Loading...
1975/05/2075-459 City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - May 20, 1975~ 1:30 P.M. The City Council of the City of Anaheim met in regular session. PRESENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Kaywood, Pebley, Sneegas and Thom ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Seymour PRESENT: CITY MANAGER: Keith A. Murdoch ADMINISTRATIVE ASSISTANT: John Harding DEPUTY CITY CLERK: Linda D. Roberts CITY ATTORNEY: Alan R. Watts PERSONNEL DIRECTOR: Garry O. McRae DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DIRECTOR: Ronald Thompson DIRECTOR OF PARKS, RECREATION AND THE ARTS: John J. Collier CITY ENGINEER: James P. Maddox PLANNING SUPERVISOR: Don McDaniel ZONING SUPERVISOR: Charles Roberts ELECTRICAL SUPERINTENDENT: George Edwards Mayor Thom called the meeting to order at 1:30 P.M. and welcomed those in attendance to the Council Meeting. INVOCATION: Reverend Gordon Sloan of the Melodyland Hotline Center gave the invocation. FLAG SALUTE: Councilwoman Miriam Kaywood led the Assembly in the pledge of Allegiance to the Flag. PROCLAMATION: The following proclamation was issued by Mayor Thom and unanimously approved by the City Council: "Garment Workers' Day In Anaheim" - June 3, 1975. MINUTES: Minutes of the Anaheim City Council Regular Meeting held April 15, 1975, were approved, subject to corrections, on motion by Councilman Thom, seconded by Councilman Sneegas. Councilman Seymour absent. MOTION CARRIED. WAIVER OF READING - ORDINANCES AND RESOLUTIONS: Councilman Pebley 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 Council Members unless, after reading of the title, specific request is made by a Council Member for the reading of such ordinance or resolution. Councilman Sneegas seconded the motion. Councilman Seymour absent. MOTION UNANIMOUSLY CARRIED. REPORT - FINANCIAL DEMANDS AGAINST THE CITY: Demands against the City in the amount of $671,098.82, in accordance with the 1974-75 Budget, were approved. RESOLUTION NO. 75R-251 - ESTABLISHING A NEW JOB CLASSIFICATION - ASSISTANT DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DIRECTOR: Mr. Garry McRae reported on the recommended reorganization of the Development Services Department to eliminate the one presently vacant position of Assistant Development Services Director and to establish two Assistant Development Services Directors, rather than Zoning and Planning Supervisors as currently constituted. This would amount to an overall reduction from four management positions to three for that Department. It is further recommended that the job classifica- tion be assigned to salary schedule X1238 (#1,766.27-$2,145.87), which reflects a 5% reduction from the previously established position, and a 10% increase from the present Zoning and Planning Supervisor salaries. RESOLUTION NO. 75R-251: Councilwoman Kaywood offered Resolution No. 75R-251 for adoption. Refer to Resolution Book. A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AMENDING RESOLUTION NO. 74R-522 AND MODIFYING THE SALARY SCHEDULE FOR A JOB CLASSIFICATION. (Effective May 16, 1975) 75-460 City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - May 20~ 1975~ 1:30 P.M. Roll Call Vote: AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Kaywood, Pebley, Sneegas and Thom NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: None ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Seymour The Mayor declared Resolution No. 75R-251 duly passed and adopted. ORDINANCE NO. 3428 - AMENDMENT TO P.E.R.S. CONTRACT: Mr. Garry McRae reported that on April 22, 1975, when the City Council adopted Resolution No. 75R-197, a Resolution of Intent to modify the retirement system contract, he was under the impression that this proposed amendment to the contract was, in fact, the legislation requested by Mr. A1 Kohler. However, as it turns out, Mr. Kohler was requesting that the contract pursuant to legislation which is not at this time recommended because of serious language defects, which could be interpreted as a cost of living adjustment anywhere from 2% to 30%. This is presently in the process of correction. Therefore, Mr. McRae wished to make Council aware that the ordinance presented for first reading this date would amend the P.E.R.S.Contract to provide for a 5% cost-of-living adjustment in retirement benefits to those individuals retired or deceased on or after January 1, 1971, but prior to July 1, 1971. There is a on~-time cost to the City of $15,356.00. Councilman Thom offered Ordinance No. 3428 for first reading. AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AUTHORIZING AN AMEND- MENT TO THE CONTRACT BETWEEN THE CITY COUNCIL AND THE BOARD OF ADMINISTRATION OF THE CALIFORNIA PUBLIC EMPLOYEES' RETIREMENT SYSTEM. RESOLUTION NO. 75R-252 - EXCLUSIVE RIGHT TO NEGOTIATE AGREEMENT - MULTIMODAL GROUP INC: Mr. Alan Watts presented an agreement negotiated with the Multimodal Group Inc, providing said organization an exclusive right to negotiate regarding the possible installation of a train stop, or stops, in the vicinity of Anaheim Stadium. Said agreement was prepared pursuant to Council direction given at the meeting of April 1, 1975. The agreement recognizes the responsibilities of each of the parties to carry out portions of the study and grants exclusive rights to negotiate agreement to Multimodal Group Inc. In connection with this document, Mr. Watts recommended that paragraph "f" be eliminated since it imposes an obligation on the City to conduct a public hearing prior to actually entering the agreement which would, in turn, require publication of the agreement and attendant advertising costs. He advised that this clause was inadvertently included in the agreement and since it is not legally necessary, he would recommend its deletion. Mr. Don McDaniel reported, in reply to b{ayor Thom, that synchronization between this activity and the study being conducted by the Orange County Transit District appears to be very good. Mr. Watts advised, in connection with the State property in the vicinity of the Stadium, that at the very least, the City would have the first right of refusal to acquire that property. RESOLUTION NO. 75R-252: Councilman Thom offered Resolution No. 75R-252 for adoption. Refer to Resolution Book. A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM APPROVING THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF AN AGREEMENT GRANTING AN EXCLUSIVE RIGHT TO NEGOTIATE FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF CERTAIN REAL PROPERTY AND AUTHORIZING THE MAI'OR AND CITY CLERK TO EXECUTE SAID AGREEMENT. (Multimodal Group, Inc.) Roll Call Vote: AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Kaywood, Pebley, Sneegas and Thom NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: None ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Seymour The Mayor declared Resolution No. 75R-252 duly passed and adopted. 75-461 City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - May 20~ 1975~ 1:30 P.M. RESOLUTION NO. 75R-253 - AMENDMENT TO CONTRACT WITH LORD ELECTRIC: The City Attorney advised that Lord Electric, the contractor responsible for installa- tion of electrical equipment at the Lewis 220 KV Electrical Substation, which job is 95% complete, indicates the contract term has extended for a longer period than originally anticipated generally due to delays in delivery of equipment to the site. As is the City's normal practice, 10% of the construc- tion price is being withheld. Because of cash flow difficulties, Lord Electric has proposed an amendment to their contract to reduce the withholding portion to 5%. On report and recommendation o.f the City Attorney, Councilman Pebley offered Resolution No. 75R-253 for adoption. Refer to Resolution Book. A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM APPROVING T~E TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF AN AMENDMENT TO THAT CERTAIN AGREEMENT ENTERED INTO ON NOVEMBER 15, 1973, WITH LORD ELECTRIC COMPANY AND AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR AND CITY CLERK TO EXECUTE SAID AMENDMENT. Roll Call Vote; AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Kaywood, Pebley, Sneegas and Thom NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: None ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Seymour The Mayor declared Resolution No. 75R-253 duly passed and adopted. RESOLUTION NO. 75R-254 - AGREEMENT WITH COUNTY OF ORANGE TO PARTICIPATE IN REVENUE SHARING FUND ACQUISITION - RIVERDALE PARK: Mr. Murdoch presented a proposed agreement wherein the County of Orange agrees to utilize Revenue Sharing Funds to pay for 50% of the cost to acquire property for Riverdale Park, not to exceed $125,000. He reported that this is an increase of $25,000 over the amount originally proposed. Councilman Sneegas offered Resolution No. 75R-254 for adoption. Refer to Resolution Book. A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AUTHORIZING AND DIRECTING THE EXECUTION OF AN AGREEMENT WITH THE COUNTY OF ORANGE TO PARTICIPATE IN A REVENUE SHARING FUND LAND ACQUISITION FOR RECREATIONAL USE. (Riverdale Park) Roll Call Vote: AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Kaywood, Pebley, Sneegas and Thom NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: None ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Seymour The Mayor declared Resolution No. 75R-254 duly passed and adopted. RESOLUTION NO. 75R-255 - ANAHEIM HILLS NO. 14 ANNEXATION (Uninhabited): Pursuant to authority granted by the Local Agency Formation Commission, Resolution No. 75-46, Councilman Sneegas offered Resolution No. 75R-255 for adoption. Refer to Resolution Book. A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM APPROVING THE ANNEXATION TO THE CITY OF ANAHEIM OF THE TERRITORY KNOWN AND DESIGNATED ANAIIEIM HILLS NO. 14 ANNEXATION. (Uninhabited, 16.4 acres at the easterly extension of Serrano Avenue, one mile east of Nohl Ranch Road.) Roll Call Vote: AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Kaywood, Pebley, Sneegas and Thom NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: None ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Seymour The Mayor declared Resolution No. 75R-255 duly passed and adopted. 75-~fi2 City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - May 20, 1975, 1:30 P.M. USE OF CITY PARKING LOT - WAIVER OF BUSINESS LICENSE FEE - GARAGE SALE, ANAHEI~f CHRISTIAN PRE-SCHOOLAND DAY CARE CENTER: Request submitted by Mr. Roy E. Manning, Administrator, Anaheim Christian Pre-School and Day Care Center to use the City parking lot located at the northwest corner of Broadway and Philadelphia Stroot on Saturday, May 31, 1975. between the hours of g:00 A.M. and 5:00 P.M. was approved,and it was further determined that saJ.d activity would not be subject to a business license Section 3.04.130, on motion b~- Councilman Pebl~y. q~on4~d by Councilwoman Kaywood. Councilman Se~.~our absent. MOTION CARRIED. ANAHEIM INTERMODE SYSTEM CO.XqMITTEE - MINUTE EXCERPT APRIL 2, 1975: Mr. Don McDaniel transmitted to the Council a minute excerpt from the mooting of the Anaheim Intermode System Committee held April 2, 1975, recognizing the need t~ further investigate the Intermodal Transportation System to integrate the regionally related systems with Anaheim's unique commercial-recreational industrial activities and establish a program in pursuit of system planning and implementation. Mr. McDaniel briefed the Council re~arding the ~ctivities of this Committee to date; i.e.. that they hax~e held nine meetings and have con- cluded the first increment of the task, which was basically to familiarize the Committee Members with the ground transportation situation and complete the inventory of modes available in Anaheim. The second increment of the task will begin at the ne~t m~t~n~ and durin~ this portion, it is the intent of the Committee to identifv various transportation needs in Anaheim and discuss these with representatives of the Visitor and Convention Bureau, industrial sector, Disnevlsnd representatives, etc. No action was taken by the City Council. REQUEST TO ADDRESS THE COI7NCIL - MRS. DORIS WINCKLER - BOARD OF DIRECTORS, THE PEOPLE'S CENTER: Mrs. Winckler ad~ised that she ~'ss retained b~z t~e People's Center, which was tben called the Business O£cupat~onal Development and Research Center, one yoar ag~ to do public re]ations work. She stated that she has requested this ~ime, not only as a friend to Mr. Ks~an, but as a Member of the Board of Directors of the People's Center, to address the City Council and attempt to straighten out some of tho accusations and scandal which have accrued to Mr. Kyman as a result of the action taken by the City Council to terminate the contract with the Poople'g Center. Mrs. Winckler briefed the Ccuncil on Mr. Kyman's history o£ emplo3~nt with the California Department of Corrections which he left because of his discouragement over the limited effectiveness of that system to successfully rehabilitate the inmates. He decided to attempt independently to counsel and find jobs for these ind2viduals. She described the beginnings of the Business Occupational Development and Research Center, Mr. K3~an's association with Mr. Markowski and Mr. Scott Walters and eventually Mr. Vind. She advised that there were jealousies and friction among some of the people workin~ for this organization, but that those were aired, and it was finally agreed that there was nothing more than a misunderstanding. Regarding the contracts which were dra~ between the City of Anaheim and the County of Orange, and between the Ci~, cf Anaheim and~.h~ .... People's C~nter Mrs. Winckler contended that there was a sum of $16,000 which was to help them, paid by the C~unty t~ th~, :City ~ ini~-{at~ the program and this money never came to the P~ople's Center. Further, she stated that when Mr. William Hepburn, the City's Manpower Coordinator, mresented this program to Mr. Kyman, he indicated it ~o be a pilot pro,ram, subject ~.~ (~nstant that Mr. Kyman saw the ~ ...... ~..,.~,a~t tbe day before it was to be ~resented to the Anaheim City Council and at tha~ time no porfcrm.~anc~ c:]~,.:vc~ ,~as ~nc].uded. ~r. Kyman questioned this and was told Ly Mr. Hepburn that the g.qrf~rmance criteria and funding provisions could be incorporated before the contract was presente4 to the City Council ~,~n Mr Ks~an came to the Council o+ ~ · - · me~.~ing and disccx~er~d what the contract perfo~ance clause called for, he was stunned at what he being asked to do. She voiced the opinion, that the placement of 50 sociails' disadvantaged people intc fully unsubsidized, non-government aligned positiens, in a period of six weeks, is ob,ziously impossible. She advised that both Mr. Walters and Mr. Kyman won~ to the }{anpowor ~ff5. ce man,z timos to try to have the contract amended, b~t sbo maintained that the,~ receivod no input or ~uppmrt from tba~ office. 75-463 _City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - May 20~ 1975, 1:30 P.M. Mayor Thom interjected that the City Council approved the contract with the People's Canter on staff recommendation, and the investigation of the program was authorized at the request of one Council Member. Subsequent to that, having received the results of the audit dated April 25, 1975, the City Council again acted upon the recommendation of staff, and based on the audit, terminated the program. He advised Mrs. Winckler that the personalities and the frictions on the periphery of this situation are immaterial to the Council, but that they would be happy to hear any new factual evidence she might care to present. Mrs. Winckler submitted to Council Members, and read~ a statement from Tracy and McLucas, Certified Public Accountants, 1605 North Spurgeon Street, Santa Ana 92701, which indicated that Mr. Wally Kyman and Mr. Scott Walters contributed capital in the amount of $3,130.00 to the People's Center during the months of January, February and March, 1975, and that full accounting for these amounts has not been made for expenditures and the remainder is carried on the balance sheet as petty cash. She read this in response to the allega- tion of malfeasance in connection with the non-accountability for $925.11. She indicated she could see no reason why Mr. Kyman and Mr. Walters should have to account for their own money. Mayor Thom reminded Mrs. Winckler that the Council acted to terminate the contract based on the audit indicating that the People's Center had failed to meet contract performance standards. Mrs. Winckler reiterated that the contract terms were impossible to meet. She related that at the time stories and allegations about the People's Center were circulating, she called the newspapers, namely the Anaheim Bulletin and the Register, and invited them to investigate the operation. This offer was declined, except for the Register reporter. Mrs. Winckler maintained that the stories which were published were spurious and that in the interest of decency and fairnes~ these areas of dispute should be investigated and reported factually. Mayor Thom pointed out that the audit report, aside from its critical aspect, was very complimentary of the staff at the People's Center. Mrs. Winckler advised that as far as the audit was concerned, she did not mean to imply that this was intended to harm Mr. Kyman or his reputation.. She agreed that it was objectively performed, however, she felt it contained some mistakes. As far as the report on the effectiveness of the People's Center in job placement, pursuant to the contract terms, she compared their placement record of 20 people with a grand expenditure of $18,000 as opposed to the City Manpower Office having placed 44 people with the backing of the Manpower Commission which has more than $1,000,000 in Federal funds. She further contended that if the People's Center had received support from the City, it would have had a better chance for success. Councilman Sneegas wished to clarify that the statement presented by Mrs. Winckler from Tracy and McLucas, indicates, despite the origin of the money, that there is, in fact, $3,130.00, in addition to the $925.11, which has not been accounted for. Councilwoman Kaywood commented that the report received on the People's Center indicated, after several placements and much counseling, that they expected a rate of success with these ex-offenders of only 80%, which in her opinion, is a high rate of success. Councilman Sneegas concurred that if this is a viable progra~ he would not wish to see it cancelled and suggested that perhaps the Grand Jury should be requested to look into the matter and either clear or condemn the operation. Councilman Sneegas indicated that although he feared the ramifications which might come from a Grand Jury investigation for some individuals, he would, · nevertheless, move that the City Council request that the Grand Jury look into the operation and administration of t he People's Center. Said motion died for lack of a second. 75-464 City Hall, Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - May 20, 1975, 1:30 P.M. Mayor Thom advised that any citizen or Council Member can take the results of this audit to the Grand Jury and, upon reviewing same, they either will or will not investigate the matter. He urged Councilman Sneegas to apprise the remainder of the Council of any information which he may have on this matter. Mr. Murdoch indicated that he wished to respond to certain derogatory statements made by Mrs. Winckler regarding members of the City staff. He pointed out, in particular, that Mrs. Winckler alleged several times that the Man- power Office and Mr. William Hepburn did not provide support or cooperation to the People's Center and he maintained that this is not factual. He advised that the People's Center proposal .which the City's Manpower Commissioner, Gerald Vind, had requested the City to sponsor, when initially proposed, contained several serious deficiencies and for this reason,there were ob- jections to it from the City staff. It contained no definitive proposal and was a very poorly presented situation. Mr. Murdoch advised that the City staff did, in fact, work very diligently to put the contract into a workable form, and this responsibility was primarily Mr. Hepburn's. Without this preparation, the contract would never have received the approval of the City Council. He felt it should be clear that Mr. Hepburn had helped with the project,and it is unfair to state that he did not. The Mayor agreed that the work performed to put the contract into form which could be approved by the COuncil does indicate a level of support. Mrs. Winckler thanked the Council for the opportunity to make her presentation. No action was taken by the City Council. PUBLIC HEARING - POSSIBLE AMENDMENT TO TITLE 18 (ZONING CODE) RELATING TO FLAGS, BANNERS AND DIRECTIONAL SIGNS USED IN CONNECTION WITH SALE OF RESIDENTIAL UNITS: To consider possible amendments to Chapter 18.05 (outdoor advertising) relating specifically to flags and banners and certain types of directional signs used in connection with the sale of residential units. Public hearing was requested by the City Council following discussion of request for limited additional usage of flags, banners and directional signs presented by the Anaheim Advancement Council and representative of the Building Industry Association at the Council Meeting held April 29, 1975, and said hearing was scheduled this date. Report from the Director of Development Services was submitted describing findings to the permitted use of directional signs and flags and banners in the cities of Placentia and Irvine, which was prepared following meetings with representatives of the industry. The Mayor asked if anyone wished to address the Council regarding the consideration of the use of flags, banners and/or directional signs in con- nection with the sale of residential units. Mr. Manuel Perez, Director of Governmental Affairs, Building Industry Association, thanked members of the Council who participated in the meetings conducted prior to this public hearing. He noted that although the industry would like to have carte blanche in this matter, they are willing to compromise and are desirous that these sales tools be permitted as quickly as possible. Mrs. Mary Dinndorf, President of the Santa Ana Canyon Improvement Associa- tion, Inc., 131 La Paz Street, Anaheim, questioned the validity of the developer's claim that they have lost 50% of their sales due to the new sign ordinance; she contended that model homes are clearly marked and set aside by special fencing in each development. Mrs. Dinndorf advised that since enactment of the new sign ordinance, out of 24 illegal signs, only 9 have been removed and voiced the opinion that this mandates refusal of any special consideration. She also stated that "bootleg" directional signs have proliferated and have caused ~n unsightly problem on weekends. She concluded that she has worked for the new sign ordinance since October of 1974 and is still waiting to see it completely enforced. 75-465 City Hall~ Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - May 20, 1975~ 1:30 P.M. Mrs. Jean Morris, 400 Torrey Pines Circle, Anaheim, representing the Westridge Homeowner's Association, stated that this Association will strive to maintain, foster and defend the preservation of natural beauty in the Canyon. They are growing impatient with the lack of enforcement of the new sign ordinance and lack of sensitivity for the homeowners in the area dis- played by the developers. She stated they feel the sign ordinance should be enforced as it is now written, and to permit additional flags, banners or signs would only destroy the intent of the new ordinance which took so many months of effort to fi~alize. Mr. Bill Ehrle, Chairman of the Coalition of Anaheim Leaders, which is composed of 14 homeowner groups, remarked that there is no question that this organization supported 2 or 3 of the Council Members in the last election and hoped to continue to support them when in agreement. ~!~ noted that the existing ordinance was created through the diligent work of City personnel, developers, and citizens and, in his opinion, this five months of effort should not be undone in one afternoon. Mrs. Frances Neville, 843 South State College Boulevard, Anaheim, Realtor, advised that her business depends on signs to a large degree and cautioned against setting down regulations with which the City might later be dissatisfied. She inquired how far this sign restriction would extend and, specifically, whether it would prohibit the realtor's "open house" signs. Mr. James Chaffin, representing the Anaheim Advancement Council, advised that the impetus to their request made originally at their April 29, 1975 meeting, was that since the enforcement of the new sign ordinance, the traffic count and sales have declined significantly. He related that they cannot say that the lack of directional signs, flags and banners is the entire reason but, nevertheless, they feel it is associated. Mr. Chaffin related that in the interim period between the original request and this public hearing, the Anaheim Advancement Council has met with Council Members Kaywood and Seymour and have discussed their situation. At the most recent meeting they received very strong opposition to directional signs and, therefore, he wished to clarify the Advancement Council's position this date; i.e., they feel that these temporary directional signs are very important, however, they are primarily seeking approval for the use of flags and banners at the model complexes with certain restrictions. He proposed that they be permitted two flags per model, with a maximum of 12 flags for any given project; the flags to be 4 x 6 feet in size, and to be placed on poles not to exceed 20 feet in height. They would request these be permitted on a six-month period subject to renewal. The developers would be willing to post bond to ensure the rules are not violated and the flags kept in good condition. Mr. Chaffin stressed the urgency of the developer's request inasmuch as the government is trying to spur the economy with certain motivation to purchase homes at this time. At the request of Councilwoman Kaywood, Mr. Chaffin explained the pro- posal for a regimented weekend directional sign program as was utilized in the City of Placentia. This would be a program including all developers, the signs themselves would be uniform and their locations identified in advance; the signs are installed Friday night through Sunday night only; a number of dif- ferent sign companies could be asked to bid for the program. The proposal includes special policing of the signs for violations by the sign company itself. Mr. Chaffin felt that this type of directional sign program would be advantageous to the developers and aesthetically pleasing to those people already living in the area. He noted that in their discussions of the problem, it was ascertained that cities which do permit the signs under certain strict guidelines have found that these regulations were adhered to by the developers, and that the residents were not offended by the signs, as compared to those cities which prohibit them and have a proliferation of many different types~ of "bootleg" directional signs each weekend. Councilwoman Kaywood advised that at a later meeting it was agreed that in such a directional sign program, the signs would be placed out on Saturday morning and removed Sunday night. She stated that this type of program would eliminate the clutter which is occurring in the hill and canyon area apparently each weekend. 75-466 City Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - May 20~ 1975, 1:30 P.M. Mr. Chaffin also pointed out that certain developers, for advertising purposes, are far removed from the normal traffic stream and the limitation on the number of off-site signs has made it difficult to route traffic into these locations. They also feel that flags are necessary because it is, in many cases, difficult to ascertain the location of the models, and reiterated that their first priority request would be for a flag program as outlined above. Mr. Manuel Perez added that the relief the builders are seeking is not aimed at the hard work that has gone into the present sign ordinance nor to the considerations given to the Scenic Corridor Overlay zone. This request arises because of a number of factors, such as the economy~ decrease in traffic, etc., which have occurred simultaneously and are causing a problem for the developers. He stated that it is his understanding that the request for use of flags and banners would not require modification to the sign ordinance. Mr. David Nelson, 635 South Grove Street, Anaheim, stated that he was not involved personally in the real estate or home building field, but suggested since homes, according to the newspapers, are selling readily in other areas, and the demand is high, that the houses in the hill and canyon area are too highly priced. He found it difficult to believe that more than the allowed number of signs would increase the traffic and sales of homes in that area. He described his own experience of buying and selling his own home which was accomplished with only one sign. Mr. John Millick, Vice President Anaheim Hills, Inc., stated that the new sign ordinance under discussion was the result of many months of work by the City Council, Task Force, and Planning Commission and was a compromise solution. However, most of the efforts were directed primarily toward the billboards which were recognized to be a problem by all concerned. He indicated that they did not put any time into discussion of flags, banners and directional signs. Mr. Millick advised that according to statistics kept by Anaheim Hills, Inc. on the 7 projects now being sold on their property, that when the new ordinance became effective, which eliminated directional signs and flags, they experienced a 20% to 30% drop in overall traffic and as much as a 40% decrease in sales from the beginning of 1975. He also admitted that it is very difficult to directly attribute this decrease to the absence of flags and directional signs, but emphasized that the lower traffic and sales statistics are facts with which the builders have to deal. Mr. Millick advised that the temporary directional sign program proposed is very rigid and that a uniform logo in coordinated colors would be used. He emphasized that because of the topography in the Anaheim Hills area, it is difficult to locate certain projects. He also emphasized that in a townhouse project it is impossible to identify the model complex from the others since they are all landscaped similarly. He concluded that the builders have pro- posed some solutions which would not create a circus-like atmosphere, but rather would provide a controlled situation which would alleviate some of the serious problems they are experiencing in moving their products. In reply to Mrs. Dinndorf's inquiry about all the different projects out- side of the Anaheim Hills property which would not use the same logo on a directional sign, Mr. Millick advised that they had already agreed to utilize a uniform logo. Mr. Donald Bretz, 625 South Euclid Street, Chairman of the Anaheim Board of Realtors Legislative and Taxation Committee, predicted that those very people who are complaining of off-site tract directional signs now, in the future when they wish to resell their property, will wish they were able to have them. He emphasized that the realtor's open-house directional sign is a definite necessity to his business, and if the directional signs prohibited include the realtor's temporary directional sign for residential resales, this would not be in the public interest. He advised that he would not be in favor of placing a law on the books which would hinder resale activity in the future. Mayor Thom, having determined that sufficient public input was received, declared the public hearing closed. 75-467 City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - May 20, 1975, 1:30 P.M. Councilwoman Kaywood advised that when the issues of a drop in traffic and sales after the sign ordinance went into effect was originally raised, her first impression was to refer the matter to the Canyon Area General Planning Task Force. Tt~at gro~p, however, was formed with the distinct number one priority of studying the densJ, ty in the Canyon area and since its inception, has been diverted from this priority to other problems. She noted that this is the reason she and Councilman Seymour met with the developers, builders and sign interests. She indicated that it was not their intent to amend the recently enacted sign ordinance. Mayor Thom voiced ~be opinion, that this request is not so much from the builders as it is ~!~ th~ sign companies in an attempt to realize more business, and he is not amenable to changing the ordinance. Councilwoman Kaywood stated that she had made it clear she would not be in favor of amending the ordinance either. However, since there is the existing problem of an abundance of homes to be sold in the area, she recognized that there is a need to communicate to potential buyers where these homes are located. Councilman Sneegas commented that he has personally observed a drop in the amount of traffic in an~ about the area in which he lives. He further explained that there ~s a tract of homes on a road which was closed last summer because of fire hazard, and that even people living out in the area are not aware ~}~t ~he road is now open. He felt that there is a problem for the developers to route traffic to their projects and stated that as a Councilman he felt it his duty to help the businessmen in the community, as well as the residents. Therefore, he indicated he would support the effort to permit two flags per model and directional signs, as outlined, on weekends and would also include holidays. Councilman Sneegas thereupon moved that the City Council instruct the City Attorney to draft an amendment tc Chapter 18.05 (outdoor advertising) which would permit two flags per model, not to exceed 12 per model complex, and directional signs in a uniform program as previously described. Councilman Pebley seconded the motion. Said motion f~iled to carry by the following vote: AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Pebley and Sneegas NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Kaywood and Thom ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Seymour Councilwoman Kaywood stated that she again wanted to make it clear that she is not in favor of amending the new sign ordinance. She reiterated that she understood signs and banners are not included in that ordinance and, therefore, could be pemnitted by some other means. Mr. Watts counseled that the City Council should, in their consideration of these matters, separate the two items as flags and banners are requested to be permitted on-site, whereas the directional signs would be categorized as off-site signs. He advised that, in his opinion, since the flags and banners are not specifically mentioned in the ordinance, then it would require an amend- ment to that section to permit them. He replied, in answer to Councilman Sneegas' question regarding adopting a Council Policy, that this does not carry the same weight as an amendment to the ordinance. He further noted that the outdoor advertising ordinance basically indicates what signs on or off the tract are permitted and if there is no indication that a specific sign can be placed, then it is prohibited. He stated that as far as he knows, the "open house" signs used by realtors have never been legal. Councilwoman Kaywood inquired whether the Council could permit flags and banners at model homes on a temporary basis to see if the area residents object, and also to find out if these make any difference in the amount of' traffic generated to the sales area. Mr. Watts replied that the pragmatic answer is that if the Council adopts such Policy to permit the display of flags and banners,.then staff will not enforce the ordinance against this activity. However, the problem he envisions is that if someone contests the Council's action, he did not know whether or mot he could sustain in court the adoption of a Policy rather than an amendment of an ordinance. 75-468 City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - May 20~ 1975~ 1:30 P.M. Councilman Sneegas moved to instruct staff to draft a Council Policy to permit the use of flags and banners at model homes in new tracts, two per model, not to exceed twelve per model complex; to be displayed only on weekends and legal holidays. Councilman Pebley seconded the motion. Councilwoman Kaywood felt eight flags were sufficient. During further discussion the Council amended the foregoing motion to stipulate that the flags and banners not exceed ten per model complex, which amendment was approved by both Councilmen Sneegas and Pebley. To this motion Councilman Thom voted "no". Councilman Seymour absent. MOTION CARRIED. By general Council consent,it was determined that the question of possible amendment ~o Chapter 18.05 (outdoor advertising) to permit off-site temporary directional signs would be held over to the meeting of May 27, 1975 for full Council. PRESENTATION OF ORAL HISTORY PROJECT AND PETITIONS - STUDENTS FROM TRIDENT JUNIOR HIGH SCHOOL: Representatives from the Trident Junior High School, 8th grade class of mentally gifted students, together with their teacher Mrs. Margaret Herbert, presented copies of their oral history project entitled "An Oral Inquiry Into The Operations of the City of Anaheim" to the Council Members. The Mayor commended the group on the project which he calls exemplary in size, scope and professional assembly and presentation. Spokesmen for the group, Tom Campbell, 9591 Banta Avenue and Todd Sallo, 2105 Chanticleer Road, also presented two petitions to the Council (on file in City Clerk's Office); one requesting the Council to consider the installa- tion of bicycle paths in the City of Anaheim, thereby, providing a safe place for bicycle riding; and the second petition requests that bicycle riding be permitted in the City parks. At the request of the Mayor, in answer to the students, Mr. John Collier advised that the bicycle study has been completed by the consultant and pre- sented to a Committee of various City Departments for review and will be sub- mitted to the City Council in approximately 30 days. In reply to the second petition regarding the riding of bicycles and other vehicles in the City parks, Mr. Collier reported that this regulation was enacted by Council Policy because of some serious accidents. He advised that he would like to have the petitions and requests made by the students referred to the Parks and Recreation Commission for study and recommendation. By general Council consent, the petitions and requests submitted by the Trident Junior High School 8th Grade Class were referred to the Parks and Recreation Commission RECLASSIFICATION NO. 73-74-37 - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NOS. 1445 AND 1446 - REQUEST FOR EXTENSION OF TIME FOR POSTING OF BOND: Request of Mr. LeRoy Rose, LeRoy Rose & Associates, dated April 28, 1975, for additional time to post the bond required as a condition of approval of extension of time granted to Reclassification No. 73-74-37 and Conditional Use Permit Nos. 1445 and 1446 on February 5, 1975. On that date extension of time was granted by the Council to the above-mentioned reclassification and conditional use permits relating to property located at the northeast corner of McKinnon Drive and Lakeview Avenue, expiring February 5, 1976, subject to the Applicant posting a bond for street improvements and street lighting facilities and making required dedication within 90 days. Mr. Uhl of LeRoy Rose and Associates advised that they made the required right-of-way dedication and steps were taken to procure the bond. However, the owner has developed some financial difficulties, which are a matter of record, and,therefore,requests that the condition regarding the bonding be waived or additional time granted so that the owner could attempt to resolve these financial problems. In reply to the Mayor, Mr. Watts advised that this request might be accommodated by allowing the petitioner to post a certificate of deposit or letter of credit; however, if there are financial difficulties, these may not be viable alternatives. He further suggested that the bond for street improvements and street lighting could be required prior to issuance of a building permit rather than the reading of the ordinance. 75-469 City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - May 20~ 1975~ 1:30 P.M. Mr. Watts requested time to confer with the Director of Development Services. RECESS: Councilman Sneegas moved for a 5-minute recess. Councilwoman Kaywood seconded the motion. Councilman Seymour absent. MOTION CARRIED. (4:10 P.M.) AFTER RECESS: Mayor Thom called the meeting to order, all Council Members being present with the exception of Councilman Seymour. (4:15 P.M.) RESOLUTION NO. 75R-256: Mr. Watts repeated for Mr. Uhl the recommended amendment to the condition requiring posting of bond for street improvements and lighting facilities prior to or simultaneously with application for a building permit. Mr. Uhl indicated that this would be satisfactory to his firm. Councilman Pebley offered Resolution No. 75R-256 for adoption, amending Resolution No. 74R-42 to provide that the bonding for street improvements and lighting facilities be posted prior to or simultaneously with the application for building permit. Refer to Resolution Book. A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COI~CIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM EXTENDING THE TIME FOR POSTING A BOND IN CONNECTION WITH RECLASSIFICATION NO. 73-74-37, CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NOS. 1445 AND ]446 TO PRIOR TO OR SIMULTANEOUSLY WITH THE APPLICATION FOR THE APPLICATION OF A BUILDING PERMIT. Roll Call Vote. AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Pebley Sneegas and Thom NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Kaywood ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Seymour The Mayor declared Resolution No. 75R-256 duly passed and adopted. REQUEST BY ANAHEIM HILLS, INC. - WAIVER OF DRAINAGE REqUIReMENT PRIOR TO GRADINC ~rainase District No. 41): Request of Anaheim Hills, Inc. for waiver of require- ment that drainage facilities be provided to ultimate disposal prior to grading of a site in the development of Unit VIII and its effect on Drainage District No. 4]. was submitted for Council consideration. Also submitted was report dated May 13, 1975 from the City Engineer recommending that said request be granted subject to 7 conditions. The Mayor asked if any of the Council Members had any questions regarding the conditions submitted. In reply to Councilwoman Kaywood's question, Mr. Maddox assured her that it is not the City's intent to waive the requirement for diversion of the 47 acres from the Walnut Canyon Reservoir and this is the reason for the increase in total drainage area into area 41. Mr. Maddox further reported that Anaheim Hills, Inc. has indicated ob- jection to two of the conditions submitted and has requested amendment to these. He indicated that his office concurs with these amendments and would recommend that they be incorporated. On motion by Councilman Sneegas, seconded by Councilman Pebley, the City Council approved the request of Anaheim Hills, Inc. for waiver of City Council Policy that drainage facilities be provided to ultimate disposal prior to grading of a site in connection with development of Unit VIII and its impact on Drainage District No. 41, subject to the 7 conditions recommended by the City Engineer, incorporating the revisions requested by Anaheim Hills, Inc. as follows: 1. The ultimate offsite drainage facilities will be constructed in accordance with City Council policy prior to or concurrent with any develop- ment outside of the area shaded in red and shown on Exhibit "A". 75-470 City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - May 20, 1975~ 1:30 P.M. 2. Anaheim Hills, Inc. shall construct and maintain an energy dissipater structure and desilting and/or debris basins, on their property, at all dis- charge points from Development Unit VIII and Canyon Rim Road. Plans for said facilities shall be approved by the City Engineer, with construction being completed prior to October 15, 1975. 3. The existing earthen dam, north of Santa Ana Canyon Road, shall be removed and an earth berm constructed on the west side of the drainage course as shown on Exhibit "C". 4. Ultimata drainage facilities will be installed by Anaheim Hills, Inc. when their development extends beyond the area shown on Exhibit "A", or at the time a downstream property owner develops, whichever occurs first. The first developer shall prepare the necessary plans and obtain approval of all af- fected public agencies. Construction costs may be financed through a drainage reimbursement agreement. 5. That the property owner of record enter into an agreement holding the City of Anaheim and County of Orange harmless for any damage caused by surface runoff until such time as the ultimate storm drain facilities have been constructed. Said agreement shall be recorded against the property and be binding upon any successors or heirs. 6. Anaheim Hills, Inc. shall construct and maintain a retarding facility on their property to accommodate the diversion of the 47 acres into District 41 until such time as the ultimate facilities are constructed. 7. Payment of a drainage fee at the time of development by the property within the area shaded red and shown on Exhibit A" The fee shall be deter- mined by the City Engineer and may be applied to the construction costs of the ultimate facilities when they are installed. Councilman Seymour absent. MOTION CARRIED. REQUEST - APPROVAL OF SPECIAL RECREATIONAL FACILITY (PELANCONI PARK) ON THE RANCHO YORBA DEVELOPMENT PLAN (RECLASSIFICATION NO. 70-71-13~ TRACT NO. 8783): Request of Presley of Southern California, Grant Company of California, Bernardo M. Yorba and Manny Fingerhut for approval of plans for special recreational facility on the Rancho Yorba development plan, previously con- tinued from the meetings of March 18, April 1, April 22 and May 6, 1975, was resubmitted for Council consideration. Mr. Fred Wilson, representing Presley of Southern California, presented pro forma park improvement cost, drawn up following the meeting with Council Members Seymour and Kaywood. He explained that the total cost of the park is estimated at $513,670.00 including the cost for the land. He explained the participation proposed by each of the developers and that the deficit amount of $40,394.00 was agreed to be split by Mr. Yorba and Mr. Fingerhut, so that there would be no cost to the City for development of the park. Mr. John Harding, Administrative Assistant, advised that this proposal, as presented, commits the City to spend the park and recreation in lieu fees from these tracts on this project as a first priority, which some of the Council Members have previously indicated they would not approve. The City has two other park sites in that area, at Royal Oak and Imperial Highway and on Nohl Ranch Road, which are actually on the park master plan. He advised Councilman Pebley that these park in lieu fees would amount to $69,999.00. Mr. Harding further reported that it was discussed in negotiations that the Grant Company of California had bonded for $142,000 and, according to this proposal, they are lessening their park obligation by $50,000.00. The proposal also calls for a dirt gravel roadway, whereas the City staff does not feel this would be sufficient. They would prefer concrete, but consider asphalt the minimum material which would be acceptable for this road. Mr. Wilson stated that he felt it is not equitable to require the developers who are already dedicating land for public use and picking up the balance of the cost for improvement to, in addition, pay their park in lieu fees. He also voiced the opinion that park in lieu fees should be spent on the subdivisions from which they are generated. He advised that the plans for a special recreational facility, as submitted, and for the various participa- tion of all land owners and developers involved, represent their proposals for the use of the area in compliance with the condition imposed by their tentative map and requested that the City Council vote as to whether or not this plan meets their approval. 75-471 City Hall~ Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - May 20, 1975~ 1:30 P.M. Mayor Thom advised that although the plan is acceptable in concept, in its present form with the participation as outlined, the City Council could not approve it. He noted that there still appears to be a discrepancy in the participation,as outlined,of $69,000.00 and provisions for a concrete road. Councilwoman Kaywood emphasized that the Rancho Yorba Development Plan for condominiums in this area was approved strictly with the understanding that subject property would be dedicated to open space recreational use in perpetuity, and that without this stipulation,that density would not have been approved. She stated that it was made very clear at the meetings held with the developers that the park in lieu fees would not be considered as a part of their participation. In reply to Councilman Sneegas, Mr. Collier advised that maintenance costs for the type of recreational facility planned on this site would be approximately $1,500.00 per acre annually, and that the park usage would primarily be for family picnics, etc. No football fields or traditional park facilities are planned. Mr. Wilson requested some time to confer with the other participating developers. Later in the meeting, Mr. Wilson returned and requested a further two-week continuance of consideration of the special recreational facility, to the meeting of J~ne 3, 1975, which was granted on motion by Councilman Pebley, seconded by Councilwoman Kaywood. Councilman Seymour absent. MOTION CARRIED. CONSENT CALENDAR ITEMS: On motion by Councilman Pebley, seconded by Councilwoman Kaywood, the following actions were authorized in accordance with the reports and recommendations furnished each Council Member and as listed on the consent calendar agenda: 1. DINNER DANCING PLACE, ENTERTAINMENT~ AMUSEMENT DEVICE AND PRIVATE PATROL PERMITS: The following permits were granted subject to the recommendations of the Chief of Police: a. Dinner Dancing Place Permit for Charlie Brown's, 1751 South State College Boulevard, 7 days a week from 9:00 P.M. to 2:00 A.M (Joe N Varon, Applicant). ' ' b. Dinner Dancing Place Permit for the Red Onion, 1801 East Katella Avenue, 7 days a week from 9:00 P.M. to 2:00 A.M. (Joe N. Varon, Applicant). c. Dinner Dancing Place Permit for the Royal Archer, 815 South Brook- burst Street, 7 days a week, from 9:00 P.M. to 2:00 A. M. (John B Franza, Sr., Applicant). ' d. Entertainment Permit for Pappy's, 1029-1031 North Magnolia Avenue, Friday through Sunday from 8:00 P.M. to 1:00 A.M. (Audrey J. Harding, Applicant). e. Amusement Devices Permit for 15 assorted coin-operated machines to be located at 'the Billiard Works, 645 North Euclid Street (John M. Bleem Rockwell Vending Company, Applicant). ' f. Private Patrol Permit for Reynolds Security Service to provide private patrol service in the City of Anaheim (William V. Reynolds, Applicant). 2. CORRESPONDENCE: The following correspondence was ordered received and filed: a. Orange County Mosquito Abatement District - Minutes - April 17, 1975. b. Douglas Bus Lines, Inc. - Re: Bus Fare Rate Increase PUC Application No. 55656. c. Before the Public Utilities Commission - Application of Robert O. Ernst, dba Ventura Limousine and Bus Service, for Authority to Provide Passenger Stage Service between points in Ventura County and Los Angeles, Orange and Riverside Counties. d. Financial and Operating Reports for the Months of March and April, 2975: April - Customer Service Division March - Electrical Division April - Building Division 75-472 City Halls Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - May 20~ 197.5~ 1:30 P.M. 3. PROPOSED AMENDMENT TO TITLE 18 (ZONING) OF THE ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE: Public Hearing date to consider amendments to the zoning code pertaining to the site screening requirements in all multiple-family residential and commercial zones was set for June 10, 1975 at 2:30 P.M. Councilman Seymour absent. MOTION CARRIED. CLAIMS AGAINST THE CITY: The following claims were denied as recommended by the City Attorney and ordered referred to the insurance carrier on motion by Councilman Sneegas, seconded by Councilwoman Kaywood' a. Claim submitted by Allen Wiener, President, A & W Modeling Studio, for damages purportedly sustained as a result of issuance of business license at improper location on or about April 7, 1975. b. Claim submitted by Allstate Insurance Company on behalf of Sylvian E. Buxton for damages purportedly sustained as a result of insured's vehicle in collision with City vehicle on or about March 12, 1975. c. Claim submitted by Pacific Telephone & Telegraph Company (File 540-2219) for damages sustained to telephone pole purportedly as a result of being struck by City of Anaheim disposal truck on or about April 9, 1975. Councilman Seymour absent. MO~£ION CARRIED. APPLICATION TO PRESENT LATE CLAIMS' The following applications for leave to present late claims were denied as recommended by the City Attorney's Office on motion by Councilman Sneegas, seconded by Councilwoman Kaywood: a. Application for leave to present late claim submitted by Silvas & Eaton, Attorneys for Javier B. Carrasco. b. Application for leave to present late claim submitted by the Automobile Club of Southern California on behalf of Harry S. Komer. Councilman Seymour absent. MOTION CARRIED. RESOLUTION NOS. 75R-257 THROUGH 75R-260: Councilman Pebley offered Resolution Nos. 75R-257 through 75R-260, both inclusive, for adoption, in accordance with the reports and recommendations and certifications furnished each Council Member as listed on the consent calendar agenda: Refer to Resolution Book. RESOLUTION NO. 75R-257 - DEEDS OF EASEMENT: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM ACCEPTING CERTAIN DEEDS AND OP~ERING THEIR RECORDATION. (Yorba Orange Growers Association; Jed Development, Inc.; Alpha Beta Company; Frances G. Norman; Anaheim Hills, Inc. & Texaco Anaheim Hills, Inc.; J. Guadalupe and Maria R. De Anda; Josephine L. Hajek; George T. and Frances E. Parrish; Clarence and Margaret L. Clark, et al.; Santa Anita Development Corporation; The William Lyon Company; The William Lyon Company.) RESOLUTION NO. 75R-258 - FINAL ACCEPTANCE WORK ORDER NO. 668-B: 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 PERFORM- ANCE OF ALL WORK NECESSARY TO CONSTRUCT AND CO~[PLETE THE FOLLOWING PUBLIC IMPROVEMENT, TO WIT: THE BROOKHURST STREET AND LINCOLN AVENUE STREET AND STORM DRAIN IMPROVEMENT, IN THE CITY OF ANAHEIM, WORK ORDER NO. 668-B, A.H.F.P. NOS. 590 AND 680. (Altfillisch Construction Company) RESOLUTION NO. 75R-259 - WORK ORDER NO. 752-A: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM FINDING AND DETERMINING THAT PUBLIC CONVENIENCE AND NECESSITY REQUIRE THE CONSTRUCTION AND COMPLETION OF A PUBLIC IMPROVEMENT, TO WIT: THE LINCOLN AVENUE MEDIAN ISLAND IMPROVEMENT, IN THE CITY OF ANAHEIM, WORK ORDER NO. 752-A~ APPROVING THE DESIGNS, PLANS, PROFILES, DRAWINGS AND SPEC~¥I- CATIONS 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 June 19, 1975, 2:00 P.M.) 75-473 City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES- May 202__1975, 1'30 P.M. RESOLUTION NO. 7~5R-'260 - WORK ORDER NO. 1256: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM FINDING AND D, ' ETERMININC THAT PUBLIC CONVENIENCE AND NECESSITY REQUIRE THE CONSTRUCTION AND COMPLETION OF A PUBLIC IMPROVEMENT, TO WIT: ALLEY #36 SEWER IMPROVEMENT, N/O LINCOLN BETWEEN OHIO STREET AND ILLINOIS STREET~ IN THE CITY OF ANAHEIM, WORK ORDER NO. 1256; APPROVING THE DESIGNS, PLANS, PROFII, ES, DRAWiNCS AND SPECIFICATIONS FOR THE CONSTRUCTION THEREOF; AUTHORIZING THE CONSTRI~CTION OF S ~AID PUBLIC IMPROVEMENT IN ACCORDANCE WITH SAID PLANS, SPECIFICATIONS, ETC.; AND AUTHORIZINC AND DIRECTING THE CITY CLERK TO PUBLISH .% NOTICE'~.~I~I~6 3mALEDW ~ . , o~ - · PROPOSALS FOR THE CONSTRUCTION THEREOF. (Bids. _ to be opened ~l,~ne.. 1'~.,, ]~75~, , .-°:00 P.M.) '"'" '' Ca!. n.o.z.i 1. Vote: AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Kaywood, Pebley, Sneegas and Thom NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS' None ABSENT: COL~LIL~ ~ ' MEMBERS: Seymour The Mayor declared Resoiution Nos. 75R-257 through 75R-260, both inclusive, duly passed and adopted. ENCROACHMENT PERMIT NO. 74-22A: Submitted by David Moore, Armet & Davis, Archi- tects for E1 Camino Bank, to encroach under and across a public alley for the installation and maintenance of a proposed electrical service connection, to provide pow,:~r to the proposed installation of drive-thru banking facilities, and to cover the exist:ing pneumatic tube presently under and across said alley. The Deputy City C.ierk read into the record a statement from Mr. Thornton E. Piersall, D:.i.rector of Pubf£ic Works, ~ndicating that he owns stock in the E1 Camino Bank. Councilman Pebley al. so indicated that he owns stock in the E1 Camino Bank and would no't participate J.n discussion nor vote on the issue. Mr. Alan Colby, Vice President and Cashier, E1 Camino Bank, explained that the encroachment permit is necessary to al.low them to proceed with their plans to develop an auto-bank, to the rear of their property. In order-to, conduct this auto-bank, they will need a pneumatic tube such as the one existing, with controls at either end and, therefore, require the encroachment permit to allow the electrical connection at the outside end. He advised that they will require this encroachment permit even if they do not proceed with this auto- bank plan for the existing equipment or for improvement of that equipment. Also submitted with the a. pp].ication for encroachment permit was a recom- mendation from the City Engineer that. said encroachment be denied, which was based on objections received from the Electrical Division. Mr. George Edwards, Electrical Superintendent, stated that the Utilities Department recommends denial of this encroachment permit since the approval of it would establish a precedent which will erode the electrical utilities service policies and rate structure. He noted that past requests for similar encroachment permits have been denied. The present electrical rate structures recognize the customer demand diversity and permitting private electrical facilities in the public right of way will dilute this diversity and is not in the public nor utilities interest. Service rules presently call for service only to continuous parcels without customer facilities crossing the public right of way. For this reason, they recommended that this request for private electrical circuits in the public right of way 'be denied. Councilman Sneegas inquired if it could be built-in and serviced with a separate meter to which Mr. Edwards replied affirmatively. Mr. Colby advised that although there would be no proble~n with separate electrical meters, in order to run the pneumatic tube, they will still require the encroachment permit for e].ectrical circuits across the public right of Way. Mr. Watts advised that the present drive-through facility at the E1 Camino Bank is located on property owned by the City and leased to the Bank for a five- year period which has recently expired. He suggested that it might be possible to resolve this encroachment problem during negotiations for renewal of the lease. He further suggested that the Utilities Department review the situation with the E1 Camino Bank representatives and architects to determine if there is some other manner in which the problem can 'be resolved. 75-474 City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - May 20, 1975, 1:30 P.M. On motion by Councilman Pebley, seconded by Councilwoman Kaywood, decision on Encroachment Permit No. 74-22E was continued to the meeting of May 27, 1975, to allow time for the Applicant to meet with representatives of the City's Utilities Department in an attempt to resolve their concern over granting of an encroachment permit for private electrical circuits in the public right of way. Councilman Seymour absent. MOTION CARRIED. CITY PLANNING COMMISSION ITEMS: Actions taken by the City Planning Commission at their meeting held April 28, 1975, pertaining to the following applications were submitted for City Council information and consideration. On motion by Councilman Pebley, seconded by Councilman Thom, the City Council authorized the action pertaining to environmental impact requirements, as recommended by the Planning Commission, and sustained the actions taken by the City Planning Commission in connection with the following applications: (Items 1 through 7). 1. ENVIRONM~JNTAL IMPACT REPORT - CATEGORICAL EXEMPTIONS: The City Council ratified the determination made by the Director of Development Services that the proposed activities in the following listed zoning applications fall within the definition of Section 3.01, Class l, 3 or 5 of the City of Anaheim Guide- lines to the requirements for an environmental impact report and are, therefore, categorically exempt from the requirement to file said report: Variance No. 2687 Variance No. 2695 Variance No. 2696 Conditional Use Permit No. 1532 Variance No. 2694 2. VARIANCE NO. 2687: Submitted by D. Dan Pauna to expand unlawfully estab- lished apartments and commercial offices in the CL zone on property located on the north side of Ball Road, east of Brookhurst Street, with code waivers of: a. permitted uses b. minimum number of parking spaces The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC75-87, granted Variance No. 2687 for a period of three years, subject to review at that time, and further subject to conditions. 3. VARIANCE NO. 2695: Submitted by Charles J. Kinn to construct a fourplex in the RM-1200 zone on property located on the north side of Glenzrest Avenue, east of Chippewa Avenue, with code waivers of: a. minimum side yard setback for a building wall with a main entrance b. minimum side yard setback for a building wall with windows c. permitted encroachments into required yards d. minimum number of parking spaces The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC75-91, granted said Variance subject to conditions. 4. VARIANCE NO. 2696: Submitted by Marion K. Burkheim to establish the retail sale and outdoor storage of building materials on ML zoned property located on the north side of Katella Avenue, east of Claudina Way, with code waivers of: a. permitted uses b. minimum front setback landscaping c. minimum number of parking spaces The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC75-92, granted said Variance for a period of three years~ sabject to conditions. 5. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 1532: Submitted by Edward L. and Patricia B. Scanlan to permit a board and care facility for senior citizens on RM-1200 zoned property located on the east side of Vine Street, north of Cypress Street. The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC75-89, granted said conditional use permit for a maximum of 6 residents,plus one couple for housekeeping duties, subject to conditions. 75-475 ~ity Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - May 20, 1975~ 1:30 P.M. 6. VARIANCE NO. 2694: Submitted by Howard Farrand to permit the outdoor storage of shipping containers on ML zoned property located on the east side of Rose Street, south of Santa Ana Street, with code waivers of: a. minimum front setback b. required enclosure of outdoor uses The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC75-90, granted said variance for a period of two years, subject to conditions. WITHDRAWAL OF APPLICATION - RECLASSIFICATION NO. 74-75-30: Submitted by Zurci-Tu~'ner Company for a change in zone from RS-7200 to ML on the south side of Cypress Street, west of Vine Street. Application for change in zone, pursuant to Reclassification No. 74-75-30, was withdrawn at the request of the petitioner. Councilman Seymour absent. MOTION CARRIED. VARIANCE NO. 2674~ ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT NO. 149 (TENTATIVE MAP TRACT NO. 8873): Application by Michael J. Cibellis, et al., for the following code waivers to construct a 21-lot single-family subdivision at the southeast corner of Santa Ana Canyon Road and Quintana Drive, was submitted together with E.I.R. No. 149: a. minimum lot width b. minimum front setback c. minimum rear yard The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC75-86, granted Variance No. 2674, in part, with waiver "b" having been eliminated, subject to conditions,and reported that they believe draft E.I.R. No. 149 does conform to the City and State Guidelines and the State of California Environmental Quality Act and, based upon such information, recommendsthat the City Council certify E.I.R. No. 149 as being in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act provided, however, that additional information shall be provided as a supplement to E.I.R. No. 149pertaining to alternative mitigation measures for the sound from Santa Ana Canyon Road~ said supplement to be submitted prior to City Council review of E.I.R. No. 149, Variance No. 2674 and Tentative Tract No. 8873. The Deputy City Clerk reported that a letter fromBio~coustical Engineering Corporation, dated May 7, 1975, submit~ngadditional information in connection with E.I.R. No. 149 has been received and copies distributed to the Council Members. Mr. Roberts advised that in addition to the letter, sketches showing the relationship of the berm and wall to both the elevations of Santa Ana Canyon Road and the structures to be located in the proposed development, were re- ceived this date from Bio~coustical Engineering Corporation. He advised that members of Development Services Department have examined these documents, and based on past recommendations and actions, believe that if these sketches and this letter of May 7, 1975 are incorporated as an addendum to E.I.R. No. 149, then it would be sufficient and complete as an informative document. Councilwoman Kaywood questioned the actual height of the berm and wall described in the documents, and the comparative relationship to the proposed residential structures. Mr. Roberts advised that according to the sketches submitted, the earthen berm would be constructed along the property line, separating Santa Ana Canyon Road from subject property. The elevation at the top of this berm would be the same as the elevation of the travel lanes along the Santa Ana Canyon Road. A six-foot high masonry wall would be located on the top of the berm. The pad elevations for each of the lots within the subdivision would be from four to four and one-half feet below the elevation of the travel lanes on Santa Aha Canyon Road. According to the documentation provided by Bio~coustical Engineer- ing Corporation, these barriers would bring the noise level to an acceptable 65 dbA in the rear yards of the homes. 75-476 City Hall, Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - May 20, 1975, 1:30 P.M. Mr. Roberts further advised, in answer to Councilwoman Kaywood, that in order to achieve the recommended sound level of 45 dBA inside the homes with doors and windows closed it is suggested that the windows of the upstairs rooms be of double strength glass and insulation be installed in the walls. He reported that the developer has stipulated to providing this additional protection and the developer's representative present in the audience concurred. In reply to Councilwoman Kaywood's concern that the proposed homes to be located adjacent to Santa Ana Canyon Road be amply protected from the noise on said thoroughfare, Mr. Bob Kelley of the Planning Division indicated that the protection listed should be adequate under these circumstances and taking into consideration the fact that this road will not be a truck route. Mr. Roberts further outlined a possible amendment to one of the conditions of approval of Tentative Map Tract No. 8873, which would ensure that both in- door and outdoor noise criteria are met. Councilwoman Kaywood also inquired whether the developer will be making every attempt to save the existing trees on the property and his representative in the audience replied affirmatively. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT NO. 149 - CERTIFICATION: Environmental Impact Report No. 149, together with Addendum dated May 7, 1975 and diagram sketches, having been reviewed by the City Staff and recommended by the City Planning Commission to be in ~ompliance with City and State Guidelines and the State of California Environmental Quality Act, the City Council, acting upon such information and belief, does hereby certify, on motion by Councilman Sneegas, seconded by Councilman Pebley, that E.I.R. No. 149,together with Addendum dated May 7, 1975 and sketches, is in compliance with the California Environ- mental Quality Act and City and State Guidelines. Councilman Seymour absent. MOTION CARRIED. No action was taken by the City Council on Variance No. 2674. TENTATIVE MAP TRACT NO. 8873(VARIANCE NO. 2674, E.I.R. NO. 149): Developer Galey Construction Corporation; property located at the southeast corner of Santa Ana Canyon Road and Quintana Drive; containing 21 proposed RS-7200 (SC) zoned lots. The City Planning Commission, at their meeting held April 28, 1975, approved Tentative Map Tract No. 8873, subject to the following conditions: 1. That the approval of Tentative b~p of Tract No. 8873 is granted subject to the approval of Variance No. 2674 and the completion of Reclassification No. 72-73-48. 2. That should this subdivision be developed as more than one subdivision, each subdivision thereof shall be submitted in tentative form for approval. 3. That all lots within this tract shall be served by underground utilities. 4. That a final tract map of subject property shall be submitted to and approved by the City Council and then be recorded in the office of the Orange County Recorder. 5. That any proposed covenants, conditions and restrictions shall be submitted to and approved by the City Attorney's Office prior to City Council approval of the final tract map, and, further, that the approved covenants, conditions and restrictions shall be recorded concurrently with the final tract map. 6. That street names shall be approved by the City of Anaheim prior to approval of a final tract map. 7. That the owner(s) of subject property shall pay to the City of Anaheim the appropriate park and recreation in-lieu fees as determined to be appropriate by the City Council, said fees to be paid at the time the building permit is issued. 8. That drainage of said property shall be disposed of in a manner satis- factory to the City Engineer. If, in the preparation of the site sufficient grading is required to necessitate a grading permit, no work on grading will be permitted between October 15th and April i5th unless all required off-site drainage facilities have been installed and are operative. Positive assurance shall be provided the City that such drainage facilities will be completed prior to October 15th. Necessary r~.ght-of-~y for off-site drainage facilities 75-477 City Itel!, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - ~{ay 20, 1975, 1:30 P.M. shall be dedicated to the City, or the City Council shall have initiated con- demnation proceedings therefor (the costs of which shall be borne by the developer) prior to the commencement of grading operations. The required drainage facilities shall be of a size and type sufficient to carry runoff waters originating from higher properties through said property to ultimate disposal as approved by the City Engineer. Said drainage facilities shall be the first item of construction and shall be completed and be functional 'through- out the tract and from the downstream boundary of the property to the ultimate point of disposal prior to the issuance of any final building inspections or occupancy permits. Drainage district reimbursement agreements may be made available to the developers of said property upon their request. 9. That grading, excavation and all other construction activities shall be conducted in such a manner so as to minimize the possibility of any silt originating from this project being carried into the Santa Ana River by storm water originating from or flowing through this project. 10. That reasonable landscaping, including irrigation facilities, shall be installed in the unpaved portion of the south side of the Santa Ana Canyon Road right-of-way and the median island in accordance with the requirements of the Superintendent of Parkway Maintenance. Following installation and acceptance, the City of Anaheim shall assume the responsibility for maintenance of said landscaping. 11. That the City Council reserves the right to delete or amend the assump- tion of landscape maintenance in the event Council policy changes. 12. If permanent street name signs have not been installed, temporary street name signs shall be installed prior to any occupancy. 13. That Lot "A" on the east side of Quintana Drive shall be purchased by the developer of Tract No. 8873, and the remainder of Quintana Drive shall be dedicated and improved. 14. That the extension of Rio Grande Drive and the intersection of Rio Grande Drive and Street 'IA" shall be designed to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. 15. That prior to City Council approval of the final tract map, the owner(s) of subject property shall submit plans for City Council review and approval showing the steps taken by the developer to reduce the noise level generated by arterial traffic to 65 dba inside the homes (with windows and doors closed) on these lots. The sound attenuation devices shall include as a minimum a 6-foot high earthen berm topped by a 6-foot high decorative masonry wall with gates for maintenance access on each lot along the rear of the lots abutting the arterial highway, plus whatever additional measures are necessary to achieve the levels stated above; except that alternative sound attenuation measures or plans, certified by a recognized acoustical expert, may be submitted to the City Council for approval. These plans shall be certified by a recognized acoustical expert stipulating that the proposed sound attenuation measures will achieve the levels stated above. i6. That the developer(s) of subject property shall comply with the newly- adopted Tree Preservation Ordinance and any trees of the varieties specified in said Tree Preservation Ordinance which are removed shall be replaced in a manner satisfactory to the Development Services Department. On motion by Councilwoman Kaywood, seconded by Councilman Pebley, Tentative Map Tract No. 8873 was approved, subject to the recommendations of the City Planning Commission, with amendment to Condition No. 15 to read as follows: "15. That the owner (s) of subject property shall employ sound attenuation techniques and devices on both lots adjacent to Santa Ana Canyon Road sufficient to reduce the noise level from the rear yards to 65 dbA and inside the houses (with doors and windows closed) to 45 dbA.. These sound attenuation devices shall include as a minimum the construction along Santa Ana Canyon Road of a combination earthen berm/solid masonry wall at a height of a minimum of six feet above the grade of the roadway of Santa Ana Canyon Road and the use of wall and ceiling insulation and double-strength windows for the top floor of the two-story houses adjacent to Santa Ana Canyon Road. In the event the solid masonry wall is to be located inside the rear lot lines, rather than immediately adjacent to the rear lot line, solid gates shall be' provided in the wall on each lot to provide maintenance access to the berm slope facing Santa Ana Canyon Road. Councilman Seymour absent. MOTION CARRIED. 75-478 City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - May 20, 1975, 1:30 P.M. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 1116 - EXPANSION OF USE: Application submitted by Donald B. Brown requesting to expand the use (a recreational vehicle park "Vacationland") to include the construction and operation of a retail conven- ience store in conjunction with said existing use. Property ig located on the west wide of West Street, south of Ball Road, and is zoned CR. The City Planning Commission, at their meeting of April 28, 1975, by motion~ determined that the subject request to expand the use granted in Conditional Jse Permit No. 1116, to include the construction and operation of a retail convenience store in conjunction with a park for recreational vehicles is in conformance with the~intent of their original approval of said conditional use permit and approved the requested expansion, subject to conditions stipulated to by the petitioner. The City Council took no further action on Conditional Use Permit No. 1116. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 1304 - TERMINATION: As a consideration to the granting of the request for expansion under Conditional Use Permit No. 1116, the Petitioner stipulated to terminating previously granted Conditional Use Permit No. 1304. The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC75-94, terminated all proceedings in connection with Conditional Use Permit No. 1304. RESOLUTION NO. 75R-261: Councilman Sneegas offered Resolution No. 75R-261 for adoption, superseding Resolution No. 72R-242, and terminating all proceedings in connection with Conditional Use Permit No. 1304. Refer to Resolution Book. A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM TERMINATING ALL PROCEED- INGS IN CONNECTION WITH CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 1304, AND DECLARING RESOLUTION NO. 72R-242 NULL AND VOID. Roll Call Vote: AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Kaywood, Pebley, Sneegas and Thom NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: None ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Seymour The Mayor declared Resolution No. 75R-261 duly passed and adopted. CONTINUATION OF AWARD OF CONTRACT WORK ORDER NO. 751 - RIO VISTA PARK SITE: Mrs. Roberts submitted recommendation from the City Engineer that award of Work Order No. 751 be postponed to June 3, 1975 pending acceptance of a lease agreement with the Placentia Unified School District. Councilwoman Kaywood voiced concern that this park improvement has been post- poned many times and she was anxious that the schedule for groundbreaking on June 11, 1975 be retained. Mr. Watts advised that the award of contract, if continued one week, could be acted upon together with the lease at the meeting of May 27, 1975, and the groundbreaking date would not be delayed. On motion by Councilwoman Kaywood, seconded by Councilman Thom, award of Work Order No. 751 was continued to the meeting of May 27, 1975. Councilman Seymour absent. MOTION CARRIED. RESOLUTION NOS. 75R-262 AND 75R-263 - AWARD OF CONTRACTS WORK ORDER NO. 750-AAND ACCOUNT NO. 100-421-241-02: In accordance with recommendations of the City Engineer, Councilman Thom offered Resolution Nos. 75R-262 and 75R-263 for adoption. Refer to Resolution Book. RESOLUTION NO. 75R-262 - WORK ORDER NO. 750-A: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM ACCEPTING A SEALED PROPOSAL AND AWARDING A CONTRACT TO THE LOWEST RESPONSIBLE BIDDER FOR THE FURNISHING OF ALL PLANT, LABOR, SERVICES, MATERIALS AND EQUIPMENT AND ALL UTILITIES AND TRANSPORTATION, INCLUDING POWER, FUEL AND WATER, AND PERFORMING ALL WORK NECESSARY TO CONSTRUCT AND COMPLETE THE FOLLOWING PUBLIC IMPROVEMENT: THE GROVE STREET STREET IMPROVEMENT, IN THE CITY OF ANAHEIM, WORK ORDER NO. 750-A. (R. J. Noble - $11,833.60) 75-479 City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - May 20~ 1975.~. 1:30 P.M. RESOLUTION NO. 75R-263 - ACCOUNT NO. 100-421-241-02: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM ACCEPTING A SEALED PROPOSAL AND AWARDING A CONTRACT TO THE LOWEST RESPONSIBLE BIDDER FOR THE FURNISHING OF ALL PLANT, LABOR, SERVICES, MATERIALS AND EQUIPMENT AND ALL UTILITIES AND TRANSPORTATION, INCLUDING POWER, FUEL AND WATER, AND PERFORMING ALL WORK NECESSARY TO CONSTRUCT AND COMPLETE THE FOLLOWING PUBLIC IMPROVEMENT: SLURRY SEAL APPLICATION, IN THE CITY OF ANAHEIM, ACCOUNT NO. 100-421-241-02. (Flex-Paving & Engineering, Inc., $29,062.50) Roll Call Vote: AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Kaywood, Pebley, Sneegas and Thom NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: None ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Seymour The Mayor declared Resolution Nos. 75R-262 and 75R-263 duly passed and adopted. PROPOSED PURCHASE - CITY-OWNED PROPERTY ON EUCLID STREET (CP NO. 10): Mr. John Harding reported on the appraisal submitted to the City's Real Property Section in connection with City-owned property located on the west side of Euclid Street, north of Crescent Avenue, adjacent to the Carbon Creek Channel. This appraisal indicates a fair market value as of May 6, 1975 of $52,500.00 for said property. Mr. Harding summarized that the agreement on obtaining this appraisal was that either buyer or seller had the option of rejecting the appraised value. He further reported that the Real Property Section advises that the City purchased this property in 1969 for $5.50 per square foot, or $91,410.00, total, as a potential fire station site. Due to joint response agreement with the City of Fullerton and the coming construction of the Crescent Avenue over- crossing, this fire station site is no longer necessary. He advised that the stazf recommendation is that the property not be sold at this time and that the City enter into a lease arrangement with the adjacent property owner who wishes to purchase the lot to be used for parking purposes. Council discussion ensued and the general consensus of opinion was that the members would not be amenable to selling the property at this fair market value, having originally paid $91,410.00 for it. Councilman Pebley was not agreeable to leasing the property to the adjacent property owner for parking as suggested. At the conclusion of the discussion the Council directed the City Manager's Office to contact the party interested in purchasing this property and convey that the Council might be agreeable to a counter offer of $75,000.00 for subject parcel, but declined to sell the property at $52,500.00. ORDINANCE NO. 3427: Councilman Thom offered Ordinance No. 3427 for adoption. Refer to Ordinance Book. AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AMENDING TITLE 18 OF THE ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO ZONING. (71-72-44(7) - RS-5000) Roll Call Vote: AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Pebley, Sneegas and Thom NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Kaywood ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Seymour The Mayor declared Ordinance No. 3427 duly passed and adopted. ORDINANCE NO. 3429: Councilman Sneegas offered Ordinance No. 3429 for first reading. AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AMENDING TITLE 14, CRAPTER 14.32, SECTION 14.32.272 RELATING TO PARKING DURING SCHOOL HOURS RESTRICTED. ORDINANCE NO. 3430: Councilman Thom offered Ordinance No. 3430 for first reading. AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AMENDING CHAPTER 3.24, SECTION 3.24.060 RELATING TO AMUSEMENT DEVICES, LICENSE FEES-TERM OF LICENSE. 75-480 City Hall, Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - May 20, 1975, 1:30 P.M. ORDINANCE NO. 3431: Councilman Sneegas offered Ordinance No. 3431 for first reading. AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AMENDING TITLE 18 OF THE ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO ZONING. (73-74-62 - Portion A, RS-5000 Portion B, RM-2400) REPORT - CANYON AREA GENERAL PLANNING TASK FORCE REQUEST: Councilwoman Kaywood reported that the Canyon Area General Planning Task Force at recent meetings has requested the following: 1. Staff review of existing legislation on retro- active enforcement of fence removal; and the possible adoption of an ordinance opposing view-obstructing fencing in hillside areas. 2. That a study be under- taken to lower the speed limit on santa Ana Canyon Road from 55 to 35 miles per hour. 3. That consideration of a divided bicycle path along Santa Ana Canyon Road be undertaken in conjunction with any widening thereof. She requested that item #3 above be referred to the Parks & Recreation group presently working on bicycle paths. PROPOSAL REGARDING CITY'S DUPLICATING NEEDS - A. B. DICK COMPANY: Councilman Sneegas introduced a communication dated May 19, 1975 from Mr. K. Musurlian, Anaheim Branch Manager of A. B. Dick Company, 1380 South Anaheim Boulevard, appealing to the City Council to permit them to amend their original proposal in connection with the City's copying needs. During brief discussion of the manner in which the City's specifications were presented Mr. Harding explained that all interested firms were invited to attend a meeting at which the City's requirements and present costs were des- cribed and the participating firms invited to submit bids. Mayor Thom voiced the opinion that the specifications should be set forth in greater detail so that each company may have a fair and equitable chance to compete. By general Council consent, it was suggested that the A. B. Dick Company be given additional specific information as to the City's copying needs and that they be given the same consideration as the other competing firms., with report back to Council by the Manager's Office in one week. ADJOURNMENT: Councilman Sneegas moved to adjourn. Councilman Pebley seconded the motion. Councilman Seymour absent. MOTION CARRIED. Adjourned: 5:21 P.M. Signed ' Deputy City CTerk I I i ,, i 71t~ lintel- · i I I I II