Loading...
1976/01/27The City Counc{1 o{ the City o{ Anaheim met i~ re?ular session. COI~7CIL Tm'T~.f: ~<avwooJ~, ~eymour, Pe~ley and Thom. C~TI~TC!L ?',?'~.V~c: ~n~e~as Aq~I~TA'.2T CITY '~AI'~CE~: ~'il~ta~ n. Talley ~TTY ATTOR??Y: .A.] an TM ~, ~-.. watt~ ~7~¥ CITY CI,,~I': Li~da ~. ~oberts UTII, I~IC~ ~I~ECTOR: ~ordon T". ~tovt 2~O~EL Y.T~,~CTN~: ~arrv n. we~ae PUBLIC i,~oRT~P ~TRFCT~R: Thornton E. Fiersall }]OTJ~I'IC DireCTOR: ~o~ar~o T.Yatte~s~eh ~,{ayor Tho~, calle~ the meetin~ to order an.J welcomed those In attendance to the Council meetin[~, !~'V~CATIO?i: P, everend Carl ;Tatts of the 7th Day Adventist Church ~ave Tp. vocat ~.on. FLJC .qAIoI'TE: Counci3wo~an ~q,r~ar ~'awzood led tie Assembly in the. P!e~,.~e of ,-*]]e~iance to the ~EC~XATIO'; PRnGP~M !lEE - Aii,~IIEI~? iAST FOTARY CLU]: A check in the amount o{ presented By Yr. gorHon Jo~e~ of the .Anaheim East Potary Club vas accepted .~y Council~nn ~ev~our as payment fro,~ said service club toward m~rchase of a gus to ~e ~se<~ ~v the Anahet~ Par%~s, Pecreation and the Arts' ')~partnent in J.ts theraneutic recreation orovram. ... .... : ~'inutes of the .~nabeiTM C~tv Council Popular meetin~ held D~co~her n ~07~ anc~ gdJourne.~ P. eFular ~*eeting he].d January 7m la7~, were approved, subject to typographical corroctions, oB ?otto? hy Councilwoman Ka~ood, ~oconded ~y Cou~cilman ge)recur. Councb!~an ~nee~as ~Bse~t. ?OTTOT. I Cg~RI~P. "AIW.~P ,TF P. EADT'IG - nP, D!'.T.~'TCFS .~,,ID FESOLUTIO'.1S: Councilwoman Kaywood moved to waive the read]n? in full of ali. ordinances and re~olut~ons, and that consent to the waiver of read]~n_~ is hereby ~iven by all Council T..~embers unless, after rem~]~ of the title, specific remuest is ~ade ~v a Council "".em. get for the readiu,~ of such ordinance or resolution.. Councilman Se?recur seconded the motion. Councilman Snee~as nbsent. UnTT~'~ T?MA~.I!~'~USLY CARR!~. -l~nFT - FI ,, JCIAL D~'~;~'~DS AGATUST TUE CITY: Demands against the City {n the a~eunt of ~746,~33.Q], in accordapce with the 1~75-76 Budget, were approved. P']~O~T - FI.'.L{'ICIAL STATVE~ FISCAL YEAR 1975-76 AS OF DECEMBER 31~ 1975: :'~r. Talley submitted a report on the financial status of the City at the end of the first six months of Fiscal Year 1975-76 dated January 27, 1976. (Complete copy on file in the Office of the City Clerk.) The report indicates that the financial condition of the City is sound; that revenues are projected to be $175,.]00 greater than the budgeted estimates,and departmental expenditures are projected to be $1.4 million dollars under budgeted amounts. These figures ]~owever will be off-set by salary adjustments and any capital improvements which the City Council releases at this time. The financial condition of the City is largely due to the ability of the Utilities Department to reimburse the General Fund for inventory transferred in excess of $1,500,000. The financial status was reported to be on budget and the City will end Fiscal Year 1975-76 with a cash surplus. >Yr. Talley called attention to the following facts in connection with this report: 1) That the budget is predicated upon receipt of Federal Revenue Sharing funds this year and if that program is discontinued the sum of gTOO,OOO would have to be made up from other sources; 2) that salary adjustments amd release of impounded capital improvement items, as recommended in this report, would mean that the year endi~ng surplus would be approximately $1.5 million dollars rather than $2.4 million dollars (a reduction of $900,000); 3) that this budget presentation anticipates receiving in excess of S700,000 for sale of parking lots, which revenue source would not reoccur in the following year; the report also anticipates that the recommendations to be presented by the Utilities Director on retail rates and sale of bonds would be approved. 76-51 ~lanagement Control Cent,er;, 114 South Claudine! Anaheim! California COUNCIL IIINUTES - January 2.~ 1976~ 7:30 i.lr. l'Iurdoch pointed out that this reaction is one of the prime reasons additional consultant work is recommended for the Part Street area before any t~ousing repair or neighborhood improvement program is established. ~'~. Mattessich advised that it is proposed in the second year application that the problems in the Pa~t Street area be define~ and a program drawn up, no actual work to be begun until the third year. This would not preclude tI~e possibility of the use of redevelopment funds in Patt Street but it is felt necessary to devote one y~ar to the definition of the problem and possible solutions. Citizen participation is necessary from that area in order to make basic land use decisions before a Community Development or Redevelopment Prograra is initiated. Councilman Sey~aour felt the priorities as established from the questionnaire results were not reflected in either Plan Nos. A or B. It was disclosed that this work sheet was prepared without benefit of the questionnaire and it is subject to change following input frou citizens, Council and Planning Co~.~ission Members. fir. Young and i-~yor Thom reported on their personal knowledge of tI~e dire need for improvement of the water syste~'~ in the target areas and it was further noted that representatives fro:~ the Water Division were presented to discuss the priority of this item. Councilman Seymour requested tibet additional Police protection be investigated as a potential possibility for inclusion in the second year program as this was mentioned several ti~es in tl~e questionnaire. At the conclusion of discussion, Council;~an Seymour reiterated that he would like to see the money put "up front" in the second year's program to increase the City's credibility. It was suggested that with an adequate educational program, with constant cormaunication between the City and the area residents ti~ese sub-surface i;aprovements can also be made better known and consequently more visible to the public. Co~mnissioner Farano agreed with Councilman Seymour that if there is any validity at all to the questionnaire, then the list of projects should reflect the priorities indicated thereon by the public. Ouring informal discussion several Planning Commission questions reoardlng~ the use of Community Development Funds and the application procedure were c lar i f i ed. At the conclusion of discussion tile Planning Con~nission felt that in order to give any meaningful input, they would need time to read and analyze the informational materials submitted. fir. ~ttessich reported that public hearings have been scheduled on the second year proposal for January 27, 1976 at 2:30 P.H. and February 10~ 1976 at 7:30 P.M. The Planning Commissioners were invited to attend the first public hearing as observers, and it was determined to conduct a second joint work session on this subject between Council and City Plannin~ Commission on February 4, 1976 at 7:30 P.!i. in the l'{anagement Control Center. ADJOURi4biENT - CITY PLAiE;ING. COM~{ISSION: Comraissioner Herbst moved to adjourn. Commissioner Morley seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. (9:30 P.H.) ADJOUP~']~NT - CITY COUNCIL; Councilman Seymour moved to adjourn. Councilwoman Kaywood seconded the motion. Council }~embers Pebley and Snee&as absent. ~OTION CARRIED. Adjourned: 9: 30 P. ~I. ~YLONA ~l. IIOUGARD, CI%~f CLEIhi Deputy 76-53 City i~all; Anaheim; California - COUNCIL ,:I.:{UT~o - January 27; 1976; 1;3:) l... '-ir. Talley summarized that a]thou?.h no problev.'s should be experienced In balancing the current fiscal year, should the Revenue Sl~artnc progra~, he dis- continued,that $700,090 as well as the $700,000 ~enerated by sale of City prop- arty, together with the $900,300 for salaries and capital improvements, would t,~.ean 52.3 million dollars ]ess in revenues in the 1976-77 Fiscal l'o. ar than in the current year. Consequently, in order to present a balanced budvet ne::t year, a critical examination of current pro,rams and revenue sources will bo required. 'l'l~e report further recommends that thc policy on a 60-day hirin? freeze hc continued,as th~s has ~enerated substantial ravenue,~ without severe irpact on ~u~,]cipal services. In conclusion, ~'!r. Talley commended ~..,'r. 2on R. othchi]d of the Budget '~ffice amc! all Department ~ieads for their assistance in provtdipc the expenditure of revenue information which was necessary to provide this report, lie remar~'~ed that he felt everyone has been worP~ing, toward the Council's goals. 'Ir. Talley referred to tt~e Council actions necessary to ir~plement his reco~m~er, datiops as listed on Pa~e :~o. 16 of the report. Council ',,~'~embers Tigon and ~ey~:our both indicated they would require addi- tional time to read and digest this information prior to taking final act]~on as reco~ended by the Assistant City ~ana?er. ~JC~:?"?]'[~)ATIO': - FETAIL !~LECTRIC KATES~ LIFE LINE SERVICE :'~r. ~;oyt presented his memorandum dated. January 26, 1076, containing recom- ~endations re~ardin£ increase in overall charges for electric service, estab- lis]~r,~ent of "life line" electric service rate and authorization to issue electric revenue bonds, and reviewed same with the City Council. (Co~plete copy of said rtemorandum together with t.>~hibit ~'[os. 1 and 2 attached t],ereto on file in the Office of the City Clerk.) ?l~e recor, n~endations presented were: 1. It is reco~m~ended the cbarpes for retail electric service be chanf, ed a~; set forth in the acco~.,~panyinb· resolution effective February 1, 1. ~6. 2. It is recommended that staff, Bond Counsel and [inancial Counsel be directed to prepare necessary legal documents and the official state~,ent neces- sary for issuance of electric revenue bonds. The amount of such bonds to be sufficient to meet the requirements of the 1975-76 Eudcet and esti:rated generation project study needs for the relatively near future. The precise a~ount of the bonds will be the subject of a later separate detailed recor,- nan d at io n. ~r. Loyt advised that the Edison wholesale rate increase of 14% will becor.~e effective on February 1, ]976. Uo provision for a wholesale rate increase was included in the 1975-7~ Fiscal Year Utility Budget and therefore, in order to meet all of the Utility :')epartment's bud?et commit~ents for the current fiscal year, the Anaheim retail rates would have to be increased in accordance with Council policy to 957 of the ,~.'.outhern Californim E.:]ison retail rates. ~J'he resolution accompanying t]~e memorandum., would establish these rates effective February 1, 197~:. In response to Councilman Seymour, r!'r. Hoyt advised that the situation whic?~ he inquired about, i.e., if the retail rate increases were not approved but the bond sales authorized, is described in. Exhibit lie. 1 attached to his '~¢rorandum, Colum~ l~e. 1 under "estimated 1975-76". Ue further called attention to the next two columns which show the financial effect to the electric utility without sale of bonds or rate increases and the final column on that exhibit which is the first evalt, ation of the 1~76-77 Bud?et situation. Tills indicates a need to take $6,000,000, which is not there, from working capital at the beginning of the fiscal year. Therefore Mr. Hoyt emphasized that he feels it is important that the electric utility have some workin? capital to draw on next year. l.e stated t]~at the Utilities Department bud?ets fun'.!.~ for wholesale power costs based on estimates received from Sout!~ern California Zd~son and this is further the reason that some wortcin? capital is necessary, in ti~2 event they have given a bad estimate. City Hall; AnaheimI California - COUNCIL I~INUTES - January 27~ 1076~ 1:30 P.Y'. In further response to Councilman Seymour, ?fr. ~{oyt advised that if the bond sales are not authorized, nor the rate increases, this would reduce the Utilities current workiny capital to minus $72,0~0 at the end of the current fiscal year; with approval of the rates and sale of the bonds, working capital will be $534,000 at the end of the fiscal year as compared to S I,10O,0O0 at the beginning of the current fiscal year. lie reported that he felt a reasonable level of workin? capital to be maintained would be for the utility to have sufficient money to see it throuKh the most difficult period they could envision, pendin~ action by the City Council to chan~e the rate structure. ~'~r. %alley pointed out that the transfer from the Utilities Department durinc this fiscal year will amount to 6.5,% of sales, whereas the General Yun~ contribution next yemr is preliminarily anticipated at less than 5'Z of sales. If that were to occur, the City would either have to replace this revenue from another source or reduce services. At the conclusion of discussion, Councilman Seymour stated that he had several other questions re~ar~ing the l tilities ~)irector's recommendation and report but would reserve these for discussion, at the work session on Friday, Ja~u.~rv ~"), 1976 which was scheduled by the Utilities Department. .4 general Council consent, decision on the recommendations presented this date by the Utilities Director was <]eferred to Friday, January 30, 1976. ., ............~.~ ..... 76~-3~ - I~,ERI:! P. EI.w3USEME'qT AGRE~'~HT -DP._AINAG~ FACILITIES: ~ and 3) ~h recom- (Texaco ~aheim iii!ls, Inc., District t.'o. 40, Area ?los. 1, ~, ~en~ation of the City Attorney, Councilman Seymour offered Resolution 30 for adoption. %efer to ~esolution Book. 7:!']SOLUTIOi{ ~F T~{:-~ CITY C~U",~CIL ~F TU~ CITY OF ~A~.mIM ;UT!{ORIZI~G ~{E WAYOR CITY CLEPd.[ TO EXECUTE A2~ i~TERIM REIMBUR~E>~ET~T ~.G~EI']~i~T P~ELATING TO DF~IN- FACILITIES. (Texaco Anaheim }{ills, Inc. - District 40, Area 1, 2 and ?) ~oll Call Vote: ,, M ..... llaywood, Seymour, Pebley and Thom COUNCIL ~%, REPc: COUNCIL i..fEMB]~]P.S: Uone COUNCIL ~%},.~ERS: Sneegas The Mayor declared Resolution No. 76~.-30 duly passed and adopted. TE:IPOP~IRY ZASE?'tENT - StlOR~ l.]%LL3 PROPERTY.: (Granted by Council action at the :~eeting of January 20, ln76, subject to further documentation.) 9n motion by Councilwoman I.'.aywood, seconded by Councilman Seymour, the City Council directed the City Attorney to forward a letter to County Sanitation District t.7o. 2 advising them that their request for temporary permit to enter the City-owned Shorb IIells property for the purpose of construction of the Santa Aha Piver Interceptor Sewer has been granted, subject to certain conditions which have been recommended by the City ~ttorney. Councilman Snee?as absent. MOTION C AP~R IED. "Z,qOLUYIOii :.,~O. 76R-31 - AG5EE}'fE~T - }~]ICIPAL WATER DISTRICT OF ORANGE COU~;TY; (Temporary connection to the Santiago lateral in the vicinity of the Walnut Canyon Reservoir.) On recommendation of the Utilities Director, Councilman ?ebley offered Resolution No. 76R-31 for adoption. Refer to Resolution Book. A RES~LUTIO.~ OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF AL'AHEI~ APPROVING ~{E TEP~[S ~ND CONDITIONS ~)F AN AGREE>~?IT WITIt ~%~ICIPAL WATER ~)ISTRICT OF ORAC~GE COUNTY IN CON'~ECTION WITCH INSTALLATION OF ~ TEMPOP~RY SERVICE COi~!ECTION. (OC-3T Santiago Lateral) Roll Call Vote: 76-35 Anaheim, California - COU~ICIL ;-fINUTES - January The ~ayor declared Resolution ?;o. 76°,-3]. duly passed and adopted. '-'J;CO,x?.~;~ ;:)ATIO~I - FU:.IDIiIG FoP. E'ALT.~'T CAirfOi{ BAH PLPAIR: Recomamendation from. the :]!)0 be transferred from the lTater Swqtew !!enewal Utilities Director that .~;]60, .~ amd ~eplacenent Accoont to I~;ork Order ~o. 2090 to provide funds for the repair o~ b~alnut Canyon Dam was sub~itte~ for Council cons~.Heration. In response to Councilwoman i:aywood, ~r. i~oyt explaiped the procedure fo] ]owed and progress made to date in preparation for tl~e repair wnr~' on tbs_ ;.Tglnut Canyon Dam. Cn motion by Councilwoman i.~ywood, secopded by Councilman t eb!ey, ti~e City (]ouncil autl]orized the use of these f~mds as proposed and the transfer of -~160,0~')2~ from the ~:ater System ?.:enewal and Replacement Account to ~3ork Order ~io. 299S as reconvnended by the Utilities Director· Councilman SnaeF, as absent. ~ ~'1'I0~4 (;ARRIED. ..... JOB CLASSIFICATION - .3E%~ER 7~bICFI~E OPERATOR: .Recommendation from the }'ersonnel Director that a new job classification, Sewer }4achine P, perator, be established and paid at schedule U676 ($963.73 to ~1,171.73) was su],r, itted for Council consideration. in response to Councilman Seymour, ~'~'r. Piersall and "r. ~'?c~ae reported ti~at ~i~is is the first piece of sewer cleanin~ equipment which the City has owned, that previous to this this work was contracted o~t. ~i'~,~20LUTIO~.~ 17). 76q-32: Councilman Pebley offered P..esolution ~'o. 7&~.-32 for ad opt ion. ~lefer to Fesolution ]~ook. Call Vote: Tl~e ~',ayor declared Resolution ',~o. 76~-32 duly passed and adopted· AP¢~I,~.G Ai.~D EANITATIOll PROBLE~ ~OBI]4 £,TRE]iT Ai~D CUEVY CI'ASE DPIVE Continued from the_ Council meet~n~ of December 30, 1975 for report on imp].e..mentation of potential solutions to the parking and sanitation problem,s in the vicinity of 2'okin ~treet, Chevy Cha.~e Drive, Uren Street and };luejay Lane (Tract '~os. 22Z:2 and 2972). ~liss Santalahti reported that the first meetin~ between the property owners, apartment managers, residents, and City staff is scheduled for ?hursday, January 29, Iq76 at 2:30 p.m. and it would therefore be appropriste to continue the report to the Council to some future time. ()n motion by Councilman Tho~,, seconded by Councilman Seymour, the City Council. continued the matter of the implementation plan for solutions to parkinF, and sanitation problems in the vicinity of Pobin Street and Chevy Chase ])rive indefinitely with pro~ress report to the Council on February 24, 1076. Councilman Sneegas absent. ?40TIOll CARRIED. 30.~SE,;T CALEi:;DAR ITEMS: ,On motion by Councilwoman Ir. aywood~ seconded by Councilman Pebley, the following actions were authorized in accordance with the reports and recommendations furnished each Council Member and as listed on the Consent Calendar .}%~enda: 1. CLAIMS AGAINST Tire CITY: The following claims were denied and referred to the insurance carrier: 70-5f ii, ity ~'.m!l, Anaheim~ ..... .~.lifornia -. r'~'"'C~'..,;o,~ ~,. MI'.,~JTFS. ... - Jan..uary 27~ 1976~ 1'30. a. Claim submitte] by Sambo~s Restaurants for damages purportedly sustained as a result of drop in voltage supplied by City of Anaheim, on or about July ~, 1975. b. Claim subt,~itted by Gertrude Royer for dame?es purportedly sustained as a result of damaged City of Anaheim meter~ on or about January 0, 1~7~. c. Claim submitted by Southwest .Assembly Inc., for damages purportedly sustained as a result of the ovcrpa~s clearin? at Anaheim Convention Center~ on or about January !4, 1976. .i. Claim submitted by i)ouglas iiiener for damages purportedly sustained as a result of actions of City of Anaheim vehicle, on or about January 22, ~7~. ,.~.. . ~,.~.~_~.~. ?,ZVICES ~=~:~.' The followinF~ permit was granted subject to the recorJ~e~t'ions of the Chief of Police; a. /~r.'usement P. evices Permit for approzimately 50 to 60 various amusement device machines to be located at Anaheim 2ecreation Center, lB41 7Iorth Shepherd .~'venue. (John }~. I.{uish, Applicant) 3. C~)~IKESPg'~iDEI~CT]: The followin? correspondence was ordered received and ~_il ed: a. ICC - Kesolution Service. b. LAFCO - ~,~inutes - December 10, 1975. c. Anaheim Parks and P~ecreation Comm~ission - '/inures - '~.',ovember 20, ]975. d. Anaheim Arts Council - Ninutes - December 9, 1975. e. ~'inancial and operating reports for the ~,~onth of December lq75 for the Police Department, i~uildin~ and F. ngineerin~ Divisions. f. !'AC (~ommittee (Alpha) - >?inures - December 9, 1975. g. City of La Nirada - ]esolution ~.~o. 76-2 - ?egard~nc a change in laws regarding' the color of pavement markings used to desi~ate official bicycle lanes and trails. h. ICC - ~"inutes - January 7, 1976. i. Annual Peport (1975) - Euildin? Division. Cou~cil:pan SneeF, as absent. >~OTIO'.,~ CARRIED. CO~,IRE£PO]~DEi~CE - CITY C.F ~LLERTO'.'i P_ESOLUTIOi',I UO. 595~,: Councilwoman ~ias~ood reouested that P, esolution i~o. 5956 from, the City of Fullerton be removed fro~ thc Consent Calendar and that the City Council of the City of .~,naheim adopt a similar resolution supporting the request that the Board of Supervisors estab- lish a County service area in unincorporated areas of the County. 7~]ZOLU'fIOi'~ ~O. 76P.-33: Councilwoman i'.a)'wood offered Resolution qo. 767!-33 for adoption. qcfer to ~esolution !~ook. r ..... 01~ ~'£E ..... '~? A SOLU%I OF ~.. CITY COUi~CIL OF T};E CITY OF ~2~Ah~I~! F,'.LQUESTING ~E ~PJ~GE o~o.,iTY bOARD ~)F SUPERVISORS TO ESTABLISIi A COUi~TY SERVICE ~.R~A I~'~ U:iIi.,~COR- ?OP3%TZD °'~ ° A~..~Ao OF TIlE COU~ITY. '-~oll Call Vote: Tlte l.~ayor declared Resolution ~Io. 76':I-33 duly passed and adopted. PU];LIC ,iEARI]~G - CO!,~-~q-IITY DEVELOPME:tT APPLICATION PROPOSAL: To consider: 1. A second-year Cor~munity Development Program. (to identify City-wide activities and a one-year Development Pro,.ram for the area generally bounded by Anaheim isoulevard on the west, .C,~nta Fe ~ailroad tracks on the east, La Palma Avenue on the north and Cypress Street on the south.) 2. A ~{ousing Assistance Plan (City-wide, to identify needs, ~oa. ls, objec- tives and locations for the second-year program). Prior to presentation of the proposal, Yayor Thom requested a show of hands to indicate those in the Chamber who were interested in the Co~,~unity 76-37 C.[ty ;ial!; Anaheim; California- COU~,'CIL 'TIUTES - January 27; 1~76; 1:3~ I'.''. ~evelop~ent Application proposal, which disclose,! that seven persons were pre- ser, t to hear the proposal. >ir. Rosario 5!attessich and Yr. lli]liam Young conducted a presentation usin~ slides which outlined the purposes and requirements of a Community :,~evelopment ]:rogram as well as the four basic plans developed for Tarpet ;,.rea .~os. 1 through 4 and budgets for the second year. (T}]e material presented was the sante as that submitted to the Council and City Planning Commission ~'embers at their 3anuary 21, 1976 work session and is on file in the Office of the City C]erk.) .it the conclusion of the presentation, ~,ayor Thom asked if anyone wished to coment or had any questions reF~ardinp tl',e Conr~unity 7~evelop~ent ~.':loctt Crant Application proposal and there was no respo~se. i~rief discussiom ensued between Council ~embers and Mr. }~attessich durin? ~'hich Councilman Seymour inquired specifically what the City miF. ht expect to accozpl~sh with thc amounts allocated under certain categories. ].ie indicated that he would be interested in t~avinc such information included in the ?aterials given to Council for consideration with re?ard to the a?plication. Upon ascertaining that the C. ode enforcer:~ent project will approach a with Code violations and encourage renovation to meet t]~e Buildin? Code throurh the use of low interest loans, Councilman Seymour stated that he would be in favor of a strom~r enforcement program,, in conjunction with these rehabilita- tion loans since that type of mmphasis will encourage property o~mners to r'~ake the necessary improvements and because this method would also provide maximum leverage for the use of Community Development funds. in response to Councilwoman ilay~.~oo¢!., it was reported that the average cost ~oer hone in the housing repair pro~ram, although ori~ina!ly estimated at ~i/~,.~'%,~, has averaged q3,OO, O and therefore that ~oney will spread further than ant icipate d. At the conclusion of Council discussion, ~..!ayor Thom again invited any memLers of the public in the Co~mcil Chamber who wished to cogent on the proposal an opportunity to speak. Additionally he offered time for co~ents from the Plannin.? Corrmissioners present as observers. There was no response from the public and. the Plannin~ Core, missioners declined to speak at this time. Ti:e nublic hearing was closed. 71!ayor Tho~ announced that the second public hearing on the Cor~unity ~cvelopr~ent ±llock Grant Application proposal for the second year would be held Tebruarv 19, 1976, 7:30 P" in the Council Chamber. lie invited all those interested to attend and advised that informational materials re~ardiny the application proposal were available from the Community ~)evelop~ent Department. ~30LICITATIOT~I PEP}-fIT - cEDU FOU?{.DATIO:~, INC,: Solicitation perm. it requested 5y Susan S~chaeffer, Corer. unity ?elations %ecretary, CEDU Foundation, Inc., ?. ~'. ~n× 117[, >funning Springs, California to solicit for charitable funds in the City of Anaheim, was ~ranted for a period of 60 days based upon the stipulation ~iven at the Council meeting by ~r. John Stallone, representin~ said organiza- tion that they would not conduct door-to-door solicitation in residential areas but would restrict their activities to business areas, on motion by Councilman ~eymour, seconded by Councilwoman [<aywood. Councilman Snee~as absent. ~OTION CAP,.RI]]I). SOLICITATIO~ DEPOSIT - CYSTIC FIBROSIS ~JZSEARCii FO~H)ATION: Solicitation permit for the Cystic Fibrosis Research Foundation, 5205 Agnes ;.venue, qorth ,~olly~¢ood, California, 91607, to solicit for charitable funds in the City of Anaheim from December 15, 1975 to February C, 1976 to support bike riders in a Like-a-thon to be conducted February S, 1976, was approved with amendment to the application as requested by said organization to show ~1,500 as the sum to be raised, on motion by Councilman Seymour, seconded by Councilman Thom. Councilt~an Sneegas absent. MOTION CARRIED. S~ILICITATION PEPJilT - DOUBLE CHECK RETP. EAT: Request submitted by Mr. Vincent B. Dailey, ~usiness Administrator, Double Check Retreat, P. O. ];ox 662, Carden Grove, California, 92642, for permission to solicit for charitable funds within the City of Anaheim for an additional period of one year, was submitted and 7~-5r City ,:all~ Anaheim, California - COU.:CIL MI~.:.]UTES - January 27~ 1976~ 1:30 P..~. maid organization was granted permission to solicit for an additional period of ~ days only, in accordance with Chapter 7.32 of the Anaheim l'~unicipal Code, subject to the filing of a formal application, on motion by Councilr~mn Seymour, seconded by Councilman '~]~om. Councilman Sneezes absent. MOTION CARRIED. AT:?I]AL - Ik~.SSAGL ?~:~]CiR.~ICIJC~ PEPC,ilT: Mr. ~.o~er S. ~ianson, 51~-522 South Eroadway, Santa Ana, California, 92701, Attorney representing Ms. Judith tlunt Ellis, addressed the Council regarding the denial of his client's application for a ~assa ~e Technician Permit by the Anaheim Police Department lie advised t~at ~s. 311is wishes the permit to allow her to perform ,~assages at the Act III ':assage Parlor, 3050 West Lincoln Avenue· She is the o~.,mer of this establish- ~ent which has a valid business license. ~'r. :{anson contended that the reason .~i~. 211is was denied the necessary oer~it was due to a ~isdemeanor prostitution conviction in 196° '~r. cited the following as reasons which m~litate a~ainst the City Council aenyin~ the applicant a pe~it for the practice of massage: 1) that the misdemeanor conviction occurred eicht years ago; 2) that she has since graduated from a rassage school (her diploma and transcript of credentials from that institution were passed to the Council for review ~nd retu~ed to ~.'~r. Hanson); 3) such permit has been issued to her to practice massage in the City of San Die~o; /~) the Supreme Court of California in the case of 'Lancaster versus the ~.~unicipal Court of ~beverly .Jills has preempted the field for allowing ~assage by members of the opposite sex; 5) the decision in the case of Perrine versus the '~unicipa] Court determined that operatin? a book store is a constitutional right and the fact that an in~Jivi<lual had been convicted of a felony - for sell~g o~scene literature - did not indicate any clear and present dan~er that ~e wo,~ld engage in ~uch sa].e a~ain. ~.~r. danson indicated that ~s. !~].lis' situation is analogous and that there is no reason to believe, if she were "ranted the ~assa~e Technician Permit, that she would practice prostitution. i~ brief discussion it ;,'as clarified by V-r. Uatts that although '!r. ~anson's letter mentioned a civilian identification card, in actuality the per~,~it which ]~is client is seeking is the ?~assage Technician Permit as specified in Chapter A.2O of the ;~naheim ~.[unicipal Code. In resnonse to Council's request for ]~is !e2al opinicn in the matter, ~r. ~-;atts advised that he does not share ~?r. ]lanson's opinion that the City ordinance has been preempted by the laws of the f;tate of Cali£ornia, nor does ]~c share thc view that this particular business is protected by ti~e Yirst /.~p~endr,~eDt. In addition, "~r. ~Jatts advised that the !~istrict Attorney i~as filed a red light abatement proceeding against the Act III ,~'lassage Parlor and that ~atter is now pending in the Courts. Councilman Seymour voiced his personal opinion that he would be willing to support any legislation or other legal technicalities or procedures available. to insure that businesses such as ?Ir. Lanson's client is operating and the type of practice in which she is employed are moved out of the City of Anaheim permanently. nn motion by Councilman Thom, seconded by Councilman Seymour, the City Council denied the appeal for a '.~!assage Technician Permit for ~-(s. Judith ]]llis presented by l'~r. loser ~tanson. Councilman Sn. ee~as absent· ;<OTIO:.,~ CARRIED. .~O,~. ~:1331 f.,~D~°°32,~ - lhEVISIOi< OF ( :.~DI~IO...I,-..: P. equest of John ~.. i{illiard and Gordon L. .5ricken, bio-Acoustical Engineering Corporation, for revision of Condition i[o. 3 of the conditions of approval for Tract 7Ios. ~831 and ,.q832 relating to sound attenuation, was sub~:itted together with reports from the Planning Depart~,ent and City Engineer. Subject property is located north of La ?aloha Avenue, east of Fairmont Boulevard· ~leport from the =lannin~ DJ. vision recom~ends that the City Council de].ete tim present requirements relating to sound attenuation for Tract ~'~los. ~gbl and ~3= and substitute a require.ent to comply with Council Policy :',:o. 542 In response to questions from Councilman Seymour as to the requirements contained in Council Policy i~o. 542, ~'.[r. Bob Kelley explained that the Council policy as presently written uses the 65 db f~,'EL measurement rather than the 65 dba measurer~ent as the conditions imposed upon Tract :Tos. 8831 and 8832 state. 7~ f~ltv ,,all;..Anaheim, California - COUi.~C!L ~TI?IUTES - January. 27; 1976; !:30 ~,'~.~e CIEL reading is based upon certain energy levels and adjustments thereto accou~ting for the time of day at which they occur, i.e., an event which occurs at nighttime would receive more penalty than that same event durin~ the day. Consequently it is possible for the noise to exceed 65 dBA momentarily but still meet ti~e 65 Ci~EL requirements. Mr. ~elley stated that this sound rea~tin~ technique is included in guidelines establishe,~ by ;~iUD in order to adjust for those circumstances ~zhere there is an intermittent type noise. It would be, in practical terns, impossible to reduce the noise level below the limit of 65 dBA for properties located within 600 feet of a railroad track; the most that can ~e aci~ieved with a line of siqht barrier, is that the peak noise e~issions are reduced by 15 decibels. >fr. ~,cl!ey advised that this particular applicant is proposing to erect a line of sight barrier which is in accordance with Council ]?olicy ?~o. 542 and ~UD ~.~uide]ines, ho~.,,ever the contritions on the tentative tract maps regarding .~ound attenuation as they presently read would not be satisfied by this barrier a~ ti~e sound ~:ould still exceed 65 d~A ~aninu~ out it would meet the 65 C~.~L , a:-i~un requirement. ~]ouncilwon~an flash,good voiced i~er very strong opinion against buildin~ resi- ~!ential units under these con.~itions, notin% that in any event the rear yards :,~ill ~e unusable because of tee noise. ~3he noted that even though the sound penetration can be controlled in the interior of the ]~omes, the vibratJ, on problem cm~not. She felt that residential development should not be permitted in suc!~ close proximity to railroad tracks. ~t the conclusion of discussion, on notion by Councilman ?ebley, seconded by Councilman Seymour, the City Council accepted the recom~endation of the ?]~nning Department and approved the substitution of the requirements contained · :itl~i~,~ Council Policy ~.~o. 5&2 for those presently set forth in Condition ~o. ~ of ",~',~ntative Tract ~os. ,q~31 and ~32. Councilwoman ~a~w~ood voted "no". ~'.~ounci!nan ineegas absent. ~'~OTIOi7 CARRIED. ~)uring additional discussion, ~r. ~[elley brouc~-~t to Council's attention ti~e fact that within Council Policy ];o. 5~2, the paraEraph which relates to railroads does not contain a provision for meeting 65 C]U~L require?~ents but rather for a line of sight barrier. ~is is based upon an approximation of the gl;EL and provides for a mechancial way to conform to certain require:.~ents and is in accordance ~ith ,iUD ~uidelines. Councilman ~{eymour stated that he believes if the Council is going to adhere to a standard of 65 C~.~EL, it should be upheld under all conditions and not discarded when it applies to a railroad track. If this policy permits reside~tial properties to be built adjacent to a railroad with sound !avels exceedinf 65 C~.;EL, then he believes it is incorrect and should be revised. Councilman Seymour therefore moved that the City Planning Connnission be requested to revie~ Council Policy ~o. 542 in relation to its effect on prop- erties adjacent to railroads and further consider recommendation on amendment to said policy which would estab].ish a maximum permissible sound level of Ci:f]L. Councilman Ti~om seconded the motion. Councilman Sneegas absent. ~OTIO;; 2ECI~\SSIFICATiOii lie. 73-74-37~ CO~iDITIO]i;J~ USE PEXI.fIT ~.~OS. 1445 P,17O 14&6 - £][TEi,SI:Ti ~3~F YI:~: !lequest of William E. Uhl, Le ?,oy Rose and Associates, for a one-year extension of time to procure adequate financing for CL (SC) zoning ~hich ~,,ould allow the establishment of a facility for the treatment and educa- tion of pediatric psychiatric patients and to permit an automobile service station on property located at tile northeast corner of ~cKinnon Orive and Lakeview ;venue, was submitted for Council consideration together x,~ith reports from the Plannin~ Depart~ent and f~ty ~n~ineer. ~rs. >~ary !~inndorf, 131 La Paz Street, Anaheim, was reco.~cnized by the '~ayor anti voiced objection to that portion of this request for extension of time ,.;hic]~ relates to the service station (Conditional Use ~ermit Us. 14&6). f~he advised that she understood the Scenic Corridor Overlay Zone, within which suDject property is located, excludes service stations as a land use except ~.~here these are integrated with a shoppin5 center. .,all,. AnaJmim~ California - COUNCIL NINUTES - January 27 Ziss Santalahti advised that when the subject reclassification and con.:fi- tional use permits were approved, the development plans indicated a shoppip? center development with integration of the service station. Upon app!ication for bumlo.'~n~, permits, the plans submitted would have to be basically in accor- dance wit]~ those which were approved with the zoning action· .Sn motion by (;ounciltaan Pebley, seconded by Councilman Seymour, a one-year extension of time was granted to Reclassification 7:~o. 73-74-37, and Conditional Use Permit :ios. 1445 and 1446, expiring February 5, 1977. Councilman Sneegas ab sent. ~93TION CJaRRICD. '~'SCE,qS: :~y general consent the Council recessed for five minutes. (I~:30 P..',".) ,XFTI;R ';'~'o"°.,.~.-oS.' "",~.e i.',ayor called the meetlng to order, all Wembers of the City qcuncil being present, with the exception of Couucilman Sneegas. (&:35 P.!~ ) ]SOLUTIO~I ':OS. 76q.~-..34 Ti!ROUCtt 76T:~-38: Councilman Seymour offered Resolutior. lios. 76i~-34 through 76~23~~, bo'~t{"'in'clusive, for adoption in accordance with ti~e reports, recor, m'endations and certifications furnished each Council ]~ember and as listed on thc Consen~ Calendar Agenda. Xefer to Y. esolution iiook. · ' R,~.)OLUTI.21 OF THE CITY COUT~CIL .... . .... A,h , CZPTI~G CURTAIN ........... .~,~R~. G THEIR IECOPDOT!OU. toames i'. Crawford, et al.; John Krajacic,. et al.; Classic Develom.~].ent ,.orp." - ; Judith A...Iepsen; Julius J. 7)allman~ et ux.; Le Roy K. I~llldebrand~ et ux.; Ronald .I2 "- ~ .... yoren, et al.; Petrolane Properties, in.c.; Frederick R. Sacher~ et ux.; Jack Y. I/osaka, et al) ',,oLU.tIO,., . 762,-35..- ~:O,,~.. O}IDE.;.~ ~.~O. 2,q90., ,. : A ~"'~SOLU~IOa" "' OF TIlE CITY COUTCIL ~F ....fE CiTY OF '-"~'" A,~.,I~I FINDING DETER~,TTINC T~iAT PUBLIC CO?'TVENIE?~CE ~,u~=zu,.., Ai~D CO}~LETI07 OF A PUBLIC IMPRO~Ei'.Z:.~T TO .,I;. UALXUT e~,'v,q'r ~AI~_ P.OCZ SLOPE PROTECTION, IN ,~!,E CITY OF ANA!!E!M, ")P/}2R :fO o090; APPP, OVI:~G Tile DESIGNS, ~,o, , ....... · - p~'r~, PROFILES D~¢I~GS AND cP~CTFICA- T!ONS FOR ~' ~ .... ~ e~ .~..m~,.~:.,t.,F; ..~UTIlO;,I~,I~:~G .~= ~, .~.O;~oTRUCTION OF SAID ~ UnLIC I*" ..... ,:,DA..; o.:; l:IT}.i SAID I LA:'~S, . _ ~.L"ROVL ~iNT IN ACCOv 'e" ~ '" SPECIFICATIONS, ETC ; AND ;:,U~.aORIZL~G AnDDI ovCII..~G .... THE CITY ~LER}i TO PDBLTS~{.~ .... ~ ~OTICE I?~VITING. o=EALFD ~P, OPO~AL.:. FOR T~H ........... I.~U~,TIO:~ ~t.1~0F. (3ids ~o be Opened - February 1~, IP76, 2:00 P.~.) ' RESOLUTION i.iO. 76-" ~ ' "O ':-..~fi: - ~,,OPd.~ ..RD.uR UO 8.65: ~ p~.e ~ · .~,OLU~IO~., OF Tile CITY C'~:'~,,,IL OF T'.IE CITY OI' ANAIIEIt~ FINDING /d:~D DETERMINING ~IAT PUBLIC CONVE]'~IJ:Z~CE i.~EC!]SSITY Z~QUIRE TiIE ,~ ....... TP. UCTIOW ,~f.rD CO~?LETION OF A PUBLIC IMPROVE?ql?{T TO ;'IT: iK~DEPdlILL AVENUE PEDESTRI~'~ OVERCROSSINC BLOCK i.'7~g, E/S/O ROUTE ~.P~,~,~AY, ~,~ ........... IN TiiE CITY OF [JO~.< ORDER t:O, 356; APP%OVING THE DESIG?~S, FL.N:.;S, PROFILES, D~I,~[':~GS :4PZCIFICATIO/~S FO2 THE COI:[STRUCTIOi TllEREOF; .AUTJIORIZING THE CONSTRUCTIOt/ bAlD 2UI;LIC IMPROVEt2~TfT IN ACCORDANCE VITH SAID PL~S, SPECIFICATIONS, ETC.; ,Y~D AUT}~ORIZ!NG A:~D DI~CTI~G THE CITY CLER~2 TO PUBLISii B. NOTICE INVITIYG SEJLED PROPOSALS FOR THE CONSTRUCTION THEPdlOF. (Bids to be Opened - February 26, 1976, 2:00 j'C]SOLUTIO'[~ '?,.. 76P~-37 - t,~OPd.-'. ORDER NO. 772-A: A RESOLUTIO.~{ OF ~{E CITY COUNCIL OF Ti-rE7 CITY OF Ai'L~iEIM ~INDING ~2(D DETERMINING '~[AT PUBLIC CO,~E,I~.C.,~ '~' ~" ~ AND :~ECESSITY PdiQUIP~ ~iE COi~STRUCTION z~;D CO~'~LETION OF ~ PUBLIC i~ ,w '~ .. dPROI~,iE...., ~ TO iTIT' TIiE GILBERT '~' c .-v.. T~.~% oTP~ tMPRO~i~',~:AT. FROM VBLDINA AVEI~E TO 150 >~]iT ,..'l/0 Vz~DINA ~WEI~E, I"'~,, TIiE CITY OF Ai.~EIM, ~./OF~i OP~ER"., ~0. 772-A; APPROVIi>[C ~ " PROFILES D~i¢I[.JGS JZ. JD SPECIFICATIONS FOR THE CONSTRUCTIOii bESIG{S~ rL.~,S, , TiiEREOF; AUTIIORIZING Tile C .... O,r -~ v ..O~oTRUCTION OF SAID PUBLIC !?,WROVEi~NT iN ',7ITtl SAID DL~U[S, SPECIFICATIONS, iTC ; ASID ~UT~ORIZING* ~ "' ' ~d~ DIRECTING · ~.,m CITY ~ ~ ' ,O~IC, INVITING oE~ED ~ ~ , CLERK TO PU=,LIS~.~ & "~ '" ~ 5 ' z ROPOo~S FOR ~IE CO~'ISTRUCTIO.~'~ TiiEREOF. (Bids to be0.....pened - February 26, 1976, 2:00 RESOLUTION :.IO. 76~-38 - i/OPSi ORDER NO. 1261: A ~LESOLUTION OF TF, E CITY COU!iCIL SF T]IE CITY OF 'V'~AiiEIM FINDING AR{D ~T~R?flI';[]~{G THAT PUBLIC CO:.~ENIENCE AI[D 7[ECESSITY REQUIRE THE COi[STRUCTION ..~0ID CO?~LETION OF A PUBLIC IMPROVE~'.Z~iT TO ~TIT: TRACT ~O. 7569 OFFSITE SEUER .ACCESS ROAD RECONSTRUCTION, !N ~iE CITY OF ~f~[~IEII. I, WOOl ORDER i~O. 1261; APPROVING TIiE DESI~.tS, PL~'iS, PROFILES, DP~ITIT..TGS 2d;D SPECIFICATIONS FOR '~IE ,,O.'~oTP, UCTIO~,[ TIIE~OF; AUTh_RI,:.ING Tile ~O~ISTRUC ~IO~, 76-r, 1 3itv ~,all, ;naheim, California - -OU,IC~L ,IJUT,,c, - January 271 1976~ 1.39 ~. . ;nF SAID I'UCLIC IMPROV[;'.~];T IN ACCO~D/UICE WIC~i .SAID FL;2~S, SPECIFICATIONS, ETC.; .'~D ~UTIiORIZINC ~.]D DI2~]CTINC ~!E CITY CLE~i TO PUBLISII A UOTICE IT~ITI,IC ~',~D PROPOSES FOR Ti!Z cO ..... . ...... ~oTRU~rlOJ TiiE~iOF (Bids to be Opened - February 26, 197a, ~. . 2oll Call Vote: k'i~e ~ayor declared 2esolution ~;;os. 7&~2-3z through 76P-3~, both inclusive, duly passed and adopted. CiTY 7LA]ili!,,~G CO}2!I]SiO~" iTT'iNS: ,',ctions taken by the City Planning Commission at their meetin~ held January 5~ 1976, pertaining to the following applications ~,~ere submitted for Council in for~.:at ion and consideration. ..On motion by i;ouncilman Pebley, seconded by Councilman Thom, the City Council authorized the actions pertaining to the followinc environr, mntal impact requirements as recom- ~ep, ded Ly the City Plannin? Copnission and took no further action on thc follo-,zin~ application,~: (Item 77os. 1 through 9) 1. ]iiVIR. OJi~E};TgI~ ii,ACT 72.~FO%T - 'fECATIV2 Di;CLA~,ATIO,.IS: The Planning Co~'~mission recommends to the City Council that the subject projects in the follow, in? listed zonin,~ applications be declared exempt from the requirement to prepare, an environ?entel impact report, pursuant to the provisions of the California ~.;nvirom~ental :)uality Act: ',~ariance 'io. 27Zt7 Conditional l;se Permit 770. 1591 .A,-,I,.~C .... 27A7: 2ubmittec' by 5outhern California First Uational Panl: to establish outdoor construction equip?~ent sales on CL zoned property located at the northeast corner of'~,z'verdale ,~venue and Tustin ,~venue, with Code ',,~aivers of: a. Permitted outdoor uses. b. Yaximum fence height. f~',e ,~ity Flannin? Co,mr~ission, pursuant to 2esolution ~7o. PC76-1, ~ranted variance subject to conditions. ....... I.~..~::,z~T ~,O 1 1 fubmitted by Jack E. Riley to per;~it out- 'oor recreational vehicle storage in the '~ Yone on property located at ~17 :;ast ?acifico /venue~ witb Code waivers of: a. Permitted uses. l'ininum front setback. c. ~'~inimum landscaped setback. '£~e Cit,,? Plannin? Cor, w, ission, pursuant to qesolution No. I'C76-4, granted said conditional use permit for a period of three years, subject to conditions. /:.. ~,~" ..... ;i",ITI('I'~bM~ IiSi; iER;,IIT iO 1359 .......... r ......... 2 i. ] uLh - ~,,~,~oI)..i OF ~I.-,?,: Submitted ~.-"" :ym~e of Yam L. i~owland and /~ssociates, Inc., requestinff a one-year extension of time for cowtpletion of current negotiations for permanent financin? to establish a ten-story hotel tower at 1700 South !iarbor Boulevard. :Che City i-lanninff Commission by motion, ~ranted a one-year extension of time expiring December 27, 1976. 3 C'iiDITIOi.;AL USE I'EPCiIT i~,0 1503 · · - ,~,~,:~.o~, ~, .[I~"E~ Submitted by Ja~es L. 3arisic, Anaheim ;fills, Inc., for a one-year extension of time to permit an automobile service station on the east side of Anaheim ilills }.load, north of io},,1 -ianch load. Tim City Plannin~ Cormnission by motion, granted a one-year extensiom, of time expirin~.q January 6, 1977. '_City ilall; Anahcim~ Califormia - COUNCTI, ~Ib~UT~$ - January 27~ 1976~ 1:30 P ". 6. CO:,rDO~iI.,~IU~'~ 'SJRV]]Y~ 1975: ']'i~e Condominiup: Survey undertal~en by the Plannin~ Depart~ent, includin:? the average and percentaKe responses to ~urvey questionnaire, was submitted as ~n informational it~.r. Tile City l']annin£ Commiggio~ r~ceived and file.:! said Curvey. . YA},IAi'~C. :;0 1314 - CLARIFiCA~IO,~ gF P ...... ~IT~].~, U.q~]S: .~. request for clarification of pern~it~_ed uses for variance :';o. ]314 was sub. flitted. ,q,4bject property ~s located on the. north side of :(atella ;..venue, west of Clerent~ne .;,treet, '£1,e City }'lanninF Commission concurre,! witl~ staff that a dance studio was not inc].uded x,ithin the scope of the original approval. .......... '" ~ ~.\,.i ;?'qS. 9169~ .9170~ 9171~ /,;~:D 9172: Submitted by Porothy '£rpvis, VirFi~la liehar,t.s and 7i;1]en 5_ir~,ons. Property !oented on the ~orth s~_de of .Lo ~n]r,o ~.~enua, west of the proposed 5'eir Canyon. Road. Tract. '7o~. ql6O, ~175~, q171 and o]72. were continued to be considered Jn cenjunction wSth :]nvironmonta] Ir'pact [-~eport Uo 1(~..? and Varianca ~,~o. '~77n · ' ,-% ','e ':. £'?'Tf?,TIV;' "!~.C'i' 'in q].An: [iub.~itted by 3~ark n Leff for 117 ~o ,~. q . =.~ lots and 1 CL and (:i~ zoned lot at the northwest corner of Oranrethorpe .,~,ve~ue apd ?:raemer iiou]evard (Portion "3") and property located nort!,westerly of tl~e corner of ~)rap[-cthorpe .%venue a~d 4raerer :;oulevard (Portion "L"). Tentative' ap, 'iract ':o. :9],59 was contipued to be considered in conjunc- tion with Lnviron;nental ir:pact leport :o. '~ P. eclassification ilo. 75-76-1~, and Variance . c:. 2771. C:o,~T',ciloan ~neo<-as,_ . abse:'~t. 'iOTlO'u., ?AR:,.!I,'' ~ ii.). .... .~. ~,e fol]owin? actions taken by the City r~lannin.- Cor~.~:ission at their r,eeting, held January 5, !976 pertai~ing to the followinc, applications were removed from, the Co~,sent Colendar for discussion and separate_ action by the City Council: i. CO,:)I~IO:;AL U.>,: ?~EMIT 77~. 1581: ?ubmitted by i'attv 7~cLeod, et al, to per- ,'~it an automatic carvash with ?asoline salo. s on .,.,-,~-.3 .~q zoned property located at the soutl~east corner of !~a].l and Uest Street, with Code waiver of: a. "inir. tu~. required. !andscapin?.. '[']~e City Planning qor~:~issior~, ~oursuant to ~.esolution ~o !"C7~-2 granted sn~d covditioral use perr~it with hours of operation from 7:33 am. to o nn . ,:~: , . p,~, ~or a trial ~erioi~ of six ~onths. :.:ayor T:~or', requested that Conditional lrse Permit 7;0. 15~1 be set for public hearing;. 2. C'T.~DITIOiIAL USE F..~-~:~II ::~q. 1594: fubmitted by T.. ~. Yellis to per:',lt a restaurant with on-sale liquor or ~L,, zoned property. . located at 5o'~, '7orth ~rookhurst Street :~ith Code waiver of: a. '::inir;~u~ structural setback. :he City Planning Co~r~ission, pursuant to Resolution :~:o. i'C76-5, recom- ~'.~ended that the City Council declare subject project exempt from the requJ, re- ~:~ent to prepare an environw, ental impact report and granted Conditional Use ,~er~it ~o. 1594 in part, waiver "a" bein- unnecessary, subject to conditions Councilwoman ;(aywood questioned whether a shopping center was planned together with this restaurant since as she recalls when the property was orl?inally rezoned, that was the proposal. She was particularly concerned because of the fact that a service station was constructed on that property which was supposed to be inte~rato, d witt~ the shopping center~ however, this !~as never materialized. ':r. Leonard Smith, Agent for ti~e applicant, advised that the deve].o,ner who had the property rezoned did not proceed with the shopping center plans because <]i~y i:all~ ;.nai~eim~ California - ¢:DU~CIL :.~I~,'UTES - January 27.~ 1976~ 1 of hi.~ r~ajor tenant wit~,irawinc from the project due to the configuration of freeway ra~p$ at thc intersection of the Santa. Ama Freeway and Brool~hurst i~treet. Subject property is in tl~e process of bein? sold. The current appli- cart proposes to erect a 900-square foot restaurant (:Iamma Cozza's) on the .qoutherly portion of the property and hopes to develop the balance of the prmn- erty into a sl~o?pin? center, however there are no plans for this at the present tir-e. ',~ V!R?f}~Z>,"fAL I:'iP~CT ':.'.POI!T - '~7'.CATI~J7i ~ECLAP;,.TIO:';: ..mn potion by CouncilPan fiey~.our, seconded by Counci]ran Febley, the CJ. ty ~]ouncil finds that this project vi!l bare no siznJ, ficant effect on the environp, ent and is, therefore, e:~e?pt fro,~ the requirement to prepare an o. nviron~.ental impact report. Cou~ncil~'~an Sneegas abse,~%t. 'r~'~)='IO; CA%FIZ.~, 3. ~A':',I;.,~;C'~.' ;'O. 1709: Submitted by ii,avid and Lillian ,'~ow to construct a fotemat faci!J.ty on CL zoned oroperty locate...] sout]~east of the intersection of Lincoln 7'venue and i~rookhurst ,qtreet with Co~e waiver of: a. "'inir.',u~:-builJin3. setbach. ']:~e Cit~,.. -'lannin?, Commission, pursuant to ~iesc!ution ~,~o. t~C76-6, franted variance. Council~or,~an _ia}~ood requeste~] that Variance lie. 27(.'.9 be set for public iaea rin~<. 4. C. i,i,~<AL TI, Ali A;,SJ'_";D?.?£1~/ i ROCEDU?,d: i-:×cerpt fro~'¥~ tile City Planning Co~- ~:ission ,'~inutes of January 5, 1976 ~as submitted., describing the required pro- cedure for General I'lan A[~end;;ents as set forth in Senate Bill 50&, for Council information. qaid Central Plan ,~r~endment Procedure ~zas received and filed by the City ]"].an. nin £ Cut, mission. Councilwoman ~ia~%,ood inquired whether the July timing for consideration of Ceneral ?lan /r'endments ,.,,ou!d be appropriate in view of the fact that usually at about the end of June a si.~ontfJcant amo~m.t of staff and Council time is taken up wi~]~ the ];ud~'et. She also su?Teste~] that the items under the Ceneral ?l~n A;'mnd~ent be identified :~'ith letters of the alphabet ratl~er than roman numerals as indicated. itt was ascertained tl~at the July timin? would not be a problem, for the Ftanning staff and that, if necessary, these amen~ments could be held over to tl~e first weeh of .\ug. ust. it was also pored that the alphabetical identifica- tion cou]2 be utilized rather than ror.~n numerals. ~:: motion by Councilwoman l~aywood, seconded by Councilman 5es.~r..,our, the City CouncX. 1 sustained the City ]~']snnir.:g Commission racor,r, endation. Council~an .qneegas absent. "!OTIO~ CARRIE,',). T>].iTA'£IV!] ?'A?~ ~i'RAC'f ?',O. )2~,1: Developer, Pacesetter liones; tract located at the southeast corner of Sroad~.~zav anti Loara Street; containing ?,..q. 7~,q-5.qaq zoned lots. '£]~e City ?lanning Co~:~.missior at their meeting held January 1n,, ]976, recommended t!~.at the Council declare subject project exem..pt fro~ the reouire- mant to prepare an environmental impact report and further approved Tentative ~!ap, '~'ract !o. 9201, subject to the follo,~ing conditions: 1. fhat the approval of Tentative :4ap of Tract :~o. 920]. is granted subject to the co~.pletion of ~eclassification ilo. 71-72-18 to the .P~S-5000 Zone. 2. l']iat should this subdivision be developed as more than one sub- division, each subdivision thereof shall be submitted in tentative form for approval. 3. "£nat in .~ccordance with City Council policy, a six-foot .~asonry wail s~all be constructed on the north and west property lines separating I,ot 1-4, and 76-gm, from Lroad~.~ay and Lot >:os. 65, 74 and 75 from Lears Street. ".easonable landscapin?, including irrigation facilities, shall be instailed in tize uncemented portion of the arterial highway parkway tl~e full distance of said '.,~all, plans for said landscaping to be submitted to anti subject to the 7 6-~.4 ~qI,:,,UTIa - January 27 ~ :~.ity. liall, An.a!?.im, C..a.].ifornia - CC, UT?CIL ~ '~ ,c 1976 approval of the [~uperlntc~nclent of ParLway ~-~alntenance; ~n~] fol]owin? tion and acceptance, t:~e ~ty of Anaheim shall assume tl~e responsibility for maintenance of said landscapings. 4. That all lots within t]~is tract shall be served by underground ut il it ies. 5. Y:mt a final tract map of subject property shall be submitted to approved by the City Council and then be recorde~ in the office o~ the )rar~ County Kecorder. 6. T'.~at any proposed covenants, conditions an~] restrictions shall nittad to and approved by the City Attorney's Office prior to City (iouncil approv~ of ~he final tract map; and~ further~ that the approved covenants, cm~Jitions and restr~ctior~g shall be recorded concurre~_t]y ,~t~ the final tract 7. That prior to fi]in~~ ti~e final tract ~ap, th~. applicant shall submit to the Clity /~ttor~ey for approval or denial a complete synopsis of tl~e functioning of the operatinf corporation includinE, ~>ut pot lir:ited to, articles of incorporation, 10ylaws, proposed methods of r~ana~ement, bondin~ to insure ~aintenance of co~?~n property ~n~ buil~incs and such other ~nforrmti~ ~' v its citizens~ an~ as the ~iity Attorn~_~ r.~ay desire to protect, the ~.~t.~ , ~urcaasers of the project. %. ii,at street names s~ail bc approved by the City of ~.~aheim prior approv~ of a final tract rap. 9. I~ = permanent stre~ name si~s have not been installed~ temporary street name sic~p~s shall be installed prior to any occuoancy. 1O. That the owncr(:~) of subject property s]~all pay to the City of t~e appropriate par~ an~'~ recreat~om in-lieu fees, as determined to be appro- priate by the City ~ouncil, said fees to be paid at the time the buildinf~ per- mit is issued. I1 z~at ~rainace of subject property shall be ~ . ~- ' ~ ~=isposed of ~n a r~anner tl~st is satisfactory to tl~e City EnFineer. t2. That an earthen Lerv,, topped by a six- (~) foot high structural wall (as defined by the Uniforr~ ]Suilding Code), shall be constructed alonF~ the rear ~- ~he adjacent railroad, plus whatever additional sound of the lots abuttin~ ~ attenuation meamures ar~ necessary to achieve a noise level not to exceed! dba in the rear yards of said lots and 45 dba inside said homes with windows and doors closed, as stipulated to by the petitioner; and that plans for said so~u~d attenuation sbal! ~e sub~:itted for City Council review and apprownl prier to approval of the fiual tract ~ap. 13. i'~mt single-story homes shall be constructed on Lot ~ios. 39 throuEh (5, said lots bein~ adjacent to the railroad, as stipulated to by the pet it io~e r. !4. %i~at precise plans to include buildinf elevations, floor plans and ~lot ~olans shall 5e sub~nlttect to the O]annin~ qo~ission and City Cou~ci] for review and approval prior to approval of the final tract map, as stipulatec~ ~y the petitioner. ~r. %l~onpson reported that subsequent to the Flanping Cor.~rission ~eet~n , t~e applicant has indicated all units would be located in excess of ].~q feet fro~ t~e railroad track an~! Condition ?o. 12 as ir, posed by the City Y']anninc Cor~ris~iop would be more appropriate if reworded to require confor~ance to Council Folicy ~o. ~ ~. Councilwo.nan ]iavwood was assured that the railroad trac]~ adjacent to subject tract is only a spur line with minir~al traffic and no increase ant icipat ed. i]i[VIROi,I~[Ei~TALIMPACT .~IEPORT - N]~GATIVE DECLAPJkTIO~: ~n. motion by Cou~ci!.r.~an Pebley, seconded by Councilran Seymour, the City Council finds that this project will have no sim~ificant effect on the environment and ~s, therefore, exempt from the requirement to prepare an environmental impact report. Councilman Sneegas absent. ,'lOTION CARF. IZD. :~,~'t motion by Councilman i'ebley, seconded by Councilm. an Seymour, 'Tentative '!ap, Tract ~7o. 92')1, to~ether with its design and i~provement, was foun~] co~:sistent with the City's General Plan, and the City Council approve(! saiJ tentative map, subject to the conditions recommended by the City P!aoninc r'~o~nissior:, with the foilowin? revision to Condition 'io. 12. 7f-c 3 ;]ity ,,all~ Anaheim, California - COUICIL ~INITT.];S - January 27~ 197[~p 1:30 "12. Ti~at in accordance with Council Po]icy 77o. 542, sound atto. nuatJon ;,neasures shall be complied with on the lots abutting t:~e railroad track to ti~e east of subject property." Councilman gnecgas absent. ~'~'0TIO57 CARRIED. ~2X~'~'OSZL'' /u~'iE-:i}~'[ZNTS TO TITLL 12~ ~:O['ilNG~ SET FOR PUBLIC IiEARING: On motion t'y f:ouxcil~,oran i(as~ood, secon~{_e.-1 By Councilman Ceyr~our, the proposed amendmerts to Title 1~, Chapters 1~.01 and 12.02 relating to home occupations - conditions ap.,.] limitations were set for public hearinc on. February 10, 1076, '~cuncilman Snecgas absent. !~OTION CARP, lED. C~;;TF~CT - l(OlCi ORD!~R 7[0. 766-A: The City EnF, ineer's recommendatiOns for award of contract for ~.,7ork Order i.[o. 766-A ~'[odification and Installation of ?cdestrian L;ignal Indications at Various Locations, was held over on~ week by yet, oral Council consent because of Councilwoman ~:a'?,;ood's concern re~arding the expenditure of ~19,550 to replace lenses in traffic si~.~nals for the purpose of conforming to State regulations. Additional information was requested by ,;our, cji re?arding the necessity and corsequences of non-conformance to this ~'ovcrnr'.ent mend at e. ~';:~OLU'rlOi; i~3S. 762-39 A;]D 76?,-40 - A',.~.?AED nF ~'ORi[ ~_3P?EP ;!Of. 76~-A A]~ID 769-A: Ir: accordance with recomg.,endation of the City i'~ngineer, Councilman Pebley offered 'lesolution 7os. 76~-39 and 76R-~0 for adoption. qefer to 2esolution Look. -.:~fOLUTIO..; io. 76R-39 - I'.,'OP~i OPd)l;R 7to. 76.-q-A: A RZSOLUTIO~.~ OF T~iE CITY COU'fCIL ~F ?;~ (;!TY OF .,~ L~-iEIH .~CC~'.]FTIiIG A SEAl,ED PROPOS~ '/~-~] r~'~}'[~T '7';SPO~IBLE ~IDDER FOR T~IE FI?f~ISHING OF ALL FLA~T, LABOR, "A'f~PI.~.g ~ ]:QUIP~2~i~T /C~D ALL UTILITIES A~D T~'~SFO~TATION, IUCLUDI~C ~';L .L;D i"ATZR~, 3f~D ~E.~FOP2.;I;,,, ALL ~.OP~.. 72]CESSAP~ TO COI;gTRUCT F~LL~¢fi]7C PU;;I, IC I}IPPOV"i~.~T: II[DUCTIVE VEi~ICLE DETECTC)R LOOP I~.iST;LLA'FIOi'~S L:]cctric Fupply - .~.~ ....,,~.. i...'~. 7c-,'q.-/~O. - ,O.~-. ~3RDE2 '~'~. 769-A: A ,:.ESOLu.~.ION,.,, ' OF Tile CITY COUNCIL ~'~F T...-; (:ITY f~F fi'~l[EI~.i .M]CEPTINC fi SEALED PROPnSAL AND T::i; LcY/FST '!~:SPO~i~;IE, LE 3IDDER FOR T:iE FUR~IStlING OF ALL PLANT, LABOr, SERVICES, ';ITERI~.,~ A. iD i[0UIPIfi]i[T ~D ALL UTILITIES ~M'!D TP~'.ISPOP~ATION, I>ICLUi}ING POIfER, ]q;~'L kt~b ". A~'~'°~.,,, '..;';D~'", ~ ~,t~O~'~'r~,z~t,~ AI,L ~fORt.;..',,,Ct,~SARY'"~ .,c TO ~[ST FrlLT,:) /i):C PU;~;L!C I:[PROVE*%;"T: TP_AFFIC FIGI~ HO])IFICATION ~VND .~,ObLgVAr~P, E;: 5~2 (:ITY OF /:.~AHEI~[, 1.70Pi( ORT)ER ;lO. 769-,~.. (Steiny and Company - ~loll gal;. Vote: AYJ,3: ,COU:;CIL ,'.7£H.~ERS: ;iaywood, Se_wnour, Pebley and Thom :5~'S: COU'.TCIL ~-THgER£: 7or. e ';flee ~.'ayor declared ¢tesol. ution ~os. 76R-39 and 76:~-4C., duly passed and adopted. ~CLLLATIO~ OF COUNTY TAPiES: On motion by Councilwoman K.a~,ood, seconded by Councilman Sesn~our, the Orange County !.oard of Supervisors was requested tg cancel County taxes on the following properties acquired by the C.{ty of Analteim for municipal purposes: a. J'roperty acquired pursuant to ;'esolution :;o. 75R-502, formerly assessed to ~. O. and Phyllis H. Podeffer, Deed No. 611.:q recorded October 1, 1975 as K'ocument ,~o. 403 in gooh No. !152g at Page :~os. ~.35, ~36, ?37 and C3C, ~fficial '~.ccords of Orange County, California. b. rroperty, well and pumping plant acquired pursuant to l:esolution i':o. 76:'-13 formerly assessed to Aliso ilomes, Inc., and Sterlin? Ho,re. es, II; Rio !'ista building Corporation; and Lessie E. Brooke, deeds recorded January 12, 1076, as qoctr~ent -ros. 3545, :55/,6 and ~547 in 3ook }'..o. 11619 at Page ~,!osj ]15c througit i165, official 2ecords of Orange County, California. 76-66 City llall;. ~^.n~d!eim, C.alifqr..n,i.a - C.OUL'C. IL ~.fU~JT~S - Janu,.ary 27; .1076; ].:3~ P.....!'!.. Councilman SneeFas absent. ~OT . ;. IOlq CARRIED A.fAPdO OF COZ:FRACTS FOR PZViSIO:iS TO EXISTING EQUIP>5.Z:T - -TADIU., AND C~iTER: fir. falley reported on informal bids received for the revisions to sound systems at the Anaheim Convention Center and flood light control revisions for rooftop and tower lights at the Stadium and recommended that the low bids he accepted as follows: 3id ].1o. 3033 - sound system revisions - L. A. i~[ing Company, $33,g25.00, including tax (Work Order ~o. i-~64). Bid ~'o. 3039 - flood light control revisions - I. ~. :~cFarlane Corporation, $19,~00.09, including tax (Uorl,: Order >7o. C63). On motion by Councilman Se)~our, seconded by Councilman Pebley, the City Council accepted the low bids submitted by L. A. ]iing Company and I. ~:. ~[cFarlane Corporation in the amounts of $33,F...25.00 and ~19,~00.00, r~:spactively, and authorized b~orlc Order ?.~os. 96A and 863 be awarded to these £irms. Ceuncilman 5nee~as absent. .~DTION CARRIED. 3497: . Councilman Seymour offered Ordinance Uo 3497 for adoption. Refer to Ordinance Book. ,U' 9Ri)ii'~;.'~C'?] OF T]i]: CITY OF A..~AI~EIM '~:~^~'~ · .... ~,~.~~. SECTIOi~S 1.04.110, 1.04.160; 1.0A.19O; 1.OA.200; 1.0A.240; 1.DA.310; 1.04.560; ~ECTI07[S 1.04.110; 1.04.130; 1.04.160; 1.04.190; 1.04.2A0; 1.04.310; 1.04.345 A.]'D 1.0A. 560 I~[ T[iCIR PLACK PERTAINIi~G TO CITY' S ~FFICERS Ai[D DEPART}.%}ITS. Roll~..,~all Vote: The Mayor declared ~)rdinance i~-~o. 3497 duly passed and adopted. ICE :,~0. 3498: Councilman Pebley offered Ordinance iio. 3~93 for adopt~cn. '~_fer to Ordinance ];ook. /f? .q-n='r~.~o?.,~.~w~,.,,~.,,..~ CiF THE CITY CtF A:~A!!EIM AI'W, UDII..?G TITLE 18 OF T~iE ,...:.,.,,.~.,'~.~:,.~'~'~"r~' 'T"ICIPAL C~,'~',~" ...... T~LATI:"~G TO /~n:.;!i,~g. (~,9-70-25 (3), 2s-5n00. , Tract i"..To. 7666) Call Vote: AYES: COUZCIL ~.~L~BERS: Pebley and Thom ]~OI',S: CO~TCiL >Ui~D.,!~ZRS: ~'ia~ood ABETAI?.H.D: COUS~CIL ~{5[ZERS: S~our ALSZ?,T: COU~CIL >55>['SEIIS: Sneegas Ti~e >!ayor declared C~rdinance No. 3498 failed to carry. ~_~a>!.z~.~ ...... ::OS 3~99 z~£:D 3.500: Councilman Thom offered Ord. inance iqos. 3499 and 350a for first readin- ~... ~:., · 3499 OP~Ii,IA:~CI] OF ""'= CITY OF Ali:AHEI}! .A~:.E~DIhG ~.~ lC OF ;:~:'.~ICIPAL CODE RELATING TO ,..~,,.~,L~G.~""~ ~ ' (71-72-47 - ID.l-1200) 3300 A:.': ORDINANCE OF Ti;E CITY OF ,'~;.Ahi.,,IN M.~:{DING TITLE '!U::ICiPAL CODE PELATINC TO 20.':~ING. (74-75-34~ CL) te.)~.P."" %]:1:£S O::. ~...:.~,u.?~,~ ............ 57 F-KE. EI.~AY ,BEFOPJ~ TIlE CALIFO?J~IA iiIGtF,YAY COI'~.fISSION; counci'iwoman ::a~¢ood reported on her appear~ca before th~ California i?.:.ighway Commission January. 23., 1976 regarding landscaping and sound attenuation :easures for the Orange Freeway (Route 57). She submitted copies of her ntate- nent as well as that of Supervisor Ralph Clark for the Council record (on file in the ~ffice of the City Clerl:) and advised that it appeared they ~ade absolutely no progress on resolution of the problem.. 7r~-67 ']Lty ztall! Anal.?im California - COU[';CIL :~.~L'RJTES - January 27; ]976; !i~]i~f,S - !'.X£CUTIVE ~ESSIO~; Councilman Febley moved to recess to Uxecutive :iession. Councilman Tito~ s~conded the motion. Council~an ~qneegas absent. '~*~ZIO': CARRIED· (5;05 ?.'?.) .,-.,.~'.? .~C,~.~: ~ayor T]~om called the meetinc to order, all ?,embers of the City ~]ouncil beinc presar, t wit]t the exception of Council~';an Sneegas. (5:5~ P.?~.) "";J~cq .... ...... ~ ~*~:~'~.~'"':' Councilnan Pebley moved to adjourn to Friday, Jamumry 30, 1976, !:~: ~.~:~, A.?:. Councilnan ~Seymour seconded the motion. Councilman Enee~as absent. ~ "ri'IO'7 CARRIED. t~L'~ ~A ~-~. i[OUCARD, CITY