Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
1969/07/28
69-465 ~L MiN~'TE.S - July 28) 1969, 7-00 P M Cit_¥ Hall~ Anaheim_z California - COUNC The City Council. of the City of Anaheim met in Adjourned Regular Session in the Santa Aha Room of the Anaheim Convention Center° PRESENT' COUNCILMEN' Dutton, Krein, Schutte, Pebley (entered the meeting at 7:40 P.M.), and Clark ABSENT: COUNCILMEN: None PRESENT: CITY MANAGER: Keith A. Murdoch ASSISTANT CITY ATTORNEY~ Alan R. Watts CITY CLERK: Dene M. Williams DIRECTOR OF DEVELOPMENT SERVICES: Alan Orsborn ASSISTANT DIRECTOR OF DEVELOPMENT SERVICES' Ronald Thompson ZONING SUPERVISOR: Charles Roberts CHIEF OF POLICE: Mark A. Stephenson FLAG SALUTE' Councilman Krein led the Assembly in the Pledge of Allegiance .... to the Flag.. RESOLUTION OF APPRECIATION AND G_R~_~_-_ ,__MARK Ao STEPHENSON-L The following Resolution of APpreciation and Gratitude was read in full by Mayor Clark, unanimously adopted by the City Council, and presented to retiring Chief of Police Mark Ao Stephenson° "WHEREAS, Chief Mark A~ Stephenson has served the City of Anaheim in law enforcement from July 0~ 1927 to July 31, 1969; and WHEREAS~ during the years of his service~ the City has grown from a population ol approximately I0,000 to a present estimate of 168,000; rank- ing the City the ninth largest city in the State of (:a!ifornia~ and WHEREAS, "Steve" has served this City and his profession with effi- ciency and dignity, exemplifying the important office he held~ bringing honors and recognition to this Cit?~ and WHEREAS, because of his broad knowledge, experience and ability~ Chief Stephenson has actively participated in many police organizations, greatly contributing to policies and proc~dures of this highly scientific and specialized profession; and WHEREAS, "Steve" ~ , with h~s warm and friendly personality, has won countless ~riend3 and i~ 'he~d i~.~ ~h~ h:i~?~ * em by hi,: profession, and the (~ty Fa.m~ !..:/ N(~W '['~ [E.t~ n'~<~ ~R t'~ Anaheim, or~ behalf -~f: t.l:e t-it4~,'.~,n~ oi Anaheim, do ~ereby express our sincere apprecia, i~ 8~.d ~,rat.*' d ' ' A TTE S ,, !,~.AL}q! B., CLARI< CC UNC I LMAN" 69-464 City Hall, Anaheim, Californiai - COUNCIL MINUTES - July 22, 1969j, 1:30 P.M. RESOLUTION NO. 69R-441: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM LEVYING AN ASSESSMENT ON EACH LOT AND PARCEL OF LAND CONTAINED IN STREET LIGHTING ASSESSMENT DISTRICT 1965-3 FOR THE CONTRACT YEAR, JULY i, 1969 TO JUNE 30~ 1970, FOR THE AMOUNT ESTIMATED TO BE NECESSARY TO IMPROVE THE STREET LIGHTING SYSTEM FOR SUCH ENSUING CONTRACT YEAR. Roll Call Vote: AYES: COUNCILMEN: Dutton, Krein, Pebley and Schutte NOES: COUNCILMEN: None ABSENT: COUNCILMEN: Clark The Mayor Pro-Tem declared Resolution Nos. 69R-438 to 69R-441, both inclusive, duly passed and adopted° PUBLIC DANCE PERMIT: Application filed by Mrs. Frances B. Gonzales on behalf of Sociedad Progresista Mexicana #24, for permit to conduct a public dance on July 27, 1979, at Carpenters' Hall, 608 West Vermont Avenue, was sub- mitted and granted, subject to provisions of Chapter 4.16 of the Anaheim Municipal Code, as recommended by the Chief of Police, on motion by Coun- cilman Pebley, seconded by Councilman Dutton. MOTION CARRIED. EMPLOYMENT OF LE ROY CRANDALLAND ASSOCIATES - OLIVE HILLS RESERVOIR OBSERVA- TION WELLS: On report and recommendation of the Assistant City Attorney, Coun- cilman Krein moved that the City of Anaheim hire Le Roy Crandall and Asso- ciates on the terms and conditions outlined in their letter to the City, dated January 22, 1969, which letter is signed by Russell C. Weber, a copy of said letter being on file in the office of the City Clerk, and that pay- ment for said work be made within 15 days after the submittal of invoices by LeRoy Crandall and Associates to the City of Anaheim, and that the total amount for said work shall not exceed $4,500.00° Councilman Dutton seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. COMMENDATION AUTHORIZED - CHIEF OF POLICE, MARK A. STEPHENSON: The City Council directed a Resolution of Commendation be prepared for presentation to the retiring Chief of Police, Mark Ao Stephenson, at the next City Council meeting to be held July 28, 1969. ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL GOLF COURSE - LIFE-TIME PASS: On motion by Councilman Dutton, seconded by Councilman Pebley, preparation of a life-time pass for retir- ing Chief of Police, Mark Ao Stephenson, was authorized for free life-time golf privileges for himself and one guest at the Anaheim Municipal Golf Course. MOTION CARRIED. It was noted by the City Council that presentation of such awards shall be limited to City employees of 25-years standing, or more. ADJOURNMENT: On motion by Councilman Pebley, seconded by Councilman Dutton, the meeting was adjourned to Monday, July 28, 7:00 P.M., at the Santa Ana Room of the Anaheim Convention Center, for a public hearing on Conditional Use Permit No. 1120 (Metroport). MOTION CARRIED. ADJOURNED: 3:40 P.Mo City Clerk 69-466 Citff__Ha__~ll, Anahei~z California - C~JUN~-. MINUTES ~July__A. 8_2__~I969 7~00 P M. ANAHEIM Mb~iGIPAL GOLF COURSE~ The City Council of the City of Anaheim pre~ sented Chief Mark A. SteDhensc. n, as a token of appreciacion~ a lifetime pass to the Anaheim Municipal G~7!f Course° PUBLIC HEARING - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 1120~ Initiated by the City Coun- cil to consider the 6, stab]ishment ~i[ a Metr©port~ with related facilities, on M-1 zoned property described as foil©ws~ PARCEL 1: An irregula~l~shaped parcel of land consisting of approximately 42 acres, having apprc, ximate fresh'ages c.f 2,600 feet on the north side of Orangewood Avenue~ and 615 feet on the east side of State ColleEe Boule- vard, and 800 feet along the west bank of the Santa Aha River, and having a maximum depth of apprcximatel~~ 750 feet £rom Orangewood Avenue. PARCEL 2: An irregularly-shaped parcel of land consisting of approximately 43 acres, having approximate frontages of 1~900 feet on the south side of Oran§ewood Avenue, and i,000 feet along the west bank of the Santa Aha River, and having a maximum depth of approximately 1,070 feet from Orange- wood Avenue, the westerly boundary of subject property being approximately 750 feet east of State College Boulevard~ The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC69- 146, granted said Conditional Use Permit, subject to the following condi- tions: 1. That noise levels of all aircraft utilizing the Metroport shall not exceed the noise levels developed by the DeHaviland Twin Otter or shall in no event exceed 100 PNDB on take-off. (All sound readings to be made in accordance with accepted measuring standards.) 2~ That pure jet aircraft shall not be permitted to operate from this facility. 3~ That aircraft shall be required to enter the flight pattern in conformance with Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) regulations and wherever possible, approach the pattern along the freeways or the Santa Aha River~ The flight pattern shall be in accordance with that approved by the FAA and State Department of Aeronautics and be in substantial ac- cord with the design shown on Exhibit A, on file with the City of Anaheim. 4. That conditions of operation shall, at all times, conform to the limits of all FAA requirements, provided that operations of the facil- ity shall be conducted in accordance with visual flight rules (VFR), and during daylight hours only. 5. That aircraft shall be equipped with Decca instrumentation or an equivalent system when it becomes available and is approved by the FAA. 6. That the activities permitted in connection with the Metro- port shall be limited to those operations and facilities necessary for the handling of passengers and their baggage, and other related facilities necessary for passenger service. 7. That the storage, shipment or handling of any type of freight or cargo shall not be permitted. 8. That repair and maintenance of aircraft shall be limited to "third echelon maintenance" (minor repairs and adjustments onlyo) 9. That "run-up" of aircraft engines shall be permitted only in connection with take-off and instrument check prior to take-off. 10. That any substantial and persistent violation of the flight pattern established by the City of Anaheim and approved by the FAA and State Department of Aeronautics (Exhibit "A") shall be considered a breach of conditions. 11. That should any deviation from the foregoing conditions or any proposed changes in connection with the operation of the Metroport be desired in the future, such deviations or changes shall be brought be- fore the City Council .of the City of Anaheim at a public hearing, and re- ceive approval ol that body before being put into effect. Notification of the required public hearing shall be accomplished in accordance with the Laws of the State of California with the addition, that notice of sa~d hearing shall be made by U.S. Mail to: 1) all property owners within 300 feet of the Metroport site; 2) three persons within the City of 69-467 C__ity Hall; Anaheim; California - COUNCIL HINUTE8 - July 28, 1969, 7:00 PoM. Anaheim to be designated by the homeowners' group as representatives of their group; and 3) the City Clerk of the City of Oranse. 12. That violation of any Of the foregoing conditions shall be grounds for revocation of the conditional use permit. 13. That subject property shall be developed substantially in accord- anco with plans on ~ile with the City of Anaheim, marked Exhibits A, B, and C. Public hearin~ and review of action taken by the City Planning Gem- mission was ordered by motion of th~ City Council and scheduled this date. Mayor Clark read a prefacing statement regarding the purpose of the public hearing, i,e., Co consider whether the proposed land use is appropriate and would sezve the best interests of the City of Anaheim and its citi~en~. Mayor Clark outlined the p~ocedure to be followed in the conduct of the hearing, wish presentations by the City Staff to be heard first, followed by the proposed Developers of subjec~ property, then citizens of the City of ~heim and citizens of adjoining cl~ies. Citizens of adjoining cities to be limited to three f~om any one community. Re noted Chat in all instances che £ime limit for each speaker would be 5 minutes, and that no speaker would be heard more than once~ Mr, Alan Orsborn, Direc:or of Development Services, reported on the hisgory of the Application, briefly as follows: Approxinmtely two and one-half years ago ~he Planning Division of the Development Services Department undertook an in-depth study of the air transportation needs of rapidly-expanding population centers, such as Anaheim. The 4at~ p~e~ented in the Study, which was subsequently entitled, "The Metro- po£C Study ~port" included the results of investigations conducted in bo~h the aircraf~ industry and the air transportation industry, from qualified per- sonnel in those fields, The recommendations o£ the City Planning Commission to approve the proposed land ~e, sobJect to the conditions outlined, was the result of haustive studies nmde of all possible locations for a Metroport factllCy in the City of Anaheim. It was apparent at the conclusion of these s~udies if such a facility were Co be located in such a manner ms :o best serve iateres~s of the citizens, with Lhe Least possible inconvenience and wi~h maximum safety, it should be located in the southeast industrial ~one. The interests and welfare of citilens o£ other cities was also considered in search for the nsec appropriate location. ~e st~e which was £tnall~ pro- po~ed i~ located in Cha hear~ o{ mn industrial {one, adJacen~ ~o ~he conver- gence o£ ~he SammAna, Oranse, and Garden Orove Freeways, and in close prox- tsttcy co the #e~porc and Riv~rside Freeways, The proposed £1iaht pattern would provide £or £rom 90% Co 9~% of all approaches and take-o££s to be over the tnd.#Crial ~ones in ~he ci~ies o~ Anaheim and Oran8e. This use 18 one ~b~ sboold losicelly be located in mn industrial sene, and it was ~alt that ~ ocher industrial location in the Oreater Anaheim Area was better suited fog Cbc p~opo~ed usa, Operagton of the M~roport was proposed to be in con£ormance wi~h r~qut~m~n¢# of cbc ~ederal Aviation Administration lad ~he ~l~ D~r~I~ of ~ro~u~ics, cwo q~li~i~d agenciel concerned wi~h air clearances. ~a~y, zards, also in con ormnce wt h whatever condttton my be a~ch~ co s co~tcto~l use permit, if approved, Zoning ~upervisor Charles Roberts described #ubJeoC pgop~gCy and tC~ proxtmi~y Co the Anaheim S~adtum, San~a Aaa ~tver, proposed Orange ~re~way. He ouclLned ~he surroundtn~ land uses and brt~£~d ~h~ ~tndtngs contained in Che report o£ ~he Planntn~ i%~ need ior an air ~ranspot~a~on £actlt~y in ~hts area hms boon · #t~bli#h~d in CheNocroporc Study, published by ~he Developmon~ ~rvtce~ tie~ ~or expeditious ~vo~n~ o~ passen~er, and co~dt~tos under 400 69-~68 _C!_tE__Ha!__!~.Anahei~ £.ali f,';rnia - C')UNCIL MINUTES - July 28 ~_19_~69_~ 7 ~00 P.M~ design requirements are con~Xderabiy reduced from tho, se of conventional airports, 1.~500 f~t b~ipg t'be rdnway length established f~ir Metroports by. the Federal Aviation Administrati.;~n~ c~nsideration cf alternate sites has resulted in 'the determ~natien that the. subject site has the most verable charactcri.$ tics ~ The prcF:sed AnaheLm Metroport woald be located northerly cf Orangewond Avenue~ and wc~id consist of a l~500-fcot landing area~ ter- minal facilities, ~nd ~mpl. cvee. and pms~a.ger par~ing. The runway design would conform in every r~s;~ec~ co the cur~entiy published guide line.~ provided by the Federal Aviation Administration, and the terminal build- ing size will be directly ~ela, ted tc tbe annual number of each type air passengers ~sing [he facilities; therefore, a phased program of ve~opmen[ is anticipa[ed~, w~[h termiaal constructi:~n expected in 1970 1975 and 1980. Ccuncilmsn Febiey entered the meeting, 7'40 The preposed Metroport flight pattern will be confined over ar,~s either zoned or planned for industrial use in the City of Anaheim and the City of Orange, and the proposed site is in close p~oximity to traffic- generating centers such as the Commercial-Recreation Area, Industrial Areas, Commercial Cenrers~ and population centers i.n Anaheim~ Orange, Santa Ana~ etc, Freeway ~ccessibilitv is excel, lent. The proposed ~ite was found to. be. adequate to accommodate a Metroport. and the reas~,~ns why the Cit,~ ~ Anake~m sho~ consider d~ve!- ., ~q~.':e~ reg/.?::. ~r'-~>e-:se::~gat demaqd t,'~' the (;r~:at:er Anaheim Area ~t:.d t,:..iqct~:a~,- ~',~:~ the i?(..' ~,~r~:, ~ t .o6~000 t'.~ ~,'~00,000 b7 1¢80. [rtad~q.)acie. s .,f . x: ;t~q~ <,,r'face traosp,.,rtati:~n tndicar, es the alter= ire ~,:,lut'i,-y, .i pr,:u~dtng ,.~.ir tran.~pcrt.ation. Existing air .[aciiiti. e:,, reach sar. ura~ :,n ~.~ 197'~{, apd Orange C,.;:ur:t~' Alrp:,rt in 1973. A Master ~'~r: ,-,f Air F~'.'i :t ...... '~; h-'- -' l',r~pnrcd, t'' assist ~n alleviati, ng the ~r~r~,.r~ ,rr 't i- ;': ~ ~.~'~ ~ i ~ rh~ t ~ ~r':~,!.~ Re~ioo. The Master Plan :' '' :' - -. - t':~ w,' ' '~ '" -' :'- '~ ~ ' :, :Dort the passenger -,, d '}'- :: - · - ,~i,; , , . ih't~tiaI ei[.,rait :','isc !;reb~om~ ore significantly reduced to a {,-.oica t ~Op'r'~:h ~'~d .~:,'~rt~ ~ ~ ~:~,~r ,d. · . ........ , _ ., ~-~:r industria~ areas and the ',pen :~[)ac~: :::f ibc ~t;~ g~.',~ R~'ut-~r ['~e pi,~p,:~,;,d flight pattern is desigred r,~ rntnJmige th;. di~r:,rbance te ad.jo]nipg are, as Aopr~'priate control zones botwee, other ~Jr fa,'::f.!:t.~6:s arc p~tabllebed by the Federal Aviation Ad- m:~.qJ~trati~-,r-~. ~,r~d ;~ r"~' 'p,:.sed ?~,u,a;t,e:~m Hetr.,;:,..~rt w,~uld ~,~t conflict with their t. raffLc f';at:erf~- -f ;~u: .:'i~,::,r facil~ti~-,~ i~.~ the area Safety stand- ard~ ~re d~:-ux, r~'~ine~f ~",d ,~-~b~ i-:t~ed by the Fede, zal Aviati::o Admi. nistraticn 69-469 C!tz__Ha__l.l_~__Anaheim~_C__a.lifcrnia - COU~CI~_~INUTE$ - 3ul 2~1~69, 7:00 Mr~ Roberts referred t~ an exhibit posted on a bulletin board lo- cated at the front of the meeting ro©~ indicating the proposed location of the Metroport runway, approach and departure services required by the F.A.A., as well as transitional slopes on either side of the runway. A second exhibit shewed the concept plain ~-;f the lccat, ion of the proposed fa- cilities, indicating location of the runway, taxi-way, and approximate lo- cation of terminal facilities, A slide was shown, indicating the configuration of the Metroport location, and the flight pattern as it related to the Anaheim southeast in- dustrial area~ the City of Orange industrial area. that is already developed, areas either planned for or currently zoned ~or industrial development~ and areas either currently developed or 'projected for residential land use° An additional exhibit, which was prepared under the direction of sound experts, indicated the noise pattern or $©~nd levels ~enerated by the demonstration aircra~t~ a DeHaviland Twin Otter, showing areas which would register 100 PND (Perceived Noise Decibels), and 90 PND.~ Mr. Roberts concluded his oresentati, on by noting that the City Planning c":,mmission, after ~:~.:n:~der~ti,?n of the evidence presented, recom- mended approval oi th<? ~.;ndit~cna! ~e permit, subject to the conditions set forth, for r_lqe establis!~me~~ ,~.f-a N~cp,::rt in the pr,:;p,.sed location. ture expanaion of :he f~ciiities, and Mz, Oreb,.'rn replied that there was nc provision ~-- ~ ~,r ex~an:~i,~:,~ :,f tho runway' that it i~ pr.t:~posed at maximum length ' . .... ~,~:.r ~o read in full the fol- l.:~,wing c, i w] ict~ w~r~ ~::~'~.:~d t.:.~; [~.e ~,or d~3t.r'ibut:ic~n to the I l,eCt~r ..:i 'f.~), t::it.; ~:, doted j,5.1y 25~ 19~9~ from Don:. E, Smith, Mayo:r, City c,:f Orange. '~ 7ei~.~ram ~-~ ~:pp.~.,~_~ ~:~-~ dat.<:d j,.~]y ?8, 1969, from Suzanne and [_e~ L.er .,f ,~.,.,n-a~.q~,i~;e~ct: dat~,d h~l.V '~5 1909 from Burke }~aber a~d ~Jerick~ :>n be},alf ,'.~f }'rem[er Industrial C~rporation. 4. i...et ter c.f <:pp::.>siti,;:,:2, datend July 2'8, 1969, from Los Angeles Airways, Jr~c. Mayor Clark n~' ted that many in the audience could not clearly see the exhibits reierred to in the presentatic, by the Planning Staff, and de- clared a 10-minute recess f::,r the p~rpcse of viewing them~ The me¢.tir, g wes rec::,,ven¢:d at .8'10 P M , ail members present. ,-.. .......... M Alex W'! i liman, The Gi.+y ~ ]~'~rk r~-,.~l ~:~: aci,J~i<,qa' ;:'~[~,t', ~d(l~'5/~2d to ..~,~ from Mr~. ~al M. F,.::ller. 2(3i?] Bagv, J,::~w Av~on~c, Sant:a Aha, relating her ex- perfex, ce a5 a resid<~nt 'l.;~vJn~ withit~ one-half miie of the Orange County Air- per t ?4t R::.b<:r;:- i~:,d]c.:~te,.,,, f :.t' th~: i~tformat.£::,n of those present, that he wished ~_~--. ~ 7 im~,:~te ~n~. u'_~-:.,iL', ~ ~r''~':~_...r~. :r~iat~ve t.o stat:ements made regarding ~tbe ade~qu.~<'v .~>f the ..~.r~t:ec~ tt~,,'c,.-r~,,~i,,:, facilities provided in 3ently pr~',':,Jd~d r~':, ,r ft~m ~=r~a~teim ,,r the <~:,'~era] .~ea ~urr'ounding it~ He noted there :[~ a tr~r~sit sy~st:em presently ~_n ,~pe'rati<_,n that is providing sur- face transpc, rtati:',~ tc eir ~aci. i~ties in an admLrable way. l:he statement made was a geo~-ral t. bsezvation, reiative to increased congestion in the sur- face- trans,>ortat i.c.n plcture. Mayor Clark invited statements ~(rom the proponents of the conditional uae permit application. Mr. R.-,ber[ S Barnes. r~.presenting Commuter Centers, Into, advised that they c~;nc~:rr:~d c3mpJe/e[y with. the Staff recommendations and Condition Nc. 9, added by the ('[tv Planning C~?mmis.sion. He further reported that rep- resentativt~s -',f (.-:,mmuter Centers, Inc were present and would be happy to ~nswer any questio.~..~. However, it was his opinion that the Staff Report adequatel~ covered the matter. 69,~,~ 7'0 ~itz_~Al_~l_Anahei~=.. Caiifornia- COUNCIL MINUTES -. Jui2l~ 19~9_~7:00 P,M. Mayor Clark asked if their concurrer~.ce included c, ther condi'si, cns as set forth, such as the prohibition of storage, shipmept~ or ha~dling of any type of freight or cargo (Conditi©n No. 7)., Mr~ Barnes replied in the negative,and clarified that their concurrence was with the Staff recommendations. Mr. Jim Webb~ President of the Anaheim Chamber cf Commerce, read the following statement (not filed)~ "The Anaheim Chamber o~ Commerce, representing over 8,000 owners and managers in Anaheim~ have delegated me to speak ior them. We are in support of the recommendations of the Staff wit~ respect to the estab- lishment of a Metroport. We wrote a letter to the City Council and to the City Planning Commission i, that support. Our interest in Anaheim is for the economic effect for all the citizens of Anaheim and the surrounding areas. Now, we understand that this is a privately-financed~ not Government-.cwned~ operation~ in the tradition of free enterprise for which the Chamber of Commerce and all chambers of commerce stand for. We feel that here in Anaheim that oar tourist business brings in a substantial support to the economy of not only' Anaheim but the surrounding communities° It is estimated as high as $400,000 000.00 a year. But what is also important, not only in Ana- heim but surrounding communities, is the industrial and business payrolls that support the acti~.ities within Anaheim; it is of an equal amount, ap- proximately $400,000~000.00 a year. Now we all recognize the importance nf the tourist business, but sometimes we fail ts realize the rea]_ under-girding that we get from our business and industrial stability and growth in this area. We~ for instance~ in the Anaheim Chamber of Commerce, think in terms of our industrial land, Here in Anaheim there is approximately 50% of it that is now developed. There is another 50% or about 1~800 or 1,900 acres that are net developed. This condition is not alone in Anaheim but exists in our surrounding com- munities cf Fullerton~ Orange, Garden Grove, etc~ We are the proponents of supporting existing business and encouraging new business to come in. to this area. We compete with Los Angeles, with San Diego, with San Bernar-. dine for the development of new businesses in the Southern California area, and believe me, it's tough competition, We fee] it is definitely an asset on the part of any Chamber Commerce in this area to be able to show that we have adequate air facili- ties right here at hand. So~ speaking from an economic standpoint, we cannot but support this concept~ We don't feel that this Metroport conflicts, or the concept con- flicts witb an~ plans now developed We have studied the fire-year Orange County P]an for development cf all of Orange County, and there is no con- flict with that plan. In fact, several firms~ members of the Chamber of Commerce of this City and others have indicated a need for air transpcr~ tation to the ex[ent tbgt they are planning he]iport pads on new facili- ties they are building, and we feel that this could lead to a d~ngerous proliferation of flights in this area. We feel that the control we would have in the development of~ orderly growth of rapid aircraft transporta~ tion would be an economic benefit to Anaheim and the surrounding communi- ties. Thank you very kindly." Mr A1Gruss, 2437 Alden Avenue, Anaheim, manager of Majestic Realty, Orange County Office~ advised that they were primarily industrial realtors and that he has been in this business approximately 21 years. He called attention to industries that he was instrumental in locating in Anaheim, and advised that the industrial tax base reduces taxes on resi- dential properties. 69-471 _Ci_ty_Hal~l,. Anahei_9_z_California _ COUNCIL MINUTES ,~ July 283 196__~_z9 7;00 P~M. Mr. John Seymour~ Jrt, al7 Agate Street, Anaheim, President of the Anaheim Board of Realtors, advised that the Board of Realtors, through its Planning and Zoning Ccmmittee~ has studied the proposed Metroport for many months and that they have attended all meetings and demonstrations in connec- tion with the proposal. He stated, as Realtors, they were concerned with property values and were aware that residential nei§hbcrhcods must be protected from conflict~ lng and encroaching land uses° He advised that a growing community requires change and today~ no one in history has been successful in pre-planning a city' so conceived that change or variance in plans was nc longer necessary, and that Anaheim will have to continue to change in nhe future in order to keep pace with the needs and demands of an ever-increasimg, more sophisticated population; and the pro- posed Metroport was a part of that chamge. In conclusion, Mr. Seymour reported that the Board of Directors of the Anaheim Board of Realtors recommends the proposed Metroport, subject to the following conditions. 1. That the City of Anaheim include a hold-harmless clause in their lease, to protect the City from possible lawsuits regarding noise. 2. All aircraft be equipped with navigational all-weather systems for both day and night-time operation. 3. Size of aircraft to be restricted to size of craft demonstrated, and if and when the need arises for a larger craft, request for same to come before the City for review. 4. City to initiate a traffic control study on surface transporta- tion to and from Metroport, to alleviate any possible conflict with the Ball Club traffic. 5. The City incur nc cost or investment of funds for runways, im- provements or acquisition of additional land for said Metroport. 6. Any future changes in the conditional use permit granted for said Metroport be subject to pablic hearing prior to an approval or disapproval by the City Council. Mr. Dave S. Collins, 1077 West Ball Road, Anaheim, speaking as a realtor and investor in real estate in Anaheim, noted the close proximity of his properties to the existing Heliport, and reported that the noise created by the Helicopters did not bother him~ He stated that value of land had to do with accessibility of people, and accessibility has to do with tra,sportation, He felt that the type of transportation proposed was needed, and approved of' the site selected. Mr. Collins felt that the condition limiting operations to daytime operations, and the limitation with respect to freight were unrealistic., and that the hold-harmless clause,suggested by the Board of Realtors, would be to everyone's benefit and protection Mr. Robert King, President of the Anaheim Junior Chamber of Gom~ merce, reported that the study made by them resulted in findings that the proposed site appeared to be an adequate and safe location, and that the safety provisions recommended by the City Planning Commission were adequate; the financing appeared to be well covered without an expenditure on the part of the City, with a substantial return to the City on the investment~ He felt all provisions had been adequately considered. Mr. King advised that the Anaheim Junior Chamber of Commerce sup- ports the proposed Metroport, and feels it will be a major attraction in bring- ing industry into the City, and requested that the City Council maintain con- trol over noise and safety. The Mayor asked if anycne else wished to address the Council, favor- ing the Metroport, hearing no response, he thereupon invited those Anaheim citizens in opposition to the Metroport to address the Council. 69~.4 72 Ci---!t~l, Anaheim, California ~ COUNCIL MINUTES ~..July 28 1969 ?~00 P~M. Mrs° Audrey Warnoff, 920 East Lincoln Avenue~ Anaheim, reported that although she was also a member of the Anaheim Board ~f Rea!t©rs, ~aheir office opposes the proposed use~ Regarding the argument that more people ar~ killed by autom~biles than airplanes, Mrs. Warnoff realized that the City Council had no ccnt~cl over the automobi!e~ but could control this hazard o Mrs. Warnoff noted the estimated cost of the facility to be fromm $4,000,000.00 to $15~000,000.00, and asked if this would be a cash invest~ ment, or a financed investment° She questioned the position cf the City should the project be financed and unsuccessful, and asked if the City wo.uld be liable fc~ liens against the pr~perty should the opera~ors ge into bankruptcy. Reference w~s made to the indebtedness on the Anaheim Stadium and Convention Ccnter~ and Mrs, Warnoff advised that she~ as a s~bat~nti;31 taxpayer in Anaheim~ objected ~c the pcssibi!ity of f~rther indebtednes~ Regarding n.~.ise, she stated that during the dem~nstrati<~n she heard the aircraft every ~ime it went over their home° Mrs~ Wsrncff stated that most c>f the pe~p!e favoring the Metrc~ port were either the Applicants, City empi©yees~ Chamber ~>f Commerce, ~r other organization~ and ~ot the private citizens~ She thereupon presented a petition of opposition: purportedly signed by 152 of their neighb©rs~ which she advised was 0brained in one day and this, in her opinion~ was an zndication of the position cf the average homeowner.. Mro R~J~ McMillan~ 924 South Peregrine Place~ Anaheim~ stated he was one of the many thousands ef Anaheim residents with nothing to gain and everything t~ lose, and violently opposed the proposed Metrcpcrt~ Mr. McMilla, submitted a petition of opposition, purportedly containing more than 1,300 signatures, obtained in less than two day$~ He stated the p~tition wss obtained as a sample el the people'~ wishes and represents appr~ximately 80% of those contacted° Mr, McMillan requested permissi~>n to introduce others tc speaP~ on various aspects of the proposal~ but before doing so clarified fha following three points he felt were misunderstood at the Planning Com- mission hearing~ 1. The noise, under discussion, was not related to the Twin Otter demonstration vehicle of June 20tho He advised that it was stated that the actual vehicle to be used would be much larger~ in order to be feasible. 2. Although they pointed out during the Planning Commission hearing that restrictions were needed, they did not mean to imply that they would accept the ~irport, under any circumstance° 3. He noted the quantity of ~actual data regarding needed re strictions nhat a few people have brought forth in the last three tc weeks, compared to that distributed by the City' Departments~ after year study~ Mr. McMlilan thereupon introduced Mr. Stuart Noble to speak the General Planning Report and the distributed Staff Report° Mr. Stuart Nobie~ 2526 Whidby Lane, Anaheim, advised of his opposition to the establishment of an airport at the location under con- sideration, which opinion was shared by thousands of Anaheim citizens° According to the Bulletin, Mr. Barnett, of Commuter Centers, Inc~, was approached amd requested by the City Council to operate an airport at this locaticn~ In his opinion~ other sites had not been adequately sidered~ 69-&73 Cit~ HY_~_i, Anaheim~ Califc. rnia- CC"2,N£1IL MINUTES .- Ju1~969~ 7°00 PoMa Mr. Noble read excerpts from a letter written by Mro Orsbcrn, 3uly 2, 1969~ to the City Ccuncil, setting forth reasons for precluding the County Dump Site as a possible location because of physical impediments~ related comparisons of the two locations, noting that the City of Anaheim would be required to relocate the Edison Company's 66 KVA line~, should the Stadium site be selectedo This, to him, was evidence that the City had thoroughly checked the Stadium site as to safety and costs~ Mr~ Noble noted that nothing has been mentioned cf the Angel or-. ganization and how this might affect their lease with the City° He asked if there was any written evid~]nce that they did not object to the realignment of the parking, the entrance and locati.?n of the airport this close to, the Stadium. Mr. Noble then referred tc conditions recommended by the Staff~ wherein in the first report only one condition was recommended. This wss later increased to six copditions, and at their suggestion~ the City Plann- ing Commission now recommends thirteen conditions~ He felt the conditions now imposed were good, however, certain items shc. uld be further amended or changed as fcllows; Condition No~ 1, regarding noise, should be clarified not to ex- ceed, in any event, the ncise level of the DeHaviland Otter~ Condition No. 4 should clearly indicate the type of operation, how it should operate, and when. Condition No. 6 should be clari£ied whether or not this would in~ elude a motel, and how much and where parking will be provided~ Mr~ Noble asked if the land south of Orangewood Avenue had been considered as to possible develcpment~ In conclusion, Mro Noble was cf the opinion that should the use be granted, the requirements should be part of the contract~ He again reiter- ated his opposition~ and urged the requested use be denied° Councilman Schutte referred to a previous statement made by Mr~Noble that the sale price of industrial land was $40,000°00 per acre, and asked where such a sale had been consummated. Mr~ Noble replied that his information was obtained from Mro Mark Andrews, a Realtor, however, as to a specific transaction he had no knowledge, Councilman Dutton stated that he had heard twice the statement~ "Mr~ Barnes was approached by the City, relative to a Commuter Centers Metro- port," and asked Mr. Orsborn and Mr. Barnes if this was a correct statement Negative replies were indicated~ ~ Mr.~ Mc Millan introduced Mr. G~ H. Vind, to speak on air traffic, existing air routes, and potential dangers in these areas. Mr. G~Ho Vind, 259 Solomon Drive, Anaheim~ speaking in opposition, indicated he wished to discuss air traffic and existing air routes in the area. He requested that. his letter dated July 28, 1969~ a copy of which was submitted to each Councilman~ be read in ful].~ in order that it be included in the permanent record~ Mr. Vind's letter ©utlining his reasons £or concern and opposition to the proposed Metroport w~$ read by the City Clerk, following which, a 10~ minute recess was called, on motion by Councilman Pebley, seconded by Coun- cilman Dutton. MOTION CARRIED. The meeting was reccnvened at 9~20 P~M., al! members of the City Council being present, and Mr. Vind resumed speaking. He noted that in his opening remarks Mayor Clark stated that when any new development takes place, it infringes upon the quiet comfort of some- one° Mr. Vind charged that the land use currentl.~ before the City Council would be a much greater infringement~ that it was not a difference cf degree 69-47 City Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MiNU'TES - Jul ~ 28 1969 -- , ~ 7°00 but involved the interaction of a £aciiity with the surrounding communi which was a di£ference in kind. Mayor Clark ,observed that the concern of the City Council was evidenced by holding the public hearing and allowing interested persons to be heard. Mr. Vind indicated his appreciation of this .fact, and resumed his presentation., as f'ollows~ Mr00rsborn's statement indicated he surveyed many industries; however, the predominant number of individuals heard had something tc sell? therefore,the input of the report was biased information° With regard to the proposed flight pattern~ the City would have no way of controling thi$~ since it is preempted by the Federal Co~.~er~- ment, and actual flights could deviate considerably from the proposed pattern. The sound level charts were subject to the same criticism, in that there is no assurance that the planes will be able~ under all operat- ing conditions, to make a 90 degree turn and fly directly over State Coil- ege Boulevard; likewise, it is uncertain whether all obstacles can be cleared and a 90 degree turn made in order to land in the proposed flight pattern, under all conditions~ and that this presented a hazard to motcr~ ists. Vind~ View foils were projected, with the following commentary' by Mr. 1. Projected Revenue~ The minimum fee outlined in the letter of intent is very small when compared to the revenue which could be gained from other possible uses of the land, and the maximum fee, which is just over $100,000.00, compares unfavorably with projected revenues of one mil- lion dollars if the land is valued at $40,000~00 per acre, or $750,000o00, if valued at $30,000~00 per acre. 2o Break-Even Analysis. The cost of taking out the Edison limes is unknown, and may cost $500,000.00~ New towers must be constructed and an easement purchased for the relocation of much more than what is located in the parking lot itself° Interest charges will also have to be added to these costs. The letter of intent shows an accumulated maximum revenue of $425,000.00,'yet at that point in time, 1975, the City will be $300,000 00 short of breaking even~ ' (The signal indicating expiration of the five-minute time limit was sounded, and Council permission was granted for Mr. Vind to continue his presentations) 3. Metroport Airspace Critical. The regulation of the proposed Metroport airspace is a serious problem at the present time, and will grow at a rapid rate, perhaps doubling in the next five .years. Radar controls are distant and uncertain. Locations ot the primary airports, indicated in red on the view foil, indicate that the Disney-land Heliport would be in conflict with the Metr0port cent'rol, zon~ Average daily flights as monitored by the Long Beach Tower, air- craft control center for this region, indicate that flights approaching Orange County Airport: would be in conflict with the proposed Metroport. Flights approaching a helicopter facility- not shown on the map would also conflict. A total of two to three hundred flights daily fly over the free- ways and river bed on visual flight operation at the approximate altitude of helicopters. The average number of flights at Los Alamitos Naval Air Station is 250 per day. The danger of a collision is increased fourfold when air traffic is doubled in a given area. 69~475 C__ity Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL~MINUTES - Ju1~1969~ 7:00 P~M~ Growth of the proposed Metroport would be wide open, and these im- plications have been obscured. 4~ Proposed Runway Loc~ti~on. As shown in Plate 32, of the Metro~ port Brochure, clearance ab~ve the proposed Orange Freeway on the approach pattern would be only two feet above the acceptable minimum standard~ Mr~ Dale L. Jensen, 20].8 Janette Lane, Anaheim, engineering consult- ant, was introduced as an audible noise expert for the opposition~ He distri~ buted copies of a proposal dated July 14, 1969, which was presented to the City Planning Commission at their hearing, outlining conditions which he felt should be attached to the conditional use permit, if granted. in response to Council request for clarification of his position, Mr. Jensen indicated he was opposed to the proposed land 'use on the basis that it is incompatible with the community; however~ the conditions were requested in the event the application is granted. Mr. Jenson urged the Council to consider restrictions on noise tevels~ and projected a chart shewing the relationship of sound power as measured i~ decibels to distance from aircraft measured in thousands of feet° As a point of reference, he noted that under State Law the automobile in a residential area is allowed to generate no more than 82 decibels, measured at a distance of 50 feet (distance being an important factor), and trucks on a freeway are allowed to produce no more than 92 decibels at 50 feet. The Federal govern-. ment was considering 93 decibels at approximately 500 feet as a criterion for STOL aircraft~ and the suggestion of the group he represented was 95 deci- bels at a distance of 500 ~eet. The subject proposal ind~.cated 100 decibels would be allowed, with no distance specified. This was felt to be nec much noise. Mr Jensen was allowed to conclude his argument, although his time limit had expired° Mr. Jensen requested that the Council substitute conditions recom- mended by the organized opposition in place of the conditions recommended by the City Planning Commission, and continued his presentation with an explana- tion of the decibel as a unit of sound measurement° A difference of one decibel, which is a mathematical abstraction, represents a large difference in power~ an increase from 95 to 100 decibels is not a 5% increase but a 300% increase in sound level; each 5% increment in the decibel scale representing three times more sound. Mr. Jensen felt that the congestion at Los Angeles International Airport was Los Angeles' problem, and no justification to establish a Metro~ port in Anaheim at the expense of our citizens. The present bus and helicopter services were felt to be very satisfactory and capable of accommodating in- creased future demand, having kept pace with recent increases of 45,000 persons per year. If these two systems can adequately handle future needs, a third was ~elt to be unnecessary, especially if it is for the benefit of the occa- sional traveler, at the expense of permanent residents~ Mr~ Dan Emery~ 2250 Gordon Circle~ Newport Beach~ was introduced to offer evidence on restrictions on aircraft° Mr. Emery took issue with the statement of the representative ~f the ~lunior Chamber of Commerce that future generanions will appreciate the City's foresight in the establishment of a Metroport, feeling that increased pollution would offset any advantages gained in the realm of transportation. It was felt that the public health, safety and welfare should be the first consideration of the City Council in determin- ing such ~.ssues. Mr. Emery stated that one and one-half years ago Mr. Barnett appeared before the Orange County Board of Supervisors and made the statement that they need have no fear of noise problems at the Orange County Airport; that noise reduction devices will come in the near future. He felt Mro Barnett's prophecy was not borne out and that predictions regarding these potential problems at the proposed Metroport were similarly too optimistic° 69 -4 76 Ci~ty Hal____~lm. Anahei. m~ Gali£ornia- COUNCIL MINUTES -Jul_z_28 1969 _7:00 Mr, Emery predicted that DeHaviland will manufacture hJ.$her- powered planes that will carry more passengers and will be extremely loud. He pointed out that the FAA controls-only one thing, and that is the cer-, tification cf aircraft types; that noise standards do not apply to STOL aircraft; and that the FAA denies a local operator the power to control bis own airport. Orange County Airport, in answering an inquiry of the Grand Jury, noted that the types and frequency of aircraft operations not be resu].ated by the airport. He predicted that this City may face the same problems being experienced by the Oranse County Board of Supervisors. He suggested that the proposed flight pattern be included im the terms of a contract so that there are sufficient grounds to break the cor~- tract should any deviation occur; and that noise be measured from th~ ground. He felt that technology will advance to enable larger planes to operate from the same size runway in the future, and asked that the City Council either put controls on the application or reject it. Mayer Clark asked whether any other Anaheim citizens wished to address the City Council, Mr, Charles Barton, 1003 South Hilda Street, Anaheim, stated he has been a r~gident cf Anaheim for seven years and felt his viewpoint was representative of at least 100,000 residents of this City~. ~e approved cf' the City's current tax rate and the decision to build Anaheim Stadium, but wondered if the City Council was properly briefed on the non-commercial as- pects of the airport and the transit system and if all technical and com- mercial facts have been obtained. Mr, Bob Lawrence, 2529 Bethel Drive, Anaheim, raised questions c.n the following subjects which he felt were unanswered: 1 Noise - A decibel rating has been taken on only one type of aJ. rcraft, whereas other types would probably be operated as well~ 2~ Convenience - Anaheim is surrounded by Metroports of sorts, as well as jet airports~ and it appears that Palmdale will be the site of an SST Airport in the near future. There is no apparent inconvenience at present, '~n either the surface or air-transportation fields. 3, Safety - Many questions remain unanswered. 4. Need - The need for such a facility must be judged in four categories: (a) Commodities. Airports presently in existence are prc- riding good service. (b) Citizens. The figures projected are frightening and astronomical and current airport activity does not bear out this data~ (c) Recreation Facilities. It is questionable whether a Metroport is needed to support these facilities. (d) Industry. Both private and com- mercial air transportation is available to industrial subscribers, Pres- ently, private airlines will most likely have to use larger fields~ and commercial airlines will use long-haul fields. Existing demands seem to be well met and it appears will continue to be met with existing periphery airports. Mr~ Lawrence felt that the problems created by the Metroport could be unsolvable., He requested the City Council to decide the issue on the basis of wha~i the people want, and it was his opinion that the people wished to have the application denied. Mrs, Joseph Thelen, 2527 Oshkosh, Anaheim, addressing the Council in opposition, stated that the Metroport proposal has no precedent and pointed out that three-quarters of a million dollars was being spent in ten counties in an attempt tc solve noise problems~ She questioned whether Anaheim needed a Metrcport within the next two years, and asked who will pay for the followi~g~ 1 Rel~cat~on ~- - .... ~ Edison lines 2. Con~tr~t~c~;~ of an overpass er underpass on Orangewood Avenue .. Re?].a~ en',~' ~ of ['~arking space ' Rem~:vai ~ ~u~]d~ngs~ trees and poles '.5. Fire ; r' .ctio[~ 69-477 Cit~_Ha__~l~__Anahe_i_m._California - COUNCIl. MINUTES - Ju_l~~7:O0 P,Me 6~ Traffic control 7 Water lines and sewers Mrs, Thelen called attention to a statement made by Mr. Barnett that profits would be derived from cargo handling at the proposed Metroport, and asked how Anaheim would gain revenue from passengers on this basis. She requested answers to the follow].ng questions also: 1 Why does the size of ~he proposed Metroport exceed that of Ful- lerton Airport? Will the City cf Anaheim make up any losses incurredZ What is the distinctioin between Public and Private Airports? 4. Who would be the defemdant, in case of lawsuits? Mr Anthony Betka, 2731 East Norm Place, Anaheim, speaking in oppo- sition, felt ths. t the responsibility of public officials was to the citizena, rather than to economic interests. He noted that attendance at the hearing was great, and all those who spoke were in opposition to the proposed Metro- port. Many others have signed petitions in opposition. While not directing this statement to the City Council in particu- lar, he felt that all public officials, beginning at the City level, should make full financial disclosures to their constituents. Mr. Bill Woodyard, 2753 Strong Place, Anaheim, speaking in opposi- tion, requested that the City Council consider restrictions in the areas of noise level, number of flights~ hours of operation, and types of cargo, and tailor those restrictions to the needs of the City and request of the resi- dents, as opposed to requirements cr requests of the investor group who may be financing the operation. He stated he could not find an answer to the question of why a Metro- port is needed in the statistics presented, although he understands that popu~ lation will increase and industrial needs must be met. He felt that tourists did nct consider difficulties in getting from Los Angeles International Air- port to the Anaheim area. He asked why the City should plunge into this proposal without ha~'- ing an operating Metroport to study. He felt that within a few years there will be a Metropcrt network throughout Southern California, perhaps through- out the State~ He noted that Fortune Magazine has indicated that Anaheim will prob- ably be one ¢.f the bases for this type of operation, and felt that the City had nothing to lose by waiting, in order to benefit from the mistakes of others. It was his opinion that such a facility may be needed in three to four years; however, it is not needed now, and the City will not suffer by waiting two to three years. He felt approval at this time would be a disservice to the citi- zens and should be withheld for at least a period of one year. Mr. Harold Storch, 1249 Banyan Avenue, Anaheim, speaking in opposi- tion, estimated his views were representative of 10,000 homeowners and that he represented that group cf people earn~.ng $150.00 to $200.00 per week.. He requested that the application be denied and read a letter which appeared in the L~s Angeles Times on July 22, 1969, entitled, "Airports and Zoning." He felt that those present represented 100 times as many people who were opposed to the Metroport who did not attend, and asked that the City Council give consideration to the wishes of this group of citizens, A five-minute recess was declared by Mayor Clark, for the purpose changing recording tapes~ after which the meeting was reconvened at 10:25 P~M , all members of the Council present, and Mayor Clark asked if anyone had new and different information to present. 69-478 ~~__Anaheim_~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - July Mrs. Betty Jane Marquardt~ 1665 South Nutwood Street, Anaheim, addressed the Council in opposition. She felt that the problem of surface traffic consestion, particularly in the area surrounding Anaheim Ccn~en- tion Center, should be solved before a Metroport is considered. She stat.ed she would rather not have planes fly' over her home° Mrs. Marquardt asked if the City Council had consulted the County Tax Assessor, to determine whether location of the Metroport on City pro~ perty would cause a rise in tax assessments that would have to be born~ by the City's taxpayers. Mayor Clarl indicated that such considerations would be spelled out in the terms of the lease~ and if a possessory interest tax is levied on the proposed facility, it will be borne by the lessee° Mrs° Marquardt agreed with those who felt the City should wait before approving a Metroport~ Mayor Clark asked if any other Anaheim citizen wished to address the Council, hearing no response, he invited the three representatives from neighboring cities to address the Council° Mrs. Lois E. Bar,e, 2022 East Spruce Street, Orange, with the permission of the City Council, showed movies taken by Mr. Peevey from his residence on Primrose Street in Orange. Pictures shcwn were of the Buf£alo plane during the demonstra- tion flights, approact~iag the proposed Stadium site. Mrs. Barke noted the close proximity of the plane to the power lines and that the plane was over a residential area. Mrs. Jane Blomgren, 139 Dcnnybroohe, Orange, was of the opin- ion that the presentations made have proven that the subject airport would be a noisy and unsafe infliction on the entire community. She stated thst existing and conflicting air traffic could create the possibility of "close misses" or mid-air crashes as well as inflicting excessive noise problems for the schools, homes and hospitals in the area. She advised of the many health dangers attributed to the noise. Mrs~ Blomgren reported that Los Angeles was closing Airport Junior High School and 28 other schools will require soundproofing or closing. Cost cf soundproofing is estimated at one and one-half million dollars, and there are 27 schools within 2 miles of the proposed Metro- port site. Reference was made to the vertical jet aircraft presently being designed for short landing strips. Mrs~ Blomgren reported that noise tests were made with a 19-passenger airplane, whereas it was a fact that this might be only one type of small plane used initially. It could not be reasonably expected that this would be the only type of plane using this faclility~ In conclusion Mrs. Blomgren a,]vised that the p~omoters will not have to live with ~he proposed airport, and if uhey' did, it would be their own choice, and that they, the residents of Orange and Anaheim will have this inf]~.ct~d upon them. a~d ~t would be a disastrous part of their every- day 1 Mrs. Lois E. Bark¢.. stated that the previous speakers have stated reasons why the Metroport would not be appropriate in Anaheim~ and why is opposed by hundreds of' citizens in Anaheim and Orange. In her opinion, the City Planning Co~m~ission, in reaching their conclusion did not show the necessary facts th. at this airport will not adversely affect the joining [a~'~d use and the growth and development of the area in which J t ~s to be ],'".cated. The exlsting R-.! zones in the City of Anaheim and in Orange~ .~u~r~3. t~nd~n~ t}]~: 1,rop(~s~d s{te could not be disregarded, Speaking 69 -479 Cit_y__H__a_ll_~ Anahei__m~.California _ COUNCiL MINUTES - July 28, 19_6.9, 7:00 P.M~ for the citizens within three miles of the proposed site~ within the Cities of Anaheim and Orange, it was their contention that the Metroport will be detrimental to the peace, health and general welfare of the citizens, and will completely change the tenor of the area surrounding the airport. Mrs.. Barke referred to the statement made that the air traffic would be confined to industrial areas, and that the movie showed otherwise; that these trial flights were for a specific purpose of avoiding residential areas and in actual operation, as larger planes are developed, there would be more and more encroachment into the residential, single-family dwelling areas surrounding the airport. Reference was made to a publication of the Southern California Association of Government <§CAG-Aviation Wing) wherein, on one page regard- ing compatible land use planning around an airport, five reasons were listed why this would not be a proper location for an airport from the standpoint of land use, which were as follows: 1 Highways within one-half mile of the approach area 2 Outdoor theatres 3. Stadium 4. Residential use within approximately three miles 5 Certain institutional uses An article appearing in Business Aviation publication, dated July 25, 1969, was read, regarding subject application, noting that if approved by the City Council,construction would begin within the next few weeks, with full operation planned before Thanksgiving. It initially included an 1,800- foot by 400-foot paved runway, a 25,000-square foot terminal on the 84-acre site; that Phase I costs would be $250,000.00, and that negotiations were being made with five commuter airlines to provide scheduled service. Mrs. Barke reported that the people at the last hearing were not given any of the information reported in the Business Aviation publication. Mrs. Barke referred to statemen, t by Mr. Barnett at the last public hearing~ relative to an air-umbrella, three miles in shape, and 2,500 feet thick, which will be established, and requested further explanation of that statement Mr. Barnett replied that when a new aviation facility is estab- lished it is noted on all aviation charts, and creates a three-mile shape cake of air space. However, it is not now known if FAA will establish it at 2,500 feet high. This means that you do not come through unless on con-. trol, or to land, and in the proposed contract with the City this will be limited to STOL-type operation, which will be a published fact. This would reduce all air traffic in the immediate area from what it is now, however, there will be traffic at the higher altitudes. Mrs~ Barke reported that upon request for an explanation of "air umbrella" to the FAA, she was advised that the term was unfamiliar to them, and not a term used by that Agency. Further, that the approval of an air- port from a standpoint of safe and efficient use of ai'r space would not isolate air space for the use of aircraft landing at that airport. In her opinion, this question and others have not been adequately projected nor answered. With reference to the statement purportedly made by Mr. Barnett, that this was not a normal airport, it was a Metroport with limitations, Mrs. Barke requested clarification of those limitations. Mr. Barnett replied that it was limited to STOL aircraft, that land very slowly ( approximately 32 or 33 miles per hour in an automobile) and that the 35 demonstration flights were to demonstrate what the noise level was. 69-480 C_~tY__~_al_l_z' Anaheim,_ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - July 28, 1969 7:00 P.M. Mrs. Barke felt her question had not been answered as to what specific regulations or limitations make this airport di£ferent from any other, and according to the FAA~ there were none. Regarding noise, she stated that Mr. Orsborn advised that the State and Federal Governments had regulations for Metroports that make them different from other airports, and requested what these specific regulations were. Mr. Orsborn advised that he made no such statement; that the State and Federal Governments were studying noise controls and they pro- posed to come forth with regulations as concern these noise controls. Mr.. Orsborn further reported that at the last demonstration each member of the City Planning Commission was taken by car to every area possible, during the flight demonstrations, both in the City of Ana- heim and in the City of Orange, and suggested the City Council seek their response in this regard. Mrs. Barke noted an article in Fortune Magazine (November) where Eastern Airlines was working on these aircraft and felt they were uneco- nomical because they were too small, and as a result they were working on a model twice as large. In her opinion, there is no intention of using the size of aircraft proposed when it is anticipated to accommodate 2.4 million passengers annually. She noted that one of the Staff recommendations was "Subject to State and Federal Regulations" and there were none at this time, and a Metroport is not yet recognized by the FAA. In conclusion, Mrs. Barke referred to a reply received from Mr Orsborn, in answer to her letter sent to the Planning Commission, wherein he stated that the Metropolitan Stolport criteria was developed most particularly for Anaheim so that they could proceed in an orderly fashion. Mr Orsborn clarified remarks of said letter, advising that at the time the study was commenced it was called a "Satellite Facility." The term "Metroport" had not been coined when the study was started, and at that time the FAA had not established any criteria for a short take-off and landing facility. As a result, the criteria was forced to all intents and purposes by Anaheim's desire to explore the possibility of providing such a facility. Mrs. Barke reported that the FAA still does not recognize the term "Metroport~" They have developed the "Interim Metropolitan Stolport Criteria," and the criteria specifically refers to a metropolitan area of urban concentration. To her, it was apparent that this was not de- veloped specifically for Anaheim. Further, the criteria includes certain instruments refused in Anaheim, as they would, be unsafe because of the congested air here. Mr. Paul E. Gregoire, 1_216 Firebrand, Garden Grove, stated that the proposed Metroport would infringe upon his air space, and asked who would pay for the extra fire protection needed. He stated that the DC-9 Aircraft, with 137 passengers could utilize this facility, and in his opinion, the Metroport was not needed. Mr A.E. Luckenville, 246 Jewel Place, Orange, asked why the residents of outside or surrounding communities were limited to three speakers. Mayor Clark advised that this was a public hearing for an Ana- heim project, and basically held for the citizens of Anaheim. However, since t~.e neighbors have indicated their interest time has been made available for them to be heard. He thereupon invited Mr. Luckenville to addre,.~? the CJt.y Council. 69-481 Cit Hall, Anaheim. a California ___Z ..... - COUNCIL MINUTES -Jul. y 28. 1969.~. 7:00 P.M. Mr. Luckenville felt that the proposed Metroport was bound to adversely affect the entire area. He stated that much has been said about noise and that everyone knows that one of the basi~c things prescribed for a patient by a phy- sician is quiet and rest~ and this Would be badly disturbed if the proposed use was approved° Reference was made to objections regarding the Orange County Airport and International Airport~ and Mr. Luckenville advised that once the Metroport was established it would grow, and the type of aircraft today, with certain decibels of sound are bound to increase beyond what can be conceived today, and as they increase, control would be lost. To him~ noise was one of the greatest adverse influences upon our society today. He also noted that noth- ing had been said about pollution. Mayor Clark then invited the proponents to respond to the remarks made by the opposition. Mr. Barnes, again speaking on behalf of Commuter Centers, Inc., ad- vised that no member of the City Council ever approached any representative of Commuter Centers, Inc~, as stated earlier; that formerly, when Mr. Barnett was Director of Aviation for the State of California, it was his duty to give such advice. Mr. Barnes noted that it was the purpose of the public hearing to consider the land-use application, whether it is operated by Commuter Centers, Inc,, or any other entity; that what was overlooked was the fact that this would be a private operation; therefore, the City, through the terms of the lease agreement, can regulate the use of the airport, the number of flights, noise, etc. These factors can also be regulated by restrictions placed on the conditional use permit itself. He noted that Orange County Airport is in a position of having to accept Federal funds which resulted in a loss of control, whereas the City of Anaheim is 'in a position to have a Metroport which is pri- vately financed, governed by conditions in the contractual arrangement and conditional use permit. Then if it is not operated properly the contract can be cancelled. With regard to noise~ Mr Barnes indicated he was not an expert, however, he was involved with hearings on the subject over the period of many years and he has not seen a more thorough investigation of such a proposal than the Planning Staff conducted on the subject. The City Planning Commission also studied it and heard testimony from an expert in the field, Mr. Dwight Fischer. Mr. Barnes noted that the demonstration aircrafts were Canadian Air Force Planes, flown by pilots who were not familiar with the area, and the landing strip has been relocated 600 feet to the south. The pictures taken by Mr. Peevey were not felt to be relevant as pilots who are properly trained can fly the specific flight patterns designated in the report. Regarding safety, the subject was felt to be best judged by experts. If the FAA felt it was unsafe it would not allow implementation of operation. He added that if the opinions of the experts did not satisfy the proponents the City could impose conditions on the operation. In answer to the statement that the operation would become "a monster," Mr Barnes pointed out that the terms of the contract would require the con- currenc~ of th~ City Planning Comm,_ss{on and C{ty Council. for any proposed change in operation. The physical limitations of the site itself limit the possibility of growth to that proposed in the plans submitted, Mr. Barnes suggested that the recommended conditions be reviewed very carefully.~ In genera], they had merit, but there were exceptions. He stated he would not go into the 13 conditions at this time, but noted that five to six-million dollars would be invested in the proposed Metroport at substantial risk, and the proposal is the result of considerable study. He did not wish to alienate either the City or neighbors surrounding the facil- ity and advised that controls could be imposed by the City, if they are felt necessary; however, the question, of noise has been answered by the studies conducted. He felt the need for a Metroport had been established, that Anaheim is ideally suited, and the operation would be compatible and an asset to the area. C i___~t ~ 1_~. Anaheim u_California - COUNCIL MINUTES - July_28_~__1969~ 7:00 P.M. Having heard evidence both for and against the subject applica- tion, in accordance with the procedures outlined earlier Mayor Clark de- clared the hearing closed. ' Councilman Krein noted that one o£ the speakers asked if tile City Council had sufficient information or facts to vote on this proposal, and observed that his personal answer was ~'No." tie was very impressed with the report o£ Mr. Vind, outlining significant considerations which require additional study, as well as other speakers who raised pertJ_nent questions. He, therefore, favored continuing decision on the application° ~TION~ Councilman Krein moved that the decision on Conditional Use Per- mit No. 1120 be continued to allow further study and investigation so that all remaining questions may be answered to enable the City Council to make a decision. Councilman Pebley seconded the motion. It was suggested by Councilman Pebley that the decision be con- tinued to a date certain, and Councilman Krein suggested the first meeting in November. Councilman Dutton felt that the people should have an answer to the question of whether or not we want a Metroport in tile proposed loca- tion~ that it should be either granted and controlled, or rejected~ Councilman Schutte asked if two weeks would be sufficient time to obtain the necessary information. The City Manager, Keith Murdoch, advised that it may be possible to get answers to the questions raised within two weeks, but it would be difficult in that length of time. A continuance to November, however may be more than is necessary. ' Councilman $chutte stated that, in his opinion, if the proposed use is approved it would not be as objectionable as feared by the oppon- ents. Councilman Dutton observed that if the sound level was limited to 100 decibels it would not matter what kind of aircraft is allowed. He fur- ther noted that the physical limitations of the site will keep the facil- ity from growing~ Mayor Clark felt it would be wise to take time to answer ques- tions regarding liability, ownership liens, appraised value of the property, cost of relocation of power lines, sound levels, etc. Councilman Pebley advised that to his knowledge whenever any Councilman wished to continue decision on a matter before the City Coun- cil, he has received cooperation of other Councilmen. He also felt, how- ever, consideration should be shown the proposed operator by reaching a decision as soon as possible~ On the recommendation of Councilman Pebley, who seconded the motion on the f]oor, Councilman Krein consented to an amendment to his motion to continue decision on the subject application to the meeting of October 7, 1969, at 1'30 P M., said meeting to be held in the Council Chambers of the City }{ali. MOTION CARRIED. _ADJOURNMENT: Councilman Krein moved to adjourn the meeting, Councilman Pebley seconded the motion~ MOTION CARRIED. ADJOURNED - 11:35 F.M. City C].erk