1974/05/2174-514
City Hall. Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - Mmv 15. 1974. 7:00 P.M.
Commissioner Farano suggested a sign amortization ordinance which
would state that existing non-conforming signs have an amortization period of
5 years and after that time, the signs must conform to Code. If Council is in
agreement, the Planning Commission would work out an equitable approach to this
situation.
Council determined that a review of the sign ordinance would be in
order, however hardship would be considered when a variance from the Code is
requested.
COMMENTS: Councilman Seymour voiced the opinion he would sincerely appreciate a
close working relationship with the Planning Commission on all matters.
Councilman Thom concurred and stated that within 60 to 90 days,
another work session would be necessary to up date Council on the status of
the priorities and projects discussed in this meeting.
Mayor Thom thanked everyone for attending the informative and
productive meeting.
~: Commissioner Farano moved to adjourn; Commissioner King seconded the
motion. MOTION CARRIED.
Councilman Pebley moved to adjourn; Councilman Seymour seconded the
motion. MOTION CARRIED.
Adjourned: 9:45 P.M.
Deputy City Clerk
City Hall~ Ana~eim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - May 21~ 1974t 1.:30 P~M.
The City Council of the City of Anahei~ ~et in resular'sesSion.
PRESENT:
PRESENT:
COUNCIL MEMBERS: Kaywood, Seymour (arrived 1:55 P.M.), Pebley.,
Sneegas and Thom
COUNCIL MEMBERS: None
CITY MANAGER: Keith A. Murdoch
CITY ATTORNEY: Alan R. Watts
DEPUT~ CITY CLERK: Linda D. Roberts
STADIUM-CONVENTION CENTER DIRECTOR: Thomas Llegler
FINANCE DIRECTOR: M. R. Ringer
CITY ENGINEER: James P, Maddox
ASSISTANT DIRECTOR OF DEVELOPHENT SERVICES: Ronald Thompson
ZONING SUPERVISOR: Charles Roberts
Mayor Thom called the meeting to order.
FLAG SALUTE: Councilman Ralph G. Sneegas led the Assembly in the Pled~e of
Allegiance to the Flag.
RESOLUTION OF CONGRATULATIONS AND INTRODUCTION - DOROII~f MAE ~'-ANAheIM'S
MOTHER OF THE YEARt 1974: Resolution of Congratulations unant~oualy~adOptad by
the Anaheim City Council, together with a spray of roses a~d miniature
Anaheim scoreboard, were presented to Mrs. Dorothy Mae Flanagan with
Council's congratulations on the occasion of her selection aa Anaheim's
1974 Mother of the Year.
Hrs. Flanagan was introduced to the Council Me~bers by Hrs. Fran N~uek
of the Women's Division, Anaheim Chamber of Commerce.
74-515
City ~al!, Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - May 21~ ~974~ 1:30 P'M'
KI~: Hinute~ of the Anahei~City Council Regular Nesting held April 9, 1974
~ere approved on-orion by Councilman Sneegas, seconded by Council~an Tho~.
Cou~cil~ Eayvood and Councilman Seymour abstained fr~m voting on approval
of said Minutes. NOTION CARRIED.
Minutes of the Anaheim City Council Regular Nesting held April 16,
1974 were approved on motion by Councilwoman Kaywood, seconded by Council~an
Seymour with the following correctionS: Page 74-375, Paragraph 6, Line 3,
changing the word "without" to "with". HOTION CARRIED.
~AIVE~. OF READING - ORDINANCES ~ RESOLUTIONS: Councilwoman Kay~ood moved to
valve the reading in full of all ordinances and resolutions, and that consent
to the waiver of reading is hereby given by all Council Me~bers unless, after
reading of the title, specific request is made by a Council ~lember for the
reading of such ordinance or resolution. Councilman Tho~ seconded the motion.
NOTION UNANIMOUSLY CARRIED.
R~POR T - FINANCIAL D~NDS AGAINST TRE CITY: Demands against the City in the
·mount of $1,297,164.71, in accordance with the 1973-74 Budset, were approved.
LEASE ACRE .~, ANAHEIM STADIUM - SOUTHERN C~LII~RNXA PROFES$I ....O~L I~)0TBALL,
INC. (SUN): The City Attorney reported on the negotiations conducted between the
City and the Southern California Professional Football, Inc.., (Sun) for lease
of certain facilities at the Anaheim Stadium, and' s~m~rized the salient
points of the final agreement as follows: That said agreement will have a
term of 20 years and calls for the Southern California Sun to exhibit profes-
sional football games at Anaheim Stadium. He briefed the financial arran~e-
manta contained within this agreement, namely that the Southern California Sun
shall pay to the City 9% of the gross paid admissions; that the revenues
received from the Canteen Corporation, Concessionaire at the Stadium, would
be split 2/3 to the City and 1/3 to the Southern California Sun; that the
parking operation will be operated and controlled by the City and the City
will receive all revenues derived therefrom and will also bear the expenses
involved.
Insofar as radio and television coverage of 'football ga~es are con-
cerned, there is a provision included that the ho~e games of the Sun will not
be broadcasted over television or other sight co~aunication media within a
?$-~ile radius of the Stadium, subject to the applicable Federal Law regarding
a sell-out situation.
The City does, pursuant to this agreement, retain its rights and
limitations regarding advertisin~ within the Stadium as they are set forth in
the City's prior agreement with Standard 0il.
One of the items negotiated in connection with this agreement was
the matter of additional seating and a provision has been set forth in the
a~ree~ent that after the Southern California Sun has two consecutive football
seasons of attendance, equaling 801 of capacity (defined as 4,200 seats for
the purpose of the agreement), there would' be a one-year period in which the
parties would negotiate concerning the installation of additional seating and
the financing thereof. If these negotiations were unsuccessful, then the
~outhern California Sun, at the end of the one-year negotiating period, could
give 12 months' notice and relocate the football team to another facility.
.At the request of Councilman Tho~, Mr. Watts e~plained that the
theory of this proposed.a~ree~ent is that it is an exhibition a~re~ent,
~rs~nt to ~ich the ~ut~ ~lifo~ia S~ a~r~s to e~iBittheir i~tball
~s in the Stadia. ~thou~h it is ~t anticipat~ t~t there viii be ~y
~s~s~ interest cms, if in fact C~re are, C~ asremnC states C~
~li~ti~ of 't~ ~et~n California S~ is to pay ~e.
In answer .to Councilwoman Kay~ood's question regarding the clause
~hich restricts the mmber of tickets to be sold to the number of seats
awallahle, Mr. Watts advis~l that this was included to retain control by. the
City since a situation once occurred as the result of a pro~otion~l event in
~ich~anymore people arrived at the Stadium than could be properly'accommodated.
74-516
City Hall, Anaheim~ California r .COUNCIL MINUTES --Hay 21~ 1974~ 1:30 P~.M.
Mr. Thomas Liegler, Stadium-Convention Center Director, addressed the
Council explaining that the agreement was well outlined by the City Attorney.
He introduced the representatives of the Southern California Professional
Football, Inc., (Sun), present at the meeting, to the City Council. Those in
attendance were Larry Hatfield, President; Curley Morrison, Vice President -
General Manager; John Garrett, Attorney, and Bob Negrey, Business Manager.
(Councilman Seymour entered the meeting. (1:55 P..M.)
RESOLUTION NO. 74R-237: Councilman Pebley offered Resolution No. 74R-237 for
adoption.
Prior to voting on the foregoing resolution, Mr. Watts reviewed and
explained with reference to specific pages and lines, each change which Will be
incorporated into the final agreement from tHe last draft form. Mast of these
changes he indicated were insignificant in nature, but called attention to the
clause which will permit the Southern California Professional Football, Inc.,
(Sun) to assign their rights in this agreement to a California Limited Partner-
ship. He explained that they do intend to create such a Limited Partnership
and sell interest in same. This clause is added to make it permissible to
assign additionally to the Limited Partnership the responsibilities of said
agreement but not to remove the corporation, Southern California Professional
Football, Inc., (Sun), from said responsibilities.
Refer to Resolution Book.
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF 'ANAHEIM APPROVING AND AUTHORIZING
THE EXECUTION OF AN AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AND SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA
PROFESSIONAL FOOTBALL, INC. RELATING TO THE E~tIBITION OF PROFESSIONAL FOOTBALL
AT ANAHEIM STADIUH.
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-237 duly passed and adopted.
ENVI~O.,I~NTAL IMPACT REPORT - ANAHEIM FOREBAY WASTEWATER RECI~TION PLANT (ORANGE
COUNTY WATER DISTRICT): Ms. Joyce Truby, Environmental Programs Manager, Orange
County Water District, related that subsequent to the hearing on the E.I.R.
prepared in conjunction with the Wastewater Reclamation Plant proposed to be
built in the City of Anaheim, the Orange County Water District was contacted by
Thornton Piersall, Public Works Director for the City of Anaheim who indicated
that several concerns remained unresolved in said E.I.R. in his opinion.
Ha. Truby stated that it is the feeling of the Orange County Water
District after lensthy discussions that further words would not clarify the
situation and rather, they propose that the Anaheim City Council, as the guests
of the Orange County Water District, take an inspection tour of the Lake Tahoe
Wastewater Reclamation Plant, which is similar to the one proposed to be estab-
lished in Anaheim.
Following brief discussion, the Council determined that the Mayor and
the Public Works Director, Thornton Piersall would attend. The date and time
of said inspection tour to be established through the Public Works Director's
Office.
P. EHEAKING - GENEKAL PLAN AI~NDNENT NO. 123 Bi KECLA~,SIF%CATION NOr 75774-46} 'VARIANCE
NO. 2569; TENTATIVE TRACT NOS. 8463~ 8464~ 8465 AND 8466~ ENVIRONNENTAL 'IMPACT REPORT
NOS. 115~ 110~ I16 AND 117:
GENERAL ~LAN AHENDHENT NO. 123 B: To reconsider updating the Anaheim General
Plsm relating to an-area apprOximately 4,200 acres in size located generally
south of Santa Aaa Canyon Road, east of the Newport Freeway and extending
easterly beyond Nohler Drive to Weir Canyon, having a southerly boundary approxi-
mately along the Santa Ana Nountains ridgeline.
74-517
City Nal. l.~ Anahaim, .California - ,COUNCIL MINUTES - Nay 21t 19.74j 1:30 P.M.
The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution PC74-62,
recommended that General Plan Amendment No. 123 B, be approved in accordance
vith Kxhihtt No. 1. FollovtnS duly noticed public hearing held April 9,
1974, the City Council adopted ResolUtion No. 74R-152, which approved said
General Plan Amendment in accordance with Exhibit No. 1 as recommended by the
City Planning Commission.
~S, IFICATION NO. 73-74-46 {E.I.R. NO. 115): Subuitted by Anaheim Hills,
Inc., and Texaco Ventures, Inc., for a change in zone from R.-A to PC (Parcel
No. A), southeast of the intersection of Nohl Ranch Road and Imperial Highway
and (Parcel No. B) easterly of the present terminus of Canyon Rim Road.
The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC74-63,
recomended approval of Reclassification No. 73-74-46 subject to conditions,
and the City Council, following duly noticed public hearing held April 9,
1974, pursuant to Resolution No. 74R-153, approved Reclassification No.
73-74-46, subject to the conditions recommended by the City Planning Commission.
VAilAHCE NO. 2569 (~..I.R. NO. 110}: Submitted by Anaheim Hills, Inc., and
Texaco Ventures, Inc., to establish a 163-1ot subdivision on the south side
of Canyon Rim R~ad, northeast of Nohl Ranch Road vith the following Code
waivers:
a. Requirement that single-family structures rear on an arterial
highway.
b. Minimum private accessway.
The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution NO. pC74-64,
approved Variance No. 2569, subject to conditions and the City Council,
following duly noticed public hearing held April 9, 1974, pursuant to Resolution
No. 74R-154, granted said variance, subject to the conditi0nsrec~nded by
the City Planning Commission.
TENTATIVE IILi~T NOS. 8463~ 8464~ 8465 .A~ 8466: Developer, Anaheim Hills,
Inc., and Texaco Ventures, Inc.; property located on the south side of Canyon
Rim Road, northeast of Nohl Ranch Road.
Tract No. 8463 contains 40 proposed R-H-lO,OS0 zoned lots.
Tract No. 8464 contains 42 proposed R-R-iO,O00 zoned lots.
Tract No. 8465 contains 45 proposed R-H-iO,O00 zoned lots.
Tract No. 8466 contains 36 proposed R-H-lO,000 zoned lots.
The aboVe mentioned tracts were approved by the City Council on
recommendation of the City Plannin$ Commission and subject to the conditions
recommended by same, at the meeting held April 9, 1974.
~HVIROIIdJ~ITAL IMPACT REPORT NOS. 115t 110~ 116 AND 117: E'I.R. No. 115, 110,
116 and 117 are all supplementary to E.I.R. No. 80. E.I.R. Nos. 115 and 110
vere submitted in conjunction with the above noted zoning actions as indicated.
E.I.R. No. 116 was subgcltted to comply with the requir~ment for approval of
an extension of time to Tentative Tract No. 7587; E.I.R. No. 117 was submitted
to couplywith a requirement for approval of an extension of time to Tentative
Tract NO. 7558.
Both E.I.R. NOs. 116 and 117 refer to property located in the East-
ridge unit of Anaheim Hills, south of the intersection of Nohl Ranch Road and
Serrano Avenue.
All of the above mentioned E.I.R.o, with the exception of E.I.R.
Bo. 110, ware certified as being in compliance with the California Environmental
~tmlity Act and the State Guidelines by motion of the City Council at the
moating of April 9, 1974. E.I.R. No. 110 vas adopted as the Council's EnViron-
mental Impact Statement at the Meting held February 12, 1974.
74-518
Cith Hal.1a Anaheim, Cali.fo.r~ia - COUNCIL MINUTES - l~y 21~ 1974~..1:30 ~.M.
Petitions for rehearing and Affidavits of Merit regarding all of the
above mentioned items dated April 10, 1974, from Mr. Tim Burrell of Young,
Henrie and McCarthy, 100 Pomona Mall West, Pomona, were submitted for Council
consideration at the meeting of April 16, 1974, and the City Council at that
time granted said rehearings which were scheduled Chis dace.
The Deputy City Clerk noted that written comments relative to the
above mentioned E.I.R.s were received from Mr. Tim Burrell and were .distributed
to the Council Members prior to Chis meeting.
At the request of Mayor Thom, the City Attorney presented a synopsis
of his memorandum to the City Council relative to liability of Council Members
as a result of an action which might be taken subsequent to rehearing based on
the "vested rights" doctrine. Specifically, Mr. Watts counseled thaC in his
opinion there is little or no possibility of personal liability in the form of
money damages which could occur in this regard. Further in connection with the
question of "vested rights", he was. of the opinion that Anaheim Hills, Inc.
would have a better possibility of establishing a case than the developer of
the project which was the subject of rehearing on May 14, 1974 which prompted
the request for his opinion (Reclassification No. 73-74-36, Matreyek Homes,
Inc.). He based this reasoning upon the fact that considerable improvements
have been constructed by Anaheim Hills, Inc., in the total area, and it would
be a question of establishing whether or not these improvements pertain to the
particular items under discussion.
In addition, Mr. Watts pointed out that he is in disagreement with
Counsel for the Orange Unified School District in connection with environmental
impact reports, notably because from what he has observed in written comments
subtracted by that Counsel, it would appear that he construes all zoning actions
· to be conducted under the auspices of an environmental impact report, whereas,
the City Attorney indicated, he does not share that opinion.
With the concurrence of the Council, CheMayor waived the usual
summary presented by Development Services Department of the zoning actions, all
Council Members indicating they felt the documentation submitted to be sufficient.
The Appellant, Mr. Tim Burrell, Young, Henrie and McCarthy, 100
Pomona Mall WeSt, Pomona, appearing on behalf of the Orange Unified School
District and the Santa Ann Canyon Improvement Association, Inc., prefaced his
remarks with the statement that he would comment on all four environmental
impact reports collectively in the interest of time.
Mr. Burrell referred to the comments submitted on E.I.R. Nos. 115,
110, 116 and 117 and stated that he would not read these but would briefly
summarize same and answer any questions which Council may have.
In his s-~ry, Hr. BurrelI noted that although E.I.R. No. 110 refers
to a tentative tract of 163 homes, it also concerns grading on sm adjacent
parcel near the Walnut Canyon Reservoir. Mr.. Burrell felt it was improper to
couple these two actions together in one E.I.R. Further he stated that he did
not feel the City should permit a developer to colence grading on a parcel for
which he has neither tmm-diate plans for development, nor plans to install the
necessary measures to stabilize the land. This will, in effect, leave raw land
next to a reservoir which serves the City of Anaheim. Municipal Water supply.
E.I.R. Nos. 116 and 117 contain a tolerable description of an ~xisting
geological problem according to Mr. Burrell, however he felt further study of
the situation and a more detailed description would be appropriate in view of
the fact that the City of Anaheim may be subject to liability in the event of
landslides or other instabilities following development of subject parcel.
In all of the g.I.R.s under discussion, Mr. Burrell co_~-~_nted that in
comparison the noise curve illustrated is essentially the same despite the fact
that the location of the development and their sizes are different. He further
noted that each environmental impact report should include a section which
74-519
~aare~ ~dl~ o~ th~ various, a~eoc~-es ~ c~l~; t~t~ c~ta, as well
~ e~8 o~ c~ ~e ~ ~; ~: the. City's r~o-~ to o~e. He
~d~ C~ E.I.I, b. ~0. ~ca~ee n 8t~ Co c~].~, with this provision,
~ l.I.l.. ~. 11~, 1'16 ~ 117 c~tain ~ ~h se~i~.
l~r. Bar, ell next con,anted o~ the E.I.R. proce~e itself and the
~~s of ~is d~~. ~ defi~ ~ E.I.R. ~ ~ "s~eF staff report"
~ ~~e: CO C~&Ce ~1o~ 8ca. t~Ce imco ~ facts and deliver
x~, ~i~ific' ~n~in a~u~ i~ will ~1i~ oc~ if the planned
~i~C ~ p~c~, ~ ~i1 as alCe~Cive siC~Ci~a. 'The result of this,
~:~ ~o ~. ~I1, ~d h cbc Cb ~lic ~d; ~ve aCcess ~o
~~, ~~ ~~i~ 8~ ~a.~ 18 ~p~ ~o. Chair environs and
~b CiCl Co~il il obviously be able ~o Mke ~CCer decisions.
In order to farther mprove c~catio~ beeveen governmental
~srt~tctions, in particular the Oran~ Unifies School District and the City
of A~het~, Hr. Burrell suuested that a pez~maeat ne~ottatinS co~aittee be
e~t~blished to act es liaison bet~en enterfacing Jurisdictions.
h ceaelaeio~ Hr. Re, re11 ce~tes~l~t tM ~ve~tel.rishts" ~sc be
e~lis~ aft~ a ~C is is~ ~ if a buloHr suffe~ any loss
pr~r to ~ht t~, t~se ~nses ~re incurred at his o~ risk. He requested
tbt t~ City ~cil ~erse their prior certification of the E.I.R.s in
~ti~ ~~ of t~ deficiencies ~ht~ out, a~ refer these back for
f~t~r au~tati~ .~d st~y; and furCh~ C~t they retract approval of the
~ral PI~ ~t, relassificati~ a~ tentative ~p without preJ~ice,
~ cNition appr~al of these it~s up~ re~lution of t~ 'sch~I probl~.
~ effete as ~ alte~tive to this su~eation ~t t~ City Council impose
a mratori~ on buildi~ In the ~aheim lille area pendl~ further study of
th~se probl~ and to pe~t t~ for c~pletion of t~ coSt/benefit study.
Letters fro~ the OranBe Unified School District dated Hay 17, 1974,
stati~ the District's position on E.I.R. ~os. 116 and 117, ~ere submitted to
the Council as evidence and made part of this hearing.
The Hayer ask~t if there vere any questions from the Council,
hearin~noae called for any other persons ~ wished to address the Council
on behalf of the Appellant.
Hrs. Mary Dinndorf, 131 La Pas Street, representing the Santa Aaa
Ca~yoa Improvement ~sociation, lac., indicated that said Association does
believe thaC diversification of ~and develolmont i~ neeusary, however they
vould prefer to see more residential estate and R-leOnine than PC Zones
established, She ursnd thc the Council consider postponing any decision
until the Condominium Ordinance and other studies projected ac the May 8,
1974 City Plennins Coumisolon york session are implmentad,
Mr. Jim Strup, advised that he arno property ad_intent to the area
under consideratiou, sa./A property bein~ located snot ned 300 feet south of
/maluein Rills bad. He ce~curred rich l/es ~ D/nndmrf' s statement.
There heta~ no further speakers on behalf of the appellant for
rebearin~, the Mayor offered the proponents an oppertuntCy to address the
!~. Marlmm Fo~, 610 Retvpo~ C~tor Drive, l~e~port bach, Attorney
f~ ~~18, ~,/T~ V~C~eo, ~., referr~ co t~ letter ~ich
~ ~ttd ~ ~r~ 16, 1~74, prot~c~ cb r~r~o requested and
cit~C~Cy ~~ ~l~y ~. 105 ~ch aCaC~ ~Aff~vit of Merit requesting
.re~ia~eeet eec forth ia detail Cbs m evidaece t~e presented and in
tko ~Uhy Clmt evidence u~e eot avai~abla for presentation at
tko at~t~e~ I~X'~. ~ ~lv:[.~ed that they have a standing and continuous
ebJ~cttie~ t~ ~ t~b~ris~ b~sd en City Coaacil policy end consider the
74-520
City Hall~ A~-~heim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES '-.May 21~ 1974~ i:30:P,M.
With reference to E.I.R. No. 110, Ma. Fox pointed..out that
report was approved by-the City Councilon February 12, 1974, and to. conduct a
rehearing after this much time has elapsed is not in compliance with
California Environmental Quality Act or State Or City Guidelines.
In reference to Mr..Burrell's request that the City Council withdraw
approval of the tentative tracts with which E.I.R. No. 110 is associated,
Ms. Fox advised that according to the legislative intent invested in the
Business and ProfeSsions Code, Section 115.52, Mr. Burrell and ~theOrange
Unified School District have no standing on which to contest or delay..approval
of a tentative tract map since this section .holds that the only party who can
appeal from a decision on a tentative.tract map is the applic~n~ or developer.
Ms. Fox asserted, based on the comments presented this date and the
written comments submitted by Mr. Burrell, when compared with the Minutes of
April 9, 1974, which have been approved by the City Council, that the.appellant
has failed to meet the burden of producing new evidemce at this.hearing, since
nothing which could be construed as. such, in her opinion has been presented.
Further she referred to the fact that two Superior Court Judges have reviewed
similar claims .and evidence as presented by Mr. Burrell,~this date, and after
lengthy deliberation have rendered an opinion in favor of Anaheim Hills, Inc.,
which Mr. Burrell is now requesting that the Council declare invalid, together
with the City Attorney's opinion. She submitted a copy of the opinion rendered
by Judge Lester Van Tatenhove to the Council Members and read a paragraph from
same. She stated that Mr. Burrell~s. contentions and those of.the Orange Unified
School District have gone far afield.from the requirements of the California
Environmental Quality Act inasmuch as the E.I.R. was intended to be an informa-
tional document only, whereas it has been utilized as a vehicle to delay or
impede an on-going project.
With respect to '%ested rights", Ms. Fox indicated her agreement with
the CityAttorney's interpretation of this doctrine and pointed out for Mr. Burrell
that this opinion is supported by a recent court ruling in the case of Friends
of Lake Arrowhead versus the Board of Supervisors, 4th District Court of Appeals,
in which for the first time in the State of California it was held that a good
faith reliance on a building permit is not required in discussing '%ested rights".
She stated that insofar as Anaheim Hills development is concerned, they have
spent in excess of twenty-five million dollars in.~improvements to the area
based on commitments made by the City of Anaheim as far back as 1970; these
cou~itments including various resolutions of intent, General Plan Amendments
and the Anaheim Hills Master Plan which was adopted and incorpor&~ed into the
City's Master Plan in 1970. She additionally cited that an area of constitutional
law and basic due process under the 5th and 14th Amendments, as well as equal
protection under the Law under the 14th Amendmemt, and the constitutionally
guaranteed right to~ travel under the 1st Amendment are involved. Ms.
asserted that all .of these points apply to the Anaheim Hills development pnd
there is no way to segregate certain tracts or E.I.R.s before the Council as
they are increments of theM aster Plan. In further reference to '%ested rights",
she cited another recent case in which the .c~urts decided they will hence forth
start at the beginning in these cases and consider all of the evidence individu-
ally, no longer relying on the substantial evidence rule and work basic with the
presumptionthat the ]urisd'ictional agency is right.
In conclusion, Ma. Fox stated she was prepared with speCifi~ numbers
on costs of development if Council should have questions in that area and
advised that Horst Schor and James BarisiC of Anaheim Hills, Inc., and Mr. Gene
Scothorn of Envista are present to answer questions regarding the' PC zoning,
tracts or environmantal impact reports for CountS1.
Councilman Seymour made reference to Ma.. Fox.' comment regarding the
twenty-five million dollar investment which Anaheim Hills., In¢.,,:has made and
inquired whether she meant to infer that as a resUlt of this investmenr,.the
City of Anaheim is required to accept the developments proposed by Anaheim
Hills, Inc., as long as they are, in Anaheim Hills,-Inc.'s .opinion, within the
general guidelines established in 1970-71.
74-521
F
COUNCIL HINUTES - Ha7 21~, 1974,, 1:30
Its. Fox apolo~.~z~d if this was the w·y her words were construed.
~m~ a_-sured~ Couacil she was referrin~ only to Anaheim Hills, Inc. 's "vested
~hte" im continuance of the project, and that the City of 'Anaheim has the
~ov~ra~ authority to dictate the way in which develolment will proceed.
Councilvo~an K. ayvood posed a question relative to where the responsi-
bility would lie for homes built and grading performed around the reservoir
ia the event of earthquake or failure of the dam, which prompted extensive
~lseus·ion regarding the geological character of the are· adJ.acent to the
reservoir. During this discussion, H~. Scothorn of gnvista, who was one of
the' engimeers on the Halnut. Canyon Reservoir structure, ·nd ~r. Horst Schor,
la~heim Hills, Inc., assured Councilwoman Kayvood that comprehensive geological
reports have been prepared regarding this ·rea and they do not contemplate
th~t'~tbe grading or construction proposed would Jeopardize the reservoir, and
aa a matter of fact they do anticipate an improvement in the water .quality
Ii, ce it will eliminate run-off from a tributary. Hr. $cothorn and Hr. Schor
stated that the construction of the tract on the north side would actually
kip to st·blize the north ridse.
Re~ardin~ the leg~l liability question, Hr. Harts advised that
there is no "yes" or ~no" ansUer in this situation. ~han the Halnut Canyon
~eservoir vas constructed, extensive geological and soil studies where performed
and this particular site vas selected because of its apparent lack of being
subject to a seiamic situation. He felt this to be an extremely complex
legal question which could be resolved either way.
Councilnan Thom pointed out that Councilwoman Kay~ood's interest in
the matter is partially due to the recent opinions expressed .by seismologists
that dana or reservoirs can be the precipitating factor in seismological
events due either to lubrication or pressure, and if such did occur near the
galnut Canyon Reservoir, then would the City be liable hacauaa of.g~anting a
pernit for construction on adjacent properties, in light of the knowledge of
this fact,
There being no further CoUncil question and no additional speakers
on behalf of the proponents, the Nayor offered the appellant a few minutes
for rebuttal.
Hr. Tim Burrell briefed the circumstances surroUnding the approval
of l.I.l. No. 110 and his attempts Co present coements on February 12, 1974,
· t which time he vas notified by the City CoUncil that they would hear his
re~arks in conjUnction with the tentative tract and, therefore, his presenta-
tion on April ~, l~?i and subsequent rehearing this date. He disagreed with
~a. Fox regarding rights to appeal tentative tracts and pointed out that the
letter presented by Ns. Fox free Judge Van Tatenhove is not a final opinion,
since his fish as ftld notice of an appeal in that particular case. Further
Hr. Burrell referred to the Environmental Protection Agency parking regulations
aa an ·tteuept to decrease the usage of privata vehicles ·nd stated that these
pro~ects vmlld only add to urban sprawl and further contribute to the smog
problem in the Los Angeles basin.
Hlth re~ard to %eared rights", Hr. Burrell clarified that his pre-
vtoue st·testat was not that there .must b· expenses incurred through reliance
on · building permit, but rather on any type of pereLtt, which is not the
situation in this c·~e vhan the CoUncil has Just ~ranted approval of these
tentative .tracts. Re stated that the City retains the control so long as no
perott has b~en issued and can dictate the manner in which a development pro-
coe~ie. Re stated that this ts preciselyvhet the client ts seeking, orderly
~evelopoent conduc~ in phases to help solve the school pr°blen. He renarked
that tho E.I.~.s und~ consideration uere preparedby Envista, whereas the
hte Lev requires that tho City prepare sane, although the developer can
euboit iafoenation.for said report.
Ia reference to Councilvonan ~ayvood's question regardin~ liability
ia t~ ~t of ~ ~~ or failure of the r~se~otr, ~r. Burrell agreed
~~. ~ ~ot~VS ~t t~t this ~d ~st likely be an after-the-
~t ~te~t~. ~ f~ther not~ t~c althou~ in the construction
_ I ' '! .... --r ..,IU "' III J I_
74-522
City flall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTBS - May 21~ 1974a 1:30 P.M.
industry corporations are transient and-temporary and would most likely not be
available after such an occurrence, the government of the City of Anaheimwould
most likely still be intact. Further he commented on the trend towards consumer
protection and safety in the housing area, noting it would behoove the Council
to consider their liability from these standpoints.
In conclusion, he reiterated that his firm requests on behalf of their
clients that the City of Anaheim control development in Anaheim Hills and give
more consideration to the school problem.
Mayor Thom asked if the Council had any questions of Mr. Burrell.
Councilman Seymour remarked that it appears from Mr. Burrell~s pre-
sentation that his philosophy on E.I.R.s is that these become a priory tool
upon which a decision of development is based. He related that while a member
of the City Planning Commission, he gave extensive consideration to the scope
and depth of E.I.R.s and that he has arrived at a conclusion similar to that
expressed by the City Attorney, i.e,, that aa E.I.R. is a guide which establishes
certain factual data, which will come about in someone's best opinion if the
particular development is approved; in. short, it is a report, of facts. Further
he remarked that he does.not agree with the concept that this E.I,R. becomes
more important in consideration than the weight of the decision itself relative
to the development and decision on zoning.
Mr. Burrell replied that the key. to the question of extent of an
E.I.R. is quality and not quantity. He noted chat the legislature has indicated
in the beginning of the Environmental Quality Act expressing its intent and
purposes, that this is to be the guiding criteria for land use decisions. He
felt that an E.I.R. is critical in this type of situation when the City's
General Plan was not evolved over a lonE period of time, when there is so much
.opposition, and when acting contra to Council policy as established, in June of
1970 which determined that the area would~ be developed aa iow density. He
pointed out that although the density figure of 2.2 dwelling units per acre is
given, because of the terrain which includes much unbuildable area, this means
that on the buildable sites there is much higher density than would be tolerated
elsewhere.
There being no further questions from Council or comments from the
public; Mayor Thom declared the public hearing on General Plan Amendment NO.
123 B, R~classification No. 73-74-46, E.I.R. Nos. 115, 116 and 1'17 closed.
RECESS: Councilmen Thom moved for a ten-minute recess. Councilmen Seymour seconded
the motion. MOTION CARRIED. (3:35 P.M.)
AFTER RECESS: The Mayor called the meeting to order, all Council Members being
present. (3:45 P.M.)
Councilmen Seymour addressed some brief rmaarks regarding the philosophy
of E.I.l.s, noting that the City Council and City Planning Commission have~ been
operating under the thesis that the E.I.R. is a report which sets forth criteria
resarding the parameters of effects of a particular development on its surrounding
environment. He remarked that he felt it is meant to be, Just that, a report,
and not a document which would have meJor import in the decision on zoning.
Councilmen Seymour further commented that relative to the E.I.R. pro-
cedure itself, he agrees with Hr. Burrell'sremarks in the areas of public
opinion and participation. He expressed the view that since an E.I.R. is
prepared at the request of the City but co-~issioned by the developer, it is
incumbent upon the City Council to insure that the input of other agencies', as
well as the public, is incorporated. He thereupon requested that the City
Attorney undertake an investigation as to what possible changes mi[hr be;~ade
in the E.I.R. review procedure to insure its accessibility for co~,~entsfrom
the public at large and affected agencies.
Councilmen Seymour pointed out that he had not be convinced this date
that the decision reached by Council on April 9, 1974, resardin~ these metiers
should be reversed.
76-523
7
city aa~l~.. ~mh~ba.., Cal~orn~a - CO~CZL HI,OTiS ~ay 2,1, 1.9.74a. 1:30
Councilman Se-~r referred to the difficulties of negotiatin$ with
&~otmeya pL~eut and edSp~ 80~e optimism that the u~attnss scheduled
batsmen the Oranse Unified School Oisttict, Anaheim Bills, lac., and City
Council representatives for May 24, 1974 would be successful in resolution of
th. school si~uation. Be indicated that he feels there ia a dual problem
fa~ins the Council, i.e., that of the quality of development which will take
place on the Anaheim Hills property, as well as in the Santa Ana Canyon
itself, and the very real school problem. He indicated that he for one would
find it increasimS1y' difficult to continue to approve projects that are
proposed for the hill and canyon area without some resolution of the school
situation. He stated that he felt this would necessitate some good faith
be.ins shown by all principals.
Councilwoman laywood wished to comnent that the proposed overall
density of 5.2 units to the acre is very disturbing to her.
Cm~ncilmm Thom echoed Councilman Seymour's concerns regarding the
environmental in~act report .review procedures and stated that he felt this an
area w~Lch will have to be redefined in the City E.I.R. Guidelines ~ot 'only
as to the-ua%ho~ of preparation, but the method of processing, as well.throush
r~elMbltc hearin$ erase.
RKSOI/FTIOH NO. 74R-238: Councilman Seymour offered Resolution No. 74R-238
fat a6optioe, takin8 no further action on General Plan Amendment No. 123 B,
leclusification No. 73-74-46, Environmental Impact Report .Nos. 115, 116 and
117, thereby reaffirming and sustaining the original action pursuant to
Re~olution Nos. 74R-152 and 74R-153 and Minute Motions of the City Council.
Refer to Resolution Book.
A l~$OLl~IO~ OFT H E CITY IlL OF THE CITY (~F~.TAIII~KIAf, TI~IIO~
GKIIKRAL PLAH~ HO. 123 B, RECLASSIFICATION NO. 73-74-46 AND EN~IRO~-
MENTAL IMPACT REPORT NOS. 115, 116 AND 117, UPON REHEARING.
1%oll Call Vote:
AYES: COld. IL I(~fBEIS:
NOES: COUNCIL l(~qBEIS:
ABSENT: COUNCIL l~qBEIS:
Seymour, Pebley, Sneesas and Thom
Kayvood
Hone
The Mayor declared Resolution No. 74R-238 duly passed and adopted.
Follovins adoption of said resolution, Hr. Burrell requested the
City Council to authorize the City Clerk to refile the Notice of Detez~ination
resardin$ the environ~ntal i~pact report, statin$ that since the courts
require him to exhaust his Administrative Remedies before the City Council,
thereby nocessitatin~ the. requests for rehearing, by the time such rehearins
is scheduled and held, the statute of limitations on the E.I.R., which is 30
days, has expired.
The City Attornay pointed out that the effect of such action by the
Council to authorise the refilinS vould be to reactivate the statute of
l~m~tatioue, thereby permittin$ additional time co Hr. Burrell for the purpose
of coutestiaS Chex particular E.I.R.8.
The City Council declined to authorize refilin$ of the Notice of
Determination.
The Mayor advised Chat the rehearin$ on Variance HO. 2569, E.I.R.
HO. ll0and TencativeTract HOe. 8~63, 8~6~, 8~65 ~zd 8~66 had not been
closed and asked if anyone viebed to present further cements relative to
these
Hr. TimBurrell of Youn$, Henrie and NcCarthy, 100 Pomona Mall
IfoeC, PoBoM, roquee~ that hie couments mede pr~viotmly be incorporated as
ralatin~ to tho subject variance and tentative tracts, upon vhichH8. Harlene
Fox and Hrs. Mary Dinndorf also mede similar requests that their earlier
remarks be incorporated into the record of these items.
74-524
City Hall, An~. he.im~. California - COUNCIL MINUTES - May 21, 1.974~. .i :30. 'P.M~
Mr, Horst Schor advised the Council that his firm withdrew waiver
"b" - minimum private accessway, originally requested under Variance No. 2569,
as it was no longer ~ecessary due to revisions.
The Hayor asked if anyone else wished to address the Council relative
to Variance No. 2569, E.I.R. No. 110 and Tentative'Tract Map Nos. 8463, 8464,
8465 and 8466; there being no response, declared the hearing closed,
RESOLUTION NO. 74R-239: Councilman Seymour offered Resolution No. 74R'239 for
adoPtion, taking no'further action on Variance No. 2569, E.I.R. No. 110, and
Tentative Tract Nos. 8463, 8464, 8465 and 8466.
Refer to Resolution Book.
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM TAKING NO ACTION ON
VARIANCE NO. 2569, ENVIRONHENTAL IMPACT REPORT NO. 110, AND TENTATIVE TRACT
NOS. 8463, 8464, 8465 AND 8466, UPON REHEARING.
Roll Call Vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL ME~BERS:
Seymour, Pebley, Sneegas and Thom
Kaywood
None
The Mayor declared Resolution No. 74R-239 duly passed and adopted.
AMUSEMENT DEVICES PERMITS: The following applications for Amusement Devices Permits
were submitted and granted subject to provisions of Chapters 3.24 and 4.20 of
the Anaheim Municipal Code, as recommended by the Chief of Police, on motion by
Councilman Pebley, seconded by Councilman Sneegas:
1. Application filed by Harry S. Burd, Associated Coin Amusement
'Company, Inc., for four mechanical amusement devices at Zody's Store NO. 110,
121 North Beach Boulevard, Anaheim.
2. Application filed by Elsie M. Ryan, for permit to install two
slot pool tables at The Aces, 309 North Manchester Avenue, Anaheim.
MOTION CARRIED.
TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NOS. 7731~ 7732~ 7733t 7734 AND 7735 - EXTENSION OF'TIME:
Request of Mr. Ronald W. Martin, President, RNA, dated April 24, 1974, was
submitted for a one-year extension of time to Tentative Tract Nos. 7731, 7732,
7733, 7734 and 7735 together with reports from Development Services Department
and the City Engineer recommending said extension be granted retrOactive to
April 24, 1974, and expiring April 24, 1975.
The Mayor recognized Hrs. Mary Dinndorf, representing the Santa Ana
Canyon Improvement Associatipn, Inc., who questioned the reason the developer
has applied for this extension of time, to which the Mayor pointed out that
according to the developer's letter dated April 24, 1974, he requires additional
time to complete construction of storm drains, sewers and water facilities.
Mrs. Dinndorf took exception to the requested extension of time,
indicating that in her opinion the developer might be delaying construction due
to financing problems or to attain a more favorable interest rate. She questioned
whether or not it was the discretion of the City Council to grant such extensions
of time.
The Mayor explained that such requests are usually honored as long as
the developer is under construction or has begun to meet some of the conditions
of approval.
Councilman Sneegas felt that it is rather hypocritical to be in favor
of delaying or slowing development in the canyon on the one hand and then
attempting to revoke, by not extending past the expiration date, a tentative
tract ~ap because there is no actual home construction on the property. He
noted that this is, in essence, urging an acceleration in construction once
approval of the tentative map is given.
7&-525
City Ha!!, Anahe,t~, CaZiforn~m - COUNCIL MINUTES - Nay 21, 11~74, !:,30 P.It.
Council~an Seymour clarified that notwithstandin~ Nra. Dinndorf's
position, he was referring to those situations where sorting approval ~aa been
given, but the developer has done very little or nothin~ to-comply with the
conditions. Be referred to the discussion held at the Joint City Council-
Plannin~ Cc~e~tssion ~ork Session Nay 15, 1976, dutin~ which the possibility
of limiting the ntmber of years an action is effective or teminatin~ so~e of
these was discussed. :
The City Nanager remarked that in connection w~th the request at
hand, the period in which a tentative tract map can remain-active is restricted
by State Law to one year, and in addition, there may be a one-year continuance,
but no more. After that time the applicant would have to file a new tract map,
and the City Council would be under no commitment to approve such a refiied
map.
On motion by Councihnan Pebley, seconded by Councilman Snmegae, a
one-year extension of time Was granted to Tentative Tract Hap Nos. 7731,
7732, 7733, 7734 and 7735, retroactive to April 24, 1974 and expiriU~ April 24,
1975. MOTION CAERIBD.
CItY PLiI~~ COtOiISSION ITEHS: Actions taken by the City Planning Commission at
their~eeting held April 29, 1974, pertaining to the following applications
were sub. tied for City Council information and consideration:
1. VARIAHCE NO. 2591: Submitted by Carleton, Browne & Company, Inc., to
permit a free-standing sl~n on C-1 zoned property located on the east side of.
Euclid Street, south of Lincoln Avenue, with waiver of:
a. Haxinmm free-standing sign height ~rithin 300 feet of residential
structure.
The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Re"~luiig~ N0[ PcYiL87,
denied said variance.
.EHVI~AL IHPACT - CATEGORICAL EXEHPTIOH: On motion by Councilman. Thom~
seconded by Councilwoman hywood, the City Council ratified the dmteru~nmtion
of the Director of Development Services that the activity proposed in Variance
No. 2591 falls w~thin the definition of Section 3.01, Class No.. l, of the
City of Anaheim Guidelines to the requirements for an environmental impact
report and is, therefore, categorically exempt from the requirement to file
NO further action sas taken by the City Council.
2. VAKIANCE MO. 2593: Submitted by Josephine Harkowski to convert a t~o-car
garage into additional livin~ area on R-1 zoned property ~ocated on the north
aide of Romneya Drive, east of Dresden Place, with waiver of:
a. Requirement that two parking spaces be provided in a S~rage.
The City p!s~ning Coe~tssiou, pursuant to ResolVe Ho. 1~7&-92,
granted said variance for a period of five years, subject to condittonm.
,B3~.I~AL..I~ACT - CA,TECORICAL EX~iFrlON: On motion by CouncilmanPebley,
seco~lnd by Councilman Tho~, tb~ City Council ratified the deterutnattoa of
the Director of Development Services that the activity proposed in Var/once
Mo. 2593 fails within the definition of Section 3.01, Clams th). 3 of the City
of A~aheimGuidelinee to the requirements for an environmental impact report
and ia, therefore, categorically.exempt from the requirement to file some.
Mo further action ~as taken by the City Council.
~. (XM~IT~ .USg.. P .KB~XT MO. 1465: Subm/tted by L~odbine Corporation to
~1~ a s~C p~ res~t~l develo~nt ~th sales off~e Co ~
~ ~ a ~l ~ ~l~ ~ R-A zo~ p~rty ~t~ ~rc~rly of
t~ ~Cer~t~ of ~ ~h ~ad ~ Serr~ A~.
74-526
City Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - Hay 21~ 1974~ 1:30 P.M.
The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC74-86,
granted said conditional use permit subject to conditions.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT - CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION: On motion by Councilman Thom,
seconded by Councilman Pebley, the City Council ratified the determination of
the Director of Development Services that the activity proposed in Conditional
Use Permit No. 1465 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 from the requirement to
file same. MOTION 'CARRIED.
No further action was taken by the City Council.
4. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT - YORBA REGIONAL PARK: Request from the
Orange County Harbors, Beaches and Parks District regarding the proposal to
develop a regional park on an approximately 150-acre site located north of
the Santa Ana River, west of Weir Canyon Road for determination as to whether
the development is in conformance with the Anaheim General Plan, was submitted
together with the City Planning Commission finding that the Yorba Regional
Park is in conformance with the City of AnaheimGeneral Plan.
On motion by Councilman Pebley, seconded by Councilwoman Kaywood, the
City Council sustained the finding established by the City Planning Commission
that Yorba Regional Park is in conformance with the City of Anaheim General
Plan. MOTION CARRIED.
5. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 1387 - CLARIFICATION OF CONDITION NO. 3:
Submitted by William L. Snelling, Vice president, Southwest Leasing Corporation,
requesting clarification of Condition No. 3 of Resolution No. 73R-212, granting
said conditional use permit (in part) for an auto lease rental and wholesale
agency on C-1 zoned property located on the southwest side of Manchester Avenue,
south of Katella Way, east of Mountain View Avenue. Condition No. 3 states
that "the petitioner stipulated that only vehicles originally owned by petitioner
would be wholesaled/sold on the premises, and that if he wishes to change the
nature of the business, he will file a new petition for that activity".
The City Planning Commission, by motion, directed that the petitioner
be instructed that the current variance should not be construed to allow and
permit the sale of cars from the lot to the public; that he was allowed to only
wholesale cars to other car dealers, and that subject property should not be
used to make cars available for inspection, etc.; and that said Condition No. 3
requires that if any other use should be made, the petitioner would submit
another application.
On motion by Councilman Thom, seconded by Councilman Pebley, the
chrification forwarded by the City Planning Commission was ordered received
and filed. MOTION CARRIED.
6. TENTATIVE MAPS~ TRACT NOS. 8533 AND 8672 (RECLASSIFICATION NO. 73T74-~6~
VARIANCE NO. 2600~ ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT NO..125.}.~ Developer, R. H.
Grant Corporation; property located on the north and south sides of Nohl Ranch
Road, westerly of the intersection of Imperial Highway and Nohl Ranch Road;
Tract No. 8533 contains 41 proposed R-H-10,000 zoned lots; Tract No. 8672
contains 45 proposed R-H-lO,000 zoned lots.
By general Council consent, action on Tentative Hap, Tract Nos. 8'533
and 8672 was continued to be heard in conjunction with Environmental Impact
Report No. 125, Reclassification No. 73-74-56 and Variance No. 2600.
APPROVAL OF PLANS AND SPECIAL PROVISIONS - STATE COLLEGE BOULEVARD STORM DRAIN:
Orange County Flood Control District plans and special provisions for the
construction of the State College Boulevard Storm Drain, fro~ SoUth Street to
Underhill Avenue (facility No. E12PO1) were approved and action ordered forwarded
to the Orange County Flood Control District, on motion by Councilwoman Kaywood,
seconded by Councilm-n Seymour. MOTION CARRIED.
City Sail, Anaheim, .California - COUNCIL HINUTES - hy 21, 1974
W USST - UA,m a oF BUSZNESS LZCnSE FU - LOARA aZCH
~~. ~Y 24 - 26t 1974: hq~o~ of ~s. Jer~ Sells,-bo~er ~ ~..b~s
~i~, ~or ~iver o~ ~oiness license fees in connec~ion ~h
~o be c~duc~ed by ~he Lears High School ~and Boos~er Club on ~ha
accel at~et~c ~ield on hy 2~, 25, and 26, ~7~, vas ou~i~ ~or Counci~
considera~i~ ~oge~her vi~h recom~da~ion ~rom ~he City A~orn~y and
Division.
At the request of the Hayer, due to some apparent confusion of the
Code provisions regarding such waivers, the City Attorney ex~lained that
insofar as the charitable organization, be it church or school group, etc.,
operates the activity, the fee may be waived; but if any operations of tho
carnival or other proposed activities are to be conducted by a private entrepre-
near, the fee is not waived for that portion of the carnival which he undertakes.
The Mayor recognized Mrs. Jerome gallo, 2105 Chanticleer Road, who
related that her organization conducted the same event last year with the
same financial arrangements'with Stark and Sons who will provide rides for
this forthcoming event, the only difference this year iS that the carnival is
somewhat larger in scope and the 8ponsorinS organization has invited other
charitable organizations to operate booths at the carnival.
Mrs. Sallo contended that since the same contract was used last
year and no fees were paid by either the carnival operator or the Booster
Club, and since her organization was not aware of any major decisions which
would alter that situation, they proceeded this year on the premise that the
same situation prevailed. She indicated that if the organization is required
to pay the operator's fAes, they will be penalized because the City. Council
chose this year to enforce an ordinance whereas they did not in the past,
She stated that time is of the essence since there are only tvs days to
op~ning, and they have no recourse but to honor the eoatr~e~,wh~eh ~he~ha~e
si~ned with Stark and Sons to provide the rides for this carnival.
In answer to the City Attorney, Hrs. gallo reported that there is.a
clause in this contract which calls specifically for the Lears High School
Band Booster Club to pay any applicable business license fees which may be
due from the carnival operator. She indicated that this clause was present
last year, as well, and offered both contractafor Council review.
Councilman Sneegas remarked that the promoters of' this type of
show, the Council has ascertained from past experience, set the charitable
or~nization to endorse the show and then siva that group the fee which they
would normally have paid to the City for their business license tax, sE, in
essence, they are receiving an endorsement for their carnival at the expense
of the citizens of Anaheim.
In answer to COuncil questions, Mrs, Sells outlined that the carnival
operator, in this instance, will set up the ride equipment and have men there.
to mechanically operate same and see that it is functiouin~ properly. She
stated that the ticket booths for the rides, the time schedules and areas in
which these will be placed will all be managed by her organization, and she
then pays the carnival operator by check after the carnival, the percentage
of ride fees as previously agreed upon. Hrs. gallo noted that identical
contract and arrangements were used with this firm hat year and all fees
~ere uuived.
~r. Nardoch pointed out that in the past there has been a distinction
made in the enforcement of this ordinance, and it has been established chat
if the volunteer or~aaization were handling the ticket booths, that would be
within the intent of the ordinance and would Justify vaive~ of the fee,
Council~aa Pebleynoved that waiver of the business fees be granted
to Lears ~ School Band Booster Club in connection with the carnival Co be
bela Nay ii, l$, and 16, 1971, for only those booths operated by Lears High
School Band Booster Club volunteers. Councihaan Seymour seconded the motion.
74-528
City Nall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - May 21~ ~974~ I:3Q..P.~
Mr. Murdoch stated that this waiver would be within the intent.of the
ordinance even though it may be construed as permitting the carnival Operator a
method by which he does business ~rlthin the City without payment ofa~business
license fee. In order to establish a policy for Council consideration ~d~ich
would preclude this situation in the future, he asked Mrs~ Sallo-if she would
permit the City to obtain a copy of the contract between her organization and
Stark and Sons for review by the City Attorney, to which she agreed.
EXTENSION OF TIHE - RECLASSIFICATION NO. 63-64-5: Request by Halt Keusder, Vice .
President, Butler HoUsing Corporation, 1691 £etterin$ Street, Irvine, for
conformation of previous Council action to rezone certain property located
east of and immediately adjacent to the Riverside Freeway and bounded on the
~outh by Hiraloma Way, from the H-1 to the R-3 Zone, was submitted. Resolution
of Intent to reclassify said property pursuant to Reclassification No. 63-64-5
was adopted in August of 1963, and extensions of time granted subsequent to
that, the last one expiring May 4, 1972.
In answer to Councilwoman Kay~ood's question as to the reason an
additional extension of time was requested, Zoning Supervisor Roberts explained
that there is a new prospective owner who wishes to develop this property to
R-3 uses, and prior to contracting for an enviro~ental impact report and
finalizing his plans, he wishes to have some indication as to whether or not
the Council is interested in allowing this property to be used for multiple-
family purposes.
H~. Roberts briefly noted the surrounding land uses and indicated
that should Council grant the requested extension of time, it ~ould be appro-
priate to also authorize amendment to the conditions of approval to Reclassifica-
tion No. 63-64-5 to update same in accordance ~rlth current policies and resula-
tions, as outlined in report of Development Services Department dated Hay 21, 1974.
In response to Councilman Seymour's comment that he would prefer to
have some recommendation from the Planning Commission prior to commiting the
particular property to this use, Mr. Ron Thompson apprised Council of the fact
that in 1970 at the time the General Plan was adopted, a study was conducted of
all vacant property in the City suitable for residential uses. The multiple-
family analysis indicated subject area to be appropriate for multiple-family
uses, and the City Planning Commission concurred. He stated that he was not
aware of any change in thinking on the part of the Planning Commission to date.
Hr. Thompson further advised that although the underlying zone on the
property is M-l, an industrial use is not considered as appropriate for this
property as the R-3 would be.
Hr. Roberts further explained that the primary reason the matter is
before Council at this time is Chat when the developer made his intentions
known and ~as advised of Council's recent discussions regarding old resolutions
of intent, and prior to setting forth a sum of money on the environmental
impact report and plans, he felt it would be prudent to ascertain whether or
not the extension of time would be granted. Mr. Roberts advised that the
E.I.R, will be required to be submitted in conJunctionwith the project.
~Onmotion by Councilman Seymour, seconded by Councilman Pebley, the
City Council granted an extension of time to Reclassification No. 63-64.5,
retroactive to May 4, 1972 and expiring May 4, 1975, subject to the revised
conditions recommended by Development Services Department, and further providing
that precise development plans be submitted for review and approval by the City
Planning Commission and City Council prior to introduction of an ordinance.
MOTION CARRIOn.
APPROVAL OF FINAL FLOOR PLANS AND ELEVATIONS - TRACT NO. 7736 (RECLAS~SIFICA,TION NO.
71-72-30 (3}: Developer, Tustin Village, Inc., property located on the south side
of the Riverside Freeway, north side of Santa Arm Canyon Road, bisected by the
extension of Hohler Drive northerly across Santa Aha Canyon Road.
~1 to l~ate t~sto~ ~s ~J~t Co the f~y ~e ~t &~e~t~'
th~ l~tin ns ~ressly prohibit~ for t~-sto~ ~11i~
~. ~rCo ~plain~ C~C ~ accordance with tho ~
~Chin 300 fac of the ~verside Freely. ~e developer of C~ p~r~Y
~v reca~ a differ~C acoustical ~r~ ~o apparently f~la Chac
a~lica~in of cerca~ s~d aCCenuaC~K Cec~iquea, the cw~tory ~'s can
~ co~C~cC~ adjacent ~o the freely. ~. ~berCs ~ C~ ~here
~oc~ ~s ~ ~ich these cec~iques have b~n us~ in the City of
and, therefore, no prec~enC on ~ich to base any rec~a~ion.
~. ~c~el B, JaJer, represenCin8 ~sCin Villaie, lac,,
h an~r to Co~cilwun ~od, Chat the ho~s have nsc be~ ~rieg as.
yec. ~e related ChaC the reason for ~he chanse in so~d ~ineera ns
~ orili~l ~perc could not be located. ~e reported C~C C~
~neer, Dr. Halliard of B~-icousCical En8ineerini Cor~raCion, ~ prepared
a report for his fire in co~ection ~Ch projects in ocher ci~tlo l/
~r~icular ~e referees co C~-scory res~en~ial scmcC~es in ~a~ which
are built on a helicopter base', and c~C ~hey have e~erienc~ ~ sold
pr~lms rich chess. ~. JaJer noted ChaC the reason, they are
this proposal co c~sCrucc c~-sCory ho~s adjacent co ~he freely is Chac
due co the certain of subject property the larsesC lots in the Crate a~e
CMos which are next co the freeway. He advised chac in accord~ce vi~h
variance for loc area approved for chis tract, the lariat C~-sCory ho~o$ are.
required co be plac~ on the lariat lots.
In further response to Councilvomn h~od, he indicaCeg
~$ wuld be ~acCly 146 feeC fro~ the cencerll~ of nearest traffic, or ~0
fe~ fr~ the property line. ~e descr~ Cbs ~
reco~nded by Dr. Hill~rd ~hich include a 6-foot earthen be~ and
c~c block rill, as rill as o~her insulacini measures co be co~CrucC~
into the h~ i~sel[. ~ reiterated c~C Chase ~asures. are the s~ aa us~
on the h~s ac the helicopter base' in Tuscan.
On motion by Councilman Sneegas, seconded by Councilman Pebley, the
City Council approved the floor plans and elevations for Tract-NO, 7736 and
approved the request to permit cvs-story houses adjacent Co the iivereide
Freeway, subject to complying with the following conditions aa recommended by
the developer's acoustical engineer:
1. A 6-foot earth berm and a 6-foot cement block vail should be
erected ac the property line 94 feeC from the cancer line of the nearest
of traffic on the Riverside Free, ay.
2. The rear'and side vails of the dwellings which are a minlB~ of
l&6 feet from the center line of the nearest lane of traffic should have
fiber$1as inmsLation so as Co completely fill ~he scud cevi£iee,
3. Outside ceilings should have' RiO fiber$1as invitation,
4. Outside vance from the baChrooua should have a minimum of §
feec of flexible fiberslae duccing between cha bathroom and outside
5. First-story windows facing the freeway should be d~b!e
gl&so and slidins doors should be ~ inch slase b-iCh air-ci~h~ polypropy~
~ life rather sCrippin~.
6. Second-story windows uneC be double glazed, double screas~h or
equinle~cs haviu~ an SE radius of 30 dB.
7. All windows in the second row of houses faciq 2lie
should have a minimum of double strength slave.
9, A~Cic ve~e in the first row of dvellinsa mu~£ be
(~ccordin~ ~o an a~ctched sketch).
7~530
City ~-!l~ ~hef~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES tiny 21~ 1974~ 1:30 P.M.. ':
aEquEsT FOR REHEARING - CONDITIONAL USE PEP, HIT NO. 1461: Request .of Hr. Leonard
"~S~t. th,' 125 SOuth ClaUdina Street, for rehearing regarding. Conditional' Use
Permit NO.' 1461 (denied by Council following 'publ£chearing held Hay 14~ 1974)
was subeaitted for Council consideration. Subject conditional use permit was
requested to permit on-sale beer and wine in an existing restaurant on C-1
zoned property located at the northeast corner of La Palms Avenue and AcaCia
Street.
Hr. Smith was recognized by the Hayor and advised that the new
evidence which he wishes to present is in connection with the apparent-concern
expressed by the Council at the public hearing as to whether or not, once a
beer and wine license has been obtained by the current'operator, any change in
said operation would be brought to the attention of the City Council. He
advised that he had contacted the Alcoholic Beverage Control Board through the
City AttOrney's Office and has been advised that there are strict procedures
for transferring such license, and that the first two entities to be notified
of any such proposed transfer would be the City Council and Police Department.
He advised that he felt this was the concern of Council and that this is' the
basis of his request for rehearing.
Councilman Seymour, in connection with Hr. Smith's remark, inquired
wh~ther a conditional use permit is attached to the individual, rather 'than
with the land.
The City Attorney confirmed Hr. Smith's information, regarding notifica-
tion of the City Council and Police Department on a license transfer, but
advised that the Council cannot grant a conditional use permit 'to an individual,
rather than to the property itself.
Councilman Seymour remarked that he would consider this to be new
evidence- and would be in favor of the rehearing provided, however, that'he
'could have so~e indication that the problem evident at last week's meeting
could be overcome. He stated thai he has no qUalms at all about Hr.-CoZza's
proposed operation, but his concern rests with the possibility that if the
restaurant is sold, the future operator would not continue the same reputable,
family oriented type of business.
Brief discussion relative to methods which might be employed to
insure asainst this possibility ahd a time limit on the conditional use permit,
as well as stipulations or restraints as to the type of restaurant to be included
in the conditional use permit itself, was held.
The City Attorney advised that a time limit would be possible and
further pointed out that there is a definitiOn of a bona fide restaurant given
in the Anaheim Municipal Code to which the conditional use permit could be
tied.
At the conclusion of discussion, on motion by Councilman Pebley,
seconded by Councilman Sneegas, the City Council determined that the request
for rehearing of Conditional Use Permit No. 1461 WOuld comply with Council
Policy No. 105 and therefore granted same subject to payment of the $50.00
readvertising fee by the applicant. NOTION CARRIED.
RESOLUTION NO. 74R-240 - READVERTISgM~T WORK ORDER NOS. 826 AliD 827 (FIRE STATION
NOS. 5~ 6 A~D 7): Having been notified that no bids were received on Work Order
NOs. 826 and 827, Councilman Sneegas offered Resolution No. 74R-240 for adoption,
authorizing readvertismaent of same.
Refer to Resolution Book.
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEINAHENDINGRESOLUTION NO.
74R-190 ICEL~TING TO INVITING SEALED PROPOSALS PORWORK ORDER NO$. 826 AND 827.
(INSTALLATION OF FIRE SIGNALS AT FIRE STATION NOS. 5, 6 AND 7) (Bids to be
Opened - June 13, 1974, 2:00 P.H.)
Roll Call Vote:
AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Kaywood, Seymour, Pebley, Sneegas and Thom
NOES: COUNCIL HEHBERS: None
ABSENT:' COUNCIL HEI~ERS: None
The Mayor declared Resolution No. 74R-240 duly passed and adopted.
for a~pCt~.
(~o~ff ~ ~s, Inc. - $15,768.90)
A~: CO~CIL ~ERS: ~od, 8a~ur, Pebley, Su~aas and Th~
~: CO~IL ~g~: None
~S~: C~CIL ~S: None
The Hayer declared ~eeolution No. 74R-241 duly paeeed and edO~e~,
~~ION ~. 7~R-2~2 - ~ 0~, ~. 7.12-A: Up~ receipt of certifica~ioa from
~he Director of ~blic ~rks, ~uncilMn Se~ur offered Resolution No. 71R-
242 for adop~ion.
~fer Co Resolu~ion Book.
A ~SOL~ION OF ~ CI~ CO~CIL OF ~ CI~ OF ~~ FI~Y ~I~ ~E
~ 187 ~ SO~ OF TO 510 ~ sO~ OF ~ P~ A~, IN ~E CI~ OF
~E~, ~ O~ER ~. 712-A. (Sully-Miller Contractin[ ~p~ny)
~11 Call Vote:
AYES: COUNCIL HEHBERS: Kayvood, Seymour, Pebley, SueoSo8 'and Thom
NOES: COUNCIL HKHBBRS: None
~S~: C~[L ~~:
~e hyor declared bsolution No. 7~R-2~2 duly ~s~ ~
~S~ION ~. 74R-243 - D~S OF ~: CoitiOn Pebley offered ~. 74a-243 ~or adopc~n.
~1 Distr~t; ~e ~tftg ScMI District; P~lic S~rase,
·oll Call Vote:
AI~S: COld. IL HBIB~S: I~]mood, Seymmr, Pebley, Saeeps oud Thou
NOGS: ~ZL HiIgBgRS: Ikme
· BS~T: COOBC:ZL IqB4BERS: Bone
The Hay6r declared Resolution ~o. 74R-2~3 duly peloed cod A4o~M,
ou lnfO~lal bide received for the repOmrrt~ ~ritb d~l
~ retard ~1, ~~e Fire P~ as fol~ ~
C~y ~ ~ ~y for mM r~~. ~ bib
74-532
City Hall~ Anaheimr California,- COUNCIL M~NUTES ' May. 2it 1974~I:30 'P,M', '
On~motion by CoUncilma~ Sneegas,'secondedlby. Cog~cilman Seymour, the
iow' bid of Crown Coach Company was accepted and purchase authorized in the
amount of $10,761.44, including tax, and further;
(TRANSFER OF FUNDS:) the Council authorized the transfer of $761.44 to
cdv~.r tP~ balance of' the repowering cOsts fro~-the Cduncil Con~tniencY'Fu~d.
NOTION CARRIED.
PURCHA~ ,~ HATERIALS - TREES FOR HANZANITA PARK: .The City Manager reported on
the ~ecOmmended. purdhase of 60 trees from the Orange County Nursery for '
Manzanita Park,' total amount of purchase $4,274.'45.' He advised that the
method used in obtaining comPetitive prices is to do some Comparative shopping
and trees have been selected from several sources. It has been determined
that this purchase from the Orange County Nursery is the best in terms of
price and size of trees.
On motion by Councilman Pebley, seconded by Councilman Seymour, the
purchase was authorized in the amount of $4,274.45, as recommended by the
City Manager. MOTION CARRIED.
PURCHASE OF ~UIPMENT - MISC~US HARDWARE: The City Manaser reported on
informal bids received for the purchase of miscellaneous hardware for the
Electrical 'Division as follows and recommended acceptance of the low bid~
VENDOR TOTAL AMOUT~ INCLUDING TAX
General Electric Supply, Anaheim -$10,183.73
Westinghouse Electric Supply Company ........ 11,1il.20
Graybar Electric Company, Inc. - - - - 11,058.57
On motion by Councilman Thom, seconded by Councilman Pebley, the low
bid"of'General Electric Supply Company was accepted and purchase authorized in
..~'he amount of $10,183.73, including tax. NOTION CARRIED.
PURCHASE OF .E~UIPHENT - T~ELVE UNITROL UNITS: The City Manager reported on the
recommended purchase of twelve Unitrol Units for installation in new police
vehicles and advised that Dunbar Nunn Corporation has submitted a quotation for
said'equipment in the amount of $2,537.64, including tax. He thereupon recommended
the purchase be authorized.
On motion by Councilman Seymour, seconded by Councilwoman Kaywood,
purchase was authorized in the amount of $2,537.64, ~ncludin$ tax. NOTION
CARRIED.
CLAIMS AGAINST THE CITY: The following claims we~e denied as recommended by the
City Attorney and ordered referred to the insurance carrier, on motion by
Council~an Pebley, seconded by Councilman Sneesas:
a. Claim Submitted by National American Insurance Companies on
behalf of Minnie B. Dierberger, for personal property loss, purportedly sustained
as a result of a power surge from.City~s electrical supply, on or about October
23, 1973.
b. Claim submitted by Automobile Club of Southern California on
behalf of Vern J. Salzbrunn, for personal property damages, purportedly sustained
as a result of improperly functioning traffic a~snals at the Intersection of
Katella Avenue and Walnut Street, on or about January 24, 1974.
c. Claim submitted by Royce E. Farley, for personal tn]ury purportedly
sustained as a result of falling over unknown object in the darkness at Anaheim
Convention Center, on or about January 28, 1974.
d. Claim submtted by Terry C. Lloyd, for. p~rsonal property damage to
vehicle in collision with City vehiqle, purportedly caused by City'vehicle, on
or about February 14, 1974.
MOTION CARRIED.
REPORT - CANCELLATION OF PUBLIC LIABILITY INSURANCE:' The Finance Director reported
that th~' City's liability insurance contract with Chubb/Pacific Indemnity Group
will be canceled effective July 1, 1974. The reason given for said cancellation
notice is [hat this company wishes to withdraw from the municipal liability
insurance field, since the courts are placing these insurance companies tn a
no-fault situation which will ultimately not be profitable.
74-533
Mr. Rinser outlined that currently the City has a contract with
Chubb/ Pacific Indemnity whtch was written in 1972 for a Siva-year
coverage for bodily injury and personal liability of $500,000 per person;
$1,000,0(0) each occurrence. In addition, thio policy includes the City's
fleet of outo~obiles and covers the City Council and Boards and
as well as the City of Anaheim itself. He related that at the time thio
policy was written two years ass, the City did not take competitive bids but
acted upon staff recommendations and renewed the policy for five years. The
premium for said policy for the past year was $183,011. Hr.,Ringer pointod
out that he ~id not feel that the amount of premium should be the determinin8
factor in the Council's decision, but the company itself which is carrying
the insurance and protectin8 the City should be 'the utmost consideration, In
addition he advised that the City carries extra coverage to $10,000,000 in
excess liability protection because of the Stadium, Convention Center and
electric utility which are considered to be somewhat beyond the normal municipal
insurance risks. He advised that the Personnel Director and City Nanaser's
Office are currently investisatin8 the possibility of self-insurance in
connection with Workmen's Compensation.
In answer to Councilman Seymour, .Hr. Ringer advised that the. City
spends close to $1,000,000 per year in insurance premiums of all types,
including Workmen's Compensation, employee benefits, etc. He further advised
that he has prepared insurance specifications based on the present coverage
in the anticipation that the Council may wish to call for bids. He stated
that he has no insurance company which he would recommend at this time to
take the City's liability policy.
Councilman Seymour remarked that he would be interested in ascertain-
ins whetheror not there are other areas that the City might consider self-
insuring and towards that end, su88ested that perhaps the City's insurance
broker could arrange a 60- to 90-day binder, during which intarim the City
may employ a risk analyst to review the entire insurance prosram.
Hr. H. Stabbert of H. H. Stabbert, Inc., insurance broker for the.
City, vas introduced by Hr. Ringer and he advised that it would not' be possible
to arrange for a 60- to 90-day binder with any insurance company but that a
one-year binder would be posssible. As he viewed the situation, he noted two
options for the City: (1.) To 8o to bid in the open market; (2.)' To
consider coverage from Gulf Insurance Company of the sums broad-form type
coverage for a period of one year.
Hr. Stabbert advised that his reco~ndation at this time would be
that the City take the insurance on a one-year basis from Gulf Insurance Com-
pany as thio would provide a period of time in which to make further arrange-
merits, while retaining the same coverage. He noted that he had surveyed the
insurance market a short while ago, and the two largest firms in the municipal
liability area, INA and Aetna, both declined to bid on the City's policy. He
remarked that public liability is a very limited market.
Regarding Councilman Seyeour's suggestion that a risk analyst be
e~loyed, Mr. Stabbert acknowledged that ouch review can sometimes disclose
loopholes and over coverages.
Mr. Rinser pointed out that the last risk analysis performed approxi-
mtely six years ago resulted in a substantial savings on the City's fire
insurance.policy. He further indicated that Hr. Stabbert's recommendation
you, d b~ eatiofa~Cory to him aa well.
Councilman Seymour moved that the City Council authorize a broad-
form ~u~ur~nce policy Chrou~
~ furCbr ~rect~ Cb F~ce Direc~r to mk propo~h fr~ariSk
~ysC for r~i~ of the City's ~surance needs. Co~cil~Mn h~od
~c~id the~ti~. ~TIO~I~.
COlit~KI~D~E: The following correspondence was ordered received and filed, on
motion by Councilman guesses, seconded by Counciliaan Pebley:
a. City of Buena Park - Resolution Ho. 5283 - Urging the California
LegislatUre to adopt legislation providing that certain ~orloaen'o Co~pensation
benefits shall be limited to retired public employees whose injuries developed
and manifested th_--e~elves during the course of their employment.
74-534
City Hall, Anaheig, Californ~a - .CgUN¢IL ~I..N~T~S. ? May 21, 1974, 1 :_30 P
b. Inter$overnmental Coordinatins Council of Oranse County - Minutes -
April 24, 1974.
c. Before the Public Utilities Conmission - Application of Southern
California Gas Company for authority to increase sas rates to offset hisher
sas costs resultins from increases in the price of natural sas purchased from
E1 Paso Natural Gas Company and Transwestern Pipeline Company - Notice of
Hearins.
d. Airport Land Use Commission for Oranse County - Minutes -May 2,
1974.
e. Community Center Authority --Minutes - April 22, 1974.
f. Cultural Arts Commission - Minutes -April 8, 1974.
$. Financial and operatin$ reports for the month of April 1974:
Police Department, Customer Service Division, Buildins Division, En$ineerins
Division and the City Treasurer's Office.
MOTION CARRIED.
ORDINANCE NO. 3298: Councilman Thom offered Ordinance No. 3298 for adoption.
Refer to Ordinance Book.
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIMAMENDING TITLE 18, CHAPTER 18.04 AND CHAPTER
18.08 OF THE ANA~XIMMUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO ZONING. (Condominiums and Com~aunity
Apartments)
Roll Call Vote:
AYES: COUNCIL MEMBER~: Kaywood, Seymour, Pebley, Sneesas and Thom
NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: None
ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: None
The Mayor declared Ordinance No. 3298 duly passed and adopted.
ORDINANCE NO. 3299: Councilman Thom offered Ordinance No. 3299 for adoption.
Refer to Ordinance Book.
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIMAMENDING TITLE 18, CHAPTE~ 18.28, SECTION 18.28.020
OF THE ANAHEIHHUNICIPAL CODE RELATIP~ TO ZONING. (Permitted Buildinss, Structures
and Uses)
Roll Call Vote:
AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Kaywood, Seymour, Pebley, Sneesas and Thom
NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: None
ABSENT: COUNCIL HEMBERS: None
The Mayor declared Ordinance No. 3299 duly passed and adopted.
ORDINANCE NO. 3300: Councilwoman Kay,God offered Ordinance No. 3300 for adoption.
Refer to Ordinance Book.
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIHAMENDING TITLE 18 OF THE ANAHEIMMUNICIPALCODE
HELATINC TO ZONING. (72-73-51 (4) & (5) - R-H-22,000)'
Roll Call Vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
COUNCIL HEMBERS:
COUNCIL MKHBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
Kaywood, Seymour, Pebley, Sneesas and Thom
None
None
The Mayor declared Ordinance No. 3300 duly passed and adopted.
ORDINANCE NO. 3301: Councilman Sneesas offered Ordinance No. 3301 for first readins.
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AMENDING TITLE 14, CHAPTER 32, SECTION 14.32.272
(1) AND (n) R~LATING TO PARKING DURING SCHOOL HOURS RESTRICTED. (Lizbeth Avenue aud
Nordica Street)
ORDIIL~NCE NO. 3302: Councilman Pebley offered Ordinance No. 3302 for first readins.
AN ORDINANCE OF T~E CITY OF ANAHELMAMENDING TITLE 18 OF THE ANAHELMMUNICIPAL CODE
~LATINGTO ZONING. (61-62-69 (69) - M-l)
7~-535
City Rail, ~im~ C, alifornta - COUNCIL MINUTES - ~Ha~ 21~ !9.74, 1.:3~' ~....M...
ORDII/d/CE NO. 3303: Councilman Thom offered Ordinance No. 3303 for first reading.
AN OBi)IHANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIH AHENDING TITLE 18 OF THE ANAREI~ NUNICIPAL CODE
RELATING TO ZONING. (73-74-29 - R-3)
ORDIHANCE NO. 3304: Councilman Pebley offered Ordinance No. 3304 for first reading.
AH ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIH AHENDING TITLE 18 OF TI~ ANAHEIM ~JNIcIpAL CODE
RELATING TO ZONII~G. (69-?0-3? - C-O)
ORDIIJAHCE NO. 3305: Councilman Sneegas offered Ordinance No. 3305 for first reading.
AN O~DllqANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIN AHENDING TITLE 18 OF THE ANAHEIN NUNICIPAL CODE
RELATING TO ZONING. (72-73-33 - C-l)
REPORT - PEDESTRIAN TRAFFIC CONTRO~Sz BROADWAY AND STATE C~RGE BO~r~V~ :[ ~
mOtiOn by Councilman Sneegas, seconded by Councilman Pebley, the report requested
this date regarding pedestrian traffic controls at Broadway on State College
Boulevard was continued to June 4, 1974, to allow time for thorough investigation
of possible alternatives as'requested by the Assistant Traffic Engineer.
HOTION CARRIED.
Councilman Sneegas left the Council Chambers. (5:50 P.H.)
RESOLUTION NO. 74R-244 -AHENDHENT TO LEASE AGREEHENT - CI'TY-O~qED PROPERTYz
HARBOR BOULEVARDAND KATELLAAVENUE (JOLLY ROGER PROPERTY - RI~R~AI~NAR~R~T
DUFFY}: The City Attorney reported that the original asree~ent.bet3~een the City
and Richard and Hargaret Dully for lease of subject property contained a
provision that ~rlthin the t~o years after the initiation of said agreenent,
the lessee had the obligation to construct additional motel rooms on the
property. To date the lessee has not complied with this provision and has
requested that this obligation be extended for an additional two-year period.
The City's primary concern was with Hr. Duffy's express~,d~n~J~[r~O ~lOV~ ~
portion of the existing motel unit in order to obtain accessway to a portion
of the property for parking. In this connection, it was felt necessary that
his specific plans be reviewed. Therefore, the proposed lease amendment
provides for an additional two-year extension to the obligation to construct
additional motel rooms and requires, as a precedent, that the lessee shall
submit the detailed plans showin~ all changes prior to the time of any demoli-
tion or construction.
RESOLUTION NO. 74R-244: Councilman Thom offered Resolution No. 74R-244 for
adoption.
Refer to Resolution Book.
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEINAUTHORIZING THE
EXECUTION OF AN AHENDHENT TO A LEASE OF CITY-O~qED LAND, DATED JULY 11, 1972,
BETI/EE~ THE CITY AND RICHARD E. DUFFY AND HARGAR~ A. DUFFY.
Roll Call Vote:
AYES: COUNCIL HEHBERS:
NOES: COUNCIL HRqBERS:
TEqPORAIILYABSEIFI: COUNCIL HEHBERS:
ABSENT: COUNCIL HENBERS:
Kaywood, Seymour, Pebley and Thom
None
Sneegas
None
The Hayor declared Rtsolution No. 74R-244 duly passed and adopted.
Councilman Sneegas returned to Council Chambers. (5:55
~I, OM MO. 74R-245 - ESTABLISHING NEt/ CLASS OF IiAGHETIC T~I,PE .TYPKb'RXTER OP~mATORSi
..RKVIIr~3~O[ CLASS OF XNTKRHKDIATE TYPIST CLERK TO aSHIER_ IH COLY.RCTXON$ DIVISIONS:
On recommendation of the Personnel Director, Councilman Pebley Sffered Resolution
Bo. 74R-2~5 for adoption, amending Resolution No. 73R-490 to establish a new
claes of Magnetic Tape Typewriter Operator and to revise the class of Intermediate
Typist Clerk in the Collections Division to Cashier.
Refer to Resolution Book.
A~LUTIONOFI~E CITY COUNCIL OF TEE CITY OF AN~g~II/AgEgDINGF, ESOLUTIONNO.
73R-490, ESTABLISHING A ~ JOB CLASSIFICATION AA'D AHEHDING RESOLUTION NO. 73R-488,
ESTABLISHING A NEt/ JOB CLASSIFICATION.
74-536
City Ha11~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES- May 21.~ 1974 ~ 1:30 P.M.
Roll Call Vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
COUNCIL I~MBERS:
COUNCIL I~gMBERS:
COUNCIL MEltERS:
Kay~ood, Seymour, Pebley, Sneegas and Thom
None
None
The Mayor declared Resolution No. 74R-245 duly passed and adopted.
NEETING WITH ~ IN WASHINGTON - HR. WILLIAHHORGA~: The City Manager reported t~at
he had distributed to Council earlier this week the program s,~a~ry of the
first six month's activity of the Washington Office - Four City Consortium to
establish representation in Washington. He advised that Mr. William Norgan is
in Oranse County at this time and is desirous of meeting with the AnaheimCity
Council. A mutually agreeable date of Friday, May 24, 1974, 12:00 noon was set
for said meeting.
gNVIRONN~NTAL IMPACT P. gPORT- CIVIC C~NTER PROJECT: The City Manager advised that
in connection with construction of the Civic Center Project it will be necessary
for the City to prepare or commission an environmental impact report. He
indicated that this report should most likely include the entire project Phase
Nos. I and II, including some of 'the two-block redevelopment area.
Mr. Murdoch reported that although the pUblic Works Department prepares
E.I.R.s for street improvements and other City projects, they do not feel that
they have the capabilities to deal with an E.I.R. for a project of this magnitude.
He therefore requested Council to authorize the Development Services Department
to contact firms which have demonstrated capability in this field for proposals
to contract this E.I.R.
On motion by Councilman Seymour, seconded by Councilm~n Thom, the
City Council authorized the Development Services Department to seek proposals
for preparation of an E.I.R. for the proposed Civic Center Project and report
back to Council with a recommendation. MOTION CARRIED.
CLARIFICATION OF STAT~F~ IN TME ANA~RIM N~WSLETTKR R~GARDING ELECTItlCAL RAT~S:
Councilwoman Kayvood indicated that she felt the statement in the Anaheim
Newsletter article advising the citizens of rising electrical rates to be
misleading and wanted clarification since several citizens have indicated to
her that they understood this to mean Anaheim electric rates will be above
those of Southern California Edison.
Hr. Murdoch stated that the City of Anaheim has no plans or intent to
raise electrical rates above those of Southern California Edison. At the
maximum he reported that they would be even with Edison rates, but preferably
below, and the rate figures shown in the proposed 1974-75 Budget are below the
anticipated Edison retail rates. He further explained that the current Edison
fuel adjustment clause increase had been taken into consideration when the
Anaheim retail rates were last increased and, therefore, no further Anaheim
increase will be necessary at this time; however, the coming Edison fuel adjustment
clause in August, 1974 may necessitate further City of Anaheim retail rate increase.
ANALYSIS OF HONEY MANAGEMENT PRACTICES: Councilmen Seymour advised that his proposal
to seek a national accounting firm to look into the City's money manaiement
practices did not include the declaration of an audit which would make necessary
the dis~issal of the City's current auditing firm. Rather, he indicated that
his reco~mendation was to hire an expert to review the procedures and m eke
recommendations for improvement to achieve greater efficiency.
Mr. Ringer stated that he had prepared a contract proposal for such
an analysis on a maximum fee 'type of agreement but requested recommendation
frnm Council as to which firms they would prefer he solicit since the larger
national firms are generally not interested in submitting proposals on a smaller
contract such as this.
Councilman Seymour proposed the Arthur Young and Company be contacted
and with the concurrence of the Council, Mr.'Ringer advised he ~ould report
back with a proposal from that firm.
ADJOUR~NT: Councilwoman ~ayvood ~oved to adjourn to Tuesday, May 28, 1974, at
10:00 A.M., at the Anaheim Public Library, for the purpose of a Joint meeting
with the Anaheim Public Library Board of Directors. Councilman Pebley seconded
the~otion. MOTION CARRIED.
Adjourned: 6:05 P.M.
Si~ned~~~~~~~g~
D~puty City Clerk