Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
1975/09/09 (2)
City hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL ~IINUTES - September 9~. 1975~ 1:30 P.M. The City Council of the City of Anaheim met in regular session. PRESENT: COUNCIL b[~,~BERS: Kaywood, Seymour, Pebiey (left at 4;55 P.M.), Sneegas and Thom ABSLi~T: COUNCIL ME~tBERS; None PiiESENT: ADMINISTRATIVE ASSISTANT: John Harding DEPUTY CITY CLEiLK: Linde D. Roberts CITY ATTORNEY: Alan R. Watts PUBLIC WORKS DIRECTOR: Thornton E. Piersall CHIEF OF POLICE: Harold Bastrup PLANNING DIRECTOR: Ronald Thompson WATER SUPERINTENDENT: Larry Sears MECHANICAL ~tAINTEi~AI~CE SUPERI~TE~)ENT: A1 Merriam 5hiNPOWER PLANNER: William Hepburn ZONING SUPERVISOR: Annika Santalahti Mayor Thom called the meeting to order and welcomed those in attendance to the Council meeting. INVOCATION: Reverend John Fast of the Anaheim Free Methodist Church gave the Invocation. FLAG SALUTE: Councilman Calvin L. Pebley led the assembly in the Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag. RESOLUTION OF RECOGNITION: A Resolution of Recognition for the contributions made by Henry G. "Dad" b[iller to the Anaheim Municipal Golf Course was issued by b~ayor Thom and unanimously approved by the City Council, on the occasion of "Dad" ~iller's 98th birthday. PARTICIPANTS IN POLICE OLYbiPICS: Several Anaheim Police Officers who partici- pated in the lOth Annual Police Olympics were introduced and their achievements noted. It was reported that 29 Anaheim Police Officers participated in the various events this year and 18 of these men came back with awards. On behalf of the City Council, Mayor Thom congratulated the Officers on t~eir outstanding achievements. ~.[I~UTES: Approval of the Minutes of thc Anaheim City Council Regular Meetings held July 29, August 5, August 12, August 19, August 26 and September 2, 1975 and Adjourned Regular b~eetings held August 14, and August 27, 1975, was deferred to the next regular meeting. WAIVER OF READIi{G - ORDINANCES AND RESOLUTIONS: Councilwoman Kaywood 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 r~adi~g of the title, specific request is made by a Council Member for ~he reading of such ordinance or resolution. Councilman Sneegas seconded the motion. MOTION UNANIMOUSLY CAPdtlED. RE~O!(T - FINANCIAJ~ D~'.~i'iDS AGAINST THL CITY: Demands against the City amount of $3,777,879.47, in accordance wit~ the 1975-76 Budget, were approved. REPOilT - ~qANACtiMENT PRACTICES AUDIT - b{ECHANICAL biAINTENANCE DIVISION: (Arthur Young & Company) Mr. Jeff Beck, representing Arthur Young & Company presented thc report on the Management Practices Audit of Mechanical Maintenance Division to Council Members. (Complete report on file in the Office of the City Clerk.) The significant findings summarized by Mr. Beck were: 1) That the Division is extremely well run and provides more than adequate service to all City Departments using it; 2) physical facilities - many problems and inefficiencies are caused by the lack of space, poor lighting, particularly in the welding shop, and inadequate structures; 3) all departments within the Division had a turn-around time of less than one day from receipt of vehicle, except for the welding shop; 4) present scheduling system does not provide for future planning, nor for accurate preventive maintenance schedules; 5) inven- tory control - the stock room was previously open and unattended for four hours every evening which has been corrected, and inventory control system does not effectively control ordering in order to ensure that a minimum dollar level of inventory is on hand; 6) accountlnz and billing systems - a number of problems 75-816 City Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - September 9~ 1975~ 1:30 P.M. identified in control over transfer of data; 7) pool cars - it was determined more economical to pay a straight mileage titan to maintain t!~e 15 pool cars; ~j) Police Satellite Garage - the causes for concern for which this garage was proposed have been eliminated by creation of a weeLend work shift and use of smaller-sized engines in Police vehicles. ~Ir. Beck reported that the following recommendations resulted from the ilanagcment Practices Audit: 1. Physical facility: As an interim step, explore the possibility of a second shift or expanding tt~e second sl~ift at thc facility in order to optimize ti~e use of the physical plans. 2. Lighting in the welding shop: Perform a lighting study to determine whct~er it is feasible to improve the lights thereby making a second sr~ift possible. 3. The long-range recommendation on the p}~ysical facility is that a study be ~erformed to determine the optimum location and design for a new central garage or adding a satellite facility, as it is inevitable that ti~e City will req~aire a new garage probably within thc next four years. 4. Scheduling system: a) A weekly schedule should be instituted identifying vehicles, type of work to be performed, responsible e:~pioyees, scheduled start day and estimated man-hours required, includin~ provision for unscheduled repairs; b) Utilize Data Processing report to identify ve.~icies due for routine preventive maintenance work two wee!~s prior to actual date required; c) Weekly report sun~narizint., by work i~our the previous week's activity, productivity as compared to thc estin~atcs and backlog in man-aours; d) Monthly report summarizin}~ each employee's performance against the esti- mates for monthly and year-to-day an~]; e) Improved procedures for verification and control of System input and output data both by Mechanical ~faintenance and Data Processing. 5. Covering of stock room at ali hours (already implemented). 6. A reduction of 10 pool cars, down to ~ and these remaining cars to be ~onitore~ for six months to determine if taese can be further reduced. 7. Discontinue proposed Police Satellite Garage (already deleted from 1975-76 Budget). Mr. Beck concluded that the Arthur Young & Company believes the impie~nentation of these reconm~endations should result in a reduced annual cost of S60,000 and one-time savings of $2g,000. The cost to develop a scheduling system as recommended would be approximately ~i7,500. He advised Councilman Seymour that the recommendations have been discussed witi~ ~-fr. bIerriam, the bfecnanical Maintenance Superintendent, and t~e concurs and supports same. Councilman Seymour moved that the Arthur Young & Company report on tile Management Practices Audit of the Mechanical Maintenance Division be accepted and the recommendations contained therein implemented. Councilwoman Kaywood seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. Mr. Piersall reported that in discussing thc~sc recommendations, concerns were. raised in connection with implementation of reduction in pool cars, particularly as a result of consequences of additional insurance costs and employees not having the availability of cars, since no figure ihas yet been established as to the number of employees who would fit into the category of not having a car at work who would require the use of same. Councilman Seymour clarified ti]at Public Wor!~s Department would like to implement the reduction in pool cars gradually, moving towards the objective given in the report of 5 cars, and then monitor usage of these 5 cars closely. Both Mr. Piersall and Mr. Beck concurred t~at ti]is would be the appropriate procedure. DISCUSSION - PROPOSED ADMISSION-AMUSEMEiiT TAX: Mayor Thom noted that i~ursuant to direction given by the City Council at tile meeting of August 26, 1975, following a duly noticed public hearing, the Citv. Attorney has submitted a draft of the proposed ordinance which would enact a 52 Admission-Amusement Tax, together with a memorandum dated September 5, 1975, outlining the provisions contained therein. Mayor Thom referred to the wide attention received by this tax proposal in the various news media and by those interests wi~ici~ would be affected, and to 75-617 City Hal.l.~ Anaheim~ California - COONCIL HINUTES - September 9~ 1975~ 1:30 P.M. the fact that the Hembers of the City Council t~ave been privileged to hear from a great many people on tills subject. He recalled that most of the Council :Iembers indicated agreement to seeking anoti~cr way to accomplish the goal for w:~ici~ the Admission-Amusement ]'ax would be ~nacted, ti~at of attacking the problem of those long overdue capital improvement projects which have been ceieted from the Budget over ti~ past 10 to 12 years. They indicated they would bc agreeable if thio alternate method did not involve som~ other form of involuntary taxation which placed further burden on the individual Anaheim citizen and taxpayer, but no efforts in this direction came forti~. iiayor Thom advised that out of all the rhetoric this past week, there was received a request from Mr. Jim Townsend, an Anaheim citizen active in business and politics, who wished to address the Council on this subject. Hayor Thom recognized ~1r. Jim Townsend, ,.~05 North Pine Street, Anaheim, Chairman of the Telephone Taxpayers' Committee. :[r. Townsend explained that his Committee has been active in opposing additional taxation which would increase the burden of th~ citizens of this City and has atgempted to provide a forum for debates of both sides of the issue. '~r. Townsend emphasized ti~at his group is not opposed to capital improve- ments where need can be shown, but advocates these be accomplisi~ed on a pay-as- you-go basis. ~'~r. Townsend stated i~e is opposed to the proposed Admission-Amusement Tax and, ti~erefore, requests that the Council allow a period of time and appoint a committee to look into the recommendation by the Anaheim Chamber of Cormnerce before they proceed with adoption of the ordinance since he understands that ti~e Ci~amber has come up with a suggestion for a more equitable method to provide the tax base which is req~ired. Councilman Seymour noted that over the past two weeks, the Members of the City Council who supported the introduction of this tax have remained silent on the issue despite the hue and cry of those business interests who would be affected by the tax. He felt this has provided them with an opportunity to get a broader perspective on this issue. He observed, in retrospect, that the real issue has become confused and muddled, appearing to the public that the City Council is interested in building a City Hall at the expense of tourism, which is not true. He reiterated that the purpose of the tax would be for neede~ people-oriented capital improvements; a new Civic Center would fit into that category, but would not imve top priority. Councilman Seymour also referred to thc fact that the business community was invited from the very beginning to jcin the City Council in seeking alter- natives to an Admission-Amusement Tax, but no ~elp was forthcoming; no one wanted to face the problem. Councilman Seymo~r commented on the trend set by t~e present City Council since April of 1974 toward open communication with the citizenry and citizen participation in municipal government. He remarked that this same City Council is also prepared to communicate and cooperate witn the business community and tourism industry to seek an alternative to the Admission-Amusement Tax. He remarked that during the past two weeks he had done some deliberation on his own, and one alternative he came up with was a possible utility surcharge to be levied on industry and business as a whole. He ci~allenged the tourism industry if, in fact, they feel the proposed Admission-Amusement Tax is discriminatory, to sit down with the Council and assist in working out another plan. He indicated willingness to discuss at any lengt~ an alternative to the proposed tax. Furtt~er Councilman Seymour empha$ize~ that he personally is not afraid to move ahead with the decision which ~ay cause an uproar in the community and which may bring the question to t~e citizens by referendum. If ti~at situation occurs ]~e ~eclare~ he would be in the streets fighting in favor of the tax, urging the Anaheim citizens to stand up for the rig~t deni~d t~cm for the last decade. HOTIOi.~: Councilman Seymour thereupon moved that a committee be established, compose~ of the Mayor and Mayor Pro Tern, to be prepared to meet with the Chamber of Commerce, citizen groups, the tourism and business industries and any other segment of the community that wishes to participate, in an attempt to seek an alternate solution to the Admission-Amusement Tax, before the time that ti~e ~roposed ordinance would become effective. Councilman Thom seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. 7.3-5 1~ Cit?, iiall~ Anaheim~ California - COUI4CIL ?IIi~UTlJS - September 9~ 1¢75~ l:3u P.M. :'-layor Thom concurred with Councilman Seymour's comment and advised tllat ile is ~,ratified that so many citizens have taken the time to relay their feelin~;s bonh pro and con on this issue, lie felt ti~at thc Council should establish a definite time table for a decision on the proposed ordizzance and followix~g brief discussion it was generally agreed the first reading; should be held in one week, at the Council meetir~S of Sept ~embcr 16, 1973. In response to comments from a mer,~ber of ti~c audience, the ?iayor i~zaicated that the matter would be open to public discussion at the time ti~e ordinance is introduced for first reading. The l,tayor asked if tixere were any comments from City staff or Council ~.lembers on the proposed ordinance itself or the City Attorney's memorandum. Councilwoman Kaywood pointed out ti~at Page 2~o. 2 of the proposed ordiztance indicates tixe 570 Admission-Amusement Tax would apply to season tickets as though the tickets were purchased individually for each game rather than on seasonal prices. She felt this was unfair aha requested t',~is be amended prior to first reading so that the 5% would apply to tixe seasonal price. Councilman Seymour requested comments from fellow Council Members on his proposal to seek an alternative by meeting with segments of the public, and Councilman Sneegas remarked t/~at if Councilman Seymour is considering a utility surcharge on only commercial and industrial bills, in his opinion, tile businesses in the cormnunity are already payin[; more than their fair share and that this utility surcharge would be extremely ,Jifficult for the s~nall businessman in Anaheim. In reply to a comment made from an unidentified ~sentleman in the audience regarding economizing in government, Councilman Seymour pointed out that the City of Anaheim for the past year has been undergoing a severe financial and management practices audit by Arthur Young & Company, and ~espite the fact that the City has confronted its fiscal problem, cut back programs and faced lay- offs of City employees, because of tt~e current inflationary spiral, will still not ltave funds for capital improvements. ADDITIONAL INFORHATION - CETA POSI2'IONS I;~ CITer DEI'ARTI. iEi'.,~TS: Pursuant to request made by the City Council at their meeting of September 2, 1975, a supplementary me~orandum da~ed September ,'.~, 1975, prepare,,i bv William Hepburn, llanpower Planner, outlining the classifications of CETA employees and brief explanation of their assignments was submitted, l'lr. t!epburn was also present to answer any qu~'stions. There was no discussion or action on th:: supplementary memorandum s ut~L~i tted. RESOLgTIOi,~ NO. 75R-479 - FEES FOR WATER ~"htIi~ EXTEi~SIONS~ 'WATER SERVICE CONNEC- TIOi,iS AND FIRE PROTECTION INSTALLATION C~L/uRGES: :'ir. Larry Sears reported on requests received from developers, that the resolution adopted at the September 2, 1975 meeting (Resolution No. 75R-469) increasing the fees for water r~ain extensions, water service connections, and fir:, protection installation charges be ~:~ade effective 30 days hence in order to allow sufficient period of time for notification and for tile developers to close co:,,~mitments made under the old fee sct~edule. He advised that this proposal has been discussed with the Utilities director and that both he and Mr. Hoyt concur ti~at tire request is fair and would recommend extension of the effective date of tire increase from September 15 to October 15, 1975. RESOLUTION NO. 75R-479: Councilman Seymour offered Resolution No. 75R-479 for adoption. Refer to Resolution Book. A i,LESOLUTION OF TIlE CITY COUNCIL I)F Till CITY OF ANAHEIm'! AilEi~DING RESOLUTION NO. 75R-469 IN CONNECTION WITH I~CREASLD CHARGES FOR WATLR ,~-iAI~ EXTENSIONS~ WATER SEi~VICE CONNECTIONS, AND PUBLIC FIRE HYD~hi:'F~' I~.~S%ALLATIONS BY CHAi~GING Tile EFFECTIVE DATE TO OCTOBER 15, 1975. Roll Call Vote: 75-819 City ltall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - September o 1975 1:30 P.M AYES' COUNCIL M~BERS: Kaywood, Seymour, Pebley, Sneegas and Thom NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: None ABSENT: COUNCIL M~IBERS: None The Mayor declared Resolution No. 75R-479 duly passed and adopted. Councilman Seymour left the Council Chamber. (2:33 P.M.) PUBLIC HEARING - ABA~rOO~IE~ NO. 75-3A: In accordance with application filed by thc Engineering Division of the City of Anaheim, public hearing was held on proposed abandonment of easements for road and public utility purposes on Lot Nos. A, B, and C in Tract No. 3825, property located north of Wagner Street, east of Sunkist Street, pursuant to Resolution No. 75R-451, duly published in the Anaheim Bulletin and notices thereof posted in accordance with law. Report of the City Engineer was submitted recommending approval of said abandorm~ent subject to reserving to Pacific Telephone Company a five-foot public utility easement. RESOLUTION NO. 75R-480: Councilman Thom offered Resolution No. 75R-4~0 for adoption, approving Abandonment No. 75-3A, subject to tl~e recommendation of the City Engineer. Refer to Resolution Book. A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF T~iE CITY OF ANAJ{EII! ORDERING THE VACATION ASID ABANDONMENT OF TIbIT PORTION OF CERTAIN PROPERTY DESCRIBED HEREI~.~. (75-3A) Roll Call Vote: AYES: COUNCIL M~.~ERS: Kaywood, Pebiey, Sneegas and Thom NOES: COUNCIL MEi~[BERS: None T~[POP=iRILY ABSENT: COUNCIL M~,~ERS: Seymour ABSENT: COUNCIL M~ERS: None The Mayor declared Resolution No. 75R-480 duly passed and adopted. PUBLIC HE~kRING - VARIANCE NO. 2724: Application by Brigham Young University for the following Code waivers to construct a 4-tract, 224-1ot multiple-family residential subdivision on RS-A-43,000 zoned property located northwesuerly of the intersection of La Palma Avenue and Euclid Street, was submitted together witi~ E.I.R. No. 134, Supplement ~o. 3, and E.I.R. No. 136, both supplementary to E.I.R. 113: a. Requirement that all lots front on a public street. b. P[inimum sideyard setback. The City Planning Commission, p~rsuant to Resolution No. PC75-167, recom- mended that the City Council certify Supplement No. 3 to E.I.R. No. 134 as being in conformance with the California Environmental Quality Act and further granted Variance No. 2724 in part, subject to the following conditions: t. That this Variance is granted subject to the completion of Reclassification No. 73-74-36. 2. That the residential lot lines, except those abutting a common lot, si~ali be a minimum of three (3) feet from the proposed attached residential structures, as stipulated to by the petitioner. 3. That automatic garage door openers shall be provided for the proposed garages fronting on private drives and having driveways less than 25 feet long, as stipulated to by the petitioner. 4. That subject property shall be developed substantially in accordance witi~ plans and specifications on file with the City of Anaheim marked Exhibit ~os. 1 (Revision No. 1), 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, and 7; provided that 3.7 parking spaces 7oo spaces, shall be provided, said parking spaces, per dwelling unit, totaling o~ including those spaces located in driveways to front-on garages, shall be in conformance with the minimum dimensions specified by the Zoning Code. The City Planning Commission took no action on E.I.R. No. 136 (supplement to E.I.R. No. 113). 75- City iiall~ Anaheim~ Californza - COUi4CIL i~IINUTI:,S - Septe. r.~ber ~ 1975~ 1:30 P.~i. Review of action taken by ti~e City Planning; Conmlission was requested by Councilwoman Kaywood at the City ~.;ouncil mec. tin?, of August 26, 197~, and public hearing scheduled this datel. Also continued from tile meetin?~ of August z!,, 1975 for consideration with Var.[ante No. 2724 were Tentative Tract Map Nos. ~775, ~i7~3, ,;79~ and ~796. The Deputy City Clerk reported that subf~cquent to tac City Planning Conm~ission hearing on Variance No. 2724, a request was made for clarification of the 788 parking spaces k'hich the applicant stipulated to at the time of hearing, since, according to the dimensions of t ~e plans, 162 of these parking spaces did not meet Code standards. Consequentl. y at t!i~ City Planning Corn- mis:sion meeting held August 18, 1975, t!~e develot,cr stipulated that in chose insaances where the driw:ways were t9 feet to le.~s than 23 feet in length, operable automatic vehicle access door openers o£ t~e roll-up type would be provider:, and in those instances w!~,re tht~ driw~_wa;~':s rang~ed from ~ to lfJ feet in [en~_;th, operable automatic versicle access door openers would be provided. lqiss Santalahti presented a verbal report on ti~e variance proposal and advised that this variance was /;rante~l in part onl'; s Lnce at the City Plannin8 Commission hearing the applicant did :3tipu]_at~. to providing a 3-foot setback on detached structures to acco~'nmodate roof overi~ang. In addition, si~e conveyed ti~at t:~e Planning Commission was concerned over tl~c proposal because it involves a small lot sut)~tivision wi~icl~ the Commission felt had some negative aspects not foreseen in the ori~inallv proposed !c..veiopn~ent, one of these concerns being tile restriction in the an~odnt of lam! available for recreational spaces and open visible space. Councilwoman Kaywood req~estc.~i t~at Page 2-~~, of t',~e staff report to t2~e Planning Commission contained in ti~e file o~'~ Variance i~o. 2724 be corrected to show 3.6 units per net acre. In response to concern voice~ by Councilwoman tiaywood as to whether the 7~i parking spaces to be provided would include tandem parlzin~s, Hiss Santalahti replied that the parking proposed bv thc developer is in full accordance with the i)rovisions of the ~.!-2~40~} Zone without counti~g tim ~andem parking spaces. >'ir. Jim Christensen represent.~.~i Aatv~;,~.,, I~omes, Inc., P. O. Box 1410, dpland, California, 91736, e~zplained in reply to Councilwoman Kaywood ti~at the reason ~or their plan to constr:~ct th~~_ n~odets for t.~eir project offsite is because of HUD regulations w,:~ich re~i~ire that a ~:ertain quota of units be sold before proceeding to close escrows; ti~at t:'~esc mo~tels will serve as sales vehicles for all four tracts; and ti~at the con~titions imposed by the City Plan- nine, Commission on Conditional Use Permit ~o. 1.5,q whicl~ would permit the offsite models called for the ,!eveioper to post bond for removal of the i~omes if the City so desires. Councilman Seymour returnccl to cae Council Chamber. (2:40 P.i'i.) )lr. Christensen exhibited a chart which compared the densities originally proposed and approved with those currently proposed indicating that while there were originally 1,137 units approved, with a prelected population at 1.33 per unit of 2,091 persons and a traffic volume of 13,320 trips per day, the cur- rent lv proposed number of units is 45~-'; with an estimated population based on 3.7 people per three-bedroom m~it of 1,21~' at~d a traffic volume of 5,365 trips. He ~.ualified that these fi. tmres relate to the residential area only and do not include tile proposed mobile i~ome park. >ir. tlhristensen displayed renderings of the raodel homes, entrance gates anti some of t'.~t~ amenities of the project. Councilwoman Kaywood commented ii,at th~:, use of automatic garage door opening equipment and constr,~ction c,f ,;athedrai ~:~eilings are not consistent with energy conservation practices. Si~e furt!~er suggested tl~at the developer of this project consider using the water sav~n~ ~,~?'~allon flush toilets, as well as water faucets and shower i~eads desi?lne,l to conserve water, as recommended by the County Sanitation District, and t:~at trash compactors, which create a solid waste problem, not be used. The :layor asked if anyone wished to a&Iress tae (,ouncil either in favor or in opposition to Variance No. 2724,. 75-821 City Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - September 9; 1975~ 1:30 P.M. Mr. Ben Bay, 2148 West Grayson Avenue, Anaheim, complimented the developer on ti~e proposed reduction in density reflected in the plans submitted with Variance No. 2724. lie read to the Council three additional conditions which lie requested be imposed on Variance No. 2724 and Tentative Tract Nos. ,5775, ~3793, J795 and ~796. Copy of his request and conditions was submitted for the record and is on file in the office of the City Clerk. ~'1r. Bay related that his only major remaining concern regarding this project is the drainage and that as of 1:15 P.M. this date no finalized drain- age plan was available to the public in the City Engineering Office. He explained that the rationale bel~ind his request that ti~e drainage plan be reviewed by Council prior to any Phase I construction is based solely on t~e tentative drawing on file in the Engineering Office which indicates that all of t~le underground drainage is located east of the proposed lake, and this ~enerates concern for those who live in the residential area to the west. ~rs. Max Humphrey, 1176 Holly Street, Anaheim, advised that si~e lives immediately adjacent to subject property and has endured dust,~ dirt and damage from sprays used on this agricultural property for many years. Recently they have also had additional problems with robberies in her immediate vicinity, access to homes being made easier by the vacant, undeveloped area adjacent to ti~em. She concluded that she would certainly favor something being built on tills property. ?,{rs. Joan Cowell, 951 North Fairview, Anaheim, inquired as to what type of protection from the lake which will be developed in conjunction with this project will be afforded the surrounding residents, particularly children enroute to school. ~.~r. Christensen advised that the entire property would be fenced throughout construction, as was requested in earlier public hearings and to which he has stipulated. The major portion of construction traffic will enter from Euclid onto Medical Center Drive. He further indicated that the three additional conditions presented by ~[r. Bay were in line with what has been dis- cussed and agreed upon in the past and he would be willing to stipulate to these again, with the exception of the provision that the drainage plan be reviewed by Council prior to the commencement of any grading or construction. >~rs. Cowell further explained that once the traffic light is installed at La Palma and Romneya Drive, the existing crosswalk will be located between the freeway exit and that signal. She, therefore, requested that its location be moved to align it with the stop light. Mr. Maddox assured her that he would investigate the situation and report back to the City Council. The Mayor asked if anyone else wished to address the Council; there bein8 no response, he declared the hearing closed. In response to concerns voiced by Mr. Christensen that the approval of a drainage plan for each of four tentative maps at public hearings before the City Council would cause more time delays, the City Attorney suggested that the approval of the drainage plan be scheduled as an item under Reports and Recommendations so that the plan could be approved at any regular Council meeting. Mr. Watts further suggested that the City Engineer be instructed to inform Mr. Bay in advance of the meeting that the drainage plan would be dis- cussed with Council. ~r. Maddox agreed to inform Mr. Bay when the drainage plans are ready for Council discussion and further invited him to review and monitor these plans through to their final stage. ~r. Bay explained that the intent of his condition "c" regarding ap;,roval of the drainage plan by the City Council is that when it is reviewed~ if there is disclosed something questionable, that another public hearing would be held on this matter. CERTIFICATION - SUPPLE:fE~ NO. 3 TO E.I.R. NO. 134: Supplement No. 3 to E.I.R. ~o. 134 (supplement to Master E.I.R. No. 113) having been reviewed by the City staff and recommende~t by the City Planning Commission to be i~ compliance with City ilali~ Anaheim~ California - COUi~CIL ~II;~[iTES - September ~ 1973~ 1:30 P.M. City and State Guidelines and the State of California Environmental Quality Act, the City Council acting upon s~ch information and belief, on motion by Councilman Seymour, seconde~i by Councilman Snee~as, does hereby certify that Suppleraent t~o. 3 to E.I.R. No. 134 is in compliance with thc California Environmental Quality Act and City ~lnd State Guidelines. t{OTION CA]tRIED. T!~e City Council took no further action on E.I.R. >;o. 136 (supplementary to fi.I.R, iqo. 113). RESOLUTION NO. 75R-431; Councilman Seymour offered Resolution ~o. 75R-461 for acioption, granting Variance !~o. 272/~, subject to the conditions recommended by the City Planning Commission, and farther subject to tlie following conditions as requested by i'ir. Bay: a. That the traffic signal at the int~rscction of La Palms Avenue ana Romneya Drive shall be installed i~rior to the con~nencement of any gradin:.; operations in the Anaheim Shores development, as stipulated to by ti~c petitioner. b. That no vehicular access shall be permitted between the existing easterly terminii of Falmouti~ and Coronet Avenues arid the fature easterly extension of said streets until all phases of construction of t~e Anaheim Shores development are completed, as stipulated to by the petitioner. c. That approval of the tentative map of Tract No. (077~) (U79.)) (S795) (~71)6) shall not be construed to include approval of grading plans or drainage, and furthermore, that the drainage of the Anaheim Shores development stiall be approved by the City Council prior to t~le commencement of any grading or construction in the Anaheim Shores development, as stipalated to by the petitioner. ~e~er to Resolution Book. A RESOLUTION OF THE Citer COUNCIL 2724. Roll Call Vote: AYES: COUNCIL M~'LBERS: Kayi~ood, Seymo~r, Pebley, Sneegas and Thom >40ES: COUNCIL ME~,tBERS: None .:\BSL~T: COUNCIL M~Z,~BERS: Ti~e Mayor declared Resolutio~ No. /~"o~,-q'"]~, duly passed and adopted. ° i~793 '795 Ai~D !~796~ ~'IEVISIOi;S i;O. 1: O~n}er, T£~£ATIVE TRACT NOS. o775~ ~ Bri.~har.~ Young University; property located northwesterly of the intersection of La Palms Avenue and Euclid Street. Tract No. S775 contains 40 proposed lots; Tract No. 3793 contains 66 proposed PCI-24f'~ lots; Tract No. 6795 contains 73 proposed P~M-2400 lots; and %tact No. i~796 contains 43 proposed iC, i-2400 lots. T£iifATiVE Tt-hXCT NO. t~775~ REVISION iiO. 1: The {]it~, Planning Commission at tne£r meeting held August 4, 1975, approved Tentative ~'lap, Tract Eo. ~5775, subiect to the following conditions: 1. That the approval of Tentative Map of Tract No. ~775 (Revision No. 1) is ;ranted subject to completion 0f Reclassification i¢0. 73-74-36 and approval of gariance No. 27 24. 2. That should this st~bdivision be developed as more than one subdivision, each subdivision thereof shall be submitted in tentative form for approvai. 3. That all lots within this tract s]~;~ll be sc, rve. d by underground Llti lit les. 4. That a final tract ;,~ap of ,';ub]ect i~roperty ~;~all be sub~itted to anu approved by the City Council and t~en be recorded i~ tl~e office of t~'~e Orange County Recorder. 5. That the covenants, conditions and restrictions snail be submitted to and approved by the City Attorney's Office prior to City Council approval of the final tract map, and, furtl~er, that the approved covenants, conditions and restrictions shall be recorded concurrently with the final tract map. 6. That prior to filing the final tract map, the appiican~ shall submit ~o thc City Attorney for approval or decrial a complete synopsis of the proposed functioning of the operating corporation includin~, but not limited to, the 75-~23 City tiall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MIi;UTES - September 9~ 1975~ 1:30 P.I,i. articles of incorporation, bylaws, proposed methods of management, bonding to insure maintenance of common property and buildings and such other information as the City Attorney may ~tc$ire to protect the City, its citizens, and the purchasers of the project. 7. That ~treet names shall be approved by the City of Anaheim prior to approval of a final tract ~nap. 3. That drainage of subject property shall be disposed of in a manner that is satisfactory to the City Engineer. 9. That all private streets shall be developed in accordance with tl~e City of Anaheim's standards for private streets. 10. That the owner(s) of subject property shall pay to the City of Anaheim ti~e 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. ii. That vehicular access rights, except at street and/or alley openings, to La Palma Avenue shall be dedicated to the City of Anaheim. 12. That fire hydrants shall be installed and charged as required and determined to be necessary by the Chief of ti~e Fire Department prior to con~nencement of structural framing. 13. That all public street and storm drain improvements within this tract and Tract Nos. ~793 (Revision No. i), S795 (P. evision No. 1) and ~796 (llevision ~<o. 1) and the lake within Tract No. ~',793 (Revision No. 1) shall be developed concurrently with the first phase of construction of said tracts and shall be completed prior to final building and zoning inspections of the first phase; and tilat a bond in an amount and form satisfactory to the City shall be posted to guarantee the ultimate improvement of said public streets and of tile lake. 14. That the subject property shall be developed precisely in accordance witl~ exhibits submitted and approve~] in conjunction with Variance i~o. 2724. TEi~TATIVE TRACT NO. ~793~ REVISIOn.; NO. 1: The City Planning Commission at their meeting held August 4, 1975, approved Te~tative :iap, Tract ~.~o. ~793, subject to the following conditions: i. That the approval of Tentative Map of Tract No..~793 (Revision No. 1) is granted subject to completion of Reclassification No. 73-74-36 and approval of Variance No. 2724. 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 ail lots within this tract shall be served by underground utilities. 4. That a final tract map of subject property shall be submitted to anti approved by the City Council and then be recorded in the off icc of the Orange County Recorder. 5. That the covenants, conditions and restrictions shall be submitted to and approved by the City Attorney's Office prior to City Council approval of the £inai tract map, and, further, that the approved covenants, conditions and restrictions shall be recorded concurrently with the final tract map. 6. That prior to filing tae final tract map, the applicant shall submit to the City Attorney for approval or ~]enial a complete synopsis of t~le proposed f~nctioning of the operating corporation including, but not limited to, the articles of incorporation, bylaws, proposed methods of management, bonding to i.,'~sure maintenance of common property and buildings and such other information as thc City Attorney may ctesire to protect the City, its citizens, and tile purchasers of the project. 7. That street names shall be approved by the City of Anaheim prior to approval of a final tract map. ~. That drainage of subject property shall be disposed of in a manner that is satisfactory to the City Engineer. 9. That all private streets shall be developed in accordance with the City of Anaheim's standards for private streets. 10. That the owner(s) of subject property shall pay to the City of Anaheim the ap~ropriate park and recreation in-lieu fees as determined to be appropriate by the City Council, said fees to be paid at tl~e time the building permit is issued. 1i. That vehicular access ri~hts, except at street and/or alley openings, to Romneya Drive and La Palma Avenue shall be ~]edicated to the City of Anaheim. 12. That fire hydrants shall be installed and charged as required and determined to be necessary by the Chief of the Fire Department prior to commence~ent of structural framing. City tiali~ Anaheil~l~ California - COUNCIL :,[Ii~UTES - September 9~. 1975~ 1:30 P.M. 13. That Romneya Drive st,.all b(~ constructed with two 12-foot wide parkways and two 26-foot wide roadways, separated by a 12-foot wide planted median. 14. That all public street and storm drain improvements within this tract and Tract Nos. ~775 (llevi~ion :'~o. ]), ~795 (Revision :~Io. i)and ~796 (Revision ~o. [), and the lake witi~in Tract No. c;793 (Revision No. 1), shall be developed con(:~rren~ly with thc first !~t~ase of construction of said tracts and shall be completed prior to final bt~ilding and :~onit~g inspections of tl~e first phase; and Uhat a bond in an amount and form satisfactory to tt~e City si]all be posted to ~,,uarantee the ultimate improvement of said public streets and of ti~e lake. 15. That prior to issuance of the building permit on the first phase of co:~truction, specific plan~ fo~- the development of the lake must be submitted to' ~nd approved by the Planning Conunission and C~ty Council. 16. That the subject property ~';;~all be developed precisely in accordance wit:~ exi~ibits sub:~itted anal approve~:i ~ conjunct/on with Variance £~o. 272~',. T2L~2/ATiV~i TRACT i,lO. 879J~ ~<EViSIO:~ ~'~i(3. 1: Tlte City Planning Commission at their meeting i~eld August 4, 1975, approved l'entative Hap, Tract No. su[~ect to the following conditions: i. That the approval of Tentative :'-Iap of Tract No. ~;795 (Revision No. 1) is Z'~ranted subject ~o completion ~f Reclassify[cation 7'~o. 73-74-3~.. and approval of Variance :~o. 2724. 2. That si~ould tl~is subdivision be develope~ as more than one subdivision, each sabdivision thereof si~all be sub~aitted in tentative forn:~ for ap?royal. f. That all lots xzithin tills tract sl~all be served by under~round uti2it:i~s. ',. That a final tract map of subject propc~-ty sl~all be sub~ttitted to and a~prove¢ by the City Council an,! tl~cn be recorded in tl'~c office of the Orange Cou~tv ]lecorder. a. That the covenants, conditions and restrictions shall be submitted to and approved by the City Attorney's; Office prior to City Council approval of t]~e £inal tract map, and, f~rther, ti~at the approved covenants, conditions and restrictions si~all be recorded concurrently with tl~e final tract map. 6. That prior to filin;~; the final tract map, the applicant shall submit to tl~e City Attorney for approval or denial a complete synopsis of the proposed fun(:tio~ing of the operatin;; corporation including, but not limited to, the articles of incorporation, bylaws, ~roposed metl~ods of r~anagement, bonding to insure maintenance of common] property and buildings and such other information as t',te City Attorney may desire to protect tl~c. City, its citizens, and the pt~rc:hasers of the project. 7. That street names s~tal], l.c~ approved by the City of Anaheim prior to approval of a final tract map. ~. Tha~ drainage of subject property shall be disposed of in a manner tibet is satisfactory to the City Engineer. 9. ThaC all private streets shall be developed in accordance with the City of Anaheim's standards for private streets. 10. 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. 11. That vehicular access rigitts, except at street and/or alley openings, to [,'.omneya Drive and La Palma Avenue shall be dedicated to the City of Anaheim. 12. That fire hydrants snail be installed and charged as required and determined to be necessary bv the Chief of tl~e Fire Department prior to commencement of structural framing. 13. That Romneya Drive shall be constructed with two 12-foot wide parkways and two 26-foot wide roadways, separated by a 12-foot wide planted median. 14. That all public street and storm drain improvements within this tract and Tract Nos. ~775 (Revision 14o. i), ;79't (Revision No. 1) and ~796 (Revision i4o. i), and the lake within Tract iqo. d793 (Revision No. 1), shall be developed concurrently with the first phase of construction of said tracts and shall be conplcted prior to final building; and zoning inst>ections of the first phase; and tibet a bond in an amount and form satisfactory to the City shall be posted to i:.uarantee the ultimate improvement of said public streets and of the lake. I!~. That the subject property si~all be developed precisely it~ accordance witi~ e::hibits submitted and approved in conjunction with Variance No. 2724. 75-825 ~it.y liall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - September 9~ 1975~ 1:30 P.M. TENTATIVE TRACT NO. i~796~ REVISION NO. 1: The City Planning Commission at their meeting held August 4, 1975, approved Tentative Map, Tract No. J796, subject to the following conditions: i. That the approval of Tentative Map of Tract No. ~796 (Revision No. 1) is granted subject to completion of Reclassification No. 73-74-36 and approval of Variance I'~o. 2724. 2. That should this subdivision be developed as more than one subdivision, each s~bdivision thereof shall be submitted in tentative form for approval. 3. That all lots within this tract shall be served by underground ~tilities. 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 the covenants, conditions and restrictions shall be submitted to and approved by the City Attorney's Office prior to City Council approval of the final tract map, and, furtl~er, that the approved covenants', conditions and restrictions shall be recorded concurrently with the final tract map. 6. That prior to filin~ the final tract map, the applicant shall submit [o th~ City Attorney for approval or denial a complete synopsis of tile proposed functioning of the operating corporation including, but not limited to, the articles of incorporation, bylaws, proposed methods of management, bonding to insure ~aintenance of common property and buildings and such other information as the City Attorney may desire to protect the City, its citizens, and the purchasers of the project. 7. That street names shall be approved by the City of Anaheim prior to approval of a final tract map. ~{. That drainage of subject property shall be disposed of in a manner that is satisfactory to the City Engineer. 9. That all private streets shall be developed in accordance with the City of Anaheim's standards for private streets. 10. 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. 11. That vehicular access rights, e.~'cept at street and/or alley openings, to Romneya Drive shall be dedicated to the City of Anaheim. 12. That fire hydrants shall be installed and charged as required and determined to be necessary by the Chief of the Fire Department prior to commencement of structural framing. 13. That all public street and storm drain improvements within this tract and Tract Nos. 8775 (Revision No. 1), 6793 (Revision No. 1) and ~79J (Revision No. 1), and the lake within Tract No..~793 (Revision No. 1), si~all be developed concurrently with the first phase of construction of said tracts and shall be completed prior to final building and zoning inspections of the first phase; and that a bond in an amount and form satisfactory to the City shall be posted to guarantee the ultimate improvement of said public streets and of the lake. 14. That the subject property shall be developed precisely in accordance wit~ exhibits submitted and approved in conjunction with Variance No. 2724. On motion by Councilman Seymour, seconded by Councilman Pebley, the City Co~ncil approved Tentative I,faps, Tract Nos. ~775, $793, ~795 and ¥796 (Revisions No. 1), subject to the conditions recommended by the City Planning Commission and further subject to the three additional conditions recommended by Mr. Bay, and imposed upon Variance No. 2724, set forth hereinabove as Condition Nos. a, b and c. MOTION CARRIED. SOUi~.3 ATTENUATION IN RESIDENTIAL PROJECTS: (Continued from the meetings of July 29 and August 19, 1975) On motion by Councilwoman Kaywood, seconded by Councilman Seymour, consideration of a proposed policy on sound attenuation in rusidential projects was further continued to the meeting of September 30, 1975. ~',IOTION CARRIED. R.tiIOVAL Ai,~D RESTOF~ATION - WAGI;ER HOME PIPE ORGAN: Recommendation submitted by the Cultural Arts Commission that the Wagner Home Pipe Organ be offered to the Caltural Arts Foundation for installation at the Anaheim Cultural Arts Center, witt~ perpetuation to be borne by the Foundation was originally presented for Council consideration at the meeting of August 26, 1975 and continued to this date, ?ending comments from the Anaheim Foundation for Culture and the Arts. City Hali~ Anaheim, California - CO[i>;:CIL MIi~;UTES - September 9~ 197D~ 1:30 P.M. ,[ayor Thor~ briefly co~,;~ente~ tt~at ,since this instrument is located on ~ity-o~.med property and is, t]~c_re£ore, owned by t[~e City of Anaheim, in his personal opinion, removal and restoration should[ be accomplished at the City's eX~2 (2118(/. >Yrs. Leta Archcr~ Director of tt~c Anaheim (Jultural Arts Center, s~ated ti~at although the Anaheia Foundation for Culture and tl~e Arts would welcome s~¢i~ an object as the Wagner home Pipe Organ to be installed at the Center, it would not be her recommen~lati, on to the Foundation to commit any funds to this purpose. She advised that ~e i~as i~ad an informal evaluation of the organ w~ic,[~ resulted in an esti~a, te ,'~f $},090 for restoration. She also reported ~h,~L it wili be necessary that a platform be built on which to place the o£gan pi~'e. She advised that ~he~ restore~i, the organ would reportedly be worti~ :::12,,~d0, plus it is of historical value, being the only home pipe organ still re~',,aining in the City of Anaheim. Councilman Seymour stated that i~e felt the Anaheim Foundation for Culture an~ ti~e Arts would be the appropriate supervisory agency for restoration and maintenance of this instrument and thereupon moved that tile City Council autiwrize funds to cover thc expen~liture of removal of the Wagner Home Pipe OrLan to the Cultural Arts Center and restoration thereof, subject to submission of a more complete cost esti~ate. Councilman Thom seconded the mot iD n. ~,{OTION CARRIED. VILTI;A/4ES~ REFUGEES PLACEi~{ENT PkOG?~X/q: Request submitted at the meeting of September 2, 1975 from 'Mr. William Holiday, that the City of Anaheim participate in a Combined Action Placement Pro~ram (CAPP) for resettlement of Vietnamese Refugees, ~,ms continued to this date for Council action. :~uring brief discussion, Councii i.iembcrs indicated t~at although they felt ti~c Prol;ram commendable and necessary, they could not commit the City to it. Councilman Thom moved that tl~c City Council decline to participate in thc Vietnm;~ese i%efugees Placement Prot'~ram (CAPP) propose~i by }4r. Holiday. Councii~:~an Seymour seconded ti~c ~otion. ,'.IOTIO>] CAIIRILi~. Councilman Sneegas le[t t~c Council Chamber. (3:3,3 P.M.) COJ.~}~,,7i' i2\LEN'~AR ITE?[S: {}r ?~otion by Co~lncilman Seymour, seconded by Councilman Pebley, the following actiom; ~,~er~,_ a,,thorizc, l in accordance wita tae reports and recommendations as furnis~cd eacl~ Council Hember and as listed on the Consent Calendar Agenda: 1. CLAI[~4S AGAINST THL CI%fY: Phc £oll~)win~ claims were denied and referred to the i~surance carrier: a. Claim submitted by State Farm Auto Insurance on behalf of William i}atler, for damage to vehicle i~urportedly sustained as a result of actions of tras~ dumpster at Anaheim Stadium, on or about May 23, 1975. b. Claim submitted by :IDAC T. Perez for injuries purportedly sustained as ~ result of action of Anaheim Police Officer, on or about June 2, 1975. c. Claim s~bmittcd by Thomas C. and Kathryn L. Cook for damage p~rportedly sustained to residents ns a result of i~proper approval of plans an,i [,~spection of improvements on said property by City of Anaheim employees occurring during the months of April through July, 1975. ,~. Claim submitted by Craig L. and Helen E. Davies for damage purportedly sd-~;tained to residents as a result of improper approval of plans and inspection of £mprovements on said pr,opcrty by City of Anaheim employees, damage occurring durini_, the months of April througl~ ,Iuly, 1975. e. Claim submitted i~l' Ja~es i~. Asi~brook, Partner, Executive West, for <'~a:;a~e sustained to property p~rportcdly as a result of power surge by City of Ana:~ei~,~ Electric Division, :}n or about August 7, 1975. f. Claim submitted by Roger tiarper and Lo~is Golar, III, for general and special damages purportedly sustained as a result of actions of Anaheim Police ~)cpartmcnt, on or about August 7, 1975. g. Claim submitted by James g. Kovolsky for damages sustained to vehicle purportedly as a result of being i~it by City of Anaheim street sweeper at Anai~eim Stadium, on or about August 9, 1975. 7~-027 City dall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MI;;UTES - September ~ 1975~ 1:30 P.M. i~. Claim submitted by ?Irs. g. ~'.~. Lipscomb for loss by spoilage purportedly sustained as a result of improper t~rn-off - turn-on of electricity, on or about August 10, 1975. i. Claim sub~nitted by Edna ~. Levy for damage sustained to vel~icle purportedly as a result of being struck by City vehicle, on or about August 1975. 2. E~;TERTAIN?HgNT PEPC~IT: The following permit was granted subject to the recommendation of the Chief of Police: a. Entertainment Permit for :,~usic at the Aces, 3f)g* North Manchester Avenue, nightly, from 9: 0~) p.m. to 2: 0() a.m. (and from 1: 00 p.m. to 2: 0d a.m. on special occasions), Joseph A., Jr., and Sandra A. tiazlett. (]~)KRESPOi~DENCE: The following correspondence was ordered received and filed: a. Before tiae Public Utilities Commission - Application of The Pacific ~l~cl~i)~one and Telegraph Company, a corporation, for a revised .tariff for SG-1 Priw'~te Branch Exchange Service. [,. City of Seal Beach - Resolution i,lo. 2477 - Requesting Lxte~sion of an i.xistiug OCTD Bus Route to California State University, Long Beach. c. Community Center Authority - ;iinutes - August 4, 1975. Local Agency Formation Commission - Minutes - August 13, 19/5. Financial and Operatin~ Report for the ~,~onth of July, 1575 for ti~e i~n~ineering Division. f. City of ~ewport beac~ - Resolution !,;o. {532 - Supporting House of Re~)resentatives Bill HR 7666 to Increase Amount of Outside Earnings Limitations Under Social Security. Councilman Sneegas temporarily absent. :.lOTION CARRIED. C~)tUIESI>t~:4DENCE - STATE SOLID WASTE i,b~i~\GE~IE;;T BOARD: Councilwoman }2aywood requested that correspondence from Albert A. Marine, Executive Officer, State Solid Waste Management Board urging the Orange County Board of Supervisors to complete and submit to the State Board, thc County Solid Waste 2'~anagement Plan prior to January 1, 1976, be removed from the Consent Calendar for discussion. She reported that unless the County of Orange plan is submitted by this dead- line, State and local funds would be lost. She urged that the Council do wi~at- ever is ~,~ithin its power to assist the County in speedily completing this plan. By general consent, the City Council authorized a letter be forwarded to Supervisor Clark and the County Board of Supervisors advisina them of tl~e City of Anaheim's intent to support their efforts to complete the County Solid Waste _,Ianagement Plan and offering assistance in connection therewith. i(LSOLUTION NO. 75R-432 - WORK ORDER NO. 741-B: Councilman Seymour offered Resolution ilo. 75R-482 for adoption. Iiefer to Resolution Book. A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUi~CIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM FI~DIiqG AI(O DETLI~4INIi~G 'f~A~i' PUBLIC CONVENIENCE AND ~LCESSITY REQUIRE THE CONSTRUCTIO~ AiqO CO,~LPLETION OF A PUBLIC I~vLPROVEi. IENT TO WIX': Tf.iE BROOKHURST STREET STREET Ii, iPROVIJ.IE~T, BALL ROAD TO KATELLA AVENUE, I1.4 Tile CIndY OF ANAtlEI~-I, WOPdi ORDER NO. 741-B; APPROVIi;G 'i'}i~ DESIGNS, PLANS, PROFILES, DRAWINGS AND SPECIFICATIONS FOR TtiE CONSTRUCTION Ti~EiiEOF; AUTHORIZING THE CONSTRUCTION OF SAID PUBLIC I}[PROVF2IE~4T Iii ACCORDANCE WITlt SAID PLANS, SPECIFICATIONS, L'I'C.; AbID AUTiIORIZING AND DIRECTING TiiE CITY CLERK TO PUBLIS~t A NOTICE INVITIr4G SEALED PROPOSALS FOR THE COi"~STRUCTION THEREOF. (Bids to be Opened - October 2, 1975, 2:00 P.M.) Roll Call Vote: AYES: COUNCIL M~BERS: Kaywood, Seymour, Pebley and Thom iqOES: COUNCIL M'E2rBERS: None TEMPOR~\RILY ABSENT: COUNCIL MFD-IBERS: Sneegas ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: None The Mayor declared Resolution No. 75R-482 duly passed and adopted. (;ouncilman Sneegas returned to the Council Chamber. (3:35 P.M.) City H.all~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL ~IINUTES - September 9~ 1975~ 1:30 P.M. CITY PLANNINC CO~{ISSION ITE~-~S: Actions taken by the City Planning Commission at their meeting held August 1U, iww5, pertaining to the following applications ~ere s~bmitted for City Council information and considerat£on; On motion by Councilman Pel~ley, seconded by Councilman Sneegas, the City Co~ncil autl]orized the actions pertaining to Environmental Impact Requirements as recon~nended by the City Planning Commission and sustained the actions taken by the City Planning Commission in connection with the following applications: (Item Nos. 1 through 11) 1. Ei~VIROi~2iEi~TAL Ii[PACT RE}'()RT - CAi'EGORICAL EXEi~PTIONS: The Planning Depart- tlle~t Director has determined ti~at the proposed activities in the following listed zoning applications fall within the definition of Section 3.01, Classes 1 or 5, of the City of Anaheim Cuidelines to the requirements for an environ- mental impact report and are, therefore, categorically exempt from the require- ment to file an environmental impact report: Conditional Use Permit No. 1556 Variance No. 2727 '2. Ei~VIRONqiENTAL I~',[PACT REPORT - ~:EGATIVL DECLAR~kTIOi{S; The Planning Commission recommends to the City Council that ti~e subject projects in the following listed zoning applications be declared exempt from the requirement to prepare an environmental impact report, pursuant to the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act: Conditional Use Permit ~o. 1555 Conditional Use Permit No. 155~{ Conditional Use Permit No. 1557 Conditional 'Use Permit No. 1559 3. CONDITIONAL USE PER>IIT i~O. 1555: Sublnitted by Jed Development, Inc., to permit a truck repair and maintenance facility in the ML Zone on property located at the southwest corner of Miraloma Avenue and Tustin Avenue. The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC75-174, granted said conditional use permit. 4. CONDITIONAL USE PER2iIT i~O. 1556: Submitted by Edmund C. Tafolla to permit an office in an existing residence on RS-720,~) zoned property located on the east side of tlarbor Boulevard, north of Hampstiire Avenue, with Code waivers of: a. Minimum sideyard setback. b. l.[inimum landscaping. (Withdrawn) c, Minimum number of parking spaces. d. Required block wall. (Withdrawn) ~£he City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC75-175, granted said conditional use permit in part, for a period of two years. 5. CONDITIONAL USE PEF~.~IT NO. 1557: Submitted by Raymond Spehar to permit construction of a restaurant with a cocktail lounge in the Scenic Corridor on CL (~-~ zoned property locate~l on the south side of La Palma Avenue, east of Imperial Highway, with Code waivers of: a. Permitted signing. b. blaximum number of wall signs. c. Permitted directional signs. d. Prohibited roof-mounted eq~ipment. The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC75-176, granted sai~ conditional use permit in part, denying waivers "a", "b" and "c", and rantin~ waiver "d". (~. CONDIIIONAL 0SE PE~IT NO. 1558: Submitted by Mutual Citrus Products company to permit metal reclamation and outdoor storage of rags, paper and metal on ~ zoned property located at tl~e southeast corner of Santa Aha Street and Atchison Street, with Code waivers of: a. Minimum front setback. b. ~4inimum number of parking spaces. 7~-829 City Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - September p~ 1~73~ 1:30 P.M. Ti~e City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC7~-177, granted said conditional use permit for a period of three years. 7. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 1559: Submitted by Brigham Young University to construct a 5-unit model home complex on RS-A-43,000 zoned property located northwesterly of the intersection of La Palma Avenue and Euclid Street. The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC75-176, granted said conditional use permit for a period of two years or until all of the ~twelling units are initially sold, whichever occurs first. .~. VARIA2,~CE i~O. 2727: Submitted by Mr. and Mrs. John Scudder to permit a kung-fu studio (Chinese school of self-defense) on ML zoned property located on the east side of Anaheim Boulevard, south of Cerritos Avenue, with Code waiver of: a. Permitted uses. 'fhe City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution i.~o. PC75-179, denied said variance. 9. CO~©ITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 1414: Submitted by Willard R. Pool, for an extension of time and approval of revised plans to permit a drive-in theater to have three (3) screens rather than two (2) as previously approved for the expansion of the existing drive-in theater on ML zoned property located on the east side of Lemon Street, south of Orangethorpe Avenue (Anaheim Drive-In Theater). The City Planning Commission conditionally granted the one-year extension of time to expire August 20, 1976. The City Planning Commission further determined that revised plans for an extra screen would have to be considered at another advertised public hearing and therefore no action was taken on the request for approval of revised plans by the City Planning Commission. 10. LAIfDSCAPING PLANS - RECLASSIFICATION NO. 74-75-39: Submitted by Mike Clark Development for approval of dense landscaping plans for property located at 2863 West Ball Road, approved for RM-1200 zoning subject to approval of said landscaping plan. The City Planning Commission generally concurred that the recommendations of the staff with regard to the landscaping plan submitted comply with the intent of the Planning Commission in their original action to approve Reclassification No. 74-75-39. 11. TENTATIVE TRACT NO. 8710: Owner, Nor'East Plaza, Ltd.; property is located on the west side of Kraemer Boulevard between Crowther Avenue and Orangethorpe Avenue; containing 7 proposed RM-1200 zoned lots. Tentative Tract No. 8710 was continued to be considered in conjunction with an environmental impact report and Reclassification No. 74-75-41. Councilman Seymour abstained from voting on Item No. 9 above. MOTIOi~ CARRIED. CITY PLANNING COmmISSION ITEMS: The following actions taken by the City Planning Commission at their meeting held August 18, 1975, pertaining to the following applications were removed from the above Consent Calendar for discussion and separate action by the City Council. 1. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 1543~ TENTATIVE TRACT NOS. 7137~ REVISION NO. 6 AND 7666~ REVISION NO. 1: Submitted by G. Richard Sant, Vice President of Sant Construction Company, requesting approval of revised plans pertaining to a sound attenuation barrier as required by the conditions of approval of said tract. Property is located at the northeast corner of La Palma Avenue and Fairmont Boulevard; and was approved to permit a four-unit model home complex. The revised plans were approved conditionally by the City Planning Commission. The Deputy City Clerk reported that copies of the Acoustical Engineer's certification regarding the sound attenuation barrier and an executed copy of City ~,aii, Anaheim~ California - ~;OU~CIL i~ll~,~'fk~{ - September 9~ 1~75; 1:3o P.M. agreement b~:tw' :. :_i,c alert:loper and ihe Atct~ison, Topeka and Santa Company i~avc~ b~;~ r,.:~eive,t and made a part of the record. i~,, ;~otion by Council~:~a~. 5:~,~e~:;as, seconded ky Councilman Pebley, tim revised plans pertainin;~ to so~tnd att~:~nuation barrier and license agreement bet~'cen Sant Constrt~ction , ~;,~p,,~y and Tlm Atcl~ison, Topeka and Santa Fe Railway Co~npanv were approved as re~'omrnende,! i,y tl~e City Planning Commission. HOTION :~z,3~ >1'() : Developer, Westfield Development 2'L~'~TAi!VE i'PJiCT NO. ~;45(-,~ REV[ ~"~ ~ . 4 Cemr~nv; propertx~ is ]oca:c:i nr)rti~esterly of the intersection of Via Arboles an~i t;an,..'on Rim Poad; r~.~:-~: ~i:~in[; 35 2roposed F,S-5')00 zoned lots. ~'hc City Planning Co~nn:i.~;,~,;ion at tl~eir meeting i~el.J September 3, 1975 r~:~:i::::~e,! its action ~ ,;t~n~ 24, i?TZ~ recommending that the City Council -e:'~:,' Environmental i;.[pact ilcport No. 1~9 ~ as in ~:.onformance with the City and State ': ,u idel ines and St:~te (~f Cailler, mia Environmental Quality Act and approved Tentative ~iap, Tract l;c. ,~45t~ Revision NO. 4, subject to tim following cond itions: i. 2'hat tt~e apprr~x,'a'~ c~! 'l~::,~tative ~iia,r~ c':f Tract £'40. <}45o (Revision No. 4) is ranted subject to ,:.:~mi~le~i~n ,~f Reclassification ~{o. 71-72-44. 2. That should this ~b~li~is5~n b~ developed as more than one sul~ivision, each subdix, is~i:~ [l~ereof shall be submitted in tentative form for app royal, 3. Thac all lots ~:i[::.~ ~ t :is tract s~all be served by underground ~ti] ities. 4. That a final t:~-:~ -~, ~;f :;~b,]ect property shall be submitted to and t~n be recorded in the Office of the Orange approve~ b',~ the City Cc.~.~n~;~] : ~.~ ~ Co[~ nt,~ Recorder. 5. That any propose,l ;~v~::~iaril..5, ~:on~iitions and restrictions shall be submitted to and approvt~l ~. rlhc City Attorney's Office prior to City Council approva% of the final tract: ~ia.p ~xnd, further, that the approved covenants~ conc itions and restrictions ;.~ ii ~.~ ~ecor~led concurrently with the final tract m a p. o. That street names s~;]~ b{~ approved by the City of Anaheim prior to approval of a final tract :na;~. ?. That prior to fJ;li:~~ :i}~c ~:inal tract map, the applicant st]all submit to the city Attorney ::,~ al~.,:'r~':~l or ~ienial a complete synopsis of the proposed f~:~<tionin~ of the opc~l-;l[!~]; ::_~:p~;r~t.i. on, incl~ding but not limited to the articles of incorporati~n~ ~, ~a~:~, ?rop~sed ntcthods of management~ bonding to in:;t, re ?~intenance of (~ ~ ~-~ro[)e,~'t? and baildings, and such other information as t.l~e City Attorney :n~., ,~:.~ t(~ ?r~_~tect thc City~ its citizens and the purc'hasers of the projec[~ ~:~. That the o~er:,s~ .,f ::,b.jcct property s~all pay to thc City of Anaheim the apr~ropriate park a~:.~ retribution in-lieu fees as determined to be appropriate by the City Count' i!? saici fees tn be paid at tim time the building p~r:~it ~s issued. ~). rhat a 6-foot ~i~;-~ ;~:.:.:orati~e, c~p~nwork wall shall be constructed at t~_~. ~,~ .f the slope a~;.~a~:~,:~, : ~ Canv<~n Rim ]~oa~l on Lot Nos. 1 through 6 and alo~g t ~e~ side lot line o~ ;,~:;~_ No~ i ~tt least :o the rear corner of the house ~: ~;~:i~2 ~.ot. Plans for sai< w~.il s~ai.l be st~bmitted to the Planning Commission an~ i]it,: Council for ap?-ovai ~rior to approval of tim final tract map. ~c:~sona[~ie landscaping, ii~:]~,2[n~4 ~.rri~;ation facilities, shall be installed %,:iLl,in ~ne slope areas ~,~ cacli i~.~t atjacent to the roadway and in the ~n~.e~nented portion of t~e art~ri~! highway parkway the full distance of said ~al]. ?[ans for said ] ~<Is: ap[n~ sl~a]i be submitted to and subject to the a~prova~ of the SuDerinten.~:':~t ~ Parkwav Maintenance. Following installation a~ acceptance, the pr~;~-~; ~'"~er(s) shall assume responsibility for n~aintenance of sai~i ian~!s~:aphn~ to th~ iot lines, and tt~e City of Anal~eim s~all assume t~e responsibi.i '-~,;' f ~" ~'~,~ ?~.:n;~n ~ of the landscaping in the Canyon Rim iloa :, parkway. l(.). That vel~i::uiav '~c~,:~;n ~"~ ;~',~ ,?xce~t at street and/or alley openings, to Canyon Rim iload shall ::~.~ ~i~: ..... :ated ~o tn~ (]ity of Anaheim. !i. That drainage ~f ~n[~i .~roperty s~all be disposed of in a manner satis- factory t.o the City En'~:./nter if, ~ ~ ~:~c preparation of the site, sufficient gray, in;: is required to necessitate: :~ ~rading permit, no work on grading will be ~=u,~ ,~e=w,.en October '5th an~:, ~.~ il ~Ltl~ ~nless all required off-site i:'~i.~.za..~ faci~itit~s ilave bc(.,n i~stail~i an..] are :~cracive. Positive assurance stoa i ~',~ provided the c:itv tl~ar su~.~i, <ir~ii~agt~ facilities will be completed 75-831 City Hall; Anaheim; California - COUNCIL MINUTES - September 9~ 1975~ 1:30 P.M. prior to October 15th. Necessary right-of-way for off-site drainage facilities shall be dedicated to the City, or the City Council si~all have initiated con- detonation 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 sl~all be completed and be functional throughout the tract and from the downstream boundary of the property to the ultimate point of disposal prior to the issuance of any final building inspec- tions or occupancy permits. Drainage district reimbursement agreements may be made available to the developers of said property upon tl~eir request. 12. That grading, excavation, and all otl,er construction activities shall be conducted in such a manner so as ~o minimize the possibility of any silt originating from this project being carried into thc Santa Aha River by storm water originating from or flowing through this project. 13. That fire hydrants shall be installed and charged as required and determined to be necessary by the Chief of the Fire Department prior to commencement of structural framing. 14. That prior to approval of a final tract map, tl~e owner(s) of subject property shall make irrevocable offer to dedicate an casement for riding and hiking trail purposes over that portion of subject property over which tl~e Four Corners Pipe Line Company has an easement for ~ipeline and incidental purposes on the date of this resolt~tion. Said offer to dedicate shall be irrevocable for a period of twenty (20) years and may be accepted by the City of Anal~eim at such time as it is determined that development of such facilities would be in the best interest of the City of Anaheim. Said irrevocable offer to dedicate s~all be recorded concurrently with the final tract map. 15. That a minimum 20-scale plot plan si~owing all on-site improvements, including eave overhang and proposed location of all air-conditioning equipment, shall be submitted for buiidi~g permits. 16. That the precise location of the public access easement to the property to the north of subject tract si~all be ,letermined and shown on the final tract map. 17. That prior to approval of the final tract map, the petitioner shall make some provision, acceptable to the City Council, for landscaping and maintenance of the slopes within and/or created by the development of this property. 1~. That final floor plans and elevations for eac~ phase of development si]all be submitted to and approved by the Planning Commission and City Council prior to approval of the final tract map. 19. That the location of the street (Lot A) to serve the property to the north of subject tract shall be approved by the owner of said property. On motion by Councilman Pebley, seconded by Councilman Sneegas, the City Council sustained the Planning Commission action regarding E.I.R. No. 12~ and approved Tentative Map, Tract No. ~456, Revision No. 4, subject to the recom- mendations of the City Planning Commission. Councilman Seymour abstained from voting on the motion. MOTION CARRIED. TENTATIVE ~.~P~ TRACT NO. 8949 A~ E~IRO~ENTAL IMPACT REPORT NO. 151: Developer, John Wertin Development Corporation; property located on the south- westerly side of Lakevlew Avenue between Cerr0 Vista Driv~ and ?~ralta l~ills Drive; containing 21 proposed RS-HS-~3,000 zoned lots. The City Planning Commission at their meeting held August 1~, 1975, recom- mended that the City Council certify E.I.R. No. 151 is in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act and approved Tentative Tract No. 8949, subject to the following conditions: 1. That should this subdivision be developed as more than one subdivision, each subdivision thereof sl~all be submitted in tentative form for approval. 2. That all lots within this tract shall be served by underground utilities. 3. That a final tract map of subject property shall be submitted to and approved by the City Council and then be recorded in the office of the Orange County Recorder. 4. That any proposed covenants, conditions and restrictions shall be submitted to and approved by the City Attorney's Office prior to City Council 7 5- :~ 3.2 City iiall, Anaheim~ California - CO[:P<CIL ~II>~UTES - September 9~ 1975~ 1:30 P.M. app;ovai of the final tract mat , an~l, further, tibet the approved covenants, conditions and restrictions shall i:e recorded conc~lrrently with the final tract 5. That street names shali be approve~l by the City of Analleim prior to app~:ovai of a final tract map. 6. ~i~hat 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 .10th anti April 15ti~ unless all required off-site drainage facilities have been installed and are operative. Positive assurance s~a.[i be provided the City tibet such drainage facilities will be completed prior to October 15th. Necessary right-of-way for off-site drainage facilities shat1 be dedicated to the City, ~r the City Council shall have initiated con- de~-~nati(.,.n proceedings therefor (the costs of which s[~all be borne by the dcv,~!oper) prior to the commencemtmt of grading operations. The required drainaze facilities shall be of a si:.:e 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 t[~e first item of construction and si~all be completed and be functional tl~r~u%t~:,ut the tract and frown ti~e ~.lownstream boundary of the property to tl~e ultimate point of disposal prior to t;~e issuance of any final building inspec- tions or occupancy permits. Drainage district reimbursement agreements may be made available to the developers of said property upon their request. 7. That the owner(s) of s~bject property shall pay to the City of Anaheim ti~e a~i~-opriate park and recreation in-lieu fees as determined to be app?opriate by the City Codnci]., said fees to be paid at ti~e time the building permafit is issued. ,5. That grading, excavation and all other construction activities si~all be ~:onducted in such a manner so as to mi~]imize the possibility of any silt ori~ginating from this project b,zin.: c:arried into ti~e Santa Ana River by storm wat~_~r ~riginating from or f]owi~i.~ througi~ this project. ~':~s t~ave not been installed, temporary 9. If permanent street name street ~ame signs shall be inst.~lled prior to any occupancy. lO. That the owner(s) ~>f s~bject property shall pay appropriate drainage assess~]~mt fees to the City of Anaheim as determined by the City Engineer prior to approval of a final tract map. 11. That the owner(s) of subject property shall conditionally dedicate to the City of Anaheim, for roadway and public utility purposes, the necessary ri,~::~t-of-way for the future construct~ion of Lakeview Avenue along an ali%nment to ')e ~ppro~ed by the City Council. 12. Yhat fire hydrants sl~all be installed and charged as required and ,l~t,_~rmi~:d to be necessary by ti~e Chi~f of the Fire Department prior to com~nencement of structural framing. 13. That the developer shall provide each prospective customer a map of the general plan of development, circulation element, and land use witl~in fcc~ of subject property prior to the sale of a lot or lots in subject tract. E:~VitIONi'IEi~TAL I:IACT RE?OF, Y :qO. 15i - CERTII?ICATIOi~: E.I.R. iqo. 151, having been review, ed by the City staff and recommended by the City Planning Commission to> ~c i.~: compliance with City and State Guidelines and ti~e State of California £nv[ronmental Quality Act, t!~e t.;ity Council actinZ upon such information and t>{..l.[ef Joes hereby certify, on motion by Councilman Sneegas, seconded by (loud,ell. man Pebley, that E.I.R. No. 151 is in compliance witl, the California Lnv:[ronmental Quality Act and City and State Guidelines. ?lOTION CARRIED. Also submitted in conjunction with Tentative Map, Tract I,~o. ~949 was a mem{orandu~, from the City Engineer dated September :~, 1975, recommending amend- menI: of (~ondition No. ,:. of the recommended conditions of approval to read as fol~iows: "That the owners ~,f subject property st~all pay appropriate drainage f~:e.'~ t~; the (;itl' ~*f Anaheir:~ as determined by ti~e City Council. Drainage fees to !,e i,~aid to the City of Anaheim guiiding Division prior to tt~e issuance of b~i_~di.~ > per.~i ts. )n n~otion by Councilman Sneegas, seconded by Councilman Pebley, Tentative ?lap, ~Fract ;,[o. ,~949 was appr~:)ved, sub.iect to ti~e recommendations of the City Pianninq Commission with amendment to Condition ~o. ( as recommended by thc City Engineer and set forth above. :'lOTION CARRIED. 75-U33 City tiall1 Anaheim~ California- COUi~CIL .~I,~UtES'! ,, ~r, - September ~ lw75~ 1.30' P.M. REQUEST FOR PARTICIPATION - WE T.I.P.: Request of Hr. Bill Brow~ell, State Director of the WE T.I.P. Program for financia~ l~rticipation and/or support from the City of Anaheim was submitted, togetl~~ with reports from tile City Attorney's Office and the Police Department. Councilwoman Kaywood left the Council Chanber. (3:Z~O P.M.) Mr. Bill Brownell gave a brief description of tl~e WE T.I.P. (We Turn in Pushers) Program and some of the positive results, notably 12 arrests and g convictions within the City of Anahci~ of Jr,ag pu~!~rs. I~ explained there is no respite from this situation and that ti:~_~ pr~k]~m is particularly eni~anced in California because of its proximity to thc l~or,~i~r. ~fr. Crowneil related that the Program is largely dependent ~lpon citi~-,a ~articipation and he wisi~es to reqaest $1,000 from the City of A~ai~ei:~ to !>~ ,~s~;d for ~romotional materials to obtain citizen cooperation. Councilwoman Kaywood returned to ti~e ~]ouncil Chamt~er. (3:45 P.M.) Mayor Thom stated that insofar as ~'!r. Brown~.~]l's :-equest for funds is con- cerned, the City Council cannot legally co~-:triL,~tc public fun~s to ti~e organization itself, tie inquire:l of tl~c City Attorney whetizer thc Council could authorize printing of ~'romotional materials for the organization through a similar contract like thc one with the Ana~,~ei:-,,, Chami~er of Com:narce. ~'Ir. Watts agreed that t!~e City could Le i~v,~lve~ insofar a:~ an effort to obtain citizen participation is conccrnc..,i ar,! '~,'r~'~c'~ suggested tibet prior to proceeding with such an agreement that t~> Couch'.ail obtain some input from ti~e Police Department. Councilman Thom moved t!~at t:~c req~sr~ :-r~:n ~,?E '£.I.P. be referred to Police Department for evaluation ~'~f the Pro~ra~-~, ',.~ith report submitted within, three weeks, and based upon tt~e report rcceive~,, ti~at the City Council would then determine whether to e~ter into an agra~_*m~?~t for promotional materials an amount not to exceed $1,0;.'.).0,~ to urg~ ~:iti.:e~: participation in the Program. Councilman Sneegas seconded the motion· ~i0~I()~ CARRILi~. ~'ir. Brownell sabmitted an informational bool~iet and urgea that efforts be made to come to a speedy conclusion of tills nattier since school is starting shortly and his organization wis1~cs to 'be readTM wit'~ sufficient pri~ted materials. REQUEST TO SEWER INTO BUENA PARK SAi~ITARY SEWE.71 SYST~.~: Request of f,~r. Richard Prutz, Psomas & Associates, 1617 PontJ. us Avenu~, Los Angeles, California, 90025, dated August 18, 1975 for permission to ~;ewer ti~e property located at 314 North Stanton Avenue into the City of Buena Park sa~itary sewer system was submitted, together with recommendation from t',,c City Engineer that said request be approved, subject to t!~e approval of tiaa; Buena Park City Council. On motion by Councilman Pebley, seconde~l b'.~ Councilman S~eegas, the request to sewer said property into the City of ?,uena Park's sanitary sewer system was approved, subject to ti~~ approval of t~ Buena Park City Council, as recommended by the City Engineer. i~'IOTI02~; CAi-hXI~TD. Tt~\CT NO. 3533~ REVISION NO. 2 - E,~E,~MIOi,~ OF Ti!~L: Request submitted by Thomas C. Clarke, Vice President of E. L. Pearson & Associates, 3935 Birch Street, J~ewport Beach, 92660, dated August 15, 1975, rcq~esting an extension of time to Tentative Map, Tract No. ~,~533, Revision No. 2, ~,a~ submitted togeti~er with reports from the Planning Department and City L~gine,~'..r. The City Engineer recommendet~ ti~e req~:est :'or extension of time to Tract No. 0533, Revision No. 2, be granted subject t~:,' 1 If permanent street name s'~ havc~ n~ · ~ons ~ been installed, temporary street name signs shall be installed prior to ;~y occupancy. '2. That the owner(s) of subject propert7 ~'~all pay $1,52~ per acre drainage fees to the City of Anaheim as adoptive by ti~e City Council for the Imperial Highway Drainage Reimbursement Oiatrict prior to approval of a final tract map. City ttali~ Anaheim~ California - COU;4CIL ~'II~;UTES - September ?~ 19/5~ 1:3~ P.?,I. On motion by Councilman Pebley, seconded by Councilman Sneegas, tt~e City Council granted a one-year extension of time to Tentative Map, Tract i;o. U533, Revis±on iqo. 2, to expire September 17, 197~, subject to tile conditions recommended by the City Engineer and set fortll above, i'[OTIO:; CARRIED. REQULST FOIl REDUCTION AND EXONERATION OF BOI;DS (TRACT NOS. 75~,,~ 75~7~. /D0~ A~,ID 7569): Request submitted by Fredric Armstrong, Vice President, Grant Company of California for exoneration and reduction of certain bonds filed in connection witi~ Tract Nos. 7566, 75~.7, 75(,.; an. 1 75(:9, was submitted for Council con- sideration together witt~ a recommendation from the City Engineer re,;arding s~.ject request (the City En~.'ineer i~ad also prepared an exhibit outlining each of tixe four tracts involvc~l and sinewing the bonds recommended for reduction or exoneration). The ~,layor recognized 5Irs. Jan tlall representing t'~,e Westriage tiomeowners Association who advisex tiler since their first appearance before the City Cou~lcil in i-lay of 1974, there nas been no solution achieved t~ any of their problems; that only yesterday !~as any dialogue begun witi~ tire Grant Company of California which might lead to resolution of thc probleras. She indicated that si~e would not be opposed to release of some of the bones since %l,~J,)o,00v is a ~;reat deal of money to hold, but ~r~ed that the Couucil consider, in ligi~ of tile many unresolved prc;Elems witil grading, landscaping and drainage in these Grant Company tracts, that a sufficient amount of bonds be retained to cover the cost of timse improvements and repair. She further urged that a deadline be set for the Grant Company to complete tl~is work. ilrs. Hall submitte~ a petition containing si~;natures of homeowners in these Westridge tracts. Aayor Thom assured Mrs. ttall that the City staff is well acquainted with tlm problems she has referred to, ~oting that voluminous correspondence nas been received and is on file in ttte Planning Department. Councilman Seymour referred to the recommendations presented by the City Engineer's Office and questioned what assurance the City Engineer could offer if his recommendations are accepted the problem will, in fact, be resolved. '~lr. }.laddox answered that if the submitted recommendations are utilized, there would still remain sufficient bond monies to complete the necessary work. }ie r~:~arked that his Office makes these recommendations based on their opinion ti~at all street and off-site work l~as now been satisfactorily completed. He related that they believe the amounts recommende~i to be retained are adequate to take care of the remaining irrigation and landscaping problems. :.Iayor Thom inquired what assurance the City Engineer nad to offer tile Council that the Grant Company will begin work immediately on t~e problem, such as would be offered if the work was put out to bid and tire bonding companies so notified that they would be required to pay for the improvements. He stated that he concurs with Mrs. Hall that the year ~,hich has expired is a reasonable time to expect completion of the improvements and perl~aps it is now time to notify t!te bonding companies that tl~c developer has violated his obligations and they will be expected to pay. lit. Watts pointed out that there appears to be some disagreement in the opinions between the City Engineer and some of t]~e homeowners as to whether or not these items have been properly taken care of. Councilman Seymour remarked that the only alternative to notification to the bond companies would be that some type of task force be formed to work with t~e developer to resolve the situation. He noted that it is difficult for him to act in good faith with tl~is firm because of the City's experiences with them in attempting to resolve the dumping problem, as well as the drainage, irrigation, and landscaping problems which are tl~e subject of this discussion. ~r. Fred Armstrong, representing the Grant Company of California, advised tl~at it is their intention to resolve each landscaping and irrigation problem brou~;ht to ti~eir attention as soon as possible. In order to identify all of the e:.:i~tin~; problems, he advised that just yesterday he began walking through thr~ tracts with Mrs. Hall and reviewing the list of problems submitted. i~,licate~ t~lat the bonds which lie has suggested be retained in his letter dated A~;~,ust 26, 19715, pertain only to the landscaping and irrigation and titat he too felt ti~at tile amount to be left ir. bonded indebtedness would i~._, sufficient to 75-d35 City tlall~ Anaheim~ California- COUNCIL .'{I.WUTES - September 9~ 1975~ 1:30 P.i.~. solve the existing problems, tie indicated that Lhe Westridge tiol~leowners Association feels that 25% of the total bonded indebtedness for t~le sub- divisions would be sufficient to inspire that the cost of t',~e i~lprovcments is withheld, whereas he suggested a figure closer to $80,'000. l!e advised that there must be a point of compromise between these two amounts which could be reached this date. Mr. Armstrong indicated tl~at .be has been placed in charge of the bond problem for his company and that t'~zey would very mucl] like to i~ave some of these bonds released this date so as to be able to utilize their bonding capacity elsewlzcre. In reply to Councilman Seylaour's request for a time limit on completion of the improvements, Mr. Armstrong indicated t]~at the drainage problems will be corrected prior to November 1, 1975. However, because of ti~e number of landscaping and irrigation proble~ns, there would not be sufficient time to complete these by that date. Mrs. Dorothy Talmage, 425 Westridge Circle, Anaheim, addressed the Council and advised that the homeowners in these four tracts have heard many promises from the Grant Company but seen few results so far. She strongly urged ti,at the Council retain the full amount of tile bonds to insure tibet all of tl~e problems are resolved. On request from Councilman Sneegas for a legal opinion as to whether the Council can hold a bond which was posted for a condition which the developer has satisfied, Mr. Watts replied that ti~e City would most likely lose in ti~at kind of litigation. He advised that there are so many bonds involved in the matter of these four subdivisions that he would prefer some time to analyze them from the legal aspect to determine wi~ich mig[~t be exonerated and reduced and/or held. Mr. Armstrong assured the Council t~at itc_ ,~nderstood the objective t'~ey were attempting to achieve. He also wished to advise that he is certain some of these bonds will go to litigation if not released shortly, and that this matter is not within his power to control. At the conclusion of extensive discussion among Council l'iembers, ~[r. Armstrong, Mrs. Hall and the City Attorney, it was determined that an addi- tional two week's time would be~_ allowec~ during which tlle City Attorney's Office would evaluate the existing bonds for Tract Nos. 756~,, 7567, 756h and 754t~ to determine which could legally be exonerated, reduced and/or i~eld; and Mr. Armstrong, together with ~[rs. Hall and representatives of the Planning Department, would investigate the necessary landscaping and irrigation improvements in each tract and develop a cost estimate on the work remaining to be completed. On motion by Councilman Thom, seconded by Councilman Seymour, tire request submitted by the Grant Company of California for ~xoneration and reduction of certain bonds filed in connection with Tract Nos. 7566, 75~7, 75~..6 'and 7Ji,:.9 ~as continued to the meeting of September 23, ]975. MOTION CARRIED. COP~ITIOiiAL USE PERMIT NO. 1561 - PERi'{ISSIO~.~ TO CO,'D.iENCE SALE OF BLER AND WI:~E: Miss Santalahti presented the request from Mr. John E. Bouzane, Golden Flame Restaurant, 2112 South State College Boulevard, Anai~eim, 92006, for special permission to commence on-sale beer and wine in said restaurant prior to completion of the 22 day appeal period following Planning Commission approval of Conditional Use Permit No. 1561. Miss Santalahti reported that the Planning Commission approved subject Conditional Use Permit on September 3, lP75 for on-sale beer and wine in an existing restaurant, and there ~.zas no opposition. The 22-day appeal period will terminate on September 25, 1975, l~owever, tlle applicant wishes to proceed wit!~ the sale of beer and wine on September 17, 1975 since that is tile date upon wt~ich the California Angels will begin their last home stand of the season. She advised that the City Attorney's Office intricates this is possible subject to the applicant being willing to cease and desist if an apl~cal is received on the Conditional Us~ Permit during ti~e remainder of thc £2-day appeal period. The applicant ilas submitted tl~e letter so indicati~,g that ~e would abstain from selling if an appeal is received, anti the Planning Department, therefore, recommends tl~at t]~(: req~st be approved. City ~t.a. ll~ Anahelm~ California - COU:~CIL MINUTES - September 9, 1975~ 1:30 P.M. On motion by Councilman Thom, seconded by Councilman Seymour, tile City Council granted the requested special permission to commence tile activity authorized under Conditional Use Permit No. 1561 on September 19, 1975, provided, however, that if a protest is received or an appeal filed wit]~ the City of Anaheim prior to expiration of the 22-day appeal period, that the applicants will immediately cease said activity. MOTION CAILRIED. RECLASSIFICATION NO. 71-72-44 (14) - APPROVAL OF PRECISE PLAi~S: Miss Santalahti reported that ~in accordance with the conditions imposed upon the original reclassification to rezone the property, precise plans were submitted in conjunction with proposal to develop a comraercial shopping center at the norris- east corner of Serrano Avenue and Nohl Ranch Road. These precise plans (E×hibit .',Io. 1, Revision No. 1) were reviewed by the City Planning Commission on September 3, 1975, and approved, subject to one change being made pertaininj to a median strip in the access drive. On motion by Councilman Thom, seconded by Councilman Sneegas, tl]e City Council approved the precise plans (Exhibit),~o. I, Revision No. 1) submitted by Anat~eim Hills, Inc., in conjunction with Reclassification i!o. 71-72-44 (14) subject to the condition that a median strip be placed in the proposed access driveway on Serrano Avenue, as approved by thc Traffic Engineer and as recom- raended by the City Planning Commission. !40TIOH CARRILD. OI~OI~'~A:~CE ~0 3463. Councilman Thom offered Ordinance No. 3463 for first read ins. At; £~RDINANCE OF TIlE CITY OF Ai.,~AI!EI:! A2IEi.,~DIi]G TITLE 18 OF TIiE At~AIIEL't ~fUNICIPAL CODE P, ELATING TO ZONING. (74-75-~2 - P~4-12OO) ORDINAi-~CE NO. 3464: Councilman Thom offered Ordinance No. 34,q4 for first reaci lng. Al; ORDIi4Ai.ICE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIi! AMEi~DING TITLE 18 OF TIlE ANAIiEI?I MUNICIPAL CODI:, REi~\TIi4G TO ZONIi~G. (71-72-44 (14) - CL-HS (SC)) RLNEWAL AGREEb~ENT WILE{ NORTtiROP SERVICES~ I:~C.: Mr. Harding reported on the recommended renewal agreement with Nortt~rop Services, Inc., to provide a resident professional to the City of Anaheim for a one-year period beginning September 12, 1975. lie outlined the following changes recommended by the City .qanager's Office: 1. Page No. 1, Line r':os. 22, 23, and 2z: - change tile amount from $16,485 to ~13,445. .0 Page No 4, Line No. ~1 - cleanse the figure of the total set price fron 545,483 to $44,445. 3. Page No. 4, Line No. 27 - change to read "replacement will be provided. This contract may be terminated by either party within 60 days' written notice being furnished by tlte terminating party". 2LS~LUTION l¢O. 75R-4~33: Councilwoman Kaywood offered Resolution l;o. 75ii-483 for adoption, authorizing the renewal agreement witi~ Northrop Services, Inc., witl; t ~e changes as recommended by the City lianager~s Office and outlined al)or e. Refer to Resolution Book. A RESOLUTION OF TIlE CITY COUNCIL OF TIlE CITY OF ANAHEIH APPROVIi~G TtiE TEPCIS Al.iD CO~[DITIONS OF AN AGREe. lENT WITH NORTIIROP SERVICES, INC. AND AUTtlORIZING TIlE :hkYCR Al© CITY CLERK TO EXECUTE SAIi) AGREEMEi~T. Roll Call Vote: AYES: COUNCIL MEIBERS: Kaywood, Seymour, Pebley, Sneegas and Thom NOES: COUNCIL M~'IBERS: None ABSE:,71': COUNCIL ME~IBERS: None The :'iayor declared Resolution ,'~Io. 75R-4~3 duly passed and adopted. STATUS OF CLEAN UP OPEP, ATION: (Complaint of illegal dumping on Grant property located on tile south side of Nohl Ranch Road, east of Spyglass Way, discussed at Council meetings of August 19 and August 2(,, 1975.) The City Attorney 75-837 City Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIl, HINUTES - September 9~ 1975~ 1:30 P.H. reported that the access road into this particular property iias been barricaded; the premises have been cleaned of various debris and the weeds cut. There are two dump trucks remaining on the site which belong to the Grant Company, and they have indicated these would be removed within two weeks, lie advised that he has attempted to contact Mr. Steve Severy, 5438 Spyglass Way, Anaheim, who originally brought this condition to the attention of the Council, but so far has been unsuccessful. They will follow up on contacting him. 7MEi'4D>IEi4T TO AGREF24ENT - GLEL~)ALE FEDERAL SAVINGS AND LOAN: (City employees Deferred Compensation Plan) Mr. Watts reported on the necessity to amend the resolution authorizing tile Deferred Compensation agreement with Glendale Federal Savings and Loan Association, nunc pro tune, to show t,+m correct deposit insurance company, i.e., Federal Savings and Loan Insurance Corporation instead of F.D.I.C. RESOLUTION NO. 75R-484; Councilman Seymour offered Resolution No. 75R-4~4~, for adoption. Refer to Resolution Book. A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF TIq[] CITY OF ANAtlEI)-! A!~i<1,1~ING RESOLUTI~)I; 75R-431, NUNC PRO TUNC, BY AUTttORI,~I,,G TI[E ~,ORRECTIO~'.~ OF TIlE DEFERRED COi,IP£NSA- TIO]~ DEPOSIT AGREEME,'fr I4121t GLEi~23ALE FEDERAL SAVIi~GS AND LOAN ASSOCIATION, ATTACHED THERETO AS EXHIBIT "B". Roll Call Vote: AYES: COUNCIL ~,I~i;i.',S: Kaywood, Seymour, Pebley, Sneegas and Thom NOES: COUNCIL ~,{E~',LBERS: None ABSENT: COUNCIL MF~MBERS: None The M~ayor declared Resolution No. 75R-484 duly passed and adoptea. 3J'iEi'~Oi~IENT TO COUNCIL POLICY NO. 401: (Autt~orizing the City Manager to engage professional or employment services.) The City Attorney reported ti~at t~ursuant to direction given by Council that an administrative procedure be establishea to process lower cost contracts for professional services, he would recommend that the City ,Manager be given the authority to bind the City for such professional or employment services included within the Budget in an amount not to exceed $500 each contract by resolution; and further tlmt the Council amend Council Policy No. 401 to read: "That professional contracts are to be approved by the City Council except those permitted pursuant to tim aforementioned resolution number. RESOLUTION NO. 75R-485; On report and recommendation of the City Attorney, Councilman Seymour offered Resolution No. 75R-A,q5 for adoption. Refer to Resolution Book. A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF TilE CITY OF ANAHEIII AUTiiORIZING TiiE CI2~f ~IANAGER TO EXECUTE CERTAIN AGREEHE~.~S FOR AWD ON BEHALF OF TIlE CITY k,~IE~ TIlE AiqOUNTS DO NOT 'EXCEED FIVE HUNDRED DOLI~RS ($500.00). Roll Call Vote: AYES: COUNCIL H~-iBERS: Kaywood, Seymour, Pebley, Sneegas and Thom NOES: COUNCIL M~IBERS: None ABSEI~: COUNCIL M~{BERS: None The bhyor declared Resolution No. 75R-4G5 duly passed and .adopted. On motion by Councilman Thom, seconded by Councilwoman Kaywood, the City Council approved amendment to Council Policy No. 401 requiring that all professional contracts be approved by the City Council except tl~ose as permitted to be entered into by the City Manager pursuant to Resolution No. 75R-455. MOTION CARRIED. 75-333 C_ity Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - September Pt 1975~ 1:30 CAi~CELLATION OF COUNTY TAXES: On motion by Councilwoman Kaywood, seconded by Councilman Pebley, the Orange County Board of Supervisors was requested to cancel County taxes on property acquired by the City of Anaheim for i~lunicipal purposes, pursuant to Resolution Nos. 75R-443 and 75R-444, recorded August 1975, as Document No. 26345, Book No. 11494, Page Nos. 276 et seq. and Document No. 26342, Book No. 11494, Page Nos. 257 et seq., respectively; Official Records of Orange County, California (park site, Santa Ama Canyon Road and Quintana Drive). MOTION CARRIED. i?Alii POLITICAL PItACTICES CO~-P,[ISSIOlq ~-[EETIi~G: The City Attorney reported, for Council information only, that there will be a meeting of tl~e Fair Political Practices Commission regarding the prohibitions contained in Proposition 9 on Sep~ember 17, 1975, and ~ha[ his office will monitor the meeting and report on ite',,~s which may be of interest to the Council. KECES:i: Councilwoman Kaywood moved for a five-minute recess. Cou~cilman Thom seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. (4:40 P.M.) AFTE[[ [iECESS: ~,[ayor Thom called the meeting to order, ail ~.~embers of the City Council being present. (4:45 P.i'f.) RESOLUTIOi~ ~'~0. 75R-486 - POWER LINE L'~SE~[Li~T AGRErJ.iEi4T: (Southern Pacific Santa Ama Branch at ~[P 507.16) Councilman Pebley offered Resolution No. 75R-4~6 for adoption. lief er to Resolution Book. A RESOLUTION OF TIlE CITY COUNCIL OF TIlE CITY OF ANAHEI~.I AUTHORIZIi~G Ai~D CITY CLEPd~ TO E~'iECUTE A~ OVERtlE~kD POWER LI~E EASEMEi~T ~d~D AUTHORIZING PA~iEi~T THEREFOR. (Southern Pacific Santa Ana Brancli at ~[P 50'7.16) Roll Call Vote: AYES: COUNCIL [~[.ti~.iBERS: Kaywood, Seymour, Pebley, Sneegas and Thom NOES: COUNCIL ME%'[BERS: None ABSEi~T: COUNCIL M~'[BERS: None The :~ayor declared Resolution No. 75R-4~6 duly passed and adopted. PROJECT A~EA CO~[ITTEE (PAC) BY-LAWS - PROJECT ALPHA: On motion by Councilman Thom, seconded by Councilman Seymour, the City Council approved the Project Area Committee (FAC) By-laws for Project Alpha as submitted by the Community Development Director. ~-[OTIOI~ CAP, RIEi). RESOLUTIOn[ NO. 75R-487 - FAI~.[ONT BOULEVARDt A.tI.F.P. :.~O. 741: Councilman Sneegas offered Resolution No. 75R-4~37 for adoption. Refer to Resolution Book. A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COU~CIL OF THE CITY OF ANANEI~-! AUTIIORIZINC ThE EXECU- TIO~ OF AN AGREEMENT WITH THE COUNTY OF Ot~A~GE RELATING TO TIlE ARTERIAL HIGHWAY FI~7~CI~.~G PROGRJD~{ FOR FISCAL YEAR 1974-75. (Fairmont Boulevard, A.H.F.P. No. 741 ~ , Roil Call Vote: AYES: COUNCIL M~BERS: Kaywood, Seymour, Pebley, Sneegas and Thom NOES: COUNCIL M~fBERS: None ASSE~: COUNCIL MFJ'[BERS: None The ?1ayor declared Resolution Mo. 75R-487 duly passed and adopted. STATUS OF tiEVISED FLOOD PLAIi~ HAZARD i, IAPS: In reply to Councilwoman Kaywood, Miss Santalahti reported that there has been no further word on the revised maps, requested by the City of Anaheim in connection with the National Flood Protection Act. COi-t-~EI~TS - YELLOW CAB SERVICES: Councilwoman Kaywood referred to a letter received by Council Members from an Anaheim citizen regarding the taxi cab service provided by Yellow Cab Co. The correspondent indicated si~c i~ad waited 75-U39 City Iiall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL I[INUTES - September 9~ 1975~ 1:3(; P.~[. one and one-half hours for taxi service from the Grand Hotel and finally used a Tustin cab service, whose charges were lower titan the usual cab fees paid to the Yellow Cab Co. Councilwoman Kaywood suggested that the subject of cab service be reviewed to determine if the City is being adequately served by having only one cab company if this one incident is indicative of cab service in general. t. layor Thom pointed out that there was also a copy of t~e communication from ti~e Yellow Cab Co. dated September 5, 1975 forwarded to the City Council whic!~ indicates that they are looking into the situation. He advised t~at there is no franchise for operation of any one cab company in Anaheim,s; tl~at other firms have applied for permits in the past, bu~ these t~ave usually been denied based on the fact that need and necessity for additional taxi cab service had not been proven. AIR QUALITY b~INTENANCE AREA - COUNTY REPRESE~,~TATIVE: Councilwoman Kaywood reported that a notice has been issued by the League of CalifOrnia Cities indicating that a representative from one city in each county should be hair, ed to serve on the Air Quality i~aintenance Area Task Force and requesting t~at names be submitted. PEARSON PARK THEATER CONTRACTOR: Mayor Thom presented a communication from A. L. Mahoney, Chairman of the Parks and Recreation Commission, indicating their discontent with the performance of the contractor on Work Order Nos. 5~9 and 844, Pearson Park Amphitheater (Ron Jones, Inc.) and requesting that the City so inform said contractor that he has exceeded his completion date by one mont~ without justifiable reason. They further recommend that a stronger penalty clause be included in future contracts to minimize this proble~'~. l~lr. Watts advised that thc City does assess liquidated damages against contractors based on a formula which is related to ti=e amount of contract price, but these are not considered "penalties" as such. fir. ~addox reported that his office is currently in discussion witi~ the contractor and will most likely make a recommendation that liquidated damages in the amount of $25 per day be assessed on calendar days from approximately August 1, 1975 to the date of completion. RECESS - EXECUTIVE SESSION; Councilman Thom moved to recess to Executive Session. Councilman Seymour seconded the motion, b~OTION CARRIED. (4:35 P.:.I.) AFTER RECESS: ~{ayor Thom called the meeting to order, all Me~nbers of the City Council being present with the exception of Councilman Pebley. (5:05 P.~[.) RIVEI~ALE PARK - SETTLE~iENT OF L~INEI{T DOMAIi~ PROCEEDINGS: Mr. Watts reported that his office has been engaged in settlement discussions of eminent domain proceedings for acquisition of land for Riverdale Park and recommends to the ~26~ 000 subject to the terms of Council a proposed settlement in the amount of ? , a letter agreement dated September 4, 1975 and signed by Mr. ~.~alcolm Slaughter, Deputy City Attorney. On motion by Councilwoman Kaywood, seconded by Councilman Sneegas, thc City Council approved settlement of eminent domain proceedings in the amount of $268,000 for acquisition of land for Riverdale Park, as outlined in the letter agreement dated September 4, 1975. Councilman Pebley absent. MOTION CARRIED. ADJOUR?C~ENT: Councilman Sneegas moved to adjourn to Wednesday, Septenbcr 10, 1975, 3:00 P.M. Councilman Thom seconded the motion. Councilman Pet~ley absent. MOTION CARRIED. Adjourned: 5:0~ P.M. ALONA M. HOUGARD, CITY CLERK By: .~ ~ .~. ~~, De pu ty