Loading...
1974/07/0974-684 City Hall~ A_naheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - July 9~ 1974~ 1:30 P.M. The City Council of the City of Anaheim met in regular session. PRESENT: ABSENT: PRESENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Kaywood, Pebley (arrived 1:40 P.M.), Sueegas and 'Seymour COUNCIL MEHBERS: Thom ASSISTANT CITY MANAGER: Robert M. Davis CITY ATTORNEY: Alan R. Watts CITY CLERK: Aloha M. Hougard CITY ENGINEER: James P. Maddox ASSISTANT DIRECTOR OF DEVELOPMENT SERVICES: Ronald Thompson ZONING SUPERVISOR: Charles Roberts PLANNING SUPERVISOR: Don Mc Daniel Mayor Pro'Tem Seymour called the meeting to order. INVOCATION: Reverend Arthur Harrington of the Trinity United Methodist Church gave the Invocation. FLAG SALUTE: Councilman Ralph G. Sneegas led the Assembly in the Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag. RESOLUTION OF ENDORSEMENT: A Resolution of Endorsement of the Orange County Fair to be held July 12 through 21, 1974, unanimously adopted by the City Council, was presented to Miss Diane Culp, Queen of the Orange County Fair. MINUTES: Minutes of the Anaheim City Council Regular Meeting held May 21, 1974 and Adjourned Regular Meeting held June 4, 1974, were approved, on motion by Councilman Sneegas, seconded by Councilwoman Kaywood. MOTION CARRIED. WAIVER OF READING - ORDINANCES AND RESOLUTIONS: Councilwoman Kaywood moved to waive the readin~ in full of all ordinances and resolutions, and that consent to the waiver of reading is hereby given by all Council Members unless, after reading of the title, specific request is made by a Council Member for the reading of such ordinance or resolution. Councilman Sneegas seconded the motion. MOTION UNANI- MOUSLY CARRIED. CONTINUED PUBLIC ~EARING - AMENDMENT TO TITLE 18~ ZONING: To consider amendments to' Title 18, Chapter 18.28, R-2 Multiple-Family Residential Zone, Section 18.28.050, Site Development Standards, Subsection (10) Off-Street Parking Requirements. Continued from the meetings of November 27, 1973 and June 2, 1974, to allow time for the hearing on the transportation element of the Environmental Protection Agency regulations and, further, to allow time to consider various changes occurring in transportation and parking habits. The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC74-133, recos,-ended the proposed amendment to Title 18, Chapter 18.28, Section 18.28.050 as set forth within said resolution, which provides for 1.5 spaces per unit with one or less bedrooms, and 2.0 spaces for units with two or more bedrooms. Hr. Don HcDaniel, Planning Supervisor, reported that the continuances aS indicated were primarily to give Staff an opportunity to review more thoroughly the proposed Environmental Protection Agency's requirements. He advised that prior to bringing this proposed amendment of the Anaheim Municipal Code back to the City Planning Counission, it was ascertained that the E.P.A. transportation control plans as they relate to parking facilities for multiple and single family residential developments were deleted. The E;P.A. still plans to regulate parking and require permits for commercial, industrial and institutional parking facilities, however, they are no longer proposing regulatory practices for multiple and single family residential parking. Councilman Pebley entered the Council Chambers (1:40 P.M.). Hr. HcDaniel noted that on visual inspection of most existing multiple family residential developments it is apparent that there are inadequacies in the current standards which provide for: 1.50 spaces per unit with two or less bedrooms; 2.25 spaces per unit with 3 or more bedrooms, 74- 685 City Hall. A-_s_heim. California- COUNCIL MrNUT~.S- July 9. 1974, 1:30 P.M. Mr. McDantel explained the survey which was taken by mailing of a questionnaire to 404 apartment units to which there were 137 responses, or 34%. The survey questionnaire indicated three areas which may account for the congestion currently seen on the streets surrounding apartment complexes; No. 1. Most of the existing complexes were developed under the old parking standards - 1.25 parking stalls per unit regardless of size of unit; No. 2. Many were built with variances from the parking requirements contained in the Code; No. 3. The questionnaire indicated that the respondents considered parking adequate for themselves but inadequate for guests. Mr. McDaniel advised that the net effect of the change proposed by the City Planning Coe~nission would be to increase the parking spaces in a multiple-family complex by approximately one'stall for each five units. In connection with this recommendation, Mr. McDantel reported that they received comments from three apartment developers, architects in this field and from Anaheim Hills, Inc., who, although not in objection to it, expressed concern that the changes in parking standards recommended would not have the effect which is anticipated, due to the fact that there may be an increase in the number of three bedroom apartment units in the near future. As housing becomes more expensive and there is less available, it is anticipated that more families will be moving into apartment complexes and for this reason they considered that a three bedroom unit may require more parking than a two bedroom unit. Councilwoman Kaywood inquired whether the parking standards as recom- mended by the City Planning Commission would provide for guest parking, to which Mr. McDaniel stated that the amendment does not provide for specific stall or areas to be designated as guest parking. Councilwoman Kaywood remarked that judging from the bumper to bumper parked car situation around most multiple-family apartment complexes, the of~ street parking is not adequate. She also was of the opinion that the three ' bedroom units require more parking. This being a public hearing, Mayor Pro Tem Seymour asked if anyone wished to address the Council in favor or opposition to the proposed amendment to Title 18 regarding off-street parking requirements; and there being no response, declared the hearing closed. Councilman Sneegas offered the ordinance as proposed and recommended by the City Planning Commission for first reading. Councilwoman Kaywood suggested that the proposed ordinance be intro- duced with an amendment to include the 2.25 parking stall requirement.per three bedroom unit or to contain some provision for parking which would be proportionate to the number of three bedroom units per complex. Councilman Seymour concurred with Councilwoman Kaywood, noting that he also feels that with the increasing costs of con.~Cruction, larger apartments will be developed to meet the needs of younger and expanding families and that he too would prefer to see a parking standard for three bedroom units which takes this into consideration. Councilman Sneegas advised that he was not convinced that the on- street parking situation is the result of insufficient parking spaces as much as it is Caused by people who would rather park in the street than use the space assigned them. Councilman Pebley inquired as to how the proposed parking standards would compare with those in neighboring cities, to which Mr. HcDaniel explained the City of Yorba Linda requires three stalls per unit regardless of the number of bedrooms and Irvtne, on the other hand, requires 1.3 stalls per unit for bachelor and one bedroom apartments and 1.8 stalls for three or more bedrooms. All other cities surveyed fall in between this range. He noted that the pro- posed amendment would place the City of Anaheim's requirements somewhere in the middle of this range. Councilwoman Kaywood proposed that the ordinance be amended to re- quire 2.25 spaces for units with three bedrooms or more. 74-686 City H~l%,. An. aheim, California- COUNCIL MINUTES- July 9. 1974. 1:30 P.M. Councilman Sneegas did not wish to amend the ordinance as offered for first reading. Council discussion ensued and it was apparent that the Council Members present were divided on the issue and therefore, on motion by Council- woman Kaywood, seconded by Councilman Seymour, the decision on amendment to Title 18, Chapter 18o28, Section 18.28.050, Site Development Standards, sub- section (10) Off-Street Parking Requirements, was held over for a full Council. MOTION CARRIED. PUBLIC H~IN~- A~ NO, 73-12A: In accordance with application filed by Earl E. E~dy, Project Manager, JED Development Company, public hearing was held on proposed abandonment of an existing slope easement located approximately at the northwest corner of Miraloma Avenue and Tustin Avenue, pursuant to Resolution No. 74~-293, 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 abandonment request. Mayor Pro Tem Seymour asked if anyone wished to address the Council; there being no response, declared the hearing closed. R~SOLUTI~NO. 74R-324: Councilman Sneegas offered Resolution No. 74R-324 for adoption approving Abandonment No. 73-12A. Refer to Resolution Book. A RKSOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM ORDERING TH~ VA_C~TION AND ABANI~H~NT OF THAT POKTION OF CgRTAIN RgAL PROI~RTY DESCRIBgD HEREIN. (No. 73- 12A) Roll Call Vote: AYES: NOGS: A~SENT: COUNCIL ~MBERS: COUNCIL MEMBE~S: COlrNCILMEMBERS: Kaywood, Pebley, Sneegas and Seymour. None Thom The Mayor Pro Tem Seymour declared Resolution No. 74R-324 duly passed and adopted. ~_~_MITS - AM~S~NT DEVICES. DINNER DANCING PLACE: On motion by Councilwoman ~aT~ood, seconded by Councilman Sneegaa, applications for the following permits were approved as recommended by the Chief of Police: 1. Application filed by Alonzo Francis ~Donald for amusement devices permit to allow one coin operated game to be placed at the Groundl Round, 230l West Lincoln Avenue, subject to Chapters 3.24 and 4.20 of the Anaheim ~nicipel Code. 2. Application filed by Robert Campregher for dimmer d~cing place perm/t to allow dancing daily from 9:00 P.M. to 2:00 A.M. a~ the Beech Bail Inn, 1215 "G" South Beach Boulevard, sub, ct to provisions.of. Chapters 3.28 and 4.16 of the Anaheim Fmntcipal Code. MOTION CARRIED. cG~r~]3~D FLNAL TRACT MAP NOS. 7946. 7947 and 7948: ARC Development Corporation, Developer; property is located at the northwest corner of Walnut Street and Cerritos Avenue; each tract contains one R-3 zoned lot. (Reclassification No. 73-74-10, Variance No. 2426). Said final maps were continued from the meeting of June 18, 197~ to allow the City Attorney sufficient time to investigate the legalities of pre- venting any further development of the project and are submitted together with reports from the City Engineer dated June 11, 1974 advising that these final maps are technically correct and in substantial conformance with the tentative maps previously approved by Council and recommending that final meps of tract Nos. 7946, 7947 and 7948 be approved. 74- 687 City Hall. Anaheim. California- COUNCIL MINUTES- July 9. 1974. 1:30 P.M.. The City Clerk submitted correspondence from Mr. Dennis G. Tyler of ILtndel & Anderson, 610 Newport Center Drive, Newport Beach, requesting that the City Council take Judicial notice of satisfaction by the owner/developer of tract Nos. 7946, 7947, 7948 of all applicable conditions imposed by the City of Anaheim to development of said tracts and advising that the owner/ developer intends to make oral request for Judicial notice as well at the Council meeting of July 9, 1974. City Attorney Watts advised that City ordinance requires the City Engineer to determine whether or not a final tract map is in compliance with the tentative map as approved by the Council. In this particular situation, Mr.. Watts noted that the City Engineer has made the determination that subject tract maps are .in substantial compliance with the tentative maps, and with the SubdivisionMap Act and local codes. Hr. Watts concluded, based on these facts, that there is not only statutory authority in the Business and Pro- fessions Code but case authority, i.e., Great Western Savings and Loan versus the City of Los Anieles, which indicates that the Council's action at this point is simply a ministerial duty. Therefore, he related that if Council were to take actions other than approval of the final tract map, such'action would be extremely difficult to defend in the event of litigation. Mr. Watts further explained that in reviewing this matter the zoning historywas also examined and the facts reveal that the City Council did in April of 19:73 grant a one year extension to Reclassification No. 73-73-10 and Variance Ho. 2426, which expired on March 19, 1974. The code provides that once a Resolution of Intent to reclassify property has expired, it is null and void and the applicant must once again commence reclassification proceed- ing8. Since chis is the case, it would appear that while the final tract map may be approved, there may not be zoning to permit development in accordance with the tract map. This determination will have Co be made by Council. Hr. Watts related that this statement reflects his conclusions on both matters and offered to answer questions. In answer to Councilwoman Kaywood, Mr. Watts advised that although this may sound like a contradiction it is actually not, as the zoning allows the use of the land for a particular purpose, and a tract map indicates the implementation of that particular use. Hayor Pro-Ten~recognizedMr. Dennis Tyler, Attorney, Kindel & Anderson, representing the owner/developer, who inquired first if this was being opened to public hearing, to which he received a negative reply. Mr. Tyler advised ChaC his remarks would be limited to the tract maps at this point, and that it is his position that these final maps (Tract Nos. 7946, 7947, 7948) do substantially comply with the approved tentative m~ps and that there are letters in the files of the City of Anaheim from the City Engineering Division which indicate Chat all conditions have been met and that the maps comply with all ordinances and with the SubdivisionMap Act and are properly before the Council at this time, and therefore, should be approved. Mayor Pro-TemSeymour called for any comments or action from the Council members, and hearing none, related his views. Councilman Seymour indicated that his opinion regards the City Attorney's report is that it demonstrates clearly chat approval of final tract maps is a ministerial function of the City Council, and if no action at all is taken by the Council on a final map within the trine period which has been extemded, the map as it conforms to the tentative is deemed approved, without fu~ther.Council action. Hr. Watts advised that this was correct. Councilman Seymour stated that it is also clear from the City Attorney's report thac the reclassification and variance approved on the property have expired as of March 19, 1974 and he personally could see no legal reason which would compel the City Council to approve an extension of either the variance or reclassification to this project. He advised that he 74,-688 CitY Hal~, Ana~ei;~, ~alifornia- COIINCIL HINU~ES- July 9. 1974. 1:30 P.M. is well aware of the possibilities of litigation which might be initiated by the ARC Development Corporation regarding the vested rights question, however, he felt in that event, that the lack of final approval or the readin~ of an ordinance to rezone the property would leave the matter inconclusive and open to adjudication and these actions have not yet taken place. Councilman Seymour pointed out that this particular development is contrary to other condomini,~ and planned residential developments throughout the City because of its higher density at approximately 18 units to the acre, whereas most of these type developments were built at 12 units t° the acre . and the recently adopted condominitan ordinance places the density at 10 units to the acre. Because of these facts, Councilman Seyamur remarked that if there is anyway to circumvent construction of the project he would be in favor of taking up 'that option. He further noted that this opportunity has been afforded the Council, via the zoning expiration, although admittedly.this is not a clear-cut method. He concluded that he would be willing to take a position against extension of the zoning or variance and withholding approval of the final tract ~aps, even though, as indicated previously, the final maps would be deemed approved regardless. Hr. Tyler stated that the variance and zoning petition are not before the Council at this time. He indicated that he was not aware that these had expired but that his opinion regarding that situation is that since the City required and granted an extension of time to the tract maps that this would entitle the developer to have zoning extended also for this same duxation. He indicated that he considered every action of the City from the initiation of Reclassification No. 72-73-10 and Variance No. 2426, to present, as increasing ARC Development Corporation's vested rights and that he felt these rights are now definitely established whether or not the zonins has expired. In this regard he related that the Council had approved precise plans for development (tiarch 12, 1974) as well as the tentative maps, and that all of the conditions imposed upon the developer have been satisfied. He further noted that he has submitted a letter to the City Attorney which indicated the substantial sums of money spe~ in reliance on official actions of the City of Anaheim. Hr. Tyler stated, although he was of the opinion that this is not the appropriate time nor place for presentation of a vested rights argument, that his client would have no alternative but to pursue their rights through litiga- tion because of the large amounts of money already invested in the project as a whole, by direct and indirect obligations. Councilman Seymour explained to Hr. Tyler that because the tentative map had been extended that does not constitute an extension of the zoning or variance since these approvals are not contained within the tract. Hr. Tyler advised that his position would be that because of the procedures adopted and employed by the City of Anaheim, tract maps, variance and reclassification petitions are dependent upon one another and because of this interrelationship and dependency, any extension of the life of the tract map would be an implied, if not expressed, extension of the reclassification and variance. Councilman Seymour pointed out that these are items which are acted upon separately; that each variance and reclassification is either granted or denied by separate resolution and tentative tract maps are approved separately by motion. Hr. Tyler replied that although approvals may occur at different steps and stages, froma substantive standpoint they are a part of the same review and approval within the development process. There is an interrela- tionship and interdependence and he related that he feels extending the life of one component extends the life of the other. Councilwoman Kaln~ood questioned the wording used in the Engineer's report concerning final maps, specifically referring to the words "technically correct and in substantial conformance." She asked if this meant there may be changes from the original approved tentative map. 74- 689 Gi~V ~-11. _i-ahetm. California- COUNCIL M~ _Fu~ES- July 9. 1974. 1:30 P.M.. City Engineer James Maddox replied that this terminolosy would re- flect only very minor changes to the final map such as a sliiht variation of a few degrees in boundaries or curvatures of roads which become evident on the final survey. He indicated that a final map could deviate as many as 4 lots more or less in a 400-lot subdivision as this would not be considered significant in a project of that size. Councilman Pebley remarked that he felt if the developer could prove that he installed certain improvements to the property (water, sewer lines, etc.) of certain capacities, depending upon the density which was approved, this would appear to him to be an important factor in his case for vested rights. Councilwoman ~ay~ood stated that a good living environment is not obtainable, in her'opinion, with a density above 6 to 10 units to the acre. She noted that in the past the Council has indicated Justification for higher densities because they felt the prices of such units would be lower and within the economic range of certain categories of people in need of this type of housing. However, she indicated that subject condominium units currently cost from $28,000 to $32,000 and there is an additional monthly maintenance fee. She stated that there was no way that she could vote in favor of this particu- lar project. Councilman Sneegas stated that this particular property and project have been the subject of numerous hearings and re-hearings and that many legal means of halting or delaying it have been explored. He noted that the decision was made more than one year ago and he would uphold that original decision by moving that the final maps, Tract Nos. 7926, 7947 and 7948 be approved, as reco~nended by the City Engineer, subject to approval of required bonds by the City Attorney. Councilman Pebley seconded the motion. On roll call vote requested by Councilman Seymour, the foregoing motion failed to car~y by the following vote: AYES: Pebley, Sneegas 'NOES: Kayvood, Seymour ABSENT: Thom Councilman Seymour moved that the City Council fecund to the City Planning Co~tssion that they initiate a review of an extension of time to Reclassification No. 72-73-10 and Variance No. 2426 and make their rec~nda- tion to the .City Council. Councilwoman Kaywood seconded the motion. Prior to voting, Councilman Sneegas re-~rked that this would result in a time delay which will drive the cost of the units in subject project higher. On roll call vote requested by Councilman Sneegas, the foregoing motion failed to carry by the following vote: AYES: Ea~ood, Sebaaour NOES: Pebley~ Sneegas Councilman Seymour moved to continue the matter for full Council. Councilwoman Kaywood seconded themotion. On roll call vote requested by Councilman Sneegas, the foregoing motion failed to carry by thm followin~ vote: AY~9~ Kayvood, Seymour NOES~ Pebl~y, Sneegas 74-690 City Hall. A~=h'im. California = COUNCIL _~/__NUTES - July 9. 1974. 1:30 P.M. In answer to Councilman Seymour, the City Attorney advised that at such time as there is a full Council any Council member who would desire to, could renew either of these motions. No further action was taken by the City Council at this time. CERtIFiCATION O~ E.I.R. NO. 119: Submitted in compliance with condition of approval for extenslon of time on Tentative Tract No. 7417 which was granted on November 20, 1973 for a period of one year. Property is located between La Palma Avenue and Esperanza Road, east of Imperial Highway. Said E.I.R. was submitted for Council certification at the meeting held May 7, 1974 and following discussion was referred back to the City Planning Commission for further consideration and inclusion of additional information regarding noise levels (railroad) and the proposals for attenua- tion thereof. The City Planning Commission at their meeting of June 24, 1974, received a supplemental report regarding noise assessment and necessary miti~ationmmasures, and reconsnends that the Council certify E.I.R. No. 119, and said supplemental material, as being in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act and City Guidelines. Councilman Sneegas moved that said E.I.R. be certified as recommended by the City Planning Co~nission. Prior to any further action on the foregoing motion, Councilwoman Kaywood indicated she wished to co~ent on the E.I.R. She noted that this particular tract map was originally approved as a tentative map in 1971 and subsequently has been granted two one-year extensions, the last being on November 20, 1973. She referred to previous explanation given by the City Manager regarding extensions of time to tract maps and remarked that she could not see how this particular tract could have been extended up to this time. Councilwoman Kaywood remarked that in her opinion the noise situation has not been solved and that it would not be possible to use a home when a train passes every 48 minutes; that section 1.03 of E.I.R. No. 119, alth~Jgh it refers to the traffic bottleneck which would be created at Imperial and La Palms and the solutions proposed for same, does not indicate whether either of these solu- tions has been approved nor at whose expense they would be built; that the RS-5000 lot sizes are not large enough for swimming pools as indicated in said E.I.I.; that no information is given regarding the vibration levels; that no mention is made of what is proposed on the northernmost 100 feet of the prop- erty at which the noise levels would not be mitigated within the acceptable range; that the drainage of the property is not resolved in that the E.I.R. . does not ~pecify at whose expense the necessary storm drain will be built; that alternatives to the proposed development were not thoroughly discussed since the report merely states the property is unproductive ,and does not mention that there are productive citrus groves in the in~ediate area. Mr. Cal Queyrel, Anacal Engineering Company, representing the Developer of Tract No. 7417, was recognized by the Mayor Pro Temand advised in response to Councilwoman Kaywood's comments, that the noise level within the proposed dwelling units would be reduced to below 45 decibels and that a block wall is proposed adjacent to the railroad tracks which will reduce the noise volume considerably. In addition, there will be a 100 foot setback from the railroad track and there will be a grade differentiation between the p~d levels and the railroad track all of which should contribute towards mitigation of the sound level. He contended that the cause of the anttctl~ted congestion at Imperial and La Palma could not be attributed to this tract but to the development of a park, and the overcrossing to relieve this situation at l~irmomt will most likely bea Joint City/County project. He reported that there are also plans to extend La Palma Avenue easterly to Join with the Weir Canyon project. 7~-691 City Hal~. A~_,~hei~, California- COUNCIL MINUTES- July 9, 19.74. 1:30 P.M.- Councilwoman Kaywood reiterated that she would not consider an 86 decibel noise level in the rear yards an acceptable living environment and, further, could not see how this noise level would be reduced to the accept- able 60-65 decibel for outdoors. Mr. Queyrel related that sound level readings taken on the property in its present state could not be applied with accuracy to the property as it would be in its developed state. Further, he stated that the train noise is similar in type to freeway noise but not as constant. At the conclusion of discussion, Councilman Sneegas restated his motion as follows: that E.I.R. No. 119 and Supplemental Noise Impact Report, having been reviewed by the City Staff and recon~nended by the City Planning Con~nission. to be in compliance with City and State Guidelines and the State of California Environmental Quality Act, the City Council acting upon such information and belief does hereby certify that E.I.R. 119 and Supplement is in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act and City and State Guidelines. Councilman Pebley seconded the motion. To this motion Councilwoman Kaywood voted "no". MOTION CARRIED. · EQUE~T - A~,~ND~_._.~T TO CONDITION- TRACT NO, 7419 - FREEWAY NQ~SE BARRIER (E.I.R. NO, 119): The City Clerk submitted request from the American National Housing Corporation for amendment to one of the conditions of approval of recorded Tract No. 7419, which requires the construction of a 6-foot berm with 6-foot wall as a freeway noise barrier along the northerly lot lines of said tract. The developer wishes, instead, to construct a 2-foot berm and 6-foot wall. Councilman Seymour moved that said request be denied. Councilwoman Kaywood seconded the motion. Mr. L. Buffington, 10532 Orangegrove Circle, Villa Park, representing American National Housing Corporation, advised that they made this request in an effort to accomplish the sound attenuation level required by the City and at the same time avoid creating what would appear to be a maintenance problem. He explained that the condition in question requires a 6-foot berm with 6-foot wall on top of same; however, the pad level for the homes is already 6 feet above the existing grade so that adding the 6-foot berm would create a 12 foot slope which would physically be located inside the property lines of each of the lots and become the maintenance responsibility of the individ- ual ,homeowners. He advised that they do intend to install gates so that the slope would be accessible to the homeowner and that these slopes would be landscaped and sprinklers installed. However, it has been proven from pre- vious experience with this situation that the homeowner is not likely to provide the necessary maintenance for a steep, 1% to 1 - 12-foot slope. He conceded that the 6-foot berm and 6-foot wall will produce the desired re- ' duction in sound level, however, he pointed out that this is just one method of attaining this level. They have employed acoustical engineers who have devised alternate methods and they would like to be able to use which- ever of these would be most appropriate for the site, however, they are tied by this condition to providing a 6-foot berm and 6-foot wall, which the City Staff seems to feel is the only solution to the problem. Mr. McDaniel responded that this condition was specifically imposed by the Council because it was recommended by the acoustical consultant for this particular company as necessary in order to attain the 65 dba sound level in the rear yards. He agreed that there are many design features which might be built into a dwelling unit itself to reduce the interior sound level, but that insofar as the rear yards are concerned, a 12-foot barrier would be necessary in order to achieve 65 dba. Mr. Buffington contended that it is difficult to establish what a sound level will actually be when the homes are constructed and outlined all of the factors which must be taken into consideration, pointing out that the freeway grade level is lower than the lot pads. He used drawings prepared by Toups En~ineeringwhich plot the actual location of the proposed homes to i11ustrate the point on these homes at which the freeway line of site intersects the buildin$. He reiterated that he would appreciate more flexi- bility than the current condition allows and that he was certain, with these 74-692 City Hall, Anaheim. California - ¢OtINCILMINUTES - July 9. 1974. 1:30 P.M. other methods, the sound engineer could still achieve the necessary attenua- tion and remain within the parameters set forth. He indicated that his primary concern would be reduction in size of the slope itself.. He stated that the subject condition was arbitrarily imposed by Council without knowledge of what other topographical conditions which might affect the sound situations are. Council discussion ensued during which Councilwoman Kaywood su~.sested that the slope maintenance problem be handled by forming a homeowner's associa- tion which would, in turn, contract a professional company to m~intain the slopes, to which Mr. Buffington replied that this particular tract is alr~ay recorded and it would be difficult to take that approach at this time. Council- man Seymour inquired whether Staff would have any objection to permittinga 12-foot barrier, composed of other than a 6-foot berm and 6-foot wall, to which they indicated no objection. Councilman Seymour explained that as far as he views the situation the City agreed to a 12-foot barrier for sound reduction, and since the results of other methods to 'achieve the necessary sound reduction are doubtful, he per- sonally would be reluctant to agree to Change or reduce this 12 foot protection. At the conclusion of discussion, Councilman Seymour withdrew his foregoing motion to deny subject request and Councilwoman Kaywood withdrew the second. Councilman Seymour moved that the developer of Tract No. 7419 be permitted to provide noise attenuation measures other than a 6-foot berm and 6-foot wall for those lots abutting the freeway, provided said noise attenua- tion measures constitute a 12-foot barrier, and are approved by Development Services Department. Councilwoman Kaywood seconded the motion. MOTION CAP~IED. CONTI3~JATION- AWARD OF COITIRACT - W~RKORDER NO. 2066: On.motion by Councilman Pebley, seconded by Councilman Sneegas, award of contract Work Order No. 2066 - Westridge Pumping Station - was continued to July 16, 1974. MOTION CARRIED. PUBLIC ~MPRO~ PROJECT: Councilman Pebley offered Resolution Nos. 74R-325 through 74R-329 for adoption. Refer to Resolution Book. RESOLUTION NO. 74R-325 - WORK.Op, D~R NO, 720,.A: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM FINDINGAND DETER- MINING THAT PUBLIC CONVENIENCE AND NECESSITY REQUIRE THE CONSTRUCTIONAND COMPLETION OF A PUBLIC IMPROVEMENT, TO WIT: THE INSTALLATION QF TRAFFIC !SI~ ~ND SAFETY LIGHTING ON KNOTTAVENUE SOt~fH OF BALL ROADATAPOLLO JUNIOR RICH SCHOOL, IN THE CITY OF ANAHEIM, WORK 0RDERNO. 720-A.; APPROV1NC THE DESIGNS, PLANS, PROFILES, DRAWINGS AND SPECIFICATIONS FORT HE CONSTRUC- TIONTH~REOF: AUTHOI~IZINC THE CONSTRUCTION OF SAID PUBLIC IMPROVEI~ IN ACCflRDA~ WITH SAID PLANS, SPECIFICATIONS, ETC.; AND AUTHORIZING AND DIHECTI~TBE CITY CLERKTOPUBLISH A NOTICE INVITING SEALED PROPOSALS FOR THE CON~TRUCTIONTHEREOF. (Bids to be opened Ausust 1, 1974, 2:00 P.M.) .I~so~N0, 7%R-3~ - WORK(3i{.DHRNO. 721-B: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY C(IINCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM FINDING .AND DETER- HINING THAT PUBLIC CONVENIENCE AND NECESSITY REQUIRE THE CONSTRUCTION AND CO~LETION OF A PUBLIC LMPROVEI~, TO WIT: THE INSTAY.?ATION OF TRAFFIC SI(INALS AND SAFETY LIGHTING AT THE INTERSECTION OF RIVERDAY.~. l%q~IE AND TUSTIN AVEI~JE, IN THE CITY OF ANAHEIM, WORK ~RDER NO. ?21-B.; APPROVING TBE DF. SI&INS, PLANS, PROFILES, DRAWINGS AND SPECIFICATIONS FOR THE CONSTRIIC- TION TH~OF: AUTHORIZING TBE CONSTRUCTION OF SAID PUBLIC IMPROVEI~ IN ACCORDAi~E WITH SAID PLANS, SPECIFICATIONS, ETC.: AND AUTHORIZING AND DIHECTI~ THE CITY CLERK TO PUBLISH A NOTICE INVITING SEALED PROPOSALS FOR THE CONSTRUCTION THEREOF. (Bids to be opened Ausust 1, 1974, 2:00 P.M.) 74-693 City Hall. Anaheim. California- COUNCIL MINUTES- July .9, 1974. 1:30 P.M.. RESOI/~ION NO. 74R-327 - WORK 01LOI[R NO,. 722-B: A RESOLUTIOH OF THE .CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM FINDING AND DETER- MINII~ THAT PUBLIC CONVENIENCE AND NECESSITY REQUIRE THE CONSTRUCTION AND COMPLETION OF A PUBLIC IMPROVE~NT, TO WIT: THE INSTALLATION OF TRAFFIC SIGNALS AND SAFETY LIGHTING AT THE INTERSECTION OF CERRITOS AVENUE AND WAI/IrOT STREET, IN THE CITY OF ANAHEIM, WORK ORDER NO. 722-B.; APPROVING THE DESIGNS, PLANS, PROFILES, DRAWINGS .AND SPECIFICATIONS F0~ THE CONSTRUC- TION THEREOF: AUTHORIZING THE CONSTRUCTION OF SAID PUBLIC IMPROVE~NT IN ACCORDANCE WITH SAID PLANS, SPECIFICATIONS, ETC.: AND AUTHORIZING AND DIRECTING THE CITY C~.k~d( TO PUBLISH A NOTICE INVITING SEALED PROPOSALS F~R THE CONSTRUCTION THEREOP'. (Bids to 'be opened August 1, 1974, 2:00 P.M.) RESOLUTION NO. 74R-328 - WORK ORDERNO. 723-B: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM FINDING AND DETER- MINING THAT PUBLIC CONVENIENCE AND NECESSITY REQUIRE THE CONSTRUCTION AND COMPLETION OF A PUBLIC IMPROVEMENT, TO WIT: THE INSTALI2kTION OF TRAFFIC SIGNALS AND SAFETY LIGHTING AT THE INTERSECTION OF BALL ROAD AND TRIDENT STREET, IN THE CITY OF ANAHEIM, WORK ORDER NO. 723-B.; APPROVING THE DESIGNS, PLANS, PROFILES, DRAWINGS AND SPECIFICATIONS FOR TIlE CONSTRUC- TION THEREOF: AUTHORIZING THE CONSTRUCTION OF SAID PUBLIC IMPROVEMENT IN ACCORDANCE WITH SAID PLANS, SPECIFICATIONS, ETC.: AND AUTHORIZING ~ DIRECTING THE CITY CLERK TO PUBLISH A NOTICE INVITING SEALED PROPOSALS FOR THE CONSTRUCTION THEREOF. (Bids to be opened August 1, 1974, 2:00 P.M.) I~$OLUTION NO. 74R-$2~ - ACCOUNT NOS. 280-462-922-01: 100-425-241: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM FINDING AND DETER- MINING THAT PUBLIC CONVENIENCE AND NECESSITY REQUIRE THE CONSTRUCTION AND COMPLETION OF A PUBLIC IMPROVE~NT, TO WIT: THE APPLICATION OF TRAFFIC STRIPE PAINT, PAVEI~NTMARKINGS AND DEVICES ON VARIOUS STREETS IN THE CITY OF ANAHEIM, ACCOUNT NOS. 280-462-922-01 and 100-425-241.; APPROVING THE DESIGNS, PLANS, PROFILES, DRAWINGS AND SPECIFICATIONS FOR THE CON- STRUCTION THEREOF: AUTHORIZING THE CONSTRUCTION.OF SAID PUBLIC IMPROVE- 1~ IN ACC0P. DANCE WITH SAID PLANS, SPECIFICATIONS, ETC.: AND AUTHORIZING AND DIRECTING THE CITY C~.~m/iTO PLMLISH A NOTICE INVITING SRALgD PROPOSALS FOR THE CONSTRUCTION THEREOF. (Bids to be opened August 1, 1974, 2:00 P.M.) Roll Call Vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: COUNCIL I~MBERS: COUNCIL MEt~ERS: Kaywood, Pebley, Sneegas and Seymour. None Thom The Nayor Pro Tem declared Resolution Nos..74R-325 through 74R-329, both inclusive, duly passed and adopted. R~SOLVIION ~0, 74R-930 - ACC0trST NO. 100-421-241-02: Upon receipt of certifica- tion from the Director of Public Works, Councilwoman Kaywood offered Resolu- tion No. 74R-330 for adoption. Refer to Resolution Book. A RESOLUTION OFT ME CITY COUNCIL OFT HE CITY OF ANAHEIM FINALLY ACCEPTING ~ COMPLETION ANDTHE FURNISHING OF ALL PLANT, LABOR, SERVICES, MATERIALS AND EQUIPMENT AND ALL UTILITIES AND TRANSPORTATION INCLUDING POWER, FUEL AND WATER, AND THE PERFORMANCE OF ALL WORK NECESSARY TO CONSTRUCT AND COMPLETE THE FOLLOWING PUBLIC IMPROVEMENT, TO WIT: THE APPLICATION OF SLURRY SEAL UPONVARIOUS CITY STREETS, IN THE CITY OF ANAHEIM, ACCOUNT NO. 100-421-241-02. (Flex-Paving and Engineering, Inc.) Roll Call Vote: 7~ 694 City Hall. A.,~,a4,,. California -, ,COUNCIL M~N~ES - .July 9. 1974. 1:30 AYES: NOES: ABSENT: COUNCIL I~MBERS: COUNCIL HEMBERS: COUNCIL ~MBERS: Kay~ood, Pebley, Sneegas and Selnsour. None Thom The M~yor Pro Tem declared Resolution No. 74R-330 duly passed and adopted. RESOLUTION NO. 7/~R-331 - _DEEDS OF EAS~NT: Councilman Sneesas offered Resolution No. 74R-331 for adoption. Refer to Resolution Book. A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM ACCEPTING CERTAIN DEEDS AND OEDERING THEIR RECORDATION. (Dunn Properties Corporation; Junia E. and Samuel L. Sosna, Jr.; Valacal Company; Donald H. Yoder; Anna Allen) Roll Call Vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: COUNCIL HEMBERS: COUNCIL I~NBERS: COUNCIL~ERS: Kaywood, Pebley, Sneegas,and Seymour. None Thom The Mayor Pro Tem declared Resolution No. 74R-331 duly passed and adopted. CANC~ION OF COUNTY TAXES - THREE PARK SITES DEDICATED BY ANAHEIHHILLS. INC.. AND 1~0~S. INC.: On motion by Councilman Pebley, seconded by Councilman Sneegas, the Orange County Board of Supervisors was requested to cancel County .taxes on property acquired by the City of Anaheim for municipal purposes pursuant to Resolution No. 74R-178, formerly assessed to Anaheim Hills, Inc./ Texaco Ventures, Inc., recorded June 24, 1974 as Document No. 22604 in ~ook 11177 at pages 1951 through 1964, Official Records of Orange County, California. MOTION CARRIED. RESOLDTION NO- 74R-}~2 - A~QVlNG TWO AC, REEI~2/TS .BETWEEN THE CITY AND $OUT~EKN .cA~LIFORNIA EDXS~ C~E~ATI~NO. 9 ~m.~ DRI~ A~RA; ~. Watts reported that in connection with the recently authorized ~inent d~in actiom to acquire electrical facilities in the ~hler Drive area fr~ S~Chern ~ltforaia Edison Co~any~ ~here are cwo proposed asre~nCs Co be entered be~een ~he City and Edison. ~e first a~eement deals wi~h ~he continsen~ possibili~y that the State may attest to i~ose sales or use t~es on acquisi~ion of these facili~ies. Edison wishes the City to enter an agree~nt stating that if any such taxes are i;osed, the City of aaheim will pay them and ~11 further agree to join with Edison to contest the legality of thtir i;ositim. ~. Watts noted that up to this time these taxes have not been assessed. The second agreement deals with the method of establishing valua- tion for the facilities involved which basically would be the reproduction costs to replace said facilities new, less depreciation. This method takes into account the possibility of removal or addition of portions of the facilities subsequent to the date of valuation, since this date and the date of transfer may not be the same. RESOLUTIOIq lg)- 74R-332: On report and recon~endation of the City Attorney, Councilman Pebley offered Resolution No. 74R-332 for adoption, authorizing · the. execution of agreements between the City of Anaheim and Southern California Edison Company regarding eminent domain proceedings instituted against Southern California Edison Company's facilities located in the Nohler Drive area. Refer to Resolution Book. A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AUTHORIZING AND DIKECTII~ THE MAYOR AND CITY CLERK TO EXECUTE CERTAIN AGREEI~NTS WITH THE SOU~ CALIFORNIA EDISON COMPANY (Condemnation No. 9 - Nobler Drive) Roll Call Vote: 74-695 City iiall. Aip~heim. California - COUNCIL~ES - July 9. 1974. 1:30 P.M. AYES: NOES: ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: COUNCIL MEMBERS: COUNC IL MEMBERS: Kaywood, Pebley, Sneegas and Seymour None Thom. The Mayor Pro Tem declared Resolution No. 74R-332 duly passed and adopted. SETTLEI~I~. OF.~.LAI1/.FOR.SE~.R DAMAGES (JACKSON): Deputy City Attorney Mac Slaughter rlported that in connection with a claim filed by Mrs. Ferne E. Jackson, 201 La Plaza, Anaheim, regarding property located at 131-135 West Broadway, for damages incurred from 1958 to 1974 in the amount of $6,054.70, purportedly as a result of improper sewer connection by the City or £ts contractor, at the discussion of the matter the claimant has agreed to compromise said claim for 'the sum of $934.15 which is the amount actually paid to the various plumbing contractors. Mrs Jackson has presented a letter indicating she agrees to compromise her claim for this sum and this was forwarded to the insurance carrier, Chubb/Pacific who have agreed to pay $500.00 of this settlement if the City will contribute the remaining $434.15. On motion by Councilman Seymour, seconded by Councilman Pebley, the City Council approved the settlement of the claim filed by Mrs. JaCkson as outlined and authorized the Finance Director to issue a warrant for the City's share of $434.15. M~TION CARRIED. ~AIHS. AGAINST ~ q~Y: The following claims were denied as recommended by the City Attorney and ordered referred to the insurance carrier on motion by Councilman Pebley, seconded by Councilman Sneegas: a. Claim submitted by Ronald H. and Lois A. Atkinson for damages to property, footings of residence separating from floor slab purportedly as a result of improper approval of plans and specifications, Tract No. 7875, damages sustained on or about June through November 1973. b. Claim submitted by Larry L. Davey for damage sustained to property and general damages purportedly as a result of action of the Anaheim Police Department regarding motorcycle on or about May 29, 1974. c. Claim submitted by S.I.C. Credit Company for losses sustained purportedly as a result of actions of the Anaheim Police Department involving a 1970 Shasta Motor Home on or about the period between Hay 8,'1974 and June 5, 1974. MOTION CARRIED. RxSOLUTION NO. 74R-333 - SECO~Y MAIN I~E~MBURS~MENT AGREE~ITf TRACT NO, 7470: Councilman Pebley offered Resolution No. 74R-333 for adoption. Refer to Resolution Book. A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM APPROVING THE TERMS ~ CONDITIONS OF A REIMBURSENENT AIIREEMENT BETWEEN .THE CITY OF AHAHEIM AND A~RICAN NATIONAL HOUSING C~RPORATION PERTAINING TO THE INSTALLATION OF A WATER SYSTEM FOR TRACT NO. 7470 AND AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR AND CITY CL~RK TO EXECUTE SAID AGREEMENT FOR AND ON BEHALF OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM. Roll Call Vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: COUNCIL MEMBERS: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Kaywood, Pebley, Sneegas and Seymour None Thom. Tl~e Mayor Pro Tem declared Resolution No. 74R=333 duly passed and adopted. C(I%RESPONDENCE: The following correspondence was ordered received and filed on motion by Councilman Pebley, seconded by Councilwoman Kayvood. a.' Department of Transportation - Report - Developing situation in the California Department of Transportation which could have a significant effect on future plans regarding transportation in the City of Anaheim. 74'-696 City H~ll. Anaheim. California- COUNCIL MINUTES- July 9. 1974. 1:30 b. City of Santa Aha - Resolution No. 74-99 - Requesting the creation of a United States District Courthouse facility in Santa Aha, California. c. City of San Juan Capistrano - Resolution No. 74-6-'19-5 - Supporting the preservation' of the Uti-California College of Medicine as an integral part of the overall medical comuamtty in Orange County. Councilwoman Kay~ood requested the Council give this item further consideration. d. Orange County Board of Supervisors - Resolution No. 74-892 - Encouraging cities to submit Arterial Highway Financing Program projects ~hich will upgrade arterial intersections ~hich have poor riding qualities. e. Before the Public Utilities Comnission - Investigation for the purpose of establishing a list for the fiscal year 1974-75 of existing and proposed crossings at grade of city streets or county roads most urgently in need of separation, or projects effecting the elimination of srade crossings by removal or relocation of streets or railroad cracks, or existing separations in need of alteration or reconstruction as contemplated by Section 2402 of the Streets and Highways Code. f. Water Division - Financial and Operating Reports for the Menth of Hay, 1974. HOTION CARRIED. 0RDIHANCE NO. 3315: Councilman Pebley offered Ordinance No. 3315 for adoption. Refer to Ordinance Book. AN (~INA~ OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AI~NDING TITLE 18 OF THE ANAHEIM HJNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO ZONING. (68-69-37(10), M-l) Roll Call Vote: AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Kaywood, Pebley, Sneegas and Seymour NOES: COU1/CIL~MBERS: None ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Thom The Mayor Pro Tem declared Ordinance No. 3315 duly passed and adopted. ORDIN~E NO, 3316: Councilman Seymour offered Ordinance No. 3316 for first readipl. AN O~DINANCE OF THE CITY OF AIiAHEIM~ING CHAPTER 1.05, SECTIOH 1.05.080. OF TRE AN~JiEIMI~JNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO DISCRI3iINATION. NO, 3317: Councilman Seymour offered Ordinance No. 3317 for first reading. AN O~DINAi~E OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM~INGTITLE 1, CHAPTER 1.04, SECTIO~ 1.04.110 A~D TITLE 13, CHAPTER 13.04, RELATING TO PARXS AND.RECrEATION. (Ney department title - Parks, Recreation, and the Arts). ORDINAIICE NO. 3318: Councilman Seymour offered Ordinance NO. 3318 for first readins. AN O~DII~CE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM A/~NDING TITLE 18 OF THE ANAHEIM HUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO ZONING. (72-73-51(7), RH-22,000) R~OLUTIOB NO. 74~'~}4 ' _A!~NDI~__NT TO AGREEI~ WITH ~ EIIC'IIC C01~! - LEWIS 2--30 KV SUBSTATI(H~ - ~,SE II: ~: On motion by Councilman Pebley, seconded by Councilman Sneegas, Council found and determined that the contract with Lord Electric Coepany for construction at the Lewis 230 XV Substation is exempt from the terms of Section 1211 of the City Charter which requires public bidding on contracts, in that it is an extension/replacement of utility facilities. NOTIOH CARRIED. RESOM~I~NO. ~4~-334: In accordance with reco~endations of the Electrical Superinte~dent and City Attorney, Councilman Pebley offered Resolution NO. 74R-33~ for adoption, amending the asreement with Lord Electric Company to include that work originally delineated at Phase II within their contract. 74-697 C£tv Hall, Anaheim. Caltfprnta- COUNCIL MINUTES- July 9, 1974. 1:30 P.M. Refer to Resolution Book. A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM APPROVING AN AMENDMENT TO ANAGREE~ITBETWEENLORD ELECTRIC COMPANY, INCORPORATED, AND THE CITY OF ANAHEIM, DATED NOVEMBER 15, 1973, APPROVING THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS THEREOF AND AUTHORIZlNG THE MAYOR AND CITY CLERK TO EXECUTE SAID AMENDMENT TO AGREEMENT. Roll Call Vote: AYES: COUNC IL MEMBERS: NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: ABSENT: ' COUNCIL ldEMBERS: Kaywood, Pebley, Sneegas and Seymour None Thom The Mayor Pro Tem declared Resolution No. 74R-334 duly passed and adopted. RESOI/ITION NO. 74R-33f - GRANT_ APPLICATION 1974 STATE BEACH. PARK. RECREATIONAL ~D HISTORICAL_ FACILITIES BONDS ACT: The Assistant City Manager reported that according to the State Department of Recreation, if the City can meet certain requirements, one being adoption of a resolution authorizing the filing of an application, the funds available through the 1974 State Beach Park Recreational and Historical Facilities Bonds Act may be forwarded from their 1974 Budget. RESOLUTION NO. 74R-335: Councilman Seymour offered Resolution No. 74R-335 for adoption. Refer to Resolution Book. A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO APPLY FOR 1974 STATE GRANT FUNDS PURSUANT TO THE STATE BEACH, PARK, RECREATIONAL AND HISTORICAL FACILITIES BOND ACT OF 1974. Roll Call Vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: COUNCIL MEHBERS: COUNCIL H EMBERS: COUNCIL~HBERS: Kaywood, Pebley, Sneegas and Seymour None Thom The Mayor Pro Tem declared Resolution No. 74R-335 duly passed and adopted. JOINT NEETING -.CITY..qO~..qIL/CITY PLANNING COHHISSION JULY 10,. 1~7%: Hr. Robert D~vis reported that the City Planning Commission has scheduled a work session for Thursday, July 18, 1974 at 7:00 P.M. and since there was some discussion at the previous Joint meeting between the Council and Planning Commission relative to an additional such meeting, this was pointed out to be an excellent opportunity to conduct same. The Planning Commission further 'indicated they will be available on that date if the Council wishes to meet. By general consent, the Council agreed to meet with the Planning Coa~aission to discuss priority projects and other matters of interest to both bodies at an adjourned regular Council session on July 18, 1974, at 7:30 P.M. ~CA~IONFROHGRAITE cOHPAI/Y OF CALIFOP, NIAREGARDINGGRADI~G~ENTATIVE TRACT . ~: Councilwoman Kaywood submitted copies of a letter dated July 1, 1974 from Nr. Donald Frederickson, Director of Engineering, Grant Company of California, which she received in answer to her request at the Council meeting of June 18, 1974 for compaction reports relative to the three filling operations performed at the site of Tract No. 8672. Also submitted was a copy of con~nunication dated June 24, 1974 from Pacific Soils Engineering to the Grant Company in which they indicate that the grading operations took place between December 1972 and April 1974 and referred to this location as disposal sites "~' and "B". This letter indicates that a project grading report viii be presented upon completion of the proposed additional grading for Tract No. 8672. 74- 698 Citw Hall. A~aheim. California- COUNCIL M!..NU~S - July 9. 1974. 1:30 P.M Councilwoman Kayvood indicated that she had requested reports om the com~action which should have been performed following each of the three fill operations and the letter submitted does not suffice. She furrier was concernmt that these locations were referred to as disposal sites "A" and "B". Tae City Ensineer reported that the first portion of this grading op~ration was conducted while the property was under County Jurisdictiom and advised that he would investiSate further to see whether sradin$ permits were issued by the City, in ~ich case a report should 'be on file in his office. Further, he assured Councilwoman Iiaywood that even if the locations were only to be used as disposal sites, compaction and gradin$' would still be required to be performed in a proper manner. No further action was taken by the City Council. AD. J~: Councilman Pebley moved to adjourn. Councilwoman Kalmood seconded the motion. NOTION C~RIED. Adjourned: 3:25 P.M. City Clerk