1975/09/30~ity }lal~ Anaheim; California - COUNCIL MINUTES - September 30; 1975; 1:30 P.M.
The City Council of the City of Anaheim met in regular session.
PIIESENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Kaywood, Se~nour, Pebley, Sneegas and Thom
ABSENT: COUNCIL M~IBERS: ~:one
PRESENT: INTERIM ASSISTANT CITY MANAGER: William Griffith
CITY ATTORNEY: Alan R. Watts
DEPUTY CITY CLERK: Linda D. Roberts
UTILITIES DIRECTOR: Gordon W. Hoyt
FIRE CHIEF: James Riley
CITY ENGINEER: James P. Maddox
ASSISTANT DIRECTOR - PLA~ING: Don McDaniel
ZONING SUPERVISOR: Annlka Santalahti
Mayor Thom called the meeting to order and welcomed those in
attendance to the Council meeting.
INVOCATION: Reverend Jim Green gave the Invocation.
FLAG SALUTE: Councilman John Seymour led the assembly in the Pledge of
Allegiance to the Flag.
LETTER OF APPRECIATION AND CONGRATULATIONS - VIRGIL ISBELL; A letter of
appreciation and congratulations for Mr. Virgil Isbell on the occasion of his
retirement from the Office Barber Shop was read aloud by Mayor Thom and then
presented to Mr. Isbell, together with a special plaque commemorating his
profession.
Mr. Isbell accepted the letter and plaque with thanks and anecdotes from
his 29 years as the "Official" City Hall Barber.
PROCLAMATION: The following proclamation was issued by >{ayor Thom and
unanimously approved by the City Council:
"American Free Enterprise Day" - October 6, 1975.
Mr. James Townsend accepted the proclamation, distributed brochures and
posters and invited all to attend the program planned for Monday, October 6,
1975, at 7:30 P.M. in the Anaheim Union High School Auditorium.
RESOLUTION OF COMMENDATION: A Resolution of Commendation unanimously
authorized by the Anaheim City Council was presented to Mr. Charles J. Loucki,
employee of the Galaxy ~fotel, 1735 South Harbor Boulevard, who, at his place of
employment on August 17, 1975, rendered aid to a drowning victim and is
credit~d with saving his life.
City Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - September 30~ 1975~ 1:30 P.M.
RESOLUTION OF CONGRATULATIONS: A Resolution of Congratulations on the Golden
Anniversary of the Sons of Columbus of America, Inc., was unanimously approved
by the Anaheim City Council and read aloud by ~yor Thom.
RESOLUTION OF APPRECIATION: A Resolution of Appreciation on the occasion of
Mr. Andy Devinets 70th Birthday was unanimously adopted by the City Council to
be presented to Mr. Devine at a special celebration.
MI!~TES: Minutes of the Anaheim City Council Regular Meetings held August 5 and
August 19, 1975 were approved wi~h correction to t~e Minutes of August 19,
1975, Page No. 75-769, to insert "Homeowner," after Owen Brown, and the words
"who now represents the Planning Commission" after replacing Charlene Barnes.
On motion by Councilwoman Kaywood, seconded by Councilman Seymour. MOTION
CARRIED.
WAIVER OF READING - ORDINANCES AND RESOLUTIONS: Councilman Pebley moved to waive
the reading in full of all ordinances and resolutions, and that consent to the
waiver of reading is hereby given by all Council Members unless, after reading
of the title, specific request is made by a Council Member for the reading of
such ordinance or resolution. Councilman Sneegas seconded the motion. MOTION
UNANIMOUSLY CARRIED.
REPORT - FINANCIAL D~ANDS AGAINST THE CITY: Demands against the City in the
amount ~'f"$605,133.12, in a~"c~rda~ witl{ the 1975-76 Budget, were approved.
AGREEMENT REGARDING DEVELOPMENT OF PELANCONI PARK: On motion by Councilwoman
Kaywood, seconded by Councilman Seymour, the City Council continued
consideration of the proposed agreement between the City of Anaheim and several
developers pertaining to joint development of Pelanconi Park, to the meeting of
October 14, 1975, as requested by Presley of Southern California. MOTION
CARRIED.
HILLSIDE GRADING ORDINANCE - CLARIFICATION; Mr. Watts explained that the reason
Presley of Southern California requested continuation of the aforementioned
agreement was due to some questions regarding the application of the Hillside
Grading Ordinance and specifically, whether or not it would apply to develop-
ment of those tentative tracts approved prior to the effective date of the
ordinance (Ordinance No. 3411, adopted April 1, 1975, effective May 1, 1975),
or whether these would be developed in accordance with the former grading
ordinance. He stated that generally a statute would not be given retroactive
application in the absence of a clear intention expressed in the ordinance so
to do. There is no such expression of intent in the Revised Hillside Grading
Ordinance, and Mr. Watts stated it would be his suggestion to the Council that
staff interpret the ordinance to apply to tentative tracts approved subsequent
to the effective date of the revised grading ordinance only.
In response to Councilwoman Kaywood, Mr. Watts noted that the two Presley
tracts which were questioned in particular were approved tentative maps prior
to the adoption of the Revised Hillside Grading Ordinance. He explained that
if these maps were required to comply with the revised ordinance, it would mean
the preparation of a new tentative map since the changes to the work already
done would be so significant that the City Engineer could not certify a final
map as being in substantial conformance with the approved tentative map.
Councilwoman Kaywood remarked that the rationale behind adoption of the
revised grading ordinance was that there were so many problems with the cut-
and-fill type grading conducted under the old regulations, and stated that if
it is at all possible for these developers to comply with the Revised
Ordinance, she felt they should do so. She referred in particular to the Lusk
Tract because the developer is represented on the Canyon General Planning Task
Force which drafted the revisions to the Grading Ordinance and he was aware of the
changes to be made to the grading regulations.
In response to Councilman Seymour's query regarding the legal position of
the City should a developer bring such a situation to litigation, Mr. Watts
indicated that he would find it difficult to support the contention that the
ordinance be applied retroactively.
Following brief discussion, by general consent, the Council indicated they
would accept the opinion and recommendation of the City Attorney that tentative
75-879
City Hall; Anaheim; California - COUNCIL MINUTES - September 30; 1975~ 1:30 P.M.
maps approved before the effective date of the Revised Hillside Grading
Ordinance (May 1, 1975) would not be.subject to the provisions thereof.
AGREF~{ENT - YORBA REGIONAL PARK: The City Attorney explained minor changes
requested by County Counsel to the agreement originally adopted by Resolution
No. 75R-420 as outlined in his memorandum dated September 23, 1975.
RESOLUTION NO. 75R-511: Councilman Seymour offered Resolution No. 75R-511 for
adoption.
Refer to Resolution Book.
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM RESCINDING RESOLUTION
NO. 75R-420 AND APPROVING THE TERMS OF AN AGREEMENT DATED SEPTEMBER 30, 1975,
WITH THE COUNTY OF ORANGE AND ORANGE COUNTY HARBORS, BEACHES A/~D PARKS DISTRICT
IN CONNECTION WITH YORBA REGIONAL PARK AND AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR AND CITY CLERK
TO EXECUTE SAID AGREEMEI~.
Roll Call Vote:
AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Kaywood, Seymour, Pebley, Sneegas and Thom
NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: None
ABSENT: COUNCIL M~4BERS: None
The Mayor declared Resolution No. 75R-511 duly passed and adopted.
RECORDS }flkNAGEMENT PROGRAM - CITY CLERK'S OFFICE~ Two agreements were presented
to implement the Records Management Program in the City Clerk's Office; 1)
Agreement with Gamlin Industries, Inc. to employ a records consultant for a
period of'three years on an as-needed basis in an amount not to exceed $5,000
in any one year; 2) An agreement with Gtco Microfilming Services, Inc. to
perform professional microfilming services as required for a two-year period
expiring September 30, 1977.
The Deputy City Clerk reported that these items were both budgeted in the
1975-76 Budget.
RESOLUTION NOS. 75R-512 AND 75R-513: Councilman Seymour offered Resolution
Nos. 75R-512 and 75R-513 for adoption.
Refer to Resolution Book.
RESOLUTION NO. 75R-~12 - GAMLIN INDUSTRIES! INC.: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY
COUNCIL 6F THE CITY OF ANAHEIM APPROVING THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF AN AGREE-
MENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AND GAMLIN INDUSTRIES, INC. PERTAINING TO A
RECORDS MANAGEMENT PROGRAM; AND AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR AND CITY CLERK TO EXECUTE
SAID AGREEMENT FOR THE CITY.
RESOLUTION NO. 75R-513 - ORCO MICROFILMING SERVICE: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY
C00'NdIL OF THE CITY oF ANAHEIM APPROVING THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF AN AGREE-
MENT BETWEEN ORCO MICROFILMING SERVICE AND THE CITY OF ANAHEIM PERTAINING TO
MICROFILMING SERVICES; AND AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR AND CITY CLERK TO EXECUTE SAID
AGREm~N~ FOR Z~ CITY OF ANAHEIM.
Roll Call Vote:
AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Kaywood, Seymour, Pebley, Sneegas and Thom
NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: None
ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: None
The Mayor declared Resolution Nos. 75R-512 and 75R-513 duly passed
and adopted.
PARAMEDIC HARDWARE - SOLE VENDOR PURCHASE: Memorandum from Fire Chief Riley
dated September 11, 1975 discussing the subject of acquiring hardware for tile
City's entrance into the Paramedics program was submitted for Council con-
sideration. Chief Riley pointed out various significant advantages to
purchasing the necessary items from one supplier on a sole-vendor basis rather
than utilizing the bid process and recommended Motorola based on actual in-
service experience by other Orange County cities.
75-88O
City Ha!.l~ Ana.heim~ California - COUNCIL MIl~UTES - September 30~ 1975~ 1:30 P.M.
On motion by Councilwoman Kaywood, seconded by Councilman Thom, the City
Council approved sole-vendor status for Motorola in connection with the
purchase of paramedic hardware and authorized the Purchasing Agent to buy such
equipment outright from that firm. MOTION CARRIED.
RESOLUTION NO. 75R-514 - ORANGE AVEi'fOE STREET IbfPROV'~[ENT~ AHFP NO. 624: On
report and recommendation of the City Engineer, Councilwoman Kaywood offered
Resolution No. 75R-514 for adoption.
Refer to Resolution Book.
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIm.[ REQUESTIk~G THE COUNTY
OF ORANGE TO INCREASE THE ALLOCATION WIThlI'~ TIlE ARTERIAL HIGHWAY FINANCING
PROGR~D{ FOR THE ORANGE AVE~dE STREET I'b,LPROV~MENT, A.H.F.P. NO. 624. (Increase
of $1~,003.97)
Roll Call Vote:
AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Kaywood, Seymour, Pebley, Sneegas and Thom
NOES: COUNCIL M~.IBERS: None
ABSEi~T: COUNCIL M~-~BERS: None
The Mayor declared Resolution No. 75R-514 duly passed and adopted.
ELECTRIC POWER AND RATE LITIGATION - INCREASE IN R. W. BECK AiqD ASSOCIATES
COLiTIS{CT: Memorandum dated September 22, 1975 from the Utilities Director
requesting Council authorization to increase the contract amount with R. W.
Beck and Assocates by $15,000 to an amount not to exceed $120,00o was sub-
mitted. ~r. Hoyt briefly reported on the status of litigation concerning the
supply of electric power, in particular, the Navajo Project Case, in which a
Court of Appeals has ordered the case returned to Trial Court. The outcome of
this is that the City of Anaheim is that much closer to the day it will receive
power from this project, which would come delivered to Anaheim at one-half the
price of power from Southern California Edison.
Mr. Hoyt further reported that in the last electric rate case against
Southern California Edison, the Federal Power Commission determined that Edison
had received $666,000 in excess from their wholesale customers, which must be
returned, and the City of Anaheim comprises one-third of that wholesale class.
Anaheim should receive a return of approximately $200,000 as a direct result of
this litigation effort.
Hr. Hoyt noted that in connection with Docket No. E7777, from which the
City of Banning has withdrawn, Anaheim's share of the cost has risen to 25.91%
and its total participation is estimated now at $51,820. It is in connection
with this particular case that the request for authorization to increase the
contrac~ amount with R. W. Beck be authorized to an amount not to exceed
$120,000.
In reply to Councilman Seymour, Mr. Hoyt advised that the City of Anaheim
hopes to receive 50,000 kilowatts from ghe Navajo Power Project, which is
approximately one-half of the base rate demand. He added that there is no
assurance that Anaheim will receive that much, but that is the amount the
Utilities Department is striving to obtain. He further reported that the best
estimate he could give as to when the City would start to enjoy the benefits of
power from the Navajo Project would be some time in 1976.
Councilman Seymour inquired when receipt of the estimated $200,000 can be
anticipated from the Edison rate case, and Mr. Hoyt reported that generally
rate cases have taken four years from inception to conclusion. This particular
one was filed in 1974, however, when these funds are returned, they will
include interest.
RESOLUTION NO. 75R-521: On the recommendation of the Utilities Director,
Councilman Seymour offered Resolution No. 75R-521 for adoption, approving
increase in contract amount for R. W. Beck and Associates of $15,000.
Refer to Resolution Book.
75-881
City Hall, Anaheim~ .California - COUNCIL MINUTE§ - September 30, 1975, 1!30 P.M.
A RESOLUTION OF THE CI~ COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AUTHORIZIi'~G TIlE COM-
PENSATION IN THE AGRE~iENT DATED JUNE 12, 1973, WITIt R. W. BECK AND ASSOCIATES
TO BE INCREASED BY $15,000.00 TO AN ~.~UNT NOT TO EXCEED $120,000.
Roll Call Vote:
AYES: COUNCIL M~BERS: Kaywood, Seymour, Pebley, Sneegas and Thom
NOES: COUNCIL M~BERS: None
ABSENT: COUNCIL M~BERS: None
The }'iayor declared Resolution No. 75R-521 duly passed and adopted.
IMPLemENTATION PLAN FOR ARTHUR YOUNG & COMPANY RECO~'~ENDATIONS - UTILITIES
DEPARTMENT: The implementation plan prepared by the Utilities Director, which
was submitted to the City Council originally on July 22, 1975, was rescheduled
for discussion and to consider authorization for the expenditure of funds which
would be necessary to implement thc program as outlined in his memorandum dated
July 21, 1975. (Complete Utilities Department implementation plan on file in
the Office of the City Clerk).
Mr. Hoyt recalled that this rather lengthy plan was submitted earlier for
Council review and that no approval was requested at that time since he had not
had an opportunity to discuss same with the City Manager or Finance Director.
He reported that he has since discussed this proposed program with them and,
they concur with his recommendations.
Mr. tIoyt recommended appropriation of $28,000 for employment of a Senior
Systems Analyst and $3,000 for additional salary and fringe benefit costs to
reclassify one Electrical Engineering Associate position to Electrical
Engineer. In addition, he reported it would total $72,900 to implement the
remaining recommendations for consulting services and training programs.
Mr. Hoyt recommended that these funds be approved~for expenditure from the
Utilities Department carry-forward budget from previous years.
Councilman Seymour inquired if the funds referred to by Mr. Hoyt as
"carry-forward" would be the same as unappropriated surplus, or whether these
funds would be coming from the $3.6 million set aside at the time of adoption
of She 1975-76 Budget to provide for increases in sanitation, utility rates and
City employee salary increases.
Mr. Hoyt reviewed the recommendations as contained in his memorandum dated
July 21, 1975, and pointed out that once his recommended program is initiated,
it is necessary to make a management commitment since there are resources and
manpower which will be required in the future to fully implement the program.
He stressed that he feels it is a very good program.
Councilman Seymour responded that tie has qualms with the implementation
program as recommended by Mr. Hoyt; that the plan demonstrates a positive
attitude of cooperation toward implementation of Arthur Young & Company recom-
mendations. Councilman Seymour expressed the concern that at the time of
adoption of the Budget, Council was led to believe that the unappropriated
reserve available to make up a portion of the $3.6 million reserve for the
Council Contingency Fund was unattached. No mention was made at that time that
the Utilities Department would require $72,900 of this money to implement
Arthur Young & Company recommendations and that perhaps the problem is in the
budgetary process itself.
Mr. Hoyt indicated that his Department did submit a list of those items
riley would like carried forward.
Councilman Seymour remarked that the Council expected this $72,900 to be
available to off-set the electrical rate increase which is undoubtedly
forthcoming.
Mr. Hoyt and Mr. Watts gave a brief status report on the rate increase
situation and generally indicated they believed that Southern California Edison
will file an increase by November 30, 1975. The City will know within 30 days
thereafter what the period of suspension will be.
75-S82
City ttall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL :4IiiUTES - September 3,',~, 1975, 1:30 P.M.
Councilman Seymour stated that he would personally prefer to delay action
on appropriating the $72,900 for consulting services and training programs
until the Council has some firm idea as to wi~at tl~e rate situation will be.
This would mean continuing that decision until some time between
December 1 and 31, 1~75.
~lr. tloyt advised that this would cause no immediate problem, but would
delay implementation of the program. He added that if he had authorization to
spend the $31,000 portion he would begin proceedings immediately to employ the
Senior Systems Analyst and reclassify t1~e Associate position to full Engineer.
As far as consulting services and training programs are concerned:however,
tixey would not be ready to execute that portion of the program at this time
even if they had the money in hand.
Further discussion ensued regarding a possible delay of an additional four
months for employment of the Senior Systems Analyst, during which Hr. Hoyt
poixtted out that this would delay implementing parts of the program, especially
the changes in the work management program, but that there are shifts in
priority which could be made so that portions of the Arthur Young & Company
reconnnendations could still be implemented. During the discussion it was
suggested that the $31,000 could be transferred from tile Council Contingency
Fund or tile General Fund.
At the conclusion of discussion, Councilman Seymour stated that he would
be in favor of deferring authorization for the entire expenditure ($103,900) to
January 1, 1976 on the basis that it has bee~ indicated by the Utilities
Director that the overall implementation program would not suffer if these
expenses were deferred for that period.
Mr. Hoyt clarified that in his opinion, that statement is true for
Recommendation Nos. 1 and 2 as shown on the July 21, 1975 memorandum, but not
in relation to Recommendation Nos. 3 and 4, which refer to the Senior Systems
Analyst and upgrading of a job classification from Associate to Engineer. In
order of priority, he remarked that he would rate the necessity of the Senior
Systems Analyst first since he is the key to many other Arthur Young & Company
recommendations to develop within the Department itself certain systems
capabilities.
Councilman Seymour indicated he would be amenable to approving funds for
~hat portion of the recommendation from tile Council Contingency Fund.
Councilwoman Kaywood suggested that the Council reconsider passing the
increases in sanitation fees on to the consumers since it appears as though the
City cannot continue to absorb those increases.
Councilman Seymour disagreed with this, pointing out that the deferral of
the portion of these implementation expenses relating to consulting services
and training programs will not deter implementation of other portions of the
plan. He pointed out that the $3.6 million reserve for the Council Contingency
Fund was promised to the citizens at the time of budget adoption and that by
asking that trash increases be passed along, Councilwoman Kaywood is asking the
Council to go back on their word.
Councilwoman Kaywood pointed out that ti~ere would be cash savings from
implementation of the Arthur Youn~ & Company recommendations.
~iOTIOl.:: Councilwoman Kaywood moved that the funds for employment of a Senior
Systems Analyst as outlined in Recommendation No. 3 of Mr. Hoyt's memorandum
dated July 21, 1975, be authorized from the Council Contingency Fund.
Councilman Seymour seconded the motion. Councilman Thom voted "no". ~OTION
CARRIED.
MOTION: Councilman Seymour moved that the decision on expenditure of $72,900
as outlined in Recommendation Nos. 1 and 2 of Mr. Hoyt~s memorandum of July 21,
1975, be postponed until January 1, 1976. Councilman Thom seconded tile motion.
HOTION CAiLRI ED.
There was brief discussion to clarify whether or not Councilwoman Kaywood
intended in her motion to approve expenditure of funds for a Senior Systems
Analyst, to also include the $3,000 necessary (per Recommendation No. 4) to
75-883
~ity Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - September 30;. 1975; 1:30 P.M.
reclassify the Electrical Engineering Associate position to Electrical
Engineer, and Councilwoman Kaywood reported that she had meant to include only
$2&,000 for employment of the Analyst. During the discussion Mr. Hoyt advised
that since the Department would most likely not be able to complete recruitment
and hiring for the Senior Systems Analyst position until December, at which
time there will be only six months remaining in the current fiscal year, he
would be able to fill this position with an expenditure of $14,00~.
MOTION: Councilwoman Kaywood thereupon moved that the previous motion
authorizing expenditure from the Council Contingency Fund to employ a Senior
Systems Analyst be rescinded; and that the sum of $14,000 be authorized from
the Council Contingency Fund to finance the employment of a Senior Systems
Analyst in the Utilities Department for the last six months of the current
fiscal year. Councilman Seymour seconded the motion. Councilman Thom voted
"no". MOTION CARRIED.
PUBLIC HEARING - RECLASSIFICATION NO. 74-75-41: Application by Nor'East Plaza,
L~d., requesting a change in zone from CL and CH to ~q-1200 to establish a
seven-(7) lot subdivision on the west side of Kraemer Boulevard between
Crowther Avenue and Orangethorpe Avenue, was submitted, together with Tentative
Map, Tract No. 8710 and application for exemption status from the requirement
to prepare an environmental impact report.
Firs. Roberts reported that a letter had been received in the City Clerk's
Office from Mark D. Leff, Nor'East Plaza, Ltd., dated September 24, 1975
requesting a continuation of the public hearing on Reclassification No.
74-75-41 and consideration of the tentative map for a period of 30 days.
On motion by Councilman Pebley, seconded by Councilman Sneegas, public
hearing on Reclassification No. 74-75-41 and action on Tentative Map, Tract No.
8710 was continued to the meeting of October 28, 1975. i~IOTION CARRIED.
COUNCIL POLICY - SOUI~ ATTENUATION Ii~ RE~..IDENTIAL. DEVELOPMENTS: (Continued from
the meetings of July 29, August 19, and September 9, 1975.) Proposed City
Council policy on Sound Attenuation in residential developments was submitted
for Council consideration as recommended by the City Planning Commission,
together with correspondence from J. J. Van Houten & Associates, Consulting
Engineers in Acoustics, 16~1 West Broadway, Anaheim, 92802.
Councilwoman ¥~ywood pointed out several changes to the policy as proposed
and recon~ended by the City Planning Commission, and with the concurrence of
Mr. Kelley of the Planning Department and the City Council l.lembers, these
amendments were incorporated into the policy.
On motion by Councilwoman Kaywood, seconded by Councilman Seymour, the
following amended policy on Sound Attenuation in residential developments was
adopted as Council Policy No. 542:
"It is the policy of the City Council that a noise level analysis shall be
performed for any proposed residential development located within six hundred
(600) feet of any existing or adopted freeway, expressway, major arterial
highway, primary arterial highway or railroad.
The following noise attenuation features shall be incorporated in these
residential developments as required to reduce the noise levels as indicated.
1. In single-family residential developments located within six hundred
(600) feet of any existing or adopted freeway, expressway, major arterial
highway, or primary arterial highway there shall be a sound barrier capable of
reducing the sound of motor vehicles to a maximum of 65 dB CNEL at any point
six (6) feet above ground level within the development. The sound barrier
shall consist of an earth berm, a masonry wall or a combination thereof,
provided that a masonry wall which is used as a sound barrier shall not exceed
six (6) feet in height. Where vehicular or pedestrian access through the
barrier is permitted gates or baffles may be provided; however, said access
shall be designed to minimize sound transmission.
2. In multiple-family residential developments located within six hundred
(600) feet of any existing or adopted freeway, expressway, major arterial
highway, or primary arterial highway, there shall be a sound barrier capable of
75-884
City ~tall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - September 30~ 1975~ 1:30 P.M.
reducing the sound of motor vehicles to a maximum of 65 db CNEL at any point
six (6) feet above ground level in all exterior areas other than ariveways,
carports and parking areas. The sound barrier may consist of an earth berm, a
masonry wall, or any portion of the structure.
3. No habitable residential structure shall be located less than one
hundred (100) feet from a railroad track.
4. In all residential developments located within six lxundred (600) feet
of a railroad track, there shall be a sound barrier which will provide line-of-
sight shielding from all points eight (8) feet above the tracks to the eaves of
all habitable structures located within six hundred (600) feet of the tracks.
The sound barrier shall consist of an earth berm, a masonry wall, or a com-
bination thereof. A masonry wall which is used as a sound barrier shall be no
more than six (6) feet high. Where vehicular or pedestrian access through ti~e
barrier is permitted, gates or baffles may be provided; however, said access
shall be designed to minimize sound transmission.
5. Residential structures shall be designated to limit the interior noise
caused by motor vehicles or railroad trains to a maximum of 45 db CNEL on an
annual basis in any habitable room with windows closed. Proper design may
include, but shall not be limited to, building orientation, double or extra-
strength windows, wall and ceilin~ insulation, and orientation and insulation
of vents. Where it is necessary that windows be closed in order to achieve the
required noise level, means shall be provided for ventilation/cooling to pro-
vide a habitable environment."
MOTION CARRIED.
TASK FORCE - PERMANENT CULTURAL ARTS FACILITY: A list of organizations
interested in being represented on a task force to study the possibility of a
permanent Cultural Arts Facility in the City of Anaheim, continued from the
meeting of July 8, 1975, was resubmitted.
Councilwoman Kaywood indicated that she still felt there were organiza-
tions which would be interested in serving on this task force but have not
responded because they go "dark" during the summer months and their activities
have just commenced for this year. She requested, as a Member, that one
organization in particular, the Ebell Club of Anaheim, be added to the list.
Councilwoman Kaywood further noted that the Cultural Arts Commission is plan-
ning to conduct a meeting on 1,~nday, October 6, 1975, to discuss this subject
and has invited culturally oriented groups from the City of Anaheim to attend.
She felt it would be more appropriate to consider the list for appointments to
a task force following this meeting and after the various organizations are
fully active and into the fall season.
Councilwoman Kaywood thereupon moved that consideration of the list of
organizations interested in representation on the task force to study a
permanent Cultural Arts Facility be continued to the meeting of October 14,
1975. Councilman Seymour seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED.
WE T.I.P. PROGRAM; Pursuant to Council's direction given at the meeting of
September 9, 1975, an evaluation of the We T.I.P. Program prepared by the
Anaheim Police Department was submitted for Council consideration, recommending
that the City Council approve an agreement for promotional materials in an
amount not to exceed $1,000.00 to urge citizen participation in said program.
Councilman Seymour noted that some time during the past two weeks he heard
a news broadcast relative to Federal funds being withdrawn from a program with
a similar function and purpose as We T.I.P. because of its inactivity. Prior
to acting on the agreement, he suggested clarification to ensure that it is
not the same program which the City is considering.
Since Mr. Brownell, representative of We T.I.P. was not in~ediately
available, the item was held over.
Later in the meeting, Mr. Brownell was queried regarding the inactive
program from which Federal funds were being withdrawn and he advised that this
was the "Heroin Hot Line" which is often confused with We T.I.P. He stated
that the We T.I.P. Program had never received any Federal funds directly, but
75-885
Ci. ty l~all; Anaheim; California - COUNCIL MINUTES - September 30~ 1975~ 1:30 P.M.
that the County of Los Angeles did approve $15,000 in Federal Revenue Sharing
Funds for promotion of their program.
On motion by Councilman Sneegas, seconded by Councilman Pebley, the City
Attorney was instructed to prepare an agreement with We T.I.P. for promotional
materials in an amount not to exceed $1,000. MOTION CARRIED.
CONSEI~ CALENDAR ITEMS: On motion by Councilman Pebley, seconded by Councilwoman
Kaywood, the following actions were authorized in accordance with the reports
and recommendations furnished each Council Member and as listed on the Consent
Calendar Agenda:
1. CORRESPOWOENCE: The following correspondence was ordered received and
filed:
a. City of Santa Ana- Resolution No. 75-138 - Supporting the extension
of Route 57 south to the Corona Del Mar' Freeway via the Santa Aha River
Corridor.
b. Intergovernmental Coordinating Council of Orange County:
Newport Beach Resolution Nos. 8574 and 8575
Anaheim Resolution No. 75R-432
Newport Beach letter to State Senate Judiciary Committee
Seal Beach Resolution No. 2480
c. Anaheim Public Library Board - Highlights and Minutes,
August 18, 1975.
d. Community Redevelopment Commission - Minutes - August 27, 1975.
e. PAC (Alpha) - Minutes - August 12 and August 26, 1975.
f. Parks and Recreation Commission - Minutes - August 21, 1975.
g. Financial and Operating Reports for the month of August, 1975 for the
Library and the Engineering Division.
h. Orange County Health Planning Council - Call for nominations for
Assembly At-Large positions and Board of Directors for the Health Planning
Council.
2. SCHEDULED FOR PUBLIC HEARING: Subdivision Map Act Ordinance to consider
repealing Chapter 17.08 of the Anaheim Municipal Code and adding a new Chapter
17.08 relating to subdivisions, was scheduled for public hearing, October 14,
1975 at 2:30 P.M.
MOTION CAPdtIED.
APPLICATIONS FOR LEAVE TO PRESENT LATE CLAIM: On motion by Councilman Sneegas,
seconded by Councilwoman Kaywood, the following applications for leave to
present late claim were denied as recommended by the City Attorney's Office:
a. Application for leave to present late claim filed by Daniel Lispi,
Attorney on behalf of John Gagnon for damages purportedly sustained on or about
August 16, 1974.
b. Application for leave to present late claim filed by William
Sheffield, Attorney on behalf of Calvin and LaResta Posey for personal injuries
and damages purportedly sustained from or about August, 1974 through February,
1975.
MOTION CARRIED.
CLAIMS AGAINST THE CITY: The following claims were denied as recommended by the
City Attorney and ordered referred to the insurance carrier, on motion by
Councilman Sneegas, seconded by Councilwoman Kaywood:
a. Claim submitted by Mrs. William A. Keeling, Jr., for injuries
purportedly sustained as a result of condition of stairway at the Convention
Center, on or about June 27, 1975.
b. Claim submitted by Foye R. Crooks, on behalf of John D. Crooks, a
minor, for injuries purportedly sustained as a result of being struck by
vehicle, on or about August 26, 1975.
c. Claim submitted by Dr. Daniel W. Berry for damage purportedly
sustained as a result of electrical failure by the City of Anaheim, on or about
September 16, 1975.
MOTION CARRIED.
75-006
City hall~ Anaheim, California - COU~'~CIL I',ilY~CTES - September 30, 197~ 1:30 P.M.
RESOLUTIOi~ NOS. 75R-515 THROUGti 75R-517: Councilwoman Kaywood offered Resolution
Nos. 75R-515 through 75R-517, both inclusive, for adoption in accordance with
the reports, recommendations and certifications furnis~ed each Council Member
and as listed on the Consent Calendar Agenda.
I{efer to Resolution Book.
RESOLUTION NO. 75R-515 - DEEDS OF EASEi~1ENT: A RESOLUTIOli OF ThE CITY COUNCIL
OF THE CITY OF ANAHEI.~{ ACCEPTING CEIiTAIi~ DEEDS AND ORDEtiIi~G THEIR RECORDATION.
(Gilliland and Dunham, et al.; D~lnn Business Parks; Jed Development, Inc.; Pew
Construction Company; Chester I. and Vista Fae Whitten; Umenori and Kiyoko
Hatanaka; Eugene E. and Charlotte M. ~awkins; Eugene E. and Cl~ariotte i.I.
Hawkins; Barbara M. Fitzpatrick; Andrew and Rita I~{urillo; Betty J. Booth;
Billie P. Anderson; Marie E. horton; William J. and Susan Talevich; Harold V.
and KaChleen E. Kogler; Agnes Tharp; Ethel L. Penfield; Leroy S. and Ellen B.
Freer; Patricia A. Rau; Ernest L. and Irene C. Hubert)
RESOLUTIOi~ NO. 75R-516 - WORK ORDER NO. 745-B: A RESOLUTION OF ThE CITY
COU~CIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIi[ FINALLY ACCEPTING THE COI.IPLETION AND Tiie
FURi~ISHING OF ALL PLANT, LABOR, SERVICES, IbiTERIALS AND EQUIPMENT AND ALL
UTILITIES AND TP~NSPORTATION INCLUDI>~G POWER, FUEL AND WATER, AND THE PLRFOR-
~tANCE OF ALL WORK NECESSARY TO CONSTRUCT Ai. CO CO>~LETE Ti~L EOLLOWIi,~G PUBLIC
I~PROV~ENT, TO WIT; THE IiLPROVEi~Ei~T OF TUSTIi; AVENUE, S/O I~t PAI2~A AVENUE, I~
THE CITY OF ANAHEIM, WORK ORDER NO. 745-B. (Sully-Miller Contracting Company)
RESOLUTION NO. 75R-517 - WORK ORDER NO. ~55: A RESOLUTION OF ThE CITY COUNCIL
OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM FINALLY ACCEPTING THE COMPLETION AND TliE FURNISHI~{G OF
ALL PLANT, LABOR, SERVICES, MATERIALS ANI) EQUIPMENT AND ALL UTILITIES AND
TRANSPORTATION Ii~CLUDING POWER, FUEL AND WATER, AND TH~ PERFOR>tANCE OF ALL WORK
NECESSARY TO CONSTRUCT AI~) COMPLETE TIi£ FOLLOWING PUBLIC IMPROVEMENT, TO WIT:
LA PAI2.1A AVENqJE DRAINAGE I~ROV~'fE~T, 1,~0' E/O BLUE GUI4 STREET TO RIVERSIDE
FREEWAY, IN THE CITY OF ANAHEI>~, WORK OPdOEP, NO. ~]55. (Poulsom-Crowiey Company)
Roll Call Vote:
AYES: COUNCIL M~'~BERS: Kaywood, Seymour, Pebley, Snecgas and Thom
NOES: COUNCIL MEHBERS: None
ABSENT: COUNCIL ME.~iBERS: None
The Mayor declared Resolution Nos. 75R-515 through 75R-517, both inclusive,
duly passed and adopted.
RESOLUTIOi~ NO. 75R-518 - PROPOSED ABA~fDO~-IE!~.iT NO. 75-4A: Councilwoman Kaywood
offered Resolution No. 75R-51~ for adoption.
Refer to Resolution Book.
A RE,5OLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF TttE CITY OF ANAhEL'.I OECLARIi;G ITS Ii~TENTION
TO VACATE AND ABANDON CERTAIi~ REAL PROPERTY Ai~D FIXING A DATE FOR tiEARING
THEREON. (75-4A, October 2.U, 1975, 2:30 P.M.; to abandon a portion of
dedicated right-of-way o~ Serrano Avenue)
Roll Call Vote:
AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Kaywood, Seymour, Pebley, Sneegas and Thom
NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: None
ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: None
The ~.~ayor declared Resolution No. 75R-518 duly passed and adopted.
PARCEL :tAP NO. 441 - POSTPONE~{ENT OF DP, AI~';AGE FEES: Communication from Cecil C.
Wright, 60 Plaza, Orange, California, dated September 10, 1975, was submitted
requesting that the City Council consider the postponement of drainage assess-
ment fees in connection with Parcel Map No. 441, for 20 acres of property
located at La Palma Avenue and Jefferson Street within the Anaheim Canyon
Industrial Area.
Council Members Seymour and Thom observed that obviously from the tenor of
the communication it appears the applicant feels Council has established a
precedent by allowing certain property owners in the Peralta Hills area to
defer payment of drainage assessment fees until application for building
permit. "
75-887
City Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - Septemb. er 3~,)~ 1975~ 1:30 P.M.
Councilman Seymour stated that he felt the Peralta Itills situation was
unique and that no precedent had been estabiisi~ed. Councilman Thom concurred
with this viewpoint, noting that the actions taken for that particular area
were in an attempt to accommodate the people living there and resolve t~xe
drainage problem as well.
Mr. Cecil C. Wright, Attorney representing the developer of the above
referenced property (Parcel Map No. 441) advised that the developer has been
working on the problem of drainage on his property since August of 1974, the
choices being to put in his own drainage facilities at a cost o£ approximately
$200,000 or include the 20-acre parcel in the Anaheim Canyon Industrial
Orainage Area and pay the fees assessed in said area of approximately $2,000
per acre. Mr. Wright stressed that this particular drainage problem has not
been created by the parcel which he represents, but rather by the City when
they permitted in excess of 751 acres to be developed in the area without
imposing any drainage fees whatsoever.
Mr. Wright observed that it would be unfair to impose the total cost of
drainage structures for the entire 2,346 acres on that undeveloped portion in
private ownership which is comprised of 1,125 acres. He advised that the prop-
erty he represents is comprised of 9 different parcels one of which is 7!~.~ acres
in size. He stressed that the developer is asking that they be permitted an
opportunity to file and record a parcel map and that the City impose the drain-
age assessment fees as a condition precedent to obtaining a buildin~ permit.
The developer would then pay proportionately the assessment which is due as
each building permit is taken out. He remarked that if the developer is
required, as under current policy, to pay the full drainage assessment first,
in effect, his money is tied up for three years in the City Treasury since
there is no drainage plan establisi~ed at this time, and the City could not
begin on these improvements for approximately another three years, his clients
would like to record their parcel maps and construct off-site and on-site
improvements. They would not be improving parking lots or building structures
at this point, and, in his opinion, would not be aggravating the drainage.
problem. He remarked that the off-site improvements would probably alleviate
the problem to some degree.
In response to Councilman Seymour, the City Attorney explained that the
reason the drainage fee policy was established so that the developer paid prior
to filing the parcel map, was that administratively this would facilitate
collection from one developer rather than the numerous own~ers of each
individual lot when application for building permits were made.
Councilwoman Kaywood left the Council Chamber. (2;55 P.M.)
Mr. Wright concurred that it would be administratively difficult to
collect drainage fees from individual property owners in residential sub-
divisions, but pointed out that the industrial parcels he is referring to would
be much larger in size.
Councilman Seymour stated that contrary to his original statement, he felt
there should be some latitude permitted so as to be equitable to the larger
parcels. He also felt it should be taken into consideration that the days in
development when a developer puts up acreage money and then is i~ediately able
to build are past. The process is considerably more drawn out. He indicated
that he felt the policy should be changed so that it accomplishes the City's
administrative purpose, but at the same time does not tie up the developer's
cash for a three-year period.
Councilwoman Kaywood returned to the Council Chamber. (3:00 P.M.)
Councilman Seymour moved that the decision on the request to postpone
payment of drainage assessment fees on Parcel Map No. 441 be continued for two
weeks to allow the City Attorney an opportunity to make recommendation to the
Council regarding a more equitable policy of collecting drainage assessment
fees for larger parcels of property. Councilwoman Kaywood seconded the motion.
~OTION CARRIED.
Mr. Wright respectfully requested that his client have some relief on his
problem this date since it is currently costing $8,000 per month in interest
while waiting for a resolution of the problem.
75-888
.... - -
City Hall, .~naheim, California COUNCIL b{Ii,IUTEg §eptember 30~ 1975,
The City Council declined to take any action tills date, but advised
Mr. Wright they would consider the matter upon receipt of the City Attorney's
recommendation at the Council meeting of October 14, 1975.
CHICANO PINTOS~ INC. DE CALIFORNIA: On motion by Councilwoman Kaywood, seconded
by Councilman Pebley, tile request submitted by Ct~icano Fintos, Inc. De
California for an opportunity to present their program ~oals and objectives w.'~s
r~noved from the City Council Agenda as requested by said organization in their
letter dated September 30, 1975, since they have determined they will locate in
Santa Ana. MOTION CARRIED.
ENVIRONMENTAL I.X~?ACT REPORT - NEGATIVE DECLARATION: (Gradinf: permit, 260 Peralta
Way) As recommended by the City Planning Commission, on motion by Councilman
Pebley, seconded by Councilman Snee.~;as, the City Council determined that the
proposed grading in connection with construction of a single-family residence
260 Peralta Way will have no significant effect on the environment and is,
therefore, exempt from the requirement to prepare an environmental impact
report. MOTION CARRIED.
PETITION IN CONNECTION WITH RECLASSIFICATION NOS. 6i3-69-14 AND 74-75-22:
Petition containing names of approximately 41 residents in Tract No. 6691 was
submitted together with reports from the Planning Department, City Engineer and
excerpt from the City Planning Commission meeting of September 29, 19'75 at
which this matter was discussed. Tile petition requests that an eight-foot wall
be constructed for privacy and protection and a section of planting be
installed between the residential properties in said tract and the adjacent
commercial development under construction. Further that the access from Gain
Street onto Lincoln Avenue from Tract No. 6691 be closed and a retainin~ wall
built with at least one opening to permit pedestrian access.
Miss Santalahti reviewed the staff findings in connection with the
reclassifications and read the recommendation made by the City Planning Com-
mission at their Sept~nber 29, 1975 meeting, when the above referenced petition
and complaints were aired.
Councilman Pebley left the Council Chamber. (3:10 P.M.)
In connection with the references made within tt~e text of the petition
submitted, that a variance had been granted and that requirements for block
wall and landscaping bypassed, Miss Santalahti advised ti~at she had reviewed
the zoning actions on the property and has determined that the developer has
not been granted any variances and intends to construct the commercial center
in full conformance with the site developments of the CL Zone. She read the
condition regarding the six-foot masonry wall and pointed out that it would be
required to be built six feet above the highest grade level. She advised that
the plans submitted in conjunction with Reclassification No. 74-75-22 indicate
a new block wall to be constructed on the east property line and an existing
six-foot block wall along the south property line, as weii as a ten-foot land-
scaped buffer zone between the new private commercial alley and existing
residential uses to the east and south.
Regarding the request made by the property owners tt~at Gain Street access
to Lincoln Avenue be terminated, Miss Santalahti related that in the original
action to reclassify both the commercial and residential properties, the plans
proposed did not show Gain opening onto Lincoln Avenue. tiowever staff recom-
mendations presented at the Planning Commission public nearing were that Gain
Street be extended through to Lincoln Avenue for adequate access and vehicular
circulation and the subsequent tract map did include this access point. She
reported that the City Traffic Engineer has reviewed the situation currently
and made recommendation (pursuant to the City Engineer's report dated September
30, 1975) that Gain Street not be closed to througi~ traffic due to the need for
local traffic circulation and prevention of additional left-turns at arterial
street intersections.
Councilman Pebley returned to the Council Chamber. (3:15 P.M.)
Mayor Thom recognized Mrs. Nancy Brown, 2513 Chain Avenue, Anai~eim,
representing tile property owners in Saddleback Homes, Tract No. 6691.
Hrs. Brown exhibited photographs of the existing block wall in question for
Council review and reported that their complaint is that because of a
75-889
City Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTE§ - §~pt~mb~r 30, 1975, 1:30 ?.M.
differentiation in grade levels between the residential and commercial
property, tile existing fence provides neither tile privacy nor 8ecurity which
were intended. In addition, si-~e pointed out that this wall is very unsound and
is, in fact, ready to collapse. She remarked that the area residents are
concerned that if a substantial eight-foot wall is not provided, their homes
will be open to burglaries because of the easy access provided by the com-
mercial alley to be constructed adjacent to their property.
In response to Council questions, Mrs. Brox~ advised t~at the wall under
discussion was constructed by th~ developer of the residential subdivision and
is located on their property.
Councilman Seymour pointed out that the commercial developer, in order to
meet Code requirements, will have to construct a wall which is six feet from
the highest property level; that tile City is assured he will do this before
occupancy of the commercial development occurs because the City Building
Inspector will not issue final building' clearance unless this Code requirement,
among others, is met.
~,~r. Watts reported that measurements were taken by the Building Division
from the residential side of the existing fence which indicates there is a
grade differentiation anywhere from six to nine inches.
Mrs. Brown stated that the residents would like to have an eight-foot high
wall which would then be at least seven feet on their side, not only for pro-
tection, but because of the noise which will be emitted by delivery and garbage
trucks utilizing the commercial alley.
Councilman Seymour explained that the Code requirement is six feet from
the highest property level and that is all the City has the right to enforce.
In reference to remarks in the petition about the homeowners being bypassed, he
pointed out that these zoning actions took place at noticed public hearings and
it would be unfair to now change the conditions of approval imposed on the
developer at that time,
Mrs. Brown repeated the request set forth in the petition t~at Gain Street
between Tract No. 6691 and Lincoln Avenue be closed and remarked that in her
opinion the only pUrpose this street serves is to provide a speedway for
teenage drivers. She advised that the residents consider this traffic a
n~isance and desire closure of the street from Lincoln Avenue.
!',~r. Andrew Kulyis, 129 South Hampton, Anaheim, advised that he live8 at
the end of Gain Street at the point that it separates into access for Chain and
Gain; tile portion of Gain Street the residents wish closed ends at his prop-
erty. He advised that he has put up a steel reinforced block wall to i~sure
against entry of a vehicle into his rear yard but still does not feel protected
against this possibility. Mr. Kulyis stated that when they purchaseq, their
home, it was with the assurance that Gain Street would not be a through street.
I{e stated that he has cheCked City maps on two occasions which disclosed no
access to Lincoln Avenue from Gain Street and remarked that he felt the area
residents should have been advised that it was intended to be a through street.
Mr. Kulyis explained that he is a Captain in the Los Angeles Fire Depart-
ment and from his experience, he could advise Council that the Gain Street
entrance to their tract would not be used by the Anaheim Fire Department to
enter Tract No. 6691. He reported that the first in-company would come from
tile south off of Orange Street and the next in-company would come from
Brookhurst at Crescent and could just as easily enter from Broadway.
~.-lr. Kulyis also advised that the stop sign placed at the corner has not
alleviated the situation since few seem to heed it. lie urged teat the Council
consider the homeowners~ request to close the street, as the shopping center
which is currently under construction will compound the problem the homeowners
now face.
In response to Mr. Kulyis, Mayor Thom pointed out that the two zoning
actions taken on this property were both accomplished at public hearings.
75-~90
Cit..y tiall~ Anaheim~ California- COUNCIL HIi'~UTES - ~ej~tember 30;, .1975~ 1:30 P.M.
Councilman Seymour remarked that he is familiar witl~ the traffic
circulation pattern on Gain Street into this particular tract and feels that
the request to close off access should be given consideration, lie noted that
ti~ere are similar street configurations in other tracts and in each case a
problem has been created. In this particular case, since the tract truly
circulates only its own traffic in the "U" shaped street pattern, an~ there is
Gilbert Street to the east and ~,{agnolia Avenue to tt~e west~ this access point
to Lincoln Avenue is really not needed.
Councilman Pebley left the Council Chamber. (3:30 P.M.)
Councilman Seymour pointed out on a quarter section map that tracts larger
than No. 6691 have only two access points and voiced the opinion that the
negatives in this situation, i.e., the two sharp turns and speedin~; traffic far
outweigh the positive aspects. He stated that thc only effect i~e could
anticipate from closing this access point would be some additional traffic on
Gilbert anti :.Iagnolia, but felt that this would be well worth the price to
protect the residential environment of Tract No. 6691.
Councilman Pebley returned to the Council Chamber. (3:33 P.I,I.)
In response to Councilman Seymour, Mr. Watts advised that the appropriate
procedure to accomplish the closure would be to abandon ti~e portion of the
public street located between Chain Street and the northerly boundary of Tract
No. 6691. Iie noted that usually in an abandomnent proceeding, if an easement
was granted this City for the Gain Street right-of-way, the fee own~ership would
revert to ti~e two abutting property owners who ~ould then be responsible for
removal of curbs and gutters and any other improvements.
In response to comments from an unidentified ].ady in ti~e audience,
Mr. Watts indicated that if a new wall is constructed adjacent to the
commercial alleyway, it would undoubtedly l~ave to be a standard engineered
wall.
:tr. DeCell, 4941 Orange, Cypress, developer of thc commercial property
north and west of Tract No. 6(i91, explaineq that the residential lots abutting
his property ~,ere backfilled w!~en the homes were constructed and for this
reason there is a grade differential. [lis property does not go below the
footings of the existing fence to the east. [.fr. I)eCell indicated that one of
the reasons the fence is weakening is that at 2513 Chain Avenue a 12- to 14-
inch back planter wall has been constructed and filled with dirt above the
grade level of his adjacent property. When this planter area is watered, it
develops a hydrant head of water pressure which inundates the footings of the
wall and consequently water drains across his property. ~,Ir. DeCell explained
his development plans and how he intends to comply with site development
standards as required by the City. tle stressed t}~at there will be a six-foot
wall, a 10-foot landscaped area between t~e adjacent residents and the alley,
and there will be 20 feet between the homes and nearest comtercial building
wall. Ife remarked that this is clearly indicated on his plans.
Development plans were reviewed by the Council i,lembers and the la~dscaping
and wall provisions to be accomplished by the developer were explained to
interested homeowners.
Mr. DeCell and the homeowners participated in a discussion as to whether
or not he would be able to utilize the existing wall on the residential
property line and add masonry blocks or other materials to meet the Code
requirement of a six-foot high wall measured from the highest pr-operty
elevation.
l.layor Thom advised that this was a matter to be resolved between the
developer and the adjacent property owners, that the only requirement the City
has in the matter is that the six-foot wall be provided and that it be actually
six feet from the highest property elevation.
Councilman Sneegas exhorted boti~ parties to use good sense and attempt to
find a compromise agreement which would be to the benefit of all. lte pointed
out that two fences back-to-back would not create the best situation for either
the residential property owners or tl~e developer.
City Hallx Anaheim~ California - COUi~CIL ~iIi'~UTES - Sept..ember 3,3~ 1975.~ 1:30 P.~'4.
RESOLUTION NO. 75R-519: Councilman Seymour offered Resolution 2~o. 75R-519 for
adoption.
Refer to Resolution Book.
A RESOLUTIO~ OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF Tile CITY OF A.~';AHEL'~! OECI~%RING ITS Ii~TEP~TION
TO VACATE CERTAIN REAL PIiOP~RTY AND FIXING A DATE FOR I~EAiilNG THLREO~,~. (Gain
Street between Chain Street and the northerly boundary of Tract No. 6991;
November 1~8, 1975, 2:30 P.M.)
Roll Call Vote:
AYES; COUNCIL MEi~ERS: Kaywood, Seymour, Pebiey, Sneegas and Thom
i~OES: COUNCIL ~{~IBERS: None
ABSE~T: COUNCIL ~.~,~BEKS: None
The ~.-layor declared Resolution No. 75R-519 duly passed and adopted.
~Ir. DeCell interjected several comments and questions relative to the
abandonment procedure itself and details such as the removal of curbs and
gutters and drainage, and was assured by Council i[embers that he would have
ample opportunity to discuss his concerns and to present petitions at the
abandonment heari[~%.
Councilman Seymour left the Council Chamber. (4:03 P.M.)
AWAI~ OF CONTRACT - WORK ORDER NO. 1255: In reply to Councilwoman Kaywood, the
City Engineer recommended that the low bid submitted by James H. Kitchens be
rejected and that the award be made to the second low bidder, Brage
Constructi. on Company, Inc. Mr. Maddox advised that the James ~i. Kitchens
representative indicated he was accustomed to bidding on the basis of pipe in
place, including resurfacing, and he inadvertently subtracted $2.00 per linear foot
from the pipe cost, which caused the significant difference between his bid and the
others submitted. Mr. Maddox advised that they attempted to obtain working
papers to substantiate this statement, but were unable to do so because the
calculations were made on a pocket calculator, however they are inclined to
believe this statement since there is such a difference between the Kitchens' '
bid and the remaining bids which tend to be in the same range.
RESOLUTION NO. 75R-520: In accordance with the recommendation of the City
Engineer, Councilwoman Kaywood offered Resolution No. 75R-520 for adoption.
Refer to Resolution Book.
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF TtiL CITY OF A~kHEIM ACCEPTING A SEALED PRO-
POSAL AND AWAPdDING A COI%~rRACT TO TI{E LOWEST RESPONSIBLE BIDDER FOR TIlE FURNISH-
Ii.~G OF ALL PLANT, .LABOR, SERVICES, MATERIALS AND EQUIPMENT AND ALL UTILITIES
A~ TiPE]SPORTATION, INCLUDING POWER, FUEL Ab~ WATER, AND PERFORI4ING ALL WORK
NECESSARY TO CONSTRUCT AND COMPLETE Tile FOLLOWING PUBLIC I~[PROVE/~Ei'~T; THE
i~'!OI{LER DRIVE AND COUI~I'RY HILL ROAD SEWER L'fPROVDIENT, IN TtiE CI2~f OF A~NAHEIi~,I,
WOIIK OILDER NO. 1255. (Brage Construction Company, Inc. - $5~,706.Z0)
Roll Call Vote:
AYES: COUNCIL ME~IBERS: Kaywood, Pebley, Sneegas and Thom
NOES: COUNCIL MD~ERS: None
~i~POF~kRILY ABSEi~: COUNCIL M~{BERS: Seymour
ABSEi~: COUNCIL M~IBERS: None
The Mayor declared Resolution No. 75R-529 duly passed and adopted.
PURChaSE OF E~UIPMEI~ - ONE SUBCOMPACT AUTOMOBILE: The Interim Assistant City
~anager reported on informal bids received for the purchase of one three-door
subcompact automobile for use by the Customer Service Division and evaluation
by the ~{echanical ~intenance Division. He recommended acceptance of the low
bid submitted by Anaheim American Motors.
On motion by Councilman Pebley, seconded by Councilman Sneegas, the low
bid of Anaheim American Motors was accepted and purchase authorized in the
amount of $3,399.63, including tax. Councilman Seymour temporarily absent.
~[OTIOi~ CARRIED.
75-892
City ttal!~ Anaheim~ California COU:~CIL ,'-II~,[UT]']S - ~oeptem~er ~0~ 197 ~ ....
OPd)INAJ~CE NO. 3465: Councilman Thom offered Or~-]~.nance >lo. 3,'~65 for adoption.
Refer to Ordinance Book.
Ai~ ORDINANCE OF THE CI~ OF ANAHEI>~ ~Ei,~]3I]'~G TITLE 1.~ OF T~E ANAHEI~,I ~{Ui~ICIPAL
CODE RELATIi~G TO ZONING. (72-73-4~ (1), 11S-72q9)
Roll Call Vote:
AYES: COUNCIL MEiIBEiIS: Kaywood, Pebley, Sneegas and Thom
NOES: COUNCIL 2{E!'.'~ERS: i'~one
IIPOPu~RILY ABSENT: COUNCIL I,I~'~ERS: Seymour
ABSENT: COUNCIL II~'IBERS: None
The ~.layor declared Ordinance No. 75465 duly passed and adopted.
ORDIt.~AiICE NO. 3466: Councilman Sneegas offered Ordinance ~4o. 3460 for adoption.
Refer to Ordinance Book.
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CI2Y OF ANAItEI>I ~[ENDING TITLE 1S OF THE ANAIiEIi,I ~,~NICIPAL
CODE RELATING TO ZONING. (74-75-35, RS-A-43,000, Frontera No. 1 Annexation)
Roll Call Vote:
AYES: COUNCIL ME~.~ERS: Kaywood, Pebley, Sneegas and Thom
NOES: COUNCIL M~.{BERS: None
5'IPO~ILY ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Seymour
ABSEi~: COUNCIL MEi,~ERS: None
The Mayor declared Ordinance 2,Io. 3466 duly passed and adopted.
Councilman Se~our returned to the Council Chamber. (4:63 P.M.)
ORDINanCE NO. 3467: Councilman Pebley offered Ordinance i'4o. 3467 for adoption.
Refer to Ordinance Book.
Ai~ ORDIi~ANCE OF THE CI~ OF ANAitEIi~i ~'IE!]DIi~G TITLE 13 OF TtiE ANAtlEII. i i~i,~ICIPAL
CODE RELATING TO ZONING. (65-66-63 (5), C-O)
Roll Call Vote:
AYES: COUNCIL MEi~ERS: ~ywood, Se~our, Pebley, Sneegas and Thom
NOES: COUNCIL MEiIBERS: None
ABSEi~T: COUNCIL M~IBERS: None
The Mayor declared Ordinance No. 3467 duly passed and adopted.
OP~Ii~ANCE NO. 3468: Councilwoman Kaywood offered Ordinance No. 346S for
adoption.
Refer to Ordinance Book.
AN 0P~INANCE 0F TIlE GI~ 0F ANAHEIm'! ~Ei{DING TITLE 18 OF THE ANAtiEIH ~'~NICIPAL
CODE RE~TING TO ZONING. (70-71-59 (1), RS-A-43,O00, Orangethorpe-Nixon
Freeway Annexation)
Roll Call Vote:
AYES: COUNCIL !.I~-~ERS: Kaywood, Se~our, Pebley, Sneegas and Thom
NOES: COUNCIL MEPlBERS: None
ABSEi~T: COUNCIL MEI,~ERS: None
The >Iayor declared Ordinance No. 346':i', duly passed and adopted.
OI~IN~2{CE NO. 3469: Councilman Sneegas offered Ordinance No. 3469 for first r cad ing.
75-893
City liall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - September 30, 1975, 1:30 P.M.
Ai~ ORDIi~ANCE OF TliE CITY OF AiiAHEIM REPEALING TITLE 6, Ct~,PTEF. 6.60, SECTIONS
6. 60. 0~0,~-~ 6.60.050, 6.60.060 AND ADDING TIiERETO NEW SLCTIOI.~S 6. ,.~0. 020, 6..60.050
AND 0.60.060 OF THE ANAHEIH i~[UNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO FLIES.
ORDIi~ANCE NO. 3470: Councilman Sneegas offered Ordinance ~o. 347o for first
read lng.
AN ORDINANCE OF TIlE CI2~f OF ANAHEI~ Ai{ENDIi~G TITLE 1[; OF Till ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL
CODE RELATING TO ZONING. (65-6~,-24 (20), ML)
OtlDIliANCE NO. 3471: Councilman Sneegas offered Ordinance No. 3471 for first
reading.
AN ORDINANC£ OF THE CI~fY OF ANAliEI;.[ AMLNDING TITLE 15 OF TiYL ANAHEIi'.I I'~NICIPAL
CODE RELATINC TO ZONING. (73-74-6.0, Pall-1200)
OFF-SITL TPJkCT SIGNS: Councilwoman Kaywood suggested that the City investigate
the advisability of increasing the bond amounts to be posted for removal of
off-site tract signs since, as it has been disclosed previously, the $100
presently required does not even cover the cost of removal. She voiced the
opittion that a higher bond amount would provide some incentive for thc
developer to remove his own signs.
Following brief discussion, by general consent the Council directed staff
to investigate the costs ~f using City forces to remove off-site tract signs
and make recommendations as to whether or not the amount of the $100 cash bond
should be increased.
STATUS OF REVISED FLOOD IhIZARD AREA MAPS: In response to Councilwoman Kaywood's
comment that the City of Santa Aha nad received their revised maps,
Hr. Don HcDaniel reported that he had con~acted the consultant,
~.lichael Baker, Jr., yesterday and was advised that the City should receive the
maps by the end of the week.
Following brief discussion relative to what efforgs the City might take
toward securing these revised maps, on motion by Councilman Seymour, seconded
by Councilman Thom, Councilwoman Kaywood was auti~orized to call the Office of
the President, collect, to express the frustrations experienced by tee City
Council in this matter. MOTION CARRIED.
ANAhEIi[ CltA~IBEK OF COi.fi,~ERCE - RESOLUTION: Councilwoman Kaywood read a resolution
received from the Anaheim Chamber of Commerce which recognizes their responsi-
bility in aiding the City Council to seek an alternative to the Admission-
~nusement Tax.
PEi~iISSIOi; TO LEAVE THE STATE - COUNCII~LAN SEYMOUR: On motion by Councilman
Pebley, seconded by Councilman Thom, Councilman Seymour was granted permission
to leave the State for 90 days. HOTION CARRIED.
i(LCESS - ~,ECUTIVE SESSION; Councilman Sneegas moved to recess to Lxecutive
Session. Councilman Pebley seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. (4:10 P.M.)
AFTER RECESS: Mayor Thom called the meeting to order, all i.lembers of the City
Council being present. (4:29 P.M.)
AOJOUKNilENT; Councilwoman Kaywood moved to adjourn to Thursday, October 2, 1975,
7:00 P.M., at the ~.ianagement Control Center. Councilman Sey~aour seconded the
motion. MOTION CARRIED.
Adjourned: 4:30 P.H.
ALO:[A H. HOUGARD, CI~f CLERK
Deputy