Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
1976/10/12
76-736 City i[allI Anaheiml California - COUiICI.L. ~INUTEF - October. 12! 1~.761 !:30 The City Council of the City of Anaheim ='et in regular session. PRESENT: CODICIL i{E}~JZERS: ]iaywood, Seymour, Kott, Rotb and Thom ;~BSEIIT: CO~CIL ~[E}~[LERS; l~one PEESENT: CITY I,I~C:~AGEK: l~illiam O. Talley ASSISTANT CITY ATTORNEY: William P. Hopkins CITY CLE~i: Linda D. !oberts CITY ENGINEER: Janes P. Maddox .OJILG ~UPERVISOR: Annika Santalahti DATA PROCESSIi:G YJK~AGER: I'.etth Parkyn PAPJtC, RECREATION ;C~D TUt ARTS DIRECTOR; James D, P.uth DEPUTY CITY ATTO?CItY: Frank A. LofTy, Jr. DEPUTY CITY ATTOPGIEY: M, E, Slaughter ~ayor Thou called the meeting to order and welcomed those in attendance to the Council meeting. i'7VOCATIO:~: Reverend Ed Armendariz of the L'elodyland ilotline Center gave the Invo cat ion. FLAG SALUTE: Councilman Uilliam I. llott led the AssemBly in the Pledge of · ~!legiance to the Flag. Approval of minutes was deferred until next meeting, ?-~wvn, ~..~. ~.~. OF PZADING - q~SDL.A.~Cn ,. - ye .... ~ID n~".~.:~,OLUTI. ~'L~:~'" Councilwoman Ka~ood moved to waive the reading in f'~ll of 'all ordinances and resolutions, and that consent to thc waiver of reading is hereby given by all Council Nembers unless, after r~a,]zn= o the title, specific request is made By a Council .~ember for the reading of such ordinance or resolution. Councilman Thom seconded the motion. ........ = .~.~=~,~o ~o.~.~ Tiie ..~ in the amount of $3,~m0..,5!9,2~, in accordance ~:it]~ the 1976-77 ~udget, were approved. JOii'T r~J]iDIi:C AGPJf£1~'~T - BUP~.IS SAiID PIT ~ID F!V~ COVE? P~,.mJEmT ARTA STUD;:: James Eut]~, F~rhs, Recreation and the' Arts Director, submitted a report dated October 5, 1976, giving background data and the Dot,ntis! recreational advantages to be gained by reinstituting the s~'bject study ralatiwe to the Burris Sand Pit and the Five Coves Project Area. ils explained that the previous study authorized by the Cl~ty Council in i~72 ~ su] sequently terr~inated ~ecause of pending litigation at that ~ime, and emphasized chat funds were still available from the 1~72 study. Councilwoman :iaywood offered Resolution No. 76n-.-628 for adoption. °cf er to qasolution Book. rESOLUTION NO, 76?,-628; A ?~ESOLUTION OF TIiE CITY CODICIL OF I]{E CITY OF AEIAHE~ APP~.OVIUG TIiE TEP~;S AIID CONDITIONS OF A JOINT FL~JDI:~'C ACP~EI~. ~NT %.7ITtI TIiE OPJ~IGE COUT;TY FLOOD CONTROL DISTRICT ;did TIlE ORfC?GE COmiTY IIARBORS, BEACHES ;..ND PAPJiS D!CTRICT, OPJkNCE COU:;%~' 17ATEP. DISTP. ICT AI:D TIlE COUNTY aF OP~AL'GE IN CO~RIECTION I'ITii A STUDY OF BURR!S SAE]D PIT Ai~D FIVE COVE PROJECT AREA ;..ND AUTHORIZING '~,[tYOE ~X~D CITY CLERIi TO EXECUTE SAID AGREE~EI~f O'J BEHALF OF T~:E CITY OF ;2~AIIEI~I. ~oll Call Vote: AYES: COUNCIL }iEIIBERS: Kaywood, Seynour, Kott, Roth and Thom NOES: COUNCIL >~,.{B~Ro: None ~SZI:T; COUNCIL }~[BERS: None The }!ayor declared Resolution No. 76P-628 duly passed and adopted. AGREEI~NT FOR DESIGN 0¥ }!ODJESKA PARil CO~.~UNITY RECREATION BUILDING: On motion by Councilman Seymour. seconded By Councilman Kott, an agreement wi~h Dan L. Rowland and A~socia~es, Inc.,. Architects and Planners, for the design of the ModJeska Parr Community Recreation Building was approved. MOTION CARRIED. T~;NIS CONCEPTS. IN.C.~ TE}~NIS COMPLE~ PROPOSAL AT BOYSEN PARK: Mr. Ruth elaborated on his report dated September 28, 19'76,'"~uhmittad to'Council requesting authorization to enter into a 20-year lease with Tennis Concepts, Inc., for the development of 12 lighted tennis courts, 3 teaching lanes, parking lot and renovation of the l,/agner House for a Pro-shop on 4 acres of undevelOped ~ .~..IUTEZ - nctober 5.s.. 197~1 1 *It,v iiall, Anaheimj California - COUNCIL ~ ,, , ...... ~, ~ ~, ~,l C, om'~cilman Rotlt requested a report from staff in si:: :"~onths reaarding t]~e effectiveness of the added stop signs, as well aa imput from the spol%esman of the residents. '?otmcilwonan llaywood left the Council Chamber at 7:Bm P.!{. "Em,~£ST. ~__.. - BDDITIn?!AL ,~.,~.;,,..'.p~'~'C"~'~e ~2.FD ~G'~F~g F~...O....'.~ CRECT, ~A~BIC 67~ LA QU~fA TP.~L'f~ : ayor Thom referred to report dated September 3~, i°TF, from the city Eng~nem~ · and report dated October 5, ~q76, from the ~oninC ~{vision relative to the subject request, "re. llaryn Schonl~crz, 157 :Torth ?~ohler Drive, spokeswoman for the ',,omeowners, presented and read a petition signed by 175 residents requesting that ~:ia Copolla ',~e completed and designated as an access street to Santa Asa Canyon Road so aa te alleviate the pro, lams caused by all traffic trying to get out ?%hler .~rive. '.frs. .~chonherz explained t~lat before purchasing :heir homes, ~11-of the ho~,eowners were under the assumption that an acces.~ street to Santa Ana Canyo~ ~oad would be provided as the plot map in the sales office inferred that such a strnet was going to ao through, llowever, ~t ~.as later determined that the -!evc!oper dic! not o;m the property on ~.~ich the access road was supposedly to ~ e ~:uilt and the land would remain undeveloped until someone else came in. ~'rs. ?chonherz further elaborated on additional problems relating to traffic on '%Llar ~rive and surrom~ding streets because of the limited ingress an~ egres~ in t'~a ar~a, ns well as a potential ]~azard that coul3 ,]evelop as a result of flood, fire or ntl~er disaster, stressing ti;at tl,era ~:ould be no way for resident~ to leave the area. In answer to q,,~estions by Council,,mn ]loth, City Engineer ',"addox explained that 2anna .~a Canyon l:oad now belonged to tl~e City and that :lie access road requested by the .petitioners was a planned connection altl,ougl~ he was of the opinion ~ it ,,ould be difficult to build sucl~ a road on sot'cone else's property and . without knowing tl;e plans for c~evelo~ent; the other alte~ative l,eing condemnation. :~ayor Thott confirmed that ~hat the homeo~.mers were requesting was an acceleratio~ of the planned connection as articulated by '!rs. Cchonherz and as outlined in tbs losing Division~s memo of October 5, 1976. Councilman Seymour returned to the Council Chamber at 7;37 P,?i. :ir. Cteve }':anthorne, 127 North '~iohler Drive, was opposed to t~he City's spendin[ any tax dollars to acquire the property to build the road since an agent of Classic Development misle~ potential homeowners in telling them the road w~llt be there, tlc explained further that Classic had every intention of buildim& road since they had already stu~ed it in, graded it from ~he canyon floor installed curbing halfway up th, road. }!owever, when Classic realized not own the property they discontinued completion, geveral people in the Council Chamber confirmed that, in fact~ the roa~ already partially built by the developer. ".{ayor Thom stated that there was no legal way of having Classic complete the ,~n motion by Councilman Roth, seconded by Councilman Kott, staff was instruct,d to ascertain the costs to complete ingress and egress as req.uested~ includim~ negotiating acquisition of the subject property, or advise condemmation costs and submit a report to Council on ~.lovember 9, 1076, at a 7:00 p,m. meeting, Councilwoman i~aywood was t~orarily absent. MOTION CARRIED. ADJOU?CC2ZTT: Councilman Roth moved to adjourn to Yriday~ October 8, 1~76 at P.'i. Councilman Thom seconded the motion. Councilwoman Kaywood was absent. MOTION CARRIED. Adjourned: 3:00 F.~'!. LINDA D. ROBERTS, CITY 76-'737 City KallI AnaheimI California - COIPJCIL I{IiU3TES - October 12! 1976! l:3n P.I~. land and at Doysen Park; the new site chosen because of its more centralized location. He explained that out of the 18 requests for proposals received, two fir~ proposals were actually submitted before the deadline, and of these two, Tennis Concepts was unanimously recommended for the reasons articulated in his report. In answer to Councilman Seymour, ~{r. Ruth stated that' any increase in fees of more than ~5¢ over initially established rates would require City Council approval and such stipulation would be written into the agreement. Councilman ~eymour commended .~!r. Ruth on the proposed tennis complex project, as well as that of the ~kate~oard Park,. vt~ere the City, instea~ of having to finance such projects, only dedicates tile land. 71e noted that witLout free enterprise, the City would not be able to provide the necessary funding and further emphasized that the citizens of Anaheim., for a noninal fee, ~re the recipients cf the ultipate benefits, '~r..nonald Palenski, ln13 East Courtney "ay, spoke on l~ehalf of himself and nine ho'~eo._,ners in the area adjacemt to the proposed tennis cor~p!ex, lie stated that they did not object to the tennis courts but were concerned as go plans for the d3,-foot striF of land between the courts and property lines now being used as a scrawberry field relative to buffering sound. >£r. ?.uth indicated that the strawberries would ~post likely be retained in that area until such time as a recommendation could ~.e subt~itted to the City Council in the next Eudget year for funds to develop the 60-foot strip as a heavily landscaped greenbelt area assuring the preservation of its integrity, lie also stated that the lighting was being planned so as not to illUminate adjacen~ backyards. :ir. ialenski indicated he understood that when a park was developed, block walls were installed by the City, thereby replacing the grape stake fencing recommended w!~en their homes were purchased in anticipation of such an occurrence. Councilman Seymour indicated that although the City historically did install concrete block walls in such cases, it did not insure that it could always ] e ~o~e. At the conclusion of discussion, Mayor Thom assured Mr. Palenski that before the final agreement was brought back to the Council, the staff would arrange to r~ake available to him schematics so that he would be fully aware of the final plans for the proposed complex. On notion by Councilwoman l'~aywood, seconded by Councilman Seymour, authorization was granted to negotiate an agreement with Tennis Concepts, Inc., for the development of a tennis complex at Boysen Park. ?-{OTION CARRIED, REQUEST TO ..ADD FULL T~E. KEYPUNCH O.p~.RATpR: City Manager Talley requested a motion authorizing the Data Processing Department to add a full-time Keypunch' Operator thereby enabling reduction of costs incurred by overtime since, over the last two months, such overtime had increased to a net of 65 hours per week. In answer to Mayor Thom's question, Keith Parkyn, Data Processing Manager, explained that the increase in workload was basically due to the Paramedics activity and the new TILES Utility Billing System, but additionally his department had taken on a number of smaller tasks around the City all requiring greater programming wi~h programs that required keypunching. Mr. Parkyn also explained, for Councilman Kott, that each City department was charged for services performed and more sophisticated ways of charging were being developed. · Councilwoman Kaywood commented that at a recent SCAG executive committee meeting, Mr. Nordic, President Of MDS, had~expressed the very highest praise for Keith Parkyn an4 the Job he was doing. She added, therefore, if he was requesting another employee, there was no doubt that such an addition was necessary. On notion by Councilwoman Kaywood, seconded by Councilman SeymoUr, authorization was given to hire an additional full-time Keypunch Operator in the Data Processing Department. MOTION CARRIED. 76-738 City i~allI Anaheiml California - COU~;CIL ,'~,I~TE? - Octob. er 12! 1976t l:3q P.~'~. Di3CUZSIO~; - C;~[If qY~qTE~i COUCEDT: ~ayor Thom, since he had been unable to attend the recent Council-Department Uead Seminar, asked of Talley if any tine had been ~pent developing the Electronic Data Processing ~ys~em, Co~,~prehcnsive ;~.a',~i~.: ?'anagcr,~cnt Inforr?~tion ~"ys~eus :~r. ?arkyn indicated thaa none of ]~is staff's tine other than himself and ~embers of senior supervision had looked at t~e various alternatives to get the CA'~[IC systcr.~ to the City in the most expedient way. '~'ayor Tho~ s, tate~!. ]~is corcern ,'as tl~at suc]~ a syster: ]~a~ actually !.een voted on an! al~proved ]~y thc Council and suLsequently this infor;~ation was relayed staff '~embers; he enphasized that he did not recall voting for approval. City "anager Talley stated that at the ?'anagement Seninar, a pregentation had }~een ;:~ade s~owing develop~.?_nt of a p]eax~ which is a 3-year implementation cycle, ~it~ report ~.ack at the nauru ~c:".inar ir~ J~u,~ry. T~is '~'as ~.eterni~e-I to" ..~e the ~nc~t expedien~ ~anner in whick to proceed rather than to continue.to develop a nu~'~ber of independent symter:,s throughout the City, none of which would provide tl~e cost and program data needed to put the City on a systematic basis of evaluating various projects. The ?~ayor reiterated that he was concerned primart]y with the fact that he was advised gloat the program had bc~n officially approved by the Council; he did not oppose minor exploration by staff iv working up a proposal but did ob~ect to staff advising other staff that it had been voted on and approved by Council, If this was so, ti~en it was without Council's knowledge. Councilman Seymour explained that although no formal ~otion was made at 'the ~ubject :~eeting, there was general consent that the CA~4IE System be pursued in a develop::~antal ~ode for subsequent submittal to Council with concrete data and costs. This was to be done without any large expenditure of staff or management tine. .~'~ayor Tho:~ stressed that he first had to be convinced of the need for such ~a syster~ and until that time, he could not sanction it formally or in'formally. Ve su.%sequently requested that some form., of record be kept of the time spent by key staff people in developing a proposal so as to preclude any excess in so doing. AUTO~,~ ..... .,.,oz~,~ ALLOUD2'~CE Il: LIEU OF CITY VEHICLE: Councilman Seymour offered Resolution No. 76R-629 for adoption. Refer to Resolution Book. RESOLUTIOV. 1~0. 76P,-629; A RESmLUTION OF TIlE CITY CO~CIL OF THE CITY OF E3TABLISTII:!G A'~ AUTOMOBILE ALLO%TAJ~CE PROCRkM. Roll Call Vote: ;lq~2: COI~CIL MJZMBERS: Kaywood, Eeymour, l(ott, Roth and Thom ,.~,,~,. COL~;CIL ~ERS. None ABSEi:T: COUUCIL ~}[BEP. S: 7~0ne The .~yor declared Resolution ~o. 76P-629 duly passed and adopted. SALE OF ,CITY ..O!%IED PROPERTy. - 456 AI~D 460 !~ORTI! }!ARIPOSA: City ?[anager Talley stated that Deputy City Attorney Slaughter was available to answer any questions on the proposed sale of City owned property to John ~. Zylstra and }leith %7. E. axter at a purchase price of $57,500, Mayor Thom asked ~at the value of similar houses were at present in Anaheim. Councilman Seymour stated that if the two subject properties were being sold as single-family residences, their value far exceeded the purchase price being offered, and the City could stand to gain an additional $15~000 to $20,000 if they were to be sold on the open market, It x~as his opinion that either he or Councilman Roth could go to the Board of Realtors and ask that the properties be placed cn the multiple-listing service and~ because they were supportive of the tax cut. explained that the City now needed their help and willingness to-accept a 3% co~isslon instead of the usual 6%. MqT!O~,~: Councilman Roth agreed with Councilman Seymour's foregoing statement if, in fact,-the City wished to retain the properties as single family , He 76-739 City llall, AnaheimI ~alifornia - COUNCIL .,~-.,,~e ~, ~ ~'.~.~u~ ...... October 121 1976, 1:30 ?..~. therefore ~lade a motion setting a price of $39,950 each for the property located · ~ 1,000 nintz~um deposit, at 456 and 660 ~Iorth ~ariposa ~treet, s~ipulating a .,, maxir%ur 90-day escrow with normal prorations, leave properties on the open r~arket for 60-Says, and termina~e the present leases on the property, before a vote was taken, Deputy City Attorney Slaughter indicated that the Froposed asreement which was prepared for the sale of the property reserved tl~e City's right to widen Euclid Street in the area of the subject properties; however, it was determined that this was contingent upon change of use and. no change of use was presently indicated. After furtl,er discussion concerning the present lease charges %dlich were considered too low, Councilman Roth asked staff to review all leased or rented C~ty-owned property to insure that the lease or rental amounts being charged reflected the current market levels, The aforementioned motion was seconded by Councilman Seymour. MOTIOn; CAP~RIED, Yr. Slaughter added that it would be appropriate for the Council by ~otlon to reject the applicants offer to purchase the subject properties. On motion by Councilman P. oth, seconded by Councilman ~eymour, the offer by John ~,;. Zylstra and Keith ?I. Baxter to purchase the property at 456 and 460 l;orth ~ar~posa was rejected. ~{OTION CARP. IED. .~[EUD~gZ:~T TO CI-~ COUL'CIL COI:FLICT CF ~ .... ~"~ ~,~z~.~o,~ CODE.: Assistant City Attorney ~iopkins explained that the Fair' PolitiCal Practices Commission (FPPC) had sent letter recommending a change to the Council Conflict of Interest Code, Section and Section 5, merely adding standardized wording. Deputy City Attorney Lowry explained that the amendment added a definition section specified in the Political Reform Act of 1974 relative to disquali{ication for voting. He indicated that the FPPC was going to review the Council Code on October 19, 1976, in Sacramento necessitating ir~nediate action in the form of a resolution approving the subject amendment. Councilman Seymour offered Resolution No. 76~-648 for adoption. Refer to Resolution Book. RESOLUTION NO. 76R-648: A P~SOLUTION OF THE CITY CO~CIL OF T~IE CITI' OF ~_.~,~DI.~G REsoLUT'iON 'JO. 76R-518 PERTAINI~C TO COUFLICT OF I:'~TEP~ST CODE. Roll Call Vote: COUNCIL ~IIBERS: Ilaywood, Seymour, Kott, Roth and Thom COU~CIL }~l. fBE~S: ~one The }!ayor declared Resolution ~o. 76R-648 duly passed and adopted. CA?!..C. EL. LATIOL~ - CITY COUNCIL ?..~ETING! OC.TOBER 19! 19.76: After Council discussion wherein it was dete'rmined that it would not be feasible to hold a regular Council Xeeting on October 19, 1976, because of the conflicting League of California Cities Conference in San Diego, on motion by Councilman Roth, seconded by Councilman Seymour, the City Council ~{ee~ing of O~tober ln~ 1976, was cancelled. ~,,~o~. CARRIED. ~.~.~oo: By general consent the City Council recessed for 10 minutes. (2:48 P.?'~.) AFTZ5 RECESS: ~'~ayor Thom called the meeting to order, all Council ~embers being present. (2; 5~ P.I"~,) PUZLIC IIZ~IING -.~%B~2~DOlP[~Ff NO, 76-2A.; Applicatio. n by David }~, }[axwell, General Partner, Chmckmatm, to aBanden a pertion of Jefferson ~treat lying easterly of Tustin .Avenue between La Palma Avenue and Coronado Strmet. The City Engineer in his mmmo of September 3, 1976, recommended approval of ~bandonment No. 76-2A subJmmC ~ 4 conditions. The abandonmmnt reques~ was also determined to be categorically exempt from the requirement to file an EIR. 76-740 ' ' California - COUI?CIL ~,T~T~--- _ ~ctc',~er ~2 ! . ! .' ..~ .... :" City llall The ~:ayor asLed if Council '[er~bers had any questions regarding t]~e City Engineer's recmmnendations as well as if anyone in the Chamber was desirous of t. eing !~eard; there being no response, he declared the hearing closed. ,~= ~o.~.~z~ ...... ~ ~'.~, -~.~,~..~.~.~ ....... ~..~u~ I~'.PACT ..... POR~. motion by Councilman l:ott, seconded by Councilwoman Ka~ood, the City Council ratified the deter=~ination of the Planning Director that the proposed activity falls within the definition of Eection 3.9], Class 5, of the City of Anaheim Guidelines to the requirements for an Environnental Impact Report and is, t]~erefore, categorically exe~:pt from the requirerent to file an ~nvironmental Impact ?.eport. C AP.o, Ii?. Cou~ci!=~an ~oth offered ~.esolution =o, 76F,-630 for adoption authorizing Abandonment ?~o. 7~%-2A subject to tim recommendations of the City Engineer. P. efer to ~esolution Book. ?oi1 Call Vote: °eymour ]:ott Roth and Thom ila~ood, ,.~ , TTone :Tone The 'Tayor declared Xesolution 77o. 76R-630 duly passed and. adopted. ~.~=~.,~,,~,~,~.~,~ ,~O. 75-15A: ~pplication by A. U. Shipkey, Edwin E. 7lettler, and ~Tilliam O. Corn, to abandon Palm Street between Ball Poad and Ilarbor Boulevard. T~.~e ,City'Engineer in his mer.~orandum of September 16, 1976, recommended denial of the proposed abandonment. The City Clerk stated tha~ one of the applicants, ?fr. ?illtam Corn, had called and said ]~e was sending a letter withdrawing his request for abandonment but, today, it had not been received. ' M.s. Joanne P. ox, Attorney for Mr. Corn, addressed the Cm~ncil and respectfully requested a three week continuance of the subject abandonment relative to a title problem. ''~,~T~':.,~.,,.,.,,... Councilman Seymour m. oved that the matter te contim~ed for three weeks as requested. Councilwoman Kaywood seconded the motion. Before a vote was taken, ,~fayor Thom indicated that the situation was an unusual one in that one of the adjacent property owners, A. Il. Shipkey, Pall ~!all Properties, wanted to withdraw his Dame from the application for abandonment as stated in his letter of September 3, 1976. It was determined, however, that the req,~est for continuance by ?~r. Corn was not for the purpose of reaching an agreement with Mr. Shipkey but for determining %qether or not ~ir. Shipkey had a voice in the matter at all as confirmed 5y Ms. Rox. 5:r. Steve ~ayer, representing the County of nrange as one of the adjacent land o~mers, presented and read a resolution from the nrange County Doard of ~upervisors da~ed ~ctober 12, 1076, formally opposing the a.%andonment; the main reasons being that it would eliminate existing truck access to the County'~ 'TeigT~ts and Measures Calibrating Station; eliminate the only loft-hand turn lane into the County's complex; and reduce the County's street frontage by approximately 220 feet thereby reducing site accessibility, utility market value and departmental flexibility. A vote was taken on the aforementioned motion granting continuance of proposed Abandonment !~o. 75-15A for three weeks. ~.[OTIOI: CAR/lIED, PUBLIC IIEAP. ING - F~CLASSIFICATIOi; i:;0. 76-77-9t VARI~2qCE .NO. 2832t CONDITIONAL USE P-Ei~[IT ,'TO. 1643 /d~ EIR.L~0. 183: Application of David Ray (Trustee) and Dollle P. ?.ains (Trustor) for a change in zone from R£-A-43,000 to P/~-1200 (Portion A) 76-741 City gall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL !,IIIIUT.E,~ - October 12, 1776, 1:30 P...'{. to construct an 88-unit apartment complex on property located at the northwest corner of Lincoln Avenue and Bel Air Street, with Code Uaivers of; a) Permitted encroachments into required yards. b) l~ximum building height. c) Minimum distance between buildings. d) Minimum building site width and frontage. And on Portion B, to permit a public recreational facility with Code waiver of minimum building site width and frontage. The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC76-169, based upon City and State Guidelines and the State of California Environmental Quality Act, recommended certification of EIR No. 183 as being in compliance with said Environmental Quality Act and further recommended Reclassification No. 76-77-? Le approved for ~,{-1200 zoning (Portion A) subject to the following conditions: 1. That the owner(s) of subject property shall deed to the City of Anaheim a ].5- foot radius property line return at the northwest corner of Lincoln Avenue and Eel Air ~treet. 2. That all engineering requirements of the City of Anaheim along Lincoln Avenue, including preparation of improvement plans and installation of all improvements such as curbs and gutters, sidewalks, street grading and paving, drainage facilities, or other appurtenent work, shall be co~plied %.~th as required by the City Engineer and in accordance with standard plans and specifications on file in the Office of the City Engineer; that street lighting facilities along Lincoln Avenue and Bel Air Street shall be' installed as required by the Director of Public Utilities and in accordance with standard plans and specifications on file in the office of the Director of Public Utilities; and/or that a bond, certificate of deposit, letter of credit, or cash, in an amount and form satisfactory to the City of Anaheim shall be posted with the City to guarantee the installation of the above-mentioned requirements. 3. That the owner(s) of subject property shall' pay to the City of 'Anaheim the sum of sixty cents (60¢) per front foot along Lincoln Avenue and Bel Air Street for tree planting purposes. 4. That trash storage areas shall be provided in accordance with approved plans on file with the office of the Director of Public Uorks. 5. That fire hydrants shall be installed and charged as required and determined to be necessary by the Chief of the Fire Department prior to commencement of structural framing. That subject property shall be served by underground utilities. 7. That drainage of subject property shall be disposed of in a manner satisfactory to the City Engineer. o. In the event that subject property is to be divided for the purpose of sale, lease, or financing, a parcel map to record the approved division of suLject property shall be submitted to and approved by the City of Anaheim and then be recorded in the Office of the Orange County P, ecorder. 9. That the owner of subject property shall pay to the City of Anaheim the appropriate park. and recreation in-lieu fees as determined to be appropriate %y the City Council, said feee to be paid at the time the building permit is issued. 10. That appropriate water, assessment fees as determined by the Director of Public Utilities shall be paid to the City of Anaheim prior to t'he issuance of a building permit. 11. That revised plans shall be submitted for Planning Commission review and approval, said plans t~ she~ a 33-f~: wide access over Portion A of subject property to Portion B~ and al~o to eliminate 5 second-story dwelling units proposed within the 150-fee~ setback adJaeemt [o single-familY residential land uses, wi~h the exception of amid setback adjacent to Lot No. 4 in Tract No. 2780, as stipulated to by tha . 76-742 ' ~ ~alifornia - CqN'ICIL ,,~.=T~e nctober 1~ 1976 1:30 ..city ~'~1~ l.nai~.cim~ ,~ ~ ~.~o_~.~.~. ~ ...... ~! ! ]2. '"'~at, in the event t!~u .~:ubject property is to !~e divided for the purpose of ~ ~ease for financing, tl~e .~-~oot ~Jde access over ~ortion A of subject property to Portion E shall l. ecomc a permanent easenent to be recorded in the Cf lice of the ~range County Recorder; provided, however, that if Portion B shall ~.~.co~:e n pare site, .aail easement shall be no longer necessary and access to the p.arl, site shall be required to the north of subject property, as stipulated to by tI~e petitioner. 13. That subject property shall be developed substantially in accordance with revis~d plans and specifications, as specified tn Conaition !~'o. 11, above. 1L. Prior to tl~e introduction of an ordinance rezoning subject property, ~ 2 8 and 11 above-nentioned, shall be cor~pleted The prnvi~ions or rig]~ts grante~] ]~y this resolution shall beco:~e null and void by action of the City Council unless said conditions are con, plied with within one year fro~. tl~e gate hereo£, or such further time as the City .Council may grant. !5. ~].at Condition qos. 4, ~, 7~ !2, and 13, above-nentioned, shall be complied witi~ prior to final ~uilding and zoning inspections. Th~ ~ity ?lannin[~ Cou~nission pursvant to Resolution 77o. PC76-17~ granted Variance ~o. 2732, in part, subject to the following conditions: 2. -]~at t]~c appropriate directional signin~ shall be erected on the subject proZ:'r~y to indicate rih]~t t~s only onto Lincoln !venue. ]. Tl~at revised plans ~hall be submitted for Planning Commission review and apl~-r~val, said plans to indicate a ~ininum 33-foot ~.~ide access over Portion A of su~d~ct property to Portion ~, and also to elininat~ 5 secom~-story dwelling uni~ propose~~, ~it~in +~.~ ~5~-foot~ bui].din~ setbach adjacent to single-family resi~lenti.~l land uses, ~'fth the exception of said setback adjacent to Lot ~0. 6 Jn Tract "o. 27fl~, as stipulated to ]-y t]~e petitioner, and t~is condition shall ~ .o. ~,ied ~.~i ~ prier to the iss~aoce of 14~ildinZ permits. !.. That ~on~itior. "7o. ?, a~o~c-~e~t]oned, shall be complie4 ,.~fth prior to final ~:u~.~nirg ,~n.? zo~2 ~n~pections. T~'~ City ~Tann!u~] Co~,~igsion purs~mnt to ~.esolutiop "o. PCTg-I. 71 granted Conditional Use ?cr]~it No. 1643 suEjcct to the following conditions: 1. 'fl.at trasi: storage areas shall he provided in accordance with approved plans on file with the Cffice of tl~e Director of Public ?7orks. 2. Ti,at fire hydrants s!~all be installed and clmrged as required and determined to be neeco;sar7 by the Chief of the 7irc r'epartr~ent prier to com~aencement of structural frmaing. 3. That subject property shall be served by underground utilities. 4. That a six-foot high r~asonry wall shall be constructed along the north, east, and west property lines. 5. Ti~at drainage of suLject property shall be disposed of in a manner satisfactory to the City Kngineer. 6. In ~he event that subject property is to be divided for the purpose of sale, lease or financing, a parcel n~p to record the approved division of subject proper'[y shall be submitted to and approved by the City of Anaheim and then be recorded in the elf ice of the Orange County Recorder. 7. That auy proposed tennis court or parking area lighting shall be downlighted and shall be directed away from the property lines to protect the residential integrity of the area; that the lighting immediately adjacent to the residential uses shall be shut down no later than the hour of g:O0 p.m.; and that the lighting_ of the interior tennis courts shall be shu: down no later than the hour of 10:0,q p.m., as stipulated to by the petitioner. 76-743 City ilall~ Anaheim~ California - COLI,~CIL ~'~INUTES - ~ctober 121 1.976t 1:30 ~q. That a soils engineering consultant shall be retained for the first one-year period following final building axed zoning inspections of the proposed project, said consultant being retained for the purpose of monitoring and recommending any additional control systems, devices or measures in connection with the underlying methane gases; and that during said one-year time period, the petitioner shall install and bear the costs of any and all systems, devices or measures as ~nay be recormnended by the soils engineering consultant, to insure the safety of the occupants of the subject property; and, more specifically, if a lateral control system is indicated to be required by the monitoring system, said system slxall !oe installed prior to the end of the specified one-year time period, as stipulated to by the petitioner. 9. That, in the event t]~e subject property (Portion B) shall be developed alternatively as a park site, access shall be required from the north of subject property. 1O. That sufficien~ and adequate soils tests shall be submitted to tl~e Duilding Division for a ~letermination of the requirements for site construction and installation of sewer and water facilities. 1~. That subject property shall be developed precisely in accordance with plans an'~ specifications on file with the City of Anaheim marked Exhibit 'Jo. 1 (Xcvision Uo.!); provided, however, that an effective buffer strip shall be provided along the west property line to protect the restder~ttal integrity of the adjacent mobile home park, subject to the approval of the Planning Cormission. 12. Tha~ Conditiop~ ~os. 6 and 10, above-mentioned, shall Lc complied with prior to t]~e co~=~%enceuent of the activity authorized under this resolution, or prior to thc time tha~ tl~e !uil~ing p'~r;~.it i~ issued, or within a perio~ of one (~) year fro;.~ the date '~ereof, whici'~ever occurs first, or such further ti?e as the City ~ouncil may grm~t. . " A 5 7 ~ and I1 above-r~entioned, shall be ~ T!~at Condition ?~os. 1, ~, ,, , , ~., , cc~q~li.~d ~-ith prier to final %~uilding and zoning inspections. "isz Can~alahgi ~iescribed tl~e location and surrounding land uses. Che outlined ti~e findings given in the staff report ~,~ich was submitted to and considered ty ti~c City Planning Co~mxission. She also stated that ~he requeste¢" waiver "C" i-attaining to r~liniraum distm~ce between buildings was deleted by the suL~.~ittal of revised plans to the Planning Commission. ~'r. ~oI~.~ Looty, agent for the applicant, stated that '.~iss Santalahti had covered z ie., with all points and he ha~ nothing further to add except that he was satis~ ~ the reco~.-~nendations made by the Planning Commission. Councilman Seymour asked :~r. ?,ooty w~at was planned for the property immediately north of the tennis complex as depicted on the plans submitted. '~'~r. Booty indicated that a park might be developed at that site, but if that ~r'ere not the case, some of the tennis courts would possibly be moved into that area and the rer~minder left as an open space greenbelt. Council~.an Seymour requested r~-~ore specific plans as to the future of the subject parcel to alleviate the concerns of the residents in the neighborhood as to the possible unacceptable future developments. ~r. Booty stated that an alternative was to add some additional courts but beyond that, not much else could be done with the property because of its previous use as a dump site. Deputy City Attorney Lowry interjected that the Parks Division had looked at the property but, due to the severe problems that would be involved in developing a park site, the Parks and Recreation Commission was not interested in it nor was there any indication from ~he City~ the C~unty, or,anyone else in buying the property for a park site. lip. Lowry further stated it could be developed residentially if approximately 35 feet from the top down were scooped out, but no structure of any size could be built on it. ~r. Booty, in answer to questions from both Councilman Roth and Councilwoman Kaywood, indicated there would be no access from Bel Air Street; that in order to prevent light intrusion to the adjacent mobile home park and single-family 76-744 ~ity !fall! ;c~aheimI California. . - C©Lq~CIL .~T~=T~o,~,,o ~ -- OCtober 1.2,! 19761 1:30 resi!cnces, the developer stipulated to a greater setback offsetting the tennis courts from adjacent property lines with only the interior courts ~o be !i~; and that t]~e recreational facilities would be rented by the hour and not be restricted to apart-~a.~t tenants on t~e property only. ~-~,=re bein~ no further persons who wished to address thc Pouncil either in favor or in opposition~ the ?~ayor closed the public hearing. ~ounci!woman Zala~ood ashed 'bT. ?,ooty if he was aware of nny neighbors being concerned with any aspects of the development. stat~d that there was considerable dissent when the matter first went ti~e Planning Cor~mi~siom r~lative to traffic on Be! ;ir, underlying methane court liihts an~ hours of operation. He explained, however, that s~,:'~F~<~ntly ti~ese ~sm~es ~ure reso].ve~ to al~o~t ever~ne's satisfaction. ?ey'~our wante~ ~nr~e assurance as to w~en the tennis complex would ~e in order to ?:a~a certain that t~e recreational a~enity was, in fact, not just deplete~ om the plan as presented ~y '.'r. Booty. ~le ~as that t]~c courts -~i~hr not ~-e '.milt an~ w~ .~a~ant in bis request to ~!iverad to the citizens in actuality wha~ was sho~ i~ the proposed plans. ....· oot7 '~as reluctant at ~s .... point in time to ~iru~ly co;m'~i~ to such a i~uge ~i-,'C~~ Cll~, 2o'~mciiu~m~ Seymour ti~en ~:usgcstad t],e approval of the ~ieclassification, ~oz.iit~ ~ ,, o~m~_ se i'ermit and '<arim~ca, but Lefore any Luildi~:L per;~,its were issued, az. opcz ~ust co-;:;e ];~,. to the Council with spec"~iczz plans at wl~ich t~e it co.~l,i l.e a~certa~ad wl~etT:ez* or not the financing was available =o complete the proj~ct as i~roposed. '~ayoz- T',~ov. interjected ti~at aa such tiue, building perr~:its could be denied and adled that he ',~ould prefer not to approve the P. eclassification unlems assurance was :.~ade that the recreational facilities would be part of the proposed project. At the suggestion of Councilman Xoth, lit. Eooty stipulated that 3 tennis courts and !~ raquetLall courts, ~;zinimu~:t, would be built, ..~.3,.= J:O. 183 - CERTiFtCATI31I EIR 17o. loo having been reviewed by t;~e City staff and reco~anended by the City 'Planning Co~ission to be in co~'.~pliancc with City and Etate Guidelines and the State of California Environ~ue~tal Quality Act, tl~e City Council acting upon such information and belief does hereby cer~ify~ on mo~ion by Councilman Sea,our, seconded by o Councilman Roth, that ElK ilo. 1~3 is in compliance ~th the Sta~a of California Environmm~tal quali~y Ac~ and City and S~ate Guidelines. ~DTION C~RIED. Councilr:an £eymour offered %esolution No. 76R-631 for adoption authorizing the preparation of the uecessary ordinance changing the zone as requested sub~ect to t'~c conditions recoTr~anded by the City Planning Commission and including the petitioner's stipulation that a minimum of 3 tennis courts and 4. racquetball courts will be built as parg of the project. Refer to Resolution Book. F ..... ~,..,~U.IO., ,~O. 76R-631; A ?LSOLUTION OF THE CITY COIITCIL OF T}~ CITY OF ANAI~IM ,.~ ~,~'-~:.~z~4z,,t. TI~T TITLE lg OF TIIE ANAI~E~I !RJNICIP~ CODE RELAT~JG TO C~i2fiCZD. (Reclassification IIo. 76-77-9~ ~3!-1200) Roll Call Vote: C *" ~,~.~,~. Y, aywood ~ Seymour ~ 71ot~ Xoth and Thou The ~[ayor declared P, esolution ilo. 767-631 duly passed and adopted. Councilman £eymour offered P. esolution No. 76.:.-~,3~~ o for adoption granting Variance Uo. 2232 in part subject to the City Planning Commimsion recommendationm. Refer to ~lesolution ~,ooh. 76-745 City Kall, Anaheim, Cal~ifornia -.COIYJCIL ~II2~UTE~ - ~ctober 12~ 1'976~ !:3,.0 ~.,'I. 150 76R-632: A P. ESOLUTIOL' OF TII~ CITY on'"Cv' OF ~,,v . ~.,,,~ ...... , _, CITY OF VARIanCE t~O. 2~32, in part. 2oll Cali Vote: Ai~';,C: COUi?CIL ~:~BER~: Kaywood, Seymour, Xott, %otb and Thom , ~., : COII~CIL .~}~ERS: .'l~one The 7~ayor declared P~esolution 7. o. 76R-632 duly passed and adopted. Councilman Seymour offered Resolution No. 76P~-633 for adoption granting Conditional Use Permit No. 1643 subject ~o the City Planning Conm]ission raco~.~,':endaticns, qefer to P.esolution Book. ,oli Call "otc: The 'Myor declared Resolution I~o. 76?.-633 duly passed and adopted. ;~plication by 'testern Play Care,'~Ir.c., for a change in zone from ?.~-A-z,~..,Oa~ ..... to 73.[-12D~ go construct a 20-unit apartn~ent complex on property located on t~e Jcuth sl/.e of Orangawood Avenue~ xzest of Spinnaker C~reet, with the follo~ng C,o~.e ~.:aivc r ~J: ~:.' [q::imu:',. ':uilding freight. ~-,' "i~i~;m?. si,leyard setback. c) qequired block wall. Ti~e City Planning Commission, pursuant to ?,esolution ,7o. ?C76-!73 reco~':~ended' t:ta~- the subject project be declared exempt from 'the requirement t° prepare an Environmental Impact %eport pursuant to the provisions of the California Fnvironmental Quali~y Act and~ further, recommended that Reclassification Uo. 76- 77-1!: be approved, subject to the follo~ring conditions: 1. That all engineering requirements of the City of Anaheim along Orangewood Avenue including preparation of improvement plans and installation of all improvenents such as curbs and gutters, sidewalks, street grading and paving, drainage facilities or other appurtenant work, shall ba complied with as required by the City Engineer and in accordance with standard plans and specifications on file in the Office of the City Engineer; that street lighting facilities along. Orangewoo~ Avenue shall be installed as required By the Director of Public Utilities~ and in accordance with s~andard specifications on file in the Office' of the Director o£ Public Utilities; or that a bond, certificate of deposit, letter of credit~ or cash, in an amount and form satisfactory to the City of Anaheim shall be posted with the City to guarantee the installation o£ the above- mentioned requirements. 2. That the owner(s) of subject proper:y shall pay to the City of Anaheim the sum of sixty cents (60¢) per front foot along 0rangewood Avenue for tree planting purposes. 3. That trash storage areas, shall be provided in accordance with approved plans on file with the Office of the Director of Public Utilities.. 4. That fire hydrants shall be installed and charged as required and determined to be necessary by the Chief of the Fire Department prior to commencement of structural framing. 5. That subject proper~y shall be served by underground utilities. 6. Tha: drainage of subJec~ proper:y shall be disposed of in a manner satisfactery to the City Engineer. 76-746 '~ity Unll~ Anaheim~ California CDC.~,CIL ~'T'T""~(~ .~.. . .- ;'~ .... ~ .....-October ~! 1976t !:30 P,~.~, 7. T]',at the. owner of subject property shall pay to the City of ;maheim the appropriate park and recreation in-lieu fees as determ~ined to Ea appropriate Ey the City Council, said fees to he paid at the time the building permit is issued. o.. ~hat appropriate water asscssnent fees as determined by the Director of Public Utilities, shall be p.~.id, to the City of Jnahei~ prior to the issuance of a ~u il ~ir.£ permit. ~.. Tnat tl~e e:~istlng ~,.:ater well on site shall be capped as ~.pproved by the City of ~nahei~z Utilities Director. ]~. ?riot to the introductiop of an ordinance rezonfng sut-ject property cc ~:lit.~on '!os. 1 an~ 2, above-~entioned, shall be conpleted. The provl~ions or r~,~t~: sr~nte~ ~:.y th~n resolution sb~!l Lecome nu~.l and voi~ ~y action of the ~ty ~ouncil ~m!ess ~ai~ co~Jt~ons are co~plied wJ._tb wtthi~ one (l) year fro~ t~- ~ato ~araof, or such {~rtber time as the City Council may grant. · ~ e and 10 above-;~entioned, shall be complied 11 That Condition 7os. 3~ 5, , , ~, , wi~l~ prioz- to final buildino and zoning inspections. City Planning Cot,mission pursuant to P~esolution ~o. ?C76-174, granted Vaz'iance i~o.~'~ in part, subjec~ ~o thc following conditions.' I. Ul'~au tl,is Uariancc is ~]rantcd sul~ject to the completion of Xeclassification i]o. 76-7 7-14, ~ow pending. · ..,~at .~u,~ect property s:~ali be developed substantially in accordance with plans ,~nd specifica~ioas on file with the City of Anaheim marked Exhibit llos. ! throaz~]~ 4; provided, ,~owever, that a szx-zoot ~igh masonry wall shall be co~structed along the east -': a~.~ south property lines, and that a masonry wall appro~imately 4 feet in heigl~t shall be constructed adjacent to the existing six- foot ]~iol~ :'asonry ~all alonz] the west property line~ as stipulated to by the pe ti~ ioner. ~[iss Santalahti described the subject property and surrounding zoning and land ~scs. She oug!ined the fJmdings given in the staff report ~J~ich was submitted to and considered by the City Planning Cmmaission. .,~e 7ayor asked if the applicant or the applicant*s agent was present and wished to be heard. '.'.ir. 17illiar~ S. Phelps, agent, 1095 i[ain Street, Orange, pointed out that the density of the project was 24 to 25 units an acre. He added that the only waiver of i~9ortance to him was the mi~imtn'a sideyard setbach of 10-feet instead of the required 12-feet. Councilwor. mn Ka~a~ood asked first what would happen to the "tuck-under" parking in case of heavy rains and, secondly if there were still objections to the project by ti~osc opposed to it at the Planning Commission hearing. ~r. Phelps indicated that any problems with the "tuck-under" parking due to heavy rains were controlled by pumping out to the street. He also indicated that there still seemed to be opposition as evidenced by one party who was in Council C ha~Mo er. ~,',rs. Jan Aser, 2129 Nautical Street, explained that her home was located on the cul-de-sac south of Orangewood and her back yard was adjacent to the rear of the subject property. Mrs. Aser stated that she was the sole head of her household of four children and wished to voice her opposition to the rezoning proposal as she was concerned that her rights were Being violated by the proposed apartment complex project. :Irs. Aser explained that the nmin reason she purchased her home was its high element of privacy and that if the rezoning were approved, (1) her property would no longer be private, (2) the resultant noise would rmke it difficult for her to get any sleep as she worked nights, (3) there would undoubtedly be complaints from neighbors regarding her "watch" dogs reaction to the additional noise, and (4) ~aost h'zportantly, the prospects of having that many people living on the other side of her fence with her four children having to be home alone at nigh~ was extrmtely troublesome to her. 76-747 City liall, Anaheir~! Cal, i£or.~ia -,,CoOI~CIL }{II~TES ,.7. October In conclusion, :~rs, Aser stressed t]~at she and t]~ose who lived Jn t~e im~.e~.iate rc:~identia! area were Leco~ning very alarmed by the increasing frequency in crir,e J.n the area of 9rangewood, 71aster and ~'iountain View Streets and the idea of n~oving the threat even closer was frightening. Councilman Kott renmrked in answer ~o one of :Irs, Aser's corm~ents, tibet t1~c Ccuncil was there to listen to the indivi~ual citizen and she s:~ou]~ not feel she w~ns tl~cre wig]~ a lone voice, l:e then asked ::rs, Aser what she would lille to see on tl~e property as an alternative to the apart~ent co~p!ex. '.'rs. Aser stated that she wouldn't mind anyt]'~ing tibet was a quiet type of hu~.;i:'~ess; sl~e even preferred an off,ce building to apartments. Co~cilnan ~eymour explained that he shared the concern relative to the enviro~:'nant~ 1~is ~usiness was also to insure that since t~.,e o~.mers paid City ta~es they had certain rights to develop t]~eir property. ~e did agree ~'ith :'rs. ,~ser, however~ t]~at~there was a crime situation already existing in the 9rangewood/Kaster area. T'r. F}~elps pointed out from the proposed plan where ~'-Trs. Aser's property would protected Ly block walls and also indicated the trash containers ~ere approximately 15n-feet from her house. In answer to Councilman Poth's question. ?~r. ?helps indicate~ that it would he ~ifficult for residents fro~'~ the second mtory of the apartr,~ent 1~ouse to ~ " .oo,. into '~r~. Asers backyard. There being no further persons who wished to be beard, the Tfayor closed the ?u]~lic hearing. Councilwoman 12aywood stated that she had a proble~ with the ~ininum sideyard setback on tl~e basis of its being RS-43,OO0. By not honoring the 150~ foot setback, it was a ~mttar of rezoning the property wit]~ the assur?ption it too would be apartments. She resented such an implication. Councilman ~eymour agreed with Councilwoman ,~'.aywood indicating that such a move wo,~Id impact the property and, therefore, it would be well to know the plans for t,~a ac~jacent lot. Councilman ~eymour confirmed with }!r. Phelps that there would }~e no line of site from the second story of the apartments so as to intrude into ~rs, Aser's hackyar~!. ?-~r. Phelps also stated that there were no windows on the wall in question ar_d further inform, ed Councilman ~eymour that the property to the east contained a board and care facility. Co-anti]man ?ey~,~our explained that he was familiar x. rith the neighborhood in quotation a~ wall a~ th~ numerous Police prob]~e~s that e~isted and approving the F. roposed reclassification would only feed the problem; ]~e would prefer instead, a that ~,~ng mimilar to the board a~d care facility or a Day Care Center. q:7'!P~'.?~:!TAL !~.~ACT P~F~RT - IIECATIVE DECLAP. ATI~U: On :'~otion by Councilman Seknnour, seconded by Councilman Roth, the City Council finds that this project will i~ave no significant effect on the environment and is, therefore, exempt fro~:~ tL~ requirer.~ent to prepare an Environmentml Impact P. eport. ~.[OTION CAPdtIED. Councilman Thom offered Resolution ~;o. 76R-634 denying P. eclassification ~;o. 76- 77-14 and ?.es olut ion I?o. 76R-635 denying Variance ~'o. 2941 for adoption. Refer to Resolution Book. P.E,qCLUTIOi] i~0. 76R-634: A Pd~SOLUTIOI~ OF TIiE CITY CObqICIL OF TiIE CITY OF FIUDING AJD DETV. R}~'IN~G TIIAT A CI{~2~GF. OF ZO!?E SIIOULD :~T BE GR~,'.~T~D II~ A CZRTAIH AREA OF TIIE CITY IIEREIi,~AFTER DESCRIBED. (Reclassification lIo. 76-77-14) RES~LUTIOI? I?0. 76R-635: A RESOLUTION OF TILE CITY CO~.]CIL OF TIiE CITY OF A/~AllEII-f DZ~YI::G VARIAI~CE NO. 2841, Roll Call Vote: Al"CS; COUNCIL }~I~F~RS; l~aywood ~ Seymour, Kot~ and Thom NOES: ' CO~:CIL )~,?~EP.S: Roth ABSZi~T; COLq~CIL ME}fBERS; I]one 76-748 Cit~ i, ail! Anaheir~,~ '.alifornia - ,...,U~tCIL I~INUTES - October 12! !9761 1'30 The ~]ayor declared ?.esolution Uos. 76R-63d and 76,q-~25 duly passed and adopted. i:S~ ~v~ LEAF, lNG- ~=~^~ ~ ......... ,~n~oI}KCATION !0. 76-77-15 ~iiD VARIANCE UO. 2843: Application submitted by ~7, B. ~lart~ for a change in zone from P.S-A-43~000 to ~l-l~q to construct an lg-unit apartment complex on property located on the west mi,.i,~ of 7~snolia Avenue~ north of Lincoln Avenu~ with a Code waiver of mininum distancu between ~ ' ~' ~.,u ll~lngs. T?~c '~ity ?lanning Conn~,~ission, pursuant to P. esolution :7o. PC76-175, reconunended ~hat tl~c subject project be declared exempt from the requirenent to prepare an 2nvironmental I~pact n. eport pursuant to the provisions o£ the California li~iro~ental ]~ality ~^.ct and, furt]~er, recormmended that Reclassification ~-~ ~ Ee approved, subject to the following conditions: ?. Tl~at all engineering requirements of the City of Anaheim along llagnolia ivm~ue includi]~g preparation of improvement plans and installation of all i~uprovc ~ents such as curbs and gutters, sidewalks, street grading and paving, dr~zi~.aga facilities or other appurtenant work, shall be complied with as required by the City Engineer and in accordance with standard plans and specifications on fi!~~. in the ~ffice of the City Engineer; that street lighting facilities along '~a[~olia Avenue shall be installed as required by the ~irector of Public Utilities, and in accordance with standard specifications on file in the Office of thc ~irector of Public Utilities; or that a bond, certificate of deposit, lott~r of credit, or cash, in an amount and form satisfactory to the City of A~a~ci~~ sl~all be pos~ed with the City to guarantee the installation of the above- ~'~ ~ntio~,l require~ants. 2. T]~at the owner(s) of subject property shall pay to the City of Anaheim the su' of fO cents (f~O¢) per front foot along ~[agnolia Avenue for tree planting 3. T~.;at trash storage areas shall be provided in accordance with approved 'plans on file ?ith the Office of the Director of Public ?or!-'.s. 4. That .fire :~y~rm~,os shall be installed and charged as required and deterniped to be necessary ?oy the Chief cf the Fire Department prior to commencement of st ruc tut al f rat:grig. 5. That subject property shall be served by underground utilities. f. Ti:at a f-foot high ;'~asonry wall sl~all be constructed along the south and t,rop,~r ty lines. 7. That drainage of subject property sl.~all be 2i~oposed of in a manner satisfactory to t:~e City Eugi?eer. o,. T'.mt t1'~e o%n~ar of m~]oj~ct property s]~all pay to the City of Anaheim the api~opriatc l~ark and recreatiom in-lieu fees as deter~Ined to be appropriate by the City Council, ~gt~l fees to ~e pai.~] at t]~e tlr~e the bul].¢~ing permit is issued. · ~, ~ appropriate z~'atar assessment fees as determined %~y the ._~ire. ctor of Fublic ',;tiiities sl~all l.,c paid to the ,~ity of Anaheim prior to the issuance of a ~u~ lng perm~it. 1~. ~hat subject property shall be .developed substantially in accordance witl~ plans and specifications on file with the City of Anaheim nmrked Er-hibit Uos. ! tLrough 3. ]1. ?rior to t],e inaroduction of ap ordinance rezoning subject Property~ Condition '7os. I and 2, above-r~entioned, shall b,e completed. The provisions or rijhts granted ,by this resolution shall become null and void by action of the City Council unless said conditions are complied with within one year from the Jate hereof, or such further time as the City Council may grant. 12. That Condition ,~os. 3, 5, 6, 7, and 10, above-mentioned, shall be complied wit!,, prior to final building and zoning inspections. 76-749 "' ? ;.naheira California - COI~CIL ?'~I~:UTEC - ~¢tober ~ !07~! !:~0 ?.~. T!~e City Planning Con=aission, pursuant to ~eso!ution 7~.o. PC76-17d, granted Vari~:nce ~]o. 2~43 subject to the following conditions: i. Uhat this Variance is granted subject to the comp!e, tion of ?.eclassification :70. 7'-77-!5, ~ now pendin, g. 2. Tl~at subject property shall be developed substantially in accordance with ~!ans and specifications on file ~ith the City of Anahei~~. ~.arked F, xhtbit ~os. "'iss fan~alahti described the subject property and surroun~]i~:g zoning and land u~es. Che outlined the findings given in the staff report :,~ich was sul:~mitted to an! consi.tered by the City Planning Commission. F~_- infor~ational purposes, 7~eputy City ;ttornay Lowry stated that the City ~zas sarw;d witl~, an action from the adjoining Church u~e last wee~: to mandate an injunction in connection with deed restrictions placed on ti~e property and in con~,~.~c~ion with the Planning Commission action granting the 2eclassification. In end, war to Councilman Cey?~our, ~r. Lowry explained tha~ the deed restrictions were to C-_1~ and further that it was City Council Policy some years back to place ~'~cc,] restrictions on property until th~ new C-! ordinance was adopte:], nnce the p~-op~'~rty ~.~as develope~] in accordance with standards and uses, the Council Coul~t waive deed restrictions, an action %~ich had been taken many tines in the past, floweret, one of the heirs of the deed restrictions protested against the waiver an~~ chaz~se in zone. i~r. Lowry stated that deed restrictions had nothing to do ,~-~th zoning of the property but this interpretation was subject to ~ether the co~rt agreed or not. ~:r Lowry, in answer to Councilwoman K~ywood, indicate~ that fro~, a !e~al stanJpoi~t, if the Reclassification were approved, the City ~oulH ~e in court· ~"r. ~'ill~a~ ~helps, agent, 1D95 ~orth ~aiD Ctreet, ~range, e=:presseJ his surprise that t]~e o~er of the property was not also served ~[th sn injunct.fon. ~Ie e~plaine~ that the deed restrictions were of the older standards ~'ere the City estah]ished what was to be built as an architectural control, and the restrictions rer~ained unless the City Council ~rished to cl~ange them. "~ ~' ~n~ fro~ a map of the proposeJ project, explaineJ that the reason for · .~_LA. ,, ~ rc'?~te~. ~.,aiver re].ativ~ to ~n~u~ distance ~tween ~u~ldings ~.,as ~ue to the size nna shmpc of the property for the use proposed aP~. that ~t ~'ss ~erely a tech:~ic,~]~ w,~tver condit~mn. The ~yor asked if anyone else wished to address the Council. :.~:. Paul Liefeld, Coordinator of the Central Eaptist Church of Drange C, ounty, 227 ::orul~ :~agnolia~ spoke in opposition to the project, lie explained that the present Church property wee originally zoned but not acted upon as cor::~ercial land and that this was compatible with ghelr general Church and School operation plan since he considered it ~o Ee a Lusiness related type of situation even with respec~ to hours of operation, ilis four major objections to the proposed apartment ~omplex were, (1) since the area was developed cot=.~ercially, to allow an apartment complex in the midmt of Church property would be spot zoning, (2) Coed restrictions from a legal standpoint, (3) the close proximity of parking to the school ~ich would be in violation of State Fire regulations since it would hc less than 10 feet from the school building and (4) the incompatibility of a 24-hour living situation with that of the school and church. As an alternative, he would not be opposed to either a sm~ll busines~ or a like comanercial usage. In answer to Councilman Seymour, l{r. Liefeld explained that even though no problems were experienced with the apartments across the street,' the apartments to the north, due to the high number of children, used their property as a local City par]., and generally no concern or respect was shown for the Church's property. :le also stated that the carport wall adjacent to the Church was used as a means of gaining entry into their building resulting in a major burglary approximately 4 weeks prior. Councilwoman i~aywood emphasized that if the property were zoned straight conmnercial, in reality, a liquor store could be built there. 76-750 City ilallI Anaheim~ California - COLI~CIL !II!~TES - October ':r. I, iefeld was confident that there were safeguards to preclude this from happening. 2everend Patrick Doney, Yrincipal of Ileritage U. igh School, 201 ~orth l~.agnolia, state~ ~hat his objection to the proposed units from an educational point of view was because of tl:e close proximity to the school facilities, stressing that st~lents would be ~ore easily distracted. It was his opinion that the setting was not a good one for apartments since the property was entremely small and it wo~ld be one of the closest apartments in the City to an operating school ' facility, lie was also concerned about the noise that would be generated from the parl~ing area ~J'~ich woul.~ be adjacent to the north wing of the school building. In conclusion, Xeverend Poney stressed that the project would be untenable and un 7, e ~ i rabl e. To su~uuari::e, ~.~r. Phelps ~×plaiued that it was always difficult to fight a school or c'~urch. The attempt being ~-~ade by his client to have tlte property rezoned was t~c "ajor t'.~.rust and ~'r. Phelps felt strongly that it was an excellent and a prr~p~.~r usage, otherwise such usage would not have been included in the Clty'.s central Plan. i'r. Phelps stressed t!~at since he received no indication from the City or Church t',~at an injunction was going to be applied, he should instead request a continuance as tl~e situation places his client in an awkward and untenable 2 i~; c r iminat or y po sit io~. ~cput7 City Attorney Lowry interjected t]mt no injunction ]., .I ?ec:'~ ~_~..~ted ~y any co,:rt and tl~a~ it ,'as just a ',~atter to be hear~. in ~c f,~ture. :!e :lid not ]=now -"..~l.~r t~c o~er o~ t~e prol~erty haJ !.eon served or not. af~C~ct any ~'eci~ion Coa~ cii~,:.~n Loth stata~ ".,~ was '~oC one as c.~ny i?divz~'.~ua~ prnperty r~ghts_ . . Ir tl~is case, ]:nowing the area :.v.~J the sci?sol, he could net support ti~e proposed r¢clazslficc~io~]. ~o~cii~mn Sey~our's question to st ~'= ..... a~ es~a.blishe~~ ~hat if an office building, ~'e~',~ to l>e l. uiit on 'the l;ropcrty~ their parking could abut the sc]~col ~ust as would the parkiuL for thc proposed aparu~a~.-i.t co~,4:l.ai:. .... ~"' ............ ~'? ~ ~ ~,~C~A~Li, IO~.~. en motion by £ouncilwonan ...... ....... ~ .... ?./ .....PZPOFJ£ - ~TEGATIVE ~ ~ P ~ lieF/cod, seconded by Councilman ~.otb~ the City Council finals tha~ this project ~I1 ~ave no significant effect on the environment ~d is , therefore, exempt ~rom the requireneut to prepare an Environmental Councilman Roth offered Resolution Us. 76F-636 denying Reclassification No. 76- 77-15 and !lesolution Us. 76R-637 denying Variance ?~o. 2~.q43. lefer to Resolution Look. o~UTI,~ NO 76R-636' A P~V, SOLUTION OF TIIE ..... ~. CO~':CIL OF TiIE CITY OF ~iEIM ,, FI:~DI~TG ;did DETEP2%WEIG ~T A Ct~ OF ZONE SiIOULD I:OT BE GP~,T, ...... , A CERTAIN A?~A O~ T]~ CITY ~ZE%ZINAFTER DESCRIBED. (Reclassification No. 76-77-15) ~. ~ .... " 76R-637' A ~ ~ ~ PESO.,UTI .... .~ ,40. . :,E.,, LU~ION OF TIIE CITY CODICIL ~F Tile CITY OF ANAI~IM D~:~'-"~ VAR'i~?CE NO'. 2843. Poll Call Vote: AYES: COUNCIL }~!fBERS: Sea,our, Kott, Roth and Thom '~ '., ~..~ ~.~. COL~I CIL I~IlBEP~. ~a~ood AESEi~T: CO~CIL M~fBERS: ~lone The ?~yor declared P. esolution ~:7os. 76R-636 and 76P.-637 duly passed and adopted.. FIUA~. ,, ~%P - TPJICT NO., 9,300: Developer, Pacesetter Homes; tract located on the east sidm of Loara Avenue, sough of Broadway; containing 116 P~S-5000 zoned lots. Prior to final map approval, request for approval of specific plans, sound attenuation measures and for waiver of line-of-sight criteria contained in 76-751 2ity ilallt Anaheim California - C~U'..ICIL Council Policy "o.~, 542 relating to Tentative *%p~ :~o. ~300.. , was submitted, together ~:ith report dated October 12, 1976, by the Planning Department. '~ ~'~otion by Councilman Seymour, seconded by Councilman O.oth, the proposed su~Jivision together with its design and improvement was found to be consistent with ti~e City's General Plan and the City Council approved Final ~!ap Tract ~:o. 9390 as recommended by the City Engineer in his memorandum of ~eptember 2Z,, !"7 ?~ ~;all as specific plans, sound attenuation measures, and waiver of line-of- sijht criteria relating to Tract .~,~p No. 9300. ~!OTION CAP, XED. FT~,~?· ~.~ '~.~P - TP~ACT ii0. ,3~§.~ ~ ·. Developer,~ Grant Warmington; tract located on the nort~' si~e o~ Peralta ~-~ills Drive, west of Cerro Wista **ay; containing /,~..,q~n,. (SC) zoned lots. Cn r~otion by Councilman Roth, seconded by Councilman Kott, the proposed subdivision together ,,rith its desio~n and improvement was found to be consistent with the City's General Plan mhd the City Council approved Final ,'ap Tract ?~o. n~gg as recommended by the City Engineer in his ~emorand~?. ~atcd October 1, .!976. '~'~TI0:' CARRIED. .... '~°~ - rLIFF DOU~:~': - CnPP=CTIO~ OF ~oOE!~~c BY TTBP~(T"r~'~ .......... ~ ~ .... · City ~jincer ~,addox reported that on ~ctober ~, 1~7~, he ~,isit~d t~e site in and arnup, f '~r. Doubek'~ residence and obse~ed the conditions as outlined at the ~.ceting of Cctob~r 5~ 1976~ na~ly the pad elevation immediately to the east of ]~is property, dirt clods on his fence and property line and the corner marker ~issing. lfr. Ifaddox also ~e: wi~h a representative of 17arming:on, their Attorney and Engineer to correct the proble~s. .'_ subs~quent letter sent to ::r. Doubek dated October 8, 1976, from lTarmington :,cvelopment, copies of which were submitted to Council, stated the actions initiated to solve the subject problems although there was nothing that could t~e ,2one to alter the elevation of the pads to the rear of the Doubek residence. llowever, in his letter dated Cctober 11, 1976, relative to the Uarm.ington letter, 1Tr. Poubek did not indicate his complete agreement. ':ayor Thom indicated that although .~r. Doubek's recent letter indicated that he was not entirely satisfied with the efforts made, he did no~ know how the City could give him further assurances. :_:r. '[addox was confident that Uarmington would do what they promised. i'r. James Skinner, Toups Engineering, 1010 i~orth ~in Street, Santa Ana, confirmed that the following actions to eliminate ~he problems and concerns of fir. Doubek and all the residents along the westerly development site were co:-~pleted or in process: (1) slopes were cleaned and dirk clods removed from Doubek's and all adjacent property as well as roads, (2) a gunite ditch would be installed to alleviate any draimage problems tha~ ma~ be created in rear yard~, (~) irrigation and landscaping of the slopes would be completed all at one time ~en the majority of the gradin~ was finished~ and (4) ~r. Doub~k's corner marker would be re-established. P~elative to the corner monument, l!r. Skinner stated that he had reviewed City files of the tract map and verified with his field people that a monument was never there in the first place to their knowledge. llr. Skinner alsg assured Councilwoman Kaywood that due to the manner in ~,~ich the slopes were being graded, slippage or flooding would be precluded; matters ~,~ich were of concern to ~{r. Doubek and ad]acmnt residents. At the conclusion of discussion, in answer to Councilman Ro~h~ fir. l[addox s:ated he was satisfied that Uarmington would do everything they were directed to do and, in fact, posted a bond covering both the grading opera~ion and the corner monumentation. COJS~,~ CALEi~AR IT-~,S: On motion by Councilman Kott, seconded by Councilman Roth, the followin~ ac~ns were authorized in accordance with' the reports and recommendations furnished each Council ~.[ember and as listed on the Consent Calendar Agenda; 76-752 ~"' , ~:30 P.:'. ~ity !:all, AnaheiT:.~I California -.C,,L,~CIL ?,'.II,TEE - C.ct0ber !2! 1.97~1 .. .'-,: ~ .... ,GAIi7 ..~,~. CIT~: ...~e following clair.~s ~:ere denied and referred to the City's insurance carrier or the self-insurance adri~istrator: a. Clai:x aulmitte~] ky Franklin Chance for personal injuries purportedly su~tai~ cd' as a result of -~ ~ ~ ~a~lin~ over a tree stump in a parkway on or about July ~ !~7f~. Clai:~ SU~r~-mitted By Candra Ilene ~'~illiams for ~ ~ asr.maes purportedly sustained as a :a~uit of a traffic signal -"~ ~ '" ' ~ .... u,..ction at Lincoln - ' lanchester on or about Paul ^.~nes for personal injuries purportedly sust-.!na2 ns · :irk ::ir~'-,~ ~v~cf %y tlc City on or aY~o,,t Ja].y ~ ~0vr for onal ~_njuries purportedly sustained as ly o~.~c:' l.y the City on or ..opp :for damages p~,.~:poraedly s~..~[~aincJ~ as a result of for assault and ~ayl~cm. on or about .,uae' 23, ~_'"76. . "' ~ "-i~o ~, ~,, .... cst Lincoln, and ~ ..... ]~arvcy " ' ~a].acc 7,i-FJ.~ applicap ..... ,.~:.~.......,...;......: ......... .; following correspondence '~ms or..lercd receJ.ved and file,'_': a. City <of l'a!.;,.ut .~esoluaior... ':o , ~.~ urging redis~rlbution of sales ta:: revenues on ti~e l:>azia of population. l:. 7;cderal Power Cozmuission - ~iulings an:'/ grder on :'otion for Production of Dcc~;;.ants and Answers to Interrogatories - Southern California Edison Company OCi.e~ 'JO. ~'~ ~ '"~.o (Aipi'.a) '~inutes -September llt, !~7(,. Community ~.edevelopr, ent Cor'~mission "' ~ .... zznutes- epter~Joer 15, e. 'ionthly ..Report - '..later Division - Jugust, ].976. r'j :LIC DAY, CE "^ ? ' ~. , , ,~: ~.pplication su!~mitted by P~obert Pale Johnston, Bolt's Dance Center, 641 ::orth Euclid Street, for dancing daily from 7:0..0 p.m. to !!:09 p.m. Councilman Eeyr.~our requested that the subject application be held in abeyance until after conditional use permi~ public hearing by the Planning Commission; said l',earin£ was set for Qctober 27, 1976. ~ ..... < .... ~,,, %. 76F-63g ~IROUGI! 76?,-646., Councilwoman Kaywood offered Resolution :;os.,~,.~-oo,~v~ ~-- through 76k-~46, both inclusive, for adoption in accordance with the reports, recommendations and certifications furnished each Council }~enber and as listed on the Consent Calendar Agenda. Refer to Resolution Book. '~ ,,.'", .,-', ~',,~"r ? T'"T"T ........ · .,~.,...~. NO, 76~-63~; A ?~SOLUTION OF TIlE CITY COUNCIL OF TIIE CITY ~F ANAIIEIEi AC~~-':~ ~r-~,^ T,. P~B,~i.I,IG ~I~ .l P, ECOPdDATIaN. teven T. ~uiz, et al ; Punn Properties Corpora:ion; Donald I~. Broxm~ e~ ux.) ~SOLUTION,.., NO. 76~.-639'. .~,. 'F, ESOLUTION OF THE CITY COU!'ICIL OF TIlE CITY OF A~A/IEIM FI:iDI:~C .~:D ~E.T~EPE~NE~G T!IAT ~BLIC CONVENI~NCE ~ }IECE~gITY P~QU!P~ TIIE .,~,,o,RUCTIO,, ~.~ CO}~LETION OF A PUELIC ~.!PROVE}~NT~ T0 !'~T; PAC!FICO A~NUE STATE COLLEGE BOULEV~ START ~R,,%.~:~NT PROJECT, III ~!E CITY OP~ER NO. 796-A; APPRO~NG THE DESI~IS, PL~IS, PROFILES, DP~%~NGS ~D c~I~T"~'m"~..~ .~.~ ~-~.-~=~o~.,, FOR ~IE CONSTRUCTION TI~P~OF; AUTIIORIZINC TI~ CONBTP~CTIO~I ~IEREOF OF SAID ~BLIC ~IPR0~I~iIT IN ACCOP~ICE ~/~TII SA~ ~S, SPECIFICATIONS, ETC. AND AU,, ~I~I!:G ;lED BIRECTINC ~ CITY CLEPd~ TO ~BLISII A !~OTICE I.WITD~C ~E~ED PROPOSALS FOR ~IE C ON ST F~ CT ION ~REOF. (Bids to b~ opened November 11, 1976, 76-753 City ttallI ~naheiml_Calif0rnia - COUNCIL MINUTES. - October 12, le76t,.. 1:30 P.~. ..... ,...~..~., NO. 76R-640: A RESOLUTION OF ~IE CITY COI~ICIL aF THE CITY aF C~"~q'"UCTIO!7 ~UD COI.~LETION OF A ~BLIC I~OVE~UT, TO ~T. D,,Ac= I D~v~' F9~ C&'WO~ SITE ~*1, IN ~ CITY OF AN~IM~ WO~ O~D~. ?a. 282; APPP. aVIUG · .- C N .... ..Y ..... T,-~-~w. AIT~ORIZINC ~ CONSTRUCTION OF SAID ~BLIC I~ROVEI~NT ITT ACCOP~ICE ~K~2 SAID PL~'TS, SPECIFICATIONS, ~.~. ; M~ AUT,',OP.L~ING M:ID DIRECTinG Tiie ....... TO ~LISil A NOTICE I]~ITING SE~ P~0POS~S FOE ..... · ~E C~STF. UCTION YiiEiiEOF. (Lids to be opened >~ovember 4, 1976, 2:00 p.m.) · .,~ CITY COUNCIL , F TtIE CITY FI~:D!i~G ~"~'~ ,E~Pd'iI~',IJG TIIAT PUBLIC COI~ENIENCE AI'D '~'" ...,~~, · F. EQUI~ THE .... ~0,, ~TD COI.¢LETION OF A PUSLIC I}.IP~O~NT~ TO ~%T: SCI~ITZ21% -,,~ CITY AN~iEIM, WOI~( ORDER ,.0. 845; APPP~OVIi~C ~'?~ ~ ,.~ ~.., .. S I GN S, DRA~,~,Co ,%'~D oP~IFICA. I~,Jo FOR TI~ ~u,,..~,:,!~!,~G ~,~ CO:~STRUC,ION OF SAID PUBLIC I~[PKOV~I~T I~'~,, ACC0~Ai~CE ~KTi[ SAID 2PECIFICATIONS~ ETC. ~ ~iD AUTHORIZING ~d~D DIRECTING TIiE CITY CLLP~[ YO UJLLISK A UOTICE IUVIT~'~G SE~ED P~0POS~S FOP, TIiE CONSTKUCTION THEP~OF. (Bids opened ~'~ov~ber 4, 1976, 2:00 p.m.) AXEOLUTIOJ I~0. 76R-642: A RZSOLUTIaN OF TIIE CITY COUIiCIL OF TiIE CITY OF ALLii£Ei~'~ F-~.~,:.,-,,G ~'ID DETEP~UE~G TI~T PUBLIC CONVENIENCE AND NECES~ITv~ ~ F~QUL,~, CO:~ZTRUCTIOiI ;C:~D COMPLETION OF A ~BLIC II~PRO~I~I~T~ TO UIT: LA P~ PA.~ TICKET BOOTiI CONSTRU~ION, IN TIIE CITY OF AN~IEIM, WO~i O~ER ~0. 9002; APPXOVING TI~ DESI~.~S~ PL~S, PROFILES~ D~i;GS ~.~ SPECIFICATIONS FOR TIiE CT'LqTFJJCTION THEF~OF; AUTHORIZinG ~IZ CONS~ TRUC~IO,.~ '~ OF SAID PUBLIC II,TROVEI. UL~T"' 117 ACCOP~D~;:CZ %.~TII SA~ PL~S~ $PECIFICATIONS~ ETC.; A~ AUTtIORIZING ~D DIP~CTIiiG Till ~,~=, CLERK TO PUBLISti A NOTICE INVITING SE~ED PROPOSES FOR Tt~E %iH%EOF. (Dials to be opened l~ovenber 4, 1976, 2:00 p.m.) 'r""',~'.¢~u~...'..,.,, .~0. 76R-643: A P~SOLUTION OF Tt2 CITY CO~:CIL OF THE CITY OF ;J. IAIiEI]f ~"~'~' ~dCEPTI~G Tt'~ CO}TLETION .~ ~RNISilI~G OF ALL PLAIT, L~OR, SERVICES, FI' ,,~ ~. i-5%TX?.I;~ ~D EQUI~,~T AND ~L UTILITIES ~ T~'~SPOETATION INCLUDE,IG P0~, ~XL "~ ~'~D ~IE PERFOP~'IANCE OF ALL ;.,~ UATEP., C~'IoTRUC z CmfPL~E %hq FOLLO%.%NG ~BLIC I}~R0~!~NT~ TO I~T: TI~ L~.iEVlE%7 AVL;~ STP~ET I''~''''~'~,,,.,,. .._,..,,.,,., IN ~E CITY OF ~A!~i, UO~I n~EP. VS. . 773-2. (R.J. Noble Company) ?d~SOLUTI'%I NO. 76P.-644: A RE-SOLUTION OF ....... . ~,'~ CITY COL~;CIL OF ...~"' CITY OF FIU~LY ACCEDING ~ CO~TLETION ~;D ~IISHING OF ~L PLeaT, LABOR, SERVICES, ~,~P,I~S ~D EQUI~.~.~ ~ ~L UT~ITIES ~ T~SPOP~ATIOI.~ INCLUDING ~2L AUD ~TATER, ~D TIlE PEP. FO~.~CE OF ALL ~O~.~ ' ~ECESSARY TO COJoTRUC~~ ~ ~ AND ~-.. ~.~..~ TIlE FOLLOI~NG ~BLIC ~PRO~}~:.~, TO %~T: COUldST iIlLL RO~ ~, .... '..~-,,--~T, .I~ CITY 0F ~ "" UO~ ~,~t~L~, O~ER ,,C. 1263. (ilonarch Const~ction of Or,ge) PCC.O!.L~ION UO. 76R-645: A P~SOLUTIOI: OF .~ CITY COL~.ICIL OF %~IZ CITY OF Fl.,ALL, ACCEPTE:G ~ COMPLETION ~D TI~ ~P~I~IING OF ~L PL~T, LABOR, SE~fTICZC, I~TERIALS ~D EQUIP!,~I~ ~ ~ UTILITIES ;~D T~SPOP, TATION INCLUDING FO'~X, ~EL ;2;D UATER, ~ ~ PERFO~..~'~CE 0F ~L ~Pll ~?ECESSARY TO COI!ETRUCT C?f~ET% ~IE FOLLOWING ~BLIC I~i~O~I~I;T~ TO %~T: ].975-76 COI'R~NITY DEVELO~7~T PZLGP~.if - ~LEY ~iPROVZI~IiTS, P~ ~ CITY OF ANAI~IIi, '70PI[ O~ER NO. 1613. (United Asphalt Company, Inc.) ...... OLU,.IO .... O. 76-646' A ~SOLUTION OF Tt~ CITY COUNCIL OF ~'IE CITY 1~'¢'~' a,,~ CITY CLE~{ T0 EX,'CUTE SAID --' '"* "' ... oAC.,~ ..... ~oI1 Call Vote: -.q,,~.~ ,~,,~-,~. Kaywood, ~eymour, I[°tt, Roth and ~om' NOES' CO~CIL ' ~ · ,.~M~.,o: None declared The :&~yor Resolution Nos. 76R-638 through 76P.-646, both inclusive, duly passed and adopted. CITY PL;-[K~ING CO~ISSIOI; ITE~[S: Actions ~aken by the Ctcy Planning Commission at their meeting held Septem~&r 27, 1976, pertaining to the following appltca~ions were submi==ed for Cl:y Co%~cil i~for~atioB and consideration. The Ci=y 76-754 UallI Anaheit~! California - CaUi:CIL '~"..~ ,~,~ - ~,cto~'~er' ~ 1~ I97( 1'3~ ~" that tha ~" ~ ~-~q ..~-~ay appeal period would not e:~pire until ~ctob~r 1~ 1976~ ~. ]n ~otion Ly Ceuncilman SeD'~our. seconded by Councilwoman :',as~ood, the City Counc~l aut~orized the actions pertaining to the following Znvironmental Inpact Pequirements, vs reco~,nnended Ly the City Planning Cor~u.~ission, and took no further action on the following applications: (Item ':os. 1 through 14) 1. £?7,;IROiZ:Ei~TAL IiTACT REPOLY- C;,TEGO?,ICAL I]>iLITTICI{S; The Planning Director !~as ~ete~.~ined that t'~e proposed activities in the following listed zoning applications fall within the definitions of Section 3.~1. Class 1 and 3, of the City of .\nal~ein~ Guidelines to the requirements for an l]nvironmental Impact Report a~d are, tl~erefore, categorically exempt fro,n the requirement to file an Znvironmentvl I~.~pact ?.eport: ~o~itional Use Perry, it ',~o. 164a Variance Uo. 2849 Var~ ance i,~o. Variance Yo. 2949 Conditional Use Permit ~'~o. 1655 Variance ,lo, 2gZ~,4 Variance '~o. 2~47 2. ]]::Vi~Di~[ZUTAL I~.~ACT P. EP~P.T - ?FCATIVE DECLARJ. TIO'~: The Planing Co~ission reco~,~.,ends to ~he City Council c'hac the sut~ject'proJects and the following listed zoning applications be declared exempt from the requirement to prepare an 17nvironmental Impact qeport, pursuant to the provisions of the California Ilnvironmental Quality Act: Condition Use ?err~it ~o. If, 51 Conditional Use Per~?.it ~ .._ 3. ,,nn~'D*~vO""-~',~ ~, ~,~,~ U?E PE~3'~I~ :~O.. 164n:.. Submitted by !lank of ;~,mrica to permit a square dance hall on CL zoned property located at ..... ,) ,;,equoia Avenue. The City.Planning Co~aission terzainated Conditional Use Permit :~o. 164n at the request of tl~e petitioner. :. Conditional Use rermit ~.:o. 1651: e. ubmitted by Century Properties to permit a Al-unit motel on CL zoned property located at 32~ ?~orth Leach Boulevard. City Flanning Cotm',ission P. esolution Uo. PC76,-1?,/~ granted Conditional Use Permit Uo. 1651. 5 ~ .... :O · :AP. IA2;C,.~ ~ , 2840; Submitted by Eugene and Uorma E. '.~itcome, for waiver of ne v,aa zoned property located at pernitted encroachments into required yards on 27!~'; East Carnival Avenue. City Flanning Commission Resolution ~7o. PC76-185~ granted Variance No. 2~4~, ~. VA.-,.IA~;C~ ']~. 2844 Submitted by itoward and llelen Gilmore, for waiver of perr~itted uses to establish a radiator and auto repair shop on CO, zoned property located at 760 ?]orth Anaheim Boulevard, City ~lanning Coru?ission Resolution ~o. PC7~.-lgf granted Variance ~,.~o. 28z, 4. 7. VARIAi]CE ']O. 2845: Submitted by Lilly J. and Betty J. Klker, for waiver of minimum floor area to construct a single-family dwelling on RS-lO,~0O zoned property located on the nortl: side of 5~orth ~Ctreet, approximately 218 feet east of '~:est Street.. City rlanning Co~nisston Resolution No. PC76-187 granted Variance ~:o. 2~45, 0. VARIA'.!CE Y'0, ~846: Submitted t~,y Prudential Life InSurance, for waiver of minir'mm nuuber of parking spaces to construct an enclosed restaurant on CG zoned property located at 50~ :~.orth Euclid Street, The City Planning Commission terminated Variance ',',o. 2D46 at the request of the petitioner. ". VARIK~CZ NO..~..2847.: Submitted 5y lien George and.Joan R, D°t, for waiver of permitted uses for 8 picnic-type tables in front of mxis~lng ~elicatessen/convenience marl~e~ on CL zone~ proper~y located a~ 2960 !~est Lincoln ;venue· 76-756 ' ' , .... ,"c- 2849 . .~. ~,'~i~,:. ~I0. : gubr~itte4 l::.y "ac,.. Peloquin for :?aiver of :',ini;',,:r~ ~'~,~::l..r ;: ef i:ar'~,.ing spaces and permitted 'uses co pernit the retail sales of san,,'~icl~c:,~ ,.~, zonc~ property located at 3435 "~" East La ~larw~, ?,venue. C~ty Wlanning ~ ~ .- ,.~orm ission P. asolution .~o. PC7(~-.?ge grantc<~, Variance c,,~e ye. ar, subject go review. .. :- ....... ~-~ .....AL US:; "~..:.~. 165.5:. gubr,:itted ~y '-e~.~t on-sale beer and ,,,ine in a proposed restaurant on ~' zoned property located at l~O. ,lort~ ?t'ate College 12. COl;DITI.n..,'~IAL USE PEPs'fIT ~la..lg.56~.' 2ubrait~ed by "est .^ua*mir? C°mmunity :'o~pJtal, t°.' permit a tt~ree-story ho~pltal addition on Cq and CL zoned property located at 3~33 ~!est ~range Avenue. City Pl.mming Cor~mission ~esolu~ion ,';o. PC7~-i,o,~ granted Conditional Use Per,'tit :7o. 1656, 13. VAR!A!ICE ;;0 2836,, ~-~T~-.' L~;DSCAPi,-iG PLA?It Cut>r~itted l'~y Pobert n l~augaard~ Jr., Agent for Imperial Properties, for'approval of precise lan,~scapi~£ pla~s for the area adjacent to Santa Ana Canyon Road. Property is located st tl~e nor~!~uest corner of ganta Ana Canyon P. oad and Via Cortez. The City Planning Commission approved precise landscaping plans. ,*.',OTIOU .CA?.TIIF~,. 14.,, TE?ITATIVE TRACT ~P NO. 9524 qglR ,'.?0. 187~: Beveloper, Oaktree Development Co;'qmny;' 'tract located north of Via Arboles and east of Anaheim Hills P. oad; containing 49 RS-IIS-22,~00(SC) zoned lots. Continue to be considered in conJ~:nction with fIR 'Jo. 1,°,7. CARRIED, .... DI~I., ....iL I.T~E PE~.¥~I~ ~'In 1632 gilD, ,EIR }TO. 179: Cubnitted by Janes ~. Cregg, la~aond G. Simpson, John g, Fluor and Robert D. Spurgeon, to permit a 2~n-sp~ce mobile home park with waiver of minimum structural setback: on pending ~q., zo~e~7 property located northeasterly of the intersection of Cerritos Avenue and Councilman geymour wanted to P, now what provisions had been made under Conditional Use Permit ,'3o. 1632 to continue the bicycle lane or path through and arounc~. su~'~Ject property to insure that it would be implemented in the plan. ;fter a discussion with staff indicating that although the ~mcter was broaclmd at initial Planning Commission public hearings, the bicycle trail provision was r, ot formalized. Councilman geyr,~our thereupon requested that CUP :~o. lf32 be set for public hearing. C~¢D!TIO;iAL USE PEPS. fIT. *TOS.. 1063 AIlD 1072 - Frederick L. Jordan for C, ?f~ ~{c~Tees f0~ an extetlsion' of zoned property, located on the llorth side of T~atella A.venue ~et~.4een }~aster ~treet anM *¢anchester Avenue. On .motion t,y Councilman ,geym. our, seconded by Councilman Roth, City Council ~pproved the exCenlion of ~.tme on Con~iC~onal Use Permit No, 1063 to expire '%ctober 7, 1977 and Conditional Use Permit No, 1~72 to expire ]~ovember 4, 1977, as granted by the City Planning Commission. 1lOTION CARRIED, ZiYJIP. OLq,[E:ITAL .I~'TACT P~POP. T - IIEG%TIVE DE~-LA_~U~_TIO:~"o: On motion by Council~n CeTmour~ ae'cond~d b7 Counc~[~n ~od~ gh~ C~t7 Council f~nd~ that tho ~ollo~5n~ pro~set~ ~11 lmv~ no ~lgn~f~ ~~ on ~h~ ~nvlronment and are~ ~herefore, exempt f~om the r~quirmm~nt Co prepare ~ Environmental Impact Report. a) Parcel .'..iap No, 585, 2030 Via Burton.. b) Parcel flap No. 547, 461, 463 and 465 Country Hill Road, 76-757 Ci~7 !~all, ~aheim! Californi. a - COUNCIL i~Ii;UTE$ - October 12.! 1976.! 1;30, c) Parcel "~ap ~o. 5~8, 245 and 265 Christalta l'ay. I~elanconi Park (ParL Improvement) e) Oak Canyon .Uature Center (Park Improvement) .... I'~;: CA?.RIZD , TZ~TATIVZ TP~ACT ?'3..P :.lO 2499 PCI,IOVAL OF SPZCI2{ZU . - ..... .~,~.o. Pequest submitted Leland F, Johnson, Ervin Engincering~ Agent for But'let Housing~ Inc., to remove 93 ]~ealthy eucalyptus trees in connection with the development of Tract No. property located on the east side of Anaheim Hills Road, south of Santa Ama Canyon Poad. A letter request dated nctober 12, 1976, from :Ir. Hank Rivera, President of Santa Ama Canyon Froperty Owners Association (SACPOA)was received and copie8 submitted to Council asking that tl~e subject ~,~atter ~e deferred until their ?,oard acquired a copy of the Tract :,lap to determine the impact of the tree removal on the development and the Scenic Corridor. Councilman Seymour explained tlmt he is the Sales Agent on the tract immediately adjacent to the subject property and thereby a conflict of interest might be involved; Deputy City Attorney Lowry recommended that he abstain .from consideration of the matter on that basis. Councilman feymour wanted a r~ore definitive decision since he was concerned about the subject matter; thereupon Yr. Lowry stated that since no direct conflict was in~,olved, if his (Seymour's) vote was necessary to carry t?~e matter forward, be would be asked to cast his vote, Councilman Seymour abstained from further discussion of the subject patter. ;'r, ?hilip Bettencourt, Anaheim ili].ls Inc. ~ 38~ Anahei~ ilills Road , stated tl~at 7~t!er Housing, the applicant under Tract No. -q409, had provided full and con:plete data regarding their tree removal plan at the Planning Commission meeting of September 27, 1,~76, and anyone could have inspected the plan and come for~:ard at that time, Councilr:mn Se)nnour left the Council Chamber at 4:55 p.m, "r. 7, ettencourt further explained the merits and some technicalities of the plan and, in conclusion, emphasized that if the Council was not prepared to act today, he requested the matter be continued two weeks. Councilman Roth remarked on the action taken approximately 6 weeks prior wherein the responsibility regarding trees was put back in the hands of the Planning Commission and the Planning Commission, in turn, recommends to the Council; now tlte l~omeo~zners were asking the Council to open the matter up again~ something ,".~icl~ he considered unnecessary. ~ayor Thou indicated that although he was sympathetic wit]~ the thrust of ~ivera's letter~ the Planning Commission acted~ as requested by the Council~ and tl~e matter had come bac1: precisely in the manner requested and, therefore, ha~ to ~c '~an?led accordingly, ~fr. Bettencourt explained that the action taken by the Planning Commission was unanimous with only one }!erber absent and he stated he was prepared to argue the merits of the tree removal plan and discuss and respond to any objections to the trees selected in the subsequent landscaping plan for the tract. J discussion followed with Council and staff revolving around the size of replacement trees. It was ~oncluded and confirmed by Parkway l~aintenance, as ~iv~%n in two cited reports, tl~a~ s=%aller replacement trees tend 'to grow better and eventually give better coverage than larger replacement' trees; the larger trees being more vulnerable because of their tendency to develop top growth and more important little root growth. · , Mayor Thom expressed that the Joint meeting of October 26, 1976, between the Council, the homeowners and the Planning Commis~ion, would ~ive an opportunity to discuss such~matters as replaceman~ tree size with the possibilit2 of amending the present Ordinance to give it any needed balance. 76-'7.58 ~i[y Eall~. Anahelm~ California - COU~ICIL MIL'UTES 7 October 121 1976t 1;30 P.II. Councilman Poth requested that copies of reports such as those on replacement trees be available at the forthcoming meeting for those attending, stressing that it was the Council's desire to cooperate and work with the homeowners in the subject area. Councilman Seymour returned to the Council Chamber at. 5.'~5 p.m. On taotion by Councilman P. oth, seconded by Councilman Thom the tree removal plan in connection with the development of Tract ."Io. 8409 was approved as recommended by the Planning Commission. Councilwoman Maywood and Councilman Seymour abstained. }{OTION CARRIED, A~,T~RD OF !'~ORK ORDER NO, 100-A21-241-02 - SLURRY SEAL CO}~RACT: Councilman Thom offered Resolution ~,?o. '7~'~-~47' for adopt~on, awarding a c'0n~r~ct in accordance with the recommendations of the City Engineer. ~efer to Resolution ~ook. ~""O~w~''- ...~', ..,..~.~.. NO. 76R-647'. A PJZ. SOLUTION OF T~-IE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY ~F ACCEPTING A S~LED P~P~S~ ~'~D A~A~ING A CONTACT TO ~IE LO~ST RESPONSIBLE BIDDER FOR ~E ~;ISIIING OF ~L ~ANT, L~OR, ~ERVICE~, ~TER~LS ~D EQUI~NT AUD ALL UTILITIEE ~D T~SPORTATIaN~ ~{CL~ING POI,~R~ ~ A~ WATER, FZqFO~fING ~L ~D~ :;ECESSARY TO CONSTRUCT kND COMPLETE THE FOLLO%~I}~C PUBLIC T'?EOVEM~T: SLURRY ~E~ C~T~CT FOR TI~ CITY ~F ~;AI!EE~, ACCO~TT ~O. 2Z,!-n?. (Pavenent Coatings Company - ~oll Call Vote: .'~.~..~: COL"JCIL ~I3'ZRS; Kaywood. Seymour, Kott, Roth and.Thom · .-: CODICIL ~ERS: None The :[ayor declared Resolution No. 76R-647 duly passed and adopted. r*:~';~ ~" 'OF EqUIP~.OINT TP~2~SFORMEP. S BID NO 3119: The City reported , · }{~ager on info,al 5ids received for the purchase 'of ~ree ~hase Pad Mounted T~ansformers for the Electrical ~tvision and recommended acceptance of the low bi,~: ~'astingho,,se Electic Supply Company - $50,281,10, including tax.. On notion by Councilman Thom, seconded by Councilman Roth, the low hid of Westinghouse Electric Supply Company was accepted and purchase authorized in-the ~50,282.10 including tax. ~fOTION CARRIED. a~o,mt of ,, , .?."?,~,L,~:?CE ~0. 3601: Councilwoman Ka~,ood offered mrdinance No. 3~] for · ~, ' adoption ~efer to Ordinance Book. Q~)I.~!ANCE NO. ,$60.~} A/! ORDINANCE OF Tim CITY OF ~IEE~ mm:m o 3573, ;IUNC PRO TUNS, (72-73-10(2), Tract Nos. 7946, 7947 and 7948) Roll Call Wote~ Ai~,q; CObq;CIL I.~iiBE~S: !%aywood, Seymour, Kott, Roth and Thom NOES: COUNCIL I.~ERS: None ABoL,,~: CO~;CIL ~.~ERS: None The ?layor d~a~ed Ordtaance No. 3601 duly.passed and adopted. ORDINAI.~CE NOS, ~60~ .AND.3$03j Ceuacilman RoCh offered Ord~ce Nos. 3602 and 3603 for' adoption,- Refe~ ~ o~4~m Book. . ~~i ~ZC~ CODE ~T~C TO ZON~C, (73-7~1~ eL) Roll Call Vo~e: " AYES: NOES: ABSENT: COUNCXL.~8 Eal~od, Seymour, Kott, Roi:h and Thom 76-759 City Zali, A. na.heir,, C. al. ifon~ia -CO.UNC!L.. yII~UT..ES -October 121 19761 1;30 The '.:ayor declared ~rdinance ::os. 3~q2 and 3603 duly passed and adopted. CP. DI,' A .... . .... ~ ITO 3604: Councilwoman Kaywood offered Ordinance :lo. 3604 for adoption· D. efer to Ordinance Book. ~-,~.~,~,- NO. 3604: '7J''~ rr, n 3591, .... ~ TUI~C (Community Services Y~oard, correct terms and n~bering of sections) Zoll Call Wore: ;'L'q,":: ..DU:~CIL .~,.~,~..,~.~.,~,~: Zaywood, Seymour, Kott, ~.oth and Thom AZCETT: COUi'TCIL ~m~m-,~ .ne '.~ayor declared Ordinance 'Jo. 3604 duly passed and adopted. CRDIiTJ£TCZ...... "e". , ,,:,. 3605 TiIROU~{ 3607'. Councilman Thom offered Ordinance :los. 3605 througl~ 3607, bo~h inclusive, {or first reading. 3605', AIT OP~DIiL~2;CE nF .... .~;~,. CITY OF Ai~A].{]']I:~ ~.=u.,u~,,~.'~'-'~"~ TITLE ]8 OF TIlE ?~.~ICIPAL CODE ~^~I:.TG...,.~ TO ZO~I..~ _, ." , C (71-72-44(!7), RS-5000) OO'Ul"~',n',? 'm ~.I~,, CITY OF A,{AIIEI: [Et~I,',G TITLE 18 OF ' ~r ,.,:,~,:~ ;., ......... ~,,. 3606: ;2~ OP~II~CE OF ~ '~ . ' "~' " zI..., ..... '~ .... ~-- ' (74-75-4, "'"' ..... "n ' ,:,Ol, f,:C~:, .. 3607: AtT ORDI:IAiICE nF TltE CITY OF ~.:~,~.v~, ~'~:~IC!P~%L CODE Pz~LATL~C TO OJI~,C. (7~.-75-36, ~2~-1.290) °i~. .... ..:.:'. ~,?'"....~. QF P.ROPOCITIT? 2 ~?; Y, OVEt~E~. BALL ,~.C""' Councilwoman Za~,~ood offered Resolution ~o ~'"'% " · ,6~:.-649 'for adoption supporting the ?Tejedly-Eart State, !?rban, and Coastal Park Zond Act of 1~76 which, if passed, wOuld mean approximately to Ana]~ein. Pefer to Resolution Book. "' .... ~'~ ""~'" .... UP.~.AN t~TD COASTAL PAPJ[ 30tT~ ACT OF Zoll Call Vote: The :~yor declared Zesolution Ft. ?f?.-~/~ duly passed and adopted· r~-:~?v*~" LITTLE I.'.OUgZ' ~' . ............ · ,- .... Councilwoman ~.aywood submitted ancl read letter dated Cccober $, 197~, from ':r. Leo J. Friis, Kistorian Laureate of the City of Anaheim, wherein he summmrized that in his research of the "Little" house, he found ic to have no historical value. Councilwo~mn i%a~¢ood asked the status of the nmtter since the City had proceeded under good intentions but was apparently no~ given the proper inforration, Council:aah Poth commented that i~ was a s~d state of affairs and emphasized tha~ no additional funds should be spent on the pro~ect. City '~:anager Talley indicated that ],e. fore t]~e house could again be ~:oved in thc future, a permit would be needed to do so and, at the: time, the matter would have to come before the Council for specific direction. Deputy City Attorney Lowry confirmed that even though the House was not now on City proper~y, it would not be allowed to remain at its present location amd, since no consent was given for a permanent position, any subsequent actions would have to be considered by Council. 76-760 City Tlall! Anal~eim! California - COU:TCIL }~I~TES - ~ctober ]." Iq761 1.~ ~.,:. '~ayor Thom sta~ed ~ha: he would give pe~aission to move the house vl~erever they [.,eritage Co~aittee) wished to move it at their expense, and Councilman Kott a ar ced. Councilwor.;an 7.:aywood's r~tn concern was to avoid or prevent any liability that :ight occur relative to the house rather than react to such an occurrence. C]~.e voiced her opinion ~hat the City was led do~ the garden path anal she was sorry ac r;<~e it ltappan because there were certainly other good valuable historical s~ructures in the Cl~y and :':~one~ should not be wasted on a structure that {,lid not '.zv.~ such value. She indicated ~ha~ part of the probl~a, ]~owever, was tlm. t t'.~e ~i~' Council authorized an a:~penditure not to exceed $"~.,~5.~ ,90, plus $~,OOq~.~ of Co~..~i~y Developmen~ Fundm t.o s~g it on a per~mnent foundation. sta~ed ~hat since the Council had already ,:lone ,.-..o the only thinL ~ounc~l,,.~o~mn 7taywood could do ~,;as to offer a :'::to~ion re~cinding %,f~at was done. "OT!~V: Councilwoman Iiaywood Offered n motion to rescind the priOr motion of s~/~port of Community Development Funds or any other f~tnds involved not yet spca," relative to the Frederick Little llouse inasmuch as tl~e house had no historical va!,~e. '"orion ~iec for !.ack of ~ s~cond. ~: ,;~,u Ctreet Cweeping Pilot Program report relative to the e~:periment con!uctc,' z,', '=~,~ Creenleaf ;,,venue apar:rmut house area-i~ere "~o parl:i=g" signs ~'arc ~'~ ::.=~z s~ructed to finalize and submit the su'.;Ject report. ' " ' '~ to C~'~ '~' ' nm,~ber of r~quest~ from Citizens, ache,, sta.,~ resear ~:e ~.ity c"icain~.ordinance relative to par]~f, ng of cor:=arcial truck,s ou rcsi<!en~lal the intention of amendinz it to prohibit such parkinf~ at any that this s]~oul~ i~ct ~c~u ,3. ca-per er rec:re.~.tic~al-~---~ f_'~l~ p,qr~.-']?.g. "~:5,'or Tho:; clarified for Council that at present the Police T~epart=':ent could only t=s,,e a violation b~=ween 3:00 a.m. and ~:O0 a.z.:., m~d what Councilr:,an Ce,,r:our r~q'~o.s~ing would now put some "teeth" into the or¢~.inance allowing such ticketin' at: any time. " '" ~.o ,,o',~ncz~a~ ~h e-xpressed his suppor~ of the propos~d auendment. tn :~otion by Councilmen SeT:our, seconded by Councilman .'.:Otb, the City 2, ttorn, ey wa,--; instructed to amend the City's existing ordinance or draft a new ordinance prohibi:ing co~r~aer¢ial ~ru¢].:s from parking on residential streets; cor.~mercial trucks to %',e defined clearly. 'T~OTIO',T CARRIED. re~ining span between the homeo~era in the Canyon area, the Cl~y, developers wt~en the activity of the present Santa ..%na Canyon Planning Task ~orce ceases. In its place, Councilman So,our suggested the creation of an advisory co:~aittee made up of homeot~er re~rm~entativem from IIomeo~ers Associations in t]~a Canyon area t.~o would meet ~th developers In a "meeting r, tode" so that they (home--ers) would be aware of ~at the developer was proposing and the advisory comutttee would then ~e properly prepared to come before the Planning Co~ission either pro or con so that the project ~y be more readily ~edited. emphasized that he was no~ in~eNes~md tn cremtlng another level of "red tape", but a non-public environmmmt in ~h both ~h, aforem,nt~on,d groups could freely discuss proposed pro~,c:s ~i~h, ~ ~u~, w~uld increase co~nication and subsequently spend develo~mntm through. Councilman Seymour stated fha~: ~.he concept he was qussest::[ns should be a ,topic of discussion at the for:hc~.~ O~C.~er 26, 1976, Jolt Council/Planning Co~ls~t~n/ho~o~ers ~et~g so a~ to obtain feedback from the homeo~ers, and he further asked for Counoil conetdera=ton of this matter dur~g the interim. .:---I.~ N,I~ICALS. - c~S~D~T~T 0F ~DIT~ON TO LIST OF RECO~~ED DOCTORS: Councilman Kott explained' the: ':he ~eceived a call from Dr', Daniel II. :llnburg ~o hat! a~ o~e ti~ perfo~ed pre~trm ~d'tcal physicals for thm C~ty. On Councilman 76-761 .... ° - 12 1976 l:~n ?.'~. ~i~' llall! ~aahcinI California - COUNCIL Kott's advice, he submitted a letter to Council date¢] CctoBer 7, 1976, requesting t'aat he agaiu wished to offer such services. J_fter a ,brief discussion between Council and staff on the~City's present system of ad~zinistration of pre-hire physicals, Deputy City ;ttorney Lowry stated that he would discuss the contractual relationship for such phys!cals with Dr. Ninburg an.~ report on the outcome. ..... ~ A~ ....D 2ICYCLE LJ2[ES' Councilman ~.oth requested the ..... ~I7~C ~F VEHICLEC P ~"~ I~7 . ,~ity ~ttorney's Office to investigate. and report whether or not a vehicle could legally tickete~ when par[~ed in a bicycle l~e if the street did not hav~ mi~s posted "no parking". DATA PACiU]T FOR JOIHT ~'~ETI],~G aF OCT0~E% 26~ 1976: Councilman Poth requested staff to r~ake available in advance of the joint meeting u~th homeowner representatives and the Planning Commission on actober 26, 1076, all infor~ation, particularly on trees, that would be necessary to properly prepare for the subject meeting. ............. ~ OF ANY '~"~ "~ BY I''~n ~n,~,~v AI~PnO~ AI~'TIIOP. IT¥: ~ayor Thom re~erred to and read excerpts from a press statement dated ~ctober 8~ 1976, by ~'ayor llenry ~'. '.~edaa of Yorha Linda relative to the recent actions of the Inter- County Airport A~thority (IC~,) - the fo~er Chino ili!ls Croup. In his statement, he urged opposition by Uorth arange County Cities to the proposed new study by the IC;~. in their efforts to locate a major pew jet airport in Orange County, ~pec~.fically in th~ Chino Hills area, a ~o~,e, if approved, ,,~ou. ld have a crest irq~act on the way of lif~ of Uortb aranKe ~ounty residents. He suiooste-l, insteaM, that Vortb Qrange County s,,pport the negional Study as proposo~-' ~y the !,os Angeles ncpartnent of Airports (who appointed Orange County ~ul;~?.~z~.sor Pte~r!ch as the BoarJ~s repreocntatf~ze in disc,~ssions relating to the cr,~ation of a ~outhern Califorria ?irport Autherity) rather than the parrow qrane, c Co, sty ,,ie-~z propose~ ~y ICA~i. ~'ayo~ Thor~ strongly emphasized Anaheim's past amd continued opposit%on to studies proposed by the ICAA and stated that since the Cities of Cypress, Lorn Alamitos, Orange, Tustin, ~an Clemente~ oan Juan Capi~rano aha other en~ities ~thin County had passed supporting resolutions, Anaheim wns again going to have to take a st~,n~ against any new proposed studies of that group. 2ounci!;r~an Seymour stateJ that if the City supported a ~',cgional Study, any re~..rence to the Chino l.'.ills area should Le eliminated entirely. Councilman Thom offered Resolution i~o, 76R-650 for adoption opposing any new s~udy by th~ In~er-County Airport Authority on ~he basis of their lack of objectivity since they have been in existence; that the Southern California Association of Governments Aviations System does not call for a new airport in Orange County; and that Anaheim: support the proposed Regional Study to be conducted by the Los Angeles Department of Airports through the creation of a ~outhern California Airport Authority, such support ,specifically opposing any consideration of Chino Ilills. Refer to Resolution Book. RES,2LUTIOi~ N0. '76K.-650: A RE£OLUTION OF TIlE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM OPPOSINC AII¥ ~E~7 STaY RY' IiITEK-CO~]TY AIRPORT AUTIIORITY ~TII ~SPECT TO A' I!E~~ A~"~'~ I~ 0~ CO~TY. Roll Call Vote: A~S: COUJCIL }~ZMBERS: Kaywood, Seymour, Kott and Thom ~,~ ...... : COUNCIL ~ERS. None ABSTAINED: CO~C!L ~I~E~ ~ Roth ,, ' o~,.~,.: CO~CIL >~ERS: None The ~'layor declared Resolution No.. 76R-650 duly passed and adopted. Councilman Roth explained he abstained because, in his opinion., there was enough expertise other than the City Council to know where an airpor~ should be located and that l~ was necessary first to know where the need existed in order to make a decision. 76-762 ~ ,; .'~.lagivc to his co~c~_rn over t],c afore~entxon~,, stugy proposed by ti~e ..... , ~cu~ci~aan Thom offered - :~otion tl~t ~n,.~z . specifically re,use to z~.ioz~ ~hc candidacy of anyone for apy committee proposed by the League of 2ali~ornia Cities nt tl~e forthcoming Crange County League :~eeting in t?ose Citic~ a.~arnive of the IC~A. r.-. =urtner'" ' "action .~:~resse,.] tl~c option ~ha~ it would be impractical no~ ~o suppor~ the cungidacy of r. oracnn in the su!~ect Cities if such appointrents could not in any way. foster ~h~ .... ~o ::i2. lm z~tg~r; tl~ercupon~ ~ayor Thom indicated that he could mccep~ :_cli~ication ~f his ';~otton to that effect. Tiaa "ayor :':ada ~.~. furtl~er a:~'aeno~ment to ]~is r;..otion specifically requesting · ::it]~dz'awal of support of Orange Councilman Ji]a ~qeam and Cypress Councilwo~,a~'~ ~onim Comau for r~er.~bcrship on t]~e Couthern California ?.ir Quality ~'anage~:ent 2oard (qqAq~T) with instructions that the City's voting Celegate at the League California Cities see:ins vote for the best person(s) qualified; th~ reason tibet Jif? Beam recently endorsed the ICAA Study and the City of Cypress was also s~ppor~ivc of same. ':ayor further clarified for Councilman Kott tha~ s~.nc¢ Councilnmn Dean was ~:~fq~orti-.za of the Chino 2ills Airport Pro~ect if ]~e ware to be elected to the ~:".~-:-, this was a Board ~i~ere suc]~ support could be effective; t]~erefore~ in conscience, support could not be given to anyone ~o was Contrary to the tT.r~h~t of the majority of the Council, foregoing motion by Councilman Thom with the sug~estea m~.end~,~nt t~y Council,:an Se~,~our and including the addition of withdrawal of support of Jim a:~.i Sonia Son~u was seconded by Council.~an Se)nnour. To this r. otion~ Co~.:ncilr,~an Roth voted ":lo". :~OTIO:! CARRIFD. ,flIES2 - E..~CU~IVE SE,qgIO?~: Councilwoman Raywood moved to recess into Executive , ' i 11 , · I lll , Il · c.~n~,~.~.~. (5:47 P.~'.) ~ession,-C°uncilman Thom seconded the motion ~CTIOU ~ ........ ~CE~,~: The l:ayor called the ~eeting to order, all ~.emb_rs o'f the ~ity Council being present. (6~05 P.~'~'.) .'PJOU~,q21:T· Councilr,~n Seymour moved to adjourn to tTednesday, October 17 i at 3:00 P.~{.. Councilwo]~mn Ka~,ood seconded the motion. ~rOTIOI,l CARRIED. Adjourned: 6:05 P.:~.