Loading...
1975/01/0775-1 City Hall~ Anaheim, California - COUNCIL ~INUTES -January 7, 1975~ 1:30 P.M. The City Count-il ,of the City of Anaheim met in regular session. PRESENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Kaywood, Seymour, Pebley, Sneegas and Thom ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: None PRESENT: CITY MANAGER: Keith A. Murdoch ASSISTANT CITY MANAGER: Robert H. Davis CITY ATTORNEY: Alan R. Watts CITY CLERK: Alona M. Hougard PERSONNEL DIRECTOR: Garry O. McRae CITY ENGINEER: James P. Maddox ASSISTANT DIRECTOR OF DEVELOPMENT SERVICES: Ron Thompson ZONING SUPERVISOR: Charles Roberts PLANNING SUPERVISOR: Don McDaniel ASSOCIATE PLANNER: Robert Kelley ASSOCIATE PLANNER: Bill Young Mayor Thom called the meeting to order and welcomed Members of the audience in attendance. INVOCATION: Reverend Lowell Linden of the First Congregational Church gave the Invocation. FLAG SALUTE: Councilman Calvin L. Pebley led the Assembly in the Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag. PROCLAMATION: The following proclamation was issued by Mayor Th. om and unani- mously approved by the City Council: "March of Dimes Month" January, 1975 "Week of Concern" - January 5-11, 1975 The Mayor presented said Proclamation to ~ir. George Savord, Local Chairman, Orange County Chapter of the National Foundation - March of Dimes. MINUTES: Approval of the Minutes of the Anaheim City Council Regular Meetings held December 19, 24, and 31, 1974 were deferred to the next regular meeting. WAIVER OF READING - ORDINANCES AND RESOLUTIONS: Councilman Pebleymoved 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 Sneegas seconded the motion. MOTION UNANIMOUSLY CARRIED. REPORT - FINANCIAL DEMANDS AGAINST THE CITY: Demands against the City in the amount of $3,273,232.22, in accordance with the 1974-75 Budget, were approved. MONTHLY REPORT - ARTHUR YOUNG & COMPANY: Mr. Jim LeSieur presented two written reports to Council, the monthly status report covering work performed during December, 1974, and the results of the Management Audit of Licenses Section. Mr. LeSieur summarized t-he .~tatus ~f work performed by Arthur Young & Company during the mont~ :'~ D~.,~ember~ whi~.i~ af~",~ctec] Aud~it Planning, Public Utilities, Licenses/Int~rna] A,~ti.t, t'urcha~[n~4 and Stores, Telephone Communi- cations, Personnel Departme~t and Data Pr~'~e~ing. Included with the status report for the month ~'~' i)e~.ember are w~rk ~nz.~'~z,.~ment plans for the Management Audit of Personnel Depa~'-tment and Data Processing Division. He reviewed the objectives as determin,'::d together with the Audit Steering Committee to be applied in the examination of these two City Departments. REPORT - RESULTS OF MANAGEMENT AUDIT - LICENSE SECTION: Mr. LeSieur advised that in conducting this Audit, the License Collector, City Treasurer, Finance Director and various Division and Department Heads, as well as personnel within the License Section, were interviewed. A review was conducted of Title 3 of the Anaheim Municipal Code which sets forth the responsibilities of the License Division and a detailed review of the License records maintained within the Division was conducted. 75-2 City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - January 7~ 1975~ 1:30 P.M. Mr. LeSieur stated that at the conclusion of the examination it was deter- mined that the License Section is meeting the guidelines and requirements established by Title 3 of the Anaheim Municipal Code. He further noted that during the course of this year the License Division will issue approximately 15,000 business licenses and collect, in connection with these, the sum of approximately $580,000. In addition, they will collect from 120 motels and hotels within the City, $2,200,000 in room occupancy tax receipts. He further noted that 92% of the License Section budget is devoted to salaries and related fringe benefit costs. Mr. LeSieur stated that although the License Section is meeting the basic requirements as set forth in the Anaheim Municipal Code, they have several recommendations which they feel, if implemented would improve the efficiency and effectiveness of the organization and operation of the License Section. These recommendations are divided into two categories: The long-range - for automation of much of the activities conducted by the License Section; and those recommendations which can be implemented immediately. 1. LONG-RANGE - AUTOMATION: The City has an agreement with Municipal Data Systems for data processing services and they have an operational on-line business license system currently in use by several cities. Following discus- sion of this program with some of those cities, Arthur Young & Company feels it~ has great potential for the City of Anaheim. He noted that the City of Anaheim, by virtue of the MDS agreement, has free access to software developed and, therefore, the implementation of the MDS System could be accomplished with minimal or no cost. Mr. LeSieur listed the benefits to be derived from an automated license system as follows: 1. Elimination of routine clerical efforts. 2. Establishment of a central file of data on all businesses operating in the City. 3. Automatically provides for improved reporting. 4. Listings in street address sequence for use by the License Inspectors. Mr. LeSieur reported that the savings to be derived from automation would be accomplished through deletion of two clerical positions from the Section, which would relieve $20,000 from the Budget. The initial estimate figures from Data Processing on the cost to operate the automated business license system is between $4,000 and $6,000 per year, however, Arthur Young & Company has used the figure $10,000 in this report, thereby leaving a conservative savings estimate of $10,000 per year. In order to determine the substantial benefits of an automated License Division, Arthur Young & Company proposes that a committee be established to conduct a study of the application of MDS or other automated system to the Business License activities. It is further proposed this committee be chaired by the City Treasurer, and that the License Collector and representative of the Data Processing Division be involved, with Arthur Young & Company serving to give advisory assistance if required. This committee should report back to City Management in 30 days on the results of their investigation. Assuming the automated system is justified, the further recommendatio~ is that the City review the personnel organization of the License Section in light of the new automated system and modify position descriptions to reflect the reorganization. 2. RECOMMENDATIONS FOR IMMEDIATE IMPLEMENTATION: 1. That the City Treasurer take an active role in management of the License Division. 2. The City Treasurer develop for City Management approval, definitive policies with regard to issuance of licenses, timely and complete ' follow up on all citations issued and on all delinquent business license fees and hotel/motel tax receipts, requesting audits therefor. 3. That the License Collector take a more aggressive posture in the collec- tion of delinquent license fees and hotel/motel room occupancy receipts. 75-3 City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - January 7, 1975, 1:30 P.M. 4. That the License Section develop minimum desk procedures for each posi- tion, which documents should outline individual responsibilities and duties, in addition to identifying the normal procedures to be followed in performing day-to-day activities. 5. Meaningful reporting on a monthly basis should center on problems in the Section and not licenses issued, and include information on delinquent hotel/motel tax receipts, audits requested, etc. 6. That the Section establish procedures to account for the final disposi- tion of all citations issued. 7. That internal controls within the Section be improved to provide for easy accounting of all licenses. 8. Amendment of the Anaheim Municipal Code Section 3.04.070 to delete the requirement for report of business licenses issued. 9. That preparation of monthly periodic personnel evaluations be completed for all personnel in the Section. Mr. LeSieur commented that these recommendations can be implemented at no increased cost to the City and that it is estimated a better utilization of the resources available to the City would result, assuming that all uncleared cita- tions were valid, in a minimum additional increase in revenues of $5,000 per year. Mr. LeSieur concluded that the implementation of automated procedures together with these recommendations for immediate implementation as set forth above, would result in a net benefit to the City of $15,000 per year or more. Councilman Seymour noted that to date the Management Audit performed by Authur Young & Company in two small City Departments has resulted recommenda- tions which would create a savings of 50% of budgeted funds in the Audit Divi- sion and 18% to 19% in the License Section. Mr. Murdoch reported that he felt the recommendations regarding the commit- tee could be initiated and the 30-day report time would be appropriate, and the recommended amendment to Title 3 of the Anaheim Municipal Code could be prepared for Council action at their next regular meeting. He indicated, however, that the recommendations on reorganization should not be implemented until the committee recommendation is made. Councilman Seymour requested that since the implementation of the immediate recommendations under Section B in the report and outlined above may be delayed a minimum of 30 days, that a progress report as to the status of implementation be forwarded to the City Council within 60 days, to which Mr. Murdoch agreed. Brief Council discussion was held regarding the follow up of delinquent business license fees, particularly those which are received one day beyond the due date which might be due to mail delays. Mr. Murdoch reported that the current policy of the License Section, which was approved by City Council, is to save and use the postmarked envelopes in which the payment is sent as the determining factor. Councilman Seymour moved that the City Council accept the recommendations presented by Authur Young & Company relative to the management audit of the License Section with the additional inclusion that a repoCt be forwarded from the Data Processing Committee within 30 days and that a progress report on implementation of the remainder of the recommendations be forwarded to Council no later than 60 days. Councilwoman Kaywood seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. On motion by Councilman Seymour, seconded by Councilwoman Kaywood, the City Council authorized Arthur Young & Company to proceed as outlined on the engagement plans submitted with management audits of the Personnel Department and the Data Processing Division. MOTION CARRIED. ASSIGNMENT OF AGREEMENT BETWEEN GRANT CORPORATION AND CITY OF ANAHEIM TO SANTA ANITA CONSOLIDATED INC.: Mr. Murdoch reported that communication has been received dated January 3, 1974 from the Grant Corporation pointing out that they have entered into an agreement with Santa Anita Consolidated, Inc., their parent corporation, to sell the agreement between the City of Anaheim and themselves wherein the City is purchasing 235.8 acres of land for the Anaheim Hills Golf Course facilities. The original agreement does require that if there is to be a transfer of the obligation to a third party, permission must be obtained from the City. 75-4 City Hall~ Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - January 7~ 1975, 1:30 P.M. In reply to Councilman Snecgas, Mr. Murdoch advised that all conditions of the agreement will remain the same. Following brief Council discussion, on motion by Councilman Sneegas, seconded by Councilman Seymour, the City Council approved transfer of ownership of the Anaheim Hills Golf Course note agreement, originally between the City of Anaheim and Grant Corporation, to Santa Anita Consolidated, Inc. MOTION CARRIED. APPLICATION FOR TITLE VI C.E.T.A. FUNDS: Mr. Garry McRae, Personnel Director, reported that the City has received notice this date that its allocation under Title VI c.E.T.A. Funds will amount to $1,024,145.45, and that the grant period has been increased from 12 to 13 months, expiring February 10, 1976. He reported that it is proposed to allocate 25% of these funds to local school districts, consistent with the percentage formula developed under the P.E.P. Program. Therefore, the net allocation to the City will be $768,145.45, and includes seven positions which will be out-stationed in local, private and non-profit community service agencies. Mr. McRae summarized the several "work experience projects" City Depart- ments and staff have identified which will enable the City to recover a larger share of funds to off-set the costs of administration; 20% versus 10% with the standard public service jobs. He outlined the eight work experience projects as presented in his report and the amount of monies proposed to be allocated to each. Mr. McRae indicated that the figures presented in the report dated January 7, 1975 are fairly accurate, but still subject to minor modifications. Mr. McRae stated that the overall plan is to make available 91 positions, as follows: 83 jobs in various work experience projects; one public service job (grant-funded administrator); 7 jobs in private non-profit agencies. Mr. McRae noted that these work projects were organized so that the activities can be carried forth independent of City employee activities, with leadership to be provided from within the C.E.T.A. funded personnel. The projects are identifi- able and do not contribute to the normal day-to-day work activities of the City work units. He further related that the monies allocated to the various school districts were calculated on average daily attendance percentages to distribute these funds in proportion to the number of Anaheim residents attending the schools within the various districts. Following Mr. McRae's presentation, during brief Council discussion, Councilman Seymour questioned whether there would be any redistribution of funds not being used to employ individuals in other cities, to those cities who have been successful in designing work experience programs such as Anaheim. Mr. McRae explained that the availability of Title VI funds is based on local, area and national unemployment statistics, but that they do anticipate there will be additional allotments. Councilman Seymour further questioned whether the work experience projects outlined are flexible enough so that if in fact a program is not effective it can be modified or deleted, to which Mr. McRae replied affirmatively. The Personnel Director indicated that the only restriction on these programs is that the money must be spent by February, 1976. Councilman Seymour pointed out that although the 23 positions on the Park Improvement Project are indicated to be used to improve Oak Canyon and Yorba Canyon Parks, he would certainly want to emphasize the use of these individuals for improvement and creation of practice fields for use by such organized youth groups as the Little League in order to meet their very urgent needs, the beginning of the practice season being imminent. In reply to further concern expressed by Councilman Se~Mmour that no indivi- dual employee under the C.E.T.A. Program receive a higher rate of pay than the regular City or school district employee performing commensurate work, Mr. McRae advised that it is intended, with adequate development of job classification, that this situation will not occur. 75-5 City Hall.~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - January 7~ 1975~ 1:30 P.M. In reply to Councilwoman Kaywood, Mr. McRae reported that the estimated costs of fringe benefits for C.E.T.A.-funded employees have been calculated for the course of the 13 months and shown as part of the budgets for the work experience projects. These costs will be charged to the Grant. He further reported that the City's goal in hiring of these employees is to get as many as possible on the payroll this week. Councilman Seymour commended Mr. McRae as well as the other City Department Reads who assisted in assembling this program on their accomplishment in putting together such a fine adaptation for C.E.T.A. Funds in a timely manner and especially for their ability in going out into the con~nunity and coordinating the needs of school districts and private community service agencies. He wished to point out one word of caution however, that the job applicants and ultimate recipients be apprised of the fact that the C.E.T.A. jobs are temporary and will not be continued beyond the Federal funds allotted for same. On motion by Councilman Seymour, seconded by Councilwoman Kaywood, the City Council authorized the City Manager to enter into the agreement for receipt of $1,024,145.45 total allocation in C.E.T.A. Title VI Funds to be utilized to implement the employment program as outlined by the Personnel Director in his C.E.T.A. VI Proposal. MOTION CARRIED. RESOLUTION NO. 75R-1 - CREATION OF NEW JOB CLASSIFICATIONS TO IMPLEMENT THE NEW EMERGENCY EMPLOYMENT PROGRAM (C.E.T.A.): Councilman Seymour offered Resolution No. 75R-1 for adoption, approving the establishment of new job classifications to provide flat rate salary schedules for temporary employees hired under the C.E.T.A. Program as recommended by the Personnel Director. Refer to Resolution Book. A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AMENDING RESOLUTION NO. 74R-52~ ESTABLISHING NEW JOB CLASSIFICATIONS AND RATES OF PAY. (C.E.T.A. job classifications) Roll Call Vote: AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Kaywood, Seymour, Pebley, Sneegas and Thom NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: None ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: None The Mayor declared Resolution No. 75R-1 duly passed and adopted. CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING - VARIANCE NO. 2647: Application by Ida and Marion Rannow for the following Code waivers to allow an existing commercial produce market on R-A zoned property located at the southwest corner of Cerritos Avenue and Euclid Street was submitted, together with application for exemption status from the requirement to prepare an environmental impact report: a. Minimum parking dimensions. b. Permitted uses. c. Minimum front yard setback. Public hearing was held on December 17, 1974 and continued to this date to allow Mr. Raymond additional time in which to contact the property owners regarding the required street improvements. City Engineer James P. Maddox reported that he had met with Mr. Raymond and had presented him with more accurate figures on the cost of the street improvements, as the estimate given at the previous hearing was somewhat low. The Mayor asked if the Applicant or his Agent wished to address the Council. 75-6 City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - January 7~ 1975~ 1:30 P.M. Mr. Scott J. Raymond, 31802 Camino Capistrano, San Juan Capistrano, Attorney representing Ida and Marion Rannow and Mr. Herman Margulieux, advised that since he was last before the Council ~egarding this variance the figure originally given as the cost for the necessary street improvements has doubled to approximately $37,000. He submitted that this latest figure is no longer "in the ball park". Mr. Raymond indicated the many contributions made by Mr. Margulieux over the years to the various schools, churches, institutions and service clubs throughout the City of Anaheim. He noted that for years all of the profits made from flower sales at the Margulieux Fruit Stand have been donated to the blind at the Home for the Blind or the Braille Institute in Anaheim. Mr. Raymond remarked that he would still stand on the principle that prior matters agreed to by him are still agreed to, more specifically, he agreed to submit a bond in a sum equal to the cost of street improvements for the length of the property in question only - that which is in front of the parking lot and fruit stand, approximately 200 feet in length. He reported that the cost submitted by the City Engineer is for the total extent of the property, or 500 feet. He remarked that this additional 300 foot of property fronting on Euclid Street is not being used for the fruit stand, but rather is a residence and that he considers imposition of a requirement to improve this section of the street frontage in order to continue the operation of the fruit stand to be unreasonable. Mr. Raymond further stated that he would agree, if Council does not wish to grant this variance for a full three-year period, to a year-to-year situa- tion. He advised that his Clients are offering the City a valuable open space amenity with the only condition that they be allowed to continue to operate under conditions which are reasonable to both parties. The Mayor asked if anyone wished to address the Council either in favor or in opposition to Variance No. 2647. Miss Margie Beal, 2081 Gall Lane and Miss Lorie Gray, 1580 Cris Avenue, students representing Ball Junior High School offered the following comments in favor of the proposed variance: 1. That the operation of a commercial produce stand should be allowed in the R-A Zone in this instance because of the close proximity to the residential neighborhood of the many varied commercial shops. 2. The arguments that traffic problems are caused by the fruit stand are totally invalid according to statistics gathered from 1972 to the present regarding number of vehicles passing the fruit stand and the rate of accidents, which amount to 1% of the vehicles traveling past. 3. The requirement for a six-foot masonry wall should be deleted since construction of same would create a three-foot wide blind alley which would be dangerous for students enroute to and from Ball Junior High School and because the ultimate litter and trash which would accumulate in this three-foot wide alley would create a hazard to the public health and safety. 4. Herman's Produce Stand has received permits from the Fire and Health Departments and 4,800 people signed petitions opposing its closure. 5. The prices at Herman's Produce Stand are 22% lower as compared with prices in supermarkets and produce stands in the immediate area. The Mayor asked if anyone else wished to address the Council, either in favor or in opposition to the variance, and there being no response, he declared the hearing closed. Mr. Maddox explained, for clarification purposes, that the figures presen- ted for the cost of improvement along the Euclid total frontage of $33,844.20 include $6,000 for remodeling of the fruit stand in order to clear the right- of-way, leaving $27,000 and of this amount $7,000 is the cost to relocate an irrigation line, leaving the cost for street improvements along for this front- age at $20,000. Mayor Thom remarked that he would personally favor the granting of this variance on a year-to-year basis, subject to annual review by the Council. He felt that Mr. Margulieux' current situation, not being the owner of subject 75-7 City Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - January 7~ 1975~ 1:30 P.M. property and the owners not wishing to develop their property at this time would justify the approval until either: a.) The land is developed or b.) Mr. Margulieux no longer wishes to conduct his business from this site. Councilman Seymour inquired whether Mr. Raymond meant, by agreeing to post a bond, that his Client would be willing to pay for the street improvements on the approximately 200-foot frontage pertaining to the fruit stand. Mr. Raymond replied affirmatively; that if Mr. Margulieux were to receive approval of a variance for three years they would be willing to agree to post a bond for street improvements for that portion of the property on which the variance is granted. Councilman Seymour roughly calculated then that Mr. Raymond's Client has stipulated to being agreeable 'to bear 2/5 of the total cost which would amount to approximately $10,800. Mr. Raymond agreed with this figure and added that they have also agreed to install landscaping and masonry block wall which would be additional expenses. Councilman Seymour was adamant in his opinion that tbe issue in this situ- ation is not the closing of Herman Margulieux' Fruit Stand, but rather who will pay for the additional expenses, amounting to approximately $16,200, to widen Euclid Street in order to protect the safety of both pedestrians and people in vehicles. He indicated that he felt this to be the crux of the matter, and if the City Council Members were willing to change their policy which holds the property owner responsible for these improvements and authorize the payment for these, then he would agree to go along with it and allow the fruit stand to continue its present operation. He indicated willingness to forego some of the other requirements, such as the masonry block wall and to removal of the stand to allow for proper front setback, since these are justified by the surrounding conditions. However, he would not vote to approve the variance unless the Euclid Street widening and improvement requirement is met, since that condition is directly attributable to the safety of the general public. He reiterated that unless the Council is willing to change the policy, this requirement is the landowner's responsibility. Mayor Thom indicated that while he would agree with Councilman Seymour's analogy of the situation, he personally does not think the street situation is unsafe. Mr. Raymond interjected that perhaps the Council consider that a step towards completion of the street improvements would be better than no advance- ment at all, as would be the case if the variance application were denied. Councilman Sneegas remarked that a similar placating offer was made two years ago. He indicated that he had no wish to put Mr. Margulieux out of business either, but felt that there is only one way to run city government and that is to apply the laws equally to everyone. Councilman S~eegas further felt that the six-foot masonry wall should be required for the protection of those property owners living adjacent to this operation. He noted that he has spoken with the area residents and they have quit communicating their discontent regarding this situation to the City Council since they feel it is of no avail. At the conclusion of Council discussion, Councilman Seymour noting that since it appears Mr. Raymond's Clients are not in a position to accept the obligation for the required additional $16,200 in street improvements, offered a resolution upholding the Planning Commission resolution of denial. Prior to voting on the foregoing resolution, Mr. Raymond inquired whether it would be possible for Council to adopt a conditional resolution, which would approve the continued operation of the fruit stand, unless the owners of the property fail to agree to the necessary street improvements within a stipulated period of time, in which case the matter would be denied. He noted that while he was authorized to approve up to $15,000, he could not agree to $27,000 or $35,000 in street improvements as are now under discussion. 75-8 Hail, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL ,~1INUTES -January 7, 1975, 1:30 P.M. Discussion ensued dt~ring ~,hieb Coun~'~i. lman Seymour suggested offering the resolution for denial without prejudice and the City Attorney explained tl~at this would require that the Applicant begi~ the application process at the Plan- ning Commission level once again. Further factors discussed were the abandonment of an irrigation line which would save $7,000 from the cost of the street improve- ments, but Mr. Raymond indicated that the property is still used for agricultural purposes and this irrigation line is necessary. Councilman Seymour indicated that he would not be in favor of any condi- tional arrangements such as was proposed by Mr. Raymond; that he would prefer to conduct business with both parties knowing fully what their commitments are. He indicated that if the Euclid Street improvement were taken care of he would be in favor of gran,ting the variance for as long as Mr. Margulieux wished to operate the fruit stand, providing no additional development would occur on the property. Mr. Margulieux interjected that he could not agree to be responsible for the large investment in street improvements since he no longer has a lease on the property but is renting on a month-to-month basis. Councilman Seymour agreed with Mr. Margulieux that it would be financial insanity to expend $30,000 to install street improvements in return for a month-to-month use of the property, but noted that this does not change the safety problem existing on the street nor does it diminish his responsibility to safeguard the people walking and driving on Euclid Street. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT - NEGATIVE DECLARATION: On motion by Councilman Seymour, seconded by Councilwoman Kaywood, the City Council finds that this pro- ject 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. 75R-2: Councilman Seymour restated his offer of Resolution No. 75R-2 for adoption, upholding the Planning Commission decision, denying Variance No. 2647. Refer to Resolution Book. RESOLUTION OF THE (?[Tk' (iOUNCIL ~b' i'}ibl ~:I. TY t,i,' ANAHEIM DENYING VAKIANCE NO (;all Vote: AYES' COUNCIL MEMBERS: Kaywood, Seymour, Pebley and Sneegas NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Thom ABSENT: COUNCIL ,MEMBERS: None The bkayor declared Resolution No. 75R-2 duly passed and adopted. HEARING - RECLASSIFICATION NO. 74-75-_[5 AND VAKIANCE NO. 2640: Application Joseph A. Martinez for a change in zone from C-1 to R-3 and the following Code waivers to construct a 20-unit, two-,~tory apartment complex on the north side of i~aL.l Road, west of Knott Avenue, was !~u~;mitt-ed together with application for iixemptJon i)eciaration Stat~s from t:he requ:irement to prepare an environmental ~mpa :t Maximum building l~eight. Minimum front: ,c, Minimum side yard setback. Minimum width of pedestr,.Lan a,:c~ssway. (Withdrawn) Required soll_d masonry wall adjacent to R-A or single-family zone. (Wi t hdrawn) f, Required recreation-leisure area. ~Withdrawn) i'i~{:e City Planning Co~mmissi,,'~n, pur::~_-'~n! ro Resolution No. PC74-227, :'e'ommended that the Council dec l,~-e s~lb.iect, pro.iect exempt from the requirement prepare an envirenmenta] impact rep~)rt a,a,~t further recommended approval of :~aid r'eclassification sub}eot: ~o ~:ilc, f~[ !owin~ ~onditions: 75-9 City Hall~ Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - January 7, 1975~ 1:30 P.M. 1. That all engineering requirements of the City of Anaheim along Ball Road, including preparation of improvement plans and installation of all improve- ments 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 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 installa- tion 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 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 subject property shall be served by underground utilities. 6. That a six-foot masonry wall shall be constructed along the east, north and west property lines. 7. That drainage of subject property shall be disposed of in a manner satisfactory to the City Engineer. 8. That the owner(s) of subject property shall pay to the City of Anaheim the appropriate park and recreation in-lieu fees as determined to be appropriate by the City Council, said fees to be paid at the time the building permit is issued. 9. That completion of these reclassification proceedings is contingent upon the granting of Variance No. 2640. 10. 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. 11. That Condition Nos. 3, 5, 6 and 7, above-mentioned, shall be complied with prior to final building and zoning inspections. The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC74-228, recom- mended that the Council declare subject project exempt from the requirement to prepare an environmental impact report and granted Variance No. 2640 in part only, waivers "b", "d", "e" and "f" having been withdrawn, subject to the following conditions: 1. That this Variance is granted subject to the completion of Reclassifica- tion No. 74-75-15, now pending. 2. That subject property shall be developed substantially in accordance with plans and specifications on file with the City of Anaheim marked Exhibit Nos. 1 through 4 (Revision No. 1). Zoning Supervisor Roberts briefly described the location and configuration of subject property which is narrow, with 83-foot frontage on Ball Road and a depth of 500 feet. The property is currently zoned C-1 and the Applicant is requesting reclassification to the R-3 Zone to permit development of an 18-unit (revised plans) apartment project. In connection with these plans, the Applicant is also now requesting only two waivers from site development standards, the remainder having been withdrawn. Mr. Roberts explained the two waivers as they would affect the surrounding properties. Mr. Roberts reported that the density of the proposed project is 28 units per net acre. The number of parking spaces as required in the Code would be provided. He indicated that if Council concurs with the Planning Commission recommendation, it is the staff recommendation that Condition No. 9 applied to the reclassification be deleted. The Mayor asked if the Applicant or his Agent were present and satisfied with the recommendation of the City Planning Commission, to which Mr. Joseph A. Martinez, 815 East Barkley Avenue, Orange, owner of subject property, replied affirmatively. 75-10 City Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - January 7~ 1975~ 1:30 P.M. The Mayor asked if anyone wished to address the Council either in favor or in opposition to the proposed reclassification and variance. Mr. Neal B. Voorhees, 15972 Silvertip Court, Fountain Valley, owner of property located on Yosemite Drive, voiced his objections to the approval of the reclassification and variance on subject property, which were based on the fact that the waiver from maximum building height would cause the homes which back up to this property to suffer a loss of privacy and, therefore, a loss in property value which will not be compensated. Further, he cited the increased load which the apartment complex would place on the sewage system and utilities. Mayor Thom pointed out that subject property which is currently in the C-1 Zone would have no height restriction if developed in accordance with the site development standards for that zone. Councilman Pebley noted that Mr. Voorhees' property is located 200 feet west of subject parcel in the City of Buena Park, and that the zoning regulations in Buena Park require that a two-story building be located 50 feet from adjacent residentially zoned properties. Mr. Voorhees explained that he felt the depreciation of property values adjacent to this parcel would create a downward trend for the entire area. Councilwoman Kaywood asked whether Mr. Voorhees felt that commercial development would be a better use for subject property, to which he replied that this would depend on what type of stores are built. Mayor Thom asked if anyone else wished to address the Council and there being no response, he declared the hearing closed. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT - NEGATIVE DECLARATION: On motion by Councilman Pebley, seconded by Councilwoman Kaywood, the City Council finds that this pro- ject 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. 75R-3: Councilman Pebley offered Resolution No. 75R-3 for adoption, authorizing the preparation of the necessary ordinance, changing the zone as requested, subject to the conditions recommended by the City Planning Commission with deletion of Condition No. 9. Refer to Resolution Book. A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM FINDING AND DETERMINING THAT TITLE 18 OF THE ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO ZONING SHOULD BE AMENDED AND THAT THE BOUNDARIES OF CERTAIN ZONES SHOULD BE CHANGED. (74-75-15 - R-3) Roll Call Vote: AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Kaywood, Seymour, Pebley, Sneegas and Thom NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: None ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: None , The Mayor declared Resolution No. 75R-3 duly passed and adopted. RE§OLUTION NO. 75R-4: Councilman Pebley offered Resolution No. 75R-4 for adoption, granting Variance No. 2640, subject to the conditions recommended by the City Planning Commission. Refer to Resolution Book. A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM GRANTING VARIANCE NO 2640. " Roll Call Vote: 75-11 City Hall~ Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - January 7.~ 1975~ 1:30 P.M. AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Kaywood, Seymour, Pebley, Sneegas and Thom NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS; None ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: None The Mayor declared Resolution No. 75R-4 duly passed and adopted. PUBLIC HEARING - VARIANCE NO. 2652 (TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 8683): Application by Wilshire Woods, Inc. for the following Code waivers to allow conversion of an existing ll5-unit apartment complex into condominiums on property located on the west side of Pearl Street with frontage on the north side of Wilshire Avenue was Submitted together with application for exemption status from the requirement to prepare an environmental impact report: a. Minimum building site area per dwelling unit. b. Maximum building height. c. Mmximum site coverage. d. Minimum structural setback. e. Minimum recreational-leisure area. f. Mimimum off-street parking. The City Planning Commission pursuant to Resolution No. PC74-230 denied Variance No. 2652 and reported that the Director of Development Services has determined that the proposed activity falls within the definition of Section 3.01, Class 1, of the City of Anaheim Guidelines to the requirements for an environmental impact report and is, therefore, categorically exempt. Appeal from action taken by the City Planning Commission was filed by Colony Realty, Inc., authorized Agents, and public hearing scheduled this date. Councilwoman Kaywood left the Council Chambers (3:45 P.M.) Zoning Supervisor Roberts reported that the subject property is comprised of approximately 3.5 acres and briefly described its location and zoning history, as well as, surrounding zoning and property uses. Mr. Roberts advised that the petitioner has submitted a tract map proposing to convert this existing ll5-unit apartment complex to a one lot condominium project. In connection with this proposal the Applicant is requesting several waivers from site development standards of the RM-4000 Zone, which is applicable to conversion of apartment units to condominiums. He reviewed the list of requested waivers and reported that the Planning Commission denied the variance application on the basis that the waivers requested were too numerous and too extreme and this project did not comply with requirements of the newly adopted RM-4000 Zone. Councilwoman Kaywood returned to Council Chambers (3:50 P.M.) The Mayor asked if the Applicant were present and wished to address the Council. Mr. Lawrence Wilson of Raub, Bein, Frost & Associates, 1401 Quail Street, Newport Beach introduced Mrs. Juanita Hagopian, Colony Realty Inc., 1400 North Harbor Boulevard, Fullerton, 92635, authorized Agent for the project and Mr. Terry Hackett, Attorney from the firm of Virtue and Scheck, 270 Newport Center Drive, Newport Beach, retained to prepare the condominium documents. He advised that these individuals would be happy to answer any questions Council may have following his presentation. Mr. Wilson pointed out that Tentative Map Tract No. 8683, proposed to con- vert this apartment complex into a one lot subdivision, was first submitted on May 30, 1974, at which time it was not accepted because the RM-4000 Zone which became effective July 2, 1974 was under study. The tentative map was subse- quently submitted and accepted in October of 1974. Mr. Wilson indicated that every large city requires a variety of different types of residential accommodations, and the Wilshire Westmont Apartment project has endeavored to meet the needs of a particular segment of the housing market and now wishes to broaden this segment by offering to their tenants the 75-12 City Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - January 7, 1975~ 1:30 P.M. alternative of ownership. He cited the location of the apartment project, adjacent to the Santa Aha Freeway and one-half block from Lincoln Avenue, as providing an unique and convenient living environment which also offers outstand- ing community and recreational amenities in a project designed with sensitivity to its surroundings. Mr. Wilson commented in detail on the six requested variances, and specifi- cally emphasized the following points: (1) The current standards for minimum building site area per dwelling unit will severely limit the City in its down- town rehabilitation program, and no single bedroom units will be made available under these standards. (2) That the owners and agents calculate 834 square feet of recreational and leisure areas to be available per dwelling unit as opposed to the specified 1,000 square foot in the RM-4000 ordinance. (3) That their experience during the past two years of operation of the Wilshire Westmont project as a apartment complex has indicated that the 189 subterranean parking spaces provided are adequate for the complex as it exists, since 62% of the dwelling units in this complex are one-bedroom units. In conclusion, Mr. Wilson stressed that the application was originally submitted two months previous to the implementation of the RM-4000 Zone and that they believe this proposal represents a type of housing accommodation which is needed in a city the size and stature of Anaheim. In reply to Councilman Pebley Mr. Wilson advised that the proposed selling price of the units would range from $19,950 for the smallest unit to $32,950 for the two bedroom and den unit. On being informed of the rentals currently charged for these same units, Councilman Pebley asked if it were possible that these units would cost less per month under condominium ownership than they do currently, to which Mr. Hackett responded that this would be dependent upon the financing which is obtained. Mr. Hackett further replied in answer to Councilman Pebley that they would form a homeowners' association and require monthly payments for maintenance and upkeep of the ground and exterior of the building. Mrs. Hagopian assured Councilwoman Kaywood that the trash bins which are located in the basement and taken out for collection twice a week would also be handled through the homeowners' association, by employing an individual for this responsibility. Mrs. Hagopian offered further comments regarding the apartment complex and indicated that she did not feel adequate square footage was calculated for the recreational and leisure areas which are provided in the complex, and that the square footage of the balconies was not included in this total figure. She advised that should the conversion be approved, at the time of sale of a one-bedroom unit the prospective buyer would be informed that he or she would be entitled to only one parking space and that a two-bedroom unit would be assigned two parking spaces. Discussion ensued between Council and the proponents relative to the basic difference between living in an apartment on a rental basis and condominium/ townhouse ownership, during which it was generally agreed that the basic differ- ence between the two would be the more probable permanenc~ of the individual in the latter case. Councilman Seymour voiced the opinion that this permanency factor indicates to him, since people tend to gather things and increase the size of their families, that a condominium/townhouse would require more parking space than an apartment situation. He indicated agreement with the remaining waivers because of the type of units and their location but stated that he could not agree with the waiver requested from the parking standards. He noted that even though 62% of these units are one-bedroom, individuals moving into these are likely to change their life styles by marrying and this would create additional parking demands. He advised that although the conversion of these apartments to condominiums would serve to meet the need which exists for housing to accommodate lower to middle income families, he could not justify approving the variance in light of the 30% fewer parking spaces provided. In answer to Councilman Seymour's concerns regarding the adequacy of the parking spaces provided, Mr. Wilson related the results of parking studies con- ducted in E1 Cajon, California, which disclosed that the overall average was i.29 spaces occupied per dwelling unit. 75-13 City Hall~ Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - January 7~ 1975~ 1:30 P.M. Councilman Seymour agreed with Mr. Wilson that there is a correlation between the number of bedrooms in the units and number of parking spaces neces- sary, and advised that a similar sampling of parking at apartment houses in the City of Anaheim resulted in the increase in parking requirements written into the Code since it was indicated that a ratio of 1½:1 was no longer sufficient. Mr. Hackett voiced the opinion that this project, with 189 subterranean spaces, would still have 32 spaces available once each unit had been assigned its proportionate share, and through its governing body, i.e., the homeowners' association, would have the ability to control the use of the available parking spaces. Mr. Pete Remmel, Secretary-Treasurer of the Central Labor Council of Orange County, contended, from his own experience, that once a condominium owner signs the homeowners' agreement he has to abide by the rules and regula- tions affecting parking and maintenance payments, etc., and that in enforcing these agreements the individual may even be asked to move if he accumulates vehicles over and above the number for which he is allotted space. Councilman Seymour concurred that the homeowners' association has certain legal rights to enforce the covenants, conditions and restrictions but doubted that these could be extended as far as requesting someone to move because he owns two cars. He asked for Mr. Hackett's opinion on this situation. Mr. Hackett replied that the contractual ties, rights and duties created by the homeowners' association are only as strong as the governing body itself. He noted that for non-payment of the maintenance fee, a lien could be made and foreclosure proceedings instituted against the property but voiced the opinion that requesting an individual to move because he owns two cars would be con- sidered unlawful restriction and alienation and that the individual most likely would not be forced to move. Mr. Hackett remarked that he could not emphasize enough how owning a single-family dwelling unit or condominium/townhouse is rapidly becoming a privilege of the rich and that this potential conversion would add a new type of housing opportunity to the community which many people otherwise would not be able to afford. At the conclusion of discussion regarding parking, Councilman Seymour still felt that the variance from parking requirements requested was extreme and that he could not justify this degree of variance. The Mayor asked if anyone wished to address the Council either in favor or in opposition to the proposed variance. Mrs. Louise Garson, 207 Doverfield Drive, Placentia, in favor of the conversion, advised that she is a widow and a condominium owner. At the time she sought a condominium unit for herself she would have preferred a one- bedroom unit but was unable to locate such accommodations. She reported that in her condominium complex of 176 units they have not experienced any parking problems. She noted the trend of younger individuals towards one car and the use of bicycles. She voiced the opinion that many of the apartment tenants would probably like to purchase their units if given the 6pportunity. Mr. John R. Kimball, 1424 Birchmont Drive, advised that he was not sure he was in opposition, but wished clarification as to whether or not the proposal would be increasing the number of dwelling units above 115, or decreasing the setbacks or increasing the number of stories on the buildings. Upon being informed that the Applicant proposes no physical changes at all to the property, Mr. Kimball stated he has lived by the apartment project for two years and these individuals have been good neighbors. Mrs. Rosemary Sanders, 1239 Pearl Street, indicated that she lives just three houses from the apartment complex and that while she feels it is a nice apartment building, she supports the City Planning Commission denial of the variance primarily because of the potential parking problems. The Mayor asked if anyone else wished to address the Council relative to Variance No. 2652, and there being no response, he declared the hearing closed. 75-14 City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - January.?, 1975~ 1:30 P.M. CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION - ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT: 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 falls within the definition of Section 3.01, Class 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 an environmental impact report. MOTION CARRIED. RESOLUTION: Councilman Seymour offered a resolution for adoption, upholding the City Planning Commission decision of denial of Variance No. 2652. Prior to voting on the foregoing resolution, Councilman Sneegas remarked that the parking requirements for residential structures established in the Code are a reaction to the fact that the majority of the problem occurs far away from the downtown core section of the City and the shopping centers. He pointed out that this apartment complex is located on a freeway frontage road, within 2/10 of a mile of a major shopping center. Because of this unique situation and because of the quality of the original apartment project, he felt this could be an exception even to the parking requirements. Mayor Thom explained that he is acquainted with this apartment project and feels that of all apartments in the City of Anaheim, this particular one, because of its quality and contemporary construction, is probably one of the only ones which he would consider could qualify for condominium conversion. He indicated that he fully supports the RM-4000 Zone but would consider this project more along the line of the "own your own apartment" concept. Councilman Seymour cautioned that in the real estate industry, in attempt- ing to meet the housing needs, attempts to convert apartment houses to condomin- iums will be more and more common, and that he wishes to alert the Council to the number of proposed conversions they will most likely be considering. He stated that if the remainder of the Council does feel the parking waiver justi- fied in this particular instance, he could respect that opinion, but felt that the Council should be aware of the fact that they will deal with this question many more times in the future. Councilman Pebley commented that he could vote in favor of granting the parking waiver on this particular project because so many of the units have one bedroom. Mayor Thom called for a vote on the foregoing resolution offered by Councilman Seymour to deny Variance No. 2652. Said resolution failed to carry by the following vote: AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Kaywood and Seymour NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Pebley, Sneegas and Thom ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: None RESOLUTION NO. 75R-5: Councilman Thom offered Resolution No. 75R-5 for adoption, approving Variance No. 2652, subject to the following condition recommended by the Interdepartmental Committee: 1. That subject property shall be developed substantially in accordance with plans and specifications on file with the City of Anaheim marked Exhibit Nos. 1 through 11. Refer to Resolution Book. A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM GRANTING VARIANCE NO. 2652. Roll Call Vote: AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Pebley, Sneegas and Thom NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Kaywood and Seymour ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: None The Mayor declared Resolution No. 75R-5 duly passed and adopted. 75-15 City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES -January 7, 1975~ 1:30 P.M. TENTATIVE MAP, TRACT NO. 8683 (VARIANCE NO. 2652): Developer, Wilshire Woods~ Inc.; property located northwesterly o! the intersection of Wilshire Avenue and Pearl Street; containing one R-3 lot and 115 dwelling units. The City Planning Commission at their meeting held November 25, 1974, denied said tentative map. On motion by Councilman Thom, seconded by Councilman Pebley, Tentative Map, Tract No. 8683 was approved, subject to the following conditions recommended by the Interdepartmental Committee: 1. That the approval of Tentative Map of Tract No. 8683 is granted subject to the approval of Variance No. 2652. 2. That should this subdivision be developed as more than one subdivision, each subdivision thereof shall be submitted in tentative form for approval. 3. That a final tract map of subject property shall be submitted to and approved by the City Council and then be recorded in the office of the Orange County Recorder. 4. That the covenants, conditions and restrictions shall be submitted to and approved by the City Attorney's Office prior to City Council approval of the final tract map, and, further, that the approved covenants, conditions and restrictions shall be recorded concurrently with the final tract map. 5. That prior to filing the final tract map, the applicant shall submit to the City Attorney for approval or denial a complete synopsis of the proposed functioning of the operating corporation including, but not limited to, the articles of incorporation, bylaws, proposed methods of management including but not limited to trash co!]ection, bonding to insure maintenance of common property and buildings and such ortner information as the City Attorney may desire to protect the City, its citizens, and the purchasers of the project. 6. That the existing structure shall be brought up to the minimum standards of the City of Anaheim, including ~he Uniform Building, Plumbing, Electrical, Housing, Mechanical and Fire Codes as adopted by the City of Anaheim. T6 this motion, Councilwoman Kaywood and Councilman Seymour voted "no" MOTION CARRIED. RECESS: By general consent, the Council took a five-minute recess. (5:05 P.M.) AFTER RECESS: The Mayor called the Council meeting to order, all Members being present. (5:10 P.M.) PUBLIC tiEARING - AMENDMENT TO TITLE 18 OF THE ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE (GARAGE SETBACKS~ VEHICLE PARKING AND LOADING REQUIREMENTS): 1. To consider an amendment to Title 18, Zoning, of the Anaheim Municipal Code, to repeal certain subsections and add subsections pertaining to garage setbacks in zoning. 2. To consider an amendment to Title 18, Zoning, of the Anaheim Municipal Code, to repeal certain subsections and add subsections pertaining to vehicle parking and loading requirements in zoning. The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC74-225, recom- mended that the City Council adopt ordinances approving certain amendments to Title 18 of the Anaheim Municipal Code relating to garage setbacks, vehicle parking and loading requirements therein described. Mr. Bill Young, Associate Planner, advised,in answer to Council concern regarding the affect of this ordinance on setbacks in the RS-5000 Zone,that the only significant change in that zone which would be created by adoption of this proposed ordinance would be an increase in parking standards to five spaces per dwelling unit. He advised that the Planning Commission had arrived at a compro- mise figure of 25% for the number of front-on garages having a setback of 10 feet or less, although the developers would still prefer a percentage figure of 30%. Brief discussion was held regarding the possibilities of garage conversion to living space and other uses which increase the parking demands on the street; it was recognized by Council that the City becomes aware of these conversions only after the fact and really has no way to regulate against same. 75-10 City Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - January 7, 197.5~ 1:30 P.M. The Mayor asked if anyone w~shed to address the Council either in favor or in opposition to the proposed amendments to Title 18 recommended by the City Planning Commission. Mr. John Millick, Vice President, Anaheim Hills, Inc., spoke in favor of the Council adopting a 30% figure for the number of front-on garages with set- backs of 10 feet or less. He pointed out that with the presently proposed ordinance, on a typical block of homes containing 20 units these requirements would generate 46 covered parking spaces and 28 in the driveway. In addition to this, if the lots were 70 feet wide, the project would have 32 on-street gpaces for a total for the 20 units of 106 spaces or 5.3 per unit. He indicated he would like to go on record that he feels 5 parking spaces per dwelling unit to be too stringent and that he would favor something more closely akin to the County of Orange figures indicat~.ng 2.6 cars per unit, however this figure does not ~nclude guest parking. Councilman Seymour observed that Mr. Millick's calculation of 5.3 parking spaces per dwelling units assumes all on-street parking spaces are utilized. Councilman Seymour co~nended the Planning staff and City Planning Commis- sion for a fine job on these proposed ordinances. He noted that they do accom- plish the goal of allowing the developer some flexibility as far as setbacks are concerned, while at the same time providing some assurance that a bad parking situation such as at State College and Wagner could not repeat itself. Mayor Thom asked if anyone else wished to address the Council and there being no response, he declared the hearing closed. ORDINANCE NOS. 3389 AND 3390: Councilman Thom offered Ordinance Nos. 3389 and 3390 for first reading. AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL O¥ THE CiTY OF ANAHEIM REPEALING CERTAIN SUB- SECTIONS OF TITLE 18 AND ADDING NEW SUBSECTIONS IN THEIR PLACE RELATING TO GARAGE SETBACKS IN ZONING. AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM REPEALING CERTAIN SUB- SECTIONS OF TITLE 18 OF THE ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE AND AMENDING TITLES OF CERTAIN SECTIONS OF TITLE 18, AND ADDING NEW SUBSECTIONS RELATING TO VEHICLE PARKING AND LOADING REQUIREMENTS IN ZONING. CONTINUED ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT - ANAHEIM CIVIC CENTER PROJECT: Environ- mental Impact Report prepared by Environmental Impact Profiles in connection with the proposed Civic Center Project was submitted for Council consideration together with excerpt from the minutes of the City Planning Commission held October 14, 1974, recommending that the Council certify subject E.I.R. as being in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act. Consideration of said report was continued from the meeting of December 24, 1974, to allow time for preparation of response to comments presented by the Heritage Committee. Also submitted was a memorandum dated January 7, 1975, from the Development Services Department in response ~o remarks by the Center for the Study of Urban Development on the draft E.I.R. for the Anaheim Civic Center. Mr. Andrew L. Deneau, Chairman of the Hermitage Committee, Cultural Arts Commission, advised that the Environmental Impact Report on the proposed Civic Center Project is of great interest to his Committee, because of their status as guardians of the public trust in an advigory capacity to the City Council. He noted that the recommendation to be conveyed to Council this date from the Heritage Committee has been approved by the Cultural Arts Commission in concept only. Mr. Deneau remarked that although this draft environmental impact statement is within the letter of the law it is not within the spirit since, while it meets the State and Federal requirements, it seems to be minimal for a project of this size. It is, however, recommended by the Heritage Committee that this draft E.I.R. be approved by the Council as written and amended including the following comments. 75-17 City Hall~ Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - January 7~ 1975~ 1:30 P.M. Mr. Deneau ref:.':":~?3 t:~ th~ res;ponse [at:~eled Item II.a. in the memoran- dum of January 7, 1975, a~d took exception to the statement that, "the historic significance of the existing City Hall is a matter for subjective evaluation." He reported that his Committee's research indicates the present City Hall structure was a landmark in 1923 when constructed. While the Com- mittee agrees that the building has outlived its usefulness as home for the function and admJ~nistration of a city the current size of Anaheim, the building is of historical significance in that the events which have taken place within it have enormously affected progress in the County. With demolition of the Huntington Beach City Hall, the Anaheim City Hall will be the oldest continuously used public building in the County, second only to the County Courthouse. He reported that he has requested comment from a structural engineer on the condition of the building and would like it to be noted by Council that there is nothing wrong with the structure which a minimal restoration could not correct. Concerning cost of restoration, Mr. Deneau stated that this structure because of its significance and unique architecture could meet the qualifi- cations for the National Trust for Historical Preservation if the City permits it to be proposed as an entry on the National Registry of Historical Places. It would then be eligible for State and Federal funds for Restora- tion. The cost of preservation could be further decreased through the Development Rights Transfer Program which is devoted to preservation of those buildings endangered by demolition which are still reasonably sound, but antiquated for the function for which they were originally designed. Mr. Deneau indicated that he would be happy to explain how these programs work in detail. Councilman Pebley left the Council Chambers (5:45 P.M.) In response to the comments in the memoradum of January 7, 1975, that the City Hall building is not on the current list of historical landmarks and places of interest in Anaheim, Mr. Deneau stated that this list was compiled by random groups who were not primarily concerned with the histori- cal places of interest and did not have access to the information that the Heritage Committee has available. He reported that the Heritage Committee is presently involw~d in a State of California program to compile a detailed inventory of historical structures, sites, and points of interest and are currently registering thosebuildings located in the redevelopment area. A further recommendation of the Heritage Committee is that the City Council take a further look at the current proposal for the Civic Center and table the proposal until certain factors have been investigated. Mr. Deneau voiced the opinion that the Council should attempt to ascertain why the recent bond issue failed and that perhaps the Joint Task Force should be reorganized to more accurately represent the public and an attempt made to gain citizen participa- tion in the project. He voiced the opinion that if citizen participation and involvement are generated at the very outset, the chances of success when it is time to request financing are much more likely. In this connection he noted that the Heritage Committee has developed a process model for generating citizen input which might be a suitable method, for use in this area. Further, Mr. Deneau suggested that the town meeting concept might be appropriate, with the Joint Task Force providing leadership and that input should also be solicited from various civic groups. At the conclusion of Mr. Deneau's comments, the Mayor asked if Council wished to make any further remarks relative to the environmental impact report for the Civic Center Project. Councilwoman Kaywood stated that if it is at all possible to save the mature trees discussed on PageNos. 35 and 36 of the draft E.I.R., that efforts be made to do so. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT - ANAHEIM CIVIC CENTER PROJECT - CERTIFICATION: The environmental impact report on the Anaheim Civic Center Project, having been reviewed by the City staff and recommended by the City Planning Commission 75-18 City Hall~ Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - January 7~ 1975~ 1:30 P.M. to be in compliance with City and State Guidelines and the State of California Environmental Quality Act, the City Council acting upon such information and belief does hereby certify, on motion by Councilman Seymour, seconded by Councilman Sneegas, that the Anaheim Civic Center Project E.I.R. as amended to include comments thereon presented by the Heritage Committee and the responses thereto prepared by Development Services Department staff dated January 7, 1975, is in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act and City and State Guidelines. Councilman Pebley absent. MOTION CARRIED. Councilman Seymour voiced the opinion that Mr. Deneau had raised some ser- ious questions which deserve additional consideration by the Council, in particu- lar the question of why the citizenry has turned down the bond issue to construct a City Hall for the third time. He indicated that he would not be in favor of shelving or withdrawing the present proposal but suggested the Council keep their minds open to alternatives. He suggested that Mr. Deneau and the Heritage Committee continue work on the alternative proposals and renderings for a City Hall Project and that before the Council takes any action on initiation of construction, that the townhall type of meetings recommended by Mr. Deneau and the Heritage Committee do take place to receive input and participation in the planning phase from the citizens. In this connection however, he felt that a specific plan should be presented for discussion, as it has been his experience that unless something specific is to be considered the efforts and participation will be fragmented. In reply to Mr. Deneau's request as to whether or not the Council would provide leadership in the townhall meeting effort, Councilman Seymour advised that he would, as Chairman of the present Task Force, offer his services to chair a newly organized citizen's task force which would include representatives from the Heritage Committee as well as other segments of the community. Mr. Deneau asked if he were to take Councilman Seymour's comments to be an assurance that no further action on the Civic Center Project will be taken, to which Councilman Seymour replied negatively, that he would be reluctant to shelve all of the planning work which has been done to date. and months hundreds of people on Councilwoman Kaywood related the many hours/of work and accomplishments by/ the 1959 and 1968 Citizens' Capital Improvement Committees and that both of nhese groups considered a Civic Center Project the number one priority. She did not feel that a statement to the effect that there has been no citizen participation is anywhere near the truth. No further action was taken by the City Council. REQUEST - EXTENSION OF TIME TO TEMPORARY SIGN PERMITS - OFF-SITE TRACT SIGNS IN THE SCENIC CORRIDOR ZONE: Requests for additional extensions of time to the following off-site tract signs were presented for Council consideration together with report from Development Services Department recommending said extensions be approved to expire April 1, 1975: (Ail of the following permits were granted extensions of time on November 19, 1974 to expire this date pending considera- tion of an amendment to the ordinance governing temporary off-site tract signs.) a. Permit Nos. 1478, 1482, 1502 and 1534 - submitted by R. VanNostrand, Carter Industries Inc., for six-month extensions. ~ b. Permit No. 1448 - submitted by R. VanNostrand, A & E Melven Genser Outdoor, for six-month extension. c. Permit No. 1517 - submitted by Landon M. Exley, Vice President, Pace- setter ~omes, Inc., £or slx-month extension. Mr. Don McDaniel, Planning Supervisor, reported that the Planning Commis- sion has considered the proposed amendment to the sign ordinance on December 23, 1974, but because the legal notice of said hearing was not printed as required it will be necessary to advertise and schedule these amendments for public hearing before the City Planning Commission prior to their consideration by the City Council. The earliest date these amendments may be considered by the Planning Commission will be January 20, 1975. He reported that staff evaluation of the situation suggests that it may be appropriate for Council to consider granting extensions of time to the above requests to expire April 1, 1975 which would allow the developers sufficient time to place the signs on some integrated structure and would also allow time for finalization and adoption of the amendment to the sign ordinance by the Planning Commission and City Council. See Minutes of January 28, 1975, 1:30 P.M., Page No. 75-70, "Minutes". 75-19 City Hall, Anaheim, California - (~,OUNC1L MINUTES- January 7~ 1975~ 1:30 P.M. Mrs. Mary Dinndorf, []_! 1~ ~'~ Et~eet, Anaheim, read a list of 14 sign permits which have already expired or will shortly expire. She remarked that she can only conclude, from the evidence that so many of these signs are still standing beyond their expi~'ation date, that enforcement of the sign ordinance has not been pursued. She presented the fo~owing alternatives for Council consideration and urged they take one of these actions until the situation is resolved: 1. That no sign permits be issued in the Scenic Corridor. 2. That all applications for new sign permits be approved by the City Council. Councilman Seymour inquired as to what the situation would be for these 14 signs indicated by Mrs. Dinndorf on April 1, 1975, to which Mr. McDaniel replied that the April 1, 1975 deadline would only apply to those six sign permits on the Agenda for which extensions of time have been requested. Councilman Seymour further inquired whether all of the signs would be removed as of April 1, 1975, assuming that the City Council has adopted an ordinance in accordance with the recommendations of the Canyon General Planning Task~Force and the City Planning Commission which would be in effect on that date. The City Attorney explained that the April 1, 1975 date would permit the owners of the signs time in which to comply with the ordinance. Whether or not they will in fact comply is another matter and the City's legal recourse if they do not is to file a misdemeanor complaint, which would require arraignment and trial. There is no way to quarantee removal of the signs by April 1, 1975. A rather extensive Council discussion ensued during which various tech- niques were discussed as vehicles towards achieving the removal of the tract signs as quickly as possible. Some of the methods considered were: a moratorium on all new sign requests; forfeiture of the $100 cash deposit and removal of the expired signs by the City; adoption of the sign amendment as an urgency ordinance; authorizing the City Clerk to set the hearing date on the proposed sign amendment ordinance as soon as possible after the Planning Commission action. At the conclusion of discussion, Mr. Watts indicated that he would recom- mend, during the interim period prior to effective date of the ordinance amend- ing the code as it relates to off-site tract signs, that Council instruct City staff that any off-site tract sign permits issued expire on April 1, 1975. On motion by Councilman Seymour, seconded by Councilwoman Kaywood the City Clerk was authorized to set the proposed sign ordinance for public hearing as soon as possible after the Planning Commission hearing. Councilman Pebley absent. MOTION CARRIED. On motion by Councilman Seymour, seconded by Councilman Thom the City Council determined that any off-site tract sign permits issued during the interim period (January 7, 1975 to effective date of ordinance) will expire April 1, 1975. Councilman Pebley absent. MOTION CARRIED. On motion by Councilman Seymour, seconded bv Councilman Thom, temporary sign Permit Nos. 1478, 1482, 1502, 1448 and 1517 were extended to March 12, 1975. Councilman Pebley absent. MOTION CARRIED. On motion by Councilman Thom, seconded by Councilwoman Kaywood, temporary sign Permit No. 1534 was extended to March 12, [975. Councilman Seymour abstained from voting on this motion, Councilman Pebley absent. MOTION CARRIED. TRACT NO. 7666 - REFUND OF FEES AND EXONERATION OF BONDS (Reclassification No. 69-70-25): Request of Mr. Terry O. Crowther, Manager, Project Development, Pace- setter Homes, Inc. 4540 Campus Drive, Newport Beach, to remove from Council agenda the request for extension of time to Reclassification No. 69-70-25 and that tract fees be refunded and bonds exonerated on Tract No. 7666 was submitted for Council consideration. Also submitted was report from the City Engineer recommending approval of the request subject to: (1) That tract fees be refunded less the checking fees and the bonds be exonerated. (2) The City Council rescind the approval of the final tract map. 75-20 .~.ity Hall; Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - Jgnua_rff_.~3 197_5_~__1:30 P.M. On motion by Councilman Seymour, seconded by Coucilman Thom, the City Council adopted the recommendation of ~he City EngSneer, thereby authorizing refund of tract fees, less the checking fees, and exoneration of bonds, and rescinded the approval of Final Tract Map No. 7666. Councilman Pebley absent. MOTION CARRIED. BUENA PARK VARIANCE NO. V-714: Mr. Roberts reported on a proposal to be submitted to the Buena Park City Council to construct a 24-unit apartment complex on property which is a triangular shape parcel, 0.9 acre, located at the westerly terminus of Savanna Street, immediately adjacent to the City Limits of the City of Anaheim. Ne presented the Anaheim City Planning Commission's recommendation made following consideration of the matter at their meeting held January 6, 1975. On motion by Councilman Thom, seconded by Councilwoman Kaywood, the City Council sustained the recommendation of the City Planning Commission relative to Buena Park Variance No. V-714 as follows: That since the City of Anaheim will ultimately provide utilities to subject property, it is recommended that Buena Park Variance No. V-714 be terminated and that annexation proceedings be initiated with the City of Anaheim; and, furthermore, that appropriate petitions be filed with the City of Anaheim; however, if the Buena Park Planning Commis- sion approves Variance No. V-714, it is recommended that a more suitable cul- de-sac arrangement for Savanna Street be provided, subject to the approval of the Anaheim Traffic Engineer, and that trash storage areas shall be provided in accordance with approved plans on file with the office of the Anaheim Director of Public Works. Councilman Pebley absent. MOTION CARRIED. REQUEST - MARTIN LUTHER HOSPITAL - GIFT OF ASSETS TO QUALIFY FOR LONG-TERM FINANCING: Prior to presentation of this request, Mayor Thom advised Mr. Eugene Dahlgren, representing the Martin Luther Hospital, that Councilman Seymour would have to leave momentarily to attend another meeting, and conse- quently only three Members of the City Council would be present to hear the presentation at this time. Because the request is of sufficient importance, Mayor Thom suggested that it be held over to the next regular meeting and taken up as the first item at 1:30 P.M. Mr. Dahlgren submitted informational material to each Council Member and agreed to the one week continuance. Councilman Seymour left the meeting. (7:00 P.M.) RESOLUTION NO. 75R-6 - REJECTING ALL BIDS~ WORK ORDER NOS. 843~ 812 AND 794: On recommendation of the City Engineer, Councilman Sneegas offered Resolution No. 75R-6 for adoption, rejecting all bids received for Work Order Nos. 843, 812 and 794. Refer to Resolution Book. A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM REJECTING ALL BIDS RECEIVED UP TO THE HOUR OF 2:00 P.M. ON THE 2ND DAY OF JANUARY, 1975, FOR A PUBLIC IMPROVEMENT, TO WIT: PARK BUILDINGS AT: BOYSEN PARK, WORK ORDER NO. 843, TWILA REID PARK, WORK ORDER NO. 812 AND MANZANITA PARK, WORK ORDER NO. 794. Roll Call Vote: AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Kaywood, Sneegas and Thom NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: None ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Seymour and Pebley The Mayor declared Resolution No. 75R-6 duly passed and adopted. LEASE OF PROPERTY AT 173 WEST LINCOLN AVENUE (COMMUNITY SERVICES CENTER): Mr. Robert Davis reported on the revised proposal for lease of property at 173 West Lincoln Avenue to be used to house the Community Services Center, which* has been reduced to a term of three years, at $575 per month, in consideration for which the lessor will install heating, lighting, new restrooms and prepare an additional basement exit. Mr. Davis reported that comparison of this pro- posal with a list of other buildings explored in the downtown area indicates it to be substantially the best price. 75-21 City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL i~INUTES - January 7~ 1975, 1:30 P.M. RESOLUTION NO. 75R-7: Councilwoman Kaywood offered Resolution No. 75R-7 for adoption, approving the terms and conditions of a lease for property located at 173 West Lincoln Avenue, as reported, for a three-year period at $575 per month. Refer to Resolution Book. A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR AND CITY CLERK TO EXECUTE A LEASE AGREEMENT ON THE PREMISES KNOWN AS 173 WEST LINCOLN AVENUE, ANAHEIM CALIFORNIA. Roll Call Vote: AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Kaywood, Sneegas and Thom NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: None ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Seymour and Pebley The Mayor declared Resolution No. 75R-7 duly passed and adopted. PURCHASE OF EQUIPMENT - CAB AND CHASSIS FOR OIL SPREADER TRUCK: The City Manager reported on informal bids received for the purchase of one cab/chassis for oil spreader truck as follows and recommended acceptance of the low bid: VENDOR TOTAL AMOUNT~ INCLUDING TAX McCoy Ford, Anaheim S & V Chevrolet~ Cerritos International Harvester of Anaheim $11,336.51 13,314.26 10,634.11 On motion by Councilman Thom, seconded by Councilman Sneegas, the low bid of International Harvester was accepted and purchase authorized in the amount of $10,634.11, including tax. Councilmen Seymour and Pebley absent. MOTION CARRIED. ORDINANCE NO. 3386: Councilwoman Kaywood offered Ordinance No. 3386 for adoption. Refer to Ordinance Book. AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM RENUMBERING AND AMENDING CERTAIN SECTIONS OF TITLE 18, CHAPTERS 18.01, 18.02, 18.05, 18.22, 18.23, 18.24, 18.25, 18.26, 18.27, 18.32, 18.34, 18.44, 18.45, 18.46, 18.48, 18.61, 18.63 AND 18.87 TO CONFORM TO THE NEW NUMBERING PROVISIONS OF THE NEW RECOMPILED ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE. Roll Call Vote: AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Kaywood, Sneegas and Thom NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: None ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Seymour and Pebley The Mayor declared Ordinance No. 3386 duly passed and adopted. ORDINANCE NO. 3387: Councilman Sneegas offered Ordinance No. 3387 for adoption. Refer to Ordinance Book. AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AMENDING ORDINANCE NO. 1981 IN RECLASSIFICA- TION PROCEEDINGS 59-60-62 BY AMENDING CONDITION NO. 4 THEREOF. Roil Call Vote: AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Kaywood, Sneegas and Thom NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: None ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Seymour and Pebley The Mayor declared Ordinance No. 3387 duly passed and adopted. ORDINANCE NO. 3388: Councilman Sneegas offered Ordinance No. 3388 for adoption. Refer to Ordinance Book. 75-22 City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - January 7~ 1975~ 1:30 P.M. AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AMENDING TITLE 18 OF THE ANAHEIM MIINICIPAL (]ODE RELATING TO ZONING. (70-71-47 (13) - ML) Roll Call Vote: AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Kaywood, Sneegas and Thom NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: None ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Seymour and Pebley The Mayor declared Ordinance No. 3388 duly passed and adopted. ORDINANCE NO. 3391: Councilman Thom offered Ordinance No. 3391 for first reading. AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AMENDING TITLE 18 OF THE ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO ZONING. (63-64-90 (2) - C-O) RESOLUTION NOS. 75R-8 AND 75R-9 - DEEDS OF EASEMENT AND TERMINATION OF RECLASSIFI- CATION NO. 62-63-40: Councilwoman Kaywood offered Resolution Nos. 75R-8 and 75R-9 for adoption, in accordance with the reports and recommendations as listed on the Consent Calendar Agenda for said items: RESOLUTION NO. 75R-8 - DEEDS OF EASEMENT: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM ACCEPTING CERTAIN DEEDS AND ORDERING THEIR RECORDATION. (John Joseph Bradley, et al; Viola G. Martenet; Arthur V. & Lila M. Narath; Flossie Lear; Winn Engineering Co.; Dew Construction Co.; Roy & Ann Van Horne, et al; Samuel & Annette Hurwitz; Harold Le Roy & Oleeta J. Fay; Pacesetter Homes, Inc.; Dorothy B. Travis) RESOLUTION NO. 75R-9 - TERMINATION: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM TERMINATING ALL PROCEEDINGS IN CONNECTION WITH RECLASSIFICATION NO. 62-63-40. (Variance No. 1751) Roll Call Vote: AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Kaywood, Sneegas and Thom NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: None ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Seymour and Pebley The Mayor declared Resolution Nos. 75R-8 and 75R-9 duly passed and adopted. TERMINATION - VARIANCE NO. 1751 (RECLASSIFICATION NO. 62-63-40): Said variance was granted in conjunction with Reclassification No. 62-63-40 to permit' waivers of minimum required front and rear yard minimum lot width and minimum lot area at property located on the east side of Western Avenue, north of Ball Road. Said variance was terminated by the City Planning Commission. No action was taken by the City Council. CONSENT CALENDAR ITEMS: On motion by Councilman Sneegas, seconded by Councilman Thom, the following actions were authorized in accordance with the reports and recommendations as listed on the Consent Calendar Agenda: 1. GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 137/AREA DEVELOPMENT PLAN NO. 116: The dates were set for public hearing on General Plan Amendment No. 137 and Area Develop- ment Plan No. 116 for January 21~ 1975~ 2:30 P.M. to consider an amendment to the General Plan in the vicinity southeast of Broadway and Loara Street from a junior high school site to low-medium and medium density residential uses and an Area Development Plan to determine the proper vehicular circulation for the area. 2. CLAIMS AGAINST THE CITY: The following claims were denied and referred to the insurance carrier: a. Claim submitted by Chester A. Scherer for damages and injuries purpor- tedly sustained as a result of actions of Anaheim Police Officers, on or about August 12, 1974. b. Claim submitted by Sara Viramontes for damage sustained to car purpor- tedly as a result of being struck by City-owned vehicle, on or about September 19, 1974. 75-23 City Hall~ Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - January 7.~ .1975~ 1:30 P.M. c. Claim submitted by State Farm Fire and Casualty Company for fire damage sustained purportedly as a result of over-loading of electrical system by the City, on or about October 28, 1974. d. Claim submitted by Steve Trella for damage to roof purportedly sustained as a result of electrical wire falling on said roof, on or about December 7, 1974. 3. CORRESPONDENCE: The following correspondence was ordered received and filed: a. Before the Public Utilities Commission - In the matter of the applica- tion of The Pacific Telephone Company, a corporation, for telephone service rate increases to offset increased wage, salary and associated expenses. Investi- gation on the Commission's own motion into the rates, tolls, rules, charges, operations, costs, separations, inter-company settlements, contracts, service, and facilities of THE PACIFIC TELEPHONE AND TELEGRAPH COMPANY, a California corporation; and of all the telephone corporations listed in Appendix A. b. City of Garden Grove Resolution No. 4695-74, recommending that Orange County Transit District Directors be elected by a vote of the people. c. Minutes - Intergovernmental Coordinating Council of Orange County - November 27, 1974. d. Orange County Board of Supervisors Resolution pertaining to offshore oil drilling on the Outer Continental Shelf and evaluation and critique of the Environmental Impact Statement concerning proposed leases for outer continental shelf oil and gas sites. Councilmen Seymour and Pebley absent. MOTION CARRIED. FIREWORKS DISPLAY PERMIT - OSMOND BROTHERS' CONCERT - ANAHEIM STADIUM~ JANUARY 11, 1975: Application filed by Mr. R. Bob Souza, General Manager, California Fireworks Display Company for permit to allow public fireworks display on January 11, 1975, 4:00 P.M., at the Anaheim Stadium in conjunction with the Osmond Brothers' Con- cert (Dick Clark Productions) was granted as requested, on motion by Councilman Sneegas, seconded by Councilman Thom. Councilmen Seymour and Pebley absent. MOTION.CARRIED. RESOLUTION NO. 75R-10 - AMENDMENT TO UTILITIES AGREEMENT 7UT-4325, STATE OF CALIFORNIA (ORANGE FREEWAY ROUTE 57): On recommendation of the Utilities Director, Councilman Sneegas offered Resolution No. 75R-10 for adoption. Refer to Resolution Book. A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY CO~CIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AGREEING TO THE MODIFICA- TION OF THE TERMS OF A CONTRACT AND AUTHORIZING EXECUTION THEREOF. (Reimbursement to City for relocation of certain electrical facilities) Roll Call Vote: AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Kaywood, Sneegas and Thom NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: None ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Seymour and Pebley The Mayor declared Resolution No. 75R-10 duly passed and adopted. ADJOURNMENT: Councilman Sneegas moved to adjourn. Councilwoman Kaywood seconded the motion. Councilmen Seymour and Pebley absent. MOTION CARRIED. Adjourned: 7:18 P.M. City Clerk