Loading...
1974/02/1274-136 .City Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - February 5, 1974, 1:30 P,M, By general consent, the Council declined to appoint an additional representative at this time, but determined that they wished to retain their right to appoint an additional member in the future. APPOINTMENT - GAYLEN COMPTON~- CITY PLANNING COMMISSION: Councilman Sneegas moved to appoint Mr. Gaylen B. Compton to the City Planning Commission to fill the un- expired term of Mr. John Seymour, term ending June 30, 1974. Councilman Pebley seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. ADJOURNMENT: Councilman Pebley moved to adjourn. Councilman Sneegas seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. Adjourned: 3:10 P.M. City Clerk City Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - February 12~ 1974~ 1:30 P.M. The City Council of the City of Anaheim met in regular session. PRESENT: COUNCILMEN: Stephenson, Sneegas, Pebley (arrived 1:45 P.M.), Thom and Dutton ABSENT: COUNCILMEN: None PRESENT: CITY MANAGER: Keith A. Murdoch CITY ATTORNEY: Alan R. Watts CITY CLERK: Aloha M. Fattens UTILITIES DIRECTOR: Gordon W. Hoyt ELECTRICAL SUPERINTENDENT: George Ho Edwards CITY ENGINEER: James Po Maddox TRAFFIC ENGINEER: Edward Granzow TRAFFIC ENGINEERING ASSISTANT: Paul Singer OFFICE ENGINEER: Jay Titus ASSISTANT DIRECTOR OF DEVELOPMENT SERVICES: Ronald Thompson ZONING SUPERVISOR: Charles Roberts PLANNING SUPERVISOR: Don McDaniel Mayor Dutton called the meeting to order. INVOCATION: Reverend Arthur E. Harrington of the Trinity United Methodist Church gave the Invocation. FLAG SALUTE: Councilman Mark A. Stephenson led the assembly in the Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag. PROCLAMATION: The following Proclamation was issued by Mayor Dutton and unani- mously approved by the City Council: "Electrical Week" - February 10 - 16, 1974. MINUTES: The City Clerk noted the following necessary corrections to the Minutes of the Anaheim City Council Regular Meeting held January 15, 1974: pgo 74-53, third paragraph, should read "that the increase in Convention Center rates," striking electrical rates; in that same paragraph the phrase "taking into con- sideration revenue loss" the phrase "due to the higher wholesale electrical rates" should be struck and in their place the phrase "taking into consideration revenue loss from room taxes" inserted. Pgs. 74-55 and 56 the word "absolved" was used in two places whereas this should read "resolvedV. 74-137 City Hall~ Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - February 12, 1974, 1:30 P.M. Minutes of the Anaheim City Council Regular Meeting held January 15, 1974,were approved as corrected and the Minutes of the Adjourned Regular Meeting held January 19, 1974, approved on motion by Councilman Stephenson, seconded by Councilman Sneegas. MOTION CARRIED. WAIVER OF READING - ORDINANCES AND RESOLUTIONS: Councilman Thom moved to waive the reading in full of all ordinances and resolutions, and that consent to the waiver of reading is hereby given by all Councilmen unless, after reading of the title, specific request is made by a Councilman for the reading of such ordinance or resolution. Councilman Sneegas seconded the motion. MOTION UNANIMOUSLY CARRIED° REPORT - FINANCIAL DEMANDS AGAINST THE CITY: Demands against the City in the amount of $1,670,827.03, in accordance with the 1973-74 Budget, were approved. CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING - PROPOSED AMENDMENT TO TITLE 18 OF THE ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE - SECTIONS 18.08.330~ 18.08.307~ 18.08.750 RELATING TO AUTOMOBILE AND TRUCK SERVICE STATIONS: To consider amendments to Title 18 of the Anaheim Municipal Code as follows: Chapter 18.08 - Definitions Section 18.08.330 - Automobile Service Station Section 18.08.307 - Recreational Vehicle Section 18.08.750 - Truck Service Station and adding: Chapter 18.61 - Criteria and Development Standards for Service Stations. Said amendments were recommended for adoption by the City Planning Commission pursuant to Resolution No. PC73-260. Said amendments were discussed on January 22, 1974,and public hearing continued to this date to allow time for revision to certain amendments as outlined by the City Council. (No action was taken on Environmental Impact Report Exemption Status on January 22, 1974 pursuant to opinion rendered at that time by the City Attorney.) Report from Development Services Department was submitted together with the revised proposal for amendment to Title 18 of the Anaheim Municipal Code - Criteria and Development Standards for Service Stations. The report indicates that the following amendments were made to the proposal pursuant to Council discussion held January 22, 1974: 1. Provision for artificial landscaping was added to permit a maxi- mum of 6~/o of the planted area to be covered with artificial turf. 2. The size limitation on rental vehicles has been removed. 3. A survey was conducted of those service stations which are now renting trucks, indicating that 13 of the 14 service stations which rent trucks are in violation of the Zoning Code, since only one is located in a C-3 Zone where truck rental is a permitted use. ~he Mayor asked if anyone wished to address the Council either in favor or in opposition to the proposed amendment to Title 18. Mr. James Ro Bateman, 1417 Cortney Place, stated that he represents the U-Haul dealerships and advised that 12 of these will be required, on adoption of this ordinance, to apply for conditional use permits which would cost an average of $125 each. In addition to this,they would be faced with costs for plot plans and other items incidental to the application. He felt this to be an inequitable situation inasmuch as these dealerships have been in operation for many years, one since 1959, and although these were illegal since their inception, the City has never enforced the ordinance. Further he in- quired whether these service station owners would have to prepare environmental impact reports in conjunction with the applications and whether or not the properties would have to be brought up to the new standards prior to approval of the conditional use permit. 74-128 City Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - February 12~ 1974~ 1:30 P.M. Assistant Director of Development Services RonaldThompsonadvised that all of the truck rentals at the various service stations in Anaheim are illegal and were illegal under the existing ordinance, since the City Attorney ruled that what was not specifically permitted was prohibited. Consequently, until it was decided whether these dealerships were going to be legal asamatter of right or legal subject to the approval of a conditional use permit, that particular section of the Code was not enforced. As far as bringing the exist- ing dealership properties up to the new standards is concerned, Mr. Thompson advised that it would most likely be the recommendation of the Interdepartmental Committee, based on past experiences, that this would not be considered a sub- stantial enough change to the property to warrant dedication and improvements. Reverend Arthur E. Harrington of the Trinity Methodist United Church was recognized by the Mayor and spoke in favor of the use of live plant mater- ials wherever possible, as these,in his opinion,are far more beneficial to the environment and much more aesthetically pleasing. Councilman Sneegas questioned whether or not it would be legally possible for the City to process applications for conditional use permits on behalf of the existing service stations with rental dealerships so that these facilities would not be penalized, and Mr. Watts advised that legally either the Council or the Planning Commission could initiate such action° Mr. Thompson commented that it could be anticipated that it would cost in the vicinity of $3,000 to $4,000 to process these conditional use permits. Mr. Ron Werderitsch, 2515 West Winston, suggested the possibility of incorporating a "grandfather" clause into the new ordinance, which would accom- plish the same end of legalizing the present rental dealerships, at no expense to the City. Mro Watts responded that this could not be done in this situation since the use is not a legal nonconforming use, but has never been legal at all. The Mayor asked if anyone else wished to address the Council; there being no response declared the hearing closed. Mr. Thompson related that he and the City Attorney have been discuss- ing the most expeditious and most inexpensive method of processing conditional use permit applications, and there are several alternatives which could be ex- plored. If it is Council's desire, the most efficient and economical method could be determined. Councilman Dutton felt that inasmuch as the City has allowed the viola- tions of the ordinance to exist,it would seem that the City is in some degree responsible, not having corrected the situation at an earlier date. By general consent, the Council indicated they would desire that the Development Services Department and City Attorney devise the most economical method by which applications for conditional use permits on existing truck ren- tal dealerships could be processed. ORDINANCE NO. 3264: Councilman S tephenson offered Ordinance No. 3264 for first reading. AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AMENDING TITLE 18 BY ADDING THERETO A NEW CHAPTER 18.87, AND REPEALING SECTION 18.08.330 AND ADDING NEW SECTIONS 18.08.330, 18.08.607, AND 18.08.750 RELATING TO ZONING. Councilman Sneegas requested that the service station owners be ad- vised as to the status of the ordinance and conditional use permit situation by mail so that they could be relieved of having to take an additional afternoon away from their businesses. Mr. Thompson related that the Development Services Department has a list of the locations of these dealerships and this would be possible. 74- 139 City Hall, Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - February 12, 1974, 1:30 P.M. ENTERTAINMENT PERMIT: Application filed by Alex G. Trousas for Entertainment Per- mit to allow one to three musicians at the Anaheim Depot Restaurant, 1055 West Ball Road, was submitted and granted for a period of one year, subject to pro- visions of the Chapter 4.18 of the Anaheim Municipal Code,as recommended by the Chief of Police, on motion by Councilman Sneegas, seconded by Councilman Stephenson. MOTION CARRIED. AMUSEMENT DEVICES PERMITS: Applications filed by Vincent Lancisero, Lance Music Company for Amusement Devices permits to allow flipper-type pinball machines at Bob's Family Billiards, 3015 West Ball Road and Linbrook Family Billiards, 2220 West Lincoln Avenue, were submitted and granted,subject to provisions of Chapter 3.24 of the Anaheim Municipal Code,as recommended by the Chief of Police, on motion by Councilman Stephenson, seconded by Councilman Sneegas. MOTION CARRIED. APPLICATION - FIREWORKS DISPLAY PERMIT (CALIFORNIA ANGELS~: Application filed by Mr. R. Souza, General Manager, California Fireworks Display Company for permit to allow public fireworks displays on April 9 and July 4, 1974,at the Anaheim Stadium was submitted. Also submitted was a letter received from Mr. Tommy Walker, Tommy Walker Productions, dated February 7, 1974,reporting the outcome of the meeting held January 23, 1974,subsequent to the discussion held at the Council meeting on December 18, 1973. Said letter contained a request that Mr. Walker be granted permission to stage fireworks on the 4th of July, 1974,at the Anaheim Stadium. City Attorney Watts reported,as well,that the meeting was not fruit- fulo He added that his view of the agreement between the City and the Calif- ornia Angels, Paragraph Nos. 3A and 3B provides that the Angels have the right each year to schedule their home games at the Stadium, with a cutoff date of February 21, by which time they are required to inform the City what the dates will be. Thereafter, the City then has the ability to rent the Stadium for other purposes. However, the City is not aware of the availability of the Stadium for other purposes until after the Angels' schedule is received. The agreement made with Tommy Walker Productions is subject to the scheduling of the Angels' games,and this is specified in the terms. Mr. Watts remarked that obviously for the playing of baseball games the Angels have priority of scheduling. The Angels this year have scheduled a night game for the 4th of July and as evidenced by the application, plan to put on a fireworks show. The Angels' agreement specifies that the purpose of their use is to play baseball games and uses incidential thereto, which is subject to interpretation. Mr. Watts advised that his interpretation of this section is that this would include, as is the custom of the industry, certain promotions. These promotions are generally put on prior to the playing of the baseball game, whereas those after the game might be questionable as to whether they are incidential thereto. Conversely, it is obvious that the Angels could not put on a fireworks show in the afternoon. He stated that in his opinion it would be physically impossible for someone,other than the Angels,to put on a fireworks show in the evening after a baseball game. Further he pointed out that there is a provision in the agreement that events,other than a baseball game, scheduled on the same day but after the game, will not be held earlier than one hour after the conclusion of the baseball game. Councilman Pebley c~f~ented that the Angels have scheduled their baseball game for 6:00 pom. on July 4, 1974, and they have the right to do so pursuant to the agreement signed between them and the City ten years ago; therefore he could not see the purpose of the discussion nor that any arbitrary action by the Council is possible. He stated that as far as he was concerned, the matter is settled by the terms of the Angels' contract which gives them the prior right to schedule their games° Councilman Sneegas remarked that the unfortunate part of the pre- dicament is that last year, although the Angels were out of town on the 4th of July, they choose to put on a fireworks show one or two days earlier in competition with the show scheduled on the 4th of July at the Stadium° He expressed the opinion that some kind of compromise must be reached so that 74-140 City Hall~ Ansheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - February 12~ 1974, 1:30 P.M. in 1976 the City can look forward to a true 4th of July celebration in the Stadium. He remarked that he for one would not be willing to grant a fireworks permit again for a show a few days prior to the 4th of July to the Angels when they will be out of town on the actual holiday. Councilman Thom suggested that it would be an interesting situation if the Council granted the fireworks permit for the this year's 4th of July celebration to Tommy Walker Productions and not to the Angels. Since the Angels' management are astute businessmen, Councilman Thom felt sure that the result of this would be a ball game and a fireworks display on the 4th of July. Mr. Watts advised that the Council could deny the fireworks permit to the Angels, however, he felt granting a fireworks permit to Tommy Walker for the 4th of July at the Stadium would create a real problem since it is not conceivable that this show would not be interfering with the contractual arrangement with the Angeles. Councilman Pebley disagreed with the method for resolving the situ- ation suggested by Councilman Thom, stating he did not feel that the Council should be in the position of coercing two businesses to work together if these entities are not willing to do so. Councilman Stephenson remarked that it would be physically impossible to remove one crowd from the baseball game at the Stadium and let another crowd in for a fireworks show in the one evening. Councilman Sneegas also disapproved of employing the tactic of making the two companies work together but reiterated that he felt some agreement as to what will happen in 1975 and 1976 should be reached so that plans can be started for the bicentennial celebration. As far as 1974 is concerned,he ex- pressed the opinion that the City must live up to their obligation to the Angels, and this year, they have scheduled a home game on the 4th of July which is with- in their rights. Councilman Pebley inquired whether the Angels' baseball team has any control over the scheduling of home games. Mr. Watts replied that the scheduling of the American League teams is accomplished by the League office and is not worked out in such a manner that they would necessarily be home one year on a particular date and away the next. Mr. Richard Curran, Assistant of Mr. Utti, Mr. Walker's Attorney, advised that his office was not apprised that this matter would be before Council today until just a few hours ago; consequently they are not prepared,and Mr. Utti himself is out of the Country. He respectively requested that no action be taken on the award of the fireworks permit this date and that a time be scheduled on a future Council Agenda at which Mr. Walker and his representative, as well as the Angels,could be present and then the issue might be resolved on that date° He mentioned that following the December 18, 1973 discussion at the Council meeting, at which the Council requested the two parties get together, only one meeting has been held,and the Angels' baseball team was not represented by an attorney. Mr. Dick Foster, Administrative Assistant to Mr. Dalton of the Calif- ornia Angels, advised that the Angels' game schedule is made up through a com- puter at the American League offices. It has happened that for two successive years the Angels have had home games on the 4th of July and for two years they did not. At this point, however, the Angels could not commit to whether or not they would be playing at the Anaheim Stadium on July 4, 1975, or July 4, 1976. Councilman Them asked whether the computer also sets the time of day at which the game is to be played, to which Mr. Foster replied that this is entirely at the discretion of the home team. Mro Foster added that the 4th of July has proven to be a financial plus when the team is at home, and since they do have the ability to designate what time of day the game will be played, he could envision no compromise on use of the Stadium for this 4th of July. 74-141 City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - February 12, 1974, 1:30 P.M. Councilman Pebley advised that he too would not favor Council granting a fireworks permit to the Angels in 1975 or 1976 for a date which is prior to the 4th of July if they will be out of town on the actual holiday. Councilman Thom referred to the Council request made December 18, 1973, that an attempt be made by the parties involved to resolve the issue, and then the City Clerk's Office received the application for fireworks permit from the Angels on January 30, 1974. He noted that not much time was devoted, if in fact any attempt was every made,to resolve the conflict. Councilman Pebley remarked that this action demonstrates good busi- ness judgment on the part of the Angels, that they are merely requiring the City to live up to its contractual obligations. Councilman Stephenson concurred, stating that it appears the Angels have the right and ability to conduct the baseball game and fireworks display this forthcoming 4th of July. Councilman Thom noted that they do not yet,however,have a fireworks display permit° Councilman Stephenson remarked that it would be very foolish of the Council not to grant a fireworks display permit in light of the amount of City revenue which would be lost due to such denial. Mr. Tommy Walker, Tommy Walker Productions, Disneyland Hotel Plaza, maintained that the Angels would not be denied their right to play on the 4th of July and that two events could be scheduled and held on that same date to the benefit of the citizens of Anaheim. Further he contended that the City was depriving him of rights granted pursuant to the contract entered between the City and himself. He read the motion from the Minutes of the City Council meeting held April 14, 1970 (pg. 70-184) as follows: "The City Attorney was authorized to prepare a seven-year lease agreement with Tommy Walker Productions for use of the Anaheim Stadium for their Old Fashion 4th of July Celebration evening fire- works display, subject to the prior rights of the California Angels and subject to the right of the City of Anaheim to cancel said agree- ment in the event the Stadium is sold." Mr. Walker further contended that there is a provision in the Angels' contract which protects previously scheduled events and that this was inserted to cover the exact situation facing the City now. He remarked that the Angels play 82 games per year and should not be allowed to usurp his one event. Mr. Walker stated that his rights were not being protected and that the Angels in no way would be deprived of their rights to play their ball game if he were granted the fireworks display permit. He referred to the fact that both events have been scheduled on the same day in the past,and it could be accomplished again. He stated that at the meeting held January 23, 1974, arranged at the request of the City Council, he and his attorney and the City Attorney were present,but the Angels were not represented by counsel which was not an act of good faith. He exhorted the Council to abide by the terms 'of the seven-year lease issued to him and grant him his rights. Councilman Pebley assured Mr. Walker that he personally would be very happy to have a large crowd in the Stadium for a ball game in the after- noon and another large crowd for fireworks in the evening, however, the way in which he interprets the contract, which the City Attorney has corroborated, the Angels have the prior right;and if the Council takes any other action,they may have grounds onwhich to file a lawsuit against the City. He advised that he personally could not change his position unless advised by the City Attorney that such action would not pose a liability for the City. Mr. Walker contended that if the Angels did not have a fireworks permit they would reschedule their game for earlier in the day because it would be in the best interests of the City because they are scheduled to play 74-142 City Hall~ Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - February. 12~ 1974~ 1:30 P.M. Oakland,and it is a traveling day. He again reiterated that there is a pro- vision in their contract requiring them to schedule their games so that other scheduled events could be held on the same day. Mr. Watts counseled that when the Angels advised the City as to what dates they will play their home games,they also designate the time at which these will be played. Mr. Walker's event,as a matter of fact, has not been and is not yet scheduled in the Stadium. Mr. Walker disagreed with this, stating that his fireworks display has been scheduled for the seven years,pursuant to the agreement entered into April 14, 1970. He inquired of the City Attorney as to why the provision re- lating to other events to be held at the Stadium was included in the Angels' agreement. Mr. Watts replied that the language is in the agreement for the pur- pose that it was anticipated that after the Angels' schedule was announced each year, there would be playing dates for which the Stadium could be used and scheduled for other events. Mro Walker maintained that it is the responsibility of the City to see that the two parties involved in this controversy meet and arrange some compromise. He argued that the rights granted to him in 1970 were being denied. Mr. George Lederer, Public Relations and Promotions Director for the California Angels advised that he appreciates Mr. Walker's position, however, he stated that the business of baseball has proven that it is better with added promotions. With the added attraction of a fireworks show they have drawn capacity crowds for three years in a row. He reported that the Angels have been at home on the 4th of July for three consecutive years, which could happen again, but probably will not. He pointed out that the Angels have already sched- uled their 4th of July game at 6:00 p.m. because they feel they can draw a larger crowd at this time, with or without the fireworks. Mr. Lederer remarked that the fireworks show held on July 1, 1973 was staged not as a competition to Mr. Walker, but for their own benefit. He assured Council that if the Angels in subsequent years are not scheduled at home on the 4th of July, they would make no attempt to schedule fireworks displays on the days preceeding the 4th. Conversely,they also felt that Mr. Walker should not be able to schedule a fireworks display on the 1st, 2nd or 3rd of July if the Angels are home and such display is planned for the 4th. Mr. Lederer pointed out that the lease on the Stadium which the Angels hold does specify (pg. 8, lines 29-32) that the lessee should give written ap- proval to an outside attraction, i.e., it states the lessor will not,without written approval of the lessee,permit the prior use of the Stadium for any other event earlier on the same day on which a game is to be played by lessee; and any subsequent events held on the same day as lessee's games will not be held earlier than one hour after the conclusion of lessee's games. He noted that according to the lease they could reschedule the 4th of July ball game to 8:30 or 9:00 and conduct the fireworks show prior to the game. Councilman Dutton suggested that perhaps a "cooling off" period would be of some benefit in this situation and would enable the parties an opportunity to meet, and thereupon moved that application filed by Mr. R. Souza, General Manager of California Fireworks Display Company, for a permit to conduct public fireworks display on April 9, 1974, 9:00 p.m., at Anaheim Stadium~e approved and that action on the July 4, 1974, permit be continued to March 12, 1974. Councilman Sneegas seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. APPROVAL OF PRECISE SITE PLANS AND ELEVATIONS - RECLASSIFICATION NO. 71-72-21 AND VARIANCE NO. 2310: Site plans and elevations were submitted for approval in conjunc- tion with plans to develop a shopping center and service station (C-1 zoning approved pursuant to Resolution of Intent 72R-125, variance granted regarding shopping center and service station pursuant to Resolution No. 72R~126) on R-A zoned property located on the north side of Santa Aha Canyon Road, east of Imperial Highway. 74-143 City Hall, Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - February 12, 1974, 1:30 P.M. Mr. Don McDaniel, Planning Supervisor, advised that the City Plan- ning Commission rec~m~ended approval of subject site plans and elevations pro- viding that no objection is registered against these by Development Services Department staff. The reason for this qualification was that the Development Services staff recommendation to the Planning Commission was that the plans originally submitted not be accepted as precise plans inasfar as the amount of detail presented in said precise plans is the same as shown on the original concept plans. However the Applicant has been in touch with Development Ser- vices Department since the Planning Commission meeting and has submitted re- finements to Exhibit Nos. 1, 2 and 3 and these did appear to meet the objectives in Condition No. 12 imposed pursuant to Resolution No. 72R-125. Mr. McDaniel advised the Council that the refinements submitted were to clarify the build- ing materials to be used only; there were no changes to site plan, setbacks, etc. Further~Mr. McDaniel advised that it is the Development Services Department recommendation that the final building plans submitted to the Building Division for building permit be reviewed by the Commission and/or the City Council prior to issuance of a building permit. The concern regarding this particular project arises from the fact that it is located within the Scenic Corridor and is immediately adjacent to Route 91 (the Riverside Freeway). Mr. McDaniel advised that Mr. Rinker has indicated agreement to this additional requirement. The approval of the precise plans submitted would permit the zoning ordinance to be read on the property. Mr. Rinker was present and indicated satisfaction with the recommen- dation presented by Mr. McDaniel. On motion by Councilman Pebley, seconded by Councilman Stephenson, precise plans and elevations submitted in conjunction with Reclassification No. 71-72-21 and Variance No. 2310 were approved, subject to further requirement that the final building plans be reviewed and approved by the City Planning Commission and City Council prior to issuance of a building permit. MOTION CARRIED. REPORT AND FIlM PRESENTATION - HARBOR BOULEVARD-LA VERNE STREET PEDESTRIAN CROSSING: Report on the investigation conducted at the Harbor Boulevard--La Verne Street pedestrian crossing (initiated at the direction of Council following discussion and receipt of requests and petitions for a traffic signal at said intersection at the December 18, 1973 meeting) was submitted. A portion of the investigation consisted of a stop time video camera film with which the intersection was kept under surveillance for nine hours on January 16, 1974. The film was presented for Council and other interested parties in the audience. The conclusions drawn from the film investigation were that there were very few pedestrians using this intersection and those who did cross at this point had ample time. Mr. Paul Singer advised that the film is taken at 14:1 speed. The sections from 9:00 aom. until noon and 1:00 p.m. to 2:30 p.m. were cut out of the film because these were inactive periods; there were no pedestrians. The total number of pedestrians viewed during the entire investigation was 43: 8 of which were school children; 6 were high school age children; 21 were adults; and 8 were bicyclists. He advised that even during the peak traffic hours between 4:00 and 5:00 p.m., there was still a gap of 28 seconds between the traffic. Dr. E. F. Cain, 810 West Royal Way, asked if any count was taken as to how many People crossed this intersection between 6:00 and 7:30 pom., to which Mr. Granzow replied that a count was taken which indicated 12 to 14 in- dividuals crossing during this time period, and that there was a total of 65 pedestrians in 12 hours. According to their observations, there is relatively no pedestrian usage of the crosswalk after the Davis Market closes at 8:00 p.m. Mr. Ed Granzow, Traffic Engineer, summarized that the film was in- tended to demonstrate that there were no vehicles which had to stop and no pedestrians who had to wait to cross. This indicates that there are adequate gaps in the traffic for a pedestrian to cross safely if he is aware of the traffic. 74-144 City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - February 12, 1974~ 1:30 P.M. However, in the process of investigating this intersection, it was apparent that there is a problem during the dark hours since the crosswalk is difficult to see. It is,therefore,recommended by the City Engineer's Office that the crosswalk be repainted in the "zebra" pattern, consisting of very heavy lines to make it more easily identifiable and that two high-intensity lights be installed to illuminate the crosswalk, as well as the prohibition of' right- turns on the red signal for east to southbound traffic at the La Palma Avenue and Harbor Boulevard intersection, which is expected to eliminate six to eight vehicles per signal cycle, thereby increasing the traffic gaps at this partic- ular crosswalk. On motion by Councilman Stephenson, seconded by Councilman Sneegas, the City Council authorized implementation of the recommendations presented by the City Engineer regarding striping, additional lighting and right-turn re- strictions to insure the safety of pedestrians in the Harbor Boulevard-La Verne Street crosswalk. MOTION CARRIED. CITY PIANNING COMMISSION ITEMS: Actions taken by the City Planning Commission at their meeting held January 21, 1974, pertaining to the following applications were submitted for City Council information and consideration: 1. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT EXEMPTION STATUS: As recommended by the City Planning Commission, on motion by Councilman Pebley, seconded by Councilman Sneegas, it was the finding of the City Council that the impact of the projects in the following zoning applications would be trivial in nature and that no environmental impact reports or statements be required: Variance No. 2573 Variance No. 2574 Variance No. 2575 Conditional Use Permit No. 1166 Conditional Use Permit No. 1442 Conditional Use Permit No. 1449 MOTION CARRIED. 2. VARIANCE NO. 2573: Submitted by Donald F. Lewis to permit an existing car- port and a semi-enclosed patio structure on R-1 zoned property located at 2057 West Romneya Drive,on the north side of Romneya Drive, west of Holly Street, with waivers of: a. Minimum front yard setback. b. Minimum side yard setback. c. Maximum lot coverage. The City Planning Commission pursuant to Resolution No. PC74-15, granted said variance in part only, denying waivers "b" and "c" and granting waiver "a", subject to conditions. 3. VARIANCE NO. 2574: Submitted by L. J. and P. E. Holmberg,A1 Roberts Ply- mouth, Inc., and Franchise Realty Interstate Corp., to establish a second free- standing sign on C-l, C-3 and P-L zoned property located on the north side of Ball Road, west of Anaheim Boulevard, with waivers of: a. Maximum permitted number of free-standing signs. b. Minimum distance between free-standing signs. c. Maximum area of free-standing sign. (Withdrawn) d. Location of free-standing sign. The City Planning Commission pursuant to Resolution No. PC74-17, granted said variance in part, granting waivers "a", "b" and "d", waiver "c" having been withdrawn,subject to conditions. 4. VARIANCE NO. 2575: Submitted by James F. Ousterhout and Philipe E. Delgado, to permit the replacement and installation of automobile vinyl tops and protec- tive side mouldings on M-1 zoned property located on the south side of Howell Avenue, east of State College Boulevard, with waiver of: a. Permitted uses. The City Planning Commission pursuant to Resolution No. PC74-16, granted said variance subject to conditions. 74-145 City Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - February 12~ 1974~ 1:30 P.M. 5. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 1166: Submitted by W. R. and Patricia Miller, to permit bus storage and repair facilities and the incidental rental of auto- mobiles on C-2 zoned property located on the south side of Katella Way, west of Mountain View Avenue. The City Planning Commission pursuant to Resolution No. PC74-14, granted said conditional use permit for a period of one year subject to con- ditionso 6. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NOo 1442: Submitted by State Industries, to estab- lish a planned unified industrial service center including a motel, restaurant and retail service shops on County 100-MI-20,000 zoned property on the south side of La Palma Avenue, west of Kraemer Boulevard, with waivers of: a. Permitted uses. (Withdrawn) b. Minimum number of required parking spaces. c. Types of signs permitted. (Wi thdr awn) The City Planning Commission,pursuant to Resolution Noo PC74-13, granted said conditional use permit in part, waivers "a" and "b" having been withdrawn, granting waiver "c" subject to conditions. 7. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 1449: Submitted by Leonard G. Smith to estab- lish an outdoor recreational vehicle storage yard on M-1 zoned property on the west side of Claudina Street, north of Santa Ana Street, with waivers of: ao Screening adjacent to residential zone° h. Enclosure of outdoor uses. c. Off-street parking. d. Permitted free-standing sign locat~on~ The City Planning Commission pursuan~' to Resolution No. PC74-22, granted said conditio~al use permit subject to conditions. 8. CONDITIONAL USE ?ERMIT NO. 1131 - TERMINATION: Submitted by John Tanner, Lin-Brook Hardware, requesting termination of said conditional use permit which was approved to permit outside storage of building material on M-1 zoned prop- erty located ~n the northeast corner of Broadway and Loara Street. The City Planning Commission pursuant to Resolution Noo PC74-23, terminated said conditional use permit. 9o CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 1359 - EXTENSION OF TIME: Submitted by Leo Freedman requesting a one-year extension of time for completion of the required conditions, to establish a Ill-foot high addition to an existing hotel on R-A zoned property located at the southeast corner of Harbor Boulevard and Freedman Way. The City Planning Commission,by motion granted a one-year extension of time to Conditional Use Permit No. 1359, to expire January 4, 1975. The foregoing applications were reviewed by the City Council and no further action taken. 10. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 1436~ ENVIRON~IENTAL IMPACT REPORT NO. 108 AND TENTATIVE MAPS~ TRACT NOS. 8455 AND 8456: Submitted by Anaheim Hills, Inc., and Texaco Ventures, Inc., for certain Code waivers to permit the establishment of a ll6-unit, one-and two-story planned residential development on R-A zoned property located on the north and south sides of Canyon Rim Road, east of Nohl Ranch Road, together with Tentative Tract Nos. 8455 and 8456; developer of Tract Nos. 8455 and 8456--American Housing Guild. Tract No. 8455 contains 69 proposed R-2 zoned lots; Tract No° 8456 contains 47 proposed R-2 zoned lots. The City Planning Commission pursuant to Resolution No. PC74-12, granted Conditional Use Permit No. 1436,subject to conditions,and recommended adoption of Environmental Impact Report No. 108. At their meeting held January 21, 1974, the City Planning Cormnission approved Tentative Maps, Tract Nos. 8455 and 8456, subject to conditions. 74-146 City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - February 12, 1974, 1:30 P.M. The City Clerk submitted a communication from Mr. Tim Burrell for the firm of Young, Henrie and McCarthy, 100 Pomona Mall West, Pomona, stating that on behalf of the Orange Unified School District they wished to appeal the decision of the City Planning Commission on Conditional Use Permit No. 1436 and Tentative Tract Nos. 8455 and 8456, as well as the recommendation that the City Council adopt E.I.R. No. 108 as its Environmental Impact Statement. (Said letter was not accompanied by an appeal fee.) Zoning Supervisor Roberts reported that the representative of Anaheim Hills, Inc., and Texaco Ventures, Inc., had informed him just prior to this meeting of their wish to withdraw said conditional use permit, tentative tracts and environmental impact report from consideration and that written con- firmation to this effect would be forwarded. At the request of Council, Mr. John Milleck, Anaheim Hills, Inc./ Texaco Ventures, Inc., advised that their company wished to withdraw and ter- minate all proceedings under Conditional Use Permit No. 1436, Tentative Maps, Tract Nos. 8455 and 8456 and Environmental Impact Report No. 108. He reported that this property would undoubtedly be developed by a different builder and that an entirely different application and new plans would be submitted. On motion by Councilman Stephenson, seconded by Councilman Dutton, the City Council authorized the withdrawal of Conditional Use Permit No. 1436, Tentative Maps, Tract Nos. 8455 and 8456 and Environmental Impact Report No. 108 from consideration and terminated all proceedings in connection therewith. MOTION CARRIED. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT NO. 110: At the request of Councilman Pebley, at the end of this meeting, the following discussion and action relative to Environmental Impact Report No. 110 was ordered recorded verbatim. The following was tran- scribed fromatape recording of this meeting. CITY CLERK: "Environmental Impact Report No. 110-- COUNCILMAN THOM: Noo 1107 MAYOR DUTTON: 110. CITY CLERK: 110, Supplemental to E.I.R. 80. Property located in the east-central portion of Anaheim Hills on the south side of Canyon Rim Road° This is in conjunction with 73-74-31, Variance 2569, and Tentative Tracts 8463, 64, 65 and 66. City Planning Commission has recommended--- MAYOR DUTTON: Council adopt it as their statement. COUNCII2~AN THOM: They reco~Lmtended its adoption in conjunction with the Orange Unified School District's letter dated November 27tho CITY CLERK: They recommend--they find and determine that the E.I.R. Review Commit- tee determined that the report is adequate as an informative document and follows the City's established guidelines, and that there would be no signifi- cant adverse environmental impacts, and, therefore, the Planning Commission recommends to the City Council that said Report be adopted as the Council's Environmental Impact Statement. COUNCIIMAN STEPHENSON: They were taking into account what the Orange Unified School District said when they did that, right? COUNCII~MAN SNEEGAS: In conjunction with comments CITY CLERK: There is no mention of the Orange Unified School District's letter in the Planning Commission's motion. MAYOR DUTTON: They're confusing that with probably 108, or whatever it was. COUNCILMAN THOM: Here on the recommendation it-- 74-14 7 City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - February 12, 1974, 1:30 P.M. CITY CLERK: The information on the agenda was obtained prior to getting the actual excerpts of the Minutes of the Planning Commission, and the Planning Commission Minutes do not indicate--- COUNCILMAN THOM: That they considered the letter in their recommendation? CITY CLERK: It's before you there, I handed out a copy. COUNCILMAN THOM: You did? MAYOR DUTTON: You got it the same time you got page No. 1 of the agenda CITY CLERK: Also, I have a request from Mr. Tim Burrell of the firm of Young, Henrie & McCarthy. "On behalf of the Orange Unified School District,we hereby request that the hearing on E.I.R. No. 110 be continued to coincide with the hearings on approval of tentative tract maps, variance, and reclassification associated with this project. If this continuance is not granted,we would like to be heard concerning our objections to EoI.R. No. 110." These letters from Mr. Burrell were received during the noon hour today in our office. MR. ROBERTS (ZONING SUPERVISOR): Mr. Mayor, perhaps just a slight explanation of this would be in order. When E.IoR. No. 110 first came before the Planning Commission,it was in conjunction with Reclassification No. 73-74-31, Variance 2569 and Tracts 8463 through 8466. At the Planning Commission hearing the appli- cants requested that the zoning cases be continued to a later date,but they did request that the Planning Commission make a reco~mL~endation to the City Council with regard to the environmental impact report. MAYOR DUTTON: Which they did. They recommended it. MR. ROBERTS: Right. It is my understanding that the primary reason that Anaheim Hills requested that action be taken on the environmental impact report was in order that they could go ahead and commence grading of the site prior to consideration of the zoning request on the property. MAYOR DUTTON: OK. What's your pleasure? CITY CLERK: Planning Commission has continued the reclassification, variance and tentative tracts to their March 4th meeting. COUNCILMAN PEBLEY: I move the Environmental Impact Report be .... COUNCILMAN THOM: I think we had a request for someone to address themselves to this. COUNCILMAN PEBLEY: Well, I'd like to move it be approved subject to Planning Commission's recommendations. COUNCILMAN THOM: I would like to hear what the inputs are before we act on the motion MAYOR DUTTON: Ail right MARLENE FOX: Mayor Dutton, if I may, Marlene Fox, repreBenting Anaheim Hills, my office address is 610 Newport Center Drive, California, and on behalf of the applicant in this matter,we will oppose Mr. Burrell's motion to continue this hearing. I think Mr. Burrell is well acquainted with the customs when it comes to a continuance and the applicant was given no notification of this request. They are here today; they are prepared to present this matter; and I think it would be more than inconvenient to ask them to come back at another time, and I have made time on my calender to be here today. If Mr. Burrell wanted a continuance, the proper and courteous thing for him to do would have been to either contact the applicant or to contact me, neither of which he did. For those reasons, the applicant opposes the continuance and asks the Council's indulgence to go ahead with this matter as it's scheduled on the agenda. I understand that on the agenda for next Tuesday are several other matters, Mr. John McCarthy, one of the partners from the firm with which Mr. Burrell is associated, will be here for the purpose of a rehearing,and we'll 74-14 8 City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - February. 12, 1974~ 1:30 P,M, be appearing on another matter. If you will recall the last time we were before you,we imposed a great deal on your time and it turned out to be a rather lengthy Council meeting. If you will be taking up two matters in which we will both be involved next week, the same thing, I am afraid, will again happen. I think it would be impossible for your schedule to consider three matters at the same time. For those reasons,I request that we go ahead with this today. Thank you. MAYOR DUTTON: Thank you. COUNCILMAN THOM: Mrs. Fox, I believe Councilman Pebley had already made a motion on the E.I.R., so obviously they weren't considering any continuance. MARLENE FOX: Well then, I'm out of order, is that correct? COUNCILMAN THOM: No, not at all. MAYOR DUTTON: No, you've been heard, and we have this gentlemen, Mr. Burrell, we're going to hear him too, then we'll act. MARLENE FOX: I'm a little confused then where we are, would you care to enlighten me. COUNCILMAN PEBLEY: I didn't know this was a public hearing. I just thought it was something before the City Council. MAYOR DUTTON: Well, they came up here and you know we don't deny anyone the right to be heard. COUNCII24AN PEBLEY: This was passed by the Planning Commission, rec~m~ended for approval by the Council, and I didn't know it was a public hearing. I just moved that we approve it,subject to Planning Commission recommendation. COUNCILMAN STEPHENSON: It isn't on the agenda. MAYOR DUTTON: We are wasting a lot of time, because we've heard her, now lets listen to Mr. Burrell and then we can act, if any. MARLENE FOX: Well, I apologize to the Council if I've been up here and spoken out of order, that certainly wasn't my intention. MAYOR DUTTON: It's all right. Now equal time over here. Mit. BURRELL: Thank you Mayor Dutton, I am Tim Burrell, our office address is 100 Pomona Mall West in Pomona, and concerning this continuance, discussing the--- COUNCILMAN STEPHENSON: Will you pull the microphone up a little closer to you please. MR. BURRELL: Thank you. Concerning the continuance, Orange Unified School District received notice of this action late Friday. They notified us Monday. This is why everything has been rather hurried in getting the preparations made to have a presentation concerning this environmental impact report. As Marlene Fox indicated, it does result in a rather lengthy, involved, complicated hearing when consideration of an environmental impact report is taken up in the Anaheim Hills area. Therefore, we were thinking it would be polite to save the Council's time if we considered this particular issue in its entirety at one particular hearing rather than going through the environmental impact report then coming back on the tentative tracts, the variance, the changes in zoning so that we wouldn't have to rehash these things twice. I feel that if we had the con- sideration in conjunction with the approvals of the items for which this envir- onmental impact report was actually prepared, that the Council would be faced with the particular issue once, instead of seeing it twice and getting involved in timing. Now, COUNCILMAN PEBLEY: Well sir, wasn't this before the Commission two or three weeks ago? On this particular item the Commission had a public hearing, didn't they, and approved it? MR. BURRELL: I believe it was, and I am informed that 74-149 City Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - February 12~ 1974~ 1:30 P.Mo COUNCIIMAN PEBLEY: And you said you didn't know about it until Friday, but I mean the Commission had this thing two or three weeks ago. MR. BURRELL: Yes, we didn't know it was scheduled on your agenda today COUNCIIaMAN PEBLEY: It's automatic, it comes here within 22 days, I think. MR. BURRELL: I understand that today-- COUNCILMAN FEBLEY: Automatically we get it in 22 days so, to me this is not a public hearing. COUNCILMAN SNEEGAS: I think we ought to point out,for just a moment, that in our packet here is a letter dated November 27th from the Orange School District on this very EoI.R. I'm all for having everybody say their piece, but I think just these constant delays and this maneuvering has got to come to a cease and halt. Either everybody gets on the ball and gets their oar in at the proper time and we continue the thing moving or we're going to find ourselves about three months down the road with about 35 public hearings a day. I don't think it's going to change things a whole lot. MR. BURRELL: Councilman Sneegas, concerning that particular issue, if you would like to discuss the environmental impact report currently~ we are fully pre- pared to go into the inadequacies of the report. However, if I am not permit- ted to do so I feel-- MAYOR DUT%ON: This is not a public hearing, but out of courtesy to hear you, we'll give you equal time COUNCILMAN SNEEGAS: Did you take that opportunity at the Planning Commission hearing? MR. BURRELL: We had representatives of the Orange Unified School District at the Planning Commission hearing. They criticized the environmental impact report and recommended it not be approved. One of the major problems with this par- ticular report is it does not fully discuss the fact that by allowing the grading to proceed on this area right next to the reservoir, that the Council will be,in some degree,committed to allowing further development of that par- ticular property, in that when a future assessment of the environmental impacts is made of the development on the property next to that reservoir, that the property will already have been graded under an approval in this environmental impact report. This report itself should deal fully with the impacts that would be generated by a proposed development on that graded portion of the property. No major consideration is given to that other than traffic. In the traffic study I feel they have done an adequate job on this particular aspect of traffic alone. There are other problems that if we could go into this in detail, I would be glad to point out page by page the individual problems with this report. However, just as, to get my two cents in if I am not even allowed to speak-- MAYOR DUTTON: You've got a nickel's worth already, MR, BURP, ELL: Ail right, I-- COUNCIIMAN PEBLEY: Sir, let me interrupt you. I'd like to ask Charlie Roberts, did our Environmental Committee go over this thing before it was passed on to the Planning Commission, like they normally do? MR. ROBERTS: Yeg, it was reviewed by the Environmental Impact Review Committee, and their report and recommendation went to the Planning Commission. The Commission considered that report,as well as the letter that was submitted by the Orange Unified School District, and it was based on all of that material that they gave their recommendation to the Council. COUNCILMAN PEBLEY: So you're saying, as an attorney, you know more about it than this whole Committee and the Planning Commission. 74-150 City Hall~ Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - February 12~ 1974~ 1:30 P.M. Mit. BURRELL: Well sir, what I am trying to do is to point out what I feel are the inadequacies in the report. If you happen to feel that those particular items have any merit,then we can avoid any kind of litigation on this issue because you would just have the environmental impact report modified. If I'm not per- mitted to present those particular arguments at this time, then I will be forced to present them wherever I can. MAYOR DUTTON: You've registered your protest, as the other side did. Ok. Counselor? MR. WATTS (CITY ATTORNEY): Mr. Mayor, there is one area here where I think it might be appropriate. If Mr. Burrell has something new and different that wasn't presented at the Planning Commission, I think it would be appropriate for you to hear whatever that might be, I don't know-- MAYOR DUTTON: Do you have anything new and different or do we have to go back through the whole ball of wax? MRo BURRELL: I have a number of ideas that were presented not in my particular style at the Planning Commission meeting. I have a number of different thoughts-- COUNCILMAN STEPHENSON: Whether it was your style--or whose style, was it presented? MRo BURP, ELL: There are items that Mr. Roger Wilson has just informed me they have come up with;new information that was not available at the Planning Commission meeting;and he would like to talk to you on that particular information. COUNCILMAN STEPH~NSON: Why don't we hear that then, not your version of it, but what is new. MR° BURRELL: Right, in addition to that, there are other legal objections to this particular report that I would be glad to discuss with the Council,but if I'm not permitted to be heard,then that's your prerogative. MAYOR DUTTON: Let's hear this gentleman with something new and different. ROGER WILSON: Mro Mayor and Councilmen, I do have another letter, MAYOR DUTTON: Would you give us your name and address please? ROGER WILSON: Excuse me, I thought you knew, Roger Wilson, Orange Unified School District, I do. I would like to present my information in letter form, and again I would like to be permitted to read it to you. It is new and different. "Subject: School Impact Report Regarding E.I.R. 110, Gentlemen: The Orange Unified School District is opposed to the approval of E.I.R. 110 until sufficient school facilities are available to serve the students generated. The E.I.R. is inadequate in the following respects. This project contains 163 single-family dwellings estimated to gen- erate 155 new students." Based on the dwelling ratios our Master Plan gave us from the consul- tantso Master plan of June 1973, which is .95 per dwelling. Going on; "The project is approximately 5 miles walking distance from Nohl Canyon Elementary School. The December 19, 1973 enrollment report shows Nohl Canyon to be only 114 students below capacity. The school will probably be overcrowded before completion of these homes, and surrounding elementary schools are at capacity. Unless funds become available to build the elementary school needed to serve these students prior to the construction of Tracts Nos. 8463, 8464, 8465 and 8466, the School District may be forced to plan double sessions at Nohl Canyon or provide bussing to schools some distance from Santa Aha Canyon/ Anaheim Hills where classroom space is available." Please bear with me, the information will get different as we go along, you've heard some of this. 74-15] City Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - February 12~ 1974~ 1:30 P.M. "The OUSD Master Plan dated June 1973, prepared by Davis, MacConnell, Ralston, Division of the Westinghouse Learning Corporation, shows a need for three elementary school sites over the next five years. The Master Plan shows a projected gain in the Santa Ana Canyon/Anaheim Hills area of 461 students in school year 1973-74, and a total of 1,003 students by school year 1974-75. OUSD realizes that the City of Anaheim has approved approximately 2,000 dwelling units on tentative tract maps since October of 1971 in the Anaheim Hills and approximately 1,200 more have been approved in the Santa Ana Canyon area during the same period MAYOR DUTTON: Mr. Wilson, will you get to something new and different cause we've heard all of this. ROGER WILSON: Let me finish please. MAYOR DUTTON: This is an abuse of your privilege up here, and I don't appreciate that .... ROGER WILSON: Councilmen, I'm not trying to abuse the time here, I'm not trying abuse the time, I heard .... MAYOR DUTTON: Well then, get to something new and different because we've heard all this many times; we've been furnished these documents and this information~ ROGER WILSON: OK, well, the next paragraph is something new and different and I didn't want to change the thought of the entire trend that I wanted to give you today. MAYOR DUTTON: Well its repetitious because we've heard it a number of times and we've been furnished that information° COUNCIIMAN THOM: If we quit interrupting him,maybe he'll get done° COUNCILMAN STEPHENSON: I think this is just a delaying action, myself. I don't think he has anything new and different. ROGER WILSON: This is a two-page letter Councilmen, I don't think it would take very long if you would just let me finish° COUNCII~N THOM: Right, I concur. ROGER WILSON: "The OUSD school building funds will be exhausted upon completion of the new E1 Rancho Junior High School. This school is expected to be in operation for the school year 1975-76, and will have a capacity of 1,000 students. The school is located in the Santa Ana Canyon near Mohler Drive and Santa Ana Canyon Road. Since October, 1971, this City Council has approved approximately 3,200 dwelling units on tentative tract maps that are not yet under construction. The OUSD Master Plan indicates that the District will receive .25 students per dwelling from this area. This means that 800 new junior high students have been approved from previous tentative tract maps alone, and this project would increase that number by 31 students. The School District will not have adequate classroom space for an increase of 831 junior high students prior to September 1975 since Vista Del Rio Junior High is al.- ready beyond capacity." This is new and different. "The full development of the Anaheim Hills, Inc.,of the 1,900 acres of the total 4,200 acres,is estimated to have the following impact on schools: At four-dwelling units per acre, a total of 7,600 students will produce 3,800 students requiring 6.2 elementary schools, 1,900 students requiring 2.0 junior high schools, and 1,900 students requiring 1+ high schools. We respectfully recommend that the City of Anaheim consider phasing growth to coincide wi~ the ability of the District to provide school facilities in the area. On March 5, 1974, OUSD will have a school bond election. Residents will be for $19 million in ~istrict bonds: $15.4 million for new construction and sites; and $3.6 million for renovation of the District's older schools." 74-15 2 City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - February 12, 1974, 1:30 P.M. I know you're impatient so I'll skip on. You know what the bond election is. It's coming up on March 5th. Ok, we'll move on down. "The School District needs sufficient time for planning and construc- tion of school facilities. It takes approximately 18 to 24 months to buy sites, plan, build and occupy new elementary schools after funds become available. The Environmental Impact Report makes no adequate statement on the impact of this development and the entire plan of Anaheim Hills regarding air quality." I'll skip on. "We also object to the attempt to incorporate by reference Environ- mental Impact Report No. 80. The information in that document is not adequate in any of the above respects, and in addition, has not in fact been read or considered by the City of Anaheim since its adoption on May 22, 1973." The final parapraph is, "The District is hopeful that the City of Anaheim will evaluate E.I.R. 110 to give full regard to all aspects of the Environmental Impact Re- port including the ability of the District to provide schools. Very truly yours, Harry H. Platt, Business Manager of the School District." Do you have any questions of me? MAYOR DUTTON: I just have one statement, Mr. Wilson, because your information must be new and different, it's contrary to a letter I just saw where the same · organization, OUSD, was pointing out a deficiency in another environmental im- pact report, wherein they said they need 4 elementary schools, and the Orange High School District said they only need 3, so now you have six. I don't know, I've been through all this, where the original one called for 1§ sites up there and then they came back and said they only need a total of 4o This is fluctuating back and forth, and I'm in the position of feeling .... ROGER WILSON: Well we've presented the Master Plan to the City of Anaheim. MAYOR DUTTON: We're playing some kind of a game here for quite a while, and-- ROGER WILSON: I don't think so. MAYOR DU%~fON: I think so. ROGER WILSON: I think we've presented the Master Plan of 1973, June 1973, to the City Manager and to the Director of Development Services and that's what I've been stating, is what's coming out of that Master Plan. COUNCII~tA_N SNEEGAS: That's exactly the point that we're considering at this moment, the EoI.R. on page 22, 23 and 24, spells out exactly what you have read to us~ and it is being considered. ROGER WILSON: It does not totally spell that out, sir, There is a paragraph there telling you about the latest information regarding the junior high school. It also-- COUNCILMAN SNEEGAS: I guess our determination is to decipher whether it spells it out sufficiently or not, and that's what we're doing at this point, I believe, is determining whether the EoIoR. is sufficient to answer all the problems that are there° ROGER WILSON: Councilman Sneegas, we're concerned with that 3,200 dwelling units that have been approved on tentative tract maps since October of '71 where con- struction has not yet started. COUNCILMAN SNEEGAS: We're concerned with that also, and the key to that is, 1971, and the problem is, we see nothing from the School District saying we need this site, that site, or anything else. When are you people going to say this is where it has to be and start doing it? That's what our concern is. We don't want to go on approving them either, but I think we have an obligation to the 74- 153 City Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - February 12~ 1974~ 1:30 PoM. landowner regardless of whether he's big, small or indifferent, for government to stay up with what is happening in the area. And that's where I really sit, is let's get government moving to stay with it and not just continually drop road blocks in an effort to delay it. ROGER WILSON: Councilman, when we get a bond election passed and we have the approval of the voters to purchase more sites, we'll be sending you letters and showing you the location where we need more elementary schools, but until that time, we cannot. COUNCII~ PEBLEY: Why didn't you have this election, sir, in 1971, March of '71 instead of March of '74? ROGER WILSON: Because we-- COUNCILMAN PEBLEY: 1970, I believe in October, Anaheim Hills was sold to the Grant Corporation, October of '70. And like I told you before, if Lusk would have bought the whole thing, or O'Neill and Dr. Cella, or Mission Viejo, if they had bought the whole thing,I don't care which developer would had bought it in 1970 of October, you guys ought to have known it was going to be developed° ROGER WILSON: We passed a bond election, sir. COUNCILMAN PEBLEY: Maybe if Dr. Cella and O'Neill had bought it, maybe we wouldn't have this problem, I don't know. ROGER WILSON: We passed a bond election in 1970 which is now becoming exhausted with the completion of construction of the Mohler Junior High School and with the completion of construction there, our funds from that bond election will be exhausted and we can only pass bond elections when we can show an obvious need to the voters because it is increasing their tax rate. COUNCILMAN PEBLEY: Now wait, I don't buy that. I was on the school board and I passed a bond election 5 years before we built 5 schools and we got ahead and got going and buying the sites. ROGER WILSON: You were very fortunate. COUNCILMAN PEBLEY: If you would have sold the people up there in Orange in 1971 of March that here, this developer has bought 4,200 acres, people. In order for us to keep off of double session, in order for use to give your kids the education we would like them to have, and you want them to have; I feel that your people in March of '71 would have passed the bond election. Maybe you guys dropped the ball. MAYOR DUTTON: Mr. Wilson, let me-- ROGER WILSON: No comment MAYOR DUTTON: Mr. Wilson, I want to wrap this up, but I want to tell you how I assess the situation. What you people are saying, don't build any schools, I mean don't build any homes until we build the schools, but we're not going to build any schools 'til there's a demand for it, and so you're falling into the zero population growth; people up there saying they don't want any more growth. ROGER WILSON: Oh, no sir, no Mayor, we have one paragraph in this letter. I've been reading this letter over and over, I think that's why we need to read it over and over, is we have a recommendation in here for a possible alternative as a solution to the problem, and that is to face the growth. MAYOR DUTTON: The solution to the problem, as far as you people are concerned, is to do nothing, so there's where we stand. COUNCILMAN T~DM: I think that's an unfair statement. ROGER WILSON: I don' t think that' s a fair statement. 74-154 City Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - February 12~ 1974~ 1:30 P.M. MAYOR DUTTON: No, it is not an unfair statement. COUNCILMAN THOM: No--- COUNCIlMAN PEBLEY: For three years now--- COUNCIIAMAN THOM: Obviously what the situation is here right now is you have four Councilmen sitting here who have received their instructions on how to vote from the developer. COUNCILMAN SNEEGAS: Oh, get off of it! COUNCILMAN STEPH~NSON: That' s a damn lie, Thom. MAYOR DUTTON: An unqualified lie. COUNCILMAN SNEEGAS: Do your campaigning out in the other-- COUNCILMAN STEPHENSON: That's a damn lie. COUNCILMAN SNEEGAS: Go out in the street and do your campaigning, not here. We're considering an E.I.R. report and what is--our obligation is to go on with it. COUNCILMAN THOM: Then why don't we give him a chance to get his inputs in? COUNCILMAN SNEEGAS: I think we have, over and over and over we have. COUNCILMAN STEPHENSON: What a liar. You are one. MAYOR DUTTON: Boy, he's number one. COUNCILMAN SNEEGAS: I think we've heard it just about often enough. I think what we need to do is let's get the thing in gear and start doing it. COUNCILMAN STEPHENSON: One thing that you're doing too, Mr. Wilson, with your meetings with the Homeowner's Association and Councilman Thom who attends all of them with a couple more of his henchmen, the way that you're protesting, and the way that you're handling it, you know very well those bonds won't pass because you're advocating it. ROGER WILSON: I disagree with you, Councilman. COUNCILMAN STEPHENSON: Well you don't, and you know that's the truth. ROGER WILSON: I disagree with you. I'm here solely, giving you the information that's available to the School District. COUNCILMAN STEPHENSON: Anyone out there who would vote for the bonds after listening to you and Thom and the rest of them, would be foolish. MAYOR DUTTON: Ok, fine, we've heard it, thank you very much° ROGER WILSON: Thank you. MAYOR DUTTON: Thank you very much, what's the action? COUNCILMAN PEBLEY: I had a motion, I didn't have a second. COUNCIIMAN SNEEGAS: I ? 11 second it. MAYOR DUTTON: Moved and seconded, all in favor. COUNCILMF~N: Ayes - Dutton, Pebley, Sneegas, Stephenson. Noes - Thom MAYOR DUTTON: Register Thorn's usual "no". 74-155 City Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - February 12~ 1974~ 1:30 P.M. COUNCIII~AN PEBLEY: Next Item MAYOR DUTTON: OK CITY CLERK: Your motion then approves E.I.R.,--or adopts Environmental Impact Report No. 110 as your statement. Correct? COUNCILMAN SNEEGAS: Yes MAYOR DUTTON: That's right, Council's statement." (For additional comments relative to this discussion, see Minute page 74-164.) PROPOSED AMENDMENT TO TITLE 18 - BUILDING LINE SETBACKS: On motion by Councilman Sneegas, seconded by Councilman Dutton, public hearing was scheduled March 5, 1974, 1:30 P.M. to consider repeal of Chapter 18.84 - Building Line Setbacks. MOTION CARRIED. RECLASSIFICATION NOS° 73-74-15~ 73-74-1 AND 73-74-9 - AMENDMENT OF LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Submitted were City Planning Commission Resolution Nos. PC74-24, PC74-25 and PC74-26 adopted to amend the legal descriptions of property originally used by the City Planning Commission in Reclassification Nos. 73-74-15, 73-74-1 and 73-74-9 respectively, nunc pro tunc. RESOLUTION NO. 74R-58: Councilman Dutton offered Resolution No. 74R58 for adoption. Refer to Resolution Book. A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AMENDING RESOLU- TION NO. 73R-522, NUNC PRO TUNC, BY CORRECTING THE DESCRII~flON OF THE PROPERTY INVOLVED° (73-74-1) Roll Call Vote: AYES: COUNCILMEN: NOES: COUNCILMEN: ABSENT: COUNCILMEN: Stephenson, Sneegas, Pebley, Thom and Dutton None None The Mayor declared Resolution No. 74R-58 duly passed and adopted° ORDINANCE NO. 3265: Councilman Dutton offered Ordinance NOo 3265 for first reading. AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AMENDING ORDINANCE NO. 3251, NUNC PRO TUNC, RELATING TO ZONING. (73-74-1) APPROVAL OF FLOOR PLANS AND ELEVATIONS - TRACT NOS. 7617~ 7730~ LOT NOS. 1 THROUGH 6~ TRACT NO. 7734: (Continued from the meeting of February 5, 1974 at which time the ordinances to rezone the property were introduced because of serious timing problems on the part of the developers, with the understanding that said ordin- ances (Nos. 3262 and 3263 would not be adopted until the floor plans and ele- vations for these tracts were reviewed and approved by the City Council.) Mr. Roberts reported that the property under consideration is a por- tion of the 125 acres included within the original Reclassification No. 71-72-30 located on the north side of Santa Aha Canyon Road. The Applicants are now attempting to satisfy the one remaining condition of approval for R-1 zoning, that of approval of the floor plans and elevations by the City Council. He noted that the developer of Tract No. 7617 hasalso acquired 6 lots (Nos. 1 through 6) of Tract No. 7730 on which he intends to build his model complex because of its location at the major entry into the subdivision from Santa Aha Canyon Road. Mr. Roberts advised that there are two developers currently requesting approval of floor plans and elevations--Ayres and Son and Classic Development Company. These companies have submitted floor plans for five and six different 74-156 ~all, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - February 12, 1974, 1:30 P.M. models,respectively,as well as an outline and description of building materials to be used, together with photogrsphs submitted by Ayres and Son of similar homes built in another part of the County. Photographs, elevations, floor plans and building material specifica- tions were reviewed at the Council Table. Mro Roberts reported that Development Services Department recon~nends that the floor plans and elevations submitted be approved and that final read- ing of the ordinance for Tract No. 7617 and Lot Nos. 1 through 6 of Tract No. 7730 proceed, but that adoption of the ordinance rezoning the property within the remainder of Tract No. 7730 be withheld until Classic Development Company submits and Council approves floor plans and elevations for this portion of the tract. Councilman Pebley moved that the floor plans and elevations submitted for Tract Noo 7617 and Lot Nos. 1 through 6 of Tract No. 7730, and Tract No. 7734 be approved as recommended. Councilman Sneegas seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. ORDINANCE NOo 3262: Councilman Pebley offered Ordinance No. 3262 for adoption. Refer to Ordinance Book. AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AMENDING TITLE 18 OF THE ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO ZONING. (71-72-30 (1) - R-l, Tract No. 7617 and Lot Nos. 1 through 6 of Tract No. 7730.) Roll Call Vote: AYES: COUNCILMEN: Stephenson, Sneegas, Pebley, Thom and Dutton NOES: COUNCILMEN: None ABSENT: COUNCIIMEN: None The Mayor declared Ordinance No. 3262 duly passed and adopted. REQUEST FOR NIGHT MEETING REGARDING RECLASSIFICATION NO. 73-74-27, E.I.R. NO. 107~ VARIANCE NOo 2565 AND TENTATIVE TRACT NO. 8511~ REVISION NO. 1: The City Clerk sub- mitted a letter from Mrs. Janice Jones, 1914 Elder Glen, requesting to address the City Council for the purpose of asking them to reconsider the previously denied request for a night meeting concerning Reclassification No. 73-74-27, EoI.R. No. 107, Variance No. 2565 and Tentative Tract No. 8511, Revision No. 1. Mrs. Fattens reported that the public hearing on this reclassification and variance has been scheduled and advertised for February 19, 1974 at 1:30 P.M. Mrs. Jones advised that she represents 300 homeowners who are very concerned regarding the effect which the development of the proposed Tract No. 8511 will have on their life style° She stated that they are all working people and have already attended three City Planning Commission meetings during the day and they consider that further daytime meetings will prove to be a hardship. Therefore she respectfully requested that the public hearing on subject reclass- ification be held in the evening so that their views could be represented. Councilmen Sneegas and Stephenson both expressed the opinion, based upon comments they had received, that most of the concern was due to the proposal to extend a through street in conjunction with this project. Councilman~Sneegas remarked that he would be hesitant to hold such a night meeting if it would create false hopes that this street would not be extended, whereas it most likely is necessary to improve the circulation pattern of the area and would be extended regardless of what is built on subject property. Mrs. Jones advised that they had other objections to the proposed pro- ject aside from the extension of the through street. She stated that to date neither herself nor any of the other adjacent property owners had received notice of the forthcoming hearing by mail,and they had not observed any posted notices on the property. The City Clerk advised, after checking the file,, that the property had been posted and notices mailed on Thursday, February 7, 1974. 74-15 7 City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - February 12, 1974, 1:30 P.M, Mro Murdoch pointed out that the City employs three methods of public notification in all zoning actions, i.e., posting of the property; mailed notices to all property owners within 300 feet; and legal notice in a newspaper of general circulation; whereas the latter is the only notice required by the law. Councilman Stephenson remarked that from his experience the viewpoint of the opposition can be as effectively presented with a few spokesmen in the afternoon as with many speakers in the evening, since certainly all 300 indi- viduals would not be required to express these objections. Councilman Thom moved that the request for night meeting on Reclass- ification No. 73-74-27, E.I.Ro No. 107, Variance No. 2565 and Tentative Tract Map No. 8511, Revision No. 1, be granted. Said motion died for lack of a second. No further action was taken by the City Council. FINAL MAP~ TRACT NO. 8417: Developer, Foley Construction Company; tract located on the north side of Vermont Avenue, south side of Tyrol Place, westerly of State College Boulevard; containing 12 RS-5000 zoned lots. The City Engineer recommended approval and reported that said final map conforms substantially with the tentative map previously approved, that bond has been forwarded to the City Attorney for approval and required fees paid. On recommendation of the City Engineer, Councilman Dutton moved that Final Map, Tract No. 8417,be approved subject to approval of required bond by the City Attorney. Councilman Sneegas seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. CHANGE ORDER NO. 1 - WORK ORDER NO. 5538: Report from the City Engineer recommend- ing approval of Change Order No. 1 (increase of $174,779.22) and describing extra work items to be added to the Lewis Street Substation was submitted for Council consideration. In answer to Councilman Sneegas, Mr. George Edwards, Electrical Superintendent, indicated that this is not truly an increase in the contract amount, but that this project with the increase recommended today approved would still be within the budgeted estimate. However, he advised that at the time that the contract went to bid, certain information relating to 230 equip- ment was not available. The consultants, Bechtel Power Corporation, issued the drawings with all information available at that time so that the construc- tion schedule could be maintained and this portion was added to the job at a later date. On report and recommendation of the City Engineer, Councilman Sneegas moved that Change Order No. 1, Work Order No. 5538, consisting of increasing the amount by $174,779.22,be authorized. Councilman Dutton seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. trOBLIC IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS: Councilman Pebley offered Resolution Nom. 74R-59 and 74R-60 for adoption. Refer to Resolution Book. RESOLUTION NO. 74R-59 - WORK ORDER NO. 708-B: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM FINDING AND DETERMINING THAT PUBLIC CON- VENIENCE AND NECESSITY REQUIRE THE CONSTRUCTION AND COMPLETION OF A PUBLIC IMPROVEMENT, TO WIT: NOHL RANCH ROAD STREET IMPROVEMENT, FROM HILLCREST STREET TO IMPERIAL HIGHWAY, IN THE CITY OF ANAHEIM,kORK ORDER NO. 708-B. APPROVING THE DESIGNS, PLANS, PROFILES, DRAWINGS AND SPECI- FICATIONS FOR THE CONSTRUCTION THEREOF; AUTHORIZING THE CONSTRUCTION OF SAID PUBLIC IMPROVEMENT IN ACCORDANCE WITH SAID PLANS, SPECIFICATIONS, ETC.; AND AUTHORIZING AND DIRECTING THE CITY CLERK TO PUBLISH A NOTICE INVITING SEALED PROPOSALS FOR THE CONSTRUCTION THEREOF. (Bids to be Opened - March 7, 1974, 2:00 P.M.) 74-158 City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - February 12, 1974, 1:30 P.M. RESOLUTION NO. 74R-60 - WORK ORDER NO o 712-A: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM FINDING AND DETERMINING THAT PUBLIC CON- VENIENCE AND NECESSITY REQUIRE THE CONSTRUCTION AND COMPLETION OF A PUBLIC IMPROVEb~NT, TO WIT: THE WEST STREET STREET IMPROVEMENT, FROM 187 FEET SOUTH OF TO 510 FEET SOUTH OF lA PAIMA AVENUE, IN THE CITY OF ANAHEIM, WORK ORDER NO. 712-A. APPROVING THE DESIGNS, PLANS, PROFILES, DRAWINGS AND SPECIFICATIONS FOR THE CONSTRUCTION THEREOF; AUTHORIZING THE CONSTRUCTION OF SAID PUBLIC IMPROVEMENT IN ACCORDANCE WIN SAID PLANS, SPECIFICATIONS, ETC.; AND AUTHORIZING AND DIRECTING THE CITY CLERK TO PUBLISH A NOTICE INVITING SEALED PROPOSALS FOR THE CONSTRUCTION THERE- OF. (Bids to be Opened - March 7, 1974, 2:00 PoM.) Roll Call Vote: AYES: COUNCII2~EN: NOES: COUNC IIFLEN: AB SENT: COUNC IIMEN: Stephenson, Sneegas, Pebley, Thom and Dutton None None The Mayor declared Resolution Nos. 74R-59 and 74R-60 duly passed and adopted° ENCROACHMENT PERMIT NO. 73-15E: Submitted by Richard C. Doyle, Anaheim Hills, Inc., proposing to encroach upon a portion of City property for the purpose of in- stalling a directional monument structure for Anaheim Hills residential develop- ments and Anaheim Hills Golf Course, to be located at the southwest corner of Anaheim Hills Road and Santa Ana Canyon Road. Also submitted was report of the City Engineer recommending approval of said encroachment permit subject to: 1. Applicant to relocate the proposed sign to an area west of the northerly prolongation of the east line of Tract No. 6771, approximately as in- dicated on plot plan. 2. Applicant to submit copy of plans of the proposed installation to the Director of Public Utilities for approval. 3. The proposed sign will not exceed the height of 15 feet as mea- sured perpendicularly from the natural level of the ground° 4. Applicant to contact Mr. Frank Garrity of the Pacific Telephone Company prior to installation of said sign to allow said company to stake cables before said structure is built. RESOLUTION NO. 74R-61: Councilman Sneegas offered Resolution No° 74R-61 for adoption, granting Encroachment Permit No. 73-15E as requested subject to the conditions recommended by the City Engineer. Refer to Resolution Book. A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM APPROVING THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF AN ENCROACHMENT PERMIT AND AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR AND CITY CLERK TO EXECUTE SAID ENCROACHMENT PERMIT WITH ANAHEIM HILLS, INC. (73-15E) Roll Call Vote: AYES: COUNCII2~EN: NOES: COUNCILMEN: ABSENT: COUNCILMEN: Stephenson, Sneegas, Pebley, Thom and Dutton None None The Mayor declared Resolution No. 74R-61 duly passed and adopted. SAN JOAQUIN NUCLEAR POWER PROJECT: Memorandum from the Utilities Director regarding the proposed participation of the Cities of Anaheim, Burbank, Glendale, Pasadena and Riverside in the Feasibility Study Agreement of the San Joaquin Nuclear Power Project was submitted. Mr. Watts reported that the document which is submitted for Council this date is entitled Amendment No. 2 and provides for the inclusion of the above noted cities into the Feasibility Study Agreement. Amendment No. 1 added the State of California to the original agreement executed between the Department 74- 159 City Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - February 120 1974~ 1:30 P.M. of Water and Power of the City of Los Angeles, the Pacific Gas and Electric Company, Southern California Edison and the San Diego Gas and Electric Company. Mro Watts advised that this agreement is entered into for the purpose of studying the feasibility of the project and not for construction of same although it does contemplate that if the project study is favorable,subsequent agreements, referred to as participation agreements,might be entered. Councilman Thom inquired as to what the City of Anaheim's share of the cost for the feasibility study would be. Utilities Director Gordon Hoyt replied that the City of Anaheim has been allocated 17o of the study, which amounts to $25,000, inasmuch as the en- tire feasibility study cost is projected at $2,500,000° He noted that Council authorized a request for participation in the amount of $90,000 or 4.55% on October 16, 1973, but the City was allocated only 17oo He explained that there is language in the agreement which indicates that the percentage of participa- tion in the feasibility study and power plan itself may not necessarily be the same, so that there is a possibility of enlarging participation in the project in the future if it is found to be acceptable,and the City wishes to do so° Mr. Watts explained that the agreement, while it is lengthy, is in line with the usual agreements for large power generating projects. Under the agreement essentially a steering committee,appointed of the utility managers, guides the project through the study and/or construction phase. Councilman Thom inquired as to the funding of Anaheim's share of the feasibility study to which Mro Hoyt replied that funding for the participation in the amount of $90,000 was included in the increase in electrical rates authorized by Council on November 7, 1973, whereas the City has only been offered $25,000 worth of participation in the study. RESOLUTION NO. 74R-62: Councilman Stephenson offered Resolution No. 74R-62 for adoption. Refer to Resolution Book. A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM APPROVING THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF THE SAN JOAQUIN NUCLEAR PROJECT FEASIBILITY STUDY AGREEMENT AND AMENDMENTS THERETO, AND AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR AND CITY CLERK TO EXECUTE SAID AGREEMENT AND AMENDMENTS. Roll Call Vote: AYES: COUNC II~M~N: NOES: COUNCILMEN: ABSENT: COUNCILMEN: Stephenson, Sneegas, Pebley, Thom and Dutton None None The Mayor declared Resolution No. 74R-62 duly passed and adopted. On motion by Councilman Pebley, seconded by Councilman Stephenson, the Utilities Director was appointed to represent the City on the Coordinating Cormnittee, San Joaquin Nuclear Power Project,and invested with the authority to appoint City representatives to other committees. MOTION CARRIED. PURCHASE OF EquIPMENT - AERIAL PHOTOS OF THE CITY: The City Manager reported on the recommended purchase of an additional set of cronoflex reproducible maps (scale of 1 inch equals 50 feet), 687 sheets, at a cost of $14.31 per sheet from V.T.N. Mr. Murdoch advised that these aerial maps were produced as a part of the Traffic Control Device Inventory Program. The original set will contain various traffic inventory markings and notations and for this reason will not be usable by other departments. However an extra set of clear reproducible maps is available to the City for only the cost of materials and labor to pro- duce them--S14.31 each. Since the current cost for maps now supplied through United Reprographics is $15.75 each, it is recommended that this clear repro- ducible set be purchased for use by various City departments. 74-160 City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - February 12, 1974, 1:30 P.M. Mr. Paul Singer of the Traffic Engineering Division displayed a sample map and pointed out that these maps also show the physical features of the terrain. Mro Murdoch further advised that a mosaic photograph, to replace the one currently hanging on the Council entry wall, is obtainable at cost of $1,965 for the first print and $490 for each additional. Mr. Murdoch noted that the mosaic photograph currently on display was done in 1955 and is now of historical interest only and perhaps should be transferred and displayed at the Library. On motion by Councilman Thom, seconded by Councilman Stephenson, the City Council authorized the purchase of one set of clean reproducible cronoflex maps, 678 sheets at $14.31 each, for a total cost of $9,702o18,plus tax,and one aerial mosaic photograph (scale of 1 inch equals 600 feet) at a cost of $1,965.00,plus tax, from V.T.N. MOTION CARRIED. TRANSFER OF FUNDS: On motion by Councilman Thom, seconded by Councilman Stephenson, the City Council authorized a transfer from the Council Contingency Funds in the amount of $1,965oO0,plus tax, for purchase of one aerial mosaic photograph from VoT.N. to replace the current photograph hanging on the Council entry wall. MOTION CARRIED° Councilman Dutton left the Council Chambers. (4:25 P.M.) PURCHASE OF EQUIPMENT - ONE SMALL TRACTOR: The City Manager reported on one informal bid received for the purchase of one small Kubota tractor, and recommended acceptance of said bid. On recommendation of the City Manager, Councilman Stephenson moved that the bid of McCoy Tractor, which was the only bid received, be accepted and purchase authorized in the amount of $5,045.25, including tax. Councilman Thom seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. PURCHASE - CONVENTION CENTER EXPANSION EQUIPMENT {LEASE NO. 2): On motion by Councilman Pebley, seconded by Councilman Stephenson, the list of purchases proposed under Security Pacific National Bank Lease No. 2 for the Convention Center Expansion, prepared by the Finance Director, and totaling $113,369.16, including tax, was approved. MOTION CARRIED. APPLICATION TO FILE LATE CLAIM: It was moved by Councilman Thom that permission to present late claim submitted by Garber, Sokoloff and Van Dyke, Inc., on behalf of Donald LeRoy Reeder, for purported personal injuries sustained on or about May 24, 1973, be denied,as recommended by the City Attorney's Office. Councilman Pebley seconded the motion° MOTION CARRIED. CLAIMS AGAINST THE CITY: The following claims were denied as recorc~ended by the City Attorney and ordered referred to the insurance carrier, on motion by Councilman Thom, seconded by Councilman Pebley: a. Claim submitted by Ferne Jackson for personal property damage at 131-135 West Broadway, sustained during the past 15 years,purportedly as a result of failure to connect property owner's sewer line to the City's main line. b. Claim submitted by Clara Nadine Hodges for personal injury,pur- portedly as a result'of false arrest and imprisonment by the Anaheim Police Department, on or about October 26, 1973. Co Claim submitted by Milton French for personal property damage, purportedly resulting from collisionwith Police unit on or about November 13, 1973. d. Claim submitted by W. and Lois Breitzman for personal injury and property damage purportedly sustained as a result of collision caused by purpor- ted malfunctioning red phase of traffic light, on or about December 20, 1973. e. Claim submitted by Daniel Cristofaro for personal property damage sustained,purportedly as a result of condition of street on Lincoln near Olive, on or about January 20, 1974. 74-161 City Hall~ Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - February 12~ 1974, 1:30 P,M. f. Claim submitted by John Greenwood for personal property damage sustained ,purportedly as a result of City utility problem, on or about January 25, 1974. MOTION CARRIED. On motion by Councilman Sneegas, seconded by Councilman Pebley, the City Council authorized return of bills and cancelled checks submitted in con- nection with claim against the City (a.) above to Ferne Jackson, 201 La Plaza, Anaheim, California, 92805, as requested° MOTION CARRIED. RESOLUTION NO. 74R-63 - DISTRICT AGREEMENT NO. 2980-S (HARBOR BOULEVARD SIGNALIZA- TION FROM ANAHEIM BOO-LEVARD TO ORANGETHORPE AVENUE): Councilman Stephenson offered Resolution No. 74R-63 for adoption. Refer to Resolution Book. A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR AND CITY CLERK TO EXECUTE DISTRICT AGREEMENT NO. 2980-S WITH THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA, (HARBOR BLVDo SIGNALIZATION FROM ANAHEIM BLVD. TO ORANGETHORPE AVE. ) Roll Call Vote: AYES: NOES: TEMPORARILY ABSENT: ABSENT: COIINC IIA[EN: COUNCIIMEN: COUNC IIM~N: C OUNC II2V[EN: Stephenson, Pebley, Thom and Sneegas None Dutton None The Mayor Pro Tem declared Resolution No. 74R-63 duly passed and adopted. CORRESPONDENCE: The following correspondence was ordered received and filed, on motion by Councilman Stephenson, seconded by Councilman Pebley: a. City of Santa Ana- Correspondence to Senator Cranston and Senator Tunney - Re: severe negative impact on the general Revenue Sharing Program of certain provisions of S. 1541, the federal act to control expendi- tures and establish national priorities. b. City of Seal Beach - Resolution No. 2289 - Opposing Assembly Constitutional Amendment No. 67. c. Notice of Proposed Tariff Changes - Western Union Company. d. City of San Clemente - Resolution No. 3-74 - Expressing dis- satisfaction and disapproval of certain action taken by Orange County Board of Supervisors. e. Cultural Arts Commission - Minutes - January 14, 1974. MOTION CARRIED. ORDINANCE NO. 3258: Councilman Stephenson offered Ordinance No. 3258 for adoption. Refer to Ordinance Book. AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AMENDING TITLE 14, CHAPTER 14.32~ SECTION 14.32.190 PERTAINING TO PARKING. (No parking any time - Frontera Street - both sides; Rio Vista Street to La Palma Avenue, on the north side, Kraemer Blvd. to Rio Vista Street and on south side from 300 feet east of Rio Vista Street to Rio Vista Street.) Roll Call Vote: AYES: NOES: TEMPORARILY ABSENT: ABSENT: COUNCILMEN: COUNCILMEN: COUNC IIMEN: COUNC ILMF. N: Stephenson, Pebley, Thom and Sneegas None Dutton None The Mayor Pro Tem declared Ordinance No° 3258 duly passed and adopted. 74-162 City Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - February 12~ 1974~ 1:30 P.M. ORDINANCE NO. 3259: Councilman Stephenson offered Ordinance Noo 3259 for adoption. Refer to Ordinance Book. AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AMENDING TITLE 18 OF THE ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO ZONING. (72-73-45 - R-I) Roll Call Vote: AYES: NOES: TEMPORARILY ABSENT: ABSENT: COUNCILMEN: COUNC IIMEN: COUNC IIMEN: COUNC IIMEN: Stephenson, Pebley, Thom and Sneegas None Dutton None The Mayor Pro Tern declared Ordinance Noo 3259 duly passed and adopted. ORDINANCE NO. 3260: Councilman Pebley offered Ordinance No. 3260 for adoption. Refer to Ordinance Book° AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AMENDING TITLE 18 OF THE ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO ZONING. (69-70-58 (2) - M-l) Roll Call Vote: AYES: NOES: TEMPORARILY ABSENT: ABSENT: COUNC IIMEN: COUNCILMEN: COUNCILMEN: COUNCILMEN: Stephenson, Pebley, Thom and Sneegas None Dutton None The Mayor Pro Tem declared Ordinance No. 3260 duly passed and adopted. ORDINANCE NO. 3261: Councilman Thom offered Ordinance No. 3261 for adoption. Refer to Ordinance Book. AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AMENDING TITLE 18 OF THE ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO ZONING. (73-74-9 (1) - C-I) Roll Call Vote: AYES: NOES: TEMPORARILY ABSENT: ABSENT: COUNC IIMEN: COUNC II,fEN: COUNC IIMEN: COUNCILMEN: Stephenson, Pebley, Thom and Sneegas None Dutton None The Mayor Pro Tem declared Ordinance No. 3261 duly passed and adopted. ORDINANCE NO. 3266: Councilman Stephenson offered Ordinance No. 3266 for first reading. AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AMENDING TITLE 4, CHAPTER 4.18, SECTION 4.18o040 OF THE ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO AMUSEMENT AND ENTERTAINMENT PREMISES -- RESTAURANTS. ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGE LICENSE APPLICATION: Application submitted by William Malone Morrow for on-sale general for premises located at 316 Anaheim Plaza (500 North Euclid Street) was conditionally protested on the basis of zoning, on motion by Councilman Pebley, seconded by Councilman Stephenson. MOTION CARRIED. Councilman Dutton returned to Council Chambers.and resumed chairman- ship of the meeting. (4:35 P.M.) RESOLUTION NO. 74R-64 - DEED OF EASEMENT: Mr. Jay Titus, Office Engineer, advised that the owner of subject property located on the north side of La Palma Avenue and west of Tustin Avenue, has urgently requested that Council consider accep- tance of an easement deed since, in order to retain his financing,he must record his parcel map as soon as possible. Mr. Titus advised that the conditions of 74-163 City Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - February 12, 1974~ 1:30 P.M. approval of the map required dedication of right-of-way on Tustin Avenue and a short cul-de-sac street running west from Tustin, as well as bonding for improvements of these rights-of-way. Mr. Watts recommended acceptance of the easement deed, conditioned upon approval of the improvement bond by the City Attorney's Office. RESOLUTION NOo 74R-64: Councilman Pebley offered Resolution No. 74R-64 for adoption, accepting aneasement deed from Mr. Belsby subject to the recommenda- tion of the City Attorney° Refer to Resolution Book° A RESOLUTION OF %~{E CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM ACCEPTING A CERTAIN DEED AND ORDERING ITS RECORDATION° (Arne C. Belsby) Roll Call Vote: AYES: COUNCIIMEN: NOES: COUNCILMEN: ABSENT: COUNC II2~EN: Stephenson, Sneegas, Pebley, Thom and Dutton None None The Mayor declared Resolution No. 74R-64 duly passed and adopted. RESIGNATION - ORANGE COUNTY HEALTH PLANNING COUNCIL: The City Clerk submitted a communication from Mr. Paul King dated February 7, 1974,announcing his resigna- tion from the Orange County Health Planning Council because of his commitments on the Anaheim City Planning Commission and as Director of the Southern Calif- ornia Planning Congress. On motion by Councilman Stephenson, seconded by Councilman Thom, Mr. King's resignation was accepted with regrets. MOTION CARRIED. COMMIINICATION REGARDING PRACTICES OF THE V AND C BUREAU: Councilman Stephenson in- troduced a letter received from Mro Wm. J. LaMeres, Parkview Motel, 1570 Sonth Harbor Boulevard, protesting practices of the Visitor and Convention Bureau in handling advance room reservations for conventions. Mayor Dutton advised he had also received a similar communication from Mr. LaMeres and has requested a report from Mr. Bill Snyder, Executive Vice President of the Visitor and Convention Bureau. GREENBELT COMMISSION BUDGET: Councilman Sneegas reported that the Greenbelt Com- mission at their last meeting, approved their budget for the Fiscal Year July 1, 1974 through June 30, 1975. Although the original estimated budget was $75,000 per year, the final amount approved was $62,178.60, withacarry-over from the current year of $42,520.19. This leaves a balance of funds to be made up from the cities involved of $19,658.40, and Anaheim's share of this comes to $3,240. In addition, he advised that action was also taken to purchase, with $1,000 of County funds, 2.73 acres of property located north and east of River- dale and the Riverside Freeway, which is accessable only from the riverbed. With this property they intend to develop the "Riverdale Rest Stop"° councilman Sneegas submitted the "standards for cleanliness and appearance for commercial equestrian stables located within the Greenbelt Cor- ridor'', which guidelines have been established by the Greenbelt Commission and submitted to the Planning Commission for review. CONVENTION CENTER ROOF - ACTION AGAINST GENERAL CONTRACTOR: Councilman Pebley ex- pressed his extreme concern over the necessary replacement of the Convention Center roof in 6 years,whereas the City's specification called for a 20-year roof. Inasmuch as the subcontractor who constructed the roof is now defunct, Councilman Pebley inquired of the City Attorney as to the possibility of taking legal action against the general contractor (Del Webb) who is responsible for all subcontractors on a job. 74-164 City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - February 12, 1974, 1:30 P.M. Mr. Watts advised that at the last Community Center Authority meeting similar comments were made,and as a consequence his office and the City Engineer's have been in contact with an expert witness,and a report on the matter is in preparation which will be submitted to Council and the Community Center Authority simultaneously. REQUEST - VERBATIM TRANSCRIPT OF MINUTES (ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT NO. 1107: Councilman Pebley requested that comments made by Councilman Thom during con- sideration of Environmental Impact Report No. 110 be recorded verbatim in the Minutes. (See Minute page No. 74-146) At the request of Councilmen Stephenson, Pebley and Thom, the follow- ing comments were ordered recorded verbatim. The following was transcribed from a tape recording of this meeting. COUNCILMAN PEBLEY: "I have one other request. I would like in the Minutes, Alona, the verbatim of Mr. Thom's statement a while ago about the four Councilmen getting paid off by somebody. I'd like it in the Minutes verbatim as he stated it. COUNCILMAN THOM: Pay very close attention to the tape when you put it in there, because what Mro Pebley has just said is not in the tape. COUNCILMAN PEBLEY: What do you mean? COUNCILMAN THOM: Just what I said. Pay attention to the tape, and save it. MAYOR DUTTON: It all adds up to the same thing. COUNCII~ THOM: No it doesn't. COUNCILMAN STEPHENSON: I think his exact wording was, which I remember quite clearly,-- COUNCILMAN PEBLEY: I would like it verbatim. COUNCILMAN STEPHENSON: ..... that the four Councilmen sitting up here were told what to do, and how to vote. COUNCILMAN SNEEGAS: Take another look. COUNCIIMAN STEPHENSON: He didn't say we were paid off, he said we were told what to do. COUNCILMAN THOM: Listen to the tape. COUNCILMAN PEBLEY: I would like it in the Minutes. COUNCII2~AN STEPHENSON: As long as you bring that up, I'd like to have this in there too. When you're accusing us, Mr. Thom, of being told what to do, you have no proof of that at all, but I do have proof on you. COUNCILMAN THOM: Oh, you do. COUNCILMAN STEPHENSON: On about three different occasions you've come in here and you've voted on three different occasions. One was to not re-appoint Miriam Kaywood, and the other two was something on tracts, to where you voted for it or against it, whatever it was, then come back the following week after talking to your advisors or somebody and changed your vote. Now, you had to be told about that one. COUNCILMAN THOM: No COUNCILMAN STEPHENSON: And you come in here and you changed your vote. We have never changed ours, so I say you have been told plenty of times and three specif- ics, how you vote because you had to come back and change it. 74-165 City Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - February 12~ 1974~ 1:30 P.M. COUNCILMAN THOM: Well, I'll tell you Mr. Stephenson, I pay a lot of attention to the people of the City of Anaheim who elected me and if a large group of people are able to convince me that my vote needs to be changed, and they are of the electorate, then I change my vote. I am always open, and I am always objective, and I am human. I do make mistakes, but they are pointed out to me and I-- they are able to articulate the necessity to me to change my vote, why then, I,being a representative of people, I will attempt to represent them by chang- ing my vote. MAYOR DUTTON: But you cannot change the vote once you've voted° COUNCILMAN STEPHENSON: You didn't have very good judgment in the first place then, did you? COUNCILMAN THOM: I think so. COUNCIIMAN STEPHENSON: In other words, you can't act on your own, you've got to have somebody tell you what to do. COUNCILMAN THOM: The people of the City of Anaheim, certainly, I~m their elected representative, they tell me what to do. COUNCILMAN STEPHENSON: We got 186,000, they didn't all tell you that. A very small segment, special interest groups that you talk to. COUNCILMAN THOM: As long as there is enough of them that do represent a sampling of the majority, I feel perfectly content in doing it. COUNCILMAN STEPHENSON: You take your advice from your small special interest groups. COUNCILMAN THOM: I take my advice from the citizens of the people of Anaheim. MAYOR DUTTON: If all both of them can tell him, why he's got a right to say he would have done differently, but you can't change it. COUNCILMAN STEPH~NSON: When you're accusing us of being told how to vote, don't be saying that because I know on three occasions where you were told because you come in and changed it. COUNCILMAN THOM: Well, I suggest you listen to the tape and listen to the words so you know exactly what it was that was said, then you'll know what it is you're talking about. MAYOR DUTTON: We have, we understand it. COUNCILMAN STEPHENSON: Put that in the Minutes too, so we won't have any arguing about what was said. COUNCILMAN THOM: Everything verbatim as it passes back and forth, and I'll double check the tape to make sure it is in. MAYOR DUTTON: Back to Mr. Pebley. Do you have anything else Mr. Pebley? COUNCILMAN PEBLEY: I ' 11 pass. MAYOR DUTTON: Mr'. Thom, do you have anything. COUNCILMAN THOM: No, not right now. MAYOR DUTTON: I'll entertain a motion to recess." RECESS - EXECUTIVE SESSION: Councilman Pebley moved to recess to Executive Session. Councilman Sneegas seconded the motion. ~OTION CARRIED. (4:50 P.M.) AF?TER RECESS: The Mayor called the meeting to order, all Councilmen being present, (5:44 P.Mo) 74-166 City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - February 12, 1974, 1:30 P,M. APPOINTMENT - COMMUNITY CENTER AUTHORITY: On motion by Councilman Pebley, seconded by Councilman Sneegas, the City Council appointed Dr. Kenneth Heuler, 906 West Pioneer Drive, to fill the unexpired term of Mr. Warren E. Ashleigh, subject to approval by the Anaheim Union High School District Board of Trustees. MOTION CARRIED. ADJOURNMENT: Councilman Sneegas moved to adjourn. Councilman Pebley seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. Adjourned: 5:45 P.M. Signed City Clerk City Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - February 19, 1974~ 1:30 P.M. The City Council of the City of Anaheim met in regular session. PRE SENT: ABSENT: PRE SE N T: COUNCILMEN: Stephenson, Sneegas, Pebley, Thom and Dutton COUNCIIM~N: None ASSISTANT CITY MANAGER: Robert M. Davis CITY ATTORNEY: Alan R. Watts CITY CLERK: Alona M. Farrens UTILITIES DIRECTOR: Gordon W. Hoyt CITY ENGINEER: James Po Maddox TRAFFIC ENGINEER: Edward Granzow ASSISTANT DIRECTOR OF DEVELOPMENT SERVICES: Ronald Thompson ZONING SUPERVISOR: Charles Roberts, Mayor Dutton called the meeting to order. ~'}AL~ '_~'~ :i'E~ ~..,un,ci~,::~a~ !~aip!, ~. 5nee~as !ed the ass~b]y in the Pledge of ,",.] l, ,'.Lance to l:'he Flau;, =..,INI!~> '! ¢~¢ t:he Anaheim ritv Council R,~gular Meeting held January 22, 1974, were ap~ t~,vud ..,n mot. ion h,. Cou~c i]man gtephenson, seconded by Councilman ~om. '¥Ai~%R OF ~iL*I.)iNG - ORDINANC?iS \[4D RESOLUTIONS: Councilman ~om moved to waive the read~n~ ~. f~']] ~f a].] ~rdinances and resolutions, and that consent to the waiver of r~.ad nF. is hereby gi.'en by ail Councilmen unless, after reading of the title, s?~,~:'l~ ~'~:q~,~ ~t: i? mad: by ~ ~m(~Iman f~>r the reading of such ordinance or re~.o;~.t ',"~, ~-,,.~,c¢]~an %t'ophe~,s~n seconded the motion. MOTION ~IMOUSLY CAI, R~ [: REPORT * Fii>~iNC1AL DEMANDS AGAINST Tt~i CITY: Demands against the City in the amount of '{] ~,036.36, in ac':~ordance w~,th the 1973-74 Budget, were approved. PUBLIC ~tEAi',;;4i] - i,~CLASStFiCATiO;~ i%3. 73-7&-30~ CONDITIONAL USE PE~IT NO. 1439 AND E~IRO~qEU'~A ~PACT ~PORT ~4(). 109 ~]MACT NO. 8533~ REVISION NO. 1): The City Clerk subm~t;t:,-'d reques~ dated Februar,, ]2, ]97A fr~ the Applicant, ~ld ~ Fr~de'~ ~ ~n (~rant ~]~nany, for contJm~ance of this public hearing to March 5, ] ~-'4. : r *h~ ?ur?os~- o:~ a~]owing them to re-evaluate the plans with respect to c.~rmm:,.~ :md~ hy the oppos~tio~ and by the City Planning C~ission. in addition, a letter from Mr. John C. McCarthy, 100 Pomona Mall West, P~o,~a~ was submitted dated February 13, 1974, indicating his intention, on behaTf ,f the Orange Unified School District and the Santa Aha Canyon Improvement Associ¢ i~n, inc., to appeal the decision of the Planning Commission recommending E~ .i-'.. ',o~ t0q for adoption by the City Council.