Loading...
1974/02/1974-166 City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - February 12, 1974~ 1:30 P,M. APPOINTMENT - COMMUNITY CENTER AUTHORITY: On motion by Councilman Pebley, seconded by Councilman Sneegas, the City Council appointed Dr. Kenneth Heuler, 906 West Pioneer Drive, to fill the unexpired term of Mr. Warren E. Ashleigh, subject to approval by the Anaheim Union High School District Board of Trustees. MOTION CARRIED. ADJOURNMENT: Councilman Sneegas moved to adjourn. Councilman Pebley seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. Adjourned: 5:45 P.M. City Clerk City Hall~ Anaheim: California - COUNCIL MINUTES - February 19~ 1974~ 1:30 P.M. The City Council of the City of Anaheim met in regular session. PRESENT: COUNCILMEN: Stephenson, Sneegas, Pebley, Thom and Dutton ABSENT: COUNCILMEN: None PRESENT: ASSISTANT CITY MANAGER: Robert M. Davis CITY ATTORNEY: Alan R. Watts CITY CLERK: Alona M. Farrens UTILITIES DIRECTOR: Gordon W. Hoyt CITY ENGINEER: James Po Maddox TRAFFIC ENGINEER: Edward Granzow ASSISTANT DIRECTOR OF DEVELOPMENT SERVICES: Ronald Thompson ZONING SUPERVISOR: Charles Roberts, Mayor Dutton called the meeting to order. ~'L~G .-,~, J~L: i,,an~ ~l,~.~a: [!aTpb ~ ~ i~neogas !ed the assembly in the Pledge of Al ~iance t:~ ~:he ~4tNU.~$: ;,tt,~u~:cs of the ,,'-~aa~e.~m Cit:¥ (~ouncil Regular Meeting held January 22, 1974, were a;>~ r,~ved ~;n ?~tion by ;ouncihnan S tephenson, seconded by Councilman ~om. WAlkeR OF R~iD[NG - ORDI~NCES AND RESOLUTIONS: Councilman ~om moved to waive the r~adJn~z i'2 f~'il ~f ali ,rdinances and resolutions, and that consent to the waiver of r,~ad ng i.s hereby gi~en by ali Councilmen unless, after reading of the title, spe,c~7~ *,~q~2~t~ i nad~ b7 a 72tuncilman for the reading of such ordinance or retool ~t c~'. i~'~'unc'~1~7~an ~?e~t0epson seconded the motion. MOTION ~IMOUSLY ' REPORT ~ i:'[!,~\NCiAL DEMAN]3S AGAINST TILE CITY: Demands against the City in the amount of $~??:7,33~1.36, in accordance with the 1973-74 Budget, were approved. PUBLIC i~Aiii:<G - ~CIASS!?'iCATLON ~O. 73-74-30, CONq)ITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 1439 AND ENVlROb5~ENIA ~ IMPACT REPORT NO. 109 <TRACT NO. 8533, REVISION NO. 1): The City Clerk submitt, d reques~ date~i F'ebruar? 12~ ]97A from the Applicant, ~ld ~ i~r~,der'~ kson, < racet ';h~pany; fo~. ,,'ontJnuance of this public hearing to March 5, 10~':~4~ ,r .;urpose '~ f a~lowir:g them to re-evaluate the plans with respect to c~',~e~-~:~ nad2 by tke o[posit~om and by the City Planning Commission. in addition, a letter from Mr. john C. McCarthy, 100 Pomona Mall West, Fomona~. was submitted dated February 13, 1974, indicating his intention, on beha!i .,f the Orange Urified School District and the Santa Aha Canyon Improvement Associ~ ion, Inc., to appeal, the decision of the Planning Commission recital, ending E~.i~:, *~c~ 109 for adoption by ~be City Council. 74-167 City Hall~ Anaheim~ .California - COUNCIL MINUTES - February 19~ 1974~ 1:30 P.M. Nancy Herrick, Vice President of the Westridge Homeowners' Associa- tion was recognized by the Mayor and asked that out of courtesy to those people from Anaheim Hills who came to this meeting, that the Council permit her to submit a list containing approximately 34 signatures of individuals who were present and wished to voice their ~pp0sition. By general consent the C~uncil accepted said list to be incorporated into the record. On motion by Councilman Pebley, seconded by Councilman Stephenson, E.I.R. No. 109 and public hearing on Reclassification No. 73-74-30 to change the zone from City of Anaheim R-A and County of Orange A-1 to City of Anaheim R-2 and for certain Code waivers under Conditional Use Permit No. 1439 to establish a 171-unit planned residential development on property located on the north and south sides of Nohl Ranch Road, west of the intersection of Imperial Highway and Nohl Ranc~ RQad, and Tentative Tract I\~o. 8533, Revision No. 1, was continued to Marcl~ 5, 1974, ]:30 P.M., as requested by the Applicant. MOTION CARRIED. REHEARING - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NOS. 1430 AND 1431~ ,ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT NO. 105 (TENTATIVE TRACT NOS. 8513~ 8514.~ 8515 AND 8516): Submitted by Anaheim Hills, Inc., and Texaco Ventures, Inc., requesting certain Code waivers to establish a 157-1ot planned residential development and to establish a 5-unit planned residential development to be used as a model complex with sales office on property located on the north side of Serrano Avenue, northwest of the inter- section of Serrano Avenue and Hidden Canyon Road° The City Planning Commission pursuant to Resolution Nos. PC73-255 and PC73-256, recommended that Environmental Impact Report NOo 105 be adopted as the Council's Statement and granted Conditional Use Permit Nos. 1430 in part, and 1431 in part, respectively, (waiver "'g" of Conditional Use Permit No. 1430 denied and waiver "a" of Conditional Use Permit No. 1431 denied). Appeal from action taken by the City Planning Commission was filed by Mr. John Co McCarthy, Attorney on behalf of the Orange Unified School Dis- trict and Santa Ana Canyon Improvement Association, Inc., and public hearing scheduled January 22, 1974. Following duly noticed public hearing held January 22, 1974, Resolu- tion Nos. 74R-21 and 74R-22 were adopted by the City Council granting Condi- tional Use Permit Nos. 1430 and 1431 and Environmental Impact Report No. 105 was adopted as the Enviro~nental Impact Statement of the Council. Request for rehearing and Affidavit of Merit filed by Mr. John C. McCarthy were submitted to the Council at the meeting of January 29, 1974 and rehearing granted and scheduled to this date. The City Clerk sub~nitted and. read in full a letter dated February 18, 1974, from Ms. Marlene A. Fox, Attorney for Anaheim Hills, Inc./Texaco Ventures, Inc., (said letter on file in the office of the City Clerk) in which she sub- mits that the Affidavit of Merit filed by Mr. McCarthy fails to comply with Council Policy No. 105 in that said Affidavit of Merit states the reason for the rehearing to be for the purpose of permitting the City Council to respond to objections to the adequacy of the Enviro~nental Impact Report and to make such responses a part of both the final Environmental Impact Report and Record of Approval; and further, in the belief that if the City Council or Applicants have further responses or evidence 'relating to their stated objecti6ns and testimony, they should be given an opportunity to present it at a hearing on th~se matters. Ms. Fox contended in her letter that this does not constitute new evidence but rather gives the Council a second opportunity to respon~ to Mr. McCarthy's argument. She also submitted that the party seeking the rehearing has the burden of producing the evidence and cannot shift that burden to the Council insofar as reason, logic and applicable law hold that the party seeking rehearing has the burden of coming forth with new evidence~ MS. Fox's letter also took exception to the section of Mr. McCarthy's Affidavit of Merit which implies that he is also requesting the hearing on behalf of the Applicant, noting that he has no authority to make such request 74-~ 68 City Ha.!~l, Anaheim~ California - COU>~CIL MIN%TTES - Febr~arv ]9. ]974, 1:30 P.M. on behalf of Anaheim Hills, !~c. or Texaco Ventures, Inc. Further she requested that the rehearing, if permitted, be limited to the pr'esentation of new evidence and that the Applicants be permitted to respond to such new evidence. She con- cluded that her letter is intended to serve as a continuous and standing objec- tion to the rehearing cf any evidence which was considered by the Council on January 22, 11974. Councilman D~tton remarked that he thought this was the basis for the request by Mr. McCarthy and that he did wish to present new evidence. Mr. Watts replied that the letter filed by Mr. McCarthy with the City Clerk dated January 24, 197A together with the Affidavit of Merit states that the purpose of the rehearing wo~ld be to permit the City Council to respond to their objections to the adequacy of the EoI~R. and to make these responses a part of the administrative record. He indicated that his opinion of Council Policy No. 105 was that this is directed to Applicants presenting new evidence; that he has never been aware that the procedure was to be used to permit the Council to respond in connection with a decision which they have already made. He advised that if the Council wishes to do this, they may, however they would certainly not be legally reqn~red to do so. Councilman Ttom ~inted out that Council policy was not discussed at the ti~n~ that the letter and Affidavit of Merit were presented and that the Council did at that time grant the request for rehearing. ~iouncilman D~ttc~n sta~ed that he assumed, perhaps mistakenly, at that time that new evidence was ~he basis for the request. Councilman P~blay inquired as to the legality of rehearing the matter. Mr. Watts advised that if Council acts in accordance with Mr. McCarthy's request and conducts a rehearing on that basis, they would not be acting in accordance w~th Council Policy ~o. 105. Councilman D~tton noted that this could cause unwarranted precedents for reh~aringso The City Attorney stated that if Mr. McCarthy or any other represen- tative of the Orange 'Unified School Distr~cn has evidence which is new and different which Council has not heard before, the presentation of same would comply with Council po]icy. The Mayor asked Mr. McCarthy to come forward and state whether or not he wished to present new and different evidence in connection with the Environ- mental impact Report or Conditional Use Permits scheduled for rehearing. Mr. John C. McCarthy, 100 Pomona Mall West, Pomona, stated that he thought he had new evidence to present and also felt it appropriate that Council determine what its response will be in light of the Environmental Quality Act. He contended that the confusion regarding Council oolicy on petition for rehear- ing is due to the simple fact that Council Policy No. 105 was adopted in 1960 and the Environmental Quality Act in 1970, but first interpreted in 1972. Obviously, h~ remarked Council did not contemplate the procedures for Environmental Impact Reports and suggested this rehearing would provide an opportunity for Council to review the policy in question and to determine if,in fact, rehearings are available, required, necessary, or dispensable with re- spect to Environmental Impact Reports. He pointed out that in his opinion the law requires the governing agency, in this case the City Council, to comment and respond to adverse impacts of a given project. These comments should be suggested in the E.I.R. process not by the developer or planning staff, but by the public, so that information on adverse impacts reaches the Council and be- comes a part of the Environmental Impact Report and then would be eligible for response or comment by the Council. Mr. McCarthy contended that the reason this could not be accomplished at the January 22, 1974,hearing was due to the fact that the comments from the planning staff and developer as incorporated in Environmental Impact Report NOo 74-169 Ci. ty _Hall~ Anaheim~ Caliror:~ia - .'i<)t]NCIL MiN[?'F',~]? - Febru~,r].~ 19~ 1974~ 1:30 P.M. 105 were first ,~'ece ,~ed by the Council at chat m.'~c~,~ng, and it would be unex- pected for Council to have its resp¢,nse ~°ea~y ~".-~:~ ~,~ initial hearing. Con- trarv to Ms. Fox's opinion that there is a well established body of law, Mr. McCarthy maintained that this is an area of uncertminty, and there are no precedents to fo[~o~,~~ excer, t the State G~_~idelines to the Environmental Quality Ac- t. Mr. McCarthy advised Council of the availability this date of Dr. Donald !ngwerson, Superintendent of the Orange Unified School District; Mr. Harry Platt, Business :danager of the Orange Unified School District and Mrs. Mary Dinndorf, President of the Santa Ana Canyon Improvement Association, Inc., for the purpose of answering any questions Council might have which would then assist Council i.~ f<~rmulating their response° He reiterated that in his judg- ment t~is ~',r~cess ~ a ~'eq~irement of the Environmental Quality Act. To bring some perspective to this process with respect to long-term school planning and ]or',g-term land use planning, Mr. McCarthy submitted a folder containing4 copies of correspondence bet~een the City of Anaheim and the O~_-ange Unified ]chool District from October of 1972 through July of 1973. He requested this be accepted and marked as Exhibit No. 1 and be made a part of t]'~e Admin~stratJ.vc, ?~e.c~rd in this proceeding. (~Said Exhibit was accepted and i.~ o~'~ file in the office of the City Clerk.') iiounci!maT'~ P~,tton remarked that the information contained within E~i.Ko No. ]05 has b~:en available to the Council since prior to the January 22, ]974 hearing and a]s~ t:~ the pmblic since that time and that this is therefore, n~t ~.mew and (ounci. lma? ~,~,~ pointed out that at the meeting of January 29, 1974, ',:]~e ,'Sitv Council acted ~m the letter received from Mr. McCarthy, granting him the requested r._~hea';-Ln< an<] subsequent to that, the matter has been readvertised, o[aced on the A~e~:[a, and al] of the pertinent info~ation again submitted for c~nsid~r'atio:'~ an~ ~.~ ,~ou]~J therefore seem to him that a discussion as to ~dhether or not the 7z,~at-ing should be held at this tJ2e is irrelevant. Further, he r~ferred to ~ no~:e addressed to the Council from the City Clerk advising that the City Attcsrncy~s Office felt that the petition for A~inistrative ~iandamus, particularly Section IX, Page No~ 3-A to Page No~ 5 would be helpful t~ tl-,e ~]ou~cil :lT-~ preparatLon for this rehear~ ~ Councilman ~om stated that h~ has read uhese ~c:::~,~ns and inquired as ~:o whtch portions are particularly significant. The (TLtv Attorney replied that he did not wish to call attention to any particular portion but that this reading was suggested so that Council woul. d be aware 7f some sf the court proceedings and issues when Mr. McCarthy addressed them, Councilman Tq~om remarked that he was under the assumption that the rehearing was f,-)r ~he purpose of allowing the Council to respond to some of the variot~s statements made in connection with Environmental Impact Report NOo 1 (~5. Mr. Watts ad',~ised that Council cannot divorce itself from the prac--- t£ca!ities of what the custom has been relative to rehearings over the years and that usually these have been granted without examination of the particular application. He stated that when he reviewed Mr. McCarthy's request and Affi- davit of Merit prior to this meeting, it was his opinion that the request was not in accord with Council policy. In answer to Councilman rhom's query regarding the validity of the current discussion, Mr. McCarthy explained that during the current litigation the City Attorney"s Office has maintained that the Orange Unified School Dis- trict and Santa Ana Canyon Improvement Association, Inco, have not completed their proceedings or exhausted their administrative remedies before the City Council, since the.7 had not petitioned for a rehearing. He advised that this was the first time he had ever come across such administrative procedure since no mention is made of same in the Anaheim Municipal Code. Rather, the City Council informally implemented this rehearing procedure in 1960 and have never adopted an ordinance to this effect. Whether this Council Policy has ever 74-] 70 Cit]. Ha iI Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - Februar?f ]9~ 1974~ 1:30 P.Mo ~, ' ! ~- ~oca]e~! ~ i~ a:i ~ ~d, is not known to ~ i~, however he has now ~_~a.~stcd the rehearing on behali of his clients. He recognized and described the usual situation on rehearinzs for land use applications or zoning changes and that the statement regarding new evidence would apply in these situations. However,he noted that under the Environmental Quality Act the public agency is not dealing with an application before the City Council but with the role of the public, as represented by the School District and the citizens' group, attempting to work into the planning process to fulfill the mandates of the Envirornnental Quality Act. Further Mr o McCarthy requested that if the Council does not want this rehearing procedure to apply to E.I.R.'s, that they please make such statement, and he would certainly abide by their decision. However, he would also not expect t~ bear ~n court that his clients have not yet exhaus- ted their administrative remedies before the City Council. Councilman Peblev remarked that the E.I.R. in question had been re- viewed and approved by the Environmental Impact Review Committee, the City Planning Commission and then by the City Council,and to his thinking, this com- pletes the action. Councilman Dutton inquired of Mr. McCarthy whether he was implying with tbephrase"no public consideration" in the petition for administrative man- damus that no consideration was given to the public by the City Council or that the public itself gave the E.I.R. no consideration. Mr o McCarthy maintained that there is nothing in Environmental Impact Report :'~o. 105 which suggests that the City Council considered the probable comulatiYe impact of all of the Anaheim Hills land use development on education, deteri©ration of the air,and the effect of the air quality on health. This E oi.R., s~mply does not contain that information. Cooncilman Dutton interjected that E.I.R. No. 80 does contain such i~format~on about the entire cumulative effect of the use on the 4,200 acres. He reiterated that the Council does consider all of this information and that is the basis for each of these hearings at which the E.I.R. is considered and reviewed as a part of the evidence. Mr. McCarthy related that there is a difference of opinion on that point and that it is his view that the Council has not considered it. Further he re~erred to the cormnents made at the last hearing by himself, suggesting procedr~ra] changes in ~hc i:.~:~',..qsing of E.I.R.'s which he feels the Environ- ~?~.~taL ~uaiity Act requires, and which would incorporate all of the cumulative effects,~ot only of the 157 homes as discussed in E.t.Ro No. 105,but the effect of the development of the entire 4,200 acres on noise, air, schools, etc.,and that this general picture would be available to the public. Councilman Dutton stated that the EoI.Ro'S are available to the public at the same time as they are available to the Council. In conjunction with Councilman Thom's request for a ruling from the City Attorney as no what exactly is the purpose of the rehearing, and further in view of uhe litigation, b!r. >lc¢]arthy inquired into the necessity of a petition for rehearing as an administrative remedy. Mr. Watts replied that in the case litigated in which the judge's decision was in favor of the City of Anaheim, the doctrine of failing to exhaust all administrative remedies was raised by the City Attorney's Office because neither Mr. McCarthy nor his clients saw fit to present any of their views re- garding the matters in question to the City Council. Subsequent to that, there is a second case being litigated and in that particular case the question on rehearing in connection with new evidence was raised,and that is all that was raised. Mr. Watts explained that if Mr. McCarthy has some new evidence,then he certainly may avail himself of the procedures of this Council to ask for rehear- ing and to present that evidence. However,Mr. Watts advised that in his opinion, it is not appropriate for the Council,in accordance with Policy No. 105, to dis- cuss matters which have already been talked about, since, candidly, this is merely a waste of everyone's time, unless Council has decided to change its determination. 74-171 City Hail~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - ~'ebruary 19~ 1974~ 1:30 P.~. Inasfar as the reason that the City Council granted this particular rehearing, Mr. Watts stated, that based on past experience, the Council rou- tinely approves such requests for rehearing without examining the application. Councilman Tho~ inquired if,at one point,Mr. McCarthy has been in- structed he should petition for rehearing and then he takes this approach and his request is denied, then what is his next alternative. Mr. Watts rcmarked that if that takes place,then there is no adminis- trative remedy and he would agree with Mr. McCarthy that given the same set of facts, Mr. McCarthy would no longer be bound no petition for rehearing in the future. On the other hand if he has new evidence and is complaining that he aannot present ~t, this is not the case, since the rehearing procedure allows him ~he opportu~itv ~o exhaust his administrative remedies. Mr. McCarthy advised that his appearance this date is not in the spirit of criticism but in the hopes of offering alternatives to the methods used notonly by the Counci] but also by the School District to coordinate their efforts. One suggestion is that the Council employ an ordinance under the Business and Profession's Code, Section 11525.2 which would require developers building single-or m~ltiple-family residential housing which would generate a need for schoo!s~ to have the option of making land available at cost and ~fering same t~ the School District. If this is accepted, the Council is then informed and the approval proceeds; if the School District refuses the sites offered, the City Council could proceed anyway. This would have the effect, according to Mr. McCarthy~ of triggering coordinated planning between the developer and the School District. Cost and location of said school sites would be open to negotiations between the developer and the School District. Another suggestion offered by Mr. McCarthy is that the City Council adopt a community design element under the optional elements of the General ~]an which permits the City Council to establish the location and levels of .~¢hoois~ library and other community services. '~hen when a developer makes application to build his tracts~ he would have to be in compliance with that particular element. Mr. McCarthy's third suggestion was that of phasing development so that when the homes are built not only are the community services a~railable but the schools also would be present. ~is would give the same concern to the availability of school services as is given to police and fire protection, sewage and trash collection. Mr. McCarthy concluded that these are some of the alternatives which should be discussed in the EoI.R. Mayor Dutton pointed out that school facilities are not directly comparable with utilities, sewers~ etc., since school facilities will not be ~uilt until the demand ~s present, and that demand is not evident yet but will be in the next three to = years ~our . Mr. McCarthy suggested that Mayor Dutton direct his comments to the representatives of the School District. Councilman Thom commented that he would like to address these gentle- men, and that perhaps they could give the Council the new evidence which was referred to earlier. Mayor Dutton took exception to this,stating that this is not new evidence but evidence which has been submitted over and over again at each hearing. Councilman Thom stated that he did not recall either Dr. Ingwerson or Mr. Platt having addressed the Council on these matters at any recent Council session. Councilman Pebley pointed out that Roger Wilson, Orange Unified School District representative has been present and gave input on each of these hearings and that he (Councilman Pebley) took him at his word when he indicated that he represented the District. 74-17o ~ , q~-,. :- -.-~,o--- r~,~-.!m~ .~1~,.., '~'~,? c],:rk read the memoran- dt~ .la'~'d February 19, 19~4 iror~ the Deve]o~ent Services Department regarding Environmental impact ke~cr,~ Ne. 105, indicating that said E.I.R.,together with a ~etter ~hich has heer~ attached to Page No, 13's facing page and made a part ..... r._ ::~,~,~/b]e sdverse effects of the proposed project at- length and [~: depth. Further that the E.I.Ro Review Co~ittee was of the opinior: tba~: the report did consider the available data and was c~plete as an info~a~ize ,h>uument,ar~ ~ba;~ f~ was ~hc Co~ittee s opinion that no significant effects would result f~;:m its implemer~tat~on. ('o,mciJman Peb]e¥ felt in view of this memorandum and what has occurred at hear~n~ss ~;~rior to t!~s, there Js nothing further to discuss relative to E~u,'iron:~.enta~ Impact P,c:~or't No. I(')5. ~' ~ d to f the letters included in Exhibit i'.~O~i ~" i /Plall ~lq~g~ !7(~ ~crre one o iN, i :ubmi ..... -t b7 . , 1973, addressed to the .... ,. ear]~er Mr HcCarthy, dated May 2 City Council from Dr. ]ngwerson relating t'o purchase of a school site and in particular tha%- the cost of land,including grading,would amount to $300,000.00 more than ]and a~ another location. He asked for some c]arJfication as to what this fiqure reflects, was th~ c::st of the ]and ]00? higher than any other loca- tlon and i~ ~]-'.is atica considc:ed ~quitab]e i~ light of the expected increase ~-; p:':~, r'.; a~:,ms in the ~laLc~p Hi]]s area. ~ames Bar~skc, k~c:o President, Anaheim H~ils, Inc., responded that knowirg how ~he Orange Unified School District computed that them for a scbo~! site and grading was $300,000 more than a ~[~-:~ ~t ;~ d~c'-.:~?~t ]ocat~on~ He reiterated that this offer ;)istr~c~. a~- c:c's~ t:c~ A~abeim Hil]s Ft~rtber he requested [~,,~.~;:cmcc, ?ue ~-o the qa~ure of the proceedings, in allowing Ms. /,nah~ Lm Ui] Is, ~r,c. ~'Texaco Wentures, Inc., to present some Dr, 3onald i~-~werso~-, Dir-;trict Superinteudent, ()range Unified School D~st?icr~ 37)'~orth Glsssell. Streeu~ Oranse, advised in answer to Councilman S~e~4~s: q'rmrqtion ~ba[' tho District needed a 20-acre junior high school site in t-!-,.~ '.;m~ra ,~r~a Canyon az'x,a and in their search for an appropriate site, he com- m~.r~ted tbat: Anaheim Hi] ls, Itc., was very cooperative. However the price quoted for the property was $900,O00,whereas the District purchased a site in the Mohler Dr;w:, a~o~ f~:t the junior high school at a cost of 5600,000. He advised that :~;c'i~.,c~J l~i~;:,rL~ ~ co, id m~t a/ford the ~900~000 site~ even if it was, as in- dJc'a~::e~: b'..:' A ;o.'~/rn d:i]]~, Inc,: oifox,.d a~ cost:~ He stat:ed that he has no in- te:~t o;7 dispqc:Sng whether or ~ot the offer was made at cost, but that the fact 'is the ?roper'cu' i~-~ t'he Mohier Drive area was suitable and was purchased at a cost of $300,000 ]ess t'han thc Anaheim Hi]Is property. ('ou,~,ci'lman Sp. eegas voiced his concern regarding this matter and par- ticuia'~y that: if the price seemed to be high for the Anaheim Hills property, wP, v ti~e~ has an aF, F. ra£sa] never been obtained. He pointed out that in order to solve the problem the School District should select some sites and initiate the process oC a:'quis~tio~ b': havin~ t':hes~: appraised. Dr. ingwerso~t stated he too wished the problem to be resolved as well, however~he referred to the soho;el bonds passed in the Orange Unified School D~strict in the early 1970's, which the voters assumed would last four to five years a:~d that shortly aft:ar the passage of these, the 4,200-acre development in the ,anyo~ became D_w~inent; consequent]y, the voter wishes to know why this was not foreseen. He pointed out that the Orange Unified School District has utilized nationally recognized planning consultants in their master planning process for over ten years. However, he pointed out that it is extremely dif- ficult to plan for expansion on 4,200 acres in one year. He advised that he had attempted for the r. ast one year to resolve the problem informally without success and when this was reported to the School Board, they consulted Mr. McCarthy as their' last resort. Councilman Pebley related that Mr. Louis Nohl was willing to sell his ranch for development many years ago and that the current owners have been in the planning stages for at least four years. Further he expressed the opinion that the type of publicity which the bond election, has received would not be conducive to passage of same. 74-173 City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - February 19, 1974, 1:30 P.Mt Councilman Dutton asked Dr. Ingwerson if he has had any problems aside from financial difficulties with Anaheim Hills~ Inc., regarding the school sites. Dr. Ingwerson advised that he has been able to meet and discuss these matters with the Anaheim Hills,. Inc., people when-necessary. Mr. Watts noted that Mr. McCarthy has suggested the adoption of an ordinance under the auspices of the Business and Professions Code which would require the developer and School District to get together and enable the School District to acquire sites at actual cost. He inquired whether Dr. Ingwerson felt that the Orange Unified School District and Anaheim Hills, Inc., could voluntarily comply with the intent of such legislation. In answer to Councilman Sneegas, Mr. Watts reported that the second portion of that legislation would impose a fee somewhat similar to a park tn-lieu fee. Dr. Ingwerson related that they had met in such a manner with the developer in approximately May of 1973, relative to the junior high school ~ site which was offered at a price of $900,000. Mr. Watts reported that during litigation, the School District in their testimony stated that they need to construct, in addition to the junior high school, a senior high school and four elementary schools,and~sked whether the Orange Unified School District has tried to acquire these' site% .~hrough~ meetings with the developers. Dr. Ingwerson replied that no such attempts have been made since the matter has been under litigation. Mr. James Barisic advised that from the inception, Anaheim Hills, Inc., has made provisions for school siteswithin the master planned community. He addressed himself to Rt. ingwerson's last statement directly, advising that Anaheim Hills, Inc., has not discontinued meeting with the Orange Unified School District Administration or the Board of Trustees a year ago, that these discussions have been continuous, even after the initiation of litigation. He related that they have been constantly seeking a solution to any existing or potential school problems in the Santa Aha Canyon area and will continue to do so. He remarked that the two parties have not been able to agree on basic statistics; that Anaheim Hills, Inc., feels the Orange Unified School District research figures are incorrect. Ms. Marlene Fox, took exception tO Mr. McCarthy's statement,that~ whether or not new evidence is available is an unclear question. She felt that the important point is that these hearings have been~goin~ on for some time? She pointed out that they began in January of 1973 when the Planning~Commis$ion first considered E.I.R. No. 80 and that hearings on E.I.R. No. 80 alone spa~ a five-mo~th period during which the City Council considered it on at least five or six occasions before it was adopted on Mmy 22~ 1973. She noted that the adoption of E.I.R. No. 80 was conditioned upon a supplementary E.I.R. for each incremental development to add to the total picture. In relationship to E.I.R. No. 105, first considered by the Council on January 22, 1974, Ms. Fox remarked that'although it wasconsiderate of Mr. McCarthy to hate present today~Dr. Ing~e~son and Mr. Platt of the Orange Unified School District, and while recognizimg their busys~dules, ~till she considered their appearance to be rather la~e in thaZ Mr. McCarthy was their . counsel in August of 1973 when this particular E.I.R. was before the E.I~R. Review Co~mnittee. Ms. Fox also commen~d that the Planning~ivision keeps a mailing list and that every E.I.R. which is consider~d by the Planning Commis- sion and City Council which concerns property within the ~range Unified School District's jurisdiction is mailed to that District a~d documented in adva~ce. She contended that rather tha~disrupti~ Council's isched~le by requesting a rehearing, the Orange Unifted~chool District had ample notification and time to introduce their views wi~ the routine Environmental'Impact Report pro,- tess. f~, ' 74-174 City Hall, Anahleim, California y COUNCIL MINUTES - February 19, 1974, 1:30 P~M, Ms. Fox defended her statement regarding a well established body of law which has determined that the'burden of proof in connection with a rehearing rests with the Applicant who in fact asks for a rehearing because either he has something new to say or because he contends ~ has not been heard in the first instance, and noted that she was confident s~ could support and document this fact. ~. Ms. Fox reported that one of the ma"in issues under consideration in the current litigation is whether or not the Applicant and the City are required to discuss the ecomonic imPact on the Schools,and that Mr. McCarthy asserts that they do. She noted that she sharply disagrees with this opinion, citing the case in 1956 of Hall versus the City of Taft. In that case, although it did not involve an E.I.R., the Supreme Court of the State of California found that the responsibility for educating students lies with the State and that no city can dispossess the St&ts of this responsibility. The State Department of Education is governed by A~ttcle'9 of the California State Constitution and they may/'de~egate this to the City Council, City Planning Commission or County Board of Sups=visors. The Supreme Court has held with this ruling through some 26 cases involving similar points of law. Ms. Fox emphasized that her client is willing to do anything at all possible to seek a solution to the current dil~xmLm over schools in the. subject area. She reiterated that theY have continued to meet'with the School District even after the litigation was initiated. She referred in particular to a meeting held January 19, 1974,at which time Messrs. Sickler, Baristc and Doyle went to the.Orange Unified School District headquarters for a meeting and were not represented by counsel. The outcome of the meeting was that Mr. McCarthy advised her clients of the District's need for 12 school gratis, and that was the starting point for negotiations. She advised that subsequent to that meeting, Mr. Sickler has been receiving two telephone calls per week from a representative of the Orange Unified School District inquiring if there has been any change. She stated that the statistic of .95 students per dwelling unit which has been quoted to the Council and the court as the average number of students to be generated per dwelling unit by the Orange Unified School District is con- tested by Anaheim Hills, Inc. She reported that a representative of the master planning consultants hired by the Orange Unified School District has communicated with Anaheim Hills, Inco,only within the last three weeks and during the con- versation.which ensued informed Mr. Doyle that the figure arrived at by the con- sultants was .65 students per dwelling unit. However the School District would not accept that figure and finally negotiated a figure of .95 students per dwelling unit. The rationale behind the arbitrarily selected statistics,accord- ing to Ms. Fox ,is that with the lower figure it would be more difficult to sub- stantiate and convince the taxpayers of the need for additional schools. She urged t~at the Council request not only Anaheim Hills, Inc.,but the School District ~o make.an honest effort to solve th~problem, utilizing a realistic approach with applicable figures. Further Ms. Fox reported that Mr. Harry Platt, the Business Manager of the Orange Unified SChool District, under oath when a deposition was taken on November 19, 1973, stated that the District knew in 1964, which was ten years ago, that the Santa Aha Canyon area was going to develop. In conclusion Ms. Fox re~nforced her opinion that the Environmental QualityAct is not intended to be land use planning but to provide informational documentation to assist with land use planning. Recognizing there is no City procedure for the Council to employ to remedy the situation, she requested that they urge the School District to get down to the business of determining where these schools can be built and how they can be provided for the community. Mr. John C. McCarthy took exception to the accusations made by Ms. Fox that the figures used as statistics were taken out of the air; that the facts were not presented in a straight forward manner and that something was manipula- tive about the number of schools or students. Further he t~ok exception to the allegation that he had &ppeared~at the meeting of January 19, 1974 and mentioned 12 school sites. He' stated that the School District initiated that particular meeting and that Counsel for Anaheim Hills, Inc.,was supposed to be present and not himself. He took issue with Ms. Fox's implication that the absence of himself 74-175 City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - February 19~ 1974~ 1:30 P,M, and the School District representatives from every E.I.R. Review Corm~ittee meeting and Planning Commission meeting demonstrates a lack of good faith. Mr. McCarthy commented that he has had much to do with the applica- tion of the Environmental Quality Act and realizes that there are some real problems, that it has complicated the lives of Councilmen and planning staff, and pledged that he will work diligently to alleviate some of these problematic areas so that it will be a valuable and beneficial process. Councilman Dutton asked if the remainder of the Councilmen would be a~nenable to the suggestion that Anaheim Hills, Inc.,and Orange Unified School District confer together with a member of the City Council present. Councilman Pebley remarked that his feeling would be, according to the pr~?cedent cited by 5~s~ Fox (Hall versus the City of Taft),it is not the ~,ity C~>uncil's v]ac~ ~o become involved in the matters of the School District. ~]oun¢'ilman 2%o~ pointed out that the Council and the School District represent the same people. (~otanci]man Sneegas expressed agreement with the suggestion if the i~-~dividual appcinted is to monitor the meetings only, since this would provide the Council with first-hand information as to what is really happening. Follcwing brief discussion, in which Councilmen Pebley and Stephenson voice~ a stron~ desire to have legal counsel present at such meetings and with tb~· ~.~oncurrenc~ of At-~orneys Fox and McCarthy, Councilman Dutton thereupon ~ved that ¢]ourci!man Sp, eegas and the City Attorney be appointed to meet with · ~be ~e?resenta~ives of Anahein~ }ti] is, Inc., and Orange Unified School District a~! ;~i.t~' sa~d :,~e,',l~;~gs~ acting as liaison for the City Council in an attempt ~,~ r,~s:~l~ze ~be ]z~.~ic~]t'ies encountered in providing school facilities for the %nah~im ~ii]s area. Councilman T~om seconded the motion. Councilman Sneegas ab~i~:~d fr'~,~ v,~ti~, ~n sa~d ~otion. MOTION CARRIED. ?~ayor Dutton closed the rehearing. ~o f't~rther action was taken by the City Council on Conditional Use Permit Nos, lg;20 and 1,23~, Environmental Impact Report No. 105 and Tentative Tract Nos, 8515, 8514, 8515 and 8516. PUBLIC HEARING - RECLASSIFICATION NO. 73-74-27, VARIANCE NO. 2565 AN~D ENVIRONbIENTAL IMPACT REPORT NO. 107: Application by Prudencio E. Yorba for a change in zone from County of Orange A-t to City of Anaheim R-2 and the following Code waivers to establish a 2AS-unit multiple residential development on the south side of l:ape',-ial ttighway, northwesterly of the intersection of Orange thorpe Avenue and inperial Highway, was submitted together with Environmental Impact Report No. 107 and Addendt~ thereto; a. Maximum permitted height within 150 feet of an R-A Zone° b. ~equired masonry wall abutting a single-family residential zone° The (ity Planning Commission,pursuant to Resolution No. PC74-10, reco~nended that the City Council adopt E.I.R. No, 107 and Addendum as the Council's Environmental Impact Statement and further recommended approval of Reclassification No. 73-74-27 subject to the following conditions: i. ~'hat completion of these reclassification proceedings is con- tingent upon the granting of Variance Noo 2565. 2. That a final tract map of subject property shall be submitted to and approved by the City Council and then be recorded in the office of the Orange County Recorder~ 3. That the owner(s) of subject property shall pay to the City of Anaheim the appropriate park and recreation in-lieu fees as determined to be appropriate by the City Council, said fees to be paid at the time the building permit is issued. go ~at fire hydrants shall be installed and charged as required and determined to be necessary by the Chief of the Fire Department prior to commencement of structural framing. 74-176 City Ha 1, Anal~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - February 19~ 1974~ 1:30 P.M. 5. Tha~ all air conditioning facilities shall be properly shielded from view, and the sound buffered from adjacent properties° 6. That subject property shall be served by underground utilities. 7. ]]~at these reclassification proceedings are granted subject to completion of annexation of subject property to the City of Anaheim. 8. Prior to the introduction of an ordinance rezoning subject prop- erty, Condition Nosol, 2 and 7, 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 one year from the date hereof, or such further time as the City Council may grant. The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC74-11, recomme~ded that the City Council adopt E.IoR. No. 107 and Addendum as the Council's Environmental Impact Statement and granted Variance NOo 2565, subject to the following conditions: ~. ~at this variance is granted subject to the completion of Reclassification Noo 73-74-27, now pending. 2. ?hat subject property shall be developed substantially in accor- dance with plans and specifications on file with the City of Anaheim marked Exhibit Nos. ] ~Revision No. 2) 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, and 12. ENVIRON~IENTAL iMPACT REPORT CERTIFICATION: Councilman Thom asked for clarifica- tion as to the change im procedure which has been recommended in connection with Council action on Environmental Impact Reports, to-wit, rather than adopti~ these as state~ents of the City Council, it is recommended that the Council certify that the E oi.R. has been completed in compliance with the pro- visions of t!~e Ca]ifornia Environmental Quality Act and the State Guidelines, and that ~he Council has reviewed and considered the information contained there- in. .qit~ Attorney Watts advised that the City has revised its E.I.R. g~id~'~i~e~ i ~ ~c. cordancc~ with the revised State Guidelines,and one of the changes is the ~o'~ i~ which tb~ impact report is to be approved by the Council. He noted i~ is a r~atter of form rather than substance, since, in his opinion, the Council !~as b~e~.~ accomplishing this same effect all along. Councilman Thom replied that he could not certify the report since the rec~nendation from the E.ioR. Review Committee and the City Planning Com- mission does n~t call for certification but rather an adoption. He explained that the term "certification" carries a connotation that the Committee and/or the City Planning Commission has thoroughly compared the subject E.I.R. with the Sta~e Guidelines and Environmental Quality Act, whereas their recommendation for adoration does not signify to him that this has been accomplished° bir. Watts explained that E.I.R. No° 107 and some of the others which Counci] will review within the next few weeks have been forwarded during a hiatus ~eriod bet~een the two forms and that in the future the E.I.R. Review Committee and the City Planning Commission recommendation will be worded to recommend that the Council certify the E.I.R. is in compliance. He inquired whether Councilman T~om would still have difficulty accepting the term "certifi- cation'' when the language used in the recommendation of the City Planning Com- mission and E.I.R. Review Committee is revised. Councilman Thom indicated that he would view the situation differently when the recommendations call for a certification. The City Clerk advised that the supplement to E.I.R. No. 107 while it is recommended for adoption by the City Planning Commission and Development Services staff, has not been reviewed by the E.I.R. Review Committee. On motion by Councilman Pebley, seconded by Councilman Stephenson, the City Council certified, to the best of their belief and knowledge, that E.I.R. No. 107 and Addendum have been completed in compliance with the provision~ of the California Environmental Quality Act and the State Guidelines and that it has reviewed and considered the information contained in said E.I.R. To this motion, CounciIman Thom voted "no". MOTION CARRIED. 74-177 City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - February 19~ 1974~ 1:30 P.M. Zoning Supervisor Roberts described the location of subject property ~ich consists of approximately 23.7 acres. He noted that the parcel is cur- rently under the jurisdiction of the County in the A-1 Zone and the petitioner is requesting rezoning to City of Anaheim R-2, and in connection with this, requests a waiver of two site development standards to establish a 232-unit, multiple-family residential development. Mr. Roberts advised that the properties adjoining subject parcel to the south are in the R-2 Zone and developed with condominiums owned by the same company that proposes to develop this property--the William F. Lyon Company. Also adjacent to a port~on of the property is the Esperanza High School site and to the northwest there is an existing single-family subdivi- sion. ~e northeast boundary of the property is contigmous to the Yorba Linda Country Clubo I]he Applicants are proposing to establish a 232-unit "air space" statutory condominium development on 7 R-2 zoned lots. The project would be covered under one tentative tract map and would be comprised of 50 separate multiple reside~ntial buildings of 4 units each and 16 duplex units. The den- sity ~s 11.9 upits to the acre with net lot coverage of 25%. The Applicants prooose to extend the streets which stub into this property (Willow Woods, Ma?~e (~rest and CrestbJ]l Drives) on through the proposed project. Mr~ ~oberts reported that revisions were made to the Applicant's original proposal as a result of concern expressed by the City Planning Com- mission. The revision provides for 2~ parking spaces per dwelling unit. He noted that on the General Plan this area is designated for low-medium residen- tial develop~ner, t and the requested R-2 Zone would be consistent with that land use statement. Mro Roberts noted that in-lieu of the 20-foot wide landscape buffer adjacent to the single-family homes~ the Applicant proposes to construct a 6-foot high ~nasonry wall at the highest grade level on subject property rather than along the lower property line,which is at the bottom of the slope, since this would provide more privacy to adjacent properties. The Applicant ~as also 'indicated that the slope area itself would be very heavily planted and maintained by the homeowners' association. Mr. Roberts indicated that one factor which was not discussed by the City Planning Conm~ission pertained to the duplexes proposed for the west end of the proiect which would be adjacent to an existing R-1 Zone. He noted that in the pa~t the Council has imposed a condition that the plans for such ~uplexes be submitted and approved by the Planning Commission prior to issuance cf a building permit. He indicated that Council may wish to consider a similar condition on subject parcel if it views the project favorable. in answer to Councilman Dutton, Mr. Roberts indicated the proposed location of th~ duplex units on the Zoning Map and advised that there would be ]6 duplex buildings with a total of 32 individual dwelling units. Councilman 'ihom observed that the low-medium designation for subject property as shown on the General Plan could also be implemented by the RS-5000 or R-1 Zones,as well as the R-2 Zone, with which Mr. Roberts concurred. The ~'~ayor asked if the Applicant or his Agent were present and satis- fied with the recon~endations of the City Planning Commission. Mr. William Lyon, President of the William F. Lyon Company, 366 San Miguel Drive, Suite 201, Newport Beach, introduced Mr. Peter Ochs, Execu- tive Vice President. Mr. Ochs related that his firm has been under construction on Tract No. 7617 for approximately the past year and have achieved reasonably good sales success with these units and are meeting a market need for this particular area of housing. For this reason they have acquired additional lots adjacent to the original tract, a portion of which is the subject property. He indicated another parcel of vacant property to the east of the proposed tract upon which they are also planning to develop residential units. He advised that the plan- nin~ stage for subject property has taken approximately one year and due to ~oncerns of the City Planning Commission and staff, substantial additionm and ,nodifications were made to the original proposal. As a result, the plan which is before Council met with unanimous approval of the City Planning Cormnission. 74-1v8 Cit' Ha~]~__~ra~-,e~, California COUNCIL MINUTES - February lq, 1974~ 1:30 P.M. Using a plot plan, Mr~ Ochs described the proposed project indicating that 200 of the units are in buildings which contain 4 dwelling units each and are developed in sets of 2 which form a complete integral unit both architectur- ally and functionally° They are essentially the same as the type of units pre- sently being built, although at a lower density. An additional 32 dwelling units in 1!6 duplex buildings are planned for the northwest area adjacent to the RS-5000 tract. He advised that they plan to lower the existing slope bank from 1~ foot maximum on the northerly side to even with grade on the southerly end, bringing the s]ope closer to the existing homes. The drainage of subject prop- erty runs entirely to the east and the grades proposed are the minimum altera- tions with which the drainage can still be directed to the east. He noted that a major storm channel will be developed in conjunction with this project and that no water from the proposed tract will drain into the existing RS-5000 t? <lC ~2 . Mr. Ochs described the average prices and types of individuals whom they find most attracted to their projects. He commented that the existing tract has a density of 15.~3 per net acre and this tract was proposed originally to have 1~.67. This has subsequently been reduced further to 11.99, or 22% less than the existing project. He advised that the open space provided in the pro- posed proiect will be 55% more than in the previous one since that project pro- ~ided !~.~ acres of open space for 318 units and the current project provides 14 acres [er 86 less units. Councilman Dutton requested the Applicant's plans and these were re- viewed at the Council table° In answer to Councilman Dutton, Mro Ochs pointed out the location of the recreational areas and greenbelt systems planned for the project. He ad- vised t}~at they plan to spend one-quarter million dollars on recreational facil- ities and landscaping in the development. He noted that they are providing 2% parking spaces per dwel]ing unit which is 417o over the City's required mini- ~,,m ,and should meet the parking needs of residents since 35 to 407° of the buyers are ant~.cipated to be single adults. Mr. Ochs maintained that the variances requested are technical in that the waiver of location of two-story buildings within 100 feet of an R-A Zone pertains; to property owned by their company, which is in the process of being rezoneu~ The second waiver concerns the block wall previously mentioned and he advised that the adjacent property owners have voiced their preference to have the block wall at the top of the slope. He stated that they will be cutting back three feet from the toe of the slope to provide for adequate drainage. He displayed a cross section graph showing the existing wooden fence provided by the RS-5000 developer, the grade differential and then the block wall on the top of the grade level, providing three buffers to the proposed duplex units. Councilman Sneegas referred to the fact that at the Planning Commission level some discussion was held relative to creating a cul-de-sac on Cresthill Drive with a crash gate providing access for emergency vehicles, thereby leaving the circulation pattern in the existing RS-5000 tract to the northwest as it is. He recognized and concurred with the concerns of these property owners regarding the traffic which this high density project would send through their streets via Cresthil] Drive. Mr~ Ochs replied that their firm's position on this subject is one of neutrality. Mr. Ed Granzow, Traffic Engineer, advised Council that he was requested to make an analysis of the traffic situation in this area. They estimate,that with the densities proposed the tract would generate less than 1,600 cars per day to add to the estimated 980 coming from the RS-5000 tract. Further it was their feeling during this analysis that the pattern of traffic would be more generally to travel southerly since the main areas of attraction, i.e., freeways, shopping centers and employment would be more directly accessable from the southerly access point onto Orangethorpe Avenue° They estimate that the traffic split wo~ld be 60/40 with a larger percentage traveling in a southerly direction to leaxze the tract. 74-179 i]ity Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - February 19~ 1974~ 1:30 P.M. In answer to Councilman Sneegas, Mr. Granzow felt that a back-to-back cul-de-sac blocking access and circulation on Cresthill except for emergency vehicles would cause a problem for police and emergency apparatus and that he feels it is necessary to have a through street for adequate circulation in the area. He advised that if the entire property under consideration were developed to RS-5000 rather than the current proposal, this would reduce the number of vehicles per day by 300 to 400 and would not change the situation significantly. RECESS: Prior to hearing the opposition, Councilman Dutton moved for a ten-minute recess. Councilman Stephenson seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. (4:10 P.M.) AFTER RECESS: The Mayor called the meeting to order, all Councilmen being present. (4:20 PoM.) Mayor Dutton asked if anyone wished to address the Council in opposi- tion to the proposal. Mr. Jim Draughon, 1927 Elder Glen Circle, advised that he represents 200 homeowners who have signed a petition in opposition to project proposed under Reclassification NOo 73-74-27 and Variance No. 2565. He remarked that they would like to protest the manner in which notice was served of this public hearing. He stated they managed to find the notice printed in the Anaheim Bulletin, however this newspaper is not delivered in their area. They oppose the reclassification of this property to a density which will be two or three times greater than existing or permitted uses in the sur- rounding areas. He asserted that the traffic predictions presented by Mro Granzow were grossly erroneous. He conceded that for major shopping and in some cases employment,an individual would travel to the south from subject par- cel, however the supermarkets, school~, libraries, public recreation areas, etc., are all located to the northwest. Mr. Draughon noted that the combined density per acre of the existing tract plus this proposal is over 12 and that high density creates innumerable problems, all of which contribute to deterioration of the quality of living in that area,as well as the lowering of adjacent land values. He related that there is a severe parking problem in the existing condominium tractsince most of the residents use their garages for storage space or for recreational vehi- cles. He remarked that there is a lack of recreational facilities in that particular area of Anaheim, in that not one park site or one proposed park site exists. He referred to a technical booklet published by the Urban Land Insti- tute on Open Space Communities which notes that greenbelt areas do not consti- tute public parks nor do they provide a recreational facility. He stated that arrangements for maintenance of commonly held ground by the incorporated home- owners' association do not provide a sufficient or constant level of mainte- nanceo He stated that the opposition also fails to see how they will benefit if the Council accepts a park in-lieu fee from the developer. Mr. Draughon indicated there are two recourses for an individual who beco~nes dissatisfied with his unit, either to sell in the hopes of retrieving his investment or to rent, and they observed that the latter alternative has bee~ used in many cases in the existing condominium project. Conversely, if the Lyon Company is not able to sell all of the units which they have built, they will either leave these vacant which leads to vandalism or rent them as apartments. In view of the current energy situation and the fact that these units are all electric with 220 lines provided, further consideration should be given as to the advisability of building these. Mrs. Janice Jones, 1914 Elder Glen, advised that the adjacent home- owners are also objecting to the fact that the school will be overcrowded and this will necessitate bussing and double sessions. As a teacher who has taught under these conditions, she assured Council that it is not easy and that the individual student does not receive the attention which he or she needs and deserves in this type of environment~ Further Mrs. Jones took issue with the Traffic Engineer's report~ being of the opinion that at least 1,000 of the 2,000 daily automobilem would take the Cresthill exit from the tract due to the fact~hatallof the schools are 74-180 City Hail, Anaheim, California -COUNCIL MINUTES -February 19~ 1974~ .1:30 P.M~ located in ~bat direction, as well as the churches, the post office, the library and the shopping centers. She described the problems encountered when traffic reaches Cresthill and Kellogg, which during the busy hours of morning would be compounded by the fact that the Orchard School and Esperanza High School have parking facilities in the immediate area and that the Glen View School bus stop is located at this point. Further she related that it is very difficult to make a left-hand turn at this intersection because of the incline and because Cresthi]l narrows from three lanes to two. She displayed for Council several slides which illustrated the blind curve at Sunset and Cresthill; a slide show- ing a typical cul-de-sac street in the area upon which the children play because no park facilities are available; and a slide showing the size of the garages in the ex£$ting condominium project. She concluded that because of the many traffic problems on Cresthill at present, no further traffic shouldbe introduced. Further she remarked that the City of Anaheim has not absorbed the individuals already living in this northeastern area since no libraries or parks or similar services haw~ vet been provided and that these needs should be satisfied prior to absorbing an additional 1500 individuals in this proposed tract. Councilman Sneegas pointed out that pictures are sometimes deceiving and that the developer is expanding the garage doors from eight to nine feet wide. Mrs. Martha Rohm, 7012-C Willow Woods Drive, advised that she lives in one of the existing condominiums already built by the William F. Lyon Company. She attested to the fact that the garages are undersize and are consequently used primarily for storage. She noted that the proximity of the railroad tracks and resultant noise and shaking when the trains pass by make this area a poor choice for a residential tract. Mrs. Rohmrelated her dissatisfactiom with the quality of workmanship in her condominium home. She felt that the developer has not provided adequate recreational facilities° She related that her monthly payments are much higher than she originally anticipated and that the grounds are not maintained to the standards she would expect. Further she explained that these homes do not have rain gutters but drain merely by the pitch of the roof, which causes the patio areas tc trench and during rain results in water running onto anyone attempting to enter or leave their home. Mrs. Rohm concluded her statement by advising Council that her child- ren are currently being bussed to school and the addition of this high density tract would undoubtedly cause the schools to go on double sessions. Julie Verra, resident of the Orchard tract, commented that Councilman Sneegas aptly pointed out that pictures do not always tell the truth. She called attention to the pictures of the plot plan provided by the William F. Lyon Company and noted that this is also just a pretty picture which does not show the problems which the human element will create° Mr. Jerry Schultz, 1923 Elder Glen Circle, spoke in opposition to the proposed project and asked the Council to consider the emotions of those people who stand in opposition,as well as their logical and intelligent opinions which have been presented° He requested that Council act as their elected representa- tives and not permit the Lyon Company to extend their development as it would be a detriment to the City and to the people in the surrounding neighborhoods. Mrs. Patricia Collins, 1922 Elder Glen Circle, advised that she has had personal experience, having lived in a condominium project in Washington, D. C., that single adults purchasing a condominium does not mean that one indi- vidual will be living there. She related that many single adults have two, three or four individuals living with them in order to help with the payments. This creates problems with parking, noise and the eventual abandonment of the area by families. The Mayor, having determined that sufficient input had been presented in opposition, offered the Applicant a few minutes for rebuttal. Mr. Ochs responded in particular to Mrs. Rohm's cormnents that his firm does not find that they have received an inordinate number of complaints regarding 74-181 ~ity Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - February 19, 19740 1:30 P.M. the construction of the units in their existing tract. He related that the typical owner has rea]~zed an increase in value of several thousand dollars. He contended that most of their residents are satisfied with the level of customer service which they try to maintain and reported that they employ one full time maintenance man to handle complaints as they are received. He offered to purchase Mrs. Rohm's condominium unit back from her since she is obviously dissatisfied. Relative to the traffic situation, Mro Ochs remarked that he would have to rely on the expert opinion of the City Traffic Engineer. He commented that there is currently a shopping center under construction to the south of subject parcel which will be substantially closer than any other. He noted that subject tract itself would most likely not be actually completed for three tc four years. Because of the type of families which are typically attracted to condominium developments, Mr. Ochs maintained that this type of project would actually generate much less need for schools and parks than an RS-5000 project and would contribute a substantially larger fee for park development° He maintained that they are not building these developments nor mar- keting them as an investment because they do not feel that is the approach which should be used for a residential project. He advised that there are many homeowners living adjacent to this proposed project, in addition to those who have appeared today, who do not object to it,nor do they believe it will be an eyesore, an economic detriment or a traffic problem. He reiterated that the City Planning Commission had three hearings on this project and as a result of con~ents made at these hearings,as well as its own independent study,made .~ertain recommendations which were accepted and incorporated. The recommenda- tion for approval from the Planning Commission subsequent to these revisions was unanimous. In answer to Councilman Sneegas, Mr. Ochs reported that they currently are building additional recreational areas in the existing condominium project in the form of a tot lot which should be available shortly. He indicated on the plot plan the location of the tot lot proposed for the new project which would be approximately 100 feet by 130 feet° Councilman Sneegas remarked that the location indicated by Mr. Ochs is quite a distance from the units at the west end. Mr. Ochs replied that it is possible to incorporate an additional tot lot and that they would be perfectly willing to accept this as a condition of approval. Councilman Thom remarked that he personally felt that the designation of low-medium density on the General Plan would be better implemented in this particular area with additional RS-5000 rather than a condominium project since this would be more compatible with the existing area, and for that reason,h~ offered resolutions denying the reclassification and variance requested. Councilman Dutton remarked that Council has received no input from the Placentia Unified School District relative to this proposed project and that a RS-5000 Zone would put more children of school age into the school system. Councilman Sneegas advised that he personally went out to look at the existing tract and that the construction he observed was extremely econom- ical and that he feared this type of development, especially with the large number of units planned, would be potentially a future slum. Councilman Dutton remarked that the Council has always wanted to see a broad range of housing capabilities within the City and noted that the prop- erty is in close proximity to the railroad tracks. Councilman Sneegas pointed out that for &nadditional $2,000o~$3,000 in the same immediate area the RS-5000 tract provides a much nicer environment, which also does not pose a threat of some tragic problems in the ful~ure. He noted that there are some beautiful apartment complexes in the City and some high quality condominium projects as well in which anyone would enjoy living, however he felt it would not be judicious to grant approval for the number of 74-182 City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - February 19~ 1974~ 1:30 P.M. condominiums in this price range requested by the Applicant since it comes down to the ability of the individual to keep the property up. He remarked he could not help but feel that this many units would present a real problem in the future because most of them would be rentals. Councilman Stephenson advised that he had accompanied Councilman Sneegas on the inspection tour and also would rather see something on this prop- erty more in line with the RS-5000 homes° He indicated that he would vote to disapprove the tract as it is currently proposed. He suggested that the devel- oper revise his plan and attempt to come up with a lower density and a better construction° Councilman Pebley suggested a plan for building a combination of RS-5000 and R-2 homes with a street pattern which would not direct traffic from the condominium project through the RS-5000 area. Councilmen Thom and Stephenson indicated that they would perfer to see the bulk of the property developed in RS-5000. Discussion ensued relative to variations on the alternative plan pro- posed by Councilman Pebley, and it was ascertained from the members of the aud- ience who had appeared in opposition to Reclassification No. 73-74-27 and Var- iance No. 2565 that they might be more amenable to a plan which would place additional RS-5000 zoned properties in the northwesterly section of subject property and confine the condominium project to the more southerly portion, even if Cresthi!t Drive would be made a through street, since the density would be much less than with the current proposal. Councilman Sneegas indicated that due to the amount of time and trouble the developer has already put into his attempt to place a saleable item on the market in this City, that the City should bear a portion of the cost for the rehearing or follow the least costly method° Mr~ Roberts advised that the most economical way an additional hearing could b~ accomplished would be to continue this hearing rather than deny the reclassification and variance outright, as in this way the Applicant would pay only o~-]~a]f the original filing fee. Councilman Thom suggested that he would be willing to withdraw his resolutions ~o deny the project if the original request for a night meeting made by the opposition would be honored when the revised project is heard by the City Council. Councilman Sneegas referred to the high cost to the City of night meetings and Councilman Stephenson noted that the opinions of the opposition were adequately expressed this afternoon with a few speakers and tha~ he did not feel that the presence of 100 or more additional personm would be necessary to express their views. Councilman %~hom stated that he wanted to make it as convenient as possible for those people who have expressed interest in this proposal to attend the Council hearing at which the new plans will be discussed. He addressed his comments to the audience and, hearing no c~m~ent, stated that he would go along with the continuance, by withdrawing his resolutions to deny. Councilman Pebley moved that Reclassification No. 73-74-27, Variance No. 2565 and Tentative Tract Map No. 8511 be continued to April 23, 1974, to allow the Applicant an opportunity to revise his plans, said plans to be resub- mitted to the City Planning Commission and readvertised for public hearing on said date; subject to the Applicant's paying one-half of his original filing fee. Councilman Stephenson seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. PUBLIC HEARING - ABANDONMENT NO. 73-2A: In accordance with application filed by Mr. John E. Stevenson, Anacal Engineering, public hearing was held on proposed abandonment of a drainage easement located east of Lakeview, north of the River- side Freeway, within Lot No. 15 of Tract No. 7370, pursuant to Resolution No. 74R-33, duly published in the Anaheim Bulletin and notices thereof posted in accordance with law. 74-183 City .Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - February 19~ 1974, 1:30 P.Mo Report of the City Engineer was submitted recommending approval of said abandonment° The Mayor asked if anyone wished to address the Council; there being response, declared the hearing closed. RESOLUTION NO. 74R-65: Councilman Pebley offered Resolution No. 74R-65 for adoption, approving Abandonment No. 73-2A as recommended by the City Engineer. Refer to Resolution Book. A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM ORDERING THE VACATION AND ABANDONMENT OF CERTAIN REAL PROPERTY DESCRIBED HEREIN. (No. 73- 2A) Roll Call Vote: AYES: COUNCILMEN: NOES: COUNCILMEN: ABSENT: COUNCILMEN: Stephenson, Sneegas, Pebley, Thom and Dutton None None The Mayor declared Resolution No. 74R-65 duly passed and adopted. PUBLIC HEARING - ABANDONMENT NO. 73-6A: In accordance with application filed by Mro John E. McKennon, The Grand Hotel, public hearing was held on proposed abandonment of the aboveground portion of an existing public utility easement located northerly of Freedman Way, east of Harbor Boulevard, pursuant to Resolution No. 74R-34, duly published in the Anaheim Bulletin and notices there- of posted in accordance with law. Report of the City Engineer was submitted recommending approval of said abandonment subject to reservation of underground public utility easement, together with all surface rights of entry, ingress and egress to accommodate existing underground facilities. The Mayor asked if anyone wished to address the Council; there being no response, declared the hearing closed. RESOLUTION NO. 74R-66: Councilman Sneegas offered Resolution No. 74R-66 for adoption, approving Abandonment No. 73-6A, subject to the condition recommended by the City Engineer. Refer to Resolution Book. A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM ORDERING THE VACATION AND ABANDONMENT OF CERTAIN REAL PROPERTY DESCRIBED HEREIN AND RESERVING THEREFROM A CERTAIN EASEMENT FOR PUBLIC UTILITY PURPOSES. (No. 73-6A) Roll Call Vote: AYES: COUNCILMEN: NOES: COUNCIIMEN: ABSENT: COUNCIIMEN: Stephenson, Sneegas, Pebley, Thom and Dutton None None The Mayor declared Resolution No. 74R-66 duly passed and adopted. PUBLIC DANCE PERMIT: Application filed by Juan Arthur Sanchez on behalf of the Gemini Club of Santa Aha, for permit to conduct public dance on February 23, 1974, at Carpenter's Hall, 608 West Vermont, from 9:00 p.mo to 1:00 a.m., was submitted and granted, subject to provisions of Chapter 4.16 of the Anaheim Municipal Code and that four private security officers be hired to police the dance, as recommended by the Chief of Police, on motion by Councilman Pebley, seconded by Councilman Sneegas. MOTION CARRIED. APPLICATIONS DENIED - DINNER DANCING PLACE PERMITS: The following applications for Dinner Dancing Place Permits were submitted and denied on the basis that the establishments do not meet the requirements of Chapter 4.16 of the Anaheim Municipal Code as rec~m~ended by the Chief of Police, on motion by Councilman Stephenson, seconded by Councilman Sneegas: 74-184 City Hall~ Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - February 19, 1974~ 1:30 P.M~ a. Application submitted by Stanislaus Kedzia, for the Polish Village Restaurant, 1740 West La Palma Avenue for dancing 8:30 p.mo to 1:30 a.m., seven days a week. b. Application submitted by James Herbert Morton, for Billy Jack's, 2880 Miraloma Avenue, for dancing 9:00 p.m. to 2:00 a.m., on Thursday, Friday and Saturday. MOTION CARRIED. DINNER DANCING PLACE PERMIT: Application filed by Richard Theodore Darling for Dinner Dancing Place Permit to allow dancing from 8:00 p.m. to 2:00 a.m., Monday through Saturday at the Golden Pheasant, 1158 South State College Boule- vard, was submitted and granted, subject to provisions of Chapters 3.28 and 4.16 of the Anaheim Municipal Code as recommended by the Chief of Police, on motion by Councilman Sneegas, seconded by Councilman Dutton. MOTION CARRIED. DINNER DANCING PLACE~ ENTERTAINMENT AND AMUSEMENT DEVICES PERMITS: The following applications were submitted and granted as recommended by the Chief of Police, on motion by Councilman Thom, seconded by Councilman Pebley: a. Application submitted by Bryan Reed Garraway, PalGar Corporation, for Dinner Dancing Place Permit to allow dancing from 9:00 p.m. to 2:00 a.m., from two to four nights a week at Michael's Restaurant, 1154 North Euclid Street, pursuant to Chapters 3.28 and 4.16 of the Anaheim Municipal Code. b. Application submitted by Janet Fumiko Keaulani for Entertainment Permit to allow guitar and ukulele music to be played by a maximum of three customers from 8:00 p.m. to 2:00 a.m., Thursday through Saturday, at Hawaii Coffee Shop~ 524 North Magnolia Avenue, for a period of one year pursuant to Chapter 4.18 of the Anaheim Municipal Code. c. Application submitted by Janet Fumiko Keaulani, for Entertainment Permit to allow three guitar/ukulele entertainers from 6:00 p.m. to 10:00 p.m., on February 16, 1974 and from 5:00 p.m. to 9:00 p.m. on February 17, 1974 at the Uawaii Coffee Shop, 524 North Magnolia Avenue, pursuant to Chapter 4.18 of the Anaheim ~unicipal Code. d. Application submitted by Doswell Holcomb Plunkett for Amusement Devices Permit to allow two pool tables at The Gold Room, 508 South Knott Avenue, pursuant to Chapters 3.24 and 4.20 of the Anaheim Municipal Code. e. Application submitted by John Earle Sprowle for Amusement Devices Permit to allow 1 juke box, 1 pinball machine and 1 bowling machine at Ace's Inn, 309 North Manchester Avenue, pursuant to Chapters 3.24 and 4.20 of the Anaheim Municipal Code. MOTION CARRIED. REQUEST - TENTATIVE TRACT NO. 8404: Letter from Phillip Jo Ringel, Sr. Vice Presi- dent, Calprop Development Corporation, dated January 24, 1974, was submitted requesting a waiver from Sections 17.06.110(b) and 17.06.120(d) of the Anaheim Municipal Code pertaining to grading in connection with Tract No. 8404, located west of imperial Highway and south of Santa Ana Canyon Road, on which 152 R-2 zoned lots were approved. Also submitted was report from the City Engineer recommending said exceptions to the Code be granted subject to the following conditions: 1. That the developer of Tract 8404 be required to enter into an agreement with the developer of the commercial center to the north and east, such that the commercial center developer would be responsible for the continued maintenance of the slope adjacent to his development. 2o That adequate easements be granted to the commercial center devel- oper for slope maintenance and sprinkler system water supply lines. Mr. Ringel was recognized by the Mayor and advised Council that he was concerned relative to the requirement that he enter into an agreement with the developer of the commercial center to the northeast,stating that the commer- cial developer would be responsible for continued maintenance of the slope. He stated that he would prefer to incorporate this downslope into the areas to be maintained by the homeowners' association of his townhouse project since he may not be able to reach an agreement with the other developer. 74-185 City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - February 19, 1974, 1:30 P.M, Mr. Maddox advised that the Engineer's Office is only concerned that someone be responsible for maintaining the slopes and indicated that the con- dition was written in this manner since it makes more sense to have the commer- cial development which viewed the bank accept the responsibility of maintaining same. Mr. Watts assured Mr. Ringel that if such agreement cannot be negoti- ated between the two parties as required in Condition No. 1 set forth above that another approach could be utilized at that time. On motion by Councilman Pebley, seconded by Councilman Sneegas, the City Council granted exceptions to Sections 17.06.110(b) and 17.06.120(d), permitting lot lines to be located at other than required locations, subject to the conditions recommended by the City Engineer. MOTION CARRIED. ALIGNMENT - KNOTT INteRCEPTOR TRUNK SEWER: In accordance with Section 4759.1 of the California Health and Safety Code, communication from Mr. Fred A. Harper, General Manager of the County Sanitation Districts, was submitted requesting concurrence of the Anaheim City Council with alignment for construction of the Knott Interceptor Trunk Sewer, Reaches 5, 6, 7 and 8 for County Sanitation District No. 3. Also submitted was recommendation from the City Engineer that the Council concur with the adopted alignment as requested by the Directors of Sanitation District No. 3 subject to the following conditions: ]. If the trench is located within a travel lane, pavement for the entire travel lane shall be removed and replaced. 2. The minimum structural section of pavement resurfacing shall be equal to the structural section of the pavement removed. 3. A minimum of one traffic lane in each direction shall be main- tained at all times in Knott Street during construction. 4. ~e maximum open trench permitted shall be 400 feet. 5. Traffic barricading shall be in accordance with the City of Anaheim Standards for Street Barricading and Channelization for Temporary Traffic Control. 6. Existing signalization shall be maintained at all times. 7. After construction, traffic striping shall be restored as approved by the Traffic Engineer. 8. This trunk sewer shall intercept and eliminate the Anaheim sewer siphon under the Carbon Creek Channel in Knott Street. 9. That final improvement plans for this project be submitted for City of Anaheim approval. On motion by Councilman Sneegas, seconded by Councilman Stephenson, the City Council concurred with the alignment within the City Limits of Anaheim for the Knott Interceptor Trunk Sewer Reaches 5, 6, 7 and 8 of San- itation District No. 3, adopted by the Board of Directors, County Sanitation Districts, January 9, 1974, subject to the conditions recommended by the City Engineer and set forth above. MOTION CARRIED. GREENBELT COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION RE DEVELOPMENT DENSITIES ADJACENT TO THE GREENBELT: Reco~m~endation of the Greenbelt Commission submitted by E. J. Berger, Greenbelt Coordinator, adopted January 3, 1974 regarding development densities adjacent to the greenbelt was presented for Council consideration together wit~ report from Development Services Department and draft of response for authori- zation. The Development Services Department report finds that the recommenda- tions of the Greenbelt Commission are in accordance with the objectives and policies of the Anaheim General Plan and therefore recommends that Council con- cur with same by authorizing the Mayor's signature to the draft letter indica- ting same. On motion by Councilman Stephenson, seconded by Councilman Sneegas, the City Council authorized the letter prepared by Development Services ~taff, indicating Council's concurrence with the Greenbelt Commission recommendation on population densities in areas adjacent to the Santa Aha River, Santiago Creek Greenbelt for the Mayor's signature° MOTION CARRIED. 74-186 Ctt}~ Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - February 19~ 1974~ 1:30 P.M, REQUEST - RECLASSIFICATION NO. 73-74-10: Request of Mr. O. Wo Louderback, that property under Resolution of Intent to C-3 in Reclassification No. 73-74-10 be permitted to be zoned in separate parcels was submitted. Said property is loca- ted on the northwest corner of Lincoln Avenue and Brookhurst Street. RESOLUTION NO. 74R-67: Councilman Sneegas offered Resolution No. 74R-67 for adoption, amending Resolution No. 73R-524 to permit separate development of the property in Reclassification No. 73-74-10. Refer to Resolution Book° A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AMENDING RESOLUTION NO. 73R-524 RELATING TO RECLASSIFICATION NO. 73-74-10. Roll Call Vote: AYES: COUNC II~EN: NOES: COUNC IIMEN: ABSENT: COUNC IIMEN: Stephenson, Sneegas, Pebley, Thom and Dutton None None The Mayor declared Resolution No. 74R-67 duly passed and adopted. NEGATIVE DECLARATION - SEWER EXTENSION, BROOKHURST STREET~ NORTH OF LINCOLN AVENUE: Recommendation from the E.I.R. Review Committee that a negative declaration for the sewer extension on Brookhurst Street, north of Lincoln Avenue be granted by the City Council,was submitted. On motion by Councilman Sneegas, seconded by Councilman Pebley, the City Council finds and determines that this project will have no significant effect on the environment and is exempt from the requirement to prepare an environmental impact report. MOTION CARRIED. NEGATIVE DECLARATION - PERALTA HILLS SEWER INSTALLATION: Recommendation from the E.I.R. Review Committee that a negative declaration for the Peralta Hills Sewer Installation be granted by the City Council, was submitted. On motion by Councilman Sneegas, seconded by Councilman Pebley, the City Council finds and determines that this project will have no significant effect on the environment and is exempt from the requirement to prepare an enviromnental impact report. MOTION CARRIED. FINAL MAP~ TRACT NO. 8079: Developer, Cabot, Cabot and Forbes: Tract located on the east side of Euclid Street, south side of Romneya Drive, containing 2 C-1 zoned lots. The City Engineer recommended approval and reported that said final map conforms substantially with the tentative map previously approved, that bond has been forwarded to the City Attorney for approval and required fees paid. On recommendation of the City Engineer, Councilman Dutton moved that Final Map, Tract No. 8079 be approved, subject to approval of required bond by the City Attorney. Councilman Sneegas seconded the motion° MOTION CARRIED. ENCROAC}~4ENT LICENSE - SANTA ANA VALI~vY IRRIGATION DISTRICT (EASEMENT ADJACENT TO TRACT NO. 77867: Letter from the Wittenberg Corporation, developers of Tract No. 7786,dated January 11, 1974 was submitted which requests that the City of Anaheim grant permission to the Santa Ana Valley Irrigation District to use the public right-of-way at the southerly boundary of Lot Nos. 36 through 50, of Tract No. 7786, adjacent to the Santa Aha Canyon Road for repair and maintenance of their irrigation pipeline. Also submitted was report from the City Engineer recommending that the request be approved and that the Santa Ana Valley Irrigation District be granted permission to take access from the Santa Aha Canyon Road right-of-way to the contiguous Santa Aha Valley Irrigation District easement for repair and m~inte- nance purposes. Said permission to apply on the north side of Santa Ama Canyon Road from Anaheim Hills Road to 820 feet ~ easterly. 74-187 City Hall~ Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - February 19, 1974~ 1:30 P,M. Mr. Watts reported that when the Wittenberg Corporation developed Tract No. 7786, which is just north of the Santa Ana Valley Irrigation canal on the north side of Santa Ana Canyon Road, they were required to construct a block wall, and in addition they removed what was formerly an open culvert and placed it underground. As a result of this, in order to facilitate access for the Santa Aha Valley Irrigation District,it will be necessary for the City to grant them access from Santa Aha Canyon Road. He advimed that the best means to accomplish this would be to grant the Santa Ana Valley Irrigation District a license to encroach for the purpose of maintaining their easement. On motion by Councilman Sneegas, seconded by Councilman Stephenson, the City Council authorized a license be granted to the Santa Aha Valley Irri- gation District to take access from the Santa Aha Canyon Road right-of-way,as recommended by the City Engineer. MOTION CARRIED. CHANGE ORDER NO. 2 - WORK ORDER NO. 9165: On report and recommendation of the City Engineer, Councilman Stephenson moved that Change Order No. 2, Work Order No. 0165, consisting of increasing the amount by $472.48, be authorized. Councilman Dutton seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. RESOLUTION NOo 74R-68 - AWARD OF WORK ORDER NO. 711-At In accordance with recom- mendations of the City Engineer, Councilman Stephenson offered Resolution No. V4R-68 for adoption. Refer to Resolution Book. A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM ACCEPTING A SEALED PROPOSAL AND AWARDINC A CONTRACT TO THE LOWEST RESPONSIBLE BIDDER FOR THE FURNISHING OF ALL PLANT, LABOR, SERVICES, MATERIALS AND EQUIPMENT AND ALL UTILITIES AND TRANSPORTATION, INCLb~DING POWER, FUEL AND WATER, AND PER- FORMING ALL WORK NECESSARY TO CONSTRUCT AND COMPLETE THE FOLLOWING PUBLIC ~PROVEMENT: PEDESTRIAN SIGNAL INSTALLATION AT THE INTERSECTION OF BROADWAY AND MAGNOLIA AVENUE, IN THE CITY OF ANAHEIM, WORK ORDER NO. 711-A. /Baxter-Griffin Company - $3,672.00) Roll Call Vote: AYES: COUNCIh~N: NOES: COUNCI~iEN: ABSENT: COUNCIIMEN: Stephenson, Sneegas, Pebley, Thom and Dutton None None /he Mayor declared Resolution No. 74R-68 duly passed and adopted. RESOLUTION NO. 74R-69 - AWARD OF WORK ORDER NO. 1251: In accordance with recom- mendations of the City Engineer, Councilman Sneegas offered Resolution No. 74R-69 for adoption. Refer to Resolution Book. A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM ACCEPTING A SEALED PROPOSAL AND AWARDING A CONTRACT TO THE LOWEST RESPONSIBLE BIDDER FOR THE FURNISHING OF ALL PLANT, LABOR, SERVICES, MATERIALS AND EQUIPMENT AND ALL UTILITIES AND TRANSPORTATION, INCLUDING POWER, FUEL AND WATER, AND PER- FORMING ALL WORK NECESSARY TO CONSTRUCT AND COMPLETE THE FOLLOWING PUBLIC IMPROVEMENT: THE ANAHEIM BOULEVARD SEWER IMPROVEMENT, FROM 820 FEET SOUTH OF CERRITOS TO ]175 FEET NORTH OF KATELIA WAY, IN THE CITY OF ANAHEIM, 'WORK ORDER NO. ]251. (Meekins, Inc. $14,018.50) Roll Call Vote: AYES: COUNCILMEN: NOES: COUNCILMEN: ABSENT: COUNCILMEN: Stephenson, Sneegas, Pebley, Thom and Dutton None None The Mayor declared Resolution No. 74R-69 duly passed and adopted. 74-188 City Hall~ Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - February 19, 1974, 1:30 P.M, RESOLUTION NO. 74R-70 - WORK ORDER NO. 714-A: Councilman Dutton offered Resolution No. 74R-70 for adoption. Refer to Resolution Book. A RESOLUTION OF Tt{E CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIIM FINDING AND DETER- MINING THAT PUBLIC CONVENIENCE AND NECESSITY REQUIRE %HE CONSTRUCTION AND COMPLETION OF A PUBLIC IMPROVEMENT, TO WIT: NOH~ RANCH ROAD-WALNUT CANYON ROAD STREET IMPROVEMENT, IN THE CITY OF ANAHEIM, WORK ORDER NO. 714-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 AUTH- ORIZING AND DIRECTING THE CITY CLERK TO PUBLISH A NOTICE INVITING SEALED PROPOSALS FOR T~ CONSTRUCTION THEREOF. (Bids to be Opened - March 14, 1974, 2:00 P.M.) Roll Call Vote: AYES: COUNCILMEN: NOES: COUNCIIMEN: A'B SENT: COUNC IIMEN: Stephenson, Sneegas, Pebley, Thom and Dutton None None ~he Mayor declared Resolution No. 74R-70 duly passed and adopted. RESOLUTION NOS. 74R-71 AND 74R-72 - FINAL ACCEPTANCES: Upon receipt of certifica- tions fron~the Director of Public Works, Councilman Pebley offered Resolution Nos. 74R-71 and 74R-72 for adoption. Refer to Resolution Book. RESOLUTION NO. 74R-71 - WORK ORDER NO. 682-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 A~ TRANSPORTATION INCLUDING POWER, FUEL AND WATER, AND THE PERFORb~kNCE OF ALL WORK NECESSARY TO CONSTRUCT AND COMPLETE THE FOLLOWING PUBLIC LMPROVE~iENT, TO WIT: THE IA JOLLA STREET AND RED GUM STREET STREET IMPROVEMENT, IN THE CI%Y OF ANAHEIM, WORK ORDER NO. 682-A. (R. J. Noble Company 5 RESOLUTION NO. 74R-72 - WORK ORDER NO. 706-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 I1RANSPORTATION INCLUDING POWER, FUEL AND WATER, AND THE PERFORMANCE OF ALL WORK NECESSARY TO CONSTRUCT AND COMPLETE THE FOLLOWING PUBLIC IMPROVEMENT, TO WIT: THE ATCHISON STREET STREET IMPROVEMENTS FROM CYPRESS STREET TO SANTA. ANA STREET, IN THE CITY OF ANAHEIM, WORK ORDER NO. 706-A. (R. N. Basich) Roll Call Vote: AI~ES: COUNCILMEN: NOES: COUNCIIMEN: ABSENT: COUNCIIMEN: Stephenson, Sneegas, Pebley, Thom and Dutton None None The Mayor declared Resolution Nos. 74R-71 and 74R-72 duly passed and adopted. FINAL COMPLETION - WORK ORDER NO. 2067 - WALNUT CANYON CHANNEL CHECK DAM CONSTRUCTION: Certification from the Director of Public Work~ regarding completion of Work Order No. 2067 - Walnut Canyon Channel Check Dam Construction authorized to be performed by Force Account,pursuant to Resolution No. 73R-513 on October 30, 1973, was submitted for City Council information. On motion by Councilman Pebley, seconded by Councilman Sneegas, the report of completion, Work Order No. 2067 was ordered received and filed. MOTION CARRIED. 74-189 City Hall, Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - February 19, 1974, 1:30 P.M. RESOLUTION NO. 74R-73 - DEEDS OF EASEMENT: Councilman Dutton offered Resolution No. 74R-73 for adoption. Refer to Resolution Book. A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM ACCEPTING CERTAIN DEEDS AND ORDERING THEIR RECORDATION. (American Housing Guild - Los Angeles; Caltex Equities; Euclid Shopping Center; Texaco Ventures, Inc. & Anaheim Hills, Inc.; Frank M. and Madeleine H. Del Giorgio) Roi1 Call Vote: AYES: COUNCILMEN: NOES: COUNCILMEN: ABSENT: COUNCILMEN: Stephenson, Sneegas, Pebley, Thom and Dutton None None The Mayor declared Resolution No. 74R-73 duly passed and adopted. PURCHASE OF EQUIPMENT - TELEPHONIC CRIME REPORTING SYSTEM: The Assistant City Manager reported on the recommended purchase of telephonic crime reporting equipment, consisting of 4 Tel-Edisette recorders; 6 multi media transcribers - Edisette 1977; 4 recorder couplers; 168 cassette tapes; 4 tape racks; 2 tape erasers (bulk), and advised that the one manufacturer, Leniar Business Products, has submitted a quotation for said equipment in the amount of $10,093.65, including tax. He thereupon recon~nended the purchase be authorized. On motion by Councilman Sneegas, seconded by Councilman Stephenson, purchase was authorized in the amount of $10,093.65, including tax, as recom- mended by the Assistant City Manager. 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 Stephenson, seconded by Councilman Sneegas: a. Claim submitted by Pacific Telephone and Telegraph Company for ~oroperty damage to buried cable located at 932 South Lemon Street, purportedly as a result of City of Anaheim Electrical Division operating auger, on or about November 19, 1973. b. Claim submitted by Diana Kelly for personal injury and property damage, purportedly resulting from cement pipe in road at Santa Ana Canyon Road and Nohl Canyon Road, on or about November 27, 1973. c. Claim submitted by Daniel Roy Kelley for personal injuries and property damages purportedly resulting from collision with City vehicle, on or about December 28, 1973. MOTION CARRIED, RESOLUTION NO. 74R-74 - DEDICATING CITY-OWNED PROPERTY FOR ROAD AND PUBLIC UTILITY PURPOSES (ANAHEIM HILLS ROAD EXTENDING NORTHERLY FROM SANTA ANA CANYON ROAD TO CAMINO CORRER): Councilman Pebley offered Resolution No. 74R-74 for adoption. Refer to Resolution Book. A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM DEDICATING CERTAIN CITY-OWNED PROPERTY IN THE CITY OF Ab~HEIM FOR ROAD AND PUBLIC UTILITY PURPOSES. Roll Call Vote: AYES: COUNCILMEN: NOES: COUNCILMEN: ABSENT: COUNCILMEN: Stephenson, Sneegas, Pebley, Thom and Dutton None None The Mayor declared Resolution No. 74R-74 duly passed and adopted. CORRESPONDENCE: The following correspondence was ordered received and filed, on motion by Councilman Pebley, seconded by Councilman Sneegas: 74-190 City Hall~ Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - February 19, 1974, 1:30 P.M. a. City of Buena Park - Resolution No. 5201 - Recommending that cities and counties be retained as the transportation planning agency authority to select urban routes and to distribute urban funds. b. City of Santa And - Recon~nendation to the Orange County Transit District - Supporting, in concept, Orange County Transit District Alternative Plan Number T2E, with proposed staff modifications and recommending the inclu- sion of a supplemental corridor serving the high traffic generators located in the southerly portions of Anaheim. c. Lorell Long, Secretary-Chairman, Public Relations and Political Action Committee, ECOC - Requesting the City of Anaheim to hold public hearings prior to adoption of a resolution supporting the expansion of the San Onofre nuclear power plant. d. Anaheim Chamber of Commerce - Recommendation to Supervisor Ralph B. Clark - Regarding Proposed OCTD routes for rapid transportation in Orange County. e. Atchison, Topeka and Santa Fe Railway Company - Correspondence to William R. Johnson, Secretary, Public Utilities Commission - Petition for modification of Decision 67574, Application 45088 (City of Anaheim to construct a City Street across the right-of-way of The Atchison, Topeka and Santa Fe Railway Company and Union Pacific Railroad Company at La Palma Avenue). f. Community Redevelopment Commission - Minutes - January 23, 1974. g. Orange County Mosquito Abatement District - Minutes - January 17, 1974. h. Financial and Operating Reports for the Months of December, 1973 and January, 1974: Water Division City Treasurer Building Division (December) (January) (January) MOTION CARRIED. CORRESPONDENCE - ANAHEIM CITY SCHOOL DISTRICT - RESOLUTION REGARDING RECREATIONAL BUDGET OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM: Councilman Thom suggested that a reply be forwarded to the Anaheim City School District in answer to their resolution urging the City Council of the City of Anaheim to reexamine and place higher emphasis on recreational programs in the forthcoming budget due to the energy crisis. Further he noted that the reply should indicate that the Council will investi- gate the matter with Parks and Recreation Commission. The Mayor pointed out that this subject will be discussed at the February 26, 1974, 10:00 a.m. Park and Recreation Budget presentation. ORDINANCE NO. 3265: Councilman Dutton offered Ordinance No. 3265 for adoption. Refer to Ordinance Book. AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AMENDING ORDINANCE NO. 3251, NUNC PRO TUNC, RELATING TO ZONING. (73-74-1) Roll Call Vote: AYES: COUNCILMEN: Stephenson, Sneegas, Pebley, Thom and Dutton NOES: COUNCIlmEN: None ABSENT: COUNCILMEN: None The Mayor declared Ordinance No. 3265 duly passed and adopted. ORDINANCE NO. 3266: Councilman Stephenson offered Ordinance No. 3266 for adoption. Refer to Ordinance Book. AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AMENDING TITLE 4, CHAPTER 4.18, SECTION 4.18.040 OF THE ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO AMUSEMENT AND ENTERTAIN- MENT PREMISES -- RESTAURANTS. Roll Call Vote: AYES: COUNCILMEN: Stephenson, Sneegas, Pebley, Thom and Dutton NOES: COUNCILMEN: None ABSENT: COUNCILMEN: None The Mayor declared Ordinance No. 3266 duly passed and adopted. 74-191 City Hall, Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - February 19~ 1974~ 1:30 P.M. ORDINANCE NO. 3267: Councilman Stephenson offered Ordinance No. 3267 for first reading. AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AMENDING TITLE 18 OF THE ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO ZONING. (61-62-69 (65) - M-l) INCREASE IN RETAIL ELECTRICAL RATES: Utilities Director Gordon Hoyt reported that it is necessary he recommend that the Council once again authorize an increase in retail electrical rates. This recommendation is the result of a decision by the United States Court of Appeals, District of Columbia Circuit Court ~Ach has changed the 60-day rule so that the F.P.C. must act within 30 days of the filing date of a wholesale electrical rate increase if it wishes to suspend or reject a rate filing. After 30 days, the decision stated the F.P.C. no longer can suspend a rate increase. In order to protect the City from a potential loss due to revenue lag of an estimated $1,050,000, it is therefore recommended that the City of Anaheim retail rates be increased in accordance with schedules submitted which are the same with one exception as those adopted by the Council on January 22, 1974, pursuant to Resolution No. 74R-29. The exception is the fuel cost adjustment which has been established at 0.642 cents per kilowatt hour to cor- respond to the retail fuel cost adjustment charged by the Edison Company. It is recommended that the increased rate be effective immediately. RESOLUTION NO. 74R-75: Councilman Stephenson offered Resolution No. 74R-75 for adoption. Refer to Resolution Book. A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AMENDING RATES, RULES AND REGULATIONS FOR THE SALE AND DISTRIBUTION OF ELECTRIC ENERGY AS ADOPTED BY RESOLUTION NO. 71R-478 AND AMENDED BY RESOLUTION NOS. 73R-25, 73R-373 AND 73R-531. Roll Call Vote: AYES: COUNCILMEN: NOES: COUNCILMEN: ABSENT: COUNCILMEN: Stephenson, Sneegas, Pebley, Thom and Dutton None None The Mayor declared Resolution No. 74R-75 duly passed and adopted. RESOLUTION NO. 74R-76 - EUCLID - LA PAIMA NO. 3 ANNEXATION (97.8 ACRES UNINHABITED): Pursuant to authority granted by the Local Agency Formation Commission, Resolu- tion No. 74-6, Councilman Sneegas offered Resolution No. 74R-76 for adoption. Refer to Resolution Book. A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM APPROVING THE ANNEXATION TO THE CITY OF ANAHEIM OF THE TERRITORY KNOWN AND DESIGNATED EUCLID - LA PAIMA NO. 3 ANNEXATION. Roll Call Vote: AYES: COUNCILMEN: NOES: COUNC IIMEN: ABSENT: COUNC IIMEN: Stephenson, Sneegas, Pebley, Thom and Dutton None None The Mayor declared Resolution No. 74R-76 duly passed and adopted. RESIGNATION - GAYLEN B. COMP%ON - COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT COMMISSION: The City Clerk submitted a notice of resignation from the Con~nunity Redevelopment Com- mission by Gaylen B. Compton in order to satisfy requirements of the Anaheim Municipal Code, Section 1.04.510(a), having accepted his appointment to the City Planning Commission. On motion by Councilman Stephenson, seconded by Councilman Sneegas, the City Council accepted the resignation and expressed sincere appreciation for services rendered by Mr. Compton. MOTION CARRIED. 74-1q2 City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - February 19~ 1974~ 1:30 P,M, APPOINTMENT - JUDGE KENNETH E. LAE - CITY OF ANAHEIM (CALIFORNIA) STADIUM, INC., BOARD OF DIRECTORS: The City Clerk submitted notice from Leonard Smith, President, Anaheim Stadium Corporation, that the Honorable Kenneth E. Lae, was elected to the Board of Directors, City of Anaheim (California) Stadium, Inc., to fill the vacancy created by the expiration of the term of Mr. Frank Vessels. On motion by Councilman Dutton, seconded by Councilman Thom, the Anaheim City Council ratified the election of Judge Kenneth E. Lae to the Board of Directors, City of Anaheim (California) Stadium, Inc. MOTION CARRIED. PROPOSED ORDINANCE - NEWSPAPER VENDING MACHINES: Councilman Sneegas requested that the City Attorney investigate the possibility of the City requiring that machines which dispense newspapers on the City streets be required to have opaque plastic fronts with ro'om to display the name of the paper only, in an attempt to dis- courage the use of these dispensers for the sale of the more liberal type of newspapers which use suggestive photographs and headlines on the front pages. PROPOSED ORDINANCE - POSTING OF GASOLINE PRICES: Councilman Stephenson stated that he felt the City Council should adopt the same ordinance as is being adopted by the Orange County Board of Supervisors requiring that gasoline stations post the prices at which they are currently selling gasoline,and thereupon moved that the City Attorney be directed to draft such an ordinance. Councilman Thom seconded the motion° On Roll Call Vote requested by Councilman Stephenson, said motion failed to carry by the following vote: AYES: COUNCIIMEN: NOES: COUNCILMEN: ABSENT: COUNC II2~EN: Stephenson and Thom Sneegas, Pebley and Dutton None Councilman Sneegas proposed instead that an ordinance be drafted which requires the sign units to be removed if the service station owner does not wish to post the price; i.e., that the current prices at which gasoline is being sold be posted on the existing sign unit or the entire unit removed. He thereupon moved that the City Attorney be directed to draft an urgency ordinance to accom- plish this fact. Councilman Pebley seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. REVIEW OF SIGN CITATION - ANGEL CAR WASH: Councilman Thom advised that he has been informed that the owner of the Angel Car Wash has been cited by the Zoning Enforcement Officer for an illegal sign which he had displayed,indicating that gasoline was available at said car wash. In view of the current gasoline supply situation, Councilman Thom commented that in his opinion this sign was a public service. Further he pointed out that many illegal signs are being used by ser- vice stations throughout the City to indicate that they are out of gas. There- fore he moved that the City Attorney review the situation in an attempt to re- solve the matter. Councilman Stephenson seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. RECESS - EXECUTIVE SESSION: Councilman Sneegas moved to recess to Executive Session. Councilman Stephenson seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. (6:15 P.M.) AFTER RECESS: The Mayor called the meeting to order, all Councilmen being present. (6:20 P.M.) ADJOURNMENT: Councilman Dutton moved to adjourn. Councilman Stephenson seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. Adjourned: 6:20 P.M. City Clerk