thom and Stephenson
NOES: COUNCILMEN: None
ABSENT: COUNCILMEN: Dutton
The Mayor Pro Tem declared Resolution No. 72R -541 duly passed and
Adjourned: 5 :15 P.M.
City Clerk
City Hall, Anaheim, California COUNCIL MINUTES November 21, 1972, 10 :00 A.M.
The City Council of the City of Anaheim met in adjourned
session.
PRESENT: COUNCILMEN: Sneegas, Stephenson, Pebley, Thom and Dutton
ABSENT: COUNCILMEN: None
PRESENT: ASSISTANT CITY MANAGER: Robert M. Davis
ASSISTANT CITY ATTORNEY: Alan Watts
CITY CLERK: Dene M. Daoust
Mayor Dutton called the meeting to order.
CHINO HILLS AIRPORT COMPLEX PROPOSAL: Mayor Dutton introduced representatives
of Chino Hills Airport Complex Inc., to present the Chino Hills Airport
proposal. The Mayor pointed out that the proposal deserves very careful
consideration due to the fact that tourism is the third largest industry
in Orange County, and is tremendously air oriented; 22% of Disneyland's
visitors arrive by air.
Mr. John Lowman, President of Chino Hills Airport Complex Inc.,
explained that the group is a non profit corporation, chartered under the
State of California for the purposes of developing and operating a public
service airport. The group has conducted feasibility studies and other
research specific to the development of an airport facility to serve this
area.
72 -759
His presentation regarding the Chino Hills Airport Complex proposal
was based on the following seven major elements:
1. The necessity for another airport to handle both passengers and
freight in this area.
2. The advantages of the Chino Hills site.
3. The ground access situation.
4. The possibilities for efficient use by aircraft.
5. The environmental impact.
fi
72 -760
City Hall,
Anaheim, California COUNCIL MINUTES November 21, 1972, 10 :00 A.M.
6. The profitable operation of the airport.
7. The development program set up by the Chino Hills Airport Complex.
Throughout his presentation, Mr. Lowman utilized a series of slide
projections to illustrate the topography of the site and the charted results of
the various research projects.
The proposed airport would provide a jet passenger and air cargo
terminal plus business aircraft and general aviation facilities by early 1980.
The need for this additional terminal is apparent, based on studies by W. M.
Pereira and Associates, and Clifton Moore, Director of Airports, City and County
of Los Angeles, which reveal passenger growth projections in the Los Angeles
basin in the 1980's will require annual air capabilities of 227 million and 250
million passengers. The annual present and planned capabilities at Los Angeles,
Palmdale and Onterio total 152 million. Thus there is still a deficit of 75 to
98 million projected air passengers annually. In addition, Mr. Lowman stated
that the volume of goods shipped by airfreight is expected to continue to grow
and is estimated, according to a study by the California Civil Aeronautics Board,
to increase 20 to 227. per year into the 1980's. The larger cargo airplanes being
developed will play an important role in this increase by bringing the costs of
shipping airfreight down to 2 and one -half cent per ton per mile which will in
turn create the need for additional airport facilities.
Mr. Lowman indicated on an area map the site which is proposed for the
airport, being west of the Prado Dam, southeast of Carbon Canyon and north of
the Riverside Freeway, which site would be partially in Orange and partially
in San Bernardino Counties. He pointed out that the proposed site would be well
within reasonable travel distance from the major population centers in Orange,
San Bernardino and Los Angeles Counties. An aerial photograph was used to show
the proposed site of 25,000 acres of uninhabited land.
Geological information obtained from studies initiated by the oil and
gas companies under the Coast Geodetic Survey indicates that the closest faults
to the airport site would be the Whittier and Chino faults, both of which are
six to ten miles away. The soil itself, according to this same information, is
of a composition that could be easily moved. The deepest cut and fill in the
airport plan would be 350 to 360 foot. The plan calls for two runways, 150
foot by 12,000 foot in length, which would require a total leveling project of
two miles. The plan also calls for leveling of only two ridges, and filling
in with this soil the head of one canyon, so that no unusual drainage problem
is anticipated. The remaining topography will be left intact as a noise buffer
zone.
To illustrate the necessity of building airports in uninhabited areas,
Mr. Lowman presented an aerial photograph taken of the Navel Air Station at Los
Alamitos in 1960, and a photograph of the same area taken nine years later,
showing residential development to a point where it is not possible to operate
jet aircraft out of this airport.
Mr. Lowman briefed the Council on present and further ground access to
the proposed site, stating that there are two existing east -west freeways, Pomona
and Riverside, and two existing north -south freeways, Orange and Corona; under
construction on the east -west route is the Century Freeway and in the planning
phase on the north -south route is the Devore Freeway. Unlike other airports such
as Los Angeles International, it will be possible to drive into the terminal area
from any point through a system of frontage roads surrounding the freeways at
this site. Average driving time to the proposed site from population centers is
approximately 20 to 35 minutes, he reported.
Mr. Lowman stated that there are three major points which must be proved
to the public during the planning phase of a project such as this, and these are:
1. That it is possible to build the airport on the site selected on a
cost effective basis.
2. That it is possible to operate commercial aircraft in and out safely.
3. That the project would not have any adverse impact on the environ-
ment.
72 -761
City Hall, Anaheim, California COUNCIL MINUTES November 21, 1972, 10:00 A.M.
Mr. Lowman stated that he feels item 1 has been proven with the
feasibility studies performed.
As far as item 2 is concerned, he stated that the FAA has studied
their proposal for ten months and has given them authority for 100 thousand
commercial jets per year and a total of 120 thousand itinerant operations per
year. The five mile air control zone for this airport would not conflict with
any other control zone which is not the case with other airports operating in
the Los Angeles basin, consequently this presents a significantly safer air-
space picture.
To illustrate his statement regarding the environmental impact of the
proposed airport, Mr. Lowman used aerial photographs to show the terrain. The
area represents a section which is devoid of any unusual scenic beauty, histor-
ical or archaeological interest. There is very little wildlife and although
he conceded that the environmental impact cannot accurately be judged until the
Environmental Impact Statement is complete, he would think, due to the nature
of the area that there would be no adverse ecological impact found.
The most significant environmental problem in conjunction with an
airport is the attendant noise, and Mr. Lowman demonstrated, using slides which
depicted the two runway sites, and overlayed on these the 65 -CNEL contour line
(Community Noise Exposure Level). (The 65 -CNEL contour line, according to State
law indicates the area within which anything built for human habitation must
be soundproofed.) This figure is arrived at by various formulae which take in-
to consideration: The intensity of the sound; the intensity of the various
frequencies; the duration of the sound; the number of occurences within a 24
hour period; the time of each occurence.
The contour line is not valid for the proposed airport, according
to Mr. Lowman, since it is based on the type of aircraft and numbers used at
the present time, and it is his opinion that the commercial air industry is
rapidly removing the noisier type of aircraft for quieter replacements, the
present DC -10 and Lockheed L10 -11 are 40% quieter than the older aircraft such
as the early 707s. He further stated that NASA, with Federal funding has
awarded contracts to Boeing, Douglas and Pratt Whitney to produce engines in
which the magnitude of noise over the 65 -CNEL level would lie completely within
the perimeter of the airport. He stated that he is confident that just as the
jet trail pollution problem was solved with applied technology, the noise factor
will also be corrected. The only inhabited area which would be affected by the
65 -CNEL contour and would require confiscation by the airport complex would be
La Veta Mineral Springs,which consists of a six to eight -unit motel and coffee
shop and one family in permanent residence.
The Chino Hills Airport Complex proposes to use some 25
thousand acres as a buffer zone, which would be sufficient so that even if the
contour line were still in effect in the 1980's, the aircraft noise would not
produce any problem. This land would be controlled in accordance with FAA
regulations by either purchase, longterm 50 -year lease, or avigation easement
whereby the airport will pay the property owners an annual easement fee to
preclude the development of any non- airport compatible projects such as housing,
schools and hospitals.
The development program has been divided into two phases: Pha- I
is the master planning and study phase, which must be completed prior to acqui-
sition of land; and Phase II is the actual ground breaking and construction
plan. It is estimated that the facility would be operational by late 1980 and
possible on limited operations with one strip available in the mid or late
1970's.
Mr. Joe Sammon, Director of Technical Projects, Chino Hills Airport
Complex, Inc., reported on the economic impact study prepared in conjunction
with the proposal advising that research has proved that a complete national
or international airport in the major cities is the largest single employer in
the area, and that every employee at an airport generates two employees else-
where. An airport generates more businesses, entertainment and service areas
than any other industry. He further noted that while the airport complex and
related businesses will provide a generous tax base, they require little of
the tax- related public services such as schools, libraries and recreational
facilities.
72 -762
City Hall, Anaheim, California COUNCIL MINUTES November 21, 1972, 10 :00 A.M.
Mr. Sammon indicated that on the 18 to 20 thousand acres surrounding
the airport, it is hoped an agricultural industrial complex will be developed,
the composition of which would be based upon the recommendations of environmen-
talists and scientists.
Based on 100 thousand operations per year, as already approved by FAA,
with todays aircraft they will carry a projected number of 12 million passengers
per year with 85% of the commercial jets carrying passengers. The other 157.
would be devoted to air cargo, and with today's aircraft would support annually
750 thousand tons. These projections he indicated would be likely to change with
the addition of larger aircraft. At a rate of 12 million passengers the airport
primarily would generate direct employment of 24 thousand people and 49 thousand
people secondarily. Translated into payroll dollars, this would amount to 736.6
million dollars. It is estimated these employees will in turn generate 42 million
dollars in property taxes and spend 625.9 million dollars for living expenses.
Mr. Sammon stated that the direct area in which these employees would live can
not be ascertained, but pointed out that the Chino Hills site is within 30 minutes
driving time of 21 cities in eastern Los Angeles County and 19 cities in Orange
County.
Based on the figures from Los Angeles International Airport which
carries 21 million passengers per year and generates 9 million dollars per day
in revenue, the Chino Hills Airport, if carrying 12 million passengers per year,
could be expected to generate 4 and one -half to 5 million dollars per day in
revenue for the area.
In summation, Mr. Lowman pointed out that there is usually associated
with airports a large amount of hotel and motel activity which is not necessarily
limited to the airport proper, and that due to the fact that the center tourist
attractions is in and around Anaheim it would be logical to extend the Disneyland
monorail system out to this proposed airport. He then offered to answer any
questions which Council may have regarding the proposal.
Councilman Stephenson requested further specific information as to what
effect this airport might have on the residents of Olinda Village and Yorba Linda.
Mr. Lowman replied that Olinda Village is a settlement of approximately
300 people, with one elementary school, whose enrollment last fall was 94 students
Olinda Village is situated outside of the present 65 -CNEL line, which means that
according to the experts they would not be affected by noise. The Environmental
Impact Study will lay out this contour precisely and at that time the effect on
Olinda Villege will be better known, he reported.
The distance from Yorba Linda to the airport site is 4.4 miles and
their closest school to a flight path or runway is 3.8 miles away. Mr. Lowman
stated that the situation could be compared to the location of Santa Monica and
the Los Angeles International Airport, where it has been shown that the hills act
as a sound buffer. In this particular situation, on takeoffs and approaches at
Chino Hills, the aircraft would pass over no habitations except for La Veta Mineral
Springs, until the noise line terminates because of the height of the aircraft.
He further advised that a distance of 4 miles would be comparable to 22 thousand
feet altitude, at which aircraft noise is not bothersome to those on the ground.
Councilman Thom stated that in the late 1960's a new concept of large
international air terminals was formulated whereby these were to be located away
from population centers with smaller, centrally located, airports and stol -ports
providing services to the larger air terminals. He remarked that it appears that
this trend has been reversed.
Mr. Lowman answered that the location of large airports further and
further away from the communities which they would serve has not proved practi-
cal for several reasons, particually because of the improved noise factor in the
newer aircraft. He also stated that a study had been preformed by the bay area
governments in San Francisco which demonstrated that less than 12% of the poten-
tial patrons of an air terminal would be willing to travel as far as 95 miles to
use such a facility; also the helicopters have proved to expensive to use for
shuttle aircraft and the fixed wing V -STOL is no longer being considered for=- -this
type of use for safety reasons. He added that a study done in the northeast
City Hall, Anaheim, California COUNCIL
air corridor, Boston to Washington
exposure to a mid -air collision due
shuttle aircraft.
72 -763
MINUTES November 21, 1972, 10 :00 A.M.
route, revealed that there was increased
to crowded air space with the use of the
Councilman Pebley asked what obstacles were holding up implementa-
tion of this proposal.
Mr. Lowman advised that they are now actively seeking the sponsor-
ship of a public entity which would make them eligible for Federal funds.
Chino Airport Complex Inc. is presently under no commitment, the planning
phase has been financed on a two for one matching basis by the FAA. He stated
that the source of funds for the planning and construction of this airport
would not be general taxpayer's money but a special trust fund established by
the Federal Airport and Airways Development Act of 1970, which is administrated
by the FAA for the purposes of improving airway structure, modernization of
airports and construction of new airports. The trust fund monies are obtained
as a result of a special tax levied on airplane fares and air cargo shipments,
as well as from airport landing fees. The cost of construction of this project,
excluding the terminals and peripheral private development, is estimated at
370 million dollars, which would be financed on a 607 Federal, 407 matching
funds breakdown. The matching funds would be raised by revenue bonds issued
and secured by the future earnings of the airport.
Up to this moment, Mr. Lowman indicated there is no definitive re-
action to this proposal from a potential sponsor, but that they have made
factual presentations such as this to approximately 16 of the 26 cities in
Orange County.
Councilman Dutton inquired further into the relationship of the spon-
soring public entity with the airport complex.
Mr. Lowman reported that gross revenues once the airport is operating
at full capacity are expected to be 60 to 90 million dollars per year. The
sponsoring entity would engage the Chino Hills Airport Complex Inc. under con-
tract to build the airport and profits over and above operating expenses of
this corporation would become revenue for the city. Qualifications for spon-
sorship include that the candidate be a recognized public entity, qualified to
receive, account for and disburse public funds. When the airport revenue bonds
are paid, which is estimated to take about 25 years, the sponsor would take
over the airport at no additional cost to them and continue its operation.
In answer to further Council questioning, Mr. Lowman reported that
50% of the airport proper will be located in Orange County and 50% in San
Bernardino County. The majority of the complex around the airport would be
expected to be developed on Orange County property because of the location of
agricultural and manufacturing operations expected to use this facility.
Mr. Lowman stated that his group has made presentations and have been
received favorably in. Arcadia, San Gabriel and by the Riverside Airport
Commission. They have received a letter of endorsement from the Riverside Farm
Bureau. Mr. Lowman is of the opinion that opposition to this airport will not
be significant once the environmental impact facts are made public.
Councilman Dutton asked whether any facts and figures are available
regarding airfreight and passengers originating from Orange County.
Mr. Lowman stated that they had originally designed this facility
for handling of 350 thousand tons of airfreight per year, but following recom-
mendations of McDonald Douglas, ATA, Flying Tiger Airlines, and the cargo div-
ision of United Airlines, who indicated that the total requirements for the
Los Angeles basin will be several hundred million tons per year in 1980, they
have since revised their plan to service a minimum of 750 thousand tons
initially. Further, it is estimated that 49 million passengers per year will
be generated from Orange County alone.
Councilman Dutton then asked for further explanation as to why with
prevailing winds coming out of the southwest,approaches and takeoffs are headed
on a northwest, southeast axis.
72 -764
Signed 14
City Hall, Anaheim, California COUNCIL MINUTES November 21, 1972, 10 :00 A.M.
Mr. Lowman stated that once some altitude is obtained, the aircraft
will be subject to the prevailing westerly winds most of the time. This approach
and takeoff pattern has been confirmed by a meteorological study done by Envir-
onmental Research Associates, as well as approved by the FAA.
Mr. Lowman reiterated the support which this proposal is receiving from
many segments of the business, agricultural, and labor industries and stated that
interestsin the Chino Hills Airport is noted especially by companies involved
with airfreight due to the fact that temperature and altitude conditions at
Palmdale Airport runways necessitate reduction in payloads, which Flying Tiger
Airlines estimate would cost them between $2,000.00 and $5,000.00 per takeoff.
Councilman Stephenson asked on what grounds the objections of the Cities
of Yorba Linda, Brea and Placentia are based.
Mr. Lowman stated that he thought their opposition was based on the fact
that they believe that the airplanes will be overflying or circling the cities
when encountering difficulty in landing. According to FAA regulations, Mr.
Lowman stated, this will not occur since every jet aircraft is required to fly
by instrument flight rules and thus there are no holding patterns or procedural
turns. If an aircraft misses the landing, the pilot cannot circle but rather
must head straight out and be fitted back into the stream of traffic. Airport
landing activities are monitored by FAA and course alterations cannot be made
until FAA indicates the heading and direction an aircraft may take.
Councilman Sneegas asked how much of an air corridor there would be
over this airport and whether it would be affected by the air traffic going into
Los Angeles International.
Mr. Lowman assured him that the airway approaching Los Angeles Inter-
national from the east is located north of Onterio, and traffic climbing out of
Los Angeles International to the east passes over Orange County but that neither
of these would interfere with the air space directly over the Chino Hills site.
There being no further questions, the Mayor thanked the Chino Hills
Airport Complex Inc. representatives for their presentation and notified
the assembly that the City Council would like to hear from those in opposition
to the airport proposal.
Mrs. Carol Dovala, representing PATCH organization (Prevent Airport
Through Chino Hills) requested an opportunity for that group to state objection
to the Chino Hills Airport proposal.
The Council unanimously agreed to set a time and date for this purpose
and felt it important to schedule this prior to the December 14, 1972, League of
California Cities Meeting, and thereupon instructed Mrs. Dovala to make the nec-
cessary arrangements for this presentation.
ADJOURNMENT: Councilman Thom moved to adjourn. Councilman Stephenson seconded the
motion. MOTION CARRIED.
Adjourned: 11 :05 A.M.
A 6111 0
City Clerk
City Hall, Anaheim, California COUNCIL MINUTES November 21, 1972, 1 :30 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 ATTORNEY: Alan Watts
CITY CLERK: Dene M. Daoust
CITY ENGINEER: James P. Maddox
ASSISTANT DIRECTOR OF DEVELOPMENT SERVICES: Ronald Thompson
ZONING SUPERVISOR: Charles Roberts
Mayor Dutton called the meeting to order.
INVOCATION: Reverend Arthur Harrington of the Trinity United Methodist
Church gave the Invocation.
72 -765
FLAG SALUTE: Councilman William J. Thom led the Assembly in the Pledge of
Allegiance to the Flag.
1973 DISNEYLAND AMBASSADOR: Mrs. Mary Jones, representing Disneyland Community
Relations, presented and introduced Miss Bonnie Drury, 1973 Disneyland
Ambassador and advised that Miss Drury will represent not only Disney-
land, but the City in this banner year marking the 50TH year of the
Disneyland organization.
Miss Drury was welcomed and presented a resolution extending best
wishes and success,as well as a City attache case to carry with her
on her journeys
GRAND JURY INVESTIGATION MURDOCH PIERSALL: At the request of Councilman
Thom, the following letter from the Grand Jury dated November 16,
1972, was ordered spread in full on the Council Minutes.
"Members of the City Council
City of Anaheim
P. 0. Box 3222
Anaheim, Ca 92803
Gentlemen:
This letter is in response to the request of a member
of the Anaheim City Council on June 23, 1972, that the
Grand Jury investigate alleged misconduct in the office by
Mr. Keith' Murdoch and Mr. Thornton Piersall as set forth
in the Los Angeles TIMES article of June 23, 1972. The
alleged misconduct relates to various land transactions in
which the parties named had undisclosed financial interests.
The Jury does not have its own investigative staff, but
relies on the resources of the District Attorney's office
for its investigations. The matter under consideration was
turned over to the District Attorney on June 27. The Jury
was notified on October 5 that the investigation was com-
pleted.
The District Attorney's investigation included inter-
views with two people connected with the various land trans-
actions and nina and employees of the City of
Anahehim, and a brief history of each land transaction.
Also studied were the possibilities of misdemeanor viola-
tions within the last one -year period, and felony viola-
tions within the last three -year period. The investigation
revealed no dispute with the facts set forth in the Los
Angeles TIMES article that Mr. Murdoch and Mr. Piersall did
have financial interests in transactions considered by the
Anaheim City Council, and that they did not publicly dis-
close their financial interests at any time.
72 -766
City Kan Anaheim, California COUNCIL MINUTES November 21, 1972, 1:30 P.M.
Based on the above investigation and review of appli-
cable State laws, the District Attorney offered the following
conclusions and recommendations to the Grand Jury:
1. That, within the Statute of Limitations, there
were no violations of applicable State laws,
thus precluding the Grand Jury from returning
an indictment;
2. That it was not within the jurisdiction of the
Grand Jury to return an accusation, whether or
not 'wilful and/or corrupt misconduct in office'
was established, because of the Charter City
rule;
3. That although no disclosures of financial interest
were ever made by Mr. Murdoch or Mr. Piersall, no
violations of Anaheim City Ordinance No. 2783
occurred;
4. That the Grand Jury could support legislation
which would require more stringent disclosure
rules by elected or appointed officials.
The Grand Jury finds that there are sufficient questions
regarding the ethical conduct of Mr. Keith Murdoch and Mr.
Thornton Piersall to warrant a thorough investigation by the
City of Anaheim into possible violations. Specifically, the
Jury finds that Mr. Murdoch and Mr. Piersall have participated
in discussions with, and given official opinions to various
local government agencies without disclosing their financial
interests.. Also, the Jury finds that Mr. Murdoch and Mr.
Piersall may have profited from inside knowledge not avail-
able to the public.
The Jury is puzzled and disturbed by the action of the
Anaheim City Council on June 27, 1972, which returned a vote
of confidence in Mr. Murdoch and Mr. Piersall before any
investigation was undertaken. As a Charter City, Anaheim
reserves to itself the enforcement of standards of conduct.
Therefore, the Jury reminds the members of the City Council
that as elected representatives of the voters of Anaheim they
are mandated to carry their investigation in this matter to a
conclusion satisfactory to the public.
On the basis of the foregoing, the Grand Jury makes the
following recommendations:
1. That the Anaheim City Council conduct a thorough
probe into the possible violations of City Ordinance
No. '1783, Section 708 of the Anaheim City Charter,
and into other possibly relevant codes of conduct.
a. The City Council should charge the City Attorney
with conducting this investigation.
b. If the City Attorney refuses to comply, action
through the State Attorney General's office
should be initiated.
2. That the investigation not be.limited to violations
occurring within the past twelve months. The Anaheim
City Councilts responsibility is not limited to
investigation into possible violations of law unen-
forceable because of a one -year Statute of Limita-
tions; and not limited to violations of laws only;
it also includes scrutiny of possible violations of
standards of proper behavior and morality in the
conduct of elected and appointed public officials.
City Hall, Anaheim, California COUNCIL MINUTES November 21, 1972, 1 :30 P.M.
3. That the Anaheim City Council amend City Ordinance
No. 2783 to clarify and make more specific what
constitutes violations of the ordinance.
The information that has been compiled by the Grand
Jury is available to the City Attorney or the Attorney
General for their investigation.
The Grand Jury intends to make specific recommendations
to the State Legislature regarding legislation .related to
possible conflict of interest on the part of elected and
appointed public officials. The Jury wishes to be kept
advised as to your disposition of this matter so that it
may better prepare its recommendations to the State Legis-
lature.
Copies of this letter are being sent to the City
Attorney of Anaheim, to the Attorney General, and to others
who have requested the Jury's probe into the above matter.
Mayor Dutton noted the District Attorney and Grand Jury investi-
gation took three days less than five months be a finding was rendered.
One of the findings being under No. 3 "that although no disclosures of fin-
ancial interest were ever made by Mr. Murdoch or Mr. Piersall, no violations
of the Anaheim City Ordinance No. 2783 occurred
Mayor Dutton also referred to another paragraph and requested action
be taken wherein it was noted "the information that has been compiled by the
Grand Jury is available to the City Attorney or Attorney General for their
investigation
Councilman Stephenson moved that the City Attorney be requested to
obtain all information and transcripts of the proceedings compiled by the Orange
County District Attorney and Grand Jury for their review and future report to
the City Council. Councilman Pebley seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED.
Mayor Dutton advised that after this matter was requested to be in-
vestigated by the Orange County Grand Jury, June 27, 1972, two professional
investigators of the District Attorney's Office, Mr. Ron Sheehan and Mr. Bill
Hobbs submitted the results of their investigation October 5, 1972 finding,
within the limits of their ability, that nothing wrong had transpired.
Mayor Dutton stated it was his personal opinion that the publicity
on this issue has been twisted and the facts discovered by the District
Attorney's Office should be brought out.
He further noted that the District Attorney's Office are the profes-
sional investigators who do all the investigating for the Grand Jury. He also
noted that the membership of the Grand Jury are laymen and not professional,
however, two of the Grand Jury members, as laymen, were concerned to the point
that they made their own personal investigation.
Mayor Dutton reported Mr. Otto M. Schmidlen, Foreman of the Grand
Jury as saying "he was amazed at the cleanlziness of government in the County
of Orange
Councilman Thom agreed the City Council should receive the results
of the investigation, however, he felt there were a few things the Mayor did not
cover and one of the things he did cover was taken out of context.
Very truly yours,
ORANGE COUNTY GRAND JURY
IS/ Otto M. Schmidlen
Otto M. Schmidlen, Foreman"
72 -767
72 -768
City Hall, Anaheim, California COUNCIL MINUTES November 21, 1972, 1 :30 P.M.
He noted that the Jury reminded the Council, as elected representatives
of the voters, they were mandated to carry this investigation to a satisfactory
conclusion. The investigation made by the District Attorney's Office was governed
by the Statute of Limitations, one -year on one type of action and three -years on
the other. He felt the Grand Jury was requesting the City to go into the issue
in a much deeper vein, he stated the Grand Jury found sufficient questions re-
garding the ethical conduct of Mr. Murdoch and Mr. Piersall to warrant a thorough
investigation by the City of Anaheim of possible violations.
Councilman Thom thereupon moved that the City Attorney be instructed
to negotiate with the State Attorney General to conduct a thorough investigation
as recommended by the Orange County'Grand Jury; and that the investigation be not
limited to violations occurring within the past twelve months; and that the invest-
igation include possible violations of law unenforceable because of the time lim-
itation,also to include the scrutiny of possible violations of the standards of
proper behavior and morality in the conduct of elected and appointed public
officials.
Mayor Dutton stated he felt the proper sequence since the District
Attorney's investigators did make an extensive study and did go back over all of
the years and not just one -year; this he could assure, since he worked with them.
That the proper course of action would be to find out the scope of the investi-
gation by the Grand Jury and the District Attorney's Office, which information
has been offered to the City Attorney or to the Attorney General and after this
is reviewed,then the City Council can make a determination what to do, if any-
thing.
Mayor Dutton advised that in order for Mr. Murdoch or Mr. Piersall to
have accomplished what has been alleged to have been accomplished, they first
would have had to sell the Orange County Planning Commission, the Orange County
Board of Supervisors, the Local Agency Formation Commission, Sanitation District
No. 2, the Anaheim Planning Commission and this City Council to take an action
after they had purchased a parcel of property that would have been affected. He
stated this could not possibly have happened.
Councilman Thom stated he felt Councilman Dutton in essence was pre-
judging the value of the information.
Mayor Dutton denied the allegation and advised he has been very reluc-
tant to ever criticize another City Councilman, however he found Councilman,Thom
to be the most despicable person that it had ever been his displeasure to serve
with.
Councilman Thom advised that the feeling was mutual.
Mayor Dutton further stated that all of the motivation, all of the
action against Mr. Murdoch and Mr. Piersall had been at the instigation of
Councilman' Thom who has worked continually these last five months with the Grand
Jury, feeding them information. He noted the newspaper article (L.A. Times)
alleged Councilman Thom as saying "Thom also has alleged that the TIMES inves-
tigation only scratched the surface There are a lot of things going on in
Anaheim that people know about but never have been able to prove Mayor Dutton
charged Councilman Thom to produce these allegations for investigation. He
further stated he was aware that Councilman Thom was a "grandstander" a "publi-
city seeker" and a self admitted "puppet of the Anaheim Bulletin" stating on
the day he was elected "from this day forward he was running for reelection"
which has been steadfastly proven
Councilman Dutton further read from the referred to newspaper article as
follows; "Thom said Monday that he would ask the City Council today to request
that further investigation be undertaken by the State Attorney General. I would
question whether the City Attorney could be totally objective, he said. Its
pretty tough for an employee to investigate his own boss
Mayor Dutton injected the statement that this was in error as the City
Council appoints the City Attorney, not Mr. Murdoch.
Reading again' from the article, "it should be done by•an independent
third party When interviewed, Schmidlen, the Grand Jury Foreman, disagreed
"if the City Council doesn't think he (the City Attorney) can:do the job objectively
then they ought to fire him, he said
72 -769
City Hall, Anaheim, California COUNCIL MINUTES November 21, 1972, 1 :30 P.M.
Mayor Dutton stated that from the very beginning everyone was aware
of the fact that Councilman Thom was a puppet; the fact that he knew this in-
formation was coming from Otto Schmidlen with the notation that the attached
will be given to the press Monday with instructions not to release until
Tuesday, November 21, 1972. As a result, Councilman Thom obtained his copy, ap-
parently as soon as it was received in the City Clerk's Office and went dir-
ectly to the Bulletin before their deadline in order to get the publicity.
He accused. Councilman Thom of being the motivating reason this matter has been
continually agitated. He advised that to his kind this was "the name of the
game that they would hurt the individuals in the City; try-to destroy this
City government to promote their self politically.
Councilman Thom advised he denied any of the allegations and insinu-
ations made by the Mayor. He stated that Mayor Dutton had steadfastly tried
by every means available to cover up this matter. He stated he was a "puppet"
of the people of the City of Anaheim; they were the ones that elected him; and
he would compare his plurality record with that of Mr. Dutton's any day as he
did not, obviously, share the same popularity.
Councilman Thom advised that the public trust must be served, and as
the Grand Jury recommends, this Council is mandated to make a conclusion in this
investigation satisfactory to the public; that was all he was recommending; he
was not going beyond the parameters of the bounds that have been established by
duly constituted authority.
Councilman Thom stated that the Mayor seemed to disagree with duly
constituted authority and did not want a further investigation. He asked "what
about the people of this City, are they not deservant of a further investiga-
tion? In his opinion, they were and the matter should be investigated; and
must be,if the Council discharges the obligation they have to the people that
have elected them. He further advised that he l no compunctions about being
a "puppet" to the people of the City as they are the ones he serves and he serves
no other interest, least of all his own,and this he was afraid could not be said
for every member of the City Council. He again advised that he served no other
interest other the interest of the people of the City of Anaheim and that when
he speaks it is on the input given him by the people of this City.
With reference to the newspaper article and to further clarify his
position, Councilman Thom stated he did not think Mr. Geisler should be charged
with the sorry duty to perform an investigation on a close personal friend as
he felt he could not be objective in it. However, if the other Council members
felt Mr. Geisler could be objective, he would approve. He felt it would be more
comfortable if the State Attorney General's Office conducted the investigation,
then Mr. Geisler would not be personally involved.
Councilman Thom called attention to the motion on the floor and as
maker of the motion,advised as to who would make the investigation could be either
office, the State Attorney General or the City Attorney.
Mayor Dutton advised that Councilman Thom had missed the point of the
conversation as he was not trying to cover anything and it was only good judge-
ment to ask for the information that has been compiled over a period of five
months by the Grand Jury and the District Attorney's Office and then make a
judgement what is to be done; that it was as simple as that.'
Councilman Thom agreed that would be simple but recalled that in June
when the article appeared in the Los Angeles TIMES newspaper, Mayor Dutton had
stated it was innuendos, half truths and-muckraking, yet the Grand Jury invest-
igation- states no dispute with the facts set forth in the Los Angeles TIMES
article; they are facts not innuendos, half truths nor muckraking and if they
are facts they should be investigated thoroughly and not just within the one
or three year parameter set forth by the Statute of Limitations.
Mayor Dutton disagreed that the Grand Jury stated the same thing 'as
the TIMES article. He advised that the TIMES article stated Mr. Murdoch and
Mr. Piersall profited Ewa Land sales with knowledge that was privy to them.
and the Grand Jury did not find that the case and neither did the District
Attorney's Office.
72 -770
City Hall, Anaheim, California COUNCIL MINUTES November 21, 1972, 1:30 P.M.
Councilman Stephenson called attention to the fact that the action
taken was to authorize the City Attorney to request the transcripts, material
and information offered by the Grand Jury to be reviewed by him and reported upon
to the City Council at a later date.
Councilman Stephenson noted that the letter from the Grand Jury stated
that the City Council should charge the City Attorney with this investigation and
in the event he refuses to comply, then action to the State Attorney General's
Office should be initiated.
Councilman Stephenson further stated he was certain the City Attorney
would not tell the City Council that he refuses to do anything in that the City
Council is his boss. He again advised that after the information is obtained,
the Council should then decide whether the investigation should be done by the
City Attorney or the Attorney General. He asked Councilman Thom why he was pre-
judging the matter at this time.
Councilman Thom replied that he was not prejudging the case; he'was
saying efforts to move along in accord with the Grand Jury's recommendations have
been stifled time and time again. He gave as an example a suggestion he made to
strengthen the code of ethics ordinance which was refused by the other Council
members and stated that this was another of the Grand Jury's recommendations.
Councilman Stephenson replied that nothing was being stifled as the
City Attorney has been directed to obtain the transcript and the Council will go
into it further. He felt the action was in motion and that nothing was being
stifled and asked why Councilman Thom would not let the issue lay.
Councilman Thom stated he did not want to let the matter lay as he did
not think the citizens deserve to let it lay.
Councilman Stephenson told Councilman Thom to riot read something into
something he did not say. He said "let it lay until the City Attorney gets these
transcripts and has a chance to look them over and report to the City Council"
and that the City Council would be letting it lay only until this is done. He
further told Councilman Thom not to construe his statement as trying to white-
wash the issue as he certainly was not, that he was just as interested in this
issue as he (Councilman Thom).
Councilman Thom again stated he felt it was unfair of this body to ask
the City Attorney to do this as it would be more fair, more impartial, if the
Attorney General did the investigation.
Councilman Stephenson took the position that to request the Attorney
General to make the investigation at this time would be, in fact, prejudging the
Grand Jury's recommendation.
Mayor Dutton was of the opinion that the majority of the City Council
understood the action taken. He thereupon asked if there was a second to
Councilman Thom's motion, hearing no reply, declared the motion dead for lack
of second.
Councilman Sneegas advised that in the last seven or eight years of
his involvement in the City, he had heard many comments about things happening that
were illegal. One of the main reasons he was interested in being elected to the
City Council was to determine for himself whether the things that were happening
were illegal and being ignored or whether there was some'truth to it. In the past
seven months he had watched the action as it was taking place and was of the
opinion now that those people who felt things were not right have had their op-
portunity to get it brought out. They have talked to the District Attorney's
Office.
Councilman Sneegas noted his 13 years of experience in dealing with the
District Attorney's Office and felt they were capable of an investigation and
probably more capable than any one else that could be assigned to do the invest
igation. Regarding the Grand Jury's letter of yesterday, it says, "that although
no disclosures of financial interest were ever made by Mr. Murdoch or Mr. Piersall,
no violations of Anaheim City Ordinance No. 2783 occurred".
72 -771
City Hall, Anaheim, California COUNCIL MINUTES November 21, 1972, 1 :30 P.M.
Councilman Sneegas stated that he did not read where it said "Occurred
within the past twelve months" or "o ocutred within the last 36 months it said
that they "didn't occur He felt the information that can be obtained by the
City Attorney's Office should certainly be reviewed and that the City Attorney's
Office was certainly capable of reviewing it.
Councilman Sneegas stated that he hoped his position of a "no con-
fidence vote" at the time this came up won't be misinterpreted to think that
he was now changing his mind. His position at that time was because of the
information that was revealed; he had lost his confidence and could not re-
cover his confidence to a place that he could vote on the confidence motion
until he had seen the facts and knew what was happening. He further advised
that in his opinion those facts have now been revealed and the District
Attorney's Office has investigated and that this should be the conclusion of
it. However, he would go along with the City Attorney's review of the infor-
mation to be furnished to determine what was considered and he felt the City
Attorney's Office was fully capable of doing this.
Councilman Thom stated he felt the Council was doing the citizens of
the City a great disservice by not pursuing the issue to the full recommendation
of the Grand Jury and that hopefully at some point in time they may find they
will reconsider and want to do this. He advised that in his opinion, Mr.
Murdoch and Mr. Piersall deserve this as much as the citizens of the City; they
deserve an investigation not limited to the State's statute of limitations
imposed upon it. All he was asking was for a more thorough, more complete, more
indepth investigation as the Grand Jury recommended it. He noted that the Grand
Jury stated at the beginning,they have time constrictions over the last year or
the last three years depending on what they were looking for.
Councilman Stephenson felt that what Mr. Thom requests was what the
Council was doing if he would contain himself aad wait for the transcripts and
the City Attorney's report; that he was so impetuous he wanted to go to the
Attorney General's Office this afternoon. He asked why he wouldn't wait until
the City gets the information and has something to go on.
Councilman Thom stated that the citizens have waited a long time as
it was and that he did not feel they should have to wait forever and that time
wasted was time lost.
Mayor Dutton pointed out that Mr. Piersall and Mr. Murdoch have been
suffering under this terrible stigma for nearly five months now and that the
proper investigating bodies have taken five months and have thoroughly gone
into it. He gave his word that the investigation went all the way back; went
into everything. He stated they certainly knew what they were doing as that
was their jobs and they were professional people in investigating and that the
Council is talking about waiting another week or so. Mr. Dutton stated that
Mr. Thom was anxious because he had been feeding information to the Grand Jury
and that was what set them off so that they didn't k whether they were
coming or going.
Councilman Thom replied, as usual and as most of the Mayor's state
ments, that this was a lie as he had no contact with the Grand Jury after his
original request to them.
him.
Mayor Dutton remarked that he did not care to argue the issue'with
Councilman Thom advised that his argument.had no merit, obviously.
Mayor Dutton felt the argument had merit but there was no sense in
pursuing it.
At this point in the meeting, Mr. Murdoch asked and received permission
to address the Council.
Mr. Murdoch advised,regarding the time, that be was sure no one was
more concerned About time than he and Mr. Piersall.
72 -772
City Hall, Anaheim, California COUNCIL MINUTES November 21, 1972, 1 :30 P.M.
(Below recorded verbatim are statements made by Mr. Murdoch)
"For months now, actually since June 28, I have carefully refrained
from any statement about any allegations made about my activities, and that
hasn't been easy. I refrained so that the Grand Jury investigation could be
complete and could be objective.
Now I feel that I must speak out so that you as City Councilmen, and
the public in general may know the pertinent facts and not have to rely on
innuendo and erroneous assumption.
As I pointed out on June 28, and I repeat it, I have done nothing
illegal, immoral or unethical, and I highly resent any implication that I have
done so. I particularly resent the implication that I "may" have set priorities
in order to improve my personal finances, and that I "may" have taken advantage
of the City and its citizens by using knowledge privy to me for my personal gain.
I have done neither of these things.
Let me outline some of the facts which have always been available, but
have not been reported in any of the "stories" published in relation to the
accusations. The investigation made by the investigators from the District
Attorney's office covered the activities and transactions all the way back to
the mid 1950's. The recommendation from the Grand Jury to the City Council might
lead you to believe that it only went back one to three years. That is not so
at all: The investigation was thorough and I believe complete. Presumably, this
complete information was reported to the Grand Jury. I don't know that because
I have never been called before the Grand Jury in this instance, nor have I had
any communication from them, including their recommendations.
If you do propose to have an additional investigation by or for the City
Council, the Grand Jury has assured you that this info tion will be available to
the City Attorney or the Attorney General and you have discussed that, so let me
just give you a brief summary of the historical and publicly known facts as they
relate to the land purchases to which I was a.party of interest.
The area in which my investments were made were generally and publicly
known to be set for industrial growth several years before my purchase. In fact,
industrial development was substantially underway prior to my investment and prior
to North American's interest. In addition, the planning for physical service
facilities was not only publicly known but well publicized in bond issues and
citizens committee activities, both much more public than normal planning.
Now for a few specific details:
The first land transaction I participated in, in the Anaheim area, was
on the then Anaheim Road (now Miraloma) between Dowling (now Kraemer) and Miller
(still Miller). The escrow to purchase the property was opened on or about
January 15, 1960, with actual purchase following shortly thereafter.
As far as the annexation activity is concerned, more than three years
prior to that purchase, activity to annex the area to the City of Anaheim began.
Craig Granger and Fred Piepenbrink were the two most active persons initially in
this annexation. They requested, and received, a letter from me outlining
Anaheim's plans for industrial growth and the facilities which would be needed
and provided for the area in line with Council policy, as it then was, and as far
as I know still is. The letter was widely distributed among the property owners
of the area.
The request to commence annexation was officially received December
13, 1956 (all information which the investigators have). An affidavit on pub-
lication of notice of intent to circulate a petition for annexation was received
December 14, 1956. The actual circulated petition was received February 1, 1957.
This annexation was terminated because of a substantial boundary description
error, together with objections from the City of Orange, since the annexation also'
crossed the Santa Ana River and included considerable area around Burruel Point
east of Olive. The objections were resolved when the two cities reached agree-
ment on the so- called ridge line south of the Santa Ana River.
72 -773
City Hall, Anaheim, California COUNCIL MINUTES November 21, 1972, 1 :30 P.M.
The annexation was started again March 6, 1957 as Northeast Annex-
ation No. 2A. The City Planning Commission minutes of that day state: (and
I'm quoting directly from the Minutes)
"The Special Called Meeting was called to consider a possible
annexation of an area Northeast of the present City limits for-
warded by the City Council to the Planning Commission for recom-
mendation.
Mr. Murdoch presented to the Commission, the detailed boundaries
of the proposed annexation and the possible benefits to be de-
rived to the City of Anaheim by the annexation. These major bene-
fits being the location of a reservoir site, additional manufac-
turing sites due to the strategic locations of the Santa Fe Rail-
road and high class residential possibilities in the hill area."
The City Council public hearing for protests was held on May 21 and
continued to May 28, 1957. The minutes of the May 21 meeting include the state-
ment: (and I'm quoting)
"Discussion followed and Mr. Keith A. Murdoch, City Administrative
Officer, outlined on the large map on the wall of the City Council
Chambers, the area under consideration, and explained to the audi-
ence the City's position regarding services that would be furnished
to the area, zoning and tax rate."
I should not have to emphasize that these are public meetings. The
protest hearings are usually well attended and this one was. In addition, I
have not listed the other public and publicized meetings held in conjunction
with this annexation, merely two which specifically addressed question of
land use and facilities.
The election for this annexation was held August 20, 1957. Since the
annexation was challenged in Superior Court by the City of Placentia, it did
not become part of Anaheim until September 12, 1958. An annexation of this
magnitude, together with all of the ramifications of land use and services,
cannot help but be well publicized as it is challenged by two adjoining cities
and some affected property owners. This one was well publicized over a period
of well over 1A years, all well before my investment.
Storm drainage has been referred to in some of these articles. Long
before the annexation started, the Orange County Flood Control District was
publicly active in planning a bond issue to finance the drainage for this area
as well as the rest of the County. In March 1955, the Board of Supervisors
publicly received the Engineering Report detailing all of the planned flood
control channels. On March 13, 1956, the Board ordered a summary report pub-
lished and widely distributed to acquaint as many people as possible with the
proposed services included in the upcoming bond issue. This is a copy of that
1956 report. Included in that report, and a part thereof is a`map which shows
all of the proposed drainage facilities that the Flood Control District was pro-
posing be constructed under this proposed bond issue. Included in this are a
series of Flood Control facilities labeled E -1, E -2, E -4 and E -6 and the upper
part of B -1 as shown in this map that provides service to the area in question.
An election with considerable publicity followed, and the election held June 5,
1956. That election authorized the bonds.
The July 3, 1958 issue of the Anaheim Bulletin headlined, "$1.8
million okayed for Carbon .Canyon Dam." This authorization of Federal funds was
the final link in the flood control implementation to serve that area.
Lets go to water. The proposed major services were outlined publicly
during annexation proceedings as previously noted, but were set forth in greater
detail in the report to the City Council from the Quinton Engineers, Ltd., this
report was submitted September 20, 1957. (and here it is, this is a copy of
it) This report, reviewed in detail in 1958 and in 1959 by the Utilities
Citizen's Capital Improvement Committee lawn. publicized activity, and we
have some of the copies of publications at that time,showed specific plans for
water service in the northeast area, the area in question. It also showed the
j
72 -774
City Hall, Anaheim, California COUNCIL MINUTES November 21, 1972, 1 :30 P.M.
intended industrial use of the entire area between Orangethorpe and the Santa
Ana River all the way to Imperial Avenue. All this was carefully gone over and
discussed by the Citizen's Committee and presented to numerous civic groups pre-
paratory to formulating a Capital Improvement Program.
Implementation of the Quinton recommendation was recommended in March
1959 to the City Council by the Committee along with a recommendation for a bond
issue (which issue was ultimately voted upon by the electorate in April
1960). The details of the report include the maps that show: specifically the
lines to serve the area in question, the Northeast Industrial Area. And they are
in detail. The maps included in the report were also made up on large maps which
were used throughout the deliberations of the Citizens Committee, and by the
Council, and by the people in general as the information was presented to each
of the interested groups, coffee clatches, etc., preparatory to the bond pro-
gram all showing the detail of these proposed lines. Certainly very very
public.
(Sewerage) Still earlier, that is before the Water Supply Report, in
August 1956, the County Sanitation District Board publicly received a report and
recommendation for major sewer trunks, including the lines to serve the north-
east industrial area. These lines run along Anaheim Road (now Miraloma), Linda
Vista, and Orangethorpe out to Imperial Highway. Here again, there was a well
publicized activity prior to a bond election which was held August 5, 1958,and
sucessfully carried. For those of you who haven't seen this for a good many
years, we had to dig this one out and this happens to be Mr. Holyoke's file copy.
This is the report and the details of the lines are shown in the charts and maps
which are a part of the report.
Also in 1958 and 1959, the Public Works Citizen's Capital Improvement
Committee reviewed and discussed the local sewer system requirements and the
policies for implementation. Their recommendations were also made to the Council,
described to numerous civic groups and ultimately included in bond issues voted
upon by the electorate.
Just a little sample of what I'm talking about in the Citizens Capital
Improvement Program, that I think all of you, or most of you are familiar with
this happens to be a copy of the July 2nd issue of the Anaheim Bulletin and
although it is a rather poor copy, it does show the start of the deliberations,
as far as the public was concerned, for that Capital Improvement Program. The
caption here is "10 -year Improvement Program set by City The picture happens
to be a picture of me, over at that wall, with a pointer in hand, pointing out
the various improvements that I described in considerable detail in recommending
that 10 -year Improvement Program, and recommending it, incidentally, for study
by a Citizens Committee to be appointed by the City Council. The City Council
did in fact appoint that Citizens Committee and the Citizens Committee in over
a year's deliberation, analysis, recommendations, some modifications did then in
early 1959 recommend to the Council the various improvements, publicly. These
improvements were then considered by a Legal and Finance Committee, which sub-
sequently came up with a recommendation for the methods of financing of the
various improvements. This was well carried in not only our own newsletters of
that time, in just about every issue, but in many issues of the local newspapers
At that time the local press was quite interested in the activities of the
Citizens' Committees, attended many of the sub Committee meetings, and reported,
rather diligently, on what their deliberations were.
This happens to be the Report of the Public Works Committee of the
Citizens Advisory Committee. Their report was made in March of 1959 and covered
"Streets and Alleys "Storm Drains and Sewers Not just the Northeast Area of
course, but including the Northeast Area. It included all of the areas of the
City that were in need of Capital improvements.
Streets and Highways. probably the most significant of the highways
serving the northeast section is, of course, the Riverside Freeway. The route
adoption was finalized after one of their public hearings by the State Division
of Highways at Anaheim City Hall, May 29, 1958 (public notice was published in
May 8, 1958 issue of the Anaheim Bulletin).
The local streets such as La Palma and Anaheim Road (now Miraloma) which
are the major'streets on both sides of the property questioned, were already
72 -775
City Hall, Anaheim, California COUNCIL MINUTES November 21, 1972, 1 :30 P.M.
existing, although they had not yet been widened to arterial standards. These
arterials were, however, established by the County of Orange prior to zoning
actions taken in 1959 and were so shown on the County's adopted Circulation
Element of the General Plan. As a part of these zoning actions, the property
owners were required to dedicate right -of -way for arterial widths.
The Public Works Citizen's Committee was also active in review,
analysis and recommendations regarding these arterial streets (both their
locations and their financing). This public activity all preceded my invest-
ment as did some others.
I want to show you a copy of the Orange County General Plan, or
Master Plan for Arterial Highways. You may want to look at it later on. But
this is a General Plan which was adopted, first in June of 1957. And on that
original map are shown both La Palma and Anaheim Road, as it was then called,
as arterial streets. Anaheim Road as a secondary. La Palma as a primary.
This particular copy of the map also shows some of the later amendments, and
so you have to go back into the records which the County has to determine just
some of the timing. But it also shows the extension of La Palma from Jefferson
Avenue out to Imperial and a very short distance beyond that. Imperial is
shown on this map as the Yorba Linda Freeway. I bring that to your attention
because it relates particularly to some of the property acquisitions of Mr.
Piersall and one other parcel in which I had an interest and I will discuss
that in a moment. But this map does show specifically the adopted alignment
of La Palma just as it was ultimately built. Does show it as an arterial
does show the location and the alignment and does show it as an adopted align-
ment by the County of Orange, not the City of Anaheim, but by the County of
Orange and I believe (I may have to check my notes on that one) but I believe
that was June or July of 1958 when that particular alignment was made. I will
refer to that shortly.
As far as electricity is concerned the study of electrical services,
the service needs for the northeast area was undertaken and publicized a little
bit later than the others, but still well before my purchase, and incidentally
well before any purchases of Mr. Piersall. The Bechtel Corporation submitted
their public report to the City Council on April 27, 1959. The report covered
both an "immediate Plan" and a longer range "Master Plan" which later included
a "Northeast Substation" to be located on Dowling (now Kraemer) north of La
Palma. This plan was analyzed by the 1958 -59 Utilities Citizen's Committee
and was the basis of their recommendation for a bond issue. This recommen-
dation was widely publicized in detail and subsequently approved in detail.
The Report, a copy of which I am sure is in the Clerk's Office is entitled
"An Electrical Power System Report for the City of Anaheim Public Utilities
Department, Light and Power Division" Bechtel Corporation, submitted April
27, 1959 and includes considerable detail on its maps and charts, and in its
recommendations. And a copy of the report from the Public Utilities Subcom-
mittee of the Citizens Advisory Committee which recommended that the specific
recommendations of the Bechtel Company be implemented as they were recommended.
All I'm pointing out here is that all of these public facilities and
much of their timing was well worked out publicly. Not by myself and Mr.
Piersall and certainly not solely, but by representatives of the Community
which went over this information in detail and that the deliberations were very
very well covered the information was public information, well publicized.
And all of this took place before any acquisition on my part.
Let me talk just a little bit about land use and zoning. Meanwhile,
zoning activity and industrial activity were well underway prior to January
of 1960. I mention January of 1960 because once again that's when I acquired,
along with two other people, the parcel of property in the Northeast Area first
referred to.
On October 21, 1958, the City Council met with the Planning Commission
to discuss the General Plan (including the Northeast area). On N 4,
1958, the Council referred a General Plan Ordinance to the Planning Commission.
There was considerable discussion about the plan for many, many months including'
meetings with various civic groups and citizens groups. There were public
hearings March 4, 11, and 18, 1959. Information on the large General Plan Map
in the Council Chambers was continuously updated, which is still our practice,
72 -776
City Hall, Anaheim, California COUNCIL MINUTES November 21, 1972, 1 :30 P.M.
and it was used during that period of time even though it had not been offically
adopted. The plan was not actually adopted officially until July 15, 1963, but
the land usage was very well understood by any of the people who had any partic-
ular interest, and that included a great many people, including the Board of
Realtors, the Planning Commission, the Chamber of Commerce, and I don't know
how many other public groups.
In addition to the publicity given to the industrial land use pre-
viously referred to during annexation and service planning activity, there was
actual industrial development and zoning taking place. The Industrial Asphalt
plant was located on Newkirk just south of the Riverside Freeway in this North-
east area, that was located in 1956 with the publicity attendant to the public
hearings before the Orange County Planning Commission and the Board of Super-
visors, (this was not then in the City), but the proceedings did emphasize the
planned industrial nature of the northeast area.
On December 10, 1958, the first City zoning action took place in this
area, Earl Denny of 16572 North Street (now La Palma) requested industrial zoning
for his property west of Grove Street between Corona (another fomer name for
North Street or La Palma) and the Riverside Freeway. During the public hearings
before the Planning Commission on January 5, 1959 and the City Council on
February 3, 1959, it was brought out again,the quote was from the Minutes, and
this is a statement made by, I believe, Mr. Denny that "This area was expected
by the property owners at the time of the annexation to be rezoned for manufact-
uring uses." The City Council approved the zoning with Ordinance 1343 on April
14, 1959. Shortly thereafter, a truck terminal was built there (that's now the
Morley Trucking Company).
Next, owners Sharkey and Kitchel applied for M -2 zoning on their 80
acre parcel east of Dowling from Anaheim Road (Miraloma) and North Street (La
Palma) at a hearing May 4, 1959 before the Planning Commission. The requested
zoning was reduced to M -1. The Commission had another public hearing June 2,
1959. The City Council held its public hearing June 30, 1959 at which time they
approved the zoning request in Resolution No. 5320. The file on that zoning
action includes a letter from 14 adjoining property owners favoring the M -1
zoning. There were no protests. This is the property subsequently purchased
by North American. The zoning action, however, was taken several months before
North American showed any interest in the area.
Interstate Engineering showed a decided interest in the area with a
request to zone 17 acres on the west side of Dowling from La Palma to Coronado.
This is still all in that same area. The Planning Commission public hearing was
held June 15, 1959. The Council had their public hearing and approval was
July 21, 1959.
Incidentally, these zoning actions show a requirement for arterial
highway dedication, the property owner is required to dedicate the additional
width to comply with the arterial highway requirements, the subsequent zoning
action also shows the same kind of requirement.
On November 12, 1959, both the Anaheim Gazette and the Anaheim Bulletin
"following an announcement last week in the Bulletin" proudly announced that
O'Keefe and Merritt had purchased a 30 -acre industrial site at Jefferson Street
just north of the Riverside Freeway (actually from the Riverside Freeway north
to La Palma). This plant would have a $4.5 million payroll and would employ 700
to 800 people.
With those examples, and they are not all of them, it should be obvious
to anyone that the North American purchase didn't start the northeast industrial
area, even though it is-still the largest employer, I believe. Their locating
in the area was "a logical fitting into the Anaheim industrial family as I had
indicated in the January 8, 1960 announcement by the Anaheim Bulletin of North
American's purchase of the 80 acre parcel.
At this point, I must reemphasize that there was no indication of any
additional property to be purchased by North American and thats rather critical
to this situation. Quite the contrary, as I understood it from one of the
realtors involved, they wanted no additional acquisition. My notes from the
time of inquiry include the notation that they wanted 80 acres for a 700,000 sq.
72 -777
City Hall, Anaheim, California COUNCIL MINUTES November 21, 1972, 1 :30 P.M.
ft. plant to employ between 2000 and 2500 employees.
As we all know,in the next several months North American did in fact
get quite a number of very large Federal contracts for research and some man-
ufacturing. And they did then change their plans to provide for additional
acquisition in that area; a very substantial additional acquisition over a
period of time. But none of that was known at the time of the purchase of the
80 acre parcel. Or if it was known, I certainly didn't know it, and I don't
believe anyone in the City did, and very frankly, I don't see how the North
American officials could have known it either. They didn't have the contracts.
Some of them, they may have had some bids on, but bidding and accomplishment
are far from being identical.
On or about January 15, 1960, after all of this activity that I have
just described, and considerable more activity actually, not just activity but
publicity and public action, together with considerable real estate activity
in the area not related to the North American purchase, I joined with two well
respected Anaheim Businessmen and citizens in accepting the offer of a realtor
to open an escrow to purchase 10 acres of property on existing Anaheim Road
between Dowling and Miller, where services were already publicly planned. This
property is 1980 feet east of the nearest point of the North American purchase.
Just to give you a little idea of what that distance is, if you go out here in
front of the City Hall, stand at the corner of Claudine, you can look to the
east 1,980 feet, takes you clear across the Santa Fe Railroad tracks -or if you
look in the other direction,the distance would be to the Union Oil Station on
the corner of Harbor Boulevard: Now that's the distance between the Autonetics
purchase and the purchase which I made along with two other people, and that's
quite a distance, actually if you looked to the south, you would have to go
clear across Santa Ana Avenue, across the railraod tracks again. What I'm
saying is these were not adjacent parcels by any stretch of the imagination.
I have to repeat then that no one was taken advantage of. No public trust was
violated. In short, the transaction was a legitimate, reasonably normal real
estate transaction suggested by a realtor in the normal pursuit of his parctice.
The subsequent expansion of North American Autonetics, their estab-
lishment of a Research and Development Center, the move of their headquarters
operation and the purchase of property by their employees' association for
recreational purposes were not foreseen at that time, nor could they have been.
The property in which I had an interest was sold in August 1960 to
Greg L. Carter, after which time I no longer had an investment interest in the
property.
The next investment I made in Anaheim and the only other one I have
ever made other than my family residence, took place in 1961. An escrow was
opened July 7, 1961 by Jay Enterprises in which I had a 5% interest. This was
for the so- called Campbell Ranch on Orangethorpe at Trinidad Street east of
Taylor,which is now Lakeview.
Long prior to this purchase, the planning for industrial development
and the services required for such development was publicly done by various
county agencies and by the City of Anaheim. All of this action was well pub-
licized general knowledge.
As far as general services to the area is concerned, in addition to
the previously outlined actions by the Flood Control District and the subsequent
action by the voters in 1956; in addition to the extensive Anaheim Citizen's
Committee actions and the publicity regarding those actions concerning water,
electricity, sewers and streets; there was a substantial bond issue voted upon
and approved by the electors of Anaheim to implement the Citizen's Committees'
recommendations for services to the northeast area and other parts of the City.
This election took place in April 1960.
(Streets) Meanwhile, the County of Orange held hearings before the
Planning Commission on May 25, 1960 and the Board of Supervisors on June 29,
1960 to amend the County Arterial Highway Plan. That is the date that I pre-
viously referred to as extending La Palma from Taylor, I believe it is, on out
to Imperial. I indicated it was in '1958, I errored in that it was June 29,
1960, prior to the time that I purchased the parcel of property which ultimately
72 -778
City Hall, Anaheim, California COUNCIL MINUTES November 21, 1972, 1 :30 P.M.
had one of the frontages on La Palma. Both bodies adopted the plan on the dates
shown. The amendment specifically extended La Palma Avenue from Jefferson to
a point east of Imperial (past the Campbell Ranch and all other properties in
that area). The City of Anaheim was taking similar action with public hearings
before the Planning Commission April 18, May 23, and June 6, 1960. The Council
followed with adoption of the Circulation Element of the General Plan on June
28, 1960.
As far as annexation is concerned, the Northeast Annexation No. 3,
which includes the Campbell Ranch, was also well publicized and acted upon. Now,
this annexation was not completed until some time after the purchase in which I
was an interested party. But let me show you why. The Notice of Intent to Cir-
culate a Petition (together with the affidavit of publication) was received by
the City Council June 28, 1960. An election was held and the votes were can-
vassed January 10, 1961. The vote was unanimously in favor of annexation and
that's a rather unusual situation. The City Council on January 17, 1961 adopted
the Ordinance of Annexation.
Then the annexation was challenged or just prior to that, the annex-
ation was challenged in court by the City of Placentia and was therefor substan-
tially delayed, not actually becoming a part of Anaheim until July 10, 1964.
But I have to remind you, that the action of the City Council and the action of
the people in the area, the voters in area, had acted prior to January 17, 1961.
Jay Enterprises sold the property in January 1965. That sale termin-
ated my investment in Anaheim properties. The ranch is still not developed,
although several industries have located from time to time in the area from
Jefferson and Imperial.
The other parcel of land wherein I have ownership referred to _in the
Los Angeles Times, lies outside of Anaheim in unincorporated territory. The
Local Agency Formation Commission has ruled that Anaheim cannot annex it, and
therefore, it probably never will be within Anaheim's jurisdiction. Hence, I
don't see much point in discussing that property unless you have some subsequent
questioning.
My reason for pointing all of this out is that .I believe, and I'm sure
all of the Councilmen believe,that it is important for the people of Anaheim,
particularly the people of Anaheim, and perhaps the people throughout Orange
County and the rest of Southern California, to know just what the situation is.
And this information has never been made public to them in detail in relation to
this series of transactions. I repeat again, that the information which I have
just related to you in my opinion points out very specifically that the infor-
mation, the plans for all of the improvements of properties, the zoning, etc. was
taken before any of the acquisitions in which I had an interest. The actual
implementation thereof, I believe in every instance, was taken after I had sold
the property. I don't believe that I have taken any action on recommendations,
or otherwise, in any of these areas to benefit my personal investment. I have
very carefully refrained from doing so. The investigators from the District
Attorney's Office have gone thru all of this information they did make their
recommendation, and as you reported previously, they found no violations. There-
fore I feel, not only in my opinion, but in theirs, I have not violated any trust,
I have no intentions of violating any trusts, and I never have. But I do want
the people of Anaheim and particularly the City Council to know that these are
the facts. These are the facts right from the very beginning of some of these
activities that were taking place. Sorry to bore you with these details."
Mayor Dutton again advised of his personal assistance in documents
furnished to the District Attorney's Office in the conduct of the investigation.
He reported that he was a member of the Utilities Division of the Capital Improve-
ment Committee in 1958 and 1959 and could verify that the facts concerning the
various projected improvements as pointed out by Mr. Murdoch were true and that
the expected population growth and all these things were common knowledge as
long ago as 1952 and not information known only to Mr. Murdoch and Mr. Piersall.
Mayor Dutton was of the opinion that people working for the City should
have the right to invest in the City. He called attention to the possibility of
one day being unable to get qualified dedicated people in government for the very
reason that honest and conscientious people will no longer subject themselves to
the harassment, abuse and criticism becoming so prevalent of government officials.
72- 779
City Hall. Anaheim. California COUNCIL MINUTES November 21. 1972. 1 :30 P.M.
He also felt the rights of the newspapers who are the eyes, ears and mouth of
the public should be defended and preserved because this is highly important
to this Nation. However, by the very things some of the newspapers are doing,
they are destroying the great privilege and responsibility that they have.
Mr. Murdoch assured the City Council that any further deliberations
on their part or any other investigating procedure the Council wishes to make
they could count on the full cooperatioi of Mr. Piersall and himself to provide
any information wanted.
PROCLAMATION: Proclamation of Kiwanis Key Club Week, November 20 to 24, 1972,
was unanimously ratified by the City Council.
MINUTES: Minutes of the Anaheim City Council Regular Meeting held October 24, 1972,
were approved on motion by Councilman Thom, seconded by Councilman Stephenson.
Because of his absence, Councilman Pebley abstained from voting. MOTION CARRIED.
WAIVER OF READING ORDINANCES AND RESOLUTIONS: Councilman Pebley moved to waive
the reading in full of all ordinances and resolution, and that consent to the
waiver of reading is hereby given by all Councilmen unless, after reading of
the title, specific request is made by a Councilman for the reading of such
ordinance or resolution. Councilman Stephenson seconded the motion. MOTION
UNANIMOUSLY CARRIED.
REPORT FINANCIAL DEMANDS AGAINST THE CITY: Demands against the City, in the amount
of $1,939,419.96, in accordance with the 1972 -73 Budget, were approved.
PUBLIC HEARING SANTA ANA CANYON #4 ANNEXATION: Pursuant to Resolution No. 72R -456,
public hearing was held on the proposed annexation to the City of Anaheim of
uninhabited territory designated Santa Ana Canyon #4 Annexation being an irreg-
ular shaped parcel of property located on the north side of Santa Ana Canyon
Road, east of Imperial Highway containing approximately 363 acres.
In accordance with law, said notice of public hearing was duly pub-
lished in the Anaheim Bulletin and written notices sent owners of property
according to the last equalized assessment role.
The City Clerk reported that no written protests to said annexation
were filed in her office.
The Mayor asked if anyone wished to address the Council concerning
said annexation, hearing no response, declared the hearing closed.
RESOLUTION NO. 72R -542: Councilman Sneegas offered Resolution No. 72R-542
for adoption.
Refer to Resolution Book.
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM FINDING AND DECLAR-
ING THAT NO MAJORITY PROTEST HAS BEEN MADE (SANTA ANA CANYON NO. 4 ANNEX
ATION).
Roll Call Vote:
AYES: COUNCILMEN: Sneegas, Stephenson, Pebley, Thom and Dutton
NOES: COUNCILMEN: None
ABSENT: COUNCILMEN: None
The Mayor declared Resolution No. 72R -542 duly passed and adopted.
ORDINANCE NO. 3097: Councilman Pebley offered Ordinance No. 3097 for first
reading.
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM' APPROVING THE ANNEXATION TO THE CITY
OF ANAHEIM OF THE TERRITORY KNOWN AND DESIGNATED AS SANTA ANA CANYON NO.
4 ANNEXATION.
'1
72-780
City Hall. Anaheim. California COUNCIL MINUTES November 21. 1972. 1 :30 P.M.
AMUSEMENT DEVICES Application submitted by Dale S. Malec and Deri C. Bellinger for
15 billiard tables at Bob's Family Billiards, 3015 West Ball Road was submitted
together with Chief of Police recommendations that said permit be granted,
subject to the provision of Chapter 4.24 of the Anaheim Municipal Code.
Amusement devices permit was granted as recommended by the Chief of
Police on motion by Councilman Pebley, seconded by Councilman Stephenson. MOTION
CARRIED.
AMUSEMENT DEVICES: Application submitted by W. C. Wynn for three billiard tables and
30 pinball and arcade machines at Funtown U. S. A., 613 North Euclid, was sub-
mitted together with Chief of Police recommendations that said permit be granted,
subject to the provision of Chapter 4.24 of the Anaheim Municipal Code.
Amusement devices permit was granted as recommended by the Chief of
Police on motion by Councilman Stephenson, seconded by Councilman Dutton. MOTION
CARRIED.
CHRISTMAS au LOT: Request of Gilbert Rodriguez Jr. and Vincent J. Sweeney was sub-
mitted for permission to operate a Christmas tree lot on R -3 zoned property at
1179 South State College Boulevard. Also submitted was report of the Development
Services Department, stating it appeared such use would not detrimentally affect
the surrounding land uses.
On motion by Councilman Sneegas, seconded by Councilman Dutton, request
was granted as recommended by the Development Services Department. MOTION CARRIED.
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 1309 LANDSCAPING PLANS Request of Mr. Roy W. Mabee for
approval of landscaping plans and specifications for a proposed travel trailer
park on 0-1 zoned property located on the north side of Lincoln Avenue, west of
Magnolia Avenue, was submitted together with report froln Development Services
Department recommending approval of landscaping plans only, subject to installa
tion of a permanent underground irrigation system for all landscaped areas.
Following review of the Development Services Department report and
discussion of location and types of trees and shrubs to be used, on motion by
Councilman Sneegas, Seconded by Councilman Stephenson, landscaping plans were
approved, subject to the installation of a permanent underground irrigation
system as recommended by Development Services Department. MOTION CARRIED.
EXTEIION OF TIME 'RECLASSIFICATION NO. 70-71-25 AND TENTATIVE TRACT NO. 7417: Re-
quest of W. C. J. Queyrel, Anacal Engineering Company, for a one -year extension
of time to Reclassification No. 70-71 and Tentative Tract No. 7417 on property
located on the north side of the future extension of La Palma Avenue, east of
Imperial Highway and south of Esperanza Road, was submitted together with report
from Development Services Department.
Following brief discussion regarding the ruling on E.I.R. requirements,
the Council concluded an E.I.R. would not be required prior to action on exten-
sion, and on motion by Councilman Dutton, seconded by Councilman Pebley, a one
year extension of time was granted to Tentative Tract No. 7417, to expire
December 21, 1973 and an extension of time to Reclassification No. 70-71 -25
retroactive to February 9, 1972 and to expire February 9, 1974, was granted,
as recommended by the Development Services Department. MOTION CARRIED.
ANAHEIM YOUTH COUNCIL DELEGATE CULTURAL ARTS COMMISSION: Request was submitted by
Mary B. Jones that the City Council invite the Anaheim Youth Council to appoint
a delegate to attend Cultural Arts Commission. meetings as a student advisor.
On motion by Councilman Thom, seconded by Councilman Stephenson, the
Anaheim Youth Council was requested to select a representative to attend Cultural
Art Commission meetings, as recommended. MOTION CARRIED.
CITY PLANNING COMMISSION ITEMS: Actions taken by the City Planning Commission at
their meeting held October 30, 1972, pertaining to the following applications
were submitted for City. Council information and consideration:
1340.
a. Minimum front yard.
b. Parking area location.
a. Maximum number of free- standing signs.
b. Minimum distance betwen free standing signs.
c. Minimum height of free- standing signs.
The Council took no further action on Variance No. 2442.
72- 781
City H41. Anaheim. Califg nja COUNCIL MINUTES November 21. 1972. 1 :30 P.M.
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 1340 AND ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT NO. 34: At
their October 30, 1972 meeting, the City Planning Commission considered
Conditional Use Permit No. 1340 and Environmental Impact Report No. 34 which
were submitted by Leslie R. Boatwright, in conjunction with request to estab-
lish a church in an existing residence on R -3 zoned property located on the
west side of Harbor Boulevard, north of Cypress Street with waivers of:
The City Planning Commission pursuant to Resolution No. PC72 -262,
recommended that E.I.R. No. 34 be adopted as Council's statement and pursuant
to Resolution No. PC72 -263, granted Conditional Use Permit No. 1340 subject to
conditions.
On motion by Councilman Pebley, seconded by Councilman Stephenson,
the City Council accepted E.I.R. No. 34 and Committee Analysis thereof, together
with City Planning Commission recommendation, and adopted same as the State-
ment of the Council. MOTION CARRIED.
The Council took no further action on Conditional Use Permit No.
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 1343 AND ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT NO. 40: At
their October 30, 1972 meeting, the City Planning Commission considered
Conditional Use Permit No. 1343 and Environmental. Impact Report No. 40 which
were submitted by Paul J. and Ruth E. Knaak, to establish an automobile sales
lot on C -1 zoned property located on the northeast corner of Lincoln Avenue
and Brookhurst Street with waivers of:
a. Minimum front setback landscaping. (Withdrawn)
b. Free- standing sign location.
The City Planning Commission pursuant to Resolution No. PC72 -264,
recommended that Environmental Impact Report No. 40 be accepted as Council's
statement and pursuant to Resolution No. PC72 -265, granted Conditional Use
Permit No. 1343 subject to conditions.
On motion by Councilman Stephenson, seconded by Councilman Sneegas,
the City Council received E.I.R. No. 40, and Committee Analysis thereof, to-
gether with the City Planning Commission recommendation, and determined the
impact of said project would be trivial in nature, thereby requiring no Envir-
onmental Impact Statement by the Council. MOTION CARRIED.
The Council took no further action on Conditional Use Permit No.
1343.
VARIANCE NO. 2442 AND ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT NO. 25: At their October
30, 1972 meeting, the City Planning Commission considered Variance No. 2442
and Environmental Impact Report No. 25 which were submitted by Stafac Incor-
porated, in conjunction with request to erect a "self- serve" sign in addition
to two existing free standing signs on M -1 zoned property located on the north-
west corner of La Palma Avenue and Kraemer Boulevard, with waivers of:
The City Planning Commission pursuant to Resolution No. PC72 -266,
recommended that E.I.R. No. 25 be accepted as Council's statement and pursuant
to Resolution No. PC72 -267, granted said variance, subject to conditions.
On motion by Councilman Pebley, seconded by Councilman Dutton, the
City Council received No. 25, and Committee Analysis thereof, together
with the City Planning Commission recommendation, and determined the impact of
said project mould be trivial in nature, thereby requiring no Environmental
Impact Statement by the Council. MOTION CARRIED.
72 -782
City Hall. Anaheim. California COUNCIL MINUTES November 21. 1972. 1:30 P.M.
VARIANCE NO. 2443 AND ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT 'NO. 26: At their October 30, 1972
meting, the City Planning Commission considered Variance No. 2443 and Environ-
mental Impact Report No. 26 which were submitted by Edward W. Bonkosky, in
conjunction with request to erect a "self-serve" sign in addition to an existing
free standing sign on C -3 zoned property located on the southeast corner of
Euclid Street and Lincoln Avenue with waivers of:
a. Maximum number of free standing signs.
b. Minimum distance between free standing signs.
c. Minimum height of free standing signs.
d. Location of free standing signs.
The City Planning Commission pursuant to Resolution No. PC72 -268,
recommended that E.I.R. No. 26 be adopted as Council's statement and pursuant
to Resolution No. PC72 -269, granted said variance, subject to conditions.
On motion by Councilman Dutton, seconded by Councilman Pebley, the
City Council received E.I.R. No. 26, and Committee Analysis thereof, together
with the City Planning Commission recommendation, and determined the impact of
said project would be trivial in nature, thereby requiring no Environmental
Impact Statement by the Council. MOTION CARRIED.
The Council took no further action on Variance No. 2443.
VARIANCE NO. 2444 AND ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT NO. 27: At their October 30,
1972 meeting, the City Planning Commission considered Variance No. 2444 and
Environmental Impact Report No. 27 which were submitted by Shell Oil Company,
in conjunction with request to erect a "self- serve" sign in addition an existing
free standing sign on C -1 zoned property located on the southwest corner of
Euclid Street and Glenoaks Avenue, with waivers of:
a. Maximum number of free standing signs.
b. Minimum distance between free standing signs.
c. Location of free standing signs.
The City Planning Commission pursuant to Resolution No. PC72 -270,
recommended that E.I.R. No. 27 be adopted as Council's statement and pursuant
to Resolution No. PC72 -271, granted said variance subject to conditions.
On motion by Councilman Pebley, seconded by Councilman Stephenson,
the City Council received E.I.R. No. 27, and Committee Analysis thereof, together
with the City Planning Commission recommendation, and determined the impact of
said project would be trivial it nature, thereby requiring no Environmental
Impact Statement by the Council. MOTION CARRIED.
The Council took no further action on Variance No. 2444.
VARIANCE NO. 2445 AND ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT NO. 28: At their October 30,
1972 meeting, the City Planning Commission considered Variance No. 2445 and
Environmental Impact Report No. 28 which were submitted by Edwin J. Ericksen,
to erect a "self- serve" sign in addition to an existing free standing sign on
C -1 zoned property located on the northwest corner of Brookhurst Street and
Katella Avenue, with waivers of:
a. Maximum number of free standing signs.
b. Minimum distance between free standing signs.
c. Minimum height of free standing signs.
d. Location of free standing signs.
The City Planning Commission pursuant to Resolution No. PC72 -272,
recommended that E.I.R. No. 28 be adopted as Council's statement and pursuant
to Resolution No. PC72 -273, granted said variance subject to conditions.
On motion by Councilman Pebley, seconded by Councilman Stephenson,
the City Council received E.I.R. No. 28, and Committee Analysis thereof,
together with the City Planning Commission recommendation, and determined the
City Hall. Anaheim. California COUNCIL MINUTES November 21. 1972. 1 :30 P.M.
impact of said project would be trivial in nature, thereby requiring no
Environmental Impact Statement by the Council. MOTION CARRIED.
The Council took no further action on Variance No. 2445.
VARIANCE NO. 2446 AND ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT NO. 29: At their October
30, 1972 meeting, the City Planning Commission considered Variance No. 2446
and Environmental Impact Report No. 29 which were submitted by Helen B.
Griffes in conjunction with the request to erect a "self- serve" sign in addi-
tion to an existing free standing sign on C -1 zoned property located on the
northeast corner of Euclid Street and Romneya Drive, with waivers of:
a. Maximum number of free standing signs.
b. Minimum distance between free standing signs.
The City Planning Commission pursuant to Resolution No. PC72 -274,
recommended that E.I.R. No. 29 be accepted as Council's statement and pursuant
to Resolution No. PC72 -275, granted said variance, subject to conditions.
On motion by Councilman Pebley, seconded by Councilman Stephenson,
the City Council received E.I.R. No. 29, and Committee Analysis thereof,
together with the City Planning Commission recommendation, and determined the
impact of said project would be trivial in nature, thereby requiring no
Environmental Impact Statement by the Council. MOTION CARRIED.
The Council took no further action on Variance No. 2446.
VARIANCE NO. 2447 AND ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT NO. 30: At their October
30, 1972 meeting, the City Planning Commission considered Variance No. 2447
and Environmental Impact Report No. 30 which were submitted by Shell Oil
Company in conjunction with request to erect a "self- serve" sign in addition
to an existing free standing sign on C -1 zoned property located on the north-
east corner of Kraemer Boulevard and Orangethorpe Avenue, with waivers of:
a. Maximum number of free standing signs.
b. Minimum distance between free standing signs.
c. Minimum height of free standing signs.
The City Planning Commission pursuant to Resolution No. PC72 -276,
recommended that E.I.R. No. 30 be adopted as Council's statement and pursuant
to Resolution No. PC72 -277, granted said variance subject to conditions.
On motion by Councilman Dutton, seconded by Councilman Stephenson,
the City Council received E.I.R. No. 30, and Committee Analysis thereof,
together with the City Planning Commission recommendation, and determined the
impact of said project would be trivial in nature, thereby requiring no
Environmental Impact Statement by the Council. MOTION CARRIED.
The Council took no further action on Variance No. 2447.
VARIANCE NO. 2160 TERMINATION: Request submitted by D. L. Woodward, The
Big Brake Safety Center, for termination of said variance, which was approved
in part, to establish a brake servicing shop on C-1 zoned property, located
on the south side of Lincoln Avenue, east of Brookhurst Street was granted
by the City Planning Commission pursuant to Resolution No. PC72-279.
No further action was taken by the City Council.
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 1271 TERMINATION: Request submitted by Anaheim
Hills Inc. and Texaco Ventures Inc., for termination of said conditional use
permit, which was approved to establish an equestrian center and a veterin-
arian facility on R -A zoned property located in the Santa Ana Canyon area,
south of Santa Ana Canyon Road and southwest of Walnut Canyon Reservoir at
the southerly terminus of Anaheim Hills Road was granted by the City Planning
Commission pursuant to Resolution No. PC72 -280.
No further action was taken by the City Council.
72-783
72- 784
City Hall, Agaheim. California COUNCIL MINUTES November 21. 1972. 1:30 P.M.
CONDITIONAL USE PERMZLT NO. 1286 EXTENSION OF TIME: Request submitted by
Eric K. Lewis, for an extension of time to establish a travel trailer and camper
storage facility on M-1 zoned property located on the west side of State College
Boulevard, north of Via Burton Street was presented.
The City Planning Commission by motion granted a one -year extension of
time, retroactive to August 7, 1972, to expire October 30, 1973.
On motion by Councilman Dutton, seconded by Councilman Pebley, the
City Council determined that an E.I.R. would not be required prior to action on
request for extension of time. MOTION CARRIED.
No further action was taken by the City Council.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT NO. 46: E.I.R. and Committee Analysis were submitted
pertaining to a proposed 134 -unit apartment complex on approximately 4.6 acres
of land located on the west side of Knott Avenue, north of Ball Road, currently
zoned R -3 under Reclassification No. 72-73-19 (Variance No. 2428).
On motion by Councilman Stephenson, seconded by Councilman Pebley, the
City Council accepted E.I.R. No. 46 and Committee Analysis thereof, together
with City Planning Commission recommendation, and adopted same as the Statement
of the Council. M7TI0N CARRIED.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT NO. 48: E.I.R. and Committee Analysis were submitted
pertaining to a proposal to expand an existing motel by adding 42-units, property
located on the south side of Ball Road, east of Palm Street, currently zoned C-0
(Conditional Use Permit No. 1306).
On motion by Councilman Stephenson, seconded by Councilman Sneegas,
the City Council accepted E.I.R. No. 48 and Committee Analysis thereof, together
with City Planning Commission recommendation, and adopted same as the Statement
of the Council. MOTION CARRIED.
ENVIRONI ITAIJM[' ®CT REPORT NO. 49: E.I.R. and Committee Analysis were submitted
pertaining to a proposal to construct a self- service automobile service station
on approximately .76 acres located on the southeast corner of Lincoln Avenue and
Magnolia Avenue, currently zoned C-1 (Conditional Use Permit No. 1290).
On motion by Councilman Dutton, seconded by Councilman Stephenson, the
City Council accepted E.I.R. No. 49 and Committee Analysis thereof, together
with City Planning Commission recommendation, and adopted same as the Statement
of the Council. MINION CARRIED.
ENVIRITNIPT IMPACc REPORT NO. 42: E.I.R. and Committee Analysis were submitted
pertaining to a proposal to construct 104 single-family residences on 22 acres
located between the Riverside Freeway and Santa Ana Canyon Road, approximately
2,000 feet east of Imperial Highway. R -S -5,000 zoning approved under Reclassi-
fication No. 70- 71-53.
Mr. Roberts briefed the Council on the findings of the E.I.R. Review
Committee stating that while this E.I.R. does not address itself specifically
to the drainage problems outlined in letter received from the Orange County Flood
District, conditions have been imposed upon approval of the tentative tract map
which it is felt will adequately handle the situation. It was also noted by the
Committee that the report does not discuss the siltation control problem men-
tioned in a letter received from the Regional Water Quality Control Board, how-
ever, the City's ordinances have been designed to alleviate this problem. These
items were brought to Council's attention so that they may determine whether or
not the impact report is sufficient.
Mr. Queyrel stipulated that the property was designed to be free from
the 100-year flood hazard and that the lower end of the tract will be raised 5
feet which should take care of it.
Mr. Roberts advised that the concern expressed by the Flood Control
related directly to the improvement of the Walnut Canyon Channel which lies east
of subject property, and as he remembered, approval of the tentative tract map
City Hall. Anaheim. California COUNCIL MINUTES November 21. 1972. 1:30 P.M.
included a requirement for a storm drain channel and that certain arrange-
ments be made with developers, and property owners in the area to bond for
the improvements.
On motion by Councilman Sneegas, seconded by Councilman Stephenson,
the City Council accepted E.I.R. No. 42 and stipulation by Mr. Queyrel to-
gether with Committee Analysis thereof, and adopted same as the Statement of
the Council.
To this motion Councilman Thom voted "no stating that he based
his negative vote on the fact that he disapproved the zoning and density
proposed for this particular project. MOTION CARRIED.
RESOLUTION NO. 72R -543 AWARD OF WORK ORDER NO. 662 A: In accordance with recom-
mendations of the City Engineer, Councilman Stephenson offered Resolution No.
72R -543 for adoption.
Refer to Resolution Book.
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 PERFORM-
ING ALL WORK NECESSARY TO CONSTRUCT AND COMPLETE THE FOLLOWING PUBLIC
IMPROVEMENT: THE BALL ROAD STREET IMPROVEMENT FROM APPROXIMATELY 656 FEET
EAST OF TO APPROXIMATELY 210 FEET EAST OF STATE COLLEGE BOULEVARD, IN THE
CITY OF ANAHEIM, WORK ORDER NO. 662 -A. (El Camino Contracting Co.
$2,936.40 Alternate A)
Roll Call Vote:
AYES: COUNCILMEN: Sneegas, Stephenson, Pebley, Thom and Dutton
NOES: COUNCILMEN: None
ABSENT: COUNCILMEN: None
The Mayor declared Resolution No.
RESOLUTION NO. 72R -544 AWARD OF WORK ORDER NO.
mendations of the City Engineer, Councilman
72R -544 for adoption.
Refer to Resolution Book.
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 PERFORM-
ING ALL WORK NECESSARY TO CONSTRUCT AND COMPLETE THE FOLLOWING PUBLIC
IMPROVEMENT: THE GROVE STREET STREET IMPROVEMENT FROM LA PALMA AVENUE TO
APPROXIMATELY 1485 FEET SOUTH OF LA PALMA AVENUE, IN THE CITY OF ANAHEIM,
WORK ORDER NO. 664 -A. (El Camino Contracting Co. $10,448.00)
Roll Call Vote:
AYES: COUNCILMEN: Sneegas, Stephenson, Pebley, Thom and Dutton
NOES: COUNCILMEN: None
ABSENT: COUNCILMEN: None
The Mayor declared Resolution No.
RESOLUTION NO. 72R -545 AWARD OF WORK ORDER NO.
mendations of the City Engineer, Councilman
72R -545 for adoption.
Refer to Resolution Book.
72R 543 duly passed and adopted.
72R 544 duly passed and adopted.
72- 785
664 A: In accordance with recom-
Stephenson offered Resolution No.
665 B: In accordance with recom-
Stephenson offered Resolution No.
72-786
City Hall. t iteii. California COUNCIL MINUTES November 21. 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 TRANSPORATION, INCLUDING POWER, FUEL AND WATER, AND PERFORM-
ING ALL WORK NECESSARY TO CONSTRUCT AND COMPLETE THE FOLLOWING PUBLIC
IMPROVEMENT: THE LA PALMA AVENUE STREET IMPROVEMENT FROM APPROXIMATELY 400
FEET WEST OF ':'0 APPROXIMATELY 1210 FEET WEST OF EAST STREET, IN THE CITY OF
ANAHEIM, WORK ORDER NO. 665 -B. (El Camino Contracting Co. $9,674.30)
Roll Call Vote:
AYES: COUNCILMEN: Sneegas, Stephenson, Pebley, Thom and Dutton
NOES: COUNCILMEN: None
ABSENT: COUNCILMEN: None
The Mayor declared Resolution No. 72R -545 duly passed and adopted.
RESOLUTION NO. 72R -546 AWARD OF WORK ORDER NO. 805: In accordance with recommen-
dations of the City Engineer, Councilman Stephenson offered Resolution No.
72R -546 for adoption.
Refer to Resolution Book.
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 PERFORM-
ING ALL WORK NECESSARY TO CONSTRUCT AND COMPLETE THE FOLLOWING PUBLIC
IMPROVEMENT: THE CULTURAL ARTS CENTER PARKING LOT, WEST SIDE OF HARBOR
BOULEVARD, SOUTH OF LA PALMA AVENUE, IN THE CITY OF ANAHEIM, WORK ORDER
NO. 805. (R. J. Noble Company $12,417.87)
Roll Call Vote:
AYES: COUNCILMEN: Sneegas, Stephenson, Pebley, Thom and Dutton
NOES: COUNCILMEN: None
ABSENT: COUNCILMEN: None
The Mayor declared Resolution No. 72R -546 duly passed and adopted.
RESOLUTION NO. 72R -547 WORK ORDER NO. 655 A: Upon receipt of certification from
the Director of Public Works, Councilman Pebley offered Resolution No. 72R -547
for adoption.
Refer to Resolution Book.
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM FINALLY ACCEPTING
THE COMPLETION AND THE FURNISHING OF ALL PLANT, LABOR, SERVICES, MATERIALS
AND EQUIPMENT AND ALL UTILITIES AND TRANSPORTATION INCLUDING POWER, FUEL
AND WATER, AND THE PERFORMANCE OF ALL WORK NECESSARY TO CONSTRUCT AND
COMPLETE THE FOLLOWING PUBLIC IMPROVEMENT, TO WIT: INSTALLATION OF
MAGNETOMETERS AND LOOPS AT THE INTERSECTION OF BALL ROAD AND BEACH BLVD.,
IN THE CITY OF ANAHEIM, WORK ORDER NO. 655 -A. (Baxter Griffin Company)
Roll Call Vote:
AYES: COUNCILMEN: Sneegas, Stephenson, Pebley, Thom and. Dutton
NOES: COUNCILMEN: None
ABSENT: COUNCILMEN: None
The Mayor declared Resolution No. 72R -547 duly passed and adopted.
RIGHT OF WAY CERTIFICATION A.H.F.P. NO. 654: On motion by Councilman Stephenson,
seconded by Councilman Pebley, the Mayor and City Clerk on behalf of the City
of Anaheim were authorized to execute a right of way certification for A.H.F.P.
No. 654 (Santa Ana Canyon Road to Nohl Ranch Road Phase No. 1). MOTION CARRIED.
RESOLUTION NO 72R -548 DEED OF EASEMENT: Councilman Thom offered Resolution No.
72R -548 for adoption.
Roll Call Vote:
72-787
City Hall. Anaheim. California COUNCIL MINUTES November 21. 1972. 1 :30 P.M.
Refer to Resolution Book.
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM ACCEPTING CERTAIN
DEEDS AND ORDERING THEIR RECORDATION. (Litton Systems, Inc.)
AYES: COUNCILMEN: Sneegas, Stephenson, Pebley, Thom and Dutton
NOES: COUNCILMEN: None
ABSENT: COUNCILMEN: None
The Mayor declared Resolution No. 72R -548 duly passed and adopted.
UNION PACIFIC RAILROAD DEPOT: Mr. Murdoch reported that communication had been
received from the Union Pacific Railroad Company indicating that freight and
passenger services have been discontinued and that they are planning to sell
the depot and property located at Lincoln Avenue and Atchison Street. They
have requested that the City indicate whether or not they would be interested
in making an offer to purchase said depot.
Mr. Murdoch stated that in the past, Councilman Roth had urged that
the City Council consider the acquisition and preservation of this building
as a landmark. Inspection and investigation initiated by the City and per-
formed by the Property Maintenance Superintendent revealed that the structure
could not be moved,however it would be suitable for use as a museum.
The City Council indicated no interest in the purchase of the Union
Pacific Railroad Depot.
PURCHASE OF EQUIPMENT 6V54 SERIES DETROIT DIESEL ENGINE FOR 1962 SEAGRAVE PUMPER:
Mr. Murdoch reported on the necessity for replacing the engine on Seagrave
Pumper #6609, stating that several approaches were investigated including
repair of the present engine. However., it was recommended by Mr. Riley, Fire
Chief and Mr. Merriam, Mechanical Maintenance Superintendent, that due to the
difficulties encountered in obtaining parts for the obsolete Seagrave engines
and the estimated cost of repair of $3,500.00 on this particular engine, that
the practical alternative would be replacement. Mr. Murdoch reported on bids
received for replacement with a diesel engine for the 1962 Seagrave Pumper
#6609 for the Fire Department Division as follows and recommended acceptance
of the low bid:
VENDOR TOTAL AMOUNT. INCLUDING MATERIAL. LABOR TAX
Lawless Detroit Diesel
Crown Coach Corporation
$8,598.66
9,516.82
On motion by Councilman Stephenson, seconded by Councilman Sneegas,
the low bid of Lawless Detroit Diesel was accepted and purchase authorized
in the amount of $8,598.66, including material, labor and tax. MOTION CARRIED.
TRANSFER OF FUNDS: Transfer of $8,598.66 from the Council Contingency fund to
cover the purchase of 6V54 Series Detroit Diesel Engine for replacement in
the 1962 Seagrave Pumper #6609 was authorized on motion by Councilman
Stephenson, seconded by Councilman Sneegas. MOTION CARRIED.
PURCHASE OF EQUIPMENT SEVENTEEN 12 KV THREE PHASE PAD MOUNTED TRANSFORMERS: The
City Manager reported on informal bids received for the purchase of seventeen
12 KV three -phase pad mounted transformers from the following vendors, and
recommended acceptance of the low bids:
yam
Westinghouse Electric Supply Co., Anaheim
General Electric Co., Anaheim
H. K. Porter, Los Angeles
McGraw Edison, Los Angeles
Maydwell Hartzell, Low Angeles (Item 3 only)
72-788
City Hall. Anaheim. California COUNCIL MINUTES November 21. 1972. 1 :30 P.M.
On motion by Councilman Pebley, seconded by Councilman Stephenson,
the low bid of Westinghouse Electric Supply Company on items 1, 2, 4, 5 6
was accepted and purchase of fifteen 12 KV three phase pad mounted transformers
authorized in the amount of $31,817.10, including tax and the low bid of General
Electric Company on item 3 was accepted and purchase of two 12 KV three -phase
pad mounted transformers authorized in the amount of $14,088.90, including tax.
MOTION CARRIED.
RESOLUTION NO. 72R -549 SETTLEMENT OF EMINENT DOMAIN PROCEEDINGS: On recommendation
of the City Attorney, Councilman Sneegas offered Resolution No. 72R -549 for
adoption.
Refer to Resolution Book.
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AUTHORIZING COMPRO-
MISING OF CERTAIN EMINENT DOMAIN LITIGATION (Montgomery Property, Orange
Avenue at Danbrook Street). ($2,257.20)
Roll Call Vote:
AYES: COUNCILMEN: Sneegas, Stephenson, Pebley, Thom and Dutton
NOES: COUNCILMEN: None
ABSENT: COUNCILMEN: None
The Mayor declared Resolution No. 72R -549 duly passed and adopted.
RECESS: Councilman Pebley moved for a five minute recess. Councilman Dutton seconded
the motion. MOTION CARRIED. (3 :20 P.M.)
AFTER RECESS: Mayor Dutton called the meeting to order, all Councilmen being present.
(3:25 P.M.)
RESOLUTION NO 72R -550 ARTERIAL HIGHWAY FINANCING, A.H.F.P. No. 654: Councilman
Pebley offered Resolution No. 72R -550 for adoption, authorizing approval of
Arterial Highway Financing Program agreement regarding A.H.F.P. No. 654, Phase
I (traffic signal installation, Imperial Highway and Santa Ana Canyon Road) for
the 1972 -73 fiscal year.
Refer to Resolution Book.
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AUTHORIZING THE
EXECUTION OF AN AGREEMENT WITH THE COUNTY OF ORANGE RELATING TO THE
ARTERIAL HIGHWAY FINANCING PROGRAM FOR FISCAL YEAR 1972 -73.
Roll Call Vote:
AYES: COUNCILMEN: Sneegas, Stephenson, Pebley, Thom and Dutton
NOES: COUNCILMEN: None
ABSENT: COUNCILMEN: None
The Mayor declared Resolution No. 72R -550 duly passed and adopted.
RESOLUTION NO 2R -551 UNCLAIMED PROPERTY: Councilman Stephenson offered Resolution
No. 72R -551 for adoption.
Refer to Resolution Book.
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM DECLARING CERTAIN
UNCLAIMED PROPERTY IS NEEDED FOR PUBLIC USE AND TRANSFERRING THE SAME TO
THE CITY PURCHASING DEPARTMENT.
Roll Call Vote:
AYES: COUNCILMEN: Sneegas, Stephenson, Pebley, Thom and Dutton
NOES: COUNCILMEN: None
ABSENT: COUNCILMEN: None
The Mayor declared Resolution No. 72R -551 duly passed and adopted.
City Hall. Anaheim. California Council Minutes November 21. 1972. 1:30 P.M.
CORR4SPONDENCE: The following correspondence was ordered received and filed on
motion by Councilman Dutton, seconded by Councilman Sneegas:
a. Before the Public Utilities Commission Application of the
Pacific Telephone and Telegraph Company, a corporation, for authority to
increase certain intrastate rates and charges applicable to telephone services
furnished within the State of California. (Notice of Hearing Application
No. 51774)
b. Before the Public Utilities Commission Application of the
Pacific Telephone and Telegraph Company, a corporation, for authority to
increase certain intrastate rates and charges applicable to telephone services
furnished within the State of California. (Notice of Prehearing Conference
and Hearing Application No. 53587)
c. Community Center Authority Minutes November 6, 1972.
d. Orange County Mosquito Abatement District Minutes
November 6, 1972.
e. Financial and Operating Reports for the Months of September
October, 1972.
Utilities Department
(Customer Service Division)
MOTION CARRIED.
ORDINANCE NO. 3095: Councilman Stephenson offered Ordinance No. 3095 for adoption.
Refer to Ordinance Book.
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AMENDING TITLE 18 OF THE ANAHEIM
MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO ZONING. (67 -68 -7 (5) R-H-10,000)
Roll Call Vote:
AYES: COUNCILMEN: Sneegas, Stephenson, Pebley, Thom and. Dutton
NOES: COUNCILMEN: None
ABSENT: COUNCILMEN: None
The Mayor declared Ordinance No. 3095 duly passed and adopted.
ORDINANCE NO. 3096: Councilman Thom offered Ordinance No. 3096 for adoption.
Refer to Ordinance Book.
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AMENDING TITLE 18 OF THE ANAHEIM
MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO ZONING. (70 -71 -46 (1) (2) R -A)
Roll Call Vote:
72- 789
AYES: COUNCILMEN: Sneegas, Stephenson, Pebley, Thom and Dutton
NOES: COUNCILMEN: None
ABSENT: COUNCILMEN: None
The Mayor declared Ordinance No. 3096 duly passed and adopted.
ORDINANCE NO. 3098: Councilman Stephenson offered Ordinance No. 3098 for first
reading.
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AMENDING TITLE 18 OF THE ANAHEIM
MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO ZONING. (71 -72 -54 R -1)
ORDINANCE NO. 3099: Councilman Stephenson offered Ordinance No. 3099 for first
reading.
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AMENDING TITLE 18 OF THE ANAHEIM
MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO ZONING. (72 -73 -23 R -A)
72-790
City Hall. Anaheim. California COUNCIL MINUTES November 21. 1972. 1:30 P.M.
ORDINANCE NO. 3100: Councilman Sneegas offered Ordinance No. 3100 for first reading.
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AMENDING TITLE 18 OF THE ANAHEIM
MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO ZONING. (72-73-24 R- A)
ORDINANCE NO. 3101: Councilman Sneegas offered Ordinance No. 3101 for first reading.
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AMENDING TITLE 18 OF THE ANAHEIM
MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO ZONING (70-71-33 (3) R -A)
ORDINANCE NO. 3102: Councilman Sneegas offered Ordinance No. 3102 for first reading.
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AMENDING TITLE 18 OF THE ANAHEIM
MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO ZONING. (70 -71 -33 (1), (2) (4) R -A)
RESOLUTION NO. 72R -552 WESTERN GOLF ASSOCIATION PRO TOURNMENT ANAHEIM HILLS GOLF
COURSE: Councilman Pebley offered Resolution No. 72R -552 for adoption, approving the
terms and conditions of agreement with Western Golf Association regarding Pro
Tournment to commence January 1973.
Refer to Resolution Book.
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL CT THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AUTHORIZING THE
EXECUTION OF AN AGREEMENT WITH WESTERN GOLF, INC. FOR THE NON- EXCLUSIVE
USE OF THE ANAHEIM HILLS GOLF COURSE.
Roll Call Vote:
AYES: COUNCILMEN: Sneegas, Stephenson, Pebley, Than and Dutton
NOES:. COUNCILMEN: None
ABSENT: COUNCILMEN: None
The Mayor declared Resolution No. 72R -552 duly passed and adopted.
WAIVER OF FEES AGREEMENT ANAHEIM HILLS ANNEXATION NO. Ito COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICT NO.
Mr. Murdoch reported on the proposed agreement between the City of Anaheim and
the County Sanitation Districts regarding waiver of annexation fees for the area
described as Anaheim Hills Annexation No. 1, which includes the Anaheim Hills
Golf Course property. The City had requested waiver of fees for the area con-
tained in the Golf Course portion and reservoir. The agreement provides that if
any of the property for which fees have been waived should require sewer services,
then the City would pay the applicable annexation fee in effect at that time for
that portion so developed. District No. 2 has agreed to waive all fees except
for a portion of approximately 4.7 acres which contain the clubhouse and parking
lot site for which the City is obligated to pay $369.00 per acre annexation fees,
or $1,476.00.
RESOLUTION NO. 72R -553: Councilman Pebley offered Resolution No. 72R -553 for
adoption, authorizing the agreement between the City of Anaheim and County
Sanitation District No. 2.
Refer to Resolution Book.
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM APPROVING THE TERMS
AND CONDITIONS OF AN AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AND RANGE COUNTY
SANITATION DISTRICT NO. 2, WAIVING ANNEXATION FEES FOR ANAHEIM HILLS ANNEX-
ATION NO. 1, AND AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR AND CITY CLERK TO EXECUTE SAID
AGREEMENT.
Roll Call Vote:
AYES: COUNCILMEN: Sneegas, Stephenson, Pebley, Thom and Dutton
NOES: COUNCILMEN: None
ABSENT: COUNCILMEN: None
The Mayor declared Resolution No. 72R -553 duly passed and adopted.
72- 791
City Hall. Anaheim. California COUNCIL MINUTES November 21. 1972. 1:30 P.M.
SZABO FOOD SERVICE AGREEMENT ANAHEIM CONVENTION CENTER: Mr. Alan Watts reported
on terms of the proposed agreement between the City of Anaheim and Szabo Food
Service which would be effective October 1, 1972, for a five -year term.
Mr. Watts noted that the agreement states that the City will supply some
additional kitchen equipment in connection with the Convention Center expan-
sion, and that the City will receive $50,000.00 per year from the gross
receipts to amortize the cost of said equipment.
RESOLUTION NO. 72R -554: Councilman Sneegas offered Resolution No. 72R -554
for adoption, authorizing approval of the terms and conditions of the agree-
ment with Szabo Food Service to be effective as of October 1, 1972.
Refer to Resolution Book.
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM APPROVING THE
TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF AN AGREEMENT WITH SZABO FOOD SERVICE INC. OF
CALIFORNIA TO OPERATE CONCESSIONS AT ANAHEIM CONVENTION CENTER AND
AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR AND CITY CLERK TO EXECUTE SAID AGREEMENT.
Roll Call Vote:
AYES: COUNCILMEN: Sneegas, Stephenson, Pebley, Thom and Dutton
NOES: COUNCILMEN: None
ABSENT: COUNCILMEN: None
The Mayor declared Resolution No. 72R -554 duly passed and adopted.
PROGRESS REPORT SANTA ANA CANYON STUDY COMMITTEE: Mr. Murdoch reported that
since the Steering Committee of the Santa Ana Canyon Study Committee has a
meeting set for December 4, 1972, it would be more appropriate to reschedule
Council recommendations relative to progress report after said meeting.
REQUEST FOR REHEARING HOUSENDVING PERMIT: The Council was informed that a letter
had been received this date from Mr. John D. Malone requesting rehearing on
his application for permit to move a house onto 4500 Cerro Vista Way. (Said
application was denied by Council November 14, 1972.) Mr. Malone's letter
indicated he felt he was entitled to a new hearing since he had experienced
personal financial loss, emotional stress and damages to the structure as a
result of denial of this permit. Further, he proposes to present substantial
new evidence regarding the effect of this house on the neighborhood and its
value in relationship to the other homes in the area, and to present archi-
tectural drawings of the house when completed, the results of the termite
inspection and the complete plans for foundation, wiring and plumbing. Addi-
tionally, he plans to present evidence which would reveal the opposition to
his move -on was not representative of the majority of homeowners in the area.
(Mr. Malone's letter was read in full.)
Discussion was held regarding the petition in opposition to the
move -on which was presented at the public hearing, and whether those names
listed thereon were property owners within 300 feet of subject property.
The City Clerk was advised that a map indicating location of property
owners in opposition as related to location of petitioner's property was not
prepared due to the fact that the permit was denied.
In answer to Councilman Pebley, Mr. Watts advised that the ordinance
on housemoving states one of the findings to be made by the Council is that
less than a majority of property owners in the area object to the housemoving,
and that the policy is to use a 300 foot perimeter of subject property to de-
fine the area of notice.
Councilman Sneegas suggested that the applicant be given sufficient
time, at least two weeks, to enlist support among the neighbors in Peralta
Hills before considering a re- hearing.
Mr. John McDonald, 1212 North Broadway, Santa Ana, Attorney for
the applicant, stated that it appeared to him that Mr. Malone's situation
72-792
City Hall. Anahemim. California COUNCIL MINUTES November 21, 1972. 1 :30 P.M.
meets all of the requirements for rehearing and requested that the decision on
rehearing be made today and then time allowed to solicit support could be
scheduled, as the additional time element will compound the loss already sus-
tained by Mr. Malone.
On motion by Councilman Thom, seconded by Councilman Dutton, re-
hearing was authorized subject to the payment of $50.00 fee, said rehearing
to be scheduled by the City Clerk as soon as possible. MOTION CARRIED.
ANAHEIM HILLS GOLF COURSE BOUNDARIES: Mr. Alan Watts outlined a proposed agreement
between the City of Anaheim and the Grant Corporation, Anaheim Hills Inc., to
amend the legal description of the golf course boundaries. He stated that
during construction of the golf course, it was found practical to develop along
the contours of the terrain and thus these adjustments to the original agree-
ment regarding boundaries are necessary. The proposed agreement has been re-
viewed by the Engineering and Right -of -Way Departments who concur in the
amendment. The gross acreage of 239.7 acres will not be affected and there
is no additional cost to the City, he reported.
RESOLUTION NO. 72R -555: On recommendation of the City Attorney, Councilman
Stephenson offered Resolution No. 72R -555 for adoption.
Refer to Resolution Book.
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM APPROVING THE TERMS
AND CONDITIONS OF A BOUNDARY ADJUSTMENT AGREEMENT AND AMENDMENT TO AGREEMENT
OF SALE WITH TEXACO VENTURES, INC., ANAHEIM HILLS, INC., AND ROBERT H. GRANT
CORPORATION AND AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR AND CITY CLERK TO EXECUTE SAID AGREEMENT.
Roll Call Vote:
AYES: COUNCILMEN: Sneegas, Stephenson and Dutton
NOES: COUNCILMEN: Thom
ABSTAIN: COUNCILMEN: Pebley
ABSENT: COUNCILMEN: None
The Mayor declared Resolution No. 72R-555 duly passed and adopted.
RESOLUTION Pp. 721k-556 AMENDMENT TO SALARY RESOLUTION: Mr. Garry McRae, Personnel
Director, recommended a new job classification "photographer," be created and
allocated to compensation schedule 472 (672.53 818.13) to be effective
November 17, 1972.
RESOLUTION NO. 72k-556: Councilman Pebley offered Resolution No. 72R -556 for
adoption.
Refer to Resolution Book.
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AMENDING RESOLUTION
NO. 72R -469 AND ESTABLISHING A RATE OF COMPENSATION FOR A NEW JOB CLASS.
Roll Call Vote:
AYES: COUNCILMEN: Sneegas, Stephenson, Pebley, Thom and Dutton
NOES: COUNCILMEN: None
ABSENT: COUNCILMEN: None
The Mayor declared Resolution No. 72R -556 duly passed and adopted.
RESOLUTION I. 7557 AMENDMENT TO SALARY RESOLUTION: Mr. Garry McRae recommended
new job classification "apprentice fireman" be created and allocated to compen-
sation schedule S106C -E ($712.40 786.93), to be effective November 17, 1972.
RESOLUTION NO. 72R-557: Councilman Pebley offered Resolution No. 72R -557 for
adoption.
Refer to Resolution Book.
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AMENDING RESOLUTION
NO. 72R -467 AND ESTABLISHING A RATE OF COMPENSATION FOR A NEW JOB CLASS.
72-793
City Hall. Anaheim. California COUNCIL MINUTES November 21. 1972. 1 :30 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-557 duly passed and adopted.
RESOLUTION NO. 72R -558 AMENDMENT TO SALARY RESOLUTION: Mr. Garry McRae recom-
mended job classification "planning supervisor" be reinstated and allocated
to compensation schedule X959 ($1,367.60 1,662.27) to be effective
November 17, 1972.
RESOLUTION NO. 72R -558: Councilman Pebley offered Resolution No. 72R -558
for adoption.
Refer to Resolution Book.
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AMENDING RESOLUTION
NO. 72R -509 AND ESTABLISHING A RATE OF COMPENSATION FOR A NEW JOB CLASS.
Roll Call Vote:
AYES: COUNCILMEN: Sneegas, Stephenson, Pebley, Thom and Dutton
NOES: COUNCILMEN: None
ABSENT: COUNCILMEN: None
The Mayor declared Resolution No. 72R -558 duly passed and adopted.
PERMI TO LEAVE THE STATE COUNCILMEN DUTTON AND SNEEGAS: On motion by
Councilman Pebley, seconded by Councilman Stephenson, Councilmen Dutton and
Sneegas were granted permission to leave the State for a period of 90 days.
MOTION CARRIED.
(RtEE1ELT.COMMITTEE BUDGET: On motion by Councilman Dutton, seconded by Councilman
Thom, the City's portion of the Greenbelt Committee Budget in the amount of
$6,300.00 was approved and Councilman Sneegas authorized to cast his vote to
approve said Budget. MOTION CARRIED.
COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICT NOS. 2 AND 3 CONNECTION FEES: Councilman Stephenson
informed the Council that the public hearings regarding Sanitation District
Nos. 2 and 3 increased charges and connection fees are scheduled for. December
20, 1972, 7:30 P.M., and January 3, 1973, 7:30 P.M., respectively, at the
sanitation plant in Fountain Valley, and that he is planning to attend these
hearings.
RECESS EXECUTIVE SESSION: At the request of the City Manager, Councilman Pebley
moved to recess to executive session. Councilman Sneegas seconded the motion.
MOTION CARRIED. (4:10 P.M.)
AFTER RECESS: Mayor Dutton called the meeting to order, all Councilmen being
present. (5:25 P.M.)
CITY EMPLOYEES' BLUE CROSS HEALTH INSURANCE PREMIUM- DECEMBER: On motion by
Councilman Pebley, seconded by Councilman Sneegas, payment of Blue Cross
Health Insurance Premium for City Employees for the month of December was
authorized. MOTION CARRIED.
ANAHW HILLS GQLF COURSE CONCESSIONAIRE: On motion by Councilman Stephenson,
seconded by Councilman Sneegas, the letter proposal (dated October 17, 1972)
submitted by Mr. Roy Millar, to operate as concessionaire for the Anaheim
Hilts Golf Course was accepted and the City Attorney authorized to prepare
the necessary contract. MOTION CARRIED.
FOREII ST IRRIGATION MAINTENANCE OF ANAHEIM HILLS GOLF COURSE: Councilman
Stephenson moved that the City not accept the proposal submitted by Foremost
Irrigation for maintenance at Anaheim Hills Golf Course. Councilman Thom
seconded the motion.
72-794
City Ha11. Anaheim. California COUNCIL MINUTES November 21. 1972. 1 :30 P.M.
Roll call vote was requested by Councilman Dutton.
AYES: COUNCILMEN: Stephenson, Pebley and Thom
NOES: COUNCILMEN: Sneegas and Dutton
ABSENT: COUNCILMEN: None
MOTION CARRIED.
ADJOURNMENT: Councilman Sneegas moved to adjourn, Councilman Thom seconded the
motion. MOTION CARRIED.
Signed
Adjourned: 5:30 P.M.
a
City Clerk
City Hall, Anaheim, California COUNCIL MINUTES November 28, 1972, 1 :30 P.M.
The City Council of the City of Anaheim met in regular session
PRESENT: COUNCILMEN: Pebley, Thom and Stephenson
ABSENT: COUNCILMEN: Sneegas and Dutton
PRESENT: CITY MANAGER: Keith A. Murdoch
ASSISTANT CITY MANAGER: Robert M. Davis
ASSISTANT CITY ATTORNEY: John H. Dawson
DEPUTY CITY CLERK: Alona M. Farrens
CITY ENGINEER: James P. Maddox
CHIEF OF POLICE: David B. Michel
ASSISTANT DIRECTOR OF DEVELOPMENT SERVICES: Ronald Thompson
ZONING SUPERVISOR: Charles Roberts
Mayor Pro Tem Stephenson called the meeting to order.
INVOCATION: Reverend Paul Keller of the First Presbyterian Church gave the
Invocation.
FLAG SALUTE: Councilman Calvin L. Pebley led the Assembly in the Pledge of
Allegiance to the Flag.
WAIVER OF READING ORDINANCES AND RESOLUTIONS: Councilman Pebley moved to waive the
reading in full of all ordinances and resolutions, and that consent to the waiver
of reading is hereby given by all Councilmen unless, after reading the title,
specific request is made by a Councilman for the reading of such ordinance or
resolution. Councilman. Stephenson seconded the motion. MOTION UNANIMOUSLY
CARRIED.
REPORT FINANCIAL DEMANDS AGAINST THE CITY: Demands against the City, in the amount
of $167,590.46, in accordance with the 1972 -73 Budget, were approved.
REQUESTS FOR CONTINUANCE: The Deputy City Clerk reported two separate requests have
been received for a one week's continuance to allow for a full council on
Environmental Impact Report No. 45, rehearing on Reclassification No. 72 -73 -16
and Variance No. 2406, and Environmental Impact Report No. 60.
On motion by Councilman Pebley, seconded by Councilman Stephenson,
Environmental Impact Report No. 45, rehearing on Reclassification No. 72 -73 -16
and Variance No. 2406, and Environmental Impact Report No. 60 wore continued to
December 5, 1972, 1 :30,P.M. MOTION CARRIED.
ENVIRONMENT* IMPACT REPORT NO. 54: Filed in conjunction with Reclassification No.
72 -73 -21 and Variance No. 2436 for property located on the east side of Sunkist
Street, north of Lincoln Avenue.
Zoning Supervisor Roberts briefed the Council on the findings of the
Environmental Impact Report Review Committee, noting that this project would