Loading...
1972/12/0572 -806 City Hall, Anaheim, California COUNCIL MINUTES December 5, 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 TRAFFIC ENGINEER: Edward Granzow Mayor Dutton called the meeting to order. INVOCATION: Father John Saville of the St. Michaels Episcopal Church gave the Invocation. FLAG SALUTE: Councilman Mark A. Stephenson led the Assembly in the Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag. INTRODUCTION OF NEW EMPLOYEES: Mr. Frank Campagnoni, of the City Personnel Department, introduced 21 new employees attending the Council meeting as part of the City's orientation program. Mayor Dutton welcomed the new employees. GIFT TO THE CITY FIRST CHURCH OF CHRIST, SCIENTIST: The following letter was received by Mayor Dutton and ordered spread in full upon the minutes. "Dear Friends: November 29, 1972 The Executive Board, on behalf of the members of. First Church of Christ, Scientist, Anaheim, is happy to present the City of Anaheim, to do with as they see fit, a gift of $300 in gratitude for services rendered by the City. We are all interested in the growth and development of our city and share with.you the joy of participation in this ac- tivity. With all good wishes, EXECUTIVE BOARD /S/ Betty Taylor (Mrs.) Betty Taylor, Clerk" Mayor Dutton expressed appreciation on behalf of the City and stated this was highly commendable and most worthy of note; that this was apparently the first time that such a gift in expression of gratitude has ever been given to the City of Anaheim. On motion by Councilman Pebley, seconded by Councilman Stephenson, said gift in the amount of $300.00 was accepted with thanks and ordered deposited in the General Fund. MOTION CARRIED. MINUTES: The Minutes of the Anaheim City Council Regular Meeting held October 31, 1972, were approved on motion by Councilman Thom, seconded by Councilman Pebley. MOTION CARRIED. WAIVER OF READING ORDINANCES AND RESOLUTIONS: Councilman Thom moved to waive the reading in full of all ordinances and resolutions, and that consent to the waiver of reading is hereby given by all Councilmen unless, after reading of such titles,' specific request is made by a Councilman for the reading of such ordinance or resolution. Councilman Pebley seconded the motion. MOTION UNANIMOUSLY CARRIED. REPORT; FICIAL DEMANDS AGAINST THE CITY: Demands against the City, in the amount of $l,l 2,5'19.61, in accord IE ance with the 1972 -73 Budget, were approved. 1 City Hall, Anaheim, California COUNCIL MINUTES December 5, 1972, 1 :30 P.M. PUBLIC HEARING RECLASSIFICATION NO. 72 -73 -8, VARIANCE NO. 2403, CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 1330 AND ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT NO. 9: Was submitted by Orange County Flood Control District requesting change of zone from R -A to C -1, for the construction of three office buildings on portions B and C and to establish a carwash on Portion A; property located at the southwest corner of Crescent Avenue and Brookhurst Street with waivers of: a. Maximum building height. b. Zone boundary wall. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT NO. 9: E.I.R. No. 9 and Committee Analysis thereof, finding no significant impact on existing development in the area together with City Planning Commission's Resolution No. PC72 -259, noting certain deficiencies in the Environmental Impact Report and recommending it not be adopted as the Council's Statement was submitted. On motion by Councilman Dutton, seconded by Councilman Pebley, the Environmental Impact Report and Committee Analysis thereof, was accepted as the Council's Statement. (To this motion Councilman Thom voted "no" being of the opinion that a service station would have a significant impact on the environ- ment4i) MOTION CARRIED. RECLASSIFICATION NO. 72-3-8, VARIANCE NO. 2403 AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 1330: The City Planning Commission pursuant to Resolution No. PC72 -260, recommended said reclassification be denied -and pursuant to Resolution No. PC72 -261, denied Variance No. 2403 and by motion approved withdrawal of Conditional Use Permit No. 1330 as the Petitioner no longer planned to establish a carwash on subject property. Mr. Roberts noted location of subject property and existing uses and zoning in the immediate vicinity. He reported that Parcel A at the corner is intended to be developed for a service station with one driveway approach from Crescent Avenue and one and one -half driveway approaches to Brookhurst Street. South of the service station site to be developed for retail commercial and office use with the remaining one -half driveway approach to Brookhurst Street and one driveway to Crescent Avenue. Parcel C to be developed into two two story office buildings with three driveway approaches to Brookhurst Street. Mr. Roberts advised that subject property had been previously offered for sale to the City of Anaheim for a park site, which offer was declined. Mr. Roberts read the findings of the City Planning Commission in support of their recommended denial. With reference to the finding pertaining to the vacancy factor of service stations, Councilman Pebley asked if the City Planning Commission also considers the vacancy factors of apartment houses and office buildings. In his opinion, a vacancy factor should not be a basis of denial and economics should not be a consideration in land use. Councilman Sneegas felt the objective was to eliminate service station failures and the building becoming an eyesore which is basically the responsi- bility of the oil companies and as such perhaps the record of performance of the oil company making the application should be taken into consideration. He noted Mobil 0i1 Company (applicant in question) had not closed stations within the City and were in all probability operating some stations at a loss rather than closing. He noted also some oil companies have abandoned operations without re- gard to anyone. In conclusion, Mr. Roberts called attention to an area on the plans designated as a "sales area" which there is no clarification as to what would be sold and as result it could be food products and similar to a previous application denied by the City Council. Mr. Harry Knisely, Attorney, 1741 South Euclid Street, appearing on behalf of the applicant noted that the waivers requested were technical in nature in that the property abutts the Anaheim Municipal Golf Course. He noted also that no waivers for the service station development were being requested. T 72 -807 72 -808 City Hall, Anaheim California COUNCIL MINUTES December 5, 1972, 1 :30 P.M. He reported that in this situation, Mobil Oil Company will be purchasing the property and the station will be company owned and operated. Mr. Knisely stated that at the City Planning Commission hearing there was no real discussion or objection to the commercial zoning, that all objections seemed to be directed to the service station only. He called attention to the flood control channel facility that will run under the parcel on which the station will be located which limits development to an open type construction so that the channel is assessable and can be maintained. Another fact, although not related to land use, was that subject property is in escrow contingent on zoning; which escrow provides for an exchange of approximately 87 acres known as "Yorba Lake" to be traded to the County for a regional park. Councilman Pebley noted that a waiver to the height limitation was also granted to the office development south of subject property. The Mayor asked if anyone else wished to address the Council, either for or against said applications. There being no response, declared the hearing closed. Discussion by the Council continued and Mr. Knisely was asked to ex- plained the area designated as "sales area Mr. Knisely replied that the unit proposed is a self- service station the same as being constructed at the intersections of Magnolia Avenue and Garden Grove Boulevard and the sales area is intended for vending machines and oil; no food items as far as a convenience market would be Concerned. He noted that a market is to be a part of the overall project. Mr. Roberts advised in the event of approval, staff would recommend that the block wall on the westerly side of subject property for the north 238 feet not be waived due to possible unsightly conditions such as trash storage, etc., that would be viewed from the Anaheim Municipal Golf Course. RESOLUTION NO. 72R -570: Councilman Pebley offered Resolution No. 72R -570 for adoption, authorizing preparation of necessary ordinance changing the one as requested subject to the following conditions: 1. That street lighting facilities along Brookhurst Street and Crescent Avenue shall be installed as required by the Director of Public Utilities and in accordance with standard plans and specifications on file in the office of the Director of Public Utilities; and that a bond in an amount and form satisfactory to the City of Anaheim shall be posted with the City to guarantee the installation of the above mentioned requirements. 2. That the owner(s) of subject property shall pay to the City of Anaheim the sum of 15 cents per front foot along Brookhurst Street and Crescent Avenue for tree planting purposes. 3. That sidewalks and driveways shall be installed along Brookhurst Street and Crescent Avenue as required by the City Engineer and in accordance with standard plans and specifications on file in the office of the City Engineer. 4. That trash storage areas shall be provided in accordance with ap- proved plans on file with the office of the Director of Public Works. 5. That fire hydrants shall be installed and charged as required and determined to be necessary by the Chief of the Fire Department prior to any structural framing on the site. 6. That all air conditioning facilities shall be properly shielded from view, and the sound buffered from adjacent properties. 7. That subject property shall be served by underground utilities. 8. That a parcel map to record the approved division of subject pro- perties be submitted to and approved by the City of Anaheim and then be recorded in the office of the Orange County Recorder. 9. That ordinances reclassifying the property shall be adopted as each parcel is ready to comply with conditions pertaining to such parcel, however, that the word "parcel" shall mean presently existing parcels of record and any parcel or parcels approved by the City Council for a lot split. 10. That subject property shall be developed substantially in accordance with plans and specification on file with the City of Anaheim marked Exhibit No.•1, Revision No. 1, provided that the location of the proposed buildings in relation to 72 -809 City Hall, Anaheim, California COUNCIL MINUTES December 5, 1972, 1 :30 P.M. the Crescent Storm Drain conduit and the Carbon Creek Channel conduit shall be approved by the Orange County Flood Control District and further provided that a six -foot high decorative masonry wall shall be constructed along the northerly 238 -feet of the westerly property line. 11. Prior to the introduction of an ordinance rezoning subject pro- perty, Condition Nos. 1, 2 and 8,above mention, shall be completed. The pro- visions or rights granted by this resolution shall become null and void by action of the City Council unless said conditions are complied with within one -year from the date hereof, or such further time as the City Council may grant. 12. That Condition Nos. 3, 4, 6, 7, and 10, above mentioned, shall be complied with prior to final building and zoning inspections. Refer to Resolution Book. A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM FINDING AND DETER- MINING THAT TITLE 18 OF THE ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO ZONING SHOULD BE AMENDED AND THAT THE BOUNDARIES OF CERTAIN ZONES SHOULD BE CHANGED. (72 -73 -8 C -1) Roll Call Vote: AYES: COUNCILMEN: Sneegas, Stephenson, Pebley and Dutton NOES: COUNCILMEN: Thom ABSENT: COUNCILMEN: None The Mayor declared Resolution No. 72R -570 duly passed and adopted. RESOLUTION NO. 72R -571: Councilman Pebley offered Resolution No. 72R -571 for adoption, granting Variance No. 2403, waiver (a) and waiver (b) as it pertains to the wall to be constructed on the west property line, south of the north 238 feet, subject to the following conditions: 1. That this variance is granted subject to the completion of Reclassification No. 72-73-8, now pending. 2. That subject property shall be developed substantially in accordance with plans and specifications on file with the City of Anaheim marked Exhibit Nos. 1 (Revision No. 1, 2, 3 and 4. Refer to Resolution Book. A RESOLUTION OF THE C TY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM GRANTING VARIANCE NO. 2403, IN PART. Ad V4 Roll Call Vote: AYES: COUNCILMEN: Sneegas, Stephenson, Pebley and Dutton NOES: COUNCILMEN: Thom ABSENT: •COUNCILMEN: None The Mayor declared Resolution No. 72R -571 duly passed and adopted. CONpITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 1330: Conditional Use Permit No. 1330 having been withdrawn, no further action was taken by the City Council. PUBLIC HEARING HOUSEEDVING PERMITS: Application by Mr. James E. Grose, to move two structures from 9076 and 9083 Duarte Road, Arcadia, California, to 1601 and 1605 East South Santa Ana Street, Anaheim, was submitted. Communication dated November 29, 1972, from the Applicant was read, requesting said hearings be terminated as he had located, what in his opinion, were three superior structures and as result was processing new applications for three permits to move dwellings onto 1595, 1601 and 1605 East Santa Ana Street, requesting hearing at the earliest possible date. Termination of public hearings were authorized as requested on motion by Councilman Pebley, seconded by Councilman Stephenson, LOTION CARRIED. PUBLIC HEARING HOjTSEMOVING PERMIT: Public hearing was held on application filed by R. V. Nation, to move a structure from 3630 West Westminster Street, Santa Ana,. to 2421 Marian Avenue, Anaheim, (south of Broadway, west of Gilbert Street). Development Services Department recommended said housemoving permit be granted subject to the following conditions: Amended pursuant to action of the City Council on January 2, 1973, 72 -810 City Hall, Anaheim, California COUNCIL MINUTES December 5, 1972, 1 :30 P.M. 1. That the owner(s) of the subject property shall pay to the City of Anaheim the appropriate Park and Recreation in -lieu fees as determined to be appropriate by the City Council, said fees to be paid at the time the building permit is issued. 2. That a parcel map to record the approved division of subject pro- perty be submitted to and approved by the City of Anaheim and then be recorded in the office of the Orange County Recorder prior to the issuance of a building permit. The Mayor asked if anyone wished to address the Council. Mr. Charles Barr, 2118 South Euclid Street, apartment C, Anaheim, brother of owner of 2459 Marian Avenue, addressed the Council in opposition being of the opinion that the house was not compatable to those on Marian Avenue. Mr. Ron Nation, Applicant, advised that a group of his "to be new" neighbors were present in support of his application, based on his stipulation that he would sandblast and repaint the structure and do everything within reason to make it acceptable to them. Those addressing the Council were: a. Mr. A. Bolton Blasingham, 2413 Marian Avenue. b. Mrs. Sadie Moch, 2425 Marian Avenue. c. Mrs. Virginia Evans, 320 South Ramm Drive. The main concern of those addressing the Council was the change in the roof line and how the front would be remodeled. (pictures of the structure reviewed by the City Council.) Regarding the roof line, Mr. Nation noted that the structure presently is a long straight building and according to the plans submitted, the end with the garage must be turned so that the structure will become U- shaped with two gable ends and one middle section. He advised that this will break up the roof line which appears to be the wishes of the neighbors. It was reported that the bond required to be posted by the Applicant would assure whatever is indicated on the plans and whatever is stipulated to be done before a use and occupancy permit is issued. The Mayor asked if anyone else wished to address the Council, there being no response, declared the hearing closed. RESOLUT ON NO. 72R -572: Councilman Stephenson offered Resolution No. 72R -572 for adoption, granting housemoving permit as requested,subject to the conditions recommended by the Development Services Department and further subject to the Applicant's stipulation that the building will be remodeled according to plans and will be sandblasted and repainted. Refer to Resolution Book. A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM GRANTING A HOUSE MOVING PERMIT TO R. V. NATION, TO MOVE A DWELLING /BUILDING FROM 3630 WEST WESTMINISTER, SANTA ANA, CALIFORNIA, TO 2421 MARIAN AVENUE, ANAHEIM, CALIFORNIA. Roll Call Vote: AYES: COUNCILMEN: Sneegas, Stephenson, Pebley, Thom and Dutton NOES: COUNCILMEN: None ABSENT: COUNCILMEN: None The Mayor declared Resolution No. 72R -572 duly passed and adopted. PUBLIC HEAR MOHLER DRIVE ANNEXATION (INHABITED): In accordance with Resolution MO. 72R 541, duly published in the Anaheim Bulletin November 20, 1972, and November 30, 1972, public hearing was held on the proposed annexation of inhabited territory designated as "Mohler Drive Annexation" being 520.441 acres in the City Hall, Anaheim, California COUNCIL MINUTES December 5, 1972, 1 :30 P.M. Santa Ana Canyon area, located generally south of Santa Ana Canyon Road and east of Walnut Canyon Road. The City Clerk reported that no written protests to said annexation has been filed in the office of the City Clerk. Mayor Dutton asked if anyone wished to address the Council verbally protesting said annexation. There being no response, declared the hearing closed. RESOLUTION NO. 72R -573: Councilman Stephenson offered Resolution No. 72R -573 for adoption. Refer to Resolution Book. A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM FINDING AND DETER- MINING THAT NO PROTESTS WERE MADE IN THE PROCEEDINGS FOR THE ANNEXATION`OF' CERTAIN INHABITED TERRITORY TO THE CITY OF ANAHEIM KNOWN AS MOHLER DRIVE ANNEXATION. Roll Call Vote: AYES: COUNCILMEN: Sneegas, Stephenson, Pebley, Thom and Dutton NOES: COUNCILMEN: None ABSENT: COUNCILMEN: None The Mayor declared Resolution No. 72R -573 duly passed and adopted. RESOLUTION NO. 72R -574: Councilman Sneegas offered Resolution No. 72R -574 for adoption. Refer to Resolution Book. 72 -811 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM CALLING AND GIVING NOTICE OF A SPECIAL ELECTION PURSUANT TO GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION NO. 35122, RELATING TO MOHLER DRIVE. ANNEXATION. Roll Call Vote: AYES: COUNCILMEN: Sneegas, Stephenson, Pebley, Thom and Dutton NOES: COUNCILMEN: None ABSENT: COUNCILMEN: None The Mayor declared Resolution No. 72R -574 duly passed and adopted. PUBLIC HEARING HOUSEMOVING PERMIT: In accordance with action taken by the City Council November 21, 1972, rehearing was scheduled on application filed by Mr. J. D. Malone, to move a structure from 9066 Duarte Road, Temple City, California to 4500 East Cerro Vista Drive, Anaheim, California. Said permit was previously denied pursuant to Resolution No. 72R -533 adopted November 14, 1972. The City Clerk reported all communications received since prepar- ation of the agenda have been duplicated and copies furnished each member of the Council with the exception of protests received this morning filed by Mr. Richard Garabedian. Area map prepared by Development Services Department indicating log► cation of properties represented on original petition of protest, with the exception of the Garabedian property and Cutler property (received too late for inclusions) was submitted and posted on the east wall of the Council Chambers for review. Mr. John Valentine, 635 East Chapman Avenue, Orange, Agent for the Applicant, posted on the east wall of the Council Chambers two architectural renderings of the front and rear elevation of the home as it will appear upon completion. 72 -812 City Hall, Anaheim, California COUNCIL MINUTES December 5, 1972, 1 :30 P.M. Mr. Valentine submitted into evidence letters of approval received from: a. Sid Lewis, owner of six acres directly to the west. b. Richard A. Nogy and Harold W. Johnson representing Brothers Investment Company, owners of 3.2 acres across the street from subject property. c. Marjorie Corso, owner of one acre lot, one lot removed from subject property. Also submitted was appraisal of property by James E. Willard and Associates valuing the property upon completion, $85,000.00 to $95,000.00 plus termite inspection report from Paramount Pest Control Service of Santa Ana finding no visible structural damage from the prior infestations. Mr. Valentine recognizing the concern of the residents in the area, requested an opportunity to meet with them to fully explain the plans and agreed to an condition of approval that the plans and specifications for the remodeling of the structure will comply with the architectural renderings as shown. Mrs. Harriet Hermann, 150 Cerro Vista Way, and representative of Eldon G. and Thalia I. Cutler, as verified by letter sent to the City Council, advised that they were the two closest neighbors in that their properties were adjacent to subject property and that they, along with others, were very much opposed to the move -in due to the facts set forth in their letters previously filed with the City Council. Mrs. Hermann briefed the Council on how the proposal was originally presented to them by Mr. Malone, and how appalled they were to learn that the move -in was not a 15 year old 4,000 square foot house as stated, that as the records will show, a smaller 35 year old house with buckled floorboards, warped shutters, termites and dryrot. She advised of the depreciation to their property even having the building temporarily stored on the property. Mrs. Hermann again related a similar experience while owner of property in the La Harbra Heights area wherein a great deal of money was loss due to an older house in the area. In conclusion, Mrs. Hermann reported that Mr. Malone would lose no money if the permit is denied as the proposal is on an contingency basis and in addition, he has filed a letter with the City that in event of denial the City would not be held responsible. Mrs. Hermann doubted the house would be remodeled according to plans and felt that the interior plans should also be presented. She stated that from the sketchy plans shown by Mr. Malone, he advised while showing the plans a certain amount of changes he might make. Mr. Rolland Krueger, 561 Peralta Hills Drive, reported that they in opposition can prove the age of the house to be 35 years and the worth to be $17,000.00. With the aid of a map, Mr. Krueger noted those parcels in red repre- senting the owners of properties who signed the petition in opposition. He re- ferred to two petitions, one for the local area and one for a greater area, and reported that within the immediate area there were only four houses, one being that of -Mr. Alan.Orsborn (disqualified on the basis of his position.with the City) and in the immediate area, seven of the eight property owners have signed against the proposal, or 90%. The 1,000 foot perimeter of subject property, or greater area, represents opposition in the amount of 75 Mr. Krueger advised that this was the first time that he or anyone else has seen the renderings. Councilman Pebley asked if the area residents would approve if the ren- derings were made a part and condition of approval. Mr. Krueger replied that he would have to consult his constituents, however, because of his changing his mind, no one now has confidence in what Mr. Malone says he will do. 72 -813 City Hall, Anaheim, California COUNCIL MINUTES December 5, 1972, 1 :30 P.M. In answer to question of Councilman Dutton, as to the percentage of opposition, Mr. Krueger reported protests represent 66% of the total owner- ship in the Peralta Hills area and 75% or 80% of the total residents living there. Mr. Valentine, regarding the renderings which were not presented to anyone until now, advised that the renderings were just received from the architect at 10 :30 a.m. this morning and that they could not be drawn until the specifications and plans were completed so that they could be drawn from the plans. He thereupon requested a one -week continuance for an opportunity to meet with the opposition in an attempt to fully explain the plans. Councilman Sneegas stated that he had suggested a continuance from the first hearing for further explanation to the residents and Mr. Malone's Attorney had disagreed. As a result he felt it unfair to cause the residents to come back time and time again. Mr. Valentine reported that the residents would not have to come back as a letter setting forth their position after their meeting with them would suffice. There was general indication of disapproval from the residents pre- sent regarding a one -week continuance. It being determined sufficient evidence and testimony had been pre- sented, Mayor Dutton declared the hearing closed. RESOLUTION NO. 72R -575: Councilman Stephenson offered Resolution No. 72R -575 for adoption, denying said housemoving permit. Refer to Resolution Book. A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM DENYING A HOUSE MOVING PERMIT TO MR. J. D. MALONE, TO MOVE A DWELLING /BUILDING FROM 9066 DUARTE ROAD, TEMPLE CITY, CALIFORNIA, TO 4500 EAST CERRO VISTA DRIVE, ANAHEIM, CALIFORNIA. Roll Call Vote: AYES: COUNCILMEN: NOES: COUNCILMEN: ABSENT: COUNCILMEN: Sneegas, Stephenson, Pebley, Thom and Dutton None None The Mayor declared Resolution No. 72R -575 duly passed and adopted. CONTN�D RE- HEARING RECLASSIFICATION NO. 72- 73 -16, VARIANCE NO. 2406 AND ENVIR- ONME -AL IMPACT REPORT NO. 45: Application submitted by Mr. and Mrs. Donald L. McIntosh, requesting a change in zone from R -1 to C -1 to establish an office in an existing residential structure and a convenience market at the corner of property located on the southwest corner of Lincoln Avenue and Gilbert Street, with waivers of: a. Requirement that all parking be provided to the rear of a residential structure. b. Minimum 8 -foot separation for pedestrian access. c. Required 6 -foot solid masonry wall abutting a residential zone. Said applications were denied pursuant to Resolution Nos..72R -399 and granted October 10, 1972, and scheduled time said hearing was continued to this of the Applicant's Agent. by the City Council September 12, 1972, 72R -400. Request for re- hearing was to be held November 28, 1972 at which date for a full Council at the request ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT NO. 45: E.I.R. No. 45 and Committee Analysis there- of, was submitted and adopted as the Council's Statement on motion by Councilman Thom, seconded by Councilman Pebley. MOTION CARRIED. PUBLIC HEARING: Mr. Bill Asawa, 806 South Beach Boulevard, representing the Applicant, submitted pictures showing condition of the property and newspaper 72 -814 City Hall, Anaheim, California COUNCIL MINUTES December 5, 1972, 1 :30 P.M. article and picture of students from the Juliette Low School cleaning subject lot. He also submitted to the Councilman, copies of a study conducted by the City of Santa Ana in 1967, wherein it was purportedly determined that it was com- patible to have a convenience market in a residential area providing certain con- ditions existed. One of the conditions being that the location would front on an arterial highway. Mr. Asawa reported since the last application to rezone subject property there has been constructed 322 apartment units in the area within walking dis- tance plus an 81 -unit motel across the street. In his opinion, a 7 -11 Convenience Market on the property would be an asset to the community in that it would be a market to serve their needs that they could walk to. He advised that a survey made of the apartment managers in the area indicated they favored the project. Mr. Asawa further reported that in an exchange of properties in 1965. He paid with the projected property tax plus should the requested use become a reality revenue to the City by approximately nine the owner of the property acquired it compared the property tax currently sales tax that could be anticipated and noted that it would increase the times. In conclusion, Mr. Asawa advised that the request is for a specific use, a 7 -11 food store, and that they were in position to proceed at once subject to the Council's approval. Mr. J. E. Pruett, representing Mrs. Hazel Epkens, owner of the corner parcel of property, addressed the Council urging approval, advising they were not asking for anything unslightly but just a clean,proven and really desirable neighborhood market. He noted that a family moving into the neighborhood could do more damage to the neighborhood than the ills imagined that this enterprise would bring. Mrs. Hazel Epkens stated she neither felt nor wanted anything that was not honest and upright and that she contacted many of the neighbors and they were most cordial towards her and some had signified their approval by signing their petition. She further advised that if subject application was not approved, she would be forced to sell and sacrifice her own home. Mr. Dean Graham, 133 South Gilbert Street, addressed the Council in op- position and refered to a petition of protest purportedly signed by 90 residents in the area. He advised that their main objection was the traffic congestion at the corner and the hazard created to the safety of 129 elementary school children crossing at that intersection daily. In addition, he felt a C -0 use would be more compatible with the neighborhood than a 7 -11 market with the atten- dant noise and lights. Mr. Graham referred to the fronton study made by the City Planning Commission in 1967, wherein it was recommended that subject property not be ap- proved for commercial conversion. Mr. Graham called attention to the inassessability of the property caused by the center divider on Lincoln Avenue and the narrow width of Gilbert Street. In conclusion, he again advised of their approval of an office use for the property, as stated they were not opposed to utilization of the lot, but only the utilization that is being requested. Mrs. Jacqueline (Walter) Dudek, 2443 Level, addressed the Council in opposition, advising that in her opinion there was no need for another 7 -11 market as there is one within .6 of a mile from her home and that there are other stores existing within a one mile radius of subject property. Mr. Asawa, in rebuttal, called attention to the petition favoring the application, containing 17 signatures of those residents within the 300-foot perimeter. He noted that the residence to the south of subject property will be used as an office and as a buffer to the residential area further south. 1 1 1 v Refer to Resolution Book. Roll Call Vote: 72 -815 City Hall, Anaheim, California COUNCIL MINUTES December 5, 1972, 1 :30 P.M. The Mayor asked if anyone else wished to address the Council, there being no response, declared the hearing closed. Council discussion followed, and Councilman Thom noted that with one or two exceptions, the people who directly abut subject property, are in op- position to the application. Councilman Stephenson felt the market use could create a hazardous situation at this intersection. Councilman Dutton was particularly opposed to a 24-hour operation next to a residential use. RESOLUTION NO. 72R -576: Councilman Thom offered Resolution No. 72R -576 for adoption, denying Reclassification No. 72- 73 -16. A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM FINDING AND DETER- MINING THAT A CHANGE OF ZONE SHOULD NOT BE GRANTED IN A CERTAIN AREA OF THE CITY HEREINAFTER DESCRIBED. (72- 73 -16) AYES: COUNCILMEN: Sneegas, Stephenson, Pebley, Thom and Dutton NOES: COUNCILMEN: None ABSENT: COUNCILMEN: None The Mayor declared Resolution No. 72R -576 duly passed and adopted. RESOLUTION NO. 72R 577: Councilman Thom offered Resolution No. 72R -577 for adoption, denying Variance No. 2406. Refer to Resolution Book. ,4Q DENYING A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM -G ANPWN6 VARIANCE NO. 2406. 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. REQUEST EXTENSION OF TIME TENTATIVE TRACT NO. 7471. REVISION NO. 1: Submitted by John C. Vann, Jr., Ponderosa Homes, requesting an extension of time for Tract No. 7471, Revision 1, being a subdivision of 78 R- 2-5000 zoned lots on R -A zoned property located south of Esperanza Road, east of Imperial Highway. City Clerk reported that Development Services Department recommends extension, subject to extension of Reclassification No. 70-71-25 which is scheduled to be considered by Council on December 12, 1972. By general Council consent, request for extension of time to Tract No. 7471, Revision No. 1, was held over for one week to be considered at the same time as extension of time for Reclassification No. 70- 71-25. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT NO. 70 (TRACT NO. 7568): EXTENSION OF TIME. TRACT NO. 7568: Submitted by Grant Company of California together with Committee Analysis in conjunction with 101 R-H-10,000 zoned lots on property located south of Nohl Ranch Road, east of Royal Oak Road. Mr. Roberts summarized the findings of the E.I.R. Review Committee and advised the Council that the report submitted referred to more than the proposed 118 acre R -H- 10,000 project as it had been approved, as the report alluded to inclusion of a 215-unit townhouse development not yet proposed. The Committee feels when the townhouse development is proposed, a separate Environmental Impact Report should be filed. Amended pursuant to action of January 2, 1973 by the City Council. T 72 -816 City Hall, Anaheim, California COUNCIL MINUTES December 5, 1972, 1 :30 P.M. On motion by Councilman Dutton, seconded by Councilman Stephenson, the City Council accepted Environmental Impact Report No. 70 and Committee Analysis thereof, and adopted that portion which pertains to the R- H- 10,000 lots as the Council's Statement. MOTION CARRIED. On motion by Councilman Dutton, seconded by Councilman Sneegas, a one year extension of time was granted to Tentative Tract No.. 7568, retroactively to October 19, 1972. MOTION CARRIED. FINAL MAP,TRACT NO. 7568: Developer, Grant Company of California; tract located south of Nohl Ranch Road, east of Royal Oak Road, containing 101 R -H- 10,000 zoned lots. The City Engineer recommended approval and reported that said final map conforms substantially with the tentative map previously approved, that bond has been forwarded to the City Attorney for approval,and required fees paid. On recommendation of the City Engineer, Councilman Stephenson moved that Final Map, Tract No. 7568, be approved subject to approval of the bond by the City Attorney. Councilman Sneegas seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. CITY PLANNING COMMISSION ITEMS: Actions taken by the City Planning Commission at their meeting held November 13, 1972, pertaining to the following applications, were submitted for City Council information and consideration: CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 1351 AND ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT NO. 5: Submitted by Aldor Corporation and considered by the City Planning Commission November 13, 1972, to establish a truck maintenance center and yard on M -1 zoned property located on the south side of Miraloma Avenue, east of Jefferson Street, with waivers of: a. Permitted outdoor uses. b. Outdoor use screening requirements. (Withdrawn) The City Planning Commission pursuant to Resolution No. PC72 -278, recommended due to the trivial impact of the proposed development upon the envir- onment, no statement be made and pursuant to Resolution No. PC72 -281, granted said conditional use permit in part, subject to conditions. On motion by Councilman Pebley, seconded by Councilman Sneegas, the City Council received E.I.R. No. 5 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. No further action was taken on Conditional Use Permit No. 1351. VARIANCE NO. 2453 AND ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT NO. 31: Submitted by Income Equity, Ltd., and considered by the City Planning Commission November 13, 1972, to erect a 50 -foot high free standing sign on C -0 zoned property, located on the south side of Ball Road, east of Palm Street, with waiver of: a. Height of free standing signs. The City Planning Commission pursuant to Resolution No. PC72 -282, recommended due to the trivial impact of the request upon the environment, no statement be made, and pursuant to Resolution No. PC72 -283 denied said variance. On motion by Councilman Pebley, seconded by Councilman Stephenson, the City Council received E.I.R. No. 31, 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. No further action was taken on the Variance No. 2453. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 1352 AND ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT NO. 19: Submitted by Francis J. Schiller, et al, and considered by the City Planning Commission 72 -817 City Hall. Anaheim. California COUNCIL MINUTES December 5. 1972. 1:30 P.M. November 13, 1972, to establish corporate headquarters and an operational site for refurbishment, customization and storage of mobile and modular offices on R -A zoned property, located on the north side of La Jolla Street, west of Kraemer Boulevard, with waivers of: a. Outdoor storage area screening requirement. b. Permitted outdoor uses. c. Definition of a building. d. Minimum front setback. (Withdrawn) The City Planning Commission pursuant to Resolution No. PC72-284, recommended that due to the insignificant impact of the request upon the environment, no statement need be made, and pursuant to Resolution No. PC72- 285, granted said conditional use permit in part, subject to conditions. On motion by Councilman Stephenson, seconded by Councilman Pebley, the City Council received E.I.R. No. 19 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. No further action was taken on Conditional Use Permit No. 1352. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 1353 AND ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT NO 15: Sub- mitted by Phoenix Club and considered by the City Planning Commission November 13, 1972, to establish a recreational vehicle service center on R -A zoned property located on the east side of Douglas Road, north of Katella Avenue, with waivers of: a. Permitted outdoor uses. b. Minimum front setback. c. Vehicle storage area landscaping. d. Outdoor use screening requirement. The City Planning Commission pursuant to Resolution No. PC72-286, recommended that due to the insignificant impact of the request upon the environment, no statement need be made, and pursuant to Resolution No. PC72- 287, granted said conditional use permit subject to conditions. On motion by Councilman Stephenson, seconded by Councilman Pebley, the City Council accepted E.I.R. No. 15 and Committee Analysis thereof, together with City Planning Commission recommendation, and determined the proposed project would have no significant impact on the environment. No further action was taken on Conditional Use Permit No. 1353. VARIANCE NO. 2397 TERMINATION: Submitted by Larry Fishman, Aldorado Properties, requesting termination of said variance which was granted to allow creation of a parcel without street frontage, by approval of a parcel map, C -2 property located on the north side of Lincoln Avenue, west of Magnolia Avenue. The City Planning Commission pursuant to Resolution No. PC72-292, terminated said variance. The City Council took no further action on Variance No. 2397. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 1268 EXTENSION OF TIME: Submitted by Lynn E. Thomsen, requesting extension of time to permit the expansion of an existing educational institution on R -A zoned property, located on the north side of La Palma Avenue, west of Onondaga Avenue. The City Planning Commission, by motion, granted an extension of time retroactive to October 18, 1972, and to expire April 13, 1973. No. 1268. The City Council took no further action on Conditional Use Permit 72 -818 City Hall. Anaheim. California COUNCIL MINUTES December 5. 1972. 1:30 P.M. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 1104 TERMINATION: Submitted by William E. Kuyper, requesting termination of said conditional use permit and release of the im- provement bond as applicant no longer intends to develop the project. The conditional use permit was granted to establish a heavy metals fabrication plant on M-1 zoned property, located on the east side of Blue Gum Street, south of Coronado Street. The City Planning Commission pursuant to Resolution No. PC72-294, terminated said conditional use permit and recommended release of bond. No. 1104. The City Council took no further action on Conditional Use Permit TENTATIVE TRACT NO. 4001 (CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 1345 AND ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT NO. 23): Developer, John M. Schlund, et al; property located on the northeast corner of Orangewood Avenue and West Street, containing 226 proposed R -3 zoned lots. On motion by Councilman Pebley, seconded by Councilman Stephenson, action on Tentative Map, Tract No. 4001 was continued to be considered in conjunction with Conditional Use Permit No.1345 and Environmental Impact Report No. 23. MOTION CARRIED. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT NO. 60 (RECLASSIFICATION NO. 72- 73-10. VARIANCE NO. 2426; TENTATIVE TRACT NOS. 7945, 7946. 7947 AND 7948): Submitted by Leadership Housing Inc., together with E.I.R. Review Committee Analysis, in reference to proposal to con- struct a 552 -unit statutory condominium complex on approximately 36 acres of proposed R-2 zoned property, located on the northwest corner of Cerritos Avenue and Walnut Street. Action on this E.I.R. was continued from November 28, 1972 at request of the developer. Submitted also was a petition containing approxi- mately 900 signatures in opposition to this project and a letter received at open meeting this date, also in opposition. Councilman Thom suggested that before any discussion is held regarding the E.I.R., the Council should act on the request received along with the afore- mentioned petition, from Mr. S. Dale Stanton of the Cerritos-Walnut Association for an evening meeting to allow for discussion of the impact on the community prior to Council consideration of the E.I.R. Mr. Robert Kendall, representing Leadership Housing, stated that in the event such a meeting is scheduled, his company would like to review any material in support of the opposition. He further requested a written statement from the Home Owners Association of the principal points to be covered. He suggested that his company and Homeowners Association arrange a work session in advance of this evening meeting before the Council. Mr. H. Bartholomew, 1518 West Cris Place, spokesman for the Cerritos Walnut Association, stated that a large group of homeowners in that area is extremely concerned regarding this project and they would undoubtedly accept the opportunity for discussion as suggested by Mr. Kendall, and invited the Council to be represented as well. He further stated that their primary objective is to have an opportunity for input on the E.I.R. at the time it is considered by Council and to explain the effect the proposed project would have on the surrounding residents. Mr. Kendall inquired whether just the E.I.R. would be discussed at this meeting or whether the zoning actions previously approved by the Council would also be reviewed. He reiterated that public hearing was held and oppor- tunity for public input was available at that time regarding the zoning action. For the record, he stated, that it is his company's view that the appropriateness of land use was considered at the zoning hearing and it would seem that some of the questions arising in connection with the E.I.R. were already considered at that time as well. Mayor Dutton informed him that the zoning and project has already been approved by the City Council and to his knowledge E.I.R. No. 60 is the only item under consideration and is what the people wish to discuss at the present time. On motion by Councilman Thom, seconded by Councilman Sneegas, the City Council set the date and time for consideration of E.I.R. No. 60 as Tuesday, December 19, 1972, 7:00 P.M. MOTION CARRIED. 72 -819 City Hall, Anaheim, California COUNCIL MINUTES December 5, 1972, 1 :30 P.M. CITY PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION ORANGE COUNTY FLOOD CONTROL DISTRICT: City Planning Commission Resolution No. PC72 -293 finding that the proposed acquisition by the Orange County Flood Control District is in conformance with the Anaheim General Plan, was presented for Council's information. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT NO. 63 (VARIANCE NO. 2361): Filed together with E.I.R. Committee Analysis, in conjunction with application to develop a recreation vehicle service facility on proposed M -1 zoned property located north of the Riverside Freeway, south of La Palma Avenue and east of Kraemer Boulevard. On motion by Councilman Dutton, seconded by Councilman Stephenson, the City Council accepted E.I.R. No. 63 and Committee Analysis thereof, and adopted same as the Statement of the Council. MOTION CARRIED. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT NO. 64 (TENTATIVE TRACT NOS. 7450 7666 AND 7137): Filed together with E.I.R. Committee Analysis in conjunction with proposal to develop 234 -lots on 50 acres of R- 2- 5000 zoned property located between Esperanza Road and the Santa Ana River Channel, east of Imperial Highway. On motion by Councilman Dutton, seconded by Councilman Stephenson, the City Council accepted E.I.R. No. 64 and Committee Analysis thereof, and adopted same as the Statement of the Council. MOTION CARRIED. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT NO. 65 (RECLASSIFICATION NOS. 71 -72 -7 AND 64- 65 -64): Filed together with E.I.R. Committee Analysis thereof, in conjunction with proposal to construct a shopping center and service station on C -1 zoned pro- perty located at the southwest corner of Santa Ana Canyon Road and the southerly extension of Imperial Highway. On motion by Councilman Dutton, seconded by Councilman Stephenson, the City Council accepted E.I.R. No. 65 and Committee Analysis thereof, and adopted same as the Statement of the Council. To this motion Councilman Thom voted "no MOTION CARRIED. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT NO. 67 (RECLASSIFICATION NO. 71 -72 -43 AND VARIANCE NO. 2358): Filed together with E.I.R. Committee Analysis thereof, in conjunction with application to permit the establishment of a two -story office building on two parcels of C -1 zoned property, located at the northwest corner of Varna Street and Katella Avenue. On motion by Councilman Dutton, seconded by Councilman Stephenson, the City Council accepted E.I.R. No. 67 and Committee Analysis thereof, and adopted same as the Statement of the Council. MOTION CARRIED. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT ANAHEIM HILLS DEVELOPMENT: Mr. Roberts reported on request received from Anaheim Hills Inc., dated November 13, 1972 that action be taken regarding approval of the Environmental Impact Report submitted for the entire Anaheim Hills project area. He advised the Council that the Planning Commission has not yet made any recommendation or taken any action on this report. On motion by Councilman Thom, seconded by Councilman Dutton, the Anaheim Hills developmement impact report was referred to the City Planning Commission for recommendation. MOTION CARRIED. ENVIR <Ir NTAL IMPACT REPORT NO. 72 (RECLASSIFICATION NO. 72 VARIANCE NO. 2392 TENTATIVE TRACT 7911): Filed together with E.I.R. Committee Analysis thereof, in conjunction with proposal to instruct 50 single residences on 12.55 acres of R -1 zoned property,located between the Riverside Freeway and the Santa Ana River, east of Lakeview Avenue. On motion by Councilman Sneegas, seconded by Councilman Thom, the City Council accepted E.I.R. No. 72 and Committee Analysis thereof, and adopted same as the Statement of the Council. MOTION CARRIED. RESOLUTION NO. 72R -578 WORK ORDER NO. 802: Upon receipt of certification from the Director of Public Works, Councilman Dutton offered Resolution No. 72R -578 for adoption. 72 -820 City Hall, Anaheim, California COUNCIL MINUTES December 5, 1972, 1 :30 P.M. Refer to Resoluton 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: THE CONVENTION CENTER ACCESS ROAD FROM APPROXIMATELY 663 FEET EAST OF TO WEST STREET, IN THE CITY OF ANAHEIM, WORK ORDER NO. 802. (R. J. Noble Company) Roll Call Vote: AYES: COUNCILMEN: Sneegas, Stephenson, Pebley, Thom and Dutton NOES: COUNCILMEN: None ABSENT: COUNCILMEN: None The Mayor declared Resolution No. 72R -578 duly passed and adopted. RESOLUTION NO. 72R -579 DEEDS OF EASEMENT: Councilman Pebley offered Resolution No. 72R -579 for adoption. Refer to Resolution Book. A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM ACCEPTING CERTAIN DEEDS AND ORDERING THEIR RECORDATION. (C. Normal Pulliam; William Lyon, etc., et al; Robert L. and Ethel L. Wetzler Electronic Gasoline Sales; Loren J. Meyers; Texaco Ventures, Inc., Anaheim Hills, Inc.) Roll Call Vote: AYES: COUNCILMEN: Sneegas, Stephenson, Pebley, Thom and Dutton NOES: COUNCILMEN: None ABSENT: COUNCILMEN: None The Mayor declared Resolution No. 72R -579 duly passed and adopted. LETTER AGREEINT ANAHEIM HILLS INC. TEXACO VENTURES INC., LOCATION OF UTILITY EASEMENT (RIGHT OF WAY NO. 1495): Mr. John Dawson reported on letter prepared des- cribing agreement between the City of Anaheim and Anaheim Hills Inc. /Texaco Ventures Inc., regarding the location of a utility easement. He advised that as the property is developed, Anaheim Hills feels it may become necessary to relocate this easement and they wished to retain the right to substitute should the lo- cation of this easement interfere with development plans. Mr. Dawson read the letter in full which states the following terms: 1. The substitution can be made at such time as Anaheim Hills Inc./ Texaco Ventures Inc. determines that the present location of said easement will interfere with the orderly development of the property adjacent thereto 2. Anaheim Hills Inc. /Texaco Ventures Inc., will furnish a similar easement deed for a different location, satisfactory to the City of Anaheim. 3. Anaheim Hills Inc. /Texaco Ventures Inc., shall bear the entire cost of the relocation of facilities established in the present easement grant. 4. Upon completion of the substitution and relocation of facilities, the City will abandon the present easement in whole or in part to the extent of the relocation of the substitution. Mr. Dawson stated that he felt this agreement will protect the City end he would recommend that the City Council authorize his signature. On motion by Councilman Sneegas, seconded by Councilman Stephenson, the City Attorney's Office was authorized and instructed to sign the agreement re- garding location of utility easement, Right of Way No. 1495, between the City of Anaheim and Anaheim Hills Inc. /Texaco Ventures Inc. MOTION CARRIED. RIGHT OF WAY CERTIFICATION A.H.F.P. NO. 619: On motion by Councilman Stephenson, seconded by Councilman Sneegas, on behalf of the City of Anaheim, the Mayor and City Clerk were authorized to execute a right of way certification for A.H.F.P. No. 619 (Magnolia Avenue La Palma Avenue tp Lincoln Avenue). MOTION CARRIED. City Hall, Anaheim, California COUNCIL MINUTES December 5, 1972, 1 :30 P.M. PURCHASE OF EQUIPMENT 36 FOOT AERIAL DEVICE: The City Manager reported on in- formal bids received for the purchase of one 36 -foot aerial device as follows, and recommended acceptance of the low bid: VENDOR TOTAL AMOUNT, INCLUDING TAX Utility Body Company, Commerce Calif. Truck Equipment, Los Alamitos Calif. Truck Equipment Alternate 1 Calif. Truck Equipment Alternate 2 Pitman Mfg. Company, Industry $11,147.03 13,981.80 17,233.86 13,339.46 16,397.85 72 -821 On motion by Councilman Sneegas, seconded by Councilman Stephenson, the low bid of Utility Body Company was accepted and purchase authorized in the amount of $11,147.03, including tax. MOTION CARRIED. CLAIMS AGAINST THE CITY: The following claims were denied, as recommended by the City Attorney, and ordered referred to the insurance carrier on motion by Councilman Thom, seconded by Councilman Pebley: a. Claim submitted by James Klovstad, Manager, Corsican Apartments, for damages purportedly resulting from police break -in occurring on or about October 8, 1972. b. Claim submitted by John E. Pritchett for personal property damage purportedly resulting from collision with police car at northbound off -ramp at Katella Avenue, on or about November 4, 1972. c. Claim submitted by Thomas E. Knight for personal property damage purportedly caused by garbage dumpster, sustained on or about November 16, 1972. MOTION CARRIED. CONSULTING ENGINEER AGREEMENT LEWIS SUBSTATION: Mr. Gordon Hoyt reported on proposals received for the design, engineering, drafting and construction specification for the 220/69 KV substation additions at the Lewis Substation and recommended that the proposal of Bechtel Power Corporation be accepted. Councilman Thom questioned items listed in the Budget estimates section, specifically Item 2 Environmental Impact Statement $5,600.00 and Item 4, procurement or purchasing services at $7,400.00, stating in his estimation these services could be handled through City Departments. Mr. Hoyt advised that this was a cost reimbursable agreement and they will do only those things directed to do, and while this proposal does include these items, and the City may utilize some of the consulting engineers work in the E.I.R., in general they do not intend to utilize the services of Bechtel Power Corporation for preparation of the E.I.R. nor would he direct them to get involved in the purchasing. Mr. Watts further advised that this is a maximum contract of $270,000.00, and is specific in the scope of services to be performed, including a provision that actual services to be performed will be done pursuant to written direction from the City. Mr. Hoyt stated that funds are available for the design and engin- eering phase from the Electric Revenue Bond Fund, however, funds for actual construction will not be available until the Federal Power Commission acts on the settlement agreement with Edison and any future activity will be con- tingent on that decision. If disapproved, the project would be re- evaluated. RESOLUTION NO. 72R -580: Councilman Pebley offered Resolution No. 72R -580 for adoption. Refer to Resolution Book. A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM APPROVING THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF AN AGREEMENT EMPLOYING BECHTEL POWER CORPORATION TO DESIGN A 220-KV SUBSTATION FOR THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AND AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR AND CITY CLERK TO EXECUTE SAID AGREEMENT. Roll Call Vote: 72 -822 City Hall, Anaheim, California COUNCIL MINUTES December 5, 1972, 1 :30 P.M. AYES: COUNCILMEN: Sneegas, Stephenson, Pebley, Thom and Dutton NOES: COUNCILMEN: None ABSENT: COUNCILMEN: None The Mayor declared Resolution No. 72R -580 duly passed and adopted. POLICE RESERVE PROGRAM: Police Chief Michel submitted for Council approval the Police Reserve Program under which he proposes to recruit and process 50 volunteer reservist initially with a potential growth of the program to a maximum of 100. The cost for outfitting of these men was estimated and budgeted at $16,000.00, however this amount is not included in the current Budget. program. Councilman Stephenson inquired as to the source of funds for this Mr. Murdoch reported that there are three approaches to funding; for the balance of this year the project could be supported with revenue sharing funds, or from the Council contingency fund, or implementation could be deferred until the next fiscal year. Councilman Stephenson remarked that in his opinion, this is a good program, but cautioned that the personnel recruited be carefully selected, as in the past, in many instances when the newness wears off, the recruit is less willing to spend the required time. He stated his concern that this turnover of personnel would be ultimately costly for the City. Police Chief Michel concurred regarding the careful selection of people involved and explained that each recruit will be required to spend a specified number of hours per month or he will be dropped from the reserve force. He advised that the training will be provided through P.O.S.T. at no cost to the City. He recommended the program, stating that it is a good source of recruitment of regular officers and would be a help in time of emergency. He further advised that funds would not be needed at the outset of the program, since the first six months to one -year would be devoted to publicizing,program, recruitment and training of the reservists. ORDINANCE NO. 3103: Councilman Stephenson offered Ordinance No. 3103 for first reading. AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AMENDING TITLE 1 OF THE ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE BY ADDING THERETO CHAPTER 1.13 AND INCLUDING THEREIN SECTIONS 1.13.010 TO 1.13.080 BOTH INCLUSIVE, RELATING TO CREATING AND ESTABLISHING A "POLICE RESERVE CORPS," PROVIDING FOR ITS USE AND CONTROL AND FOR COMPENSATION IN THE EVENT OF INJURY, DISABILITY OR DEATH OF ITS MEMBERS. RECESS: Councilman Pebley moved for a five minute recess, Councilman Sneegas seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. (4 :15 P.M.) AFTER RECESS: Mayor Dutton called the meeting to order, all Councilmen being present with the exception of Councilman Stephenson. (4 :20 P.M.) CORRESPONDENCE: The following correspondence was ordered received and filed on motion by Councilman Pebley, seconded by Councilman Thom: a. Before the Public Utilities Commission Application of Southern California Gas Company, for an increase in gas rates to offset higher costs caused by an increase in the rates of its supplier, El Paso Natural Gas Company. MOTION CARRIED. ORANGE COUNTY TRANSIT DISTRICT RECOMMENDED BUS ROUTES, ANAHEIM CHAFER OF COMMERCE: Mr. Michael Valen discussed the recommendation of the Anaheim Chamber of Commerce sent in their letter of November 17, 1972 to the Orange County Transit District regarding bus routes within the City of Anaheim and requested that the City Council act on the following prior to the Orange County Transit District meeting of December 18, 1972: 1. A general statement of support for public ground surface transpor- tation throughout the City of Anaheim. 72 -823 City Hall. Anaheim. California COUNCIL MINUTES December 5. 1972. 1:30 P.M. 2. Concurrence with the Anaheim Chamber of Commerce resolution in favor of the proposed Orange County Transit District transportation routes in the greater Anaheim area. 3. Acceptance, with any desired modification, of the agreement from the Orange County Transit District for cooperation between the City and that agency. 4. Publish City Council's resolution of support for the proposed Orange County Transit District public transportation service which would include recommendation that whenever possible public transportation be implemented through private enterprise. Mr. Valen presented at open meeting a copy of "proposed ground surface transportation for the greater Anaheim area" prepared by his company (The Town Tour Company) which contains a copy of the Orange County Transit District agreement for the City of Anaheim. Following discussion of two items contained in said agreement, i.e., the placement of benches, and exemption from traffic ordinances, with which the Council did not completely concur, the Council instructed the City Attorney to draw up an agreement substantially to that prepared by the Orange County Transit District but including a modification regulating the placement of benches and revising the section excluding busses from traffic ordinances. Having received an affirmative opinion from the Traffic Engineer regarding the proposed bus routes, on motion by Councilman Thom, seconded by Councilman Pebley, the City Council recommended that the proposed bus routes as described in the Chamber of Commerce letter of November 17, 1972, be adopted for use by the Orange County Transit District and that these routes be considered high in priority. IOOTION CARRIED. ORDINANCE NO. 3104: Councilman Dutton offered Ordinance No. 3104 for first reading. AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AMENDING TITLE 18 OF THE ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO ZONING. (61 -62 -69 (52) M -1) ORDINANCE NO. 3105: Councilman Dutton offered Ordinance No. 3105 for first reading. AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AMENDING TITLE 18 OF THE ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO ZONING. (69 -70 -43 (2) M -1) ORDINANCE NO. 3106: Councilman Dutton offered Ordinance No. 3106 for first reading. AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AMENDING TITLE 18 OF THE ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO ZONING. (71 -72 -43 C -1) ORDINANCE NO. 3107: Councilman Pebley offered Ordinance No. 3107 for first reading. AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AMENDING TITLE 18 OF THE ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO ZONING. (70 -71 -55 R -2) ORDINANCE NO. 3108: Councilman Sneegas offered Ordinance No. 3108 for first reading. AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AMENDING TITLE 18 OF THE ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO ZONING. (72 -73 -25 R -A) REPORT SCHOOL CROSSING GUARDS AT SIGNALIZED INTERSECTIONS: Original request of Mrs. Jacqueling Dudek that the Council consider the placement of crossing guards at signalized intersections within the Juliette Low attendance area was presented on October 31, 1972 and continued to November 14, 1972 for further report from the Traffic Engineer. At that time, several other inter- sections, in other attendance areas, were brought to the attention of the City Council and it was determined that a study be undertaken regarding statistics on school children crossing at signalized intersections throughout the City that might possibly warrant additional protection including the projected costs. Said issue was continued to this date for necessary report. The report submitted by the City Engineer recommends that the City establish a School Traffic Safety Committee composed of representatives from the City and each school district for the purpose of: 72 -824 City Hall, Anaheim, California COUNCIL MINUTES December 5, 1972, 1 :30 P.M. 1. Recommending policies and procedures for the placement of school traffic control devices. 2. Review and recommend various phases of the School Traffic Safety Program including bicycle safety and safe routes to school. 3. Review and recommend on requests and complaints. 4. Establish priorities. 5. Promote good relations with parents and teachers. 6. Take immediate action to correct emergency school traffic safety problems. Also included in the report was a list of intersections compiled in order of children crossing volume. Councilman Dutton stated that he felt the suggestion was a good and sensible approach to the problem and recommended that the School Traffic Com- mittee be implemented. Mr. James Brier, Superintendent of the Anaheim Elementary School Dis- trict, stated that while he could not comment on the recommendations of the City Engineer directly, as he had not seen the report, he would concur with Mayor Dutton that this would be an effective way to handle the situation. Mr. Murdoch pointed out that perhaps the hazardous problem could be partically solved by the school district realigning attendance areas assigned to the different schools, taking into consideration the pedestrian hazards and the routes children must use when fixing the attendance area boundaries. Further, he suggested that the Council evaluate the composition of the committee as pro- posed prior to implementing same as it appears to have a rather predominate representation from persons other than those that have the financial obligations. Mrs. Dudek urgently requested that the Council take some action immed- iately particularly at the intersection of Lincoln and Dale. She referred to the shuttling back and forth of this matter from City to School District without any definitive action being taken by either agency. She advised the Council that the School District has extended bus service to January 15, 1973 and stated she would like this to be the deadline for some recommendation by this Committee. She re- iterated that there is no indication on the street that school children are cross- ing Lincoln Avenue. She felt it was the moral responsibility of the Council to place either a crossing guard or signing indicating that small children are cross- ing to school. Councilman Thom stated that he agreed the formation of a committee is a good suggestion, however, it did not provide an immediate answer to the ques- tions that have been before the Council since October 31, 1972, naively the request for crossing guards at Lincoln and Gilbert and Lincoln and Dale which should be acted upon. He requested that copies of the City Engineer's report be sent District Superintendents and School Principals throughout the City. He thereupon moved that the Council place a crossing guard, for an interim period beginning January 15, 1973 and until the Committee comes up with a recommendation, at the intersections of Lincoln and Gilbert, Lincoln and Dale. (This motion died for lack of a second.) Councilman Sneegas pointed out that these two intersections are no. 3 and no. 8 in priority on the list prepared by the City Engineer. He stated it would be difficult to furnish a crossing guard at these intersections and not at the others which are just as, if not more, hazardous according to the statis- tics, and which are used by more children. He added that he would be hesitant to allocate the $4,000.00 per 16 intersections or $85,000.00 which would be re- quired to place crossing guards at all of the signalized intersections involved. Mrs. Joyce Riley, 108 Topo Street, addressed the Council stating that in her opinion when considering the safety of children, the number of children involved is not the primary issue, as the life of one child is just as important as the lives of 300 children. Councilman Sneegas agreed wholeheartedly that there was nothing more precious than the life of a child, but contended that the City must maintain some criteria for crossing guards at signals due to the amount of money involved, and observed that four -way stop intersections are equally as dangerous and used by many more children traveling to and from school. He gave as example the inter- section of Wagner and Sunkist. He stated that the question comes down to how n 72 -825 City Hall, Anaheim, California COUNCIL MINUTES December 5, 1972, 1 :30 P.M. much of the responsibility should be borne by all of the citizens versus what should be placed back in the hands of the parents. On motion by Councilman Sneegas, seconded by Councilman Dutton, the City Council, authorized the establishment of School Traffic Safety Committtee as recommended by the City Engineer, to be composed of the Traffic Engineer, Police Traffic Lieutenant, one representative from each school district and staff representative of the City Council; which Committee will review criteria for placement of crossing guards and other school safety matters and make recommendations tothe City Council as expeditiously as possible. MOTION CARRIED. On recommendation by the City Manager, and by general Council con- sent, Mr. Ed Granzow, Traffic Engineer, was appointed temporary chairman of this Committee. REPORT CONSULTING ENGINEERS AGREEMENT, NORTH AND WEST SUBSTATIONS: Mr. Alan Watts reported on the contract agreement with Daniel, Mann, Johnson and' Mendenhall, previously authorized by Resolution No. 72R -435, which resolution accepted their proposal at an amount not to exceed $123,650.00. Mr. Watts advised that the final agreement modifies the method of payment by making this a single sum basis, in the amount of $107,650.00. No further action was taken by Council at this time. SANIT#TION DISTRICT NOS. 2 AND.3 PUBLIC HEARINGS: The City Council was advised that copy of a letter had been received from Garden Grove Sanitary Districts dated November 27, 1972, urging the Board of Directors of Orange County Sani- tation District Nos. 2 and 3 reschedule the hearings set for December 20, 1972, and January 3, 1973 until some time after the holiday season. SALE OF CITY PROPERTY RECEIVE1 IN FEE FOR SEWER EASEMENT (TRACT 7911): Mr. John Dawson reported on proposed sale of a parcel of property 25 feet by 400 feet in dimensions purchased by the City in fee for sewer easement, said property located north of the Santa Ana Canyon Road, east of Imperial Highway. The coat to the City was originally $4,775.00. Mr. Dawson stated that an offer of $1,000.00 for purchase of said property has been received from Mk. Welk with the City retaining a sewer. easement. Mir. Welk proposes to use this property to add to lots in a subdivision being developed on adjacent property. Councilman Pebley, noting the dimensions of the subject property and the price offered, stated that in his opinion, the property was worth more than the 10 cents per square foot being offered. He suggested that if a more equitable price cannot be obtained, the land be retained with the possi- bility of selling to the individual homeowners once the lots are developed. Realising $500.00 per lot, $3,000.00 would be received rather than $1,000.00. Following Council discussion regarding the relative value of the property, the sum of $2,500.00 was determined as a compromise price. There- upon, Mr. Welk was asked whether he would be interested in purchasing this piece of property for $2,500.00 Mr. Welk indicated that he would raise his offer to $2,000.00, however, he could not offer more than that without consulting his partner. Councilman Pebley moved that the City Council authorise the sale of this property to Mr. Walk at a price of $2,500.00. Councilman Thom seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. PUBLIC Dam PERMIT: Application filed by James A. Bush on behalf of the Costa Mesa Police Association for permit to conduct public dance December 8, 1972, at the Anaheim Convention Center, 800 West Katella Avenue was submitted and granted subject to provision of Chapter 4.16 of the Anaheim Municipal Code and the four officers be hired to police the dance, as recommended by the Chief of Police, on motion by Councilman Sneegas, seconded by Countilman Thom. MOTION CARRIED. 72 -826 City Hall, Anaheim, California COUNCIL MINUTES December 5, 1972, 1 :30 P.M. LIBRARY BOARD RECOMMENDATION REGARDING ARCHITECT'S FEES: Councilman Thom requested report from Mr. Murdoch regarding letter received from Mrs. Schultz of the Library Board recommending that architect's fees be paid from revenue sharing funds. Mr. Murdoch replied that he is presently in the process of preparing a priority list of projects together with reasons for their priority, as sug- gested by all Department heads, which is anticipated will be brought before the Council on December 12, 1972. At that time he reported,the Council will have opportunity to add, delete or realign the priorities as they may find necessary, and all of the projects recently discussed will be included. ADJOURNMENT: Councilman Thom moved to adjourn to December 12, 1972, 10:00 a.m. Councilman Sneegas seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. Adjourned: 5 :20 P.M. Signed11-rv,,4.4 Ci y Clerk City Hall, Anaheim, California COUNCIL MINUTES December 12, 1972, 10:00 A,M. The City Council of the City of Anaheim met in adjourned regular session. PRESENT: COUNCILMEN: Sneegas, Pebley, Thom and Dutton ABSENT: COUNCILMEN: Stephenson PRESENT: ASSISTANT CITY MANAGER: Robert M. Davis ASSISTANT CITY ATTORNEY: Alan Watts CITY CLERK: Dene M. Daoust Mayor Dutton called the meeting to order. OPPOSTiii TO THE CHINO HILLS AIRPORT COMPLEX PROPOSAL: Mayor Dutton stated that this adjourned regular meeting had been called for the purpose of allowing those in opposition to the Chino Hills Airport an opportunity to be heard. The presentation supporting the airport proposal was given before the Anaheim City Council at an adjourned regular meeting on November 21, 1972. Colonel M. A. Barnes (U. S. Army Corps of Engineers, ret.), 18921 Vista Real, Yorba Linda, stated his appearance represented his family and neighbors in Yorba Linda who are all opposed to the airport. He advised that he has heard several presentations by the proponents for the airport, and they have failed to demonstrate-justification for an airport of the type proposed in the Chino Hills location. He cited the fact that there are two fairly large airports within a reasonable distance, Orange County and Ontario either of which is capable of handling the type of traffic proposed for the Chino Hills Airport. Colonel Barnes further advised that many of the people who now reside in Yorba Linda and surrounding areas have selected this area because they wished to avoid congestion, noise and other attendant irritations which an airport brings into the community. According to his experience, living near O'Hare Airport, Chicago, Colonel Barnes remarked that an airport generates a large amount of dirt as a result of fuel residue from the airplanes, which dirt tends to collect on anything left outside. He further felt that Mr. Lowman's statement that the newer aircraft will be less noisy, 3.s extremely optimistic.