The URL can be used to link to this page

1974/08/2774-843 .City Hal.l~ Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - August 20, 1974, 1:30 P.M. At the conclusion of discussion, the Mayor advised Dr. Atherton.that the City AttorneY's Office would prepare an opinion on the matter and that is the only recourse which the Council could offer. RECESS - EXECUTIVE SESSION: Councilman Seymour moved to recess to Executive Session, for the purpose of discussing appointments to the Task Force previously eStab- lished which would review the Hill and Canyon Area General Plan. Councilman Thom seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. (6:20 P.M.) AFTER RECESS: Mayor Thom called the meeting to order, all Council Members being pre- sent with the exception of Councilman Pebley. (6:35 P.M.) APPOINTMENTS TO CANYON AREA GENERAL PLANNING TASK FORCE: On motion by Councilman Seymour, seconded by Councilwoman Kaywood, the following members were appointed to the Canyon Area General Planning Task.Force: Representing the City Council: Councilman Seymour (Chair~an) Councilvoman Kay~ood (Vice-Chairman) Representing the Planning Commission: Chairman Levis Herbst Chairman Pro Tem Floyd Farano Representing homeowner's groups: Nfs. Mary Dinndorf 131 La Paz Street Anaheim, Ca. 92806 Mrs. Jean Morris 400 Torrey Pines Cir. Anaheim, Ca. 92807 Mr. Roland F. Krueger 561 Peralta Hills Drive Anaheim, Ca. 92807 Hrs. Charlene Barnes 5040 E. Crescent Ave. Anaheim, Ca. 92807 Hr. Stewart Moss 1019 Via Vista Anaheim, Ca. 92807 Representing developers: Mr. LeRoy Rmse Hr. John Hillick Architect Anaheim Hills, Inc. 1440 S. St. College Blvd. 380 Anaheim Hills Road Anaheim, Ca. 92806 Anaheim, Ca. 92807 Mr. W. E. (Bill)Hitchell Hr. John Martin Market Profiles American Housing Guild 642 S. "B" Street Tustin, Ca. 92680 Hr. Bill Lusk John D. Lusk & Sons P. O. Box 2140 Nevport Beach, Ca. 92663 4019 Westerly Place, Suite 105 Newport Beach, Ca. 92660 MOTION CARRIED. ADJOU~: Councilman Sneegas moved to adjourn. Councilwoman Kaywood seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. Adjourned: 6:40 P.M. .Signed City Clerk 74-844 City ~a!l, ./~aheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - Aujust 27~ 1974~ 1:30 P.M. The City Council of the City of Anaheim met in regular session. PRESENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Kaywood, Seymour, Pebley, Sneegas and Thom ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: None PRESENT: ADMINISTRATIVE ASSISTANT: John Harding DEPUTY CITY ATTORNEY: Frank Lowry, Jr. CITY CLERK: Aloha M. Hougard UTILITIES DIRECTOR: Gordon W. Hoyt FINANCE DIRECTOR: M. R. Ringer ~ CITY ATTORNEY: Alan R. Watts PUBLIC WORKS DIRECTOR: Thornton Piersall CITY ENGINEER: James P. Maddox ASSISTANT DIRECTOR OF DEVELOPMENT SERVICES: Ronald Thompson ZONING SUPERVISOR: Charles Roberts PLANNING SUPERVISOR: Don McDaniel Mayor Thom called the meeting to order. FLAG SALUTE: Councilman Calvin L. Pebley led the Assembly in the Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag. MINUTES: Minutes of the Anaheim City Council Regular Meeting held July 30, 1974 and Adjourned Regular Meeting held July 29, 1974 were approved, on motion by Councilwoman Kaywood, seconded by Mayor Thom. MOTION CARRIED. WAIVER OF READING - ORDINANCES AND RESOLUTIONS: Councilman Sneegas moved to waive the reading in full of all ordinances and resolutions, and that consent to the waiver of reading is hereby given by all Council Members unless, after reading of the title, specific request is made by a Council Member for the reading of such ordinance or resolution. Councilman Pebley seconded the motion. MOTION UNANI- MOUSLY CARRIED. REPORT - FINANCIAL DEMANDS AGAINST THE CITY: DemAnds against the City in the amount of $2,664,898.41, in accordance with the 1974-75 Budget, were approved. PUBLIC ~F. ARING - AMENDMENTS TO TITLE 17 OF THE ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE - LAND DEVELOP- MENT AND RESOURCES: To consider amendment to Title 17' of the Anaheim Municipal Code, Land Development and Resources, Chapter 17.06, Grading, Excavations and Fills in Hillside Areas. The City Clerk submitted correspondence received from Don P. flarrington, Chairman, Governmental Practices Committee, Soil and Foundation Engineer's Assoc- iation, dated August 23, 1974, and Dennis A. Evans, Chairman, Building and Safety Advisory Committee, Geo-Technical Engineering Group, Los Angeles Section, American Society of Civil Engineers, dated August 23, 1974, both requesting that the public hearing on the proposed amendment to Title 17 be continued to allow the Governmental Practices Committee of the Soil and Foundation Engineer's Association as well as other appropriate professional societies time to study theproposed Code changes and submit comments and recommendations prior to adoption. Upon ascertaining by a show of hands that several individuals in the audience were in attendance to present their comments regarding this proposed amendment to the Code, by general Council consent, it was determined to proceed with the public hearing. City Engineer James Maddox su--,~rized the conclusions and findings as reported in the Joint memorandum dated August 22, 1974, from the Departments of Public Works and Development Services. He noted that the recommendations included in the revised ordinance were derived through meetings with developers, consulting engineers and also due to concerns expressed by Council Members regarding the adequacy of the present grading ordinance. Mr. Maddox outlined the primary changes as follows: 1. 17.06.110 - 17.06.120 (b) - Cut or fill slopes shall be no steeper than two horizontal to one vertical - the existing Ordinance pezmita one and one- half horizontal to one vertical. Justification: Required for adequate mainte- nance, 2. 17.06.110 (c) - 17.06.120 (g) - A twenty (20) foot wide terrace is required at each fifty (50) foot interval - the existing Ordinance permits 'six (6) foot wide terraces ad infinitum up the slope. Justification: Required for adequate maintenance. ? 4-845 C~ty ~l, anaheim, Califo.ruia , .~OUNCIL MINUTES - August 27, 1974~ 1:30 P.M. 3. Table ~o. i?-A - Increased setbacks have been added - the existing Ordinamce permitted the toe or top of the slope to be constructed within one foot of the property lin~. Justification: Required for adequate protection of buildings. 4. 17.06.180 (a) - Prior to the issuance of any Building Permit, the City Engineer shall require submittal of an As-Graded Grading Plan - this has not been required by the existing Grading Ordinance. Justification: Required to control grading standards. Hr. Naddox noted that in addition to these major changes there are numerous revisions proposed to clarify and delineate responsibilities, adminis- tration and enforcement, and minor technical revisions throughout the proposed ordinance. Hr. Don ~eJ)aniel, Planning Supervisor summarized the fifth nmJor change which is proposed in the revised ordinance, relating to landscaping (17.06.130 - 17.06.140). He advised that this revision was developed in concert with the reco~endations made by a.consultant hired by Anaheim Hills, Inc., to perform landscaping studies for the Anaheim Hills property. Mr. McDaniel stated that most of the material presented by this consulting fimwas found to be very acceptable, and onceaccommodated into ordinance form this was reviewed by other developers ~ho also were agreeable to accepting the changes proposed over the current requirementS. He added that it is felt this revised ordinance is more complete and will more adequately cover the situation. Mayor Thom called for questions from the Council directed to either Mr. Maddox or Hr. McDaniel. Council~x~an Eayvood questioned whether the section on Page No. 17 re- quiring the preparation of a special brochure by the landscape architect should not also contain a requirement that said brochure be given to the home buyer, to · fltich Hr. NcDaniel replied that this was the intent and perhaps should be so s~cifically outlined. Councilwoman Eay~ood asked whether there is any requirement that irri- gatiom pipes on hi$~slopes be placed above'the ground, so in the event of break- a~e, d~a~e~ould b~readily located and iAentifiable. Hr. McDaniel replied that the ~ection to ~hich Councilwo~an ltay~ood referred requires underground Piping systems for slopes less than 15 feet in height, and indicates no opposition to e~osed pipin~ above'this level provided said exposed piping is galvanized or made of other metallic material which would withstand exposure to the elements. Mayor Tho~ asked for a definition of what constitutes "positive assur- ance'' as set forth o~ Page No. 7, Paragraph No. 4 regardin~ completion of drain- facilities prior to ~t~er 15th ~d was advised by the City Engineer that ~ procedure is to hav~ the developer post a bond ~ith a rider tha~ Euar- a~e~ the ~ginni~ of the drainage facility Prior to a certain date which is d~e~ by his ability to complete s~ by the end of the allowable period of t~. Hr. Low-ry"added that the specific term "bonding" alone was not used in the revised ordinance since there are alternative methods which developers some- t~a prefer to use such as Letters of Credit or Certificates of Deposit, which are Just as acceptable to the City Attorney's Office. Hr. Maddoz explained the chart posted in the Council Chambers which displayed by maans ef variegated lines and an overlay, the contours of cut-and- fLtl als. pea under the existing ordinance and the proposed revision. He stated tk~t this illustrates the additional volu~e of dirt which would have to be mOved in order to provide & 2:1 slope. P4yor Tho~ further questioned Section 17.06.050 relative to false s~atements ~ad data and inquired as to the consequences of ,such act, to which Hr. Lo~ry replied that the City could either rely on the State Control Board which c~rtifies the professional who has made such false statements, or bring charges pmrsu~nt to Sectioe 1.04.390 of the AnaheimHunicipal Code which states any violation of the Co~e is a misdemeanor. Councilvo~u l~ay~ood asked whether the present staff would be adequate :tq. conduct the inspections required at various points in the grading process and 74-846 City Hall~ ~n~aheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - August 27~ 1974~ ~:30 P.M. Mr. Naddox answered that this proposal calls for the soil engineers, geologists, etc., employed by the developer to certify to all of the work completed or in process, by written report with certification and, therefore, no additional staff time is anticipated. The Mayor asked if anyone wished to address the Council relative to the proposed amendments to Title 17. Mr. Horst Schor, Vice President, Anaheim Hills, Inc., indicated that although the document before Council this date is the result of much work, there are still two major points of disagreement on the part of his firm, the first being the width of safety benches as recommended. He advised that Anaheim Hills has used al6-foot width for safety benches and has found that a 16-fo°t wide bench will perform the same Job as a 20-foot bench. Therefore, since flat, buildable land is scarce and expensive, they would prefer to be able to use this 4 foot difference in level land as part of the buildable lot area. The other major point of contention, Mr. Schor continued, is the 2:1 requirement for grading of slopes. He advised that this would remove from the soil's engineer and geologist the flexibility of being able to recommend alternate slope ratios. Slope stability is the main concern and the engineering geologist is best qualified to determine what the slope ratio should be in a given situa- tion, He related that sloPes of ratios 1½:1 and 2:1 have been constructed in Anaheim Hills on the recommendation of their engineering seolo$ists and each has performed satisfactorily. He cited that if maintenance is the concern, Anaheim Hills believes that both of these slopes, either 1~:1 or 2:1 are equally as dif- ficult'Co maintain and further that the result with a 2:1 ratio is a larger slope area to maintain. He displayed pictures depicting the increase in slope area which would result with a 2:1 ratio as compared to 1~:1 and advised that on this particular example the slope area would increase from 73,000-square foot with a l~:l'slope, to 120,000-square foot with a 2:1 slope. He pointed out that the net results of this requirement will be that more grading will have to be performed in the hillsides and there will be more square footage of slopes to be irrigated and maintained. Mr. Schor also reported that Anaheim Hills consulted with the Irvine Company, which has found it cost $225 per acre per month to maintain a slope regardless of whether it is graded at 1½:1 or 2:1. He stated that Anaheim Hills, Inc., urges the Council to adopt the same wording used in the Uniform Building Code which calls for a 2:1 ratio slope unless the soil engineer or certified engineering geologist recommend 1½:1 will also perform satisfactorily. Mr. Schor added that it is not specified in this ordinance what the effective date would be if adopted. He recommended that those projects be exempt from this amended requirement for which grading plans are on file in the City or being processed for approval, and tentative maps where a substantial amount of engineering work has been performed by the developer. He further suggested that a three-month transition period be provided between adoption and implementation of the revised grading ordinance. Another minor point which Mr. Schor called attention to was the fact that a grading permit is required under the revised ordinance for all excavations and no qualification has beenmade as to size or magnitude of said excavation. He indicated that this could prove to be a problem to a geologist who even trenches for a sample and it is felt some clarification should be added. Councilman Pebley questioned the need to amend Title 17 at all, noting that as he recalls the last time this matter was discussed, the recommendations from Engineering and other affected departments indicated that 1½:1 slope would be safe and stable and the Council acted on these recommendations. He indicated he could see no logical reason to amend the ordinance and asked whether the staff is stating that the previous recommendation that 1~:1 slope be permitted is now considered incorrect. Mayor Thom advised that when the current grading ordinance was pre- viously amended he was adamantly opposed and the current proposed amendment to Title 17 was prepared at the direction of the City Council following discussion at a Joint work session with the Planning Commission on May 15, 1974. 74-847 Ci~ Ha~l, .An. aheim, California , qOUNCIL MINUTES , August 27, !974, 1:30 P.M. In answer to Councilman Pebley, Mr. Maddox stated he did not believe the total answer to absolute stability was to keep laying the slope back farther and farther, as he believes the stability of a slope is directly related to the particular nature of the ground material and situation. A compacted fill slope with proper control at 1½:1, in his opinion, can be Just as safe as a 2:1 fill slope, although, very generally speaking, the 2:1 slope is considered safer. He added however, that the 2:1 slope ratio will result in more slope area for mainte- nance by the homeowner. Mr. Schor corroborated this with statistics, citing that on a typical R-1 60- by lO0-foot lot, separated from the next lot by a 10-foot rise, on a 2:1 slope there would be 533-square feet more slope area to maintain than a 1½:1 slope. Councilman Pebley stated that if a 1%:1 slope has been proven to be safe, stable and does the Job, he could see no reason to change the ratio thereby causing the ultimate homeowner to pay increased amounts of money for slope mainte- nance for the next several years. Councilman Sneegas concurred, stating that it appears to him, since homeowner's associations will be mandatory for the maintenamce of common slope areas pursuant to this ordinance, that promoting easier maintenance is not accom- plished by changing the slope ratio since obviously this will increase the home- owner's eventual monthly maintenance cost. Councilman Seymour stated that it was apparent at the last Planning Commission-Council Work Session that both of these bodies were dissatisfied with the grading currently taking place in the hill and canyon area, and if, as pointed out, there is the same degree of safety involved, and the cost to the homeowner will be increased with a 2:1 slope ratio, then he was particularly interested in alternatives whichwould improve the existing situation in the hills, which is, for all practical purposes, amass grading operation. Mr. Schor replied by explaining that they do have some other ideas re- garding development in Anaheim Hills which they are planning to submit to the Task Force Committee for review. He further noted that they intend to develop a mim~grading residential development consisting of 800 acres in the higher elevation-ridge area which lends itself to this type of development. Mr. Millick, Vice Present, Anaheim Hills, Inc., added that it is deli- nicely the intent of his firm to create both types of product, a natural, mini- mally graded lot, as well as the mass graded pads since there are market demands for both. He pointed out that in some areas grading is necessary to gain access fo~ roadways. Mr. Millick also interpreted that the requirement for 2:1 slope wiCh 20-foot wide bench would result in a 66% increase, not only in maintenance costs, but in initial installation of landscaping and irrigation. Further, their demsity factor, which currently averages 2.3 or 2.4 throughout the ranch, would be lowmred. In conclusion he remarked that Anaheim Hills, Inc., does not feel the trade-offs are Justifiable in view of the added costs.' Councilman Pebley interjected that adoption of the proposed amendment with rsquirement for more shallow slope areas would mean larger lot size, which would result in increased property taxes. In answer to Councilwoman Kaywood, Mr. Millick advised that in the pa~t, Anaheim Hills, Inc., has relied on advice from geologic consultants relat- in~ to width of safety benches and slope ratios and prides itself in the fact that they use some of the most conservative consulting firms in Southern Califor- nia. He did feel that the requirement in this ordinance for mandatory community associations for professional slope landscapingmaintenance will be a beneficial a~lilnd~ent for all concerned in the long run. Councilman Seymour observed from comments made by the representatives of Anaheim Hills, Inc., that it appears the alternative being offered to mass grading are the estate-sized lots, which when converted to market value would range upwards in cost from $70,000. Further, that they also indicate in order to satisfy demands of the remainder of the market, mass grading is necessary. Councilman Seymour emphasized that he takes exception to this point of view; that he has not been convinced there is not another approach. He stated that he feels this lower priced range housing market can be reached with the approach discussed in 1970 by going into an area which requires minimal grading and applying to that land a higher density and then leave the surrounding areas, which are not build- able without massive grading, alone. 74-848 City ~11t ~aheimt California - COUNCIL MINI~ES - August 27~ 1974~ 1:30 P.M. Mr. Millick voiced agreement with Councilman Seymour and indicated, in addition to the 800 acres of estate lots, they have under study some portions of their property in which different types of homes can be constructed with minimal grading. He emphasized, however, that he does not want. to give Council the impres- sion that they are saying they will never grade again in Anaheim Hills as this is not the case, and he cited that in those areas where they have mass graded, the homes b~ve been selling well which indicates that there is a requirement for that type of product. In reply to Councilman Seymour, Mr. Millick stated they have, to date, mass graded 15 to 20% of the entire 4,200 acres, excluding the 800 acres of estate lots and 1,500 acres devoted to open space and the golf course. Councilwoman Kaywood pointed out that with the current language in the proposed Code amendment it would appear that even owners of the eventUal estate lots, should these contain landscaped slopes, would be required to form a home- owner's association to which Mr. Millick replied they would most likely request a waiver from the mandatory community association in those instances. Mr. Roland Krueger, 561 Peralta Hills Drive, advised that he is speak- ing on behalf of the Peralta Hills Improvement Associationas well as himself and that his concerns center about the quality of life in Anaheim. He took exception to the argument given by Anaheim Hills, Inc., stating that according to the laws of physics, a steeper slope cannot be as stable as one which is more shallow and that a 2:1 slope under severe circumstances would be less likely to slide. He stated that he felt the 2:1 slope would provide the homeowners both above and be- low with more stability and consequently more safety. Mr. Krueger remarked that the canyon is the last area in which Anaheim has to create a showpiece, and in his opinion, tremendously high, steep banks are not any credit to the City. He felt that the 2:1 slope ratio will provide an incentive for developers to use a more creative engineering approach. Mr. Krueger offered the following comments relative to specific sec- tions of the ordinance: 1. Page No. 2 - Definition of Civil Engineer - Mr. Krueger felt that the certification required under the proposed ordinance should be: defined as required to be performed by an independent Civil Engineer or geologist. 2. Section 17.06.042 - Mr. Krueger felt the submitted grading plans should indicate what the original ground contours were rather than Just the fin- ished grade. (Mr. Maddox assured Mr. Krueger that this was the intent in the ordinance.) 3. Section 17.06.046 - The statement regarding limitation of dust should be defined more clearly. 4. Section 17.06.080 (c) - Requires a Civil Engineer to be responsible for preparation of revised plans, as graded plans and completion of the work in accordance therewith, whereas Mr. Krueger felt again'this should state independent Civil Engineer. 5. Section 17.06.110 (a) - Stipulates that no excavation shall be steeper than 2:1 unless the geologist or soil engineer indicates that a steeper slope would be safer and more stable. Mr. Krueger felt this section should be deleted as it would provide a loophole and invites the rationalization of steeper slopes. 6. Section 17.06.120 (g) - Mr. Krueger felt the requirement for 20- foot terraces at each 50-foot interval should be reworded to provide some flexi- bility as a bank this high is monotonous in appearance and requires landscaping. 7. Section 17.06.132 - Mr. Krueger questioned whether the various categories of slopes provided for slopes constructed adjacent to existing dwelling units, to which Mr. McDaniel advised that the category of "living area slopes" would apply to that situation where a slope is created between an existing dwell- ing unit and a new dwelling unit. 8. Section 17.06.136 - In general, Mr. Krueger felt that provisions should be made under this section for those instances where a slope is created adjacent to improved property, for that property owner to have some input as to what plant materials would be used in landscaping said slope. 9. Section 17.06.138 - Mr. Krueger questioned how the requirement for landscape maintenance via a co~unity association could be enforced. In conclusion, Mr. Krueger stated that the Peralta Hills Improvement Association is in support of the intent of the new ordinance and would urge the Council to follow through on same. 74-849 C~ty....Ra..ll, ~Aheim, .California- COUNCIL MINIY~ES- Au&ust 27, 1974, 1:30 P.M. Mr. Gilbert W.- Ferguson, Executive Director of the Council on Environ- ment, E~ployment, Economy and Development, and a coalition of organized Union Labor, Business, Industry and concerned citizens stated that this g.roup is con- Cerne4 about the environment but has equal concern for the economy and employment picture. He related that he returned recently from a meeting with the Attorney Gmneral Task Force on the cost of housing and announced it was agreed that one of the primary reasons for spiraling costs in housing is government at all levels e~acting, ordinances and laws which have very little to do with protecting the health and safety of the general public, but rather, these decisions are some- times based on aesthetic considerations. He related statistics regarding unemploy- ment and contended that a good deal of unemployment in the building and construc- tion trades was caused by such governmental activities as Proposition 20. Mr. Ferguson stated that this group opposes ordinances such as the one under consideration in principle, and advised they do conversely support anY ord- inance which promotes the safety and health of the community. He stated that if it is a geologist's opinion that a 1½:1 slope is safe and it has been widely used without any difficulty, then the only reason for changing it is based either on aesthetics and slowing growth or reducing density. Further, he pointed out that this reduced density will not cause the developer any losses but the additional costs are forced upon the consumer in the form of higher prices of the product plus, in this case, increased maintenance and taxes. Mr. Ferguson added that when density is lowered, this in effect raises the tax burden to be absorbed by the remainder of the community. With specific reference to the proposed ordinance, Mr. Ferguson felt the requirement that a 1½:1 slope could not be used unless certified safer ~ 2:1, should be deleted, since this clause negates the possibility that any 1~:1 slope could be built in this City. He suggested something similar to the San Clemante regulation be adopted which encourages a 2:1 slope but also allows the flexibility for 1½:1. He also questioned whether under this proposed ordinance an individual could build his own residence and perform his own slope maintenance wtthomt a community association, to which Mr. Maddox replied that he saw no reason why an individual could not build on his own hillside property under this proposed ordinance. Councilman Seymour commented that the only cause mentioned by Mr. ~rguson for increased home costs was "the environmentalists" and questioned to what degree the cost of construction and borrowing has increased the cost of purchasing a home, to which Hr. Ferguson replied that there was a fantastic ~cremse in these areas but that the industry is able to deal with these factors, ~he~ems it is almost impossible to cope with ever-changing rules. Brief discussion ensued between Mr. Ferguson and Councilman Seymour relative to the causes of these spiraling costs of construction during which C~unc$1man Seymour made it emphatically clear that he did not agree with Mr. ~uson's contention that government, in particular local government, is respon- Sible for the problem. Mr. Ferguson elaborated on the housing shortage and the ~ct that a large segment of the working class has been priced out of the single- filmily detached home market. Mayor Thom interjected that it must be recognized that local officials are elected by the people and reflect specifically the demands of that citizenry. Councilman Seymour inquired whether Mr. Ferguson's organization was at all concerned in supporting any ordinance which would improve the environment, to which Mr. Ferguson replied that they do support legislation directed at promoting ~he safety and health of the general populace. He noted however, that they ~iivocate a better environment for all citizens and not Just for the rich. Councilwoman Faywood pointed out that a recent survey conducted by the Anaheim Chamber of Comaerce indicated a shortage of executive type housing and v~ry good apartments in the City of Anaheim. She further noted that at one time there was a minimum 7,200-square foot lot for single-family homes in the City of Anaheim and when it was decided to allow 5,000-square foot lots to provide a ~ller home on a smaller lot for a lower price, this never happened and certainly the home buyer did not benefit from the situation. She further noted that higher density results in a higher crime rate, which eventually costs the taxpayers more as well. 74-850 City g~!l~ A~aheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - August 27~ 1974~ !:30 P.M. Mr. Orville Harms, Financial Secretary, Local No. 2203, Carpenter's Union, reported that according ~to national statistics cost of labor in the home buildin~ industry has actually decreased 2% since 1935 and .that the main factors in increased home costs are the costs of land and interest rates. He pointed out that by requiring the shallower 2:1 slope, and reducing the number of homes which can be built, this will increase the cost of houses. He further noted that certain environmental decisions regarding greenbelts, wider roads and additional frontage have also contributed to the increased cost of housing. Mr. Ha~ns voiced concern for the building industry which is the second largest inCalifornia, and stated that although there is no voice in the industry to control the costs of petroleum, paper, etc., the proposed adoption of this ordinance does give them some opportunity for input and he concluded that if a geologist indicates that the 1½:1 slope ratio is safe, then they feel this should be accepted. Councilman Seymour agreed with Mr. Harms that land, interest rates and the cost of building materials are the primary factors in the cost spiral and apologized if he had given the impression that he felt labor costs were at fault. He advised that he was attempting to refute Mr. Ferguson's implication that government ordinances applied to development were instrumental in the cost of inflation since he felt this was being twisted to a viewpoint where nO considera- tion at all would be given the environment, whereas, he personally is concerned in finding some middle ground. Councilwoman Kaywodd commented that her greatest concern for many years has been quality in home construction. She noted that neither the City nor the individual is served when shoddy construction techniques are employed resulting in numerous, costly repairs for the homeowner, and she hoped that the building industry shared this concern, particularly inview of the fact that a home is the largest purchase made by most individuals in their lifetime. She strongly feels that the homebuyer is entitled to quality at every price range. Mr. Alan Huffstutter of S.I.R. Developers advised that his firm is cur- rently developing some property in Anaheim Hills and wished to submit some cost figures in relationship to their activities which might assist the Council in deliberations. He advised.that their project was approved under the existing grading ordinance and therefore the adoption of the proposed amendment would not affect it. Mr. Huffstutter related that if the project they are presently working on were approved under the proposed amendment to Title 17, as compared with the existing plans as approved under the current grading ordinance, their landscaping costs would increase by $1,650 per unit since there would be 66%more slope created. Also he pointed out that by changing the slope ratio the pad area is lowered and this would increase the cost of land in their project by $2,400 per unit, for a total increase in the project cost, per unit, of $4,050 to do nothing but lower the density and change the aesthetics. In addition to this, he advised that Council must consider the added cost to individual homeowners to maintain the increased slope area, which if averaged at $30 per month would be equivalent of adding $3,000 to the price of the unit and therefore, directly and indirectly, by attempting to lower the density and increase the aesthetics of the area, the cost of the unit would be increased through this governmental action by a total of $7,050 or 16%. He further noted that due to the unique nature of the terrain on which they are currently developing, if they were to comply to the ~mended ordinance, one-half of their $50,000, 3,200-square foot detached condominium units could not be constructed. Mr. Thomas Lake, representing the Building and Safety Advisory Committee of the A.S.C.E. and the Governmental Practices Committee of the Soil Foundation Engineer's Association, referred to communications submitted by these organiza- tions requesting the City Council defer the hearing on the proposed amendment to Title 17 to allow them time to comment. He stated that the main objection of ~hese groups is that the amendment as written, attempts to codify the practice of civil engineering and in particular soil engineering and geology, since it makes no provision for the flexibility which they feel is necessary to permit them to practice their profession. He indicated that the existing ordinance is workable. Mr. Lake explained the comparative factors of safety inherent in the 1½:1 versus 2:1 slope ratios and advised that there are many instances in engineer- ing where the 1%:1 would be satisfactory, and also instances where neither of thesa ratios would be recommended, but the proposed amendment would not permit them the flexibility to make these Judgments as engineers or as engineer geolog- ists. 74-851 City H~.~ll,.A~.ah. eim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES- Ausust 27t 1974~ 1:30 P'M' Mr. William G. Thrash pointed out that either of these two slopes, w~ether they are 1½:1 or 2:1 are man-made and that the 2:1 slope is cut further back and therefore exposes more ground. He questioned whether home purchasers w~uld even be able to discern the difference between the two slopes aesthetically, a~d pointed out that with the 2:1 ratio more slope is created which is still un- usable to the individual purchasing the home. He felt the safety factor should be left up to the engineers and geologists. That after a two-year period, with the growth of shrubbery, these slopes would not be recognizable as man-made. Mr. Roland Krueger was recognized once again by the Mayor and empha- sized that he is not a "hard-core" environmentalist, that he does want to see Allaheim grow, however, he noted the great environmental concern of the people evidenced by the delay in off-shore oil drilling and enlargement of the nuclear plant despite the facts of the severe shortage in energy supply. This, he feels, is illustrative of the mood of the people and he concluded that the proposed amendment to Title 17 is a step in the right direction. Mr. Peter Remmell, Secretary Treasurer, Central Labor Council of Orange County, exhorted the Council not to allow the grading ordinance to become a pol- itical issue and not to further increase the price of homes. He took exception to the fact that government should be able to legislate how much property is required surrounding an individual's home, contending that this is not their prerogative and this type of legislation merely creates higher costs. He expressed confidence in the inspection of new home construction performed by State and local'Jurisdictions but voiced his concern that home costs be kept down. He contended that environmental decisions have contributed to the increased cost of home construction. Mr. Remmell questioned the motivation of the proposed change in the grading ordinance and pointed out that in his opinion one of the most important arguments presented in opposition today was that point made by Mr. Lake who indi- cated that the adoption of this amendment to Title 17 will impinge upon the abil- ity of the Civil Engineer in the performance of his profession. In reply to Mr. Remmell, Councilman Seymour reiterated that staff has proposed the current revision under discussion in answer to indications given by the City Council and City Planning Commission that the majority of these bodies were not satisfied with the grading being performed in the Anaheim Hills and desired a change. He advised Mr. Remmell that the lowest priced home in the A~aheim Hills area is probably approximately $45,000 and that regardless of whether or not the City's grading ordinance is revised, those individuals, whom Mr. Rem~aell referred to, who would fall in the median housing market category (i.e., with incomes ranging from $8,000 to $15,000 annually), would still not be a~le to purchase a home in Anaheim Hills. Councilmen Sneegas and Pebley expressed opinions relative to the con- tributive factors in the inflation of home prices and the effect exerted by the resale of older homes both on the housing market itself as well as on the indivi- dmal's ability to purchase same. Councilman Sneegas felt that governmental inter- ference has caused inflation in many areas of the economy including the price of a home, and noted that the City Council would not be helping the inflationary situation with the adoption of an ordinance which would add a 16% inflationary value to the price of a home. That if an individual contemplates a new home, he increases the price of his present home by whatever amount he needs to allow him to purchase that new home. Councilman Seymour stated that it is a fallacy to believe that indivi- duals in the median housing market can afford to purchase resale homes, since the average price of such homes in Anaheim in 1974 was $39,900. He voiced the opinion that the higher real estate prices are caused by the general inflation which has affected all prices. Councilwoman Kaywood pointed out that it is obvious, with the increased costs to develop in higher elevations, that Anaheim Hills is not going to be an area for Iow or medium cost housing. Feeling sufficient input had been received, Mayor Thom closed the hearing. Councilman Seymour observed that both Mr. Remmell and Mr. Ferguson in · their presentations to Council were not really dealing with the specifics of the proposed ordinance but rather with a principle. He further stated that the 74-852 City Hall,-~aWaim~..:,., ...... California - COUNCIL MINUTES - August, 27~ 1974~ 1:30. P.M. majority of testimony received today was in defense of a cause, and although he has empathy with that cause, this approach does not solve any problems but rather causes polarization of the divergent opinions. Amore positive approach, in his opinion, would be a presentation of positive alternatives and he would encourage these people to consider the problem in this light and Joinwith the Council in an attempt to find the way to provide housing and at the same time maintain the environment. Mr. John Harding, Administrative Assistant, voiced concerns of the City Manager's Office relative to wording in the proposed ordinance and the equity thereof as it would relate to any large single lot with slopes over five foot in height being placed in a community maintenance district although it is completely fenced. As an example, he cited a tract situation where there is one lot with a 10,000-square foot level pad and a total lot area of 153,000 square feet, with the remaining lots having very small back yard slopes. Also, the provisions of Section 17.06.138 which provide that maintenance shall include restoration of any portion of a slope area affected by installation of walls, fences, swimming pools, etc., by the community homeowners' association, presents the same question of equity, as retaining walls resulting from swimming pool construction on a problem lot appears to also fall within this proposed section. Mayor Thom remarked that it is apparent that some members of the Council have strong feelings relative to certain sections of this proposed ordinance and perhaps further discussion is warranted in an attempt to allow soma relief for a 1~:1 slope in those situations where it is determined Safe and with some kind of independent monitoring control afforded. In view of the lengthy discussion, the Mayor Suggested that action on adoption of the ordinance be continued to allow Council tima to digest and review what has been presented. Deputy City AttorneY Lowry advised of some technical changes to the existing ordinance which are necessary and which the Attorney's Office would recommend be implemented whether or not the remainder of the proposed revised ordinance is adopted. Upon ascertaining that a majority of the Council were amenable to a continuation of the ordinance, Mayor Thom moved that action on the proposed amendment to Title 17 be continued to the meeting of September 24, 1974. Councilwoman Kaywood seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. RECESS: Councilwoman Kaywood moved for a ten-minute recess. Councilman Thom seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. (4:00 P.M.) AFTER RECESS: Mayor Thom called the meeting to order, all Council Mambers being pre- sent. (4:10 P.M.) TENTATIVE TRACT NO. 8533~ REVISION NO. 2 AND CONTINUED REQUEST RE: EXCEPTION TO SEC- TION 17.06.110(b.~ (RECLASSIFICATION NO. 73-74-56~ VARIANCE NO. 2600~ ENVIRONMB~AL IMPACT REPORT NO. 125): Developer, R. H. Grant Corporation, property located on the south side of Nohl Ranch Road, west side of Imperial Highway; containing 45 pro- posed R-H-10,000 zoned lots; and request for exception to Section 17.06.110(b) as it relates to said tentative tract. On motion by Councilwoman Kaywood, seconded by Councilman Thom, action on Tentative Tract No. 8533, Revision No. 2 and the request submitted regarding exception to Section 17.06.110(b) as it relates to said tract was continued to the meeting of September 3, 1974, as requested by the applicant. MOTION CARRIED. CONTINUED REQUEST - YORBALINDA CAB COMPANY TO OPERATE IN THE CITY OF ANAHEIM: Request submitted by Norman H. and Beverly A. Reynolds, Yorba Lends Cab company, requesting permission to operate taxi cab service in the City of Anaheim, origin-' ally submitted at the masting of July 30, 1974 and continued to this date to allow the applicants tima to comply with Section 4.72.030 of the Anaheim Municipal Code, was submitted for Council consideration. The City Clerk advised that to date, no further correspondence has been received from the Yorba Lends Cab Company relative to bringing their application into compliance with Section 4.72.030 of the Anaheim Municipal Code. On motion by Councilman Pebley, seconded by Councilman Thom, the request of the Yorba Lends Cab Company for permission to operate taxi cab service in the City of Anaheim was denied. MOTION CARRIED. 74-853 Ci.ty ~!!, .A~_Jhe!'-a ¢~_!ifornia - COUNCIL MINUTES - Ausust 27, .1974~ 1:30 P.M. C~NTI~.P~Q~ST - EXTENSION OF TIME, ILBCLASSlFICATIONNO. 70-71-24a VARIANCE NO. Application by Scott Child for extension of time to.Reclassification No. 70-71-24 and Variance No. 2228 to allow for purchase of property which is located at 134-142 South Stinson Street, was submitted for Council consideration. Prop- erty was previously approved for R-3 zoning with certain Code waivers to permit construction of an l8-unit apartment complex. This matter was originally sub- mitted to Council at the meeting of August 13, 1974 and continued to this date to allow the applicant time to submit plans for review. Mr. Roberts briefed the location of subject property which is an irregu- larly shaped parcel lying immediately south of the Orange County Flood Control Channel. He related that in March of 1971 the City Council approved Reclassifi- cation No. 70-71-24 and Variance No. 2228 for Code waivers including minimum land- scape setback; minimum side yard; minimum distance between carports and dwelling units; and required access to carports from the alley only, which permitted con- struction of 18 dwelling units on the property subject to certain conditions which have not to date been met. Mr. Roberts reported that the current applicant, Mr. Scott Child, is requesting an extension of time to the rezoning and variance and has submitted a revised plan which has been reviewed and is very similar or identical to the plan originally approved. The plans indicate that 18 units are proposed, the density would be 25.2 per net residential acre, lot coverage 54.8% which is 2/10% under the maximum. There are 4 two-bedroom units and 14 one-bed- room units proposed, which comply with minimum square footage requirements. The applicant proposes to provide 29 parking spaces which would exceed the minimum number required at the time the original request was approved and would meet cur- rent multiple-family zoned parking requirements recently adopted. The revised plans submitted were reviewed by Council and Mr. Roberts omtlined that these call for the buildings to be obliquely aligned to the Flood Control Channel. Mr. Roberts also reported that the petitioner has submitted application for exemption from the requirement to file an environmental impact report rela- tive to this project as of August 23, 1974, and upon checking with the City Attorney, it was ascertained that according to the State law there is a 30-day postimg period required prior to Council action. Deputy City Attorney Frank Lowry corroborated this statement and advised that any formal action on the request for extension of time should be delayed until after September 22, 1974, which would be the expiration date of the 30-day posting period. On motion by Councilwoman Kaywood, seconded by Councilman Pebley, action. on request for extension of time to Reclassification No. 70-71-24 and Variance No. 2228 was deferred to the meeting of September 24, 1974. MOTION CARRIED. ~RI~'~.~.~~ DEVICES, PUBLIC DANCE: On motion by Councilman Pebley, seconded by Councilwo~an Kaywood, the following applications were submitted and granted as recommended by the Chief of Police: a. Application filed by Eleanor L. Roslund for Amusement Devices Per- mit to allow two pool tables at Ellie's Place, 1652 West Lincoln Avenue, subject to provisions of Chapters 3.24 and 4.20 of the Anaheim Municipal Code. b. Application filed by Donald E. Christian for Amusement Devices Per- ~tt to allow two pinball machines, three pool tables, one Juke box and one cigarette machine at Billy Jack's, 2880 East Miraloma Avenue, subject to provi- sions of Chapters 3.24 and 4.20 of the Anaheim Municipal Code. c. Application filed by Wilber R. Wright for Amusement Devices Permit to allow various coin operated games at the Disneyland Hotel Marina, 1150 Cerritos Avenue, subject to Chapters 3.24 and 4.20 of the Anaheim Municipal Code. d. Application filed by Paul F. Shaner for permit to conduct public dance, September 14, 1974 at The Ground Round, 1301 West Lincoln Avenue from 9:00 p.m. to 1:00 a.m., subject to provisions of Chapter 4.16 of the Anaheim Municipal Cede. MOTION CARRIED. 74-854 City ~l], An~heim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - August 27~ 1974t 1:30 P.M. REQUEST TO RSTAIN ROOF SIGN - VARIANCE NO. 2252: Request submitted by Josephine B. Lopez, Swan Florist, to retain an existing roof sign located at 3136 "B" West Lincoln Avenue, permission for which is scheduled to be terminated August, 1974, was submitted for Council consideration together with reports from Development Services Department and the City Engineer. Mayor Thom stated that he personally was aware of the situation which Mrs. Lopez faced, that of trying to do business in a small shopping center without having the availability of a sign on the designated pole. He pointed out that for a type of business such as this which depends on impulse trade adequate sign- ing is critical. Councilwoman Kaywood stated that this is one of the instances in which the landlord permitted all of the space on the sign pole to be utilized by one or two tenants and when other shops were leased subsequently, no space was avail- able for them. She also noted that when Council approved Variance No. 2252 for the roof sign it was intended to expire at the same time as Mrs. Lopez' lease, August, 1974. She felt it was the landlord's responsibility to provide his ten- ants with sign space on the legal pole sign. Councilman Sneegas responded that this would necessitate that all of the businesses in the shopping center would have to pay for new signs whenever it is necessary to change because of new tenants and noted that sometimes two or three shops are combined into one larger facility. He indicated agreement with Councilwoman Kaywood's position if it were for a new shopping center and new pole sign, but thought it would be inequitable to enforce at existing shopping centers such as this. Councilwoman Kaywood voiced the opinion that it would be possible to reserve the necessary sign space for all tenants by dividing the available sign space by the number of tenants. RESOLUTION NO. 74R-412: Councilman Pebley offered Resolution No. 74R-412 for adoption, extending permission to the petitioner to retain the roof-mounted sign located at 3136 "B" West Lincoln Avenue until August, 1976. Refer to Resolution Book. A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM PERMITTING A SIGN GRANTED BY VARIANCE NO. 2252 TO REMAIN UNTIL AUGUST, 1976. Roll Call Vote: AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Seymour, Pebley, Sneegas and Thom NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Kaywood ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: None The Mayor declared Resolution No. 74R-412 duly passed and adopted. Councilwoman Kaywood explained that she did not wish her "no" vote to be construed as being opposed to Mrs. Lopez, but that she does feel the landlord should be responsible for supplying space for signing on the existing pole sign. TENTATIVE MAPt TRACT NO. 8423 - ExTENsION OF TIME (RECLASSIFICATION NO. 71-72-30~ ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT NO. 75): Request of Mr. Harold L. Raab, Raab & Boyer Engineering Company dated July 15, 1974, for a one-year extension of time to Ten- tative Map, Tract No. 8423, was Submitted for Council consideration together with reports from Development Services Department and the City Engineer. Said report £rom Development Services Department recommends that the requested extension of time not be granted until such time as sufficient supplemental information to E.I.R. No. 75, as it pertains to said trac~ is submitted. There was also communication received from Classic ~evelopment Corpora- tion, dated August 14, 1974, indicating that E.I.R. No. 75 which was adopted by the City Council January 2, 1973 is still valid as it pertains to Tract No. 8423. Zoning Supervisor Roberts reported that subsequent to preparation of the Development Services Department report, members of Development Services Depart- ment were in contact with the developer and discussion of the E.I.R. resulted in 74-855 City Stll~ A~,ah~im~ California - COONCIL MINUTES - August 27~ !974.t 1:30 P.M. th~ conclusion that the information which was submitted under the original E.I.R. No. 75 would be in conformance with the new guidelines and therefore Development Services Department now recommends that the letter submitted and previous E.I.R. would be adequate. On motion by Councilman Pebley, seconded by Councilman Seymour, a one- year extension of time for Tentative Nap, Tract No. 8423 was granted, to expire October 16, 1975. (Councilwoman Kaywood abstained from voting on the foregoing motion.) MOTION CARRIED. CITY PIAI~ING CO~IIISSION IT,/S: Actions taken by the City Planning Commission at their masting held August 5, 1974, pertaining to the following applications were submitted for City Council information and consideration: 1. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 1485 AND ENVIRONNENTAL IHP~qT REPORT NO. 131: Sub- mitred by J. Richard Farley and Robert P. Dupre to permit a quail hatchery in the · M-1 Zone on property located on the west side of Orangethorpe Park, north of Orangethorpe Avenue. The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC74-163, r~co~nded that the City Council certify E.I.R. No. 131 as in compliance with the City and State Guidelines and State of California Environmental Quality Act and granted Conditional Use Permit No. 1485, subject to conditions and further subject to review in one year. C.ERTIFICATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT NO. 131: On motion by Councilman Pebley, seconded by Councilman Sneesas, E.I.R. No. 131 having been reviewed by the City staff and recommended by the City Planning Commission to be in compli- ance with City and State Guidelines and the State of California Environmental Quality Act, the City Council acting upon such information and belief does here- by certify that E.I.R. No. 131 is in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act and the City and State Guidelines. MOTION CARRIED. 1485. The City Council took no further action on Conditional Use Permit No. 2. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 1482: Submitted by Rapt Company to permit a public skill driving course on M-1 zoned property located southwest of Katella Avenue and the Orange Freeway, together with application for exemption status from the requirement to file an environmental impact report. The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC74-154, reco~ended that said project be declared exempt from the requirement to prepare an environmental impact report pursuant to the provisions of the California Envir- omm~ntal Quality Act and granted Conditional Use Permit No. 1482, subject to conditions. Councilwoman Kaywood questioned whether the Air Pollution Control Dis- trict was ever contacted to determine what effect they felt this activity might have on air quality and Mayor Thom indicated he had spoken with Mr. Fitchen who informed him that they had no control over this type of facility. Councilwoman Kaywood further questioned the noise impact of the pro- posed activity upon musical, religious or other speaking events in the Anaheim Stadium and whether the disturbance from such activity might cause the City a loss of revenues for these events at the Stadium. She stated she would like to request a public hearing if these concerns cannot be satisfied at this time. Mr. John Harding further posed the question as to whether or not the local director of the State Department of Highways was contacted regarding the effect of lights from this activity on the adjacent freeway. In response to these questions, Mr. Roberts indicated that the Anaheim Police Department has received a communication from the California Highway Patrol wherein they expressed concern relative to the effects of'lights from this activity on southbound traffic on the Orange Freeway. This situation was reviewed and discussed by the Planning Commission and they did have certain stipulations 74-856 City ~a!lt ~be!mt California - COUNCIL MINU~ES - Ausust 27~ 1974~ 1:30 P.M. made by the petitioner and imposed Condition No. 7 (Resolution No. PC74-154) which requires that all lighting be directed away from the Stadium and the free- way and further that the proposed lighting plan be submitted to and approved by the City. In regard to the potential noise problem, especially for nmsical or religious events at the Stadium, the City Planning Commission imposed a condition on approval of the conditional use permit which requires that the noise level emitted by the proposed use shall not exceed 60 dBA at the south side of the rail- road tracks. Councilman Pebley stated that the Planning Commission recommendation would appear to him to be satisfactory to control the noise levels. Councilwoman Kaywood pointed out that if there is noise which disturbs patrons at the musical or religious events in the Stadium they will not attend again and this will prove detrimental to Stadium revenues. She emphasized that what concerned her in the report particularly was that without installation of noise suppressing devices these racing cars would range between 91 and 93 .dBA, and that they Claim the noise is considered part of the "fun'~ She questioned whether a time limit on the conditional use permit was considered by the Planning Co~ission. Councilman Seymour observed that if the business does not meet the requirements as set forth by the City Planning Commission, the conditional use permit could be revoked. Councilwoman Kaywood was further concerned whether this use would prove to be an attractive nuisance to patrons at the Stadium and what the City's posi- tion as far as liability would be in this event, to which Mr. Lowry replied that an individual who attempted to cross the railroad track to gain access to subject property would be considered trespassing on railroad property. Councilwoman Kaywood questioned why, pursuant to Item No. 10 in the Development Services Department report, the petitioners wish to display a model of the racing car in the clubhouse if it is not to be placed on sale. In answer to Councilwoman Kaywood, Hr. Roberts advised that it was the Judgment of the Planning Commission that they had imposed sufficient controls on the proposed use to protect the City's interest. Councilwoman Kaywood withdrew her request that Conditional Use Permit No. 1482 be set for public hearing. ENVIRONNI~TAL IMPACT - NEGATIVE DECLARATION: On motion by Councilman Pebley, seconded by Councilman Sneesas, the City Council finds and determines that this project will have no significant effect on the environment and is therefore exempt from the requirement to prepare an environmental impact report. MOTION CARRIED. 1482. The City Council took no further action on Conditional Use Permit No. 3. ~IRO~AL IMPACT - CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION - NEGATIVE DECLARATIONS: On motion by Councilman Pebley, seconded by Councilman Sneegas, the City Council finds and determines that the projects within Variance No. 2625 and Conditional Use Per- mit No. 1484 will have no significant effect on the environment and are therefore ex~mpt from the requirement to prepare an envirorm~ntal impact report and further ratified the determination of the'Director of Development Services that the act- ivities proposed in the following actions fall within the definition of Section 3..10, Class Nos. 1, 2 or 3 of the City of Anaheim Guidelines to the requirements for an environmental impact report and are therefore categorically exempt from the requirement to file said report: Variance No. 2614 Variance No. 2620 Variance No. 2623 Variance No. 2624 Conditional Use Permit No. 1463 MOTION CARRIED. 76-857 City ~111 ,~.~.~_heim, California- COUNCIL MINUT~-S - August 27, 1974, 1:~0 P.M. 4.~ V..AR..IANCE NO. 2625: Sub~itted by Thrifty Realty Company to construct two i~duetrial buildings with commercial offices on M-1 zoned property located on the w~st side of State College Boulevard, north of Cerritos Avenue, with waiver of: a. Permitted uses. The City Planning Co~mission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC74-159, granted said variance, subject to conditions. 5. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 1484: Submitted by .Norene McCarty to permit an e~closed restaurant with cocktail lounge in the M-1 Zone, on property located on the east side of Tustin Avenue, south of La Palum Avenue. The City Planning Co~ssion, pursuant to Resolution ~O. PC74-165, granted said conditional use permit, subject to conditions. 6. VARIANCE NO. 2614: Submitted by Open Road Realty and Development Company to construct three free-standing signs on M-1 zoned property located on the east side of West Street, south of South Street, with Code waivers of: a. Minimum distance between signs. b. Permitted location of a free-standing sign. c. Haximm number of signs, The City Planning Co~mission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC74-155, $~anted Variance No. 2614 in part only, granting waiver "a" and denying hirers ~b" and "c", subject to conditions. 77 V.ARL~CE NO. 2620: Submitted by New Apostolic Church to permit construction of a chain link fence in the front yard setback on R-A zoned property located on the south side of Orangewood Avenue, east of Jetty Drive, with Code waiver of: a. Haximum fence height. Variance No. 2620 was withdrawn bY the petitio~r. &, ~IA~CENO. 2623: Submitted by Karl Sator to establish two st~ns on M-1 zoned property located on the south side of Coronado of Blue ~u~ Street, with Code waivers of: a. M~ximmnumber of signs. b. Distance between signs. The City Planning Comission, pursuant to Resolution ~o. PC74-166, ~anted Variance No. 2623 per~tttin$ one free-standing s$~ for · ~riod of ~ix ~nths, subject to conditions. ~. ~Cg NO. 2624: Submitted by Michael Pawlunk et al, to pemit the con- t'inued use of a one-car garage on R-1 zoned property located on the aa~t side of Bate Street West, north of Broadway, with Code waiver of: a. Minimum number of parking spaces in a gara~. The City Planning Comnission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC74-171, ~ranted Variance No. 2624, .subject to conditions. ~O, ~ITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 1463: Submitted by Wilzon & Hampton Painting ~t~eactors and Southem Pacific Land Company to permit the ex~anoion of an'exist- ~ contractor's storage yard on M-1 zoned property located betwaen~le Street and Broadway, with Code waivers of: a. Mintmm structural setback from a local street. b. Maximm fence height. The City Plannin~ Co~ission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC74-162, ~ranted Conditional Use Per,it No. 1463, subject to conditions and further recom- mends to the City Council that no on-street parking be allo~ed along N~ble Street on the south~s~erly side abutting the northeasterly bo~da~ of subject property. 74-858 City ga!la A~_aheim~ California - COUNCIL HINUTES - Ausust 27~ 1974a L:30 P.M. On motion by Councilwoman Kaywood, seconded by Councilman Pebley, the City Council authorized the City Attorney to prepare the necessary ordinance pro- hibitin~ on-street parking along Mable streeet on the southwesterly side abutting subject property,as recom~nded by the City Planning Commission. MOTION CARRIED. 11, CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 1127 - EXTENSION OF TI2iE: Submitted by Daniel H. Wolff, Kaplan, Livingston, Goodwin, Borkowitz & Selvin, for the Wrather Corp- oration, requesting a one-year extension of time to permit the continued use of out- door banquet facilities on R-A zoned property located at the northwest corner of West Street and Cerritos Avenue. ~he City Planning Commission by motion, granted a'one-year extension of time to Conditional Use Permit No. 1127, to expire July 27, 1975. 12. C01/DITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 1432 - TERMINATION: Submitted by James Russell, Vice President, Dunn Properties Corporation requesting termination of Conditional Use Permit No; 1432, which was' granted to construct a 73-room addition to an existing motel in the M-1 zone. Property located on the south side of Katella Avenue, west of State College Boulevard. The City Planning Commission pursuant to Resolution No. PC74-172 terminated Conditional Use Permit No. 1432. 13. COUNCIL ACTION: The foregoing applications (Ite~Nos. 4-12) were reviewed by the City Council and no further action vas taken. PROPOS]~;D ~.~.k!D_lmmT TO TITLE 18 OF THE AI/AHEI1/MUNICIPAL CODE - ZONING: To con- sider a~endments to Title 18 of the Anaheim Hunicipal Code, zoning, pertaining to site development standards of all one-family residential zoned districts. On motion by Hayor Thom, seconded by Councilwoman Kay~ood, the City Council scheduled public hearing on proposed amendment to Title 18 of the AnaheimHunicipal Code, Zoning for the Council meeting of September 17, 1974, 1:30 P.M. MOTION CARRIED.' TENTATIVE HAP~ T_PACT NOS. 8463~ REVISION NO. 1, 8464~ REVISION NO. 1~ 8465~ REVI- SION NO. 1 (RECLASSIFICATION NO. 73-74-31~ VARIANCE NO. 2569~ ~VIRONMENTAL IMPA~T REPORT NO. 110}: Developer, Anaheim Hills, Inc., and Texaco Ventures, Inc.; prop- erty located on the south side of Canyon Rim Road, northeast of Nohl Ranch Road; Tract No. 8463 contains 40 proposed R-H-10,000 zoned lots; Tract No. 8464 contains 42 proposed R-H-10,000 zoned lots, and Tract No. 8465 contains 45 proposed R-H-lO,000 zoned lots. The City Clerk reported that E.I.R. No. 110, supplementary to E.I.R. No. 80 was adopted by the City Council on February 12, 1974, and following rehear- ing held on May 21, 1974, no further action was taken pursuant to Resolution No. 74R-239. The City Plannin$ Commission at their meeting held August 19, 1974, approved Tentative Hap, Tract No. 8463, Revision No. 1, subject to the following conditions: 1. That the approval of Tentative Hap of Tract No. 8463 (Revision 1) is granted subject to the approval of Variance No. 2569. 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 street names shall be approved by the City of Anaheim prior to approval of a final tract map. 6. That the o~ner(s) of subject property shall pay to the City of Anaheim the appropriate park and recreation /n-lieu fees as determined to be appropriate by the City Council, said fees to be paid at the time the building peru~t is issued. 7~-859 City..~...~!l, A~het~v California .-'COI.~CIL .l~Ilf0T[S - August_27, 1974, 1:30 P.M, 7. That drainase of said property shall be disposed of in a M~er s~tisfactory to the City Ensineer. If, in the preparation of the site sufficient ~tn8 is required' to necessitate a sradin8 pe~t, no ~o~k on iradiui will be Pe~tted between October 15th and April 15th ~less all required off-site dr~in~le facilities ~ve been installed and are operative. Positive assur~ce shall be provided the City that such drainase iicilitits ~ill be c~leted prior to October 15th. Necessary riiht~f-way for off-site drainase ficilitits shall be dedicated to the City, or the City Council shall have initiated cond~ation proceedinss therefor (the costs of which shall be borne by the developer) prior to the co~ncement of sradinE operations. The required drainase facilities shall be of a size and t~e sufficient to carry r~off waters oritinatini from hilher properties throush said property to ulti~te disposal as approved by the City Ens~eer. Said drainale facilities shall be the first it~ of construction and shall be completed and be f~ctional throus~ut the tract and from the do~stre~ bo~dary of the property to the ulCistt point of dis~sal prior to ~he iss~nce of any final buildint inspections or occup~cy pe~ts. Drainase district re~burse~nt aSre~ents ~y be ~de available ~o the developers of said property upon their request. 8. That sradins, excavation, and all other construction activi:its shall be conducted in such a ~er so as to ~ni~ze th~ possibility of any silt orilinatini from this project beint carried into the S~a ~ River by sto~ ~ter orilinaCini from or flo~ns throusht this pro~ect. 9. ~at fire hydrants shall be installed and c~rsed as required and dttemined to be necessary by the ~iei of the lire Depar~nt prior to ~nc~nt of structural 10. ~at a 6-foot hith, decorative, open~rk will shill b~ constructed at t~ top of the slope adjacent Co C~yon ~ad on ~t Nos. 1, 5, 6, 11, 12, 13 and 14, except that said wail ~y be reduced in ~iiht to 42 inch~s in the front portions of these lots. Plans for said wall s~ll b~ submitt~d to the Pla~iai Comission or City Council for approval prior to approval of th~ final tract ~p. Reasonable landscaping, ~cludinl irriiition ticilitit~, ~h~ll be installed within the slope areas of each lot adjacent to th~ roa~y ~d in the ~ce~nted portions of the arterial hithway parkway the full distanct of slid ~all. Plans for said' landscapins shall be submitted to and subject to the approval of the Superintendent of Parkway ~inte~nce. Follovint installation and accept~ce, the property o~er(s) shall'ass~ responsibility for ~inte~nce of s,id landscapins to the lot lines, and the City of ~heis shall ass~ the responsibility /or ~intenance of the landscapins in the Canyon Ri~ ~ad par~ay. ~e City PlanninE Comission at their meetins held AuEust 19, 1974, approved Tentative ~p, Tract No. 8464, ltvision No. 1, subltct to the followint co~ditions: 1. ~at the approval of Tentative ~p of Tract No. 8~64 (Revision '1) is sr~nted subject to the approval of Variance No. 2569. 2. ~at should this subdivision be developed as ~re t~n one subdivi- si~, each subdivision thereof shall be submitted in tentative fo~ for approval. 3. That all lots within this tract shall be se~ed by understood utilities. 4. ~at a final ~rac~ ~p of subject proper~y shall be subsitted to ~d ~pproved by the City Council and ~hen be recorded ia the office of the Oranse ~ty Recorder. 5. That s~reet n~mes shall be approved by ~he City of ~aheim prior ~pr~al of a final trac~ ~p. 6. ~at ~he o~er(s) of subject property shall pay to the City ~ahei~ the appropriate park and recreation in-lieu fees ~ detemined to be ~pr~riate by the City Council~ said fees to be paid a~ the ti~ the buildint ~t is issued. 7. ~a~ drainase of said proper~y shall be disused of in a ~tis/Ictory to the City hiineer. If, in the preparation of the site sufficient ~idinl is required to necessitate a lradini pemi:~ no ~rk on Iridinl will be ~ittedbetveen October 15~h and tpril 15th unless all required off-site ~ai~le facilities have ~en inst~led and are operative. Positive assurance ~all be provided the City that such drainase ficilitiis will be co~leced prior to October 15th. Necessary riiht~f'~y for off-site drai~le flcilitiis shall ~ dedicated Co the City, or the City Council s~ll ~ve ~itiltid conde~ation ~oc~din~s therefor (the costs of ~ich shall ~ borne by the developer) prior ~o the c~ce~nt of srad~s operations. ~e required Irainile facilities 74-860 City g,!lt ~aheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - Ausust 27~ 1974~ !:30 P.M. 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 ultimate point of disposal prior to the issuance of any final building inspections or occupancy permits. Drainage district reimbursement agreements may be made available to the developers of said property upon their request. 8. 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 Aha River by storm water originating from or flowing through this project. 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 com- mencemant of structural framing. 10. 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 through 8, 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 Commission or City Council for approval prior to approval of the final tract map. Reason- able landscaping, including irrigation facilities, shall be installed within the slope areas of'each lot adjacent to the roadway and in the uncemented portions 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 Superinten- dent 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 responsibility for mainte- nance of the landscaping in the Canyon Rim Road parkway. 'The City Planning Commission at their meeting held August 19, 1974, approved Tentative Map, Tract No. 8465, Revision No.1, subject to the following conditions: 1. That the approval of Tentative Map of Tract No. 8465 (Revision 1) is granted subject to the approval of Variance No. 2569. 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 street names shall be approved by the City of Anaheim prior to approval of a final tract map. 6. That the owner(s) of subject property shall pay to the City of Anaheim the appropriate park and recreation tn-lieu fees as determined to be appropriate by the City Council, said fees to be paid at the ti~e the building permit ia issued. 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 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 drain- age facilities have been installed and are operative. Positive assurance shall be provided the City that such drainage facilities will be completed prior to October 15th. Necessary 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 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 ultimate point of disposal prior to the issuance of any final building inspections or occupancy permits. Drainage district reimbursement agreements may be made available to the developers of said property upon their request. 8. 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. 7 4 -861 City ~11~ Aqaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - Au&ust 27t 1974, 1:30 9. That fire hydrants shall be installed and charsed as required and deter~Lned to be necessary by the Chief of the Fire Department prior to com- mencement of structural fra~in$. 10. That the alignment of the storm drain within the golf course shall be approved by the City of Anaheim. Construction of said atom drain shall be acco~plished with no interference with play on the golf course. On motion by Councilman Pebley, seconded by Councilman Sneegas, Tenta- tive Maps, Tract Nos. 8463, Revision No. 1, 8464, Revision No. 1 and 8465, Revi- sion No. 1 were approved, subject to the recomendations of the City Planning Comm/ssion. MOTION CARRIED. G~N_~. P.L~N A~RND___MENTS NOS. 133 AND 134: On motion by Councilman Thom, seconded by .Councilman Pebley, public hearing on General Plan Amendment Nos. 133 and 134, proposed Noise Element and proposed Scenic Highway Element, respectively, were scheduled for September 10, 1974, 1:30 P.M. MOTION CARRIED. REQUEST FOR EXTENSION OF TIME - VARIANCE NO. 2144: Zonin~ Supervisor Roberts reported that a request for a three-year extension of time to Variance No. 2144 to permit the continued operation of a non-conforming produce market located at 1524 South Euclid Street, was submitted by Mr. Scott Raymond, Attorney representing Herman Margulieux. Mr. Roberts further noted that when the last extension of time was granted on this variance (May 1, 1973) the Council action specifically indicated that this use would terminate as of August 24, 1974, as stipulated to by the petitioner. Therefore, staff is seeking direction from Council at this time as to whether or not they wish the Zoning Enforcement Officer to issue a citation to Hr. Margulieux, since the fruit stand is still in operation as of this date. The City Clerk advised that the letter requesting the three-year exten- sion of time was dated prior to August 24, 1974, and is scheduled on the Council Agenda for September 3,1974. Mayor Thom.stated that it was his personal feeling no citation should be issued until the matter of the request for extension of time comes before the City Council. Councilman Pebley pointed out that the last time this matter was con- sidered there were many Anaheim residents living nearby or adjacent to the exist- ins fruit stand who were adamantly opposed to any further extensions of time to this use and if Council is going to consider an additional extension of time to this variance, that these people should be so notified. Councilwoman Raywood inquired whether the conditions t~posed on the last extension of time were met and was advised that they were satisfied. Councilman Seymour suggested that the request for extension of time be set for public hearing at the applicant's expense. Councilman Sneegas advised that he would be opposed to even setting the matter for public hearing, that as far as he was concerned the variance had expired on August 24, 1974. He pointed out that Mr. Margulieux made a firm com- mitment, giving his personal health as the reason, that he would be closing this business on August 24, 1974, and that the prior extension of time was predicated upon this comitment. Councilman Seymour was of the opinion that Mr. Narsulieux Just as any other citizen or developer of the City deserves the opportunity to put his case before the Council and on this basis he suggested the matter be set for a public hearins. Mr. John Harding, Administrative Assistant, interjected that prior to the last continuance granted on this variance, numerous complaints were received in the City Manager's Office relative to the operation of the fruit stand, how- ever during the past year, no complaints have been received in their office. Councilman Sneegas suggested that this is because area residents believed that the fruit stand would be closed as of August 24, 1974 as Mr. Narivlieux indicated to Council. 74-862 City ~a!l, ~heim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES August 27~1974, 1:30 P.M. At the conclusion of discussion, Councilman Seymour moved that the City Attorney's Office contact Hr. Margulieux' Attorney and advise him that within two weeks, either Mr. Hargulieux must make application for public hearing, at his expense, relative to an extension of time, or he will be cited at the end of that period. Council~anThom seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. By general consent, the Council further directed that the request for extension of time be removed from the Agenda for next Tuesday, September 3, 1974. Councilman Pebley further questioned whether the matter should be referred back to the City Planning Co~mission, noting that he would like to have a recommendation from that body relative to Council permitting the non-conforming fruit stand to continue operation. However, following brief discussion the major- ity of the Council did not feel it would be necessary to refer the matter to the City Planning Commission, but that the applicant would be required to file an environmental impact report or request for exemption from same. REQUEST - MOM_I.~R DRIVE AR~A~ WATER SERVICE INSTALLATION ASSESSMENT~ EXTENDED PAYMENTS: Mr. Stewart Moss, 1019 Via Vista, representing the Santa Ana Canyon Property Owner's Association advised that in connection with the City's current installa- tion of a new water distribution system in the Mohler Drive area and the assess- ments therefor to the individual homeowners, they wish to request an extended payment program. Hr. Moss reported that the assessments to individual homeowners range from $600 to $1,500, and this does create a financial burden for many of the prop- erty oWners. He therefore respectfully requested that the City consider develop- ing so~e kind of a plan whereby the payment of these assessments could be deferred, preferably over a period of 24 months, however any extension which could be arranged would be appreciated and would be preferable to the total sum in one pay- ment.as is presently required. Councilman Pebley observed that to allow two years for payment of this assessment is tantamount to allowing these individuals the use of City funds for that period. City Attorney Watts explained that the portion of the water distribu- tion system which Hr. Moss is referring to is that which is being placed in the public right-of-way and that in addition to this assessment there will be costs to the individual property owners to relocate their water service. The only method which he could suggest at this time would be the creation of an assessment district under the 1911 Act whereby these charges would be paid over a period of time. He explained that the portion of the water system for which these indivi- duals are being assessed is that which normally would have been installed by the developer and is generally referred to as the secondary system. Councilman Sneegas pointed out that administration of an assessment dis- trict wo..u~d add considerably to each individual property owners costs. In answer to Councilman Sneegas, the Utilities Director reported that the total sum to be collected from assessments amounts to $140,000. He advised that this subject had been discussed with the area residents for a number of years and that this area was annexed to the City of Anaheim primarily because of dif- ficulties with the State of California relative to their present water system. Discussions were held regarding the formation of an assessment district at the time of annexation but it was indicated by the property owners that because of the increased costs with this methodthey would prefer to secure their own money. He noted, however, the costs have risen since that time. Mr. Hoyt reported that there are 100 property owners involved and the cost will average $1,300 to $1,400' each. He further noted that it is the plan of the Anaheim Water Utility not to provide water service to a resident until the assessment fee is paid. In response to Councilwoman Kaywood, Hr. Hoyt advised that the Anaheim Water Service will take over shortly and that to his knowledge, there has never been a situatiOn before which would set a precedent. Mr. Watts explained in answer to Councilman Seymour that in order to form, the assessment district, 'according to the Majority Protest Act, a 2/3 majority of those affected property owners would be necessary. Further, such a district would be for all owners, even those who would prefer to pay a lump sum. 74-863 City H~!I, ~he'i~t California - COb~CIL MINUTES - August 27, 1974, 1:30 P.H. Councilman Seymour then asked Hr. Hoss if he felt a 2/3 ~aJority of the property owners would be agreeable to form an assessment district to which Hr. Moss replied affirmatively. City Attorney Watts further noted that, in this particular instance, the contract has been awarded for this improvement and work has commenced. At the conclusion of discussion, by general Council consent, the City Attorney was requested to prepare the necessary information on formation of an assessment district and the associated costs as well as any other appropriate plan to defer assessment payments over a period of time and to submit these to the City Council and Mr. Stewart Moss within two weeks. In answer to Councilman Seymour, Hr. Moss agreed to circulate this in- formation among the property owners and obtain signatures indicating how many of them would be in favor of. forming an assessment district for payment of the water distribution system assessment. ~$OLU~.ION NO. 74R-413 - REJECTING ATm. BIDS, ACCOUNT NOS. 280-462-922-01/100-425-241: (hi report and recoz~endation of the City Engineer, Councilman Sneegas offered Resolution No. 74R-413 for adoption, rejecting all bids received for Account Nos. 280-462-922-01 and 100-425-241. Refer to Resolution Book. A'KESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM REJECTING ALL BIDS P.~CEIVED UP TO THE HOUR OF 2:00 P.M. ON THE 1ST DAY OF AUGUST, 1974 FOR THE APPLI- CATIO~ OF TRAFFIC STRIPE PAINT, PAVEMENT MARKINGS AND DEVICES ON VARIOUS CITY STREETS, ACCOUNT NOS. 280-462-922-01 AND 100-425-241. Roll Call Vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Kaywood, Seymour, Pebley, Sneegas and Thom COUNCIL H]gMBERS: None COUNCIL MEMBERS: None The Mayor declared Resolution No. 74R-413 duly passed and adopted. NO. 74R-414~ ACCOUNT NOS. 280-462-922-01/100-425-241: Councilman S~e~s offered Resolution No. 74R-414 for adoption. Refer to Resolution Book. A KF~LUTION OF THE CITer COUNCIL OF THE CITY 'OF ANAHEIM FInDInG A~D DETERMINING T~AT PUBLIC CONVENIENCE AND NECESSITY REQUIRE THE CONSTRUCTION AND C0~LETION O~ A PUBLIC II4PROVENENT, TO WIT: THE APPLICATION OF TRAFFIC STRIPE PAINT, P~V~I~ NARKINGS AND DEVICES ON VARIOUS STREETS IN THE CII"/ OF ANA~IM, ACCOUNT NOS. 280-462-922-01/100-425-241. (Bids to be opened September 19, 1974, 2:00 P.M.) Roll Call Vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: COUNCIL HEM~ERS: Kaywood, Seymour, Pebley, Sneegas and Thom COUNCIL HEHBERS: None COUNCIL HEHBERS: None The Mayor declared Resolution No. 74R-414 duly passed and adopted. 74R-415 - AWARD OF CONTRACT, LEGAL ADVERTISIN~ INSIDE THE CITY LIMITS: accordance with recommendation of the City Clerk, Councilman Pebley offered R~solution No. 74R-415 for adoption. Refer to Resolution Book. A RE~OLUTION OFT HE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIMA~CEFTI~A S~LED FROPOSAL AND AWARDING A CONTRACT TO THE LOWEST RESPONSIBLE BIDDER WHOSE BID BEST RESPONDS IN QUALITY, FITNESS AND CAPACITY, FOR ALL I~ ADVERTISING R~UIREDBYLAW TO BE PUBLISHED IN A NEWSPAPEROF G~IERAL CIRCULATION, PRINTED AND PUBLISHED WITHIN THE CIT~. (Anaheim Bulletin, $4.00 per colusm inch first insertion; $3.00 per column inch subsequent) 74-864 Cxty ~A!I~ ~-.~heim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - Au2ust 27, 1974, 1~30 P.M. Roll Call Vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Kaywood, Seymour, Pebley., Sneegas and Thom COUNCIL MEMBERS: None COUNCIL MI!2iBERS: None The Nayor declared Resolution No. 74R-415 duly passed and adopted, LEGAL ~2)VERT!SING OUTSIDE THE CITY LIMITS: City Clerk, Aloha M. Hougard reported that no bids were received for legal advertising outside the City Limits. RESOLUTION NO. 74R-416 - DEEDS OF EASEMENT: Councilman Pebley offered Resolution No. 74R-416 for adoption. Refer to Resolution Book. A RESOLUTION OF THE' CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM ACCEPTING CERTAIN DEEDS AND ORDERING THEIR RECORDATION. (John Von Balor, et ux. and Henry Silczkowiak, et ux.; Robert Wiens, et ux.; Audrey T. Day; Kenneth M. Light, et ux.; Mobilease Corp.; Fowler Industrial Park; Floyd E. Prewitt, et ux. and William A. McNames, et ux) Roll Call Vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Kaywood, Seymour, Pebley, Sneegas and Thom COUNCIL MEMBERS: None COUNCIL MEMBERS: None The Mayor declared Resolution No. 74R-416 duly passed and adopted. PURCHASE OF MATERIAL - 16-INCH DUCTILE PIPE: Mr. John Harding, Administrative Assis- tant reported on informal bids received for the purchase of 1,134 feet of 16-inch ductile pipe for the Water Division, as .follows and recommended acceptance of the iow bid: VENDOR TOTAL AMOUNT~ INCLUDING TAX Pacific States, Los Angeles U.S. Pipe & Foundry, Los Angeles $13,959.29 14,388.42 On motion by Councilman Pebley, seconded by Councilman Sneegas, the low bid of Pacific States was accepted and purchase authorized in the amount of $13,959.29, including tax. MOTION CARRIED. PURCHASE OF EQUIPMENT - TWO TURF VACUUMS: Mr. John Harding, Administrative Assistant reportad on the recommended purchase of two turf. Vacuums for Parks, Recreation and The Arts Department and advised that the one manufacturer, Turf Vac, Corpor- ation has submitted a quotation for said equipment in the amount of $9,540, in- cluding tax. He thereupon recommended the purchase be authorized. On motion by Councilman Sneegas, seconded by Councilman Pebley, purchase was authorized in the amount of $9,540, including tax, as recommended. MOTION CARRIED. PURCHASE OF EQUIPMENT - COLOR PRINT PROCESSING SYSTEM: Mr. John Harding, Administra- tive Assistant reported on informal bids received for the purchase of one color print processing system for the Police Department as follows, and recommended acceptance of the low bid: VENDOR TOTAL AMOUNT~ INCLUDING TAX Nord Photo Engraving- Treck Photo Graphics- Royce Photo-Graphics- Kodak-Professional & Finishing Dept. $10,569.74 plus freight 11,751.90 NO QUOTE NO qUOTE On motion by Councilman Pebley, seconded by Councilman Sneesas, the low bid ~f Nord Photo Engraving, Inc., was accepted and purchase authorized in the amount of $10,694.74, including tax, plus freight charge of approximately $125.00. ~OTION CARRIED. 74-865 City ~!1, _~n_~a__~et~, California -COUNCIL MDI~I~, ' Auxust 27, 1~74t 1:30 ~C~l O[ E~I~ - I~OX~: l~inistrative ~sist~t Jo~ ~rdi~ reported ~ the reco~nded purchase of an intoxi~ter for the Police D~ar~nt ~ ad- vised that the one ~nufacturer, Intox~ter, Inc., has sub,tied a quotation for said equipment in the ~t of $3,604, including tn. He therefore recom- ~nded the purchase be authorized. ~ motion by Councilm Sneegas, seconded by Council~n ie~u:, pur- chase was authorized in the ~o~t of $3,604, includini taX, as reco~ed. ~ION CalED. CLAINS AGAINST THE CITY: The following claims with the exception of Item No. d, Anaheim Condos, Ldt., and Robert Cartiere, were denied as recommended by the City Attorney and ordered referred to the insurance carrier, on motion by Councilman Sneegas, seconded by Councilman Pebley: a. Claim submitted by Gordon Gregory for Miles C. Gregory, a minor, for injuries purportedlysustained as a result of condition and maintenance of intersection for flow of pedestrian traffic at South and Philadelphia Streets, on or about February 28, 1974. b. Claim submitted by Thomas Hamilton, for injuries sustained purportedly as a result of fall into the Walnut Canyon Channel drainage ditch on or about May 11, 1974. c. Claim submitted by W. Reid Anderson, for damage purportedly sustained to vehicle as a result of collision with city vehicle on or about June 5, 1974. d. (Excluded) e. Claim submitted by Pier 1 Imports for damage sustained to sewer pipes purportedly as a result of actions during weed abatement program on or about June 20, 1974. f. Claim Submitted by Bassani Manufacturing for personal property d~ge purportedly as a result of city electrical crew working on power lines on or about July 27, 1974. g. Claim submitted by George Sicilians & Family for towing charges, police charges and loss of work sustained purportedly due to actions of Police Department on or about August 2, 1974. h. Claim submitted by Mrs. Charles E. Beltz for d%~ge to clothes and hair styling purportedly sustained due to automatic sprinkler coming on in park area, soaking claimant, on or about August 13, 1974. i. Claim submitted by Robert W. Overgaard for property loss sustained purportedly as a result of electricity turnoff by the City of Anaheim on or about February 21, 1974. J. Claim Submitted by Fern E. Call for damage sustained to ~arbage disposal purportedly caused by turn-on of electricity at apartment, from outside, causing disposal to start and continue running until reported to mmer of apartment on or about Flay 16, 1974. k. Claim submitted by Kathleen & Frank Molina for d~m~$e sustained to vehicle purportedly in collisionwith city vehicle on or about iusust 2, 1974. 1. Claim submitted by Jeff Devlin for damage to tire, tube and rim sustained purportedly as a result of deep rut in road at Nohl Ranch Road and Villa Real Drive on or about August 5, 1974. MO~ION CARRIED. Claim (Item No. d) sulmitted by H. Rodsar Howell, Rutan & Tucker on behalf of Anaheim Condos, Ltd., & Robert Gantere for d~ee sustained ~urportedly as a result of City of Anaheim's refusal to &-~ant necessary permits and approvals in order to enable them to proceed with their project, was denied, as recom~nded by the City Attorney, and ordered referred to the insurance carrier,'on mo~iofi'~byMay~"T~o=lecondl!d-~'by Councit~an"Selmour~ 74-866 City ~!1, !~-heim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - AuBust 27~ 1974~ !:30 P.M. Roll Call Vote requested by Councilman Sneegas. The aforementioned motion was carried by the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: COUNCIL MEHBERS: COUNCIL MEMBERS: COUNCIL HEHBERS: Kaywood, Seymour, Thom None Pebley and Sneegas MOTION CARRIED. CORRESPONDENCE: The following correspondence was ordered received and filed, on motion by Councilman Pebley, seconded by Councilwoman Kayvood. a. Orange County Board of Supervisors - Resolution No. F74-68 - Santa Ann River Project - Concept of Joint Powers Agency. b. City of Buena Park - Resolution No. 5360 - Expressing opposition to AB 3745 which vould prohibit cities from licensing businesses located outside a city which derive less than. S10,000 gross receipts from business done within a city. c. City of Buena Park - Resolution No. 5361 - Expressin~ its opposition to Senate Bill No, 2048 (BEHR) d. City of Westminster - Rasolution No. 1581 - Opposing increasein property tax assessments by the Orange County Tax Assessor. e. Intergovernmental Coordinating Council of Orange County - Garden Grove Resolution No. 4607-74, Garden Grove Resolution No. 4617-74, Huntington Beach Resolution No. 3922, and S~aI Beach Resolution No. 2348. f. Before ~he Public U~ili~ies Commission - Application of Southern California Edison Company for authority to increase rates charged by it for electric service - Notice of preheating conference. g. Before the Civil Aeronautics Board - Hughes Airwest - Application for amendment of certificate for Route 76 (Redesignation of Santa Ana-Laguna Beach, California as Orange County-Santa Ann-Anaheim, California· h. Airport Land Use Commission for Orange County - Notice of Meeting - August 15, 1974. Airport Land Use Commission for Orange County - Minutes - August 1, 1974. i. Community Center Authority - August 5, 1974. J. Cultural Arts Commission - Minutes - July 11, 1974. k. Anaheim Parks and Recreation Commission - Minutes - July 18, 1974. 1. Financial and Operating Reports for the Month of July, 1974 - Police Department. MOTION CARRIED. ORDINANCE NO. 3341: Councilman Pebley offered Ordinance No. 3341 for adoption. Refer to Ordinance Book. AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAflEIM AMENDING TITLE 18 OF THE ANAMEIMMUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO ZONING. (70-71-47 (12) M-l) Roll Call Vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT' COUNCIL MEMBERS: Kayvood, Seymour, Pebley, Sneegas and Thom COUNCIL HEMBERS: None COUNCIL MEMBERS: None The Mayor declared Ordinance No. 3341 duly passed and adOpted. ORDINANCE NO. 3342; Councilman Seymour offered Ordinance No. 3342 for adoption, Refer to Ordinance Book. AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM REPEALING TITLE 18, CHAPTER 18.28, SECTION 18.28.050 (10) AND ENACTING A NEW TITM 18, CHAPTER 18.28, SECTION 18.28.050 (10) RELATING TO ZONING. ("R-2" OFF-STREET .PARKING) Roll Call Vote: 74-867 City H~:!i~ A~__ahei~, California - COUNCIL HINUTRS ~ Auiust 27, 1.974, 1:30 P.M. AYES: COUNCIL HEHBERS: Eaywood, Seymour, Pebley, Sneega8 and Thom NOES: COUNCIL HENBERS: None ABSENT: COUNCIL HEHBERS: None The Hayor declared Ordinance No. 3342 duly passed and adopted. ORDIRAIICE NO. 3343: Councilman Sneegas offered Ordinance No. 3343 for adoption. Refer to Ordinance Book. AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIH AHENDING TITLE 18 OF THE ANAHEI~ MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO ZONING. Roll Call Vote: AYES: COUNCIL ME~BERS: NOES: COUNCIL .NENBERS: ABSENT: COUNCIL HENBERS: (71-72-44 (9) R-l) Kaywood, Seymour, Pebley, Sneegae, and Thom None None reading. The Mayor declared Ordinance No. 3343 duly passed and adopted. 3344: Councilwoman Kaywood offered Ordinance No. 3344 for first Refer to Ordinance Book. AI~ ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHE124 AHENDING TITLE 18 OF THE ANAHEIM H~qlCIPAL CODE RELATING TO ZONING. (72-73-51 (11), R-H 22,000) O~I~L~CE NO. 334§: Councilman Pebley offered Ordinance No. 3345 for first reading. Refer to Ordinance Book. AR ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AMENDING TITLE 18 OF THE ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO ZONING. (72-73-5§ C-l) 3346: Councilman Seymour offered Ordinance No. 33&6 for first readiag. Refer to Ordinance Book. ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF AliAHEIMANENDING TITLE 18 OF THE ANAHEIM ~ICiPAL CODE RELATING TO zONING. (71-72-30 (4) R-l) .0~D~Ia~CE ~0. 3347: Couucilman Sneegas offered Ordinance No, 3347 for first r~adiu$. Refer to Ordinance Book. AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AMENDING TITLE 18 OF THE ~L~Kaw~IM ~NICIPAL CODE RELATING TO ZONING. (73-74-8 R-l, R-3) O~DINA~CE NO. 3348: Councilman Thom offered Ordinance No. 3348 for first reading. Refer to Ordinance Book. AN ORDI~aANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AHF-NDZNO TITLE 18 OF THE ANARE~M ~I~ICIPAL CODE RELATING TO ZONING. (66-67-61 (62) Ca) ALCORO~lC BEVERAGE LICENSE APPLICATION: Application submitted by Rocio S. ~deaU, Rocio's Mexican Restaurant, 5614 Santa Ann Canyon Road, for On-sale Beer and Wine License, vas conditionally protested on the basis of zoning, on motion by Councilman Pebley, seconded by Councilman Thom. ~0TIO~ CARRIED. POLICY: On recomaendation of the City Manager's Office, and by general Council consent, the City Council directed that a Council policy be 74-868 City ~11~ A--helm, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - August 27, 1974, 1:30 P.M. ' written and submitted for adoption to permit the filing administratively of conditional protests, on alcoholic beverage applications without Council action. RECO~ATIONS RE: INCREASE IN WATER~ ELECTRICAL and SANITATION RATES: Finance Director M. Ringer presented a report dated August 9, 1974, relative to the increases recommended in water, electrical and sanitation rates, to be effective September 1, 1974, in order to meet the revenue estimate provided in the adopted 1974-1975 Budget. He advised that the resolutions to implement the increases have been prepared and recommended chat the increases in water and electrical rates only be adopted by the Council. The additional revenue which would be generated by the increased water and electrical rates would total $1,650,460.00 and would meet the 1974-1975 Budget estimate. Hr. Ringer referred to Page 2 of his report which is "A Comparison of Typical Bti~onthly Utility Bills" and this indicates that the increase will mean the average two month electric bill for a residential customer will be increased by $1.00 and the water rate would increase by $1.47. He advised that it is no longer recom~mnded that an increase in sanitation fees be implemented at this time. The report further indicates that with the implementation of the proposed increased electrical rates the City of Anaheim residential rates will still be 2.2Z to 2.9Z under Southern California Edisonl the commercial, rates would be 2.2~ to 5.5~ under Southern. California Edison ratesl industrial rates would be 3.4~ to 4.0~ under Southern California Edison rates. In answer to Councilwoman Kaywood's question regarding the effect of the Edison fuel adjustment on Anaheim's rates, the utilities director explained that the rates charged the City of Anaheim by Southern California Edison in- creased every month on an actual basis and the reason for the retail rate increases recommended is so that the city can meet the Edison rate increases as well as the monies budgeted for expenses in the 1974- 75 Budget, including the amount of transfer tothe General Fund. Mr. John Harding,.AdministratiVe Assistant, reported that there has been an increase in revenue over the estimate since adoption of the budset in the amount of $1,042,000.00 which misht be used to offset these increases, as well as the $1.7 million in unappropriated surplus. He pointed out that last year the City spent $1.5 million from unappropriated surplus for items not budgeted, $400,000.00 for architectural fees, Phase II of the Civic Center, and $700,000.00 for salary increases. Hr. Ringer reported that the effect of inflation on the Budget and construction of the $5~ million electrical sub-station should be taken into consideration. He recommended that the Council adopt the proposed electric and water rate increases. Councilman Pebley offered resolutions for adoption to approve and implement the proposed water and electrical rate increases. Prior to voting on the aforementioned resolutions, Council discussion was held and in reply to Councilwoman Kaywood's inquiry concerning raising the room tax, Mr. Ringer reported that he had personally contacted hotels in the cities of Los Angeles, San Diego and San Francisco, and learned that these cities all have a 6~ room tax. Public Works Director Thornton Piersall reported, in answer to Council- woman Kaywood's question on the sanitation charges that the fees charged are the same throushout the City, except for special instances such as Peralta Hills where there are greater distances to haul the trash and this might necessitate higher fees, but none to his knowledge are lower. He advised that Anaheim's sanitation fees are on the high side when compared with adjoining cities. The county proposal to charge refuse transfer cost and land disposal cost to individual cities would necessitate an increase in the residential rate of 35¢ and industrial barrel count from 20¢ to 29¢, however it is not anticipated that the county would transfer the entire cost. Hr. Ringer pointed out that the proposal for increased sanitation charses would have provided an additional $150,000.00 and it is no longer recommended for implementation at this time. 74-869 City ~.~..1]t A-_ahet~t California - OO~CIL HINU~B$ - Aqust 27, 1974, 1:30 Councilman Seymour noted that the total amount of additional revenue e~pected to be generated from the increase in water and electric rates is $1,650,460.00 and asked how much money the citywould'lose each month the crease of these rates is postponed. Hr. Royt replied that this vould depend on the amount of the fuel adjustment for the particular month in question, and the number of available kilowatt hours over which to spread the increase. He reported that he ~ould not recommend delaying the increase in rates beyond a maximum of one month unless the Council is also willing to reduce the amount of money to be trans- ferred to the General Fund. Councilman Pebley left the meeting (6:00 P.H.) Council~an Seymour related that when the 1974-75 Budget was approved he was not at that time satisfied that the Council had made every effort to create the economies ~hich he believed are possible in municipal government; however, as a by-product of that Budget approval, t~o audits were authorized ~hich he is confident will produce savings. An indicator of the success which he anticipates from these audits is the savings M~ich have already been affected through implementation of the recom~endations ~ade by Arthur Young and Co. relative to the City's cash flow and investment practices. He noted that there is a revenue increase of $1,042,000.00 over what was anticipated already and based on this and the fact that he is certain efficiencies and savings will be created in other City departments by the management practices audit, he ~ould vote against the resolutions offered by Councilman Pebley to approve the electric and water rate increases at this time, as he feels the Council shouldadopt another approach. At Councilman's Seymour request, the Finance Director gave a verbal report on the Arthur Young and Co. recom~endations and stated that he estimates including the tax anticipation loan, that these recommendations rill yield about $250,000.00 in additional income to the City. Councilman Seymour felt that this additional amount plus the amount reported as increased revenue since adoption of the Budget, totaling an approx- imateminiannnof $1,142,000.00 provides a sufficient amount to defray the effect of the $1,650,460.00 in additional revenues which implementatiofi of the increased rates would produce. Hr. Hoyt stated that the major expense of the electric utility is for a purchase of electric pover and at this time, althoush $36~000.000.00 is included in the Budget for this item, it is not known what the total cost will be since costs of fuel otl cannot be accurately predicted. The electric utility is anticipating holding the Anaheim retail rates as proposed through the fiscal year and hopefully the Edison rate levels to Anaheim, about which nothing is known presently, will remain constant. He advised that there is an element of chance involved in delaying these proposed rate increases for too long, vithout beia$ willing to take a decrease in monies transferred to the General Fund. Councilman Seymour replied that if no savings are realized as a result of the forthcoming audit, then he would agree with Mr. Hoyt's state~ent. He noted that in essence the recommendation for rate increases are pr~dicated as a hedge against anticipating, future increases in costs to the City of Anaheim for power purchased from Edison, whereas he wouldprefer to approach the problem vhen it presents itself. Hr. Hoyt pointed out that by delaying the proposed rate increases it might be necessary later in the year for the Anaheim Electric Utility to recommend rates for adoption which are higher than Southern California Edison. Re explained that in order to maintain stable rates throughout the year which are lower than Edison, they need the capability to build up funds with which to carry the rates through those times when the Edison Fuel Clause Adjustment is h/~her. Presently, the Fuel Clause Adjustment charged the City is from three to four tenths of a cent, whereas the proposed increase allows for a 74-870 Cit~' wall, A,,hetmt California - COUNCIL MINUTES - August 27, 1974~ !~30 P.M. .751 Fuel Clause Adjustment. It is anticipated that if the Southern California Edison Fuel Adjustments are as Edison estimated to date, that the Anaheim Electric Utility can go through the fiscal year without another rate change. He noted~ that the difference between the wholesale and retail fuel adjustments are banked in the Utility Fund and available for use if the Fuel Clause Adjust- ment rises to over $.01. In this manner he indicated he is fairly sure the Anaheim retail rate uan remain below the Edison rate. He advised if the City gets into a period of very high fuel cost with very few kilowatt hours left in the year to cover these costs, then the numbers will not balance out. Councilman Seymour reiterated that the City has right now, according to the City Manager and Finance Director, $1,142,000.00 Which is not budgeted or appropriated to any particular item, and which, if the time in which Mr. Hoyt is referring to arrives, can be used to cover the difference. He further stated that he felt the audit will have some impact which will change the situation a great deal more. Mr. Hoyt asked then if he might interpret Councilman Sey~our's comments as meaning that the Electric Utility willnot be required to transfer that portion of the anticipated increase to the General Fund, to which Councilman Seymour. replied that he thought the Utilities Department operating expenses may decrease as a result of the audit, to the extent that they may be able to continue without the proposed rate increase and still transfer the amount budgeted to the General Fund. Councilman Seymour reiterated that he was of the opinion that the 1974-75 Budget as approved was inflated beyond necessity and he was certain that economies will be found as a result of the audit which will make it possible to contribute the amount budgeted to the General Fund. Councilwoman Kaywood voiced concern about utilizing the extra income received for this purpose, noting that no appropriation was made in the Budget for land acquisition, Civic Center Project.- Hr. Harding advised that $1,300~000.00 is included in the bond issue for land acquisition, but of course it is not known currently if the bond issue will be successful. Councilwoman Kaywood pointed out that if that money does not come in and the funds are not available to cover the differences in fuel adjustment costs thereby necessitating retail rates higher than Edison, she would personally have a very difficult time with this. She voiced great concern over the increasing costs of basic necessities of life, in particular when so many people are living on fixed income. She indicated that she would prefer to see additional funds derived from a tax which is discretionary such as a "Tippler~s Tax". Mr. Hoyt emphasized that, in his opinion, if the Council wishes to utilize the $1,650,000.00 out of the Utilities, it has to be by September 1st, or the ability is lost within the criteria that has been given them, to produce that $1,650,000.00. Councilman Seymour was adamant in his position that the Council should take the step in the direction of reducing the cost of government. Councilman Sneegas responded that he is not pleased at all with the prospect of increasing the utility rates. He indicated that he did not wish to rely on savings anticipated to be forthcoming from the audit, but noted that usually studies indicate more need than savings. He pointed out that when the Budget was drawn up, the inflationary factor was not as high as it is currently. He stated that he would rather be safe at this point than to speculate on what might happen as far as electric rates are concerned and then later on have to implement steeper increases. Councilman Seymour took exception, as, in his opinion, Councilman Sneesas was sayingth&teither the $~,~42,000.00 that has been isolated and not included as revenue in the Budget, is now going to be needed to enforce and carr~ out a Budget approved Just a short time ago, or, that 'the $~,142,000.00 really ought to be put into a cushion, and h%personall~ could not agree with either approach. 7~-871 City ~l.i Anaheim~ Cali~o.~.ia ~ COUNCIL HINUTES- Aullust 27t ,.19~4~. 1:30 Mt. Rlnger wished to clart~y at this point that the $1,142,000.00 under discussion does include the expected refund of $775,000.00 in Possassory Interest taxes. Councilman Sneegas remarked that frmahts observation of the functions of government, the only way to decrease the coot of municipal $0vern~ent t8 to reduce the services provided, unless 80~eone can co~e up with a ~otivatton that wiI1 turn out 501 ~ore work fro~ each individual e~ployee. He felt the Council should take a ~ore realistic approach. He related from personal experience that he receives strong opposition in that part of his business where he has to pass on his costs by acctmulating and then i~plementing one larger increase than in the areas where he imaediately passes along the increased cost. He indicated that the public would ~ore readily accept ~oderate increases in their electric rates than they would one large lncrease at a later time, which will be necessary since eventually the increased cost8 will have to be passed on to the consumer when the funds to make up the difference are depleted. Both Councilman Seymour and Councilwoman Kaywood took exception to Councilman Sneegas' remarks, indicating they both feel that increasing the efficiency of City operations would decrease the cost. Councilman Seymour interpreted Councilman Sneesa8 statement as meaning that he does not believe the audit will come up with any savinss, whereas, he statedthat he (Councilman .Seymour) is dedicated to the objective that it will. Councilman Seymour stated that he is emphatically not of the viewpoint that you cannot decrease the cost of government. He cited the Arthur Young and Co. recommendations as an example where $5,000.00 was spent whichwill brine in $250,000.00 in additional revenue each and every year. Councilman Sneesas remarked that at this point that $250,000.00 is strictly speculation. At the conclusion of discussion, Mayor Thom called for a vote on the · esolutions offered for adoption by Councilman Pebley to approve the proposed In:teases in electrical and vater rates.' The ResolUtions failed to carry by the followins vote: AYES: COUNCIL NEHBERS: NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: ABSENT: COUNCIL NEHBERS: Pebley, and Sneegas Kayvood, Seymour and Thom None (Counctlu~n Pebley bdvins registered his vote prior to leaving the Council Chamber) On motion by Mayor Thom, seconded by Councilman Seymour, the recom~mdatton for the proposed electrical and water rate increases were tablsd for a period of 90 days. (Councilman Pebley absent) ~OTION CARRIED. Hr. Hoyt asked if the motion made to table the proposed rate in- creases applied to all ar~as &s next week a recommendation on the new Nobler Drive area water rates will be before the Council. By general consent the Council indicated they would be amenable to considering the recommendation for the Mohler Drive area water rate change on September 3, 1974. APP~~ - D~PUTY CITY TREASURER: Pursuant to thc recommendation of the Flnance Director, on motion by Councilman Seymour, seconded by Councilman Sneegas, Hr. Ron Howard, Senior Accountant in the Accounting Department, was appointed Deputy City Treasurer; said appointment be made without salary increase, but with advancement to the next regular 6 month step increase. (Councilman Pebley absent) HOTION CARRIED. 76-872 City Ha11~ ~ahetm~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - August 27~ 1,974~ 1:30 RESOLU~ION NO. 74R-417 (SUPERSEDING RESOLUTION NO. 74R-402),- FEE SCHEDULE 1973 BUILDII~G CODE: Councilman Seymour offered Resolution No. 74R-417 for adoption. Refer to ResolUtion Book. A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM REPEALING RESOLUTION NO. 74R-402 AND ADOPTING A NEWFEE SCHEDULE OFT HE UNIFORM BUILDING CODE 1973 EDITION. Roll Call Vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Kaywood, Seymour, Sneegas and Thom COUNCIL MEMBERS: None COUNCIL MEMBERS: Pebley The Mayordeclared Resolution No. 74R-417 duly passed and adopted. RESOLUTION NO. 74R-418 - DESIGNATING CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS TO WRITE ARGUMENT IN FAVOR OF THE BALLOT PROPOSITION: The City Attorney reported that in connection with the argument in favor and opposed to the ballot proposition on the November, 1974, General Election ballot, only one may be used in favor and one against, and the election code vests in the Council the power to determine which, of its members shall write these arguments to reflect their position. Further the code provides for no more than 5 signatures to be listed on arguments for or asatnst, and therefor a combination of the members of the Redevelopment Commission and the CttyCounctl Jointly signing the argument would not be possible. Mayor Thom clarified that as he recalls the conversation between Council and Commissioner Cotler it was determined that the Council would designate its own m ambers to write the argument in favor and submit this for the endorsement of the Redevelopment Commission prior to filing with the City Clerk on September 6, 1974. RESOLUTION NO. 74R-418: On recommendation of the City Attorney, Mayor Thom offered Resolution No. 74R-418 for adoption. Refer to Resolution Book. RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANARRIM, CALIFORNIA, AUTHORIZING CERTAIN OF ITS MEMBERS TO FILE A WRITTEN ARGUMENT FOR A CITY MEASURE. Roll Call Vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Kaywood, Seymour, Sneegas and Thom COUNCIL HEMBERS: None COUNCIL HEHBERS: Pebley The Mayor declared Resolution No. 74R-418 duly passed and adopted. The City Clerk reported that the County has assigned the letter "H" as the means of identifying the City of Anaheim's measure on the November ballot. B~SOLUTION NO. 74R-419 - APPROVING LOAN BETWEEN THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AND THE ANAHEIM REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY: Finance Director M. Ringer reported that a further loan agreement between the City and Redevelopment Agency is recommended in the amount of $1,300,000.00 to make up the balance of the $2,500,000.00 which is the projected tax revenue figure of the Agency. RESOLUTION NO. 74R-419: Councilman Seymour offered Resolution No. 74R-419 for adoption. Refer to Resolution Book. A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AGREEING TO LOAN CERTAIN MONEY TO THE ANAHEIM REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY AND AUTHORIZING AND DIRECTING THE MAYOR AND CITY CLERK TO EXECUTE AN AGREEMENT THEREFOR. 74-873 a..!ty. _~-!!, Aa~.__he _~, ¢~_!ifor~__is - COUNCIL MIFOT~S - Auiust 27,.. 1971, l:3Q P,I4. Roll Call vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: COUNCIL M~2ERS: Kaywood, Seymour, Shes&as and Tho~ COUNCIL MEMBERS: None COUNCIL MEMBERS: PeBley The Mayor declared Resolution No. 74R-419 duly pae~ed and adopted. ~IONS NOS: 74R-420 and 74R-421. ~ TO P ,7 - AI~OINT- Councilwoman l~ay~ood offered Resolution Nos. 74R-420 and 71R-421 for adoption. Refer to Resolution Book. ~ 74R-~20: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF --Y-u ios NO. 69R-- 0 , 7, ~ ~IONS, BY ~D~G SE~ION 7.7, ~TING TO ~ ~I~ OF ~ ~ ~LO~ES BEING~E O~SIDE ~ T~ITIO~ C~ETITI~ PR~S ~R S~TION OF ~O~ES. ~L~O .I~ION ,NO,. 74R--421: A RESOL~ION OF THE CI~f COUNCIL OF T~E CITY OF ~n~ ~~ ~L~ION NO. 73R~99, P~O~ R~ .11, ~YO~ ~ ~-~, SECTI~ 11.4 ~T~ ~ ~ =CLUSION OF ~ ~D ~~S ~ ~ ~YO~ ~ ~-~~ RI~S ~ B~FIT~ ~~ ~~ CI~ ~~S. Roll Call Vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Kaywood, Seymour, Snu~aa and Tho~ COUNCIL MEMBERS: None COUNCIL MENBERS: Pebley The Mayor declared Resolution Nos. 7~R-420 and 7&R-~21 duly passed md adopted. ~I0~ NO. 74R-422 - SELECTIVE TRAFFIC ENFORCEMENT ~,%~T! Councilman Sellout offered Resolution No. 74R-422 for adoption authorizing the Ctty Manas&r to stin applications for Selective Traffic Enforcement Gr~nt. ~fer to Resolution Book. A RE~OLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AUTHORIZING THE CITY NANAC~R TO SIGN AN APPLICATION FOR A SELECTIVE ENF01~E~IqT GRANT FOR THE AN~JtEIM POLICE DEPARTMENT. ($100,000.00 irant, mo ~atchtn~ requirement) Roll Call Vote: AYES: COUNCIL I~I~ERS: NOES: COUNCILNEHBERS: ABSENT: COUNCILHEEIERS: Ka~n~ood, Seymour, Sneegas and Tho~ None Pebley The Mayor declared resolution No. 74R-422 duly passed and adopted. ~tR._sO.~JTION NO. 74R-423 - COUNTY CONSOLIDATED POLICE RECORDS SYSTEM: Councilman ~nee~as offered Resolution No. 74R-423 for adoption authorizin~ the City Nanaser to si~n application for Countywide consolidated police records 8rant. Refer to Resolution Book. A RE~OLUTIONOF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE ClTY OFANAHEIMAUTHOItlZINGTBE CITY NANA~ERTO SIGN ANAPpLICATIONFOR A COUNTY-I/IDE CONSOLIDATED POLIilE RECORDS SYSTEM GRANT FORT HE ANAHEIM POLICE DEPt. (Cost to City - $1,827.92) 74-874 City g~_ll, A~_.abe..in.., California - COUNCIL MINUTES - August 27~ 1974~ !:30 P.M. Roll Call Vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: COUNCIL HEMBERS: Kayvood, Seymour, Sueesas and Tho~ COUNCIL. HEHBERS: None COUNCIL NEHBERS: Pebley The Mayor declared Resolution No. 74R-423 duly passed and adopted. ~__w~OLU~ION NO. 74R-424 - ORANGE COUNT~ BURGLARY PREVENTION INDEX: Councilman Saeesas offered Resolution No. 74R-424 for adoption. Refer to Resolution Book. A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO SIGN AN APPLICATION FOR AN ORANGE COUNTY BURGLARY PREVENTION INDEX GRANT FORT HE ANAHEIM POLICE DEPARTMENT. (matching City funds $789.60) Roll Call Vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Kaywood, Seymour, Sneegas and Thom COUNCIL MEMBERS: None COUNCIL MEMBERS: Pebley Refer to Resolution Book. EES~UTION NO. 74R-425: A tU~SOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM ~SIGNATINGTHE POLICE DEPARTMENT COMMUNICATIONS CENTER AS THE PUBLIC SAFETY ANSWERING POINT IN CONNECTION~rlTH COUNTT6IDE 911 TASK FORCE. The Mayor declared Resolution No. 74R-424 duly passed and adopted. PAYKM AND ~gCRFATION COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION - FREE SWIMMING~ PEARSON PARK AND ~AGNOLIAHIGH SCHOOL POOLS~ FOURTH OF JULY AND LABOR DAY: Recommendation of the Parks and Recreation Commission that free swimming be permitted at Magnolia High School and Pearson Park pools on Labor Day, September 2, 1974 from 1:00 P.M. to 4:00 P.M.; and on each Fourth of July and Labor Day thereafter was submitted for Council consideration. Councilman Seymour inquired how much of a loss in revenues this ~-~ action misht entail. Councilman Sneegas advised that the City revenue from the swimming program at these pools is currently very low and that one of the motivations for the Parks and Recreation Commission's recommendation is to promote attendance. On motion by Councilman Seymour, seconded by Councilwoman Kaywood, the City Council determined that they did wish to sponsor free swimming and the City Attorney was therefor authorized to prepare a Resolution amending and superseding Resolution No. 74R-279 setting fees to permit free swimming at Magnolia High School and Pearson Park pools as recommended by the Parks and Recreation Commission, on Labor Day September 2, 1974 and each Fourth of July, and Labor Day in ensuing years. (Councilman Pebley absent) MOTION CARRIED. ANNUAL HALLOWEEN PARADE: Hr. John Harding, Administrative Assistant reported that according to City Ordinance, groups intending to conduct parades within the City must apply for parade permit and in connection therewith pay the $25.00 parade fee and post a bond for clean up. The Ordinance does not provide for any exemptions, however, he suggested that the Council could authorize co- sponsorship with the Anaheim Chamber of Commerce of the annual Halloween parade and indicate that the City's portion of this event would include the clean up. On motion by Councilman Thom, seconded by Councilman Seymour, the City Council authorized co-sponsorship by the City of the Annual Chamber of Commerce Halloween Parade and indicated that the City's portion as co-sponsor would include clean up services, thereby excluding the .Chamber of Commerce from the necessity F'~ to post bond for same. (Councilman Pebley absent) ~t0TION CARRIED. R~$OLUTION NO. 74R-425 - COUNT15TIDE 911 TASK FORCE: On report and recommendation by Mr. John Harding, Administrative Assistant, Councilman Sneegas offered Resolution No. 74R-425 for adoption. Orange County Board of Supervisors Resolution No. 74-1146 was submitted for Council information. 76-875 Anaheimt California - COUNCIL MINUTES August 27t !974, 1:30 P.M. city all, Roll Call Vote: AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Kaywood, Seymour, Sneegas and Thom NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: None ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Pebley The Mayor declared Resolution No. 74R-425 duly passed and adopted. INTERGOVEILNNENTAL COORDINATING COUNCIL RESOLUTION SERVICE: Councilwoman Kaywood reported that the Intergovernmental Coordinating Council has initiated a Resolu- tion Service, whereby Resolutions forwarded them are compiled and distributed bi-weekly. She indicated this would create a savings for the City and thereupon moved that the City Clerk be authorized to forward Resolutions of the City Council of the City of Anaheimpertaining to County, State or inter-cities matters to the Intergovernmental Coordinating Council for this distribution service. Councilman Seymour seconded the motion. (Councilman Pebley absent) MOTION CARRIED. MAMMA COZZA'S NUMBER 2 CANCELLATION OF BEER AND WINE LICENSE: (Conditional Use Permit No. 1461) Councilwoman Kaywood advised that she had received communication from Hr. Frank Cozza indicating that he had closedMamma Cozza's Number 2 Restaurant and requested that his beer and wine license for that location be cancelled. She stated that this reaffirms her confidence in Mr. Cozza and further, in'her opinion, ~indicates and corroborates the Council's actions and concern on behalf of the residents in the immediate vicinity. RECESS - EXECUTIVE SESSION: Mayor Thom moved that the Council recess to Executive Session. Councilman Seymour seconded the motion. (Councilman Pebley absent) NOTION CARRIED. (7:10 P.M.) AFTER RECESS: Mayor Thom called the meeting to order. All Council Members being present, with the exception of Councilman Pebley. (9:00 P.M.) AD JOUST: Councilwoman Kaywood moved to adjourn. motion. MOTION CARRIED. A~tJourned: 9:00 P.M, City Cler~ Councilman Seymour seconded the