Loading...
1971/06/2271-371 City Hall, Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - Jun~ 22~ i971~_t:30 P.M. 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 ~s hereby given by all Councilmen, unless after reading of the title, spec~.f~c request is made by a Councilman for the reading of such ordinance ~, ~'~l~tion. Counciln~a~ P~bi v ~econded th~ ~,)ticn. MOTION UNANimOUSLY CARR! ~ REPORT - FINANCIAL ~LMAdDS AGAINST THE CITY: Demands against the City, in the amount of $810,449.34, in accordance with the 197~-7! Budget, were approved. PUBLIC HEARING - ABANDONMENT NO. 70-9A: Public hearing was held on proposed aban- donment of a public utility easement located at the sc~th side of Ll~coln Avenue, west of Dale Avenue, requested by George Ames, Mayer Construction Company, pursuant to Resolution No. 71R-231, ~!¥ ~blished in the Anaheim Bulletin and not~ces thereof posted in accor~au~= wzth law. Report of the City Engineer was submitted recommending spproval. Mayor Pr~ T~m Stephenson asked if anyone w~shcd to address the Council; there being no response, declared RESOLUTION NO. 7iR-271: Councilman Pebley offer£d Resolution No. 71R-271 for adoption, approving Abandonment No. 70-9A, as recommended by the City Engineer. Refer to Resolution Book. A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM ORDERING THE VACA- TION AND ABANDONMENT OF THAT PORTION OF REAL PROPERTY DESCRIBED HEREIN. (No. 70-9A - South side of Lincoln Avenue, west of Dale Avenue) Roll Call Vote: AYES: COUNCILMEN: Roth, Pebley, Thom and Stephenson NOES: COUNCILMEN: None ABSENT: COUNCILMEN: Dutton The Mayor Pro Tem declared Resolution No. 71R-271 duly passed and adopted. COMMUNICATION - TRI-COUNTY CONSERVATION LEAGUE: Cormnunication f~om Howard T. Anderson, President, Tri-County Conservation League, urging a moratorium on approval of residential subdivision tracts between Esperanza Road and the Santa Ana River upstream from Imperial H~ghway was submitted. On motion by Councilman Thom, seconded by Councilman Roth, said communication was ordered received and filed. MOTION CARRIED. PETITION - "GREEN FEES" ON LADIES DAY AT ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL GOLF COURSE: A peti- tion signed by men~ers of the Anaheim Golf Association requesting that "green fees" on Ladies Day at the Anaheim Mnnicimal Golf Course remain at $3.50 was submitted. Bob McLean, 9661 Hillview Road, Anaheim, distributed copies to the City Council and read an open letter from members of the Anaheim Golf Association~ expressin8 their view on the increased rates at the Anaheim ~9~nicipal Golf Course. A primary concern of the members is the basis on which the green fees were raised, noting that actions relatzve to the golf course should be governed by Anaheim needs and/or problems, not those of other courses in the area; and also that the raise in fees would aid in the building of the second Anaheim Golf Course facility to which members of the present Anaheim Golf Course would have no benefits. Mr. McLean noted that the Anaheim Municipal Golf Course was self- supporting largely due to the repeated use of the course by local members of the Golf Association who had a sense of pride in the course,but felt with increased rates perhaps the amount of play would fall off due to eco- nomic reasons, resulting in financial loss to the City. He further stated 71-372 City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - June 22, 1971, 1:30 P.M. that once again the new rates penalizes those players who play nine holes, by allowing a lesser fee for those who play either eighteen holes or a replay of nine. Mr. McLean also expressed his personal opinion that the contract for the new golf course should have been awarded to a golf course architect, not a landscape architect, making reference to a Harry Rainville, who is a local golf course architect and has built and designed many courses in the area for considerably less money than the cost projected for the new course. He felt if the City was not presently over-committed, reconsideration of the is- sue should be given. Councilman Thom moved the "green fees" on Ladies Day at the Anaheim Municipal Golf Course remain at $3.50; motion failed for lack of second. City Manager Keith Murdoch reported that since the initial opening of the Anaheim Municipal Golf Course, it has been the policy to charge compe- titive green fees and that an annual survey be conducted to determine the rates charged at public courses in the Orange County area; the results thereof re- ported back to the Council with a recommendation to either keep the rates the same or increase them to be more in line with those rates charged at other courses. The results of the survey this year showed an increase to be war- ranted. Council discussion ensued and the policy of no preferential treat- ment to any one group at the Anaheim Municipal Golf Course was noted. At the conclusion of said discussion Councilman Pebley moved to deny without preju- dice the requestthat "green fees" on Ladies Day at the Anaheim Municipal Golf Course remain at $3.50. Councilman Roth seconded the motion. To this motion Councilman Thom voted "No." MOTION CARRIED. Councilman Thom asked if students are not given special preference at the Anaheim Municipal Golf Course. City Attorney Joesph Geisler advised that individual students are not given special preference, that the City has a contract with the Anaheim Union High School District as a part of the joint Parks and Recreation pro- gram wherein the District pays a fee for a block of starting times on weekday afternoons during the school year only, basically when the course is very light or unused, for use by School District golf teams. FINAL MAP, TRACT NO. 6978: Developer - Ponderosa Homes; property located on the north side of Orangethorpe Avenue, west of Kellogg Drive, containing 58 pro- posed R~2-5,000 zoned lots. The City Engineer recommended approval and reported that said Final Map conforms substantially with the tentative map previously approved; that bonds have been posted and forwarded to the City Attorney for approval and that tract fees have been paid. On recommendation of the City Engineer, Councilman Roth moved that Final Map, Tract No. 6978, be approved subject to approval of the required bonds by the City Attorney. Councilman Pebley seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. CITY PLANNING COMMISSION ITEMS: Actions taken by the City Planning Commission at their meeting held June 2, 1971, pertaining to the following applications were submitted for City Council information and consideration: VARIANCE NO. 2255: Submitted by John Hopkins, to permit a retail tire store on C-1 zoned property located on the south side of Lincoln Avenue, west of Beach Boulevard, with waivers of: a. Permitted uses. b. Permitted free-standing sign location. (Withdrawn) The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC71-101, granted said Variance, in part, subject to conditions, Waiver "b" having been withdrawn as no longer necessary. 71-373 City H. all, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - June 22, 1971~ 1:30 P.M. VARIANCE NO. 2258: Submitted by Alice Adell Brady Fiva and Barbara Jean Hidle, requesting certain waivers of the Anaheim Municipal Code for a pro- posed subdivision on R-A zoned property located on the east side of Rio Vista Street, north of Lincoln Avenue, as follows: a. Md. nimum required side yard. b. Code requirement that residential lots rear on an arterial highway. c. Minimum required front yard setback. The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC71-97, granted said Variance, subject to conditions. VARIANCE NO. 2260: Submitted by Lonnie M. Dunn and William C. Sangster, re- questing certain waivers of the Anaheim Municipal Code for M-1 zoned pro- perty located on the east side of State College Boulevard, south of Orange- wood Avenue, as follows: a. Minimum required front setback. b. Required masonry wall. The City Planning Commission, by Motion, terminated all proceed- ings on Variance No. 2260 at request of the Petitioner. VARIANCE NO. 2261: Submitted by Alfred W. Melin, proposing to legalize the conversion of one of the required garages to a workshop/workroom on R-1 zoned property located on the north side of Katella Avenue, east of B~ook- hurst Street, with waiver of: a. Minimum required parking. The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC71-100, granted said Variance, subject to conditions. VARIANCE NO, 2263: Submitted by Kenneth E. Sarvak, proposing to remodel the facade of the existing structure and extend the elevation to the east and west property lines on C-1 zoned property located on the south side of Lincoln Avenue, with waiver of: a. Minimum required sideyard setback. The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC71-102, granted said Variance, subject to conditions. VARIANCE NO. 2264: Submitted by Standard Systems International, Incorpora- ted, to construct a 220-square foot roof sign on the existing office build- ing on C-1 zoned property located on the west side of Manchester Avenue, ad- jacent to the south City boundary line; and further described as 2415 South Manchester Avenue, with waiver of: a. Maximum permitted height of a roof sign. The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC71-103, granted said Variance, subject to conditions. VARIANCE NO. 2265: Submitted by Beulah May Callahan, James D. Cook and Her- bert Neill Davis, to construct a two-story fourplex on R-2 zoned property located on the east side of Zeyn Street, south of La Verne Street; and fur- ther described as 346 North Zeyn Street, with waivers of: a. Permitted vehicular access. b. Minimum yard requirements. c. Standard refuse storage areas. d. Recreation leisure area requirements. The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC71-104, granted said Variance, subject to conditions. 71-374 CitM Hal~.k=.Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - June 22, 1971, 1:30 P.M CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 1237: Submitted by Union Oil Company of Califor- nia, to establish an ambulance service in an existing residence with parking in the required front landscaped area on C-1 zoned property located on the west side of Euclid Street, north of Orange Avenue, with waiver of: a. Limited commercial use of residential structure. The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC71-110, denied said Conditional Use Permit. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 1242: Submitted by Edwin E. Heacock, to estab- lish an automobile body and paint shop in a proposed industrial structure on M-1 zoned property located on the west side of Euclid Way, north of Lin- coln Avenue. The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC71-111, granted said Conditional Use Permit, subject to conditions. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 622: Submitted by Gary E. Martin, Knott Avenue Christian Church, requesting approval of revised plans for a two-story class- room building under the above stated Conditional Use Permit, which permit- ted the erection of a new sanctuary in an existing church complex on R~A zoned property located on the west side of Knott Avenue, south of Lincoln Avenue. The City Planning Commission, by motion, approved revised plans of said Conditional Use Permit for a 9,600-square foot, two-story classroom building; provided, however, that parking spaces displaced by the proposed addition be provided elsewhere on the property. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 961: Submitted by Vernon D. Perera, requesting approval, of revised plans for a pre-school and nursery on R-A zoned property located on the west side of Magnolia Avenue, south of Ball Road; and further described as 1239 South ~gnolia Avenue. The City Planning Commission, by motion, approved revised plans of said ~onditional Use Permit, subject to providing the necessary street im- provements and swing drive to be installed prior to final building inspec- tion of the expanded structure or within ninety days, whichever occurs first. VARIANCE NO. 17911: Submitted by Kurt D. Singer and Jane Sherrod Singer, re- questing a two-(2) year extension of time for use of a single-family resi- dential structure as a professional writer's office on R-1 zoned property located at 3164 West Tyler Avenue, west of Western Avenue. The City Planning Commission, by motion, granted a two-year extension time, to expire May 6, 1973. The foregoing actions were reviewed by the City Council and no fur- ther action taken. TE~ATiVE MAP - TRACT NO. 7088~ REVISION NO. 1 (VARIANCE NO. 2258): Developer - William J. Krueger; property located on the east side of Rio Vista Street, approximately 1,200 feet north of Lincoln Avenue; containing 6 R-1 and 71 proposed R-2-5,000 zoned lots. The City Planning Commission, at their meeting held June 2, 1971, ap- proved said Tentative Map, subject to the following conditions: 1. That the vehicular access rights except at street and/or alley openings to Rio Vista Street shall be dedicated'to the City of Anaheim. 2. That the approval of Tentative Map of Tract No. 7088 is granted subject to the approval of Variance No. 2258. 71-375 City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - June 22, 1971, 1:30 P.M. 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 in accordance with City Council policy, a 6-foot masonry wall shall be constructed along the west property line separating Lot Nos. 1 and 67 through 77 and Rio Vista Street, except that for corner Lot No. 1 said wall shall be stepped down to a height of thirty (30) inches in the required front yard setback, and that a 6-foot masonry wall shall be con- structed along the east line of Lot No. 11. Reasonable landscaping, in- cluding irrigation facilities, shall be installed in the uncemented portion of the arterial highway parkway the full distance of said wall; plans for said landscaping to be submitted to and subject to the approval of the Sup- erintendent of Parkway Maintenance. Following installation and acceptance, the City of Anaheim shall assume the responsibility for maintenance of said landscaping. 5. That all 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 street names shall be approved by the City of Anaheim prior to approval of a final tract map. 8. 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 build- ing permit is issued. 9. That drainage of Tract No. 7088 shall be disposed of in a manner that is satisfactory to the City Engineer. 10. That the tract developer shall improve Dutch Avenue and Jeanine Way adjacent to the parksite with street pavement and standard curb and gut- ter. 11. That the existing sewer and easement across the tract shall be abandoned and a replacement sewer shall be constructed as required by the City Engineer. 12. That all streets in the tract shall be constructed in accordance with Standard Details on file in the office of the City Engineer. On motion by Councilman Pebley, seconded by Councilman Roth, Tenta- tive Map, Tract No. 7088, Revision No. 1, was approved, subject to the recom- mendations of the City Planning Commission. MOTION CARRIED. VARIANCE NO. 2230 - TERMINATION: The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Reso- lution No. PC71-98, recommended termination of Variance No. 2230, on the basis that the previous developer no longer intends to exercise the privi- lege granted under said Variance and that Variance No. 2258, encompassing the same property, was approved by the City Planning Commission by Resolu- tion No. PC71-97; property located on the east side of Rio Vista Street, approximately 1,220 feet north of the centerline of Lincoln Avenue. RESOLUTION NO. 71R-272: Councilman Roth offered Resolution No. 71R-272 for adoption, terminating Variance No. 2230, as recommended by the City Planning Commission. Refer to Resolution Book. A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM TERMINATING ALL PROCEEDINGS IN CONNECTION WITH VARIANCE NO. 2230, AND DECLARING RESOLUTION NO. 71R-88 NULL AND VOID. Roll Call Vote: AYES: COUNCILMEN: Roth, Pebley, Thom and Stephenson NOES: COUNCILMEN: None ABSENT: COUNCILMEN: Dutton The Mayor Pro Tem declared Resolution No. 71R-272 duly passed and adopted. 71-376 City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - June 22, 1971, 1:30 P,M. TENTATIVE TRACT MAPS; TENTATIVE MAP, TRACT NO, 7458~ Developer - Harvey A. Berger; property lo- cated between Esperanza Road and La Palma Avenue, northeast of Imperial High- way, and contains 86 proposed R-2-5,000 zoned lots. TENTATIVE MAP, TRACT NO. 7459: Developer - Harvey A. Berger; property lo- cated between Esperanza Road and La Palma Avenue, northeast of Imperial High- way, and contains 94 proposed R-2-5,000 zoned lots. TENTATIVE MAP, TRACT NO. 7460: Developer - Henry A. Berger; property loca- ted between Esperanza Road and La Palma Avenue, northeast of Imperial High- way, and contains 76 proposed R-2-5,000 zoned lots. The City Planning Commission, by separate motions, denied Tentative Maps of Tract Nos. 7458, 7459 and 7460. The City Clerk reported coLm~,unication received from the Developer, Harvey A. Berger, requesting a one week's continuance on said Tentative Tracts. On motion by Councilman Thom, seconded by Councilman Roth, action on Tentative Maps of Tract Nos. 7458, 7459 and 7460 was continued one week, (June 29, 1971), as requested. MOTION CARRIED. TENTATIVE TRACTS: (a) TENTATIVE TRACT NO. 7422, REVISION NO.i: Developer - Frank H. Ayres & Son Construction Company. Property located east of Imperial High- way, between Santa Aha River and Esperanza Road, containing 237 proposed R-2- 5,000 zoned lots. (b) TENTATIVE TRACT NO. 7137, REVISION NO.4: Developer - J.W. Klug Development Company. Property located between Esperanza Road and the Santa Ana River Channel, and east of Imperial Highway, containing 278 proposed R-2-5,000 zoned lots. (c) TENTATIVE TRACT NO. 7450: Developer - J.W. Klug Development Com- pany. Property located between Esperanza Road and the Santa Aha River Channel, east of Imperial Highway, containing 82 proposed R-2-5,000 zoned lots. (d) TENTATIVE TRACT NO. 7449: Developer - J.W. Klug Development Com- pany. Property located between Esperanza Road and the Santa Aha River Channel, east of Imperial Highway, containing 73 proposed R-2-5,000 zoned lots. Council action on the above-noted tracts was deferred to this date for the purpose of receiving a letter of intent from the Board of Supervisors relative to the acquisition of property for the proposed Yorba Regional Park. Mr. Murdoch submitted and read letter from Supervisor Ralph B. Clark, dated this date, advising that the staff presentation to the Board will be June 29th, and that the County staff had indicated they had informal talks with the City staff this week, relative to the proposed acquisition of the Yorba Park. Further, on the 29th, the Board of Supervisors will act on the Grant (Federal) Application Plans for the Park and that acquisition proceed- ings will cormmence as soon as possible thereafter, consistent with the Board's Resolution of Intent. Also read were the following: (a) Excerpts of the Board of Supervisors meeting held June 15, 1971, wherein studies were authorized relative to the Park land acquisition. (b) Resolution of the Board of Supervisors No. 71-651, relative to the presentation of the Green Belt Study and intent to acquire the necessary property for the Yorba Regional Park. (c) Letter from the Orange County Flood Control District, dated June 18, 1971, relative to a 100-year flood, and the advisability of modifying the channel by additional widening of 75 feet, and because of the catastro- phic consequences of any Channel overflow, recommending' that approval of 71-377 City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - June 22, 1971, 1:30 P.M. portions of tract maps in the area which would be affected by an overflow be deferred until publication by the Corps of Engineers of its comprehensive report entitled "Flood Plain Information - Santa Ana Canyon - Orange County, California," which is scheduled about October 1, 1971. Discussion was held by the City Council and Councilman Stephenson felt, under the circumstances and in view of the evidence just received, it would not be possible to approve subject tracts until the Army Corps of En- gineers Report is received and there is assurance that the area is safe, and that the County will not acquire the property for the Regional Park. Councilman Pebley felt that the action should again be continued, ra- ther than deny said tracts. Councilman Roth felt it was necessary to at least defer action until after June 29th, until the location of the property in which the County is interested can be ascertained. Councilman Thom stated he was concerned about the additional costs in the event the County did acquire the Park property, but now in light of the Flood Control District letter it is a much more serious problem, that is, the safety and general welfare of the people. To him, this problem takes prece- dence over any acquisition of the Yorba Park site, and that he would not want to act on any of subject tract maps until this question is resolved. It was agreed by all that the issue is more serious at this time in that the Orange County Flood Control District has now changed their opinion relative to safety of the area in the event of a 100-year flood. Councilman Roth felt that the seriousness of the flood situation should be analyzed by the Council and also what tracts would be affected; further, the proposed boundaries of Yorba Park should be analyzed, and for these rea- sons, action should be deferred for three weeks. Mr. Murdoch reported that the discussions between the County and City staffs last week, as referred to, were along the lines of what the actual acquisition for the Park should be, and it was also his belief that some of the developers had been contacted by the County staff to see what modifica- tion might be made. It was his impression that it was not only the Yorba Park they were concerned about but the additional flood protection that might be necessary, and what amount of protection could be handled in the non-resi- dential use (Park and open land) and what different configuration might be made to allow some development. Ail these problems will take some time to resolve. At the conclusion of the discussion, Councilman Thom moved that action on the above-enumerated tracts be continued sixty days. Councilman Pebley seconded the motion. Prior to vote on said motion, a representative of the Kraemer interests was granted permission to address the Council. Miss Marjorie Mize LeGaye, Attorney representing the Kraemer interests, owner of the 90 acres involved in Tentative Tract No. 7137, sellers with a binding escrow to J.W. Klug Development Company, reported as to the status of the escrow, advising everything has been completed and approved, all contin- gencies met, and that everything is waiting only on approval of the Final Tract Map. Regarding the Park issue, Miss LeGaye stated, as she recalled, the first declaration of intent was two years ago last May, and that nothing had hap- pened except the delay in development of these ninety acres. In her opinion, whatever action the County took would be collateral to the issue before the City Council, inasmuch as the Tentative Tract Map has already been approved by the City Council. Miss LeGaye stated the only issue before the City Council is the re- quest to split the approved Tentative Tract into three segments for conven- ience of development, and to postpone this would be, in her opinion, freezing 71-378 City Hall, Anaheim, California - cOUNCIL MINUTES - June 22, 1971, 1;30 P,M~ the property, preventing the owner of any meaningful activity of his property which had already been given him. Reference was made to the case Peacock ver- sus the County of Sacramento as a parallel to this matter. Miss LeGaye advised that the same reasoning would be applicable to the action of the Flood Control District. She noted a complete change of heart of the Colonel representing the Army Corps of Engineers last October, regarding the criteria for flood in this area, and based on this change of heart, the tract was approved and, in addition, the westerly eighty acres at the corner of Imperial Highway and Esperanza Road was rezoned and is now being developed for commercial and trailer park purposes. She asked how many times will the Army Corps of Engineers change their mind, and again noted that her clients were ready to close escrow, and also noted expenses incurred by both the property owner and developer. Miss LeGaye thereupon requested, based on the prior actions of the City Council on subject tract, and the Flood Control District letter issued in January, that no further delay be allowed. Regarding proceeding on the one tract (90 acres) Mr. Geisler advised that was true; however, a Final Tract Map was not before the Council, and the Council was not in position to finally approve development or freeze the property; that the only thing before the City Council is whether this tract be divided into three, and if considered, the Council might establish a condition as to which one would be developed first so as not to create a landlocked parcel and to assure circulation in the area. Mr. Geisler further advised that approval of the Tentative Tract was first withheld on the basis of the Corps of Engineers report that the area was in the flood plain, and based on a letter from the Flood Control District that it was adequate for a 100-year flood, the tract was approved. Now the Flood Control District revises its position and advises that it is not ade- quate as there are portions likely to be flooded in a 100-year flood. In his opinion, this might very well be justification for denial of the Final Tract Map because of the basis on which it was approved. Miss LeGaye advised that based on Council's past approval, the land- owner and developer had expended considerable amounts of money and time and effort and asked when they would be permitted to develop the property. Councilman Thom replied that they, as elected officials, must act on the best information they have at the time action is taken, and this is the latest and best information on hand. He expressed sympathy; however, he noted the responsibility involved. Miss LeGaye noted that the developer must consent to any continuance of a tract map. After further discussion, Councilman Thom withdrew said motion to continue action on said tracts in that a request was made to act on each tract separately. Councilman Pebley withdrew said second. TENTATIVE MAP, TRACT NO 7137, REVISION NO 4: On motion by Councilman Stephenson, seconded by Councilman Thom~ Tentative Map No. 7137, Revision No. 4 was denied on the basis of the report received from the Orange County Flood Control District, dated June 18, 1971. MOTION CARRIED. TENTATIVE TRACT NO. 7450: On motion by Councilman Thom, seconded by Council- man Pebley, Tentative Map No. 7450 was denied on the basis of the report re- ceived from the Orange County Flood Control District, dated June 18, 1971. MOTION CARRIED. TENTATIVE TRACT NO, 7449: On motion by Councilman Thom, seconded by Coun- cilman Pebley, Tentative Map No. 7449 was denied on the basis of the report received from the Orange County Flood Control District, dated June 18, 1971. MOTION CARRIED. 71-379 City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - June 22, 1971, 1:30 P.M- TENTATIVE TRACT NO. 7422, REVISION NO. 1: On motion by Councilman Stephen- son, seconded by Councilman Thom, Tentative Map, Tract No. 7422, Revision No. 1 was denied on the basis of the report received from the Orange County Flood Control District, dated June 18, 1971. MOTION CARRIED. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 1098: Request submitted by Harry Reichert, Reichert and Son Developers, for waiver of increased park and recreation fees for the Rio Vista Mobile Home Park development was denied by the City Council at the meeting held June 8, 1971. Correspondence received June 18th, regarding this issue, was submit- ted and briefed, requesting permission to address the Council to explain the reasons which, in their opinion, justified granting requested waiver; and also requesting permission to address the Council relative to Conditions Nos. 1, 2, 3 and 4 of the conditional use permit. Mr. Charles Roberts reported that the conditions referred to pertain to dedication and improvement of certain streets within the area, and the payment of street lighting and street tree planting fees. Mr. Geisler advised that any amendment to Conditions Nos. 1, 2, 3 and 4, which the Applicant has a right to request at any time, would consti- tute a new application, with the full payment of required fees starting at the Planning Co~mmission level. ' Based on the Attorney's ruling that conditions imposed at a public hearing can only be amended at a public hearing, request to address the Council relative to Conditions Nos. 1, 2, 3, and 4 of Conditional Use Per- mit No. 1098 was denied on motion by Councilman Pebley, seconded by Coun- cilman Thom. Councilman Roth abstained. MOTION CARRIED. As to permission to address the Council relative to development un- der the former park and recreation in lieu fee schedule, the City Clerk was directed to schedule the matter on a forthcoming Agenda. RESOLUTION NO. 71R-273 - AWARD OF WORK ORDER NO. 692: In accordance with recom- mendations by the City Engineer, Councilman Stephenson.offered Resolution No. 71R-273 for adoption. Refer to Resolution Book. A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM ACCEPTING A SEALED PROPOSAL AND AWARDING A CONTRACT TO THE LOWEST RESPONSIBLE BIDDER FOR THE FURNISHING OF ALL PLANT, LABOR, SERVICES, MATERIALS AND EQUIPMENT AND ALL UTILITIES AND TRANSPORTATION, INCLUDING POWER, FUEL AND WATER, AND PERFORM- ING ALL WORK NECESSARY TO CONSTRUCT AND COMPLETE THE FOLLOWING PUBLIC IM- PROVEMENT: PARKVIEW STREET - STREET IMPROVEMENT FROM ORANGE AVENUE TO AP- PROXIMATELY 712 FEET SOUTH OF ORANGE AVENUE, IN THE CITY OF ANAHEIM. (Sully- Miller Contracting Company - $5,886.50) Roll Call Vote: AYES: COUNCILMEN: NOES: COUNCILMEN: ABSENT: COUNCILMEN: Roth, Pebley, Thom and Stephenson None Dutton The Mayor Pro Tem declared Resolution No. 71R-273 duly passed and adopted. RESOLUTION NO 71R-274 - AWARD OF WORK ORDER NO. 1233: In accordance with recom- mendations by the City Engineer, Councilman Stephenson offered Resolution No. 71R-274 for adoption. Refer to Resolution Book. A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM ACCEPTING A SEALED PROPOSAL AND AWARDING A CONTRACT TO THE LOWEST RESPONSIBLE BIDDER FOR THE FURNISHING OF ALL PLANT, LABOR, SERVICES, MATERIALS AND EQUIPMENT AND ALL UTILITIES AND TRANSPORTATION, INCLUDING POWER, FUEL AND WATER, AND PERFORM' ING ALL WORK NECESSARY TO CONSTRUCT AND COMPLETE THE FOLLOWING PUBLIC IM- PROVEMENT: DALE AVENUE SEWER IMPROVEMENT FROM APPROXIMATELY 63 FEET SOUTH OF TO APPROXIMATELY 600 FEET SOUTH OF LINCOLN AVENUE, IN THE CITY OF ANAHEIM, WORK ORDER NO. 1233. (Munoz & Sons Construction - $4,778.60) 71- 380 City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - June 22, 1971, 1:30 P.M Roll Call Vote: AYES: COUNCILMEN: NOES: COUNCILMEN: ABSENT: COUNCILMEN: Roth, Pebley, Thom and Stephenson None Dutton The Mayor Pro Tem declared Resolution No. 71R-274 duly passed and adopted. RESOLUTION NO. 71R-275 - WORK ORDER NO. 625-A: Councilman Pebley offered Resolu- tion No. 71R-275 for adoption. Refer to Resolution Book. A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM FINDING AND DETER- MINING THAT PUBLIC CONVENIENCE AND NECESSITY REQUIRE THE CONSTRUCTION AND COMPLETION OF A PUBLIC IMPROVEMENT, TO WIT: THE SUNKIST STREET ~ STREET IMPROVEMENT FROM APPROXIMATELY 365 FEET SOUTH OF BETHEL DRIVE TO 154 FEET NORTH OF OSHKOSH STREET, IN THE CITY OF ANAHEIM, WORK ORDER NO. 625-A; APPROVING THE DESIGNS, PLANS, PROFILES, DRAWINGS AND SPECIFICATIONS FOR THE CONSTRUCTION THEREOF; AUTHORIZING THE CONSTRUCTION OF SAID PUBLIC IM- PROVEMENT IN ACCORDANCE WITH SAID PLANS, SPECIFICATIONS, ETC.; AND AUTHORI- ZING AND DIRECTING THE CITY CLERK TO PUBLISH A NOTICE INVITING SEALED PRO- POSALS FOR THE CONSTRUCTION THEREOF. (Bids to be Opened - July 15, 1971 2:00 P.M.). , Roll Call Vote: AYES: COUNCILMEN: NOES: COUNCILMEN: ABSENT: COUNCILMEN: Roth, Pebley, Thom and Stephenson None Dutton The Mayor Pro Tem declared Resolution No. 71R-275 duly passed and adopted. RESOLUTION NO. 71R-276 - WORK ORDER.NO. 626-A: Councilman Pebley offered Resolu- tion No. 71R-276 for adoption. Refer to Resolution Book. A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM FINDING AND DETER- MINING THAT PUBLIC CONVENIENCE AND NECESSITY REQUIRE THE CONSTRUCTION AND COMPLETION OF A PUBLIC IMPROVEMENT, TO WIT: TRAFFIC SIGNAL MODIFICATION AT THE INTERSECTION OF LA PALMAAVENUE AND IMPERIAL HIGHWAY, IN THE CITY OF ANAHEIM, WORK ORDER NO. 626-A; APPROVING THE DESIGNS, PLANS, PROFILES, DRAWINGS AND SPECIFICATIONS FOR THE CONSTRUCTION THEREOF; AUTHORIZING THE CONSTRUCTION OF SAID PUBLIC IMPROVEMENT IN ACCORDANCE WITH SAID PLANS, SPECIFICATIONS, ETC.; AND AUTHORIZING AND DIR~CTING THE CITY CLERK TO PUB- LISH A NOTICE INVITING SEALED PROPOSALS FOR THE CONSTRUCTION THEREOF. (Bids to be Opened - July 15, 1971, 2:00 P.M.). Roll Call Vote: AYES: COUNCILMEN: NOES: COUNCILMEN: ABSENT: COUNCILMEN: Roth, Pebley, Thom and Stephenson None Dutton The Mayor Pro Tem declared Resolution No. 71R-276 duly passed and adopted. RESOLUTION NO. 71R-277 - WORK ORDER N0- 632: Upon receipt of certification from the Director of Public Works, Councilman Stephenson offered Resolution No. 71R-277 for adoption. Refer to Resolution Book. 71-381 .City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - June 22, 1971, 1:30 P.M. 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 COM- PLETE THE FOLLOWING PUBLIC IMPROVEMENT, TO WIT: THE GOLF COURSE STORAGE BUILDING ADDITION, 430 NORTH GILBERT STREET, IN THE CITY OF ANAHEIM, WORK ORDER NO. 632. (Senk Construction Company) Roll Call Vote: AYES: COUNCILMEN: NOES: COUNC IL~N: ABSENT: COUNCILMEN: Roth, Pebley, Thom and Stephenson None Dutton The Mayor Pro Tem declared Resolution No. 71R-277 duly passed and adopted. CANCELLATION OF COUNTY TAXES: On motion by Councilman Roth, seconded by Council- man Stephenson, the Orange County Board of Supervisors was requested to can- cel County taxes on property acquired by the City of Anaheim for municipal purposes*, pursuant to Resolution No. 65R-701, recorded September 21, 1965, as Document No. 16171, in Book 7674, at Page 409, Official Records of Orange County, California. (Water Well Site, Brookhurst Street - *formerly assessed to Cleo G. and L. Mearl ~bssman). MOTION CARRIED. CANCELTATION OF WEED ASSESSMENT. S: On motion by Councilman Pebley, seconded by Councilman Thom, the Orange County Board of Supervisors was requested to cancel Weed Abatement Assessments on City of Anaheim property, Code 1-074, AP ~71-141-34, and Orange County Flood Control District property, Code 1-031, AP ~83-270-57. MOTION CARRIED. CLAIMS AGAINST THE CITY: The following claims were denied, as recommended by the City Attorney, and ordered referred to the insurance carrier, on motion by Councilman Pebley, seconded by Councilman Stephenson: a. Claim submitted by Ester Dahl Tellefsen, .for purported personal property damage sustained on or about June 7, 1971, as a result of driving over a hook where Fire Department was working. b. Claim submitted by Harriman & Nelson, Attorneys at Law, on be- half of Michael Gerald O'Toole by Matthew O'Toole, for purported personal injuries sustained on or about April 6, 1971, as a result of tripping over a low-slung cable placed between two metal posts on Anaheim Stadium Parking lot. MOTION CARRIED. RESOLUTION NO.71R-278: Councilman Roth offered Resolution No. 71R-278 for adop- tion. Refer to Resolution Book. A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM INFORMING THE COUNTY OF ORANGE, ROAD DEPARTMENT, OF CERTAIN CHANGES IN THE CIRCULATION ELEMENT OF ARTERIAL STREETS AND HIGHWAYS ON THE GENERAL PLAN, AND REQUESTING THE COUNTY OF ORANGE TO ADOPT SAID CHANGES INTO THE COUNTY ARTERIAL HIGHWAY MASTER PLAN. (Manchester Avenue) Roll Call Vote: AYES: COUNCILMEN: NOES: COUNCILMEN: ABSENT: COUNCILMEN: Roth, Pebley, Thom and Stephenson None Dutton The Mayor Pro Tem declared Resolution No. 71R-278 duly passed and adopted. CORRESPONDENCE; The following correspondence was ordered received and filed on motion by Councilman Pebley, seconded by Councilman Thom: 71-382 Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - June 22~ 1971, 1:30 P,Mt a. Notice of Filing Petition for modification of Decision #78734 with the California Public Utilities Commission by the Gray Lines Tours Com- pany. b. Cultural Arts Commission - Memorandum on Meeting held May 12 1971. , c. Anaheim Parks and Recreation Commission - Minutes - May 20,1971. MOTION CARRIED. CORRESPONDENCE - CITY OF WOODLAKE ~SOLUTION NO. 467 AND CITY OF UPLAND RESOLUTION NO. 2320 - REDIST-KIBUTION OF SALmS TAX REVENUES: On motion by Council Thom, se- conded by Councilman Roth, a letter was authorized to be forwarded to the Cities of Woodlake and Upland, with a copy to the California League of Cities, advising that the City of Anaheim does not share their position that distri- bution of sales tax revenue be on a population basis. MOTION CARRIED. ORDINANCE NO. 2941: Councilman Thom offered Ordinance No. 2941 for adoption. Refer to Ordinance Book. AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AMENDING TITLE 18 OF THE ANAHEIM~JNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO ZONING. (68-69-20 - R-l) Roll Call Vote: AYES: COUNCILMEN: NOES: COUNCILMEN: ABSENT: COUNCILMEN: Roth, Pebley, Thom and Stephenson None Dutton The Mayor Pro Tem declared Ordinance No. 2941 duly passed and adopted. ORDINANCE NO. 2942: Councilman Roth offered Ordinance No. 2942 for adoption. Refer to Ordinance Book. AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AMENDING TITLE 18 OF THE ANAHEIM~/NICIPAL CODE RELATING TO ZONING. (66-67-61(44) - C-R) Roll Call Vote: AYE S: COUNCILMEN: NOES: COUNCILMEN: ABSENT: COUNCILMEN: Roth, Pebley, Thom and Stephenson None Dutton The MayOr Pro Tem declared Ordinance No. 2942 duly passed and adopted. ORDINANCE NO. 2943: Councilman Pebley offered Ordinance No. 2943 for adoption. Refer to Ordinance Book. AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AMENDING TITLE 18 OF THE ANAHEIM~IrNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO ZONING. (63-64-62(5) - R-3) Roll Call Vote: AYES: COUNCILMEN: NOES: COUNCILMEN: ABSENT: COUNCILMEN: Roth, Pebley, Thom and Stephenson None Dutton ted. The Mayor Pro Tem declared Ordinance No. 2943 duly passed and adop- RECESS: On motion by Councilman Roth, seconded by Councilman Stephenson, the City Council declared a five-minute recess. MOTION CARRIED. (3:15 P.M.). 71-383 City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - June 22, 1971, 1;30 P.M. AFTER RECESSj Mayor Pro Tem Stephenson called the meeting to order, all members being present, with the exception of Councilman Dutton, and the business be- fore the City Council resumed. (3:25 P.M.). ORDINANCE NO. 2940 - PROPOSED ADMISSIONS TAX: At the invitation of the Mayor Pro Tem, Mr. Jack Lindquist, representing Disneyland and also speaking on behalf of the California Angels and Anaheim Theatre Owners and Operators, addressed the City Council. In discussing the proposed tax, Mr. Lindquist labeled the tax as the "Disneyland Tax." He felt the fact that admission to the park had in- creased from 90 cents in 1955 to the present $3.50 was no justification for the tax, as previously intimated, and as a comparison he noted the 1955 4-1/2 million dollar City Budget for a population of 15,000, compared to the 45-million dollar Budget presently being considered for a population of over 170,000 residents. As a further comparison, he noted the original capital improvement investment in the park of $17,000,000.00, as compared to over $130,000,000.00 today, with a master plan for the next ten years that could double that amount. Mr. Lindquist reported that Disneyland is the foundation and cor- nerstone upon which the tourist-recreation industry in the City of Anaheim exists; it is the biggest industry in the City, generating the greatest eco- nomic impact for the benefit of the City; it provides more employment oppor- tunities and is the biggest taxpayer in the City. In addition, it offers greater potential for continuing growth than any other industry within the City. He felt it unfair and unjust to expect the Commercial-Recreation Area, comprising 6% of the total area of the City of Anaheim, to provide 1/15th of the total tax revenue desired by the City; this being in addition to sales tax, property tax, gasoline tax, etc.; that of the five biggest taxpayers in the City, three are located in the Commercial-Recreation Area (Disneyland, Disneyland Hotel and California Angels), and these 300 acres of property would be producing 80% of the proposed new revenue. Mr. Lindquist noted that last Thursday marked the 100-millionth guest to Disneyland, and in addition there have been millions of others who have been guests of the area, the Anaheim Stadium and the Convention Center, all being customers of hotels, motels, restaurants, shops, gasoline stations, and other cormnercial establishments in the area; this creating a total eco- nomic impact to the City of Anaheim of l~-billion dollars, all of which, in his opinion, stemmed from Disneyland. He further reported that the annual attendance at Disneyland is approximately 10 million people. He stated that for the first twelve years, during the 34-week winter season, they operated at a marginal or unprofitable basis; however, the park was kept open. To have closed the park would have meant placing many employees on a part-time status and would have adversely affected hotels, motels, and convention business. Since that time, the win- ter period has been used for their private party program and the results have changed. He further noted that because of the present unemployment situation, particularly in Orange County, and because of the inflationary spiral and economic unrest, competition for the leisure dollar is strong. He questioned if it makes sense to impose an admissions tax and force Anaheim establishments to charge more than their competition. Mr. Lindquist stated he had heard that the Anaheim entertainment- recreation enterprises, that is, Disneyland, the California Angels and the theatres, etc. had nothing to fear, as by law the admissions tax could be collected from the custmmer. He doubted if this would be much concern to the customer as their only concern is the total cost of admission. He further reported that they had never objected nor opposed tax measures levied against them as corporate citizens,nor do they object to taxes that lead directly to tourism, providing tourist facilities, services or promotions, but they do strongly object to discriminatory taxation with tax revenue raised from a specially singled-out segment to provide revenue 71- 384 ~it¥ Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - June 22, 1971, 1:30 P.M. for purposes strictly the responsibility of all the citizens and residents of the City; and further felt the proposed Admissions Tax was one of the most important single pieces of legislation ever before the City Council and, if adopted, could seriously jeopardize and perhaps destroy the most im- portant industry in Anaheim. In conclusion, Mr. Lindquist stated, in his opinion, to pass this measure hastily was wrong, and to pass this tax as an expedient to provide immediate funds to operate the C~ty was wrong. He questioned what form of tax would be necessary to operate the City next year. Mr. Lindquist felt the following questions should be studied and the answers made known before any final action is taken: 1. What cities have admissions taxes and have they been success- ful? 2. Why doesn't the City of Los Angeles consider an admissions tax? 3. Why did the City of Bakersfield adopt said tax and then repeal it? 4. Will the admissions tax forever close the door to further ex- pansion of entertainment, recreation, and sporting facilities in Anaheim? 5. Will the City of Anaheim ever attract a pro football or basket- ball team if an admissions tax is in effect? Mr. Lindquist suggested the City prepare an in-depth study on this concept before any final action is taken. Question was raised concerning an admissions tax imposed by the State of Florida, and what the basic difference would be in the Florida tax and the proposed admissions tax here. Mr. Dick Nunis, representing Disneyland, advised that the situation in Florida differed in that the state's population is approximately 8-million people, compared to California's approximately 20-million, and that the esti- mated annual number of tourists in Florida was approximately 24-million, com- pared to California's 8-million; thus, 90% of the Florida business will be derived from outside the state, while in California more than 50% of the busi- ness is derived from the local population. Mr. Robert O. Reynolds, President of California Angels, advised that as they saw this, the adoption of subject tax was largely a policy matter, and in light of what the State of California may or may not do, in this State there are only two areas in which an admissions tax is charged - that being Los Ala- mitos and Inglewood. Mr. Reynolds also felt the adoption of such a tax could have long- range consequences and should be given considerable study. He stated they had not studied the matter to the degree they would like, i.e., how it might apply to ticket pricing, etc. He felt a 25¢ per ticket tax would have an immediate impact on their advance season ticket sales. Reference was made to a pro football team, and Mr. Reynolds stated he has done what he could to encourage a team to consider this area and the Stadium and, in his opinion, this was still a possibility. In conclusion, Mr. Reynolds felt there were definite consequences to such a tax, and welcomed the opportunity to work with anyone to look into the matter further. Mr. Thomas Wood, resident, 700 North Helena Street, addressed the Council in opposition to the proposed Admissions Tax, and noted that the tax on a theatre ticket could be circumvented by patronizing a neighboring city. Further, since Disneyland will pay approximately 80% of the tax, it appeared discriminatory. 71-385 .gity Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - June 22, 1971, 1:30 P.M. Mr. Wood referred to a newspaper article reporting that the proposed tax is projected to add $3,000,000.00 annually in income, and asked why the City needed that amount when only an additional $1,800,000.00 expenditure is needed, of which increased water rates will supply $700,000.00, and increased Room Occupancy Tax will provide $300,000.00? According to the newspaper article, Mr. Wood stated it sounded like maintenance was being deferred over the years until now. Regarding the Budget, Mr. Wood noted the detail shown in the Budget which, in his opinion, was unimportant, and questioned the increase to Account No. 100-215 "Retirement System." It was explained that the increase to Account No. 100-215 was due to the adoption of the California Highway Patrol provisions to the State Em- ployees Retirement System for the City Safety Employees (Fire and Police). Mr. Wood referred to the Water Division Account No. 400 (Other Char- ges) and questioned why this amount was more than doubled? Another under the Water Division, Account No. 500, which would be "Charges to Other" should have been, in his opinion, a reduction to the operating expense. Mr. Mmrdoch advised that the method of budgeting and accounting for the Utilities Division has been changed this year to the type of accounting used in private utilities. Mr. Hoyt, in explaining reasons for the notations mentioned by Mr. Wood, reported that until this time monies from the Utility Division have been canmingled with the General ~unds of the City, and in connection with the re- cent sale of the $2,000,000.00 Water Revenue Bonds, and as a part of this pro- gram, it is now necessary for the water revenue to be kept entirely separate from all other revenues of the City. Mr. Wood, in conclusion, recon~nended charts indicating where funds were expended the past year and are projected to be expended the coming year, and also showing the use of manpower accordingly, similar to the one on Page I,indicating Revenue Comparisons by Source, be incorporated in the forthcoming Budgets. Mr. Bruce Corwin, President of the National Association of Theatre Owners of Southern California, advised that the motion picture industry is in the deepest depression ever experienced, as evidenced by President Nixon's in- terest in the situation. There are three, among many reasons, for this pre- dicament: 1. A product shortage. He reported that in the late 1940's over 400 pictures were released each year, compared to 232 pictures in 1969, and less than 200 pictures projected for this year. Most of the theatres play 2 pictures per week, or 104 pictures per year, and with a release schedule of less than 200, theatre owners have no choice of selection. 2. High unemployment in the industry. He advised 82% of the picture production personnel were presently unemployed, due to the major losses of the producing industry. 3. Alarming drop in attendance. He advised that in the 1940's, for- merly referred to, 80 to 100-million people patronized a movie weekly, compared now to 18 and 20-million people per week. Mr. Corwin stated these three reasons, among many others, were why the industry needs help rather than another burden and, in his opinion, to en- act this tax on an industry struggling for existence would be a great injus- tice. Mr. Robert W. Selig, representing Pacific Theatres and the theatres operated in the City of Anaheim, advised that they, as an industry, have en- deavored to be good citizens willing to bear their fair share of any equal burden of taxes or services; however, it would be distressing indeed if this Admissions Tax is passed, as two of the seven theatres operating within the City of Anaheim will economically be forced to close. 71-386 .City Hall, Anaheim, California - COb-NCIL MINUTES - June 22, 1971, 1:30 P.M. Mr. Selig thereupon offered their screens, at their expense, to try and tell the people of this community the needs of the City; that they will volunteer their screens for educational purposes, using this visual means. Mr. Selig further advised that insofar as the theatre industry is concerned, not one city in Southern California has imposed an admissions tax. In conclusion, Mr. Selig stated they disliked very much that Ana- heim, the entertainment capital of the world, of which they were proud, would be the city to impose such a discriminatory tax on their industry at this time, and which would be so disastrous to the seven theatres here. Councilman ?ebley referred to letter received individually by each member of the City Council from Mr. Selig, regarding his past offers of their screens to inform the public relative to bond issues and asked to whom this offer was made? ' Mr. Selig replied that the offer was made to the City Council in the form of a letter directed to each member of the Council, approximately one year ago. Further, it was repeated at a Council meeting the last time this issue was considered. Mr. A.J. Schutte, former Mayor and Councilman of the City of Ana- heim, reminisced on the past history relative to locating Disneyland in the City of Anaheim, the annexation, and the many benefits to the City resulting from the Disneyland enterprise. He noted that during the development of the park an admissions tax was then discussed with the Disneyland officials, and that Mr. Roy Disney assured the City at that time that if Disneyland caused any additional ex- pense to the City they would be willing to pay for that expense. Mr. Schutte recognized the financial needs of the City and felt that if a bond issue was successful and the remainder of the Edison Company facilities could be purchased, it would solve the problem for'the time being. In answer to Mr. Schutte's questioning, Mr. Murdoch advised, with the acquisition of the Edison Company facilities, according to the City's es- timates beginning with the first full year the City can operate the entire electrical system, the net revenue would exceed $1,000,000.00 per year. In conclusion, Mr. Schutte recommended the matter be considered further before any action is taken. Correspondence received at open meeting from Mr. David S. Collins was submitted and read by the City Clerk, favoring the adoption of said Ad- missions Tax; however, suggesting the tax be the same percentage, regardless of the amount of admission charged. Mr. Joe White, 809 West Broadway, stated he was not necessarily in favor of the Admission Tax; however, the need of certain Capital Improve- ments must not be overlooked. Mr. White advised that they, as a com~aittee, worked hard for the passage of the bond issue at the last election, and he could not remember any support from the Angels or Disneyland, and if the movie screens were offered, it was not to the com~ittee. He did know that they, as a committee, still need funds to pay bills incurred at that time. Mr. White advised that if the bond issue is again considered, it should be done properly and with proper timing for support. Mr. Card Walker, Executive Vice-President of Walt Disney Produc- tions, stated he had worked with Walt Disney 32 years and his contribution, not only to this co~mmnity, but the movie industry and problems of the world, has been fantastic. 71-387 City Mall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - June 22, 1971, 1:30 P.M. Mr. Walker recognized the problems of the City, but noted that with the coming of Disneyland a whole new type of entertainment was created; that in the 16 years there have been many imitators and competition for the enter- tainment dollar. He felt their organization had been fair and had lived up to the statement and pledge made in 1955 by Walt Disney, in that they will continue to build in Disneyland as long as there is imagination left in the world. Mr. Walker advised of some of the forthcoming changes and new fea- tures planned for the park, and advised they would continue adding new attrac- tions to the park - interesting also was that 63% of the business is local business and repeat attendances. In conclusion, Mr. Walker stated they were going to continue to be an important member of this community and would continue to invest in this con~nunity and continue to try and grow, and if successful, the whole enter- tainment business will also grow. He again recognized the City's problem, but felt this was an unfair tax when they, as one enterprise, would be paying 80% of the tax. Councilman Thom stated it was totally repugnant to him to have to levy taxes; however, they sit as a Council with the best information avail- able and know that more money is needed. Further, the tax that is least re- pugnant to him was one voluntary in nature, at least the attendee can elect to pay it or not pay it. Councilman Thom advised that,to him, the admission tax was the only alternative, as he would not be a party to any other invol- untary tax. Councilman Pebley noted, after hearing the discussion presented, that apparently the people will help any way they can to make the purchase of the Edison facilities a reality, and if an election could be held in Sep- tember, and if the bond issue carried, the proposed tax which would have been effective in January could be repealed. Councilman Thom noted that the Council has not considered an elec- tion nor set a date, and can only consider the issue before us. Mr. Murdoch expressed concern in that a bond issue could not be ready for an election in September. Additional time would be necessary to appraise what kind of time schedule could be reached, and before making a de- cision of this nature the Council might better first know what kind of time schedule can be met, as no issue should go before the voters unless they are adequately informed on what the issues are. Mr. Murdoch noted that when this was previously discussed it was felt a January or February, 1972, election date ~uld be a pretty tight schedule. Councilman Pebley stated he just expressed the thought; levy the tax, schedule a bond issue in November, and if successful, remove the tax. Mr. Murdoch again expressed concern relative to the timing. Mr. Wood again addressed the Council, related his experience in pur- chasing a home and compared the taxes of a similar home in other cities, noting Anaheim to be lower, and felt the alternative to the amusement tax was a slight increase in property tax. Reference was aga£n made to an article appearing in the Anaheim Bul- latin, and noting the need £or $1,800,000.00 additional revenue, of w~aich $700,000.00 would be obtained from an increase in water rates, and $300,000.00 from the Room Occupancy Tax. Councilman Roth, for clarification, noted the revenue from the Room Occupancy Tax will be used for the improvement of the Convention Center. Councilman Thom explained that the projected improvement of the Con- vention Center is estimated to be $8,000,000.00, and the Council proceeded with the full knowledge that the 1% increase in the Room Occupancy Tax would be committed to w~ta~d this $8,000,000.00 bonded indebtedness. retire~ 71-388 City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - June 22, 1971, 1:30 P.M. Dan Kiker, 1532 Broadway, thought if Coumcilman Pebley's suggestion was followed, and the people of Disneyland and the movies assisted in adver- tising the bond issue,it would be successful. ORDINANCE NO. 2940: Councilman Thom offered Ordinance No. 2940 for adoption. Refer to Resolution Book. AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AMENDING TITLE 2 OF THE ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE BY ADDING THERETO CHAPTER 2.12 RELATING TO AN ADMISSIONS TAX. Prior to vote on the above Ordinance, Mr. James Ross, representing Disneyland, asked that a condition be established that the bond issue will, in fact, be placed on the ballot and this legislation is contingent on the bond issue failing. If the bond issue fails, the tax will be levied, and if the bond issue passes, this law will not go into effect. Mr. Geisler noted the provision of the Ordinance did not take ef- fect until January, and it was his understanding that Councilman ?ebley's recommendation was that if there is a bond election, and if it does pass, the Council will have the power to rescind subject Ordinance before its ef- fective date in January. He further advised that he was not certain the bond issue could be a legal contingency upon the Ordinance. Mr. Ross suggested the action on the Ordinance be postponed until there is a decision by the people on the bond issue. Mr. Walker stated Disneyland really should not be involved, from a public relations standpoint, and asked if the action could be deferred an- other week to evaluate how this might work with the proper timing. He con- curred with Mr. Ross - once a tax is levied, it is difficult to remove, and requested more time to evaluate how this tax would affect the entertainment business and the co~Lm,unity. Council discussion followed: Councilman Thom noted the proposed Ordinance had been under consideration for a year. Councilman Pebley favored holding the issue another week. He stated he suggested the bond issue, on the basis of the help offered. He restated his suggestion to put the issue on the ballot in November, and if it passes, the Ad- missions Tax could be backed-up one or two years - maybe forever; table it as long as the City can operate effectively and efficiently. He also expressed opposition to any tax, but noted that the City is now in a position where some- thing must be done. Councilman Stephenson suggested action on the Admissions Tax be de- ferred until the result of the bond election is known. If it fails, the tax could then be levied. Councilman Roth felt there had been sufficient knowledge obtained to realize that the next bond issue must be planned correctly and the public fully informed. He felt the Council should proceed with some budgetary ac- tion to relieve the revenue situation. Councilman Pebley felt the issue should proceed, as under the cir- cumstance~ there would be noadvantage in further delay; that action be taken on the Ordinance as offered, and then, by separate Motion, the Council inten- tion be declared. Councilman Thom called for the question. ORDINANCE NO. 2940: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AMENDING TITLE 2 OF THE ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE BY ADDING THERETO CHAPTER 2.12 RELATING TO AN ADMISSIONS TAX. 71-389 City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - June 22, 1971., 1:30 P.M. Roll Call Vote: AYES: COUNCILMEN: NOES: COUNCILMEN: AB SENT: COUNCILMEN: Roth, Pebley, Thom and Stephenson None Dutton ted. The Mayor Pro Tem declared Ordinance No. ~40 duly passed and adop- Councilman Stephenson moved that this Council go on record in the event the Electrical Revenue Bond Issue carries, it is the declared intent of the City Council to rescind Ordinance No. 2940, establishing an Admis- sions Tax. Councilman Thom seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. FIVE-YEAR CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM: Mr. Murdoch advised of the need to obtain an expression from the City Council relative to the Five-Year Capital Improvement Program, as to what priorities are desired by the Council. CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING - PROPOSED BUDGET 1971-1972: Public hearing was continued from the meeting held June 15, 1971, to allow interested persons further time to consider the Proposed Budget for the Fiscal Year 1971-1972. Mayor Pro Tem Stephenson asked if anyone wished to address the Coun- cil concerning the proposed Budget. Mr. Joe White stated he had only one question, and that was on Page 31,the last paragraph, wherein it was noted that "Each Audit must be performed on a 'friendly' constructive basis," and asked that "a friendly auditor" be explained. After a good laugh, by Council consent, the word "friendly" was or- dered stricken. Mr. White did advise that they would be reviewing the Budget during the coming year. For clarification, Mr. M~rdoch explained the Proposed Budget before the Council is in the amount of $43,212,927.00 and does not include provisions for any of the additional items for which additional revenue is being consi- dered. The allusion to a $45,000,000.00 Budget included other things that should be done this year, for which additional revenue would be needed. He further stated that there are some areas, between the time the Budget was prepared and now, that will require minor adjustments; however, these adjust- ments will be made and will not affect the Budget at this point. Mr. Wood, 700 North Helena Street, explained he was more confused in that the Budget document states the Budget amount to be $43,000,000.00 plus, and the article in the Anaheim Bulletin indicates an additional $1,800,000.00, making the Budget $45,000,000.00 plus. Mr. Wood was assured by the Council that the action to be taken will be on a $43,212,927.00 Budget only. Mr. Wood asked, if that was the case, why was $3,000,000.00 needed by the proposed Admissions Tax? Councilman Thom replied that these are for Capital Improvement areas that have been lagging and need attention. Mr. Murdoch, to further explain, stated that the additional expen- diture would have to be adopted or accepted as a supplement to the Budget. Mayor Pro Tem Stephenson asked if anyone else wished to address the Council; hearing no response, declared the hearing closed. Om motion by Councilman Pebley, seconded by Councilman Thom, the Proposed Budget submitted for the Fiscal Year 1971-1972, in the amount of $43,212,927.00 was approved and adopted. MOTION CARRIED. 71-390 City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - June 22, 1971, 1:30 P.M, RECESS; Councilman Thom moved for a five-minute Recess. Councilman Stephenson seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. (5:20 P.M.) AFTER RECESS: Mayor Pro Tem Stephenson called the meeting to order, all members of the Council being present, with the exception of Councilman Dutton. (5:25 P.M.). PROPOSED INCREASED WATER RATES: Mr. Gordon Hoyt, Public Utilities Director, re- ferred to his recormnended increase in water rates of 3-1/2¢ per 100-cubic feet, together with certain other changes in'the water rate structure, and referred to the basic reasoning for the increase as set forth in the recom- mendations and report submitted to the City Council. Mr. Hoyt also advised that in handling the water utility as a com- plete source of revenue,not commingled with the General Funds in any way, it should stand on its own merits and pay all costs of operating the utility. The increase recommended will produce approximately $675,000.00 the first year,and it is projected that the revenue from the water utility will pay all their own expenses and capital improvements that must be made from current revenue, and retire the General Obligation Bonds issued for the con- struction of water facilities, with approximately 6% remaining. Councilman Thom asked if the Electrical Utility was also being set up separately. Mr. Murdoch replied in the affirmative. In answer to why $3,000,000.00 is allocated for retirement and in- surance as a separate fund or account in the Budget, Mr. Hoyt advised that that has been included as part of the utility expenses. Mr. Murdoch reported that the Budget as just adopted does not split "retirement", etc. However, when "cash flo~' is projected, provision is made on a percentage basis for retirement, insurances, and all the other fringe benefits. Councilman Thom felt perhaps this was an item that ~hould be shown separately for each department, as it applies to the salaries of that depart- ment. Mr. Murdoch advised that this was the reason for the attempt to go to program budgeting; however, the question is what do we isolate and what do we not? As of now, we have no satisfactory answer and we are attempting this type of budgeting with the Utilities Department first. As to the recormnended increase in water rates,it was reported this would mean to the average residential customer an additional 80¢ per month, or an additional $1.60 on the bi-monthly billing, or approximately 17½% in- crease,and that the recommendation further means a 20% increase in minimum charges, a 20% in customer charges, and a 20% increase in irrigation water service rate. In conclusion, Mr. Hoyt reported that he would soon recommend some nhanges in the water acreage fees assessed by the City for extension of water mains. RESOLUTION NO. 71R-279: Councilman Roth offered Resolution No. 71R-279 for adoption, changing water rates as recommended by the Utilities Director. Refer to Resolution Book. A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM FIXING WATER SERVICE CONNECTION AND METER INSTALLATION CHARGES, FIXING WATER MAIN EXTENSION CHARGES, AND FIXING RATES FOR WATER FURNISHED TO CONSUI~ZRS AND FOR ALL SERVICES REN- DERED IN CONNECTION THEREWITH, AND SUPERSEDING RESOLUTIONS NUMBERED 70R-82, 70R-121, 70R-559, 71R-9, AND 71R-94. 71-391 ~ity Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MTMUTES - June 22, 1971, 1:30 P.M Roll Call Vote: AYES: COUNCILMEN: NOES: COUNCILMEN: ABSENT: COUNCILMEN: Roth, Pebley, Thom and Stephenson None Dutton The Mayor Pro Tem declared Resolution No. 71R-279 duly passed and adopted. PROPOSED LEASE - CITY-OWNED PROPERTY: Mr. Murdoch reported on proposal received from Mr. Dick Duffy for the lease of approximately 1.51 acres of City-owned property, north of the Royal Inns property, by the Jolly Roger Inn, on the basis of the same rental foru~la as the Royal Inn lease, which would be, in this case, a minimum rental of $11,000.00 per year, plus or minus, for a sug- gested period of 60 years. He further reported that the first phase of con- struction is to be completed within 22 months from the execution of the lease with the amount per year, until such time as the property is improved, to be $1,634.00. On motion by Councilman Roth, further negotiations were authorized and the City Attorney requested to draft the necessary lease document for pre- sentation to the City Council for further consideration. Councilman Pebley seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. RESOLUTION NO. 71R-280 - ANAHEIM BEACH PROJECT: On the recommendation of the City Manager, Councilman Thorn offered Resolution No. 71R-280 for adoption, approv- ing an application for a Grant-In-Aid for Federal funds for the joint develop- ment of the Anaheim Beach Project. Refer to Resolution Book. A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM APPROVING THE APPLI- CATION FOR LAND WATER CONSERVATION FUNDS. (ANAHEIM BEACH PROJECT) Roll Call Vote: AYES: COUNCILMEN: Roth, Pebley, Thom and Stephenson NOES: COUNCILMEN: None ABSENT: COUNCILMEN: Dutton The Mayor Pro Tem declared Resolution No. 71R-280 duly passed and adopted. ENTERTAINMENT PERMIT: Application filed by Lloyd E. King for an Entertainment Per- mit to allow "go-go" dancers at The Ball, 1116 Fountain Way, was submitted and granted for a period of one year, subject to the provisions of Chapter 4.18 of the Anaheim Municipal Code, as recommended by the Chief of Police, on motion by Councilman Stephenson, seconded by Councilman Roth. MOTION CARRIED. TOWN TOUR COMPANY - SERVICE AND FARE CHANGE - ROUTE 6: Letter dated June 21, 1971, from the Town Tour Company, was submitted and read by the City Clerk, advis- ing that effective the week of June 28, 1971, service on Route 6 will be re- duced to three days a week - Thursday, Friday and Saturday, and that because of the reduction in the days of service the monthly pass price will also be reduced to $4.00. The letter further advised that they have posted a sign to this effect on the bus on Route 6, and have placed an ad accordingly in the local newspaper. On motion by Councilman Pebley, seconded by Councilman Roth, the correspondence was ordered received and filed. MOTION CARRIED. RECESS - EXECUTIVE SESSION: At the request of the City Manager, Councilman Roth moved to Recess to Executive Session. Councilman Thom seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. (5:50 P.M.) 71-392 City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - June 22, 1971, 1:30 P,M AFTER RECESS - ADJOURNMENT: At the conclusion of the Executive Session, and upon return of all Councilmen to the Council Chambers, with the exception of Mayor Dutton, Councilman Thom moved to adjourn. Councilman Pebley seconded the mo- tion. MOTION CARRIED. ADJOURNED: 6:06 P.M. City Clerk City Hall~ Anaheim, California - OO~NCIL MINUTES - June 29, 1971, 1:30 P-M- The City Council of the City of Anaheim met in regular session. PRE SENT: ABSENT: PRESENT: COUNCILMEN: Roth, Thom and Pebley COUNCIL~N: Stephenson and Dutton CITY MANAGER: Ketth A. Murdoch CITY ATTORNEY: Joseph B. Geisler CITY CLERK: Done M. Daoust CITY ENGINEER: James P. Maddox ZONING SUPERVISOR: Charles Roberts In the absence of the Mayor and Mayor Pro Tom, by general consent of the City Council, senior member and former Mayor Councilman Calvin L. Pebley was named Acting Mayor Pro Tom. Mayor Pro Tom Pebley called the meeting to order. INVOCATION: Reverend Elmer Matthias of the Zion Lutheran Church gave the InVocation. FLAG S~E: Councilman William J. Thom led the Assembly in the Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag. MINUTES: Minutes of the regular Anaheim City Council meeting held June 8, 1971, were approved on motion by Councilman Thom, seconded by Councilman Roth. MOTION CARRIED. WAIVER OF READING - ORDINANCES AND RESOLUTIONS; Councilman Thom moved to waive the reading in full of all ordinances and resolutions, and that consent to the waiver of reading is hereby given by all Councilmen, unless after read- ing of the title, specific request is made by a Councilman for the reading of such ordinance or resolution. Councilman Roth seconded the motion. MOTION UNANIMOUSLY CARRIED. REPORT - ~!~ANGIA~, ~MANDS A~,AINS~ THE CITY;, Demands against the City, in the amount of $119,662.8~, in accordance with the 1970-71 ~udget, were approved. CONDI%tQNAL USE _PIILMIT 1[0. 1074: Submitted by East AnaheimM~thodtst Church, to interpret the intent of the City Plannin~ ~issiom in grantins said condi- tional use permit, includtn~ the maximum number 'of students permitted. Pro- perty presently sonmt ~-A, located north and wmst of the northwest corner of Romneya I)r~ve and Acacia Street.