1974/02/2674-193
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - February 26, 1974, 1:30 P.M.
The City Council of the City of Anaheim met in regular session.
PRESENT: COUNCIIHEN: Stephenson, Sneegas, Pebley, Thom and Dutton
ABSENT: COUNCII/~EN: None
PRESENT: CITY MANAGER: Keith A. Murdoch
ASSISTANT CITY MANAGER: Robert M. Davis
CITY ATTORNEY: Alan K. Watts
CITY CLERK: Aloha M. Fattens
CITY ENGINEER: James P. Maddox
ASSISTANT DIRECTOR OF DEVELOPMENT SERVICES: Ronald Thompson
ZONING SUPERVISOR: Charles Roberts
PIANNING SUPERVISOR: Don McDaniel
Mayor Dutton called the meeting to order.
FLAG SALUTE: Councilman Mark A. Stephenson led the assembly in the Pledge of
Allegiance to the Flag.
PROCLAMATIONS: The following proclamations were issued by Mayor Dutton and
unanimously approved by the City Council:
"American Red Cross Month" - March, 1974.
'~otorcycle Safety Week" - March 2 through 8, 1974.
The Red Cross Volunteer Board accepted the proclamation and was in-
troduced to the Council by Mro Me1 Gauer. The Chairwoman presented
the Mayor with an honorary membership.
Mr. Gauer requested everyone's support for the Red Cross organization.
MINUTES: Minutes of the Anaheim City Council Regular Meeting held January 29, 1974,
were approved, on motion by Councilman Thom, seconded by Councilman Sneegas.
MOTION CARRIED.
WAIVER OF READING - ORDINANCES AND RESOLUTIONS: Councilman Thom moved to waive the
reading in full of all ordinances and resolutions, and that consent, to the
waiver of reading is hereby given by all Councilmen unless, after reading of
the title, specific request is made by a Councilman for the reading of such
ordinance or resolution. Councilman Sneegas seconded the motion. MOTION
UNANIMOUSLY CARRIED.
REPORT - FINANCIAL DEMARDS AGAINST THE CITY: Demands against the City in the amount
of $1,148,303.86, in accordance with the 1973-74 Budget, were approved.
PUBLIC HEARING - RECLASSIFICATION NO. 73-74-29, VARIANCE NO, 2568 AND NEGATIVE
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT DECLARATION: Application by LeRoy and Susan Hei~men for a
change in zone from R-A to R-3 and the following Code waivers to establish a
two-story, 50-unit apartment complex on the north side of Ball Road, east of
Western Avenue:
a. Maximum height within 150 feet of any single-family residential
zone.
b. Minimum yard and building setback.
c. Minimum distance between buildings.
d. Minimum width of pedestrian accessway. (Eliminated)
e. Minimum off-street parking spaces. (Withdrawn)
f. Wall adjacent to R-A and single-family zones. (Withdrawn)
The City Planning Co~m~ission pursuant to Resolution No. PC74-30,
recommended that no environmental impact report be required in connection with
Reclassification No. 73-74-29 and further reco~m~ended that said reclassifica-
tion be approved in accordance with revised plans showing 45 units (Revision
No. 1), subject to the following conditions:
1. That the owner(s) of subject property shall deed to the City of
Anaheim a strip of land 53 feet in width from the centerltne of the street
along Ball ROad for street widening purposes.
2. That all engineering requirements of the City of Anaheim, along
Ball Road including preparation of improvement plans and installation of all
74-: '4
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - February 26, 1974, 1:30 P.M.
improvements such as curbs and gutters, sidewalks, street grading and paving,
drainage facilities, or other appurtenant work shall be complied with as re-
quired by the City Engineer and in accordance with standard plans and specifi-
cations on file in the office of the City Engineer; that street lighting facil-
ities along Ball Road shall be installed as required by the Director of Public
Utilities, and in accordance with standard plans and specificatiOns on file in
the office of the Director of Public Utilities and that a bond in an amount and
form satisfactory to the City of Anaheim shall be posted with the City to guar-
antee the installation of the above-mentioned requirements.
3. That the owner(s) of subject property shall pay to the City of
Anaheim the sum of 60¢ per front foot along Ball Road for tree planting pur-
poses.
4. That trash storage areas shall be provided in accordance with
approved plans on file with the office of the Director of Public Works.
5. That fire hydrants shall be installed and charged as required and
determined to be necessary by the Chief of the Fire Department prior to commence-
ment of structural framing.
6. That all air conditioning facilities shall be properly shielded
from view, and the sound buffered from adjacent properties.
7. That subject property shall be served by underground utilities.
8. That drainage of subject property shall be disposed of in a manner
satisfactory to the City Engineer.
9. That the owner(s) of subject property shall pay to .the City of
Anaheim the appropriate park and recreation in-lieu fees as determined to be
appropriate by the City Council, said fees to be paid at the time the building
permit is issued.
10. That completion of these reclassification proceedings is contingent
upon the granting of Variance No. 2568.
11. That subject property shall be developed substantially in accor-
dance with plans and specifications on file with the City of Anaheim marked
Exhibit Nos. 1, 2, 3, and 4 (all revision No. 1); providing, however, that a
20-foot wide landscape strip, in conjunction with the required 6-foot masonry
wall, shall be provided along the north property line; and that said 6-foot
wall shall be continued westerly of the north property line of subject property,
to the full width of that R-1 parcel which partially abuts subject property at
the northwest boundary, as stipulated to by the petitioner.
12. Prior to the introduction of an ordinance rezontng subject prop-
erty, Condition Nos. 1, 2, and 3, above-mentioned, shall be completed. The
provisions or rights granted by this resolution shall become null and void by
action of the City Council unless said conditions are complied with within one
year from the date hereof, or such further time as the City Council may grant.
13. That Condition Nos. 4, 6, 7, 8, and 11, above-mentioned, shall be
complied with prior to final building and zoning inspections.
The City Planning Co~a, ission pursuant to Resolution No. PC74-31,
recon~ended that no environmental impact report be required inconnectton with
Variance No. 2568 and granted said variance in accordance with revised plans
(Revision No. 1) in part only, waiver "d" eliminated and waivers "e" and "f",
withdrawn, subject to the following conditions:
1. That this variance is granted subject to the completion of Reclass-
ification No. 73-74-29.
2. That subject property shall be developed substantially in accor-
dance with plans and specifications on file with the City of Anaheim marked
Exhibit Nos. 1, 2, 3 and 4 (all revisions No. 1); provided, however, that a 20-
foot wide landscape strip, in conjunction with the required 6-foot masonry wall,
shall be provided along the north property line.
NEGATIVE ENVIROI~4ENTAL IMPACT DECIARATION: On motion by Councilman Pebley,
seconded by Councilman Stephenson, the City Council finds and determines that the
project in connection with Reclassification No. 73-74-29 and Variance No. 2568,
will have no significant effect on the environment and is exempt from the re-
quirement to prepare an environmental impact report. MOTION CARRIED.
The City Clerk submitted a letter from Mr. Ed Howarth, 3113 West Ball
Road, dated February 25, 1974, indicating his opposition to the subject reclass-
ification and variance.
74-195
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES.- February 26, 1974, 1:30 P,M,
Zoning Supervisor Roberts described the Applicant's proposal to
develop a 45-unit apartment project with both one-and two-story structures,
with a density of 30.4 units to the net acre and 527° lot coverage whereas 55%
would be permissible in the R-3 Zone. He indicated that waivers "d", "e" and
"f" above, which were originally adqertised were withdrawn or eliminated at
the Planning Commission level as a result of revised plans and an interpreta-
tion on the part of the Planning Commission that these waivers would not be
necessary.
Mr. Roberts reported that waiver "a" applies to the R-A parcels on
either side of the subject property and was granted by the City Planning Com-
mission in view of the fact that the property along the north side of Ball
Road is designated on the Anaheim General Plan for medium density residential
uses. There is one unit located at the southeast corner of the project which
would encroach into the 150-foot area from the R-1 tract which is south and
east, however the Planning Couuuission considered the waiver justifiable in that
there is an arterial highway separating subject project from the R-1 develop-
meat,
Due to their concern regarding the compatibility of the apartment
project with the single-family residences,immediately to the north, the City
Planning Commission, in their recommendation for approval, tmposed a condition
requiring a 20-foot wide landscaped buffer strip to be provided on the north
boundary. Mr. Roberts advised that subsequent to this, the Applicant has sub-
mitted a revised plan (Revision No. 2) which incorporates the 20-foot wide
buffer zone.
In response to Councilman Pebley, Mr. Roberts advised that the Council
and the Planning Commission have considered the deep lots adjacent to Ball Road
suitable for apartment--multiple-family residential uses since 1969.
The Mayor asked if the Applicant or his Agent were present and satis-
fied with the recommendations of the City Planning Commission.
Mr. Henry Roberts, representing the property owners and the Applicant
replied affirmatively.
The Mayor asked if anyone in opposition to the proposal wished to
address the Council.
Mr. A1Seehusen, 3207 West Ball Road, advised that he is representing
his wife and father-in-law who own the property directly~to the east of subject
parcel. He inquired as to whether or not the Applicants, if the reclassifica-
tion and variance are granted as requested, would be required to place a wall
on the east property line. Further he stated that' if the residents to the north
will have a 20-foot landscaped buffer, he felt the same consideration should be
afforded the property which he represents to the east.
In reply to Mr. Seehusen's con, eats, Mr. Roberts related that the
Applicants propose to place carports along the east boundary of the property,
the rear wall of which would be located on the property line and this will con-
stitute an 8-foot wall. On that portion of the property line at which there
is a break or no carport, the Code would require a 6-foot masonry wall.
As far as the additional landscaped buffer which Mr. Seehusen men-
tioned, Mr. Roberts indicated that the Planning Commission did not feel this
necessary since,even though that property is currently being Utilized as a
single-family residence, it is anticipated it will be converted to multiple-
family uses in the future. ,::~
Mr. Ernie Emerson, 3150 West Glen Holly Drive, stated that he owns
the property immediately to the north of the project and is representing three
or four other property owners in that vicinity. He commended Mr. Roberts for
the cooperation which they received through his efforts in their behalf and
advised that since the suggestions and co, neats which they submitted to the
City Planning Coumission have been heeded, they are not in opposition. He noted
that they are satisfied with the buffer which the 6-foot masonry wall and 20-
foot landscaped strip would provide as long as the landscaped area is not
utilized for the parking of automobiles.
City liall, A_-~_haim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - February 26. 1974, 1:30 P.M~
The Mayor asked if anyone else wished to address the Council either
in favor or in oppositionl there being no responde, declared the hearing closed.
RESOLUTION NO. 74R-77: Councilman Pebley offered Resolution No. 74R-77 for
adoption, authorizing the preparation of the necessary ordinance, changing the
zone as requested, subject to Condition: Nos. 1 through 10 as rec0~nended by the
City Planning Commission (45-units) and the following amended conditions to in-
dicate Revision No. 2:
11. That subject property shall be developed substantially in accor-
dance with plans and specifications'~on file with the City of Anaheim marked
Exhibit No. 1, Revision No. 2; and Revision No. 1 of Exhibit Nos. 2, 3 and 4;
-providing, however, that a 6-foot high masonry wall shall be provided along the
north property line;'and that said 6-foot wall shall be continued westerly of
the north property line of subject property, to the full width of that R-1
parcel which partially abuts subject property at the northwest boundary, as
stipulated to by the petitioner.
12. Prior to the introduction of an ordinance rezoning subject prop-
erty, Condition Nos. 1, 2, and 3, above-mentioned, shall be completed. The pro-
visions or rights granted by this resolution shall become null and void by action
of the City Council unless said conditions are complied with within one year
from the date hereof, or such further time as the City Council may grant. '
13. That Condition Nos. 6, 6, 7, 8, 10 and 11, above-mentioned, shall
be complied with prior to final building and zoning inspections.
Refer to Resolution Book.
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF TBE CITY OF ANAHEIM FINDING AND DETER-
MINING THAT TITLE 18 OF THE ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO ZONING SIDULD
BE AMENDED AND THAT THE BOUNDARIES OF CERTAIN ZONES SHOULD BE CHANGED.
(73-76-29 - R-3)
Roll Call Vote:
AYES: COUNCII/~EN: Stephenson, Sneegas, Pebley, Thom and Dutton
NOES: COUNCIIxMEN: None
ABSENT: COUNCILMEN: None
The Mayor declared Resolution No. 74R-77 duly passed and adopted.
RESOLUTION NO. 74R-78: Councilman Pebley offered Resolution No. '74R-78 for
adoption, granting Variance No. 2568 in part only, subject to the conditions
recommended by the City Planning Con, hission with the following amendment to
Condition No. 2:
2.- That subject property shall be developed substantially in accor-
dance with plans and specifications on file with the City of Anaheim marked
Exhibit No. l, Revision No. 2; and Revision No. 1 of Exhibit Nos. 2, 3 and 6;
providing, however, that a 6-foot high masonry wall shall be provided along the
north property line; and that said 6-foot wall shall be continued westerly of
the north property line of subject property, to the full width of that R-1
parcel which partially abuts subject property at the northwest boundary, as
stipulated to by the petitioner.
Refer to Resolution Book.
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIl. OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM GRANTING VARIANCE
NO. 2568, IN PART.
Roll Call Vote:
AyEs: COUNCII/qEN: Stephenson, Sneegas, Pebley, Thom and Dutton
NOES: COUNCIl/dEN: None
ABSENT: COUNCII/dEN: None
The Mayor declared Resolution No. 74R-78 duly'passed and adopted.
~LIc ~RING - RECLASSIFICATION NO. 73-74-35 AND NEGATIVE ENVIRO~NTAL IMPACT
DECLARATION' Initiated by the City Planning Cuu~isston for a change in zone from
County of Orange R4 District to City of Anaheim R-A on the west side of Euclid
Street, north side of Ia Palms Avenue, northwesterly of the intersection of La
Pahna Avenue and Euclid Street (property within Euclid-la Palmm No. 3Annexation).
The .City Planning Commission pursuant to Resolution No. PC74-9, recom-
mended that' no environmental impact report be required in connection with
74-197
City Hall, Anaheim, California - CO[INCIL MINUTES - February 26, 1974, 1:30 P.M.
Reclassification No. 73-74-35 and further recommended approval of said reclass-
ification, subject to the following condition:
1. That these reclassification proceedings are granted subject to
completion of annexation of subject property to the City of Anaheim.
N~GATIVE ENVIRONMENTAL I~PACT DECLARATION: On motion by Councilman Stephenson,
seconded by Councilman Pebley, the City Council finds and determines that the
zoning action i~ connection with Reclassification No. 73-74-35 will have no
significant effect on the environment and is exempt from the requirement to
prepare an environmental impact report. MOTION CARRIED.
The Mayor asked if anyone wished to address the Council, either in
favor or in opposition; there being no response, declared the hearing closed.
RESOLUTION NO. 74R-79: ('~unci]man Sneegas offered Resolution No. 74R-79 for
adoption, authorizing the preparation of the necessary ordinance, changing the
zone subject to the condition recommended by the City Planning Commission.
Refer to Resolution Book.
A RESOLUTION 0~' THE CI'IY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM FINDING AND DETER-
MINING THAT TITt,E 18 OF THE ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO ZONING SHOULD
BE AMENDED AND THAT THE BOUNDARIES OF CERTAIN ZONES SHOULD BE CHANGED.
<173-74-35 - R-A)
Roll (all Vote:
AYES: COUNC ] I&~EN:
NOES: COLrNCI I24EN:
ABSENT: COUNC I I~iEN:
Stephenson, Sneegas, Pebley, Thom and Dutton
None
None
The Mayor declared Resolution No. 74R-79 duly passed and adopted.
PIYBLIC HEARING - VARIANCE NO. 2570 AND NEGATIVE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT DECLARATION:
Application by David R. Doering for the following Code waivers to establish a
commercial parking lot in the t-3 Zone on property located on the south side
of Diamond Street, west. of Carleton Avenue, was submitted together with appli-
cation for exemption from filing of an environmental impact report:
a. Required masonry block wall adjacent to residential uses.
b. Minimum required building setback adjacent to a local street.
c. Minimum required landscape setback adjacent to a local street.
do Permitted uses.
The City Planning Commission pursuant to Resolution No. PC74-18,
recommended that no environmental impact report be required and denied Variance
Noo 2570.
Appea] from action taken by the City Planning Commission was filed
by David R. Doering and public hearing scheduled this date.
NEGATIVE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT DECLARATION: On motion by Councilman Stephenson,
seconded by Councilman Sneegas, the City Council finds and determines that this
project will have no significent effect on the environment and is exempt from
the requirement to prepare an environmental impact report. MOTION CARRIED.
The City (]lerk submitted a petition containing 37 signatures purpor-
tedly of adjace~t property owners endorsing the Applicant's request and in
addition, 17 petitions containing signatures of patrons of Billito's Restaurant
attesting to the fact that the additional parking space is necessary and would
prevent them from parking on congested streets such as Lincoln Avenue.
Zoning Supervisor Roberts described briefly the location of subject
property and surrounding land uses. He advised that the Applicant intends to
utilize the northerly portion of his property to develop a parking lot provid-
ing approximately 22 spaces for the patrons of the two commercial establishments
located to the south of subject parcel with frontage on Lincoln Avenue, namely
Billito's Restaurant and 'Iqqe Marquis cocktail lounge.
74-1 8
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - February 26, 1974, 1:30 P.M~.
Mr. Roberts reviewed the requested waivers and advised that the Plan-
ning Commission felt the type of use requested would not be compatible with the
existing residential uses already established in the area and therefore they
denied the variance. He read the findings on which the Planning Commission's
resolution of denial was based.
The Mayor asked if the Applicant or his Agent were present and wished
to address the Council.
Mr. Thomas Goodman, Attorney for the Applicant, stated that Mr. Doering
at this time wishes to withdraw from consideration waivers "a", "b" and "c",
thereby applying for only waiver "d", to permit the use of the property as a
parking lot in the R-3 Zone.
Mr. Goodman referred to the petition submitted containing signatures
of 37 adjoining property owners and residents indicating they have no objection
to this use. In addition, he referred to the petitions submitted which purportedly
was signed by 400 patrons of Billito's Mexican Restaurant which he contended
demonstrates the hardship and need for additional parking in this area.
He noted that the facility which this parking area is proposed to
serve is divided into two operations, a restaurant and a cocktail lounge, both
of which have substantial patronage. He advised that in the past, the owner of
the restaurant was able to utilize the adjacent service station for parking
purposes, paying a fee to the service station owner for this privilege, However
the gasoline service station will no longer permit the parking on their property
and the only other available parking, aside from the area on the west side of
~e Marquis cocktail lounge,is on the local streets. He related that the pro-
posed additional parking is contiguous to the existing parking lot and that
these two areas are separated only by a dirt alley which can be used for ingress
and egress. In conclusion, Mr. Goodman stated that the question before Council
is strictly parking and that this proposal would relieve a tremendous amount of
congestion.
Councilman Pebley asked Mr. Goodman if withdrawal of the three re-
quested waivers means that the Applicant is willing to install the block wall
completely around the parking lot; take no access for ingress or egress from
the residential street; and maintain the required setbacks.
Mr. Goodman replied affirmatively. In answer to Council questions,
Mr. Goodman described which of the adjacent residential properties are under the
ownership of his client.
Councilman Sneegas indicated that there are three residences on
Carleton Street directly involved as they are adjacent to the subject parcel,
and he would be interested in whether or not these individuals have signed the
petition in favor of the proposal.
Upon checking the petition, three addresses were located in the 100
block of Carleton, these being 105, 107 and 113, which might correspond to these
residences,but it could not be definitely determined as to whether or not these
were the houses in question.
The Mayor asked if anyone in opposition wished to address the Council.
Mrs. Margaret Sullivan, 1122 West Diamond Street, advised that she
lives directly around the corner from The Marquis cocktail bar and contested the
validity of the signatures on the petitions submtttedo. She stated that there
are not that many property owners in the immediate vicinity and the property
owners with whom she is acquainted on Diamond Street are mostly elderly people
whom she is certain, having discussed the matter with them, would not have signed
the petition. She felt that the names on the petition should be checked before
it is accepted by the Council.
Mrs. Sullivan stated she was absolutely opposed to any expansion of
parking which would encourage further patronage of the cocktail bar. She made
certain allegations regarding the activities at the bar itself and the up-stairs
rooms which she felt should not be encouraged any further, and displayed an
advertising flyer describing same which is used by The Marquis for placement on
the windshields of automobiles.
74-199
City Hall, Anaheim, (;_a_l_i~o~r_.~j~a._- COIFNCIL MINUTES - Fe~_r_ua_?jZ~_~ 1974, 1:30 P.M.
~.~ .... most of
ting to keep her neighbor~ood clear and quiet for herself ancl=
other residents on I)iamond Street who are elderly persons. She expressed the
opinion that Mr. Doering, who owns the entire building, does not intend to re-
new the restaurant lease to the Billito's operator once it has expired, and
that he intends ,to expand ~pon his own business instead. She remarked that
one year ago when ~Ir. 7.~oering requested her su?port for his original petition,
he deceived her by indicating this would simply be a quiet cocktail bar, and
accepting his word, she withdrew her own objection. She cautioned the Council
that a vote for ;,lr. ~)oering would be avote for prostitution on Diamond Street.
Councilman Stephenson assured Mrs. Sullivan that the Anaheim Police
Department Vice Squad observes the activities at this cocktail bar as well,and
that in discussions with members of this squad, they have indicated to him
that they have found n.o lllegal activities going on at The Marquis cocktail
bar.
Mrs. Sullivan contended that the patrons of the bar are screened so
that the owner will not be prosecuted for the activities therein.
Councilman D~tton reminded Mrs. Sullivan that the action before the
Council relates to whether or not a parcel of property should be used as a
parking lot and that is all.
Mrs. Sullivan responded that the area residents do not want the
parking lot in that location since it would subject them to additional noise
and would be detrimental ~o their neighborhoodo She remarked that signatures
placed on the ?etition [~'-r~ers should not be considered since these people
move frequently. She advised that she has lived on Diamond Street for 24 years.
Mr. ~en Cling~an, 9lA West Diamond Street, addressed the Council in
opposition to the ~rovosa].. . [~e related his experience in Montana, with an
establishment similar to !..~r. ~oering's which developed into a dangerous loca-
tion and eventvally area residents moved out and the immediate neighborhood
became known as a "red light" or "honky-tonk" district. He stated that Mr.
Doering's establishment has similar overtones and admonished the City to care-
fully monitor these activities.
The b~avor asked if anyor~e el. se wished to address the Council in
opposition; there !-~c~!.~? ~., ~,~oc!3o~:~;e~off~'r~cl ~]~':' ;~pvlicant a few minutes for
rebuttal°
Mr. Goodman stated that the veracity of the signatures on the peti-
tion could be attested by Mro Don Perber, who accompanied Mr. Doering when these
were collected and who was present~ in the Council Chamber~. Further Mr. Goodman
remarked that in his opinion, the City of Anaheim has one of the finest police
departments in the State and he is thoroughly confident that they are capable
of handling any problem which they might encounter. In regard to Mr. Doering's
particular business, Mr. Goodman related that one of the strictest enforcement
agencies State-wide, the Alcoholic Beverage Control Bureau, patrols constantly
and if any of the activities alledged by the previous speaker had occurred,
Mr. Doering would have his license revoked. He reminded the Council once again
that the real issue before them pertains to a parking lot.
Mayor Dutton closed the hearing.
Councilman Sneegas felt that the issues should be separated and re-
iterated that the Council is discussing a man's right to use an individual
piece of property as a parking lot for what is under the Code, a legitimate
business enterprise so long as it stays within the bounds set forth by the
AnaheimMunicipal Code. He remarked that he has no knowledge as to whether or
not the accusations made relative to the activities within the bar are true,
but that he does know if there is anything illegal happening there, that the
Anaheim Police Department has the capability of putting a stop to it.
Further,Councilman Sneegas remarked that he voted against this pro-
ject initially because he does not like the idea of small cocktail bars, since
historically the Police Department has experienced a great deal of trouble from
74-2C0
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - February 26, 1974, !:30 P.M.
them. However, the current proposal is to convert a vacant lot into a parking
lot which fulfills the site development standards for. parking lots and he could
not see any reason to deny this use as it is proposed.
Councilman Thom disagreed, noting that he concurs with the Planning
Commission decision, even with the withdrawal of the first three'requested
waivers, es he felt this parking lot would be an intrusion into a residential
neighborhood since the noise and lights and general disturbance of cars would
be a nuisance to the residamts. He felt this use to be incompatible in a
single-family residential area.
Councilman Sneegas remarked that from the number of names on the
· petition submitted, evidently there is a need for additional parking in the
area and submitted that perhaps this lot would solve a problem rather than
create one,since it would obviate the necessity for cars to park in front of
the area resident's homes.
Councilman Thom stated that since the action of the bar itself is
undoubtedly disturbing the neighborhood, in his opinion, giving this owner addi-
tional parking would only enhance the disturbing atmosphere.
Councilman Pebley pointed out examples of parking lots in other areas
of the City which back up to single-family residential homes.
Councilman Thom remarked that he did not dispute that this situation
does exist elsewhere, however, the fact that it does exist does not mean it
constitutes good planning in his judgment.
Councilman Stephenson felt that the 37 signatures on the petition in
favor of the parking would indicate representation by everyone living within
the encircling area of subject parcel.
Mrs. Sullivan took exception to this and stated that there are not
that ~ny property owners encircling the property and that some of the signatures
on this petition are those of employees of Mr. Doering.
Mr. Murdoch suggested, should Council approve the subject use, perhaps
a restriction on the hours which the parking lot might be used would be appro-
priate and Mr. Goodman indicated that the Applicant would be willing to accept
such a condition.
RESOLUTION NO. 74R-80: Councilman Sneegas offered Resolution No. 74R-80 for
adoption, granting Variance No. 2570, subject to the following conditions recom-
mended by the Interdepartmental Committee and further subject to prohibition of
use of the parking lot one hour after the closing time of The Marquis cocktail
bar:
1. That th8 owner(s) of subject property shall deed to the City of
Anaheim a strip of land 10 feet in width from the centerline of the alley for
alley widening purposes.
2. That drainage of subject property shall be disposed of in a manner
satisfactory to the City Engineer.
3. That street lighting facilities along Diamond Street shall be
installed ms required by the Director of Public Utilities, and in accordance with
standard plans and specifications on file in the office of the Director of Public
Utilities and that a bond in an amount and form satisfactory to the.City of
Anaheim shall be posted with the City to guarantee the installation of the above-
mentioned requirements.
4. That subject property shall be developed substantially in accor-
dance with plans and specifications on file with the City of Anaheim merked
Emhibit No. 1.
5. That Condition Nos. 1, 2, 3and 4, above-mentioned, shall be com-
plied with prior to the co~nencement of the activity authorized under this resol-
ution, or prior to the time that the building permit is issued, or within & per-
iod of one year from date hereof, whichever occurs first, or such further time
as the City Counc~l'may grant.
6, That the subject parking lot shall be closed and prohitibed from
use after one hour following the closing time of The Marquis cocktail bar.
74-201
City Hall, A_n~hetm, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - February 26, 1974, 1:30 P,M.
Refer to Resolution Book.
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM GRANTING VARIANCE
NO. 2570.
Roll Call Vote:
AYES: COUNCILMEN: Stephenson, Sneegas, Pebley and Dutton
NOES: COUNCILMEN: Thom
ABSENT: COUNCILMEN: None
The Mayor declared Resolution No. 74R-80 duly passed and adopted.
ANUSE~NT DEVICES PE~4IT: Application filed by Eric G. Smith, for Amusement Devices
Permit to allow a pool table at Duffer's Inn, 113 North Magnolia Avenue, was
submitted and granted, subject to provisions of Chapters 3.24 and 4.20 of the
Anaheim Municipal Code, as recommended by the Chief of Police, on motion by
Councilman Pebley, seconded by Councilman Stephenson. MOTION CARRIED.
CITY PIAI~NI~ COMMISSION ITEMS: Actions taken by the City Planning Commission at
their meeting held February 4, 1974, pertaining to the following applications
were submitted for City Council information and consideration:
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT - NEGATIVE DECLARATIONS: As recommended by the City
Planning. Con~ntssion, on motion by Councilman Stephenson, seconded by Councilnmn
Pebley, the City Council finds and determines that the projects in the follow-
ing actions are exempt from the requirement to prepare environmental impact
report pursuant to the provisions of the California Environmental' Quality Act:
Variance No. 2577
Conditional Use Permit No. 1440
Conditional Use Permit No. 1443
Conditional Use Permit No. 1450
Conditional Use Permit No. 1451
Conditional Use Permit No.'1452
Conditional Use Permit No. 1453
MOTION CARRIED.
1. VARIANCE NO. 2577: Submitted by William Itarmatz and William L. Shoemaker,
to establish an outdoor trailer and boat storage yard on C-R zoned property
located on the east side of Walnut Street, south of Ball Road, with Code waivers
of:
a. Permitted uses.
b. Requirement that uses be conducted within a building.
The City Planning Commission, pursuant to ResOlution No. PC74-33,
granted said variance, subject to conditions.
The City Clerk submitted a letter dated February 19, 1974, from Mr.
and Mrs. FloYd Pruett, and Mr. and Mrs. A. G. Valdez, adjacent property owners
requesting that the required visual screening on the west property line include
a solid gate.
Regarding this gate, Mr. Roberts advised that there is no specific
condition pertaining to that item however he felt it would be 'reasonable to
construe that the conditions which require the.five-foot solid masonry wall
and earthen berm adjacent to Walnut Street, would encompass the gate, since the
intent to screen this use from Walnut Street has been expressed.
Councthnan Dutton questioned whether or not Condition No. 2.of Plan-
ning Commission Resolution No. PC74-33, regarding dedication of vehicular ;
access rights to Walnut Street was correct.
Later in the meeting, after checking the tapes and Minutes of the
Planning Commission meeting, it was determined that Condition No. 2 of Planning
Commission Re~olution No. PC74-33 was incorporated erroneously. Mr. Roberts
advised that it will be recommended to the City Planning Commission that this
resolution be amended.
74-202
City Hall, Anaheim~ California - CO¥;~ii~L MINUTES - February 26, 1974, 1:30 P.M. The City Council took no action on Variance No. 2577.
2. CONDITIONAL USE PER>I[T NC. ]4gO: Submitted by J. D. and Stella Norton,
to establish a pre-school tbrough first grade school on R-A zoned property
located on the south sid~~ c~f Ball ~)ad at the southwest corner of Ball Road and
Nutwood Street, with Cod~ waivers of:
a. Maximum building height.
h. Minim~nn si(lc yard.
c. Minimum site setback for a school.
d. Maximum fe~cv bc~gbt in side and rear yards.
The City Planning ii~n~,nission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC74-27,
granted said conditional us~, per,nit, subject to conditions.
3. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT ~4(',', 1443: ~3~bmitted by Lee C. and Joan H. Sammis,
to establish a planned ~ni. fied industrial service center including a restaurant
and catering facility, g~nera] b,,~siness offices and retail distribution firms
on M-1 zoned property iccated at 2]0]-?]2] West Crescent Avenue and 700-720
Valley Street on the ~or~-h(~as~. (~rner of Crescent Avenue and Valley Street, with
Code waivers of:
a. Permitted ~ses.
b. Minimum nt~nber o~' required parking spaces°
The City ?]anteing (?~,~.~ ~ssion, pursuant to Resolution No. PC74-28,
granted said conditional use permit, subject to conditions.
4. CONDITIONAL USE PERb'IT NO. i~50: !~ubmJtted by Alexander Haagen to establish
on-sale beer and wine ir c~)nju~,':t~t-~)n witb an Italian restaurant/pizza parlor in
a commercial shopping c~nter or (~-I zone property located on the south side of
Santa Ana Canyon Road, :.n ~be ~t~.~t' side of Imperial Highway, at the southwest
corner of Santa Ana Can> ~,~ ~'c>a~: aT}el Imperial Highway.
The City ?]an~>ing ~'~onz-~ssi~>n., pursuant to Resolution No. PC74-34,
granted said conditional usc p~rz~i!::, subject to one condition.
5. CONDITIONAL USE PER>lIT NO. lg+51: '.-~ubmztted by William A. Bayzerman to
establish an on-sale liquor establishment in conjunction with a restaurant in
an existing cormnercial shopping center, on C-1 zoned property located on the
east side of Euclid Str(>et, north ~f Broadway.
The City ?]an.~ing ~io~m~ission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC74-29,
granted said conditionai use per~n~t, subject to one condition°
6. CONDITIONAL USE PEtCqi~ NO. 1452: Submitted by Joseph and Grace Romo to
establish a child care nursery on P,-1 zoned property located on the north side
of Dogwood Street, at the northwest corner of Dogwood Street and Loara Street°
The City Plan'~ing < o~,~ission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC74-35,
denied said conditional use pe,-nn~t.
7. CONDITIONAL USE PE~,~IT NO. 1453: Submitted by Leora Moore to establish a
boarding and lodging ho~ne for the ,_'.are of approximately 15 emotionally disturbed,
mentally retarded children in an existing two-story dwe]ling on R-A zoned prop-
erty located on the southwest side of a private road, south of Santa Ana Canyon
Road.
The City Planning Co...~nission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC74-36,
granted said conditional use permit, for a maximum of 15 children (between the
ages of 2 and 12 years'), subject t,~ conditions.
8. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 1361: Submitted by Charles K. Patterson, Presi-
dent, Orange County Volvo, requesting approval to establish an automobile sales
and service facility on the southerly portion of subject R-A zoned property loca-
ted on the northwest s~de of Manchester Avenue, north of Orangewood Avenue.
74- 203
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - February 26, 1974, 1:30 P.M,
The City Planning Commission, by motion, approved subject request as
being substantially in conformance with the intent of the Commi8sion's original
approval of Conditional Use Permit No. 1361; said approval being subject to
the provision that any repair work on the premises would be minor in nature
and that no repair work would be done on engines, tune-up, body or fender work,
painting or tire repairs.
9. VARIANCE NO. 2548: Submitted by Julius Engoren, Southcoast Gr&phics,
requesting permission to install an additional (5½ by 6-foot) free-standing
monument sign identifying emergency and out-patient facilities at Canyon Gen-
eral Hospital. C-O zoned property is located at the northwest corner of
Riverdale Avenue and Lakeview Avenue.
The City Planning Commission, by motion, reaffirmed the Planning
Commission action of December 10, 1973, granting permission to install an addi-
tional 3 by 6-foot free-standing monument sign identifying the emergency
entrance of the Canyon (;eneral Hospital.
The f~regoing applications were reviewed by the City Council and
no further action taken.
WALL TREATMENT PLANS - TRACT NO. 8220 (VARIANCE NO. 2489, RECLASSIFICATION NO.
71-72-44 (5) ): Mr. Roberts explained that on April 24, 1974, when the City
Council approved Tentat~ive Map, Tract No. 8220, one of the conditions of
approval required a six-foot solid and open-work wall to be constructed adjac-
ent to Canyon Rim Road. ~e developer at that time requested a more flexible
approach to the wall treatment, proposing to develop something which would be
acceptable to the City and provide adequate sound buffering but still would
permit the drivers ~si~g Canyon Rim Road and the residents to capitalize on the
view potential.
In response to this request, Council did determine that the Applicant
could submit such plan at a later date. The plans submitted consists of a
combination of wrought iron fencing ranging from 42 inches to 6 feet high and
plaster walls, comparable to the entry walls existing in Anaheim Hills.
Mr. ~oberts reported that the plans were reviewed by the City Planning
Commission Who felt that the sound buffering at intersections with Canyon Rim
Road provided by the plaster wall would be sufficient and that the 42-inch
wrought iron fence would be adequate to prevent pedestrians from falling down
hill. However the Planning Cormnission did express concern regarding sight
distance and view obstruction at the intersection. As a result of this, they
rec~ended approval of the wall treatment plans provided the developer moves
these back to a point where they will not present a vimual sight distance prob-
lem and the Applicant indicated a willingness to comply.
The plans were submitted and reviewed at the Council table.
On motion by Councilman Sneegas, seconded by Councilman Dutton, the
plans submitted for the wall treatment along Canyon Rim Road adjacent to Tract
No. 8220, were approved subject to the unconstructed walls at the intersection
of Canyon Rim Road and the streets leading into subject tract being in confor-
mance to the monument sign setback requirements of the proposed sign ordinance
revision. MOTION CARRIED.
REQUEST FOR NIGHT MEETING - RECLASSIFICATION NO. 73-74-30, ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT
REPORT NO. 109~ CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 1439 AND TENTATIVE TRACT NO. 8533: The
City Clerk submitted correspondence received from Mr. Jeffrey R. Hultmam, 5434
Spy Glass Way, requesting that the public hearing on Tentative Tract No. 8533
and related zoning actions be scheduled at an evening hearing on March 5, 1974
rather than as scheduled at 1:30 P.M., due to the fact that March 5, 1974 is
the date of the Orange Unified School District Bond Election.
On motion by Councilman Dutton, seconded by Councilman Sneegas, the
public hearing on Reclassification No. 73-74-30, E.I.R. No. 109, Conditional
Use Permit No. 1439 and Tentative Tract No. 8533, was continued to March 12,
1974 at 1:30 P.M.; and the City Clerk directed to forward by mail notice of
74-204
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - February 26, 1974, 1:30 P.M,
said continuation to the Westridge Homeowners' Association, Santa Aha Canyon
Improvement Association, inc., Grant Company, Orange Unified School District
and other parties directly concerned. MOTION CARRIED.
RESOLUTION NO. 74R-81 - AWARD OF WORK ORDER NO. 9188: In accordance with recom-
mendations of the City Engineer, Councilman Stephenson offered Resolution No.
74R-81 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 IMPROVEMENT OF DIANE WAY AT CAROL DRIVE AND DAHLIA DRIVE,
IN THE CITY OF ANAHEIM, WORK ORDER NO. 9188. (John W. Tiedemann Company -
$3,673.00)
Roll Call Vote:
AYES: COUNCIIAtEN:
NOES: COUNC II>~N:
ABSENT: COUNCI ]MEN:
Stephenson, Sneegas, Pebley, Thom and Dutton
None
None
The Mayor declared Resolution No. 74R-81 duly passed and adopted.
RESOLUTION NO. 74R-82 - DEEDS OF EASEMENT: Councilman Pebley offered Resolution No.
74R-82 for adoption.
Refer to Resolution Book.
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITI~ COUNCIL O~~ TH>~' CITY OF ANAHEIM ACCEPTING CERTAIN
DEEDS AND ORDERING THEIR RECORDATION. (Vernetta M. Dargatz; Rogers A. &
Barbara A. Severson; Tri-Freeway Business Complex, Ltd.; State Industries)
Roll Call Vote:
AYES: COUNCILMEN:
NOES: COUNCILMEN:
ABSENT: COUNCIIMEN:
Stephenson, Sneegas, Pebley, Thom and Dutton
None
None
The Mayor declared Resolution No. 74R-82 duly passed and adopted.
PROPOSED ABANDONMENT - RESOLUTION NO. 74R-83: Councilman Sneegas offered Resolution
No. 74R-83 for adoption.
Refer to Resolution Book.
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM DECLARING ITS
INTENTION TO VACATE CERTAIN REAL PROPERTY AND FIXING A DATE FOR HEARING
THEREON. (73-8A, March 19, 1974, 1:30 P.M.; west side of Velare Street,
south of Orange Avenue)
Roll Call Vote:
AYE S: COUNC IIMEN:
NOES: COUNCILMEN:
AB SENT: COUNC IIMEN:
Stephenson, Sneegas, Pebley, Thom and Dutton
None
None
The Mayor declared Resolution No. 74R-83 duly passed and adopted.
SURPLUS MATERIAL - COMPUTER FLOOR AT ANAHEIM STADIUM: On motion by Councilman
Pebley, seconded by Councilman Sneegas, the City Council declared the 700~
square feet of raised computer floor formerly used by Data Processing Depart-
ment st the Anaheim StadiUm, surplus to the City's needs as recommended by
the City Manager. MOTION CARRIED.
74-205
City Hall, Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - February 26, 1974, 1:30 P.M.
PURCHASE OF EQUIPMENT - ANNUNCIA~FOR-INDICATOR PANEL - LEWIS SUBSTATION: The
City Manager reported on the recommended purchase of an annunciator-indicator
panel for console addition at the Lewis Substation and advised that Jelco Inc.,
has submitted a proposal to fabricate this panel at a cost of $3,654.00, in-
cluding tax. The job has been reviewed by the City's consultant, Bechtel Power
Corporation, and this amount is considered reasonable. The City Manager there-
fore recommended that the purchase of this equipment be approved from Jelco
Ibc.
On motion by Councilman Sneegas, seconded by Councilman Stephenson,
the City Council authorized the purchase of one annunciator-indicator panel,
for installation at the Lewis Substation from Jelco Inc., at a cost of
$3,654.00, including tax° MOTION CARRIED.
PURCHASE OF MATERIAL - 600 VOLT URD CABLE: The City Manager reported on informal
bids received for the purchase of 600 volt URD cable for the Electrical Divi-
sion as follows and recommended acceptance of the Westinghouse Electric Supply
bid because of the favorable delivery date offered by that firm:
VENDOR
TOTAL AMOUNT, INCLUDING TAX
General Electric Supply, Anaheim
Westinghouse Electric Supply, Anaheim
Graybar Electric, Anaheim ......
Okonite Company, Los Angeles
$29,017.04
- - 31,540.53
- - 33,291.30
- - NO QUOTE
On motion by Councilman Stephenson, seconded by Councilman Dutton,
the bid of Westinghouse Electric Supply was accepted and purchase authorized
in the amount of $31,540.53, including tax. MOTION CARRIED.
PURCHASE OF MISCELLANEOUS FIRE EQUIPMENT: The City Manager reported on the recom-
mended purchase of miscellaneous fire pumper equipment and advised that in each
instance, with one exception, the low bid as been accepted. The one exception
applies to a piece of equipment from Halprin Supply which fits existing equip-
ment whereas the others did not. It was therefore recommended by the City
Manager that the list of miscellaneous fire equipment be purchased from these
suppliers as follows:
Wardlaw Fire Equipment
Western Fire Equipment
Halprin Supply
- $ 2,048.60, including tax
- - - 4,805.90, including tax
- - 13,462.52, including tax
On motion by Councilman Sneegas, seconded by Councilman Pebley, the
City Council approved the purchase of miscellaneous fire pumper equipment from
Wardlaw Fire Equipment, Western Fire Equipment and Halprin Supply in the follow-
ing amounts respectively, $2,048.60, $4,805.90 and $13,462.52, including tax, as
reported and recommended by the City Manager. MOTION CARRIED.
CLAIM AGAINST THE CITY: Claim filed by Larry C. Dixon for personal property damage
purportedly resulting from electrical power surges of the City's electrical
supply, on or about the month of December, 1973, was denied as recommended by
the City Attorney and ordered referred to the insurance carrier, on motion by
Councilman Pebley, seconded by Councilman Sneegas. MOTION CARRIED.
RESOLUTION NO. 74R-84 - MOTORCYCLE TRAINING CLASSES, CALIFORNIA HIGHWAY PATROL
ACADEMY: Councilman Dutton offered Resolution No. 74R-84 for adoption.
Refer to Resolution Book.
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM APPROVING AND
AUTHORIZING THE EXECUTION OF AN AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF ANAHEIM
AND THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA, DEPARIMENT OF HIGHWAY PATROL RELATING TO
MOTORCYCLE TRAINING CLASSES FOR ANAHEIM POLICE OFFICERS AT THE CALIF-
ORINA HIGHWAY PATROL ACADEMY.
Roll Call Vote:
74-206
City Hall, Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - February 26, 1974, 1:30 P,M.
AYES: COUNCILMEN: Stephenson, Sneegas, Pebley, Thom and Dutton
NOES: COUNCILMEN: None
ABSENT: COUNCILMEN: None
The Mayor declared Resolution No. 74R-84 duly passed and adopted.
RESOLUTION NO. 74R-85 - POLLING PLACES AND ELECTION OFFICERS, APRIL 9TH GENERAL
MUNICIPAL ELECTION: The City Clerk reported that this resolution will establish 100
consolidated precincts and the payment for election officers as follows:
Inspector - $21.00; Judge and Clerk - $18.00; polling place (where fee is appli-
cable) - $15.00.
On report and recommendation of the City Clerk, Councilman Stephenson
offered Resolution No. 74R-85 for adoption.
Refer to Resolution Book.
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM ESTABLISHING VOTING
PRECINCTS, ESTABLISHING POLLING PLACES, APPOINTING ELECTION OFFICERS AND
FIXING THE COMPENSATION OF ELECTION OFFICERS FOR THE GENERAL MUNICIPAL
ELECTION TO BE }{ELD IN SAID CITY ON APRIL 9, 1974, HERETOFORE CALLED BY
RESOLUTION NO. 73R-594, OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM.
Roll Call Vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
COUNCILMEN: Stephenson, Sneegas, Pebley, Thom and Dutton
COUNCILMEN: None
COUNCILMEN: None
The Mayor declared Resolution No. 74R-85 duly passed and adopted.
GEOLOGICAL PRESENTATION - CHINO HILLS AIRPORT SITE: At the invitation of Councilman
Thom, Dr. Chris Buckley, Ph.D., Professor of Earth Sciences at Cal State Fuller-
ton, presented a visual report on the potentials for earthquakes in the Chino
Hills area. Dr. Buckley advised th~thisareaof expertise is seismology, and that
he has been actively involved in study of the structural geology of Orange
County, including the Chino Hills area for some four years.
Dro Buckley displayed a series of slides illustrating the location of
all major earthquakes (four through eight on the Richter Scale) in the Pacific
Ring in the last seven years; several aerial views of the San Andreas Fault
showing the right lateral displacement; aerial view of the principal strands
of the San Andreas Fault System - the San Jacinto, Elsinore and Newport-Ingle-
wood faults; several slides showing various types of earthquake damage incurred
in the 1933 Long Beach earthquake as well as the more recent Sylmar-San Fernando
earthquake.
Dr. Buckley related that the San Jacinto Fault is the most active
fault in California, having an average rate of displacement of 3 inches per
year and a seismic frequency of a major earthquake every 40 to 50 years. He
indicated that on the basis of current research, sciamtists at Cal Tech feel
they will be able to accurately predict an earthquake on a section of the San
Jacinto Fault. He indicated that they have been able to do this in the past on
one occasion with a high degree of accuracy as to location and time.
Dr. Buckley indicated that in the vicinity of Corona, the Elsinore
Fault, one of the principal strands of the San Andreas System,splits into two
faults - the Whittier Fault to the left and north and the Chino Hills Fault to
the right.
Councilman Dutton inquired whether this "Chino Hills Fault" is also
sometimes called the Norwalk Fault, to which Dr. Buekley replied that these are
two separate and distinct faults and that the Norwalk Fault is not visible on the
particular slide showing the Chino Hills Fault.
Dr. Buckley presented statistics on the study prepared by Mr. Don
LeMar on the seismicity of the Whittier Fault. Within 6 months of this study
he documented 31 micro-seismic events in the vicinity of the Whittier Fault, 17
74-207
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - February 26, 1974, 1:30
of which did take place directly on the trace of the Whittier Fault. The
largest magnitude of these was 3.1 and the smallest was 1.8. He displayed a
slide showing the location of the epicenters of these 31 micro earthquakes,
upon which was indicated the proposed site of the Chino Hills Airport as well.
Dr. Buckley pointed out that these earthquake epicenters are not located on
the trace of the Whittier Fault but that they are some distance away. The
reason for this, he explained, is the geometry of this particular ~'~ult Plain.
It is not a vertical fault plain but inclines towards the north at an angle of
60 degrees. The main release of elastic strain energy (also referred to as the
hypocenter of an earthquake) is normally 2 to 6 miles in depth in California.
This would place the hypocenter of any major movement on this 'section of the
Whittier Fault about 2 to 4 miles north of the fault which is exactly the pro-
posed location of the Chino Hills Airport.
Dr. Buckley presented a slide showing an aerial view of the Chin6
Hills Airport site which shows thi~ to be extremely rugged topography requiring
as much as 300-foot cut of hills and 300-foot fill of valleys in order to level
the area.
Dr. Buckley indicated that the major damage caused by an earthquake
is the result of ground acceleration. He noted that no individual has ever
been killed in California directly from ground acceleration, but that loss of
life is usually attributed to collapsed buildings, broken gas mains, fires,
and the inability to fight same. He displayed slides showing the damages in-
curred in earthquakes to small structures such as single-family homes versus
large buildings, which demonstrated a much lower level of structural damages
to the smaller buildings°
In conclusion, Dr. Buckley remarked that if scientists can define
an area in which there is a potential seismic risk, this is the area in which
to avoid the construction of large buildings or the attraction of a large con-
centration of people. He noted that Don LeMar, himself and scientists at Cal
Tech have made some preliminary calculations as to the seismic risk of the
Whittier Fault. Because there has been no previous record of a major earth-
quake occurring on the Whittier Fault, this means that elastic strain is building
up and the longer the fault remains inactive, the more damaging the earthquake
when it arrives. Presently they estimate that the fault has built up enough
strain to release an earthquake of at least a 6.2 magnitude on the Richter
Scale. He therefore concluded that this is an area in which no large rigid
structures should be built, particularly a runway built on top of 350 feet of
fill.
Councilman Dutton remarked that in all of recorded history the
Whittier Fault has never given any indication of activity, nor has there been
any earthquake history in the Chino Hills area° He concurred that certainly
prior to any airport construction a thorough investigation of the geology and
seismic risk would be completed°
Dr. Buckley related that his scientific input is that a certain amount
of elastic strain energy is being built up in the Whittier Fault. He further
stated that less than half of all of the elastic strain energy is released on
the principal strands of the San Andreas and San Jacinto Faults and remarked
that the Sylmar and Long Beach earthquakes are demonstrations of this fact.
The Sylmar earthquake was caused by movement on the San Gabriel Fault. He
stated that there is one major structure on the Newport-Inglewood Fault, the
Baldwin Hills Reservoir, which was built at that location in spite of warnings
regarding the seismic risk by 3 engineering geologists. He pointed out
that this reservoir did fail and killed 49 people. The Whittier Fault because
of its inactivity is much more of a risk, and the longer it remains inactive
means that the earthquake which occurs will be that much larger.
Dr. Bucktey related that there are two types of destructive forces
released in an earthquake - the ground breakage and ground waves. -The ground
waves decay exponentially with distance so that as long as you are one or two
74-208
City Hallm Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - February 26, 1974, 1:30 P.M.
miles away from the hypocenter there is relatively less damage for a
structure° A large structure which is close to a fault carries some risk,
which risk is sometimes acceptable, if sufficiently far enough away. However
he advised that to consider constructing something as large as the Chino Hills
Airport directly on top of an active earthquake fault would be outrageous in
his opinion.
Councilman Dutton interjected that the Whittier Fault is not considered
active and further that scientific opinions on earthquakes differ among geolo-
gists.
Dr. Buckley stated that between July of 1971 and April of 1972, 31
seismic events were recorded on one very small section of the Whittier Fault.
These micro earthquakes, because they did occur directly on the fault, demon-
strate that it is incorporating strain. Because there has been no earthquake
of great magnitude, this means that there has been no opportunity for elastic
strain energy to be released.
Councilman Dutton stated that he has received different information
from other geologists, such as Converse and Davis, and noted that even the
F.A.A. and HUD permit buildings to be constructed in areas which have recorded
seismic shocks of 1 to 3 on the Richter Scale. Obviously, he remarked, if one
lives on the Pacific Coast he must learn to live with the possibility of earth-
quakes.
Dr. Buckley advised that he feels he has a valid input because of his
background and active involve~n~nt in this field of science and that he is not
receiving any mone~ar5 i~enefit f~,r presenting such information to the Council.
He indicated that although Converse, Davis and Associates are renowned engineer-
ing geologists, their i~put will essentially be different because they are not
seismologists and consequently have little expertise in the field of earthquake
prediction° He related that il~ is estimated that scientists will be able to
predict accurately as t.> da~e, na~itude and location, an earthquake on the
Whittier Fault, and that there are o~].v three individuals who have been actively
involved in this study and are experts in this field, himself, Don LeMar and
Cliff Gray.
Councilman ~P~om thanked i)r. ~uckley for attending the Council meeting
and advised that he wished the presentation could have been given before the
Council had signed the ~oint powers agreement to form the Chino Hills Airport
Authority since this scientific data serves to enhance the reasons he (Councilman
Thom) feels that the City of Anaheim's participation in such activity is sheer
folly. He urged the remainder of the Council to take heed of the material
presented and its implications.
Councilman Dutton replied that no one has ever said that the Airport
would be built, that what the City is engaged in is a feasibility study in order
to have a look at the overall plan. He noted that the City of Anaheim has not
con~nitted to spending any money on this project.
Councilman Sneegas referred to a letter, which is on the Council
Agenda for this date u~der "Correspondence", from Chino Hills Airport Authority
dated February 13, 1974 which indicates that said Authority will take no posi-
tion of either support or opposition to the Chino Hills Airport Complex until
such time as a comprehensive study is completed of the total geographical area
and it is determined whether there is a need for further airport development.
Councilman Sneegas remarked that he felt the information presented by
Dr. Buckley is a valid part of the exploration undertaken by the Authority and
that he would see to it that the other cities also receive the benefit of this
input. He stated that he felt this information should be incorporated into the
process as well as differing view points so that the Authority can come to a
rational conclusion. He disagreed with those who speak as though the decision
on the Chino Hills Airport has already been made, pointing out that if this were
the case, there would be no purpose or necessity in establishing the Chino Hills
Airport Authority. He called attention to the fact that the intent of the Auth-
ority has been clearly spelled out in this first communication.
74-209
City Hall~ Anaheim, J~J.~.~f~ .~ _7 ~!j? ~i(j'~ ~'~I~JTE~ - ~ji!~.~a~r-_~' 26, 1974, 1:30 P.M.
Councilman Stephenson remarked that Councilman Thom received a copy
of the correspondence from the Chino Hills Airport Authority as well as the
other members of the City Council and that Councilman Thom's objective in
scheduling Dr. Buckley~s"presentation on the Agenda was politically motivated
and in conjunction with the forthcoming election.
in revly ~o an outburst from the audience, Mayor Dutton related that
the Council has'not co~itted any funds whatsoever for the study connected with
the Chino Hills Airport~
Councilman Fhom alleged ~hat the only reason for establishment of
the Authority is that ~he joint powers agreement was bought and paid for by the
proposed develovers. He remarked that when someone buys and pays for a city
to enter an authority such as ~his, they do it for a specific reason. That
reason has been fair~i~~ well established - to construct an airport in Chino
Hills - and so ~he outcome of the study is obvious.
Councilman D~'ton disagreed with Councilman Thorn's comments.
No further action was taken by the City Council.
RESOLUTION NO. 74R-86 - ?UBL~<'~ HEALTH LAWS ENFORCEMENT BY COUNTY HEALTH DEPARTMENT:
Councilman Dutton offered Resolution No. 74R-86 for adoption.
Refer to ?,~s~.lu~'ion Book.
A RESOLUTION OF THE CI Vf COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM CONSENTING TO THE
COUNTY OF ORANGE ~2aLT!{ DEt~AR~I~NT ENFORCEMENT OF PUBLIC HEALTH lAWS.
(Effective July 1, ~974~
Roll !]all Vote:
AYES: ~]OUNCII~b~N~ Stephenson, Sneegas, Pebley, Thom and Dutton
NOES: COUNCI I~N: None
ABSENT: COUNC ! I}IE N: None
The Mayor declared Resolution No. 74R-86 duly passed and adopted.
CORRESPONDENCE: The followit~g correspondence was ordered received and filed on
motion by Councilman Thom, seconded by Councilman Pebley:
a. Chino Hills Airport Authority - Taking no position on the devel-
opment of the Chino Hills Airport Complex until a comprehensive study is com-
pleted and notification of the next meeting, February 20, 1974.
b. City of Costa Mesa - Resolutio~ No. 74-3 - Recommending that
cities and counties be retained as the transportation planning agency authority
to select urban routes and to distribute urban funds.
c. City of Fountain Valley - Correspondence to Frank J. Walton,
Secretary of the California Business and Transportation Agency - Opposing the
State Director of Transportation's proposal to give regional transportation
planning agencies the authority to select FAU routes, determine transportation
modes, distribute FAU funds and establish construction priorities.
d. City of Fullerton - Resolution No. 5665 - Supporting specific
planning aspects for the Orange County Transit District.
e. Houston !~ Flournoy~ Controller of the State of California -
Statements showing the mnounts estimated to be paid to each city and county as
its share of revenues to be apportioned by the Controller's office during the
fiscal year ending Jur~e 30, 1975.
f. City of Los Alamitos - Resolution No. 542 - Opposing Assembly
Constitutional Amendment No. 67.
g. Financial and Operating Reports for the Months of December, 1973
and January, 1974.
Engineering Division (December)
Fire Department (January)
Customer Service Division (January)
MOTION CARRIED.
74-210
City Hall~ Anaheim~ Californ.~ ~'i ~I ?~[~]71~? ~. ~ebruar- ~!.~ 1~74, 1:30 P.M.
ORDINANCE NO. 3267: Council~nan Dutton offered Ordinance No. 3267 for adoption.
Refer to Ordinance Book.
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AMENDING TITLE 18 OF THE ANAHEIM
MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING ~ ZONING. (61-62-69 (65) - M-I)
Roll Call Vote:
AYES: COUNCILMEN:
NOES: COUNCILMEN:
ABSENT: COUNCILMEN:
Stephenson, Sneegas, Pebley, ~om and Dutton
None
None
'~he Mayor declared Ordinance No. 3267 duly passed and adopted.
ORDINANCE NO. 3268~ Coun~lman ~tt~,~- ~',ffered Ordinance NOo 3268 for first reading.
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CIl~f OF ANAiR tM AMH~MDI~G TITLE 18 OF ~fHE ANAHEIM
MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING FO ZONIN(~i. (6]-~2-69 (66) - M-l)
ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGE LICENSE A~FLiCAi~iO~: Application ~ubmitted by John Frank Beneda
for on-sale beer and wine for premises located at 1827 West Katella Avenue, was
conditionally protested on the basis of zoning, on motion by Councilmmn Dutton,
seconded by Councilman Stephe?~sc~ ~.~'I~iON CARRIED.
COMPARATIVE SIRIDY OF INDUSTRIAL ACI'tVI'I~f ~ 1973 - ANAHEIM, SANTA ANA AND IRVINE:
Report prepared by Development Services Department dated February 26, 1974, in
response to Councilman ?~bley's request at the January 15, 1974 Council meeting,
was submitted. Said report contained specific comparisons for the Cities of
Anaheim, Santa Aha and Irvine ~ the categories of Transportation; Site Develop-
ment Standards; Permitted I~nd lises; Statistical Analyses.
Said report was ~rdered ~'e~eJved and filed, on motion by Councilman
Pebley, seconded by Cour~ilman $~ epbenson. MOTION CARRIED.
TRUCK RENTALS AT SERVICE S'IA] iONS: ~ ~esp<,nse to Council directive.of February 12,
1973, when Ordinance No. 3264 relating to criteria and development standards for
service stations was introduced for fi?st reading, the report regarding truck
rentals in service stat~,~ns ~", ~d ~. D~ve~opment Services Department was sub-
mitted, for Council cons~derati~'n.
Mr. Ron %hompson sunmmrized the ~indings of said report, indicating
that there are 13 service stations currently renting trucks in zones where this
is not a permitted use° Mr. Thompson indicated that many of the operators did
know at the time that t}~ey undertook these rentals that this was an illegal use.
He related that there are some difficulties with the approach that the
City initate the petitions for conditional use permit, in particular, with ob-
taining the necessary factual information about the truck rental operation
self. For this reason, it was considered necessary and recommended in the report
that the service station owners file separate petitions for conditional use per-
mits, but that the advertising and hearings be conducted jointly where this can
be done without causing undue delay or excessively long agend~m~o Therefore the
recommendation filed by the Development Services Department was that the Council
direct them to notify the operators of the service stations now renting trucks
that they are required to file applications for conditional use permit within
a period of four weeks and that they are also required to obtain business licenses
for truck rentals°
Councilman Pebley inquired as to what the cost to the City would be
for the advertising and processing of these conditional use permits.
Mr. Thompson replied that the estimated cost is $150.00 each.
Councilman Pehley felt there should be some method of handling the
situation which would not impose additional costs on either party.
74-211
City Hall~ Anaheim,. California - COUNCIL MINUTES - ~ebruary 26~ 1974~ 1:30 P.M.
Mr. Thompson related that from 1968 and subsequent years, the subject
service stations have been conducting the truck rental businesaes without pay-
ment of a business license fee for same and without paying for conditional use
permit. Further he pointed out that while some service station~owners may have
been oblivious of the fact that this was not a permitted use in Anaheim, the
U-Haul Company was aware of this fact.
Mr. Joe Conrad, a service station operator, was recognized by the
Mayor and advised that he was not involved with truck rentals but wished to
add his comments. He indicated that he felt the primary responsibility for
obtaining and paying for conditional use permits should be borne by the company
which places these vehicles, and not by the City or the service station oper-
ator. Further he cautioned against allowing service stations an open hand in
adding rental trucks to their stations since, in some instances he felt this
would cause a traffic hazard.
Councilman Sneegas felt the Council had no choice but to follow the
recommendations submitted by Development Services Department since any other
approach would cause an unwanted precedent. He thereupon moved that the Develop-
ment Services Department be directed to inform the operators of service sta-
tions which are now renting trucks that they are required to file applications
for conditional use permits within a period of four weeks and that they are
also required to obtain business licenses for truck rentals. Councilman
Stephenson seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED.
ORDINANCE NO. 3264: Councilman Dutton offered Ordinance No. 3264 for amended
first reading.
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AMENDING TITLE 18 BY ADDING THERETO
A NEW CHAPTER 18.87, AND REPEALING SECTION 18.08.330 AND ADDING NEW
SECTIONS 18.08.330, 18~08.607, AND 18.08.750 RELATING TO ZONING.
(Criteria and Development Standards for Service Stations)
JOINT POWERS AGREEMENT - ORANGE COUNTY MANPOWER CONSORTIUM (COMPREHENSIVE EMPLOYMENT
AND TRAINING ACT OF 1973): City Manager Keith Murdoch briefed the proposed joint
powers agreement to establish the Orange County Manpower Consortium. He ad-
vised that the agreement as presented to the Council either has or will be
accepted by the Cities of Huntington Beach and Santa Aha and has already been
approved by the Orange County Board of Supervisors with three suggested changes.
He advised that the agreement does call for an eleven-member commission composed
of five members of the Board of Supervisors or whomever they select as repre-
sentatives; one member to be appointed by each city council of the four major
cities in the County; two members representing the other cities in the County
to be appointed by the Orange County Division of the League of Cities.
The three stipulations made by the Board of Supervisors, which are
now incorporated into the agreement, revise the provision that the representa-
tives appointed by the Board of Supervisors may be all elected or non-elected
individuals. The Supervisors did not want to be required to provide only
elected officials. Mr. Murdoch advised that the same delegating authority is
available to each of the cities, they may delegate a representative who is not
an elected official.
The second change incorporated into the agreement resulted from the
request made by the City of Garden Grove for an 8~/o,return of their funds, however,
the Board of Supervisors decided to use the figure of 8~4 a8 a goal rather than
a requirement. The third change relates to wording for clarification a8 well
as to avoid possible conflict of interest.
Mr. Murdoch pointed out that the 8~/o return goal reflects 807° of what
each individual city's entitlement would be if proceeding ~eparately. The
percentage actually obtained by each city depends on what the identified need~
are. He related that the difficulty with the 8~/o factor as a requirement is
that the allocation of funds by the Department of Labor recognizes, in his
opinion, all too excessively the services which have been provided in past
years. He stressed that the figures are not firm yet and it is a matter of
trying to meet, through a consortium, some of the problems which individual
cities would be attempting to meet individually. He acknowledged that there
74-212
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - February 26, 1974, 1:30 P,M.
is a bonus for those involved if an approved consortium is formed of up to
approximately 1~/o of the regular entitlement under the Act.(Comprehensive
Employment and Training Act of 1973, C.E.T.A.). Me remarked that it is antici-
pated also that there are some savings which could occur for those cities who
do proceed on the consortium basis.
Mr. Murdoch advised that although there is a 30-day cancellation
clause, from a realistic point of view the Council could expect, if the joint
powers agreement is approved, to remain in the consortium for one year.
Mr. Robert Davis added to Mr. Murdoch's summary that the formula men-
tioned is basically a hold-harmless type formula for the first year and it is
anticipated it will be changed as the cities become involved in the programs to
reflect a more equitable distribution based on actual population and needs.
Further he advised that for the funds which come under Title II of
the Comprehensive Employment and Training Act of 1973 relating to public ser-
vices employment, which is similar to PoE.P. Funds, the content of the consort-
ium is that each of the prime sponsoring agencies will be a contracting agency
for this portion of the funds and will therefore continue to administer their
own public service section at full entitlement.
RESOLUTION NO. 74R-87: Councilman Sneegas offered Resolution No. 74R-87 for
adoption°
Refer to Resolution Book.
A RESOLUTION OF THE CIT%' COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM APPROVING THE TERMS
AND CONDITIONS OF A JOINT POWERS AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE COUNTY OF ORANGE AND
THE CITIES OF SANTA ANA, HUNTINGTON BEACH, GARDEN GROVE AND ANAHEIM, CREATING
THE ORANGE COUNTY MANPOWER COMMISSION, AND AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR AND CITY
CLERK TO EXECUTE SAID AGREEMENT ON BEHALF OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM.
Roll Call Vote:
AYES: COUNCIIMEN:
NOES: COUNCILMEN:
ABSENT: COUNCILMEN:
Stephenson, Sneegas, Pebley, Thom and Dutton
None
N one
The Mayor declared Resolution No. 74R-87 duly passed and adopted.
O.C.T.D. TRANSIT CORRIDOR STUDY - MODIFICATION OF NETWORK T-2E: Planning Supervisor
Don McDaniel advised that since the City of Anaheim's last recommendation, made
January 22, 1974, regarding modifications to Network T-2E, the District has held
a work session and published Interim Report No. 3 which adopts certain modifica-
tions to their plan. The City of Anaheim is now in a position to respond to the
plan published in Interim Report No. 3.
Mr. McDaniel outlined the changes incorporated by the District, namely
that they have included a Huntington Beach line, and he noted it is Development
Services Department recommendation that the City of Anaheim support this. Fur-
ther, they have indicated they would add corridors in the area of Anaheim-Orange
called "Anaheim A" and "Anaheim B", with which the Development Services Depart-
ment also recommends the City of Anaheim concur.
Mr. McDaniel explained specifically that the recommended modifications
to Network T-ZE proposed by Development Services Department, which supersedes
the previous recommendation is as follows:
1. That Network T-2E be modified as follows:
Realign the Pacific Electric Railroad right-of-way corridor,
which is the primary corridor, at approximately Katella Avemue,
utilizing the Southern Pacific Railroad right-of-way amd the
Southern California Edison easement by proceeding easterly to
the Santa Ann Freeway. The corridor would then proceed south-
easterly along the freeway to approximately Broadway where it
would turn southerly and extend into the Santa Ann Civic Center
Complex where it would intersect with the original corridor.
74= 213
City Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - February 26~ 1974~ 1:30 P,M~
b. Delete the Pacific Electric right-of-way corridor from the
point where it intersects with the Southern Pacific Railroad
right-of-way corridor (Anaheimmodiftcation) south to the
Santa Ana Civic Center Complex.
c. Provide service to the eastern central part of the County by
extending the Southern Pacific Railroad right-of-way corri-
dor along the Southern Pacific Railroad right-of-way in the
City of Orange to a terminal to be located near the Newport
Freeway in Orange.
d. Provide service to the southwest part of the County by
utilizing the Southern Pacific Railroad right-of-way as it
extends southerly from the Pacific Electric Railroad right-
of-way and terminates at the Pacific Ocean in Huntington
Beach.
2. That a Multi-Modal Transportation Center be established in the
Commercial-Recreation (Disneyland, Convention Center, Anaheim
Stadium) Area of Anaheim as well as establishing transportation
centers throughout the system at the intersection of corridors
and other major points of high trip generation, such as "The
City" and the County Complex at Manchester and the Santa Aha
Freeway, Santa Ana Civic Center Complex, regional shopping cen-
ters, etco
Mr. McDaniel reported that essentially what this recommendation does
is to suggest deletion of the Garden Grove-Santa Aha link rather than inclu-
sion as a supplementary corridor; that rather than studying a service into the
Santa Ana Civic Center, this recommendation shows this service area as a major
corridor, which would serve Santa Ana, Anaheim and Orange; whereas there is
still the need included for a transportation center in the commercial recrea-
tional area of Anaheim, the recommendation recognizes that there is need for
transportation centers throughout the system.
In conclusion, Mr. McDaniel advised that this latest revision to
Anaheim's recommendation would bring it more into line with the District's
plan and would also put Anaheim in complete agreement with the City of Orange.
Mr. Murdoch added that the difficulty appears to be tha~ up to this
point, the O.C.T.D. Board has tended to follow existing right-of-way, which
is apparently available, without too much consideration to the location of
the customers and their desired destinations.
On motion by Councilman Sneegas, seconded by Councilman Dutton, the
City Council amended their January 22, 1974 action on the Orange Transit Dis-
trict Transportation Corridor Study, i.e., to support the District's Corridor
Network T-2E with specific modifications recommended by Development Services
Department as set forth above and directed that same be forwarded to the Orange
County Transit District. MOTION CARRIED.
Mr. Murdoch recommended that the Anaheim Redevelopment Agency consider
forwarding a similar recommendation and advised that the Redevelopment Commis-
sion has been polled and indicate they intend to take this action at their
February 27, 1974 meeting. He pointed out that the O.C.T.D. hearing will be
held March 4, 1974 and all input should be submitted prior to or at that time.
On reco~endation of the City Attorney, Mayor Dutton directed the
City Clerk to prepare a notice of special meeting of the Amahetm Redevelopment
Agency at 4:15 P.M. on February 26, 1974; said notice to include waiver of any
further notice for signature by all Councilmen and the reporters of the Anaheim
Bulletin, the Register and the Los Angeles Times.
BONAFIDE SECURITY SERVICES - TRAFFIC CONTROL AT CIRCLE SEAL CORPORATION (BROOKHURST
AND IA PAIMA~: Mr. Watts reported that Bonafide Security Services, 559 South Harbor'
Boulevard, has contracted with Circle Seal Corporation, 111 South Brookhurst
Street, Anaheim, to provide security services. In connection with that, they
have also been requested to provide some traffic controls for employee, entering
and leaving the premises. Mr. Watts explained that the Council Policy in the
pa.t ha. been to permit this by a contract arrangement. This contract in under
74-214
City Hall, Anaheim~ California - CO~CIL MINUTES - February 26~ 1974, 1:30 P,M,
preparation in the City Attorney's Office; the Police Department has completed
the investigation; the insurance is satisfactory; the contract to be u~ed is
in line with the standard contract used for the past 10 to 12 years. There is
some degree of urgency since the former company is no longer providing any ser-
vices and the Bonafide Security Services would like to commence immediately.
RESOLUTION NO. 74R-88: Councilman Pebley offered Resolution No. 74R-88 for
adoption approving the terms and conditions of an agreement with Bonafide
Security Services to perform traffic control for Circle Seal Corporation at
Brookhurst Street and La Palma Avenue.
Refer to Resolution Book.
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM APPROVING THE TERMS
AND CONDITIONS OF AN AGREEMENT AUTHORIZING BONAFIDE SECURITY SERVICE TO
DIRECT TRAFFIC AT CIRCLE SEAL CORP. (111 S. BROOKHURST) AND AUTHORIZING THE
MAYOR AND CITY CLERK TO EXECUTE SAID AGREEMENT ON BEHALF OF THE CITY.
Roll Call Vote:
AYES: COUNCIIMEN:
NOES: COUNCILMEN:
ABSENT: COUNCILMEN:
Stephenson, Sneegas, Pebley, Thom and Dutton
N one
None
The Mayor declared Resolution No. 74R-88 duly passed and adopted.
SERVITE HIGH SCHOOL - USE OF ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL GOLF COURSE: The City Manager sub-
mitted a request received from Reverend James P. Dunning, Director of Coun~eling
and Golf Coach, Servite High School for use of the Anaheim Municipal Golf Course
for golf team practices.
Mr. Murdoch advised that the matter has been reviewed by Parks and
Recreation Department who recommend approval with starting time commencing at
3:00 p.m., specific dates to be worked out with them, and a seasonal fee of
$200.
On motion by Councilman Thom, seconded by Councilman Stephenson, the
City Council approved use of Anaheim Munich.pal Golf Course by Servite High
School golf team for three days per week, at a seasonal fee of $200. MOTION
CARRIED.
RESIGNATION - PARKS AND RECREATION COMMISSION - DAVID E. FEELER: The City Clerk sub-
mitted communication dated February 19, 1974, from David E. Peeler, advising of
his resignation from the Anaheim Parks and Recreation Commission due to the fact
that he and his family will shortly be moving from the City of Anaheim.
On motion by Councilman Thom, seconded by Councilman Sneegas, the
resignation of Mr. David E. Peeler was accepted with regrets. MOTION CARRIED.
PERMISSION TO llwAVE THE STATE - COUNCILMAN SNEEGAS: On motion by Councilman Dutton,
seconded by Councilman Stephenson, Councilman Sneegas was granted permission to
leave the State for 90 days. MOTION CARRIED°
SERVICES OF ORANGE COUNTY ANIMAL CONTROL OFFICER: Councilman Thom referred to a
letter from Wayne F. and Rona I~ Brady, dated February 16, 1974, regarding the
situation in the Anaheim Hills area of dogs roaming the streets and tearing up
landscaping. This letter advises that frequent calls to the County Animal Shelter
has brought forth no results and that these citizens request the lease law be
enforced.
Councilman Thom inquired whether this service is provided by the
County on a 24-hour basis.
Councilman Stephenson replied that the services supposedly apply 24
hours per day, however he would assume that after 5:00 p.m., service calls would
be on an emergency basis.
74-215
~2_ity Hall, Anaheim.~ (',a~f "~'~'I .......... ~ -,]~1~£',!]~ MI~,~¥fES - F<q~.rua!y 2.6~ 1974~ 1:30 P.M.
Councilman ?bom related that this problem has been brought to his
attention by several people living in the Anaheim Hills area over the past
couple of months and that he advised them to contact the Anaheim Police Depart-
ment, who in turn contacts the Animal Control Officer without any results. He
asked what the City can do to bring about some response from this Agency.
Mr. Murdoch advised that certainly an investigation can be undertaken
to determine whether or not the County Animal Control Agency is providing ser-
vices in accordance with the terms of the City contract.
RECESS - EXECUTIVE SESSION: On request of the City Manager, Councilman Pebley
moved to recess to Executive Session. Councilman Thom seconded the motion.
MOTION CARRIED. (4: 14 P.M.)
AFIER RECESS: The Mayor called the meeting to order, CouncilmenPebleyand Stephenson
being absent. (5:18 P.M.)
RESOLUTION NOS. 74R-89~ 74R-90 AND 74R-91- EMPLOYEE'S COMPENSATION- ANAHEIM
STADIUM AND CONVENTION CENTER: Councilman Thom offered Resolution Nos. 74R-89,
74R-90 and 74R-91 for adoption.
Refer to Resolution Book.
RESOLUTION NO. 74R-89: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ANAHEIM SUPERSEDING PORTIONS OF RESOLUTION NO. 73R-50 AMENDING RATES OF
COMPENSATION FOR EVENT EMPLOYMENT AT THE ANAHEI1M CONVENTION CENTER.
RESOLUTION NO. 74R-90: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ANAHEIM AMENDING AND ESTABLISHING RATES OF COMPENSATION FOR VARIOUS JOB
CLASSES, AND SUPERSEDING PORTIONS OF RESOLUTION NO. 73R-50.
RESOLUTION NO. 74R-91: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ANAHEIM SUPERSEDING RESOLUTION NO. 72R-51 AND AMENDING RATES OF COMPEN-
SATION FOR VARIOUS CLASSIFICATIONS OF PART-TIME EMPLOYEES NOW EMPLOYED
AT THE PARKING LOT OF ANAHEIM STADIUM AND ANAHEIM CONVENTION CENTER.
Roll Call Vote:
AYES: COUNCIhMEN: Sneegas, Thom and Dutton
NOES: COUNCILMEN: None
ABSENT: COUNCIIMEN: Stephenson and Pebley
The Mayor declared Resolution Nos. 74R-89, 74R-90 and 74R-91 duly
passed and adopted.
ADJOURNMENT: Councilman Sneegas moved to adjourn. Councilman Thom seconded the
motion. MOTION CARRIED°
Adjourned: 5:20 P.M.
City Clerk