1974/07/1674-6~9
City Rail. ~n ,ah~im~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - Jul~ 16~ 1974~ 1.:~0 P.M.,
The City Council of the City of Anaheim met in resular session.
COUNCIL HEMBERS: Kaywood, Pebley, Sneesas and Seymour
COUNCIL MEMBERS: Thom
CITY MANAGER: Keith A. Murdoch
CITY ATTORNEY: Alan R. Watts
CITY CLERK: Alona M. Housard
FINANACE DIRECTOR: M. R. Rinser
PERSONNEL DIRECTOR: Garry HcRae
CITY ENGINEER: James P. Maddox
ADMINISTRATIVE ANALYSIS: William Butcher
PLANNING SUPERVISOR: Don McDaniel
Nayor Pro Ten Seymour called the meeting to order.
I.NVOCATION: Reverend Paul Keller of the First Presbyterian Church save tbs
Invocation.
FLAG SALUTE: Councilwoman Miriam ~ayvood led the Assembly in the Pledge of
Allesiance to the Flag.
RE~),~U~ON OF CONGRATULATIONS: A Resolution of Consratulationa for the ~J~mthetm
California Sun" on the occasion of their first home same at Analmt~
Stadium on July 17, 1974 was unanimously adopted by the City Councii.
MINUTES: Councilman Seymour requested that the Minutes of June 4, 1974, pa4~ 74~$12.
second paragraph, chat portion which reads "cost benefit study, that the
Zon~ has not met the need of supplyins more" insert lover priced stn~la-f~y
units.
Minutes of the Anaheim City Council Regular Meeting held June &, 1974
approved ~rlth the amendment shown above, on motion by Councilwosmn
secemled by Councilnan Sneegas, NOTION CARRIED.
WA~F~R 0~. P~DING - ORDINANCES AND R~SOLUTIONS:, Councilman Sneesas, moved to waive
the readins in full of all ordinances and resolutions, and that consent Co the
waiver of readin$ is hereby seven by all Council Members unlesS, after rea~le~ of
the title, specific request is made by a Council Member for the readia~ of ~mch.
orgi~ance or resolution. Councilwoman Kayvood seconded the mtion. BOTI1X[
UNAHIHOUSLY CARRIED.
~ ~ FI.~CIAL DEMANDS AGAINST THE CITY: Demands against the City in aha of $2,980,471.90, in accordance with the 1974-75 Budget, were approved.
PUBLIC ,H~ARXNG - HOUSENOVING PERHIT: Application subnitted by G. Fronseca, requo~Ing
permission to move a structure from 3630 West 17th Street, Santa Ann, to 1619
Pounders Lane, Anaheim, was reviewed by the City Council, together with report
of the Development Services Department recommending said per. it be granted.
Mr. Don McDaniel reported that the proposed location of subJeet m~m-om
is bounded on the south by an Edison easement and to the vest, north and ~aet b~
siqle-family residential units. The Applicant proposes to move-on a factory
built-modular type building which will require some building nodificacioas to
bring it up to Code. The Buildins Division report indicates it will be co~qmttbla
with the existing structures in the surrounding area. There are existing mw ed-
on structures in that area, the nearest being across the street at 161&'Pouaders
At the request of Councilman Seymour, photographs of the proposed move-
on structure were distributed for Council review.
Nayor Pro Tam Seymour asked if anyone wished to address the Council
favor or in opposition to the proposed housemoving.
Hr. Ja~es Walther, 1776 West Cris Avenue, advised that he lives
300 feet of 1619 'Pounders Lane and submitted for Council review photo~ra~ of
sub, oct location as mil as of the previou~ ~ove~ etmt~t~ V~Lo~ ~t~
74-700
City Hall~ Auaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - July 16~ 1974~ 1:3o P.M.
poor state of ~aintenance. He advised that he went to view the proposed move-on
at 3630 ~est l?th Street, Santa Aha and was unable to determine which of several
structures was the one proposed for move-on onto this location.
Mr. Walther stated that in his opinion and in that of his neighbors,
the existing ~ove-on is not compatible with the remainder of the neighborhood and
furthermore it is a rental property and although the responsibility for mainte-
nance is ultimately that of the o~ners, the condition of this property is not very
satisfactory at this time. He displayed photographs of the adjoining homes, which
he remarked illustrate that the move-on structures are not compatible. In addi-
tion to the photographs he presented a petition signed by 23 residents and o~raers,
representing 13 individual property addresses in the area.
In answer to Councilman Pebley, the City Attorney concurred that
Chapter 15.32 of the AnaheimMunicipsl Code sets three separate conditions forth
which Cov~cil must find exist before it may grant a housemoving permit, one of
these being that less than 50% of the people in the immediate area (which is
uniformly defined as within 300 feet, i.e., that area to which notices are mailed)
object tO said housemoving.
At the request of Council, the City Clerk checked the names shown on
the petition against the mailing list, which contained 28 names and addresses
(One mailing being returned) and advised that three names which were on the peti-
tion are not listed in the file as the owners of record, last equalized assessment
rOlls.
Councilman Sneegas advised that he would not favor decision on a house-
moving being contingent upon the number of signatures which can be collected with-
out the Applicant having an opportunity to present his plans. He noted that cer-
tainly a house on blocks in preparation for removal is considerablY different in
appearance from the finished product. He remarked that he would favor a continu-
ance at this point to allow the Applicant an opportunity to produce some plans
and to discuss these with his potential neighbors; and also to perhaps demonstrate
financial, physical and intellectual ability to complete his proposed project since
sometime good intentions are not followed through in these situations.
Further Councilman Sneegas strongly urged that the City adopt a policy
whereby each time an individual applies for a housemoving permit he be supplied
with.a COpy of the applicable ordinance, so that he will be informed that the
approval or disapproval of residents within 300 feet of the proposed location will
be a prt~e factor in making the determination, since he felt this. would clear up
manymisunderstandings.
Councilman Seymour concurred that a continuance of the matter would be
in the best interests of all parties involved, since it would also allow the
opposition, should they,after seeing Mr. Fronseca's plans still wish to continue
their objectiOn, time for collecting additional signatures.
Mr. 'Basil Melior, 1618 Humor Drive, cited the property values in his
nei~hborhOod as another reason that subject move-on would not be compatible. He
produced photographs'of the homes on either side of the proposed move-on location
which he~felt demonstrated that the particular house in question could not be
Justified as being compatible.
. ; Councilman Sneegas advised that he did not think the Council should be-
toms concerned vith thearchitectural styling of a proposed, move-on, if this is
Mr. Mellor's concern and reiterated that the finished house would look consider-
ably different than the home in its present state.
At the request of Council, Mr. Fronseca and Mr. Walther exchanged ad-
dreeses amd telephone numbers in preparation to meet and discuss Mr. Fronseca's
plams for finishing of the proposed move-on.
The photographs submitted for review by the Council were returned to
their respectiveovners.
C°Uncil~u Snee.~s moved that action on the house~oving permit to move
a structure from 3630 West l?th Street, Santa Aha to 1619 Pounders Lane, Anaheim,
7A-701
C.ity ~11~ Anahel~ California - COUgCTL MINUTES - July 16~ 197,4~. 1:30
be continued to the meeting of July 23, 1974 to alloy the Applicant tt~e to meet
~ discuss his project with the area residents. Council~o~an Kay~a~d e~co~ed
t~ motion. NOTION CARRIED.
~,,P~LZG~]I~i~,I~ - REC~SIFZCATION NO. 73-74-$8~ VARIANCE NO. 2603,AND,,.ENVI~AL,
ACT_i.I~ NO. 126: Application filed by Howard Budlong and Joe Naag, requesting
a change in zone from R-A to R-1 and the following Code waivers to construct a
60-lot single-family subdivision on property located northerly of Nohl Ranch Road
a~d south of the southerly termini of Solomon Drive and Leandro Street, was sub-
mitred together with E.I.R. No. 126:
a. Minimum side yard setback of a 6-foot high block wall on reversed
corner lot.
b. Ninimum loc width on a cul-de-sac. (Withdrawn)
c. Minimum lot width. (Withdrawn)
The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC74-117,
recommended that the City Council certify the draft E.I.R. No. 126 as in compli-
ance with the California Environmental Quality Act and State Guidelines and
further recommended approval of Reclassification No. 73-71-58 to the R-1 Zone
subject to the following conditions:
1. 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.
2. That the owner(s) of subject property shall conditionally dedicate
to the City of Anaheim a strip of land as required for the future extension of
a fifty-four foot (54') wide street from the intersection of Leandro Street and
"A" Street to the south tract boundary, includi~ necessary standard property
lime radii; and said conditional dedication shall be conditioned upon the need
for a street as determined by the City of Anaheim.
3. That the owner(s) of subject property shall pay to the City of
A~&h~im the appropriate park and recreation in-lieu fees as deter~Lned to be
appropriate by the City Council, said fees to be paid at the time the building
pezlit is issued.
4. That fire hydrants shall be installed and charged as required and
determined to be necessary by the Chief of the Fire Department prior to c~nce-
meat of structural framing.
5. That all lots within Chis tract shell be served by undersround
utilities.
6. That all air-conditioning facilities shall be prOperly shielded
fronview and the sound buffered from adjacent properties.
7. Prior to the introduction of an ordinance, rezonin~ subject prop-
erty, Condition No. 1, above-mentioned, shall be completed. The provisions or
rights granted by this resolution shall become null and void by action of the
City Council unless said conditions are complied with withi~n one year fro~ the
~te hereof, or such further time as the City Council may Irant.
8. That Condition Nos. 2, 5, and 6, above-mentioned, sh~l be complied
~rith prior to final building and zoning inspections.
9. That prior to issuance of building permits for subject property,
mtietin$ structures shall be demolished and severs capped under permit by tho
Buildtn~Division.
The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. ~C74-118,
Famted Variance No. 2603 in part only, waivers '%" and "c" havinsbeenvtth-
draum, subject to the following conditions:
1. That this variance is granted subject to the completion of
~claesification No. 73-74-58.
2. That subject property shall be developed substantially in
4~a~with plans and specifications on file with the City
Nos. 1 (p~visiou 1), 2 (~vision 1), and 3 through 2&.
Also submitted was report from the City En$inear recommmndin~ tlmt
Condition No. 2. as recommended by the City Plannin8 Gomiesiou for Reclaeei£i~ca-
ttoueo. 73-74-58 be amended aa follows:
74-702
City Hall, An&heim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - July 16~ 1974~ 1:30
2. That the owner(s) of subject property shall conditionally dedicate
to the City of Anaheim a strip of land as required for the fUture extension of a
54-foot (54') wide street to extend southerly from "A" Street east of the pad for
Lot No. 36 to the south tract boundary including necessary standard property line
radii.' Said conditional dedication shall be conditioned upon the need for the
street as determined by the City of Anaheim.
Mr. Don McDaniel described the location of subject 17.4 acre parcel and
indicated that the surrounding land uses and zoning include vacant R-A property
to the south and single-family residential property to the north, west and east.
The Applicant is requesting reclassification from the R-A to the R-1 Zone and this
would be within the Scenic Corridor Overlay Zone as well, to'develop a subdivision
revised to 57 lots of single-family homes. Mr. HcDaniel explained that two of the
original requested waivers were withdrawn by the Applicant upon submitting his
revised plans for 57 lots and waiver "a" was approved by the City Planning Commis-
sion.
'Mayor Pro Tem Seymour asked if the Applicants were present and satisfied
with thereco~mendations of the City Planning Commission and whether he wished to
address the Council.
Mr. Lewis R..Schmid, 1681Langley Street, Irvine, indicated he would defer
any pres~mtation at this time and respond to questions.
Mayor Pro Tem Seymour asked if anyone either in favor or in opposition
to the project wished to address the Council.
Mr. Judd Smith, 263 Hillcrest Street, indicated the location of his home
on the plot plan and advised that he wished to continue his arguments in opposi-
eisa to the project, which were previously presented at the Planning Commission
hearing. Mr. Smith stated that subject property is quite scenic.and contains
several productive orange and avocado trees as well as a eucalyptus wind break
which he vould dislike to see removed.
From a practical standpoint he stated that the subject property woUld
require a maSsive grading operation to Create the pads necessary for 57 homes.
He pointedout that all of the people whose homes face this property will sustain
a loss of both intrinsic and aesthetic value to their property as a result of this
subdivision.
Mr. Smith referred to the low density designation for the hill and canyon
area on the General Plan, and the fact that traffic and schools were supposed to
be provided in a planned, orderly and systematic way as the canyon development pro-
ceeded, however this does not appear to him to be the case. He stated that he and
his neighbors have no objections to development in Anaheim Hills, they believe it
is a beautiful place to live, and can remain so if areas are used for development
which are practical and could be developed with less grading and fill. Mr. Smith
stated that he concurred with one of the Planning Commissioners who felt this
particular property to be more suitable for R-H-22,000 development. In conclu-
sion, Mr. Smith asked if it would be possible, shouli~:~ouncil decide to approve
thel-1 Zone, that the developer be asked to stipulate to leaving the eucalyptus
trees.
Councilman Pebley remarked that in looking at the map and the developer's
proposal he could not see any reason to deny the project, in that he is not asking
for any variances and the i~_ediate surrounding area is all zoned R-1. Further
he was of the opinion that some of the new residents would not be pleased with
eucalyptus trees if they were to put pools in rear yards.
· Hr. Lewis R. Schmid advised in connection with the productive trees on
Subject proPerty,.that the owners no longer consider this a productive orchard
since the yield has fallen from a previous 1,200 boxes to 200 this year, and this
is largely due to theft. Hr. Scbmid advised that there is a third street planned
which will provide access into the development from the park area onto Nohl Ranch
Road. He contended that this property is not as deep as some other areas in
Anahetm Rills and they do not feel it will require a massive grading, operation.
He advised that this project has the lowest density proposed in the immediate area
and they have mat with all of the R-1 site development standards including the
7k-?03
City !~1. An~h~t~m California - COUNCIL HINUTES - July
7,200-square foot lots. With regard to the eucalyptus trees, he advised that
tbsy do vish to save these if possibIe and viii make every effort to retain as
~y of them a8 they can.
Councilwoman Kaywood pointed out that Page No. 18 of B.I.R. No.
l~dicates that all of the eucalyptus trees viii be re~oved.
Hr. Schmid advised that it is not possible to stipulate or commit to
retainin~ any particular number of eucalyptus trees at this points that it rtl1
n~t be known how many they can retain until the grading plans are finalized~aud
tberefore~they could make no prior commitment in this regard.
Councilwomen Kayvood further referred to a tract in Yorba Ll~h.~b~llt
by Schmid Construction Company which is currently having problems with si~kins
f~otin~s and asked Mr. Schmid how he intends to assure that no such probl~lll
oe~ur in this proposed development.
Hr. Schmid advised that they hire consultant soil specialists and
I~olosists and perform grading in accordance with their recomaendations and under
stringent city inspection and control.
Nayor Pro Tem Seymour called for any further co--uts pro or con from
the public; there being no response, declared the hearing closed.
C~IFICATION OF ENVIRONHENTAL IKPACT REPORT NO. 126: On motion by Councilman
S~as, seconded by Councilman Pebley, E.I.R. No. 126 havin~ been revised by
th~ City staff and recommended by the City Planning Commission to be ia cmpli-
aace with City and State Guidelines and the State of California lnviro~ntal
Q~tity Act, the City Council acting upon such information and b~lief does bereby
certify that E.I.R. No. 126 is in compliance with the California Envirom~ntal
Q~lity Act and City and State Guidelines. To this motion, Councilvoman ~almood
'v~ted 'no'. NOTION CARRIED.
R~O.~JTIONNO. 74R-336: Councilman Pebley offered Resolution No, 7&R-336 for
adoption, authorizing the preparation of the necessary ordinance, chan~ln~ the
sene as requested, subject to the conditions recommended by the City Planning
C~ssion, with amendment to Condition No. 2, as recommended by the City
~ar and set forth above.
Refer to Resolution Book.
A~E~oLUTIoN OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE ClTY OFANAIIEIH FI~DINGANDDETERMINING
lq~! TITLE 18 OF THE ANA~IHHUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO ZONING SNOULD BE d~DED
A~ I~AT YRE BOUNDARIES OF CERTAIN ZONES SHOULD SE CNAN~ED, (73-74-$~ - R-l)
Prior to votin~ on the foregoing resolution, Councilman Seymour
e~lained that he concurs with Hr. Smith's counts regarding the eucalyptus
tt~es an4 would also desire to see as many of' these retained as is possible,
lhsrthar he r~-~rked that he also felt it vould be unfair to the ovners of subject
p~oparty to deny this zone as they do have the risht to develop their property.
Councilvoman [ayvood sugsested since the Sch~id Construction Co. any
h~ experienced problems in the Yorba Linda area vhich is close and vhich has
s~lar soil that very strict inspection of the grading on subject project be
~r£Otl~d, and, if possible, additional bonds be required co insure soil sci-
blintZ.
Roll Call Vote:
AYES: COUNCIL N~B~RS: Eayvood, Pebley, Snee~ ~d Seymour
'NOES: CO0~IL N~NBERS: None
A~SR~T: COUNCIL NE~BERS: Thom
The Nayor Pro Tem declared Resolution No. 74R-336 duly passed and
~4~ted.
-.V33__~7! Councilmen Pebley offered Resolution NO. 7~1-337 for
ariance No. 2603, subject to the conditious recoumuded by
t~ City Piannins Commission. '
74-704
City Hall~ ~..heim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - July 16t 1974~ 1:30 P.M.
Refer to Resolution Book.
A ~ESOLUTION OF TME CITY COUNCIL OF TRE CITY OF ANAHEIM GRANTING VARIANCE NO.
2603.
Roll Call Vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
Kaywood, Pebley, Sneegas and Seymour
None
Thom
The Mayor Pro Tam declared Resolution No. 74R-337 duly passed and
adopted,
.TE~fATI~ M~P, T~ACT NO.'8679, .REVISION NO. 1 (RECLASSIFICATION NO. 73-74-58,
VAB/ANC~.NO. 2603, ENVIRONMENTAL IM~ACT REPORT NO. 126): DeveloPer, Schmid Con-
struction Company; property located northerly of Nohl Ranch Road, south of the
southerly termini of Solomon Drive and Leandro Street; containing 57 proposed
R-1 zoned lots.
The City Planning Commission at their meeting held June 10, 1974,
approved said tentative map subject to the following conditions:
1. That the approval of Tentative Map of Tract No. 8679, Revision 1,
is granted subject to the approval of Reclassification No. 73-74-58.
2. That the owner(s) of subject property shall conditionally dedicate
to the City of Anaheim a strip of land as required for the future extension of
a fifty-four foot (54') wide street from the intersection of Leandro Street and
"A" Street to the south tract boundary, including necessary Standard property
line radii; and said conditional dedication shall be conditioned upon the need
for a street as determined by the City of Anaheim.
3. That should this subdivision be developed as more than one subdivi-
sion, each subdivision thereof shall be submitted in tentative form for approval.
4. That all lots within this tract shall be served .by underground
utilities.
5. 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.
6. That street names shall be approved by the City of Anaheim prior to
approval of a final tract map.
7. That drainage of said property shall be disposed of in a manner
satisfactory to the City Engineer. If, in the preParation of the site sufficient
gr~tng t8 required to necessitate a grading permit, no work on grading will be
pez~itted between October 15th and April 15th unless all required off-site
drainage facilities have been installed and are operative. Positive assurance
shall bm provided the City that such drainage facilities will be completed prior
to Octob~ lSth. Necessary right-of-way for off-site drainage facilities shall
be dedicated to the City, or the City Council shall have initiated condemnation
proceedi~s therefor (the costs of which shall be borne by the developer) prior
to the commencement of grading operations. The required drainage facilities
shall b~ of a sise and type sufficient to carry runoff waters originating from
hisser properties through said property to ultimate disposal as approved by the
City gn~l$~ar. Said drainage facilities shall be the first item of construction
and shall be completed and be functional throughout the tract and from the down-
str~ bomadary of the property to the ulttmte point of disposal prior t° the
issuance of any final building inspections or occupancy permits. Drainage district
reisaburs~ent asremaents may be made available to the developers of said property
upon their request.
8. 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
poz~it is issued,
9, 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-
merit of structural framing.
10.. That grading, excavation, and all other construction' activities
shall be conducted in such a manner 8o as to minimize the possibility of any silt
originating from this project being carried into the San~a Ama. River by storm
water originating from or flowing through this project.
74-70..5
c ty callfornSa - CO CZL zmr Es- July l: O
AlSo submitted vas report from the City Engineer recommending that
~d ~mnc~ approve Tentative Hap, Tract No. 8679, the 'rolls.nE an~ndment
to CO~dttion No. 2 and two additional conditions 'be imputed upon said approval:
2. That the owners of subject property shall' conditionally dedicate
tO t:]~ City of Anahaim a strip of land as required for th~. future axtension of
m fifty,four foot (54') wide street to extend southerly from 'A" Street east of
L~me Rd for Lot 36 to the south tract boundary including necessary standard
~ty linm radii. Said conditional dedication shall be conditioned upon the
M for the street as determined by the City of Anaheim.
11. That a homeowners' association shall be established for ~Tract No.
M79 and that the association be charged with the responsibility, among others,
of maintaining all slopes in the tract including thc slope along the south side
of #A' Street vest of Leandro Street. Prior to approval of the final tract map
the applicant shell submit to the City Attorney for approval or denial a complete
mpeis of the operating corporation, including but not limited to the articles
~rporation bylaws, proposed methods of management, bonding to insure
maintenance and such other information as the City Attorney may desire to protect
the City, its citizens, and the purchasers of the project.
12. Approval of the tentative map of Tract No. 8679 does not constitute
approval of the proposal to place embankment on the City-owned parcel to the
mouth of the tract at Leandro Street as indicated on the map. Approval must be
ob.t&inad from the Parks and Recreation Department and the City Engineer prior
tO any grading on the City-owned parcel.
On motion by Councilman Sneegas, seconded by Councilman Pebley, Tenta-
tive Nap, Tract No. 8679, Revision 1, was approved subject to the recommendations
of the City Planning Commission with amendment to Condition No. 2 as recommended
by the City Engineer and further subject Condition Nos. Il amd 12, as racom-
ambled by the City gnginaer and set forth above. NOTXON
Councilwoman hyvood offered one further comment regarding the predic-
t~-~ that a world, food shortage will occur in the futare', an~ urged, that
efforts be put forth towards changing the State's tax assessment practices
. ~t a~ricultural lands that are productive can rein' in food p~tuction.
~Zl~. RIARX~G - RECLASSIFI.CATION NO: 73-74,59, V.Alt! NO. 2608, CONDITIONAL USE
~[.~.'? 147.1 ~ KNVXRONMENTAL IN~ACT REPORT NO. 120:. -Application filed by Henry
'i~..'~ Bthel C. Del Giorgio, requesting a change in zone from H-A to R-H-10,O00
adad for certain Code waivers to permit the keeping of .horses on 27 lots, less
thsn o~m acre in size and to' establish a S-unit planned residential development
tt he used as a model home .complex With sales office for a 99-u~,tt tract on prop-
arty lOcated southerly of Santa Ana Canyon Rued, east of Imperial Highway, vas
~tted together with E.I.R. Ho. 120 and Tentative Tract NO.. 8560, Which is
ee~Bprl~md of 96 proposed R-H-lO,000 zoned lots.
Yh~ City Plaunin~ Commission, pursuant to Resolution NOs. PC74-119,
1~74-X20 mhd PC74-111 denied Reclassification No. 73-74-59, Variance No. 2608
eld Comd/tiommX Uso Permit NO. 1471, respectively. Within&mid resolutions,
tiaa City Planning Commission did recomend that the City Coumcil certify to having
~ and considered the information containad in Environmental Impact. Report
BB~' .lis mad Ch~t maid film1 E.X.R. be cer~ified as in compliance wi~h the
~BLtfozti8 hvironmmutal Quality Act and State Guidelines. Further, at their
~B~t~ hold June 10, 1974, the City Planning Commission disapprovad Tentative
Map, Tract ~o. 8560.
Tom City Clerk submitted a telegram addressed to the City Council from
I~rbmrt and Judith Brohn, 21275 No~ter Drive, in opposition to Reclassification
II~. 73-74-59.
'The City Clerk further advised of commmicmti°u received frcm Hr. Eugene
L Puller of the McCarthy Company indicating .that they wished to withdraw Tenta-
tive Tr&ct 1%o. 8560 and gnvironaental Impact Report NO, 120 and terminate a11
proemodin~s under Roclmesification No.73-74-59, Variance No. 2608 and COnditional
Uso Permit No. 1471.
74-706
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - July 16~ 1974~'1:30 P.M.
On motion by Councilwoman Kaywood, seconded by Councilman Sneegas, the
City Council accepted the notice of termination of Reclassification No, 73-74-59,
Variance No. 2608 and conditional Use Permit No. 1471, submitted by the Applicant
and further allowed withdrawal of E.I.R. No. 120~and Tentative Tract No. 8560.
MOTION CARRIED.
PUBLIC ~I~G. - RECLASSIFICATION NO. 73-74-60~ VARIANCE N0. 2611: Application by
Phyllis I. Branson,, Wilfred Donald Gibbons and Margaret glizabeth.$haffer for a
change in zone from R-A to R-3 and the following Code waivers to construct a
12-unit, 3-lot apartment complex on property located at the northwest corner of
Savanna Street and Knott Avenue, was submitted together with request for :exemp-
tion from the requirment to prepare an environmental impact report:
a. Maximum building height within 150 feet of the R-A Zone.
b. Minimum building setback adjacent to'a primary highway. :
c. Minimum landscaped setback adjacent to a local street.
The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No, PC74-122,
recommended that subject project be declared, exempt from the requirement to pre-
pare anenvironmentaltmpact repOrt pursuant to the provisions of the California
gnviromneutalQuality Act and further recommended that Reclassification No.
73-74-60 be approved, subject to the following conditions:
1. That approval of this reclassification is granted subject to the
petitioner requesting termination of Reclassification No. 6.4-65-78 and Conditional
Use Permit No. 664 on the subject property.
2. That all engineering requirements of the City of-Anaheim, along
Knott ttreet and Savanna Street including preparationof improvement plans and
installation of all improvements such as curbs and gutters, sidewalks, street
gradingand paving, drainage facilities, or other appurtenant work shall be com-
plied with as required by the City Engineer and in acco.rdancewith standar& plans
and specifications on file in the Office of the City Engineer; that street light-
ing facilities along Knott Street and Savanna Street shall be installed as
required by the Director of Public Utilities and in accordance with standard plans
and specifications on file in the office of the Director of Public Utilities; and
that a bond in an amount and'form satisfactory to the City of Anaheim shall be
posted with the City to guarantee the installation of the above-mentioned require-
mants.
3. That the owner(s) of subject property shall pay to the City of
Anaheim the sum of 60¢ per front foot along Knott Street and Savanna Street for
tree planting purposes.
4. That trash storage areas shall be located as required by' the Sani-
tation Division and provided in accordance with approved plans on iile with the
Office of the Director of Public Works.
5. That fire hydrants shall be installed and charged as required and
determined to be necessary by the Chief of the Fire Depart~aent prior to co~aence-
ment of structural framing.
6. That subject property shall be served by underground utilities.
7. In the event that subject property is to be divided for'the purpose
of sale, lease, or financing, a parcel map to record the approved division of
subject property shall be-submitted to and approved by the City of Anaheim and then
be recorded in the office of the Orange County Recorder.
8. 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.
9. That a perpetual easement between the separate parcels providing
for vehicular circulation shall be submitted to the City Attorney's Office for
review and approval; then be filed and recorded in the office of the Orange County
Recorder.
10. That completion of these reclassification proceedings, is contingent
upon the granting of Variance No. 2611.
11. Prior to the introduction of an ordinance rezoning subject property,
Condition Nos. 1, 2, 3, 7 and 9, above-mentioned, shall be complied with prior
to the time that the building permit is issued, or within a period of one year
fro~ date hereof, or Such further time as the City Council~ay grant.
12. That Condition Nos. 4 and 6, above-mentiOned, shall be complied with
prior to final building and zoning inspections.
74-707
City ~_~_la ..~.-~!..ei~.a C~.~ifornia - COUNCIL HINUTES - July
~e C~ty Pla~S ~t88ton, purauan~ to Reool~ion ~. PC74-123,
~d Va~e~. 2611, ~bJecC co ~ foll~ug
1. Tb~t this variance is ~ranted subject to the petitioner requesting
tez~htation of bclaseification No. 64=65=78 and Conditional Use Permit Ho. 664.
2. That this variance is granted.subject to the cO~letion of
ib~eL~eification No. 73-74-60, nov pending.
3. That subject property shall be developed substantially in accor-
~ ~rith plane and specifications on file with the City of Anaheim marked
Ik~hibtt N~s. l, 2, 3, 4 and 5.
Hr. Don NcDau~el briefed the location of subject R-A zoned property
me ~mll as the surrounding zoning and land uses. The AppLicants are requesting
the change in-zone to perm/t construction of a 12-unit apartment complex on three
t~lividual lots. This ~ould be contained in three four-plex structures. He
Z~ie~ed the requested waivers and advised that the Planning Com~ission did recom-
~d ttmir approval as well as the reclassification and variance.
Hayor Pro Te~ Seyswur asked if the Applicant or his Agent were present
mad satisfied with the recom~ndations of the City Plannin~ Co~nission.
Hz. James Roe, 11821 South Pounds, l~ittier, representing Hr.
C[~t~, advised that he was satisfied and corrected a statement made reBard-
t~ front setback, indicating that a 9.5-foot setback to a levy all is proposed.
advised that he ~ould defer from presentation but remain available for ques-
Hayer Pro Te~ Seymour asked if anyone either in favor or in opposition
~iehad to address the Council.
Hrs. Jane Todd, 3620 Savanna, advised that she ~as not exactly in oppo-
sition but ~r~shed to inquire as to why an environ~ental impact report is not
rt~l~tred with this application.
Hr. Don HcDaniel explained that the Development Services Department
h~s a 20 point questionaire which all zoning applicants cmaplete. This ques-
tionaire is then reviewed by the Development Services Depar~ent, E.I.R. Review
C~ttee and Planning Camisoles, ~ho have all in this instance recommended that
the project be declared exempt from the envirmmental i~pect report requirement.
Councilman Seymour added that a property is normally eXempt from filinB
if the project is not considered to have a "si~n~ficant" impact on the
~ronm~t, and in order to be si~nificant usually it ~ould have to be sizable.
N~yor Pro Te~ Seymour asked if anyone else'wished to address the
C~ncil, there being no response, declared the hearing closed.
Conncil~man Eay~ood pointed out that in~ofar as this particular zonin~
action ~ay have the effect of forcing similar l-3 d~elo~nt on the re~ininB
14 ~cel8 to t~ west of subject pro~r~y, t~t c~ld be construed as a "siln-
lfl~nt' ~act as it wuld c~e the area to a hi~her d~sity use.
- - -~ ,--_ --~ INF~ -T NEGATIVE DECLARATION:_ On~otion by Councilman Sneegas,
by council~an Pebley, the City Council finds and detemines that this
~11 have no sigificant effect on the environment and is therefore
from the requirement to prepare an environmental i~pact report. D~OTION
-- U~ION ~O. 74a-338:' C°Uncil~an Pebley Offered Resolution. No. 74R-338 for
~Ption, authorisin$ the preparation of the necessary ordinance, changing the
sons as requested, subject to the conditions recoeeeaded by the City Planning
l~fer to iesolution Book.
& ~[~OLUTION OF ~ CIT~ COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ~i-RE~ FII~DING AND DETERNINING
TITLE 15 el TRE iliABE~ ~ICIPAL CODE REL~TII~ TO Z~I~ SHOULD BE AHENDED
1'BAT THE B(KIBDAIIES OF CERTAIN ZONES SHOULD BE CHANGED. (73-74-60 - R-3)
74-708
Cit7 Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - July 16~ 1974~ 1:3'0 P.M.
Roll Call Vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
COUNCIL 'MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
Kaywood, Pebley, Sneegas and Seymour
None
Thom
The Mayor Pro Tem declared Resolution No. 74R-338 duly passed and
adopted.
RESOLUTION NO. 74R-339: Councilman Pebley 'offered Resolution No. 74R-339 for
adoption, granting Variance No. 2611, subject to the conditions recommended by the
City Plannning Commission.
Refer to Resolution Book.
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM GRANTING VARIANCE NO.
2611.
Roll Call Vote:
AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS:
NOES: COUNC IL MEMBERS:
ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS:
Kaywood, Pebley, Sneegas and Seymour
None
Thom
The Mayor Pro Tem declared Resolution No. 74R-339 duly passed and
adopted.
TERMINATION - RECLASSIFICATION NO. 64-65-78 AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 664: Request
by Arthur C. Christensen for termination of Reclassification No.-64~65-78 and
Conditional Use Permit No. 664 in compliance with Conditions NO. 1 of City Plan-
ning CO~ission Resolution Nos. PC74-122 and PC74-123, reco~e~ding approval of
Reclassification No. 73-74-60 and Variance No. '2611, respectively, was submitted.
RESOLUTION NOS. 74R-340 AND 74R-341: Councilwoman Kaywood offered Resolution Nos.
74R-340 and 74R-341 for adoption, terminating all proceedings in connect:ion with
Reclassification No. 64-65-78 and Conditional Use Per~i.t NO.. 664.
Refer.to Resolution Book.
~LUTION NO, 74R-340 - TERMINATING RECLASSIFICATION NO. 6.4-65-78: A RESOLUTION
OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIMTERMINATINGALL PROCEEDINGS IN CONNEC-
TION WITR RECLASSIFICATION NO. 64-65-78.
RESOLUTION NO. 74R-341 - TERMINATING CONDITIONAL USE p_l~M_lT ~O.. 66&: A RESOLUTION
OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM TERMINATING ALL PROCR~INGS IN CONNEC-
TIO~ WITH CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 664, AND DECLARING R~SOLUTION NO. 65R-147
NULL AND VOID.
Roll Call Vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
COUNCIL MEHBERS: Kaywood, Pebley, Sneegas and Seymour
COUNCIL MEMBERS: None
COUNCIL HEHBERS: Thom
The Mayor Pro Tem declared Resolution Nos. 74R-340 and 74R-341 duly
passed &nd adopted.
CONTINUED ENVIRONNENTAL IMPACT REPORT NO. 128 (TENTATIVE _TRA~CT NO. 7422): Submitted
in corm&trion with an extension of time for development of Tentative .Tract No.
7422, which consists of 87 single-family homes zonedRS-5000. Said l;I.l, was
originally submitted for Council consideration at the m~eting of July 2, 1974
and continued to alloy the City Planning Commission an opportunity to review
supplemental information regarding noise mitigation measures and because of
additional concern -_m~_ng some Council Members regarding six- to ten-foot setbacks
and low income subsidized housing.
The City Clerk advised that the recmmendation frma the City Planning
Commission on July 2, 1974 was that said E.I.R. was nOt inco~pliance withthe
California Enviromaental quality Act and State Guidelines and therefore should
not be certified as same.
74'~709
City. . H~l.~ j . .Anaheim~ California. - COUNCIL MINUTES - July 16 } 1974 } 1: 30 P.M.
~r, Don ~cDaniel reported on the additional information requested by
Council on July 2, 1974, regarding six- to ten-foot setbacks, that 30% of the
bom~ within Tract No. 7422 are proposed to have six- to ten-foot setbacks.
F~r.ther he reported that there is not low income subsidized housing proposed
for this tract.
Hr. NcDaniel advised that the number of homes proposed in Tract No.
?&22 increased from 85 to 87 as a result of the addition of a piece of property
8dJotnin~ the tract which was the subject of a boundary dispute and was subse-
q~JenCly purcheoed by the developer of this tract. He further noted that subse-
q~d~C tO discussion of the supplement regarding noise mitigation measures the
Pl~miing Coumission, on July 8, 1974, did recommend that I.I.R. No. 128 and the
Supplement thereto, are adequate and in compliance with the California Environ-
mental Quality Act. Further the City Planning Commission recoumended that
ohou~ Council wish th~ 15-foot noise barrier as stipulated to by the developer,
that this be made an additional condition of approval of Tentative Tract No.
7&22.
In answer to Councilwoman Kayvood's query, as to whether a 15-foot
high wall was suggested rather than a berm and wall combination, Hr. HcDaniel
explained that the suggeption was for a 15-foot barrier only, but that the
developer uould prefer to use the wall treatment without ber~, since he would
lose 25 to 40 feet horizontally from the subdivision if he were to construct
the e~rthen berm. ~
Councilwoman Kayvood remarked that any hole or break in such a barrier
would destroy the desired noise attenuation to be derived therefrom. Further
she indicated that a iS-foot vail is not an aesthetically pleasing prospect and
that no mention has been made of mitigation of the severe vibration which would
occur with the passage of 15 trains during the hours of 10cO0 p.m. and 7:00
a.m. She further inquired as to how the addition of a 21-foot piece of property
could provide enough space for the developer to add two lots.
Hr. Jack Hall, Civil Engineer, representing Maurer DeVelopment Company,
e~pLained that the additional strip of property referred to is 21-feet wide,
but ~O0-feet lon~. He advised that the lots adJacen~ to the railroad track
are 120-feet deep, which put the houses themselves 101 feet from the rails and
this should handle the vibration problem. He related that the grade level of
the railroad track as it adjoins subject property differs from six to seven
£~et at one end and eight to nine feet at the other end above the property line
aud this Proposed 15-foot wall would obscure the I'ine of vision of the train.
Due to the fact that Councilwoman Kay~ood had further concerns regard-
the noise levels and their effects on subject property, Hr. Hill offered
services of Dr. John Hilliard of Bio-Acoustical Engineering Corporation for
MJditional information.
Councilwoman Kay, sod asked Dr. Hilliard if 70 decibels is the minimum
level which could be attained in the rear yards with a IS-foot well.
Dr. Rilliard explained that the noise level is 85 decibels at 100
~eet ~rou the train tracks. A barrier such as a wall would provide one decibel
rede~tiou per foot above six feet, at level bases. In Chis instance, the train
track is above the grade level of the lot pads and therefore a line of sight
~ aatablisbed at five feet, six inches from the pad elevation and eight feet
freu the train tracks; and in order to attain a 15 decibel reduc~ion, the wall
or barrier must meet this line of sight point. They have detertined, according
to their contour map tha~ the wall proposed would bring the noise level down to
70doeibels at the exterior of the homes and in order to achieve the required
45 dba inside with windows and doors closed, they had to include additional
Mi. attenuation moures such as six-inch insulation in the ceiling, As a
result of these additional measures he reMrked that they are on the conservative
side of a 25 dBA reduction indoors in the first row of houea. The noise level
aC tho second ray of ho~es would he influenced by the shadow effect of the
first row, and because of distances and other factors the sound level is not
slOnificanc pest chis point.
Counciluoman Kayvood observed that 65 dBA at the property line is the
requirement con~ained Within the City of Anaheim Code.
74-710
City Hall~ Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - July 16, 1974~ 1:30 P.M.
In response to Councilwoman Kaywood, Dr. Hilliard advised that although
65 dBA is more desirable, 70 dBA is used as an L-10 figure by many organizations
such as the Federal'Highway Department. He further explained that there is
currently a conversion in progress in that the Environmental Protection Agency
(E.P.A.) is preempting HUD and other agencies from the noise regulation field;
that with the measures proposed this property is approaching 65 dBA and it
would be difficult, impractical and uneconomical to achieve any further reduction
in sound level above a 15-foot barrier.
He further explained regarding breaks, gates or holes in the proposed
barrier'that they would recommend that any gates be the equivalent of one-inch
plywood and be overlapping. He indicated that it is necessary to use material
with three pounds surface density per square foot for such barrier.
Mr. Hall advised that the developer intends to construct the wall
adjacent to the railroad property line and subsequently there will be no openings
in the wall to the railroad track.
Dr. Hilliard assured Councilman Seymour that the recommendations of
Bio-Acoustical Engineering Corporation will permit the project to meet the
standards of HUD.
In further answer to Councilwoman Kaywood, Dr. Hilliard explained
that it would be extremely difficult to detect a sound level one or two decibels
higher or lower, that it would take at least ten decibels before the average
person would describe the noise as two times as loud or soft. He further noted
that there is no positive identification of any permanent health problem connec-
ted with noise levels below 85 decibels according to the March 1974 Environ-
mental Protection Agency report. In conclusion, Dr. Hilliard explained that
according to a directive released last week by the E.P.A., the railroads must
decrease noise emitted by six decibels within a four-year period.
Council discussion regarding effects of noise on individual health
ensued during which Councilman Sneegas pointed out that noise tolerance levels vary
with individuals; soma being able to function very well in circUmstances of higher
noise levels. Councilwoman Kaywood stated that there are examples of increased
heartbeat, pulse rate and irritabilty under higher noise level condition and
Dr. Hilliard advised that there is not sufficient evidence to be concerned to
that point.
CERTIFICATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT NO. 128: On motion by Councilman
Pebley, seconded by Councilman Sneegas, E.I.I. No. 128 and addendum thereto,
having been reviewed by the City staff and recommended by the City Planning Com-
mission to be in compliance with City and State Guidelines and the State of
California Environmental Quality Act, the City Council acting upon such informa-
tion and belief does hereby certify that E.I.R. No. 128 and addendum are in com-
pliance with the California Environmental Quality Act and the City and State
Guidelines, further that the following condition of approval be imposed on Tract
No. 7422:
"That a noise barrier be constructed along the railroad right-of-way
and home insulation measures be incorporated, as specified in the report from
Bio-Acoustical Engineering Corporation dated June 27, 1974 and the accompanying
sketch."
To this motion, Councilwoman Kaywood voted 'bo". MOTION CARRIED.
Councilwoman Kaywood remarked Chat in her opinion 30% of the tract
having six- to 10-foot setbacks is ridiculous and certainly not flexible.
AMUSEME~f DE~ICES PERMIT: Application filed by Eva L. Fedrick for Amusement Devices
Permit to allow two coin operated pool tables at Jack's Rec Room, 801 North Loafs
Street, was submitted and granted, subject to provisions of Chapters 3.24 and
3.20 of the Anaheim Nunicipal Code, as recommended by the Chief of Police, on
motion by Councilwoman Kaywood, seconded by Councilman Sneegas. HOTION CARRIED.
74-71L
C~ty ~le Aaahei~, California - COUNCIL HINUTBS - July 16v 1974t 1:30 P.M.
CI. TY ~~ ~SSI~ IT~: Actions ~a~n by the City Plaming C~ssion at
t~r ~t~ ~ld June 24, 1974, pertain~g to the follo~n~ applica~ions were
· ~ted for City Co~cil info~ion and considera~ion:
l,i' .v~~ .~. 2alO, ~I~~a ~ ~,~. I2~. (~A~I~ ~CT NOS.
~}.l ~ISI~ ~. i~ ~}6~ ~ISIO~ ~. 3}: ApPll~tlon b~ ~~ ~ills, Inc./
T~ Ventures, Inc., for the follo~ini Code ~ivers to ~nstruc~ a ~ ~racc
11-1o~ R-1 su~ivision on R-A zoned proper~y located on ~Ch sides of ~nyon Rim
~, east of Nohl ~nch ~ad, vas submitted together ~ith E.I.R. No. 129 (Supple-
~ ~o ~ster E.I.R. ~. 80):
b.
lot. (Withdrawn)
c. Requirement that lots front on a dedicated street.
d. Minimum lot width on a cul-de-sac.
e. Mint~u~ rear yard setback.
f. Mini~ma lot area.
g. Minimum lot width.
Requirement that single-family structuresrear oM an arterial highway.
Maximum fence height in side setback area ofreversed corner
(Withdrawn)
Councilnan Seymour requested that the records show that he has a busi-
nUl withMr. Rogers of Westfield Development Company, acting' as. sales and escrow
apt for certain of his projects, and therefore he would n~ither'discuss nor vote
on those matters. He asked Councilman Sneegas to assume the Chairmanship of the
~ting and left the Council Chambers. (3:15 P.M.)
Councilman Sneegas advised that he has purchased a home from the West-
field Development Company, not in this particular tract, and requested a ruling
the City Attorney as to whether or not this constitutes a conflict of
The City Attorney ruled that the purchase of a home is a transaction
of such Ordinary event that this would not be deemed an investment or business
interest on Councilman Sneega8* part with Hr. Rogers or the Westfield Development
Co~qmny, and therefore would .not be deemed a conflict under the State or City
Code of Ethics.
Councilman Sneega8 assumed Chairmanship of the maeting.
The City Planning Comission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC74-128,
re~emi~! that E.I,R. No. 129, supplementary to ~ascer. E.I.R. No. 80 be certi-
fi~ as in co~pliance with the California Environ~en~al Quality Act and State
G~Idelinas and further granted Variance No. 2610 in part only, ~aivers '%" and
'eU hav~~~t~r~~ denying velvet "S", subject to .conditioa~.
CE~IFICATIONOF ENV!RONM~TAL IMPACT REPORT NO. 129: On~otion by Councilman
Percy, seconded by Councilman Sneegas, E.I.R. No. ~29, supplementin~ Nester
E.I.R. No. 80, having been reviewed by the City staff and race,ended by the City
Plannin~ Commission to be in compliance with City and State Guidelines and the
State of California ~nvironmental Quality Act, the City Council acting upon such
lnfot~ation and belief does hereby certify thatE.I.R. No. 129 is in compliance
with the California Environmental ~uality Act and the City and State Guidelines.
Councilwoman Kay~vod inquired as to how many of the lots within these
t~o tracts are proposed to have six- to ten-foot setbacks to which Hr. Rogers
replied from the audience that there are none proposed.
The City Council took no further action on Variance No. 2610.
TIIrLTIvE ~ NOS' 8455, IEVISION NO. ~ ~ 8~56t IEVlSIOH Np. ] ~~CE NO
2~.._ ~?~~-~. ~ ~kY'. ~. 129}: (~ tentative tracts sh~ on the
~ to[ether ~th Var~e ~. 2610 ~re ~s. ~55, Revision No. 3 and 8156,
~ol~ ~. 2, ~ich ~re deni~ by the City Pl~i~ ~asion, ~d the City
Cl~ call~ att~ti~ to the fact t~t the Pla~i~ ~ssi~ ~d sub~quently
r~ ~ ~r~ kio~ ~e, i ~ 3 of ned tracts r~cCi~ly, ~d
~ ~ w~ ~~~ for ~~ c~sid~r8~i~ f~Ch~ ~ ~ ~ ~enda,
74-712
City Hall, A~aheim~ California -'COUNCIL MINUTES - July 16~ 1974~ 1:30 P.M.
and these therefore were considered at this time.) Developer, Westfield Develop-
ment Company; property located on the north and south sides of Canyon Rim Road;
Tract No. 8455, Revision No. 4 contains 37 proposed RS-5000 zoned lots;~Tract
No. 8456, Revision No. 3 contains 34 proposed RS-5000 zoned lots.
The City Planning Commission at their meeting held July.8, 1974,
approve4 Tentative Map, Tract No. 8455, Revision No. 4 subject to the foil°wing
conditions; and further, recommended that an ordinance be read 'for RS-5000 zoning
instead of R-2 zoning (71-72-44):
1. That the approval of Tentative Map of Tract No. 8455 (Revision No.
4) is granted subject to completion of Reclassification No. 71-72-44 and Variance
No. 2610.
2. That should this subdivision be developed as more than one subdivi-
sion, each subdivision thereof shall be submitted in tentative form for approval.
3. That all lots within this tract shall be served by underground
utilities.
4. That a final tract map of subject property shall be submitted to
and'approved by the City Council and then be recorded in the Office of the
Orange County Recorder.
5. That any proposed covenants, conditions and restrictions shall be
submitted to and approved by the City Attorney's Office prior to City Council
approval of a final tract map and, further, that the approved covenants, condi-
tions and restrictions shall be recorded concurrently with the final tract map.
6. That street names shall be approved by the City of Anaheim prior
to approval of a final tract map.
7. That prior to filing the final tract map, the applicant shall
submit to the City Attorney for approval or denial a complete synopsis of the
proposed functioning of the operating corporation, including but not limited to
the articles of incorporation, bylaws, proposed methods of management, bOnding
to insure maintenance of common property.and buildings, and such other informa-
tion as the City Attorney may desire to protect the City, its citizens, and the
purchasers of the project.
8. 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.
9. That a 6-foot high, decorative, openwork wall shall be constructed
at the top of the slope adjacent to Canyon Rim Road on Lot Nos. 1, 18, 19and
37, except that said wall may be reduced in height to 42 inches in the front
portions of these lots. Plans for said wall shall be submitted to the Planning
Co~mission or City Council for approval prior to apProval of the finaltract
map. Reasonable 'landscaping; including irrigation facilities, Shall be installed
within the slope areas of each lot adjacent to the rOadway and in the uncemented
portion of the arterial highway parkway the full distance of said wall. Plans
for said landscaping shall be submitted to and subject· to the approval of the
Superintendent of Parkway Maintenance. Following installation and acceptance,
the property owner(s) shall assume responsibility for maintenanCe of said
landscaping to the lot lines, and the City of Anaheim shall assume the responsi-
bility for maintenance of the landscaping in the Canyon Rim Road parkway.
10. That the vehicular access rights, except at street and/oralley
openings to Canyon Rim Road, shall be dedicated to the City of Anaheim.
11. That drainage of said property shall be disposed of' in a manner
satisfactory to the City Engineer. If, in the preparation of.the site sufficient
grading is required to necessitate a grading permit, no work on grading will be
permitted between October 15th and April 15th unless all required off-site
drainage facilities have been installed and are operative. Positive assurance
shall be provided the City that such drainage facilitieswtll be completed
prior to October 15th. Necessary right-of-way for off-site drainage facilities
shall be dedicated to the City, or the City Council shall have initiated condemna-
tion proceedings therefor (the costs of which shall be borne by the developer)
prior to the commencement of grading operations. The required drainage facili-
ties shall be of a size and type sufficient to carry runoff waters Originating
from higher properties through said property to ultimate disposal as approved
by the City Engineer. Said drainage facilities shall be/the first-item of
construction and shall be completed and'be functional throughout the tract and
from the downstream boundary of the property to the ult/~ate.point of disposal
prior to the issuance of any final building inspections or occupancy permits.
Drainaga district reimbursement agreements may be made available to the developers
of said property upon their request.
]
74-713
City Hallt A~.ahein~ California - COUNCIL NI__W0TES - July 16~ 1974~ 1:~0 P.M.
12. That grading, excavation, and all other construction activities
shall be cOnducted in such a manner 8o as to minimize the possibility of any
silt ortginattn~ from this project being carried into the Santa Ann River by
store water originating from or flowing through this project.
13. That fire hydrants shall be installed and charged as required and
d~Cernined to be necessary by the Chief of the Fire Department prior to commence-
nent of structural franingj
14. That a naximum 20 scale plot plan showing all on-site improvements
i~cluding save overhang and proposed location of air-conditioning equipment be
eubec[ttad for buildinA permits.
15. That prior to approval of the final tract nap, the petitioner shall
sake sane provision, acceptable to the City Council, for landscaping and mainte-
nance of the slopes within and/or created by the development of this property.
16. That final floor plans and elevations for each phase of development
ski1 be submitted to and approved by the Planning Conunission and City Council
prior to approval of the final tract map.
The City Planning ComLtssion at their meeting held July 8, 1974,
approved Tentative Nap, Tract No. 8456, Revision No. 3, subject to the following
conditions; and further, reconmended that an ordinance be read for RS-5000 zoning
i~tead of R-2 zoning (71-72-44):
1. That the approval of Tentative Nap of Tract No. 8456 (Revision
~o. 3) is granted subject to completion of Reclassification No. 71-72-44.
2. That should this subdivision be developed as nors than one subdivi-
sion, each subdivision thereof shall be submitted in tentative form for approval.
3. That all lots ~rlthin this tract shall be served by underground
utilities.
4. That a final tract nap of subject property shall be submitted to
a~d approved by the City Council and than be recorded in the office of the
Orange County Recorder.
5. That any proposed covenants, conditions and restrictions shall be
sub~itted to and approved by the City Attorney's Office prior to City Council
approval of the final tract map and, further, that the approved covenants, condi-
tions and restrictions shall be recorded concurrently with the final tract nap.
6. That street names shall be approved by the City of Anaheim prior
to approval of a final tract nap.
7. That prior to filing the final tract nap, the applicant shall
sulmtt to the City Attorney for approval or dental a complete synopsis of the
proposed functionln~ of the operating corporation, including but not limited to
the articles of incorporation, bylays, proposed nethods of nanage~ent, bonding
to insure maintenance of coe~n property and buildings, and such other Informa-
tion aa the City Attorney nay desire to protect the City, its citizens and the
purchasers of the project.
8. That the owner(s) of subject property shall pay to the City of
A~h~lm 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
p~tt is issued.
9. That a6-foot high, decorative, openwork wall shall be constructed
at the top of slope adjacent to Canyon Rim Road on Lot Nos. I thru 6 and along
tbs slde lot line of Lot No. 1 at least to the rear corner of the house on said
lot. Plans for said wall shall be submitted to the Planning Comntssion and
City Council for approval prior to approval of the final tract nap. Reasonable
La~dscaphg, Including irrigation facilities, shall be installed within the
sle~e are&a of each lot adjacent to the roadway and in the uncemented portion
of the arterial highway parkway the full distance of said wall. Plans for said
Iandscapin~ shall be submitted to and subject to the approval of the Superinten-
de~tt of Parkway Natntenance. Following installation and acceptance, the property
ov~r shall assume responsibility for uintenance of said landscaping £o the
lot lines,, and the City of Anaheim shall assuee the responsibility for nainte-
naeca of the landscaping in the Canyon Rim Road parkway.
10. That vehicuhr access rights, except at street and/or alley
opemim~s, to Canyon Rim goad shall be dedicated to the City of Anaheim.
11. That drainage of said property shall be disposed of in a manner
utiafactory to the City Engineer. If, in the preparation of th· site sufficient
&"~ is required to necessitate a grading permit, no york on grading will be
pe~attted between October lSth and April 15th unless all required off-site drain-
ap f~cilities have been installed and are operative. Positive assurance shall
be provided the City that' such drainage facilities rill be completed prior to
74-714 ,
Cit7 H~ll, Anaheim} California - CouNCIL MINUTES - Jul7 16, 1974~ 1:30 P.M..
October'lSth. Necessary right-of-way for off-site drainage facilities shall be
dedicated to the City, or the City Council shall have initiated condemnation
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 En$ineer. Said drainage facilities shall be ths first item of construction
and shall be completed and be functional throughout the tract-and from the down_
stream boundary of the property to the ulttmAte point of disposal prior to the
issuance of any final building inspections or occupancy pet~aits. Drainage dis-
trict reimbursement agreements may be made available to the developers of said
property upon their request.
12. That grading, excavation, and all other construction activities
shall be conducted in such a manner so as to minimize the possibility of any silt
originating from this project being carried into the Santa Ana River by storm
water originating from or flowing through this project.
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 commence-
merit of structural framing.
14. That prior to approval of a final tract map, the o~ner(s) o.f subject
property shall make irrevocable offer to dedicate an easement for riding and
hiking trail purposes over that portion of subject property over ~hich the Four
Corners Pipe Line Company has an easement for pipe line and incidental' purposes
on the date of this resolution. Said offer to dedicate shall be irrevocable for
a period of t~enty (20) years and may be accepted by the City of Anaheim at such
ti~e 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 shall be
recorded concurrently vrlth the final tract map.
15. That a minimum 20 scale plot plan showing all on-site improvements
includi~ cave overhang and'proposed location of all air~conditioning equip~ent
be sub~itted for building permits.
16. That the precise location of the public access easement to the prop-
erty to the north of subject tract shall be determined and sho~n 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-mainte-
nance of the slopes vrlthin and/or created by the development of this property.
18. That final floor plans and elevations for each phase of development
shall be submitted to and approved by the Planning Co~mission and City Council
prior to approval of the final tract map.
Councilwoman Kay~ood noted that there is a finding regarding Tentative
Hap, Tract No. 8455, Revision No. 4, that the easterly cul-de-sac street will
terminate at the top of the slope overlooking t~o lots which would be 45 feet
below grade, and that this would create a hazardous condition. She indicated
that she wished a condition added to the approval of this tentative tract require-
lng a safety barrier to be constructed by the developer at the termination point
of this street, subject to approval by the City Engineer and Development Services
Department.
Hr. Rogers, Westfield Development Company,'stipulated that they did
intend to construct such safety device.
On motion by Councilman Pebley, seconded by Councilmo~an Kaywood, Tenta-
tive Hap, Tract Nos. 8455, Revision No. 4 and 8456, Revision No. 3, were approved
subject to the conditions recommended by the City Planning Coeeaission with the
~ldition of the following condition to the approval of Tentative Tract No. 8455,
Revision No. 4:
17. .That a safety device approved by the City Engineer and Development
Services Department' be constructed at the terminus of the easterly cul-de-sac
street within Tract No. 8455, Revision No. 4.
MOTION CARRIED.
Councilamn Seymour returned to Council Chambers a~d resumed Chaimanship
of the ~eetins. (3:20 P.M.)
74-715
CitY.Hal,',.l~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - July 16~ 1974., 1:30 P'N.
2.. V.~IIANCE NO. 2613 (ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT NO. 123}~: Submitted by Duns
Properties, Inc., Co construct an office building Co serve the seneral public
on I(-1 sound property located on the west side of Magnolia Avenue, north of
~ Palms Avenue with Code waivers of:
a. Naximum height of block wall.
b. Permitted uses in the M-1 Zone.
c. Kinimum building setback from arterial highway.
d. Minimum distance between free-standing signs. (Withdrawn)
e. Naximum number of free-standin8 signs. (Withdrawn)
f. Location of free-standing sign. (Withdrawn)
· The City Plannning Commission, pursuant to ReSolution' No. PC74-131,
granted Variance No. 2613 in parc only, waiver "d", "e" and "f" having been
withdrawn, subject co conditions.
The City Clerk advised that E.I.R. No. 123, having been subuiCced in
couJu~¢tion with Reclassification No, 73-74-55 was certified by the City Council
aC the meeting held June 25, 1974.
Councilwoman Kaywood expressed the opinion, ~hat no waivers from the
unde~grounding requirements of the Code should be granted.
Ho further action vas taken by the City Council.
3..:, V~RIAHC~. HO. 2572 - CLARIFICATION PLANNING CO~O~ISSION I~TION: Inquest for
cl&rification of Planning Commission action as Specified in Planning Counission
Resolution No. PC74-5, permitting the expansion of an existing non-conforming
building (a residential structural in the C-1 Zone being used for commercial
purposes). Property is located ac the southwest corner of Ball Road and Empire
S~ree~ ·
The City Planning Commission by motion, determined ~hat the exls~in$
therapy and massage parlor is not in conformance with the incest of VarianCe
No, 2572 and if the said use is Co be continued, a ney variance petition would
be required.
The City Council took no further action on Variance,No. 2572.
4.~ CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 1463 - RELOCATION OF SIX-FOOT .HIGH BLOCK WALL:
ae~es~ fOr approval ~o relocate a six-fo°c high bl°ck wali~ f~oTM ~he nOrtheast_
erly property line of subject property Co the curb line of the Southern Pacific
Railroad Right-of-Way, adjacent Co Mable S~reeC. Property is located on the
so~th side of Mable Street and on the north side of Broadway, eas~ of Loafs
Street, zoned M-1. Said conditional use permit was approved to permit the
co~tinuation and expansion of an existing non-conforming coacracto-r's storage
yard.
The City Planning Commission by motion, determined thac said request,
as proposed, was not within the intent of ~he original approval of Conditional
Use Permit No. 1&63 and would, therefore, require a public hearing.
The City council took no further action on Conditional Use Permi~ No.
1463.
~ .. AND
~ .' COnDITIOnAL USE PERMIT NO[ 1111 - APPLICATION FOR. NECAT VE DECLARATION
.- -- FO~ ~$ION OF TIME: ApplicaCion for Negative Declara~ion and request
for oas-year exZension of chae for Conditional Use Permit NO. 1111 (action on
exte~ion of tt~e withheld pending outcome of the Negative Declaration fro~
E.hK applica~ion) on properzy located southeas~ of ~he inCer~ec~ion of. Ka~ella
Av~ue and SCats College Boulevard, proposed for development of a 50-unit motel.
The City Plannin$ 'Commission recommends co the City Council Chac the
subject project be declared exempt from the requirement co prepare an environ- '
~tel i~pacC report, pursuant Co the provisions of ~he California e. nvironmenCal
· L IMPACT - NEGATIVE DECLARATION: On motion by Councilwoman Kaywood,
seeem~ed by Cotmcil~an Sneegas, the City Council finds and determines thac chis
project will have no significant effect on the enviro,~ant and is exempt from
the require~ent Co prepare an environmental impact report; and .further granted
oas-year extension of than retroactive co November 20, 1974, expirin~ November 20,
197&. NOTION CARRIED.
74-716
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - July 16, 1974, 1:30 P.M.
6. GRADING PERMITS - 445 PERALTA HILLS DRIVE; AND INDUSTRIAL BUILDING, NoRTWR&ST
CORN~...F~ ANAAND LA PALMA: Applications for Negative Declaration Status from
the requirement to prepare an environmental impact report relative to the follow~
ins grading permits were submitted, together with recommendations from the City
Planning Commission that both of these projects be declared exempt from the requtr-
ment to prepare an environmental impact report pursuant to the provisions of the
California Environmental Quality Act:
Grading permit to cut a pad for single-family home on R-E zoned property
at 445 Peralta Hills Drive.
Grading permit in connection with the construction of an industrial
building to be located on R-A zoned property located at the northeast corner of
Fee Aha Street and'La Palma Avenue.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT - NEGATIVE DECLARATION: On motion by Councilwoman Kaywood,
seconded by Councilman Seymour, the ~ity.Council finds .and determines that the
grading permits for the projects abo~e-mentioned will have no Si~mificant
effect on the environment and are therefore exempt from the requirement to ,.
prepare environmental impact reportsl MOTION CARRIED.
7. AMENDMENT TO TITLE 18 - ZONING:
the AnaheimMunicipal Code which wou2
use permit for the construction of a~
and industrial zones.
Om motion by Councilman Se'
amendment to Title 18 was scheduled
P.M. MOTION CARRIED.
8. TE~?ATIVEMAPS~ TRACT NOS. 8511t
NO. 73-74-62, VARIANCE NO. 2612~ ENV
NO. 1): Owmer, The WilliamLyon Com
Imperial Highway, northwesterly of tf
Imperial Highway; Tract No. 8511 cont
No. 8707 containing 26 proposed RS-5~
On motion by Councilwoman
action on Tentative Maps, Tract Nos.
to be considered in conjunction with
No. 2612 and E.I.R. No. 107, Revisiol
9. TFA~TATIVE MAP, TRACT NO. 7918
NO. 1247: Owner, Woodbine Corporatic
Avenue, east of Nohl Ranch Road; cont
On motion by Councilman Sey
on Tentative Map, Tract No. 7918 was
with Variance No. 2601 and Environmen
REPORT - REVISION TO HILLSIDE 'GRADING ORDI
mmut Services Department - Planning D
Emgineering Division regarding revisi
submitted for Council consideration,
revisions be set for public hearing o
the developers and e~ineers in the a
that staff can make appropriate revis
Communication from Amaheim
img a four-week continuance, was subm
On motion by Councilwoman K
revisions to the Hillside Grading Ord
A~mst 27, 1974, 1:30 P.M., as recom~
PUBLIC XHPRO~ PROJECTS: Councilwoma~
through 74R-346, both inclusive, for
Refer to Resolution Book.
To consider an amendment to Title 18 of
.d require the granting of a conditional
~tomobile service stations in commercial
~nour, seconded by Councilman Sneegas, said
'or public hearing on July 30, 1974, 1:30
RgVISION NO. 3 ~ 8707. ~mF~-ASSIFICATION
RONMENTAL IMPACT ,~oRT NO. 107, R~VISION
.any; property located on the south side of
.e intersection of Orangethorpe AVenue and
aining 6 proposed R-2 zoned lots and Tract
,00 zoned lots.
aywood, seconded by Councilman Seymour,
8511, Revision No. 3 and 8707 vas continued
Reclassification No. 73-74-62, Variance
No. 1. MOTION CARRIED.
RIANCE NO. 2601, ENVIRON~NT,.~L IMPACT REPORT
n; property located north of Serrano
aining 87 proposed R-1 zoned lots.
mour, seconded by Councilman Sneegas action
continued to be considered in coaJunction
tal Impact Report No. 124. MOTION .CARRIED.
NANCE: Report Jointly prepared by Develop-
ivision, and Public Works Department -
OhS to the Hillside Grading Ordinance .was
£ogether with reco~endation that said
n August 27, 1974, so that in the imterim
rea can review the draft revision and so
ions for a fimal draft.
~ills, Inc., dated July 12, 1974, request-
itted.
~ywood, seconded by Councilman Sneegas,
tnance were set for public hearing on
anded. MOTION CARRIED.
Kayvood offered Resolution Nos. 74R-342
~doption.
74-717
City ~11~ .A~i~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - July 16t 1974t 1:30 P.M.
~IO~ NO. 74R-342 - AWARD OF CONTRACT~ WOrK 0~DER NO.~ 7!eTA.: A RESOLUTION
O~ m CiTY ~CIL O[ ~ CI~ OF ~IMECg~ING A S~ ~OPO~L ~ AW~-
~A ~ TO ~g ~ST ~S~NSIBLE BIDD~ FOR ~ ~SHI~ OF ~L P~,
~, S~V~C~, ~T~S ~ EQUI~ ~ ~L ~LITIES~ ~SPORTATION,
I~I~ PO~, ~L ~ WATER, ~ P~O~ING ~L ~ ~CESS~Y TO CONSTRUCT
~ ~~ ~ ~L~ ~LIC ~~: ~ ~ S~ S~ D~IN
~, ~ OF WI~H~, IN T~ CI~ OF ~.IM, ~ O~ ~. 718-A.
(~co ~ntractors, Inc. - $83,183.60)
RIJOLUTION NO. 74R-343 - FINDING NO BIDS RECEIVED, NORK ~ER NO. 828: A RESOLU-
TiON oF COUNCIL OP CITY OF AHAHEIM FINDING DETEm iNIN THAT
WKRE HO BIDS R CEIVED ON THE DOUGLASS ROAD FUMP STATIO , WORK ORDER NO.
828.
P~T!ON NO. 74R-344 - AWARD OF CONTRACT, WOrK ORDER NO. 831: A RESOLUTION
O~ ~ CIT~ COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM ACCEPTING AsEALED PROPOSAL AND AWARD-
IBGA CONTRACT TO THE LOWEST RESPONSIBLE BIDDER FOR THE F~KNISHING OF ALL PLANT,
LABO~, SF~VICES, MATERIALS AND EQUIPMENT AND ALL UTILITIES AND T~ANSPORTATION,
INCLUDING POWER, FUEL AND WATER, AND PERFORMING ALL WORK NECESSARY TO CONSTRUCT
A~ COMPLETE THE FOLLOWING PUBLIC IMPROVEMENT: ANAHEIM STADIUM REROOFING OF
GATES 3, 4, 5 & 6, IN THE CITY OF ANAHEIM, WORK ORDER NO.~ 831. (Lee Roofing
Company - $5,995.00)
R~OL~T~ON NO. 74R-345 - AWARD OF CONTRACT TO SECOND LOW B!DDER.~ LOW BIDDER
p~-.ea~ TO WITHORAW~ WORK ORDER NO. 832: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF
Tl~ CITY OF ANAHEIMACCEPTING A SEALED PROPOSAL AND AWARDING A CONTRACT TO THE
LOWEST P. ESPONSiBLg BIDDER FOR THE FURNISHING OF ALL PLANT, LABOR, SERVICES,
NATEKIALS AND EQUIPMENT AND ALL UTILITIES AND TRANSPORTATION, INCLUDING POWER,
FUEL AND WATER, AND PERFORMING ALL WORK NECESSARY TO CONSTRUCT AND COMPLETE THE
FOLLOWING PUBLIC IMPROVEMENT: REPAINTING OF FIELD LIGHT AND SPEAKER HORN
STRUCTURES AT ANAHEIM STADIUM, IN THE CITY OF ANAHEIM, WORKORDER NO. 832.
(Clarke Painting Company - $29,500.00)
P~LUTION NO. 74R-346 - REJECTING A~.L BIDS~ WORK ORDER NO. 812: A RESOLUTION
OF 1'~ Cii'~ OOU[ICIL OF THE CITY OF ~~ ~I~ ~L BiDS R~ZIV~ ~ TO ~g
l~OF 2:00 P.~. ON~ 11~ DAY OF ~Y~ 1974~. FOR A ~BLIC I~OV~, TO
W~: ~ ~ ~ID P~ ~RO~, ~ O~ER NO. 812.
Roll Call Vote:
AYES: COUNCIL MEHBERS: Kaywood, Pebley, Sneegas and Seymour
NOES: COUNCIL HENBERS: None
ABSENT: COUNCIL N~HBERS: Thom '
Th~llayor ProTem declared ~solution Nos. 74R-~2 through 74R-346,
both inclusive, duly passed and adopted.
WEm~K~,~tqJHPXN~,, STATXOII (MOR~ ORDER NO. 2066): City Att°rneyWetts reported that
the Weetridse Pu~ptng Station is proposed to Be constructed to deliver water to
the hasher elevations and is required to provide water set. cee to several, of
th~se hisher elevation locations in Anaheim Hills. The agreement which is pro-
poMd for Council consideration this date b~tween th~ City and Grant Company pro-
video for payment in advance,for construction of said pumping station,by the
~r~at Cxxapany in the estimated a~ount of $250,000. The Grant Company will pro-
rids these funds by eetablilhin$ a letter of credit with a bamktn$ institution,
the City will then proceed with construction of the Westridge Pumping Station
theou~hits contractor and bill the Grant C°mpany as payments co the contractor
become due. In the event that p~yment is not forthconing from Grant Company with-
in seven days, the City nay then go directly to.the bank and draw upon the letter
of credit for payment. This h~s the net effect of the City insuring itself that
the~oney is available and therefore the City is not incurring liability to the
co~t~actor.
The ultiaate residents or users of this water syete~will pay for its
construction through the 22~ surcharge established under Rule No, 15 for these
elevation water facilities. The Grant Company viii be rei~bursed solely
thz~u~h the surcha~$e funds.
74-718
Cit~ Hall~ Anaheimm California - COUNCIL MINUTES - July 16} 1974~ 1:30 P.M.
In answer to Councilwoman Kaywood, Mr. Watts explained that the sur-
charge funds will be levied for 30 years and will terminate at that time whether
or not the complete amount is paid. However, if the sum in question is paid back
in advance, i.e., prior to 30 years, then the surcharge will be discontinued
before the 30 year period terminates assuming that no other costs for special
facilities have been incurred.
RESOLUTION NO. 74R-347: Councilman Sneegas offered Resolution No. 74R-3&7 for
adoption.
Refer to Resolution Book.
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM APPROVING AN AGREEMENT TO
PROVIDE FOR THE CITY TO CONSTRUCT THE WESTRIDGE PUMPING STATION -TO BE PAID FOR
BY THE ROBERT H. GRANT CORPORATION AND THE REIMBURSEMENT OF SAID CORPORATION FOR
THE COST THEREOF, AND TO AUTHORIZE THE MAYOR AND CITY CLERK TO EXECUTE SAID
AGREEMENT.
RolI Call Vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
Kaywood, Pebley, Sneegas and Seymour
None
Thom
The Mayor Pro Tem declared Resolution No. 74R-347 duly passed and
adopted.
RESOLUTION NO. 74R-348 - AWARD OF WORK ORDER NO. 2066 - WESTRIDGE PU~PING STATION: In
accordance with recommendations of the City Engineer, Council~an Pebley offered
Re~olution No. 74R-348 for adoption.
Refer to Resolution Book.
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAREIMACCEPTING A SEALED PRO-
POSAL AKD AWARDING A CONTRACT TO THE LOWEST RESPONSIBLE BIDDER FOR THE FURNISHING
OF ALL PLANT, LABOR, SERVICES, MATERIALS AND EQUIPMENT AND ALL UTILITIES AND
TRANSPORTATION, INCLUDING POWER, FUEL AND WATER, AND PERFORMING ALL WORK NECES-
S~flLY TO CONSTRUCT AND COMPLETE THE FOLLOWING PUBLIC 134PROVEHENT~ THE WESTRIDGE
PUMP STATION, IN THE CITY OF ANAHEIM, WORK ORDER NO. 2066., (AdVance Mechanical
Construction - $237,732.00)
Roll Call Vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
COUNCIL MEMBERS: Kaywood, Pebley, Sneegas and Seymour
COUNCIL MEMBERS: None
COUNCIL ME~BERS: Thom
The Mayor Pro Tem declared Resolution No. 74R'348 duly passed and
adopted.
CALL FOR BIDS - LEGAL ADVERTISING: On motion by COuncilman Pebley, seconded by
Councilman. Sneegas, the City Clerk was authorized to call for sealed proposals
for legal advertising inside the City Limits and outside the City Limits, bids to
be opened, August 8, 1974, 2:00 P.M. MOTION CARRIED.
RESOLUTION ~0.. 74R-349 - DEEDS OF EASEM~NT: Councilman Pebley offered Resolution No.
74R-349 for adoption.
Refer to Resolution Book.
A RESOLUTION oF'THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAItEIMACCEPTING CERTAIN DEEDS
AND ORDERING THEIR RECORDATION. (Anaheim Union High School District; Westfield-
Woodcrest Company; American National Housing Corp.; Robert L. Benner; Southern
California Industrial Properties, Inc.; Marvin E. & Janet g. gwlng)
Roll Call Vote:
74-719
City R&L1, Anaheim, .Ca.l!fornia , COUNCIL MINUTES - July 16m 1974a 1:30 P.H.
AYES: cOUNCIL HEHa~: ~aywood, Peblay, Snee~a$ and Seynour
NOES: COUNCIL HEHBERS: None
ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Thom
The Mayor Pro Tem declared Resolution No. 74R'349 duly passed and
adopted.
AUTHORIZATION OF PAYMENT - ELECTRIC UTILITY, CONDENNATION NO. 91HORL~RDRIVEAREA:
The City Attorney reported that the precise figures are nov available in connec-
tion with Southern California facilities to be acquired in Condesmation No. 9 by
the City of Anaheim, said amoUnt being $161,632.68 and further advised that the
Utilities Director has recoeoended that this evaluationbe accepted.
Hr. Watts counseled that upon acceptance of this evaluation it would
be appropriate for the City Council to authorize the FinanCe Director to prepare
certain warrants.
On motion by Councilm~n Sneegas, seconded by Councilman Seymour, the
City Council accepted the evaluation figure of $161,632.68 for the Southern
California Edison facilities acquired by the Electric Utility in Condemnation No.
9, and authorized the Finance Director to prepare the following warrants;
1. Warrant in the sum of $161,632.68 payable Jointly to Southern
California Edison Company, Narris Trust and Savings Bank and Wells Fargo Bank,
National Association.
2. Warrant in the amount of $48, payable to Southern California [dison
Cmapany representing court costs.
3. Warrant payable to Southern California Edison Company in an amount
equal to 7Z per annum on $161,632.68, from June 28, 1974 to the date of the final
or, er of cond~nation. (Representing interest owed Edison due to the City take-
over of the facilities on June 28, 1974.)
MOTION OA~I~D.
RK.$OLU~..~ON NO~ 74&-350 - AGRKEHENT WITH ENVIRONNENTAL IHPACT PROFILES, INC.: On report
aN recOmmldation of the City Attorney, Councilman Pebley offered Resolution No.
74R-350 for adoption, authorizing the execution of an agreement with Environmental
Impact Profiles, Inc., to prepare enviromental impact report fOr the Civic Center
Project.
Refer to Resolution Book.
A I~JOLlfflON OF Ill[ CITY COUNCIl. OF THE CITY OF tllAHEIlt AI~RI)VI~ A COHRACT
FOR T~E PREPARATION OF AN E~VIRO~AL II. ACT REPORT BY ENVIRONNENTAL IHPACT
PROFILES, INC. AND AUTHORIZLNG THE FJ~CUTION THER.~I)F. ($6,000)
Boll Call Vote:
AYES.' COUHCIL HDfBERS: Kaywood, Pebley, Sneesas and Seymour
NOES** COU~CI~, HEIOERS: None
ABSEl~f: COU~C~ NIHB~RS: Thom
The Mayor Pro Ten declared Resolution No. 74R-350 duly passed and
adopted.
~ O~ EQOI~ - ONE 3/4 TON PICKUP TRUC~: The City Manaser reported' that
Santa Ama Dodse has informed the City they had inadvertently ordered one too many
3/~ ton pickup trucks to fill the last order placed by the City. This vehicle
is painted to City specificatio~s and is bein$ made available to Anaheim for the
ease price as quoted on the original order, $3,498.00, including tax.
The City Manager advised that due to long delivery dates and increase
in prices and the fact that five pickup trucks are included in the 1971-75 Budsec,
lc is recoe~ended thaC the Council authorize purchase.
On motion by Councilman Sneesas, seconded by Councilman Pebley, the
.City Ce~ncil authorized the purchase of one 3/4 ton pickup truck from Santa Ana
Do~o, in the a~ount of $3,498.00, including tax. NOTION CARRIED.
74-720
City Hall~ .Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - July 16, 1974~ 1:30 P.M.
PURCHASE OF EQUIPMENT - WATER CENTRAL CONTROL AND TELEMETRY SYSTEM P~ASE Ii: The City
Manager presented memorandum from the Utilities Director recommending that the
Council authorize the purchase of equipment for Phase II. of the Water. Central Con-
trol and Telemetry System from ACCO Bristol Data Master Division, American Chain
and Cable Company, Inc., in the amount of $111,216, including tax to engineer,
fabricate and deliver equipment for Pha~e II of the Water Central Control and
Telemetry System in accordance with their proposal, dated May 13, 1974. Said
authorization is recommended without competitive bidding since the equipment for
Phase I was purchase from this firm in 1968.
It is estimated that acceptance of this proposal without competitive
bid will save $42,000, in that $19,000 will be saved by expanding rather than
duplicating the existing Master Station at Control Central, and there will be
additional savings by purchasing ACCO Bristol Data Master equipment rather than
non-compatible equipment from another manufacturer in the amounts of $13,000 for
consulting engineering; $2,000 for employee training; and $8,000 for purchase
of electronic test equipment and spare parts.
On motion by Councilman Sneegas, seconded by Councilman Pebley, pur-
chase of equipment for Phase'II, Water Central Control and Telemetry System from
ACCO Bristol Data Master Division, American Chain and Cable Company, Inc., in
accordance with their proposal dated May 13, 1974 in the amount of $111,216,
including tax, was authorized. MOTION CARRIED.
CLAIMS AGAINST THE CITY: The following claims were denied as recommended by'the City
Attorney and ordered referred to the insurance carrier, on motion by Councilman
Pebley, seconded by Councilman Sneegas:
a. Claim submitted by Roxie Ann Nelson for injuries sustained to right
ankle purportedly as a result of large hole in sidewalk, on or about May 9, 1974.
b. Claim submitted by Leta Alpha Barker for personal injuries sustained
to ankle purportedly as a result of condition of sidewalk, on or about May 12,
1974.
c. Claim submitted by Mrs. D. Hawkins for personal property damage sus-
tained purportedly as a result of action of Anaheim Police Officers, on or about
May 20, 1974.
d. Claim submitted by Norman'L. Newsted for damages and loss sustained
purportedly as a result of actions of Anaheim Police Department, on or about
June 13, 1974.
e. Claim submitted by Tony Julian for damage sustained to' property pur-
portedly as a result of low voltage supplied by the City of Anaheim, on or about
June 19, 1974.
MOTION CARRIED.
ADOPTION OF AFFIRMATIVE ACTION PLAN: Personnel Director Garry McRae reported that the
Affirmative Action Plan represented for adoption this date has been in preparation
for som~ time and requires the adoption of an ordinance and two resolutions for
its implementation. He advised that the Equal Employment Affirmative Action Plan
proposed has been drawn up on the basis of general policy responsibility being
the City Manager's with each department being required to prepare its individual
plan and setup goals and time tables. The Personnel Department would have the
responsibility for assuring that the Plan is widely disseminated and that an ade-
quate n~mber of minority and female applicants are placed on eligibility lists to
provide for the operating departments to meet their Affirmative Action goals.
Mr. McRae further advised that Mr. Sanchez of the Human Relations Com-
mission of Orange County has reviewed the proposed plan and made some suggestions
regarding implementation which have already been included.
RESOLUTION NOS. 74R-351 AND 74R-352: On report and recommendation of the Personnel
Director, Councilwoman Kaywood offered Resolution Nos. 74R-351 and 74R-352 for
adoption.
Refer to Resolution Book.
74-721
Ft
TUNA RESOLUTION OF THE CITT CO~qCIL OF T~E CITY OF ANAHEIM
ITT AFFIPJ4ATIV~ ACTION PLAN.
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COIF~CIL OF TeE CITY OF ANAHEIH
69R-606, PERSONNEL RULE 7, APPOINTNENTS AND PRONOTIONS,
~flO~ ,7.2, RgLATI~G TO E~IDING EQUAL gNFLOYN~NT OPPORTUNITY PROVISIONS TO
I~R PROHIBITION OF DISCRININATION BASED ON SEX OR AGE, EXCEPT WHERE SEX OR
A~ I~ A BONA FID~. OCCUPATIONAL QUALIFICATION.
Roll Call Vote:
AYES: COUNCIL N~MBERS: Kaywood, Pebley, Sneegas and Seymour
NOGS: CO~IL NI~M3~S: None
ABSENT: COUNCIL N~ERS: Thom
The Mayor Pro Tem declared Resolution Nos. 74R-3S1 and 74R-3S2, duly
and adopted.
Hr. Nurdoch comented that in an attempt to accomplish some of the
~oals of the Affirmative Action Plan, it has been decided in connection with
current recruitment for the Fire Department, not to extend the eligible list as
is usually the case, but to reopen hiring for anyone who ~ay qualify with '
e~Pb~ts on ~ore aggressive recruitment in the minority areas.
ar, Ho. 74a-353 - ?o P. so EL NO.. 6, REf, IH .. To FIRE
S~ ~. ~e r'e~rted t~t ~ co~ectt°n ~th reduction tn~rktng hours
~ia~ed wi~h the Fire Depar~n~ last year, no provision ~s ~de for pa~ent
~ ~ali~ ~iefs for 24-hour shifts beyond ~he annual schedule whichhas the
~ effect of not givin~ ~h~ ~he reduc~ion in hours. He reco~ended Chat Rule
~. 6 - Pr~i~ Pay be ~nded to include Fire ~Ctalion Chiefs assi~ed to
suppression.
_ T.TION NO..~4R-~53: Councilman Sneegas offered Resolution No, 74R-353 for
adoption, a~endtng Personnel Rule No. 6 to provide .that Fire Battalion Chiefs
mmi~ned to suppression shall be compensated at the regular hourly shift rate
of'pay for required shifts over andabove the annual schedule.
Refer to ResOlution Book.
A I g SOLUTION OF TRE CITYCOUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANA~~I~ RESOLUTION NO.
74R-53, PERS~L RIJLE 6, PREMIUM PAY, SECTION 6.05, RELATIN~ TO EXTENDING
STRAIGHT TIlq~COMP~SATION FOR FIRE BATTALION CHIEFS FOR SHIFTS. WORKED OVER AND
~~~AL SCmmULE.
RO'll Call Vote:
AYES: COUNCIL N~NBERS: Xaywood, Pebley, Sneega8 and Seymour
HoES: COU~CILNENBERS: None
ABSENT: COU~CtLNENBERS: Thom
The Mayor Pro Te~ declared Resolution ~o. 74R-355 duly passed and
~~~, 741-3.,~4'131iOUCH 74R-~$9 - ST~EET ~I~ING HAINIT..N~,CE DISTRICT ASSgSS-
~$~~a ~~ . 1975:' ~c1~ P~bley offered
, ~th ~lusive, for adoption, and
~r~ ~ Work ~der Nos. 833 ~hromgh 838, ~h iaclusive, be approved,
aS r~~ by ~he Director of Public ~r~. ~i~a Sneegas seconded
lefer to Resolution Book.
~_~~~ A RESOLUTION OF T&E CIl~f COUI~IL OF THE CItY OF A/tHEIN
~g D~~ 1~1 ~R ~ C~ ~, ~Y 1, 1974 ~ J~g 30,
l~S, ~ ~ ~ ~~ ~ BE ~CES~ ~ ~~ ~ S~ LICHTI~
~ ~ M ~ C~T ~. (Tr~ ~s; 2833, 2839 and 2819 - ~ork
b. 83 )
74-722
City Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - July 16~ 1974~ 1:~0 P.M,
RESOLUTION NO. 74R-355: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM
LEVYING AH ASSESSMENT ON EACH LOT AND PARCEL OF LAND CONTAINED IN STREET LIGHTING
MAINTENANCE DISTRICT 1970-1 FOR THE CONTRACT YEAR, JULY i, 1974 TO JUNE 30, 1975,
FOR THE AMOUNT ESTIHATED TO BE NECESSARY TO IMPROVE THE STREET LIGHTING SYSTEM
FOR SUCH ENSUING CONTRACT YEAR. (Tract No. 1948- Work Order No.~836)
RESOLUTION NO. 74R-356: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY,OF ANAHEIM
LEVYING AN ASSESSMENT ON EACH LOT AND PARCEL OF LAND CONTAINED iN STREET LIGHTING
MAINTENANCE DISTRICT 1972-1 FOR THE CONTRACT YEAR, JULY 1, 1974 TO JUNE 30, 1975,
FOR THE AMOUNT ESTIMATED TO BE NECESSARY TO IMPROVE THE STREET LIGHTING SYSTEM
FOR SUCH ENSUING CONTRACT YEAR. (Tract No. 1959 - Work Order NO. 835)
RESOLUTION NO. 74R-357: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COt~ClL OF llIE CITY OF ANAHEIH
LEVYING AN ASSESSMENT ON EACH LOT AND PARCEL OF LAND CONTAINED IN STREET LIGHTING
MAINTENANCE DISTRICT 1967-1-B FOR THE CONTRACT YEAR, JULY 1, 1974 TO JUNE 30,
1975, FOR THE AMOUNT ESTIMATED TO BE NECESSARY TO LMPROVETHE STREET LIGHTING
SYSTEM FOR SUCH ENSUING CONTRACT YEAR. (Tract No. 3209 - Work Order No. 837)
RESOLUTION NO. 74R-358: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM
LEVYING AN ASSESSMENT ON EACH LOT AND PARCEL OF LAND CONTAINED IN STREET LIGHTING
MAINTENANCE DISTRICT 1965-3-B FOR THE CONTRACT YEAR, JULY 1, 1974 TO JUNE 30,
1975, FOR THE AHOUNT ESTIRATED TO BE NECESSARY TO IMPROVE THE STREET LIGHTING
SYSTEM FOR SUCH ENSUING CONTRACT YEAR. (Tract No. 2876 - Work Order No. 838)
KESOLUT~ON NO. 74R-359: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE' CITY OF ANAHEIM
LEVYING ANASSESSMENT ON EACH LOT AND PARCEL OF LAND CONTAINED IN. STKEET LIGHTING
MAINTENANCE DISTRICT 1965-2-B FOR THE CONTRACT YEAR, JULy 1, 1974 TO JUNE 30,
1975, FOR THE AMOUNT ESTIMATED TO BE NECESSARY TO IMPROVE THE STREET LIGHTING
SYSTEM POR SUCH ENSUING CONTRACT YEAR. (Tract No. 2451 - Work Order No.. 833)
Roll Call Vote:
AYES: COUNCIL MEltERS:
NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS:
ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS:
Kaywood, Pebley, Sneesas and Seymour
None
Thom
The Mayor Pro Tem declared Resolution Nos. 74R-354 through 74R-359, both
inclusive, duly passed and adopted.
RESOLUTION NO. 74R-360 - AGREENENT~ COUNTY OF ORANGE FOR HEALTH SERVICES: Councilman
Sneegas offered Resolution No. 74R-360 for adoption.
Refer to Resolution Book.
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AUTHORIZINGAN AGREEMENT
WITH THE COUNTY OF ORANGE EXTENDING THE PROVISIONS OF CERTAIN HEALTH' SERVICES
FROM JULY 1, 1974 TO AND INCLUDING DECEMBER 31, 1974.
Roll Call Vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
COUNCIL -N~NB~RS:
COUNCIL N~B~RS:
COUNCIL N~BERS:
· ayvood, Pebley, Sneesas and Seymour
None
Thom
The Mayor Pro Tem declared Resolution No. 74R-360 duly passed and
adopted.
CORi~SPONDEN~.E: The following correspondence was ordered received and filed, on motion
by Councilman Sneesas, seconded by Councilman Pebley:
a. Oranse County Board of Supervisors - Resolution No. 74-979 -
Effective January 1, 1975, the County Health Officer shall enforce the provisions
of the kloyee HousinsAct in relation to fam labor camps.
b. Department of Transportation - Short Ranse Transportation Improve-
me~t Prosra~.
Department of Transportation - Rural Hi~J~ay Public Transportation.
Departmant of Transportation - State Transportation Board Policy.
c. Oran~..CountyNosquito Abatement District - Minutes - June 20, 1974.
74-723
City _~l/..,,.A~abelmf California - COUNCIL NINUTgS - July 16a 197&~, 1:30 P.M.
d. Cultural Arts Commission -Mlnutes - June 10, 1974.
e. Co~mtmlty Redevelopment Co.mission - Hlnutes - June 26, 1974.
f. Financial and Operating Reports for the Month of June, 1974 for the
Customer Service D/v/sion.
MOTION C~iRIED.
OBDI~ ~O. 3316: Councilman Seyuour offered Ordinance Ho. 3316 for adoption.
lefer to Ord mnce Book.
dJ O~DINANC~OFTHgCtTYOFAHAHKIHAHKHDI~C~ER 1.05, SECTION 1.05.080 OF
CODE RELATXNG TO DISCRIHIlt~TION.
Roll Call Vote:
AYES: COld, IL H~IB:EILS= Kay,sod, Peblay, SneeSss and Seymour
HOBS: COUfCIL HENBERS: ~one
ABSENT: COUNCIL HENBKRS: Thom
The Nayor Pro Temdeclared Ordinance No. 3316 duly passed and adopted.
O~DI~E ~O, 3317= Councilman Seymour offered Ordinance No. 3317 for adoption.
Refer to Ordinance Book.
AN ORDINAHCI OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIHAHKNDXNG TITLE 1, CHAPTKR 1.04, SECTION
1.0~.110 AND TITLE 18, CHAPTER 13.04, RELATINC TO PARKS ~ RECREATION.
OeevdeparCnenC tlCle - Park~, Recreation, and the Arts)
Roll Call Vote:
ATES: COqINCIL M~qBERS: Kay, sod, Pebley, Sneegas and Se~uour
HOBS: COUNCIL NIHBERS: None
The Hayor Pro Ten declared Ordinance No. 3317 duly passed and adopted.
3318: Counctlvo~an KaY-sod offered Ordinance No. 3.318 for adoption.
Refer to Resolution Book.
AN O[9llilC[ OF ~ CITY OF tlll[~Ill AII[IFDII[I TITLE 18 OF TIlE ANAHEI~ ~flJ~ICIPAL
C~ ~I~T~ TO ZO~IMC. (71-73-$1 (7) - R-H-21,000)
Roll Call Vote:
AYES: COUNCIL H~iBKIS: Kay,sod, Pebley, Sneejas and Seymour
~ hyor Pro Tm declared Ordi~e ~. 3318 duly passed and adop~ed.
~]1~: ~ilm h~od offered OrdUre No. 3319 for [irs~ reading.
~~ OF ~ C~ OF ~~ ~~ TX~E l~, ~~ 14.32, SE~ION
14.32.1~0 ~TAXN~ ~ F~l~. (No parking at any tim - Park Vista Street,
side [r~ 650 feet ,~rth o~ ~tch Av~ to ~Cch Avenue)
33~: C~ci~ Suee~s offered ~diMuce ~. 3320 for ~irsc r~ding.
~~ OF ~ CX~ ~ ~~ ~~ TI~ 18 OF ~ ~~ ~ICIPAL
(8) -
3321: Councilman Pebley offered Ordtum~_e ~o. 3321 for first r~dt~.
(3) -
74-724
City Mall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - July 16~ 1974.~ 1:30 P.M.
ORDINANCE NO. 3322: Councilman Sneegas offered Ordinance No. 3322 for first reading.
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AMENDING TITLE 18 OF THE ANAHEIMMUNICIPAL
CODE RELATING TO ZONING. (69-70-55 (6) - M-I)
ORDINANCE NO. 3323: Councilman Sneegas offered Ordinance No. 3223 for first reading.
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AMENDING TITLE 18 OF THE ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL
CODE RELATING TO ZONING. (66-67-61 (61) -C-R)
REPORT - REIMBURSEMENT TO ANAHEIM CHAMBER OF COMMERCE - ENERGY CONSERVATION PROGRAM:
Report was submitted for Council information only indicating that the sum of
$8,482.23, would be refunded to the Anaheim Chamber of Commerce from the promo-
tional activities section of the Utilities Budget, for expenses incurred in con-
nection with the Energy Conservation Program.
Councilwoman Kaywood recommended that in future dealing with the Chamber
of Commerce, that they be required to submit an itemized statement or budget.
Mr. Murdoch advised that the Chamber did submit a specific budget for
this fiscal year, itemizing project by project, and although this was not in-
cluded within the composite budget for the City of Anaheim Fiscal Year 1974-75,
he assured Council he would copy same for their information.
Councilman Sneegas voiced the opinion that this sum of money was com-
paratively insignificantwhen compared with the excellent resUlts and benefits
to the citizens which resulted from the Energy Conservation Program andwhich
enabled the City to come'through the energy crisis situation without having to
adopt or enforcemandatory cutback regulations.
LITIGATION - OPPOSITION TO FAIR LABOR STANDARDS ACT AMEND~ OF 1974: The City
Attorney noted that the Council has been presented with material regarding the
proposed litigation concerning the constitutionality of the Fair Labor Standards
Act Amendment of 1974 and inquired whether this informatton was'adequate, and
whether the Council was prepared to act on the request to Join the League of
Califozl~ia Cities in this proposed litigation. (See Minutes, July 2, 1974,
Page 74-678)
On motion by Councilman Seymour, seconded by Councilwoman Kaywood, the
City Council authorized participation with the League of CaliforniaCities in
proposed legal action at a National level in the matter of the Fair Labor Stan-
dards Act Amendment of 1974 and further, authorized the expenditure of $§O0for
Chis purpose. MOTION CARRIED.
PUBLIC FIRE~.RKS DISPLAY PERMIT - SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA "SUN": Application was sub-
mitted for permit to display public fireworks by R. Bob Souza, California Fire-
works Display Company, to fire five four-inch shells on each touchdown, field
goal and extra point during home games of the Southern California "Sun" at. Anaheim
Stadium, to be held July 17, August 2, 28, September 2, 18, 25, October 9, 16,
23 and November 13, 1974.
Councilman Sneegasremsrked that he would have'no, objection to the
explodin~ of these shells at the first game, July 17, 1974, but suggested that
since these home games are scheduled all the way into November, they would undoub-
tedly be some complaints from residents in the area of the Stadium regarding the
noise resulting from the fireworks as late as 10:00 to 11:00 p.m. on school nights.
(hi motion by Councilman Pebley, seconded by Councilman Sneegas, the
City Council approved the request to conduct public, fireworks display, as
requested, for July 17, 1974 only, and deferred action on approval of the remain-
der of the dates pending further investigation. MOTION CARRIED.
REPORT - CIT~ OF ANAIIEIM CASH MANAGEMENT STUDY~ ARTHUR YOUNG & COMPANY: Mr. Jim
LeSeuer of Arthur Young & Company, advised that the survey of the City's cash
management and'inves~nent program, which his firm contracted to.prepare, is tom'
plete and will be published July 17, 1974. In preparation of this report Arthur
Young & Company has completed field work and submitteda review:of preliminary
findings to the City Council two weeks previous to this report.
In review of the City's fiscal management system, a focal point was
discerned to be the City Treasurer, who works closely with the Finance Director,
and who according to the City Charter has the responsibility fOr receipt, cus-
tody and disbursement of funds, and his investment practices are further defined
by regulations in the California Governmental Code.
74-725
Hr. LeSeuer stated that the overall objective of the study was to
detemine hey v ell, or to what extent, the City vas investing idle funds in order
~produce revenues. To accomplish this, Arthur Youa$ &.C~n~any conducted
r~m of: (1.) the City's current invesClent program; (2.) collection
p~ticeo; (3.) accounts payable practices.
Briefly, the findinis which resulted fromtheseSurveys were that the
City has a relatively new Treasurer, Glenn Stewart, whose appointment was e£fec-
tire October 1, 1973, who, although limited in experience in the investment field,
hal exhibited a good overall knowledge of the City's financial operations. The
noe Treaourer did quickly initiate an active investment program vhich yielded
iecerest revenues to the City last year in excess of ii,&00,000. In addition,
Mine the first eight months in this office, Hr. Stewart vas able to reduce the
aver~ beMcin8 balance in .the City's active accountby $120,000 per month; this
amo~t being invested at the rate of 10~ to 11I has produced appreciable revenues
fo~ the City. Hr. LeSeuer stated that they would conclude from this review that
the City has a yell-run and well-managed investment program.
In review of the City's receipts, it was ascertained that these are
handled in many different departments, Collections Division'for utility accounts,
the City Treasurer receiving major tax receipts, etc., and that there are two
major bank accounts with which the City works, an active account and payroll
account. He explained that the City has been on a warrant system' which does have
the advantage that the warrant is not payable until presented to the City ..-:_ ·
Treasurer,
As a result of the investigation and reviews conducted, Mr. LeSeuer
advised that they have some specific recmmendations, and if implemented, the
City would realize a substantial increase in revenues.. He outlined the follow-
ing recomeendations for the City of Anaheim Caeh Nanagement practices:
l~) That the City depOsit collections the same day as received: It was ascer-
tained that the present practices in the Collections Division is to prepare the
day's receipts for the following day'S deposit. However, on review of the pro-
cedure utilized, it was determined that the bulk Of the receipts are ready for
depoeiC by 2:00-2:30 p.m. and by arranging for armored car service for same-day
deposit, it is estimated that an increased revenue of $18,000 per.year (assumin$
a 10Z interest rate) would result.
~) ~ol~dag/~m of ACtive and Payroll Bank Accotmts: It vas revealed that the
C~ty maintains tvs accounts, one of which is used primarily for payroll purposes,
mud the funds in this account, which averase $220,000.on a daily basis, are not
invested. Since the bank vhich handles the payroll accoun~ provides the City
with no additional banking services, that Boney is truly idle. It is therefore
recomuended Chat these tvs accounts be consolidated, and it is estimated that
tbs average daily payroll account, once included in the City's active investment
accotmt, at an interest rate of 10Z, Fill increase the City's interest revenue
by $22,000 on an annual basis.
3.) That the City convert to ~ 30-D~.y Accounts Pay8ble SysCea: It vas ascer~:.,fi.
tainud that the current City practice is to pay'invoices as soon aa possible.
In coopering dates of invoice and warrant, it ns learned that it takes approxi-
umtely 23 days to process and issue a warrant from the invoice date. It is
estimated chac cb City could relalize an additional $50,000 in interest revenue
by.~akin~ tbs full 30 days allowable for payable accounts.
4,) Tha~ the CtCyvithhold payment of payroll deductions go Public Employee's
ibl(~ the'daCe re uired: Toe City currently Bakes bi-monthly
~ts tar the payday, which ~mount Co approximately $160,000,
-uborm it is est/maced that if payment were da~ayed up to the time required by
the paymmt conditions of the contract, (30 days frOm the payday) an additional
$20,000 in interest revenue could be realized..
Lehuer reported that the P.E.I.S, ~ouCracC was reviewed and dis-
cussed with-the ad~ilLILstretors to deternine whether any adverse impact would
rednLlt ia an employee'S earninss in the pro,ram.should the City uake the payment
at 30 days rather than 12, and based on ubat they lea.rued, it appears there are
ma sd verse-effects. It is recomeended hove~r by Arthur Young & Company that
Cbs City &tierney prepare an opinion resarding this recoemendation for Council
revi~ prior to inpl~enCaCion of said recosmendation.
74-726
City Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - July 16~ 1974~ 1~30 P.M.
5.} That the City select and train an individual to assist tbs Tr_~s_surer: It
was discovered that during a short absence of the City Treasurer, the City's
average bank balance increased substantially, and an estimate vas made that a
4-week absence per year would result in a yearly loss of $1,200. It is recom-
mended that an individual be selected and trained to perform the Treasurer's
duties in his absence.
In conclusion, Mr. LeSeuer advised that the estimated overall increse
in City revenues from the implementation of said recommendations would be $110,000.
Mayor Pro Tam Seymour thanked Mr. LeSeuer for his presentation and felt
it to be a fine demonstration of what current expertise can do when properly
applied to Government.
Finance Director M. R. Ringer reported, in response to the recommenda-
tions presented by Arthur Young & Company~ he proposes to recommend an employee
to the Council in September for appointment as Deputy City Treasurer.
With regard to the recommendation for consolidation of bank accounts,
Mr. Rinser concurred that the payroll account should be dissolved and'these funds
moved to the main account, which would then be rotated on a two-year basis between
the two largest banks in the City, Bank of America and Security Pacific National
Bank. He explained, in answer to Councilman Sneegas, that there would not be any
additional cost at the time of consolidation.
On motion by Councilman Seymour, seconded by Councilwoman Kaywood,
Council Policy regarding rotation of City bank accounts,'established pursuant to
reco~endation from the Director of Finance and City Treasurer dated December 12,
1966 and adopted by the City Council on December 20, 1966 (Minute pages 9862-
9863) was amended to provide for consolidation of the active and payroll accounts;
said consolidated account to be rotated between the two largest banks in the City
on a t~o-year basis. MOTION CARRIED.
In connection with recommendation that collections be deposited on the
date received, Mr. Ringer reported that he has made arrangements for armored car
service later in the day, so that a larger portion of accounts received can be
deposited on the day received.
Mr. Ringer advised that the recommendation calling for 30-day accounts
payable practices would require some time for review,' specifically to weight the
cost aspects of implementing this procedure. He concurredt.hat the City wants
to keep every, dollar invested for as long as possible, however, he also felt
accounts payable should be paid promptly and that he would like:t° keep the
clerical staff to a minimum.
The City Manager suggested that if this is Just a matter of implementa-
tion then there would be no need to discuss it again with Council, however, if
there is to be any change in procedure or retention of methods not in accord with
the recommendations of Arthur Young & COmpany, then this should be reported for
review by the Council.
Brief discussion ensued relative to the 30-day method of making payments
during which Councilman Seymour pointed out that any.sizable business e~ploys this
practice; and that it is not considered"slow" payment. Councilwoman Kaywood
expressed concern that late charges not be made and CouncilmanSnaesas Pointed
out that most businesses who are not paid promptly keep this in mind when bidding
for future contracts.
The City Manager reported on further recommendation made by Arthur Young
& Company that the City consider utilization of borrowing capability on tax
anticipation. He advised that the Finance Director has investigated the situation
and has ascertained that the Council could proceed so long as the interest rate
re~ains under 7~. Proposals were accepted and Security Pacific National Bank
offered 6.921 per annum. It is proposed that the Council accept this interest
rate on a tax anticipation note in the amount of five million dollars. The
Finance Director has Consulted with O'Nelveny and Nyers this date amd doctments
have been prepared, however the City Attorney has not yet had an opportunity to
review these; that once this has been accomplished, the Council could take action
on this note.
74-727
City likA, IMbet~ C~lifo .mia - COU~.ClL HIKOT~S - J~y 16~ 1974~. ~:~ [.H.
~r~r d~scuss~ ~ action ~ ~his~tter ~s tabled until Just
~r ~o adJ~nZ, ~o all~ the Cizy A~o~y ~ op~rtuni~y to rev[~ said
~t8, (See~nute Page 7~-729)
c wc S,,O .ZNC cmee .. AT ONS TO
~.~97a: ~e City ~naser reps:ted t~t'the R~e[o~nt Co. la-
ssoed ~ld a $~cial ~eting on ~e~esday, July 17, 197~ at 9.~ a.m. to
d~8 t~ ~il~ Building w~ch is proposed as a ~rtton of the t~ block
r~l~t area, tn co,action with the C~Vic Center Project. Speci[[c con-
s~tati~s sill be whether or not the pla~ed s~ructure ~s c~pa~ib[e and whether
~ ~ ~1 be satisfied. He tnv~t~.~y ~d all ~mcil ~ers to
atte~.
lqr. Nurdoch outlined that this special meetingwould also provide an
ezcellent opportunity to discuss with the Redevelopuent Coumission the bonding
proposal which has been developed with the aid of bond counsel, Orrick, Herrington,
B~wley and iutcliffe. Hr. Nurdoch sumrized that previously when bonding for
tlB~ Civic Center Project has been discussed, the possibility of the City Council
ami Redevelopment Agency forming a Joint powers agency to issue revenue bonds,and
the Jlity Hall cost portion being paid in the form of a lease between the Joint
powers agency and the City, were outlined. In this manner the City would have ·
the entire obligation for amortization of the City Hall.
Hr. Hurdoch su~narized that the form recommended by bond counsel differs
from what has been previously discussed to this extent: They suggest that
the Joint powers agency be formed but that the Redevelopment A~eaey be the
d~i~nated agent for sale of the revenue bonds and to contract for construction
of the structures. In all other aspects the responsibility for the City Hall and
p~y~ent for that operation would be borne by the City. In other ~ords, they are
r~co~mnding that rather than establishing a third agency, that one of the exist-
i~ ~ntities, the Redevelopment Agency, be used in this capacity.
The methodology proposed for the bond issue itself would be for the
C~acil to adopt an ordinance entering into the lease agreement. Said ordinance
iS than subject to referendum but rather than waiting for a petition by the
r~quired number of voters, the City Council would immediately put that issue on
the ballot in a ecru of question similar to "Should the Ordinance adopted by the
City Council be repealed or should it stand?"
Hr. Watts added that the purpose of the ordinance would be to approve
the Joint powers agreement whichwould contain the provisions necessary to imple-
mef~t .the Redevelopment Agency to construct, the City Hall and to issue the bonds.
Tbs City woUld acquire the obligation to retire these bonds for the City Hall
portion under a separate lease agreement.
In answer to Councilwo~an Kaywood, Hr. Watts explained that the time
c~trainte in order to place this issue on the November. 5, 1974 ballot, accord-
i~ to the glectiono Code are that the Council ~uet have notified both the County
Bee~dof Supervisors and the County Clerk, in ee~olution form, containing the
specific lansuale of the issue which will be on the ballot by August 23, 1974.
h~iitiml, the Cot~ty Clerk requires, as a matter of operattn~ conve-
~e~, that a co~unication from the City indicating intent to place an issue
the ballot be forwarded by August'7, 1974. He acknowledged then that the
r~ular Council martinis of August 6, and August 20, 19?&would be the appropriate
tisme to take up these ~atters unless the Council wishes to hold adjourned regular
~elone for these purposes.
Councilman Seymour inquired whether lqr. liurdoch was suggesting that the
mt with the ledevelop~ent Comission to furtherdiacuse this bonding.
~,..to whichHr.'Hurdoch replied that he .did not feel the change to be very
el~atficant fro~what vas.discussed previously, but that the question at this
the Cmmcil is whether or not this approach ae outlined is one which
u~nto to tab. Further, Hr. Hurdoch potntnd out that he considered it
t~prtont, once'the decision is mede to place this issue before the voters, that
political leadership would be necessary to inform the electorate of the
~a888 and disadvantages of the project.
74-728
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - July 16, 1974,. 1:30 P.M.
In this regard, Councilwoman Kaywood voiced the opinion that the present
operating method of the City, using condemned buildings which have been rehabili-
tated at many different locations, is inefficient and that this must have cost
the City additional funds because of the repairs and remodeling necessitated,as
well as the extra vehicles to conduct normal City functions. She felt if it were
possible to summarize these facts and figures without additional expense, this
would show very realistically to the people that the City is wasting funds by not
having the proper facilities.
Mr. Murdoch adVised that the type of study requested by Councilwoman
Kaywood could not be done to any great degree without some expenditure, but that
information on major expenditures on structures and etc., could be compiled for-
her use without too much difficulty.
Councilman Seymour indicated that what has been outlined in the matters
of bonding and financing of the City Hall Project is consistent with his own
thinkin~ and further remarked that Mayor Thom had expressed similar tendencies
at previous public meetings.
Further discussion was held relative to the wording to be used on the
measure itself and it was the general consensus of Council opinion that the langu-
age should be clear and concise and that a "yes" vote .should mean that the voter
is in favor and wishes the project and financing to proceed, rather than conversely
requiring a "no" vote for proceeding.
Councilman Seymour also voiced the opinion that it will be incumbent
upon Council to give political leadership to demonstrate to the citizenry that
they strongly believe in the need for this project, and he urged that the Council
Members dedicate themselves to taking this case to the people.
Councilwoman Kaywood pointed out that she was previously active in the
1968 Citizens' Capital Improvement Committee which conducted studies for a new
City Hall and that she has been committed to this project ever since. She also
remarked that she would like to see a Citizens' Committee formed to back this
current Civic Center Proposal.
Mr. Nurdoch advised that,hearing no contrary expressions from the Council
regarding what has been outlined, he would present this methodology to the Redev-
elopment Commission tomorrow and the City Attorney would proceed to follow the
matter up with the bonding attorneys to produce the necessary documentation in
time for Council review prior to taking action on same.
By general consent, the Council indicated agreement with the bonding
reeomm~tions as presmited.
R~SOLUTION NO. 74R-361 - AUTHORIZING TH~ ASSISTANT CITY MANAGRR TO ..N~E GRANT ffPLICA-
TION FO~WOR[PERFORMANCEMANAG~qF~NT AND STANDARDS - PA~KN~INTENANC~ PERSONNEL. On
report and recomm~ndation of the City Manager, advi'sing that in his absence the
Assistant CityManager had signed the grant application, Councilwoman Kaywood
offered Resolution No. 74R-361 for adoption, authorizng the Assistant City Manager
to execute a grant application for work performance management and standards,
Park Maintenance Personnel.
Refer to Resolution Book.
A R~SOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEXMAHENDINGAND SUPERSEDING
RESOLUTION NO. 74R-311 AND AUTHORIZING THE ASSISTANT CITY NANAGER TO APPLY FOR A
PROJECT TO IMPROVE PUBLIC EMPLOYEE PRODUCTIVITY UNDER THE INTERGOVERNMENTAL PER-
SOMNELACT OF 1970.
Roll Call Vote:
AYES:
NOES:
A~$]~:
COUNCIL MEMBERS: Kaywood, Pebley, Sneegas and Seymour
COUNCIL M~qBERS: None
COUNCIL NEMBERS: Thom
The Mayor Pro Tem declared Resolution No. 74R-361 duly passed and
adopted.
74-729
JO. IHT ~ITY ~{L,- CITY PLANH. !NC COMMISSION ~ORK SxSSION: At the request of
C4Mm~il~o~n Kayuood, and by general Council consent, the Joint City Council-City
P~hiaS Commission Work Session previously scheduled July 18, 1974, was postponed
te MMIday, July 29, 1974, 7:30 P.M., subject approval by the City Planning Counis-
~~. 9~ ~ - CITY-4)b~ED PROPERTY ADJACENT TO ALADDIN DRIVe.: Councilwoman Kaywood
~e~fed to a letter reCeived fro~ ~rs. J~ly lC. Donley, 117 North Aladdin Drive,
~ed July 11, 1974 and invited Nfs. Donley to address the Council relative to
her problem. Said letter refers to sale of City-owned property declared excess
to tha City's needs, pursuant to legal advertisin~ published in the Anaheim
Bulletin on Nay 9 and Nay 16, 1974.
Mrs. Donley advised that she had expressed interest in purchase of this
19-foot strip of property which lies adjacent to her home since 1970 and~each time
she inquired, or others inquired on her behalf, they were infomed that when the
City did declare this excess to its needs and available for sale, said property
v0~ld be posted.
Hrs. Donley's letter makes reference to the following State of Califor-
nh ~overrment Code Sections, upon which she basis her protest: Sections37421
through and inclusive of Section 37424. Mrs. Donley advised that she was
deprived of the opportunity to bid on said property and this was'sold to Mr.
Lazarus, he being the only bidder for the sum of $360 (appraisal of the property
indicated its value to be $350).
The City Attorney counseled that the Sections referred to by Mrs. Donley
are not mendatory sections of the Government Code, they are permissive, which
moans that the Council may or may not follow these procedures. Further he noted
that one of these sections does provide for her right to appeal the action, but
this appeal mmt be ~ade before the action re~ardin~ the sale is final. In this
connection he advised that his opinion would be that the action of the Council
was final when they accepted the offer to purchase said property.
Councilwoman Kaywood remarked that notwithstanding the publication of
legal notices relative to this sale, these people were assured that the property
would be posted and they would be given the opportunity to bid for purchase of
Councilman Seymour noted that apparently the Council did conform to the
lme in puttins the property up for sale, but perhaps did not take one additional
step which they should have, that being to inform the two property owners most
likely'to be interested in purchase of'said property, those whose current prop-
erty adjoins same. He apologized to Mrs. Donley for not having taken this addi-
tional precaution.
Councilman Sneegas advised that he had assumed at the time that the
Council accepted the. one bid received that this step had been taken.
Councilman Seymour advisedMrs. Donley that the Council has entered a
biadins lesal transaction to sell the property to the one bidder, Mr. Lazarus,
mBd did abide by the lay in conducting this sale, and therefore.could offer no
further recourse.
~ESS.T ~CUfXVE S~SION: Councilman Pebley movedto recess to Executive Session.
Ce~eil~an Sneegas seconded ~he ~~.---~-~D. (5:15 P.M.)
~ ~S; ~r Pro T~ Scour called the meeCin~ to order, all Council Members
be~ pres~, vi~h the ~cepci~ of ~yor ~. (6:00 P.M.)
~L~ ~.'74a-~2 - T~ICIPATION ~ES: City Atto~ey ~an Watts reported
t~ ~ri~ hecutive Session he had ~ opportunity to review the chanse8 pro-
~ to ~he doc~tati~ for tax ~ticipation notes by Bond~sel, O'Nelveny
~ ~ro, ~d i8 now pre,red ~o ~ke rec~endation to the City Council for
~t~n of ~id Resolution.
Hr. Watts summarized that the proposed Resolution provides for the
of funds for the. 1974-75 fiscal year, and issuance and sale of general
notes therefor. This is basically an exercise of the authority
7~-730
City Hal. t-[ ,i~ahei% California - COUNCIL MINUTES - July 16~ 1974, 1:30 P.M.
contained in the Government Code pertainin$ t° tax anticipation bOrrowin$, Section
53850 and following. The Resolution further provides the City Treasurer with
authorization to borrow a total amount of ;five million dollars, in denominations
no smaller than $50,000, for public purposes as outlined for COuncil by the Finance
Director.
Mr. Watts advised Council that the Bond Attorneys have revised the
resolution form inserting the name of the Security Pacific Natiorml'Bank, and the
rate of interest at 6.92% per annum, on the funds borrowed up to a total of $5
million.
RESOLUTION NO. 74R-362: Councilman Seymour offered Resolution No. 74R-362 for
adoption.
Refer to Resolution Book.
A R~SOLUTION OF T~E CITY COUNCIL OF THE CI~ OF ANAREI~PROVID1N~'FOR
lNG OF ~S FOR T~ 1974-75 FIS~ ~
OBLIGATION NOTES ~E~FOR.
Roll Call Vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
COUNCIL MEMBERS: Kaywood, Pebley, Sneesas and Seymour
COUNCIL HEMBERS: None
COUNCIL HEHBERS: Thom
The Mayor Pro Tem declared Resolution No. 74R-362 dttL. y passed and
adopted.
ADJOURNMENT: Councilman Pebley moved to Adjourn. Councilman Snee&a~. seconded the
motion. NOTION CARRIED.
Adjourned: 6:05 P.M.