1972/12/19City Hall, Anaheim, California COUNCIL MINUTES December 12, 1972, 1 :30 P.M.
ADJOURNMENT: At the conclusion of executive session,and upon return of all
Councilman to the Council Chambers, (with the exception of Councilman
Stephenson) Councilman Thom moved to adjourn. Councilman Pebley seconded the
motion. MOTION CARRIED.
Adjourned: 6 :20 P.M.
Signed a`on )21•
Deputy City Clerk
72 -843
City Hall, Anaheim, California COUNCIL MINUTES December 19, 1972, 1 :30 P.M.
The City Council of the City of Anaheim met in regular session.
PRESENT: COUNCILMEN: Sneegas, Pebley, Thom and Dutton
ABSENT: COUNCILMEN: Stephenson
PRESENT: CITY MANAGER: Keith A. Murdoch
CITY ATTORNEY: Joseph B. Geisler
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 Krebs of the First Congregational Church gave the
Invocation.
FLAG SALUTE: Councilman W. J. Thom led the Assembly in the Pledge of Allegiance
to the Flag.
MINUTES: Minutes of the City Council Meetings held November 21 and 28, 1972, were
approved on motion by Councilman Thom, seconded by Councilman Pebley.
(Councilmen Dutton and Sneegas abstained from voting on Minutes of November
28, 1972, due to their absence). MOTION CARRIED.
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 of
the title, specific request is made by a Councilman for the reading of such
ordinance or resolution. Councilman Thom seconded the motion. MOTION UNANI-
MOUSLY CARRIED.
REPORT FINANCIAL DEMANDS AGAINST THE CITY: Demands against the City, in the amount
of $1,304,040.31, in accordance with the 1972 -73 Budget, were approved.
FINAL MAP, TRACT NO. 7875 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT NO. 74.,: Developer, Calprop
Corporation. Property located on the west side of Imperial Highway, south of
Santa Ana Canyon Road and contains 80 R -2 zoned lots.
Environmental Impact Report No. 74 with addendum concerning the al-
ternative uses and Committee Analysis thereof, was submitted.
On motion by Councilman Dutton, seconded by Councilman Thom, Envir-
onmental Impact Report No. 74 and addendum thereto, was adopted as the State-
ment of the City Council. MOTION CARRIED.
72 -844
City Hall, Anaheim, California COUNCIL MINUTES December 19, 1972 1 :30 P.M.
FINAL MAP, TRACT NO. 7875 was approved as recommended by the City
Engineer, on motion by Councilman Dutton, seconded by Councilman Pebley. MOTION
CARRIED.
PUBLIC HEARING HOUSEMOVING PERMITS: Public hearing was held on applications sub-
mitted by Mr. James E. Grose, to move the following structures:
chester,
chester,
chester,
(a.) A 1800 square foot dwelling
California, to 1595 East Santa Ana
(b.) A 1890 square foot dwelling
California, to 1601 East Santa Ana
(c.) A 1986 square foot dwelling
California, to 1605 East Santa Ana
from 9921 La Tijera Street, West
Street, Anaheim.
from 7666 West 92nd Street, West
Street, Anaheim.
from 9221 Hastings Street, West
Street, Anaheim.
Should said permits be granted, Development Services Department recom-
mends they be subject to the following conditions:
1. That the existing structure shall be brought up to the minimun
standards of the City of Anaheim, including the uniform building, plumbing, el-
ectrical, housing, mechanical and fire codes as adopted by the City of Anaheim.
2. That the existing structure be modified as may be required by the
City Council.
3. That a bond in an amount and form satisfactory to the City of
Anaheim shall be posted with the City to guarantee the completion of the above,
said bond to be posted at the time that the relocation permit is issued.
Also submitted was letter from the Applicant advising of contact and
approval of 11 residences together with a petition of approval containing an
additional 26 signatures.
The Mayor asked if anyone wished to address the Council.
Mrs. Laura Domingus, 1523 South Santa Ana Street asked how long it would
be before the move -ins are completed.
She was advised that code provision and bonding provides a maximum of
six months to complete the project.
Mr. Grose reported that after Council approval, the site must be cleared,
and with weather permitting, he would hope to have the project completed in ten
weeks after the houses are placed on the lots including the installation of side-
walks and curbs and repair to the street.
The Mayor asked if anyone else wished to address the Council, there
being no response, declared the hearings closed.
Councilman Pebley offered Resolution Nos. 72R -588, 72R -589 and 72R -590
for adoption granting said housemoving permits as requested, subject to the rec-
ommendations of the Development Service Department omitting therefrom Condition
No. 2.
Refer to Resolution Book.
RESOLUTION NO. 72R -588: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ANAHEIM GRANTING A HOUSE MOVING PERMIT TO MR. JAMES E. GROSE, TO MOVE A
DWELLING/BUILDING FROM 9921 LA TIJERA STREET, WESTCHESTER, CALIFORNIA, TO
1595 EAST SANTA ANA STREET, ANAHEIM, CALIFORNIA.
RESOLUTION y0. 72R -589: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ANAHEIM GRANTING A HOUSE MOVING PERMIT TO MR. JAMES E. GROSE, TO MOVE A
DWELLING /BUILDING FROM 7666 NEST 92ND STREET, WESTCHESTER, CALIFORNIA, TO
1601 EAST SANTA ANA STREET, ANAHEIM, CALIFORNIA.
RESOLUTION NO. 72R -590: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ANAHEIM GRANTING A HOUSE MOVING PERMIT TO MR. JAMES E. GROSE, TO MOVE A
DWELLING /BUILDING FROM 9221 HASTINGS STREET, WESTCHESTER, CALIFORNIA, TO
1605 EAST SANTA ANA STREET, ANAHEIM, CALIFORNIA.
72 -845
City Hall, Anaheim, California COUNCIL MINUTES December 19, 1972, 1:30 P.M.
Roll Call Vote:
AYES: COUNCILMEN: Sneegas, Pebley, Thom and Dutton
NOES: COUNCILMEN: None
ABSENT: COUNCILMEN: Stephenson
The Mayor declared Resolution Nos. 72R -588, 72R -589 and 72R -590
duly passed and adopted.
PUBLIC HEARING RECLASSIFICATION NO. 72 -73 -26 AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO.
1355 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT NO. 51: Application submitted by Otis and
Frances A. Brown, requesting a change of zone from R -A to C -0 to establish a
real estate office in an existing residence located on the north side of
Lincoln Avenue approximately 560 feet east of State College Boulevard (2225
East Lincoln Avenue) with waivers of:
a. Minimum site area.
b. Height of a block wall adjacent to a residential zone boundary.
(Withdrawn)
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT NO. 51: E.I.R. No. 51 together with Committee
Analysis and City Planning Commission Resolution No. PC72 -310 were submitted.
On motion by Councilman Pebley, seconded by Councilman Thom, it was
the finding of the City Council that the project was trivial in nature and that
no Statement of the Council is required. MOTION CARRIED.
The City Planning Commission pursuant to Resolution No. PC72 -311,
recommended said reclassification be approved subject to the following con-
ditions:
1. That the owner(s) of subject property shall deed to the City
of Anaheim a strip of land 53 feet in width from the centerline of the street
along Lincoln Avenue for street widening purposes.
2. That the sidewalks and curbs shall be repaired along Lincoln
Avenue as required by the City Engineer and in accordance with standard plans
and specifications on file in the office of the City Engineer.
3. That trash storage areas shall be provided in accordance with
approved plans on file with the office of the Director of Public Works.
4. That all air conditioning facilities shall be properly
shielded from view.
That the existing structure shall be brought up to the minimum
the City of Anaheim, including the Uniform Building, Plumbing,
Housing, Mechanical, and Fire Codes as adopted by the City of
5.
standards of
Electrical,
Anaheim.
6.
property line.
7. That the vehicular access rights, except at street and /or
alley openings, to Lincoln Avenue shall be dedicated to the City of Anaheim.
8. That the owner(s) of subject property shall pay to the City of
Anaheim the sum of $2.00 per front foot along Lincoln Avenue for street
lighting purposes.
9. That the owner(s) of subject property shall pay to the City
of Anaheim the sum of 15 cents per front foot along Lincoln Avenue for tree
planting purposes.
10. That subject property shall be served by underground utilities.
11. That any parking area lighting proposed shall be down- lighting
of a maximum height of 6 feet, which lighting shall be directed away from
the property lines to protect the residential integrity of the area.
12. Prior to the introduction of an ordinance rezoning subject
property, Condition Nos. 1, 7, 8, and 9, above mentioned, shall be completed.
The provisions or rights granted by this resolution shall become null and
void by action of the City Council unless said conditions are complied with
within one year from the date hereof or such further time as the City Council
may grant.
13. That completion of the exterior facade modifications shall be
completed with six months from date of approval of this reclassifications.
14. That subject property shall be developed substantially in
conformance with plans and specifications on file with the City of Anaheim
That a 6 -foot masonry wall shall be constructed along the west
72 -846
City Hall.jinaheim. California COUNCIL MINUTES December 19. 1972. 1:30 P.M.
marked Exhibit Nos. 1, 2, and 3 provided, however, that a 6 -foot masonry
wall shall be constructed in conformance with Code requirements as stipulated
to by the petitioner.
15. That Condition Nos. 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 10, 11, and 14, above men-
tioned, shall be complied with prior to final building and zoning inspections.
The City Planning Commission pursuant to Resolution No. PC72 -312
granted Conditional Use Permit No. 1355 subject to the following conditions:
1. That this conditional use permit is granted subject to the com-
pletion of Reclassification No. 72- 73 -26, now pending.
2. That appropriate water assessment fees as determined by the
Director of Public Utilities shall be paid to the City of Anaheim prior to
issuance of a building permit.
3. That subject property shall be developed substantially in accor-
dance with plans and specifications on file with the City of Anaheim marked
Exhibit Nos. 1, 2 and 3.
Mr. Roberts noted the location of the property being immediately west
of an existing parcel that has been converted from residential to commercial
use and in summarizing the hearing before the City Planning Commission reported
that the Applicant is requesting the same zoning as his neighbors (C -0).
He advised that waiver (b) is no longer necessary as the Applicant
has stipulated he will raise the height of the existing well along the west
boundary to the required 6 feet; the rear of the property will be improved for
parking and the front of the building will be modified to more closely resemble
a commercial structure rather than a residential structure within six months
from date of approval of the zoning.
The Mayor asked if anyone wished to address the Council either for
or against said application, there being no response, declared the hearing
closed.
RESOLUTION NO. 72R -591: Councilman Pebley offered Resolution No. 72R -591 for
adoption authorizing preparation of necessary ordinance changing the zone as
requested subject to the recommendations of the City Planning Commission.
Refer to Resolution Book.
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM FINDING AND DETERMINING
THAT TITLE 18 OF THE ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO 'ZONING SHOULD BE AMENDED
AND THAT THE BOUNDARIES OF CERTAIN ZONES SHOULD BE CHANGED. (72 -73 -26 C -0)
Roll Call Vote:
AYES: COUNCIIMEN: Sneegas, Pebley, Thom and Dutton
NOES: COUNCILMEN: None
ABSENT: COUNCILMEN: Stephenson
The Mayor declared Resolution No. 72R -591 duly passed and adopted.
RESO JTTION NO. 72R -592: Councilman Pebley offered Resolution No. 72R -592
granting Conditional Use Permit No. 1355 waiver A subject to the recommendations
of the City Planning Commission.
Refer to Resolution Book.
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM GRANTING CONDITIONAL
USE PERMIT NO. 1355, IN PART.
Roll Call Vote:
AYES: COUNCIIMEN: Sneegaa, Pebley, Thom and Dutton
NOES: COUNCILMEN: None
ABSENT: COUNCILMEN: Stephenson
The Mayor declared Resolution No. 72R -592 duly passed and adopted.
72 -847
City Hall, Anaheim, California COUNCIL MINUTES December 19, 1972, 1:30 P.M.
PUBLIC HEARING CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 1345 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
NO. 23 (TENTATIVE TRACT NO. 4001): Submitted by John M. Schlund et al to estab-
lish a 221 -unit Planned Residential Development on property presently zoned
R -A (Resolution of Intent to. R-3, 60- 61 -42) and located at the northeast
corner of West Street and Orangewood Avenue with waivers of the following:
a. Lot frontage
b. Minimum building site area
c. Minimum building site width
d. Maximum building height within 150 feet of an R -A zone
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT NO. 23: E.I.R. No. 23 and addendum together with
Committee Analysis and City Planning Commission Resolution No. PC72 -303 was
submitted recommending said E.I.R. be adopted as statement of the Council.
On motion by Councilman Pebley, seconded by Councilman Dutton,
E.I.R. No. 23 and Addendum was accepted and adopted as the statement of the
Council. MOTION CARRIED.
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 1345: The City Planning Commission pursuant to
Resolution No. PC72 -304 denied Conditional Use Permit No. 1345. Appeal from
action taken by the City Planning Commission was filed by Mr. George D. Buccola,
Developer, and public hearing scheduled.
Mr. Roberts noted location of subject property comprising approx-
imately 20 acres and that waivers (a), (b) and (c) are the typical waivers
necessary for the small lot subdivisions.
As to waiver (d) maximum building height within 150 feet of an R -A
zone, Mr. Roberts explained that property to the north is presently zoned R -A
however there is a resolution of intention on the property to reclassify it
to the C -R zone, and property to the west and south in the City of Garden
Grove are zoned R -1, however, that City does not have a similar height restric-
tion.
He advised that the density of the property is 14.73 units per net
residential acre as calculated according to the Anaheim Municipal Code.
Recognizing the R -3 zone would permit up to 36 units per net residential acre,
Mr. Roberts explained that it was the feeling of the City Planning Commission
that townhouse developments, or condominium developments, were not the same
as an apartment development nor single family subdivisions and the amenities
that should be provided should be in between the two types of development and
that the densities that would derive a desirable living environment would be
about 12 units per acre. As a result many developments in the city do not
exceed the 12 -unit per acre figure.
Mr. Roberts thereupon read the findingsof the City Planning Commission
on which denial of the Conditional Use Permit was based; which was generally
on the basis of density.
Letter of protest was submitted and read, received from Ida and
Joan Carey, owners of 73 acres immediately north of subject property.
and read.
Petition favoring said project containing 52 signatures was submitted
Mr. George Buccola, 413 Cabrilla Terrace, Corona Del Mar, referred
to his answers made to objections raised by the City Plaittiing Commission. He
reported on plans revised as a result of meetings with the City Staff and
stated they proposed to build a high quality project. In his opinion, the
issue should not be how many units, but the quality of the development.
Mr. Don Corbin, 4000 Westerly Boulevard, Newport Beach, representing
Morris Lauerbach Architects presented a plot plan and rendering of a typical
building. He advised that there will be no dedicated streets, that all traffic
will either be owners or guests. He explained the details of the plan, noting
the location of single -story and two -story buildings.
72 -848
City Hall, Anaheim, California COUNCIL MINUTES December 19, 1972, 1 :30 P.M.
Mr. Richard Havel, 2073 Eugene Street, Anaheim, east of subject
property, addressed the Council in favor of the project.
The Mayor asked if anyone else wished to address the Council either
for or against the proposal. There being no response, declared the hearing
closed.
Discussion was held relative to fences along Orangewood and West
Street designated on the plans which exceed the required 42 inches in height.
It was noted said fences were proposed for privacy, sound buffering, and
aesthetic reasons.
RESOLUTION NO. 72R -593: Councilman Pebley offered Resolution No. 72R -593
granting Conditional Use Permit No. 1345 subject to the following conditions:
1. That this Conditional Use Permit is granted subject to the
completion of tentative map of Tract 4001, Revision No. 1, and Reclassification
No. 60- 61 -42.
2. That final tract map of subject property shall be submitted to
and approved by the City Council and then be recorded in the office of the
Orange County Recorder.
3. That covenants, conditions and restrictions shall be submitted
to and approved by the City Attorney's office prior to City Council approval
of the final tract map, and, further, that the approved covenants, conditions
and restrictions shall be recorded concurrently with the final tract map.
4. That prior to filing the final tract map the Applicant shall
submit to the City Attorney for approval or denial, a complete synopsis of the
proposed functioning of the operating corporation including, but not limited to,
the articles of incorporation by -laws, proposed methods of management, bonding
to insure maintenance of common property and buildings, and such other informa-
tion as the City Attorney may desire to protect the City, its citizens, and the
purchasers of the project.
5. That trash storage areas shall be provided in accordance with
approved plans on file with the office of the Director of Public Works.
6. That fire hydrants shall be installed and charged as required
and determined to be necessary by the Chief of the Fire Department prior to
commencement of structural framing.
7. That all air conditioning facilities shall be property shielded
from view, and the sound buffered from adjacent properties.
8. That subject property shall be served by underground utilities.
9. That the owners of subject property shall pay to the City of
Anaheim the appropriate park and recreation in lieu fees as determined to be
appropriate by the City Council, said fees to be paid at the time the building
permit is issued.
10. That subject property shall be developed substantially in accor-
dance with plans and specifications on file with the City of Anaheim marked
Exhibit No. 1, Revision No. 1, and Exhibit Noo.2, 3, 4, 5 and 6, and that fences
designated on said plans along West Street and Orangewood Avenue within the
required setback exceeding 42 inches in height is hereby approved for sound
buffering and aesthetics
11. That conditions nos. 2, 3, and 4 above mentioned shall be complied
with prior to the introduction of an ordinance rezoning the property under re-
classification no. 60- 61 -42.
12. That condition nos. 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 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 GRANTING CONDITIONAL
USE PERMIT NO. 1345.
Roll Call Vote:
AYES: COUNCILMEN: Sneegas, Pebley and Dutton
NOES: COUNCILMEN: Thom
ABSENT: COUNCILMEN: Stephenson
The Mayor declared Resolution No. 72R -593 duly passed and adopted.
72 -849
City Hall. Anaheim. California COUNCIL MINUTES December 19. 1972. 1:30 P.M.
TENTATIVE TRACT NO. 4001. REVISION NO. 1: Developer, Buccola Company,
property located at the northeast corner of Orangewood Avenue and West Streets,
and contains 221 proposed R -3 zoned lots.
The City Planning Commission at their meeting held November 27,
1972, denied said tentative tract map on the basis of denying Conditional
Use Permit No. 1345.
On motion by Councilman Dutton, seconded by Councilman Pebley,
Tentative Map, Tract No. 4001, Revision No. 1, was approved subject to the
following conditions:
1. That the approval of tentative map of Tract No. 4001, Revision 1,
is granted subject to the approval of Conditional Use Permit No. 1345 and the
completion of Reclassification No. 60- 61 -42.
2. That should this subdivision be developed as more than one sub-
division, each subdivision thereof shall be submitted in tentative form for
approval.
3. That all lots within this tract shall be served by underground
utilities.
4. That final tract map of subject property shall be submitted to
and approved by the City Council and then be recorded in the office of the
Orange County Recorder.
5. That the covenants, conditions, and restrictions shall be sub-
mitted to and approved by the City Attorney's Office prior to the Council
approval of the final tract map, and, further, that the approved covenants,
conditions, and restrictions shall be recorded concurrently with the final
tract map.
6. That prior to filing the final tract map the Applicant shall
submit to the City Attorney for approval or denial a complete synopsis of the
proposed functioning of the operating corporation including, but not limited
to, the articles of incorporation bylaws, proposed methods of management,
bonding to insure maintenance of common property and buildings, and such
other information as the City Attorney may desire to protect the City, its
citizens and the purchasers of the project.
7. That the owners) of subject property shall pay to the City of
Anaheim the appropriate park and recreation in lieu fees as determined to be
appropriate by the City Council, said fees to be paid at the time the building
permit is issued.
8. That drainage of subject property shall be disposed of in a
manner that is satisfactory to the City Engineer.
Councilman Thom voted "no MOTION CARRIED.
DINNER DANCING PLACE PERMIT: Application filed by Fred R. Cermak for dinner
dancing place permit for the Coronado Lounge, 1274 South Magnolia Avenue,
was withdrawn by the Applicant.
CITY PLANNING COMMISSION ITEMS: Actions taken by the City Planning Commission
their meeting held November 27, 1972, pertaining to the following applica-
tions were submitted for City Council information and consideration:
VARIANCE NO. 2441: Submitted by R. T. T. Jewett, Jr., to erect a chain link
fence around an outdoor industrial use and storage area (outdoor dip tank)
on M -1 zoned property on the west side of Lewis Street, South of Katelia
Avenue, with waivers of:
a. Permitted outdoor uses.
b. Requirement for screening of outdoor uses by 6 foot masonry wall.
The City Planning Commission pursuant to Resolution No. PC72 -295
granted said variance subject to conditions.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT (E7N<MPTION STATUS): The staff and City Planning
Commission, pursuant to Aesolution PC72 295, recommend that exemption
declaration status to Environmental Impact Report be granted.
72 -850
City Ball. Anaheim. California COUNCIL MINUTES December 19. 1972. 1 :30 P.M.
On motion by Councilman Thera, seconded by Councilman Pebley, it was
the finding of the City Council that the project would be trivial in nature
and that no environmental impact report is required. MOTION CARRIED.
No further action was taken on Variance No. 2441.
VARIANCE NO. 2448 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT NO. 43: Submitted by R. C.
Jewett and Dixie Stevens to permit a retail car care center on property
presently zoned M -1 located on the south side of Katella Avenue, east of State
College Boulevard, with waiver of:
a. Permitted uses.
City Planning Commission pursuant to Resolution No. 72PC -297 granted
said variance subject to conditions.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT NO. 43: E.I.R. No. 43 was submitted together with
Committee Analysis and City Planning Commission Resolution No. PC72 -296 recom-
mending, due to the insignificant impact of the request upon the environment,
that no statement be required.
On motion by Councilman Pebley, seconded by Councilman Thom, it was
the finding of the City Council that the impact would be trivial in nature and
that no environmental impact report be required. MOTION CARRIED.
No. 2448.
Councilman Thom requested public hearing be scheduled on Variance
VARIANCE NO. 2450 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT NO. 62: Submitted by Steven
Chemical Company to allow an outdoor industrial use and storage areas on property
presently zoned M -1 located on the west side of Olive Street, north of La Palma
Avenue with waivers of:
a. Requirement of permanent structures
b. Requirement that all manufacturing, processing, etc., be conducted
wholly within a building.
c. Enclosure of outdoor uses with a 6 foot solid masonry wall
d. Minimum required landscaping adjacent to both a local street and
secondary street.
e. Improvement of required parking area.
City Planning Commission pursuant to Resolution No. 72PC -299 granted
said variance for a period of one year with option to request extension, subject
to conditions.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT NO. 62: E.I.R. No. 62 was submitted together with
Committee Analysis and City Planning Commission Resolution No. PC72 -298 recom-
mending that said report be adopted as the Environmental Impact Statement of
the City Council.
E.I.R. No. 62 was accepted as statement of the City Council on motion
by Councilman Pebley, seconded by Councilman Sneegas. MOTION CARRIED.
No further action was taken on Variance No. 2450.
VARIANCE NO. 2452 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT NO. 56: Submitted by Russell
and Bettie Tucker to establish an auto service garage on property presently
zoned C -2 located at the southeast corner of Anaheim Boulevard acid Mills Drive
with waivers of:
a. Permitted uses.
b. Minimum parking area.
City Planning Commission pursuant to Resolution No. 72PC -301 denied
said variance.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT NO. 56: E.I.R. NO. 56 together with Committee
Analysis and City Planning Commission Resolution No. PC72 -300 recommending
City Hall, Anaheim, California COUNCIL MINUTES December 19, 1972, 1:30 P.M.
said report not be adopted as the environmental impact statement of the
Council until an addendum has been submitted that will provide mitigating
means of resolving adverse effects created by noise.
No further action was taken on Variance No. 2452 and Environmental
Impact Report No. 56.
VARIANCE NO. 2456 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT NO. 50: Submitted by Dale
Fowler to enclose an outdoor storage area with chain link fence on property
presently zoned M -1 located on the north side of Coronado Street east of
Jefferson Street, with waivers of:
a. The required enclosure of outdoor storage areas.
City Planning Commission pursuant to Resolution No. PC72 -314
granted said variance subject to conditions.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT NO. 50: E.I.R. No. 50, together with Committee
Analysis and City Planning Commission Resolution No. PC72 -313 recommending
that said report be adopted as the Environmental Impact Statement of the
Council.
E.I.R. No. 50 was accepted as the statement of the City Council
on motion by Councilman Pebley, seconded by Councilman Thom. MOTION CARRIED.
No further action was taken on Variance No. 2456.
a. Minimum side yard setback.
b. Minimum width of pedestrian accessway.
c. Minimum vehicular turning radius (withdrawn).
City Planning Commission pursuant to Resolution No. PC72 -316
granted in part (waivers a and b) said variance subject to conditions.
72 -851
VARIANCE NO. 2457 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT NO. 22: Submitted by Hans
and Theresia Mahotka to construct a 4 -unit, two -story apartment complex on
property presently zoned R -3, located on the west side of Illinois Street
approximately 289 feet south of Lincoln Avenue, with waivers of:
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT NO. 22: E.I.R. No. 22 was submitted together
with Committee Analysis and City Planning Commission Resolution No. PC72 -315
recommending, due to the insignificant impact of the request upon the environ-
ment, no statement be required.
On motion by Councilman Thom, seconded by Councilman Sneegas, it
was the finding of the City Council that the project would be trivial in
nature and that no environmental impact report be required. MOTION CARRIED.
No further action was taken on Variance No. 2457.
VARIANCE NO. 2458 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT NO. 52: Submitted by Humble
Oil and Refining Company to erect three "self- serve" signs on property
presently zoned C -2, located at the northwest corner of Lincoln Avenue and
Euclid Street with waivers of:
a. Maximum number of permitted free standing signs, (modified
for one additional sign instead of three).
b. Minimum height of a free standing sign (withdrawn).
c. Minimum distance between free standing signs on the same
parcel (withdrawn).
d. Minimum distance of free standing sign from an abutting
parcel (modified for one sign rather than three).
The City Planning Commission pursuant to Resolution No. PC72 -318
granted said variance in part subject to conditions.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT NO. 52: E.I.R. No. 52 was submitted together
with Committee Analysis and City Planning Commission Resolution No. PC72 -317
recommending, due to the insignificant impact of the request upon the
environment, that no statement be required.
72 -852
City Hall. Anaheim. California COUNCIL MINUTES December 19. 1972, 1 :30 P.M.
On motion by Councilman Thom, seconded by Councilman Sneegas, it was
the finding of the City Council that the project would be trivial in nature
and that no environmental impact report be required. MOTION CARRIED.
No further action was taken on Variance No. 2458.
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 1344 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT (EXEMPTION STATUS):
Submitted by Columbus and Marie Walls to establish a boarding home for a maximum
of six senior citizens in an existing single family residence located at the
northwest corner of Lemon and Alberta Streets.
The City Planning Commission pursuant to Resolution No. PC72 -302
granted said Conditional Use Permit for a period of two years subject to
conditions.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT (EXEMPTION STATUS): City Planning Commission pur-
suant to Resolution No. PC72 -302 recommended that an exemption declaration
status be granted to proposal under Conditional Use Permit No. 1344.
On motion by Councilman Thom, seconded by Councilman Pebley, it was
the finding of the City Council that the project would be trivial in nature
and that no environmental impact report be required. MOTION CARRIED.
No further action was taken on Conditional Use Permit No. 1344.
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 1354 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT NO. 47: Submitted
by Burger Chef Systems Inc., to permit on -sale beer in conjunction with the
serving of food in a proposed restaurant on property presently zoned C -1 located
on the west side of Brookhurst Street south of Colchester Drive(827 South
Brookhurst Street).
The City Planning Commission pursuant to Resolution No. PC72 -306
granted said Conditional Use Permit subject to conditions.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT NO. 4': E.I.R. No. 47 was submitted together with
Committee Analysis and City Plann Commission Resolution No. PC72 -305 recom-
menting that due to the insignificant impact of the request upon the environ-
ment, that no statement be required.
On motion by Councilman Pebley, seconded by Councilman Sneegas, it
was the finding of the City Council that the project would be trivial in nature
and that no environmental impact report be required. MOTION CARRIED.
No further action was taken on Conditional Use Permit No. 1354.
CONDIT ;OVAL USE PERMIT NO. 1356 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT NO. 53: Submitted
by J. tarl Talcott to establish a private recreational facility in conjunction
with a proposed medical arts office building on property presently zoned R -A lo-
cated at the southeast corner of Euclid Street and Romneya Drive.
City Planning Commission pursuant to Resolution No. PC72 -308 granted
said conditional use permit subject to conditions.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT NO. 53: E.I.R. No. 53 was submitted together with
Committee Analysis and City Planning Commission Resolution No. PC72 -307 recom-
mending that said report and addendum be adopted as the environmental impact
statement of the City Council.
E.I.R. No. 53 was accepted as statement of the City Council on motion
by Councilman Thom, seconded by Councilman Dutton. MOTION CARRIED.
No further action was taken on Conditional Use Permit No. 1356.
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 1135 TERMINATION: At the request of the applicant,
City Planning Commission pursuant to Resolution No. PC72 -309 recommended termina-
tion of Conditional Use Permit No. 1135 for two 190 -foot high one -story office
structures to be located at the southeast corner of Euclid Street and Romneya
Drive, as development of the property will now be in accordance with Conditional
Use Permit No. 1356.
Roll Call Vote:
City Hall, Anaheim, California COUNCIL MINUTES December 19, 1972, 1:30 P.M.
RESOLUTION NO. 72R -594: Councilman Thom offered Resolution No. 72R -594
for adoption terminating Conditional Use Permit No. 1135.
Refer to Resolution Book.
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM TERMINATING
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 1135.
AYES: COUNCILMEN: Sneegas, Pebley, Thom and Dutton
NOES: COUNCILMEN: None
ABSENT: COUNCILMEN: Stephenson
72 -853
The Mayor declared Resolution No. 72R -594 duly passed and adopted.
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 1131 EXTENSION OF TIME: One year extension of time
to expire October 20, 1973 was granted by the City Planning Commission on
Conditional Use Permit No. 1131 to permit outside storage of building
materials on property presently zoned M -1 located at the northeast corner
of Broadway and Loara Street.
No further action was taken by the City Council.
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 1063 EXTENSION OF TIME: One year extension of time
to expire October 29, 1973 was granted by the City Planning Commission on
Conditional Use Permit No. 1063 to establish a hall for variety shows, lectures,
meetings, dances, etc., with an on sale liquor establishment in an existing
structure on property presently zoned R -A, located on the north side of
Katella Avenue west of the Katella Avenue -Santa Ana Freeway overcrossing.
No further action was taken by the City Council.
TENTATIVE TRACT NO. 8079: Developer Cabot Forbes, property located at the south-
east corner of Romneya Drive and Euclid Street and contains 1 proposed C -1
zoned lot (Conditional Use Permit No. 1356 Reclassification No. 69- 70 -17).
On motion by Councilman Pebley, seconded by Councilman Thom,
Tentative Tract No. 8079 was approved as recommended by the City Planning
Commission subject to the following conditions:
1. That the approval of Tentative Map of Tract No. 8079 is
granted subject to approval of Reclassification No. 69 -70 -17 and Conditional
Use Permit No. 1356.
2. That should this subdivision be developed as more than one sub-
division, each subdivision thereof shall be submitted in tentative form for
approval.
3. That all lots within this tract shall be served by underground
utilities.
4. That a final tract map of subject property shall be submitted
to and approved by the City Council and then be recorded in the office of the
Orange County Recorder.
5. That the covenants, conditions, and restrictions shall be sub-
mitted to and approved by the City Attorney's Office prior to City Council
approval of the final tract map, and further, that the approved covenants,
conditions, and restrictions shall be recorded concurrently with the final
tract map.
6. That prior to filing the final tract map, the applicant shall
submit to the City Attorney for approval or denial a complete synopsis of
the proposed functioning of the operating corporation, including but not
limited to the articles of incorporation bylaws, proposed methods of manage-
ment, bonding to insure maintenance of common property and buildings, and
such other information as the City Attorney may desire to protect the City,
its citizens, and the purchasers of the project.
7. That drainage of subject property shall be disposed of in a
manner that is satisfactory to the City Engineer.
8. That a 15 -foot radius property line return shall be provided
at the southeast corner of Euclid Street and Romneya Drive.
72 -854
City Hall, Anaheim. California COUNCIL MINUTES December 19, 1972, 1 :30 P.M.
9. That the developer of Tract No. 8079 shall obtain certification
from a landscape architect or qualified horticulturist that the grading re-
quired to construct curb and gutter at 14 feet south of the Romneya Drive
centerline as proposed will not damage the existing Canary Island Palm trees
along Romneya Drive.
10. That the landscaped median proposed in Romneya Drive at Euclid
Street shall be constructed in accordance with the requirements of the Traffic
Engineer.
MOTION CARRIED.
FINAL MAP TACT NO. 6931: Developer, Sunburst Development Company. Property is
located on the east side of Sunkist Street north of Bali Road and contains 40
RS -5000 zoned lots.
Final map of Tract No. 6931 was submitted together with report and
recommendations of the City Engineer that said map be approved subject to the
approval of the City Attorney of a method to guarantee construction of tract
improvements to be filed in the Office of the City Clerk.
Final map of Tract No. 6931 was approved subject to the recommenda-
tions of the City Engineer on motion by Councilman Dutton, seconded by Councilman
Pebley. MOTION CARRIED.
FINAL MAP TRACT NO. 7932: Developer, Sunburst
at the southwest corner of Sunkist Street
zoned lots.
Final map of Tract No. 7932 was
recommendations of the City Engineer that
approval of the City Attorney of a method
improvements to be filed in the Office of
Development Company, property located
and Wagner Avenue and contains 9 R -1
submitted together with report and
said map be approved subject to the
of guaranteeing construction of tract
the City Clerk.
On motion by Councilman Pebley, seconded by Councilman Sneegas, final
map Tract No. 7932 was approved subject to the recommendations of the City
Engineer. MOTION CARRIED.
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 1359: Mr. Roberts reported on request for exemption
status filed in conjunction with Conditional Use Permit No. 1359 which is to
construct a 10 -story high addition to the Hyatt House located at the southwest
corner of Freedman Way and Harbor Boulevard (formerly Charter House), and also
requesting waiver to the parking requirements (575 spaces required 160 to 170
less than requirements proposed). He advised that since the City Council are
the only ones that can grant an exemption status, and since the City Planning
Commission felt that the effect of the waiver of the parking requirements on the
Disneyland area should be explored, and that an environmental impact report
should be required because of the magnitude of the proposed expansion, the
City Planning Commission is asking that the City Council make a determination
whether an exemption status should be granted and has continued the public
hearing on Conditional Use Permit No. 1359 for two weeks for Council's decision.
Discussion was held by the City Council, and regarding the parking
requirements, Councilman Pebley felt if insufficient parking existed,and in
order to retain their business,they would be required to build a parking
structure. It was noted also that many of the visitors to the area arrive by
plane.
Councilman Sneegas was of the opinion that in this matter the Council
was faced with precedent rather than the issue,and requested a ruling from the
City Attorney as to the law.
Mr. Geisler reported that according to the ruling adopted by the City
Council, projects of a similar magnitude would be permitted; anything allowed
by right in the C -R zone would not need an environmental impact report if it
required only a building permit. He noted the issue before the Council does
require a variance for parking and perhaps a conditional use permit for height.
He stated that parking could have a serious impact on the area however the
impact would be considered with the variance.
72 -855
City Hall, Anaheim, California COUNCIL MINUTES December 19, 1972, 1:30 P.M.
Mr. Roberts reported that the proposed addition would not violate
the height standards adopted for the area.
At the conclusion of the discussion, on motion by Councilman Dutton,
seconded by Councilman Pebley, it was the finding of the City Council that the
project proposed under Conditional Use Permit No. 1359 does not have a sig-
nificant impact on the environment and is in fact, trivial, because of the
type of environment activities and construction in the area and on the
property in question and that no environmental impact report need be made
and an exemption status is hereby granted. MOTION CARRIED.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT MORATORIUM: Mr. Geisler reported on Assembly Bill
889 which was passed as an urgency measure by the legislature December 5, 1972.
He stated that the bill does not involve building permits or any permit of any
kind that are issued in accordance with existing rules and regulations without
discretion. It does, however, create a moratorium of 120 days during which
no environmental impact report need be made on discretionary items before the
City Council such as variances, conditional use permits, zoning actions, etc.
During the 120 day period Mr. Geisler stated that within 60 days
the State will establish state -wide standards which will be adjusted and
adopted by Cities and Counties within another 60 days. He reported that in
the interim period the City Council may do the following:
1. The Council may do nothing within the 120 days; that is
not require any environmental impact report,nor act on any environmental
impact report.
2. You may permit the filing of environmental impact reports on
a voluntary basis and proceed with those presently filed.
3. You may, by ordinance, require an environmental impact report
from all applicants.
At the conclusion of the discussion and on the recommendation of
the City Attorney and Development Services Staff., it was moved by Councilman
Pebley, seconded by Councilman Sneegas, that filing of environmental impact
reports on a voluntary basis during the moratorium period be permitted.
MOTION CARRIED.
RESOLUTION NO. 72R -595: Councilman Dutton offered Resolution No. 72R -595 for
adoption.
Refer to Resolution Book.
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM FINDING AND DETER-
MINING THAT PUBLIC CONVENIENCE AND NECESSITY REQUIRE THE CONSTRUCTION AND
COMPLETION OF A PUBLIC IMPROVEMENT, TO WIT: THE MAGNOLIA AVENUE LA PAIMA
AVENUE STREET AND STORM DRAIN IMPROVEMENT, IN THE CITY OF ANAHEIM, WORK
ORDER NOS. 650 -B AND 660 -B. APPROVING THE DESIGNS, PLANS, PROFILES, DRAWINGS
AND SPECIFICATIONS FOR THE CONSTRUCTION THEREOF: AUTHORIZING THE CONSTRUCTION
OF SAID PUBLIC IMPROVEMENT IN ACCORDANCE WITH SAID PLANS, SPECIFICATIONS, ETC.,
AND AUTHORIZING AND DIRECTING THE CITY CLERK TO PUBLISH A NOTICE INVITING
SEALED PROPOSALS FOR THE CONSTRUCTION THEREOF. (Bids to be Opened
January 11, 1973, 2:00 P.M.)
Roll Call Vote:
AYES: COUNCILMEN: Sneegas, Pebley, Thom and Dutton
NOES: COUNCILMEN: None
ABSENT: COUNCILMEN: Stephenson
The Mayor declared Resolution No. 72R -595 duly passed and adopted.
RESOLUTION NO. 72R -596: Councilman Dutton offered Resolution No. 72R -596 for
adoption.
Refer to Resolution Book.
72 -856
City Hall, Anaheim, California COUNCIL MINUTES December 19, 1972, 1:30 P.M.
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM FINDING AND DETER-
MINING THAT PUBLIC CONVENIENCE AND NECESSITY REQUIRE THE CONSTRUCTION AND
COMPLETION OF A PUBLIC IMPROVEMENT, TO WIT: THE ORANGE AVENUE STREET AND
STORM DRAIN IMPROVEMENT, FROM BEACH BOULEVARD TO WEST CITY LIMITS, IN THE
CITY OF ANAHEIM, WORK ORDER NO. 658 -B. APPROVING THE DESIGNS, PLANS,
PROFILES, DRAWINGS AND SPECIFICATIONS FOR THE CONSTRUCTION THEREOF: AUTH-
ORIZING THE CONSTRUCTION OF SAID PUBLIC IMPROVEMENT IN ACCORDANCE WITH
SAID PLANS, SPECIFICATIONS, ETC., AND AUTHORIZING AND DIRECTING THE CITY
CLERK TO PUBLISH A NOTICE INVITING SEALED PROPOSALS FOR THE CONSTRUCTION
THEREOF. (Bids to be opened January 11, 1973, 2:00 P.M.)
Roll Call Vote:
AYES: COUNCILMEN:
NOES: COUNCILMEN:
ABSENT: COUNCILMEN:
Refer to Resolution Book.
Roll Call Vote:
AYES: COUNCILMAN:
NOES: COUNCILMEN:
ABSENT: COUNCILMEN:
Mr. Murdoch further reported
from Cypress Junior College to use the
$600.00 per year. He reported that it
Sneegas, Pebley, Thom and Dutton
None
Stephenson
The Mayor declared Resolution No. 72R -596 duly passed and adopted.
RESOLUTION NO. 72R- 597: Councilman Pebley offered Resolution No. 72R -597 for
adoption.
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM ACCEPTING CERTAIN
DEEDS AND ORDERING THEIR RECORDATION. (Bryan Investment Co.; August Viljak
Leontine Viljak)
Sneegas, Pebley, Thom and Dutton
None
Stephenson
The Mayor declared Resolution No. 72R -597 duly passed and adopted.
LEASE PURCHASE TAYLOR Mr. Murdoch presented for further consideration the
lease purchase agreement with the firm of Taylor -Dunn which was previously
authorized for the purchase of 22 golf carts to be used at the Anaheim Hills
Golf Course. He advised that at the time the proposal was originally considered
it was his understanding that the contract was a conditional lease, not requiring
purchase at the end of the time. He stated that Taylor -Dunn insists on the pur-
chase at the end of the time and that this was not contrary to the City's intent,
but was contrary to his response to Council when the proposal was initially
presented.
Mr. Murdoch reviewed the terms of the agreement and discussion followed.
At the conclusion of the discussion, on motion by Councilman Pebley,
seconded by Councilman Dutton, rather than exercise the lease purchase agreement,
total purchase of the 22 golf carts from Taylor -Dunn for the sum of $24,887.50
plus tax was authorized to be made at this time. To this motion Councilman Thom
voted "no MOTION CARRIED.
TRANSFER OF FUNDS: On motion by Councilman Pebley, seconded by Councilman Dutton,
transfer of $24,887.50 plus 5% sales tax from the Council Contingency Fund to
purchase golf carts for the Anaheim Hills Golf Course was authorized. To this
motion Councilman Thom voted "no MOTION CARRIED.
REQUEST ANAHEIM HIGH SCHOOL DISTRICT CYPRESS JUNIOR COLLEGE USE OF CITY GOLF
COURSES: Mr. Murdoch reported on request received from Anaheim High School District
to continue the use of Anaheim Municipal Golf Course and to use Anaheim Hills
Golf Course for their golf teams which would serve Anaheim, Katella, Kennedy,
Loara, Magnolia, Savanna and Western High Schools. He stated that the fee of
$1,000.00 for the district would be the same as last year.
that a request has also been received
Anaheim Hills Golf Course for a fee of
was very likely that the Orange Unified
72 861
City Hall, Anaheim California COUNCIL MINUTES December 19, 1972, 1:30 P.M.
Mr. Murdoch advised that a water system that will do the job can be
designed at any number of different price levels. He gave as an example a
difference of opinion between the City and Willdan Engineering in the size of
a reservoir in one of the areas -in the Santa Ana Canyon. Another, where the
engineer for the developer wanted to design a systel► with pumping rather than
reservoir. He agreed pumping would be less costly to the developer, but a
closed system would be more costly to the City for firefighting. He stated
that there were differences in'`philosophy in the basic design and the question
is, are you concerned with the initial costs which the developer pays, or the
ultimate costs, which the consumer pays.
Councilman Thom felt a criteria such as a 50 -year life expectancy,
or a 100 -year life expectancy could be established, and the developers engineer
required to design accordingly.
Mr. Hoyt advised that in truth it takes as much time and effort to
do a detailed check of a drawing as it does to design the system in the first
place. He gave, as an example, the design control exercised during the con-
struction of the Lenain Filtration Plant.
Mr. Murdoch reported that there is nothing in the proposed resolution
recommended for adoption that has been referred to by Mr. Stookey; that there
is no requirement that the City do the designing. The letter referred to from
the Water Superintendent was simply his intent and desire to have the
control of the engineering design.
Mr. Stookey advised that the letter to them from Mr. Sears implies
that Rule 15 changes the situation. (letter read in full later in the meeting
not filed for the record) He agreed with the position taken by Mr. Hoyt;
the City must have control and the system must be built to the City standards,
however, he felt the design could be by private engineers subject to City
approval.
RESOLUTION: Councilman Sneegas offered the recommended resolution for adop-
tion.
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM FIXING WATER SERVICE
CONNECTION, METER INSTALLATION CHARGES, WATER MAIN EXTENSION CHARGES, AND
FIXING RATES FOR WATER FURNISHED TO CONSUMERS AND FOR ALL SERVICES RENDERED
IN CONNECTION THEREWITH, AND SUPERSEDING RESOLUTION NO. 71R -279.
Roll Call Vote:
AYES: COUNCILMEN: Sneegas and Dutton
NOES: COUNCILMEN: Pebley and Thom
ABSENT: COUNCILMEN: Stephenson
The above resolution failed to carry.
Further discussion was held and Councilman Thom suggested that a
provision be added to the resolution reading "that the developer be allowed
to design, construct, and dedicate primary distribution mains according to
Utility standards and subject to Utility approval and inspection
Mr. Geisler asked, by adding the suggested provision, was it the
Council's intent to have the provisions apply just the hill and canyon area,
or the entire city? Was the small developer who now has his plans designed
by the City now required to employ an outside engineering firm to design his
plans?
Mr. Thom suggested it be designated to apply only to the Anaheim
Hills area if this could be done without being descriminatory. He stated his
concern was the adding to the City staff, or by contract adding work a developer
could do at no cost to the City.
Mr. Sears reported that costs of.a private consulting firm contracted
by the City of Anaheim for the design of the reservoirs would become a part of
the special facilities charged which would be assessed to the developers in the
area.
72R -862
City Hall. Anaheim. California COUNCIL MINUTES December 19. 1972. 1 :30 P.M.
Mr. Geisler advised that the resolution which is recommended for
adoption does not contain anything in connection with who does the engineering.
He stated the letter reflects the Department Policy and if this is not the
Policy the City Council wishes to be followed, suggested the Council direct
the Water Division to use the developers' engineers to the fullest extent
possible.
Mr. Murdoch cautioned that the City must be careful as to what the
aims and goals are. He felt there was a definite place for both City Engineering
and private outside engineering.
Mr. Dutton was of the opinion that it was critical that the resolution
which contains Rule 15 be adopted at this time. He felt the suggested policy
should be deferred until there has been an opportunity to review the agreements
between the City and the Nohl Ranch.
Mr. Hoyt requested an opportunity to prepare a case of the type of
expenditures that might be involved.
!ESO TION NO. 72R -600: Councilman Sneegas again offered Resolution No. 72R -600
for a •.tion.
Refer to Resolution Book.
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE. CITY OF ANAHEIM FIXING WATER SERVICE
CONNECTION, METER INSTALLATION CHARGES, WATER MAIN EXTENSION CHARGES, AND
FIXING RATES FOR WATER FURNISHED TO CONSUMERS AND FOR ALL SERVICES RENDERED
IN CONNECTION THEREWITH, AND SUPERSEDING RESOLUTION NO. 71R -279.
Roll Call Vote:
AYES: COUNCIIMEN: Sneegas, Pebley, Thom and Dutton
NOES: COUNCILMEN: None
ABSENT: COUNCILMEN: Stephenson
The Mayor declared Resolution No. 72R -600 duly passed and adopted.
It was agreed that the subject pertaining to engineering responsi-
bilities and costs would be scheduled for further Council consideration as soon
as possible.
CORRESPONDENCE: The following correspondence was ordered received and filed on
motion by Councilman Dutton, seconded by Councilman Pebley.
a. Before the Public Utilities Commission Case No. 9454: Notice
of hearing on rules governing construction and maintenance of railroad crossings
at grade.
b. City of Stanton Resolution No. 1094 relative to modifying current
tax assessment practices.
c. Cultural Arts Commission Minutes of November 13, 1972.
d. Financial and Operating Report Building Division, Month of
November 1972.
MOTION CARRIED.
TAX SALE NO. 1141: On motion by Councilman Dutton, seconded by. Councilman Sneegas,
consent was given to tax sale No. 1141. MOTION CARRIED.
ORDINANCE N0. 3110: Councilman Dutton offered Ordinance No. 3110 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- 13(2) R -2)
Roll Call Vote:
72 -859
City Hall. Anaheim. California COUNCIL MINUTES December 19 1972. 1:30 P.M.
4. Section A.5 has been revised to assure that each developer pays
his proportionate share of the secondary distribution system as they pertain
to half streets and secondary distribution main extensions across undeveloped
land.
RULE 16, SERVICE CONNECTIONS: Increased fees for 5/8" x 3/4" through 2"
service connections installed by the Water Division as a result of different
piping material to be used.
RULE 20, FIRE PROTECTION: The addition of a more equitable charge for fire
hydrants installed on primary distribution system, as this charge has been
removed from the water main extension fees.
Mr. Murdoch reported that the proposed changes have been studied
over a long period of time and that representatives of the BIA (Building
Industry Association) and those developers particularly active in the area
have had this information on the proposed changes for a long time. Mr. Murdoch
advised it was very important economically to adopt the recommended changes at
this time so that new development pay a rate that cover present day costs.
Reference was made to a letter received this date from Anaheim Hills
relative to a possible conflict between some of the provisions of Rule 15 and
agreements between the City and Louis Nohl pertaining to serving water to the
Nohl Ranch property.
Mr. Murdoch further reported that there may be some changes required
by the City Attorney in the wording contained in the recommended rules and
regulations, however, if the City Council is satisfied with the concept and
philosophy, any changes made can be made as an amendment, and after further
review of the agreements entered into between the City and Louis Nohl.
Mr. Hoyt reported that there was really very little change in
that all of the existing rates, rules, regulations, policies and practices of
the water utilities are now being placed into the one document.
He stated the main changes were the addition of costs pertaining to
temporary service and Rule 15 covering water main extensions which takes into
account the difference in costs for different types of areas.
Mr. Hoyt stated the most significant change is a procedure of
handling hill and canyon development. With the aid of a map (general master
plan of the high water elevations system) posted on the east wall of the
Council chambers, the 900 feet, 1100 feet and 1300 feet elevation zones were
identified indicating those areas requiring water be pumped. Mr. Hoyt advised
that the general master plan was developed with the assistance of Willdan
Engineers (Engineers for Anaheim Hills Development) and the City of Orange
so that ultimate'development of the entire region will be compatible.
As to the cost of "special facilities" such as pump facilities,
storage tanks, etc., the total cost of these facilities are to be estimated
and with the total acreage to be served by these facilities an acreage cost,
or special facilities charge, will be established. Recognizing the first
developer or developers may pay more money for special facilities to open an
area, Mr. Hoyt advised that as each succeeding developer pays his share, the
initial developer will be reimbursed and will recover his investment in a
20 -year period.
Regarding Section A.4.b Mr. Hoyt reported that it is recommended
the City participate in water main extension for the first 500 feet and if
the developer wishes to leapfrog beyond 500 feet to reach a development site
it would be at his expense to be recovered over a 10 -year period.
Mr. Hoyt reported that the recommended increase in service connection
fees is due to a change in materials involved in the connections from the main
to the meter.
72 -860
City Hall, Anaheim, California COUNCIL MINUTES December 19. 1972. 1 :30 P.M.
Mr. Murdoch advised that with the exception of the special facilities
to serve the higher elevations the same policies apply to all other properties
in the City as nearly as can be established.
Councilman Thom asked if the developer was responsible for the design
of the system.
Mr. Hoyt replied that they have worked very closely with Willdan
Engineers, the Engineer for Anaheim Hills, and in general, the City designs
the water facility, however, the master plan is based on what and how the
developer intends to develop. He advised that in a tract situation, the City
designs the water system which the developer transfers to his drawings which
is then approved by the City. In a secondary system, the developer installs
the system, it is inspected, dedicated and accepted by the City and then
connected to the primary mains. The design is that of the City who is the
owner and operator of the system.
Mr. William C. Stookey, principal of Willdan Associates, advised'he
was currently serving as City Engineer, or Director of Public Works of three
cities and was formerly City Engineer for the City of Fullerton for nine years;
that in all cases he was directly responsible for areas pertaining to the water
system. Mr,,Stookey advised that his concern, as a private businessman, was the
apparent interpretation of Rule 15 pertaining mainly to facilities and engi-
neering paid. for solely -by the developers.that would.now require all engineer-
ing to be done by City personnel, or by City contract. He related his experi-
ence while with the City of Fullerton wherein City staff could:_not respond as
quickly as private engineering firms. Mr. Stookey stated there was no ques-
tion that the standards and criteria should be established by the City for the
water system and that that criteria must be- followed. However, private enter
prise,can produce the designs more compatible to the problems faced by the
developer, and less costly to both the. City and the developer.
Mr. Murdoch asked if Mr. Stookey was referring to a specific section
or paragraph of the suggested resolution.
Mr. Stookey replied that his remarks were in.response to a letter
received from Mr. Sears, Water Superintendent, wherein he advises that all
design of the primary system will be done by the City.
Mr. Hoyt advised that their main concern was that the engineering
design control rest with the City as opposed to the developer. He further
advised that the City does employ outside engineering firms when their services
are needed, but the control and supervision is that of the City's, and directions
are taken from the utility as opposed to the developer, and the engineer doing
the design work must be responsive to the City's needs as opposed to that of the
developer.
Mr. Hoyt reported that to set the criteria is easily said and most
difficult to do.
Councilman Pebley felt that there was a possible financial saving to
the City in allowing outside engineering firms to design the water system.
1
Mr. Hoyt replied that there could be a saving in engineering costs
but perhaps not in maintenance costs. to the system.
Mr. Geisler reported that the discussion involves two different items.
One, a water system designed to the peak of engineering for the lowest maintenance
cost. The other, a system designed for the cheapest possible installation. As to
criteria, Mr. Geisler reported that it is the design that sets the criteria.
Mr. Hoyt agreed that you have to do the design work set the
criteria as only broad goals and standards can be established; not specific
design standards, and to check a design engineered by another is practically
redesigning the entire system and it would be easier and less costly to do the
design in the first instance.
1
City Hall, Anaheim, California COUNCIL MINUTES December 19, 1972, 1:30 P.M.
High School District will want to utilize the Anaheim Hills Golf Course
when they build a high school in that area.
72 -857
Mr. Murdoch felt that for the next year only both requests, that
of Anaheim High School District and Cypress Junior College, could be accommo-
dated.
Mr. Lloyd Trapp, Recreation Superintendent, reviewed the proposed
schedule and concurred with Mr. Murdoch, that both requests could be taken
care of for this next year without conflict to the general public use. He
stated that the high school is not adding any additional play and that the
City now has the flexibility of two courses.
On motion by Councilman Pebley, seconded by Councilman Dutton,
request of Anaheim High School District and Cypress Junior College for use
of City -owned golf courses was authorized for a period of one year only
under the terms and conditions reported by Mr. Murdoch and Mr. Trapp.
MOTION CARRIED.
PURCHASE MOTORCYCLES: Purchase of six motorcycles from Harley- Davidson in the
amount of $15,351.81, including tax, was authorized as recommended on motion
by Councilman Dutton, seconded by Councilman Thom. MOTION CARRIED.
AGREEMENT PAUL H. BAUGHMAN: Proposal submitted by Paul H. Baughman, Electrical
Engineer, to design the baseball football lighting for the Brookhurst Park
in the amount of 4% of the construction cost, not to exceed $3,000.00, was
submitted.
On motion by Councilman Pebley, seconded by Councilman Thom, letter
agreement with Paul H. Baughman as set forth in his proposal was authorized
as recommended by the City Manager and Director of Parks and Recreation.
MOTION CARRIED.
RECESS: Councilman Thom moved for a five minute recess. Councilman Pebley
seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. 3:30 P.M.
AFTER RECESS: Mayor Dutton called the meeting to order, all members of the Council
being present, with the exception of Councilman Stephenson.
CLAIM AGAINST THE CITY: Claim filed by Charles and Marilyn A. Bidwell for personal
property damages and personal injury purportedly resulting from a collision
with a City vehicle, sustained on or about October 19, 1972, was denied as
recommended by the City Attorney and referred to the insurance carrier on
motion by Councilman Thom, seconded by Councilman Sneegas. MOTION CARRIED.
RESOLUTION NO. 72R -598: Councilman Sneegas offered Resolution No. 72R -598 for
adoption.
Refer to Resolution Book.
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM REQUESTING THE
COUNTY OF ORANGE TO INCLUDE WITHIN THE ARTERIAL HIGHWAY FINANCING PROGRAM
CERTAIN HIGHWAY IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS. (1973 -1974)
Roll Call Vote:
AYES: COUNCILMEN: Sneegas, Pebley, Thom and Dutton
NOES: COUNCILMEN: None
ABSENT: COUNCILMEN: Stephenson
The Mayor declared Resolution No. 72R -598 duly passed and adopted.
RESOLUTION NO. 72R -599: Councilman Pebley offered Resolution No. 72R -599 for
adoption.
Refer to Resolution Book.
72 -858
City Hall. Anaheim, California COUNCIL MINUTES December 19, 1972. 1 :30 P.M.
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AUTHORIZING AND
DIRECTING THE MAYOR AND CITY CLERK TO EXECUTE AN AGREEMENT FOR MAINTENANCE
OF STATE HIGHWAYS IN THE CITY OF ANAHEIM. (Adding Traffic Signalization)
Roll Call Vote:
AYES: COUNCILMEN: Sneegas, Pebley, Thom and Dutton
NOES: COUNCILMEN: None
ABSENT: COUNCILMEN: Stephenson
The Mayor declared Resolution No. 72R -599 duly passed and adopted.
RESOLUTION NO. 72R -601: Councilman Pebley offered Resolution No. 72R -601 for
adoption.
Refer to Resolution Book.
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AUTHORIZING THE
DESTRUCTION OF CITY RECORDS MORE THAN FIVE YEARS OLD. (Water Division)
Roll Call Vote:
AYES: COUNCILMEN: Sneegas, Pebley, Thom and Dutton
NOES: COUNCILMEN: None
ABSENT: COUNCILMEN: Stephenson
The Mayor declared Resolution No. 72R -601 duly passed and adopted.
WATER RATES RULES AND REGULATIONS: Proposed changes to water rates, rules and
regulations were submitted and recommended by Gordon Hoyt, Utilities Director,
together with report and explanations. Said changes to be effective December 19,
1972.
The significant changes in the rates, rules and regulations were
briefly as follows:
RATE SCHEDULE W -T, TEMPORARY SERVICE: A new schedule to be added so that a
realistic fee for providing temporary services can be charged.
RULE 13, TEMPORARY SERVICE: Said new rule revised to provide for metering
of all temporary services where practical. A permit fee has been established
and deposits have been increased to cover loss or damage to the meter and
related appurtenances.
RULE 15, WATER MAIN EXTENSIONS: Expanded to clarify the written, and document
the unwritten policies. Under the present policy the City provides production,
transmission and major storage facilities. Primary distribution mains are paid
for by the developers through water main extension fees, major changes and addi-
tions to Rule 15 are as follows:
1. Water main extension fees increased
(a) from $155 to $275 per acre for residential development.
(b) from $195 to $330 per acre for commercial development.
(c) from $235 to $375 per acre for industrial development.
2. Addition of Section B which establishes a "special facilities
charge" to be paid by the developer for the cost of distribution facilities,
other than distribution water mains, that will be required in the foothills
at elevations that cannot be served by the Lenain Filtration Plans. The cost
of these special facilities (pump stations, reservoirs, etc.) to be generally
between $500 and $1,500 per acre depending on topography, land use, and other
factors. These costs to be in addition to water main extension fees.
3. Addition of Section A.4.b providing for a joint participation by
the City and developer in the cost of a primary distribution main-extension to.
a new development where extension is in excess of 500 feet.
City Hall, Anaheim, California COUNCIL MINUTES December 19, 1972, 1:30 P.M.
AYES: COUNCILMEN: Sneegas, Pebley, Thom and Dutton
NOES: COUNCILMEN: None
ABSENT: COUNCILMEN: Stephenson
The Mayor declared Ordinance No. 3110 duly passed and adopted.
ORDINANCE NO. 3111: Councilman Dutton offered Ordinance No. 3111 for adoption.
Refer to Ordinance Book.
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AMENDING TITLE 18 OF THE ANAHEIM
MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO ZONING. (69 -70 -25(1) RS -5000)
Roll Call Vote:
AYES: COUNCILMEN: Sneegas, Pebley, Thom and Dutton
NOES: COUNCILMEN: None
ABSENT: COUNCIIEN: Stephenson
72 -863
The Mayor declared Ordinance No. 3111 duly passed and adopted.
ORDINANCE NO. 3112: Councilman Sneegas offered Ordinance No. 3112 for adoption.
Refer to Ordinance Book.
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AMENDING TITLE 18 OF THE ANAHEIM
MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO ZONING. (66- 67- 61(55) C -R
Roll Call Vote:
AYES: COUNCILMEN: Sneegas, Pebley, Thom and Dutton
NOES: COUNCILMEN: None
ABSENT: COUNCILMEN: Stephenson
The Mayor declared Ordinance No. 3112 duly passed and adopted.
ORDINANCE NO. 3113: Councilman Pebley offered Ordinance No. 3113 for adoption.
Refer to Ordinance Book.
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AMENDING TITLE 18 OF THE ANAHEIM
MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO ZONING. (71- 72 -52) C -1)
Roll Call Vote:
AYES: COUNCILMEN: Sneegas, Pebley, Thom and Dutton
NOES: COUNCILMEN: None
ABSENT: COUNCIIIIEN: Stephenson
The Mayor declared Ordinance No. 3113 duly passed and adopted.
RECLASSIFICATION NO. 72 -73 -19 VEHICULAR ACCESS RIGHTS: On motion by Councilman
Pebley, seconded by Councilman Sneegas, dedication of vehicular access rights
to Marian Way, in accordance with Condition No. 3 of Resolution of Intention
No. 72R -414, in connection with Reclassification No. 72- 73 -19, was accepted
and recordation thereof authorized. MOTION CARRIED.
ORDINANCE NO. 3114: Councilman Pebley offered Ordinance No. 3114 for adoption.
Refer to Ordinance Book.
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AMENDING TITLE 18 OF THE ANAHEIM
MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO ZONING. (72 73 19) R
Roll Call Vote:
AYES:' COUNCILMEN:
NOES: COUNCILMEN:
ABSENT: COUNCILMEN:
The Mayor declared
Sneegas, Pebley, Thom and-Dutton
None
Stephenson
Ordinance No. 3114 duly passed and adopted.
72 -864
City Hall. Anaheim. California COUNCIL MINUTES December 19. 1972. 1:30 P.M.
ORDINANCE N0. 3115: Councilman Dutton offered Ordinance No. 3115 for first
reading:
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AMENDING TITLE 1, CHAPTER 1.12, BY
ADDING SECTION 1.12.080 PERTAINING TO THE DESTRUCTION OF COPIES OF CITY
RECORDS.
CANCELLATIONS OF DEED RESTRICTIONS RECLASSIFICATION NO. 56- 57 -76: On motion by
Councilman Dutton, seconded by Councilman Sneegas, consent was given to the
cancellation of M -1 deed restrictions recorded October 3, 1964 in Book 7273,
Page 379, Official Records of Orange County, California, pertaining to
Reclassification No. 56- 57 -76. MOTION CARRIED.
ORDINANCE 140. 3116: Councilman Sneegas offered Ordinance No. 3116 for first
reading:
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AMENDING TITLE 18 OF THE ANAHEIM
MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO ZONING. (56- 57- 76 -(4)
BLUE CRASS HOSPITALIZATION AND MAJOR MEDICAL INSURANCE CONTRACT: Upon the recom-
mendations of the Personnel Director, on motion by Councilman Thom, seconded
by Councilman Sneegas, renewal of the Hospitalization and Major Medical Insurance
Contract with Blue Cross of Southern California for a term of 12 months, commencing
November 1, 1972, was authorized as outlined below:
1. The following rates will apply as deposit rates for the period
November 1, 1972 through October 31, 1973:
Single
Employee
$17.65
2. If incurred claims plus
$10,000 exceeds earned deposit income
October 31, 1973, the City of Anaheim
Blue Cross in an amount equivalent to
stated in Paragraph Three below. The
to 8.92% of maximum income.
a. Total number of Single contracts
b. Total number of Employee and One
each month times $6.23.
c. Total number of Employee and Two
force each month times $8.03.
MOTION CARRIED.
Employee One Employee Two
Dependent or More Dependents
$43.61
11
$56.25
the required administrative cost plus
for the period November 1, 1972 through
will be liable for a single payment to
such excess subject to the limitations
administrative cost will be equivalent
3. In no event will the City of Anaheim be liable for additional
payments which exceed the amount of money produced by the following formula:
in force each month times $2.53.
Dependent contracts in force
or more Dependent contracts in
REVENJE SH`RINC REPORT: Mr. Murdoch referred to revenue sharing report representing
the recommendations of the City Department Heads and summary of recommended
order of priority that would meet the anticipated allocations to be received
over the next five years from the Federal Government Revenue Sharing
Program, being estimated as follows:
1972 1,166,000.00
1973 1,201,000.00
1974 1,237,000.00
1975 1,274,000.00
1976 1,312,000.00
In answer to question raised by Councilman Thom, Mr. Maddox explained
the necessity for the Chantilly Storm Drain being jointly constructed with the
State of California Division of Highways and Orange County Flood Control District
in conjunction with the construction of the Orange Freeway, which storm drain will
run parallel to the Orange Freeway from La Palma Avenue to Retells Avenue, then
easterly into the river, and is scheduled for construction in the early part of
next year. He advised that Anaheim's share of the construction cost is
$750,000.00 of which $390,000.00 is already set aside.
72 -865
City Hall. Anaheim. California COUNCIL MINUTES December 19, 1972. 1 :30 P.M.
Councilman Thom questioned the recommendation of acquiring an
additional dump site. Mr. Piersall explained that the site currently used
has a life expectancy of about another six months and without an additional
place the dump material will have to be taken to either the Olinda Dump or
another Canyon dump on the Irvine Ranch. With the acquisition of another
site with a life expectancy of 20 to 30 years, after which the site could be
converted to park use, it is conservatively estimated that an annual saving
of between $60,000.00 to $80,000.00 will be realized.
Regarding the Branch Library, Councilman Thom was of the opinion
that if the $28,000.00 is allocated in 1972 for architectural fees, the
$350,000.00 for the construction should be brought forward to 1973, in that
construction costs fluctuate so rapidly. In noting the proposed Vermont
Street Garage, Councilman Thom was of the opinion that the Branch Library
would be of a higher priority than the Garage.
As to the priority of the garage, Mr. Murdoch replied that this
would depend on how high the Council priority is on saving money, and this
is the type of policy the Council must determine.
Councilman Thom felt that the Revenue Sharing Fund should be spent
on satisfying some of the citizen oriented type requests.
Mr. Murdoch also referred to the Civic Center Study report which is
a program for constructing administrative buildings in segments rather than
the approach previously used. He stated the Council may wish to use Revenue
Sharing Funds to construct the first phase of a multiple phase construction
earlier than 1976, and if so, if this facility is built, the plan to remodel
other facilities and relocate other activities would be modified, depending
on what units would be placed in the first phase of the new structure.
It was determined that additional time was needed to consider items
recommended for revenue sharing and that the matter be again considered next
week.
JOINT POWERS AGREEMENT ANAHEIM UNION HIGH SCHOOL DISTRICT BOARD OF TRUSTEES
CONVENTION CENTER: Communication R. Kenton Wines, Superintendent of Anaheim Union
High School District, relative to the Board of Trustees' review of the Joint
Powers Agreement for the Convention Center, together with written opinion of
Mr. Milford Dahl, Sr., of Rutan Tucker, was submitted. Copies of said
opinion were requested to be furnished to the Community Center Authority.
REQUEST SEWER LATERAL JOHN KRAJACIC: Mr. Murdoch reported that plans on file
with the Building Division indicate a sewer lateral to serve the property
located at 1104 West North Street and that the lateral cannot be actually
located. He asked if the City would undertake the obligation of approximately
$375.00 to extend the lateral onto the property. It was noted that the lot in
question was split and that in all probability the lateral serving the property
was now used to serve the easterly portion of the lot.
It was moved by Councilman Pebley, seconded by Councilman Thom, that
the City install the lateral in that it was originally shown as installed on
the plans. MOTION CARRIED.
Mr. Geisler advised that unless Mr. Krajacic pays for the installation
of the lateral it would be a gift of public funds. He stated that this is a lot
which has been connected and the fact that it is now split into two lots, it is
still the responsibility of the property owner to provide a lateral to the
sewer which is located in the center of the street.
second.
Councilman Pebley withdrew his motion, Councilman Thom withdrew the
Mr. Krajacic advised that in his opinion it was unfair to be required
to install a lateral that was shown on the City map as being installed.
72 -866
City Hall. Qnahtim. California COUNCIL MINUTES December 19. 1972, 1:30 P.M.
Mr. Geisler noted that sewers in that area were installed many years
ago, and that the subject map of sewer mains and laterals was developed appar-
ently to whatever information was available and to everyone's best recollection,
and that the map in question clearly indicates that it is not official and is
not to be relied upon.
APPOINTMENT PARKS AND RECREATION. COMMISSION: At the request of Councilman Pebley
to be replaced as Council Representative on the Parksand Recreation Commission,
Mayor Dutton appointed Councilman Sneegas as Council representative to the Parks
and Recreation Commission. Said appointment was ratified on motion by Council-
man Pebley, seconded by Councilmen Thom. MOTION CARRIED.
FILING FEES: Councilman Pebley requested a survey of other cities and analysis of
City of Anaheim's costa to process variances, conditional use permits and re-
classifications. Councilman Pebley was of the opinion that the actual cost of
these zoning matters should be borne by the applicant and not subsidized by the
general taxpayer.
RECESS: Councilman Sneegas moved to recess to 7:00 P.M., Councilman Thom seconded
the motion. MOTION CARRIED.
Recess: 6:05 P.M.
AFTER RECESS Mayor Dutton called the City Council meeting to order, 7:00 p.m.
PRESENT: COUNCILMEN: Sneegas, Thom and Dutton
ABSENT: COUNCILMEN: Stephenson and Pebley
PRESENT: CITY MANAGER: Keith A. Murdoch
CITY ATTORNEY: Joseph B. Geisler
CITY CLERK: Dene M. Daoust
ASSISTANT DIRECTOR OF DEVELOPMENT SERVICES: Ronald Thompson
ZONING SUPERVISOR: Charles Roberts
ENVIRONME T'MPACT REPORT NO. 60 (RECLASSIFICATION NO. 72- 73 -10. VARIANCE NO.
2426 AND TIVE TRACT NOS. 7945, 7946, 7947 AND 7948): Submitted by Leadership
Housing Systems, Inc. in conjunction with proposed 552 -unit statutory condo-
minium complex on proposed R -3 zoned property located at the northwest corner
of Cerritos Avenue and Walnut Street, together with E.I.R. Review Committee
Analysis.
Consideration of this E.I.R. was continued from the meeting of Nov-
ember 28, 1972, at the request of Mr. John F. Hanscom, Leadership Housing Sys-
tems Inc. to December 5, 1972. Said E.I.R. was then continued from December
5, 1972 to this date at the request of Mr. Stanton, Chairman, Cerritos- Walnut
Association for a night meeting.
A petition dated November 21, 1972 and containing approximately 900
signatures, was submitted indicating opposition to the proposed project.
At the request of Mayor Dutton, the City Attorney explained for those
present that with the enactment of Assembly Bill 889 establishing a 120 -day
moratorium from December 5, 1972 on Environmental Impact Reports, the necessity
and reason for the meeting no longer exists as the law would place the issue in
a catagory no longer requiring an E.I.R., and discussion of E.I.R. No. 60, and
specifically any action taken on this report by the Council would have no bearing
and would be academic.
Mr. James Darrow, Attorney representing the firm of Holden Bevins,
136 West Whiting Avenue, Fullerton, indicated that they have been retained by
the Cerritos- Walnut Association and requested that the Council consider recinding
the resolution of intent to rezone subject property this evening in lieu of the
E.I.R. He based this request on the fact that the change in zone is not final
until the second reading of the ordinance, and further that thole aspects dis-
cussed in the E.I.R are identical to those which should be considered by Council
prior to making final zoning decisions.
72 -867
City Hall, Anaheim. California COUNCIL MINUTES December 19, 1972. 1:30 P.M.
Mr. Geisler advised that in this City, and on this issue, the public
hearing on the zoning has been held by the City Council, and determination and
final action has been taken by the adoption of a resolution setting forth the
findings and determination that the property should be rezoned. The zoning
action is not a public hearing,or quasi judicial nor quasi legislative, it is
a legislative matter entirely,and although the ordinance classifying the pro-
perty is generally handled as an administrative act, is introduced and adopted
at a public meeting, it is truly a legislative act, and not subject to public
hearing at that time. He further advised that a zoning action can be altefed
or reversed at any stage providing that an officially noticed public hearing is
first held. He added that this meeting does not constitute an official public
hearing since it had not been advertised as such.
Mr. Darrow requested the Resolution of Intent be rescinded and felt
this could be accomplished in that the zoning was not finalized.
Mr. Geisler advised that rescinding the resolution could only be done
at a legally advertised, and noticed public hearing. He felt certain those
present would be disturbed if the Council took an action in their favor and
then, without notice rescinded it the following week.
Councilman Dutton suggested that in view of the fact that so many
people are assembled, subject to concurrence of the Councilmen present, per-
haps the E.I.R. could be discussed as if it were in effect, since it would be
improper to discuss the zoning action at this time.
Mr. Geisler stated that there would be nothing to prevent the Council
from making an Environmental Impact Statement and that the discussions could
proceed on that basis.
Councilman Thom asked what effect a resolution to delay the reading
of an ordinance changing the zone under Reclassification No. 72 -73 -10 until
April 5, 1973 would have, specifically whether this would reinstate the
requirement of an Environmental Impact Statement for this project.
Mr. Geisler answered that he doubted this since the action granting
the permit (or zoning) is actually the Resolution of Intent, and the reading
of the ordinance is basically a ministerial act.
Councilman Thom thereupon inquired whether a resolution offered at
this time, to rescind the previous zoning action would permit the presentation
of pertinent evidence from the assembly, prior to voting on the resolution, and
whether such a resolution would be legal.
Mr. Geisler reiterated that any action to reverse a zoning decision
cannot be taken unless it follows a legally. noticed public hearing. He respon-
ded to the question of legality of the resolution stating that this would be
ultimately subject to the decision of a court of law, however in his opinion,
such a resolution would be out of order, and illegal.
Councilman Thom asked if it could be considered sufficient notice
since both the proponents and opponents are present at this meeting.
Mr.. Geisler noted that it cannot be known that all interested parties
are present, however if it can be determined that they are, and if the propon-
ents and opponents wish to. waiver notice, perhaps the meeting can proceed as
a public hearing.
Mr. Robert Kendall, Leadership Housing Systems, Inc., 3501 Harbor
Boulevard, suggested that since the reason that this meeting was called was
to allow those in opposition an opportunity to register their remarks regarding
the E.I.R., and since Leadership Housing Systems feels.confident that said
report is substantially accurate and will be acceptable to the City, that the
discussion on the E.I.R. proceed.
He further reported that he had not received the comments prepared
by the Cerritos-Waliut Association relative to E.I.R. No 60 until this even-
ing, although the purported purpose for the two -week Council delay was to allow
the developer. -an- opportunity to receive these. comments and prepare additional
t
information in response.
72 -868
City 11. Anaheim. California COUNCIL MINUTES December 19. 1972. 1:30 P.M.
He outlined the difficulties which his firm had encountered in attempt-
ing to meet with the homeowners group. In spite of this handicap, he stated they
were still willing to proceed with discussion of the E.I.R. Relative to their
waiving notice so that this might be conducted as a public hearing for the pur-
pose of reconsidering the zoning action, he reported that he was not able to
respond to this without advice from their legal counsel.
Mayor Dutton, noting that all parties concerned were agreeable to
discussing the E.I.R. then stated that this meeting would proceed for this pur-
pose only.
Mr. Darrow inquired whether or not the Council intended to act on the
E.I.R. and restated the position of the Cerritos Walnut Association that every
item included in this report is essential to the zoning decision. Therefore if
the report is not approved, then subsequently neither could the zoning change.
Mr. Geisler advised that there is no provision in the law for dis-
approving an E.I.R., the law provides only that the Council shall make an Envir-
onmental Impact Statement or find such a statement unnecessary; it does not have
the prerogative of disapproval.
Mr. Darrow explained the viewpoint of the Cerritos Walnut Association
that the zoning was unreasonable, and that no undue hardship was proven in the
granting of Variance No. 2426, and requested again that the Council schedule a
public hearing to consider rescinding the original resolution.
The Mayor invited the spokesman for the group to address the Council.
Mr. H. Bartholomew, 1518 West Cris Place, member of the Cerritos- Walnut
Association, apologized for the late submission of the prepared answer to E.I.R.
No. 60. He referred to the meeting with Leadership Housing Systems Inc. and
stated that the primary difference in opinions, as ascertained at the December
14, 1972 meeting, stemmed from the density of the proposed project and its poten-
tial impact on the surrounding environment. He presented the commentary pre-
pared by his group to the Councilmen, and read the opening letter of this sum-
mary in full.
Mr. Bartholomew pointed out that in the original E.I.R. No. 60 the
location of the Convention Center was not mentioned, and they feel this is sign-
ificant because of the traffic which is expected to be generated by this project.
They questioned the noise levels which could occur should the heliport site be
reactivated. He cited figures obtained from the Traffic Engineering Department
which show an anticipated increase from this development of 50% on Walnut and
Cerritos Streets, noting that these projections do not include Convention Center,
Disneyland, or fireworks traffic. He added that their organization is concerned
with the potential increase in accident rates that may result from the increased
traffic, and with the effect on educational facilities of an estimated additional
400 school age children.
In conclusion Mr. Bartholomew stated they feel that all of this can be
tempered with a lower density project; they believe a PRD of.12 -units per net
acre would still be economically feasible and would produce a less detrimental
effect on the environment. Further, he stated that his group agrees that a man
should be able to develop his property as he pleases, however, when that land use
affects others adversely, then the welfare of the populace should be considered,
and the existing residents Should have the highest level of priority when evaluat-
ing these effects.
Mr. Dale Stanton, 1509 Harle Place, reported in more detail on the
projected effect which the proposed project would have on the existing school
system. He referred to a letter from the Anaheim City School District (not sub-
mitted to Council) which indicates a problem with even a small .number of addi-
tional children into these schools. Mr. Stanton stated that a total school -age
population of approximately 414 children could be expected from the proposed
development, based on census taken of over 800 condominiums, which revealed that
in the price range proposed for subject units, there is an average of .75 school
children per unit. It is anticipated that .21% or 87 of these children would enter
Ball Junior High School, 307. or 128 would enter Loara.High School and the remainder
would enter the elementary level. He stated that according to eiucators, when you
72 -869
City Hall, Anaheim. California COUNCIL MINUTES December 19. 1972, 1:30 P.M.
have a student increase of 10%, the problems increase 20 to 30%, and this, he
feels, is evidenced by Ball Junior High School, which is now protected by a
six -foot fence due to vandalism which is attributable to the high density de-
velopments in their attendance area. He reiterated that a density of 10 to 12
units per acre would be the maximum that could be accommodated.
Mr. Robert Messe, 1523 South Bayless reviewed the section of their
summary which referred to the heliport and noted that should this service be
reactivated, the entire project would be subjected to nuisance levels of noise
and some units to a level which would exceed the acceptable standards of HUD
and FHA. He further stated that in his opinion the Council has always acted
as an Environmental Impact Review Committee since the effects on the environ-
ment have always been taken into consideration in connection with zoning
decisions and requested consideration be given to their requests set forth in
their report on E.I.R. No. 60.
Mayor Dutton explained that to the best of his knowledge it is un-
likely that the heliport will be reopened.
Mrs. Betty Ronconi, 1241 South Walnut Street, reminded the Council
that Walnut Street is not improved, but is a two -land road between Cerritos
and Ball and not capable of meeting even the present traffic demands.
The Mayor asked if anyone else in opposition wished to address the
Council, and hearing no response, invited the proponents to speak.
Mr. Stuart Woodard, 1781 Skypark Circle, Irvine, Architect and
Planner for Leadership Housing Systems Inc. remarked in rebuttal,that to his
knowledge the concerns expressed by the Cerritos Walnut Association regarding
schools, traffic and utilities have already been considered by both the City
Planning Commission and the City Council prior to their decisions. He stated
that the difference in the impact on schools and traffic which would result
from a project with a density of 17 -units per acre as opposed to 12 -units per
acre, as recommended by this group, would be insignificant. Using the same
base figures as presented in the homeowner's association report, (although he
disagreed with the validity) he pointed out that the additional number of
children generated by a 17 -unit per acre development would be 100 to 150, which
he felt was not enough to warrant disapproval of a plan which would otherwise
be an asset to the neighborhood.
Councilman Dutton reminded the assembly that the Anaheim General Plan
provides for projection of R -3 zoning on a portion of subject property, which
would permit a density of 36 -units per acre, and the over -all density allocation
for this property would be 28 -units to the acre, whereas the project approved
by the City Council projects a density of one -half of that which would be per-
missible under the General Plan.
Mr. Kendall referred to the concern raised in the homeowners report
regarding the peripheral drive and the safety factor of such, and reminded the
assembly that one of the conditions of approval was that speed bumps be in-
stalled on this drive. He also noted that one of the advantages of the project
is that the residents would be able to reach amenities and public areas without
crossing any streets. He stated that Mr. Woodard, Mr. Ali (author of E.I.R.
No. 60) and himself were willing to respond to any questions regarding this
E.I.R. which the Council might have.
Mayor Dutton, hearing no further questions from the Council, offered
the opponents an opportunity for rebuttal.
Mrs. Cleo Cockreham, 1323 Chalet addressed the Council stat-
ing her objections were based on the increased traffic which would be generated
on Walnut Street. She advised of the present difficulity in exiting the tract
in which she lives.
Mr. Robert Messe stated he wished to clarify two points:
1. That the traffic numbers presented in their commentary on E.I.R.
No. 60 were obtained yesterday from the Anaheim Traffic Department and are
based on an actual traffic Count.
72 -870
City Hall Aphs4a, California: COUNCIL MINUTES December 19. 1972. 1:30 P.M.
2. His calculations disclose that with 12 -units per acre on 31 net
acres, there would be a total of 372 -units and not 480 as stated by the proponent.
The Mayor called for anyone else in opposition who wished to address
the Council, there being no response declared the discussion closed.
Councilman Thom stated once again that in his opinion the intent of
the law on the requirement concerning publicly noticed meeting has been satis-
fied at this meeting. He thereupon offered a resolution rescinding the approval
of Reclassification No. 72- 73 -10.
Prior to voting on this resolution, Councilman Dutton stated he could
not vote on the resolution on the advice of counsel.
Roll Call Vote:
AYES: COUNCILMEN: Sneegas and Than
NOES: COUNCILMEN: Dutton
ABSENT: COUNCILMEN: Stephenson and Pebley
The Mayor declared the resolution failed to carry by not receiving an
affirmative vote of the majority of the Council members.
Councilman Thom stated his intention to offer the same resolution at
the next regular Council meeting.
Mr. Geisler advised that if this was a legally published public hearing
on the reconsideration of the reclassification,the resolution offered by
Councilman Thom would be in order.
Councilman Thom moved that re- hearing on Reclassification -73 -10
and Variance No. 2426 be scheduled as soon as possible. Councilman Sneegas
seconded the motion.
At the request of a member of the audience, Councilman Thom amended
his motion to provide that said public hearing be scheduled at an evening meeting.
Councilman Sneegas concurred with the amendment.
Roll call vote was requested by Councilman Thom:
AYES: -COUNCILMEN: Sneegas and Thom
NOES: COUNCILMEN: Dutton
ABSENT: COUNCILMEN: Stephenson and Pebley
MOTION CARRIED.
ADJOURNMENT: Councilman Thom moved to adjourn. Councilman Sneegas seconded the
motion. MOTION CARRIED.
Adjourned: 8:20 P.M.
Signed -72 St- rT
City Clerk