The URL can be used to link to this page

1974/01/22City Hall, Anaheim, California -COUNCIL MINUTES -January 22 1974, 130 P M. The City Council of the City of Anaheim met in regular session. PRESENT: COUNCILMEN: Stephenson, Sneegas, Pebley, Thom and Dutton ABSENT : COUNC IIMEN : None PRESENT: CITY MANAGER: Keith A, Murdoch CITY ATTORNEY: Alan R. Watts CITY CLERK: Alona M. Farrens~ UTILITIES DIRECTOR: Gordon W. Hoyt PERSONNEL DIRECTOR: Garry 0. McRae CITY ENGINEER: James P. Maddox ASSISTANT DIRECTOR OF DEVELOPMENT SERVICES: Ronald Thompson ASSISTANT PLANNER: Bob Kelley Mayor Dutton called the meeting to order. FLAG SALUTE: Councilman Mark A. Stephenson led the Assembly in the Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag. RESOLUTION OF APPRECIATION - DENE A~T~D HAROLD DAOUST: A Resolution of Appre.~iat:ic~n. on the occasion of their retirement after rendering almost 55 yt-gars o total service to the Anaheim Community was unanimously adopted x~o~~ ~~,: ~;~- sentation to Dene and Harold Daoust, former City Clerk and Pux'chas:i~~~, Agent respectively. 2INUT'ES : Approval of the Minutes of the Anaheim City Council Regular Meetings ~ie13 January 2, January 8 and January 15, 1974, and the Adjourned Regular Meeting ~-ie~~:~. January 19, 1974, was deferred to the next regular meeting. 1AIVER OF READING -ORDINANCES AND RESOLUTIONS: Councilman Thom moved to waive the reading in full of all ordinances and resolutions, and that consent to the wa.~.tj~~:.~:-~ of reading is hereby given by all Councilmen unless, after reading of the eitl~:,~ specific request is made by a Councilman for the reading of such ordinance or resolution. Councilman Dutton seconded the motion. MOTION UNANIMOUSLY CARR,Za:~d ZEPORT -FINANCIAL DEMANDS AGAINST THE CITY : Demands against the City in the c3,°nc~1:i:'1.,". of $2,640,821.62, in accordance with the 1973-74 Budget were approved. ~_ _. u, ~ _~~_.n~ _... 74-67 City Hall, Anaheim, Califorr.i.~ - ~'OiT~!CIL "~tLr}zt.3'.i'ES - .~snuary ?2, 1974, 1:30 P.M. PUBLIC HEARING - ABANDO~~iEr ~ ~t ~ ~ --"~ r ~_~7 ~::. cords>~~~~<:3 with application filed by E. Sam Hildebrandt, :=FC'tzrl.t~,~ ~Ti"fie i:nsurar~c°r, t~;,~,panv, public hearing was held on the proposed abandor~rzez.t of several utility easements located north of Cerritos Avenue, wes~. ;~:` Kj~c~rt :`~zren~~e, ?vi.r~g i~73~thin a portion of proposed Tract No. 8204, pursuant to RF~s~~13.ztion tio. 7~3R-E11.3, ~~aly published in the Anaheim Bulletin and notices thereof: pos~eci :~.~1 accorda.nee with law. Report of the c_ i. ty Engineer was submi ~.ted recommending approval of said request unconditor~a~.ly. The Mayor asked if anyz~nP wished to address the Council; there being no response,declared the hearing c~iosed. RESOLUTION N0, 74R-l~S; ('-;~~;,,^~ ~°z,<~,~ 'iz~?m off.er~:~d uesol,~tion No. 74R-18 for adoption, approving Aba?~ it,r~r~_r~rt ~p~, ~?`?-3A as ~..r,,,c,~ended by the City Engineer. Refer to RE'sC~~zli.l(3C` ~3y~:~?.:. A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY ~'c)iT;i(CI i t~F. T~ CI'A' t?F ANAi-IEIM ORDERING THE VACATIONA~ ABANDONMEi~'' ~'F ~ERT.~+ ~4v ~~~,A.:, PRO PE~~'i~ DESCRIBED HEREIN. (No. 73-3A) Ro11 ~:a1~ ~.~~-~t< AYES ; C('i_r?` C` ;' ?,"-rr_r~ : ~ t k n~f, ~~z;=a~~zr, , ~::t~~~;~~~y;a~ , "€'ehley, Thom and Dutton NOES : uOZ.TI`C~z.:i`~i.; : ~:f;-,2~¢~ ABSENT: C~;LN~;1.;.~~_F.~~~? - ~Sw,~r==:: The Mayon c~ec:"ax:e~~ R~~,~~ ~.~Ft~_c~rz I~s~. 7~~-~.8 du~.y passed and adopted. PUBLIC HEARING - ABANDON1~zE,N'~"~~v . _ ' ~~-'+~:~N~ ::~ a:: ~ .~:.~~~zzct~ ~.,~:.th application filed by Anne S . Burrows , Trustee• :~~ ~ , Ft~~ ~-{~ ~ ~ sS.~:%•.: aa~., ~~.:~; Late , public hearing was held on the proposed aban d~»uTr, ~- ~- = i 3° a=~ ::~p~;:. s r,z ~:~ .1izr> ~ s c. ,z ~:ility easement, located approximately at the sez~r:FxE.a=~;~_ ;~"~~-~,z~- ai ":~~,ar€~~ ~._° Boulevard and Lorraine Drive, pursuant to Resolut~..or~ ;, , :. ~' ~':"_F; i_, i~, L`-;.z47'. ~a,~~d in the Anaheim Bulletin and notices thereof posted. in ac~~~z. da.~~~e ~.~~.t},~ law., Report of the City Fng.:~ieer was vubmitted recommending approval of said request unconditionall~;~ The Mayor aske.~ ~_~ ar~.~s.~z~~: wished to address the Council; there being no response, declared t~z¢_ %c~r~.r~.n~; closed. RESOLUTION N0, J4R-19: ~c~i~nci,lman Stephenson offered Resolution No. 74R-19 for adoption, approving ~~~andon~c~nt- Nn, 7~-4A, as recommended by the City Engineer. Refer to Resolution Book. A RESOLUTION OF THE CITE' COLTNCTL ~JF` 'rliE ITY C3F ANAHEIM ORDERING THE VACATION AND ABANDONMENT CAF CERTAIN DEAL PROPERTY DESCRIBED HEREIN . No. 73-4A) Roll Call ~,'at€_~ AYES: COUNCILMEN; Stephenson, ~neegas, Pebley, Thom and Dutton NOES : COt~ICTT.~~.~? . ~?~~e ABSENT : t'01~~T~ The ~~`a-v~~. :~:: ~ , . ;. _. ~, ' ~ .~~ ,4~ ~:.~s.a sed and adopted. _ ~ ~. PUBLIC HEARING - YE i ~z ~~~~ ~ ° .~+ ,~ ,. Edward A. S1ag~.e, ~'~~ ~ ' ~ ,.:~..... -:~ °_ ~ ~;; -,~ r~ ~ ~ °%.ncroases as follows, was Submitted ~oge~~~~°. :~~ ~ ~~',~ _`,'~~? ~ ~ r 4,~ ~~~~r ~.rar~a'.IS cltZes i..n California; ~6~ _ - ~j . 157 P.M. y Hall, Anaheim, California r ~ <~ r~y~~~r ~' 60~ first 1/6 mi1~ 60~ per mile thc~~s: r~K~ A ~:~ :~ $ 7.20 per hour ~Ta ~ < i ~, -: ' ~~ :~ r,. ~ - ~ ~ ~' ~ i v° ~ e lr. j The Mayor asked ~ . .._ ~- ~~~ ~ ~~:~~ :°~p f~ ~.~~tative wished to address the Council. Mr, Edward A. Sl~~z ~F:. , ~ .. . , r~°-.aat~.r, _ `~~? ~~ East Lincoln Avenue, advised that rising fuel pr. zc:c> ...~ :.: •.~.~~°~:' ~.os~=~ ; .~r such other factors as workman's compensation ins•;.i.~: a.~~~ ,~ ~ ~~ :.' ~~; ~Y'c~L ~. ~:s to such an extent that it is jeopardizing the level. c~ A- ..j,~ . v't ~:-~~~ 1: <. fi ~-m car. maintain on the vehicles. He offered to .sr~~.;,M~~_-~~ - ~ ~ ~. ~ .- -ah~ ~ 7. ~' ~,~'T'Cii a~i~ht have. The Mayor as~;ed i ~ _.. . ~ ; _ _ ~ _~.,~.. h: ~~•~~-~;~° ar i~ o~aposition wished to address the Council ; t~~r- ~~ ~ ~F ~ : ~ ~ j• :~>>: .'~:.:. E~~ e~ the hearing closed. RESOLUTION NO . 74R-20 : G~.. _ k ' ~ , ~;- ~ r c~ '~: _- k ..'.-ion No .. 74R-20 for adoption, approving an inc~~~s~: ~ ~ ~-~! ~~=e `.'t ~-~~>~~~ t~'ab Company as proposed. Refer to Res<~~ _~_ A RESOLUTION OF THE C,I""~Y ,, _~;, _ .. .. :~.:,, s ";~~NI'I~:NC .~~ RATE INCREASE TJ YELLOW CAB C~~ t'~`~°~" ~ ; ~ ~ ~ a~, ~ ~~ t' ~_ .,: ~ ~ ~, ~ ~~~~` . :LNCC~~. ~'~I~ATED, FOR TAXI SER~IICE IN T~~ ".'`"°~~ ` - Roll Ca11 ~Jot:e AYES : COUNG:LI~'~}:~ ~:;~ NOES : COUNC ~i.~^~~:'~ . ABSENT : COUNC ILI~1L ~ r _ The Mayor dec?ar~a. 't °F s <~ ~;~, 'fhc~m a~~d Dutton ~.~ _>i:' $:;~ ~;a~s~e~ ~~.~~u~ adopted. BLIC HEARING - PROPOSED AMEN`DMEi~~.,~~.._~._ ~ •wR `~_ .~.~.. ~~~._`; °y''Fii=l.t~ a~zUN:CCIPAL CODE - ~CT10NS 18.08.330, 18.08.30 % s 18.0` C iCi -'=1~TC°'Zt~~?ILE Al~~B TRUCK SERVICE ATIONS : To consider amendments ::~ ~i. ~ ~~ ~~- ,3''.ahei..~; a-Iurxicipal Code as follows: -~ - ." ~ -. `; ~- ~. A _ 'K -,?' i ': C:: F: ,~tat.LClTlSo - - ~f' recom~~~xr~:iec~ acir.~~s~ ~~_a° of Chapter ~?~„~~~ ~:. f ; .. mended tha~ , , ~~ °~_ w `+ granting ar ~~xe~~* ;r:° .: ° _ this ~~~''_ ~Fa?=.~r~.'.' za.~.' ever, `-ce T,~'. ~~ec? .. ~~ Officer than 4~~-~c .~°f pro -sec t ;a~. ~~::~~ t~F~ L- ~ta'.. w A~ Jj~i~'. - approximate?~ one :,..~. r indicated and ~t ~~t~:- vestigation„ "~'h~- °~~~~ gyiv+en~}h~i`ghe~ pyr_~ m` 3 C Y. t )' i? ~.1 CJI~ L. ~~ 4'I t~l n ` ~ ~ ; tlon~~ veh~~.: ~~~~ ~ `. ; .. of an ordiuar~ce -=~a~ r with representat. 5 v;, .- f~ . - caC~.~? a. ~i_x1t1~. L in° ., ._ 1ci ~ . t %'ittv6.;~'- ~~~e . _ ~ .~ r-~~.. . --~~~:~ ~:°--~~~~~.~~°~~tion y .;!~S':Lt has worked Y~ 74-69 City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - January 22,.1974, 1:30 P,M. Mr. Thompson summarised that the Development Services' staff feel that the propose' ^r-?; .Y °- ...~ ~tix~ old accomplish the following 1. Add needed definitions to the Code. 2. Provide for easier interpretation and reading by the layman leading ultimately to easier enforcement. 3. Provides for vending machines which are normally used by service stations as a matter of right. 4. Extends the number of trailers which can be kept at any one service station ,.from five to ten with certain size limitations. 5. Clarifies permitted indoor and outdoor uses. 6. Sets certain limits for outdoor display of tires. 7. Provides for other rental vehicles, such as trucks, recreational vehicles, autoia©biles under conditional use permit with certain standards, 8. Provides for landscaping. 9. Clarifies existing ordinance so that the underlying zone require- ment is not necessarily applicable During a brief period of Council discussion, Mayor Dutton questioned whether or not the proposed ordinance allows for the use of artificial plant materials in combination with live planting materials to meet the landscaping requirements, to which Mr. Thompson replied that it has been the practice and it is the intent under this ordinance to allow such use of artificial plants. Mr. Murdoch pointed out that the language in the ordinance is quite specific and reference is limited to live plant materials. He noted that if the intent is to allow the artificial materials,there should be a more flexible wording in the ordinance. 'The Mayor asked if anyone either in favor or in opposition to adop- tion of the proposed ordinance wished to address the Council. Mr. Jim Bateman, representing the U-Haul Company (residence 1417 Cortney Place, Anaheim), inquired whether the proposed Section 18,61.23 will require that existing rental dealerships obtain conditional use permits and if so, how long will they have to comply. He advised that they are not opposed to the requirement for conditional use permit for new dealerships however they are questioning the necessity of imposing this requirement on established dealers as it would present some hardshipv Mr. Watts clarified that if the ordinance is adopted, the existing dealerships would constitute a nonconforming use and as such would be permitted to continue for a specific period of time (in this instance,. three years). The dealer would then be required to obtain a conditional use permit. Mr. Bateman additionally called attention to the maximum dimensions for rental trucks and recreational vehicles as shown within the ordinance (Section 18.07.023.04 - 10 feet in height and 22 feet in length), He advised that the average V-Haul rental truck is 10 feet 6 inches in height and 24 to 30 feet in length. Further he remarked that the size of trucks and recreational vehicles to be permitted is well defined under this same section - Subsection 18.07.023.06 which restricts trucks and recreational vehicles permitted to the two axle type which can be operated with a Class "3" driver's license. He advised that the U-Haul firm would definitely be in opposition to the height and width restrictions proposed in this ordinance. Mr. Bob K.e11ey, Assistant Planner, advised that the height and length restrictions were placed in the ordinance as a result of input received from Mr. Ron Werderitsch, Pxe~~idert }~ Ar-cerco :Marketing Company, a marketing service company for U-Haul. He '~c;~tE'~ t~~a: -he quest.ior~ of how :Hoch of an intrusion a higher vehicle would ~nak~~ i~~: the ;garage T~~~rey ~~,r~cated adjacent to a residential area should be taker_ ir. t:: b ~~orzs .~~l~~ ~°a ~l on . Fx~r they he advised that the 22-foot length was set a.s th~~ t?1c~.`''I~211~`i °~E=ca~:sF> ti_~4at ~.s ~Ize average length of a parking space, and it was f~~ ~.t ~_'-~~s C i ~rh~ ~,,,' ;~etllrl~~S might impede traffic circulation. on the site. Mr. Bateman ~~a ~ ~~ _ ~~,ra ~ -~ a_nion that- since 10% of the area can be used for parking of these rental. ~e~~i~°'es~ than thy, individual dealers would be able to stripe their parking area ~.n s~ich a manner as to allow traffic circulation - 7t~ ty Fall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - January 22, 1974, 1:30 P.M. and still park the 30-foot long vehicles, He advised that most household mov- ing rental trucks are of this size. Councilman Stephenson suggested that the proposed ordinance be amended to allow for the larger dimensions. Councilman Sneegas responded that he felt the dimensions should not be specified at all, as this discriminates against those dealers who might want to provide rental trucks for businesses which are larger than the average house- moving truck. He further noted that the California Motor Vehicle Law defines r.. the size of an illegal vehicle,and therefore the Council need not be overly con- cerned with it. Councilman Pebley voiced the opinion that it would be unfair to impose the requirement for conditional use permit on those dealerships which are al- ready operating in the City. Mr. Watts suggested, in view of the fact that evidently the Council wishes to have some of the language redrafted, that this be performed prior to an introduction of the ordinance for first reading. Mr. Murdoch summarized then that Council would wish to have the lan- guage in the proposed ordinance broadened to permit artificial~as well as live plant materials; that rather than specific height and length limits, some lan- guage be used to the effect of preventing visual intrusion to adjacent properties and to adequate traffic circulation on the site, with which Council agreed. Mr. Murdoch further advised that the conditional use permit requirement could be retained in the ordinance and, in deference to Councilman Pebley's con- cern for those dealers already operating, suggested that the City Planning Com- mission initiate conditional use permits for all of the established dealerships. The Council concurred with the above suggestion. The Mayor asked if anyone else wished to address the Council. Mr. Ken Denning, Community Relation's Representative, Western Oil and Gas Company, stated that he was involved in similar discussion relative to the landscaping provision in Sacramento County and offered as a solution that this agency set a ratio of 70~ artificial to 30% Live plant materials. He offered to work with Mr. Kelley and the Planning Division on the redraft of the amendments. 4~,- :~~)t ~:ir: by r4<$~:~ '.~~.;1 ~ ~'~~c~~n q .~~c:~r~,~~~d ~.~ ^ councilman ~~~eegas, the public -?earing s~~ ~>r-~~osed ar~~:°~~:::zmer.~ ; +::, hapt-~~r~ ~~.~5 and addition of Chapter ~.~3t61 aas continued ~ or thr~-~~ weeks `~ fiy .t;~w t ~.=~c ~-~~r ~evis~c~rt of the amendments as ~utlinec~ bti- ~"'~-~;tnc~~.1. Mt~TIC~n t;u~-;.?~TEn. ?~o a~_tion was taker ~~-~ sz: n ~~i ~°~nz~e~ltal impact Report Exemption Status, ~ursua~->~. to the City Attorne~J = s _)~1?~~ion. 3LI~ HEARING ~ ~~tNDIi'It~NAL USE PEl~xil AvG . 1.30 AND ENVIRONMENTAL- .IMPACT REPOIcT NG . i ~SUPPLEMENTARy' 'ICU E.I.R. N0. 80} : Applicatiars by Anaheim Hills, Inc., and Texaco ~~entures, Inco, to establish a ]~%-lc~t- Manned residential development on the `:3orth OidS.. S_,ri s)~rl,-~aZf.~~ A~Te ni.~l.P ~ i~il ''~ ~..~yYAfi Ef ~~'t L. ~:;`'~. Z} Y.t f ._he nt:ersection of Serrano Avenue .s,nd Hldder C'~.~VC`P }?CsaC~ ~'~;' ; ~'t? ` x 't;tC~7.' A~: ~, ~C~a° 'ivy.? 1'~~'S Y,~73S SllbiTt~ t ~Pd g~~ th t}l to er wi . Envirorx~lenta~ ~mps.ct iie~~=~°~ '~.}~ ;''~ '~r-~~-~rr~:~~s 'I'=act i~os. 5513, ~3'~T4, 8515 anc~ 85.6} s , ~tequired fron `agc: ~)r° r t s ~x ~. w1Pd i ca ted s tree t ~ f Minimum building s?_t~s $'i?"i`-~T3 . ~ . Minimum building s s re w~.dtb~ _ d. Maximum building heigl"~t w-i.tvl-~;.r~ 1.5 (} feet of a R-A none. ea Minimum side yard sethack. f £ Required. masonry w.s:~ 1 abut: ink a sing ~e family ~~esidential zone a g. Maximum sign area `F`he City Planning :.orr~~ission ~~~_i,µsuant t~~~ Reso4ution ~~to. PC 73-255, granted Condz.tional~ ~.~5~ ~'~:~"'_7'x1.*: "zt°', ~ {~~~ ~'+~a°~; . ~'Snt-.'"ig waivers st~~t thrC)ugh r9~tt ~.nclusive , and denying waiver "g" h s~=b ~ ~~c~ k ~~~ °-:l~e fol ~' owing conditions , and 74-71 City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - January 22, 1974, 1:30 P.M. recommended, pursuant to their finding that E.I.R. No. 105 is in complete and total compliance wittl tl~e Environmental Qua'. ~-- ~.^t of the State of California; that the report in every way follows the City's established guidelines to the requirements for filing of an environmental impact report, recommended said report be adopted as the Environmental Impact Statement of the Council. 1. That this conditional use permit is granted subject to the com- pletion of Tentative Map of Tract Nos. 8513, 8514, 8515, 8516 and Reclassifica- tion No. 71-72-44, now pending. 2. 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. 3. 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 maps and, further, that the approved covenants, conditions and restrictions shall be recorded concurrently with the final tract maps. 4. That prior to filing the final tract maps, 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 infor- mation as the City Attorney may desire to protect the City, its citizens, and the purchasers of the project. 5. That fire hydrants shall be installed and charged as required and determined to be necessary by the Chief of the Fire Department prior to commencement of structural framing. 6. That all air conditioning facilities shall be properly shielded from view, and the sound buffered from adjacent properties. 7. That subject property shall be served by underground utilities. 8. That a perpetual maintenance agreement covering the Metropolitan Water District water easement shall be submitted to the City Attorney's Office for approval and provisi^~.s for perpetual maintenance for the Metropolitan Water District easement shall be included in the covenants, conditions and restrictions. After approval, said agreement shall be recorded with the Orange County Recorder. 9. 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, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 and 9. 10. That Condition Nos. 1, 2, 3, 4 and 8, above-mentioned, shall be complied with prior to the commencement of the activity authorized under this resolution, or prior to the time that the building permit is issued, or within a period of one year from date hereof, whichever occurs first, or such further time as the Planning Commission may grant. 11. That Condition Nos. 6, 7, and 9, above-mentioned, shall be com- plied with prior to final building and zoning inspections. Appeal from action taken by the City Planning Commission was filed by Attorney John C. McCarthy, on behalf of the Santa Ana Canyon Improvement Association and Orange Unified School District and public hearing was scheduled this date. The Mayor asked if anyone wished to comment on Environmental Impact Report No. 105 prior to Council action, and there was no response. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT: On motion by Councilman Stephenson, seconded by Councilman Sneegas, the City Council accepted Environmental Impact Report No. 105 (Supplementary to No. 80) and Committee Analysis thereof, together with the City Planning Commission recommendation and adopted same as the Statement of the Council. MOTION CARRIED. Mr. Ronald Thompson briefed the location of subject property and ad- vised that the Applicant intends to develop 150 units as a small lot subdivi- saon. He related that this pr<~perty is within the PC Zone approved previously and that 215 units were c~ri.gi~all}' proposed and approved for this portion of ~:he property. 'I'~iis app'. catic~:~ epresents a 35"~ rPd~zct~an, the density pro- posed is 5 dwe ~ l ing ur;~. ~ per ~c~re ~.atal got coverage ~.s 1.8'o as apposed to the '+5°I indieated on the ori_gira~. p~.ans fc~r ~~-2 development. ~72 :y mall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - January 22, 1974, 1:30 P.M. _~ Mr. Thompson indicated that the staff report deals in some detail with "he individual living u~it~a a~ ~~Eil as circulation, a~~:e:~ 9 ~"or firF and trash vehicles, etc., and, rather than going into this at length offered to answer any questions Council might have relative to these areas. Mr. 'Thompson stated that the City Planning Commission in its consider- ation of the application noted that the first three waivers are typically granted for planned residential developments or small lot subdivisions. The Planning Commission felt waivers "d", "e" and "f" to be appropriate because of the terrain of subject parcel on which there are variations in grade levels from the surround- ing properties. He advised that the City Planning Commission was of the opinion that no hardship was shown relative to the requested waiver from maximum sign area and they felt that the Applicant should remain within the requirement for total sign area and therefore denied waiver "g". In answer to Councilman Dutton, Mr. Thompson reported that the sign proposed was a 32-square foot monument type sign, whereas 20 feet would be the maximum permittedo The Planning Commission was not primarily concerned with the type of sign proposed, but with the size. Mayor Dutton and several members of the City Council reviewed the plans which indicated the type of sign proposed The Mayor recognized Mr. John McCarthy, Attorney for the Orange Unified School District and Santa Ana Canyon Improvement Association, who advised that he wished to comment on E.I.R. No. 105, however was out of the Council Chamber when that action was taken. Mr. McCarthy advised that his appearance and comments are offered in a constructive spirit in an attempt to assist in the heavy responsibility facing those involved in the planning process of land. He referred to the changing rules of land use, most importantly the Environmental Quality Act which is closely being followed by changes in the Subdivision Act, Clean Air Act, etc. Mr. McCarthy pointed out that the Environmental Quality Act assumes that if an environmental impact report treats the subject candidly then the public officials can better make decisions regarding land use which fulfill the intent of the E.Q.A. and bene- fits future generations. Mr. McCarthy stated that the two groups which he represents do not oppose growth, but their principal objection is the uncontrolled rate at which growth could take place. He advised that in the draft E.I.R. No. 105 which he had examined ,reference is made to incorporating certain other documents which are the basis of the environmental review, in particular Environmental Impact Report No. 80, which discusses the entire 4,200-acre development of Anaheim Hills. Mr. McCarthy expressed the opinion that there ought to be a legal way to physically, effectively and publicly incorporate documents, although, he recognized the prob- lem of Aa.sing this sort of reference, when there may be a legal obligation to have the references attached to the final E.I.R., if they are to be incorporated. Mayor Dutton interrupted Mr. McCarthy and inquired which envirorunental impact report he planned to discuss, No. 80 or No. 105. Mr. McCarthy stated that he wished to suggest that somehow the data which is useful in evaluating the project, and is only found in E.I.R. No. 80, should be brought physically before the Planning Commissions the E.i.R.~Review Committee and the City Council, and be made available to the public when consider- ing the supplementary reports. Councilman Thom noted that he did not have a copy of E.I.R. No. 80 in his Agenda packet. Councilman Dutton pointed out that E.I.R. No. 80 was previously reviewed and approved by the City Council, and that he had kept his copy available for perf:odic review. 74-73 City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - January 22, 1974, 1:30 P.M. Mr. Watts stated that if he assumes correctly, Mr. McCarthy is sug- gesting that the City physically reproduce and incorporate E.I.R. No. 80 for distribution to the City Council and others each time a supplementary report is considered, and noted that this would require the construction of an addi- tional paper mill due to the size and complexity of that original report. Mr. McCarthy reiterated that he was not criticizing or intending to give the impression that he knows the answer to the dilemma, but responded that he wished to raise the point that perhaps further consideration should be given to bringing into the E.I.Ro Review process, not just the impact of this project, but its impact in relationship to the previously approved development within the 4,200 acre project~as well as the impact of those dwelling units yet to be applied for. Councilman Dutton noted that approximately 15,000 dwelling units were approved on the 4,200 acres when the planning process began whereas the total is now down to approximately 9,200. He stated that the Council has already discussed E.I.R. No. 80 and E.I.R. No. 105 is supplementary. Mr. Watts advised that E,I.R. No. 80 has been adopted and approved by the City Council last year and is a matter of public record which is on file with the City Clerk and available to any member of the public who wishes to review same. Mr. McCarthy further related that the draft E.I,R. under considera- tion attempts to incorporate by reference a number of engineering reports and other documents (page No. 5 of the draft E.I.R. No. 105, reference to documents on file in the Engineering Division). He stated that in his opinion this does not satisfy certain requirements. He suggested that perhaps this materia l could be placed in the Anaheim Public Library and then reference made on the subject of air quality, etc., the documentation being on hand and available in the Library. Further he commented that if the engineering data is that important to support a particular statement, it would seem to him it should be set forth in the E .I .R. Mr. McCarthy further commented on the extent of necessary detail and information required in an E.I.R., using as an example air quality He noted that reference to gir quality in the draft E.I.R, simply states that this was discussed in the primary Impact Report Noo 80. He stated that the information on air quality in E.I.R. No. 80 is almost 1~ years old. He contended that neither E.I.R. No. 80 nor No. 105 treat the subject in the manner in which it should be so that the Council would have the information necessary to act. He remarked that although automobile emission pollutants, their quantity and impact on the atmosphere per number of cars is discussed, that information does not reveal what kind of air you will have when the project is complete. The critical factor which is missing according to Mr. McCarthy~is what this kind of air will do to individuals living in the area, to their health and well being or if it would aggravate respiratory or cardiovascular disease. In this line he suggested that more data is necessary. He felt that the air quality in Northern Orange County should be monitored during certain times of the year so as to have information on current air quality, so as to be able to project what it will be after the proposed project is completed. With that information the opinion of a medical epidemiologist should be sought as to the effect of this air on health, existing diseases, etc. He offered the names of three individuals who are knowledgeable in this area: Dr. John R. Goldsmith, Chief Medical Epidemiologist, Department of Public Health, State of California; Dr. Gerald Heidbreder, Los Angeles County Health Officer; Dr. Hurley Motley, Respir- atory Expert with the Los Angeles County Air Pollution Control District. Fur- ther he stated he would assume that the Orange County .Air Pollution Control District is equally competent and could produce information which would be use- fu1 in the connection between air and. health. In order to obtain input on an E.I.R. from various individuals or agencies prior to its adoption by the Council, Mr. McCarthy proposed that the City of Anaheim utilize a letter form asking some general questions about the draft E.I.R. and soliciting opinions on same. The letter would be stapled to a copy of the draft E.I.R. and forwarded by mail to the proper agencies. He remarked that he feels that Section 21.153 of the Public Resources Code calls for this type of input to the E.I.R. 7C Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - January 22, 1974, 1:30 P.M. In addition Mr. McCarthy was of the opinion that the E.I.R. process should include a method to reflect the analysis and input from the City staff since the developer's report does not always display the most objective view of the facts. When dealing with incremental projects such as Anaheim Hills, he thought that the City could up-date E.I.R. No. 80 with a product of its own, by contracting for a critique on E.I.R. No. 80 as supplemented. The reason for going through this process he explained is answered by the law and the cost of same is also answered by the law in that it states the fees can be passed on to the applicant. Councilman Pebley remarked that from the accounts he has read in the newspapers he understood that Mr. McCarthy was hired by the Orange Unified School District to hold up development since they have not obtained school sites. Mr. McCarthy replied that he was hired to assist in the development of a cooperative planning and understanding of some of the new regulations and laws with which everyone must live. Councilman Pebley related that he thought the reason Mr. McCarthy was hired was due to the fact that the Orange Unified School Board did not have the foresight to acquire sufficient school property three or four years ago. Mr. McCarthy categorically denied that this was the reason and stressed that his function for the School Board and his energies are directed to a solu- tion of the problem. Mr. McCarthy continued to discuss the planning process, noting that another factor which would improve this as far as environmental impact reports are concerned,would be to improve the way that alternatives to the proposed development are treated. He noted that generally an environmental impact report submitted by the developer will treat the type of development which he is pro- posing in the most favorable manner and call for this development as soon as pos- sible. It was Mr. McCarthy's suggestion that timing of a project should also be given consideration as an alternative in the environmental review. Mr, McCarthy expressed the opinion that careful consideration of the timing element would preclude the possibility of homes being constructed before the necessary services can accommodate same. Councilman Dutton related that the Council had reviewed the entire Anaheim Hills concept a few years ago. He further pointed out that the Inter- departmental Review Committee, the Environmental Impact Review Committee, and the City Planning Commission have each reviewed the various aspects mentioned by Mr. McCarthy in addition to what is presented in the environmental impact report which is produced by the developers. Mr. McCarthy reiterated that it is the subject of timing or the rate of growth which he is suggesting be explored in the environmental impact report and the impact of that rate. Councilman Sneegas reflected on the difficulty of planning schools until some of the planning decisions have been made and the direction, types and amount cif development is pretty generally known. ~~'~° t> Mc~:art~i~Y agreed ~a ~, ~ ~~ t c~tiric° .l~T~a~ ~rt~ega~ and remarked that if tt-~e enviror~~nenta:. impact report. wee = ~..esed tit ~.r d.~`t~, th~~ i-formation regarding the nec- cessar ~r Schoo 1 facilities s.rd ~ `~e~~ ~r=r L~ i c e~ t-oge~:he~-a and to prrvide for their develcpmer~~- by a timing mechaz~i~:~.g ~4,,--~~ _~~; ~~~ ~h~= cr~n~=~.tioning cif a permit, then the re.side~ces would not b~: co~^.p~e~~~ a~±;~ ~:r~~.~.~pied he~ore the freeways are built, necessar=r .~~:~ lines are install~~~, ~c'~~~~ ~.~ ~r~ prc~vi=fed, etc. E~.xrther, that same timing mechanism could pre~,Tade `~r~r ~:~eve<<~p~ent *~c= ~e ~e~.ayed z~nti_1 the Ai.r Quality Contrcl ~e~~~le have advises{{. th~~: t~~~> ~~~ g ~~'>-a~~~~~;~: {~ilw. ^~ot further aggra~rate o~r prevent ~he~.r achievement f,f pr~_:~ar~- Feci= ~-a' starda_.rds for clean air. `"ouneilman Sneegas remarked ghat he do'.abted whether any development could f~ccur at all under the c~r~.~~.z~stan:°er ~escra_bed by Mr. ~ScC:ax-thy. He further remarked that the factor wY~t~?~. ~r~~n<.~~rr~s ~z~W~ mc~s~ regarding the ~}range Unified School. Dx.stra_ct situation ~ ~ ghat *~he x~r 3R ~°~mzmuni.cat:~.ons ; ecPi~ped from them have 74- 75 City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - January 22. 1974. 1:30 P.M been to the effect of requesting development in the City of Anaheim to stop. He stated that he would like to know what the School District plans to do to im- plement a program for providing schools in the area. Mr. McCarthy replied that they are currently working in support of the forthcoming bond election. Councilman Sneegas responded that the manner in which the Orange Unified School District is handling the bond issue is very negative, i.e.~ that the way to pass a bond issue is not to point out to the citizens of Orange that the City of Anaheim is causing them all of the expense and difficulty. Certainly, in his opinion, that type of publicity does not foster the acceptance of the responsibility to provide schools. Councilman Stephenson inquired of Mr. McCarthy whether he is also employed by the Orange Unified School District to oppose new construction with- in the City Limits of Orange, noting that considerable activity is taking place in the hill and canyon areas within the City of Orange boundaries. Mr. McCarthy stated that he would not accept the premise that he is employed to halt construction; that the School District is not opposed to growth. His objective is to ascertain whether or not a joint planning pro- cess might prevail, which he advised Councilman Stephenson,would include new construction in Orange as well. Councilman Pebley related his personal experience as a school board member for 62 years in Anaheim, noting that they were foresighted enough to purchase five school sites in advance of development and to hold these until the school facilities were necessary. He pointed out that development in the hill and canyon area has been imminent for some time and that the sale of the Nohl Ranch property should have been sufficient impetus for the School District to purchase sites since it was obvious that this property would no longer be used for agricultural purposes. He advised that he could not view the Orange Unified School Boards situation with any sympathyo Mr. McCarthy proposed that the City of Anaheim consider the adoption of an ordinance which would allow the location of development to determine who will bear part of the cost of school site acquisition. This ordinance would impose, as a condition of approval of development, a certain fee based upon the project population to be generated by the proposed development. This fee is then earmarked for development of the school facilities to serve that specific area. Mr. McCarthy expressed the opinion that if such an ordinance were adopted by the City of Anaheim,much of the question and speculation .as to the location of school facilities would be eliminated. Councilman Sneegas felt that this would not be equitable in that most people have paid taxes for some years, a portion of which provides school facil- ities in their area, and then, upon purchase of a new home in a new area, would be requ fired to pay again a tax for acquisition of school sites. He noted that taxes have been paid on subject property to the Orange Unified School District for many years, without any school services having been necessary and these funds evidently were placed in use in some other segment of the Orange Uni- fied School District and diminished the tax burden to that extent. Those people now are required to bear their part of the responsibility to provide schools at this location. Mr. McCarthy fe~~ ~.~ha~ real property taxes in relationship to that portion which is assigned tK~ tb~3 School District are analogous to life insurance premiums, in that although these are paid continuously by the majority, a small percentage is receiving benefits at any particular time. He explained that the kind of taxes paid for the oast 17 years on the property in question were not taxes at the rates for ~c~hools, '~~Yt on the highest and best use of the land at that time which was agric~.altural Councilman Sneegas pointed out that no school. services were required or provided either. -76 ty Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCII, MINUTES - January 22, 1974, 1:30 P.M. Councilman Dutton voiced the opinion that this does not negate the responsibility of the School District to provide the schools, He mentioned that the original plans for Anaheim Hills indicated 16 school sites within the 4,200 acres, and the Orange Unified School District has never come to grips with ac- quisition of these except for the Canyon High School site. He outlined the dilemma which exists as being that the School District wishes the construction to stop until they can provide the schools, however, they cannot provide these until the demand for them is present. -.-. Mr. McCarthy stated that the School District has paid in excess of $30,000 an acre for a junior high school site in the area. Further he pointed out that decisions on timing and etc., are made by the Anaheim City Council and this leaves the developer with a problem of wrestling with the likelihood that schools may not be built by the time his property is developed.. Mr. McCarthy concluded his comments on the E.I.R. with the remark that one of the principal problems is communication and perhaps too much is expected of the Environmental Impact Review process since much of the information is too comprehensive, but he stated that he feels it is necessary to make a decent attempt at timing of development with the availability of clean air, availability of schools, or of more energy. He pointed out that this Environmental Impact Report does not address itself to the current energy crisis not only with respect to the 150 units, but the cumulative impact of the remainder of the 4,200-acre development. Councilman Sneegas noted that it is difficult to ascertain the true and correct information on the energy crisis on a day-to-day basis, and that the task of analyzing this information and projecting it would be extremely difficult. Mr. McCarthy further commented that if the E.I.R. process is approached with a free mind, setting aside the assumptions that development in the area is inevitable or beneficial or detrimental, then you will come up with the right result. Mr. McCarthy further pointed out that if the municipal governments are not able to make the law work, the possibility is that the decision-making pow- ers will be transferred to a regional or national body some distance away. In response to Mr. McCarthy's remarks, Councilman Dutton stated that the City's areas of responsibility--utilities, storm drains, sewers--are con- sidered by the City Council. The School District is a separate, autonomous, political subdivision with which the City Council would like to work whenever possible, however the City Council has no authority or control over decisions of the School Board. He advised that since they have been apprised of the Anaheim City Council actions and intentions in a timely fashion, it~was his opinion that the Orange Unified School District did not follow through on their responsibilities in the past four years. Mr. McCarthy again suggested that the Council adopt an ordinance simi- lar to the one proposed and offered to work with the City Attorney on preparation of same. Mr. Watts responded to Mr. McCarthy's general comments on the Environ- mental Impact Report with the statement that he concurs with-Mr•: McCarthy that the Environmental Quality Act is new,but differs with his opinion in that appar- ently Mr. McCarthy views land use planning as a part of the Environmental Quality Act, whereas he (~Ir. Watts) views the EnviroYUnental Quality Act as a part of land use planning. Mr. Watts explained that in his interpretation the Environ- mental Quality Act principally concerns itself with the effects of development upon the land where the development or project is proposed to take place. Many of the concerns which Mr. McCarthy addressed may well be appropriate for Council -~~ to consider in nonnection with land use planning. He referred to the fact that the City of Petaluma has attempted to address itself as suggested by Mr. McCarthy to the question of timing and a Federal District Court judge has determined that the method which they used was unconstitutional. He noted that there are other plans which municipalities are using to address themselves to timing of develop- ment which relate to land use planning rather than the gnvirornnental Quality Act. He advised that the only provision of the Subdivision Act which addres- ses itself to the acquisition of land for schools is a section wh~.ch would permit the City Council to, by ordinance, require the developer to sell land to the school at its Fair Market Value. 14-77 City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - January 22, 1974, 1:30 P.M, In regard to the administrative processing of environmental impact reports, Mr. Watts advised that the State of California has recently revised its guidelines for implementation of these and the proposed new method for administrative processing in accordance with these new guidelines will be pre- sented for Council consideration on January 29, 1974. Mr. McCarthy remarked that he concurred with the decision made on the City of Petaluma procedure and noted that this was not in essence a true timing mechanism for development,but rather they used a maximum number of dwel- ling units per year. He advised that the true timing mechanism would be based on reason and not on an arbitrary figure. Ms. Marlene Fox, 610 Newport Center Drive, Newport Beach, Attorney representing Anaheim Hills, Inc., and Texaco Ventures, Inc., indicated that she wished to respond briefly to Mr. McCarthy's remarks on Environmental Impact Report No. 105 and was recognized by the Mayor. Ms. Fox stated that Mr. McCarthy's contention that E.I.R. No. 80 is 12 years old and not updated was clearly indicated to be incorrect in Court in the past three weeks. She pointed out that this was updated in February, 1973, as a supplement and that supplement was amended in April of 1973. She addressed Mr. McCarthy's indications that the School District mould like an 18-month lead time on school construction and advised that the 1965 Hill and Canyon General Plan, which the City of Anaheim put together, has within its acknowledgements that contribution to this plan was made by the Orange Unified School District, and this plan addresses itself specifically to the Santa Ana Canyon area and to anticipated development of that area. The Orange Unified School District did at that time recognize that the thrust of growth in their District was in this area and that school sites were in fact needed. She remarked that if they acknowledged these facts in 1965, why are they now requesting an additional 18 months in 1974. Further she remarked that the Anaheim General Plan Amendments No. 123 and 123-A again pertain to the development in the Santa Ana Canyon area and the rate of growth and consequent need for school sites. Both of these General Plan Amendments were brought to the attention of the Orange Unified School District, which was in fact consulted when these plans were drafted and adopted by the City. Ms. Fax questioned that. :~f Mr. McCarthy and hi.s client are as extreme- ~y concerned over the environmental aspects of growth in the Santa Ana Canyon as ~_;nd.icated, have they been as active in their opposition to the developers ether than Anaheim Hills, and 3.f not, why h.as Anaheim Hills been singled out? In regard to his comments on phased. development, M$,~Fox asked if Anaheim Hi11s, a master planned community which has been before the City c~;ouncil increment by increment since 1970, at which time it wss estimated it Taould take ten years to complete, is not phased development, she would be at a ~~~ss as to how else it could be described. She reported that the developer, Anaheim Hills, Inc., paid $50,000 -;f their total property taxes on the 4,200 acres to the School District. In further regard to schools, Ms. Fox advised that the business manager of the .?range Lznified School District testified under oath that the District purchased school sites in other areas back in 1964, and. still has school sites which are ._,ot: .°et used. If they could plar# for the future ~.n this mar;~ter ~n ether areas ~L their District, she ~=elt the~~ could also have done so i.n the ~ar~ta Aria t':~ an~tc~z~ region . Ms, Fox took exception to I~1r . McCarthy' s suggestion that the City ~:ouncil of the City of Anaheim,as well as th~~ City Planning Commi.ssion,approve prc~jeets and environmental impact reports be~'ore taking into consideration whether or not the pub3_z_c utila.ties and services are available for same, and remarked that if Mr. McCarthy wc~~s.ld educate himself by talking tc7 some of the ;~er3~Ie on the E.I.R. Re~ri.ew Committee and reading the reports submitted by the `~orxmittee to the Planning Commission, which. then makes its recommendation to ~h~, City Council, he we~~ld learn that this is an inaccurate statement. Regarding Mr~ '~icCarthy's recommendation that the environmental im- pact reports submitted by Anaheim Hills analyze and discuss the current energy -78 ty Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - January 22, 1974, 1:30 P.M. situation, she remarked that she was flattered by Mr, McCarthy's implication that their company wo4.xd he able to accomplish such an analytical review which to date has not been set forth by neither State nor Federal Goverrnnents. In conclusion, Ms. Fox pointed out that placing the blame or fault will not ultimately solve the problem. Since McCarthy has mentioned the treat- ment of alternatives in the environmental impact report, Ms. Fox questioned whether or not the School District has come up with any alternatives. She in- quired whether they had adequately investigated the use of portable classrooms or a 12-month school program. She noted that their approach seems to have been that if they do not have the funds required for additional sites,then there are no other means for them to pursue. She respectfully referred the Orange Unified School District to the City of Irvine, Research and Development Department on the subject of school planning. Mr. Roger Wilson, representing the Orange Unified School District, appeared in rebuttal to Ms. Fox and in response to her question as to whether the School District is in active opposition to growth proposed. in the Santa Ana Canyon by developers other than Anaheim Hills presented the following statistics which are presented as approximate figures: GROWTH SINCE 1971: ANAHEIM HILLS SANTA ANA CANYON Homes sold and occupied 273 Homes under construction 186 Homes planned but not under Dwelling units planned and approved in Tenta- tive Maps - 1,200 construction 2,673 (No additional dwelling units planned or up for decision other than 1 R-E tract, No. 8470) Total 3,132 1,200 Mr. Wilson stated that these figures are conclusive that there is much less activity in Santa Ana Canyon and this is the reason that the opposition has centered upon Anaheim Hi11s. Councilman Sneegas painted out that if an 18 month lead time is impor- tant to the School District and is, in fact,what they are requesting, it would appear to him from the facts and figures presented by Mr. Wilson that they have had at least 18-month advance notice of approval on each of these tracts. He further noted that the Orange Unified School District has not accomplished any- thing during this period. Mr. Wilson pointed out that the 18-month .lead time is necessary from the time the funds are available for site acquisition, design and construction, and that the School District is currently working for the forthcoming bond elec- tion, March S, 1974. He stated that an 18-month lead time would preclude the possibility of having to entoll students in double sessions for a year or more. `~;~=~xci Iran Peble°r rel~tec`~ ~-ha~ 1:~ ?-~a.s experiene_e on the School 3oard ~o~af~ sessions °~ee~. not 'r_~}.~ a ~jet~rimental factoh in a child"s education. ~'~~.scussion between C~-~l..u;~~. ~ ar~d Mr. W~.1son ensued relative to the advis- abilit;~ ~~f p~~rchasing school sites ~~~_ advance once the need becviaes apparent and MrM Wilson contended that it would have been d~.ffieult to receive voter ap- proval on site acquisition if tl~a.s was attempted very ~n~ich in advance of the need. Further he reported that the mostrecent school~iondswhich have been approved provided. funds for the site acquisition sr~d construction of Canyon High School and a junior high school iri the ?Mohler Drive area. It was his position that the =.3range Unified School District is workin8 diligently to convince the taxpayers that the bands should be approved and =_s making every attempt to provide quality education, and should therefore tie ~zver~ tie opportunit~;r to express to -the Council the ciYcuTnstanti$1 problems wh:~.c°~: t:?~e~r fs.re in regard to coordination of develop- ment wlt'< school. facfl~.ties. 74- 79 City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - January 22, 1974, 1:30 P.M, In answer to City Attorney Watts, Mr. Wilson stated that these are the only sites which wee°e purchased in the hill and canyon area to date and that funds are. available for construction of these from the prior bond election. He was not able to supply information as to when the actions setting fihe current bond election scheduled for March 5, 1974 was taken, but advised that there have been several delays, one being due to the State tax limitation initiative. Mr. Watts then inquired whether the Orange Unified School District has been looking at possible or potential school sites during the past six months, to which Mr. Wilson advised that their consultants, the Westinghouse Learning Corporation, has informed the School Board of the need for three elementary school sites in the general area and that they have been looking for these. Mr. Wilson then read a letter dated January 22, 1974, addressed to the City Council from Mr. Harry Platt, Business Manager of the Orange Unified School District (said letter was submitted and is on file in the office of the City Clerk). The letter indicated that the District is opposed to approval of Tentative Tract Nos. 8513, 8514, 8515 and 8516 until sufficient school facil- ities are available to serve the residents generated from same. The letter also indicated that the School District takes the position that the environ~ mental impact report is inadequate in respect to their abilities to provide schools for the anticipated 1,003 students by the year 1974-75. The letter further reports that the City of Anaheim has approved approximately 2,000 dwel- ling units on tentative tract maps since October 1971 in Anaheim Hills and 1,200 additionally in the Santa Ana Canyon. They oppose this rapid rate of development prior to the District's capacity to provide school facilities to serve the additional students and recommend that the city of Anaheim consider phasing growth to coincide with the ability of the District to provide school facilities for the area. The letter further outlined the project uses for the $19,000,000 in District bonds which are being submitted for voter approval on March 5, 1974. The letter read by Mr. Wilson further indicated that they feel the E,I.R. (no number indicated) makes no adequate statement on the impact of this development and the entire Anaheim Hills' plan regarding air quality and there is no evaluation of existing air pollution. Further the District objects to the attempt to incorporate by reference E.I.R. No. 80 since it is their conten- tion that the information in that document has not in fact been read or con- sidered by the City of Anaheim since its adoption on May 22, 1973. Councilman Pebley remarked that in his experience, the laws of supply and demand usually provide the phasing referred to by Mr. Wilson, since the majority of parents will seek information on the location and availability of school facilities prior to purchasing a home or condominium and, if there is r~ ~r-~blem, and the deve7ot~er is {.:onsequently unable to sell his units, he will c~..scon.tinue construction ...~'~~r ~ her he na ~.nted cut that as soon as these homes are built, the assessed valuati.o°-~ will. he increased and the school district ;gill receive additional f~znds tic :~sy ntt the zndebtedness incurred. Councillman Pebley furthe;~ advised Mr. Wilson. that the tenor of the ~.etter which he has just read and ~w.he attitude of the. School District as expressed in t?~e news releases through the Iegal action against the City of ~nahe~.m, etc,, wouici CciT?;T~?~G~ 42~!T~; ti. }1E: ~aer~' ~: VotE'.r iI't their District, rp ,,r,t~. °'nca" for she bonds, ~~~, stat:~d 'bat ~~:~~o `_=c.~~oo1. l~istr~ct's very negative ,stt~ t~zde will destroy= `-4~~ ~ ~- ~~~a~~~:e~ ~c~ pass tI~E~ school bonds, Mr. Wilson replied r_hat -.his letter contains factual information and that the voters should have this information in order to evaluate the District's need in the financial crisis the~:~ are facing. Councilman Sneegas suggested that perhaps a factor which has been overlooked in the E.I.R, process is the impact of development surrounding a person's property and what this has done to their ability to use the property as they wish. For instancex he rioted that development and change in living ~.onditions has made certai: L,ropertics no ~_onger suitable for grazing cattle and property taxes on same mandate that it be used otherwise. He felt that ~80 y Ha 11, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - January 22, 1974, 1:30 P.M, the problem comes down to how each individual can be treated fairly. He noted that a part of the answer lies in the necessity of government to provide for that which they are obligated. Mr. Wilson stated that the School District's intention in appearing before the City Council is to communicate the financial crisis which they face and the administrative problems and funds necessary due to the rapid development and to seek their cooperation. Councilman Sneegas used the City. of Anaheim proposed Civic Center Complex to illustrate that the way to sell bonds to the public is with a positive attitude, i.e., to recognize that the problem exists and then seek to do what is necessary to solve it. He remarked that he personally would take a different view of the Orange Unified School District's problem 1,f an attitude in regard to the situation other than that the City of Anaheim and Anaheim Hills, Inc., are attempting to create problems for them,is expressed. Further he pointed out that the City Council certainly wishes to do what it can to help them solve their problem but noted that they have made this even more difficult by the initiation of lawsuits and other activities which act as obstacles to the solution of the immediate problem. He reiterated that the School District should be making their constituents aware that this financial burden is their obligation as set forth by the governmental system and that this is an impartial and equitable obligation. Mr. Wilson commented on the difficulties inherent in a system in which political subdivisions and districts do not coincide and reiterated that the School District requests Council's understanding of their financial situation. Mr. Dick Doyle, representing Anaheim Hills, Inc., wished to call a few facts to Council's attention in rebuttal to Mr. Wilson. He advised that although Mr. Wilson has mentioned a planning effort on the part of the School District during the past six months, Anaheim Hills, Inc., has never been requested to make any input to this effort. He reported that Anaheim Hills, Inc., has voluntarily provided the School District with statistics which in the past they have disregarded. In particular,he referred to the statement (Paragraph No. 5 ~- of the letter read by Mr. Wilson) that 1,900 acres, at 4 units per acre, is ex- pected to generate 7,600 students. Mr. Doyle remarked that he assumes this 1,900 acres includes the land inside the Anaheim Hills boundaries outside of the agricultural preserve, and noted that the City of Anaheim owns 235 of these acres which are not proposed for subdivision at 4 units per acre. He stated that statistics from the Planning Division, City of Anaheim will corroborate that 4 units per acre is not the correct density figure. Mr. Doyle cited the following statistics regarding building permits acted upon by the City of Anaheim - Fiscal Year 1972-73, 1,180 in the Santa Ana Canyon, 455 of which were within Anaheim Hills. On tentative tract maps, the total number of lots was 3,936 and 1,002 of these were approved in Anaheim Hills. He again noted that if the Orange Unified School District would seek infor- mation from Anaheim Hills, Inc., who is the developer and is cognizant of the activity going on, they would be better provided with the information required for school planning than through a consultant who has never contacted Anaheim Hills, Inc., for information either. The Mayor closed discussion on the environmental impact report and asked if the Applicant or his Agent were present and satisfied with the recom- mendations of the City Planning Commission pertaining to Conditional Use Permit No. 1430. Mr. John Milleck, representing Anaheim Hills; Inc., briefly reminded :~ouncil that Environmental Impact Report X10. 105 is fn supplement to No. 80 which --- ~s on file with the City Clerk and available for public review. He pointed out ::hat 1~ years ago Anaheim Hills, Inc., requested R-2 and R-3 zoning on subject property and resolution of intent was granted which permitted 215 units. He re- oorted *:hat the plans submitted in eonjunetion with Conditional Use Permit Appli- ~.~ation No. 14.30 call for 150 units which is a total of 65 units less than the ~~riginal plans,or a 30'~/a reduction in density. He remarked that this is consistent with planning. and philosophy throughout the total development of Anaheim Hills fio _~ate. 74-81 City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - January 22, 1974, 1:30 P.M. Mr. Milleck advised that with the approval and construction of this particular project, Serrano Avenue will be extended 3,000 linear feet and the fire line also. will be improved by that same 3,000 feet. It will also further implement the continuance of a loop road. Mr. Milleck introduced Mr. Bill Mitchell, representing S.I.R. Develop- ment Company to present further information on the project itself. Mr. Mitchell advised that S.I.R. Developers, Inc., is satisfied with the recommendations of the Planning Commission. He remarked that the pro- ject which they propose to build at this site was developed following thorough market analysis to determine the price range and type of construction which would be most effective. He advised that they had prepared aslide presentation and offered to proceed with it at Council's discretion since so much time had already been used on this issue. By general consent, the Council declined to hear further presentation. The Mayor asked if anyone in opposition wished to address the Council. Mr. John McCarthy, Attorney for the Orange Unified School District and the Santa Ana Canyon Improvement Association, Inc., stated that he wished to adopt his previous comments in regard to Environmental Impact Report No. 105,as well as those made by Mr. Roger Wilson representing the Orange Unified School District, to represent his clients' position on the matter of Conditional Use Permit No. 1430. Ms. Marlene Fox, Attorney for Anaheim Hills, Inc.,/Texaco Ventures, Inc., advised that she would like the records to indicate she also adopts her previous remarks in rebuttal to Mr. McCarthy, and those made by Mr. Dick Doyle of Anaheim Hi11s, Inc., as the position of her client relative to Conditional Use Permit No. 1430. The Mayor asked if anyone else wished to address the Council either in favor or opposition; there being no response, declared the hearing closed. RESOLUTION N0. 74R-21: Councilman Sneegas offered Resolution No. 74R-21 for adoption, granting Conditional Use Permit No. 1430 in part, denying waiver "g", subject to the conditions recommended by the City Planning Commission. Refer to Resolution Book. A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM GRANTING CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT N0. 1430, IN PART. Roll Call Vote AYES: COUNCILMEN: Stephenson, Sneegas, Pebley and Dutton NOES: COUNCILMEN: Whom ABSENT: COUNCILMEN: None The Mayor declared Resolution No. 74R-21 duly passed and adopted. RECESS: Councilman Dutton moved for a five-minute recess. Councilman Sneegas seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. (4:25 P.M.) AFTER RECESS: Mayor Dutton called the meeting to order, all Councilmen being pre- sent. (4:30 P.M.) TENTATIVE MAPS TRACT NOS. 85 I3 8514 .851 8516 GONDITIOI~A USE..~'E~IIT NO ~ 14r.~. (Developer, S.I.R. Develoge~., Inc.) Property located northwesterly of the Serrano Avenue and Hidden Canyon Road intersection. Tract No. 8513 contains 32 proposed R-2 zoned lots; Tract No. 8514 contains 41 proposed R-2 zoned lots; Tract No. 8515 contains 40 proposed R-2 zoned lots; Tract No. 8516 contains 37 proposed R-2 zoned lots. ~82 :v Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - January 22, 1974, 1:30 P.M. The City Planning Commission at their meeting held December 10, 1973, approved Tentative Map, Tract No. 8513 subject to the following conditions: 1. That the approval of Tentative Map of Tract No. 8513 is granted subject to the completion of Reclassification No. 71-72-44. 2. That the owner(s) of subject property shall deed to the City of Anaheim a strip of land 38 feet in width from the centerline of the street along Serrano Avenue for street widening purposes. 3. That the approval of Tentative Map of Tract No. 8513 is granted ..-. subject to the approval of Conditional Use Permit No. 1430. 4. That should this subdivision be developed as more than one sub- division, each subdivision thereof shall be submitted in tentative form for approval. 5. That gll lots within this tract shall be served by underground utilities. 6. 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. 7. That the 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. 8. 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 pur- chasers of the project. 9. That street names shall be approved by the City of Anaheim prior to approval of a final tract map. 10. That the owner(s) 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. 11. That drainage of said property shall be disposed o£ in a manner satisfactory to the City Engineer. If, in the preparation of the site, suffici- ent grading is required to necessitate a grading permit, no work on grading will be permitted between October 15th and April 15th unless all required off-site drainage facilities have been installed and are operative. Positive assurance shall be provided the City that such drainage facilities will be completed prior to October 15th. Necessary right-of-way for off-site drainage facilities shall be dedicated to the City, or the City Council shall have initiated condemnation proceedings therefor (the costs of which shall be borne by the developer) prior to commencement of grading operations. The required drainage facilities shall be of a size and type sufficient to carry runoff waters originating from higher properties through said property to ultimate disposal as approved by the City Engineer. Said drainage facilities shall be the first item of construction and shall be completed and be functional throughout the tract and from the downstream boundary of the property to the ultimate point of disposal prior to the issuance of any final building inspections or occupancy permits. Drainage district reim- ~ursement eg~°eements may be made availah~.e to the developers of said property apor~ t}--ei.r ~-~quest. ~~_ T'het grading, excavation, an~~ eIl ~.~ther construction activities hail °:> ~~~~~~cted i.n such a manner so ss t:o minimize the possibility of any silt ariginat~~s~ f=rom this project tieing carried into the Santa Ana River by storm water ~~rig,ir~ating from ter flow.x~g thr_ougk~~. this prfljectx That the d~ehi.culax~ access * fights, except at street and/or alley ~penings~ ~~~ Serrano Avenue shall be dedicated to the City of Anaheim, ~` I4R That all private streets shell be developed to the City of Anaheim's standards for private streets. ~~. That a minimum of 12 feet ~~f pavement shall be constructed on the south s ~.de -~ i Serrano Avenue , Ib. That all drainage from subject property shall be diverted in such a manner as Lo not drain into the Walnut Canyon Reservoir (Nohl Ranch Lake) and `hat all methods of drainage and grading; shall be reviewed and approved by the i ty* Water vi sion prior to approve 1 b~, the C i. ty Engineer . 74-83 City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - January 22, 1974, 1:30 P.M. 17. That special brochures shall be prepared by the developer for the purpose of instructing purchasers of these homes and any landscape main- tenance company working on subject property on the proper maintenance and watering of landscaped slopes, and that these brochures shall be sumitted to and approved by the Engineering Division and Development Services Department prior to recordation of the final tract map. 18. 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. 19. That prior to approval of the final tract map, final specific plans shall be submitted and approved in accordance with provisions of the: PC, Planned Community, Zone. The City Planning Commission at their meeting held December 10, 1973, approved Tentative Map, Tract No. 8514, subject to the following conditions: 1. That the approval of Tentative Map of Tract No. 8514 is granted subject to the completion of Reclassification No. 71-72-44. 2. That the approval of Tentative Map of Tract No. 8514 is granted subject to the approval of Conditional Use Permit No. 1430. 3. That should this subdivision be developed as more than one sub- division, each subdivision thereof shall be submitted in tentative form for approval. 4. That all lots within this tract shall be served by underground utilities. 5. 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. 6. 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. 7. 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 infor- mation as the City Attorney may desire to protect the City, its citizens, and the purchasers of the project. 8. That street names shall be approved by the City of Anaheim prior to approval of a final tract map. 9. That the owner(s) 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 drainage of said property shall be disposed of in a manner satisfactory to the City Engineer. If, in the preparation of the site, suffi- cient grading is required to necessitate a grading permit, no work on grading will be permitted between October 15th and April 15 unless all required off-sits drainage facilities have been installed and are operative. Positive assurance shall be provided the City that such drainage facilities will be completed prior to October 15th. Necessary right-of-way for off-site drainage facilities shall be dedicated to the City, or the City Council shall have initiated con- demnation proceedings therefor (the costs of which shall be borne by the develtl oper) prior to commencement of grading operations. The required drainage facilities shall be of a size and type sufficient to carry runoff waters Qrig- inating from higher properties through said property to ultimate disposal as approved by the City Engineer. Said drainage facilities shall be the first item of construction and shall be completed and be functional throughout the tract and from the downstream boundary of the property to the ultimate point of disposal prior to the issuance of any final building inspections or occu- pancy permits. Drainage district reimbursement agreements may be made avail- able to the developers of said property upon their request. 11. That grading, excavation, and all other construction activities shall be conducted in such a manner so as to minimize the possibility of any silt originating from this project being carried into the Santa Ana River by storm water originating from or flowing through this project. y I~iall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - January 22, 1974, 1:30 P.M. 12. That the vehicular access rights, except at street and/or alley openings, to Morning Glory Lane shall be dedicated to the City of Anaheim. 13. That all private streets shall be developed to the City of Anaheim's standards for private streets. 14. That all drainage from subject property shall be diverted in such a manner as to not drain into the Walnut Canyon Reservoir (Nohl Ranch Lake) and that gll methods of drainage and grading shall be reviewed and approved by the City Water Division prior to approval by the City Engineer. 15. That special brochures shall be prepared by the developer for the purpose of instructing purchasers of these homes and any landscape maintenance company working on subject property on the proper maintenance and watering of landscaped slopes, and that these brochures shall be submitted to and approved by the Engineering Division and Development Services Department prior to recor- dation of the final tract map. 16. That fire hydrants shall be installed and charged as required and determined to be necessary by the Chief of the Fire Department prior to commence- ment of structural framing. 17. That prior to approval of the final tract map, final specific plans shall be submitted and approved in accordance with provisions of the PC, Planned Community, Zone. The City Planning Commission at their meeting held December 10, 1973, approved Tentative Map, Tract No. 8515, subject to the following conditions: 1. That the approval of Tentative Map of Tract No. 8515 is granted subject to the completion of Reclassification No. 71-72-44. 2. That the approval of Tentative Map of Tract No. 8515 is granted subject to the approval of Conditional Use Permit No. 1430. 3. That should this subdivision be developed as mote than one sub- division, each subdivision thereof shall be submitted in tentative form for approval. 4. That all lots within this tract shall be served by underground utilities. 5. 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. 6. 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. 7. 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 arti- cles of incorporation bylaws, proposed methods of management, bonding to insure maintenance of common property and buildings, and such other information as the City Attorney msy desire to protect the City, its citizens, and the purchasers of the project. 8. That street names shall be approved by the City of Anaheim prior to approval of a final tract map. 9. That the owner(s) 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 drainage of said property shall be disposed of in a manner satisfactory to the City Engineer. If, in the preparation of the site, suffici- ent grading is required to necessitate a grading permit, no work on .grading will be permitted between October 15t1i and April 15th unless all required off-site drainage facilities have been installed and are operative. Positive assurance shall be provided the City that such drainage facilities will be completed prior to October 15th. Necessary right-of-way for off-site drainage facilities shall be dedicated to the City, or the City Council shall have initiated condenmation proceedings therefor (the costs of which shall be borne by the developer) prior to commencement of grading operations. The required drainage facilities shall be of a size and type sufficient to carry runoff waters originating from higher properties through said property to ultimate disposal ~s approved by the City Engineer. Said drainage facilities shall be the firsfi~item of construction and shall be completed and be functional throughout the tract and from the downstream boundary of the property to the ultimate point of disposal prior .tb~'the.issuance 7485 City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - January 22. 1974, 1:30 P,M. of any final building inspections or occupancy permits. Drainage district reimbursement agreements may be made available to the developers of said pro- perty upon their request. 11. That grading, excavation, and all other construction activities shall be conducted in such a manner so as to minimize the possibility of any silt originating from this project being carried into the Santa Ana River by storm water originating from or flowing through this project. 12. That all private streets shall be developed to the City of Anaheim's standards for private streets. 13. That all drainage from subject property shall be diverted in such a manner as to not drain into the Walnut Canyon Reservoir (Nohl Ranch Lake) and that all methods of drainage and grading shall be reviewed and approved by the City Water Division prior to approval by the City Engineer. 14, That special brochures shall be prepared by the developer for the purpose of instructing purchasers of these homes and any landscape mainten- ance company working on subject property on the proper maintenance and watering of landscaped slopes, and that these brochures shall be submitted to and ap- proved by the Engineering Division and Development Services Department prior to recordation of the final tract map. 15. 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. 16. That prior to approval of the final tract map, final specific plans shall be submitted and approved in accordance with provisions of the PC, Planned Community, Zone. The City Planning Commission at their meeting held December 10, 1973, approved Tentative Map, Tract No. 8516, subject to the following conditions: 1. That the approval of Tentative Map of Tract No. 8516 is granted subject to the completion of Reclassification No. 71-72-44. 2. That the approval of Tentative Map of Tract No. 8516 is granted subject to the approval of Conditional Use Permit No. 1430. 3. That should this subdivision be developed as more than one sub- division, each subdivision thereof shall be submitted in tentative form for approval. 4. That all lots within this tract shall be served by underground utilities. 5. 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. 6. 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. 7. 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 aperating corporation, including but not limited r-o ~ ~e articles of a~ncorpcaratior, b~rlaws, proposed methods of management, bond- ~..~~; Paz insure maintenance of common property and buildings, and such other in- ~~~r~Eation as the City Attorney may desire to protect the City, its citizens, and the purchasers o£ the project. 8. 'ghat street names shall be approved by the City of Anaheim prior ~a approval of a final tract map. 9. That the ownerr;s} of subject property shall pay to the City of ~~naheim the appropriate park and recreation in-lieu fees as determined to be appr~~priate by the Cz.ty ~:ouncil, said fees to be paid at the time the building permit is issued. 10. That drainage of said property shall be disposed of in a manner satisfactory to the City Engineer. I.f, in the preparation of the site, suffi- cient grading is required to necessitate a grading permit, no work on grading will be permitted between October 15th and April 15th unless all required ~~ff-si.te drainage facilities have been installed and are operative. Positive assurance shall be provided the City that such drainage facilities will be com- pleted prior to October 15th, Necessary right-of-way for off-site drainage facilities shall be dedicated to the City, or the City Council shall have init- -~ated condemnation proceedings therefor (the eosts of which shall be borne by -8F .ty Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - January 22, 1974,_ 1_:30 P.M, the developer) prior to commencement of grading operations. The required drain- age facilities shall be of a size and type sufficient to carry runoff waters originating from higher properties through said property to ultimate disposal as approved by the City Engineer. Said drainage facilities shall be the first item of construction and shall be completed and be functional throughout the tract and from the downstream boundary of the property to the ultimate point of disposal prior to the issuance of any final building inspections or occupancy permits. Drainage district reimbursement agreements may be made available to the developers of said property upon their request. .-.,, 11. That grading, excavation, and all other construction activities shall be conducted in such a manner so as to minimize the possibility of any silt originating from this project being carried into the Santa Ana River by storm water originating from or flowing through this project. 12. That all private streets shall be developed to the City of Anaheim's standards for private streets. 13. That all drainage from subject property shall be diverted in such a manner as to not drain. into the Walnut Canyon Reservoir (Nohl Ranch Lake) and that all methods of drainage and grading shall be reviewed and approved by the City Water Division prior to approval by the City Engineer. 14. That special brochures shall be prepared by the developer for the purpose of instructing purchasers of these homes and any landscape maintenance company working on subject property on the proper maintenance and watering of landscaped slopes, and that these brochures shall be submitted to and approved by the Engineering Division and Development Services Department prior to recor- dation of the final tract map. 15. That fire hydrants shall be installed and charged as required and determined to be necessary by the Chief of the Fire Department prior to commence- ment of structural framing. 16. That prior to approval of the final tract map, final specific plans shall be submitted and approved in accordance with provisions of the PC, Planned Community, Zone. On motion by Councilman Dutton, seconded by Councilman Sneegas, Tenta- tive Maps, Tract Nos, 8513, 8514, 8515 and 8516 were approved subject to the ----, recommendations of the City Planning Commission. To this motion, Councilman Thom voted "no". MOTION CARRIED. On recommendation of the City Engineer, on motion by Councilman Stephenson, seconded by Councilman Sneegas, the City Council authorized an excep- tion to Section 17.06.110 and Section 17.06.120. of the Anaheim Municipal Code and approved the lot=lines on the location of the slopes as shown on Tentative Tract Map Nos. 8513, 8514, 8515. and 8516. MOTION CARRIED. JBLIC HEARING - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT N0. 1431 (TEl~TATIVE TRACT N0. 8514, ENVIRON- ;NTAL IMPACT REPORT N0. 105 Submitted by Anaheim Hi11s, Inc., and Texaco Ventures, Inc., to establish a five-unit planned residential development to be used as a model complex with sales office on R-A zoned property, located northwesterly of the intersection of Serrano Avenue and Hidden Canyon Road, with Code waivers of: a. Maximum sign area. The City Planning Commission pursuant to Resolution Ne. PC 73-256, recommended that E.I.R. No. 105, which pertains to Conditional Use Permit No. 1431 and Tentative Tract Nos. 8513, 8514, 8515 and 8516, as well as Conditional Use Permit No. 1430, be adopted as the Council's statement and granted Conditional Use Permit No. 1431 in part, denying waiver "a", subject to the following condi- tions: 1. That trash storage areas shall be provided in accordance with plans on file with the office of the Director of Public Works. 2. That fire hydrants shall be installed and charged as required and determined to be necessary by the Chief of the Fire Department prior to commence- ment of structural framing. 3. That subject property shall be served by underground utilities. 4. That drainage of said property shall be disposed of in a manner satisfactory to the City Engineer. If, in the preparation of the site, suffici- ent grading is required to necessitate a grading permit, no work on grading will be permitted between October 15th and April 15th unless all required off-site 74-87 City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - January 22, 1974, 1:30 P.M. drainage facilities have been installed and are operative. Positive assurance shall be provided the City that such drainage facilities will be completed prior to October 15th. Necessary right-of-way for off-site drainage facilities shall be dedicated to the City, or the City Council shall have initiated con- demnation proceedings therefor (the costs of which shall be borne by the developer) prior to commencement of grading operations. -The required drainage facilities shall be of a size and type sufficient to carry runoff waters orig- inating from higher properties through said property to ultimate disposal as approved by the City Engineer. Said drainage facilities shall be the first item of construction and shall be completed and be functional throughout the tract and from the downstream boundary of the property to the ultimate point of disposal prior to the issuance of any final building inspections or occupancy permits. Drainage district reimbursement agreements may be made available to the developers of said property upon their request. 5. That grading, excavation, and all other construction activities shall be conducted in such a manner so as to minimize the possibility of any silt originating from this project being carried into the Santa Ana River by storm water originating from or flowing through this project. 6. That public utility easements shall be granted as required by the Director of Public Utilities. 7. That this conditional use permit shall remain in full force and effect until Final Map of Tract No. 8514 has been recorded and final reading of the ordinance rezoning this property has been accomplished. 8. That a bond in an amount and form satisfactory to the City of Anaheim shall be posted with the City to guarantee the removal of the models in the event Final Map of Tract No. 8514 is not recorded. Said bond shall also include an amount sufficient to guarantee the removal of landscaping and improvements within the future right-of-way of Morning Glory Lane. 9. 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, 3 and 4. 10. That Condition Nos. 1, 3, 4, 5, 6, 8 and 9, above-mentioned, shall be complied with prior to the commencement of the activity authorized under this resolution, or prior to the time that the building permit is issued, or within a period of one year from date hereof, whichever occurs first, or such further time as the Planning Commission may grant. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT: Environmental Impact Report No. 105, which is a supplement to Environmental Impact Report No. 80, was adopted as Council's Statement in conjunction with public hearing on Conditional Use Permit No. 1430, Appeal from action taken by the City Planning Commission wss filed by John C. McCarthy, Attorney on behalf of the Orange Unified School District and Santa Ana Canyon Improvement Association, Inc., and public hearing scheduled this date. Mr. Ronald Thompson advised that this application applies to the model complex in conjunction with the previously approved conditional use per- mit to establish a 157-lot planned residential development. The Mayor asked if the Applicant were present and satisfied with the recommendation of the City Planning Commission, and received an affirmative reply. The Mayor asked if anyone either in favor or in opposition wished to address the Council. Mr. John McCarthy, 100 Pomona Mall West, Pomona, requested that his earlier co®ents and those made by Mr. Roger Wilson representing the Orange Unified School District regarding Environmental Impact Report No. 105 be adopted as the position of his clients in connection with Conditional Use Permit No. 1431. Ms. Marlene Fox, 610 Newport Center Drive, Newport Beach, Attorney for Anaheim Hills, Inc./Texaco Ventures, Inc., requested that the records indicate that she wished to incorporate her previous statements pertaining to Environmental Impact Report No. 105 ,together with those made by Mr. Dick Doyle of Anaheim Hi11s,.Inc., as her client's position relative to Conditional Use Permit No• I431. ~ Hall, Anaheim. California - COUNCIL MINUTES - January 22, 1974, _1:30 P.M. The Mayvr asked if anyone else wished to address the Council; there being no response, declared the hearing closed. RESOLUTION N0. 74R-22: Councilman Stephenson offered Resolution No. 74R-22 for adoption, granting Conditional Use Permit No. 1431 in part, denying waiver "a", subject to the conditions recommended by the City Planning Commission. Refer to Resolution Book. A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM GRANTING CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT N0. 1431, IN PART. Roll Call Vote: AYES: COUNCILMEN: Stephenson, Sneegas, Pebley and Dutton NOES: COUNCILMEN: Thom ABSENT: COUNCILMEN: None The Mayor declared Resolution No. 74R-22 duly passed and adopted. ENSION OF TIME - TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NOS. 7558 7587 AND 8075 REVISION N0. 3: Request of Mr. Wayne Callaghan, Anaheim Hills, Inc., dated November 16, 1973, was submitted for extension of time to Tentative Tract Map Nos. 7558, 7587 and 8075. Said request was continued from the meetings of December 18, 1973 and January 8, 1974 at the request of the Applicant. Report from Development Services Department recommends a one-year ex- tension of time be withheld on Tract Nos. 7558 and 7587 pending the submission and adoption of an environmental impact report or approval of an Exemption Declaration and that a one-year extension of time be granted to Tentative Tract No. 8075, Revision No. 3, to expire February 20, 1975, provided that the Peti- tioner submits notification to the City that the information contained within E.I.R. No. 73 is still valid and that no changes have occurred on the property which affect the environmental impact report. ----- Report was submitted from the City Engineer which recommended that a one-year extension of time be granted to Tentative Tract Nos. 7558 and 7587 sub- ject to the following conditions: a. That an Environmental Impact Report be approved for Tract Nos. 7558 and 7587 within 90 days. b. That drainage of said property shall be disposed of in a manner satisfactory to the City Engineer. If, in the preparation of the site, suffici- ent grading is required to necessitate a grading permit, no work on grading will be permitted between October 15th and April 15th unless all required off-site drainage facilities have been installed and are operative. Positive assurance shall be provided the City that such drainage facilities will be completed prior to October 15th. Necessary right-of-way for off-site drainage facilities shall be dedicated to the City, or the City Council shall have initiated condemnation proceedings therefor (the costs of which shall be borne by the developer) prior to commencement of grading operations. The required drainage facilities shall be of a size and type sufficient to carry runoff waters originating from higher properties through said property to ultimate disposal as approved by the City Engineer. Said drainage facilities shall be the first item of construction and shall be completed and be functional throughout the tract end from the downstream boundary of the property to the ultimate point of disposal prior to the issuance of any final building inspections or occupancy permits. Drainage district reim- bursement agreements may be made available to the developers of said property upon their request. ~"~` Report from the City Engineer was submitted which recommends that ex- tension of time be granted to Tentative Tract No. 8075, Revision No. 3, subject to the following condition: a. That drainage of said property shall be disposed of in a manner satisfactory to the City Engineer. If, in the preparation of the site, suffici- ent grading is required to necessitate a grading permit, no work on grading will be permitted between October 15th and April 15th unless all required off-site 74-89 City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - January_22 _1974, 1:30 P.M. drainage facilities have been installed and are operative. Positive assurance shall be provided the City that such drainage facilities will be completed prior to October 15th. Necessary right-of-way for off-site drainage facilities shall be dedicated to the City, or the City Council shall have initiated con- demnation proceedings therefor (the costs of which shall be borne by the developer) prior to commencement of grading operations. The required drainage facilities shall be of a size and type sufficient to carry runoff waters orig- inating from higher properties through said property to ultimate disposal as approved by the City Engineer. Said drainage facilities shall be the first item of construction and shall be completed and be functional throughout the tract and from the downstream boundary of the property to the ultimate point of disposal prior to the issuance of any final building inspections or occu- pancy permits. Drainage district reimbursement agreements may be made avail- able to the developers of said property upon their request. *(It was pointed out in the Council meeting by Councilman Thom that the standard Revised Hillside Development Drainage Condition as set forth in the City Engineer's recommendations for Tentative Tract Nos. 7558, 7587 and 8075, dated December 12, 1973 was incorrect, the phrase regarding restriction on grading from October 15th through April 15th having been omitted, The con- ditions (b .) and (a.) above are corrected to include this portion of the requirement.) On motion by Councilman Sneegas, seconded by Councilman Dutton, a one-year extension of time was granted to Tentative Tract Map No. 755$, expiring January 22, 1975 and to Tentative Tract Map No. 7587, expiring November 9, 1974, subject to the conditions recommended by the City Engineer as amended. MOTION CARRIED. On motion by Councilman Stephenson, seconded by Councilman Sneegas, a supplementary letter to Environmental Impact Report No. 73 (previously adopted as Council's statement on February 20, 1973) was adopted and incorporated therein and a one-year extension of time was granted to Tentative Tract Map No. 8075, Revi- sion No. 3, subject to the condition recommended by the City Engineer as amended. MOTION CARRIED . PUBLIC DANCE PERMIT: Application filed by Mrs, Concha C. Flores on behalf of Sociedad Progresista Mexicans for permit to conduct public dance on January 27, 1974 from 4:00 p.m. to 8:00 p.m. at Carpenters' Hall, 608 West Vermont Street, was submitted and granted subject to provisions of Chapter 4.16 of the Anaheim Municipal Code as recommended by the Chief of Police, on motion by Councilman Pebley, seconded by Councilman Dutton. MOTION CARRIED. AMUSEMENT DEVICES PERMITS: On motion by Councilman Pebley seconded by Councilman Dutton, granted, Code, as the following applications for permits to allow amusement devices were subject to the provisions of Chapter 3.24 of the Anaheim Municipal recommended by the Chief of Police. a. Application by Edward D. Elmore for permit to allow a juke box at Ed's A & W Root Beer, 1001 North Magnolia Avenue. b. Application filed by James H. and Margarita Morton for permit to allow various amusement device machines at Bi11y Jack's, 2880 Miraloma Avenue. MOTION CARRIED . STREET I3AME AND PREMISE NUMBER CHANGE -TRACT NOS . 7567 AND 7568 : Proposing that the street name "Rural Ridge Circle" be changed to "Willowick Drive" along that portion of Rural Ridge Circle from its intersection at Prairie Place easterly to its intersection at Willowick Drive; and further proposing a premise number change for Lot No. 51 in Tract No. 7568. Report of the Building Division, Development Services Department,was submitted, recommending the following: 1. That prior to approval of final map of Tract No. 7567, the City ~'ouncil require a street name ~.hange from Rural Ridge Circle to Willowick Drive f`~-~~z;- the intersection of Prairie Place easterly to the tract boundary. 2. 7~hat City ~ouncz~. approve a street name change in Tract No. 7568 ~ ~°c~--~ ~~ira:~ Ridge Circle tc~ Wi.llowick Drive along that part of Rural Ridge Cir- ;~.~° ~r~nning westerly and southwesterly from the intersection of Rural Ridge av ~r~~ ~ ~= anc~ y~Til Iowick. C irc ~ e 3. That the ~.:. i,t:y Council. approve a street name and premise number change from lot 51 Tract No, 756#3 from 5395 Rural Ridge Circle to 5379 Wi11o- w ~ ~.:.~. prive. 9G y Hall, Anaheim, California -COUNCIL MINUTES - January 22, 1974, 1:30 P.M. RESOLUTION N0. 74R-23: Councilman Stephenson offered Resolution No. 74R-23 for adoption, approving street name and premise number change in Tract Nos. 7567 and 7568, as recommended by Development Services Department. Refer to Resolution Book, A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM CHANGING THE NAME FOR RURAL RIDGE CIRCLE TO WILLOWICK DRIVE FROM ITS INTERSECTION AT PRAIRIE PLACE, EASTERLY TO WILLOWICK DRIVE IN TRACT 7568. Roll Call Vote: AYES: COUNCILMEN: Stephenson, Sneegas, Pebley, Thom and Dutton NOES: COUNCILMEN: None ABSENT: COUNCILMEN: None The Mayor declared Resolution No. 74R-23 duly passed and adopted. SOLUTION N0. 74R-24 -AWARD OF WORK ORDER N0. 1249: In accordance with recanunenda- tions of the City Engineer, Councilman Pebley offered Resolution No. 74R-24 for adoption. Refer to Resolution Book. A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM ACCEPTING A SEALED PROPOSAL AND AWARDING A CONTRACT TO THE LOWEST RESPONSIBLE BIDDER FOR THE FURNISHING OF ALL PLANT, LABOR, SERVICES, MATERIALS AND EQUIPMENT AND ALL UTILITIES AND TRANSPORTATION, INCLUDING POWER, FUEL AND WATER, AND PER- FORMING ALL WORK NECESSARY TO CONSTRUCT AND COMPLETE THE FOLLOWING PUBLIC IMPROVEMENT: THE BROOKHURST STREET SEWER IMPROVEMENT FROM APPROXIMATELY 1094 FEET NORTH OF TO 223 FEET NORTH OF LINCOLN, IN THE CITY OF ANAHEIM, WORK ORDER N0. 1249. (Azteca Equipment Rentals - $18,002.00) Roll Ca11 Vote: AYES: COUNCILMEN: Stephenson, Sneegas, Pebley, Thom and Dutton NOES: COUNCILMEN: None ABSENT : COUNC AMEN : None The Mayor declared Resolution No. 74R-24 duly passed and adopted. BLIC IMPROVEMENT PROJEC TS: Councilman Thom offered Resolution Nos. 74R-25 and 74R-26 for adoption. Refer to Resolution Book, RESOLUTION N0 , 74R-25 -WORK ORDER N0 . 711-A : A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM FINDING AND DETERMINING THAT PUBLIC CON- VENIENCE AND NECESSITY REQUIRE THAT CONSTRUCTION AND COMPLETION OF A PUBLIC IMPROVEMENT, TO WIT : PEDESTRIAN SIGNAL INSTALLATION AT THE INTER- SECTION OF BROADWAY AND MAGNOLIA AVENUE, IN THE CITY OF ANAHEIM, WORK ORDER N0. 711-A; APPROVING THE DESIGNS, PLANS, PROFILES, DRAWINGS AND SPECIFICA- TIONS 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 - February 14, 1974, 2:00 P,M,) RE SOLUTION N0. 74R-26 -WORK ORDER N0. 1251: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM FINDING AND DETERMINING THAT PUBLIC CON- VENIENCE AND NECESSITY REQUIRE THE CONSTRUCTION AND COMPLETION OF A PUBLIC IMPROVEMENT, TO WIT : THE ANAHEIM BOULEVARD SEWER IMPROVEMENT, FROM 820 FEET SOUTH OF CERRITOS TO 1175 FEET NORTH OF KATELLA WAY, IN THE CITY OF ANAHEIM, WORK ORDER N0. 1251; APPROVING THE DESIGNS, PLANS, PRO- FILES, DRAWINGS AND SPECIFICATIONS FOR THE CONSTRUCTION THEREOF; AUT~RIZ- LNG 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 -February 14, 1974, 2:00 P.M.) Roll Call Vote: 74-91 City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - January 22, 1974, 1:30 P.M. AYES: COUNCILMEN: Stephenson, Sneegas, Pebley, Thom and Dutton NOES: COUNCILMEN: None ABSENT: COUNCILMEN: None The Mayor declared Resolution Nos. 74R-25 and 74R-26 duly passed and adopted. RESOLUTION N0. 74R-27 - DEEDS OF EASEMENT: Councilman Pebley offered Resolution No. 74R-27 for adoption. Refer to Resolution Book. A RESOLUTION OF THE CI~.'Y COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM ACCEPTING CERTAIN DEEDS AND ORDERING THEIR RECORDATION. (Woodbine Corp.; Bernardo M. Yorba, Jr.; Edna G. Yorba, et. al; Southern California Savings & Loan Assn.; Frederick R. & Ruth F. Sacher; Archie Preissman; Izora M. Scott & Frances Rodgers; Margaret Clair Peter, et al; Elmer A. & Margaret L. Peter; Margaret Clair Peter, et al; Walter E. La Force; Texaco Ventures, Inc. & Anaheim Hills, Inc.; Dew Construction Co.; I. P. S.) Roll Call Vote: AYES: COUNCILMEN: Stephenson, Sneegas, Pebley, Thom and Dutton NOES: COUNCILMEN: None ABSENT: COUNCILMEN: None The Mayor declared Resolution No. 74R-27 duly passed and adopted. CLAIMS AGAINST TILE CITY : The following claims were denied as recommended by the City Attorney and ordered referred to the insurance carrier, on motion by Councilman Thom, seconded by Councilman Pebley: a. Claim submitted by Pacific Telephone and Telegraph Company for damage to jointly-owned pole No. 21361D located at Crescent Avenue and Loara Street, purportedly resulting from being hit by City vehicle, on or about December 1, 1973. b. Claim submitted by Robert Cernuda for personal property damage purportedly resulting from collision with City vehicle in parking lot, North Street, east of Loara, on or about December 3, 1973. c. Claim submitted by Arthur W. Barrett (Auto Club of Southern California) for damage to vehicle purportedly resulting from collision with Police vehicle at Convention Way, on or about December 18, 1973. MOTION CARRIED:.. CORRESPONDENCE: The following correspondence was ordered received and filed on motion by Councilman Pebley, seconded by Councilman Thom: a. Before the Public Utilities Commission - Investigation on the Commission's own motion into the adequacy and reliability of the energy and fuel requirements and supply of the electric public utilities in the State of California. b. Community Center Authority - Special Meeting - Minutes - December 27, 1973. c. Financial and Operating Reports for the Month_of December, 1973, for the City Treasurer, Police Department and Utilities Division. d. Annual Report for 1973 - Building Division. e. Mosquito Abatement District - Minutes - January 3, 1974. MOTION CARRIED. ORDINANCE N0. 3254: Councilman Stephenson offered Ordinance No. 3254 for first read~.ng. AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AMENDING TITLE 18 OF THE ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO ZONING. (73-74-I2 - R-3) g ;~ :y Mali., A~~a~iei~~~,~ C:.al.i_fornia_- COL`NCTL MINUTES -January 22, 1974, 1:30 P,M, ~INhNCE .NOa. ~~S~ ~~~Ia 32:~r~_~ I,Ac~K.__iti-LIEU FE~.S: City Attorney Alan Watts reported thu: t ~ . - ~. ~ :.~ ... ~- : _ .~ t.~~.~.~r_ ate ti~~~~ ri~~t~ tln~ ~1~e1,:1 3as~i~~ary 2., 1974, he has ~~repared two >rdinances whi.cl~ vaould increase the park in-lieu fees by using I00% of the established formula,; In order to arrive at a rounded number, as requested by the Council, various multiple factors were used. The formula fin- ally determined t<~ be rr~cst workable was (L & D) SP x 0.957 which brings the fees to: $300.00 pet- single-family unit; $189.50 per multiple-family unit; $150.00 per mobile dome unit. ORDINANCE NO. 3255: Councilman Sneegas offered Ordinance No, 3255 for first reading. A.N ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AMENDING TITLE 17, CHAPTER 17.08, SECTION 1 ~? , 08 ,535 OF 'I`IfE ANAI~ITI I~IUrJIC,~ I'A?: CODE REI~4T~ING `I'0 THE ESTAB- I,ISHING OF A FORMULATION FOR FA.YMENT 0~' I'C'ES FOR. }'AKIN A1vTI) R_~:CREATIONAL IAND IN SUBDIVISIONS. t~R.DINANi:E NOn 3256: Ct~~xneilmati Sneegas ~~frte7.e+:1 r}r~iina~ic:r~ It7c~. 3'56 for f::irst reading. AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AMENDING 'I'1_TL>/ l7, CHAP`T'ER 17.08, SECTION l ? .08.556 Ol' THE ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE RELATI~.VG TO TT1E ESTAB- LISHING OF A FORMULATION FOR THE PAYMENT OF FEES FOR PARK AND RECREA- TIONAL LAND IN TRAILER PARKS AND RESIDENTIAL AREAS , NOT INCLUDING SUB- DIVISIONS (R--O, R-l, R-2 AND R-3) . JINANCE N0. 325i: Cauncilrnan Sneegas offered Ordinance No. 3257 for first reading. AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM REPEALING TITLE 17 , CHAPTER 17.16 , AND REPEALING TITLE 10, CHAPTER 10020, AND ADOPTING A NEW TITLE 10, CHAPTER 10.20 OF THE: ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE PERTAINING TO THE CONSTRUCTION AND DESTRUCTION OF WELLS. SOLUTION NO . 74K-28 - FEE SCHEDUI~ I~OR CONSTRUCTION AND ABANDONMENT OF WELLS Councilman PeY~ley offered Resolution Nop 74R-28 for adoption. Reif-~~r to Resolution Book. A RESOLUTION C)F THE CITY COUNCIL OF TTY CITY OF ANAHEIM ADOPTING A PERMIT FEE SCHEDULE FOR THE CONSTRUCTION AND DESTRUCTION OF WELLS IN THE CITY OF ANANE ~ . ~r~:i b gall Vo~:e A~`I~a~ : T;C?U:n1Cf MIEN: Stephenson, Sneegas, Pebley, Thom and Dutton NOES: COUNCILMEN: None ABSENT : COt]NC ILMEN : None The Mayor declared Resolution No. 74R.-28 duly passed and adopted. NTATIVE TRAL T NO . 84 70 AND ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT N0 . 103 VARIANCE NO 255 7 ORner~ Kenneth To and Emily H. Conner; property located on the north side of Crescent Drive, east of Peralta Hills Drive and containing eight proposed R-E zoned lots, The City Planning Commission at their meeting held October 15, 1973, considered 'tentative Tract Map No. 8470 in conjunction with Environmental Impact Report Noy X03 and Varianc No. 2557. Pursuant to Planning Commission Resolution No. PC73-23~, granting Variance No. 2557, the City Planning C arnnission recommended in connection with E.I.R. No. 103 that said report had not adequately discussed the drainage problemyand therefore an acceptable supplement should be provided to the City council prior to adoption of E.I.R. No. 103 as Council's statement. At the Council meeting held November 6, 1973, E.I.B. No. 103, Variance No. 2557 and Tentative Tract Map No. 8470 were submitted for Council consider- ation. Due to the Planning Commission reconanendation relative to the inadequate treatment of drainage, the City Council took no action on Variance No. 2557 ~-herehY,= ~Xxsts ina;~~ t-he City Pl.a~n;nr° ~'on~i ss-:run's action granting said variance 74-93 City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - January 22, 1974,_ 1:30 P.M. and continued E.I.R. No. 103 and Tentative Map Tract No. 8470 to November 13, 1973 . "~ t ; _ c f : _{~ _s =r ..~uatidns from Deeembc~ ~ " ~ '~73 to this date were re- que s ted by C . J . Queyr~~ ~ ~ A.naca l Engineering Company on behalf o f the owners . The City Planning Commission at their meeting held October 15, 1973, approved Tentative Map, Tract No. 8470, subject to the following conditions: 1. That the approval of Tentative Map of Tract No. 8470 is granted subject to the approval of Variance No. 2557. 2. That all lots within this tract shall be served by underground utilities. 3. 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. 4. That a perpetual easement agreement for a strip of land 20 feet wide for access as required for access to each lot shall be submitted to and approved by the City Attorney s Office and then be filed and recorded in the office of the Orange County Recorder. 5. That drainage of said property shall be disposed of in a manner satisfactory to the City Engineer. If, in the preparation of the site, suffi- cient grading is required to necessitate a grading permit, no work on grading will be permitted between October 15th and April 15th unless all required off-site drainage facilities have been installed and are operative. Positive assurance shall be provided the City that such drainage facilities will be com- pleted prior to October 15tho Necessary right-of-way for off-site drainage facilities shall be dedicated to the City, or the City Council shall have initi- ated condemnation proceedings therefor (the costs of which shall be borne by the developer) prior to commencement of grading operations. The required drainage facilities shall be of a size and type sufficient to carry runoff waters originating from higher properties through said property to ultimate disposal as approved by the City Engineer. Said drainage facilities shall be the first item of construction and shall be completed and be functional through- out the tract and from the downstream boundary of the property to the ultic~nate point of disposal prior to the issuance of any final building inspections or occupancy permits. Drainage district reimbursement agreements may be made available to the developers of said property upon their request. 6. That grading, excavation, and all other construction activities shall be conducted in such a manner so as to minimize the possibility of any silt originating from this project being carried into the Santa Ana River by storm water originating from or flowing through this project. 7. That the owner(s) 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 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. 9. That should this subdivision be developed as more than one sub- division, each subdivision thereof shall be submitted in tentative form for approval. The City Engineer reported that the developer has submitted an addendum to E.I.R. No. 103 discussing the drainage situation and further ex- plained that subject tract is located midway between two future drainage courses, one of which Anaheim Hills, Inc., did intend to build in the coming year. However due to lack of a buyer for their land they advised that the construction of this particular storm drain will not occur until 1975. Mr. Maddox advised that the Revised Hillside Development Drainage Condition (Condition No. 5 of City Planning Commission approval of Tentative Tract No, 8470) would require that the developer of this eight-lot subdivision construct storm drain facilities of rather large magnitude; these would consist of two downstream drainage facilities to reach Pinney Drive and the storm drain connection to the west. However it appears from the tentative map submitted that the developer proposes a minimal amount of grading on six lots which would contribute very little additional water than presently from the land in its natural state, Therefore Mr. Maddox recommended that in lieu of the standard Revised Hillside Development Drainage Condition the following condition be im~ao sed - g ty 'tia11, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - January 22, 1974, 1:30 P.M. "That drainage of said property shall be disposed of in a manner sat- isfactory to the City Engineer. That should Peralta Hills be included in a drainage district subject property will pay required fees as established by said district prior to issuance of building permits. If fee has not been established prior to issuance of building permits,an estimated fee will be required as fixed by the Engineering Division. Fee adjustment will be made on determination of final fee. No grading shall be done prior to April 15, 1974." Further Mr. Maddox reported that a study on fees which may be assessed against the Peralta Hills lots for drainage facilities which have been constructed downstream and upstream is being prepared and will be presented to Council with- in the next three weeks. Mr. Cal Queyrel, Anacal Engineering Company, advised that it is pro- posed that approximately one-quarter of each lot or a total of less than three to four thousand yards of grading would be performed to create pads. He remarked that all conditions imposed by the City Planning Commission are satisfactory with the amendment to the Revised Hillside Development Drainage Condition as outlined by Mr. Maddox. The Tentative Tract Map No. 8470 was reviewed at Council Table. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT: On motion by Councilman Sneegas, seconded by Councilman Dutton, Environmental Impact Report No. 103 and Drainage Addendum thereto, together with E.I.R. Review Committee Analysis and City Planning Commis- sion recommendation were adopted as the Environmental Impact Statement of the Council. MOTION CARRIED, On motion by Councilman Dutton, seconded by Councilman Sneegas, Tenta- tive Map, Tract No. 8470 was approved,subject to the recommendations of .the City Planning Commission with amendment to Condition No. 5 as outlined by the City Engineer. MOTION CARRIED. ENDMENT_TO ELECTRICAL RULES, RATES AND REGULATIONS (INCREASE): Utilities Director Gordon Hoyt presented the rate proposals for an overall increase of 38.4% (pre- viously discussed January 8, 1974), the majority of which is due to the fuel cost adjustment factor. He recommended these rates be made effective February 1, 1974 to preclude any lag in City revenues behind those charged by Southern Calif- ornia Edison. He emphasized there is a possibility that these rates will not be implemented if, for any reason, the filings made by Edison before the Federal Power Commission are not upheld and/or are suspended for any period of time. Councilman Dutton commented on the fact that the proposed rate filing would raise Anaheim's wholesale rate cost above Edison's industrial retail rates. In answer to Councilman Pebley's expressed concern as to whether an industrial consumer could purchase energy from Edison at less cost than from the City of Anaheim, Mr. Hoyt advised that at the present time all industrial cus- tomers within the City of Anaheim are paying electrical rates which would be approximately the same were they purchasing identical power from Edison Company, however, he could not guarantee this to remain true if a very large industry such as General Motors wished to construct an automobile plant within the City sometime in the future. Councilman Sneegas, noting that the rates of increase for various con- sumer classes were different, inquired about Mr. Merrill Skillings' recent re- quest that any electrical rate increase be distributed evenly between all classes of consumers, Mr. Hoyt replied that he has discussed the situation with Mr. Skillings and advised him that the fuel cost adjustment is essentially seven/tenths of a cent;if you divide this seven -tenth cent per kilowatt hour against the cost per kilowatt hour for industrial versus residential consumer, which is a larger number, it is a much larger percentage increase for the industrial cus- tomer than it is for the residential customer. The utility is in fact passing the cost along for the energy consumed, as energy and fuel are directly connected. He advised that the last time he spoke with Mr. Skillings he was satisfied that this was an appropriate method to distribute the costs between the various classes of consumers. 74-95 City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - January 22, 1974, 1:30 P.M. RESOLUTION N0. 74R-29: adoption. Councilman Sneegas offered Resolution No. 74R-29 for Refer to Resolution Book. A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AMENDING RATES, RULES AND REGULATIONS FOR THE SALE AND DISTRIBUTION OF ELECTRIC ENERGY AS ADOPTED BY RESOLUTION N0. 71R-478 AND AMENDED BY RESOLUTION NOS. 73R-25, 73R-373 AND 73R-531. Roll Call Vote: AYES: COUNCILMEN: Stephenson, Sneegas, Pebley, Thom and Dutton NOES: COUNCILMEN: None ABSENT: COUNCIIMEN: None The Mayor declared Resolution No. 74R-29 duly passed and adopted. VOLUNTARY CURTAILMENT PROGRAM - CONSUMPTION OF ELECTRICAL ENERGY : Mr, Hoyt reported that he had submitted for Council review,together with his recommendation for adoption, the mandatory curtailment provisions of the California Public Utili- ties Commission - second interim order. Following discussion of the situation with the various leaders of retail, recreational, industrial and municipal seg- ments of the City, he advised that he has decided to withdraw his recommendation that this mandatory program be adopted. The primary reason for this decision he advised is the implementation of "3'he Anaheim Plan" which is a cooperative venture between the City of Anaheim and the Anaheim Chamber of Commerce whose objective is to encourage a voluntary conservation effort throughout the City which will result in a 15% reduction in consumption of electrical energy. He reported that the volunteer leaders of "The Anaheim Plan"are now preparing an approach to the smaller bus- inesses and the residential community, having been successfully received by the larger industrial electrical consumers. He did report that his decision was also tempered by the fact that if the mandatory curtailment program were adopted he would be responsible to enforce same. Mr. Hoyt stated that he felt that in all fairness to the community, six months should be allowed for the voluntary effort, after which ,if the over- all fuel factor remains as it is today and the curtailment program not as effective as anticipated, it might be necessary to institute the mandatory proms gram. He outlined some of the steps being taken by "The Anaheim Plan" leaders. Since the recreational and larger industrial sections of the community have already assured him of their cooperation, he felt that the smaller businesses and citizens will follow suit and therefore he wished to withdraw his recom- mendation. Mayor Dutton commended the Chamber on their efforts with the conser- vation program. No further action was taken by the City Council. LITIGATION -E.I.R. N0. 98: The City Attorney advised that the trial court judge in the litigation brought against the City of Anaheim by the Orange Unified School District and Santa Ana Canyon Improvement Association, Inc., relative to E.I.R„ No. 98 recently agreed with the position taken by the City of Anaheim in respect to the review of school faci~.ities in said E.I.R. As to whether this will lead to more understanding or. negotiation towards a solu- tion to the problem, he advised he could not speculate upon. At Mr. Murdoch's request, the Council indicated that if there were any areas or means in which the City could assist the Orange Unified School District, they would be willing to explore same. Councilman Sneegas, noting that other problem areas such as drainage have been resolved with the cooperation of Anaheim Hills, Inc., to his thinking it would seem logical that the school situation should also be amenable to solution. However, he felt that the agency in need of assistance should be the one to take initiative. -9E ty Hall. Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - January 22, 1974, 1:30 P.M !_ 4NGE COUNTY TRANSIT DISTRICT TRANSIT CORRIDOR STUDY: Mr. Murdoch outlined the action taken by the Santa Ana City Council on January 21, 1974 which indicates they accepted the recommendation of their Transportation Advisory Committee to support in concept the O.C.T.D. Alternate Plan No. T-2E with proposed staff modifications, and in addition thereto to recommend to the O.C.T.D. the inclu- sion of a supplementary corridor serving the high traffic generators located in the southerly portion of Anaheim. Mro Murdoch then summarized that this coincides partially with the ---, recommendation made by the City of Anaheim. January 7, 1974 which proposed a mod- ification to realign the Pacific Electric Right-of-Way Corridor at approximately Katella Avenue by utilizing the Southern Pacific Right-of-Way and the Southern California Edison easement and proceeding easterly to the Santa Ana Freeway where the corridor would proceed southeasterly to its intersection with the original corridor in Santa Ana. The Cities of Garden Grove and Santa Ana would like to have the south- ern portion of the corridor retained due to the fact that this would serve the Orange County Civic Center in Santa Ana along 4th Street and that alignment would take the corridor through the proposed Garden Grove Redevelopment Area along Garden Grove Boulevard as well. Although Mr, Murdoch recognized that the Santa Ana Civic Center would generate many riders, and in an attempt to cooperate with the City of Santa Ana and at the same time satisfy the needs of the City of Anaheim, he recommended that the Council amend the original recommendation to include a supplementary corridor to serve the Santa Ana Civic Center Complex rather than delete that segment from network T-2E. At the same time,he noted,it might be beneficial to realign the south leg of the Anaheim Corridor to better serve the Santa Ana Civic Center Complex and the Orange County Medical Center. Mr. Murdoch noted that the primary emphasis which the Council should make is that the Anaheim modification is not just on a supplementary segment but that the Council feels since the Disneyland-Convention Center area is the largest .~.. traffic generator in the County, this is a primary or main line consideration and not to be designated supplementary. He pointed out that the action taken by the City of Santa Ana did not recognize this position. On motion by Councilman Sneegas, seconded by Councilman Pebley, a letter was authorized to be forwarded to Dr. Fielding, General Manager.of the Orange County Transit District indicating that the City Council had modified and superseded their January 7, 1974. recommendation to the Transit District as follows: 1. That the Network T2E be modified so as to realign the Pacific Electric Railroad R-O-W Corridor at approximately Katella Avenue, utilizing the Southern Pacific Railroad R-O-W and the Southern California Edison easement by proceeding easterly to the Santa Ana Freeway where the corridor would proceed southeasterly along the freeway to its intersection with the original TZE Corridor in Santa Ana. Further, that the Pacific Electric Railroad R-O-W Corridor not be deleted south of the Southern Pacific Railroad R-O-W,but that it be included as a "supplemental" corridor serving the cities of Santa Ana and Garden Grove; and, that additional study be given to realigning the souther]~y portion of the "Anaheim modification" to better serve the Santa Ana Civic Center complex. 2. That a Multi Model Transportation Center be established in the Commercial-Recreation (Disneyland, Convention Center, Anaheim Stadium) area of Anaheim. MOTION CARRIED . KPIAYEES' DENTAL, INSURANCE : Personnel Director Garry McRae of the dental insurance contract with California Dental from $9.15 to $10.00 per individual employee per month. increase is necessitated due to the fact that the $9.15 anticipated enrollment and the actual number of employe Dental Service fell short of this figure. reported that the costs Service has increased He advised that this premium was based on an es enrolled in California 74-97 City Ha11, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - January 22, 1974, 1:30 P.M. On motion by Councilman Pebley, seconded by Councilman Stephenson, the City Council authorized the increase in monthly premium payments to Calif- ornia Dental Service from $9.15 to $10.00 per employee per month. MOTION CARRIED . TERMS - RECENTLY APPROVED APPOINTMENTS TO PLANNING COMMISSION: The City Clerk re- ported that at the previous Counci meeting of January-15, 1974 it was incor- rectly reported that the unexpired terms of Mr. Lenzi Allred and Mr. Dan Rowland expired at the same time. She informed the Council that Mr. A11red's term would expire on June 30, 1977 and Mr. Rowland on June 30, 1975,and there- fore it would be necessary to designate to which of these two terms Commission- ers Johnson and Morley were appointed. By tossing a coin, Council determined that Commissioner Morley will fill the unexpired term of Lenzi Allred ending June 30, 1977; and Commissioner Johnson will fill the unexpired term of Dan Rowland ending June 30, 1975. RECESS - EXECUTIVE SESSION: Councilman Sneegas moved to recess to Executive Sessi.an. Councilman Pebley seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. (5:27 P.M.) AFTER RECESS: The Mayor called the meeting to order, all Councilmen being preseY~t. (5 :45 P.M. ) ADJOURNMENT: Councilman Stephenson moved to adjourn. Councilman Sneegas seconcieJ the motion. MOTION CARRIED . Adjourned: 5:45 P.M. Signed ~• r-~~GZ~~~ _ City Clerk