Loading...
1972/01/1172-11 City Hall, Anaheim~_~alifo~nia - COUNCIL MINUTES - January 11, 1972, 1:30 P.M. The City Co,~ncil of the City of Anaheim met in regular session. PRESENT: ABSENT: PRE SENT: COUNCILMEN; Roth, Stephenson, Pebley, Thom and Dutton COUNCILMEN: None CITY MANAGER: Keith A. Murdoch CITY ATTORNEY: Joseph B. Geisler ASSISTANT CITY ATTORNEY: Alan Watts CITY CLERK: Dene M. Daoust CITY ENGINEER: James P. Maddox ASSISTANT CITY ENGINEER: Ralph Pease ASSISTANT DIRECTOR OF DEVELOPMENT SERVICES: Ronald Thompson ZONING SUPERVISOR: Charles Roberts ASSOCIATE PLANNER: Don Mc Daniel Mayor Duttcn called the meeting to order. INVOCATION: Reverend Arthur Krebs, of the First Congregational Church, gave the i_nvocation. FLAG SALUTE: Councilman Don R. Roth led the Assembly in the Pledge of Al- legiance to the Flag. PROCLAMATION: Mayor I~tton proclaimed February 6 through 12, 1972, "Chil- dren's Dextral Health Week," and presented Proclamations to Lauren Belmon~ of Stoddard Elementary School, and Myrna Quinonez of Savanna Elementary School, winners of the Dental Health Poster Contest. The Proclamations were unanimously ratified by the City Council. ANAHEIM BEAUTIFUL- MiNI-PARK: Mrs. The!ma M. Jordan, President of the Ana- heim Beautiful Standing Committee, presented a letter and thanked th.. (:ity Council and Staff for the many kindnesses shown in grant- lng permission to develop the Capron property at Clementine Street an~] I~inco]n Avenue into a mini-park. She added that she hoped this park would be "used and not abused." MINUTES: Minutes oi the Anaheim City Council meetings held December 14 and 21, 1971, were approved on motion by Councilman Pebley, seconded by Coun- cilman Steph~nson. M(rflON CARRIED. WAIVER OF READING - ORDINANCES AND RESOLUTIONS: Councilman Thom moved to waive the reading in full of all ordinances and resolutions, and that consent to the waiver of reading is hereby given by all Councilmen unless, after read- ing of the ~itle-, specific request is made by a Councilman for the reading of such ordinance or resolution. Councilman Pebley seconded the motion. MOTION UNANIMOUSLY CARRIED. REPORT - FINANCIAL DEMANDS AGAINST THE CITY: Demands against the City, in the amount of $2,243,062.47, in accordance with the 1971-72 Budget, were ap- proved. CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING - VARIANCE NO. 2281: Submitted by J.P. Edmondson Pro- perties, Limited, to construct an additional free-standing sign on C-R zoned property located south and east of the southeast corner of Harbor Boulevard and Manchester Avenue, and is developed with the Smoke Tree Res- taurant and a ~heatre, with the following requested waivers: a. Aggregate area of signs permitted. b. Ma×imum number of free-standing signs. c. Minimum distance between free-standing signs. d. Location of free-standing signs. The City Planning Cou~ission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC71-211, denied said variance. Appeal from action taken by the City Planning Cormnission was filed by James P. Edmondson, Applicant, and public hearing schednled December 14, 1971, at which time it was continued to this date, at the request of the applicant. 72- 1.2 .~ity Hall~. Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - January 11, 1972~ 1:30 P.M. Zoning Supervisor Charles Roberts noted the location of subject property, the existing uses and zoning in the immediate area, and briefed the evidence submitted to and considered by the City Planning Commission. He added that the City Planning Commission had denied said application on the basis that no hardship had been proved and that they have been attempt- ing to reduce the proliferation of signs in the Commercial-Recreation Area. Mr. Roberts advised that the existing sign has 373-square feet of space, and the requested sign would bring this to a total of 413-square feet, whereas, under today's Sign Ordinance only 204-square feet would be permit- ted; that the existing sign advertises the theatre only, and the requested sign would advertise the restaurant. City Attorney Joseph Geisler advised that the number of signs permit- ted by the Sign Ordinance is based on size and ownership of separate parcels of property, and not on separate businesses located on the property. William Barker, representing Federal Sign Corporation, Los Angeles, Agent, stated that although the existing sign already uses more than the al- lowable space for the property, at the time that sign for ~the theatre was granted Mr. Edmondson expressed his objection, not to the size of the ~ign, but the fact that the theatre was using all of it, since he was certain he would have a restaurant there and wanted to participate in part of the sign space; however, since the existing sign already had been built, the City Council allowed it. He added that both the restaurant and theatre have 50-year leases on the property and share parking~and ingress-egress facilities on an equal basis. Mr. Barker also stated that the part of the existing sign adver- tising the feature was movable in an up and down direction, to enable the advertising to be changed as each feature changed, and thus there was no way to add the restaurant sign to it. In reply to Council questioning, Mr. Barker advised that the exist- ing restaurant sign on Manchester Avenue is visible from the Freeway offramp going south, can't be seen going over the bridge, and a person would have to search for it traveling on Harbor Boulevard. He added that if Disneyland should develop its nearby property the sign no longer would be visible from Harbor Boulevard; the existing sign on Manchester Avenue also is a large sign and moving it to Harbor Boulevard would mean one sign would block out the other from either direction; the proposed sign is a rather small, entrance- type sign, or directional sign. Mr. Barker stated the restaurant operator feels he is losing busi- ness by not having his sign visible from Harbor Boulevard, and also feels he did everything he could to prevent this situation. Mayor Dutton asked if anyone wished to address the Council in opposi- tion; there being no response, declared the hearing closed. RESOLUTION NO. 72R-8: Councilman Stephenson stated he believed a hardship existed in this case and thereupon offered Resolution No. 72R-8 for adoption, granting Variance No. 2281, subject to the following Interdepartmental Com- mittee recommendations: 1. That ~dequate ci. earance of existing electrical lines shall be provided as required by the Electrical Division, Department of Public Utili- ties, and the State of ~.a~.~ornia G.O. 95. 2. That subject property shaJ], be developed substantially in ac- cordance with plans and specifications on file with the City of Anaheim marked Exhibit Nos. 1, 2, and Refer to Resolution Book. A RESOLUTION OF TL'E CITY COI~CIL (?,F THE C_TY OF ANAHEIM GRANTING VARIANCE NO. 2281. 72-13 City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - January 11, 1972, 1:30 P.M. Roll Cai] Vote: AYES: COUNCILMEN: NOES: COUNCILMEN: ABSENT: COUNCILMEN: Roth, Stephenson, Pebley, Thom and Dutton None None The Mayor declared Resolution No. 72R-8 duly passed and adopted. PUBLIC HEARING - RECLASSIFICATION NO. 71-72-20 AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 1277: Submitted by Henry and Louise Boisseranc, requesting a change of zone from R-A and M-1 to R-2, to establish a 179-unit planned residential development on property located on the southeast corner of Dale Street and the Artesia Freeway, with waivers of: a. Minimum site area. b. Minimum site width~ c. Requirement that a lot abut a public street. d. Minimum distance from two-story to R-1. e. Minimum distance between buildings. f. Enclosed storage areas required. ~e City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC71-235, recommended said reclassification be approved, subject to the following con- ditions: 1. That a final tract map covering each proposed phase of develop- ment shall be submitted to and approved by the City Council and then be re- corded in the office of the Orange County Recorder prior to the introduction of an ordinance on cash phase; provided that ordinances reclassifying the property shall be adopted as each tract is ready to comply with conditions pertaining to such tract; and further provided that the sequence of tract development shall be such as to prevent the possibility of creating a land- locked parcel. 2. That the completion of these reclassification proceedings is contingent upon the granting of Conditional Use Permit No. 1277. 3. That prior to the filing of the final tract map on the first phase, the applicant shall submit to the City Attorney for approval or de- nial a complete synopsis of the proposed functioning of the operating cor- poration for all proposed phases of development including, but not limited to, the articles of incorporation, by-laws, proposed rules and regulations, methods of operation, funding, assessment, methods of management, bonding to insure maintenance of common property and buildings, and such other in- formation as the City Attorney may desire to protect the City, its citizens, and the purchasers of the project. 4. That prior to City Council approval of the final tract map, the covenants, conditions, and restrictions for all proposed phases of de- velopment shall be submitted to and approved by the City Attorney's office, and the approved covenants, conditions, and restrictions shall be recorded concurrently with the final tract map. 5. That trash storage areas shall be provided in accordance with approved plans on file with the office of the Director of Public Works. 6. That fire hydrants shall be installed as required and deter- mined to be necessary by the Chief of the Fire Department. 7. That a 6-foot masonry wall shall be constructed along the east property line. 8. That all air-conditioning facilities shall be properly shielded from view, and the sound buffered. 9. That subject property shall be served by underground utilities. 10. That subject property shall be developed substantially in ac- cordance with plans and specifications on file with the City of Anaheim mar- ked Exhibit Nos. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, and 7, submitted with Conditional Use Per- mit No. 1277. 11. That Cohdition Nos. 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, and 10, above mentioned, shall be complied with prior to final building and zoning inspections. The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC71-236, granted said conditional use permit, in part, denying Waiver "d," and grant- ing Waivers "a," "b," "c," "e," and "f," subject to the following conditions: 72-14 City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - January 11, 1972, 1:30 P,M. 1. That th'~s Conditional Use Permit is granted subject to the com- pletion of Reclassification No. 71-72-20, now pending. 2. That subject property shall be developed substantially in ac- cordance with plans and specifications on file with the City of Anaheim marked Exhibit Nos. 1, 2, 3, 4~ 5, 6, and 7 provided, however, that one-story con- struction shall be maintained within 150 feet of the R-1 residences to the west. Zoning Supervisor Charles Roberts noted the location of subjec~ property, comprising approximately 20 acres, existing uses and zoning in the immediate area. He added that the proposed development differs from the statutory condominium project in that the parcel is divided into postage- size lots, and ownership of the ground immediately beneath each unit, plus a small patio area is conveyed to the owner of the unit. In reply to Council questioning, City Engineer James Maddox advised that the proposed development could be serviced by Anaheim for sewer, at a cost of approximately $26,000.00, and for water, at a cost of approximately $35,000.00, not including right-of-way costs; however, the location is not on Anaheim's "grid system," as far as sewers are concerned, and thus it would be more logical to obtain these services from Buena Park since they service the property across the street on Dale Street. He added that Buena Pa~k and Anaheim have, from time-to-time~ administratively agreed to service small par- cels of properties in each other's jurisdiction. Mayor Dutton asked if the Applicant or his Agent was present and wished to address the City Co~ncil. James E. Ro~ger~ Westfield-Urban Company, 6151 West Century Bou- levard, Los Angeles, Developer, advised that the 179 units proposed on the 17.46 acres of land, gives a density of 10.25 units per acre, with 2.57 park- ing spaces per unit~ snd pr~vste streets that will be maintained by the home- owners association~ ~e ~dd~d that they ~ntend to provide 2.2 acres of rec- reational facilities, or 13% of the total land, which is a greater percent- age than they usually provide. Mr. Rodgers advised that their units would be in clusters of six, and priced in the mid-$20~O00~00 range for each unit; the majority of the existing homes in the R-1 residential development across Dale Street range from $24,000.00 to $25,000.00; purchasers would receive a deed in fee simple to the dwelling unit, private yard and 2-car garage, while all the surround- ing areas would be owned by the non-profit homeowners association, with each unit owner required to contribute to the association each month for mainten- ance. The project to be built under F.H.A.,Single Homeowner, Section 203-B. He added that they felt their proposed project offered the best tran- sitional buffer between the R-1 development across Dale Street and the manufac- turing facilities to the east, and that the traffic count on Dale Street showed 3,100 trips per day on a street designed to accommodate approximately 18,000 trips per day, and thus their project would not place a burden on that street. Mr. Rodgers reported that they had contacted residents of the single- family development to the west and almost 100% of those contacted had signed a petition favoring the proposed project, knowing that the distance between the R-1 development and the two-story units was proposed to be 116 feet. The petition, purportedly containing 20 signatures of those closest to the development,favoring the project, was presented to the Council. He stated that in checking with the Anaheim Fire and Police Depart- ments he was assured adequate protection is available, as well as trash-collec- tion services. In reply to Council questioning, Mr. Rodgers advised they had contacted the school districts involved and found classes small at this time, with room to expand. He added that he understood the number of students had decreased in these schools this past year and that the proposed project would not add as many chil- dren as formerly attended. 72-15 City Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIl, MINUTES - January 11~ 1972~ 1:30 P.M. He ~[s~ advised that a 30-inch l~igt~ block and wrought iron wall, with no openings, would separate the project from Boisseranc Park. Also in reply to Council questioning, ~. Rodgers reported that F.H.A. not on]sz had approved their proposed project, but had set a higher density for the pr~perty than proposed, whic[~ would allow 15 or 20 additional units. Mr. ~rdoch, in answer'to Council discussion, advised Chat at this time Anaheim supplies sewer and water services to 60.8 acres of Buena Park property~ and Buena Park services 37.2 acres in Anaheim. Mr. >~rdoch further stated that for some period of time Buena Park and Anaheim, primarily at administrative and staff levels, have been attempt- ing to straiKhl~an ou~ the irregular boundary line between the two cities and, at the time ~ ar,~a for the Buena Park Ci.ty Park was relinquished to Buena Park, Anaheim !~ad considered also relinquishing property west of it and squaring off ~Ji:c boundary in that area, in exchange for property within. Buena Park. He also briefed the Council on other boundary-straightening possibilities between the two cities. Mr. ~rdoch advised that the possibility of straightening the boundary in *~!~ ~,rea of th~ proposed pro.~ect had been discussed with the developer, and at that time he was agreeable to anything the two cities decided on for service. He reiterated that Police and Fire service more logically would be from Buena Park, since Anaheim would have to go outside the city limits to supply this servJ~.e and, in order to supply sewer and water services, they either wcut~] have to run the sewer across the Delco-Remy property or down the Edison rigidly-of-way, at considerable expense. In reply to Council questioning, Mr. Maddox stated that the boun- dary line at tt~at point between Anaheim and Buena Park appeared to be 20 feet east o£ the centerline of Dale Street. City Attorney Joseph Geisler advised that the owners of property involved and cities involved must give consent before any boundary exchange can be made. The Mayor asked if anyone wished to address the Council in oppo- sition. Mayor Anthony N. Fonte, of Buena Park, stated their concern over this proposed project was based on the impact it would have on Buena Park. He advised that after calls from residents had been received, the City of Buena Park had requested the developer delay his presentation before the Anaheim City Council so that an unofficial public hearing could be held, and he understood all of the Buena Park residents subsequently had withdrawn their signatures from the petition presented by the developer and had signed another petition opposing the project. Mayor Fonte advised that the Buena Park City Council has gone on record that in its present form it would not be in the interest of Buena Park to service the proposed project, and thus urged the Anaheim City Coun- cil to concur with their findings. He referred to a letter sent to the Anaheim City Council, under date of January 5, 1972, wherein the City Council's objections were based on the additional traffic that would be generated and the fact that the General Plans of both cities call for a low-density of five to seven units per acre on this property. Replying tO Councilman Dutton's remark that the proposed project would have a favorable impact on the nearby Buena Park Shopping Center, Mayor Fonte agreed, but added that the proposed high-density also often generates needs for municipal services that far outstrip any benefits. Mayor Fonte concluded by stating it was felt the proposed City Park would serve the entire area, and thus a single-family characteristic should be maintained on subject property. 72-16 City Hall, Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES -January 11~ 1972, 1:30 P.M. Replying to Counc£l questioning, Mayor Fonte advised that residents feared the 3,100 expected additional vehicles generated per day by the proposed project would attempt to go through Carnation Street to get to the Freeway, rather than use La Palma Avenue. Councilman Pebley asked if Buena Park would consider supplying sewer and water service to this property if the lots were zoned for a minimum of 5,000- square feet, single-family, which would be a density of about 6 units per acre. Mayor Fonte advised that their City Council would extend these services to any development having a density of 7 units per acre or less. He reiterated the Buena Park City Council's decision to refuse service to the property if it is developed as presently contemplated. However, the Council would give the project reconsideration ~f the Anaheim City Council approved it, although they hoped their objections would result in Anaheim disapproving the proposal. Councilman Roth, noting that Buena Park had paid $38,000.00 an acre for the City Park property p~4ior to the time subject property was sold, thus affecting the price of st~bject property, stated he felt the proposed density would be appropriate fron~ an economical standpoint, since a single-family devel- opment would result in a necessary sale price of $50,000.00 to $60,000.00 for homes backing against a ~reewa¥ and having an industrial area on one side, which would an unfavorable condition. He added that he approved the concept of the proposed project, and also its use as a buffer between R-1 and the Freeway and industrial areas, rather than a possible apartment complex, which is a still higher density. Mayor Fonte again stated that the Master Plans of both cities call for single-family development o~ this property, a matter taken into consideration when the Park property was purchased, and added that to allow the proposal would be spot-zoning. Mrs. Hogan, 8284 Pertulaca Way, Buena Park, presented petitions pur- portedly containing 18 signatures of area residents opposing the proposed pro- ject, and stated she felt the developer was not taking into consideration the existing homeowners. She expressed objection to the proposal on the basis that additional traffic generated would create hazards for children going to the Park. Replying to Councilman Roth's remark that it appeared several of the homes in the single-family development across Dale Street were not being well cared for, Mrs. Hogan asked ~f the proposed homeowners association could guar- antee the same condition would not prevail in the proposed project. At the request of the Council, the City Engineer reported that a recent traffic count showed 3,100 vehicles per day traveling on Dale Street; it was es- timated the proposed project would generate a maximum of 1,330 vehicles per day, or a total of 4,400 or 4,500 cars per day, with 85% traveling south of the pro- posed development, and 15% north, and that the street is designed to accommodate 16,000 to 17,000 vehicles per day. Mr. Murdoch noted the traffic could be less than normally projected because Dale Street has an outlet in only one direction. Taras Kozbur, Buena Park Planning Director, stated Buena Park had pur- chased the Park property on the basis of the General Plans of both cities for the area. He added that in discussion, Mr. Rodgers had been amenable to Buena Park annexing subject property until he learned that Buena Park was trying to uphold the density projected by the General Plans of the two cities. Referring to the statement that the proposed project would act as a buffer between the single-family homes and the Freeway and industrial area, Mr. Kozbur expressed the belief such a buffer should either be low density or a green buffer, and that you do'not buffer people with more people. In reply to Council remarks, Mr. Kozbur stated that if Buena Park had the money, it might consider purchasing the property for a green buffer; however, no landowner today is willing to hold property until a city has the funds to purchase it. 72-17 City Hall., Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - January 11, 1972~ 1:30 P.M. Mayor Dutton invited the Applicant to present a brief rebuttal. Mr. Rodgers stated that, knowing subject property was on the bound- dary line, his company had discussed the proposed project with both cities, and added if de-anne×ation from Anaheim and annexation to Buena Park seemed to be in the best interest of both cities, his company would be in favor of it. Referring to the General Plan, Mr. Rodgers noted that part of the property pres~mt!y is zoned for manufacturing, which would not be consis- tent with the General Plan. He advised that sound level readings had been taken and eve~ though the Freeway is elevated 20 to 30 feet this would not have an adver~c effect on the residents. It ,~.~s ~!,~termined sufficient evidence had been presented, and Mayor Dutton declared the hearing closed. Councilman Roth stated he felt Buena Park was concerned unneces- sarily about the prob]ems the proposed project would generate. Councilm~m L~tton expressed the opinion that since Buena Park only requires 50 feet separating R-1 and R-2 property, Anaheim should not require the normal 150-foot ~mparation. Councilman Thom disagreed. Councilman Roth noted there are 2-story homes in the single-family development across Dale Street. Councilman Pebley expressed the opinion that, since each unit will be individually owned~ the proposed project should be considered a single- family residential development, rather than an apartment development. should be ........ ~ de~eloped Councilman Thom stated be felt the property/zone~as re~s~eH; however, heM~9~??-~l-~~~x?e'~l~-~,.'~t~-, was oppose~to waiving oul site.deveigpment standards oz one-snory height requiremenn winnig 150-feet o~ resi~entia~property. ~ RESOLUTION NO. 72R-9: Councilman Roth offered Resolution No. 72R-9 for ~.~_ adoption, authorizing preparation of necessary ordinance changing the zone as requested, subject to the conditions recommended by the City Planning Commission. Refer to Resolution Book. A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM FINDING AND DETER- MINING THAT TITLE 18 OF THE ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO ZONING SHOULD BE AMENDED AND THAT THE BOUNDARIES OF CERTAIN ZONES SHOULD BE CHANGED~ (71-72-20 - R-2) Roll Call Vote: AYES: COUNCILP~N: NOES: COUNCILMEN: ABSENT: COUNCILMEN: Roth, Stephenson, Pebley, Thom and Dutton None None The Mayor declared Resolntion No. 72R-9 duly passed and adopted. RESOLUTION NO. 72R-10: Councilman Roth offered Resolution No. 72R-10 for adoption, granting Conditional Use Permit No. 1277, including waiver of minimum distance from two-story to R-1 (d), subject to the condition recom- mended by the City Planning Commission, amended to delete the following portion of Condition No. 2: "Provided, however, that one-story construc- tion shall be maintained within 150 feet of the R-1 residences to the west." Refer to Resolution Book. A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM GRANTING CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 1277. Roll Call Vote: 72-18 City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - January 11, 1972, 1:30 P.M. AYES: COUNCILMEN: NOES: COIUNCILMEN: ABSENT: COUNCILMEN: Roth, Stephenson, Pebley and Dutton Thom None The Mayor declared Resolution No. 72R-10 duly passed and adopted. TENTATIVE MAPS, TRACTS NOS. 7657~ 7658 AND 7659 (RECLASSIFICATION NO. 71-72-20 AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 1277): Developer - Westfield Company. Property located at the southeast corner of the Artesia Freeway and Dale Street, and contains: Tentative Tract No. 7657 - 62 proposed R-2 zoned lots Tentative Tract No. 7658 - 66 proposed R-2 zoned lots Tentative Tract No. ~65~ - 61 proposed R-2 zoned lots The City Planning Commission, at their meeting held December 13, 1971, approved said Tentative Maps, subject to the following conditions: TENTATIVE TRACT NO. 7657: 1. That the approval of Tentative Map of Tract No. 7657 is granted subject to the approval of Reclassification No= 71-72-20 and Conditional Use Permit No. 1227. 2. That should this subdivision be developed as more than on~ sub- division, each subdivision thereof shall be submitted in tentative form for approval. 3. That all lots within this tract shall be served by underground utilities. 4. That a f~na] ~ract map of subject property shall be submitted to and approved by the City Council and then be recorded in the office of the Orange County Recorder. 5. That the covenants, conditions, and restrictions shall be sub- mitted to and approved by the City Attorney's office prior to City Council approval of the final tract map, and further, that the approved covenants, conditions and restrictions shall be recorded concurrently with the final tract map. 6. That the owners of subject property shall pay to the City of Anaheim the appropriate park and recreation in-lieu fees as determined to be appropriate by the City Council, said fees to be paid at the time the building permit is issued. 7. That drainage of subject tract shall be disposed of in a manner satisfactory to the City Engineer. 8. That Tentative Map of Tract No. 7657 and No.7659 shall not both be developed prior to Tentative Map of Tract No.7658. 9. That full dedication and improvements for Dale Street adjacent to Tentative Map of Tract Nos. 7657 and 7659 shall be accomplished with the first phase of development. 10. That a document granting to the owners of Tract Nos. 7658 and 7659 the right of access to and over any and all private accessways within Tract No. 7657, shall be submitted to and approved by the City Attorney prior to City Council approval of the final tract map, and, further, that said docu- ment shall be recorded concurrently with the final tract map. TENTATIVE TRACT NO. 7658: 1. That the approval of Tentative Map of Tract No. 7658 is granted subject to the approval of Reclassification No. 71-72-20 and Conditional Use Permit No. 1227. 2. That should this subdivision be developed as more than one sub- division, each subdivision thereof shall be submitted in tentative form for approval. 3. That all lots within this tract shall be served by underground utilities. 4. That a final tract map of subject property shall be submitted to and approved by the City Council and then be recorded in the office of the Orange County Recorder. 5. That the covenants, conditions, and restrictions shall be sub- mitted to and approved by the City Attorney's office prior to City Council approval of the final tract map, and further, that the approved covenants, conditions, and restrictions shall be recorded concurrently with the final tract map. 72-19 City Hall, Anaheim~_[~_ajifornia - COUNCIL MINUTES - January 11, 1972, 1:30 P.M. 6. l-bdt the owners of subject property shall pay to the City of Anaheim the appropriate park and recreation in-lieu fees as determined to be appropriate by the City Council, said fees to be paid at the time the building permit is issued. 7. That drainage cf subject tract shall be disposed of in a man- ner satisfactory to the City Engineer. 8. T~t: Tentative Map of Tract Nos. 7657 and 7659 shall not both be developed prior t~ Tentative Map of Tract No. 7658. 9. ~a.t a document granting to the owners of Tract Nos. 7657 and 7659 the right of access to and over any and all private accessways within Tract No.7658~ shall be submitted to and approved by the City Attorney prior to City Councii approval of the final tract map, and, further, that said document shall be recorded concurrently with the final tract map. TENTATIVE TRACT NO. ~i59: 1. That th~ approval of Tentative Map of Tract No. 7659 is gran- ted subject to t~be appr'ovai of Reclassification No. 71-72-20 and Conditional Use Permit No~ 1227. 2. That should this subdivision be developed as more than one sub- division, each subdivision thereof shall be submitted in tentative form for approval. 3. ~t ~ll 'iots within this tract shall be served by underground utilities. 4. That a final tract map of subject property shall be submitted to and approved by the City Council and then be recorded in the office of the Orange County Recorder. 5. That the covenants, conditions, and restrictions shall be sub- mitted to and approved by the City Attorney's office prior to City Council approval of the final tract map, and further, that the approved covenants, conditions, and restrictions shall be recorded concurrently with the final tract map. 6. That thc owners of subject property shall pay to the City of Anaheim the appropri~te 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. 7. That drainage of subject tract shall be disposed of in a manner satisfactory to the City Engineer. 8. That Te~tative Map of Tract Nos. 7657 and 7659 shall not both be developed prior to Tentative Map of Tract No. 7658. 9. Theft a document granting to the owners of Tract Nos. 7657 and 7658 the right o.f acces~ to and over any and all private accessways within Tract No. 7659, shall be submitted to and approved by the City Attorney prior to City Council approval of the final tract map, and, further, that said document shall be recorded concurrently with the final tract map. 10. That provision shall be made whereby satisfactory access rights shall be provided t~ Lot No¢ 62 of Tract No. 7659 for sewer and vehicular access to Dale Street over both private driveways abutting said Lot No. 62. These provisions shall be subject to the approval of the City Attorney. On motion by Councilman Roth, seconded by Councilman Stephenson, Tentative Maps of Tracts Nos. 7657, 7658 and 7659 were approved, subject to the recommendations of the City Planning Commission. MOTION CARRIED. RECESS: Councilman Pebley moved for a five-minute Recess. Councilman Dutton seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. (3:20 P.M.). AFTER RECESS: Mayor Dutton called the meeting to order, all Councilmen being present 3:30 P.M. PUBLIC HEARING - RECLASSIFICATION NO. 71-72-23: Submitted by Harold D. Stevenson, requesting a chan%e of zone from R-A to C-1 on property located on the east side of Bea. i' ~,>~ev:~rd, north ,-~F !~ii. Road. '?~ ~i~t:',, ;,' ~';~'j~:.~' c;~z'~ :;:;!on, pursuant to Resol~tion No. PC71-243, rec. ommende~:i : ~£~ ,:; '~: a..'-~ i~ approved, subject to the following con- ditions 72-20 City Hall, Anaheim, California ~ COUNCIL MINUTES - January 11~ 1972, 1:30 P.M. 1. That the sidewalks shall be installed on Parcel 2, along Beach Boulevard, as required by the City Engineer and in accordance with standard plans and specifications on file in the office of the City Engineer. 2. That street lighting facilities along Beach Boulevard shall be installed as required by the Director of Public Utilities and in accordance with standard plans and specifications on file in the office of the Director of Public Utilities and that a bond in an amount and form satisfactory to the City of Anaheim shall be posted with.the City to guarantee the installa- tion of the above-mentioned requirements. 3. That the owner(s) of subject property shall pay to the City of Anaheim the sum of 15¢ per front foot on Parcel 2, along Beach Boulevard, for tree planting purposes. 4. That s~lbject property shall be served by underground utilities. 5. Prior to the introduction of an ordinance rezoning subject pro- perty, Condition Nos. 2 and 3, above mentioned, shall be completed. The pro- visions or rights granted by this resolution shall become null and void by action of the City Council unless said conditions are complied with within 180 days from the date hereof or such further time as the City Council may grant. 6. That Condition No. 1, above mentioned, shall be complied with prior to final building and zoning inspections. 7. That subject property shall be developed substantially in ac- cordance with plans and specifications on file with the City of Anaheim marked Exhibit No. 1. Associate Planner Don McDaniel noted the location of subject property, the existing uses and zoning in the immediate area, and briefed the evidence sub- mitted to and considered by the City Planning Commission. He added that subject property is divided into two parcels, Parcel No. 1 containing the existing motel for which precise plans for expansion are on file, and Parcel No. 2 being vacant and having no plans for development at this time. Mayor Dutton asked if the Applicant was present and was satisfied with the City Planning Commission recommendations, to which he received an affirmative reply from Herbert J. Belshe, an Applicant and owner of Parcel No. 2. The Mayor, upon determining no one else wished to address the Council in favor of subject proposal, asked if anyone wished to express opposition. Bill Sommerville, 12152 Country Lane, Santa Ana, owner of the property on the southeast corner of Orange Avenue and Beach Boulevard, stated he was not against the proposal; however, he wished to report that surveys by several gro- ceries and a shopping center indicated the area was not strong enough to support those projects and he did not want to see any business go in that would fail or jeopardize their commercial venture. Mayor Dutton asked if anyone else wished to address the Council; there being no response, declared the hearing closed. Assistant Director of Development Services Ronald Thompson recom- mended that if said reclassification is approved a condition be added permit- ting zoning to be read on each parcel individually. RESOLUTION NO. 72R-11: Councilman Pebley offered Resolution No.72R-11 for adoption, authorizing preparation of necessary ordinance changing the zone as requested, subject to the conditions recommended by the City Planning Commission, and further subject to the following condition: "That ordinances reclassifying the property shall be adopted as each parcel is ready to comply with conditions pertaining to such parcel, provided, however, that the word "parcel" shall mean presently existing parcels of record and any parcel or parcels approved by the City Council for a lot split." Refer to Resolution Book. 72-21 City Hal~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - January i11 1972, 1:30 P.M. A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM FINDING AND DETERMINING THAT ~rlTLE 18 OF THE ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO ZONING SHOULD BE AMENDED AND THAT THE BOUNDARIES OF CERTAIN ZONES SHOULD BE CHANGED. (71-72-23 - C-l) Roll Call Vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: COUNCIMEN: Roth, Stephenson, Pebley, Thom and Dutton COUNCILMEN: None COUNCILMEN: None The Mayor declared Resolution No. 72R-11 duly passed and adopted. PUBLIC HEARING - VARIANCE NO. 2307: Submitted by Atlantic Richfield Company, to establish a service station and erect two free-standing signs at the south- west corner of La Palma Avenue and Imperial Highway, with waivers of: a. Permitted uses in the SC Zone. b. Setback on arterial highways. c. Free-standing signs in the SC Zone. d. Time limit on lighted signs. The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC71-234, denied said variance. Appeal from action taken by the City Planning Commission was filed P.D. Lippert, At]antic Richfield Company, and public hearing scheduled this date. Associate Planner Don Mc Daniel noted the location of subject pro- perty, existing uses and zoning in the immediate area, and briefed the evi- dence submitted to and considered by the City Planning Commission. In reply to Council questioning regarding the time limit on lighted signs, Mr. Mc Daniel stat,ed that it could be assumed the Scenic Corridor time limit requirement on lighted signs was meant for residential protec- tion, and since subject property is bounded on the west by industrial pro- perty in the County, and R-A on the north, south and east, there is no resi- dential integrity to maintain in this case. In reply to Council questioning, Mr. Mc Daniel advised that at the time the property was in escrow the purchaser was advised that the or- dinance requiring that a service station be integrated with a shopping cen- ter in the C-1 (SC) Zone could be interpreted to mean a service station could be constructed at any time as long as it was constructed in an ap- proved shopping center area, and the purchaser had closed the escrow on the basis of that interpretation; however, subsequently, the City Attorney had ruled that a shopping center either must be constructed at the same time or prior to the construction of the service station. The City Attorney confirmed that statement and advised that inter- pretation of ordinances should be requested of an Applicant's attorney, and not the Development Services Department. Councilmen Roth and Stephenson noted it would be natural to ex- pect the Development Services Department to be able to interpret zoning or- dinances. Mayor Dutton asked if the Applicant or his Agent was present and wished to address the Ceuncil. P.;). Li[~:? · :,~: ::-:[:j~: !~lcbfield Comp':~z, 1786 West I,incoln Ave- nue, submitted] ] r,:~ ;~.~d p' m (~d photograph) ~hibit 1, Revision No. showing one ~i~in on[7, and ~-eq~e~ted permission to withdraw the waiver ap- plication for ~ ~ree~::t xnd'i:-,g ~i,;n facing the Freeway. He also displayed artists' rc~n ~c~'i.~,,~?, ::' ::~,,~ ~-~:~>~ed f~cility. 72-22 City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - January 11~ 1972, 1:30 P.M. He added that since they had closed their escrow on the basis of the interpretation of the ordinance by the Development Services Department, he felt their other requests were justified. In reply to Council questioning, Mr. Lippert advised that the proposed sign generally would not be visible from the Freeway, but would be visible to an automobile from the offramp. Ray Spehar, 1681 West Broadway, Agent, noted that the City Plan- ning Con~nission recently had approved a Texaco Service Station and restaur- ant across the street and he felt the same consideration should be given to both properties. Assistant Director of Development Services Ronald Thompson advised that the Texaco station is on M-1 zoned property, which does not require in- tegration with a shopping center, whereas subject property is zoned C-i; that no free-standing signs were approved for the Texaco station, and sign- ing would be on the wall of the facility. Referring to the shopping center requirement, Mr. Spehar stated he would be glad to develop a shopping center on subject property in .ap- proximately two years; however, there presently are not enough residents in the area to support one. Councilman Thom stated his only objections to the proposal were on the requested setback and free-standing sign waivers. Councilman Dutton stated his only objection was to the free-standing sign facing the Freeway. In reply to Councilman Roth, Mr. Lippert advised that the proposed station would have a red tile roof and slumpstone veneer, and the building alone would cost approximately $98,000.00, which is about $10,000.00 more than their usual facility. Mayor Dutton asked if anyone wished to address the Council in op- position; there being no response, declared the hearing closed. Discussion followed on signs and Mr. Thompson advised that the Texaco station across the street had not requested a free-standing sign, since theirs would be a two-story building and a back-lighted sign will be mounted on the building wall. He added that at the time the ordinance governing these signs was drafted, concern was expressed on how businesses such as the proposed one would obtain proper signing~ at that time, the State Division of High- ways indicated that at such time as restaurants, etc. are built, they will provide appropriate signs on the Freeway, in either direction, denoting the turnoff where sewv~ces are available. In reply to questioning, Mr. Lippert stated he was aware of the signing ordinance at the ~ime the escrow was closed and was advised he would need to request ~ variance to erect the signs desired. The Council reviewed the revised plans, showing a 46-square foot sign, 20 feet high, and photograph of the proposed sign submitted at this meeting. RESOLUTION NO. 72R-12: Councilman Roth offered Resolution No. 72R-12 for adoption, approving Variance No. 2307, permitting a service station in a C-l, (SC) Zone, permitting withdrawal of request for a free-standing, Free- way-oriented sign, and granting one 20-foot, free-standing sign (identifica- tion only, no prices] as indicated on photograph on file (Exhibit 1, Revi- sion 1), and furthez granting Waivers "a," "b," "c," and "d," subject to the following Interdepartmental Committee recommendations, amended to reflect revised plans submitted this date: 72-23 City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - January 11, 1972, 1:30 P.M. 1. 'That a parcel map to record the approved division of subject property be submitted to and approved by the City of Anaheim and then be re- corded in the office of the Orange County Recorder. 2. That trash storage areas shall be provided in accordance with approved plans on file with the office of the Director of Public Works. 3. That all air-conditioning facilities shall be properly shielded from view, and the sound buffered from adjacent properties. 4. That subject property shall be served by underground utilities. 5. That subject property shall be developed substantially in con- formance with plans and specifications on file with the City of Anaheim mar- ked Exhibit Nos. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, and 8. 6. That Condition No. 1, above mentioned, shall be complied with prior to the con~nencement of the activity authorized under this resolution, or prior to the time that the building permit is issued, or within a period of 180 days from date hereof, whichever occurs first, or such further time as the City Council may grant. 7. That Condition Nos. 2, 3, and 4, above mentioned, shall be com- plied with prior to final building and zoning inspections. Refer to Resolution Book. A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM GRANTING'VARIANCE NO. 2307. Roll Call Vote: AYES: COUNCILMEN: NOES: COUNCILMEN: ABSENT: COUNCILMEN: Roth, Stephenson, Pebley and Dutton Thom None The Mayor declared Resolution No.72R-12 duly passed and adopted. PUBLIC HEARING - YELLOW CAB COMPANY PROPOSED RATE INCREASE: Request was submit- ted by E.A. Slagle, Manager, Yellow Cab Company, requesting permission to increase taxi fares in the City of Anaheim from present rates to 50¢ for the first 1/4 mile, 50C per mile thereafter, and $6.00 per hour waiting time and traffic delay. Mayor Dutton asked if the Applicant was present and wished to ad- dress the Council. E.A. Slagle outlined the rate increases requested and reasons therefor. In reply to Council questioning, Mr. Slagle stated he believed his company was affected by the existing Price Freeze; however, he had submitted information and received a reply and assumed he was properly covered. The Mayor asked if anyone wished to address the Council in opposi- tion; there being no response, declared the hearing closed. The City Clerk advised that an additional request had been received from Mr. Slagle, January 10, 1972, to reinstate the City Cab service, and this was referred to the City Attorney. City Attorney Joseph Geisler stated he had advised Mr. Slagle that in order to reinstate the City Cab service a full new application as a sep- arate company must be made. Mr. Slagle advised that subsequent to his discussion with Mr. Geisler, he now wished to withdraw his request to reinstate the City Cab service. Said request was granted. RESOLUTION NO. 72R-13: Councilman Thom offered Resolution No. 72R-13 for adop- tion, granting the rata incr~ases as u~quested. Refer ~o Rasol~tion Book. A RESOLUTION ~F THE ~'~i C'~UNCIL OF THE CITY OF ~EIM G~TING A ~TE INCREASE TO ':-:LiJ~ :.L~: C~.'~i' ~ ~qORT~RN ORANGE COU~Y~ INC., FOR T~I 72- 24 City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - January 11, 1972, 1:30 P.M. Roll Call Vote: AYES: COUNCILMEN: NOES: COUNCILMEN: ABSENT: COUNCILMEN: Roth, Stephenson, Pehley, Thom and Dutton None None The M~ayor declared Resolution No. 72R-13 duly passed and adopted. PUBLIC DANCE PERMIT: Application filed by Frances B. Gonzales, on behalf of Socie- dad Progresista Mexicana No. 24, for permit to conduct public dance, January 16, 1972, at Don Bosco Hall, 1127 North Lemon Street, was submitted and gran- ted, subject to provisions of Chapter 4.16 of the Anaheim Municipal Code, pro- vided that two officers and one matron be hired to police the dance, as recom- mended by the Chief of Police, on motion by Councilman Stephenson, seconded by Councilman Pebley. MOTION CARRIED. FUND-RAISING WALK - STUDENTS WITH DIRECTION AND ACTION: Request was submitted by Marvin Clark, Director, Students with Direction and Action, for a two-week delay for the Fund-Raising Walk originally scheduled for January 9, 1972, ap- proved by the City Council at its December 7, 1971 meeting. The City Clerk reported that in a telephone conversation, Parks and Recreation Director John Collier had approved the requested change in date. On motion by Councilman Stephenson, seconded by Councilman Thom, change of date to January 23, 1972, was granted as requested. MOTION CARRIED. RECLASSIFICATION NO. 70-71-57 (TENTATIFE TRACT NO. 7448) - EXTENSION OF TIME: Request of Gerald D. Burns, The Covington Brothers, dated December 21, 1971, was sub- mitted, requesting a 60-day extension of time to Reclassification No. 70-71-57, together with report of the City Engineer and report of the Development Services Department, recommending that a 6-month extension of time be granted, to expire July 20, 1972. On motion by Councilman Pebley, seconded by Councilman Stephenson, six-month extension of time to Reclassification No. 70-71-57 was granted, to expire July 20, 1972, as recommended by the Development Services Department. MOTION CARRIED. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 1065 - EXTENSION OF TIME: Request of Newton W. Mandel, Vice-President, Pacific World Corporation, dated December 17, 1971, was sub- mitted for a six-month extension of time to Conditional Use Permit No. 1065, together with report of the City Engineer and report of the Development Ser- vices Department, recommending a six-month extension of time be granted to expire June 3, 1972. Tracey Price, of Daniel, Mann, Johnson & Mendenhall, Project Director and Architect, Agent, advised that since the death of Philip Levin, former Presi- dent, Pacific World Corporation has reorganized, and they and their parent corpora- tion, Madison Square Garden Corporation, are proceeding with the project on the con- dition they can do so under the terms of Conditional Use Permit No. 1065. On motion by Councilman Stephenson, seconded by Councilman Pebley, a 6-month extension of time was granted, as requested, to expire June 3, 1972. MOTION CARRIED. RESOLUTION NO. 72R-14 - AMENDMENT, RECLASSIFICATION NO. 71-72-17: Councilman Dut- ton offered Resolution No. 72R-14 for adoption, amending Resolution No. 71R- 481, nunc pro tunc, which approved Reclassification No. 71-72-17, R-3 zoning. Refer to Resolution~Book~ A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AMENDING RESOLUTION NO. 71R-481, NUNC PRO TUNC, IN CONNECTION WITH RECLASSIFICATION PROCEEDINGS NO. 71-72-17. (Amending Conditions Nos. 7, 14 and 15) 72-25 .City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - January 11, 1972, 1:30 P.M. Roll Call Vote: AYES: COUNCILMEN: NOES: COUNCILMEN: ABSENT: COUNCILMEN: Pebley, Thom and Dutton Roth and Stephenson None The Mayor declared Resolution No. 72R-14 duly passed and adopted. TENTATIVE MAP, TRACT NO. 7684: The City Planning Commission, at its meeting on November 29, 1971, denied said Tentative Tract, as did the City Council at its December 7, 1971 meeting. The City Council, on January 4, 1972, determined said tentative tract was worthy of reconsideration, and referred the matter back to the City Planning Commission for recommendation. The City Planning Commission, at its meeting held January 10, 1972, again denied Tentative Tract No. 7684. Councilman Thom stated that his original vote to deny Tentative Tract No. 7684 was based on erroneous information received, and thus he now offered said tentative tract for approval, subject to the following Develop- ment Services Department recommendations: 1. That the approval of Tentative Map of Tract No. 7684 is granted subject to completion of Reclassification No. 71-72-17, now pending. 2. ~at should this subdivision be developed as more than one sub- division, each subdivision thereof shall be submitted in tentative form for approval. 3. That all lots within this tract shall be served by underground utilities. 4. That a final tract map of subject property shall be submitted to and approved by the City Council and then be recorded in the office of the Orange County Recorder. 5. That the owners of subject property shall pay to the City of Anaheim the appropriate park and recreation in-lieu fees as determined to be appropriate by the City Council, said fees to be paid at the time the building permit is issued. 6. That drainage of Tract No.7684 shall be disposed of in a man- ner that is satisfactory to tbe City Engineer. 7. That any proposed 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 the vehicular access rights, except at street and/or alley openings, to Orangethorpe Avenue and Kraemer Boulevard, shall be dedicated to the City of Anaheim. Councilman Pebley seconded the motion. To this motion, Council- men Roth and Stephenson voted "No." MOTION CARRIED. CHANGE ORDER NO. 1 - WORK ORDER NO. 1501, UNIT II: On report and recon~nendation of the Assistant City Engineer, Councilman Stephenson moved that Change Order No. 1, Work Order No. 1501, Unit II, for fine grading at the Anaheim Hills Golf Course, decreasing the amount by $10,711.00 be authorized. Councilman Thom stated that inasm~b a~ t~i~ was a reduction in the contract, he would vote for it. C~)unc~]~,~ Pabley s~conded the motion. 'MOTION CARRIED. PUBLIC IMPROVEME~X~i~ tE%O3E',C~S[ '~'~ r<c,~ipt of certification from the Director of Public Works: C~m~:~'.~]~'~:a~ {~ ~,<~n .' ~!f~'~ed Resolution Nos. 7~3R-15 through 72R- 19, both 72-26 City Hall, Anaheim, California ~- COUNCIL MINUTES - January 11~ 1972, 1:30 P.M. RESOLUTION NO. 72R-15 - WORK ORDER NO. 1227: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM FINALLY ACCEPTING THE COMPLETION AND THE FURNISHING OF ALL PLANT~ LABOR, SERVICES, MATERIALS AND EQUIPMENT AND ALL UTILITIES AND TRANSPORTATION INCLUDING POWER, FUEL AND WATER, AND THE PERFORMANCE OF ALL WORK NECESSARY TO CONSTRUCT AND COMPLETE THE FOLLOWING PUBLIC IMPROVEMENT, TO. WIT: THE SUNKIST STREET SEWER IMPROVEMENT FROM HOWELL AVENUE TO BALL ROAD, IN THE CITY OF ANAHEIM, WORK ORDER NO. 1227. (Farmac Pipeline, Inc.) RESOLUTION NO. 72R-16 - WORK ORDER NO. 1238: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM FINALLY ACCEPTING THE COMPLETION AND THE FURNISHING OF ALL PLANT, LABOR, SERVICES, MATERIALS AND EQUIPMENT AND ALL UTILITIES AND TRANSPORTATION INCLUDING POWER, FUEL AND WATER, AND THE PERFORMANCE OF ALL WORK NECESSARY TO CONSTRUCT AND COMPLETE THE FOLLOWING PUBLIC IMPROVEMENT, TO WIT: THE IMPERIAL HIGHWAY SEWER IMPROVEMENT, SOUTH RIVER TRUNK TO 896 FEET SOUTH OF SANTA ANA C;2CYON ROAD, IN THE CITY OF ANAHEIM, WORK ORDER NO. 1238. (Farmac Pipeline, Inc.) RESOLUTION NO. 72R-17 - WORK ORDER NO. 692: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM FINALLY ACCEPTING THE COMPLETION AND THE FURNISHING OF ALL PLANT, LABOR, SERVICES, MATERIALS AND EQUIPMENT AND ALL UTILITIES AND TRANSPORTATION INCLUDING POWER, FUEL AND WATER, AND THE PERFORMANCE OF .ALL WORK NECESSARY TO CONSTRUCT AND COMPLETE THE FOLLOWING PUBLIC IMPROVEMENT, TO WIT: THE PARKVIEW STREET - STREET IMPROVEMENT FROM ORANGE AVENUE TO APPROXIMATELY 712 FEET SOUTH OF ORANGE AVENUE, IN THE CITY OF ANAHEIM, WORK ORDER NO. 692. (Sully-Miller Contracting Company) RESOLUTION NO. 72R-18 - WORK ORDER NO. 633-A: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM FINALLY ACCEPTING THE COMPLETION AND THE FURNISHING OF ALL PLANT, LABOR, SERVICES, MATERIALS AND EQUIPMENT AND ALL UTILITIES AND TRANSPORTATION INCLUDING POWER, FUEL AND WATER, AND THE PERFORMANCE OF ALL WORK NECESSARY TO CONSTRUCT AND COMPLETE THE FOLLOWING PUBLIC IMPROVEMENT, TO WIT: THE WEST STREET - STREET IMPROVEMENT FROM APPROXIMATELY 128 FEET SOUTH OF TO APPROXIMATELY 425 FEET SOUTH OF ROMNEYA DRIVE, IN THE CITY OF ANAHEIM, WORK ORDER NO. 633-A. (Sully-Miller Contracting Company) RESOLUTION NO. 72R-19 - WORK ORDER NO. 6012: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM FINALLY ACCEPTING THE COMPLETION AND THE FURNISHING OF ALL PLANT, LABOR, SERVICES, MATERIALS AND EQUIPMENT AND ALL UTILITIES AND TRANSPORTATION INCLUDING POWER, FUEL AND WATER, AND THE PERFORMANCE OF ALL WORK NECESSARY TO CONSTRUCT AND COMPLETE THE FOLLOWING PUBLIC IMPROVEMENT, TO WIT: DEEP WELL TUP~INE TYPE LINE SHAFT PUMPING UNIT TO BE FURNISHED AND DELIVERED TO WELL NO. 32 LOCATED AT LINDA VISTA WELL FARM, NORTHWEST CORNER MIRALOMAAND TUSTIN AVENUES, IN THE CITY OF ANAHEIM, WORK ORDER NO. 6012. (Byron Jackson Pump Division) Roll Call Vote: AYES: COUNCILMEN: NOES: COUNCILMEN: ABSENT: COUNCILMEN: Roth, Stephenson, Pebley, Thom and Dutton None None The Mayor declared Resolution Nos. 72R-15 through 72R-19, both in- clusive, duly passed and adopted. APPROVAL AND PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS - STATE COLLEGE BOULEVARD STORM DRAIN: Upon report and recommendation of the City Engineer, plans and specifications for the construction of the State College Boulevard Storm Drain, from Ball Road through Vermont Avenue, were approved and action ordered forwarded to the Orange County Flood Control District, on motion by Councilman Roth, seconded by Coun- cilman Thom. MOTION CARRIED. DEEDS OF EASEMENT - RESOLUTION NO. 72R-20: Councilman Thom offered Resolution No. 72R-20 for adoption. Refer to Resolution Book. 72-27 City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - January 11, 1972, 1:30 P.M. A RESOLUTION .OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM ACCEPTING CERTAIN DEEDS AND ORDERING THEIR RECORDATION. (Hughes Markets, Inc.; Ralph W. Beatty) Roll Call Vote: AYES: COUNCILMEN: NOES: COUNCILMEN: ABSENT: COUNCILMEN: Roth, Stephenson, Pebley, Thom and Dutton None None The Mayor declared Resolution No. 72R-20 duly passed and adopted. PURCHASE OF EQUIPMENT - STEEL CYLINDER CONCRETE PIPE: The City Manager reported on informal bids received for the purchase of 60 feet of 16-inch Steel Cyl- inder Concrete Pipe and Miscellaneous Fittings, for the Anaheim Hills Golf Course, as follows, and recommended acceptance of the low bid: VENDOR TOTAL AMOUNT~ INCLUDING TAX Ameron Pipe Products, E1 Monte ............ $7,664.48 United Concrete Pipe, Riverside ......... 6,568.38 On motion by Councilman Pebley, seconded by Councilman Stephen- son, the low bid of United Concrete Pipe was accepted and purchase author- ized in the amount of $6,568.38, including tax. To this Motion, Councilman Thom voted "No." MOTION CARRIED. CORRESPONDENCE: The following correspondence was ordered received and filed on motion by Councilman Pebley, seconded by Councilman Stephenson: 1971: a. Financial and Operating Reports for the month of December, Electrical Division - Utilities Department Building Division - Development Services Department b. Annual Report for 1971: Building Division - Development Services Department c. Cultural Arts Commission - Minutes - December 1 and 13, 1971. d. Western Airlines - Re: Application of Golden West Airlines, Inc. and Los Angeles Airways, Inc., Docket No. 23652. Opposing request of Golden West Airlines, Inc. to extend to February 1, 1972 the date for sub- mission of information and direct exhibits. e. To Civil Aeronautics Board - From Golden West Airlines, Inc. and Los Angeles Airways, Inc., Attorneys - Re: Joint Applications of Gol- den West Airlines, Inc., and Los Angeles Airways, Inc., Docket 23653 and Agreement CAB-22641. Requesting extension of date when joint reply to pe- titioners for reconsideration of Board's order must be filed. MOTION CARRIED. CORRESPONDENCE - CITY OF WESTMINSTER RESOLUTION NO. 1351: The City Manager re- ported that further study is being made of the City of Westminster's Reso- lution No. 1351, opposing the service of arrest and bench warrants by the Orange County Marshal's Office, to determine if further action is desirable. ORDINANCE NO. 3000: Councilman Roth offered Ordinance No. 3000 for adoption. Refer to Ordinance Book. AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AMENDING TITLE 18 OF THE ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO ZONING. (69-70-60 - R-2) Roll Call ~ote: AYES: COUNCILMEN: Roth, Stephenson, Pebley, Thom and Dutton NOES: COUNCILMEN: None ABSENT: COUNCILMEN: None The Mayor declared Ordinance No. 3000 duly passed and adopted. 72-28 .~ity Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - January 11, 1972, 1:30 P.M ORDINANCE No. 3001: Councilman Stephenson offered Ordinance No. 3001 for adop- tion. Refer to Ordinance Book. AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AMENDING TITLE 1, CHAPTER 1.12, SECTION 1.12.070 OF THE ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE, RELATING TO DISPOSITION OF UNCLAIMED PROPERTY. Roll Call Vote: AYES: COUNCILMEN: NOES: COUNCILMEN: ABSEN~: COUNCILMEN: Roth, Stephenson, Pebley, Thom and Dutton None None The Mayor declared Ordinance No. 3001 duly passed and adopted. ORDINANCE NO. 3002: Councilman Thom offered Ordinance No. 3002 for adoption. Refer to Ordinance Book. AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AMENDING TITLE 18 OF THE ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO ZONING. (69-70-31(3) - M-l) Roll Call Vote: AYES: COUNCILMEN: NOES: COUNCILMEN: ABSENT: COUNCILMEN: Roth, Stephenson, Pebley, Thom and Dutton None None The Mayor declared Ordinance No. 3002 duly passed and adopted. ORDINANCE NO. 3003: Councilman Pebley offered Ordinance No. 3003 for first read- ing. AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AMENDING TITLE 18 OF THE ANAHEIM ~/NICIPAL CODE RELATING TO ZONING. (64-65-15 - M-l) ORDINANCE NO. 3004: Councilman Roth offered Ordinance No. 3004 for first reading. AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AMENDING TITLE 18 OF THE ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO ZONING. (70-71-17 - R-3) ORDINANCE NO, 3005: Councilman Stephenson offered Ordinance No. 3005 for first reading. AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AMENDING TITLE 18 OF THE ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO ZONING. (69-70-1 - R-3) TELEVISION COMMERCIAL REQUEST: City Attorney Joseph Geisler advised that a re- quest had been received from Milt Hubatka, MPO-TV, to film a commercial for an oil firm client at the Little League Diamond in Boysen Park, which request had been approved by the Director of Parks and Recreation. Following Council discussion, and upon recormnendation of the City Attorney and City M, anager, permission for filming such commercial was granted, on condition that the Applicant pay a $100.00 fee for a maximum period of 2 days, and further subject to submission of adequate insurance and any other legal re- quirements as determined by the City Attorney to be necessary for the protection of the City, on motion by Councilman Roth, seconded by Councilman Thom. MOTION CARRIED. LANDLORD'S WAIVER OF LIEN - ROYA~ INNS OF AMERICA, INC,: Assistant City Attorney Alan Watts advised that the Landlord's Waiver of Lien executed by the City of Anaheim and Glendale Federal Savings and Loan Association, in connection with leasing of equipment by Royal Inns of America, Inc., from the BIG Leas- ing Corporation, approved September 14, 1971, has been returned to the City since the arrangement never was consummated, and that lien waivers for Enter- prise Leasing Corporation (for Royal Inn Hotel of Anaheim), Keystone Leasing 72-29 City Hall~ Anaheim,. California COUNCIL MINUTES - January 11~ 1972, 1:30 P.M. Corporation (for Jolly King Restaurant), and Ueritage Leasing Company (for Earl's Seafood Grotto) submitted in replacement with the request that they be executed. On recommendation of the Assistant City Attorney, action authoriz- ing execution of the BIG Leasing Corporation Waiver of Lien was rescinded, and the Mayor and City Clerk were authorized to execute the three new docu- ments on motion by Councilman Thom, seconded by Councilman Pebley. MOTION CARRIED. MAGNOLIA SCHOOL DISTRICT ELECTION - REQUEST TO CONSOLIDATE WITH COUNCILMANIC ELECTION: Mayor Dutton submitted and read correspondence from Spencer E. Covert, Magnolia School District Superintendent, dated January 11, 1972, requesting consolidation of the Magnolia School District Tax Election with the City of Anaheim's Regular General Municipal Election, to be held April 11, 1972. The City Clerk recommended this request be denied, in view of the fact that the boundaries of the Magnolia School District are not co-terminus with the boundaries of the City of Anaheim, since the School District in- volves County territory and a portion of Stanton and Garden Grove, as well as Anaheim, and this could create a real and serious problem by'the possi- bility of a voter receiving and voting in error a ballot to which he was not entitled. Also, both Stanton and Garden Grove will be conducting their General Municipal Elections the same day, and thus the School District could be placed at a disadvantage by requiring voters of those two cities to come to Anaheim to vote on the school issue. Mrs. Daoust added that she was in favor of consolidation of elec- tions for the purpose of saving taxpayers' money; however, in this case, such consolidation could cause errors and jeopardize the election, in her opinion. The City Manager concurred with the City Clerk's recommendations. He added that he felt that under different circumstances, where there would be sufficient time to prepare for such consolidation, and where there would be no chance of an election getting out of control because of it, the mone- tary savings of such consolidation could be substantial. On motion by Councilman Stephenson, seconded by Councilman Dutton, said request was denied and the City Clerk was directed to so inform the Magnolia School District. MOTION CARRIED. ANAHEIM NEWSLETTER - ELECTRICAL REVENUE BOND ISSUE: Councilman Thom noted recent article in a newspaper wherein the City refused permission to Mr. Jim Town- send to insert a statement of opposition to the Electrical BOnd issue in the Anaheim Newsletter. He stated the article noted the request was made of the City Manager and Mayor, which was refused in both instances. He asked if the Mayor and City Manager were the policy-making decision body of the City Council as, in his opinion, a request such as this is a policy decision for the entire Council. Councilman Thom further advised that he did not agree with Mr. Townsend's position on the Bond issue, and may disagree with what he says, but would defend his right to say it. He felt the result of this could cloud the credibility of the City's position and be interpreted as trying to keep a dissenting opinion from the people of the City in an official publication of the City. Councilman Thom further felt a policy decision should be reached in that any issue of.City-wide interest that appears in a City publication, paid for by the taxpers' money, and in which an official City position is taken, space should be offered for a dissenting opinion, and if more than one dissenting opinion is filed, the City Council select the one to be pub- lished. Although he realized, b y law, arguments for and against are mailed with each sample ballot, this, in addition, would only be very fair where there is an issue of community-wide interest. 72-30 City Hall~ Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - January 11, 1972, 1:30 P.M. Mr. Mnrdoch advised there was no such request from Mr. Townsend, in spite of what he said, and he had so advised Mr. Sam Campbell (Anaheim Bulletin), when this question was asked by him. He noted his answer was con- veniently neglected to be included in the article written; that all Mr. Camp- bell did was to state Mr. Townsend's claim. Mr. Murdoch further reported that Mr. Townsend did call him, and among many, many things asked were the following: 1. "Would there be another Newsletter before the Bond Election?" To which he was advised there very likely would be. 2. "What if I should ask to publish my statement in that issue?" To which Mr. Murdoch replied, "You probably would be refused." Mr. Murdoch stated, in his opinion, this was not a request but an inquiry what might likely happen. He further noted that the position of the City on the Bond Issue has not been published in the Newsletter, and the statement that it was, and Mr. Townsend refused equal treatment, was a completely false statement. There was, however, a statement of the Council's position in an editorial comment, which he included in "The Anaheimer," which is an in-house publication going to the City employees. Mro Murdoch reported the last time this issue came up (1966), a statement of support submitted by the City Council was published in the News- letter, side-by-side to a statement of opposition submitted by Mr. Townsend, proving if one statement is published, so is the other. Mayor Dutton advised that on January 5, 6, and 7, 1972, Mr. Sam Campbell stated that the December, 1971 issue of the municipal Newsletter voices the Council's view in favor of the utility bond issue to be voted upon, January 18, 1972. He thereupon presented a copy of the October-November, 1971 News- letter, Volume 10, No. 5 (last issue published), noting no such article was contained therein. He then presented December, 1971, Issue No. 7, of "The Anaheimer" (an in-house organ, published by and for the Anaheim City employees), wherein, on the second page, an editorial written by the City Manager, stating the City's position, does appear and the last paragraph thereof reads as follows: "The election on January 18, is important, not only because of the issue involved, but because the citizens of Anaheim will determine the future course of action by our City. Vote according to your preference, January 18th, but do get out and vote." Regarding the Editorials written in tt~c A~im Bulletin, Mayor Dutton stated he never knew whether it was by the City Editor, =I ~,.~h; the Managing Editor, Dick Doyle; the Publishing Editor, Dick Walsh; or the As- sistant Editor of the Santa Ana Register, Sam Campbell; whereas, everyone knows the identity of the person making a statement on the City Council. Mayor Dutton read excerpts of the Campbell article appearing Janu- ary 7th, concerning the effectiveness of private enterprise versus govern- mental enterprise. He advised that, in the strict sense, the Edison Comp~py is not private enterprise - it is a governmental-controlled monopoly, sup- ported by private investors. He pointed out that the City of Anaheim is also a governmental-controlled monopoly of the distribution of Edison products, but the investors, who are the people in the City, do not support the utility, the utility helps support their taxes. Regarding businessmen, Mayor Dutton advised that Sam Campbell owns nothing in this City, does n~t and never has lived in this City, therefore, never has paid any taxes in this City. Mr. Townsend owns a home in Anaheim; his business, however, is in the City of Fullerton. 72-31 City Hall, Anaheim~ California- COUNCIL MINUTES- January 11, 1972, 1:30 ~.M. In.his opinion, it would be more credible that the people who pay the high taxes would be in a better position to determine what was or was not good for the City. As to equal space in the Newsletter, Mayor Dutton explained that Mr. James Townsend requested from him an official position on his right to use the Newsletter for his arguments against the Bond issue. He was in- formed that he, as one Councilman, could not state an official position, as that would require Council action. Mr. Townsend then advised that he had to have an official turndown and he wanted it from him, to which the Mayor stated his answer to be "Hell, no. We only print the truth and you lie, Jim." Mayor Dutton further reported on an incident occurring a few years ago, when the City contemplated selling bonds, and Mr. Townsend applied for the position of Bond Consultant, to which he was not appointed; and another time when Mr. Townsend's client, the William R. Staats Bonding Company, was not low bidder on the sale of a $21,000,000.00 bond issue, and Mr. Townsend accused the City of "beating him out of a $60,000.00 finder's fee." From that time forward, Mr. Townsend has taken the position of "adversary" against the City of Anaheim. Mr. Geisler stated that it was questionable whether the publica- tion of arguments for or against was a proper expenditure of public funds. However, the publication of facts in connection with a bond issue or any election is not only perfectly proper and acceptable, but an obligation, as the City should publish facts on which voters can make their decision; this would certainly not include matters contained in Mr. Townsend's offi- cial argument, as it contains no facts and is strictly a matter of summa- tion and argument. In conclusion, Mr. Geisler reported that if the City did publish the official argument of thc City in the publication it certainly would be required to also publish the official argument against. Councilman Thom stated he was sure his position could be appre- ciated concerning denial of a legitimate request. If, in fact, it was not a request, that was another thing. However, he felt such a request should be before the entire Council. As to what constituted an official request, Councilman Thom felt it could be a telephone call to someone, however, in his opinion, it should be in written form. Mayor Dutton read the official argument filed against the measure, pointing out areas of misleading and false information. At the conclusion, Mayor Dutton noted, Mr. Townsend labels the Anaheim Stadium a "White Ele- phant;'' the very man who favored the Stadium and worked for the sale of the bonds and wanted to be the Bond Consultant; a man who admitted to him that he did not tell the truth - that it was just a game with him. Mayor Dutton felt that how hard Mr. Townsend would fight an issue was dependent upon how much money he would receive, and contended that he was a bond con- sultant, a procurer of money for a fee, and a leader of dissident groups, as long as money is received. ADJOURNMENT: Councilman Stephenson moved to adjourn. Councilman Roth seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. Adjourned: 5:45 P.M. C~ty