Loading...
1971/08/0371-464 City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - AuMust 3, 1971, 1:30 P,M. The City Council of the City of Anaheim met in regular session. PRESENT: ABSENT: PRE SENT: COUNCILMEN: Roth, Pebley and Stephenson COUNCILMEN: Thom and Dutton CITY MANAGER: Keith A. ~rdoch CITY ATTORNEY: Joseph B. Geisler CITY CLERK: Dene M. Daoust CITY ENGINEER: James P. Maddox ASSISTANT DIRECTOR OF DEVELOPMENT SERVICES: Ronald Thompson Mayor Pro Tem Stephenson called the meeting to order. INVOCATION: Captain Sundin, of the Salvation Army, gave the Invocation. FLAG SALUTE: Councilman Don R. Roth led the Assembly in the Pledge of Alle- giance to the Flag. MINUTES: Approval of the Minutes of the Anaheim City Council meetings held July 20 and 27, 1971, was deferred to the next regular meeting. WAIVER OF READING - ORDINANCES AND RESOLUTIONS: Councilman Pebley moved to waive the readtngtn full of all ordinances and resolutions, and that consent to the waiver of reading is hereby given by all Councilmen, unless after reading of the title, specific request is made by a Councilman for the reading of such ordinance or resolution. Councilman Roth seconded the motion.. P~DTION UNANI- MOUSLY CARRIED. REPORT - FINANCIAL DEMANDS AGAINST THE CITY: Demands against the City, in the amount of $1,076.053.98, in accordance with the 1971-72 Budget, were approved. PUBLIC HEARING - ABANDONMENT NO. 70-10A: Public hearing was held on proposed aban- donment of an existing dedicated roadway, commonly known as Citrus View Drive, initiated by the Engineering Division, pursuant to Resolution No. 71R-308, duly published in the Anaheim Bulletin and notices thereof posted in accordance with law. The report of the City Engineer was submitted recommending approval. Mayor Pro Tem Stephenson asked if anyone wished to address the Coun- cil; there being no response, declared the hearing closed. RESOLUTION NO. 71R-346: Councilman Pebley offered Resolution No. 71R-346 for adoption, approving Abandonment No. 70-10A, as recommended by the City Engin- eer. Refer to Resolution Book. A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM ORDERING THE VACATION AND ABANDONMENT OF PORTIONS OF CERTAIN REAL PROPERTY DESCRIBED HEREIN AND RE- SERVING THEREFROM A CERTAIN EASEMENT FOR PUBLIC UTILITY PURPOSES. (No.70-10A) Roll Call Vote: AYES: COUNCILMEN: NOES: COUNCILMEN: AB SENT: COb-NC TLMEN: Roth, Pebley and Stephenson None Thom and Dutton The Mayor Pro Tem declared Resolution No. 71R-346 duly passed and adopted. MOTION: On motion by Councilman Roth, seconded by Councilman Stephenson, the required filing fee for this abandonment was waived. MOTION CARRIED. PUBLIC HEARING - ABANDONMENT NO. 70-12A: Public hearing was held on proposed aban- donment of existing public utility easement located 330 feet,more or less,east of State College Boulevard, south of South Street, requested by Jerry King, pursuant to Resolution No. 71R-309, duly published in the Anaheim Bulletin and notices thereof posted in accordance with law. Report of the City Engin- eer was submitted, reconm~ending approval. Mayor Pro Tem Stephenson asked if anyone wished to address the Coun- cil; there being no response, declared the hearing closed. 71-465 City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - August 3, 1971, 1;30 P.M. _RESOLUTION NO. 71R-347: Councilman Roth offered Resolution No. 71R-347 for adoption, approving Abandonment No. 70-12A, as recon~nended by the City Engin- eer. Refer to Resolution Book. A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM ORDERING THE VACATION AND ABANDONMENT OF PORTIONS OF CERTAIN REAL PROPERTY DESCRIBED HEREIN. (No. 70-12A) Roll Call Vote: AYES: COUNCILMEN: NOES: COUNCILMEN: ABSENT: COUNCILMEN: Roth, Pebley and Stephenson None Thom and Dutton The Mayor Pro Tem declared Resolution No. 71R-347 duly passed and adopted. PUBLIC HEARING - AREA DEVELOPMENT PLAN NO. 45: To reconsider Area Development Plan No. 45, proposing to extend Hilda Street from its present terminus to Sunkist Street. The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC71-122, recommended approval of said Area Development Plan, in accordance with Exhib- it "A", which indicated an extension of Hilda Street to Sunkist Street, but at no precise location. Assistant Director of Development Services Ronald Thompson noted the location and briefed the Council on the background of said Area Develop- ment Plan. He added that the City Planning Cormmission had felt Exhibit "N', which is a general alignment only, showing Hilda Street ultimately connected to Sunkist Street at such time as the property is developed, ~uld best ex- press the desires for providing circulation and drainage in the area, and would eliminate the need for providing a turn-around for fire equipment. Councilman Roth expressed agreement with Exhibit "A" and added that he did not think an open culvert to Ball Road for drainage was satisfactory. cil. Mayor Pro Tem Stephenson asked if anyone wished to address the Coun- A.R. McDaniel, 500 North Anaheim Boulevard, Civil Engineer represent- ing Albert S. Toussau, owner of the property covered by Area Development Plan No. 45, alleged this property constitutes somewhat of a hardship case, since applications for development of apartment houses and residential uses over the past several years have run into roadblocks. He added that some of the proposals have not incorporated Hilda Street going through to Sunkist Street, since area residents preferred it that way, and the City Planning Staff had conceded that the area could be adequately served for safety protection, etc. by construction of a modified cul-de-sac at the end of Hilda Street. Mr. McDaniel advised that recently two develoPers, knowing apartment house developments had been denied on the property, backed out of single-family development proposals that showed Hilda Street extended through, because they felt the implications of the Freeway, Ball Road and extended Sunkist Street traffic made it undesirable for single-family residential development. He added that if the street did go through and the property ultimately developed for apartments, there would be a poor mix of traffic between high and low- density residential. Referring to the drainage problem, Mr. McDaniel advised the owner has no objection to providing adequate and complete drainage facilities at the time the property is developed. He requested Area Development Plan No. 45,requiring extension of Hilda Street, be disapproved. 71-466 City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - August 3, 1971, 1:30 P.M. Councilman Pebley suggested that, because there is R-1 development to the north and east of subject property, the best solution would be R-3 development south of the proposed extension of Hilda Street, and R-1 north of it. He noted that Mr. Toussau also had owned the property fronting on Ball Road for which he was granted C-1 zoning for a service station and some commercial use. He stated he believed that in designing the present stubbed Hilda Street at the time the R-1 development was built, Mr. MeDaniel, the en- gineer, had intended the street ultimately would be extended through to Sun- kist Street, otherwise, a cul-de-sac would have been provided, even though it would have meant the loss of one R-1 lot for development. Mr. McDaniel agreed this was correct; however, he noted that time brings changes and there are other stub streets in Anaheim where modifications have since been allowed. Albert Toussau, Post Office Box K, Piru, California, contended there was a definite hardship in connction with his property and he thought it was not getting the consideration it deserved. He stated the drainage situation was approved 8 years ago, at the time of development of the adjoining property, and that the present ditch is covered up to the property owned by the State as the open ditch is located on State property. Mr. Toussau advised he had tried to cooperate with residents of the adjoining properties, without success; that the agricultural use of his property had been lost because of other uses made of the surrounding property, and also the well site had been lost, and thus he was being adversely affected economi- cally. He added he did not think a good developer would be interested in Coun- cilman Pebley's suggestion and he felt all the property should be zoned R-3. Councilman Pebley stated that inasmuch as Mr. Toussau had not sold this property at the time the adjoining R-1 was developed, perhaps he had gam- bled that he could get more than the then-going rate of $8,000.00 per acre, and the Council could not now act contrary to good planning for the sole pur- pose of assuring a higher value for him. Mr. Toussau countered that he had made every effort to develop the property to conform with the desires of the City, and the plan of Mr. Gittle- son without the street being extended was approved by the City Council. Mr. Gittleson withdrew his proposal when it was learned the City granted R-3 zoning on the property across Sunkist Street. He added that he would be willing to accept a combination R-3 and Commercial Zoning on his property, although he could not give a 30-foot buffer zone on the residential side. Mrs. Ann Madison, 600 South Harbor Boulevard, Realtor, verified Mr. Toussau's statement that two developers had backed out of their escrows on subject property because they did not feel the property could be developed economically for R-1 use. She recalled that Area Development Plan No. 45, showing Hilda Street extending though to Sunkist Street was disapproved at one time, and thus de- velopers had drawn up plans accordingly, which were denied; had the developers known the Council would reverse their position and require the extension of Hilda Street, they would not have gone to such expense. Mrs. Madison stated that engineers have investigated the drainage ~i~ua~ion and declared the present £acility adequate; that it was stagnant water not being able to flow into the drain because of eucalyptus tree leaves that was creating the odors. She added that when the proposed Orange Freeway is constructed in the immediate future, the problem of the open culvert on State property would be taken care of. 71-467 City Hall, A~heim, California - COUNCIL ~INIr~gS - AuRust 3. 1971, 1:30 She also stated that she believed the proposal by :the last poten- tial developer was a good one, in that a crash gate would be installed to take care of the problem of fast access to Hilda Street by emergency vehicles. Mayor Pro Tem Stephenson asked if anyone else wished to address the Council; there being no response, declared the hearing closed. Councilman Roth stated he could see no objection to R-3 Zoning south of extended Hilda Street. The City Attorney advised that this hearing is only for the purpose of providing circulation for the area and reclassification of the property was not before the Council. In reply to Councilman Pebley's query on whether at one time appro- val had been granted for development of this entire property of approximately 8 acres, without the requirement that Hilda Street be extended through, Mr. Thompson advised that a proposal had been approved for development of an R-1 project of 6,000-square foot lots, which showed a modified cul-de-sac at the terminus of Hilda Street, and another cul-de-sac street off Sunkist Street to serve the new tract; a subsequent application for R-3 development was denied and at that time the Area Development Plan study was ordered. He added that another R-1 development was approved, but the accom- panying Area Development Plan, showing Hilda Street extended though, was de- nied, principally because area residents did not want the street extended. Councilman Stephenson stated he believed extending Hilda Street through was the only practical solution for public convenience and safety. Mr. McDaniel again asked that no decision be made to extend Hilda Street through to Sunkist Street at this time, but that the decision await a specific proposal by a developer. Mr. Geisler reiterated that the action under consideration at this time is for a plan for a proper method of development only, to allow future developers to know how the Council at this time would prefer to have circu- lation provided, and was not a proposal that the City extend the street im- mediately; that it is permissible for a potential developer to propose al- ternate solutions at any time. Mr. Toussau stated that since nobody has appeared in favor of the extension of Hilda Street, it is evident that area residents do not want the street extended. He added that he would be willing to give the City a portion of his property for a cul-de-sac if the City desired to develop it. RESOLUTION NO. 71R-348: Councilman Roth offered Resolution No. 71R-348 for adoption, approving Area Development Plan No. 45, in accordance with Exhibit "A", as recommended by the City Planning Commission. Refer to Resolution Book. A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM APPROVING AREA DEVEL- OPMENT PLAN NO. 45, EXHIBIT "A". Roll Call Vote: AYES: COUNCILMEN: NOES: COUNCILMEN: ABSENT: COUNCILMEN: Roth, Pebley and Stephenson None Thom and Dutton The Mayor Pro Tem declared Resolution No. 71R-348 duly passed and adopted. PUBLIC HEARING - AREA DEVELOPMENT PLAN NO. 108~ To c~nsider Area Development Plan No. 108, regarding vehicular access and circulation proposals for that area bounded by Kraemer Boulevard on the east, La Palma Avenue on the north, and the Riverside Freeway on the south. 71-468 C~ity Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - AuKust 3, 1971, 1:30 P.M. The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC71-123, recmmuended approval of said Area Development Plan, in accordance with Exhibit "D" Modified. Assistant Director of Development Services Ronald Thompson, advised that a number of property owners in the 80-acre area affected by this Area Development Plan are in the process of discussing potential uses for their property, and thus it was deemed desirable to have a plan of streets to avoid some fu~ure problems. He added that at present most of the property is va- cant or has oil wells, and one parcel has an orange grove. He reviewed the alternate plans proposed and advised that in dis- cussions with property owners in the area they had indicated agreement with Exhibit "D"; that the City Planning Commission had approved Exhibit "D" modi- fied to delete the 90-degree intersection at White Star and La Palma Avenues, and at White Star Avenue and the proposed frontage road. Mayor Pro Tem Stephenson asked if anyone wished to address the City Council. Carrie Coykendall, 15332 East La Palma Avenue, owner of 15.5 acres of subject property, advised that they donated the property for White Star proposedly to create a corner, and with the modification of Exhibit "D" eliminating the two 90-degree intersections, she now approved; however, she was concerned about when the proposed frontage road would be required. She was assured by the Council that the frontage road would not be required until such time as the property was developed. Mayor Pro Tem Stephenson asked if anyone else wished to address the Council; there being no response, declared the hearing closed. RESOLUTION NO. 71R-349:. Councilman Pebley offered Resolution No. 71R-349 for adoption, approving Area Development Plan No. 108, in accordance with Ex- hibit "D" Modified, as recommended by the City Planning Cormnission. Refer to Resolution Book. A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM APPROVING AREA DEVELOPMENT PLAN NO. 108, EXHIBIT "D" MODIFIED. Roll Call Vote: AYES: COUNCILMEN: NOES: COUNCILMEN: ABSENT: COUNCILMEn: Roth, Pebley and Stephenson None Thom and Dutton The Mayor Pro Tem declared Resolution No. 71R-349 duly passed and adopted. PUBLIC HEARING - RECLASSIFICATION NO. 70-71-61 AND VARIANCE NO. 2271: Submitted by Jennie L. Dinkler, requesting a change of zone from R-A(O) to R-3, to es- tablish a 96-unit apartment complex on one lot, and a 97-unit apartment on the second lot located on the south side of Frontera Street, west of Armando Street, with waivers of: a. Maximum building height within 150 feet of R-A zoned property. b. Minimum distance between buildings. ¢. Maximum distance from a garage to a unit. The City Clerk advised that inasmuch as Councilman Roth had indi- cated he would abstain from voting on said reclassification and variance, and requested a continuance to August 10, 1971, to allow enough Councilmen to be present for the necessary vote, it would be advisable to take action at this time so that any interested persons in the audience would not be required to wait. On motion by Councilman Pebley, seconded by Councilman Stephenson, Reclassification No. 70-71-61 and Variance No. 2271 were continued to August 10, 1971, 1:30 P.M. MOTIO~ CARRIED. 71-469 C~tty Hall, Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - AuRust 3. 1971, 1:30 P.M. PUBLIC HEARING - RECLASSIFICATION No. 70-71-59; Initiated by the City Planning Co~m, ission for a change of zone from County of Orange Al, to City of Anaheim R-A, on property located north of Orangethorpe Avenue, west of Imperial High- way, and east of Concerto Drive. (A portion of Adobe Wall Annexation). The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC71-124, recon~aended said reclassification be approved, subject to the following con- dition: 1. That these reclassification proceedings are granted subject to the completion of annexation of subject property to the City of Anaheim. Assistant Director of Development Services Ronald Thompson noted the location of subject property. Mayor Pro Tem Stephenson asked if anyone wished to address the City Council; there being no response, declared the hearing closed. RESOLUTION NO. 71R-350. Councilman Roth offered Resolution No. 71R-350 for adoption, authorizing preparation of necessary ordinance changing the zone as recommended by the City Planning Co~ission. Refer to Resolution Book. A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM FINDING AND. DETERMIN- ING THAT TITLE 18 OF THE ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO ZONING SHOULD BE AMENDED AND THAT THE BOUNDARIES OF CERTAIN ZONES SHOULD BE CHANGED. (70-71- 59 - R-A) Roll Call Vote: AYES: COUNCILMEN: NOES: COUNCILMEN: ABSENT: COUNCILMEN: Roth, Pebley and Stephenson None Thom and Dutton The Mayor Pro Tem declared Resolution No. 71R-350 duly passed and adopted. PUBLIC HEARING - RECLASSIFICATION NO. 70-71-60 AND VARIANCE NO. 2273: Submitted by Ernest A. Collins, requesting a change of zone from R-A to R-l, to sub- divide subject property into two lots. Property located on the north side of Santa Ana Street, west of Bond Street; and further described as 1421 East Santa Aha Street, with waiver of: a. Minimum required lot width. The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC71-128, recommended said reclassification be approved subject to the following condi- tions: 1. That the owner of subject property shall deed to the City of Anaheim a strip of land 32 feet in width from the centerline of the street along Santa Aha Street, for street widening purposes. 2. That all engineering requirements of the City of A~ahetm alon~ Santa Aha Street, including preparation of improvement plans and installation of all improvements, such as curbs and gutters, sidewalks, street grading and paving, drainage facilities, or other appurtenant work shall be 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; and that a bond in an amount and form satisfactory to the City of Anaheim shall be posted with the City to guarantee the installation of the above-~entioned require- ment. 3. That the owner of subject property shall pay to the City of Anaheim the sum of 15¢ per front foot along Santa Aha Street, for tree plant- ing purposes. 4. That subject property shall be served by underground utilities. 71-470 City Hall, Anaheim, California . COUNCIL MIN~ES - August 3. 1971, 1:30 P.M, 5. 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 by the City Council, said fees to be paid at the time the building permit is issued. 6. Prior to the introduction of an ordinance rezoning subject property, Condition Nos. 1, 2, and 3, above mentioned, shall be completed. The provisions or rights granted by this resolution shall become null and void by action of the City Council unless said conditions are complied with within 180 days from the date hereof, or such further time as the City Coun- cil may grant. 7. That Condition No. 4, above mentioned, shall be complied with prior to final building and zoning inspections. The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC71-129, granted said variance, subject to the following conditions: 1. That this variance is granted subject to the completion of Re- classification No. 70-71-60. 2. That subject property shall be developed substantially in ac- cordance with plans and specifications on file with the City of Anaheim mar- ked Exhibit No. 1. 3. That a parcel map to record the approved division of subject property shall be submitted to and approved by the City of Anaheim and then be recorded in the office of the Orange County Recorder. 4. That Condition Nos. 1, 2, and 3, above mentioned, shall be com- plied with prior to final building and zoning inspections. Assistant Director'of Development Services Ronald Thompson noted the location of subject property, and advised that the Applicant proposes to subdivide the property into two lots with 62-foot and 63-foot frontages on Santa Aha Street, and advised that the City Planning Commission felt the re- quested zoning was in conformance with the basic land uses in the area. Mayor Pro Tem Stephenson asked if the Applicant or his Agent was present and concurred with the recommendations of the City Planning Commis- sion, to which he received an affirmative reply. Mayor Pro Tem Stephenson asked if anyone wished to address the Coun- cil in opposition; there being no response, declared the hearing closed. RESOLUTION NO. 71R-351: Councilman Roth offered Resolution No. 71R-351 for adoption, authorizing preparation of necessary ordinance changing the zone as requested, subject to the conditions recommended by the City Planning Com- mission. Refer to Resolution Book. A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM FINDING AND DETER- MINING THAT TITLE 18 OF THE ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO ZONING SHOULD BE AMENDED AND THAT THE BOUNDARIES OF CERTAIN ZONES SHOULD BE CHANGED. (70-71-60 - R-I) Roll Call Vote: AYES: COUNCILMEN: NOES: COUNCILMEN: ABSENT: COUNCII~: Roth, Pebley and Stephenson None Thom and Dutton The Mayor Pro Tem declared Resolution No. 71R-351 duly passed and adopted. RESOLUTION NO. 71R-352: Councilman Roth offered Resolution No. 71R-352 for adoption, granting Variance No. 2273, subject to the conditions recommended by the City Planning CO~ission. Refer to Resolu~ion Book. 71-471 City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - AuKust 3, 1971., 1130 P.M, A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM GRANTING VARIANCE NO. 2273. Roll Call Vote: AYES: COUNCILMEN: NOES: COUNCILMEN: ABSENT: COUNCILMEN: Roth, Pebley and Stephenson None Thom and Dutton The Mayor Pro Tem declared Resolution No. 71R-352 duly passed and adopted. PUBLIC HEARING - RECLASSIFICA%ION NO, 70-71-62: Initiated by the City Planning Commission, to establish the Scenic Corridor Overlay Zone on properties in the Santa Aha Canyon within the existing boundaries of the City of Anaheim; more particularly all those properties in an area bounded by the Atchison, Topeka and Santa Fe Railroad right-of-way on the north, a line parallel with and one-half mile south of Santa Ana Canyon Road on the south, a line running north and south from the intersection of the Newport and Riverside Freeways on the west, and the Orange County line on the east. The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC71-132 recommended said reclassification be approved unconditionally. The City Clerk submitted correspondence from the City of Orange, stating no recommendation on said reclassification. Assistant Director of Development Services Ronald Thompson sugges- ted Reclassification No. 70-71-63 be considered at the same time since they both are concerned with the Scenic Corridor Overlay Zone. RECLASSIFICATION NO. 70-71-63: Initiated by the City Planning Commission, to estab- lish the Scenic Corridor Overlay Zone on properties previously described and located in the Santa Ana Canyon in the unincorporated portions of the County of Orange; more particularly all those properties presently located in an area bounded by the Atchison, Topeka and Santa Fe Railroad right-of-way on the north, the Orange County line on the east, a line parallel with and one-half mile south of Santa Aha Canyon Road on the south, and a line running north and south from the intersection of the Newport and Riverside Freeways. The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC71-133, recommended said reclassification be approved, subject to the following con- dition: 1. That these reclassification proceedings are granted subject to annexation of the property to the City of Anaheim. Mr. Thompson advised that Reclassification No. 70-71-62 would place the Scenic Corridor Overlay Zone on those Anaheim properties within the Scenic Corridor, and Reclassification No. 70-71-63 would prezone the Scenic Corridor Overlay Zone on thoseproperties within the Scenic Corridor all the way to the County line that are County territory not yet annexed to any city. He added that the proposed actions would implement the Scenic Corri- dor Overlay Zone previously approved by the Council, and would allow the Staff to recommend removal of many of the conditions that were imposed on individual reclassifications in the area and add the Scenic Corridor Zone to the existing zone approval, as is presently done with the "O" Zone; Oil Production, a Com- bining Zone. Mayor Pro Tem Stephenson asked if anyone wished to address the City Council. Chester Whttten, 509 North Bradford, Placentia, owner of 7 acres of property at the rear of the Peralta School, requested, and Mr. Thompson provided, an explanation of how the Scenic Corridor Overlay Zone would require certain standards at the time such property is developed. 71-472 Cit Hall Anaheim California - COUNCIL MINUTES - Au m~ 3 1971 1:30 P.M. Mr. Thompson advised that in commercial and residential uses, such property has a larger setback requirement; however, that setback can be used to provide some of the necessary parking space. He offered to provide to Mr. Whitten a copy of the Scenic Corridor Overlay Zone regulations for his information. Mr. Whitten stated that if this zone will impede development of his property he would be against it. Mr. Thompson advised that, in his opinion, most developers felt that it would not impede development. James G. Stroop, 4127 Weik Avenue, Bell, owner of two acres near Walnut Canyon, which he plans to develop as his home, asked if there was any coordination between the City of Anaheim on their Scenic Corridor Overlay Zone, and Orange County's proposal for a Scenic Corridor from the ocean through Orange County. Mr. Thompson advised it was anticipated m~st of the property in question ultimately would be within the jurisdiction of the City of Anaheim. The City Attorney advised that if Mr. Stroop developed his pro- perty according to County standards, while still a part of the County, or if development was begun before annexation to Anaheim, that development could be completed and remain according to County standards~ He added that since there are no sewer facilities available in the County pro- perty, it might be better to annex to the City of Anaheim and develop ac- cording to Anaheim standards. Mr. Thompson advised the requirements of the County "Green-Belt Area" do differ from the Anaheim Scenic Corridor Overlay Zone. Mr. Stroop stated he felt the two plans should be coordinated, and the standards of the City and County be the same. Mrs. Kenneth Burnap, President of the Anaheim-Garden Grove League of Women Voters, advised their organization supports the Scenic ~orridor Overlay Zone. Reg Wood, 824 North Broadway, Santa Aha, representing Interpace Corporation, advised they own 1,610 acres of property at the east end of the Scenic Corridor Overlay Zone, almost abutting the County line, and that he also was representing the 684 acres owned by Minim, on the County line. He advised that his company had concurred with the 1965 Hill and Canyon General Plan, and had been proposing to develop their entire 1,610 acres at one time, accordingly. Mr. Wood stated that since they had only learned of the Scenic Corridor Overlay Zone proposal through a telephone call from New Jersey a week earlier, he did not feel sufficiently informed to discuss the issue, particularly since a good deal of their property and the Minim property is straight up and down hills. He referred to the requirement of a half-mile setback along the Scenic Corridor, and was advised the half- mile mentioned was the length of the Scenic Corridor and not setback require- ments, and that landscaping is required on slopes only if it is something other than a natural slope. Mr. Wood advised they presently are developing a Master Plan for some 12,000 acres of property they own on the north side of the Santa Aha Canyon, and they hope a regional airport will be constructed in the area. He also reminded the Council that the United Statem Army Corps of Engineers has recon~nended raising Prado Dam 39 feet, whtch would have an effect on the Corridor and other developments, in his opinion. He stated he did not feel qualified at this time to state whether his company was for or against the Scenic Corridor Overlay Zone; however, since they do subscribe to the Hill and Canyon General Plan, if there is no conflict between the two they would be willing to go along with this proposal. 71-473 City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - August 3, 197%, 1:30 P.M. Mr. Mnrdoch suggested that, inasmuch as those property owners in the area not yet annexed to Anaheim evidently did not have sufficient infor- mation on the Scenic Corridor Overlay Zone, it might be advisable to continue these public hearings to allow those property owners to familiarize themselves with the proposal. On motion by Councilman Pebley, seconded by Councilman Roth, public hearings on Reclassifications Nos. 70-71-62 and 70-71-63 were continued to August 24, 1971, 1:30 P.M., as reconvnended. Mr. Thompson offered to have the Development Services Department explain the Scenic Corridor Overlay Zone proposal to those present who wished it. RECESS: Councilman Roth moved for a five-minute Recess. Councilman Pebley seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. (3:00 P.M.). AFTER RECESS: Mayor Pro Tem Stephenson called the meeting to order, all Councilmen being present, with the exception of Councilmen Thom and Dutton. (3:10 P.M.) TENTATIVE TRACTS NOS. 7137, REVISION NO. 4, 7450 AND 7449 - RECONSIDERATION: TENTATIVE TRACT NO. 7137, REVISION NO. 4: Developer - J.W. Klug Development Company. Property located between Esperanza Road and the Santa Aha River Chan- nel, east of Imperial Highway, containing 278 proposed R-2-5,000 zoned lots. The City Planning Co~nission, by Motion, at their June 2, 1971 meet- approved said Tentative Map, subject to the following conditions: 1. That approval of Tentative Map of Tract No. 7137, Revision No. 4, is granted subject to the completion of Reclassification No. 69-70-25. 2. That should this subdivision be developed as more than one sub- division, each subdivision thereof shall be submitted in tentative form for approval. 3. That in accordance with City Council policy, a 6-foot masonry wall shall be constructed on the south property line separating Lot Nos. 26 through 38 and 148 through 155 and La Palma Avenue; that a 6-foot masonry wall shall be constructed on the property line (toe of the slope) between Fairmont Boulevard and Lot Nos. 11 through 26 and Lot Nos. 38 through 55. Reasonable landscaping, including irrigation facilities, shall be installed in the uncemented portion of the arterial highway parkway the full distance of said wall, plans for said landscaping to be submitted to and subject to the approval of the Superintendent of Parkway Maintenance. Following instal- lation and acceptance, the City of Anaheim shall assume the responsibility for maintenance of said landscaping. 4. That the vehicular access rights, except at street and/or alley openings, to La Palma Avenue and Fairmont Boulevard shall be dedicated to the City of Anaheim. 5. That all lots within this tract shall be served by underground utilities. 6. That a final tract map of subject property shall be submitted to and approved by the City Council and then be recorded in the office of the Orange County Recorder. 7. That street names shall be approved by the' City of Anaheim prior to approval of a final tract map. 8. That the alignment of La Palma Avenue and Fairmont Boulevard shall be subject to the approval of the City Engineer. 9. That the tract developer shall place the ultimate embankment for Fairmont Boulevard, and install reasonable slope landscaping, including irrigation facilities, in accordance with the requirements of the Superinten- dent of Parkway Maintenance. Following installation and acceptance the City of Anaheim shall assume the responsibility for maintenance of said landscap- ing. 10. That a 5-foot chainlink fence shall be constructed along the south side of La Palma Avenue in accordance with City of Anaheim requirements. 11. That reasonable landscaping, including irrigation facilities, shall be installed in the south parkway of La Palma Avenue. Plans for said 71-474 .~tty Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - August 3, 1971, 1:30 P.M. landscaping shall be submitted to and subject to the approval of the Park and Recreation Department. Following installation and acceptance, the City of Anaheim shall assume the responsibility for maintenance of said landscap- ing. 12. That drainage of subject tract shall be disposed of in a manner satisfactory to the City Engineer. Drainage facilities of the tract shall be adequate to accept drainage from any upstream tributary area. 13. That the owner(s) of subject property shall pay to the City of Anaheim the appropriate park and recreation in-l~eu fees as determined to be appropriate by the City Council, said fees to be paid at the time the build- ing permit is issued. 14. That Lot No. 278 shall be included in a contiguous tract, or that a parcel map shall be submitted to and approved by the City Engineer for said lot. 15. That the developer shall obtain a favorable flood hazard letter, acceptable to the City of Anaheim, from the Orange County Flood Control Dist- rict. TENTATIVE TRACT NO. 7450: Developer - J.W. Klug Development Company. Pro- perty located between Esperanza Road and the Santa Ana River Channel, east of Imperial Highway, containing 82 proposed R-2-5,000 zoned lots. The City Planning Con~nission, by Motion, at their meeting held June 2, 1971, approved said Tentative Map, subject to conditions: 1. That approval of Tentative Map of Tract No. 7450 is granted subject to the approval of Reclassification No. 69-70-25. 2. That should this subdivision be developed as more than one sub- division, each subdivision thereof shall be submitted in tentative form for approval. 3. That in accordance with City Council policy, a 6-foot masonry wall shall be constructed on the south property line separating Lot Nos. 1 through 19 and La Palma Avenue. Reasonable landscaping, including irriga- tion facilities, shall be installed in the uncemented portion of the arter- ial highway parkway the full distance of said wall, plans for said landscap- ing to be submitted to and subject to the approval of the Superintendent of Parkway Maintenance. Following installation and acceptance, the City of Ana- heim shall assume the responsibility for maintenance of said landscaping. 4. That the vehicular access rights, except at street and/or alley openings, to La Palma Avenue shall be dedicated to the City of Anaheim. 5. That all lots within this tract shall be served by underground utilities. 6. That a final tract map of subject property shall be submitted to and approved by the City Council and then be recorded in the office of the Orange County Recorder. 7. That street names shall be approved by the City of Anaheim prior to approval of a final tract map. 8. That a 5-foot chainlink fence shall be constructed along the south side of La Palma Avenue in accordance with City of Anaheim requirements. 9. That reasonable landscaping, including irrigation facilities, shall be installed in the south parkway of La Palma Avenue. Plans for said landscaping shall be submitted to and subject to the approval of the Park and Recreation Department. Following installation and acceptance, the City of Anaheim shall assume the responsibility for maintenance of said landscap- ing. 10. That drainage of subject tract shall be disposed of in a manner satisfactory to the City Engineer. Drainage facilities of the tract shall be adequate to accept drainage from any upstream tributary area. 11. That the owner(s) of subject property shall pay to the City of Anaheim the appropriate park and recreation in-lieu fees as determined to be appropriate by the City Council, said fees to be paid at the time the building permit is issued. 12. T~.at the alignment of La Palma Avenue shall be subject to the approval of the City Engineer. 13. That the developer shall obtain a favorable flood hazard let- ter, acceptable to the City of Anaheim~ from the Orange County Flood Control District. 71-475 City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL M!_NUTES - August 3, 1971, 1;30 P,M. TENTATIVE TRACT NO. 7449: Developer - J.W. Klug Development Company. Pro- perty located between Esperanza Road and the Santa Aha River Channel, east of Imperial Highway, containing 73 proposed R-2-5,000 zoned lots. The City Planning Commission, by Motion, at their meeting held June 2, 1971, approved Tentative Map, Tract No. 7449, subject to the following con- ditions: 1. That approval of Tentative Mmp of Tract No. 7449 is granted subject to the approval of Reclassification No. 69-70-25. 2. That should this subdivision be developed as more than one sub- division, each subdivision thereof shall be submitted in tentative form for approval. 3. That in accordance with City Council policy, a 6-foot masonry wall shall be constructed on the south property line separating Lot Nos. 1 through 10 and La Palma Avenue. Reasonable landscaping, including irriga- tion facilities, shall be installed in the uncemented portion of the arterial highway parkway the full distance of said wall, plans for said landscaping to be submitted to and subject to the approval of the Superintendent of Park- way Maintenance. Following installation and acceptance, the City of Anaheim shall assume the responsibility for maintenance of said landscaping. 4. That the vehicular access rights, except at street and/or alley openings, to La Palma Avenue shall be dedicated to the City of Amaheim. 5. That all lots within this tract shall be served by underground utilities. 6. That a final tract map of subject property shall be submitted to and approved by the City Council and then be recorded in the office of the Orange County Recorder. 7. That street names shall be approved by the City of A~aheim prior to approval of a final tract map. 8. That the alignment of La Palma Avenue shall be subject to the approval of the City Engineer. 9. That reasonable landscaping, including irrigation facilities, shall be installed in the south parkway of La Palma Avenue. Plans for said landscaping shall be submitted to and subject to the approval of the Park and Recreation Department. Following installation and acceptance, the City of Anaheim shall assume the responsibility for maintenance of said landscap- ing. 10. That drainage of subject tract shall be disposed of in a man- ner satisfactory to the City Engineer. Drainage facilities of the tract shall be adequate to accept drainage from any upstream tributary area. 11. That the owner(s) of subject property shall pay to the City of Anaheim the appropriate park and recreation in-lieu fees as determined to be appropriate by the City Council, said fees to be paid at the time the build- ing permit is issued. 12. That the developer shall obtain a favorable flood hazard let- ter, acceptable to the City of Anaheim, from the Orange County Flood Control District. Subject Tentative Maps were continued from the June 8 and 15, 1971 meetings to the June 22, 1971 meeting, at which time they were denied, on the basis that the report received from the Orange Flood Control District dated June 18, 1971, indicated the existing flood control channel in the Santa Az~a Canyon would not contain a lOO-year flood, and some of the property covered by these three tracts would be affected. On Writ of Mandate of the Superior Court of the State of Califor- nia, datad July 16, 1971, ordaring the C{ty o~ Anaheim to rescind its action of June 22, 1971, denying said tracts and schedule a rehearing within 30 days, upon request of the Petitioners, rehearing was scheduled this date. City Attorney Joseph Geisler explained that the Court held the ac- tion denying these Tentative Maps (which virtually are a result of a divi- sion into three tracts of the' original Tentative Map, Tract No. 7137, ap- proved May 4, 1971) was arbitrary in that the letter from the Flood Control District did not overrule the January 8, 1971 letter from the Army Corps of Engineers which had specifically stated that this land was not subject to flooding from a 100-year flood. He added that the Jud~ had indicated that 71-476 City Hall, Anaheim, .California- COUNCIL MINUTES- August 3, 1971, 1:30 P.M. if there is no retraction of the Corps of Engineers letter, it might be sufficient to satisfy the flood control condition that could be imposed. Mr. Geisler advised that a letter had been received from the Corps of Engineers, dated August 2, 1971, stating their letters to the City of Ana- heim dated January 8 and February 1, 1971, and to the County of Orange, da- ted January 8, 1971 were incorrect, and it now is felt a 100-year frequency flood would inundate portions of two of the three properties included in the Tentative Tracts under consideration, and some residential construction would suffer considerable damage. He added that the information at hand probably would not be suf- ficient to deny a Tentative Map, since a Tentative Map approval would only give approval to proceed to engineer out possible problems of flood control or other items; however, if these Tentative Maps are approved a condition could be imposed, requiring a flood control clearance before a Final Tract would be approved. Upon request of the City Council, the City Clerk read in full the August 2, 1971 letter from the Corps of Engineers, and Mr. Thompson posted the accompanying maps on the wall and indicated the areas covered by subject tracts. Mr. Murdoch commented that according to the Corps of Engineers let- ter and maps, and in looking at the map as it pertains to this particular piece of property, indications are there may have to be some remedial action taken by the Developer, possibly changing the location of the existing dike, to alleviate the probability of a flooding situation for a 100-year storm. He added that it would be much more difficult to prevent flooding from a standard-project flood; however, it may be possible for a developer to sa- tisfy the requirements of a lending agency and the Flood Control District that the methods he proposed to use would obviate the possibility of flood- ing. Mr. Geisler suggested a condition of final approval of these Tracts could be that the Developer must solve the engineering problems for a poten- tial flood, since the Flood Control District and Corps of Engineers letters do not say the problems cannot be solved. He suggested that an additional condition also could be imposed that if the Tentative Tracts are approved, as to which of the three tracts is to be developed first, and that one tract not he developed until the other is completed. Gilbert Kraemer, Jr., 836 Alta Vista, Placentia, in reply to Coun- cil questioning, advised-that the 90 acres covered by these three tracts are in the proposed Yorba Park site development program, as is the entire area east of the mobile home park site; however, this particular parcel has not now been designated for acquisition since the only property so designated at this time is east of subject property. Mr. Kraemer further advised that if the County wished to acquire their property for the Yorba Park program, they could; however, it was their desire to explore engineering possibilities of meeting the subdivision cri- teria established by the County, Anaheim and the Flood Control District at this time. Mr. Murdoch, referring to Mr. Geisler'S suggestion that the condi- tion be imposed on order of development, suggested expanding such a condition to require development either from west to east, since the road under con- struction at this time would serve the westernmost property, or that the streets be constructed so that access is provided to any of the parcels. He added that, since the road that would serve these parcels is an arterial roadway, there is a joint City and County obligation for construction, and thus it would not be the sole responsibility of the Developers. Councilman Stephenson asked if approving these Tentative Maps would result in the value of'the land being increased, in the event the County de- sired to acquire it for yOrba Park, as was indicated in previous discussion? Mr. Murdoch replied that normally any expense incurred in engineer- ing fees, etc., before the land would be acquired by the County would be added to the cost of the land. 71-477 City Hall. Anaheim, California - 00UNCIL MINUTES - AuKust 3, 1971, 1;30 P.M. Mr. Geisler advised it would be illegal to deny such applications on the basis that approval would increase the cost of the land to the County; that the previous denial was based on the Flood Control letter, which was a proper exercise of police powers. He added that if the County desired to hold up development of this land it could file eminent domain proceedings at any time. Councilman Pebley referred to the conditions in the tracts, that stated the City would assume responsibility for maintenance of parkway land- scaping after installation, and asked what the cost would be of maintaining these parkways, adding that if the City was going to maintain the parkways all through the Canyon, it would triple present parkway maintenance costs. Mr. Thompson replied that these are standard conditions. Mr. Mmrdoch advised that, for about the past ten years it has been the policy that Developers install initial parkway landscaping and the City maintains it from then on; that where there is substantial cut and fill, as part of developing the roadway, such as is recon~nended along Fairmont Boule- vard, this maintenance is undertaken by the CiL'y to protect the roadway. Councilman Pebley suggested this policy should be reviewed, since there are about 5,000 acres yet to be developed in the Canyon. Mr. Murdoch suggested action on these tracts could be delayed until the Council had time to review this policy. He added that an estimate on the cost of maintenance of these parkways could be furnished, if desired. It was Councilman Roth's opinion that rather than impose any further delays on these tracts,it might be better to take action now, m~d review the pol- icy regarding maintenance of landscaped areas later. Mr. Geisler advised that a continuance on subject tracts probably would require approval of the Applicants, and added that the conditions recom- mended are the usual conditions. The Council invited the Developer to make a statement. John Klug, 4540 Campus Drive, Newport Beach, advised that if the Council was concerned about the parkway landscaping maintenance, they could add a condition that gives the City the right to delete all the landscaping facilities. Mr. Geisler corm~ented that such a condition might be desirable, in the event the policy of the City of Anaheim should change. Councilman Pebley stated he would like an analysis of what it will cost to maintain these parkways ten years from now, and also the cost of main- taining the present half-mile landscaped strip on Sunkist Street. Mr. Murdoch outlined the various duties of the Parkway Maintenance crews and stated that investigation is being made into the possibility of forming maintenance districts where-parkways and things of that nature are involved. Mr. Geisler recormmended that if the Tentative Maps are approved, the following additional conditions be imposed: 1. The City Council reserves the right to delete or amend the assumption of landscape maintenance in the event Council policy changes. 2. Development shall be from the west to the east, unless the Developer provides connecting roadways. TENTATIVE MAP, TRACT NO, 7137,..REVISION NO. 4: On motion by Councilman Roth, seconded by Councilman Pebley, Council action of June 22, 1971, denying Ten- tative Map, Tract No. 7137, Revision No. 4, was rescinded, and said Tentative Map was approved, subject to the recommendations of the City Planning Commis- sion, and further subject to the two conditions recommended by the City At- torney. MOTION CARRIED. (See additional conditions noted above.) 71-478 Cit Hall Anaheim California - COUNCIL MINUTES - Au ust 3 1971 1:30 P.M. TENTATIVE MAP, TRACT NO. 7450: On motion by Councilman Pebley, seconded by Councilman Roth, Council action of June 22, 1971, denying Tentative Map, Tract No. 7450 was rescinded, and said Tentative Map was approved, subject to the recommendations of the City Planning Con~ntssion, and further subject to the two conditions recommended.by the City Attorney. MOTION CARRIED. (See addi- tional conditions - Page 71-477.) T~NTATIVE MAP, TRACT NO. 7449: On motion by Councilman Pebley, seconded by Councilman Roth, Council action of June 22, 1971, denying Tentative Map, Tract No. 7449 was rescinded, and said Tentative Map was approved, subject to the reco~endations of the City Planning Commission, and further subject to the two conditions recommended by the City Attorney. MOTION CARRIED. (See add- tional conditions - Page 71-477.) CONTINUED REQUEST - TENTATIVE MAP, TRACT NO. 7370: Submitted by C.J. Queyrel, Ana- cal Engineering Company, requesting amendment of Condition No. 1 of Tentative Tract No. 7470, located between McKinnon Drive and the Santa Ana River east of Lakevtew Avenue. , On motion by Councilman Roth, seconded by Councilman Stephenson, Tentative Map, Tract No. 7370 was further continued to August 17, 1971, 1:30 P.M., as requested by C.J. Queyrel, Engineer. MOTION CARRIED. _PUBLIC DANCE I-IAT.I. PERMIT: Application filed by John McKinnon, Sr., on behalf of the Grand Hotel, for public dance hall permit to allow dancing'nightly from 9:00 P.M. to 2:00 A.M., at Number One Hotel Way, Grand Hotel, was submitted and granted subject to the provisions of Chapter 4.16 of the Anaheim Municipal Code, as recommended by the Chief of Police, on motion by Councilman Stephen- son, seconded by Councilman Roth. MOTION CARRIED. AMUSEMENT DEVICES PERMIT: Application filed by A1Bettelman, on behalf of Sons Amusement Company, Inc., for amusement devices permit to allow 23 pieces of assorted arcade equipment at the Camelot Golf Course, 3200 Carpenter Avenue, was submitted and granted, subject to provisious of Chapter 3.24 of the Aha- Municipal Code, as reco~nended by the Chief of Police, on motion by Council- man Pebley, seconded by Councilman Stephenson. MOTION CARRIED. RECLASSIFICATION NO. 64-65-64 - EXTENSION OF TIME: Request of Bernardo M. Yorba, dated June 29, 1971 was submitted, for a one-year extension of time to Reclas- sification No. 64-65-64, for compliance with certain conditions pursuant to Resolution No. 65R-29, together with report of the City Engineer and report and recorm~endations of the Development Services Department that an extension of time of one year be granted, to expire July 28, 1972. On motion by Councilman Pebley, seconded by Councilman Stephenson, a one-year extension of time for Reclassification No. 64-65-64 was granted as requested, to expire July 28, 1972. MOTION CARRIED. APPOINTMENT - PARKS AND RECREATION COMMISSION: On motion by Councilman Roth, se- conded by Councilman Pebley, Edward M. Hartnell was appointed as Anaheim Union High School~ District Board representative on the Anaheim Parks and Recreation Commission, for the unexpired term of James Bonnell, ending June 30, 1973, as reco~m~ended by the Board of Trustees of the Anaheim Union Mt~h School District. MOTION CARRIED. PROPOSED GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO 124 - CIRCULATION ELEMENT: On motion by Coun- cilman Pebley, seconded by Councilman Roth, public hearing was scheduled for August 24, 1971, 1:30 P.M., to consider Amendment to the Circulation Element of the General Plan, pursuant to City Planning Commission Resolution No. PC71- 140, amending the Circulation Element - Highway-Rights-of-Way, establishing a major highway, designation for Imperial Highway on the portion north of Santa Ana Canyon Road, and a Hillside Primary Highway designation for Imperial High- way for that portion south of Santa Aha Canyon Road. MOTION CARRIED. 71-479 City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - August 3, 1971, 1:30 P,M PROPOSED STR~_ET 1~ CHANGE - PORTION OF WALNUT CANYON ROAD TO A~A~r~-IM HILLS PARK WAY: City Planning Cor~nissfon Resolution No. PC71-141 was submitted, recormnending that the name for Walnut Canyon Road be changed to Anaheim Hills Parkway, be- tween Santa Ana Canyon Road and the extension of Nohl Ranch Road. The City Manager, indicating the location of Walnut Canyon Road on the map on the Council Chamber wall, noted that Walnut Canyon Road is a con- tinuous road and the intersection of that road and Nohl Ranch Road is such that the Council may wish to refer the matter back to the City Planning Com- mission, so they may consider continuing the same name on up the Canyon. On motion by Councilman Roth, seconded by Councilman Pebley, pro- posed street name change was referred back to the City Planning Commission for a recommendation regarding the remaining portion of Walnut Canyon Road, as recommended by the City Manager. MOTION CARRIED. TENTATIVE MAP, TRACT NO. 7426 (VAg. IANCE NO. 2257): Developer - L.A. County Land Company. Property located on the north side of Santa Ama Canyon Road, east of Lakevtew Avenue and contains 39 proposed R-1 lots. The City Planning Commission, at their meeting held July 26, 1971, recommended approval of said tract, in conjunction with their approval of Variance No. 2257. On motion by Councilman Pebley, seconded by Councilman Roth, action on Tentative Map, Tract No.7426 was continued, to be considered in conjunction with Variance No. 2257. MOTION CARRIED. TENTATIVE MAP, TRACT NO. 5674, REVISION NO. 3: Developer - Lusk Corporation. Pro- perty loCated at the northwest corner of Nohl Ranch Road and Royal Oak Road, and contains 52 proposed R-H lots. The City Planning Commission, at their meeting held July 26, 1971, recommended approval of said tract, in conjunction with their approval of Variance No. 2161. On motion by Councilman Pebley, seconded by Councilman Roth, action on Tentative Map, Tract No. 5674 was continued, to be considered in conjunction with Variance No. 2161. MOTION CARRIED. WORK ORDER NO, 6004 - PURCHASE OF FILTER SECTION: The City Manager reported on informal bids for the purchase of the Self-Healing Filter Repair Section at Upstream Toe of Walnut Canyon .Dam (Work Order No. 6004), and advised that one manufacturer, A.L. Macintosh Company, has submitted a quotation for said equipment in the amount of $21,100.60~ He thereupon reco~nended purchase be authorized. On motion by Councilman Pebley, seconded by Couneilanan Stephenson, the bid of A.L. Macintosh Company in the amount of $21',100.60 was accepted, and purchase authorized~ as recommended by the City Manager. MOTION CARRIED. RESOLUTION NO. 71R-353 - SOUTHERN PACIFIC TRANSPORTATION COMPANY AGREEMENT: Coun- cilman Roth offered Resolution No. 71R-353 for adoption. Refer to Resolution Book. A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM APPROVING AND AUTHOR- IZING THE EXECUTION OF AN AGREEMENT WITH SOUTHERN PACIFIC TRANSPORTATION COMr PANYWITHREFERENCE TO THE CONSTRUCTION OF A SEWER PIPE BENEATH TRACKS AND PROPERTY OF RAILROAD (MILE POST BM-513.08) - (Sunkist amd C~rritos) Roll Call Vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: COUNCILMEN:. Roth, Pebley and Stephenson COUNCILMEN: None COUNCIL~N: Thom and Dutton The Mayor Pro Tem declared Resolution No. 71R-353 duly passed and adopted. 71-480 City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - AuKust 3~ 1971, 1:30 P.M CORRESPONDENCE; The following correspondence was ordered received and filed, on motion by Councilman Stephenson, seconded by Councilman Pebley: a. Anaheim Public Library Board - Minutes - June 21, 1971. b. City of Downey - Resolution No. 2566 - Urging support of legis- lation proposed by Attorney General Evell J. Younger for the betterment of our Criminal Justice System. c. Before the Civil Aeronautics Board - Application of Golden West Airlines, Inc. and Los Angeles Airways, Inc. for exemption under Section 416 (b) of the Federal Aviation Act. d. Before the Civil Aeronautics Board - Application of Golden West Airlines, Inc., and Los Angeles Airways, Inc. for approval of acquisition agreement, transfer of certificate, issuance of exemption and other relief. MOTION CARRIED. ORDINANCE NO, 2954: Councilman Stephenson offered Ordinance No. 2954 for adoption. Refer to Ordinance Book. ~AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AMENDING TITLE 14, CHAPTER 14.32, SECTION 14.32.190 OF THE ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE,RELATING TO PARKING. (No Parking At Any Time - Winston Road, both sides, from West Street to its easterly terminus, approximately 400 feet east of West Street.) Roll Call Vote: AYES: COUNCILMEN: NOES: COUNCILMEN: ABSENT: COUNCILMEN: Roth, Pebley and Stephenson None Thom and Dutton The Mayor Pro Tem declared Ordinance No. 2954 duly passed and adopted. ORDINANCE NO. 2955: Councilman Roth offered Ordinance No. 2955 for first reading. AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AMENDING ORDINANCE NO. 2949, NUNC PRO TUNC. ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGE LICENSE APPLICATION - CHEF'S PANTRY: Application submitted by Betty Jo and Harold Edward Cunningham, for Original Transaction, On-Sale Beer and Wine (Bona fide eating place) for Chef's Pantry, 1142 North East Street, was presented by the City Manager to the City Council for their information. On motion by Councilman Pebley, seconded by Councilman Roth, the City Attorney was authorized to file a conditional protest with the Alcoholic Bev- erage Control Board against said application, on the basis that the premises presently are located in a C-1 zone, which does not permit on-sale sale of alcoholic beverages. MOTION CARRIED. ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGE LICENSE APPLICATION - GEORGE'S: Application submitted by George Elbert Gaines, for Original Transaction, On-Sale Beer, for George's, 1513 East La Palma Avenue, was presented by the City Manager to the City Council for their information. On motion by Councilman Pebley, seconded by Councilman Roth, the City Attorney was authorized to file a conditional protest with the Alcoholic Beverage Control Board against said application, on the basis that the premises presently located in a C-1 zone, which does not permit the on-sale sale of al- coholic beverages. MOTION CARRIED. RESOLUTION NO. 71R-354 - WEED ABATEMENT: Councilman Pebley offered Resolution No. 71R-354 for adoption. Refer to Resolution Book. A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY. COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM CONFIRMING THE ITEM- IZED WRITTEN REPORT OF THE FIRE CHIEF SHOWING THE COST OF WEED ABAT~NT IN FRONT OF OR ON EACH SEPARATEqPARCEL OF LAND LOCATED IN THE CITY WHERE SUCH WEEDS HAVE BEEN REMOVED OR ABATED BY THE CITY AND DIRECTING THE FILING OF A CERTIFIED COPY THEREOF WITH THE COUNTY AUDITOR. 71-481 City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - August 3, 1971, 1:30 P.M Roll Call Vote: AYES: COUNCILMEN: NOES: COUNC I L ME N: ABSENT: COUNCILMEN: Roth, Pebley and Stephenson None Thom and Dutton The Mayor Pro Tem declared Resolution No. 7 1R-354 duly passed and adopted. TRANSFER OF FUNDS: On recommendation of the City Manager, appropriations from the 1970-71 Budget, totaling $2,783,454.19 in unexpended funds, as of June 30, 1971 were authorized to be carried forward and encumbered to the various a~- counts in the 1971-72 Fiscal Budget, in accordance with report on file in the office of the City Clerk, on motion by Councilman Roth, seconded by Council- man Pebley. MOTION CARRIED. JOINT MEETING - PLACENTIA UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT BOARD OF EDUCATION; The City Manager submitted correspondence from the Board of Education, Placentia Uni- fied School District, requesting an opportunity and appropriate dates to meet with the Anaheim City Council for the purpose of exchanging information regarding master planning, building programs, zoning changes, recreation pro- grams, and related matters. Following Council discussion, it was determined such a meeting would be agreeable; however, the Council requested no tentative dates be set until such time as a full Council is present. ADJOURNMENT: Councilman Pebley moved to Adjourn. Councilman Roth seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. ADJOURNED: 4:25 P.M. City Clerk