Loading...
1974/09/1074-894 City Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - September 10~ 1974~ 1:30 P.M. The City Council of the City of Anaheim met .in regular session. PRESENT: ABSENT: PRESENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Kaywood, Seymour, Pebley, Sneegas and Thom COUNCIL MEMBERS: None CITY MANAGER: Keith A. Murdoch DEPUTY CITY ATTORNEY: Frank A. Lowry, Jr. CITY CLERK: Aloha M. Hougard CHIEF OF POLICE: David B. Michel FIRE MARSHAL: B. C. Phillips CHIEF BUILDING INSPECTOR: Dan Van Dorpe ASSISTANT DIRECTOR OF DEVELOPMENT SERVICES: Ronald Thompson PLANNING SUPERVISOR: Don McDaniel ZONING SUPERVISOR: Charles Roberts ASSOCIATE PLANNER: Phil Schwartze ASSISTANT PLANNER: BOb Kelley Mayor Thom called the meeting to order. INVOCATION: Reverend Paul Keller of the First Presbyterian Church gave the Invocation. FLAG SALUTE: Councilwoman Miriam Kaywood led the Assembly in the Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag. PROCLAMATIONS: The following proclamations were issued by Mayor Thom and unani- mously approved by the City Council: "Constitution Week" - September 17 through 23, 1974, as requested by the Daughters of the American Revolution. "Constitution Week" - September 16 through 21, 1974, as requested by the Orange County Committee on Constitution Observance. CALIFORNIA AND INTERNATIONAL POLICE OLYMP. ICS~ 1974 - ANAHEIM PO~ICE OFFICERS: Police Chief David Michel introduced members of the Anaheim Police Department who competed and who were medal winners in the 1974 Annual Police Olympics and the First International Police Olympics meets, as follows: Mary Christensen, power lifting; Greg Mattes, wrestling and power lifting; Jerry LeMar, golf; Ted Morris, swimming; Lou Lopez, track; Jim Watkins, intermediate and high hurdles; Harold Parkison, wrestling; Ron Kasper, George Finley, George'Robichaud, Bob Severe, Stan Kantor, team bowling. Police Chief Michel emphasized that for a Police Department of this size, these men have set an outstanding record and achieved distinction not only for the Department, but for the entire City. Mayor Thom congratulated each of the officers present on his outstanding achievement, and expressed confidence that the citizenry of Anaheim is proud of the performance records set in these eventsby the Anaheim Police Department. MINUTES: Minutes of the Anaheim City Council regular meetings held August 6 and 13, 1974 were approved on motion by Councilwoman Kaywood seconded by Councilman Sneegas. MOTION CARRIED. WAIVER OF READING - ORDINANCES AND RESOLUTIONS: Councilmen 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 Council Members unless, after reading of the title, specific request is made by a CounCil Member for the reading of such ordinance or resolution. Councilman Pebley seconded the motion. MOTION UN~L"~OUSLY CARRIED. REPORT - FIM. tNCIAL DEMANDS AGAINST THE CITY: Demnds against the City in the amount of $573,259.44, in accordance with the 1974-75 Budget, were approved. PUBLIC HEARI~,G - GENERAL PLAN AHENDHENT NO. 133: To consider the adoption of General Plan A~ndment No. 133 as the Noise Element of the Anaheim General Plan, pursuant to California Government Code Section 65302(g). 74-895 City aall,.A~.a~e.im, california - COONClLMI~ES -.September .10., 1974, 1:30 P.M. The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC74-180, recommended adoption of General Plan Amendment No. 133 - Noise Element, in accordance with Exhibit "A", by the City Council and further recommended that the Council declare subject document exempt from the requirement to prepare an environmental impact report, pursuant to the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act. Mr. Don McDaniel, Planning Supervisor, advised that according to Cali- fornia State law there are nine mandatory elements of the general plan. Of these nine, the City of Anaheim has already adopted five, and the remaining four elements are required to be adopted by September 20, 1974. The Development Services Department has prepared, and is submittin~ to Council this date for their consideration, General Plan Amendment Nos. 133 and 134 which comprise two of these outstanding elements. Mr. Bob Kelley, Assistant Planner, reported that the contents of the Noise Element, in accordance with the requirements set forth by the State Office of Planning and Research, include: 1. A statement of general policy indicating the local Jurisdiction's general intentions regarding noise and noise sources in the community. 2. Desired maximum noise levels by land use categories. 3. Standards and criteria for noise emissions from transportation facilities. 4. Standards and criteria for compatible noise levels for local "fixed-point" noise sources. 5. Guide to implementation. 6. Appendix describing methodology of preparation and sources of data. Mr. Kelley advised that the State Division of Highways has furnished the City with noise contour data in the form of large maps which indicate the noise contour associated with freeways and State highways, however, these are too large in scale to be included within the published document, but are available for reference in the Development Services Department. He indicated one such map, posted on a wall in the Council Chambers, for demonstration purposes. He stated that during preparation of this element, it .was also attempted to compile informa- tion from the railroads within the City, but this has not been made available. Mr. Kelley referred to the fact that, for many of the projects which have been before Council for consideration, the Development Services Dapartment has referred to noise standards instituted by the Department of Housing and Urban Development for interior and exterior sound levels permissible in residen- tial structures. He thereupon gave a presentation of noise levels, which have been specified by H.U.D.'s standards, by playing recorded traffic noises at 65 dBA, which is considered to be the maximum acceptable under present City of Anaheim standards. For comparison he played recorded traffic noises at the level of 60 dBA and 45 dBA, vhich is the maximum sound level permitted in the interior of a sleeping room. At the conclusion of the demonstration, Mr. Kelley offered to answer any questions which Council might have. Councilwoman Keyvood questioned the wording and intent implied in Section VII of the proposed Noise Element - "implementationmethods", Page No. 7, which describes improved insulation of homes and earplugs as means of shield- ins the noise receiver. Mr. Kelley advised that earplugs are commonly used for protection froTM noise in industry and are adaptable for use in the home. Councilman Thom noted that he had reviewed this proposed document, which is a general policy statement, and having seen the Noise Element prepared by the Cities of La flabra and San Jose, which are sophisticated documents that establish benchmarks for noise levels throughout these respective cities, he inquired why this approach wes not used for the Anaheim Noise Element. He advised that while the proposed document would prove useful for land useplanning, it provides no points of reference. Mr. Kelley raplted that he is fmailiar with the documents referred to by the M~yor and that these do contain a large amount of data, but that this is not considered to be what is required in the State Legislation. This type of 74-896 City Hall~ A_-__~heim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - September 1~0t 1974t 1:30 P.M. information is, rather, a reference and a study d°cumentwh~ich would be useful as background information in Preparing a noise element, whereas it was felt, accor- ding to the State laws, that the Noise Element of the General Plan should be a policy statement as well as a statement of Objectives. He advised that this other type of information is available for the City of Anaheim, although not assembled in one source, and it is issued by the Environmental Protection Agency. Hr. Kelley related that one of the difficulties in assembling that type of data, is that these are not absolutes, but subject to change by constant study. The Mayor asked if anyone wished to address .the Council, either in favor or in opposition to the adoption of the proposed General'Plan Amendment No. 133 -NOise Element of the Anaheim General Plan; there being no response, declared the hearing closed. Councilman Seymour inquired whether the adoption of this' proposed eler ment would establish the maximums set forth therein on Page No. 6 as noise stan- dards or policies for the City, and noted that these were lower than the previously allowable residential H.U.D. maximums of 65 dBA in the rear yard and 45 dBA interior. Hr.'Kelley answered that the figures set 'fOrth in the Noise Element are intended to be objectives, whereas the standards which the City has been using reflect the very upper limits, or the maximum whichmay be allowed. The objec- tive noise level figures establish a level which the City feels is possible and hopes to attain in future residential development. Mayor Thom referred to the hours designated for construction noise on Page No. 8 of the proposed Noise Element, which are from 6:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m. and inquired how these were arrived at. He noted that heavy construction occurring during the later hours immediately adjacent to residential areas has prompted a great deal of complaints. Mr. Lowry advised that the City ordinance which deals with construction noise was adopted on the recommendation of the Building Division some years ago, and is based on the standards set forth in the Mechanical and Engineering Associa- tion International Standard Ordinance. FUrther, Hr. Lowry advised, on learning that many of the complaints the Mayor was referring to were in reference to freeway construction noise, that the State has preempted that field and a city noise ordinance would not apply to freeway construction. Mayor Th°m suggested that the Development SerVices Department staff should look into the time limitations on heavy construction as set forth in the Anaheim Hunicipal Code, when this'construction is being performed aHJacent to residential areas. Councilman Seymour stated that he WOuld be in favor of an additional restriction whichwould help to maintain quiet'in a residential neighborhood from perhaps 7:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m., however, he felt that heavy construction adjacent to residential areas is usually associated with freeway construction and he did not thinkthis was a major prOblem area. Councilman Sneegas voiced the opiniOn that the source of noise problems in residential areas is more likely to be motorcycles and automobiles without mufflers., which cannot be controlled, unless the neighbors wish to sign complaints. Mayor Thom asked the Development Services staff to comment on how this particular proposed Element would be utilized in the technical process as far as the City Planning Commission and Council are concerned, as it relates todecisions on zoning and variance requests. Hr. Kelley answered that the proposed NOise Elementis not intended to produce new standards, but 'rather reflect an assembling of policies and objectives which have been developed over a period of time, and that he could, therefbre, foresee no additional effects at this time. ' Mayor Thom stated that he was referring to a comparison of noise levels,'uSin$ the existing ambient noise level of a Particular area and then com- paring what the proposed neW use would add to that level. He remarked that his particular concern would be in reference to construction projects of long dura- tion adjacent to residential areas. 74-897 City Hall~ A-aheimt California - COUNCIL MIFJTES - September 10t. 1974t 1:30 P.M. Mr. Kelley replied that this type of comparison would be part of the environmental impact review process. He further reported that pursuant to Federal law, various types of construction equipment were required to be devel- oped with lower maximum noise levels, and some cities have made it a requirement that construction projects utilize this new quieter equipment. Mayor Thom stated that he thought the Noise Element would place into the review and decision process a consideration of changes in ambient noise levels, which would result from a project such as a large building, and their effect on the noise contour. He inquired whether the Noise Element is suppose to provide that kind of background data. Mr. Kelley replied that the noise contours on file do not include the shadow effects of buildings and that this is material of a much too specific nature to be included in the Noise Element of the General Plan, but that the maps and information would be used as background data for any such project. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT - NEGATIVE DECLARATION: On motion by Councilman Seymour, seconded by Councilman Thom, the City Council finds and determines that the adoption of General Plan Amendment No. 133 - Noise Element will have nosignifi- cant effect on the environment and is, therefOre, exempt from the requirement to prepare an environ_mental impact report. MOTION CARRIED. RESOLUTION NO. 74R-439: Councilman Seymour offered Resolution No. 74R-439 for adoption, adopting General Plan Amendment No. 133 in accordance with Exhibit "A" as recommended by the City Planning Commission. Refer to Resolution Book. A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OFANAHEIMAPPROVINGANAMENDHENT TO THE GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATED AS AMENDMENT NO. 133. Roll Call Vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Kaywood, Seymour, Pebley, Sneegas and Thom COUNCIL MEMBERS: None COUNCIL MEMBERS: None The Mayor declared Resolution No. 74R-439 duly passed and adopted. PUBLIC HEARING - GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 134: To consider adoption of General Plan Amendment No. 134 as the Scenic Highways Element of the Anaheim General Plan, pursuant to California Government Code Section 65302(h). The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC74-181, recommended adoption of General Plan Amendment No. 134 - Scenic Highways Element in accordance with Exhibit "A", by the Council, and further recommended that Council declare subject document exempt from the requirement to prepare an envir- onmental impact report pursuant to the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act. Mr. Don McDaniel, Planning Supervisor remarked that this proposed Scenic Highways Element of the General Plan is required by State law and is pre- ceded in the City of Anaheim by a designated Scenic Highway. Prerequisite to the designation of such highway, were certain zoning and land use elements. He introduced Mr. Phil Schwartze to s~-w-~rize the contents of the proposed element. Mr. Phil Schwartze, Associate Planner, advised that the Scenic Highways Element, as ~rritten, described and identified the existing visual amenities 'in and adjacent to the Anaheim City Limits. Additionally, it discusses and lists regulations and policies, and adopted City elements and ordinances as they relate to scenic highways. Mr. Schwartze reported that theCity of Anaheim adopted the Scenic Cor- ridor Overlay Zone far in advance of other cities in the State. Within the ele- ment are inventoried the various City policies and ordinances which provide a number of controls which could be placed on any particular area to provide regula- tions, as necessary, to have an aesthetic area adjacent to any highway or street. 74-898 City Hall, A~..aheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - September l0T 1974~ 1:30 P.M. The Mayor asked if anyone wished to address the Council in favor or in opposition to the adoption of the proposed General Plan Amendment No. 134 - Scenic Highways Element of the Anaheim General Plan; there being no response, declared the hearing closed. ENVIRO.N~I~TAL IMPACT - NEGATIVE DECLARATION: On motion by COuncilman Seymour, seconded by Councilwoman Kaywood, the City Council finds and determines that the adoption of General Plan Amendment No. 134 - Scenic Highways Element, will have no significant effect on the environment and is, therefore, exempt from the requirement to prepare an environmental impact report. MOTION CARRIED. RESOLUTION NO. 74R-440: Councilman Seymour offered Resolution No. 74R-440 for adoption, adopting General Plan Amendment No. 134 in accordance with Exhibit '~" as recommended by the City Planning Commission. Refer to Resolution Book. A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM APPROVING AN AMENDMENT TO THE GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATED AS AMENDMENT NO. 134. Roll Call Vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: COUNCIL MEMBERS: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Kaywood, Seymour, Pebley, Sneegas and Thom None None The Mayor declared Resolution No. 74R-440 duly passed and adopted. PUBLIC KEARING - 1973 EDITION OF THE INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE OF BUILDING OFFICIALS~ UNIFORM HECHANICAL CODE: To consider repealing Title 15, Chapter 15.50 of the Anaheim Municipal Code and adopting the 1973 Edition of the International Conference of Building Officials, Uniform Mechanical Code, with amendments thereto, and amend- lng Title 15 by adding thereto a new Chapter 15.50. Mr. Dan Van Dorpe, Chief Building Inspector, advised that the ordinance presented this date for Council consideration adopts the latest edition of the Uniform.Mechanical Code, 1973 Edition. A minimum number of amendments have been set forth in the proposed ordinance, which are Justified therein by local condi- tions. One such ~_~e_ndment is the requirement that mechanical equipment installed in accordance with this Code must comply with city noise abatement requireme'nts. Mr. Van Dorpe advised that the fee schedule was essentially the same as previously, that the new fee schedule is adopted primarily to bring it into co~pliance with the new Mechanical Code. There were no questions from the City Council. The Mayor asked if anyone wished to address the Council in favor or in opposition to adoption of the UniformMechanical Code, 1973 Edition; there being no response, declared the hearing closed. ORDINANCE NO. 3340: Councilman Seymour offered Ordinance No. 3340 for adoption. ~efer to Ordinance Book. AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM REPEALING TITLE 15, CHAPTER 15.50 OF THE ANAHEIM~ICIPAL CODE AND ADOPTING THE 1973 EDITION OF THE INTERNATIONAL CONFER- ENCE OF BUILDING OFFICIALS, UNIFORM HECHANICAL CODE, WITH AMENDHENTS THERETO, AND AHENDIN~ TITLE 15, BY ADDING THERETO ANEW CHAPTER 15.50. Roll Call Vote: AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: ABSENT: COUNCIL HE N BERg: Kaywood, Seymour, Pebley, Sneegas and Thom None None The Mayor declared Ordinance No. 3340 duly passed and adopted. 74-899 City Rall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - September 10~ 1974~ 1:30 P.M. K~SOLUTION NOS. 74R-441 AND 74R-442: Councilwoman Kay~ood offered Resolution Nos. 74R-441 and 74R-442 for adoption. Refer to Resolution Book. P~, LUTION NO. 74R-441: A RESOLUTION OF TIlE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM SETTING THE FEE SCflBDULE OF THE UNIFORM M~CHANICAL CODE, 1973 EDITION. K~SOLUTION NO. 74R-442: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM SETTING FORTH LOCAL CONDITIONS JUSTIFYING AMENDMENTS TO THE UNIFORM MECHANICAL CODE, 1973 EDITION. Roll Call Vote: AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Kay~ood, Seymour, Pebley, Sneegas and Thom NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: None ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: None The Mayor declared Resolution Nos. 74R-441 and 74R-442 duly passed and adopted. PUBLIC REARING - 1973 EDITION OF THE UNIFORM FIRE CODE AND AMENDMENT TO TITLE 6~ TO PERMIT THE SALE OF SAFE AND SANE FIREWORKS: To consider repealing Title 16, Chapter 16.04, 16.08 and 16.12 of the Anaheim Municipal Code and adopting the Uniform Fire Code, 1973 Edition, with amendments thereto, and amending Title 16 of the Anaheim Hunicipal Code by adding thereto a new Chapter 16.08. Further, to con- sider amendment to Title 6, repealing Section 6.40.030 and 6.40.060, both inclu- sive, and adding Sections 6.40.030, 6.40.045 and 6.40.060 to the Anaheim Municipal Code to permit the sala of safe and sane fireworks within the City of Anaheim with certain restrictions. The City Clerk advised that 20 letters were received regarding the sale of safe and sane fireworks from various civic and youth organizations and private citizens, two of these being in opposition to the sale of fireworks and 18 being in favor of continued sales of fireworks. Fire Marshal B. C. Phillips reported that Ordinance No. 3339, adopting the 1973 Edition of the UniformFire Code is ready for Council action, having been introduced at the meeting of August 20, 1974; and, pursuant to Council direction given at that meeting, an ordinance has been prepared which ~ermits the sale of "safe and sane" fireworks within the City, subject to certain restric tions. Marshal Phillips explained that the 1973 Edition of the Fire Code isa companion code to the Uniform Building Code, 1973 Edition and that it was prepared through Joint efforts of the Western Fire Chief's Association, together with the Uniform Building Code Committee, so that these two documents would be more com- patible and to avoid overlapping areas. In answer to Councilman Sneegas, Marshal Phillips explained that certain items such as required corridors and fire doors will be plan checked by Development Services Department initially, but will con- tinue to be inspected by the Fire Department each year. In answer to Councilman Seymour, Marshal Phillips explained that the Fire Code contains provision only for maintenance of sprinkling systems, that the Building Code sets forth the requirements for installation of same, and that while there is a Council Policy for Ii-foot vertical height clearance, this is for trash trucks and 12 feet would be sufficient for fire vehicles. Deputy City Attorney Lowry questioned whether the Fire Marshal did' wish Sections 16.04 and 16.12 repealed, which deal with the organization of the Fire Department and fl-~,-ble liquids, to which Mr. Phillips replied affirmatively, explaining that the subjects are covered adequately within the Uniform Fire Code Book. Mr. Nurdoch stated that he was particularly concerned about repeal of Section 6.40.060 which sets forth requirements for permits to sell fireworks, and Marshal Phillips explained that it is not his intent to repeal this section, but to a~end same by adding one sentence, requiring that anyone engaged in the sale of safe and sane fireworks must be 18 years of age or over. 74-900 City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - September 10~ 1974~ 1:30 P.M. Mayor Thom called for questions on part of the Council relative to the 1973 Edition, Uniform Fire Code, and Council had no further questions. Discussion was then directed to the ordinance proposing to allow the sale of safe and sane fireworks within the City of Anaheim, and Fire Marshal Phillips explained that he has recommended reducing the time permitted for sale of fireworks to four days, these being July 1 through 4, and restricting the age for purchase to age 16 years and over. He advised that the reason he recommended 16 years was because a survey of neighboring cities indicated they would be using this age limitation, and he felt some uniformity would be in order. He noted that only four cities have thus far adopted ordinances restricting age for purchase to 16 years. Councilman Pebley indicated that he felt this recommendation to be a fair compromise and that he was sure the organizations involved would not realize any loss in revenues as a result of the reduced selling time. Councilman Sneegas agreed with the recommendation, but felt that the age limit for purchase should be 18 years or over, since he felt the responsibil- ity of the individual buying the fireworks must be emphasized and, therefore, he would prefer to restrict sales to adults. He felt 'it is important that the County have uniformity in these fireworks rules, but that Anaheim should lead rather than follow, and require anyone purchasing fireworks to be 18 years old, in the hope that these persons would then exercise some supervision over the use of the fireworks. Councilman Thom concurred that age 18 provides an extra safeguard and felt that perhaps if Anaheim takes the lead, other cities would follow suit. The Mayor asked if anyone wished to address the Council regarding the adoption of the Uniform Fire Code, 1973 Edition or the ordinance to permit sale of safe and sane fireworks, with restrictions as outlined. Mr. David Ztmmerman, representing the Anaheim Covenants of B'nai B'rith, advised that they would be in favor of the ordinance permitting sale of fireworks as outlined by the Council. He noted that restricting purchase to ages 16 or 18 should make no difference to their revenues, since a large majority of fireworks sold are purchased by adults. He noted that his organization has performed many philanthropic activities to the welfare of citizens in Anaheim, the funds for whichwere derived from sale of fireworks. Mrs. Margaret Sullivan advised that she is not exactly in favor of ban- ning fireworks but does advocate control, particularly over the explosive types, and related a personal incident in which she felt she was. endangered because of misuse of fireworks. Mr. Richard Royston referred to his letter which was printed in the Anaheim Bulletin, indicating his position on fireworks to be that these should be banned totally.- He referred to a personal incident in which his son was almost injured through negligent and careless use of illegal fireworks. Additionally, he noted that the homes on his street, Baylor Avenue, all have shake roofs and that fireworks pose a fire threat to this neighborhood. He offered a list of other activities which charitable and youth organizations might use to raise monies. In conclusion, he concurred that the City would have more control over fireworks with the 18 years of age limit as it is proposed, but he felt there should be further recourse against an organization which flagrantly violates these rules, such as not being permitted to sell fireworks again. Mr. Jim Rendell, representing Katella High School Band and Drill Team Booster Club, read a paragraph from the letter which he submitted to the City Council in support of fireworks sales. He indicated that the monies derived from fireworks sales are used for purchase of uniforms and instruments which are necessary for band competition beyond that funded by the school district. He stated that this is a wholesome activity for youngsters and during this past year the band represented the City in Phoenix and Las Vegas. He conceded that there are other ways in which their organization can raise funds, and these other means are used, however, fireworks sales are'their largest source of revenue. In an attempt to control the dsmge caused by careless use of fireworks, he stated it would also be his suggestion that children under 18 years not be permitted to buy ,S 74-901 City H~,I!, Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - SePtmmber 10~ 1974~ 1.'30 P.M,. them and that sales be limited to three days only. He remarked that it is a very small percentage of the population which abuses this privilege and that he did not think the majority should be penalized for these transgressions. Mayor Thom asked if anyone else wished to address the Council, either in favor or in opposition to adoption of the 1973 Uniform Fire Code or the pro- posed ordinance to permit the sale of safe and sane fireworks; there being no response, declared the hearing closed. Mayor Thom pointed out that in addition to the 20 letters referred to by the City Clerk, the Council received 9 telephone calls in favor of the sale of fireworks and 4 against. He indicated that he personally does not use or buy fireworks, but knows that many fine organizations and people are in favor of their sale and use, and he did not want to stand in their way. ORDINANCE NO. 3339: Councilman Pebley offered Ordinance No. 3339. for adoption, adopting the 1973 Edition of the Uniform Fire Code with amendments thereto. Refer to Ordinance Book. AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM REPEALING'TITLE 16, CHAPTERS 16.04, 16.08 AND 1.6.12 OF THE ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE AND ADOPTING THE UNIFORM FIRE CODE 1973 EDITION, WITH AMENDMENTS THERETO, AND AMENDING TITLE 16 OF THE ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE BY ADDING THERETO A NEW CHAPTER 16.08. Roll Call Vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: COUNCIL MEHBERs: COUNCIL NEHBERS: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Kaywood, Seymour, Pebley, Sneegas and Thom None None The Mayor declared Ordinance No. 3339 duly passed and adopted. ORDINANCE NO. 3349: Councilman Pebley offered Ordinance No. 3349 for first re&ding, amending Title 6 of the Anaheim Nunicipal Code to permit the sale of safe and sane firewrks within the City of Anaheim, from July 1 through 4 only of each year, and restricting these sales to be made to persons 18 years of age or older. AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM REPEALING SECTION 6.40.030; ADDING 'SECTION 6.40.030; 6.40.045; AND AMENDING 6.40.060 TO THE ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE. (Fire- works - restrictions of sale and discharge; age limitation) Councilwoman Kaywood indicated that she is still opposed to fireworks and would like to ban the sale of these in Anaheim. She further felt that these service organizations should look into other means of raising funds. Councilman Sneegas stated that monetary considerations are incidential to him in this matter; that he approves of the ordinance since he does not feel that the carelessness of a few should take away the freedom'of others to use fireworks. Councilwoman Kaywood pointed out that it is often an innocent bystander who is hurt by someone else's misuse of fireworks, and it is that innocent by- stander whom she would like to protect. PUBLIC ~ING - CONDITIOHAL USE PERMIT NO. 1475: Subuitted by Sponsors, Inc., to permit the continued operation of a half-way house for alcoholism and dru$- related problems on C-2 zoned property located north of Broadway, at 205 South Claudina Street. The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC74-150, reported that the Director of Development Services determined that the proposed activity falls within the definition of Section 3.01, Class No. 1 of the City of Anaheim Guidelines to the requirements for an environmental impact report and is therefore categorically exempt, and granted Conditional Use Permit No. 1475 with review in two years, subject to the following conditions: 74-9O2 Hall~ Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - September 10~ 1974~ 1:30 P.M. 1. That the owner(s) of subject property shall pay to the City of Anaheim the sum of 60¢ per front foot along Claudina Street for tree planting purposes. 2. That trash storage areas shall be provided in accordance with approved plans on file with the Office of the Director of Public Works. 3. That the existing structure shall be brought up to the minimum standards of the City of Anaheim, including the Uniform Building, Plumbing, Electrical, Housing, Mechanical and Fire Codes as adopted by the City of Anaheim for an H-occupancy. 4. That subject property shall be developed substantially in accordance with plans and specifications on file with the City of Anaheim marked Exhibit Nos. 1, 2, and 3. 5. That Condition Nos. 1 and 3, above-mentioned, shall be complied with within a period of sixty (60) days from the date of this resolution. 6. That Condition Nos. 2 and 4, above-mentioned, shall be complied with prior to final building and zoning inspections. 7. That this conditional use permit is granted for a period of two (2) years, subject to review and consideration for extension of time by the Planning Commission and/or City Council, upon request by the petitioner. Review of action taken by the City Planning Commissiom was requested by Mayor Thom at the August 13, 1974 City Council meeting, and public hearing sched- uled this date. Mayor Thom clarified that the review was requested due to the fact that this conditional use permit was granted subject to review in two years and the fact that the property is located in the area being'consideredfor the Civic Cen- ter Project. Zoning Supervisor Roberts reported that subject use has been in exis- tence, according to the petitioner, for five years. The Petitioner has indicated that at the present time 13 men are living in the facility, 2 of which are resi- dent staff members. He described the number of bedrooms, baths and other ameni- ties existing within the primary structure,, and advised that there is an additional structure in the rear yard containing one bedroom and additional bath, housing 3 persons, and also a single-car garage located to the rear of the property. Mr. Roberts reiterated that the property is located within Project '%lpha" Redevelop- ment Area and within the bounds of the ultimate Civic Center Complex. He advised that the Planning Commission considered that the primary issue was whether or not this was an appropriate land use and, following review, granted the conditional use permit for a period of two years, subject to review at the end of that time. In answer to Councilman 'Pebley, Mr. Roberts stated that the subject half-way house facility was in operation up to this time without any previous approval, and the application for conditional use permit was submitted by the Petitioner following notification by the Zoning Enforcement Officer. Mr. Roy OtsuJi, 224 North Glassell Street, Orange, representing Sponsors, Inc., advised that they have been operating this facility for three years and ex- plained that due to death of the former director, they were not aware of the legal status of the use. He advised that they wished to operate the facility only until they can negotiate arrangements'for sale of the property. In answer to Councilman Pebley's question regarding the operation of this facility and its objectives, Mr. OtsuJi advised that this is a half-way house which accepts individuals who have alcoholic or drug-related problems and wished to do something about them. He stated that they house only men at this facility on Claudina Street, but also have a separate facility in Santa Ana for women. He reported that they accept referrals from various County alcoholism agencies, probation departments, and the courts, however they also accept walk- ins, but these are interviewed and screened prior to acceptance. The Mayor asked if anyone wished to address the Council either in favor or in opposition to Conditional Use 'Permit No. 1475; there being no response, declared the hearing closed. Councilman Seymour emphasized that there are two problems involved in the consideration of this issue which should be divorced from each other, these 74-903 City Ma!l, A~__ahei~ California - COUNCIL ~ES - September 10a 1974~ 1:30 P.M. being (1.) that this is an illegal use which is seeking to become legal; (2.) that the property happana to be located in tbm Redevelopment Project "Alpha" Area. Councilman Seymour voiced the opinion that the only way which Mr. OtsuJi and his application'for conditional uae permit can be given the full and impar- tial consideration which it deserves would be if the fact that the property is located in the Project "Alpha" Area and Phase II of the Civic Center Project be set aside, and the Council base its decision on whether or not the use itself is appropriate. In this connection, he noted that the half-way house operation serves a good social purpose, as well as a necessary function in the City and County. He felt that if there were no conflict with Redevelopment Project "Alpha" and the Civic Center, the Council would probably approve this use. Councilman Seymour stated that he felt the Council should grant this conditional use permit for a two-year period, so as not to be in the position of being able to discontinue the use momentarily and using this to the City's advantage in negotiations for purchase of the property. Councilwoman Kaywood asked whether the applicant would be willing to spend the amount of money necessary to bring the structureup to Code requirements for this use, particularly if the conditional use permit was granted for a two- year period. Deputy City Attorney Lowry noted that the Chief Building Inspector estimates that the cost to bring the structure up to Code requirements for this type of occupancy would not exceed $1,000. In answer to Councilman Seymour, Mr. OtauJi stipulated that he would be willing, noting that the time period of the conditional use permit would be two years, to make the nacessary structural i~provements to bring the structure up to Code. Further Council discussion ensued relative to the concerns of Councilman Sneegas that the Applicant could make major capital improvements on the property, thereby increasing its value and eventual cost to the City. To precludethis possibility, Councilwoman Kaywood suggested that the conditional use permit be granted, subject to review in a six-month period. Hr. OtsuJi advised that he would not be eligible for State Grant Funds .if he had approval to operate the facility for only six months. Councilman Seymour asked the Applicant whether he wes planning any cap- ital improvements above and beyond the requirements to bring the property up to Code, and Mr. OtsuJi advised that they had submitted a preliminary proposal for remodeling which would amount to $6,000; however, they are very indecisive regard- ina this project because of the status of the property and since this would also depend on receipt of grant funds. In answer to Council question, Mr. OtsuJi fur- chef advised that Sponsors, Inc., is a non-profit orsanization. Councilman Seymour stated he would agree with Councilman Sneegas if the Applicant were a profit motivated organization. He reiterated that he felt two separate questions were invOlved and that the City should begin the Redevelopment Project by demonstrating good faith to this particular property owner. He noted that if this were an application for a new use on the property, he would be of an entirely different opinion. Mayor Thom concurred with Coun__cilman Seymour, noting that he too would vote to deny this application if it were for a new use, but he also felt that the Council should demonstrate good faith to the property owner and not utilize zoning approval to an unfair advantase in ne$otiatin$ for purchase of the property. ,CATEOOIICA~ ~XEMPT. IO~ - ENV~ II~T REPOIT: On B orion by Co, cilia S~r, ~c~dd by ~cil~ h~, t~ City Council ratified the deter- m~tion of the Director of ~elo~t Semites t~t the pr~oed activity falls wtth~ the defhttton of Section 3.01, Class No. 1, of the City of ~~ ~idelines to the requirers for an eu~ro~tal ~act geport ~d i8', there- fore, citesoric~lly exert from the require~t to file said enviro~tal ~pact re, rt. ~I~ ~I~. RESOLUTION NO. 74a-443: CouncilBan Seymour offered Resolution No. 74R-A&3 for adoption, grntiu~ Conditional Use Permit No. 1175, subject to the conditions recomended by the City Plannin~ Commission. 74-904 City Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - September 10~ 1.974~ 1:30 P.M. Refer to Resolution Book. A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM GRANTING CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 1475. Roll Call Vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: COUNCIL Mi2/BERS: COUNCIL MEMBERS; COUNCIL MEMBERS: Seymour, sneegas and Thom Kaywood and Pebley None The Mayor declared Resolution No. 74R-443 duly passed and adopted. Mr. Murdoch stated that perhaps the City's effort regarding the subject property~should be directed towards negotiations to effect a form of option-to~ purchase agreement. PUBLIC HF~.,NG - RECLASSIFICATION NO. 74-75-2~ CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 1483: Sub- mitted by Warren, Jerrold and Louis Axelrod, requesting a change in zone from R- A to C-1 to establish an automobile leasing, rental and wholesale.agency on the east side of Mountain View Avenue, south of Katella Avenue, with Code waivers of: a. Required tree planting. b. Minimum parking area landscaping. c. Maximum fence height. (Withdrawn) The City Planning Connnission, pursuant tO Resolution No. PC74-160, reported that the Director of Development Services had determined that the pro- posed activity falls within the definition of Section 3.01, Class No. II of the City of Anaheim Guidelines to the requirements for an environmental impact report .and is therefore categorically exempt, and recommended that the Council approve Reclassification No. 74-75-2, subject to the following conditions: 1. That all engineering requirements of the City of Anaheim along Mountain View Avenue including preparation of improvement plans and installation of all improvements such as curbs and gutters, sidewalks, street grading and pav- ing, drainage facilities, or other appurtenant work shall be complied with as required 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 facili- ties along Mountain View Avenue shall be installed as'required by the DireCtor of Public Utilities, and in accordance with standard plans and specifications on file in the office of the Director of Public Utilities; and that a bond in an amount and form satisfactory to the City of Anaheim shall be posted with the City to guarantee the installation of the above-mentioned requirements. 2. That the owner(s) of subject property shall pay to the City of Anaheim the sum of 60¢ per front foot alonsMountain View Avenue for tree planting purposes. 3. That trash storage areas shall be provided in accordance with approved plans on file with the office of the Director of Public Works. 4. 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. 5. That all air-conditioning facilities shall be properly shielded from view, and the sound buffered from adjacent properties. 6. That subject property shall be served by underground utilities. 7. That drainage of subject property shall be disposed of in a manner satisfactory to the City Engineer. 8. In the event that subject property is to be divided for the purpose of sale, lease, or financing, a parcel map, to record the approved division of subject property shall be submitted to and approved by the City of Anaheim and then be recorded in the office of the Orange County Recorder. 9. That a 6-foot masonry wall shall be constructed along the east and south property lines. lO, That appropriate water assessmant fees as deter~tned by the Director of Public Utilities shall be paid to the City of Anaheim prior to the issuance of a building perni, t. 11. That any parking area lighting proposed shall be downlighting of a ~aximu~ height of 6 feet, which lighting, shall be directedaway from the property lines to protect the residential integrity of the area. 74-905 C~ty Ha!I~ Anahei~ California - COUNCIL HI2FOTES - September 10,~ 1974~ 1:30 P.M. 12. Prior to the introduction of an ordinance rezoning subject prop- erty, Condition Nos. 1, 2, and 8, above-~entioned, 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. 3, 5, 6, 7, 9, and 11, above-mentioned, shall be complied with prior to final building and zoning inspections. The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC74-161, granted Conditional Use Permit No. 1483 in part only, waiver "b" having been withdrawn, subject to the following conditions: 1. That this conditional use permit is granted subject to the' comple- tion of Reclassification No. 74-75-2. 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. 1; provided, however, that two percent (2%) of the parking area shall 'be landscaped, as stipulated to by the petitioner. 3. That no used vehicles shall be taken in trade, as stipulated by the petitioner 4. That the sales of the vehicles shall be conduced onnly on the parcel located south of the existing automobile leasing agency. 5. That sales of vehicles shall be restricted to those vehicles originally assigned to the SouthwestLeasing Corporation facility located at 330 East Katella Way. 6. That no prices shall be placed on the windshields of the vehicles being offered for sale. 7. That this conditional use permit shall become null and void at such time as the leasing and rental facility terminates operations on subject property and the northerly parcel. 8. That no entrance or exit shall be provided along the property line abutting Mountain View Avenue, as stipulated by the petitioner. Councilwoman Kaywood left the Council Chamber (3:30 P.M.) Zoning Supervisor Roberts briefly st~-a~rized the location of subject property and adjacent zoning and land uses. He advised that the property immedi- ately north of this parcel is developed with an auto leasing agency, and the subject proposal seeks to extend this use. In addition, the Applican~ is request- ing two waivers from C-1 site development standards, the request for waiver "b" having been withdrawn at the Planning Commission level. Mr. Roberts reported that waiver "a" would apply 'to the south boundary of the property which is in the R-A zone, but is designated on the General Plan as'suitable for C-R land uses and, on the basis of this projected use, the Planning C~ision felt it would be appropriate to grant the requested waiver. In connection with waiver "c", the Applicant proposes to erect a six-foot high chainlink fence for security purposes, three feet from the front property line adjacent to Mountain View Avenue, which would be within the required five-foot setback adjacent a local street. There is an'existing residence and accessory building on subject property, both of which would be demolished if the Applicant were permitted to proceed. Councilwoman Kaywood returned to Council Chamber (3:35 P.M.) Mr. Roberts called special attention to City Planning Commission Finding No. 7 set forth in Resolution No. PC74-161: "That the proposed wholesaling of automobiles is considered an appropriate accessory use to the primary use of the automobile leasing and rental operation;, however, it would not be considered appropriate as a primary use and, therefore, upon termination of the primary use, Conditional Use Permit No. 1483 shall become null and void." The Hayor asked if the Applicant or his Agent were present and satisfied with the reco~endations of the City Planntn~ Co~ission, to which Hr. William L. Smelling, 350 North Canon Drive, Beverly Hills, Agent for the Appplicants, replied affirmatively.The Nayo~ asked if anyone wished to address the Council either in favor or in opposition to Reclassification No. 74-75-2 or Conditional Use Permit No. 1483; there being no response declared the hearing closed. Councilwoman Kaywood called attention to Item No. 13 of the staff report to the Planning Commission dated August 5, 1974, which indicated that 74 -906 Cit7 Hall, A~aheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - September 10, 1974~ 1:30 P.M. the Petitioner had been retailing vehicles from the portion immediately north of subject property, although the use granted him on that property pursuant to Conditional Use Permit No. 1387, specifically precluded shch activity. She inquired as to why the Council should grant an extension of the use when the Applicant has not been in compliance with the conditions set forth under the original conditional use permit. Mr. Roberts reported that the applicant has had two separate meetings with the Planning Commission during which it was clarified that they had not intended any retail sales of automobiles, pursuant to Conditional Use Permit No. 1387, and there has not been any problems since that time. Councilman Pebley noted that most leasing companies offer automObiles for leasewith option to bu~and Councilwoman Kaywood felt that this could be per- mitted, whereas retailing with signs, banners and placards placed.on cars would. not. Councilman Seymour indicated that one of the Justifications offered by the Applicant originally for operating on such a small parcel of property was that they did not intend any retail trade for sale of cars. He recalled that the specific answer given was that they wholesale their cars at auction. CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION - ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT: On motion by Councilman Pebley, seconded by Councilman Sneegas, the City Council ratified the deter- mination of the Director of Development Services that the proposed activity falls within the definition of Section 3.01, Class No. II, of the City of Anaheim Guidelines to the requirements for an environmental impact report and'is, there- fore, categorically exempt from the requirementto file said environmental impact report. MOTION CARRIED. RESOLUTION NO. 74R-444: Councilman Pebley offered Resolution No. 74R-444 for adoption, authorizing the preparation of the necessary ordinance, changing the zone as requested, subject to the conditions recommended by the City Planning Commission. Refer to Resolution Book. A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF TME CITY OF ANAHEIM FINDING AND DETERMINING THAT TITLE 18 OF THE ANAg~IMMUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO ZONING SHOULD BE AMENDED AND THAT THE BOUNDARIES OF CERTAIN ZONES SHOULD BE CHANGED. (74-75-2 - C-i~ Roll Call Vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Kaywood, Seymour, Pebley, Sneesas and Thom COUNCIL MEMBERS: None COUNCIL MEMBERS: None The Mayor declared Resolution No. 74R-444 duly passed and adopted. RESOLUTION NO. 74R-445: Councilman Pebley offered Resolution No. 74R-445 for adoption, granting Conditional Use Permit No. 1483, in part, waiver "b" having been withdrawn, subject to the conditions recommended by the City Planning Commis- sion. Refer to Resolution Book. A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM GRANTING CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 1483, IN PART. Roll Call Vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: COUNCIL HEDGERS: Kaywood, Seymour, Pebley, Sneesas and Thom COUNCIL 1,~l~S: None COUNCIL MEMBERS: None The Mayor declared Resolution No. 74R-445 duly passed and adopted. 74-907 City HallI Anaheiml California - COUNCIL MINUTES - September 10~ !974~ 1:30 P.M. PUBLIC HEARING - RECLASSIFICATION NO. 74-75-$ AND VARIANCE NO..2626: Application by Dr. George O. lirkelie, requesting a change in zone from R-2 to C-O and the following Code waivers to construct a com~ercial office building on the north side of Center Street, west of Coffman Street, was submitted together with appli- cation for exemption from the requirement to prepare an environmental impact report: a. Hinlmumsite area. b. Minimum setback area landscaping. c. Required masonry wall adjacent to a residential zone. d. Permitted signing. The City Plannin$ Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC74-169, recommended that Council declare subject project exempt from the requirement to prepare an environmental impact report, pursuant to the provisions of the Cali- fornia Environmental Quality Act and further recommended approval of Reclassifica- tion No. 74-75-5, subject to the following conditions: 1. That sidewalks shall be installed along Center Street as required by the City Engineer and in accordance with standard plans and specifications on file in the office of the City Engineer. 2. That the owner(s) of subject property shall pay to the City of Anaheim the sum of 60¢ per front foot along Center Street for tree planting pur- poses. 3. That the owner(s) of subject property shall pay to the City of Anaheim the sum of $2.00 per front foot along Center Street for street lighting purposes. 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 dete~ined to be necessary bythe 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 a 6-foot masonry wall shall be constructed along the north property line. 9. That drainage of subject property shall be disposed of in a manner satisfactory to the City Engineer. 10. 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 and 3; provided, however, that the proposed building shall be set back to fifteen (15) feet from the south property line, resulting in a five- (5) foot landscaped setback along the north property line, as stipulated to by the petitioner. 11. Prior to the introduction of an ordinance rezoning subject prop- erty, Condition Nos. 2 and 3, above-m~ntioned, shall be completed. The provi- sions 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. 12. That Condition Nos. 1, 4, 6, 7, 8, 9 and 10, above-mentioned, shall be complied with prior to final building and zoning inspections. The City Planning Com~ission, pursuant to Resolution No. Pc74-170, recommended that the Council declare subject project exempt from the requirement to prepare an environ~ental impact report, pursuant to the provisions of the California Enviorn~ental Quality Act ,nd granted Variance No. 2626, subject to the following conditions: 1. That this variance is granted subject to the completion of Reclass- ification No. 74-75-5. 2. That subject property shall be d~veloped substantially in accor- dance with plans and specifications on file with the City of An_~heimmarked Exhibit Nos. 1, 2 and 3; provided, however, that the proposed building shall be set back to fifteen (15) feet from the south property line~ resulting in a five- (5) foot landscaped setback along the north property line, as stipulated to by the p~titioner. 74-908 City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - September 10, 1924, 1:30 P.M. Zoning Supervisor Roberts briefed the location of subject property and surrounding zoning and land uses. He reported that the Applicant, together with his request for C-1 zoning on the property, also requests the waiver of four site development standards from that zone. He proposes to install a three- to five- foot planter on the east and west boundaries and a ten-foot planter on the north boundary adjacent to the single-family residence in the R-1 Zone. The Petitioner further requests waiver of the required six-foot high masonry wall along the east property line adjacent to residential zoning, said property being developed with a vacant oil company facility and zoned R-2. The Applicant is proposing to construct a two-story office building which would cOntain under 6,000 square feet. The Applicant's plans do meet on-site parking requirements. The General Plan designates the area appropriate for the commercial office use proposed, and the Planning Commission has recommended approval of the reclassification and variance with one modification. Mr. Roberts advised that the office building immediately adjacent to subject property to the west has a fifteen-foot front setback,..and, therefore, the owners have requested that this proposed building be setback aTt equivalent distance. This modification would reduce the ten-foot wide planter strip to five feet on the north boundary. The Planning Commission approved the zoning request with this modification. The Mayor asked if the Applicant or his Agent were present and satis- fied with the recommendations of the City Planning Commission and the Applicant's Agent replied affirmatively. The Mayor asked if anyone wished to address the Council either in favor or in opposition to Reclassification No. 74-75-5 and/or Variance No. 2626. Mr. Mike Garan, part owner of the property immediately west of subject parcel, wished to go on record again with a request that the proposed office building be setback in conformity with the two existing buildings on Center Street, since the property owners feel this would present a more pleasing effect. He further noted that the parcel to the north of subject property, although it has a single,family dwelling unit, said unit is within 105 feet of Coffman Street and, therefore, the area behind subject property could virtually be considered a vacant lot. Mayor Thom asked if anyone else wished to address the Council either in favor or in opposition; there being no response declared the hearing closed~ ENVIRO~fl~ITAL IMPACT -NEGATIVE DECLARATION: On motion by Councilman Seymour, seconded by COuncilwoman Kaywood, the City Council finds and determines that this project will have no significant effect on the environment and is, therefore, exempt from the requirement to prepare an environmental impact report. MOTION CARRIED. RESOLUTION NO. 74R-446: Councilman Pebley offered Resolution No. 74R-446 for adoption,.authorizing the preparation of the necessary ordinance, changing the zone as requested, subject to the conditions recommended by the City Planning Commission. Refer to Resolution Book. A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAI~ FINDING AND DETERMINING THAT TITLE 18 OF THE ANAHEIM MIINICIPAL CODE RELATING TO ZONING SHOULD BE AMENDED AND THAT THE BOUNDARIES OF CERTAIN ZONES SHOULD BE CHANGED. (74-75-5 - C-O) Roll Call Vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: COUNCIL MEMBERS: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Kaywood, Seymour, Pebley, Sneegas and Thom None None The'Mayor declared Resolution No. 74R-446 duly passed and adopted. RESOLUTION NO. 74R-447: Councilman Pebley offered Resolution No. 74R-447 for adoption, granting Variance No. 2626, subject to the conditions recommended by the City Planning Commission. 74-909 City Hall, Anaheim~ Calif..o..rn..ia - COUNCIL HINUTES - September 10~ 1974~ 1:30 P.H. Refer to Resolution Book. A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM GRANTING VARIANCE NO. 2626. Roll Call Vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: COUNCIL HEMBERS: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Kaywood, Seymour, Pebley, Sneegas and Thom None None The Mayor declared Resolution No. 74R-447 duly passed and .adopted. PUBLIC HEARING - RECLASSIFICATION NO. 74-75-6: Application by Orange County Buddhist Church requesting a change in zone from R-A to C-1 on property located at.the northwest corner of Ball Road and Dale Avenue, was submitted together with appli- cation for exemption from the requirement to prepare an environmental impact re- port. The City Planning Comission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC74,168, recommended that the Council declare subject project exempt from the requirement to prepare an environmental impact report pursuant to the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act, and further recommended that the Council approve Reclassification No. 74-75-6, subject to the following conditions: 1. That all engineering requirements of the City of Anaheim along Ball Road and Dale Avenue,.including preparation of improvement plans and instal- lationof all improvements such as curbs and gutters, sidewalks, street grading and paving, drainage facilities, or other appurtenant work, shall be complied with as required by the City Engineer and in accordance with standard plans and specifications on file in the office of.the City Engineer; that street lighting facilities along Ball Road and Dale Avenue shall be installed as required by the Director of Public Utilities and in accordance with standard plans and specifica- tions 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. 2. That the owner(s) of subject property shall pay to the City of Anaheim the sum of 60¢ per front foot along Ball Road and Dale Avenue for tree planting purposes. 3. That trash storage areas shall be provided in accordance'with approved plans on file with the office of the Director of Public Works, as stipu- lated to by the petitioner. 4. 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- meat of structural framing. 5. That all air-conditioning facilities shall be properly shielded fr°mview and the sound buffered from adjacent properties. 6. That subject property shall be served by underground utilities. 7. That a six-foot masonry wall shall be constructed along the north and west property lines. 8. That drainage of subject property shall be disposed of in a manner satisfactory to the City Engineer. 9. That a parcel map, to record the approved division of subject prop- erty, be submitted to and approved by the City of Anaheim and then be recorded in the office of the Orange County Recorder. 10. That the final parking plan shall be apProved by the Development . Services Department, and any landscaped areas in the parking areas shall be pro- tected with six-inch high concrete curbs, and concrete wheel stops shall be pro- vided for parking spaces. 11. That appropriate water assessment fees as determined by the Director of Public Utilities shall be paid to the City of Anaheim prior to the issuance of a building permit. 12. That subject property shall be developed substantially in accor- dance with plans and specifications on file with the City of Anaheim marked Bxhibit Nos. 1 and 2. 13. Prior to the introduction of an ordinance rezonin$ subject prop- erty, Condition Nos. 1, 2 and 9, above-~entioned, 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 fro~ the date hereof, or such further time as the City Council may grant. 74-910 City Hall, A~.aheim~ California- COUNCIL MI~fllTES-.September 10, 1974, 1:30 p.M. 14. That Condition Nos. 3, 5, 6, 7, 8, 10 and 12, above-mentioned, shall be complied with prior to final building and zoning inspections. Mr. Roberts explained that subject property comprises the southernmost portion of a larger parcel of property at the northwest corner of Ball Road and Dale Avenue, consisting of approximately 1.15 acres. The Applicant is requesting a change in zone in order to develop a small convenience-type shopping center with one "L"shaped building proposed which would be slightly under 14,000-square feet. The parking provided would be in accordance with C-1 standards. The General Plan designates the area to be appropriate for medium density residential land uses with commercial uses on the south side of Ball Road indicated and, therefore, the Planning Commission approved subject request. Councilman Pebley and Councilwoman Kaywood inquired whether the develop- merit of this particular property would remove the traffic hazard of property abutting into the traffic lane on the west side of Dale Street and provide two full lanes for cars traveling south on Dale. The City Engineer replied that the City has had the dedication for some time in this area, but a lack of street improvements has resulted in the current situation. Mr. Roberts assured Council that one of the requirements recommended by the City Planning Commission in their Resolution No. PC74-168 (Condition No. 9) was that a parcel map be filed to record the division of subject property and that it is a condition of parcel map approval that street improvements be in- stalled. Councilwoman Kaywood expressed further concern over the location of the access point from this proposed convenience center, particularly onto Ball Road. She noted that this has always been a bad intersection and she would prefer to see itcorrected with development rather than become even more hazardous. Mr. Roberts advised that he had reViewed the plans submitted by the Applicant with the Traffic Engineer and these would indicate that the proposed driveway access on Ball Road would be approximately 150 feet or more west of Dale, which means the entrance would be west of the left-turn pocket. He noted that the plans call for a perimeter drive on the north and west of the property and the only other curb cut proposed is between 45 and 60 feet east of this which would place the access point beyond the left-turn pocket. Councilman Seymour briefly s,mm-rized the zoning histories on this parcel, stating that in 1959 the City Planning Commission denied a request to rezone to C-I; and in 1963 a proposal for R-3 development and a service station was approved and never developed. He asked in what regard the Planning Commission considered these facts. Mr. Roberts replied that the General Plan also reflects commercial land uses southwest of Ball and Dale and also to the northeast, so that, speaking in general terms, there is a designation for some type of commercial activity at the intersection of these streets, and the Planning Co~aission felt it not inappropri- ate to approve commercial zoning for this corner. Councilwoman Kenwood called attention to Item No. 4B of the staff report to the Planning Commission dated August 5, 1974, which indicates that Reclassification No. 62-63-67 and Conditional Use Permit No. 363 were approved in connection with subject property by the City Council and inquired whether it would be in order to terminate these proceedings. Hr. Roberts replied that it wouldbe appropriate to inquire whether the current property owner would wish these previous zoning actions terminated. The Mayor asked if the Applicant or his Agent were present and satis- fied with the reco~ndations of the City Planning Commission. Mr. Clyde E. Mitchell, 7681 Santa Catalina, Stanton, Agent for the current owners of the property, advised that they are satisfied with the City 74-911 City Ha~l~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES -. September 10~ 1974~ 1:30 P.M. Planning Commission recommendations and would agree to and hereby request~ermina- tion of all proceedings under Reclassification No. 62-63-67 and Conditional Use Permit No. 363. The Nayor asked if anyone else wished to address the Council either in favor or in opposition to Reclassification No. 74-75-6; there being no response, declared the hearing closed. KF~OLUTION NO. 74R-448: Councilwoman Ka)~ood offered Resolution No. 74R-448 for adoption, terminating all proceedings under Reclassification No. 62-63-67. Refer co Resolution Book. A RESOLUTION OF THE cITY COUNCIL OF THE CITYOF ANAHEIH TERHINATING ALL PROCEED- INGS IN CONNECTION WITH RECLASSIFICATION NO. 62-63-67. Roll Call Vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: COUNCIL HENBERS: COUNCIL HEMBERS: COUNCIL NI~BERS: Kaywood, Seymour, Pebley, Sneegas and Thom None None The Mayor declared Resolution No. 74R-448 duly passed and adopted. RESOLUTION NO. 74R-449: Councilwoman Kaywood offered Resolution No. 74R-449 for adoption, terminating all proceedings under Conditional Use Permit No. 363. Refer to Resolution Book. A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM TERMINATING ALL PROCEED- INGS IN CONNECTION WITH CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 363. Roll Call Vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: COUNCIL HEMBERS: COUNCIL HEMBERS: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Kay~ood, Seymour, Pebley, Sneegas and Thom None None The Mayor declared Resolution No. 74R-449 duly passed and adopted. ~2~/IRONMENTAL IMPACT - NEGATIVE DECLARATION: On motion by Councilman Pebley, seconded by Councilwoman Kaywood, the City Council finds and determines that the subject Reclassification No.-74-75-6 will have no significant effect on the environment and is,therefore,exempt from the requirement to prepare an environ- m~ntal impact report. MOTION CARRIED. ,R~.~OLUTION NO. 74R-450: Councilman Pebley offered Resolution No. 74R-450 for adoption, authorizing the preparation of the necessary ordinance, changing the zone as requested, subject to the conditions recommended by the City Planning Co~mission. Refer to Resolution Book. A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF TH~ CITY OF ANAItEIM FINDING AND DETERMINING T~AT TITLE 18 OF T~g ANAIIglMMUNICIPAL CODE R~TING TO ZONING SHOULD BE AMENDED AND THAT THE BOUNDARIES OF CERTAIN ZONES SHOULD BE CHANGED. (74-75-6 - C-l) Roll Call Vote: AYES: COUNCIL MEmBERS: ~ay~ood, Seymour, Pebley, Sneegas and Thom NOES: COUNCIL MI~IqBRRS:. None ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMB~: None The Mayor declared Resolution No. 74R-450 duly passed and adopted. P~LI¢..,NEAR.INGS -REC. LAS.SIFICATION NOS. 74-75,77 AND 74-75-4: It was recommended by the Zoning Supervisor that public hearings on Reclassification No. 74-75-7 and Pulc. lassification No. 74-75-4~be held concurrently since they relate to the same 74-912 City Hall~ A-~heim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - September 10~ 1974m 1:30 P.M. property. The City Council, by general consent, agreed to hear both reclassifi- cations simultaneously. RECLASSIFICATION NO. 74-75-7: Initiated by the City Planning Commission for a change in zone from County of Orange R3-1200 to City of Anaheim R-A on property located between Omega Avenue and Winston Road, west of Sunkist Street (Omega- Winston Annexation). The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC74-157 reported that the Director of Development Services has determined that the pro- posed activity falls within the definition of Section 3.01, Class No. 1 of the City of Anaheim Guidelines to the requirement for an environmental impact report and is categorically exempt, and further recommended approval of Rmclassification No. 74-75-7, subject to the following condition: 1. That these reclassification proceedings are granted subject to com- pletion of annexation of subject property to the City of Anaheim. RECLASSIFICATION NO. 74-75-4: Application by Vera Wasser Myersand Raymond G. Simpson requesting a change in zone from R-A to M-1 on property located between Omega Avenue and Winston Road, west of Sunkist Street (Omega-Winston Annexation), was submitted together with application for exemption from the requirement to prepare an environmental impact report. The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC74-158, recommended that the Council declare subject project exempt from the requirement to prepare an environmental impact report, pursuant to the provisions'of the California Environmental Quality Act and further recommended Reclassification No. 74-75-4 be approved subject to the following conditions: 1. That the owner(s) of subject property shall deed to the City of Anaheim a strip of land 32 feet in width from the centerline of the street along Winston Road for street widening purposes. 2. That all engineering requirements of the City of Anaheim along Winston Road, including preparation of improvement plans and installation of all improvements such as curbs and gutters, sidewalks, street gradingand paving, drainage facilities, or other appurtenant work shall be complied with as required by the City Engineer and in accordance with standard plans and specifications on file in the office of the City Engineer; that street lighting facilities along Winston 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 satis- factory to the City of Anaheim shall be posted with the City to guarantee the installation of the above-mentioned requirements. 3. That trash storage areas shall be provided in accordance with approved plans on file with the Office of the Director of Public Works. 4. 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. 5. That subject property shall be served by underground utilities. 6. That drainage of subject property shall be disposed of in a manner satisfactory to the City Engineer. 7. That these reclassification proceedings are granted subject to co~pletion of annexation of subject property to the City of Anaheim. 8. That appropriate water assessment fees as determined by the Director of Public Utilities shall be paid to the City of Anaheim prior to the issuance of a building permit. 9. That perpetual easement agreements with the owners or lessees of the properties providing for circulation of trash trucks from one parcel to the other shall be submitted to the City Attorney's Office for review and approval; then be filed and recorded in the Office of the Orange County Recorder prior to. issuance of a building permit. 10. 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 and 2. 11. Prior to the introduction of an ordinance rezoning subject property, Condition Nos. 1 and 2, 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. 74-913 City Hall, ~aheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - September 10~.1974, 1:30 P.M. 12. That Condition Nos. 3, 5, 6 and 10, above-m~ntioned, shall be com- plied with prior to final building and zoning inspections. Zoning SuPervisor Roberts reported that Reclassification No. 74-75-7 was initiated by the City Planning Commission to establish a resolution of intent to R-A on property within the Omega-Winston Annexation, which would become effec- tive upon said annexation. Reclassification No. 74-75-4 is a request for H-1 zoning on the same property within the O~ega-Winston Annexation and is in accor- dance with the General Plan and, therefore, was recoms~nded for approval by the City Planning Commission. The Mayor asked if the Applicant for Reclassification No. 74-75-4 or his Agent were present and satisfied with the conditions recommended by the City Planning Commission. Hr. Frank Morris, 3737 Birch, Newport Beach, Agent for the Applicants, replied affirmatively. The Mayor asked if anyone wished to address the Council either in favor or in opposition to ReclassificationNos. 74-75-7 or 74-75-4; there being no re- sponse, declared the hearings closed. CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION - RECLASSIFICATION NO. 74-75-7: On motion by Councilwoman Kaywood, seconded by Councilman Pebley, the City Council ratified the deter- mination of the Director of Development Services that the proposed activity within Reclassification No. 74-75-7 falls within the definition of Section 3.01, Class No. 1, of the City of Anaheim Guidelines' to the requirements for an envir- oriental impact report and is, therefore, categorically exempt from the require- ment to file said report. MOTION CARRIED. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT - NEGATIVE DECLARATION.,, RECLASSIFICATION NO. 74-75-4: On motion by Councilwoman Kaywood, seconded by Councilman Pebley, the City Council finds and determines that the project within Reclassification No. 74-75-4 will have no significant effect on the environment and is exempt from the requirement to prepare an environmental impact report. MOTION CARRIED. RESOLUTION NO. 74R-451: Councilwoman Kaywood offered Resolution No. 74R-451 for adoption, authorizing the preparation of the necessary ordinance, changing the zone as requested subject to the condition recommended by the City Planning Commission. Refer to Resolution Book. A RESOLUTION OF TflE CITY COUNCIL OF TIlE CIT~ OF iNAI~IM FINDING AND DETERMINING THAT TITLE 18 OF THE ANA~IMMUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO ZONING SHOULD BE AMENDED AND THAT THE BOUNDARIES OF CERTAIN ZONES SHOULD BE CHANGED. (74-75-7 - R-A) Roll Call Vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Kaywood, Seymour, Pebley, Sneegas and Thom COUNCIL 1/EMBERS: None COUNCIL HEMBERS: None The Mayor declared Resolution No. 74R-451 duly passed and adopted. RESOLUTION NO. 74R-452: Councilman Seymour offered Resolution No. 74R-452 for adoption, authorizing the preparation of the necessary ordinance, changing the zone as requested, subject to the conditions recoms~nded by the City Planning Cos~ttssion. Refer to Resolution Book. A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM FINDING AND DETERMINING TBAT TITLE 18 OF THE ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO ZONING SHOULD BE AMENDED AND THAT THE BOUNDARIES OF CERTAIN ZONES SHOULD BE CHANGED. (74-75-4 - M-l) Roll Call Vote: 74-914 City Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - September 10, 1974~ 1:30 P.M. AYES: NOES: ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Kaywood, Seymour, Pebley, Sneegas and Thom COUNCIL MEMBERS: None COUNCIL MEMBERS: None The Mayor declared Resolution No. 74R-452 duly passed and adopted, REQUEST - PERMISSION TO ERECT A TEMPORARY FENCE - RECLASSIFICATION NO. 72-73-34, CONDI- TIONAL USE PR~/~IT NO. 1375: Request of James W. McAlvin, Administrator, Anaheim Memorial Hospital, dated AugustlS, 1974, for approval of a temporary redwood fence to screen a portion of the parking area for a period of two years, at which time it would be replaced by a masonry wall, was submitted for Council consider- ation. Also submitted were reports from Development Services Department and' City Engineer recommending, should Council approve subject request., that a bond im an amount and form satisfactory to the City of Anaheim be posted with the City to guarantee construction of the masonry wall; and further that the temporary redwood fence be approved for a period of two years to expire September 3, 1976. Mr. Roberts s,,-mmrized that AnaheimMemorial Hospital had requested C-O zoning for a number of parcels west of their existing facility, acquired for expansion purposes. However, there was one hold out parcel (Lot No. 50, Tract No. 1691) which is the subject of litigation. The proposal for C-O zoning origi- nally included this parcel, as the hospital thought at that time they would have acquired the property by the time they were ready to use same. However, the settlement on ownership of this particular parcel is still in litigation and consequently the hospital is seeking permission to erect a temporary redwood fence around this R-1 parcel and down the east side of La Palme Circle to screen a portion of their parking lot pendingthe outcome of this litigation. Mr. Roberts advised that the zoning originally approved required a block wall be installed around the parking area. The hospital further has plans to abandon La Palma Circle at such time as they do acquire Lot No. 50 of Tract No. 1691, and therefore, request permission to erect a temporary redwood fence, consisting of 560 lineal feet, for a period of.two years. Mr. Roberts reiterated the recommendations made by Development Services Department and reported that themasonry wall, which would eventually be construc- ted would be placed around the parking lot as shown on the original plans and not in the same place as the temporary fence. On motion by Councilman Pebley, seconded by Councilmen Sneegas, the City Council approved the construction of the temporary fence as requested by Anaheim M~morial Hospital for a period of two years, expiring September 3, 1976, provided that a bond be posted in an amount and form satisfactory to the City of Anaheim to guarantee construction of the masonry wall. MOTION CARRIED. RECLASSIFICATION NO. 73-74-4 AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 1410 - EXTENSION OF TIME: Request of Truman L. Gates, Administrator, Garden Park General Hospital, dated July 26, 1974, requesting a one-year extension of time to comply with conditions of approval for R-1 and C-O zoning was submitted, together with reports from the City Engineer and Development Services Department. On motion by Councilman Seymour, seconded by Councilman Pebley, a one- year extension of time to ReclasSification No. 73-74-4 and Conditional Use Permit No. 1410 was granted, expiring August 7, 1975. MOTION CARRIED. AMUS~tE~T DE~ICES PERMITS: Applications filed by Mr. James T. Moore, Rowe Service Company, Inc., for Amusement Devices Permits to allOw various sames and amusement devices at the locations listed below, were submitted and granted, subject to the' provisions of Chapters 4.20 of the Anaheim Municipal Code, as recommended by the Chief of Police, on motion by Councilman Sneegas, seconded by Councilman Pebley: a. Three (3) pinball games and one (1) Juke box to be located at The Wild Goose, 1160 North Kraemer Boulevard, Anaheim. b. Two (2)pool tables and one (1) Juke box to be located at The Stables, 121 South Anaheim Boulevard, Anaheim. c. One (1) Juke box to be located at the Polish Village, 1740 West La Palme Avenue, Anaheim. MOTION.CARRIED. 74-915 City HAll. Anaheim. California- COUNCIL .MINUTES- Sentamber 10.. 1974. 1:30 P.M. CIT~.~LAHNING COMHISSIONITEMS: Actions taken by the City Planning Commission at their meeting held August 19, 1974, pertaining to the following applications were submitted for City Council information and consideration; 1. ENVlRONM~TFAL IMPACT - CATEGORICAL EXEMPTIOHS: On motion by Councilwoman Kaywood, seconded by Councilman Sneegas, the City Council ratified the deter- mtnation of the Director of Development Services that the activities proposed in the following actions fall within the definition of Section 3.01, Class Nos. I or 5, of the City of AnaheimGuidelines to the requirement for an environmental flupact report and are, therefore, categorically exempt from the requirement to file said report: Variance No. 2628 Variance No. 2629 Conditional Use Permit No. 1487 MOTION CARRIED. Councilman Pebley left the Council Chambers. (4:11 P.M.) Z, VARIANCE NO. 2628: Submitted by George Parrish to establish a comnercial office buildin~ on R-1 zoned property located at the aorthwest corner of Broadway and State College Boulevard, with Code waivers Of: a. Minimum building setback abutting an arterial highway. (Denied) b. Minimum setback area landscaping. (Withdrawn) c. Required arterial highway dedication. The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC74-177, granted Variance No. 2628 in part only, denying waiver "a", waiver "b" having been withdrawn, subject to conditions.. 3. VARIANCE NO. 2629: Submitted by Enrique and Guadalupe Becerra, for a Code waiver, as follows, for R-1 zoned property located on the northeast side of Laurel Place, east of Westmont Drive: a. Requirement that two parking spaces be provided in a garage. The City Plannin~ Connission,' pursuant to Resolution No. PC74-178, granted Variance No. 2629 for a period of two years, subject to conditions. 4. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 1487: Submitted by Robert P. Dupre and Richard Farley, to establish an auto painting, body and fender repair facility in an existing industrial complex on M-1 zoned property located on the north- west side of.Orangethorpe Park, north of Orangethorpe Avenue. The City Planning Commission, pursuant to ResolutionNo. PC74-174, granted Conditional Use Permit No. 1487, subject to conditions. S. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO, 1486 - TERMINATION: Submitted by Anaheim Hills, lac. and Texaco Ventures, lac., to establish a six-unit model home complex on R-A zoned property located northeast of the intersection of Serrano Avenue and Hidden Canyon Road, with code waivers of: a. Maximum number of sisns. b. Maximum si~ning area. The City Planning Commission, by motion, terminated Conditional Use Permit No. 1486 at the request of the PetitiOner. 6. CONDITI0_NAI. USE .P.~T N.OS,__1311 AND..1329 - ANEND~ TO CONDITION: Request submitted by T. J. Moriarty, Real Estate Department, Anaheim District, Shell Oil Company,' for a~endment to Condition Ho. 11 of City Planning Co~snission Resolution No. PC72-124, restricting the hours of operation for a carwash and an automobile service station on C-1 and zoned property located at 201 South State College Boulevard, to allow the carwash to operate from 7:00 a.m. to 9:00 p.m. and the service station to operate from 6:00 a.m. to 12:00 midnisht. The City PlanninS Coumisalon, pursuant to Resolution No. PC74-182 amended conditions of approval for Conditional Sss Permit Nos. 1311 and 1329, as requested, subject to review by staff at the end of six months. 74-916 City Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - September l0T 1974~ 1:30 P.M. 7. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 1414 EXTENSION OF TIME: Submitted bY Willard R. Pool, Attorney, requesting a one-year extension of time t° redesign the property into either a twin theater or a triple theater. M-1 zoned property is located on the east side of Lemon Street, south of Oransethorpe AvenUe (Anaheim Drive-In Theater). The City Planning CommiSsion, by motion, granted a one-year extension of time to Conditional Use Permit No. 1414, expiring August 20, 1975. 8. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 922: Revised plans submitted by Manuel M. Moreno, A.I.A., Architecture Planning Associates for expansion of the private high school (Servite High School) to construct a two-story structure, and requesting that determination be made whether said plans are substantially in conformance with the plans approved under Conditional Use Permit No. 922, Revision No. 1. R-A zoned property is located on the south side of LaPalma Avenue, west of Onondaga Avenue. The City Planning Commission, by motion, approved revised plans for expansion of Servite High School as being in substantial conformance with the Planning Commission's original approval of Conditional Use Permit ~o. 922. COUNCIL ACTION:. The foregoing applications ,(Item Nos. 2 through 8) were reviewed by the City Council and no further action was taken. 9. VARIANCE NO. 2592: Submitted by Cared N. Smith, President, A.I.A., requesting clarification of said variance, permitting waiver of the requirement that carports be enclosed on three sides to permit construction of'a 24-space carport without a rear wall and located adjacent to an existing.a-foot high masonry wall. R-A zoned property is located southwesterly of the intersection of Ball Road and Magnolia Avenue. Said variance was approved to establish a 108-unit apartment complex. The City Planning Commission, by motion, determined that the request to construct a carport with no teat'wall, and located adjacent to an 8-foot high masonry wall existing on property to the east, is in conformance with the Plan- ning Commission's original approval of Variance No. 2592, inasmuch as the struc- ture would be located a distance from the property line in conformance with the Building Code and the required storage within the carport would be relocated. Councilwoman Kaywood noted that the owner of 'subject property in Vari- ance No. 2592 receives an advantage by not having to construct a wall since the City has already constructed a wall 8 inches inside the property line abutting this particular parcel to the east'. She inquired what the City's legal position would be as far as maintenance of the wall was concerned, and in particular should any dssmges be incurred to said wall as a result of the carports being located adjacent to same. Deputy City Attorney Hopkins replied that the wall is located on City property and is owned by the City, hence it is the City's. responsibility to main- tain sa~e. He further advised that in the event of damage to the wall the indi- vidnal causing said damage would be responsible, and the City would have to seek recourse through small claims court or the individual's insurance company. Councilwoman Kaywood suggested that it might be. a better situation if the City were to require that the property owner adjacent to'the wall purchase this 8-inch strip of land, in lieu of having to construct the masonry wall, pursuant to the conditions of approval of Variance No. 2592.. Mr. Murdoch explained that Council policy has.alwayS been that the builder of the first property developed builds the wall and when the developer of an adjacent property is ready to develop, although the masonry wall requirement may be imposed as a condition of approval, in actuality there is no additional requirement to construct an additional parallel wall, Mr. Murdoch stated that he was not aware of the reasoning behind the City building the wall 8 inches inside the property line, however,he pointed out that this was the City's doing and not the adjacent property owners. He stated that to require some additional commit- ment of this property owner would not be consistent with what has been Council policy in the past. No further action was taken by the City Council. 74-917 City Hall, Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - September 10~ !974~ 1:30 P.M. PROPOSED AMENDMENT TO TITLE 18~ ZONING~ OF THE ANAgXlM MIINCIPAL CODE: On motion by Councilman Thom, seconded by Councilman Sneegas, the proposed amendment to Title 18 of the Anaheim Municipal Code, Zoning, pertaining to definitions of and loca- tion requirements for Planned Residential Development (PRD's) was scheduled for public hearing, October 1, 1974, 1:30 P.M. MOTION CARRIED. (Councilman Pebley temporarily absent. ) REQUEST - EXTENSION OF TIME, RECLASSIFICATION NO. 70-71-49 (TENTATIVE TRACT NOS. 8081 .AND 8082~ FINAL NAP~ TRACT NO. 8080): Request of Mr. Terry L. Crowther, Manager, Pro- Ject Development, Pacesetter Homes, Inc., dated September 9, 1974, for an extension of time to Reclassification No. 70-71-49 to coincide with the extension previously granted Tentative Tract Nos. 8081 and 8082, was submitted for Council consider- ation, together with report from Development Services Department. Councilman Pebley returned to the Council Chambers. (4:35 P.M.). Mr. R~berts s-m,~rized the report submitted by Development Services Department, relating that the property consists of approximately 40 acres located between the Riverside Freeway and Santa Ama Canyon Road, about 2,000 feet east of Imperial Highway, which is presently undeveloped and zoned R-A. Reclassification No. 70-71-49, requesting a change in zone to RS-5000 was approved by the City Council on September 14, 1971, subject to certain conditions. A one-year exten- sion of time was granted on March 19, 1974 to Tentative Tract Nos. 8080 and 8081, expiring March 27, 1975, subject to the Revised Hillside Development'Drainage Condition, and a one-year extension of time was also granted on May 14, 1974, to Tentative Tract No. 8082, expiring June 5, 1975. Mr. Roberts further advised that floor plans and elevations and noise attenuation measures for Tract No. 8080 were approved by the City Council on May 7, 1974, however, these have not yet been submitted for Tract Nos. 8081 and 8082. In addition, Mr. Roberts reported that specific development plans sub- mitted for Tract No. 8080 indicate that 16 of 77 homes, or 21%, would have ga- rages within the 6- to 10-foot setback. Councilwoman Kaywood inquired as to the width of these lots, and Mr. Roberts advised that the lot widths would be 50 feet except for those located on cul-de-sacs, but no lots would be less than 45 feet in width. Councilwoman Kaywood voiced concern that this might create a'parking problem. Mr. R~berts advised that the majority of the lots with 6- to 10-foot setbacks are not located oncul-de-sacs; that only 5 such lots would be on cul-de- sacs and these would be spread over 3 different cul-de-sacs, and these homes are proposed to have 3 and 4 bedrooms. On motion by Councilman Sneesas, seconded by Councilmen Pebley, an ex- tension of time was granted to Reclassification No. 70-71-49, expiring June 5, 1975, to coincide more closely with the extensions previously granted Tentative Tract Nos. 8080, 8081 and 8082. MOTION CARRIED. ORDINANCE NO. 3351: Councilmen Sneegas offered Ordinance No. 3351 for first re,ding. AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AMENDING TITLE 18 OF THE ANAHEINMUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO ZONING. (70-71-49 (1) - RS-5000, Tract No. 8080) APPROVAL OF GRBBNWICH ANNEXATION: Excerpt from the Minutes of the City Planning Co~missionmeeting held September 4, 1974, reco--s~nding that the City Council approve the propos6d Greenwich Annexation (inhabited) and that appropriate'City of Anaheim zoning be initiated at such time as the annexation ordinance has been read, was submitted for Council consideration. 74-q18 City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCILM.Ih~TES'- ieptem.~..r_jO,,, 1974,'1:.30 P.M. On motion by Councilman. Seymour, seconded by Councilwoman Kaywood, the City Council approved initiation of_ proceedings to co~p!et-e the Greenwich Annex- ation (approximately 2.16 acres located on thesouth side Of Orange Avenue', west of Brookhurst Street) and to initiate appropriate City of Anaheim zoning at such time as the annexation proc~eedings have been completed. MOTION CARRIED. RESOLUTION NO. 74R-453 - AWARD OF WORK ORDER NOS. 2280 AND .726-A: In accordance with the recommendations of the City Engineer, cou~cilmanpebiey offered Resolution No. 74R-453 for adoption. Refer to Resolution Book. A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM ACCEPTING A SEALED PRO- POSAL AND AWARDING A CONTRACT TO THE LOWEST RESPONSIBLE BIDDER FOR THE FURNISH'INS OF ALL PLANT, LABOR, SERVICES, MATERIALS AND EQUIPMENT AND ALL UTILITIES AND TRANSPORTATION, INCLUDING POWER, FUEL ANDWATER, ANDPERFORMING ALL WORK NECES- SARY TO CONSTRUCT AND COMPLETE THE FOLLOWING PUBLIC IMPROVEMENT: THE LA PALMA AVENUE STREET IMPROVEMENT, W/O CITRON STREET, IN THE CITY OF ANAHEIM, WORK ORDER NOS. 2280 AND 726-A. (D. W. Contracting Co~Say -.$8,268.00) Roll Call Vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: COUNCIL MEMBERS: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Kaywood, Seymour, Pebley, Sneegas and Thom None None The Mayor declared Resolution No. 74R-453 duly passed and adopted. RESOLUTION NO. 74R-454 - DEEDS OF EASEMENT: Councilman Sneegae offered Resolution No. 74R-454 for adoption. Refer to Resolution Book. A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF AHAHEIMACCEPTING CERTAIN DEEDS AND ORDERING THEIR RECORDATION. (Pacesetter Hom~s, Inc.; California Realty Fund; American National Housin$ Corp.) Roll Call Vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Kaywood, Seymour, Pebley, Sneegas and Thom COUNCIL MEMBERS: None COUNCIL MEMBERS: None The Mayor declared Resolution No. 74R-454 duly passed and adopted. CANCELLATION OF COUNTY TAXES: On motion by Councilman Seys~ur, seconded by Councilwoman Kaywood, the Orange County Board of Supervisors ~as requested to cancel County taxes on property acquired by the City of AnAheim for municipal purposes, pursuant to Resolution No. 74R-405, formerly aesesaed to Haude L.~Johnson, recorded August 27, 1974, as Document No. 25~3, tn Book No. 11230, at Page No. 824, Offi- cial Records of Oranie Couniy, California. HOT'ION CARRIED. COUNTY TAX SALE NO. 1175: By general Council consent, theCity Council indicated no interest and no objections to County Tax Sale No. 1175, ~elative to an excess parcel of land in the City of Anaheim. AUTHORIZATION FOR TRAI~S!~, OF FUllS - cKpIT.A~.,. OUT~.~ ~ ~I~.,.O~ERTY AT B~~T ~ C~SC~): ~. ~rdoch rmlated that at the ~c~l ~mting of Sept~b~ 3, 1974, the City Co~ctl aut~rlzed ~rc~ of a t~~m~.~rc~ of l~d located at Brookhurst Strut ~ Cre~t Ave~ ~ ~ ~fer City ~loyee ~rk~g pur- poses ~ furt~r author~ tr~sfer of ~ ~14,~ to p~chase ~id property fr~Co~ctl Contt~cy F~d. Hr. Nurdoch reported that he was not aware at that time that any monies were still available in the Capital Outlay Fund, but ids since ascertained that there is $45,000 in this Fund which could be utilized for the acquisition of this property ti Council so desires. 74-919 ~ City HallI Anaheiml, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - September 10~ 1974~ 1:30 P.M. Councilman Seymour moved that the action previously authorizing transfer of $14,500 from the Council Contingency Fund for purchase of property located at Brookhurst and Crescent, be amended to authorize the transfer from the Capital Outlay Fund. Councilwoman Kaywood seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. CLAIM AGAINST THE CITY: Claim submitted by Boss Uniform Service for damage to vehicle purportedly resulting from being struck by City vehicle while on private property at 1126 North Euclid, on or about July 15, 1974, was-denied as recommended by the City Attorney and ordered referred to the insurance carrier, on motion by Councilman Thom, seconded by Councilman Seymour. MOTION CARRIED. CORRESPONDENCE: The following correspondence was ordered received and filed, on motion by Councilman Pebley, seconded by Councilman Seymour: a. City of Westminister - Endorsing the concept of a County-wide 911 e~ergency telephone system. b. City of Seal Beach - Requesting members of the California Legis- lature to repeal and amend those sections of the California Government Code per- taining to the State Employee Retirement SyStem for State Legislators who are no longer serving due to loss of election or apportionment. c. Orange County Board of SupervisOrs - Approving the establishment of the Orange County Criminal Activities System, to be administered and maintained by the Sheriff of Orange County. d. Before the Public Utilities Commission - Application of Mark IV Charter Lines, Inc. for authority to extend Application No. 53933, Decision No. 81892, Passenger Stage Service between Points in Southern California and Mammoth Mountain. e. Cultural Arts Commission - Re: September 27-28-29 Conference of the Alliance of California Arts Councils. f. Anaheim Public Library Board - Highlights/Minutes from the meeting of July 15, 1974. g. Community Redevelopment Commission - Minutes - August 14, August 16 and August 20, 1974. h. Financial and Operating Reports for the Month of July, 1974 for the Electrical Division. i. Annual Report for the Year 1973-1974 for the Engineering Division. MOTION CARRIED. ORDINANCE NO. 3352: Councilman Thom offered Ordinance No. 3352 for first r~ading. AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AHENDING TITLE 14, CHAPTER 14.32, SECTION 14.32.190 PERTAINING TO PARKING. (No parking at any time -M able Street, south side, from 360 feet west of centerline of Adams Street to 180 feet west of center- line of Adams Street) ORDINANCE NO. 3353: Councilwoman Kaywood offered Ordinance No. 3353 for first reading. AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AMENDING TITLE 18 OF THE ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO ZONING. (73-74-7 - R-3) OEDINANCE NO. 3354: Councilwoman Kaywood offered Ordinance No. 3354 for firs~ reading,, AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIHAMENDING TITLE 18 OF THE ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO ZONING. (73-74-63 - R-A) SANTA ,ANA CANYON PROPERTY OWNERS' ASSOCIATION - WATER SERVICE ~STALLATION ASSESSHENT~ EXTEND,ED PAYMENT PROGRAH: By .general consent, further consideration of the request submitted by the Santa Ann Canyon Property Owners' Association for some type of extended payment program to handle water service installation assessments (con- tinued from the meeting of August' 27, 1974) was continued an additional week. ANAitEIHCNAHBER OF COMMERCE RECOmmENDATION - REDESIGNATION OF INDUSTRIAL AREA NAMES: The reco~endation submitted by the Anaheim Chamber of Commerce that the City Council officially designate the industrial sections of the City of Anaheim as follows, was resubmitted for Council consideration: (Continued from the meeting of September 3, 1974.) 74-920 City Mall, A~aheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - September 10, 1974~ 1:30 P.M. 1. Anaheim Stadium Industrial Complex - all.that area now known as the Southeast Industrial Area. 2. Anaheim Canyon Industrial Complex - all that area now known as the Northeast Industrial Area. 3. West Anaheim Industrial Complex - all that area generally located on the westerly side of the Santa Ann Freeway between Orangethorpe Avenue and Santa Ana Street. 4. Anaheim Central Industrial Complex - that area now known as the North Central Industrial Area. An informal poll of the Council conducted by the Mayor indicated that Councilmn Pebley and Sneegas would not object to the requested designation if the word "Area" were used in place of the term "Complex". Councilwomen Kaywood Pointed out that changing the name alone would not really create any difference, but perhaps the Chamber should embark on a public relations program to meke people located in the industrial areas aware that they are located in a designated industrial complex. Mayor Thom advised that the point was moot as far as he was concerned. Councilman Seymour stated that he personally felt it would be beneficial to use a more identifiable name for these areas. At the conclusion of discussion, on motion by Councilman Seymour, seconded by Councilman Pebley, the City Council approved the designation of the various industrial sections of the City as recommended, with substitution of the word "Area" in place of "Complex'', subject to acceptance of said changes by the Chamber of Commerce. MOTION CARRIED. In answer to Mr. Murdoch's inquiry, the Council stated that they would not wish any printed meps or other materials to be altered to reflect these n-_~e_s, but rather to use these on new meterials only, so that there would be no cost attached to the designation'of the industrial names. REPORT - EHP~OYHENT OF FIRM TO CONDUCT FINANCIAL AND MANAGEMENT PRACTICES AUDIT (ARTHUR YOUNG & COMP.ANY}: The City Manager reported that the Audit Steering Committee had interviewed 14 firms including the largest 8 combination financial-management firms and also 5 of the top management audit firms, and Kapner, Bogenrief & Wolfber$, who have performed some work standards analysis for the Utilities ' Department. The various qualifications of these firms were taken into considera- tion, and one of the requirements which the Committee insisted upon was that the firm have a National reputation in' this field. He reported that they also reviewed the qualifications and expertise of those individuals within the applicant firms who would most likely be assigned to the Anaheim project. Mr. Murdoch reported that following these intensive interviews and review of qualifications, it is the unanimous recon~endation of the Audit Steering Committee that the Council employ the.fir~ of Arthur Young & Company to perform the financial and management practices audits for the City of Anaheim. He noted that if Council concurs, it would be.in order to authorize the Audit Com~ttee and the City Attorney to prepare the necessary agreements. Councilmen Pebley inquired as to the costs involved.' Mr. Murdoch recalled that a sum of $292,000 was set aside in the 1974-75 Budget for the audit activities to be performed during this fiscal year, however, he advised that Arthur Young & Company has recoamended that rather than a lump sum type of contract, that the City work on a phased basis, project by project, so that the precise scope of this portion of the study, together with the costs, can be identified. Further, he did not think it would be feasible that the entire audit could be performed within a one-year time period, but that it would more likely require 18 months; that it is estimeted the cost will come somewhere near the $292,000 budgeted. Mr. Hurdoch further noted that the financial audit is designed to pro- vide for this audit information by the end of the current fiscal year, and conse- quantly, the City's previous auditors, White and Steichen, will be informed that Arthur Young & Company are replacing them for the 1974-75 fiscal year data. He 74-921 City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES .- September 10~ !974~ 1:30 P.M. related that this financial audit is intended to provide Council, staff and the general citizenry with amore complete understanding of what the financial fig- ures are, and the end result of this financial audit would be a clean opinion, showing the financial savings and efficiency gains. Mayor Thom stated that from the interview procedure the Audit Committee became aware of the capacity and capabilities of the personnel of the Arthur Young & Company firm. He noted that they have over 100 employees in Orange County and are the largest financial and management consulting firm in the west- ern United States. He read the individual names from the proposal and reported that some of the men who will be assigned to the Anaheim project are outstanding in this particular field. He concluded that from what he has learned of the firm, the City will receive one of the best examinations that is available and noted, in addition, that the rate schedule submitted by Arthur Young & Company is extremely competitive. Councilman Thom thereupon moved that the City Council accept the recom- mendation of the Audit Steering Committee and authorize them, together with the City Attorney, to prepare an agreement with Arthur Young & Company to conduct a financial and management practices audit for the City of Anaheim. Councilman Seymour seconded the motion. Councilman Pebley left the Council Chambers. (5:05 P.M.) Prior to voting on the foregoing motion, Councilman Seymour pointed out that one of the things that most impressed him regarding Arthur Young & Company was their track record of actual results achieved in somewhat similar types of audits conducted throughout'the United States and gave specific examples: i.e., Jacksonville, Florida - an audit of 25% of their program produced an actual savings of 3 million dollars per year; Orange County Medical Center audit resulted in 1.3 million dollars annual savings; Florida Power and Light Company, an audit exacted a savings of 26 million dollars on an annual basis. Councilman Seymour stated that the Arthur Young & Company approach is best described in the paragraph included in the proposal, as follows, which also defines his objective in this audit: 'We believe city government can and should be run as a business, recognizing that service levels replace profits as a measure of performance. To the degree that the City of Anaheim is not, we will tell you and recommend improvements. To the degree that it is, we will describe the benefits of your approach." (Page No. 8 "Qualifications to conduct a financial and management practices audit of the City" prepared for the City of Anaheim, California, Arthur Young · Company.) The Mayor called for a vote on the foregoing motion. MOTION CARRIED. (Councilman Pebley temporarily absent.) Mayor Thom pointed out that the Arthur Young & Company prefers to work with the Audit Steering Committee directly, if this is satisfactory to the re- mainder of the Council, and will make ~oathly reports to the full Council, as well as progress reports at appropriate Juncture in the project, and the City Council indicated agreement with this proposal. Councilman Pebley returned to the Council Chambers. (5:08 P.M.) REFUND - DINNER-DANCING PLACE PERMIT FEE - "ELLIE'S PLACE": The City Clerk reported that .the refund of fees paid in connection with application for Dinner-Dancing Place Permit for "Elliets Place", 1652 West Lincoln Avenue, authorized at the City Council meeting of September 3, 1974, was reported incorrectly; that the applicant had not paid $250 for the license and a $25 processing fee additionally, as was reported at that time, butrather had paid $250 total, and in accordance with Council action taken at the previous meeting to retain the $25 processing fee portion, it would be in order to amend the motion to refund $225 to the applicant. On motion by Councilwoman Kaywood, seconded by Councilman Sneegas, the previous Council action authorizing refund to Mr. Charles G. Roslund of $250, was rescinded, and a refund in the ~unt of $225 authorized. MOTION CARRIED. 74-922 ENCROACHHEHT,FKi~fIT - ~O.. 74-6E: Sub~ttted by ~rth ~ ~y ~. p~ainS to encroach into a portion of ~ist~ ~bltc utllitiee ~t l~at~-ou t~ ~sc side si ~~e Street, s~th of ~il~~ Strut for t~ ~e of i~tall- ins a sw~ns pool. Also submitted vas report of the City Busineer recO~eUdins approval of said encroachment permit, subject to the installation not exceedi~ the heliht of 15 feet as measured perpendicularly from the natural level-of the 8round. RESOLuT~ON NO. 74R-455: Councilman Seymour offered Resolution No. 71R-455 for adoption, approvtn8 Encroachment Permit No. 7&-6E, subject to the reco~mmndation of the City En$ineer. Refer to Resolution Book. A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF ~ CI1'~ OF AJARKIH A~PROVXMG ~HK TB39iS ~ CO~TXOSS O~ '~ ~C~O~~ PS~ ~ AmXZ~ ~ mYoa ~ c~ c~ ~o E~C~K SAID ~CROA~ PE~IT wI~ ~ s. ~ ~ ~ A. ~. (74-6~) Roll Call Vote: AYES: NOES: ABSEHT: COUNCIL HEHBERS: Kaywood, Seymour, Pebley, SueeSao and Thom COUNCIL HKHBRRS: None COUNCIL N EMBERS: None The Nayor declared Resolution No. 7&R-.~55 dttly pasted mad a~opted. CON~_~__~U_CE Ol' THE AU.,~.~,., CE OF C~, IFOIH~A AIT,S ~~ - ~ ~7. 28 ~ .2~. 1974: Co~cil~ h~d pointed ou~ t~t ~cil received ~rr~e fr~ the ~heim Cultural ~ts ~,si~ relati~ to Cb ~fe~ of t~ ~~ of Califo~ ~ts Co,tile to ~ held Septet 27, 28 ~ 29, that Startle Co~ty will hoot Cb htur~y nis~ ~Mt ~ t~t tb ~rs of ~he City Co~cil ~re invited ~o the first MetinS of the C~y~ ~ea ~neraX PZ~ Taak Force ~1~ ~ held this even~ns at 7:~ p.m. in the Dilator ~ces C~er~e ~, 114 S~th Claudi~ Strut, and t~t public and preeo are ~Cd to atC~. ADJOUR~I~f: Councilman PebleyBoved to adjourn. Co~acilman Sneesf~ 6eeouded the motion. MOTIO~ CARRIED. ~AJourned: 5:14 P.M. City ~lerk