1974/03/2674-278
C.i. ty Hall, Anaheim., California - COUNCIL MI.NUTES -March 19, 1974, 1:30 P~M.
Y..M.C.A. GOOD ~RIDAY BREAKFAST - WAIVER OF PARKING FEES: On motion by Councilman
Stephenson, seconded by Councilman Pebley, the City Council authorized waiver
of the parking fees at the Anaheim Convention Center for the Annual Good
Friday Breakfast to be held by the Y.M.C.A. in the Anaheim Room, April 12,
1974. MOTION CARRIED.
ADJOURNMENT: Councilman Thom moved to adjourn. Councilman Pebley seconded the
motion. NOTION CARRIED.
Adjourned: 6:30 P.M.
Signed
City Clerk
City Hall~ Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - March 26~ 1974, 1:30 P.M.
The City Council of the City of Anaheim met in regular session.
PRESENT:
ABSENT:
PRESENT:
COUNCII24EN: Stephenson, Sneegas, Pebley, Thom and Dutton
COUNCILMEN: None
CITY MANAGER: Keith A. Murdoch
ASSISTANT CITY MANAGER: Robert M. Davis
CITY ATTORNEY: Alan Ro Watts
CITY CLERK: Aloha M. Fattens
CITY ENGINEER: James P. Maddox
PERSONNEL DIRECTOR: Garry O. MoRse
ASSISTANT DIRECTOR OF DEVELOPMENT SERVICES: Ronald Thompson
ZONING SUPERVISOR: Charles Roberts
Mayor Dutton called the meeting to order.
FlAG SALIITE: Councilman Calvin L. Pebley led the assembly in the Pledge of
Allegiance to the Flag.
RESOLUTION OF SUPPORT - CALIFORNIA ANGELS: A Resolution of Support for the
California Angels on the occasion of the opening of the 9th baseball
season in Anaheim Stadium on April 9, 1974, was unanimously adopted
by the City Council.
CERTIFICA.]~ OF APPRECIATION - DAVID A. PEELER, PARKS AND RECREATION COMMISSION:
A Certificate of Appreciation in recognition of years o~ dedicated
service rendered by David A. Peeler, immediate past Chairman of the
Parks and Recreation Co~nission, from January 1971 to February 1974,
was presented to Mr. Peeler on behalf of the Council by Mayor Dutton.
MINUI~S: Minutes of the Anaheim City Council regular meeting held February 26, 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 Pebley seconded the motion. MOTION UNANIMOUSLY CARRIED.
REPORT = FINANC..IAL DEMANDS AGAINST THE CITY: Demands against the City in the amount
of $2,734,299.41, in accordance with the 1973-74 Budget, were approved.
CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING - ABANDONMENT NO. 73-8A: Public hearing was scheduled on
proposed abandonment of a former Edison Company easement, located on the west
side of Velare Street, south of Orange Avenue, on March 19, 1974, pursuant to
74-279
City Halla Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - March 26; ~974a 1:30 p.M.
Resolution No. 74R-83, duly published in the Anaheim Bulletin and continued
to this date to allow time for posting of the property.
Report of the City Engineer was submitted recommending unconditional
approval of said abandonment request.
The Mayor asked if anyone wished to address the Council either in
favor or in opposition; there being no response, declared the hearing closed°
RE. SOLUTION NO, 74R-125: Councilman Sneegas offered Resolution No. 74R-125 for
adoption, approving Abandonment No. 73-8A.
Refer to Resolution Book.
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM ORDERING THE
VACATION AND ABANDONMENT OF PORTIONS OF CERTAIN REAL PROPERTY DESCRIBED
HEREIN. (No. 73-8A)
Roll Call Vote:
AYES: COUNCILMEN: Stephenson, Sneegas, Pebley, Thom and Dutton
NOES: COUNCILMEN: None
ABSENT: COUNCILMEN: None
The Mayor declared Resolution No. 74R-125 duly passed and adopted.
ENTERTAINMENT PERMIT: Application filed by Melecio A. Roque' Jr., for Entertainment
Permit to allow a three-piece band at The Alibi, 821 South Brookhurst Street,
Monday through Saturday from 10:00 p.m. to 1:00 a.m. and Sunday from 10:00 a.m.
to 10:00 p.m., was submitted and granted for a period of one year, subject to
provisions of Chapter 4.18 of the AnaheimMunicipal Code as recommended by the
Chief of Police, on motion by Councilman Stephenson, seconded by Councilman
Dutton. MOTIONCARRIED.
AMUSEM$..NT DEVICES PERMIT: Application filed by Mr. William D. Prout for Amusement
Devices Permit to allow eight pinball machines, two air hockey games and one
video pong game, to be installed at Big John's Pizza and Billiards, 807 East
Orangeth~rpe 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 Sneegas.
MOTION CARRIED.
REQUEST - RECONSIDERATION OF EXPANSION, EDISON PARK: Request of Mr. Donald Gordon,
Chairman, Thomas Edison School-Community Advisory Council, to address
the City Council relative to reconsideration of the proposal to expand Edison
Park was submitted.
Mrs. Margaret Hueler, 1015 Liberty Lane, representing the Thomas A.
Edison School Advisory Council, was recognized by the Mayor. She related that
the Advisory Council is requesting that the City Council reconsider the proposal
of Parks and Recreation Department to expand Edison Park and to develop a road
fronting on the park by acquiring nine additional acres of land. She noted that
this proposal was discussed and rejected by the Council on January 2, 1974,
however neither the School nor the Community organizations were informed that
any action was being contemplated. She advised that they have since checked
with the High School District and they have been informed that bids for the
nine acres adjacent to Edison Park will be closed on March 28, 1974.
Mrs. Hueler submitted petitions which she stated contained 470 signa-
tures representing &pproximately 250 homes in the Edison Park attendance area,
which they feel constitutes sufficient concern for Council to reconsider this
proposal.
Mrs. Hueler explained that their interest in this matter does not
stem from the need to enlarge or improve the Edison Park itself as much as
it is to open this park to public view. She noted that the neighborhood popu-
lation is increasing because of apartment construction and for this reason
additional park acreage could well be utilized, however she stressed that the
74-280
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES -March 26,, 1974, 1:30
main concern in this request is that of the safety of local children. She re-
lated that this particular park is much too dangerous to allow even children of
fairly good size to use without supervision. She related personal knowledge of
the usage of drugs and intoxicants by individuals in this park and related that
children have been threatened as well.
Mrs. Hueler indicated that the park is well equipped and beautifully
maintained, however local parents cannot allow children to use the park because
it is not open to public view and it will remain dangerous for children until
something is done to open it up. It is for this reason that the School-Community
Advisory Council requests that the proposal to enlarge and to provide additional
access be reconsidered.
Councilman Pebley concurred with Mrs. Hueler's remarks and related
that he, for similar reasons, never permitted his children to use public parks
20 years ago.
Mrm Hueler remarked that if this is the situation in all public parks,
then they should be posted as dangerous to warn unsuspecting parents from allow-
ing their children to attend the park unsupervised. Mrs. Hueler stated that it
has been proven that an area which .is closed to public view will have a much
higher crime rate than one which is open to public surveillance. She described
the current situation at the park, noting that there is no access to it even
from Romneya Drive and that because of a row of shrubbery, the apartments loca-
ted 10 feet from the park cannot see into it.
Councilman Sneegas advised that he felt this problem would partially
be resolved when the adjacent property to the east is developed since this
will provide some additional access to Edison Park. He advised that the Council's
real problem in considering this proposal was trying to cope with 10 acres at
the price at which the School District has put it up for sale. He remarked
that the City just does not have the capability to pay $400,000 for this property
at this time.
Councilman Sneegas agreed with Mrs° Hueler that this park is a more
or less forgotten area and is easily passed up by police cars, but noted that
it certainly would be one of the conditions of approval for any development which
might be anticipated on the ntn~acre parcel to construct a through street
to La Palma Avenue.
Councilman Stephenson added that the City Council is being severely cri-
ticized by people living near park sites which were purchased some time ago
and are not yet developed, and that the expenditure of monies for yet more park
land will increase the delay in development.
Mrs. Hueler further requested that the Thomas A. Edison School, School-
Co,m~u~ity Advisory Council be notified when such matters of c~mL, unity interest
come before the Council.
Councilman Stephenson asked Mrs. Hueler whether or not the Parks and
Recreation Department provides recreation leaders at Edison Park, to which she
replied that they do have an on-going after school and Saturday program and dur-
ing the times that the recreation leaders are present there is no problem.
Mrs. Mueler explained that this park is commonly known as a gang area
and these groups, comprised mostly of older teenagers, are in the park for much
of the time.
Councilman Dutton explained for those assembled that the City employs
a formula by which park acreage is provided in the ratio of one and one-half
acres per thousand population and that total park acreage throughout the City
exceeds that standard, however it is not always strategically located.
Assistant City Manager Robert Davis advised that since the Council
considered this park expansion on January 2, 1974, there has been no change in
the City's fiscal picture. It is still too early in the budget to determine yet
what is going to happen to the fiscal situation for next year and certainly he
could not rec~mL~end that the City obligate itself to try to acquire this park
property.
{ ] , · III __ I ._ I I J III ' i ' I ~i '
7~-281
City Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - March 26~ 1974~ 1:30 PoM.
Mr. Davis explained that all prospective buyers of that nine-acre
parcel have been informed that the City does wish to extend the street through°
He felt that this would go a long way towards alleviating the problems mentioned
by Mrs. Hueler.
Councilman Pebley pointed out that when a developer does come forth
with a land use plan for the property it might be possible for the City to
acquire two and one-half acres or so and expand the park accordingly instead
of using the entire parcel; that this might be accomplished as a trade off of
the in-lieu fees so that the City would not be obligated for direct purchase
of the property. This would enable the City to both expand the park facilities
and open it to visibility by putting the street through.
Councilman Dutton felt it was pertinent to point out the current dif-
ficulty in projectin~ the City's revenue because of the energy crisis and re-
sultant effects on the economy which will be reflected in the sale and gasoline
taxes.
Councilman Thom requested that Mr. Donald Gordon and the Thomas A.
Edison School-Community Advisory Council receive a copy of the Minutes
pertinent to this discussion so that they may be informed of Council's inten-
tion in this matter and, by general Council consent, the City Clerk was directed
to forward a copy of the approved Minutes relative to this discussion to Mr.
Gordon.
REQUEST - lONG BEACH COUNCIL OF PIONEER WOMEN - WAIVER OF BUSINESS LICENSE FEES:
Request of Mrs. Bess Levinson, Tag Day Chairman, Long Beach Council of Pioneer
Women for permission to solicit for charitable purposes within the City of
Anaheim for the period of April 1 through 30, 1974, was submitted together with
reports from the City Attorney's Office and License Division ~nich indicate no
basis for denial of said request.
Mr. Watts advised that if Council does approve a waiver of the busi-
ness license fee for this organization, it would still be necessary in accor-
dance with Chapter 7.23 of the Anaheim Municipal Code that they apply for solic-
itors' permit through the Business License Division.
On motion by Councilman Stephenson, seconded by Councilman Thom, the
City Council granted waiver of business license fees in connection with solici-
tation of funds by the Long Beach Council of Pioneer Women for Tag Day, April 1
through 30, 1974, provided that prior to any solicitation of funds within the
City, said organization apply for and receive a solicitor's permit. MOTION
CARRIED.
CITY PIANNING COMMISSION ITEMS: Actions taken by the City Planning Commission at
their meeting held March 4, 1974, pertaining to the following applications were
submitted for City Council information and consideration:
EXEMPTION STATUS FROM FILING OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORTS - VARIANCE NOS.
2582 AND 2583: On motion by Councilman Stephenson, seconded by Councilman
Sneegas, the City Council finds that the proposed activities under Variance Nos.
2582 and 2583 will have no significant effect on the environment and are exempt
from the requirement to prepare an environmental impact report. MOTION CARRIED.
1. VARIANCE NO. 2582: Submitted by William P. Visser to establish a commercial
greenhouse on C-2 zoned property located on the north side of Lincoln Avenue,
west of Resh Street, with Code waivers of:
a. Minimum number of off-street parking spaces.
b. Permitted uses in the C-2 General Commercial Zone.
The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC74-53,
granted said variance, subject to conditions.
2. VARIANCE NO. 2583: Submitted by Pete Hiltscher to construct a 25-unit
apartment complex on R-A zoned property located between Romneya Drive and Lodge
Avenue, east of West Street, with Code waivers of:
74-282
City H~all, An&helm~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES -March 26~ 1974~ 1:30 P.M.
a. Maximum fence height in front setback.
b. Maximum building height within 150 feet of an R-A Zone.
c. Minimum structural setback from collector street.
d. Maximum masonry wall height in front setback.
e. Minimum distance between buildings.
The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC7&-52,
granted said variance, subject to conditions.
3~ EXTENSION OF TIME - VARIANCE NO. 2247: Submitted by Esther D. Munoz reques-
ting an extension of time for an indefinite period, to continue operation of a
beauty salon in an existing single-family residential structure, on R-3 zoned
property, located on the east side of Sabina Street, south of Sycamore Street.
The City Planning Commission, by motion, granted a three-year exten-
sion of time, expiring April 29, 1977.
4. TERMINATION - RECIASSIFICATION NO. 72-73-39~ VARIANCE NO. 2492~ TENTATIVE,
TRACT NO. 4777 AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 1386: Request of The McCarthy
Company for termination of all of the above mentioned zoning actions. Said
petitions were submitted to establish a 135-1ot R-1 subdivision on the south
side of Santa Aha Canyon Road, east of Anaheim Hills Road; and to establish a
4-unit planned residential development to be used as a model home complex with
sales office, south of Santa Ana Canyon Road, west of Mohler Drive.
The City Planning Commission, by motion, approved the request for
termination of all proceedings on Reclassification No. 72-73-39, Variance No.
2492, Tentative Tract No. 4777 and Conditional Use Permit No. 1386.
5. TERMI.N~.TION - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 1436~ TENTATIVE TRACT NOS. 8455
AND 8456 .AND ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT NO. 108: Request of Anaheim Hills, Inc.,
and Texaco Ventures, Inc., for termination o~ all proceedings under the above
mentioned zoning actions was presented and accepted at the City Council meeting
of February 12, 1974. Said petitions were submitted to establish a ll6-unit
planned residential development on the south side of Canyon Rim Road, east of
Nohl Ranch Road.
The City Planning Commission, by motion, approved the request for
termination of all proceedings under Conditional Use Permit No. 1436, Tentative
Tract Nos. 8455 and 8456.
6. AMENDMENT TO PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION, VARIANCE NO. 2577: Planning
C~m, ission Resolution Noo 1~74-60, amending Planning Con~nission Resolution No.
PC74-33 nunc pro tunc, which had previously approved Variance No. 2577, to
delete Finding No. 7 on Page No. 1 and Condition No. 2 on Page No° 2, due to
reason of clerical error.
7. PROPOSED AMBUIANCE SERVICE - CITY OF GARDEN GROVE: Notice from the City of
Garden Growe that an ambulance service is being proposed for property on the
south side of Katella Avenue, east of Nutwood Avenue, abutting Anaheim City
Limits, was forwarded for co~ent by the City Planning Co~ission.
The City Planning Ca]m~ission declined to comment on the proposed
ambulance service.
COUNCIL ACTION: The foregoing applications (Item Nos. 1 through 7) were reviewed
by the City Council and no further action was taken.
8. FULLERTON CREEK CHANNEL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT: Orange Council Flood Control
District proposes to improve Fullerton Creek Channel to provide protection
against floods of 100-year frequency. The proposed project would enlarge the
Channel from Harbor Boulevard to Chapman Avenue in the City of Fullerton. The
Orange County Flood Control District requests determination as to the conformity
of the proposed project with the Anaheim General Plan.
The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC74-58,
finds that the proposed improvements to the Fullerton Creek Channel are in con-
formance with the Anaheim General Plan and will have no significant effect on
the environment.
74-283
City Hallm Anaheimm California - COUNCIL MINUTES - March 26m 1974, 1:30 P.M.
The City Council took no further action relative to the proposed
improvement project on the Fullerton Creek Channel, thereby sustaining the
action taken by the City Planning Commission.
9. PROPOSED AMENDMENT ID TITLE 18 - ZONING - SIGNS, ADVERTISING SIGNS AND
STRUCTURES: On motion by Councilman Sneegas, seconded by Councilman Stephenson,
public hearing was scheduled April 16, 1974, 1:30 P.M., to consider amendments
to Title 18 of the Anaheim Municipal Code, Chapter 18.62 - Signs, Advertising
Signs and Structures:
Section 18.62.030 - Definitions
(p) Lighter Box Sign
(q) Monument Sign
Section 18.52.050 - Multiple family residential zones, permitted
signs
Section 18o52.090B - Free Standing Signs
Section 18.62.090J = Monument Signs
MOTION CARRIED.
10. TENTATIVE TRACT NOS. 8463~ 8464~ 8465 AND 8466 ~ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT
REPORT NO. 110): Owner, Anaheim Hills, Inc., and Texaco Ventures, Inc.; prop-
erty located on the south side of Canyon Rim Road, northeast of Nohl Ranch Road
and contains: Tract Noo 8463 - 40 proposed R-H-10,000 zoned lots; Tract No.
8464 - 42 proposed R-H-10,000 zoned lots; Tract No. 8465 - 45 proposed
R-H-10,000 zoned lots; Tract NOo 8466 - 36 proposed R-H-lO,000 zoned lots.
On motion by Councilman Sneegas, seconded by Councilman Stephenson,
action on Tentative Maps, Tract Nos. 8463, 8464, 8465 and 8466 was continued
to be considered in conjunction with Reclassification No. 73-74-31 and Variance
No. 2569. MOTION CARRIED.
11. IENTATIVE MAP~ TRACT NO, 8560: Owner, Henry F. and Ethel C. DelGiorgio;
property located southerly of Santa Aha Canyon Road, east of Imperial Highway;
containing 99 proposed R-H-10,000 zoned lots.
On motion by Councilman Sneegas, seconded by Councilman Stephenson,
action on Tentative Map, Tract No. 8560 was continued to be considered in
conjunction with Environmental Impact Report No. 120 and Reclassification
No. 73-74-49. MOTION CARRIED.
12. REQUEST - DELAY OF CONSTRUCTION - DOWNSTREAM DRAINAGE FACILITY, TRACTNO.
7567: Communication from Donald H. Frederickson, Director of Engineering,
Grant Company of California, dated March 7, 1974, requesting a one-year exten-
sion for the start of construction of ultimate downstream drainage facilities,
Tract No. 7567, said construction proposed to begin prior to August 15, 1975,
and further requesting that the recordation of the final map be permitted with
this requirement, as quaranteed by bonds posted and agreement with the other
property owner involved (Barnes), was submitted for Council consideration.
Report from the City Engineer was also submitted recommending that
the requested construction time extension be granted, subject to approval of
the bonds and agreements filed relating to this drainage facility by the City
Attorney.
Relative to action on Tract No. 7567, Councilman Dutton requested the
record to show that the Grant Company has donated to the "Committee to Reelect
Jack C. Dutton" the sum of $500.
On motion by Councilman Stephenson, seconded by Councilman Sneegas,
the request submitted by the Grant Company of California that Tract No. 7567,
record with requirement that construction of the downstream drainage facility
commence prior to August 15, 1975, was granted as reco~m~ended by the City
Engineer, subject to approval of the bonds and agreements filed in relation to
this facility by the City Attorney. MOTION CARRIED.
13. FINAL MAP, TRACT NO, 7567: Developer, Grant Company of California; tract
located in the Westrtdge area, south of Nohl Ranch Road; containing 50 R-H-10,000
zoned lots.
74-284
Ci.ty Halla Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES -March 26, 1974~ 1:30 P.M.
The City Engineer rec~Lended 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 Stephenson moved
that Final Map, Tract No. 7567 be approved, subject to approval of required
bond by the City Attorney. Councilman Sneegas seconded the motion. MOTION
CARRIED.
REQUEST - CLARIFICATION OF PERMITTED USES - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 1008: Re-
quest of Mr. Robert A. Bethiaume, 9451Asbury Circle, Westminister, for clarifi-
cation as to whether or not the use permitted under Conditional Use Permit No.
1008 would include 30 game arcade machines to be installed in an existing build-
ing in conjunction with the existing use, was considered by the Planning Com-
mission at their regular meeting held March 18, 1974. At that time, the City
Planning Commission, by motion, found and determined that inasmuch as the Appli-
cant had been in business at subject location for ten years, allowing the use
to continue with the proposed expansion would be within the intent of the Plan-
ning Commission's original approval of Conditional Use Permit No. 1008.
The City Council took no further action.
REqUEST - REMF~R!NG - RECLASSIFICATION NO, 73-74-36~ GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO, 130;
ENVIRONMENTAL ~MPACT REPORT NO. 113: Petition from David A. Reed, Jr., 914 Fairview
Street, dated March 22, 1974, was submitted for City Council consideration.
Said petition requested the following:
1. That a rehearing on Reclassification No. 73-74-36, General Plan
Amendment No. 130, E.I.R. No. 113, be scheduled before the City Council three
weeks after Mr. Reed has received copies of the March 19, 1974 Minutes, so as
to allow him this time for review of same, as the fact of new evidence determin-
ation would result from examination of the Minutes of said Council meeting.
2. That no building permits be issued or no specific land use permit
be granted to the property which is the subject of this petition until the re-
quested rehearing is held.
3. That the City Council ordain, if the Petitioner is denied this
request for rehearing, that he has exhausted all possible administrative appeals
on this matter and that his only remaining relief shall be in the courts.
City Attorney Alan Watts reported that he had reviewed this request
for rehearing and that it appears to him that it does not comply with Council
Policy No. 105 regarding rehearings.in the sense that the indication given by
Mr. Reed is that a review of the Council Minutes of the March 19, 1974 meeting
will reveal new evidence. Mr. Watts pointed out that the Council policy speci-
fies that some demonstration or recitation of what the new evidence is would be
required to be set forth in the petition for rehearing and in this sense, he
does not believe Mr. Reed's petition applies.
Mr. David A. Reed, Jr., was recognized by the Mayor and advised that
he was in the hospital receiving emergency treatment on the date of the hearing
and therefore was unable to attend, although he had planned to present evidence
which is the result of extensive research on his part. Mr. Reed outlined and
smLmmrized the extent of his preparation to appear before Council which began
with a position of neutrality previous to the City Planning Commission hearing°
Mr. Reed stated that originally, after the Planning Commission hearing
on subject zoning action, he had all of the earmarks of an irate citizen, how-
ever on the prodding of his wife, he decided to utilize his previous experience
as a structural engineer for the City of Long Beach and to review all of the
laws and ordinances and the changes therein, and present to the best of his
knowledge, those co,m~ents which are pertinent.
Mr. Reed stressed that since February 20, 1974, he has spent the
equivalent of 6~ work weeks researching information which may be pertinent to
the zoning action on the property owned by the Morman Church. He further noted
that most of the information he has gathered is on behalf of the City of Anaheim
itself. He indicated the voluminous amounts of copies of applicable ordinances
74-285
City Hallt Anaheimt California - COUNCIL MINUTES - March 26, 1974, 1:30 P.M.
and sections from the Uniform Building Codes and Uniform Housing Act and notes
which he has accumulated during his research and advised that he has compared
these with the variations which charter cities may have and has reviewad the
E.I.R. as well and feels that there are some things which have not been said.
Further, there are certain statements in the E.I.R. which leave some doubts
in his mind. He noted that all of this relates to terminology and not to what
a person did or did not do in the legal sense. Rather that the terminology
which exists in the ordinances and E.I.R. is of such a nature that people could
be misinformed or that words were used which have meanings in the real estate
business which are not the same definitions in the Zoning Ordinance or in pos~
tions of law. Therefore he requests the rehearing on the basis that he could
not attend the original hearing, and further, that such rehearing be held~at a
public meeting and at night. In addition, since he has just recently learned
that appeal fees. are one-halfof the original filing fees, he requested that
these be waived for this particular hearing. He related that he has already
spent considerable amounts of time and money to obtain the information he
wishes to present.
Mr. Reed further explained that he feels that certain elements are
missing from the consideration of these zoning matters, and these pertain to
the fact that in the City of Anaheim Zoning Ordinances there are words which
do not have the same meaning as used in the State Housing Act. He pointed out
that the State of California takes the trouble to make the language within the
Building Ordinance and Housing Act conform and that the State Code indicates
such terms should be included in the ordinances proposed by counties and cities.
The Govermment Code states that the city ordinances should contain at least
what the State Housing Act has and that ordinances should be amended wherein
these might differ. One of the greatest overriding issues involved is the PC
Zone and exceptional uses granted for it.
Councilman Pebley asked the City Attorney whether or not an affir-
mative answer to Mr. Reed's request for rehearing would place the City in a
vulnerable position as far as liability towards the owners and developers of
the property are concerned, since, in his experience once approval of the zoning
petition is obtained, a developer proceeds with financial arrangements.
Mr. Watts advised that there is a point at which the developer would
have vested rights or the equivalent thereo~ however the Council is substantially
in abeyance of that period of time. Further Mr. Watts pointed out that the real
issue under consideration is whether or not there is new evidence to be presented,
and that, listening to Mr. Reed, so far he has indicated not that he wishes to
present new evidence, but that he wants to talk about the zoning laws.
Mr. Reed contended that since he was not able to be present at the
March 19, 1974 public hearing, it would be difficult for him to ascertain as
to whether or not the evidence which he is to present is new. He advised that
he has requested a copy of the Minutes, however these are not ready as yet and
although the City Clerk has offered to let him listen to the tape of said meet-
ing, he doubted that he could adequately absorb and review two hours of evidence,
as was presented, by listening to the tape. He advised that he strongly feels
that he does have new evidence since not many people take the time to research
something as thoroughly as he has. He advised that he has offered to the Morman
Church an opportunity to review and evaluate his entire body of evidence, re-
serving only his constitutional rights to file the rehearing request and to
fully affect all of the legislative appeals which he possibly can to correct the
position which exists in this matteg and if unable to correct it here via the
City Council, he will have established what he needs to go to Superior Court if
he so desires.
Mr. Reed further stated that he feels the City is permitting, over
development of land and penetration of R-1 areas by apartments which is impro-
per.
Councilman Thom asked Mr. Reed to give Council a brief outline as
to what his new evidence includes so that Council may determine whether or not
it has already been presented.
74-286
City Hall, Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - March 26~ !974~.1:30 P.M.
Mr. Reed stated that one of the most impo=tmm~ factors relates to
double jeopardy. He stated that the PC Zone as it is currently configured
could permit any and all use zones which the City has in the Zoning Ordinance
and requested corroboration of this statement.
Mr. Roberts reported that it could be logically argued that if a
developer came up with a proposal for a planned c~unity which was of suffi-
cient acreage, that the entire spectrum of land uses could be proposed within
the confines of that community, including single-family, multiple-family, com-
mercial and industrial uses.in a planned community concept. Provisions are
made within the PC zoning that would permit adoption of a zoning element to
indicate which areas within the planned c~imiunity would be implemented by estab-
lished zones.
Mr. Reed stated then that based on specific conditions some, most or
even all of the City's potential zones could be implemented within a PC Zone.
In Reclassification No. 73-74-36, Mr. Reed noted that R-2, R-3, C-1 and R-1
uses were proposed, all on the premise that these are to be residential struc-
tures; whereas the definition of an apartment house is three or more dwelling
units; the definition of a hotel is six or more guest rooms; a lodging house is
five or less rooms; this leaves only one definition for residential, that being
a single-family residence, two residences on the smme property or a duplex. A
condominium is not a building, it is a legal estate of ownership in real prop-
erty which can be engaged in for manufacturing facilities, private roads or
golf courses. Mr. Reed advised that all that the State law says is that a plan-
ned condominium project or planned community apartment project is regulatable
by the cities; it does not say tha~ this can be a conditional use in an R-1 Zone
or adjacent to an R-1 Zone or in an R-A Zone or anywhere else. Everyone of the
residential areas in this Zoning Ordinance with possibly the exception of
and R-E, has conditional uses of these lands too which are zoned now and as such
you have placed this entire ordinance and all of its burdens on the one piece
of property. This is not just double jeopardy according to Mr. Reed but .~eopardy
in the extreme which places this ordinance in itself in jeopardy. Mr. Reed
offered copies of the laws involved to the Council and advised that many of the
legal opinions which he has read in preparation are consistent with the opinion
which he has expressed here today.
Mr. Reed reiterated that 75% of his concern is for the City because
when the City begins to lose whole ordinances at a time, it might be questioned
as to whether or not the City has the right to keep a char~er which he would not
favor the City losing. Also he noted i~ might be questioned as to whether or
not the City has special interests in the matter. The net effect of this could
be extremely worse than a rehearing according to Mr. Reed because if a Council
permits illegal actions,it is subject to misdemeanor charges. Mr. Reed noted
that he has been active in c~miunity projects in the past and is proud of his
achievements and of the City of Anaheim. He further explained that there is
perhaps a constitutional question as to whether or not the Church is entitled
to have a corporation considered separate from the Church to receive its profits.
Mr. Reed referred to the fact that the area was considered residential
prior to the hearing which established the school on this particular property
and that at the time of that hearing the area residents went along with the pro-
posal, however, they had stipulated that if the school were not built that the
area be placed back in the residential zone.
Mr. Reed read Section 17.958 from the California State Code entitled
Health and Safety Code, as well as the amendment thereto.
City Attorney Watts responded to Mr. Reed's presentation with the
advice that what he has been talking about has to do with such things as the
Uniform Building Code, the Fire Code, the Nationa! Electric Code, etc., which
all relate to the construction of structures and have nothing at all to do with
zoning on the property. He remarked that this is analogous to comparing apples
and oranges, they are obviously different.
Councilman Dutton stated that as he interprets Mr. Reed's comments,
Mr. Reed does not wish to present new evidence but that he is questioning the
right of the Council and the Planning Commission to enact zoning regulations and
the legality of these.
7z,-287
City Hall~ Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES -.March 26~ 197&~ 1:30 P.~.
Councilman Sneegas concurred, remarking it anpears that it is not
an argument with the zoning but with the laws whi.ch govern same. He felt that
the courts are the proper place to adjudicate his complaints. Further
Councilman Sneegas noted that all zoning laws, zn his opinion, are slightly
questionable as they refer to the individual property owner's rights, however
they are predicated on the fact that they are set up as a protection for all
people and are a combination regulation and gentlemen's agreement. He indicated
that he did not think that the City Council could afford Mr. Reed the relief
which he seeks and thereupon moved that the petition for rehearing on Reclass-
ification No. 73-74-36, General Plan Amendment No. 130 and Environmental Impact
Report No. 113, be denied. Councilman Pebley seconded the motion.
Prior to voting on the foregoing motion, Councilman Thom inquired
if Mr. Reed's position is that he wishes to submit as new evidence that the
application of a PC Zone to a piece of property does pose a hazard to the
health, safety and general welfare of the public.
Mr. Reed replied that his argument essentially is that he believes
the Housing Act does apply to the Zoning Ordinance, that the terms used in
these two documents, being different, could lead to a developer utilizing such
terms as condominiums, which is an improper expression of what is intended in
that these buildings are apartments in every sense of the word.
The Mayor called for a vote on the foregoing motion to deny the
petition for rehearing. MOTION CARRIED.
REQUEST FOR REHEARING AND DECLARATION OF MERIT - RECLASSIFICATION NO. 73-7A-20:
(Public hearing held by the City Council on March 19, 1974, and said reclass-
ification petition seeking a C-1 designation on property located at the south-
west corner of Crescent and Magnolia was denied pursuant to gesoiutzon No.
74R-113.) Request for rehearing and Declaration of Merit, dated ~{arch 25,
1974, including Exhibit No. A, a noise study prepared for the proposed Alpha
Beta center in Hayward, California, was submitted by ~r. William Ho :4iller,
Agent for the Applicants.
The City Attorney reported that he reviewed the Declaration of Merit
and the rather lengthy study regarding the noise factor, however he noted that
the subject of noise was discussed at length during the public hearing and
therefore Exhibit No. A as submitted, with a Declaration of Merit, would not
constitute, in his opinion, new and different evidence. He ~oted however that
this opinion is subject to Council's discretion.
Councilman Sneegas stated that it appears to him that the Applicant
is requesting an opportunity to resubmit his revised plans to the City Planning
Co~nission and that only the members of the Planning Commission know whether
or not they did study the changes which were made after they had originally
denied the proposal. Personally, Councilman Sneegas expressed the opinion that
whether subject property is developed to commercial or multiple-family resi-
dential uses, it will pose the same problem - that of additional noise, traffic
congestion and people in the area. Recognizing that the property is eventually
going to be developed in one way or the other, he indicated that if the Appli-
cant has revised plans and evidence which may make the proposal acceptable to
the Planning Corxnission, he would be agreeable to granting a rehearing.
Mr. Stephen F. Gallagher, 106 North Claudina Street, owner of 2/9th
interest in this property advised that he prepared the petition and Declaration
from information given him by Mr. Miller and that he suggested an official of
the Alpha Beta firm be contacted to attend any rehearing granted by the Council
to attest to the fact that the noise factor can be controlled. He referred to
the presentation given by Mr. Peek and others in opposition to the proposal at
the March 19, 1974 meeting which indicated objection based on the possibility
that the noise factor could be as high as 75 dBA. Mr. Gallagber indicated that
Mr. Schmiel of the Alpha Beta Company could present evidence which would indi-
cate that the noise element from the proposed shopping center, and in particular
from the Alpha Beta operation, could be controlled.
Mr. Gallagher further indicated that Alpha Beta can replenish their
inventory with only one delivery truck per day. The policy of the Alpha Beta
74-288
City Hall, An~.~eim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - March 26, 1974, 1:30
Markets is not to open before 10:00 a.m. He stated that the report submitted
with the Declaration of Merit (Exhibit No. 2) refutes the noise factor which
was discussed at great length at the March 19, 1974 hearing.
Mr. Gallagher remarked that subject property, if developed into an
apartment complex, would be a higher density project on a 24 hour basis than
the small neighborhood shopping center which is proposed.
Mr. Gallagher further indicated that four new members were appointed
to the Planning Commission since this proposal was originally presented and
they did. not have the opportunity to consider the original plan submitted nor
the amendment made thereto by eliminating certain commercial uses originally
proposed. He concluded with the statement that he felt in all fairness to the
owners and developers, an opportunity should be allowed the representative from
Alpha Beta to demonstrate that the noise factor can be controlled.
Councilman Pebley indicated that he felt this to be sufficient indi-
cation of new evidence and therefore moved that the requested rehearing be
granted to Reclassification No. 73-74-20, provided that it is first reviewed
again by the City Planning Co~m~ission and subject to the Applicant paying all
applicable rehearing fees. Councilman Sneegas seconded the motion. MOTION
CARRIED.
Mr. Roberts inquired whether the Council desired the rehearing just
granted to be restricted to new evidence on the noise factor alone, and a maj-
ority of the Council indicated that the hearing was to be on the entire matter.
Councilman Thom remarked that the rehearing is not then granted be-
cause of new evidence.
Councilman Sneegas stated that according to the City Planning Com-
mission Minutes, they did not have an actual rehearing and review of the poten-
tial changes made by deletion of the restaurant and Winchell's Donut franchise
and that the four new C~f~issioners did not have any of the input from the first
hearing. He remarked that he felt the entire proposal should be reviewed so
that the four new Co~nissioners have the opportunity to be apprised of the com-
plete proposal.
Councilman Thom indicated that if the rehearing is based on the con-
sideration of information relative to the noise factor, this does not constitute
new evidence in his opinion, since this factor was discussed in the E.I.R. and
at the public hearing. He indicated that he did not wish to be inconsistent
with respect to the previous application whichwas Just denied, and that he
would vote in favor of a complete rehearing on the basis that the new Planning
Commissioners had not reviewed the entire proposal. However he felt this should
be the reason stated as basis for the new hearing.
Councilman Sneegas did not feel this would be inconsistent and pointed
out that within the 18-page report submitted as Exhibit No. A, there is substan-
tial material which was not previously given so that the Council can justifiably
state that the rehearing is based on the additional and different evidence. The
fact that certain members of the Planning Commission did not have the opportunity
to hear all of the material pertaining to the proposal is the reason that the
rehearing should not be restricted to the noise element.
Councilman Thom stated that if the hearing is based on additional
evidence relative to the noise factor, this did not constitute new evidence in
his opinion and he thereupon requested that his previous affirmative vote to the
motion granting rehearing to Reclassification No. 73-74-20 be changed and re-
corded as a "no".
RESOLUTION NO. 74R-126 - WORK ORDER NO. 1249: Upon receipt of certification from the
Director of Public Works, Councilman Pebley offered Resolution No. 74R-126 for
adoptiom.
Refer to Resolution Book.
74-289
City Falla Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES -March 26, 1974t 1:30 P.M,
A RESOLUTION OF THE 'CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM FINALLY ACCEPTING
THE COMPLETION AND TRE FURNISHING OF ALL PLANT, LABOR, SERVICES, MATERIALS
AND EQUIPMENT AND ALL UTILITIES AND TRANSPORTATION INCLUDING POWER, FUEL
AND WATER, AND THE PERFORMANCE OF ALL WORK NECESSARY TO CONSTRUCT AND
COMPLETE THE FOLLOWING PUBLIC IMPROVEMENT, TO WIT: THE BRDOKHURST STREET
SEWER IMPROVEMENT FROM APPROXIMATELY 1094 FEET NORTH OF TO 223 FEET NORTH
OF LINCOLN, IN THE CITY OF ANAHEIM, WORK ORDER NO. 1249. (Aztecs Equipment
Company)
Roll Call Vote:
AYES: COUNCILMEN:
NOES: COUNCIIMEN:
ABSENT: COUNCILMEN:
Stephenson, Sneegas, Pebley, Thom and Dutton
None
None
The Mayor declared Resolution No. 74R-126 duly passed and adopted.
RESOLUTION NO. 74R-127 - WORK ORDER NO, 1516: (Continued from the meeting of
March 19, 1974, for full Council.) Upon receipt of certification from the
Director of Public Works, Councilman Stephenson offered Resolution No. 74R-127
for adoption.
Refer to Resolution Book.
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM FINALLY ACCEPTING
THE COMPLETION AND THE FURNISHING OF ALL PLANT, LABOR, SERVICES, MATERIALS
AND EQUIPMENT AND ALL UTILITIES AND TRANSPORTATION INCLUDING POWER, FUEL
AND WATER, AND THE PERFORMANCE OF ALL WORK NECESSARY TO CONSTRUCT AND
COMPLETE THE FOLLOWING PUBLIC IMPROVEMENT, TO WIT: THE ANAHEIM HILLS GOLF
COURSE CLUBHOUSE GOLF CART STORAGE EXPANSION, IN THE CITY OF ANAHEIM, WORK
ORDER NO. 1516. (Dick Pebley Construction Company)
Roll Call Vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSTAINED:
ABSENT:
COONCII~EN: Stephenson, Sneegas and Dutton
COUNCILMEN: Thom
COUNCILMEN: Pebley
COUNCILMEN: None
The Mayor declared Resolution No. 74R-127 duly passed and adopted.
RESOLUTION .NO, 74R-128 - DEEDS OF EASEMENT: Councilman Stephenson offered Resolution
No. 74R-128 for adoption.
Refer to Resolution Book.
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM ACCEPTING CERTAIN
DEEDS AND ORDERING THEIR RECORDATION. (Arthur g. & Marjorte L. Stahovich;
Dave R. & Ursula A. Deering)
Roll Call Vote:
AYES: COUNCILMEN: Stephenson, Sneegas, Pebley, Thom and Dutton
NOES: COUNCII24EN: None
ABSENT: COUNCILMEN: None
The Mayor declared Resolution No. 74R-128 duly passed and adopted.
APpROVA~ OF SOLE VENDOR AND PURC _~ASE OF CONTP4)L MATERIALS FOR 230 KV SF6 POWER
CIRCUIT BREAKERS: City Manager Ketth A. Murdoch reported on the recommendation from
the Electrical Superintendent that it is in the City's best interest and will
expedite completion of the order for control materials for five 230 KV circuit
breakers for the Lewis Substation not to go to bid for these items
but purchase same from I.T.E. Imperial since they will furnish and install said
material in the power circuit breakers during their construction in the factory.
He recommended that the Council therefore approve purchase from I.T.E. Imperial
in the amount of $5,142.50, including tax.
74-290
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - March 26, 1974, 1:30
On motion by Councilman Sneegas, seconded by Councilman Stephenson,
the City Council waived the call for bid quotations and authorized the purchase
and installation of control materials for five 230 KV SF6 power circuit breakers
for the Lewis Subs ration Phase II construction from I.T.E. Imperial Corp. in the
amount of $5,142.50, including tax. MOTION CARRIED.
APPLICATION TO FILE LATE CLAIM: It was moved by Councilman Thom, seconded by
Councilman Sneegas, that permission to present late claim submitted by Ralph Mo
Monkarsh on behalf of Carol N. Krowas for wrongful death, Aelise Nadine Loftin,
as a result of an automobile accident on September 25, 1973, be denied as recom-
mended by the City Attorney's Office. MOTION CARRIEO.
CLAIMS AGAINST THE CITY: The following claims were denied as recommended by the City
Attorney and ordered referred to the insurance carrier, on motion by Councilman
Pebley, seconded by Councilman Sneegas:
a. Claim submitted by Watson Dreps for personal property damage pur-
portedly sustained during collision with City vehicle,on or about December 18,
1973.
b. Claim submitted by Pamela Sue Lopez for damages sustained as a
result of death of husband, purportedly caused by conditions of roadway, on or
about December 22, 1973.
c. Claim submitted by Continental Insurance Brokers, Inc., for
Pacific Tractor Company, for damages purportedly sustained to vehicle in colli-
sion with City vehicle, on or about February 7, 1974.
MOTION CARRIED.
RESOLUTION NO. 74R-129 - EASEMENT FOR PUBLIC STREET PURPOSES (KELLOGG ,DRIVE -
ATCHISON~ TOPEKA AND SANTA FE RAIL~DAD GRADE CROSSING NO. 2B-39.2}: COuncilman
Sneegas offered Resolution No. 74R-129 for adoption.
Refer to Resolution Book.
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM ACCEPTING AN EASE-
MENT FOR PUBLIC STREET PURPOSES UPON, OVER AND ACROSS CERTAIN REAL PROPERTY
IN TI{E CITY OF ANAHEIM. (Kellogg Drive - Atchison, Topeka and Santa Fe
Railroad Grade Crossing No. 2B-39.2)
Roll Call Vote:
AYES: COUNCILMEN:
NOES: COUNCILMEN:
ABSENT: COUNCILMEN:
Stephenson, Sneegas, Pebley, Thom and Dutton
None
None
The Mayor declared Resolution No. 74R-129 duly passed and adopted.
RE.SOLUTIO~ NO..74R-130 - AGREEMENT, ENGINEERING SERVICES AT BOYSEN, TW~.LA REID AND
MANZAN~TA PARKS (FLOYD E.,WEAVER): Councilman.Stephenson offered Resolution No.
74R-130 for adoption.
Refer to Resolution Book.
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM APPB/)VING AND
AUTRORIZING THE MAYOR AND CITY CLERK TO E~CUTE AN AGREEMENT WITH FLOYD
E. WEAVER FOR ENGINEERING SERVICES AT BOYSEN, TWIIA REID AND MANZANITA
PARKS.
Roll Call Vote:
AYES: COUNCILMEN:
NOES: COUNCIIMEN:
ABSENT: COUNCILMEN:
Stephenson, Sneegas, Pebley, Thom and Dutton
None
None
The Mayor declared Resolution No. 74R-130 duly passed and adopted.
RESOLUTION NO. 74R-131 - AGREEMENT, CONSTRUCTION OF STOI~4 DRAIN AND APPURTENANCES,
EUCLID STREET AND ORANGEWOOD AVENUE: Councilman Sneegas offered Resolution No.
74R-131 for adoption.
74-291
City Halla Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - March 26a 1974, 1:30 P.M.
- Refer to Resolution Book.
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM APPROVING AND
AIIT~ORIZING THE EXECUTION OF AN AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITIES OF ANAHEIM
AND GARDEN GROVE, PROVIDING FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF A STORM DRAIN AND
APPURIENANCES AT EUCLID STREET AND ORANGEI4OOD AVENUE.
Roll Call Vote:
AYES: COUNCIII4EN: Stephenson, Sneegas, Pebley, Thom and Dutton
NOES: COUNCILMEN: None
ABSENT: COUNCILMAn: None
The Mayor declared Resolution No. 74R-131 duly passed and adopted.
CORRESPONDENCE: The following correspondence was ordered received and filed, on
motion by Councilman Sneegas, seconded by Councilman Stephenson:
a. City of Seal Beach - Resolution No. 2296 - Opposing Assembly
Bill 2942.
b. City of Seal Beach - Resolution No. 2297 - Expressing opposition
to public employer-employee relations legislation and supporting Senate Bill
522.
c. Intergovernmental Coordinating Council of Orange County -
March 27, 1974 agenda, February 27, 1974 minutes and miscellaneous information
d. Before the Public Utilities Commission - Investigation for the
purpose of establishing a list for the fiscal year 1974-75 of existing and
proposed crossings at grade of city streets or county roads most urgently in
need of separation, or projects effecting the elimination of grade crossings
by removal or relocation of streets or railroad tracks, or existing separations
in need of alteration or reconstruction as contemplated by Section 2402 of the
Streets and Highways Code - Notice of Preheating Conference.
e. Before the Public Utilities Commission - Hearing - Investigation
for the purpose of establishing a list for the fiscal year 1974-75 of existing
and proposed crossings at grade of city streets or county roads most urgently
in need of separation, or projects effecting the elimination of grade crossings
by removal or relocation of streets or railroad tracks, or existing separations
in need of alteration of reconstruction as contemplated by Section 2402 of the
Streets and Highways Code.
f. Orange County Mosquito Abatement District - Minutes - February 21,
1974.
g. Airport Land Use Co~nission for Orange County - Notice of Public
Meeting - March 21, 1974, 7:30 p.m.
h. Financial and Operating Reports for the Months of 3anuary and
February, 1974;
Engineering Division
Fire Department
City Treasurer
(January)
(February)
(February)
MOTION CARRIED.
CORRESPONDgNCE - CALIFORNIA SENATE RESOLUTION NO, 77, PACIFIC TELEPMONE AND TELE-
GRAPH COMPANY: The Mayor recognized Mr. James Webb, representative of the Pacific
Telephone and Telegraph Company, 200 South Harbor Boulevard, who had submitted
correspondence requesting that the Council support California Senate Resolution
No. 77 concerning interconnection of customer-provided equipment to Pacific
Telephone facilities. Specifically, Mr. Webb pointed out that the Senate
resolution calls upon the California Public Utilities Commission to include
in its investigation, a full inquiry into the possible economic impact, of any
action which they contemplate regarding interconnection of privately-owned
telephone equipment, to be sure that such action will not have an adverse effect
on telephone rates to the general public and in particular to low income indi-
viduals.
Mr. Webb suammrized that if increased interconnection is permitted,
the Pacific Telephone and Telegraph Company will realize an increase in costs
and substantial reduction in revenues, and in order to maintain a balance may
74-292
City Hall, Aha. helm, California - COUNCIL. MIFOI~S -March 26, 1974, 1;~0
be required to increase rates for residential services. He related that he is
present to request that the Anaheim City Council adopt a resolution supporting
Senate Resolution No. 77, urging the Public Utilities Co~-~ission to con-
sider the economic implications of their action.
RESOLUTION NO. 74R-132: Councilman Pebley offered Resolution No. 74R-132 for
adoption, supporting California Senate Bill No. 77.
Refer to Resolution Book.
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM SUPPORTING
CALIFORNIA SENATE RESOLUTION NO. 77 REIATIVE TO INTERCONNECTIONS TO
TELEPHONE FACILITIES.
Roll Call Vote:
AYES: COUNCILMEN: Stephenson, Sneegas, Pebley, Thom and Dutton
NOES: COUNCII/~EN: None
ABSENT: COUNCILMEN: None
The Mayor declared Resolution No. 74R-132 duly passed and adopted.
ORDINANCE NO. 3276: Councilman Dutton offered Ordinance No. 3276 for adoption.
Refer to Ordinance Book.
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AMENDING TITLE 18 OF THE ANAHEIM
MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO ZONING. (73-74-35 - R-A)
Roll Call Vote:
AYES: COUNCII~EN: Stephenson, Sneegas, Pebley, Thom and Dutton
NOES: COUNCILMEN: None
ABSENT: COUNCILMEN: None
The Mayor declared Ordinance No. 3276 duly passed and adopted.
ORDINANCE NO, 3277: Councilman Dutton offered Ordinance No. 3277 for adoption.
Refer to Ordinance Book.
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AMENDING TITLE 18 OF THE ANAHEIM
MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO ZONING. (70-71-47 (9) - M-l)
Roll Call Vote:
AYES: COUNCILMEN: Stephenson, Sneegas, Pebley, Thom and Dutton
NOES: COUNCIIREN: None
ABSENT: COUNCILMEN: None
The Mayor declared Ordinance No. 3277 duly passed and adopted.
ORDINANCE NO. 3278: Councilman Sneegas offered Ordinance No. 3278 for adoption.
Refer to Ordinance Book.
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AMENDING TITLE 18 OF TH~ ANAHEIM
MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO ZONING. (70-71-47 (10) - M-l)
Roll Call Vote:
AYES: COUNCILMEN: Stephenson, Sneegas, Pebley, Thom a~ Dutton
NOES: COUNCILMEN: None
ABSENT: COUNCII~MEN: None
The Mayor declared Ordinance No. 3278 duly passed and adopted.
74-293
City Hall, ADahei~, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - March 26, 1974, 1:30 P,M,
ORDINANCE NO, 3279: Councilman Stephenson offered Ordinance. No. 3279 for adoption°
Refer to Ordinance Book.
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AMENDING TITLE 18 OF THE ANAHEIM
MUNICIPAL. CODE RELATING TO ZONING. (73-74-24 - RS-5000)
Roll Call Vote:
AYES: COUNCILMEN:
NOES: COUNCIIHEN:
ABSENT: COUNCIIHEN:
Stephenson, Sneegas, Pebley, Thom and Dutton
None
None
The Mayor declared Ordinance No. 3279 duly passed and adopted.
ORDINANCE NO, 3280: Councilman Pebley offered Ordinance No. 3280 for first reading.
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AMENDING TITLE 18 OF THE ANAHEIM
MUNICIPAI, CODE RELATING TO ZONING. (73-74-17 - C-I)
URGENCY.ORDINANCE - MOTOR FUEL PRICE SIGNS: (Continued from the meetings of
March 12 and 19, 1974, to this date, pending the outcome of the March 20, 1974
meeting between the Anaheim Chamber of Commerce Energy Conservation Task Force
and Service Station Steering Committee.) The City Clerk submitted a letter
dated March 25, 1974, from the Anaheim Chamber of Commerce outlining the volun-
tary plan initiated at the March 20, 1974 meeting and requesting that the City
Council enact an urgency ordinance to allow the posting of signs indicating
hours of operation. Said letter also rec~m~ends a call for the immediate end
to the California-Orange County Mandatory Marketing Plan.
Mr. Murdoch advised that the Orange County Board of Supervisors this
date has voted to terminate the emergency marketing program within Orange
County.
Mr. Joe Conrad, 2262 West Coronet, Chairman of the Service Station
Steering C~aittee, of the Energy Conservation Task Force, reported that al-
though the Board of Supervisors has determined to withdraw from the Emergency
Marketing Plan, this termination will not be effective immediately. Further,
he pointed out that the dealers still anticipate some problem in acquiring
sufficient gasoline to service the public since the allocation program is still
in effect°
Mr. Conrad advised that in an attempt to better serve the public,
they have initiated a voluntary Anaheim plan and have established a list indi-
cating hours of operation of various service stations as well as hours during
which they will be dispensing gasoline. The plan is to make this list available
to hotels and motels within Anaheim, as well as to the general public and to
automobile clubs, emergency centers, etc. He indicated that they already have
a substantial list of service station operators who have volunteered to tell
what their hours of operation will be. In order to follow through with this
program, he requested that the Council adopt an ordinance to permit the ser-
vice station dealers to post a sign indicating their hours of operation and
hours during~which gasoline will be dispensed.
Councilman Stephenson observed that the letter from the Chamber of
Co~erce does not advocate that prices be posted and queried as to why this was
omitted.
Mr. Conrad responded the individual dealers were polled and they in-
dicated that they preferred price posting not be made mandatory. He noted that
gasoline prices are currently controlled by the Federal Energy CommisSion and
the Capitals Cost of Living Council. These prices are required to be posted on
the pumps themselves. He acknowledged that there is a variation in gasoline
prices at the present time, however he stated there is an approved channel
through which customers who feel exorbitant rates are being charged can complain.
Mr. Conrad indicated that rather than enactment of mandatory regula-
tions, the Service Station Steering Committee advocates that the dealers be
asked to post prices voluntarily for the convenience of the customer.
74-294
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - March 26, 1974~ 1:30 P.M
Councilman Stephenson remarked that he has seen price variations from
52¢ to 65¢ per gallon.
Mr. Conrad responded that if a service station dealer is charging
over the price which he is allowed, he is in violation of the law and that there
is a fine of $2,500 dollars per day established for such illegal activity.
Councilman Stephenson maintained that the price signs should be dis-
played in a manner so that the general public can see them without driving up
to the pump.
Mr. Conrad advised that the current gasoline market is completely
controlled by the government and consequently the service station dealer is
required to change his price signs frequently. In some instances, certain
dealerships may be 4¢ per gallon below neighboring service stations and that the
posting of this lower price would cause traffic congestion by motorists attemp-
ting to purchase fuel at the lower price.
Councilman Sneegas expressed the opinion that the display of price
signs will not help the situation. He noted that just as it is the consumer's
right to deal with whom he wishes for purchase of gasoline, the businessman
also has certain rights relative to the way in which he conducts his business.
He stated that 9~A of the current fuel shortage problem can be attributed, in
his opinion, to government interference.
Mr. Conrad related that the Steering Committee is attempting to initi-
ate the Anaheim plan and that they have received indications of good cooperation
from the dealers.
Councilman Thom, noting the request by the Anaheim Chamber of Commerce
that the Council enact an urgency ordinance, inquired if these is~any other
method of accomplishing the same end without having to adopt an ordinance to
permit the additional signing and then another ordinance to terminate such per-
missive period.
Mr. Watts advised that the Council could enact an urgency ordinance
which carried a specific time limit and once that time period has expire~it
would no longer be in full force and effect.
Councilman Pebley concurred with the recommendation presented by Mr.
Conrad but felt that the sign should also be permitted to carry information as
to whether or not gas is available at the particular service station.
In answer to Councilman Sneegas, the City Attorney outlined the stipu-
lations which would be incorporated into the proposed motor fuel price sign
ordinance; specifically that the sign may include the hours of operation and
whether or not gas is available as well as to indicate the potential locations
for such sign.
Mr. Merrill Skilling, Chairman of the Anaheim Energy Conservation
Task Force emphasized that although the gas situation is currently relieved,
the shortage is not over and service stations will not be open all day and night.
Consequently, since station hours will be limited, it is necessary that the
public be informed as to when and where gasoline will be available for purchase.
It is for this reason that the urgency ordinance is necessary, to allow dealers
to post the hours of operation, and if he also wishes to post prices, this can
be done voluntarily. Further, Mr. Skilling advised that certain of the oil
companies have mandated that their dealers not post prices and a City regulation
to the contrary would cause a problem for these dealers. He urged that the price
signing and posting of hours be kept on a voluntary basis as he felt this would
generate much more cooperation.
Councilman Sneegas moved that the City Attorney be authorized to draft
an urgency ordinance, to be effective for a specified period, which allows ser-
vice stations the ability to post signs indicating hours of operation and whether
or not gasoline is available. Councilman Dutton seconded the motion.
74-295
City Hall, Anaheim, ,California - COUNCIL MINUTES - March 26, 1974, 1:30 P.M.
On Roll Call Vote, at the request of Councilman Dutton, the foregoing
motion carried by the following vote:
AYES: COUNCILMEN:
NOES: COUNCILMEN:
ABSENT: COUNCILMEN:
Stephenson, Sneegas, Pebley, Thom and Dutton
None
None
MOTION CARRIED.
AMENDMENT TO JOINT POWERS AGREEMENT TO FORM MANPOWER CONSORTIUM: Mr. Watts reported
that pursuant to Resolution No. 74R-87, adopted on February 26, 1974, the
Anaheim City Council approved the execution of the Joint Powers Agreement for-
ming the Manpower Consortium° This document was submitted to the Department
of Labor and they have subsequently returned it indicating that they would like
at least two amendments made to it and perhaps three.
Mr. Watts summarized the first of these amendments,the first having
to do with disposition of assets of the Joint Powers Agency upon termination
of the agreement. The agreement now provides that at the time of termination
the assets would be divided among the participants, the County and four cities.
The amendment recon~nended adds the phrase to that section indicating that upon
termination of the agreement, the assets of the Joint Powers Agency would be
divided among the participants, "unless otherwise provided by the United States
Government." In light of the fact that the Agency will be substantially funded
by United States Government funds and these funds will be used to purchase
assets, Mr. Watts commnented that perhaps this is not unreasonable.
The second amendment deals with obligations and liabilities of the
Joint Powers Agency. Presently, the agreement provides that the parties to
it, namely the County and four cities, are not responsible for the obligations
and liabilities of the Joint Powers Agency. The Department of Labor has sug-
gested this language be stricken and language inserted which makes each party
jointly and severally liable for the obligations of the Manpower Agency.
Mr. Watts explained that this second amendment could mean that if,
hypothetically, $100,000 were obtained from the Federal Government and some
portion or all of same were used in a manner which was not specified in the
agreement, then each participant would be liable for that $100,000 individually
or jointly. He remarked that since the City of Anaheim is contracting with the
Cities of Garden Grove, Huntington Beach, Santa Ama and the County, as a practi-
cal matter, this amendment should pose no problem, however, as a legal precedent,
it does give him cause for some concern.
Mr. Watts noted that some of the partners have already approved the
modifications and that if Council is disposed to execute the amendments, he
felt they could proceed with the understanding that staff would attempt to have
this particular provision changed. He indicated that since some of the partici-
pants have already approved it, he could not evaluate whether or not it would
be in perspective for the Council to take a stand in opposition to this partic-
ular segment of the agreement, thereby deviating the program for formation of
the Consortium from its course°
Councilman Dutton inquired whether the amendments indicated by the
Department of Labor are mandatory in order to obtain approval of the Joint
Powers Agreement.
Mr. Watts replied that he has reviewed a copy of the current Depart-
ment of Labor regulations and, in his opinion, the requirement for joint and
several liability goes beyond these established requirements.
Councilman Thom remarked that perhaps the amendment might reflect
governmental concern that the funds be used pursuant to the Comprehensive
Employment and Training Act of 1973 and not for any other purpose~vaguely in-
terpreted as that.
Mr. Watts concurred with Councilman Thom's statement that this is
their intent, however, he noted that the 3oint Powers Agreement also permits
each of the parties to conduct their own program and suggested a hypothetical
situation indicating that if one of the partners misused funds in some way in
74-296
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES -March 26, 1974, 1:30 P,M,
their own program, the other members would be responsible. He reiterated that
due to the nature of the partners involved, there is probably little risk but
that he wished the Council to be aware of the effect of the language. Ne
related that he did feel this language goes beyond the regulations of the
Department of Labor and that he feels this is a bad precedent.
Mr. Murdoch reported that the thixd modification is in relation to the
30-day cancellation clause, specifically that the Department of Labor refuses
to honor this clause. From the City's standpoint, Mr. Murdoch noted that a
30-day cancellationwould not be practical, certainly once into the program,
the entity should remain for one year. The 30-day notice prior to the end of
the fiscal year that the particular party does not intend to renew, which is
incorporated into the agreement, would be more realistic.
Councilman Thom inquired as to the total fiscal limit of the City's
liability pursuant to this agreement.
Mr. Watts replied that this figure could not be estimated currently
since the only thing the agreement specifies is that the parties will contribute
funds and that after execution of the agreement, an application for a Federal
Grant will be submitted.
Councilman Thom then inquired as to what the potential limit of the
grant might be in any one year.
Mr. Murdoch answered that it has not yet been definitely determined
what the formula used for determination of the funds will be. He noted that
one of the formulas which has been strongly proposed by the Department of Labor
would place an undue emphasis on parties which had participated with manpower
programs previously. If this method is used, then the City of Anaheim will have
a lot of obligations at least in the first year since there has been no previous
manpower program administered by the City. The City's hold harmless portion
would be very minor if this formula is used.
Mr. Murdoch further reported that Congressional action is currently
being considered to have a maximum hold. harmless portion amounting to two-thirds
of the ultimate allotment the first year; one-third the second year and none in
the third year. It is fairly certain that some combination of this formula will
be utilized, however it has not yet been finalize~ and therefore no estimated
figure can be given.
In addition, Mr. Murdoch advised that a portion of the monies will be
used for a program similar to P.E.P. which will be based on the unemployment
factor. He advised that the City of Anaheim has submitted figures showing popu-
lation of the area withinwhich a 6.57~ unemployment factor was indicated this
past year and this was a rather substantial population. However because the
Department of Labor did not have sufficient funds to support the established
percentage Nationwide, the percentage point ouwhich these funds become available
may be dropped by two points and this could eliminate P.E.P. funds for the City
of Anaheim.
Totally, Orange County may expect to receive in excess of five million
dollars, the bulk of which would go to the Santa Ana area primarily because of the
hold harmless portion and because of the racial makeup and unemployment
factor.
RESOLUTION.NO. 74R-133: Councilman Sneegas offered Resolution No. 74R-133 for
adoption.
Refer to Resolution Book.
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM APPROVING THE TERMS
AND CONDITIONS OF AN AMENDMENT TO THE JOINT POWERS AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE
COUNTY OF ORANGE, THE CITIES OF SANTA ANA, HUNTINGTON BEACH, GARDEN GROVE
AND ANAHEIM RELATING TO THE ORANGE COUNTY MANPOWER COMMISSION, AND AUTHO-
RIZING THE MAYOR AND CITY CLERK TO EXECUTE SAID AMENDMENT TO AGREEMENT ON
BEI~ALF OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM.
74-297
City Hall, Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES -March 26a 1974~ 1:30 P~M.
Roll Call Vote:
AYES: COUNCILMEN: Stephenson, Sneegas, Pebley, Thom and Dutton
NOES: COUNCILMEN: None
ABSENT: COUNCILMEN: None
The Mayor declared Resolution No. 74R-133 duly passed and adopted.
APPOINTMENT -MANPOWER COMMISSION: Mr. Murdochrelated that recently the City
Council discussed appointments to the Manpower Commission and the conflict of
interest which appeared to be the situation if an elected official were ap-
pointed to said Co, m, ission in combination with a non-elected official. If a
conflict of interest is determined,then an elected official would lose his
first position.
Since this is an untenable position for the members of the City
Council, Mr. Murdoch reco~uended that a non-elected official be appointed and
further recommended that the City Council appoint Assistant City Manager Robert
M. Davis to the Manpower Commission.
Councilman Thom asked for a definition of what constitutes a potential
conflict of interest.
Mr. Watts advised that the opinion was initially rendered by the
County Council and is based on the come-on law doctrine of incompatibility of
offices which might result in a court declaring that a Councilman or Supervisor
holding this office as well as a position as an officer of the Joint Powers
Agency has two offices which are in conflict. If so, the remedy would be that
the Councilman or Supervisor would forfeit his first office.
Mr. Watts expressed the opinion, which was noted as shared by the
City Attorneys for the three cities and the County Counsel,that it is extremely
unlikely that a court would hold that there is such a conflict. However if
they do the penality is untenable,and therefore it is not recommended that the
Council take that risk.
Councilman Thom inquired whether the same criteria apply to Councilmen
serving on other boards or commissions of Joint Powers Agencies, to which Mr.
Murdoch replied that the Joint Powers Act contains a provision that if all of
the members of the Joint Powers Board are elected officials,then there is no
conflict.
Mr. Watts added that the County Council's opinion referred to that
provision but the problem which he did envision was a situation where there is
a combination of both elected and non-elected officials on the board which
situation the Joint Powers Act does not recognize. Further he advised that the
County does not want to be tied to using elected officials on this board.
On motion by Councilman Pebley, seconded by Councilman Sneegas, the
City Council appointed Mr. Robert Davis as the Anaheim representative to the
Manpower Commission. MOTION CARRIED.
RESOLUTION NO, 74R-134 - ADJUSTMENT OF PAY RATES - EVENT ANDPART-TIME EMPLOYEES AT
ANAHEIM STADIUM: Mr. Garry McRae presented the recommendation for basic adjustment
in pay rates for event and other part-time personnel employed at Anaheim Stadium
which is consistent with the guidelines received from the City Council during
the meetings with the Service and Hospital Employees Union, Local No. 399. He
explained the exceptions to the basic pay schedule adjustments which are recom-
mended and advised that he may return to reccamuend further adjustment in the
next few weeks due to the City's release from an agreement relative to. commen-
surability of pay for these employees with that received at Dodger Stadium.
RESOLUTION NO. 74R-134: On report and reccumuendation of the City Personnel
Director, Councilman Stephenson offered Resolution No. 74R-134 for adoption.
Refer to Resolution Book.
74-298
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MT~NUTES - March 26, 1974. 1:30 P,M,
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM SUPERSEDING
RESOLUTION NO. 73R-50 AND ESTABLISHING NEW RATES OF COMPENSATION AND
WORKING CONDITIONS FOR EVENT AND OTHER PERSONNEL AT THE ANAHEIM
STADIUM. (Effective March 18, 1974)
Roll Call Vote:
AYES: C0~NCILMEN:
NOES: COUNCILMEN:
ABSENT: COUNCILMEN:
Stephenson, Sneegas, Pebley, Thom and Dutton
None
None
The Mayor declared Resolution No. 74R-134 duly passed and adopted.
APPOINTMENT - AD ~OC COI~ITT~E TO ST~.~Y CH~ES I~ RECREATIO~ pROGRAM.. F(~IJLA: Mr.
Murdoch submitted a letter dated March 1, 1974 from Llewellyn Overhold, Jr.,
Chairman of the Parks and Recreation Commission, indicating interest in estab-
lishment of an ad hoc committee comprised of representatives from the City
Council and major school districts to determine financing of any extension of
the present recreation program and report back with a recommendation on any
change in the current formula. ~r. Murdoch inquired whether Council might wish
to appoint one of its members to said committee.
On motion by Councilman Pebley, seconded by Councilman Stephenson,
Councilman Sneegas was appointed to represent the City Council on the Ad Hoc
Committee to study and determine any changes in the present formula used to
jointly finance the recreation program. MOTION CARRIED.
ORANGE COUNTY .TRANSIT CORRIDOR - RECOMME~DATION FROM ANAw~.IM CItAMBF~ OF CONMI~CE:
Communication from Joseph A. Wade, President, Anaheim Chamber of Commerce
regarding O.C.T.D. actions on the establishment of transportation corridors in
the County was submitted and read by the City Clerk. Said letter recommends
that the City of Anaheim take immediate steps to:
1. Recommend that a special study be performed to establish the
feasibility of a Multi-Modal Transportation center located in the Commercial
Recreation Area of Anaheim.
2. That this special study be jointly financed by the City of Anaheim,
the Orange County Transit District and Urban Mass Transportation Authority.
3. That this be done as soon as possible, prior to the submittal of
Technical Study Grants which the O.C.T.D. is compiling.
Further the letter suggests that the Transportation Task Force of.
the Anaheim Chamber of Commerce, created for input into the transportation
corridor hearing, be asked to remain intact as an advisory group to the Chamber
of Commerce and the City of Anaheim on areas which concern public transit in
the City and the County.
Mr. Murdoch advised that meetings have been held between Mr. McDaniel]
Planning Supervisor, and the Federal Department of Transportation Representative
for this region, as well as with Mr. Riker of the O~C.T.D. in an effort to follow
up on the transportation center study and any effects on the Corridor Study itself.
The City is actively participating in this pre-planning phase and plans will be
ready to pursue the applicationwhen made to the Federal Committee for funding of
the Transportation center study.
In answer to Councilman Stephenson, Mr. Murdoch summarized the current
status of the Transportation Corridor and the modifications thereto. He emphasized
that it is important'that the City insure that Anaheim passengers receive main line
service since Anaheim is the major traffic generator in Orange County.
Mr. Murdoch further explained that there are several reasons for accele-
ration of the implementation of the transportation corridor, one being that the
District does plan to put before the voters a financing method,and that there is
also Federal financing assistance available for this type of mass transportation
facility.
No further action was taken by the City Council.
74- 299
Hall. Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MI1TOTES - March 26. 1974, 1:90 P,M.
POTENTIAL LITIC~IONREC~RDING CONVENT~ON CE~fER ROOF: Councilman Thom advised
that he was contacted by members of the Co~,mnity Center Authority for advice
relative to the discussions held recently in CoUncil concerning litigation
possibilities against the general contractor of the Anaheim Convention Center
because of the failure of the roof prior to the time period specified. Speci-
fically, Councilman Thom asked if there is anythtng which would prohibit the
Co~nunity Center Authority, as the owners of the building, from pursuing such
litigation.
City Attorney Watts replied that there is nothing to prevent the
Community Center Authority from taking this action and that the City Attorney's
Office has been requested to look into the matter and are pursuing same.
Councilman Thom inquired whether there is any approval or sanction
necessary from the City Council, to which Mr. Watts replied negatively.
APPOI.1T~ITf - DARRELL F, HOOVER - LIBRARY BOARD: Mayor Dutton submitted the recom-
mendation from Elizabeth Schultz, Chairman of the Library Board, that the
vacancy on said Board be filled by appointing Mr. Darrell F. Hoover, who
resides at 2008 W. Niobe Avenue.
On motion by Councilman Thom, seconded by Councilman Stephenson,
the recomendatton of Mrs. Schultz was accepted and Mr. Darrell F. Hoover was
appointed to the Anaheim Library Board of Trustees to fill the unexpired term
of Glenn P. Fry ending June 30, 1974. MOTION CARRIED°
I~S~IGATION INTO THE USE OF C~TY SEAL ON BUSI~NESS CARDS: Councilman Dutton
presented a business card indicating the name of William D. Ehrle, and the
title "Administrative Assistant, Community Affairs Consultant", in which the
seal of the City of Anaheim was printed over the name of Councilman Thom. He
charged that the use of the City seal in such a manner was deceitful, leading
one to believe that the individual represents the City in this capacity,
whereas no such position exists and requested that the City Attorney look
into the matter. Councilman Dutton further asked Councilman Thom under whose
authority the cards were printed.
Councilman Thom retorted that he authorized the printing of the
subject business cards and paid for them and that as an elected official of
the City it is his privilege to use the seal on his business cards. He
related that the cards to contain his name and that of the individual who has
volunteered to act as his assistant. He indicated that the cards have nothing
to do with his private business.
Councilman Dutton requested that the City Attorney report back in
one week.
RECESS - EXECUTIVE SESSION: Councilman Sneegas moved to recess to Executive
Session, as requested by the City Manager. Councilman Pebley seconded the
motion. MOTION CARRIED. (4:07 P.M.)
AFTER~ECESS: Mayor Dutton called the meeting to order, all Councilmen being
present with the exception of Councilman Stephenson.-
~: Councilman Pebley moved to adjourn. Councilman Sneegas seconded the
motion. MOTION CARRIED.
Adjourned: 5:05 P.M.
Signed
City Clerk