Loading...
1979/02/0679-147 City Hall~ Ana_heim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - February 6, 1979~ 1:30 P.M. The City Council of the City of Anaheim met in regular session. PRESENT: ABSENT: PRESENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Overholt, Kaywood, Kott, Roth and Seymour COUNCIL MEMBERS: None CITY MANAGER: William O. Talley CITY ATTORNEY: William P. Hopkins CITY CLERK: Linda D. Roberts EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, REDEVELOPMENT: Norman J. Priest HUMAN RESOURCES DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR: Garry McRae DEPUTY FIRE MARSHALL: Garthe Menges ASSISTANT DIRECTOR FOR ZONING: Annika Santalahti ASSISTANT CITY MANAGER: William T. Hopkins Mayor Seymour called the meeting to order and welcomed those in attendance to the Council meeting. INVOCATION: Reverend Johnny Carlson, West Anaheim United Methodist Church gave the Invocation. FLAG SALUTE: Councilman Don Roth led the assembly in the Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag. 119: RESOLUTION OF COMMENDATION: A Resolution of Commendation was adopted by the City Council to be presented to Sarah Pearson for her service to Anaheim citizens and on her 50th anniversary as a California licensed dentist. 119: PROCLAMATION: The following proclamation was issued by Mayor Seymour and approved by the City Council: "Anaheim Historical Festival Day" - February 8, 1979 The proclamation was accepted by Mrs. C.B. Cook, President of the Ebell Club. 150: PRESENTATION - BUS USED IN THERAPEUTIC RECREATION PROGRAM: Mr. Gordon Jones of the Anaheim East Rotary Club presented to the Mayor a check for $1500 represent- ing the final payment for the bus used in the Therapeutic Recreation Program in conjunction with the Anaheim Parks, Recreation and Arts Department. The Rotary Club had entered into a four-year agreement with the City to purchase the bus for the Department and their final payment represented the termination of that agreement. The Mayor thanked Mr. Jones and the Rotary Club on behalf of the Council and the City. 113: MINUTES: On motion by Councilman Kott, seconded by Councilman Overholt, minutes of the regular meetings held September 5, and December 26, 1978 were approved. MOTION CARRIED. Councilwoman Kaywood stated that she had the addition to the minutes of October 18, 1978 and she had listened to the tape of that meeting to corroborate the addition as follows: 79-148 City Hall~ Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - February 6, 1979~ 1:30 P.M. Page 78- -new paragraph 3-"Councilwoman Kaywood reiterated that both Mayor Seymour's and Councilman Kott's recommended budget cuts also eliminated the architect's fees. Councilwoman Kaywood moved the above addition to the Council minutes of October 18, 1978 be approved. Councilman Overholt seconded the motion. Before a vote was taken, Councilman Overholt stated that although he had not listened to the tape, if Councilwoman Kaywood had done so, the addition was agreeable with him; the Mayor stated it was agreeable with him as well. Coun- cilman Kott stated that he had not listened to the tape either, whereupon Councilwoman Kaywood stated that since he was not at that meeting he would not be able to vote in any case. City Attorney Hopkins confirmed that was correct. A vote was then taken on the foregoing motion. Councilman Kott abstained. MOTION CARRIED. Mayor Seymour then recounted that last week he raised the point that he felt in times past that Councilwoman Kaywood's amendments or corrections to the minutes had not been entirely accurate. Although he did not want to make an issue of the matter because he did not feel it was significant, he stated that in the future he would personally appreciate receiving a copy of any corrections Councilwoman Kaywood was going to make to the minutes, as well as the remaining Council members, so that they might see those corrections beforehand. He suggested that she offer the corrections and then the Council could vote on them at the next Council meeting. Councilwoman Kaywood pointed out the difficulty involved because of the time delay in receiving minutes, and she did not favor a further delay. The Mayor stated that he would not vote on a motion to correct the minutes in the future unless they were minor without first being provided with a copy in order to know what he was voting on. MOTION: Councilman Kott moved that when a correction to the minutes was offered in the future by any Council member, those corrections were to be put in writing and copied for all Council members before voting on a motion to approve. Council- man Overholt seconded the motion. Before a vote was taken, Councilman Overholt stated that in answer to Councilwoman Kaywood's concerns when she moved to amend the minutes and the Council did not have the written corrections present at that time, the matter should be postponed until the next meeting. He was concerned about corrections and not clarifications and in this case it was a correction. A vote was then taken on the foregoing motion. MOTION CARRIED. WAIVER OF READING - ORDINANCES AND RESOLUTIONS: Councilwoman Kaywood 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 read- ing of such ordinance or resolution. Councilman Roth seconded the motion. ~DTION UNANIMOUSLY CARRIED. 79-149 City Hall~ Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - February 6~ 1979, 1:30 P.M. FINANCIAL DEMANDS AGAINST THE CITY in the amount of $969,020.06, in accordance with the 1978-79 Budget, were approved. 160: CITY M~AGER/DEPARTMENTAL CONSENT CALENDAR: On motion by Councilman Kott, seconded by Councilman Roth, the following actions were authorized as rec- ommended by the Purchasing Agent: a. Bid No. 3500 - Ductile Iron Pipe - Awards to Pacific States Cast Iron Pipe Company, $2,125.04, and to U. S. Pipe and Foundry, $12,307.90. b. Bid No. 3497 - Western Red Cedar Poles and Douglas Fir Crossarms - Award to J. H. Baxter and Company, $61,414.70. c. Bid No. 3495 - Three-phase Padmount Transformers - Award to McGraw-Edison Company, $63,996.44 for Items 1 through 4, and to General Electric Company, $24,693.76 for Item 5. MOTION CARRIED. 165: AWARD OF CONTRACT - BARRIER REMOVALS: Councilwoman Kaywood offered Resolution No. 79R-65 for adoption awarding a contract as recommended by the City Engineer. (Refer to Resolution Book) RESOLUTION NO. 79R-65: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM ACCEPTING A SEALED PROPOSAL AND AWARDING A CONTRACT TO THE LOWEST RESPONSIBLE BIDDER FOR THE FURNISHING OF ALL PLANT, LABOR, SERVICES, MATERIALS AND EQUIPMENT AND ALL UTILITIES AND TRANSPORTATION, INCLUDING POWER, FUEL AND WATER, AND PER- FORMING ALL WORK NECESSARY TO CONSTRUCT AND COMPLETE THE FOLLOWING PUBLIC IMPROVEMENT: BARRIER REMOVALS, AREA BOUNDED BY WEST STREET, KATELLA AVENUE, SANTA ANA FREEWAY AND ORANGEWOOD AVENUE, IN THE CITY OF ANAHEIM, ACCOUNT NO. 13-793-6325-3210. Roll Call Vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: COUNCIL MEMBERS: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Overholt, Kaywood, Kott, Roth and Seymour None None The Mayor declared Resolution No. 79R-65 duly passed and adopted. 123: COOPERATION AGREEMENT NO. 11 WITH THE ANAHEIM REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY: Councilman Kott offered Resoluti, n No. 79R-66 for adoption as recommended in memorandum dated January 13, 197~ from the Executive Director of Community Development, Norm Priest, approving Cooperation Agreement No. 11 with the Anaheim Redevelopment Agency for property acquisition and relocation assistance services. Refer to Resolution Book. RESOLUTION NO. 79R-66: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM APPROVING THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF AN AGREEMENT WITH THE ANAHEIM REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY AND AUTHORIZING AND DIRECTING THE MAYOR AND CITY CLERK TO EXECUTE SAID AGREEMENT. 79-150 C_ity Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - February 6~ 1979~ 1:30 P.M. Roll Call Vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: COUNCIL MEMBERS: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Overholt, Kaywood, Kott, Roth and Seymour None None 2~he Mayor declared Resolution No. 79R-66 duly passed and adopted. 177: RENT STABILIZATION - CROCKER MULTI-FAMILY REHABILITATION LOAN PROGRAM: On motion by Councilwoman Kaywood, seconded by Councilman Roth, a property owner document (Declaration of Covenants) for rent stabilization in conjunction with Crocker Multi-Family Rehabilitation Loan Program was approved, as recommended in memorandum dated January 31, 1979 from the Executive Director of Community Development. MOTION CARRIED. 174.123: SECURITY PACIFI~ NATIONAL BANK LOW INTEREST RESIDENTIAL REHAgIL!TATION TITLE I LOANS UNDER THE CDBG PROGRAM: Executive Director of Community Development, Norm Priest clarified questions posed by Councilman Kott relative to the agreement, after which Councilwoman Kaywood offered Resolution No. 79R-67 for adoption as recommended in memorandum dated January 30, 1979 from Mr. Priest approving an agreement with Security Pacific National Bank to allow the bank to originate low- interest Residential Rehabilitation Title I Loans under the subject program. Refer to Resolution Book. RESOLUTION NO. 79R-67: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF AN~!{EIM APPROVING THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF AN AGREEMEi~ WITH SECURITY PACIFIC BANK TO SUBSIDIZE TITLE I LOANS UNDER THE BLOCK GRANT PROGRAM, AND AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR AND CITY CLERK TO EXECUTE SAID AGREEMENT. Roil Call Vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: COUNCIL MEMBERS: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Overholt, Kaywood, Kott, Roth and Seymour None None The Mayor declared Resolution No. 79R-67 duly passed and adopted. 123: STATE PERSONNEL BOARD COOPERATIVE PERSONNEL SERVICES: Councilman Kott stated that relative to the request for the renewa~ ~ t-~e contract between the City and the Board, it was his opinion that the Human Resources Department (Personnel) should have the charge of developing personnel tests. City Manager William Talley explained that they had found on occasion tb~t it was better to purchase or contract for the administration of such tests than spend staff time to do so. Councilwoman Kaywood offered Resolution No. 79R-68 for adoption as recommended in memorandum dated January 31, 1979 from the Human Resources Director Garry McRae, authorizing renewal of the subject contract for a three-year term commencing February 27, 1979. Refer to Resolution Book. 79-151 City Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - February 6, 1979, 1:30 P.M. RESOLUTION NO. 79R-68: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM APPROVING A CONTRACT BETWEEN THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AND THE STATE PERSONNEL BOARD, RELATING TO TECHNICAL PERSONNEL SERVICES AND AUTHORIZING THE EXECUTION THEREOF BY THE PERSONNEL DIRECTOR. Roll Call Vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: COUNCIL MEMBERS: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Overholt, Kaywood, Kott, Ruth and Seymour None None ~]~e Mayor declared Resolution No. 79R-68 duly passed and adopted. 123: LOCAL AGENCY-STATE AGREEMENT NO. 07-5055~ SUPPLEMENT NO. 4: Councilman Overholt offered Resolution No. 79R-69 for adoption providing for payment by State for City's matching funds for the proposed Crescent Avenue Overcrossing at the Santa Ana Freeway, as recommended in memorandum dated January 29, 1979 from the City Engineer William Devitt. Refer to Resolution Book. RESOLUTION NO. 79R-69: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM APPROVING THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF SUPPLEMENT NO. 4 TO LOCAL ANGENCY-STATE AGREEMENT NO. 07-5055 WITH THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION RELATING TO FEDERAL AID PROJECTS, AND AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR AND CITY CLERK TO EXECUTE SAID AGREEMENT ON BEHALF OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM. Roll Call Vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: COUNCIL MEMBERS: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Overholt, Kaywood, Kott, Roth and Seymour None None The Mayor declared Resolution No. 79R-69 duly passed and adopted. 150: INSTALLATION OF SPRINKLER SYSTEM AT LA PALMA PARK: Councilwoman Kaywood offered Resolution No. 79R-70 for adoption as recommended in memorandum dated January 31, 1979 from the Director of Parks, Recreation and Community Services, James Ruth, declaring and determining that the installation of an automatic sprinkler system at La Palma Park may be performed better and more economically by the City with its own employees and authorizing same. Refer to Resolut£on Book. RESOLUTIONNO. 79R-70: A RESOLU~'[ON OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM DECLARING AND DETERMINING THAT THE INSTALLATION OF AN AUTOMATIC SPRINKLER SYSTEM AT AL PALMA PARK MAY BE PERFORMED BETTER AND MORE ECONOMICALLY BY THE CITY WITH ITS OWN EMPLOYEES AND AUTHORIZING SAME. Roll Call Vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: COUNCIL MEMBERS: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Overholt, Kaywood, Kott, Roth and Seymour None None The Mayor declared Resolution No. 79R-70 duly passed and adopted. 79-152 City Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - February 6~ 1979, 1:30 P.M. 150: PEARSON PARK POOL CONSTRUCTION: Councilman Roth offered Resolution No. 79R-71 for adoption extending the bid date for the Pearson Park Pool Constuction Project to Thursday, February 22, 1979 at 2:00 P.M., with award to take place March 6, 1979. Refer to Resolution Book. RESOLUTION NO. 79R-71: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AMENDING RESOLUTION NO. 79R-41 TO EXTEND THE BID DATE FOR THE PEARSON PARK POOL CONSTRUCTION, ACCOUNT NO. 16-808-7105-00001. Roll Call Vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: COUNCIL MEMBERS: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Overholt, Kaywood, Kott, Roth and Seymour None None R~he Mayor declared Resolution No. 79R-71 duly passed and adopted. 101: ORDINANCE NO. 3970 - AMENDMENT NO. 3~ FACILITY LEASE - AMENDMENT NO. 2~ SITE LEASE - ANAHEIM STADIUM, INC.: City Attorney William Hopkins briefed the Council on his memorandum dated January 24, 1979 relative to the subject which explained that in order to facilitate construction at the Stadium, it was necessary to again amend the Facility and Site Lease to provide for the new period of leasehold payments and to cover the cost of the construction financing of the Stadium expansion. Mr. Alan Watts, Special Counsel, explained for Councilman Kott that the amend- ment was bzsically to provide in the Facility Lease for the increased amount of money which the City would pay as its rental payment for the new Stadium addition, and he further explained the reason for so doing for purposes of clarification. Councilwoman Kaywood offered Ordinance No. 3970 for first reading. ORDINANCE NO. 3970: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM (A) APPROVING AN AMENDMENT NO. 3 TO THE FACILITY LEASE DATED AUGUST 31, 1978 BETWEEN THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AND CITY OF ANAHEIM (CALIFORNIA) STADIUM, INC. (A PUBLIC LEASEBACK CORPORATION), (B) APPROVING AN AMENDMENT NO. 2 TO THE SITE LEASE DATED AUGUST 31, 1978 BETWEEN THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AND CITY OF ANAHEIM (CALIFORNIA) STADIUM, INC. (A PUBLIC LEASEBACK CORPORATION), AND (C) AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR AND CITY CLERK TO EXECUTE AND DELIVER SAID AMENDMENTS. 139: OPPOSITION TO TERRITORIAl, AUTO INSURANCE: Councilwoman Kaywood referred to the subject which had been broaL'~ed two weeks prior. She referred to documentation received from the League of Cities and then explained that the matter was going to be voted on next Thursday night. She also referred to copies of the proposed proposal which they had received from the Automobile Club. MOTION: Councilwoman Kaywood moved that the Council support the present method of setting insurance rates, thus opposing Territorial Auto Insurance. Before any action was taken, she explained that if the rates were set based on territory, two-thirds of the state, including Orange County, would be paying higher auto insurance rates in order to support one-third of the State in areas such as Los Angeles, which was a higher risk area. 79-153 City Rall~ Anaheim,.California - GOUNCIL MINUTES -.~.ebruary 6~ 1979, 1:30 P.M. Mayor Seymour asked if Councilwoman Kaywood recalled what the increased cost to the citizens of Anaheim would be; she answered if she recalled correctly, it would be more than 20%. Councilman Roth then seconded the motion for the purpose of discussion. Councilman Kott asked.the City Attorney if he agreed with what had been said that, (1) the citizens of Anaheim would be paying more for insurance, and (2) would the resolution cure the problem if adopted? City Attorney Hopkins first stated in his opinion the people of the City would be paying more if changes were made in the setting of insurance rates and secondly the resolution submitted had a variety of different wordings. The one Councilwoman Kaywood referred to was in support of the present method of setting rates. It would indicate to the Legislature and others that the Council was in favor of opposing any change. There were about 4 or 5 resolutions submitted, but the first one was quite adequate, and there was no reason why it would not implement the desired opposition. Councilman Roth explained that as he understood the situation, it all started when the Board of Supervisors in Los Angeles found out that rates for automobile insurance were set by respective zip codes. They tried to change that so that two-thirds Of the state would be paying a higher insurance cost for a group in Los Angeles now paYing a higher rate. Subsequently there was a bill in Sacramento to prevent the insurance companies from setting rates by zip code which would, in effect, increase the cost to Orange County, ~hich rates were presently lower than Los Angeles. Councilwoman Kaywood stated the present situation was a detriment to a safe driver living within a high risk area, but by applying territorial insurance statewide, it would penalize two-thirds of all the people in the state, and that did not seem fair. Councilman Kott acknowledged the presence of Mr. Ed Sullivan from the Automobile Club and asked if he would like to give an opinion on the matter. Mr. Sullivan confirmed that insurance rates were set by zip code, but also under the insurance code, the minimum was a 20-square mile area and if one zip code didn't cover the 20 miles, then another zip code would come into play. The only solution to the problem was a long range one, having to look at legislation and a good no-fault bill which would definitely help. He al~o confirmed if the territorial ratings were to be changed, it would mean that two-thirds of the people would be paying more than one-third. The actual increase to the City of Anaheim would be 11%. A vote was taken on the foregoing motion. MOTION CARRIED. 105: APPOINTEES ~TO THE YOUTH COMMISSION: Councilwoman Kaywood stated that the Council had interviewed canididates to fill vacancies on the Youth Commission that morning. She proceeded to offer names in nomination for those six positions, Mayor SeYmour interjected and indicated it would be more appropriate that the floor be open for nominations from all Council members and if there were more than six, they would have to call for a vote on each one. 79-154 City Hall~ Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - February 6, .1979, 1:30 P.M. Councilwoman Kaywood nominated Nancy Bounds; Councilman Kott nominated Beth Fujishige; Councilman Roth nominated Bruce Underwood; Councilman Overholt nominated Joe Rangel; Councilman Seymour nominated Christine Murphy; Council- woman Kaywood nominated Nancy Thibodeau and Pamela Fallon. The Mayor noted that they already had six names offered in nomination ending with Nancy Thibodeau. On motion by Councilman Kott, seconded by Councilman Overholt, nominations for appointees to the Youth Commission were closed. MOTION CARRIED. Mayor Seymour thereupon stated that the six seats on the Youth Commission were thus filled unanimously by the Council and that Nancy Bounds, Beth Fujishige, Bruce Underwood, Joe Rangel, Christine Murphy and Nancy Thibodeau should be so notified by the City Clerk. He also asked that those aspirants not selected be notified, along with inviting their participation and involvement in the committee work of the Youth Commission. Councilman Overholt stated that in the letter to be written to the individuals who applied for the Youth Commission that the Council express to every one of them how pleased they were that they applied, with the hope that someday all of them might be on the Commission. It was difficult to try to provide balance to the Commission relative to geographic and age problems. Every candidate was outstanding and he was very impressed with all of them. Councilwoman Kaywood agreed that it was a very difficult decision to eliminate anybody. 105: VACANCY ON THE COMMUNITY SERVICES BOARD: Councilwoman Kaywood stated there was a vacancy on the Community Services Board, and she wished to nominate Donna Gaston. The Mayor asked if the Council had received the letters from all citizens who had applied to f~ll the vacancy; City Clerk Roberts explained that copies were given to the Council, but they were not grouped. By general consent, the Council agreed that it would be appropriate to take action in one week after being provided with letters of applicants collectively. 129: PUBLIC FIREWORKS DISPLAY PERMIT: Application submitted by Disneyland to discharge fireworks on the following dates: February 10, 11, 12, 1979 at 2:45 P.M.; May 5, 12, 19, 1979 at 9:30 P.M.; May 26 and 27, 1979 at 8:30 & 10:00 P.M.; June 2 and 9, 1979 at 9:30 P.M.; and June 16 through September 8, 1979, 9:30 P.M. Deputy Fire Marshal, Garthe Meng, s, clarified for Councilman Kott that the dispensor of the fireworks was State-licensed and the same organization that had been discharging fireworks at Disneyland for many years. Thus, they were well qualified. On motion by Councilman Kott, seconded by Councilman Roth, application for a Public Fireworks Display Permit submitted by Disneyland to discharge fireworks on the dates requested was approved. MOTION CARRIED. 79-155 City Hal~ Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - February 6, 1979, 1:30 P.M. 148: PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO BY-LAWS - LEAGUE OF CALIFORNIA CITIES~ ORANGE COUNTY DIVISION: Councilwoman Kaywood stated that there was one correction she wanted to make to the subject by-laws on Page 10, Section E - Dues, Item 2, '~ember cities may pay their dues assesment bi-annually or quarterly", whereas it meant semi-annually. MOTION: Councilwoman Kaywood moved to approve the proposed amendment to the by-laws of the Orange County Division, League of California Cities with the noted correction. Councilman Overholt seconded the motion. Councilman Kott voted "no". MOTION CARRIED. CONSENT CALENDAR ITEMS: On motion by Councilman Kott, seconded by Councilman Roth, 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. CORRESPONDENCE: The following correspondence was ordered received and filed: a. 173: Before the PUC Application No. 58302, in the matter of the application of Michael A. Kadletz dba Goodtime Tours and Company for a certificate of public convenience and necessity to offer a one-half day sight- seeing tour between Buena Park, Anaheim, on one hand and Newport Beach and Laguna Beach, on the other. b. 175: Before the PUC Application No. 58393, in the matter of the application of Southern California Edison Company, for authority to modify its ~.nergy Cost Adjustment Billing Factors. c. 105: Community Redevelopment Commission - Minutes of January 17, and January 24, 1979. d. 105: HACMAC - Minutes of January 16, 1979. 2. 108: PUBLIC DANCE PERMIT: The following permit was approved in accordance with the recommendations of the Chief of Police: a. Public Dance Permit submitted by Felipe Jesus Guerera, Anaheim Soccer Club, for a dance to be held February 17, 1979, 6:00 P.M. to 1:00 A.M., at the Anaheim Convention Center. MOTION CARRIED. 118: CLAIMS AGAINST THE CITY: Councilman Kott posed a question relative to one of the claims which was answered by City Attorney Hopkins for purposes of clari- fication. On motion by Councilman Kott, seconded by Councilman Roth, claims filed against the city were denied and were referred to (a) the City's Insurance Administrator, or (b) allowed payment. a. Claim submitted by Terry Allen Schwark for damages purportedly sustained as a result of actions by Anaheim Police on or about October 15, 1978. 79-156 City Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - February 6~ 1979, 1:30 P.M. The following claims were allowed as recommended by the City Attorney: b. Claim submitted by David L. Fiedorowicz for damages to parked vehicle purportedly sustained as a result of City-owned vehicle backing out of driveway on or about November 7, 1978; amount allowed $97.96. c. Claim submitted by Mrs. Gladys Cox for damages to a screen door purportedly sustained by a problem caused by the Fire Department on or about December 15, 1978; amount allowed $20.90. MOTION CARRIED. CITY PLANNING COMMISSION ITEMS: The following actions taken by the City Planning Commission at their meeting held January 15, 1979, pertaining.to the following applications, as listed on the Consent Calendar, were submitted for City Council information. 1. VARIANCE NO. 3069: Submitted by Robert R. and Betty J. Cushman, and Relonda L. Cushman, to construct a single-family structure on RS-7200 zoned property located at 1204 and 1906 Lewellyn Avenue with code waivers of: a) minimum lot area; b) minimum lot width; c) minimum floor area; d) minimum rear yard setback. The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC79-9, granted in part, Variance No. 3069 and ratified the Planning Director's categorical exemption determination. 2. VARIAN~.E NO. 3072: Submitted by Elmer C. and Janette M. Hendricks, Mojava Builders, Inc., to construct a garage on RS-7200 zoned property located at 2746 West Stonybrook Drive with a waiver of minimum front setback. The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC79-10, granted Variance No. 3072 and ratified the Planning Director's categorical exemption determination. 3. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 1925: Submitted by Anaheim Redevelopment Agency, to permit an insurance office in a residential structure on PD-C zoned property located at 125 North Helena Street. The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC79-11, granted Conditional Use Permit No. 1925 for one year and granted negative declaration status. 4. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 1929: Submitted by Floyd V. and Helen Harding, to permit a motorcycle sales and service facility on CG zoned property located at 710 South Anaheim Boulevard. The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC79-i2, granted Conditional Use Permit No. 1929 and granted negative declaration status. 5. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 1930: Submitted by Edward R. Resnick and Carl F. Agren, to permit the outdoor storage of new vehicle chassis on ML zoned property located at 2530 Miraloma Way with code waivers of: a) minimum number of parking spaces; b) minimum landscaped setback; c) required enclosure of outdoor uses. 79-157 City Hall~ Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - February 6, 1979~ 1:30 P.M. The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC79-13, denied Condi- tional Use Permit No. 1930 and granted negative declaration status. 6. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 1931: Submitted by James A. and Grace Liberio, to permit commercial uses on ML zoned property located at 1050 North Anaheim Boulevard. The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC79-14, granted Conditional Use Permit No. 1931 and granted negative declaration status. 7. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 1933: Submitted by Ruth and Martin Ronson, to expand an existing warehouse on CG zoned property located at 216 North Manchester Avenue with a waiver of minimum parking area. The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC79-15, granted Conditional Use Permit No. 1933 and granted negative declaration status. 8. TENTATIVE TRACT NO. 8560:. Request by G. L. Lewis to amend Condition No. 18 of Tentative Tract N. 8560, to establish 80 proposed RS-HS-22,000(SC) lots on property located south of Santa Ana Canyon Road, east of Imperial Highway. The City Planning Commission amended said Condition. 9. VARIANCE NO. 2747 - REQUEST FOR TERMINATION: Request by R. Go Garland Corporation, for termination of Variance No. 2747, to permit outdoor construction equipment sales on property located at the northeast corner of Riverdale and Tustin Avenues. The City tianning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC79-16, terminated Variance No. 2747. 10. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 1918 - REQUEST TO AMEND RESOLUTION NO. PC78-287 NUNC PRO TUNC: Request by City Planning Commission to amend Resolution No. PC78-287, nunc pro tunc, to correct a clerical error. The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC79-17, amended Resolution No. PC78-287, nunc pro tunc. No action was taken on the foregoing items, thus the actions of the City Planning Commission became final. 166: ORDINANCE NO. 3971 - SERVICE STATION SIGNS: Councilman Kott offered Ordinance No. 3971 for first rea]ing as recommended by the City Planning Commission. Refer to Ordinance Book. ORDINANCE NO. 3971: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AMENDING SUBSECTIONS .0211, .0221, .0222, AND .0231 OF SECTION 18.05.069 OF CHAPTER 18.05, TITLE 18~ OF THE ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO ZONING. (Service Station Signs) CONSENT CALENDAR ITEMS: Councilwoman Kaywood offered Resolution Nos. 79R-72 through 79R-80, both inclusive, for adoption in accordance with the reports, recommendations and certifications furnished each Council Member and as listed on the Consent Calendar Agenda. Refer to Resolution Book. 79-158 City Hall~ Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - February 6~ 1979~ 1:30 P.M. 158: RESOLUTION NO. 79R-72: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM ACCEPTING CERTAIN DEEDS AND ORDERING THEIR RECORDATION. (Villa Nohl Plaza Limited; Anaheim Boulevard Investment Group) 150: RESOLUTION NO. 79R-73: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM FINDING AND DETERMINING THAT PUBLIC CONVENIENCE AND NECESSITY REQUIRE THE CONSTRUCTION AND COMPLETION 0k A PUBLIC IMPROVEMENT, TO WIT: WILLOW PARK SECURITY LIGHTING, IN THE CITY OF ANAHEIM, ACCOUNT NO. 16-807-7103-00016; APPROVING THE DESIGNS, PLANS, PROFILES, DRAWINGS, AND SPECIFICATIONS FOR THE CONSTRUCTION THEREOF; AUTHORIZING THE CONSTRUCTION OF SAID PUBLIC IMPROVEMENT IN ACCORDANCE WITH SAID PLANS, SPECIFICATIONS, ETC.; AND AUTHORIZING AND DIRECTING THE CITY CLERK TO PUBLISH A NOTICE INVITING SEALED PROPOSALS FOR THE CONSTRUCTION THEREOF. (Bids to be opened March 1, 1979, at 2:00 P.M.) 169: RESOLUTION NO. 79R-74: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM FINDING AND DETERMINING THAT PUBLIC CONVENIENCE AND NECESSITY REQUIRE THE CONSTRUCTION AND COMPLETION OF A PUBLIC IMPROVEMENT, TO WIT: CYPRESS STREET STREET IMPROVEMENT, W/O VINE STREET, IN THE CITY OF ANAHEIM, ACCOUNT NO. 46-792- 6325-2300; APPROVING THE DESIGNS, PLANS, PROFILES, DRAWINGS, AND SPECIFICATIONS FOR THE CONSTRUCTION THEREOF; AUTHORIZING THE CONSTRUCTION OF SAID PUBLIC IMPROVE- MENT IN ACCORDANCE WITH SAID PLANS, SPECIFICATIONS, ETC.; AND AUTHORIZING AND DIRECTING THE CITY CLERK TO PUBLISH A NOTICE INVITING SEALED PROPOSALS FOR THE CONSTRUCTION THEREOF. (Bids to be opened March 8, 1979, at 2:00 P.M.) 176: RESOLUTION NO. 79R-75: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM ORDERING THE VACATION AND ABANDONMENT OF A PORTION OF RIDGE GATE ROAD EASTERLY OF OLD BUCKET LANE. (77-22A, road) 176: RESOLUTION NO. 79R-76: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM ORDERING THE VACATION AND ABANDONMENT OF A CERTAIN PUBLIC SERVICE EASEMENT. (77-22A, easement) 176: RESOLUTION NO. 79R-77: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM DECLARING ITS INTENTION TO VACATE AND ABANDON CERTAIN PUBLIC ALLEYS, AND FIXING A DATE FOR A HEARING THEREON. (78-12A, public hearing, February 27, 1979, 3:00 P.M.) 176: RESOLUTION NO. 79R-78: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM DECLARING ITS INTENTION TO VACATE AND ABANDON CERTAIN PUBLIC SERVICE EASEMENTS. (78-14A, public hearing, February 27, 1979, 3:00 P.M.) 176: RESOLUTION NO. 79R-79: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM DECLARING ITS INTENTION ~'O VACATE AND ABANDON CERTAIN PUBLIC ALLEYS AND FIXING A DATE FOR A HEARING THEREON. (78-15A, public hearing, February 27, 1979, 3:00 P.M.) 176: RESOLUTION NO. 79R-80: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM DECLARING ITS INTENTION TO VACATE AND ABANDON A CERTAIN PUBLIC SERVICE EASEMENT. (78-18A, public hearing, February 27, 1979, 3:00 P.M.) 79-159 city Hall~ Anaheim, ..California - COUNCIL MINUTES - February 6, 1979, 1:30 P.M. Roll Call Vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: COUNCIL MEMBERS: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Overholt, Kaywood, Kott, Roth and Seymour None None The Mayor declared Resolution No. 79R-72 through 79R-80, both inclusive, duly passed and adopted. 156/150: ORDINANCE NO. 3962 AND 3963: Councilman Seymour offered Ordinance Nos. 3962 and 3963 for adoption. Refer to Ordinance Book. ORDINANCE NO. 3962: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM REPEALING SECTION 7.16.050 OF CHAPTER 7.16, TITLE 7, AND AMENDING TITLE 7, CHAPTER 7.16, BY ADDING THERETO A NEW SECTION 7.16.050 TO THE ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGES. ORDINANCE NO. 3963: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AMENDING TITLE 13, CHAPTER 13.08, SECTION 13.08.020 OF THE ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE BY ADDING THERETO SUBSECTION .200 RELATING TO PUBLIC PARKS. Before a vote was taken, Councilwoman Kaywood asked the City Attorney if it was possible to simply leave the present Ordinance as is and merely indicate, Brookhurst Community Center excepted. Mr. Hopkins stated the Ordinance was revised so _~at it would apply to all parks because he felt it should be applicable throughout the City. Subsequently it would be aL the discretion of the City Council to make any exception. He believed it to be better form and better legal practice to make it applicable to all parks, rather than to single out one park. Mr. Ruth, Director of Parks, Recreation and Community Services would then administer the regulation to comply with the policy that was approved. Councilwoman Kaywood wanted to be certain that the Ordinance would not be mis- interpreted. A vote was then taken on the foregoing Ordinances. Roll Call Vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: COUNCIL M]EMBERS: COUNCIL MEMBERS: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Overholt, Kaywood, Kott, Roth and Seymour None None The Mayor declared Ordinance Nos. 3962 and 3963 duly passed and adopted. 149: ORDINANCE NO. 3964: Councilman Roth offered Ordinance No. 3964 for adoption. Refer to Ordinance Book. ORDINANCE NO. 3964: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM REPEALING SUBSECTION .020 OF TITLE 14, CHAPTER 14.32, SECTION 14.32.272 AND ADDING NEW SUBSECTIONS .1040 AND .1050 TO TITLE 14, CHAPTER 14.32, SECTION 14.32.190 OF THE ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO PARKING RESTRICTIONS. (no parking on certain portions of Cerritos Avenue and on Hancock Street, west side at La Palma Avenue) 79-160 City Ha.l.l~ Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES -February 6, 1979~ 1:30 P.M. Roll Call Vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: COUNCIL MEMBERS: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Overholt, Kaywood, Kott, Roth and Seymour None None The Mayor declared Ordinance No. 3964 duly passed and adopted. 124/137: ORDINANCE NO. 3965: Councilman Overholt offered Ordinance No. 3965 for adoption. Refer to Ordinance Book. ORDINANCE NO. 3965: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AUTHORIZING THE ISSUANCE OF COMMUNITY CENTER AUTHORITY REVENUE BONDS, SERIES C, FOR THE PURPOSE OF PROVIDING FUNDS FOR THE ACQUISITION, CONSTRUCTION AND FINANCING OF ADDITIONS TO THE ANAHEIM CONVENTION CENTER FACILITY, AND DESIG- NATING THE ANTICIPATED SOURCES OF REVENUE THAT WILL BE PLEDGED TO SECURE SAID REVENUE BONDS. Roll Call Vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: COUNCIL MEMBERS: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Overholt, Kaywood, Kott, Roth and Seymour None None The Mayor declared Ordinance No. 3965 duly passed and adopted. 124/137: ORDINANCE NO. 3966: Councilwoman Kaywood offered Ordinance No. 3966 for adoption. Refer to Ordinance Book. ORDINANCE NO. 3966: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AUTHORIZING TRE ISSUANCE OF COMMUNITY CENTER AUTHORITY REVENUE BONDS, SERIES D, FOR THE PURPOSE OF PROVIDING FUNDS FOR THE ACQUISITION, CONSTRUCTION AND FINANCING OF ADDITIONS TO THE ANAHEIM CONVENTION CENTER FACILITY, AND DESIGNATING THE ANTICIPATED SOURCES OF REVENUE THAT WILL BE PLEDGED TO SECURE SAID REVENUE BONDS. Roll Call Vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: COUNCIL MEMBERS: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Overholt, Kaywood, Kott, Roth and Seymour None None The Mayor declared Ordinance No. 3966 duly passed and adopted. ORDINANCE NO. 3967: Councilman Overholt offered Ordinance No. 3967 for adoption. Refer to Ordinance Book. ORDINANCE NO. 3967: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AMENDING TITLE 18 OF THE ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO ZONING. (78-79-4, RM-1200) 79-161 City Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - February 6~ 1979, 1:30 P.M. Roll Call Vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: COUNCIL MEMBERS: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Overholt, Kaywood, Kott, Roth and Seymour None None The Mayor declared Ordinance No. 3967 duly passed and adopted. ORDINANCE NO. 3968 AND 3969: Councilman Roth offered Ordinance Nos. 3968 and 3969 for adoption. Refer to Ordinance Book. ORDINANCE NO. 3968: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AMENDING TITLE 18 OF THE ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO ZONING. (76-77-61, RM-1200) ORDINANCE NO. 3969: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AMENDING TITLE 18 OF THE ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO ZONING. (77-78-28, RM-1200) Roll Call Vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: COUNCIL MEMBERS: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Overholt, Kaywood, Kott, Roth and Seymour No ne None The Mayor declared Ordinance Nos. 3968 and 3969 duly passed and adopted. ORDINANCE NO. 3972 THROUGH 3974: Councilman Roth offered Ordinance No. 3972 through 397~, both inclusive, for first reading. 156: ORDINANCE NO. 3972: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AMENDING TITLE 7, CHAPTER 7.28 OF THE ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE BY AMENDING SECTION 7.28.030 THEREOF RELATING TO LOITERING. (Hotel and Motel) 142: ORDINANCE NO. 3973: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM REPEALING SECTIONS 1.04.110, 1.04.120, 1.04.130, 1.04.150, 1.04.160, 1.04.190, 1.04.210, 1.04.280, 1.04.390 OF CHAPTER 1.04, TITLE 1; SECTIONS 1.05.020, 1.05.030, 1.05.040, 1.05.050 OF CHAPTER 1.05, TITLE 1; SECTION 1.16.010 OF CHAPTER 1.16, TITLE 1; AND SECTIONS 13.04.030, 13.04.040, 13.04.050 AND 13.04.070 OF CHAPTER 13.04, TITLE 13 OF THE ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO THE DEPARTMENTAL ORGANIZATION OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM. 142: ORDINANCE NO. 3974: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AMENDING TITLE 1, CHAPTER 1.04, CHAPTER 1.05, CHAPTER 1.16; AND TITLE 13, CHAPTER 13.04 BY ADDING NEW SECTIONS 1.04.110, 1.04.120, 1.04.130, 1.04.160, 1.04.210, 1.04.390, 1.05.015, 1.05.020, 1.05.030, 1.05.040, 1.05.050, 1.16.010, 13.04.030, 13.04.040 AND 13.04.050 TO THE ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO THE DEPARTMENTAL ORGANIZATION OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM. 144: PRESENTATION OF NEOCCS FINAL REPORT: Mr. George Britton, County Environ- mental Management Agency Project Manager for the Northeast Orange County Circulation Study (NEOCCS), stated that they wanted to first present slides which would expand upon the study process and study results. He explained that Mayor Seymour was on the NEOCCS Steering Committee and attended many meetings, 79-162 City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - February 6, 1979~ 1:30 P.M. and representatives from City staff also participated. The two-year study was now complete and the results were going to be used by the County as one basis for amending the Master Plan of Arterial Highways. He hoped that the study, and particularly the material and data contained therein, would be of use to Anaheim in changing the City's circulation system as needed to better meet the needs of the latest land use planning. He further stated that they would be presenting the report to the Board of Supervisors in the near future, along with the staff report which they directed his Agency to prepare, discussing the study and some of the issues. They had already made a presentation to a number of the NEOCCS cities. Basically what those cities had done was to receive the report, and that was his basic purpose today, as well as to get input to incorporate into their staff report. If the Council wanted to take action on a particular issue, it was the City's right to do so and several cities had already taken such action. He reiterated their job today was to familiarize other Council Members with what had been happening and to let them know how they were going to proceed from this point. They would be amending the County Plan next November, so he and others on his staff would be working with Anaheim City staff to put together a package, the goal being a Plan that would be essentially the same for the County and each of the participating cities. He then turned the presentation over to Mr. Van Stephens from the firm of Phillips, Brandt and Reddick (PBR), consultant on the NEOCCS study. Mr. Stephens, Vice-President, Project Director ?BR), then gave a slide presentation which not cnly showed the results of the NEOCCS study, but also what was involved in that study. During the presentation he briefed the Council on many of the aspects of the study contained in Executive Summary, Volume I and the Technical Report, Volume II, dated December 8, 1978 (on file in the City Clerk's office), both containing extensive data, exhibits and summaries of the two-year long study. In concluding, he explained that there were presently four circulation issues in the system of which the Council should be aware, or that could possibly be different than what Anaheim's recommendation would be at this time. Staff had seen the presentation and also had the same understanding. (1) Serrano Connection - the Steering Committee made a final decision to not have that rank as a part of the total arterial circulation system. (2) Extension of Lakeview down to the freeway interchange - they understood that Anaheim was on record as having expressed concern relative to that extension. The decision of the Steering Conm~ittee was that it be removed from the Master Plan for Arterial Highways and be further under- stood that Anaheim might have concurrence with that recommendation; Councilwoman Kaywood confirmed that Anaheim did recommend that it be removed from the Master Plan as well. (3) Kellogg Overcrossin8 - tbe Steering Committee found in the course of study that as many overcrossings and interchanges with the Riverside Freeway at that location, the better it would be for that area relative to circulation. Staff indicated there would be physical constraints involved, but if at all possible the Steering Committee recommended that there be an overcrossing at that location based upon congestion. 79-163 City Hall, Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - February 6, 1979, 1:30 P.M. Councilman Roth interjected and asked about the possibility of a Fairmont over- ramp from the Riverside Freeway. He wanted to know if any discussions had taken place regarding that issue. Mr. Stephens answered that their recommendation was that there be a Fairmont overcrossing and interchange with the freeway. Councilwoman Kaywood thereupon asked about the proposal for widening Fairmont. Mr. Stephens explained that the study did not deal with actual sizing of roads or the time frame related to improvement. The goal of the study was to relate how much traffic there was wanting to travel on that length, and subsequently the local jursidiction would decide when and how the road should be improved. (4) Weir Canyon Connection - that connection had been contested, discussed and arbitrated for a number of years. The Steering Committee recommended that that link should be in the system, and it would have dramatic effects in relieving traffic in the Anaheim area. Councilman Kott asked if the Steering Committee looked at the type of housing a community might have which could affect the amount of traffic that would travel on the freeway. Mr. Stephens explained that they did not make any recommendations to mitigate traffic congestion that would require land use changes. Mayor Seymour also stated that the Committee did not deal with land use, and it was not their intent to do so because they could not speak for the various cities as to what land use might take place in the future. The study was totally premised on the existing General Plans of each and every municipality involved as of that date. The Mayor tben asked when Mr. Britton was going to present the report to the Board of Supervisors, assuming that they would like an expression from the Council. Mr. Britton confirmed that if would be later in February or early March and any input from Anaheim that would be received by them by the end of the month would be passed along to the Board. The Mayor stated that Traffic Engineer Paul Singer and he worked closely on the entire study for two years and that Mr. Singer was presently hospitalized. He urged the Council to delay any decision or recommendation on the study until staff had an opportunity to respa,nd, and he was hopeful that Mr. Singer would be able to give the benefit of his input. Regarding his own feeling, he was of the opinion that Mr. Britton and Mr. Stephens, as well as the rest of the staff, did an outstanding job on the study, considering the time and budget limitations imposed. On the other hand, he would be less than honest if he did not inform the Council that, in his opinion, especially as it pertained to the extension of Serrano, a political coalition formed on that Steering Committee that denied the extension 79-164 City Hall~ Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - February 6, 1979, 1:30 P.M. of Serrano because of the narrow and parochial interests of their own community in not giving consideration to the community most greatly impacted by the non- extension of that road. The communities that were united and felt there was an impact to them were Anaheim, Orange and Yorba Linda. However, the coalition would not have it, in spite of staff's recommendation that it would not cause any additional adverse impact upon their cities. Overall, he was in agreement, but he reiterated that the concern relative to Serrano caused no end of discussion and debate. He emphasized again that in the final analysis, it was a political coalition that made the decision totally inconsistent with the technical staff recommendations and with the goals and objectives that were originally established by the NEOCCS Committee. He was going to suggest to the Council, after they received the report, that they direct either him and/or staff, the City Manager or whoever to go to the Board of Supervisors and appeal to them that Serrano be placed back on the Plan because there was also a monetary effect to the decision. If the road did not get on the Plan, it could be built, but no financial assistance would be received from the County, as was normally received. Thus, that political coalition formed an economic block to the extension of Serrano. MOTION: Councilman Seymour moved to receive the NEOCCS report and staff was directed to provide input to the Committee prior to the NEOCCS meeting with the Board of Supervisors. Councilwoman Kaywood rescinded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. RECESS: By general consent, the Council recessed for 10 minutes. (3:00 P.M.) AFTER RECESS: Mayor Seymour called the meeting to order, all Council Members being present. (3:10 P.M.) CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 1901 AND NEGATIVE DECLARATION: Application by Lawrence W. Allen to permit a recreational vehicle park in conjunction with an existing motel on C-R zoned property located at 2029 South Harbor Boulevard. The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC79-5 declared that the subject property be exempt from the requirement to prepare an Environmental Impact Report pursuant to the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act, and further denied Conditional Use Permit No. 1901. The decision of the Planning Commission was appealed by Mr. Harry Knisely, Attorney for the applicant, and public hearing scheduled this date. Ms. Santalahti described the location and surrounding land uses, she outlined the findings given in the staff eport which was submitted to and considered by the City Planning Commission. Councilman Kott asked Ms. Santalahti to elaborate on Condition No. 3 of Resolution No. PC79-5 stating: "That the proposed use will adversely affect the adjoining land uses and growth and development of the area in which it is proposed to be located" and also Condition No. 4 relating to the size and shape of the property. Ms. Santalahti explained that the concern revolved around the potential of the adjacent property and the Marriott Hotel, which was going to be built there, as well as high-rise hotels to the north. The subject use was typically proposed in places where it was intended as a temporary use for at least 10 years. In this case, the Planning Commission felt the property warranted more development than 79-165 City Hall, Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - February 6, 1979, 1:30 P.M. was being proposed. Regarding Condition No. 4, the standard was that approximately four acres be used for a RV park and the subject property was only 1½ acres. There were parks in the City, however, that were approximately the same size, but in connection with motels. These were located on Lincoln Avenue, but not in the commercial/recreational area. She further explained that Condition Nos. 1, 3, 4 and 5 of the Planning Commission Resolution were basic findings that the Commission had to make either for or against. Thus, when they were in favor of a project, they would agree that all conditions were positive, but when opposed, they would have to indicate a negative relative to those conditions. Ms. Santalahti then explained for Councilman Kott that the Planning Commission was aware of the Marriott's opposition to the project, and they submitted written opposition to the Commission as well. Councilman Roth asked what the applicant proposed to do relative to the height of fencing around the park to mitigate line of sight and visual intrusion. Ms. Santalahti stated that a 6-foot fence was recommended. With high-rise buildings around the project, fence height would become immaterial. Councilman Roth then asked, knowing that an RV would probably intrude 2 to 3-feet above the 6-foot requirement, if any consideration was given to increasing the fence 8 to 10 feet. Ms. Santalahti explained that when the Commission required a higher fence, it typically involved a residential area and not coL,~ercial. Councilma~ Overholt noted that on Page 2 of the Planning Commission Resolution, no one indicated their presence in opposition and no correspondence was received in opposition; however, it was, as stated, that the Marriott did register such opposition. Ms. Santalahti stated that if any letters were written in support of, or in opposition to, a proposal, the attorney at the Planning Commission meeting did not like it to be introduced as evidence if the author was not present to answer questions or comment on what was said. The Commission would receive the written opposition, but it was not noted on the record. The Mayor asked if the applicant or applicant's agent was present and desirous of being heard. Mr. Harry Knisely, attorney for the applicant, 1741 South Euclid, first asked to see a copy of the telegram received from the Marriott and then questioned the statement, "...not adequate to properly develop a recreational/vehicle park and that development of such a park would constitute a nuisance to adjacent land owners." He then prefaced his remarks by stating that the issue was that the applicant had a parcel of land zoned for C-R use. He wanted to develop it for such use, but in order to do so he had to obtain a CUP, and there were five different showings that were required, one being that the proposed use would not adversely affect the adjoining land uses and the growth and development of the area in which it was proposed to be located. The key words were "adversely affect adjoining 79-166 City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - February 6, 1979~ 1:30 P.M. land uses and development." There was nothing in the staff report which indicated the project would adversely affect such land use development; however, the Planning Commission did indicate that the use was incompatible with surrounding land uses. Relative to the Marriott, with the exception of the Disneyland Hotel, he submitted that the project would look better from the air than any hotel in town. It would have 32% landscaping, whereas 2% landscaping was required in parking lots of hotels. He did not believe the view itself was the big selling item since hotel patrons were not permanent tenants. He continued that the small property owner had property rights the same as the large property owner, and that relative to the Marriott, the applicant did not object to the Marriott's proposed use, which he considered to be just as detrimental as he was considered to be to the Marriott. It was a C-R use in a C-R zone, and he failed to see any adverse impact. Councilman Roth stated that as he understood, Mr. Knisely was trying to point out that in viewing the parking lot from a hotel roof, patrons would either see a parking lot with 2% landscaping versus an RV park with 32% landscaping. As well, it appeared that the applicants were going to put a lot of money into a small piece of land and the Planning Commission recommended the best possible use would be to expand the existing motel. He then questioned if the proposed RV park was going to be an interim use or permanent. Mr. Knisely stated that his feeling was that the park was going to be an interim use and the owner wanted permission to develop the unusable land at this time. He considered it to be a logical interim use and the improvements could sub~equently be used when it was eventually converted. The Mayor asked if anyone wished to speak either in favor or opposition. Mr. John Gilloff, 1181 South Sunkist, representing Quality Inn, stated they were in oppositiop to the RV park, but they were not in opposition to motel units. He was up on the roof of the Quality Inn the day before and he believed it would be an eyesore to see different size vehicles in a park directly behind them. Councilman Roth interjected and asked what Mr. Gilloff thought of the view of the Quality Inn parking lot which was an asphalt jungle with smaller vehicles on it due to the fact that the requirement was for only 2% landscaping. Mr. Gilloff stated that automobiles were uniform in size, whereas RV's were fairly large; Councilman Kott asked if the uniformity of vehicles was the criteria and basis of their opposition. Mr. Cilloff stated that was the ~basis of their opposition, their parking lot vs. that of the proposed RV lot. Discussion followed between Mayor Seymour, Councilman Roth and Mr. Gilloff regarding the view from the south side of the Quality Inn and the relative importance placed upon the view in general by potential guests of the Quality Inn. Councilman Overholt asked Mr. Gilloff why a recreational vehicle park with the type of landscaping required was less attractive than parking lots with cars and was it not because they felt that the RV park was a sub-standard housing facility compared to Quality Inn, that being the most bothersome aspect of the project. It was not what met the eye, but what went on in the brain. 79-167 City Hall~ .Anaheim.~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - February 6, 1979~ 1:30 P.M. Mr. Gilloff conceded that what Councilman Overholt stated was true. Before Mr. Knisely gave his closing remarks, Councilman Kott asked if anyone was present from the Marriott Corporation; no one was present. Mr. Knisely first stated that one-half of the south side of the Quality Inn was a solid wall without windows. Further, one thing he did not mention earlier was the fact that they were talking about RVs and not travel trailers, and thus were stipulating to same so that there would be uniformity in size. Councilwoman Kaywood asked if there was to be a time limit on how long RVs could stay in the park. Mr. Knisely answered that the more restrictions placed on the project, the more difficulty involved in talking to lenders. If it had to be I0 or 20 years, there would be no problem. Councilwoman Kaywood clarified that her question revolved around the length of stay of the vehicle, and not the park itself, but, in fact, she was also concerned that the park would be there for 10 or 20 years and be called an interim use. Mr. Knisely stated that the owner did not rent his motel units out by the week or month, and he felt that the proposed usage would compliment his motel-restaurant business. He would be happy to impose a 7 to 10-day restriction on the length of stay of vehicles in the RV park. Councilwom~n Kaywood asked if they had taken a survey on RV parks already in the area as to how many were hurting for business. Mr. Knisely stated that none were hurting and all he heard was the necessity for the type usage proposed, which was tourist oriented. There being no further persons who wished to speak, the Mayor closed the public hearing. Councilman Kott stated that the project was one of a venture in private enterprise, and basically there had been no real objections to it that he could see. He was not concerned with what other parks were doing business-wise. He also did not understand the incompatibility as expressed in the Planning Comm~ission resolution. If it did not adversely affect the surrounding area, he wanted to know how it could be incompatible. Regarding the Marriott, he felt the proposed size of that project would add considerably more cong~stion and unsatisfactory conditions, particularly in that already crowded area, than the small private venture. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT - NEGATIVE DECLARATION: On motion by Councilman Kott, seconded by Councilman Roth, the City Council finds that this project would have no significant individual or cumulative adverse environmental impact and is, therefore, exempt from the requirement to prepare an EIR. MOTION CARRIED. Councilman Kott thereupon offered a resolution reversing the findings of the Planning Commission thereby approving Conditional Use Permit No. 1901. 79-168 City Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - February 6, 1979, 1:30 P.M. Before any action was taken, Councilman Roth asked relative to the required 32% landscaping, if any stipulations were made as to the trees being of a certain size in order to provide immediate screening. He had seen many times where there was a requirement to put in planters for that large amount of landscaping and he project ended up with nothing, or landscaping died. He would support reversal of the denial of the project by the Planning Commission if he could be assured that in~ediate screening would be stipulated by putting in trees that were 8 to 10 feet in height. Ms. Santalahti explained that the Planning Commission did place such a condition on the landscaping where along the perimeter the landscaping was to consist of trees that would become 8 to 10 feet in height after one year and spaced every 20 feet with shrubs. Councilman Roth stated they had to be concerned about the Quality Inn, the Marriott Hotel and anyone else who was going to develop in that area, that any screening be equal in height to the recreational vehicle, which would make it more palatable for all concerned. Ms. Santalahti pointed out that the plans showed 8-foot evergreen trees planted on 30-foot centers along the perimeters. She presumed that the intent was to plant every 30 feet, whereas in other zones they required 20 feet. Councilman Roth asked if the applicant would stipulate to 15 to 20 feet, rather than 30 feet; Mr. Knisely so stipulated. Mayor Seymour stated he was going to oppose the ~'esolution and support the Planning Commission's decision. In so doing, he found it difficult since he knew and respected those who had an interest and were involved in the project. His reason had nothing to do with the irregular or incompatible size of vehicles. His opposition was based upon the point raised by Councilman Overholt. He asked himself whether or not it was appropriate to develop an RV park adjacent to high-rise, high-quality hotel properties, and the answer was "no" it was not appro- priate. The question was not one of private enterprise nor the hotel property owner vs. the little property owner. If the applicant was interested in expanding his existing Peter Pan Motel operation into a one-/or two-story motel, he would be totally supportive. As Mr. Knisely said, the question was land use. He did not believe that the Council would view the development of an RV park next door to the Convention Center an appropriate use. There was plenty of room for RV parking throughout the C~ty and availability of that type of development, to the degree that in the off-season, the existing RV and travel trailer parks had a difficult time keeping their business going. In this case, he had to set his personal feelings aside in considering the future ,~evelopment of that area into high quality hotel properties, and he reiterated he would oppose the Resolution even with the additional landscaping requirement. Councilwoman Kaywood stated she had to agree with the Mayor and she was also concerned with the overbuilding of RV parks because in the off-season, as they had told the Council, they had full-time residents living there with children attending schools, and that was never the intent. Relative to the specific location, they had gone to great lengths to attract high-class, high quality hotels to come to the area because more hotels would provide' more rooms within walking distance of the Convention Center, making that Center much more attractive. Also with an RV park on Harbor, it was going to tie up traffic a great deal more than automobiles. 79-169 City Hall~ Anah.e. im~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - February 6~ 1979~ 1:30 P.M. She was also concerned relative to the prospect of an interim use. The tendency was to think in terms of possibly three to four years, but when the subject was broached, the indication was I0 to 20 years, and that was not an interim use. This was the major portion of Anaheim in the C-R area. If it did not remain first class and they were the ones who changed it, they would have no one to blame but themselves, and she did not want that on her back. Councilman Overholt stated that he was going to vote against the Resolution, but with a heavy heart because he had been to the property and was aware that approval of the project was particularly important to the owner of that property. He was convinced that it was an interim use of the back part of the parcel or the owner would probably have improved the back part with more units. He believed the problem the owner foresaw in the not too distant future was the fact that there might be a high-rise hotel on his parcel as well. When he mentioned sub-par housing relative to RV parks, unfortunately that was the connotation for individuals who owned quality hotels. They had also found that RV parks were in fact year- round facilities when the Council tried to limit the length of stay in those parks. Park owners approached the Council and stated that such a limitation would put them out of business. In concluding, he stated he had great empathy with the owner of the property. Councilman Kott stated he was interested in high-class hotels also, but he did not feel that they should not be intermingled with other types of accomodations. The person who could not afford the cost of a high-rise hotel should also have the right to be close to Disneyland or other attractions and live at his own level for a day or two. Relative to adverse eff.~cts, he maintained that anyone would have to admit that a 17-story hotel would have a much greater adverse effect traffic wise than would the proposed project. Although it might not fit into the slot of the "high-class area", there was a need and it would give certain people the opportunity to be as close to what they wanted to see, as others. Councilman Overholt asked a procedural question regarding the telegram submitted by the Marriott. He wanted to know if the record of the proceeding would indicate there was no written opposition. Ms. Santalahti stated that she believed that on the City Council Resolution, the Attorney would not put in that type of information at all, but that the Planning Commission would do so. She would talk to the secretary of the Planning Commission so that they would not comment on correspondence unless it had been accepted into the meeting and introduced. Mayor Seymour explained that he did not have any intention whatsoever in his opposition to the proposed Resolution to deny anybody an opportunity to enjoy the benefits of the C-R area and specifically Disneyland. To bear that out, not more than 30 days prior, he offered a motion to provide geodesic dome tent-type housing in an RV-travel trailer park with the justification that they should provide availability of accomodations for all levels of society. He reiterate~ there was no intent to deny that privilege, but it was clearly a question of land use. A vote was then taken on the Resolution of approval of Conditional Use Permit No. 1901 overruling the findings of the City Planning Commission and failed to carry by the following vote: 79-170 City Hal~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - February 6~ 19,79~ 1:30 P.M. Roll Call Vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: COUNCIL MEMBERS: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Kott and Roth Overholt, Kaywood and Seymour None Councilman Seymour thereupon offered Resolution No. 79R-81 for adoption denying Conditional Use Permit No. 1901, thus upholding finding of the City Planning Commission, with the added statement that with the gentleman involved in the project, he found it difficult to make a decision, but on the other hand he had to vote his conscience. Refer to Resolution Book. RESOLUTION NO. 79R-81: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM DENYING CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 1901. Roll Call Vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: COUNCIL MEMBERS: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Overholt, Kaywood, Roth and Seymour Kott None The Mayor declared Resolution No. 79R-81 duly passed and adopted. PUBLIC HEARING - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 1902 AND NEGATIVE DECLARATION: Application by Robert D. Etchandy et al, to permit retail sales of furniture on ML zoned property located on the east side of Tustin Avenue, south of La Palma Avenue. The City Clerk announced that a request for a continuance had been received from the applicant to February 13, 1979 at 3:00 P.M. The Mayor asked if anyone was present on the matter, other than the applicant's attorney. No one was present. On motion by Councilman Roth, seconded by Councilwoman Kaywood, the public hearing on CUP 1902 was continued to February 13, 1979 at 3:00 P.M. MOTION CARRIED. FAVORABLE NOTORIETY ON THE CITY OF ANAHEIM: Councilman Overholt reported that he had attended a state-wide convention this past weekend and the news of what was taking place in Anaheim had traveled throughout the State. Everybody was excited about the Rams, the Convention Center, etc., and it was amazing how the community had captured the imagination of leople throughout the State, with Anaheim now competing with Disneyland in its notoriety. The Council should be privileged to be part of that period in the City's history when big things were transpiring. 102: VECTOR CONTROL ASSOCIATION - SUPPORT FOR STATE MONIES: Councilwoman Kaywood referred to a resolution from the City of Seal Beach supporing the efforts of the Vector Control Association to obtain State monies to fund the Vector Control Districts. Some were still being called Mosquito Abatement Districts. She did not know if the Council had received a copy of the resolution and if not, she suggested that if they did not want to vote on the matter today, copies could be supplied for a subsequent vote. The City now contracted with the Vector Control District and they were asking for State money to support the Districts in lieu of Proposition 13. 79-171 City Hall, Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - February 6, 1979~ 1:30 P.M. Mayor Seymour suggested that copies of the resolution be supplied to the Council and be voted on at the next Council meeting. 175: CABLE TELEVISION: Councilman Roth directed staff to provide a progress report relative to the matter of cable TV for the canyon area. He was expecting an uprising if the City did not move rapidly on the matter. The Council needed to be kept abreast of the progress being made relative to providing cable TV. 148: SANTA ANA RIVER FLOOD PROTECTION AGENCY: Councilman Roth reported that he attended the recent Santa Aha River Flood Protection Agency meeting, and he sub- mitted the minutes of the Anaheim City Council meeting of January 24, 1979 to them. In addition, Mr. Ed Just, Director of the Agency, recommended that he (Just) make a report to the Council. City Clerk Roberts confirmed that Mr. Just was already scheduled for the February 13, 1979 Council Agenda. 102: DOG DEFECATION ORDINANCE: Councilman Kott reported that he received a number of compliments relative to the dog defecation ordinance with additional requests that other types of animals be included, the greatest amount referring to cats. After discussing the matter with the Mayor and subsequently giving some thought to the matter himself, he thought it would be reasonable to first wait and see how the "dog" ordinance worked out before getting involved in anything else. 114: INQUIRY RELATIVE TO W2 FORMS RECEIVED BY COUNCIL MEMBERS: Councilman Kott questioned why he was reissued another W2 form. Assistant City Manager William Hopkins stated that a second form was issued to the Council only because, for some reason, basic data on the first form was not correct. 173: OPPOSING THE USE OF LOS ALAMITOS AIR BASE FOR CIVILIAN USE: (Continued from January 30, 1979) The Mayor stated that last week Councilwoman Kaywood offered a resolution opposing commercial aircraft at Los Alamitos Airport. He (Seymour) reported that Supervisor Clark took an opposite view, and he subsequently contacted him. Mr. Clark assured the Mayor that he did not favor, but opposed, commercial use of Los Alamitos. Councilwoman Kaywood offered Resolution No. 79R-82 for adoption opposing the use of Los Alamitos Airbase for a jet airport for commercial aircraft. Refer to Resolution Book. RESOLUTION NO. 79R-82: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CIT~ OF ANAHEIM VOICING OPPOSITION TO ANY PROPOSED CIVILIAN USE OF THE LOS ALAMITOS ARMED FORCES RESERVE CENTER AIRPORT. Before a vote was taken, Councilman Roth asked for clarification of the matter. Mayor Seymour stated it was his understanding that Los Alamitos was included on the study list of SCAG as a potential commercial airport site; Councilwoman Kaywood stated it was not SCAG, but the FAA. She suggested that perhaps a 79-172 City Hall~ Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - February 6~ 1979~ 1:30 P.M. better course of action was to let the Airport Study Committee proceed with their study and come forth with their recommendations, and at that point the City could voice its objections. Mayor Seymour asked Councilwoman Kaywood if she would find out who was actually doing the study and supply the Council with a brief report so that they might vote on the Resolution the following week. Councilwoman Kaywood stated that she had the information and it was Supervisor Clark's recommendation that the Aviation Work Program Committee make specific evalutions for alternate airport sites to determine if a further study was needed. It was a committee from the FAA working through SCAG, and there was a resolution of the County League of Cities voicing their opposition to any proposed civilian use of the Los Alamitos Armed Forces Reserve Center which had been signed and sent by seven of the north Orange County cities. Councilman Roth indicated he was satisfied with that explanation. A vote was then taken on the foregoing Resolution. Roll Call Vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Overholt, Kaywood, Kott, Roth and Seymour COUNCIL MEMBERS: None COUNCIL MEMBERS: None The Mayor d~clared Resolution No. 79R-82 duly passed and adoPted. 120: DEVELOPMENT OF RENTAL HOUSING: Mayor Seymour referred to the direction given to the Planning staff in November (see Minutes of November 7, 1978 Policy on Rent Control) relative to the cutting of red tape for the development of rental housing, the mobile homes subdivision concept, etc., designed to relieve some of the pressure on rental housing units and, therefore, the pressure of escalating rents by increasing the supply of rental housing units. It ~as his understanding that the requested report would be submitted to the Planning Commission on February 12, 1979 and, therefore, the Council should be able to consider the report on February 20, 1979. 148: SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT USER FEE: Mayor Seymour referred to the report received on the Solid Waste Management user fee proposal which matter was going to be .considered by the Orange County League of Cities on Thursday evening, February 8, 1979. The County was saying they would continue to provide Solid Waste Management at dump sites and fills, but they wanted to incorporate user fees in that service and pass those off on the cities who, in turn, would be passing those costs to their constituents. The League position on the matter which he supported, as well as the City Manager and Public Works E~ecutive Director ~ornton Piersall, was to continue with the old system and not incorporate the user fee proposal. For purposes of direction at the League meeting, he wanted to have a consensus from the Council on the matter and thus he moved that at the League meeting, the City of Anaheim oppose the Solid Waste Management user fee proposal. Councilwoman Kaywood seconded the motion. 79-173 C.i. ty Ha!l~ Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - February 6~ 1979~ 1:30 P.M. Before a vote was taken, CounCilwoman Kaywood stated that many such issues were coming upand becoming real problems because of Proposition 13. However, there was no way to eliminate solid waste, and she maintained it would be wise to have an educational program relative to generating less waste. The waste had to be taken care of and there was a cost involved, and as with the Vector Control Districts, they had to take a realistic look at the situation. A vote was then taken on the foregoing motion. MOTION CARRIED. 148: NATIONAL LEAGUE OF CITIES MEETING~ MARCH 4-6~ 1979: The Mayor announced that the National League of Cities meeting would take place March 4-6, 1979 in Washington, D.C. He would not be attending and therefore if the Council was interested in appointing an alternate to attend, now would be the time tO do so. Councilman Roth stated that Mr. Ed Just wanted to speak to that matter when he spoke to the Council next Tuesday relative to somebody attending the meeting from Anaheim. After a brief Council discussion regarding the matter, it was decidedthat Councilman Roth would attend the National League of 'Cities meeting, but if he was'unable to do so, Councilman Overholt would attend. ADJOURNMENT: Councilwoman Kaywood moved to adjourn, Councilman Seymour seconded the motion. M~TION CARRIED~ Adjourned: 4:32 P.M.