Loading...
1972/10/24City Hall, Anaheim, California COUNCIL MINUTES October 24, 1972, 1 :30 P.M. The status of Walnut acrd Cerritos' zoning and the fact that the applicants now must file an Environmental Impact Report was explained by Mr. Roberts. Also explained was that that specific project would not be a subject discussed at this meeting. At the conclusion of this discussion, everyone with any input along the lines discussed, was encouraged to cooperate with the Planning Commission in the studies undertaken at this meeting. ADJOURNMENT: Councilman Sneegas moved to adjourn, Councilman Stephenson seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. Commissioner Seymour offered a motion to adjourn the Planning Commission meeting, Co&i$ioner Farano seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. Adjourned: 9 :00 P.M. Signed 2. 1 1 City Clerk 72 -697 City Hall, Anaheim, California COUNCIL MINUTES October 31, 1972, 1 :30 P.M. The City Council of the City of Anaheim met in regular session. PRESENT: COUNCILMEN: Sneegas, Stephenson, Pebley, Thom and Dutton ABSENT: COUNCILMEN: None PRESENT: CITY MANAGER: Keith A. Murdoch CITY ATTORNEY: Joseph B. Geisler CITY CLERK: Dene M. Daoust DIRECTOR OF PARKS AND RECREATION: John Collier CITY ENGINEER: James P. Maddox ASSISTANT DIRECTOR OF DEVELOPMENT SERVICES: Ronald Thompson DESIGN ENGINEER: William G. Devitt ZONING SUPERVISOR: Charles Roberts Mayor Dutton called the meeting to order. FLAG SALUTE: Councilman Ralph G. Sneegas led the Assembly in the Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag. AWARDS POLICE MEDALISTS: The Mayor presented Sergeant Jerry Le Mar and Officer Jim Watkins of the Anaheim Police Department with symbols of the Anaheim "A" in recognition of their achievements as gold and silver medalists respectively in the National Police Olympics. PROCLAMATIONS: The following proclamations were issued by the Mayor and un- animously ratified by the City Council: "Anaheim Marine Corps Weeks" The week of November 5th. "Bicycle Safety Week in Anaheim" The week of November 5th. "California Reading Days" November 2, 3, 4, 1972. PROPOSITION 18: The Mayor read a resolution signed by four members of the Council endorsing Proposition 18 on the general election ballot November 7, 1972, noting Councilman Thom elected not to sign. The Mayor indicated his support of this measure and encouraged the citizens of Anaheim to back any step taken against "moral pollution In addition the Mayor noted that the Anaheim Bulletin has taken the opposite stand on this proposition and in cgpnection with his op- posing viewpoint on this issue, read the following correspondence into the record: 1. A letter published in "Letters to the Editor" section of the Anaheim Bulletin, September 18, 1972 and the editorial response: "Nudity, etc. Editor: So: you defend naked dancing in bars with the sacred term, 'free enterprise'? 1 72 -698 City Hall, Anaheim, California COUNCIL MINUTES October 31, 1972, 1:30 P.M. How about the freely enterprising purveyors of heroin and the like? You would say, 'if you don't like it, don't buy it,' or else, 'get your friends together and boycott the smug- glers and The Bulletin will uphold your right to boycott.' Yes, that ought to fix them: Erma L. Raeburn, Anaheim Editor's note: We do not defend naked dancing in bars; we argue for the right to present even vulgarity in a private establishment, the clientele of which might not be offended. As for heroin, we do support a free market therein, thus to eliminate the profit from violence connected with heroin trade. Should an addict get violent under heroin's influence, he should be arrested for violent behavior. Mrs. Raeburd, how- ever wry she intends her phrase, is right: If she doesn't like heroin, as is proper, she does not have to buy it. Politicians play on precisely those fears Mrs. Raeburn envinces, and there- by perpetuate a heroin traffic problem." 2. Correspondence dated September 28, 1972, addressed to Mr. C. H. Hoiles, Publisher, Freedom Newspapers Inc., from Mayor Dutton: "Dear Mr. C. H. Hoiles: I find it hard to believe that the enclosed response to a letter to the Editor of the Anaheim Bulletin can represent the policy and philosophy of your company. The statement of your Editor, in my opinion, exceeds the bounds of healthy political discussion and enters the threshold of dangerous lunacy. If this item does indeed represent your official position, I would much appreciate an explanation in greater detail. Thank you for your indulgence. encl. Must sincerely yours, /s/ Jack C. Dutton Mayor" 3. Response received from Mr. C. H. Hoiles, Chairman of the Board, on Freedom Newspapers Inc. letterhead, dated October 2, 1972. "Dear Mr. Dutton: The most succinct answer I can give to your question in your letter of September 28 is that people can handle their own affairs exceedingly better than politicians can tell them what to do. Sincerely yours, FREEDOM NEWSPAPERS, INC. /s/ C. H. Hoiles" Councilman Thom stated that he agreed primarily with almost everything Mayor Dutton said, and almost everything the resolution purports, because he did endorse the intent of Proposition 18. He advised that he was as anti- pornography and anti-obscenity as anyone present and has so demon- strated this fact by actively participating in various drives against it. However, he could not endorse what seems to be a bad piece of legislation when even its constitutionality is questionable, and which could create even greater problems for law enforcement. Councilman Thom noted that unfortunately we have never been.able to properly legislate public morals. He stated as a public'official represen- ting all the people he must recognize that the citizenry is split on this issue and as a councilman he would not make a public endorsemdht although he knew how he would vote privately. 72-695 City Hall. Anaheim. California COUNCIL MINUTES October 24. 1972. 1:30 P.M. Commissioner Rowland advised that the Planning Commission has been acting on a policy of not more than 12 condominiums or townhouses per gross acre. They have found that condominium type living requires more open space and slightly more parking (2.5 parking spaces per unit), and have made these requirements conditions of approval for condominium developments. Under R -3 development standards, only 1.5 parking spaces per unit is required which generates less open space. Commissioner Rowland stated that site development standards for condominium development, broad enough in scope to encourage independent creative development of land by responsible creative developers, is a goal of the Planning Commission, noting importance of adequate parking requirements in a residential area. Commissioner Gauer was of the opinion that the City should set high standards for developments in order to enhance the environment of the City4,it is uniqueness of development which attracts people. Commissioner Seymour summarized from the discussion that it is Council's desire to have the Planning Commission draft proposed condominium site development standards for Council consideration. Commissioner Seymour stated that the Planning Commission bases their decisions and recommendationson aesthethics and environment, rather than on economics, and this approach has been used in respect to undergrounding elec- trical utilities. It is the belief of the Planning Commission that when street widening projects occur, necessitating removal and relocation of poles, that these lines go underground. He advised that in the hill and canyon area, it is more than just a request for undergrounding, more than just an aesthetical or environmental wish, private enterprise with its desires and objectives in meeting the market place, want underground utilities. Mayor Dutton clarified for those in attendance that all new sub- division developments are required to install underground utilities with the exception of the backbone feeder line (12KV) which is the matter under discussion now. He pointed out that Council is awaiting an absolute cost report to under- ground all facilities in the City, and that it has been estimated that such 'a project would cost twice as much as the value of the City's electrical system. The Mayor explained that other cities in Orange County have installed portions of their electrical utility system underground at the expense of the Edison Company. Since Anaheim owns and operates its own electrical utility system, the expense of undergrounding would be borne by the taxpayers of Anaheim. The City Council has taken a position that no authorization will be given until the total cost is known and also where the money will come from for the underground installation or conversion. Commissioner Gauer questioned whether or not Anaheim realized a profit on their utilities to which Mayor Dutton replied that the profits realized were deposited in the general fund in order to retain the City's low tax rate of $1.05. Commissioner Rowland expressed a desire to have input from the broad segment of the community, from industrialists in our area and the Industrial Committee of the Chamber of Commerce in order to obtain their views on under grounding. Mayor Dutton cited an instance where everyone agreed the overhead lines in the area of Katella Avenue and Harbor Boulevard should go underground, with a total cost of six million dollars. The City contacted the property owners in the ale rto advise them of their proportionate share and not one wanted to pay their share. Commissioner Kaywood stated that the Vice President of Southern California Edison Company quoted a 20% cost increase over the conventional overhead line installation for new developments. She reported that last year the Edison Company spent. 53 million dollars, or 17% of their construction budget for environment and aesthetics. Commissioner Kaywood stated that she and others worked very hard on the January 18, 1972 electrical revenue bond election because they were under the impression that undergrounding would be accomplished if the bond issue passed, and if they had known there would be no undergrounding, it would have been a different situation. If the City is not going for a conversion plan, then they should commence initial under grounding of all new areas of development. 72-696 City Hall. Anahlgim. California COUNCIL MINUTES OcQber 24. 1972. 1 :30 P.M. Commissioner Farano questioned the City Attorney as to the method of levying an assessment against the property. City Attorney Geisler advised that assessment districts are generally set for anywhere from a 10 to 20 year period, or it can be funded by the City thru a continuing fund. However in addition to conversion to underground all the homes served must also be converted at a cost of from $400.00 to $800.00 per house. Practically no houses have been so converted in Southern California. Commissioner Farano stated he agreed with Commissioner Rowland in wanting to get input from the citizens of Anaheim, but achieving this goal is very difficult. If people want undergrounding and are willing to pay for it, then the City should proceed with a conversion plan, if not it should be forgotten. Commissioner Herbst related that according to Pacific Gas and Electric Company, 12KV installation is as cheap as installing overhead lines in the long run when you consider amenities such as tree trimming and main- tenance. He was of the opinion that all new development should underground electrical utilities and perhaps the City could set aside a portion of each year's budget for future street widening projects which require relocation of electrical poles. Councilman Sneegas voiced the opinion that there is too much con- fusion as to what people are talking about when they say undergrounding and the cost thereof. When we are talking about undergrounding now, we are talking about the backbone feeder lines, not the intract facilities which are under- ground already. Councilman sneegas advised he was informed that in the hill and canyon area alone, there is a seven million dollar difference between under grounding and overhead installation of the 12KV lines. He further strongly expressed his position that he would not commit the citizens of Anaheim to 30 or 40 million dollars for partial undergrounding or two hundred million for the complete undergrounding unless it was their desire and they were willing to pay for it. Councilman Thom agreed that the Council would not commit the citizens to such an obligation without their approval. He expressed his agreement with the Planning Commission however in their recommendation that an electrical undergrounding be required in the hill and canyon area where the cost is very little more than overhead. It was the general feeling of the City Council and the Planning Commission that there was too much confusion and misinformation as to cost of undergrounding electrical utilities. Mayor Dutton requested that the Planning Commission obtain precise facts and figures and submit them to Council for their consideration. Mayor Dutton asked if anyone in the audience wished to make a statement or ask a question. Nick Carducci, 4240 East La Palma Avenue, questioned the Council as to what their thinking was in allowing a miniature golf course to be constructed in the northeast industrial area and how they planned to protect the integrity of the area as an industrial area. He was of the opinion that the Council and Planning Commission have the duty to protect the people who made investments in that industrial area. Mayor Dutton replied that the miniature golf course is an interim use and would enhance the appearance of the area along the Riverside Freeway. He stated that the City of Anaheim protects all of its zones; that people have the right to ask for any variance from code requirements; and that people are entitled to the maximum economic use of their property conditioned upon two factors; does it hurt their neighbor and does it hurt the City of Anaheim? Bill Messe, 1523 South Bayless, cited a recently approved development at Walnut and Cerritos Streets and asked if any recommendations to be made by the City Planning Commission or the subjects discussed at this meeting would apply to this development. 72-693 City Hall. Anaheim. California COUNCIL MINUTES October 24. 1972. 1 :30 P.M. Commissioner Seymour explained that as structured now, our sign ordinance classifies an oil company (service station) lighter box as a sign. Thus, it has been necessary for oil companies to make application for a variance for lighter boxes for each station. Because of strict interpretation of our sign ordinance, which the Planning Commission must uphold, the action of the Planning Commission must be to deny these applications. Mayor Dutton acknowledged the fact that because of the sign ordinance, which was adopted by the City Council, the Planning Commission had no alterna- tive but to uphold it. Commissioner Seymour voiced the sentiments of the Planning Commission relative to the number of signs service stations require. They feel competi- tion has forced service stations to create more and more signs, advertising and /or directing patrons, which leaves the patron frustrated and confused. It is the desire of the. Planning Commission, if it is consistent with Council philosophy, to draft a proposed ordinance that will give the oil companies some direction in perhaps consolidating the number of signs on service station sites and still enable them to convey their message and compete in the market place. Mayor Dutton stated it has been determined by the Council that lighter boxes with a logo are permissible, although the ordinance has not yet been changed to reflect this intention. He suggested that the Planning Com- mission take an overall look at the entire sign ordinance, pointing out it is the feeling of the Council that a man has the right to advertise his own business. The ordinance should not be too restrictive. Commissioner Herbst voiced the opinion that glaring, repetitious signing on a service station site is not needed by the public nor in good taste and related an example of a Standard Oil station on which 16 signs are located. Mayor Dutton noted that to have signing from all directions of approach there would necessarily be some repetition. Councilman Stephenson noted that with today's concept in gasoline sales, in order to operate in an efficient manner it is a "must" to have a sign designating the self- service island, full service island, and pricing. In a recent trip to the midwest, Councilman Stephenson stated he noticed that most Standard stations had lighter boxes with the logo on it. Commissioner Rowland questioned Councilman Stephenson about signing of petroleum products with unrelated items such as panty hose, fried chicken, ice cream, etc., to which Councilman Stephenson indicated he had not encountered this type of signing. Commissioner Rowland was of the opinion that sale of unrelated items to merchandise gasoline was imminent here in California as the trend was now circulating in the southwest, noting three recent applications before the Planning Commission wherein the sale of food products along with gasoline sales was requested. Mayor Dutton stated whenever signing was required for a national identi- fication, whether it conformed to our sign ordinance or not, it has been approved by the Council. With reference to directions from the Council to the Planning Commission regarding sale of unrelated items with the gasoline operation, Councilman Sneegas pointed out two recent applications were denied by the City Council, one at East and Santa Ana Streets, the other at Lincoln and Magnolia Avenues. He also reminded the Commission of the service station ordinance which perhaps limits the activity of a service station. City Attorney Joseph Geisler explained that the Code does limit the peripheral activities; that they must be in conjunction with sale of gasoline. Commissioner Herbst expressed the concern that the service station industry was being allowed a privilege not afforded any other industries by allowing them more than the standard number of free standing signs. He T 72 -694 City Hall. Anaheim. California COUNCIL MINIMS October 24. 1972. 1:30 P.M. stated that service stations receive additional signing over other industries by the design of their buildings, such as canopies extending from the main portion of their building. Mayor Dutton clarified his previous statement relative to signing for national identification to include. not only the service station industry, but others such as McDonald's, Bob's Big Boy, etc. At the conclusion of discussion, it was decided that the Planning Commission will study, evaluate and make recommendations relative to the sign ordinance with emphasis being given to what constitutes a sign and the number of free standing signs permitted. Commissioner Seymour stated that the Planning Commission has recently become quite concerned with proposed, and some approved development in the northeast industrial area, specifically that area between the Riverside Freeway and La Palma Avenue. The Planning Commission has consistently upheld the general plan in that area which has designated it for industrial development. After approval by Council of a miniature golf course, the movie studio and travel trailer development in this area, the Commission became concerned with the fact that perhaps there was a change in the area and requested staff to investigate and make recommendations to them. Staff studies revealed that with the amount of industrial development occurring and with industrial space allotted in surrounding cities nearly exhausted, Anaheim will not only receive additional and continuing industrial development in the northeast area, it will also be at a more rapid pace. Commissioner Seymour questioned whether or not Council still desires to reserve this area for strictly industrial development. Mayor Dutton wished to remove any doubt that it was Council's intention to open the total northeast industrial area for other than industrial use. He suggested that the Planning Commission evaluate the possibility of additional uses being permitted within the industrial zone. Commissioners Farano and Herbst stated that after hearing staff recommendations, they were of the opinion that there was a sufficient amount of growth and even an increase in growth to warrant holding the industrial zone as is. It was felt in the next 20 years, demand would far exceed supply. Councilman Thom stated in his opinion the study made clearly dictates preservation of the industrial area, its integrity and usage. Commissioner Seymour concluded that the Planning Commission will take a look at the industrial area and M-1 uses in an attempt to define additional uses that would be compatible with industrial development. Commissioner Seymour voiced a fearof °thePlanning Commission in approving condominium developments without an ordinance regulating this type of development. Townhouse developments have been approved under the Planned Unit Development concept, which has proved successful to date, and condominium developments have been approved under R -3 development standards. It is the belief of the Planning Commission that condominium usage, which is ownership usage, is not consistent with an apartment house. Condominium connotates permanence of tenancy which differs from apartment house usage. The Planning Commission feels that if condominiums are permitted to develop like R-3 developments, the density will become so great and the open space will be so reduced that slum areas could materialize. He stated that with the expiration of the emergency condominium ordinance adopted by Council over a year ago, any zoned R -3 property or designated R-3 property on the General Plan, can be developed as a condo- minium and within five years create an undesired atmosphere and environment due to greater density and less open space. Mayor Dutton explained that the Council has recognized the fact that condominium owners are of a permanent nature, meaning average ownership of a five year period. He was in accord with updating the expired condominium ordinance and suggested the Planning Commission review, recommend and submit it to the City Council for consideration. 72 -691 City Hall. Anaheim. California COUNCIL MINUTES October 24. 1972. 1:30 P.M. The Mayor stated he feels the problem lies with the fact that when Council "reverses" the recommendation of the Planning Commission, which is the recommending, not deciding body, citizens and the press criticize Council because they do not understand the function of the Planning Commission. If Council continuously reverses recommendations of the City Planning Commission on the same issue, then it is a good indication that there is a need to review site development standards, and perhaps change certain ordinances, so that the Planning Commission can uphold the ordinances which reflect the policies and desires of the Council. Mayor Dutton stated he felt that the purpose of this meeting was to review the changes that ought to be made so that there will be a consistency of philosophical viewpoints between the City Council and the Planning Commission relative to land use and development. Commissioner Seymour stated the first item that concerns the Planning Commission gravely is garage setbacks and parking in single family residential area. The recently adopted setback requirements permitting a developer to erect a structure somewhere between six and ten feet from the property line, providing no off street parking in the driveway, will create or has already created a parking problem in some instances in the RS-5,000 developments. This parking problem arises when the lot size is squeezed or narrowed, combined with the factor of reduced setbacks which will not permit parking in driveways; and when homeowners use the garage for storage rather than parking, forcing vehicles onto the street; and when vehicles are parked on the street and are not provided with adequate on-street parking due to narrow lots, more specifi- cally on cul-de-sacs. Commissioner Seymour was of the opinion that the ordinance should reflect variable setbacks, six to ten foot setbacks, but limit the number of those lots within a subdivision. The ordinance as structured now permits a developer to build homes with a six to ten foot setback and even though he provides automatic garage door openers, he destroys two effective parking spaces per house and if lots are not wide enough to provide adequate on- street parking, it creates a definite parking problem. Commissioner Farano explained that the occasion that brought this parking problem to the acute attention of the Planning Commission was recent application wherein developers have had between 50 and 75% of the garages within the six to ten foot setback. These factors combined with cul- de-sac lots all have little curb parking provided. Commissioner Farano was of the opinion that there should be a limit as to how many lots can be within the six to ten foot setback. Further, the Planning Commission feels there is a direct correlation between the number of bedrooms per house and parking requirement, additional bedrooms produce additional parking needs. Mayor Dutton explained that the Council's position in adopting RS- 5000 site development standards was that with a six to ten foot setback, people either had to park on the street or in the garage which was provided with automatic garage door openers, and with a 25 foot or over, they could park in the driveway instead of the garages. The Council felt that the market place would take care of the number snd percentages of those six to ten foot setback lots. If there is an abuse of the RS-5,000 standard, then perhaps a change in the ordinance is warranted. Commissioner Gauer noted a recent trend in converting garages into dens, thereby eliminating any parking in the garage and if you have a six to ten foot setback with a converted garage, a parking problem develops. With more cars than can be garaged at most homes, Commissioner Kaywood felt there is a need for an ample driveway in order to park off the street. She stated that most people, when buying a home, do not realize nor anticipate their parking needs until after they have lived in the home. Councilman Stephenson stated setback, it is necessary for people to garage in order to open it causing the expressed he would prefer seeing these blocking the sidewalk he noticed that where there is a 20 foot stop three to four feet back from the cars to stop across the sidewalk. He cars parked on the street rather than 72 -692 City Hall. Anaheim, California COUNCIL MINUTES October 24. 1972. 1 :30 P.M. Commissioner Kaywood asked whether the City was creating a parking problem situation by lowering the amount of space needed to get the cars off the street. Another factor to consider are visitors to these homes. If homeowners are forced to park in the street, then you have bumper to bumper parking in a residential area. It would be impossible for a street sweeper to clean the street. Relative to the RS -5,000 developments, Councilman Stephenson ques- tioned the practicability of having a 20 foot lawn to care for. In his opinion it was more important to give people a usable backyard rather than giving them a large front yard to maintain. Commissioner Kaywood voiced opinion that the main beauty in any residential or commercial area was in the setback and landscaping. Commissioner Allred stated he felt that the beauty of landscaping was for everyone's enjoyment, be it residential or commercial. Getting the cars off the street would enhance the appearance of any area. There is a definite need for a better setback requirement. Mayor Dutton pointed out that different people have different require- ments. He advised it was not the Council's intention all lots be allowed the reduced setback but that people would purchase according to their needs. Councilman Sneegas was of the opinion that there is no beauty in a front yard that has 20 feet of black asphalt with a camper shell, motorhome or boat trailer continuously parked on it. In order to solve the parking problem, it would be necessary to revert back to the larger lot, but our present day economy and the market place does not permit this. In deliberations on the six to ten foot setbacks, Council was of the opinion that a reasonable number of homes in the City could be built in this fashion and that the people buying these lots would use the automatic garage door openers and park in the garage. Councilman Sneegas felt the market place, rather than legislation, was a better way to solve the parking problem. Commissioner Farano offered a suggestion that if it was consistent with Council's thinking, perhaps the Planning Commission undertake a study to determine what would be acceptable percentage policy for large tracts where a percentage of homes in the tract have smaller setbacks than others, including both the residential structures and garages. Mayor Dutton agreed that the Planning Commission should make such an analysis and added that some study be given to the amount of parking space recommended in front of homes, particularly on cul-de-sacs. Commissioner Herbst disagreed with the theory that the market place was the means for solving the parking problem. He felt that the developer builds with the idea that he will sell all of his houses; it is the City who is left with the parking problem. He stated in his opinion a street was for parking, not storing a car, and that houses should provide the storage space for cars. With cars parked on the street, street sweepers can not clean, the streets become dirty and the City has a health problem. Councilman Thom stated there seems to be a direct corollary between the number of bedrooms and the number of automobiles per home. This factor should be taken into consideration by the Planning Commission in determining percentage guidelines on suggested setbacks for tract developments, i.e., homes with four bedrooms or more have at least a 25 foot setback and home with three or less bedrooms have a six to ten foot setback. Commissioner Gauer cautioned the Council against setting minimum requirements because developers tend to use minimum requirements as the standard. Commissioner Seymour stated the Planning Commission would hold a work session regarding setbacks and parking requirements in single family residential areas and make recommendations to the Council for their consideration. AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AMENDING TITLE 18 OF THE ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO ZONING. (71 -72 -39 R -1) 72 -689 City Hall, Anaheim, California COUNCIL MINUTES October 24, 1972, 1 :30 P.M. ORDINANCE NO. 3091: After careful consideration of Ordinance No. 3091, on motion by Councilman Dutton, seconded by Councilman Thom, it was the finding and statement of the City Council that action granting or denying said ordinance would have no significant impact on the environment and that first reading could proceed. MOTION CARRIED. Councilman Dutton offered Ordinance No. 3091 for first reading. MEETING WITH ORANGE UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT October 26, 1972: Mr. Watts advised the Council, that the meeting with the Orange Unified School District scheduled October 26, 1972, 7 :30 P.M., to be held at 370 North Glassell, in the City of Orange, cannot be considered a regular Council meeting as planned, due to a provision in our Charter (Section 508) which provides no meeting take place outside the boundaries of the City. Following discussion, as to what constitutes a violation of the Brown Act, the alternatives available and the risks involved, the Council con- curred that it was important and necessary to meet with this district and that the Council be represented. NATIONAL FOOTBALL LEAGUE LEASE AGREEMENT ANAHEIM STADIUM, JANUARY 1973: Mr. Tom Liegler, Director of the Stadium- Convention Center, introduced Donn Weiss, Bill Granholm and Joe Browne, representatives of the National Football League, Commissioner's Office. Mr. Liegler informed the Council that since the Super Bowl game will be played at the Los Angeles Coliseum this year, two stadiums would be needed for the participating teams to use for workouts, and one will be selected in the Long Beach area, the other in Orange County. A proposal has been received from the National Football League for use of Anaheim Stadium for this purpose for one week in January 1973, as follows: the League (or team) is to pay all costs of operation, services, labor and supplies, plus an additional 5% of the total cost as an administrative fee. In addition, the League has agreed, as a public service, to open the Stadium to the public free of charge the first day of practice and will be responsible for costs involved, including crowd control and cleanup. The remainder of the week the stadium would be closed to both press and public. Mr. Liegler stated that this use of the facility in January would not affect any other tenants and recommended that the City Council approve the lease agreement. In answer to Councilman Stephenson's question regarding possible damages to the playing field as a result of the workout sessions, Mr. Liegler advised that the League would be required to return the field in the same condition as it was obtained. On motion by Councilman Sneegas, seconded by Councilman Stephenson, the lease agreement as outlined and recommended by the Stadium Director, with the National Football League for use of Anaheim Stadium for one week in the month of January 1973, was approved. MOTION CARRIED. RECESS EXECUTIVE SESSION: At the request of the City Manager, Councilman Thom moved to recess to executive session. Councilman Sneegas seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. (3 :15 P.M.) AFTER RECESS: Mayor Dutton called the meeting to order, all Councilmen being present, with the exception of Councilman Pebley. (4 :18 P.M.) INTERGOVERNMENTAL COORDINATING COUNCIL: By general Council consent, Councilmen Dutton and Sneegas were appointed to attend the Intergovernmental Coordinating Council, Orange County. General Assembly to take place in Costa Mesa on .October 30, 1972, 7 :30 P.M. 7 2- 690 City Hall. 4nahgjm. California COUNCIL MINUTES October 24. 1972. 1 :30 P.M. RECESS JOINT FETING. CITY PLANNING CQ SSION: Councilman Stephenson moved to recess to 7:00 P.M. for joint meeting with the City Planning Commission, Councilman Sneegas seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. Recess: 4:27 P.M. AFTER RECESS: Mayor Dutton called the City Council meeting to order, 7:00 P.M., and announced the regular meeting was recessed to this time to allow a work session with the City Planning Commission. Planning Commissioner Chairman Seymour called the Planning Commission meeting to order. PRESENT: COUNCILMEN: Sneegas, Stephenson, Thom and Dutton ABSENT: COUNCILMEN: Pebley PRESENT: CITY MANAGER: Keith A. Murdoch CITY ATTORNEY: Joseph B. Geisler CITY CLERK: Dene M. Daoust DIRECTOR OF DEVELOPMENT SERVICES: Alan G. Orsborn ASSISTANT DIRECTOR OF DEVELOPMENT SERVICES: Ronald Thompson ZONING SUPERVISOR: Charles Roberts Members of the City Planning Commission present: Lewis Herbst Melbourne A. Gauer Dan Rowland Miriam Kaywood Lenzi Allred Floyd Farano John F. Seymour, Jr., Chairman Commissioner Seymour stated that the Planning Commission requested this joint work session because in the more recent past, the Commission has found itself making decisions and recommendations to the City Council which have been counter evidently to the Council's desire, noting that the Planning Commission does not feel the Council should approve all their decisions and recommendations, nor should the Planning Commission act as a mere rubber stamp body. It is the intent of the City Planning Commission to more closely conform their decision and recommendations to the desires of the City Council, who are the elected officials and represent the citizens of Anaheim. Commissioner Seymour was of the opinion that perhaps there exists basic philosophical differences or interpretations of the ordinances and general plan of the City between the Council and the Commission which has resulted in a lack of concert in decision making. It is hoped by reaching a closer understanding of philosophical beliefs by both bodies, the citizens will benefit by a closer harmonious working relationship of the two bodies; thus providing them with better service in an efficient and effective manner. Commissioner Herbst added that he felt .there was some misinterpreta- tion by the press of the Planning Commission's role. He explained that the Planning Commission is subject to uphold and protect the ordinances passed by the City Council, and felt if the Council wishes to vary from these ordinances, perhaps a change or amendment to them would be proper. Mayor Dutton enlarged on Commissioner Herbst's opinion by stating that most citizens do not understand the function of their own Government. He ex- plained that the City Council is the elected representative of the citizens and their duties are principally fourfold: 1. Legislative body. 2. Policy making group. 3. Quasi judicial body. 4. Trustees of the people's property. Under State law the primary, but not limited, duty of the Planning Commission is to make recommendations to the City Council relative to land use. City Hall, Anaheim, California COUNCIL MINUTES October 24, 1972, 1 :30 P.M. PROPOSED ABANDONMENT NO. 72 -6A: Request was submitted by Mr. Frederick Z. Reitler, to abandon a portion of a former Anaheim Union Water Company right of way, located south of La Palma Avenue, east of Kraemer Boulevard. Discussion was held as to whether or not the proposed abandonment would require Environmental Impact Report prior to action by the Council. Mr. Watts pointed out that the City's abandonment will allow the fee owner an entitlement of use, which according to the Supreme Court decision, may have a significant impact and would require an E.I.R. The Council directed the Engineering staff to prepare required E.I.R. for Abandonment No. 72 -6A. RESOLUTION NO. 72R -496: Councilman Dutton offered Resolution No. 72R -496 for adoption. Refer to Resolution Book. A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM DECLARING ITS INTENTION TO VACATE AND ABANDON CERTAIN REAL PROPERTY AND FIXING A DATE FOR HEARING THEREON. (72 -6A, Public Hearing, November 14, 1972, 1 :30 P.M.; Location South of La Palma Avenue, East of Kraemer Blvd.) Roll Call Vote: AYES: COUNCILMEN: Sneegas, Stephenson, Thom and Dutton NOES: COUNCILMEN: None ABSENT: COUNCILMEN: Pebley 72 -687 The Mayor declared Resolution No. 72R -496 duly passed and adopted. NORTH SUBSTATION SITE EAST SIDE OF PAULINE STREET, NORTH OF LA PALMA AVENUE: Mr. Murdoch reported that this item had been held over from the October 19, 1972 meeting for further clarification regarding the price of $80,000.00 for the 2.64 acre parcel. He stated that in further research, land in the area was sold by the City in 1967 and 1971 at approximately the same price per square foot and the price, as established,is well supported by sales of indus- trial properties in the general area. He reported that although the City does not require the northly portion of subject parcel, the cost of severance would exceed cost of the entire parcel, and indications are that the sale of this northern triangular shaped portion of the property may be possible. Mr. Edwards informed the Council that studies of the electrical system for several years have indicated that additional capacities were needed in the northern part of the City for voltage regulation and load growth. Construction was deferred for budgetary reasons until after the Edison acquisition. Load shifting in this area is now at a critical point and this new station must be in service and on the line by the peak time, which is anticipated to be any time after July 1973. There are no abutting stations close enough to handle voltage regulation in this area. Four different sites were considered for this substation, all of them located within the general area. The advantages of this particular site is that there is presently existing an Edison Company 66KV transmission line along the railroad right of way, on which Edison will grant permission for joint use. Therefore, a minimum of 66KV and 12KV work is required to pick up the existing circuits in this area, and construction of the North Substation on this parti- cular parcel would be less costly than any other site. RESOLUTION NO. 72R -497: At the conclusion of the discussion, Councilman Stephenson offered Resolution No. 72R -497 for adoption. Refer to Resolution Book. A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM ACCEPTING AN OFFER FOR THE PURCHASE OF LAND FOR PUBLIC UTILITY PURPOSES (Substation -East side of Pauline, North of La Palma $80,000.00) 72 -688 City Hall, Anaheim, California COUNCIL MINUTES October 24, 1972, 1 :30 P.M. Roll Call Vote: AYES: COUNCILMEN: Sneegas, Stephenson, Thom and Dutton NOES: COUNCILMEN: None ABSENT: COUNCILMEN: Pebley The Mayor declared Resolution No. 72R -497 duly passed and adopted. CORRESPONDENCE: The following correspondence was ordered received and filed, on motion by Councilman Stephenson, seconded by Councilman Dutton: a. City of Lodi Ordinance No. 982 Calling upon the District Attorney of San Joaquin County to prosecute to the fullest extent of the law those persons accused of selling and /or transporting drugs, and Ordinance No. 983 Urging the Judges of the Superior Court of San Joaquin County to impose the maximum sentence permitted by law upon those persons so convicted. b. Before the Public Utilities Commission Application of Southern California Gas Company for an increase in gas rates to offset higher costs caused by an increase in the rates of its supplier, El Paso Natural Gas Company. c. Community Center Authority Minutes October 4, 1972. d. Financial and Operating Reports for the Months of July and September, 1972: Water Division (July Fire Department (September) Building Division (September) e. Before the Public Utilities Commission Order instituting invest- igation on the Commission's own motion into methods of compliance with the Environmental Quality Act of 1970. MOTION CARRIED. ORDINANCE NO. 3088: Councilman Dutton offered Ordinance No. 3088 for adoption. Refer to Ordinance Book. AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AMENDING TITLE 14, CHAPTER 14.32 BY DELETING PARAGRAPHS 55 AND 56 OF SECTION 14.32.190 OF THE ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO PARKING. (Removal of no parking restrictions Winston Rd. from Vernon St. to State College Blvd. and on Vernon St. from Cerritos Ave. to Winston Rd.) Roll Call Vote: AYES: COUNCILMEN: Sneegas, Stephenson, Thom and Dutton NOES: COUNCILMEN: None ABSENT: COUNCILMEN: Pebley The Mayor declared Ordinance No. 3088 duly passed and adopted. ORDINANCE NO. 3089: Councilman Stephenson offered Ordinance No. 3089 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 -39 (2) M -1) Roll Call Vote: AYES: COUNCILMEN: Sneegas, Stephenson, Thom and Dutton NOES: COUNCILMEN: None ABSENT: COUNCILMEN: Pebley The Mayor declared Ordinance No. 3089 duly passed and adopted. City Hall, Anaheim, California COUNCIL MINUTES October 24, 1972, 1 :30 P.M. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT CULTURAL ARTS CENTER PARKING LOT ON HARBOR BOULEVARD, SOUTH OF LA PALMA AVENUE: On motion by Councilman Stephenson, seconded by Councilman Dutton, the Environmental Impact Report as prepared by the City Engineering staff was received and the statement of the City Council be "that there will be no substantial longterm adverse environmental impact and there will be no significant irreversible changes involved in the proposed project MOTION CARRIED. RESOLUTION NO. 72R -491 WORK ORDER NO. 805: Councilman Stephenson offered Resolution No. 72R -491 for adoption. Refer to Resolution Book. A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM FINDING AND DETER- MINING THAT PUBLIC CONVENIENCE AND NECESSITY REQUIRE THE CONSTRUCTION AND COMPLETION OF A PUBLIC IMPROVEMENT, TO WIT: THE CULTURAL ARTS CENTER PARK- ING LOT, WEST SIDE OF HARBOR BOULEVARD, SOUTH OF LA PALMA AVENUE, IN THE CITY OF ANAHEIM, WORK ORDER NO. 805. APPROVING THE DESIGNS, PLANS, PROFILES, DRAWINGS AND SPECIFICATIONS 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 November 16, 1972, 2 :00 P.M.) Roll Call Vote: AYES: COUNCILMEN: Sneegas, Stephenson, Thom and Dutton NOES: COUNCILMEN: None ABSENT: COUNCILMEN: Pebley The Mayor declared Resolution No. 72R -491 duly passed and adopted. Mr. Davis reported that Work Order No. 805 for the improvement of the parking lot is in accordance with the agreement with the School District. Mr. Murdoch advised that plans for the parking lot require review and approval by the School Board, who meet this evening and that advertising for bids will be withheld pending receipt of School Board approval. RESOLUTION NO. 72R -492 WORK ORDER NO. 640 A: Upon receipt of certification from the Director of Public Works, Councilman Dutton offered Resolution No. 72R -492 for adoption. Refer to Resolution Book. A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM FINALLY ACCEPTING THE COMPLETION AND THE FURNISHING OF ALL PLANT, LABOR, SERVICES, MATERIALS AND EQUIPMENT AND ALL UTILITIES AND TRANSPORTATION INCLUDING POWER, FUEL AND WATER, AND THE PERFORMANCE OF ALL WORK NECESSARY TO CONSTRUCT AND COMPLETE THE FOLLOWING PUBLIC IMPROVEMENT, TO WIT: THE GRAMERCY AVENUE, BROOKHURST STREET, VALLEY STREET STREET IMPROVEMENT, IN THE CITY OF ANAHEIM, WORK ORDER NO. 640 -A. (R. J. Noble Company) Roll Call Vote: AYES: COUNCILMEN: Sneegas, Stephenson, Thom and Dutton NOES: COUNCILMEN: None ABSENT: COUNCILMEN: Pebley The Mayor declared Resolution No. 72R -492 duly passed and adopted. RESOLUTION NO. 72R -493 WORK ORDER NO. 641 B: Upon receipt of certification from the Director of Public Works, Councilman Dutton offered Resolution No. 72R -493 for adoption. Refer to Resolution Book. 72 -685 72 -b86 City Hall, Anaheim, California COUNCIL MINUTES October 24, 1972, 1:30 P.M. A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM FINALLY ACCEPTING THE COMPLETION AND THE FURNISHING OF ALL PLANT, LABOR, SERVICES, MATERIALS AND EQUIPMENT AND ALL UTILITIES AND TRANSPORTATION INCLUDING POWER, FUEL AND WATER, AND THE PERFORMANCE OF ALL WORK NECESSARY TO CONSTRUCT AND COMPLETE THE FOLLOWING PUBLIC IMPROVEMENT, TO WIT: THE GILBERT STREET STREET IMPROVEMENT, IN THE CITY OF ANAHEIM, WORK ORDER NO. 641 -B. (R. J. Noble Company) Roll Call Vote: AYES: COUNCILMEN: Sneegas, Stephenson, Thom and Dutton NOES: COUNCILMEN: None ABSENT: COUNCILMEN: Pebley The Mayor declared Resolution No. 72R -493 duly passed and adopted. RESOLUTION NO. 72R -494 -WORK ORDER NO. 1239: Upon receipt of certification from the Director of Public Works, Councilman Dutton offered Resolution No. 72R -494 for adoption. Refer to Resolution Book. A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM FINALLY ACCEPTING THE COMPLETION AND THE FURNISHING OF ALL PLANT, LABOR, SERVICES, MATERIALS AND EQUIPMENT AND ALL UTILITIES AND TRANSPORTATION INCLUDING POWER, FUEL AND WATER, AND THE PERFORMANCE OF ALL WORK NECESSARY TO CONSTRUCT AND COMPLETE THE FOLLOWING PUBLIC IMPROVEMENT, TO WIT: THE WALNUT CANYON SEWER IMPROVEMENT, PHASE II, IN THE CITY OF ANAHEIM, WORK ORDER NO. 1239. (Dateline Pipe Contracting, Inc.) Roll Call Vote: AYES: COUNCILMEN: Sneegas, Stephenson and Dutton NOES: COUNCILMEN: Thom ABSENT: COUNCILMEN: Pebley The Mayor declared Resolution No. 72R -494 duly passed and adopted. RIGHT OF WAY CERTIFICATION A.H.F.P. NO. 583: On motion by Councilman Sneegas, seconded by Councilman Stephenson, the Mayor and City Clerk were authorized to execute on behalf of the City of Anaheim, a Right of Way Certification for A.H.F.P. No. 583 (Ball Road, from Euclid Street to Brookhurst Street). MOTION CARRIED. RIGHT OF WAY CERTIFICATION A.H.F.P. NOS. 567 AND 624: On motion by Councilman Sneegas, seconded by Councilman Stephenson, the Mayor and City Clerk were auth- orized to execute on behalf of the City of Anaheim, a Right of Way Certification for A.H.F.P. No. 567 and A.H.F.P. No. 624 (Orange Avenue,from Beach Boulevard to the West City Limits). MOTION CARRIED. RESOLUTION NO. 72R -495 DEEDS OF EASEMENT: Councilman Stephenson offered Resolution No. 72R -495 for adoption. Refer to Resolution Book. A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM ACCEPTING CERTAIN DEEDS AND ORDERING THEIR RECORDATION. (Floriene Sanderfield; Robert H. Grant Corporation) Roll Call Vote: AYES: COUNCILMEN: Sneegas, Stephenson, Thom and Dutton NOES: COUNCILMEN: None ABSENT: COUNCILMEN: Pebley The Mayor declared Resolution No. 72R -495 duly passed and adopted. 72 -683 City Hall, Anaheim, California COUNCIL MINUTES October 24, 1972, 1 :30 P.M. Councilman Thom, seconded by Councilman Stephenson, action on Tentative Tract No. 7915, Revision No. 1 was continued to be considered in conjunction with Conditional Use Permit No. 1348. MOTION CARRIED. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT NO. 1 RECLASSIFICATION NO. 71 -72 -20 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 1277 TENTATIVE TRACT NOS. 7657, 7658 AND 7659: Mr. Orsborn submitted Environmental Impact Report and advised that subject applications comprised the Westfield Development Company's townhouse project of approximately 160 units, located on the east side of Dale Avenue, south of the Artesia Freeway and on the boundary between the cities of Anaheim and Buena Park. Mr. Orsborn further advised that the required report was reviewed by the committee last Thursday (October 19, 1972) at which time there was some departmental input aside from the report. Mr. Roberts reported that development was well underway at the time of the State Supreme Court's decision, and that the developer has recorded a final tract map for the first phase of construction (Tract No. 7657); he has done preliminary grading and awaits only final reading of the ordinance to proceed. Mr. Roberts noted that the Environmental Impact Report prepared follows closely to the guidelines adopted by the City Council and since the committee review, the Police Department has expressed concern regarding the private alleyways and the fact all garages are orientated toward these alley- ways and the possible difficulties that might be encountered by emergency vehicles and enforcement of parking violations. Also, the City Engineer report regarding traffic projected to be generated by the project and possible routes used for traffic circulation was noted. Both memorandums were read in full. At the conclusion of discussion that followed, based on the infor- mation furnished and reviewed in detail, on motion by Councilman Sneegas, seconded by Councilman Stephenson, it was the Environmental Impact Statement of the City Council that no significant effect beyond that which has been pro- vided for, would be involved. MOTION CARRIED. ORDINANCE NO. 3090: Councilman Dutton offered Ordinance No. 3090 for first reading. AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AMENDING TITLE 18 OF THE ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO ZONING. (71 -72 -20 (1) R -2 Tract No. 7657) ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT BALL ROAD FROM 210 FEET EAST OF STATE COLLEGE BOULE- VARD TO 656 FEET EAST OF STATE COLLEGE BOULEVARD: On motion by Councilman Stephenson, seconded by Councilman Dutton, the Environmental Impact Report as prepared by City Engineering staff was received and the statement of the City Council be "that there will be no substantial long term adverse environmental impact and there will be no significant irreversible changes involved in the proposed project MOTION CARRIED. RESOLUTION NO. 72R -488 WORK ORDER NO. 66.2 A: Councilman Stephenson offered Resolution No. 72R -488 for adoption. Refer to Resolution Book. A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM FINDING AND DETER- MINING THAT PUBLIC CONVENIENCE AND NECESSITY REQUIRE THE CONSTRUCTION AND COMPLETION OF A PUBLIC IMPROVEMENT, TO WIT: THE BALL ROAD STREET IMPROVE- MENT FROM APPROXIMATELY 656 FEET EAST OF TO APPROXIMATELY 210 FEET EAST OF STATE COLLEGE BOULEVARD, IN THE CITY OF ANAHEIM, WORK ORDER NO. 662 -A. APPROVING THE DESIGNS, PLANS, PROFILES, DRAWINGS AND SPECIFICATIONS 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 November 16, 1972, 2:00 P.M.) T 72 -684 City Hall, Anaheim, California COUNCIL MINUTES October 24, 1972, 1 :30 P.M. Roll Call Vote: AYES: COUNCILMEN: Sneegas, Stephenson, Thom and Dutton NOES: COUNCILMEN: None ABSENT: COUNCILMEN: Pebley The Mayor declared Resolution No. 72R -488 duly passed and adopted. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT —GROVE STREET FROM LA PALMA AVENUE TO RIVERSIDE FREEWAY: On motion by Councilman Stephenson, seconded by Councilman Dutton, the Environ- mental Impact Report as prepared by the City Engineering staff was received and the statement of the City Council be "that there will be no substantial adverse environmental impact and there will be no significant irreversible changes in- volved in the proposed project MOTION CARRIED. RESOLUTION NO. 72R -489 WORK ORDER NO. 664 A: Councilman Stephenson offered Resolution No. 72R -489 for adoption. Refer to Resolution Book. A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM FINDING AND DETER- MINING THAT PUBLIC CONVENIENCE AND NECESSITY REQUIRE THE CONSTRUCTION AND COMPLETION OF A PUBLIC IMPROVEMENT, TO WIT: THE GROVE STREET STREET IMPROVE- MENT FROM LA PALMA AVENUE TO APPROXIMATELY 1485 FEET SOUTH OF LA PALMA AVENUE, IN THE CITY OF ANAHEIM, WORK ORDER NO. 664 -A. APPROVING THE DESIGNS, PLANS, PROFILES, DRAWINGS AND SPECIFICATIONS 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 November 16, 1972, 2:00 P.M.) Roll Call Vote: AYES: COUNCILMEN: Sneegas, Stephenson, Thom and Dutton NOES: COUNCILMEN: None ABSENT: COUNCILMEN: Pebley The Mayor declared Resolution No. 72R -489 duly passed and adopted. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT LA PALMA AVENUE, 488 FEET WEST OF TO 1225 FEET WEST OF EAST STREET: On motion by Councilman Stephenson, seconded by Councilman Dutton, the Environmental Impact Report as prepared by the City Engineering staff was received and the statement of the City Council be "that there will be no substantial ad- verse environmental impact and there will be no adverse irreversible changes involved in the proposed project MOTION CARRIED. RESOLUTION NO. 72R -490 WORK ORDER NO. 665 B: Councilman Stephenson offered Resolution No. 72R -490 for adoption. Refer to Resolution Book. A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM FINDING AND DETER- MINING THAT PUBLIC CONVENIENCE AND NECESSITY REQUIRE THE CONSTRUCTION AND COMPLETION OF A PUBLIC IMPROVEMENT, TO WIT: THE LA PALMA AVENUE STREET IMPROVEMENT FROM APPROXIMATELY 400 FEET WEST OF TO APPROXIMATELY 1210 FEET WEST OF EAST STREET, IN THE CITY OF ANAHEIM, WORK ORDER NO. 665 -B. APPROV- ING THE DESIGNS, PLANS, PROFILES, DRAWINGS AND SPECIFICATIONS FOR THE CONSTRUCTION THEREOF; AUTHORIZING THE CONSTRUCTION OF SAID PUBLIC IMPROVE- MENT 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 November 16, 1972, 2:00 P.M.) Roll Call Vote: AYES: COUNCILMEN: Sneegas, Stephenson, Thom and Dutton NOES: COUNCILMEN: None ABSENT: COUNCILMEN: Pebley The Mayor declared Resolution No. 72R -490 duly passed and adopted. 72 -681 City Hall, Anaheim, California COUNCIL MINUTES October 24, 1972, 1 :30 P.M. DINNER DANCING PLACE PERMIT: Application submitted by James D. Steichen, on behalf of Captain Jack's #3 Incorporated, for dinner dancing place permit for Villa Santi, 710 East Katella Avenue, seven nights a week from 7 :00 p.m. to 2:00 a.m. was submitted and granted subject to the provision of Chapter 4.16 of the Anaheim Municipal Code as recommended by the Chief of Police, on motion by Councilman Thom, seconded by Councilman Sneegas. MOTION CARRIED. DINNER DANCING PLACE PERMIT: Application submitted by Dale M. Seiders, representing Metropolitan Life Insurance Company and general manager of Sheraton Anaheim Motor Hotel, for dinner dancing place permit for Sheraton Anaheim Motor Hotel, 1015 West Ball Road, seven nights a week from 8 :00 p.m. to 2 :00 a.m., was submitted and granted subject to the provision of Chapter 4.16 of the Anaheim Municipal Code as recommended by the Chief of Police, on motion by Councilman Thom, seconded by Councilman Sneegas. MOTION CARRIED. PRIVATE PATROL PERMIT: Application submitted by Maurice Durlin, dba American Pro- tection Industries guard and patrol division, for security guard and private patrol permit was submitted and granted subject to the provision of Chapter 4.60 of the Anaheim Municipal Code, as recommended by the Chief of Police, on motion by Councilman Thom, seconded by Councilman Sneegas. MOTION CARRIED. PRIVATE PATROL PERMIT: Application submitted by Ronald Keith Stallcup dba Maximum Security Services for private guard service permit, was submitted and granted subject to the provisions of Chapter 4.60 of the Anaheim Municipal Code as recommended by the Chief of Police, on motion by Councilman Thom, seconded by Councilman Sneegas. MOTION CARRIED. TENTATIVE TRACT NO. 7730, REVISION NO. 2: Request of M. C. Nickle, Classic Develop- ment Corp., for final determination on the relocation of Access Point No. 9 to Santa Ana Canyon Road, as required by Condition No. 13, approving said tract, was continued from the meeting of October 10, 1972 to allow for a meeting with County staff to determine if Riverdale is projected to extend across the Santa Ana River. At the request of the City Engineer, the matter was further continued to November 14, 1972, due to the fact that said meeting had not yet been held, on motion by Councilman Sneegas, seconded by Councilman Dutton. MOTION CARRIED. REQUEST GOLF -A -THON: Request submitted by Mrs. Sue Broughton, on behalf of KKG Alumni Association to conduct a golf -a -thon at the Anaheim Municipal Golf Course, on October 28, 1972, from 8:00 a.m. to 4 :00 p.m. was submitted together with report of John Collier, Director of Parks and Recreation, recommending said request be denied without prejudice, and further that a policy be adopted that no golf -a -thons be allowed on Anaheim Municipal Golf Course. On motion by Councilman Stephenson, seconded by Councilman Sneegas, said request was denied as recommended. MOTION CARRIED. REQUEST 49TH ANNUAL HALLOWEEN FESTIVAL DANCE LA PALMA PARK: Request of Mrs. Betty Baker, President, Board of Governors, for permission to conduct a chaper- oned dance for teenagers in conjunction with the Halloween Festival, October 28, 1972, in La Palma Park Stadium from 10 :00 p.m. to 12:00 midnight admission free, was submitted and granted as recommended by the Parks and Recreation Director, subject to security requirements of the Police Department, on motion by Councilman Thom, seconded by Councilman Sneegas. MOTION CARRIED. RECLASSIFICATION NO. 71 -72 -10 VARIANCE NO. 2285 TENTATIVE TRACT NO. 7488 EXTENSION OF TIME: Request of Alan G. Chapin for one year extension of time to Ten- tative Tract No. 7488 six proposed R -1 lots, located on the west side of Miraloma Avenue, approximately 860 feet north of La Palma Avenue, was submitted together with reports from Development Services Department and .City Engineer. Councilman Thom moved that one year extension of time be granted as requested and that the Applicant be advised that an Environmental Impact Report is required prior to action on the final tract map. Councilman Sneegas seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. 72 -682 City Hall, Anaheim, California COUNCIL MINUTES October 24, 1972, 1 :30 P.M. TENTATIVE 'up TRACT NOS. 7802 AND 7185: Request of Larry Armour on behalf of Villa Frontera Townhouses, that the City of Anaheim reject Irrevocable Offer of Ded- ication of Lot "A" of Tract No. 7185, since they are the present owners of both tracts, thereby eliminating necessity for a lot "A" and both tracts will be dev- eloped as Tract No. 7802, was submitted together with report from the City Engineer recommending said request be granted. FINAL MAP, TRACT NO. 7802: Developer, Armour Building Company. Property located on the south side of Frontera Street, west of Armando Street and contains 162 proposed R -2 and R -3 lots, was submitted together with report of the City Engineer, recommending said tract be approved subject to conditions. Also submitted was request of Mr. Armour for extension of time to Reclassification No. 68 -69 -13 (Tract No. 7802). Mr. Orsborn reported that the Environmental Impact Report submitted pursuant to instructions of the City Engineer was found by the review committee to be inadequate according to the guidelines adopted by the City Council. He further reported that Mr. Armour was advised of the deficiencies in the report and due to his absence, he would assume he felt additional time will be required. On motion by Councilman Sneegas, seconded by Councilman Stephenson, action involving Tract Nos. 7185 and 7802 and Reclassification No. 68- 69 -13, was continued two weeks without prejudice. MOTION CARRIED. CITY PLANNING COMMISSION ITEMS: Action taken by the City Planning Commission at their meeting held October 2, 1972, pertaining to the following applications were sub- mitted for Council information and consideration: VARIANCE NO. 2440: Submitted by Mr. J. V. Smith, to permit conversion of the garage into a family room and construct a new two -car garage on property presently zoned R -1, located on the west side of Robert Lane, approximately 100 feet north of Wakefield Avenue (1925 Robert Lane) with waiver of: a. Minimum front yard requirement. The City Planning Commission pursuant to Resolution No. PC72 -248, granted said variance subject to conditions. On motion by Councilman Dutton, seconded by Councilman Sneegas, it was the finding of the City Council that said variance was trivial in nature and would have no significant impact and that no Environmental Impact Report was necessary. MOTION CARRIED. RECLASSIFICATION NO. 70 -71 -13 AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 1202 CLARIFICATION: Request of Mr. Roger Lindeman on behalf of Cal Prop Corporation for clarification of Condition No. 6 of Resolution No. 71R -25 as it pertains to roof mounted equip- ment and requesting permission to install air conditioning condensing units on platforms on the roofs of residential units within Rancho Yorba Development, said development comprising approximately 100 acres southwest of the intersection of Imperial Highway and Santa Ana Canyon Road, was submitted. Denied by motion by the City Planning Commission. The foregoing actions were reviewed by the City Council and no further action taken. TENTATIVE TRACT NO. 8101: Anaheim Hill Inc. and Texaco Ventures, Inc., Owners. Property located at the southeast corner of Serrano Avenue and Nohl Ranch Road and contains 122 proposed R -2 (PC) zoned lots. On motion by Councilman Thom, seconded by Councilman Stephenson, action on said Tentative Tract No. 8101, was continued to be considered in conjunction with Conditional Use Permit No. 1350. MOTION CARRIED. TENTATIVE TRACT NO. 7915, REVISION NO. 1: Anaheim Hills Inc. and Texaco Ventures Inc., Owners. Property located on the south side of Serrano Avenue, east of Nohl Ranch Road and contains 220 proposed R -2 (PC) zoned lots. On motion by 72 -679 City Hall, Anaheim, California COUNCIL MINUTES October 24, 1972, 1 :30 P.M. 2. That all engineering requirements of the City of Anaheim along Wagner Avenue, including preparation of improvement plans and installation of all improvements such as curbs and gutters, sidewalks, street grading and paving, drainage facilities or other appurtenant work shall be complied with as required by the City Engineer and in accordance with standard plans and specifications on file in the office of the City Engineer; and that a bond in an amount and form satisfactory to the City of Anaheim shall be posted with the City to guarantee the installation of the above mentioned requirements. 3. That the owner(s) of subject property shall pay to the City of Anaheim the sum of $2.00 per front foot along Wagner Avenue for street lighting purposes. 4. That the owner(s) of subject property shall pay to the City of Anaheim the sum of 15 cents per front foot along Wagner Avenue for tree plant- ing purposes. 5. Prior to the introduction of an ordinance rezoning subject prop- erty, Condition Nos. 1, 2, 3, and 4, above mentioned, shall be completed. The provisions or rights granted by this resolution shall become null and void by action of the City Council unless said conditions are complied with within one year from the date hereof or such further time as the City Council may grant. Mr. Roberts reported that in this case the Applicant is satisfying a condition of Reclassification No. 72 -73 -12 for R -1 zoning on property east of subject property. Councilman Thom moved that it be the finding of the City Council the subject application is trivial and does not require an Environmental Impact Report. Councilman Stephenson seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. The Mayor asked if anyone wished to address the Council, for or against said application, there being no response, declared the hearing closed. RESOLUTION NO. 72R -485: Councilman Thom offered Resolution No. 72R -485 for adoption, authorizing preparation of necessary ordinance, changing the zone as requested, subject to the conditions recommended by the City Planning Commission. Refer to Resolution Book. A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM FINDING AND DETER- MINING THAT TITLE 18 OF THE ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO ZONING SHOULD BE AMENDED AND THAT THE BOUNDARIES OF CERTAIN ZONES SHOULD BE CHANGED. (72 -73 -22 R -1) Roll Call Vote: AYES: COUNCILMEN: Sneegas, Stephenson, Thom and Dutton NOES: COUNCILMEN: None ABSENT: COUNCILMEN: Pebley The Mayor declared Resolution No. 72R -485 duly passed and adopted. PUBLIC HEARING RECLASSIFICATION NO. 72- 73 -23: Initiated by the City Planning Commission, to change zoning from County of Orange 100 -C -1 10,000 to City of Anaheim R -A. Property included in the Brookside No. 2 Annexation, located on west side of Brookhurst Street, approximately 665 feet south of Orange Avenue. On motion by Councilman Sneegas, seconded by Councilman Stephenson, it was the finding of the City Council that the action before them, was reclass- ifying recently annexed property into a holding zone and no Environmental Impact Report was required. MOTION CARRIED. The City Planning Commission pursuant to Resolution No. PC72 -241, recommended Reclassification No. 72 -73 -23 unconditionally. The Mayor asked if anyone wished to address the Council, there being no response, declared the hearing closed. 72 -680 City Hall, Anaheim, California COUNCIL MINUTES October 24, 1972, 1 :30 P.M. RESOLUTION NO. 72R -486: Councilman Sneegas offered Resolution No. 72R -486, authorizing preparation of necessary ordinance, changing the zone as recommended by the City Planning Commission. Refer to Resolution Book. A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM FINDING AND DETER- MINING THAT TITLE 18 OF THE ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO ZONING SHOULD BE AMENDED AND THAT THE BOUNDARIES OF CERTAIN ZONES SHOULD BE CHANGED. 72 -73 -23 R -A) Roll Call Vote: AYES: COUNCILMEN: Sneegas, Stephenson, Thom and Dutton NOES: COUNCILMEN: None ABSENT: COUNCILMEN: Pebley The Mayor declared Resolution No. 72R -486 duly passed and adopted. PUBLIC HEARING RECLASSIFICATION NO. 72- 73 -24: Initiated by the City Planning Commission, to change the zoning from County of Orange Al to City of Anaheim R -A. Property included in the Lakeview Orangethorpe Annexation No. 2 and located on the north side of Orangethorpe Avenue, approximately 330 feet east of Lakeview Avenue. On motion by Councilman Thom, seconded by Councilman Sneegas, it was the finding of the City Council that the action before them was reclassifying recently annexed property into a holding zone and no Environmental Impact Report was required. MOTION CARRIED. The City Planning Commission pursuant to Resolution No. PC72 -242, recommended said reclassification unconditionally. The Mayor asked if anyone wished to address the Council, there being no response declared the hearing closed. RESOLUTION NO. 72R -487: Councilman Stephenson offered Resolution No. 72R -487 for adoption, authorizing preparation of necessary ordinance, changing the zone as recommended by the City Planning Commission. Refer to Resolution Book. A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM FINDING AND DETER- MINING THAT TITLE 18 OF THE ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO ZONING SHOULD BE AMENDED AND THAT THE BOUNDARIES OF CERTAIN ZONES SHOULD BE CHANGED. (72 -73 -24 R -A) Roll Call Vote: AYES: COUNCILMEN: Sneegas, Stephenson, Thom and Dutton NOES: COUNCILMEN: None ABSENT: COUNCILMEN: Pebley The Mayor declared Resolution No. 72R -487 duly passed and adopted. PUBLIC DANCE PERMIT: Application submitted by Earl Opel on behalf of the Orange County Peace Officers Association for public dance to be held at the Anaheim Convention Center, October 20, 1972, was submitted and granted as recommended by the Chief of Police and in accordance with Chapter 4.16 of the Anaheim Municipal Code and that six officers be hired to police the dance, on motion by Councilman Thom, seconded by Councilman Sneegas. MOTION CARRIED. PUBLIC DANCE PERMIT: Application submitted by Yolanda Martinez on behalf of Socias Sahuayo for public dance to be held at Carpenter's Hall, 608 West Vermont Avenue, October 28, 1972, was submitted and granted as recommended by the Chief of Police and in accordance with the provisions of the Anaheim Municipal Code and that four private security guards be hired to police the dance, on motion by Councilman Thom, seconded by Councilman Sneegas. MOTION CARRIED. City Hall, Anaheim, California COUNCIL MINUTES October 24, 1972, 1 :30 P.M. The City Council of the City of Anaheim met in regular session. PRESENT: COUNCILMEN: Sneegas, Stephenson, Thom and Dutton ABSENT: COUNCILMEN: Pebley PRESENT: CITY MANAGER: Keith A. Murdoch ASSISTANT CITY MANAGER: Robert M. Davis CITY ATTORNEY: Joseph B. Geisler ASSISTANT CITY ATTORNEY: Alan Watts CITY CLERK: Dene M. Daoust CITY ENGINEER: James P. Maddox DIRECTOR OF DEVELOPMENT SERVICES: Alan G. Orsborn ASSISTANT DIRECTOR OF DEVELOPMENT SERVICES: Ronald Thompson ZONING SUPERVISOR: Charles Roberts PARKS AND RECREATION DIRECTOR: John Collier Mayor Dutton called the meeting to order. 72 -677 FLAG SALUTE: Councilman William J. Thom led the Assembly in the Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag. RESOLUTION OF COMMENDATION: Resolution commending Stella C. Sandoval for services rendered was approved and ordered signed to be presented by the Mayor at a testimonial dinner to be held October 26, 1972. MINUTES: Approval of the City Council Minutes of Regular Meetings held October 3, 10, and 17, 1972 and Adjourned Regular Meeting held October 19, 1972, were deferred. 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 Stephenson seconded the motion. MOTION UNANIMOUSLY CARRIED. REPORT FINANCIAL DEMANDS AGAINST THE CITY: Demands against the City, in the amount of $1,900,590.89, in accordance with the 1972 -73 Budget, were approved. CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING HOUSEMOVING: Application for housemoving permit submitted by Miss Rose Mae Williams, to move a structure from 121 Illinois Street,Anaheim to 828 North Pine Street, Anaheim, was continued from the meeting of October 10, 1972 to allow neighbors objecting to the moving of the house, to view and inspect the garage proposed to be moved, to determine if there would be any ob- jections to moving of the garage only. Communication from Miss Williams was submitted and read, wherein it was requested that the existing garage be allowed to remain on the property in addition to the new garage. Noted was the previous stipulation by the Applicant that the existing garage would be removed. Also noted was petition approving the moving onto the property of the new three -car garage on condition it not be used as a living quarter of any nature and that the existing single -car garage be removed. The Mayor asked if the Applicant was present and wished to address the Council. Miss Williams advised although the existing garage was not usable as a garage, it was good storage space for furnishings needed in her other apart- ments and rentals. For this reason and also for the reason that the garage existed when she purchased the property, she would like to have it remain. Mr. Roberts reported that it was not the intent of the R -1 zone to permit use of the garage for storage purposes (ranges, refrigerators, etc.) in connection with another business. Further if the Council approves moving of the garage only, the coverage must be limited to that permitted in an R -1 zone and due to the necessity of an additional two and one -half feet at the rear of the property for future alley widening, the garage would have to be located further away from the centerline of the alley than what is indicated on the plot plan. 72 -678 City Hall, Anaheim, California COUNCIL MINUTES October 24, 1972, 1 :30 P.M. Mr. Roberts thereupon read suggested requirements to be considered in the event the Council approved the moving of the three -car garage only. The Mayor asked if anyone else wished to address the Council, either in favor or in opposition to said application. There.being no response declared the hearing closed. RESOLUTION: Councilman Stephenson offered a resolution to deny said moving per- mit in total. Roll Call Vote: AYES: COUNCILMEN: Stephenson and Dutton NOES: COUNCILMEN: Sneegas and Thom ABSENT: COUNCILMEN: Pebley The Mayor declared said resolution failed to carry, having not received a favorable majority of the votes cast. After further discussion, it was agreed by Councilman Stephenson, that his objection was based on allowing the existing garage to remain. RESOLUTION NO. 72R -484: Councilman Stephenson thereupon offered Resolution No. 72R -484 for adoption, granting housmoving permit to move the three -car garage only to 828 North Pine Street, subject to the following conditions as recommended by the Development Services Department: 1. That the owner(s) of subject property shall deed to the City of Anaheim a strip of land ten feet in width, from the centerline of the alley for alley widening purposes. 2. That the proposed three -car garage shall be located 17.5 feet from the centerline of the alley, in order to provide a 25 foot turn around area out of the garage stalls. 3. That the existing garage located at the northeast corner of the property shall be demolished and removed. 4. That the proposed three -car garage shall be brought up to the min- imum standards of the City of Anaheim, including the building, plumbing, electri- cal, housing, mechanical and fire codes as adopted by the City of Anaheim. Refer to Resolution Book. A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM GRANTING A HOUSE MOVING PERMIT TO ROSE MAE WILLIAMS, TO MOVE A DWELLING /BUILDING FROM 121 ILLINOIS STREET, ANAHEIM, CALIFORNIA, TO 828 NORTH PINE STREET, ANAHEIM, CALIFORNIA. Roll Call Vote: AYES: COUNCILMEN: Sneegas, Stephenson, Thom and Dutton NOES: COUNCILMEN: None ABSENT: COUNCILMEN: Pebley The Mayor declared Resolution No. 72R -484 duly passed and adopted. Miss Williams indicated she had no intentions of removing the existing garage nor exercise the permit as granted. PUBLIC HEARING RECLASSIFICATION NO. 72- 73 -22: Submitted by Carl E. and Carol A. Wagner, requesting a change in zone from R -A to R -1, to legalize a substandard R -A parcel of property, located on the south side of Wagner Avenue, approximately 540 feet west of Sunkist Street. The City Planning Commission pursuant to Resolution No. PC72 -240, recommended said reclassification, subject to the following conditions: 1. That the owner(s) of subject property shall deed to the City of Anaheim a strip of land 45 feet in width from the centerline of the street along Wagner Avenue for street widening purposes.