The URL can be used to link to this page

1976/03/2376-203 C_ity HallI Anaheim. a Califo. rnia -. COUNCIL MI2~UTES - ,~rch 231 1976&. 1;30 P.M. The City Council of the City of Anaheim met in regular session, PRESENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Kaywood, Seymour, Sneegaa and Thom ABSENT: COUNCIL ~{BERS: Pebley PRESENT: ASSISTANT CITY MANAGER; Will%am O. Talley CITY ATTORNEY: Alan R. Watts DEPUTY CITY ATTORNEY; Malcolm Slaughter DEPUTY CITY CLERK: Linde D. Roberts CHIEF OF POLICE: Itarold Bastrup ZONING SUPERVISOR: Annika Santalahti CITY ENGINEER: James F. Maddox See Page No. 76-219 for roll call on the evening session. Mayor Thom called the meeting to order and welcomed those in attendance to the Council meeting. INVOCATION: Reverend Lowell Linden of :he First Congregational Church gave :he Invocation. FLAG SALUTE: Councilwoman Miriam Kaywood led the Assembly in the Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag. PRESENTATION - CO~TYR~.VENUE SHARING FUNDS CHECK: Supervisor Ralph Clark pre- sented a check to ~yor Thom for $136,449.35 in County Revenue Sharing Funds toward development of Twila Reid Park. }~yor Thom accepted the check with thanks on behalf of the City. RESOLUTION OF APPRECIATION: A Resolution of Appreciation to the people of Honolulu, Hawaii, for :heir hospitality was presented to the Principal of Katel~a High School, Mr. William Cullen, to be taken to Hawaii for presentation by ~he Band, Drill Team and Show Units of ¥~tella High School, MI:~TES: Minutes of :he Anaheim City Council Regular Meeting held February 17, 1976 were approved with corrections (typographical errors), om motion by Councilwoman Kaywood, seconded by Councilman Thom. CouncilmanPebley absent. MOTION CARRIED. WAIVER OF READING - ORDIN~.;CES AND RESOLUTIONS: Councilwoman KaT-~aood moved to waive the reading in fuil of all ordinances and resolutions, and that consent to the waiver of reading is hereby given by all Council Members unless, a~ter reading of :he title, specific request is made by a Council Member for tb~ reading of such ordinance or resolution. Councilman Thom seconde~t the motion. Councilman Pebley absent. MOTION U~NA/';IMOUSLY CARRIED. REPORT - FINANCIAL DEMANDS AGAINST THE CITY: Demands against the City in the amount of $804,502.24, in accordance with :he 1975-76 Budge:, were approved. RESOLUTI~ NO. 76R-127 - DESTRUCTION OF RECORDS ~FINANCE DEPARTMENT): "Councilwoman"Kaywo0d offered Re'solution N0. 76R-127 for adoption. Refer to Resolution Book. A RESOLUTION OF TIlE CITY CO~CIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AUTIIORIZING THE DESTRUCTION OF CITY RECORDS MORE TH~2; FIVE YEARS OLD, (Finance Department) Roll Call Vote: AIq~S; COUNCIL MEMBERS: Kaywood, Seymour, Sneegas and Thom NOES: COUNCIL P~MBERS: ~one ABSE~-~T; COUNCIL MEMBERS: Pebley The Mayor declared Resolution No. 76R-127 duly passed and adopted. RESOLUTION NO. 76R-128 - JOINT POI~RS AGRE~.~ME[~I - GEOCODED DATA BASE: Councilman Thom offered Resolution No. 76R-128 for adoption. Refer to Resolution Book. 76-204 City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - March 23t t976, 1:30 P.M. A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM APPROVING TtIE TEPJfS A~,PO COiIDITIONS OF A JOINT POWERS AGREEMENT I~ITH TILE' CITIES OF GARDEN GROVE, ]RJNTINGTON BEACH AND SANTA ANA IN CONNECTION IJITII THE DEVELOPMENT OF A CEOCODED DATA BASE AND AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR AND CITY CLE~RK TO EXECUTE SAID AGREEMENT, Roll Call Vote; AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Kaywood, Seymour, Sneegas and Thom NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS .. Nome ABSENT; GOUNC IL MEMBERS; Feb ley The Mayor declared Resolution No. 76R-128 duly passed and adopted. REPORT - DR. KOTT'S ALLEGATIONS REGARDING MISUSE OF OFFICE: Report prepared by the City Manager's Office dated March 22, 1976 was presented to the City Council. Mayor Thom directed a copy of this report be given to Dr. Kott and invited him to address ~he Council. Councilman Sneegas requested the remarks pertaining to this subject matter be recorded verbatim in the Minutes. The following was transcribed from a tape recording of this meeting. "TALLEY: The third item, Mr. Mayor, last week at your meeting of March 16th, you requested this office to investigate certain allegations made by Dr. William Kott at the meeting of March 16th. We have prepared a report pursuant to that matter. Mr. Harding, of my office, did the work and has any detail which you might request, and I would then submit the report for your perusal and any questions you might care to ask. THOM; Well I notice that Dr. Kott is in the Council Chambers. Dr. do you have a copy of the report? inaudible from audience THOM: Staff have an extra copy? TALLEY: I'm sure we do, Mr. Harding? THOM: By the way of information, the Council has had this report since yesterday afternoon. If Council Members have. any questions of staff regarding it, now is the time to make it. Perhaps if D~. Hott has any questions after he is allowed a moment or two to peruse it, why he would be more than welcome to ask a few, if he has them. THOM: Do you have any questions regarding the report Dr. -- (inaudible from audience) -- I realize you haven't had much time to look at it, if you'd like to take the podium feel free to do it. KOTT: My name is William Kott of 522 Dwyer Drive, Anaheim. It's kind of hard to ~o over it in this brief span of time but it appears to be kind of a good news, bad news type thing, wherein on one hand in the first part of this letter it states that the allegations I made last week apparently are true. SNEEGAS: Not quite, if you're going to call them true, make them true in their proper sense Doctor. KOTT: Well, it says here Councilman Sneegas did address the employees as a group. SNEEGAS: I admitted that last week, not as a group, some employees. KOTT: Extending some 15 to 20 minutes into the work day. As I recall last week Councilman Sneegas stated that all he did was walk through giving cards to the people he came in contact with; in fact, if anything, there was no meeting. TIIOM: I remember something to that effect. SNEEGAS: Called together. I had no one call any employeem together, and that's not what the report says, so read it carefully Dr., you're making accusations that aren't true. Here, ma~e you need ~o see your own report, 76-205 City Hall., Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MIt~TES - March 23~ 1976~ 1;30 P.M. KOTT: l,~ell, it says here Chat you did address employees as a group, how does a group form if they're not called together. SNEEGAS; Because they gather for coffee prior to going to work every morning in that particular room. I walked into the room, they were drinking coffee, and I Just said hey, can I talk to you for a few moments, and a conversation started. KOTT: In other words -- SNEEGAS: We would have been out of there in a flat 3 to 4 minutes prior to 8 o'clock had not someone contested the recent action of the Anaheim Hunicipal Employees Association taking a very biased vote to support, now this is the Employees Association Executive Board, to support the Mayor and his hand-picked candidate. That caused some conversation, therefore we were there a little longer than that. No one was held. No one was asked to come in and sit down. No supervisor at any time made any statement about having to sit there and listen, and we didn't ask any supervisor to call them together, KOTT: Are you saying that these people actually came to work early Just to have coffee and listen? SNEEGAS; Exactly. Not to listen, they were there having their coffee, every morning as they gather prior to going to work. That happens in most places, people do get there a few minutes before work. It's kind of hard for all of them to drive into the parking lot one minute of eight and get into the building. KOTT: Well, it says here that the group was there for 15 or 20 minutes, could this be wrong? SNEEGAS: No it's not wrong. KOTT: As a group? SNEEGAS: After the conversation turned to the biased decision that their Employees Association made, conversation picked up,a little bit and we talked for a few moments. Some of the follows got up and started off to work and others stood there. After a few moments we left. However, your letter states that "I called them together", that I had supervisors call them together, under coercing conditions. Now that's a terribly different set of circumstances. KOTT: T. hat~s the information that I received. SNEEGAS: Well your information's bad. Did you get any other information about candidates this past week sir? KOTT; Yes. SNEEGAS: What was it? KOTT: I can't divulge it SNEEGAS: You can't divulge it? KOTT: No. SNEEGAS: You don't w~nt to talk about the other candidates who have had .... solicitin~ votes on City time? Is that what you're saying? THOM; May I remind you Councilman Sneegas that Dr. Kott is here to receive a report. SNEEGAS: Dr. Kott is here accusing me of theft, that's what Dr. Kott is here - - KOIT; No, I'm here to accuse you of illegally using the powers and trust of your public office. Period. 76-206 City ltall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - March 23~ 1976~ 1:30 P.M. SNEEGAS: Wonderful, and we're hashing it out right now; how about the other candidates using tile powers and trust of their elected office. Did you get anything in that.regard this past week. Has that been brought to your attention? !'.OIT: I don't know of any other candidates in office who are running for office. THOM: I don't believe the Dr. holds an office - - Si:EEGAS: Any other candidates? ~iOM; Uell, in going through some of the forms - - SNEEGAS: You notice the last line of the report, sir TiIOM: I'm speaking Councilman Sneegas, I've just - - S~EEGAS: Oh, you're always speaking. T~OM: Well, that's right, in that I run the meeting, I'm intended to speak. SNEEGAS; Yeah, I know, you've said you run the City, and you're sure trying. THOM: Well, I'm glad that you concede that fact to me. SI~EEGAS: Everybody can TIIOM: Oh, really? One of the reports in here does state that it comes from the Utilities Department that somebody indicated it was his understanding that I was at the Service Center. This is absolutely not true, and the report is amended to read that ~hey don't know where that statement started from nor where it came from. I can categorically deny that. I've never done the heinous act that you've been accused of. However, there 'are - - ~EEGAS; Never have, have you !~yor? Never talked to City employees? Oh, always, but not on City time, never on City time. SNEEGAS: No action has taken place on City time in your behalf in this election? Not by me. SNEEGAS: Hm, I see, not by you. I~{OM: No. However, there was another report in here, evidently it came from the Planning Section, where you did confront an employee in the conference room down there on February 25th, for about 15 to 20 minutes. SNEEGAS~ I certainly did. THOM: So that is supportive of the contention that Dr. Kott has made. And also in the Mechanical Maintenance Department, the report that came in from Mr. Merriam states that you arrived about 9 o'clock and were reported to have left about 10 o'clock, that leaves about an hour at that particular facility, unless that report is in error. SNEEGAS: Ever walk through that complex down there, sir, or have you taken the time to go around and see the rest of the City facilities. THOM: I've seen it, I don't spend a lot of time there because I don't like to interfere with employees doing their work. SNEEGAS: Oh, I see. THOM: I wouldn't presume to do that. There is quite a bit of detail attached ~o this report. I believe, if I'm not mistaken, that Mr. Harding of the City .Manager's Office, has the material that constituted the one-page report. ' ! 76-207 City Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - March 23~ 1976, 1:30 P.M. SNEEGAS: What do you have? I only have one page. THOM: Oh, I had Mr. Harding to make a few photo copies of some select material. SNEEGAS: Oh, select material~ I see. Well, I'd like to instruc: Mr. Harding to make photo copies of all material and make it all available to the press, all the material, every comment chat was made by citizens. ~IOM: I Chink that would be a very fair thing co do. Did the press receive a copy of this report from Mr. Harding's Office? The one-pager. HARDING: Yes. /qlOM: I made photo copies of some of the material that was in there, however, I think the press should be encouraged, as should all members of the Council, to go through it all and have copies made of anything that they feel is either newsworthy or supportive of Dr. gott's allegations. There is quite a bit in there. DR. gOTT: Are copies of those going to be available, of the - - ~tOM: I believe Mr. Harding has them Dr., and certainly as one Council }{ember I have no objection to your reviewing them and getting copies of any of them that you want. It's Councilmanic material and that's up to the other members of the Council to determine whether TALLEY: Mr. ~'~.ayor, Inasmuch as that information was all gathered pursuant to preparing a Councilmanic report, all of it would be available to anyone who wants to look at it. However, we will make copies if someone specifically on the Council wishes a copy, or I believe private citizens can get copies at a price through the Clerk's Office. But none of the information I consider confidential. ~tOM: In keeping with the spirit of Councilman Sneegas' request here, I would ask that the press be allowed to have any copy of anything they want in that packet at no charge to the press. As I certainly feel that We shouldn't harass them for money for the copies, it's public information and they should have any of it they want. If somebody would like copies for souvenirs, why then, of course, you pay for a souvenir. gOTT: Are you saying that this is incorrect, Councilman Sneegas, that these people were unproductively taking the time where they say here this would have amounted to $50.00. Is this not true. Or - SNEECAS: No sir, I didn't say that was incorrect. I said they were not coerced nor were they made to sit there, nor were any efforts put out by any supervisor in my behalf to gather them together as your charge stated. ~IOM: Well I would hardly expect that to appear in a report. gOTT: Well it would appear to me that this still, no matter how it happened, they were still there for your benefit ~nd this is according to this report, what happened. SNEEGAS: I'm the only person who's ever, who has ever talked to a City employee on City time in reference to an election. gOTT: Of course that doesn't make it right, and you know that. SNEEGAS: Oh, I see, in my case it's wrong. Sir, it must grieve you greatly to realize that your campaign manager two years ago spent most of his school time campaigning for the Mayor and organizing the young people to walk on behalf of the Mayor as a class project. As a man who is so dedicated to the public, that must grieve you greatly and I'm sure you've censured him for that. KOTT: Was that an illegal act, or what, I don't understand. 76-208 City HallI Anaheim, California -.COUNCIL MINU~ - March 23~ 1976m 1:.30 P.M. SNEEGAS: No, it's Just as legal for him to use the taxpayers money, but it's illegal for me to. Get your values straightened out, sir, take a look around you. KOTe: Well I have my values straightened out. It says it right here that $50.00 was lost in terms of your appearance. I think my values are pretty st raight. S}~EEGAg: What do you want me to do? What's your solution to it? KOTT: Uell, I think chat that should be Up to the Council. I don't feel that I'm in a position to give a solution. SNEEGAS: Then I'm sure that you'll want the Council also to investigate all the time that has been spent on behalf of other employees by City employees; also I'm sure you'll want them to investigate the letter that was sent around on City time, left with City employees this past week, requesting, that members of the AMEA gather their people together in their work forces and go out and distribute literature on their behalf. KOTT; I think it should be investigated, yes. SNEEGAS; Yes, well I'll tell you something sir, I think that in view of the fact that the City employees are first class citizens, that I think it is normal for them to be involved, and be concerned about their City Government and I certainly will champion their cause to be able to talk and do things in the freedom of our Country. }GOTT: Well, that's what I'm trying to do too, but I don't think it should be done. at taxpayer expense, and in an offhanded manner. SNEEGAS: Oh, I don't think it should be either, and it wasn't an offhanded manner. KOTT: Well, do you feel that I have the right to do the same thing you did, do you think that everyone does, who runs for City Council? SNEEGAS: I think you have the right to talk to who you please, I think that's a right that we have in this Country. KOTT: On City time? SNEEGAS: No, not on City time and I didn't go around and talk to .them on City time, it happened in one instance where they were gathered together on their own time, the time lapsed over into their City time. As far as walking by City employees and talking to them you'd have us believe it was illegal to stop and talk to an officer on the street, unless we talked about the citation he was giving you, and I think that you're man enough and citizen enough and smart enough to realize that every candidate, every candidate running for any office talks to whoever they can, reference that office, on their time, City time or any other time, in your office, my office or anywhere else. The Political process is something' that is very valid in this Country and a very part of our lives and I don't think that it's fair to expect people to keep their mouths shut and ignore what's going on around them and I don't think it's even sane to believe that they would. KOTT: Well, all I know is that I haven'~ done that, I haven't taken City time - - SNEEGAS: Oh, come on KOTT: and used taxpayers money SNEEGAS: I'm so proud of you and the Mayor, who have never once transgressed onto the City's time; this lousy report cost more than $50.00, by far. KOIT: Well, then maybe you ought to shape them up, bring the cost down some; and since you say it's a lousy report, I'll have to back you up on that because the back end of it really is a kind of a whitewash, because the front part, or top part of it does in fact make my allegations true. 76-209 City Hall~ AnaheimI California - COUNCIL MINUTES - I.~.arch 23~ 1976.1 1:30, SNEEGAS: Oh you mean the part down at the bottom, you're concerned about that, where it says on at least three occasions during this campaign we are advised that other candidates have had contacts with employees during working hours, however, the mature of the contact was not considered unusual, You feel that's a whitewash because some employees stated that other candidates have come around and talked to them. KOTr; Yeah, this is a personal opinion, this is not a report. You know the difference between a personal opinion and a report? SNEEGAS: Certainly sir, I'm seeing them all the time up here. I'.O~r'. ~.~at is it? §NF_-.E C.A~: Pre~ udice. I~.O~T: I~ell, this is prejudice, that's exactly what I~m tellinE you. 9ce, that's exactly what I'm telling you. It's not a formal report. This is personal opinion. SNEEGAS: And your charges are totally unprejudiced in view of the fact that you're not at liberty to discuss other information that has come to you regarding other candidates? XOTT: Yeah, because that's not the point in question at this ti~e. Si;I':ZGAS: Oh, I see, I see. :.'.O~f: It's the abuse of the office. S}iEECAS: I see, ok. ilOTT; You jus~ don't seem to want to understand ~hat. SNEEGAS; Oh I understand it to~ally sir. I understand what your concern is. KOTT; ~:ell why do you keep repeating it ~hen? S;:EEGAS; I understand what your concern is. KOTT; I,~y do you keep repeating it? Si.~EZGAS: That you're out to defeat me. ;iOTT: l~ell what's.wrong with that. SNEEGAS: Not a thing, not a thing. KOTT: Isn't that the American way that you seem to exenplify? SNEEGAS: Certainly, just admit that that's what your purpose is. KOTT: Of course it is, you don't think I'm running not to defeat you. SNEEGAS: No, not at all. KOTT: ~a: do you :hlnk I'm running for? SI.;EEGAS: Well I hope that you're running for some reason other than Just to have your name in the paper. KOIT: %~ell that's pretty good too, nothing wrong with that. %tOM: ~?ell Dr. I think you've made your point clear. KOTr: I really haven' t. TIiOM: All right, I'll allow you to do it. KOTT: But go ahead, maybe you've got something to say. 76-210 City HallI Anahelml California - COUNCIL MINUTES - March 23t 1976t 1:30 P.M. ~tOM; Speaking directly to your request, you did get the report, we all have it. If you would like any of the substantiating data, you do have it; you do have the acknowledgement that the group that was involved in the one meeting, or rally, that the total value of their time would have amounted to - - SNEEGAS: I object to it being called a rally THOM: SNEEGAS: It was no more of a rally than talking to the people right here. They were there for another purpose and I talked to them. A rally is when they gather together for a purpose. THOM: I'm quoting from the Dr's. report. SNEEGAS: I know your quoting from the Dr's. allegations. Quote from the report, youlll find out something a little more like it. THOM: Well, ok, the group were together and the total amount of elapsed time amounted to less than $50.00, and I'm sure you would be more than happy to 'make restitution for this; however, that we'll leave up to your own conscience to do. Dr., unless you have any other, excuse me, questions that you would like to bring up, or substantiating data that you would like to pursue, why you're more than welcome to do it. KOTT: Well, I think at this time I'd like to see those other reports that you have. %71OM: }.Ir. Itarding, the gentleman in the plaid coat there, has them and I'm sure .there's a desk available somewhere around, or a table where you can go through them and take a. look at them. SNEEGAS: Just so down the road, about two weeks, there's no misunderstanding, I request that everything pertinent to this for last week and this week, the entire charges and everything be spread upon the records in 9erbatim. ~IOM: Happy to accommodate you sir. SNEEGAS: Fine, ~iOM; I know the City Clerk's always happy to accommodate the verbatim requests. ORSBOPJ~: Mr. Mayor, may I have the pleasure of addressing the Council? TIIOM: Certainly, is it relative to this or a different topic? ORSBORN: Relative to this. THOM: Very 8ood. ORSBORH: Mr. }{ayor and ~{embers of the Council. I came up here today to listen, had no intentions of addressing your august body. T~iOM: May we have your name and address Just for the record. ORSBOR2~: Alan Orsborn, 560 Peralta Hills Drive, Anaheim, California 92807. TI{OM: Thank you. ORSBORN: I am, however, amused at the concern that Mr. Kott has expressed, in employing employees time for election purposes. I had my watch on him back there and as I figured it he took 25 minutes of our time, not only of the Council's, but of eight members of staff, in an obvious political maneuver to obtain attention to himself and to perhaps in some manner, try to discredit the fellow candidate. I perhaps should not call him Mr. Kott, perhaps I should address him as Candidate Kott. I am also concerned with the validity and the integrity of the man involved since, in light of his presentation to this Council in open Council meeting last week, he made irresponsible statements that were calculated to do damage and, in fact, were an outright, and I hate to 76-211 City tia. ll, Anaheim~ California - CODICIL }~I:'~UTES - }~arch 23~ 1976~ 1;30 P.}.i. use the term in connection with anyone who I've had regard for in the past, but who constituted an outright lie; and if he is capable of lying to the detriment of a fellow citizen, then I would question his integrity in matters of great importance to the entire community. The lie I refer to was his reference to me as having been fired as a City employee for incompetence. I think each of you know, without me having to say so, that such was not the case. I dontt know what his purpose nor intent was in attacking a private citizen of the City of Anaheim, but my attorney is going to find out since we are suing him for libel per se, and we will let the court determine what the damage has been to me personally. I know that in political campaigns that those that are involved in seeking office do enjoy a certain immunity to scandalous statements, but I can assure him that such statements do not extend to private people who are endeavoring to work in defense of good government in their community as private citizens. I would bring to your attention the necessity of considering these facts in your deliberations and in the treatment of the people that appear before you; and furthermore, that you endeavor to keep your Council meetings working around Councilmanic duties rather than permitting political campaigning to enter these Chambers. This is certainly not the place for it. As far as }~r. Sneegas' and my contact with the City employees of this City, I assure you that I will contact my City employees any time I desire to do so at any time during their working day, and I shall not tolerate any denial of this privilege by this Council or anyone else, and I think you will support me in my con- tention in that regard. City employees of this City are not 2nd or 3rd 2q!O~[: Uell, as campaign manager -- ORS~O?CI: Let me talk Mayor, you gave me the podium, now permit me the right to do so. TIIO~.i: I'm permitting you to use the podium for your political purposes. You know. ORSBO~: Thank you. Explain t° me, would you, what my political purposes are in coming up here and defending myself. TilOi~': I don't know-- _RSoO~-~I: and coming up here on behalf of the citizen Ti!OM: Uell there's a rumor that you're Mr. Sneegas' campaign ~2anager, I - - q!lCg~PCl: There's no rumor to that, that is a fact, that is a fact but that does not make me a candidate for office nor does it put me in opposition to seed government in the City even though it is in opposition to your candidacy. Ti{O>~: !~atever' s fair. ~,~,.~ : That is exactly right ~:ayor, and I expect you to tread that line very carefully. Ti£OI~: I always do. ORSB0?C:: Ah, yes, I'm glad. The fact of the ~mtter is, that in addressing you I have come here, and as I said earlier, I did not come up here to speak in any ?~anner shape or form today, but I was provoked into doing it by the circum- stances that have arisen. I have had great regard for the people on this Council for many years, as a matter of fact, ~.fayor, I contributed to your campaign two years ago because I believed in you at that time Ti{OM; Feel free to do it again if you like ORSBOPC;; I certainly would if I liked, but I choose not to. The same is true of Mr. Seymour, and the same is true of ~!rs. Ka~ood, I have supported her, but not financially. So, I want you to know that I am Just merely appearing before you as a citizen in this instance. It has no connection whatsoever with any political aspirations that I might have personally. ~!OM: Only upon provocation. r.. 76-212 City Hal.1a Anaheimt California - COUNCIL MINUTES - March 23~ 1976~ 1:30 P.M. ORSBOPR~: That I might have personally. Thank you very much for your time, and I thank the audience, and the newspapers, and the citizens that are working for the City of Anaheim, for their time. THOM: You're welcome, Mr. Orsborn. KOTT; Mr. Mayor, I have to defend myself here THOM; OK Dr., we'll give you about 3 minutes then we'll bring it to a close. KOTT; I want to give those hand clappers a little rest, I don't want them to wear their hands out like that. First of all, I would like to ask the Council if they would direct the City Manager to get the formal reasons out for Mr. Orsborn~s dismissal, No. 1, since that seems to be his claim to unfame. No. 2, I want to know at this point in time what the feeling is of the Council of a private-citizen visiting employees at any time during working hours, anywhere on company time. I think you should. I would like to know what your feeling is regarding that situation. THOM: Oh, I'm sure the Council doesn't, and I'm sure City employees don't like to be interfered with on their time, and I'm sure Mr. Orsborn would not inter- fere with them unduly, I hope he wouldn't anyhow. And I believe the matters revolving around him somatime ago are a matter of public record, Dr., at least the statement by the City Manager to the press at that time, is public st at emant. ~-IOM: Shall we go on, ladies and gentlemen, to the next item?" .D. ONATION OF JEEP TO POLICE. EMERGENCY FORCE: Chief Bastrup advised that Richard L. HQrn, an active member of the Police Explorer Post, wishes to donate to the Anaheim Police Department a four-wheel drive Jeep truck, fully equipped with emergency equipment. The Public Works Director and Mechanical Maintenance Superintendent concur that this donation would be a valuable addition to police vehicles and will require little maintenance. Chief Bastrup requested Council authorization to accept the jeep truck free of charge as an 'addition to police vehicles. RESOLUTION NO. 76R-129: Councilman Seymour offered Resolution No. 76E-129 for adoption. Refer to Resolution Book. A RESOLUTION OF TIlE CITY COUNCIL OF TIlE CITY OF ANAHEIm! ACCEPTING THE DOI~ATION OF A FOUR-WHEEL DRIVE JEEP VEHICLE FROM RICHARD L. IIORN TO BE USED AS A POLICE EMERGENCY VEHICLE. Roll Call Voge: AYES: COUNCIL ~MBERS: Kaywood, Seymour, Sneegas and Thom NOES.' COUNCIL ~9~MBERS: None ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Pebley The Mayor declared Resolution No. 76R-129 duly passed and adopted. By general consent, the Council requested staff to prepare a resolution of appreciation to Richard L. Horn for this gift. RESOLUTION NO. 76R-1.30 - GENERAL ~.~JNICIPAL ELECTION! APRIL 13t 1976: Councilwoman Kaywood offered Resolution No. 76R-130 for adoption. Refer to Resolution Book. A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM, CALIFOP~NIA, ORDERING T~IE C~ASS OF THE GENERAL MUNICIPAL ELECTION TO BE HELD ON THE 13TH DAY OF APRIL, 1976, TO BE MADE BY THE CITY CLERK OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM. Roll Call Vote: 76-21') City Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL. ~IINUTES - .~{arch 23~ 1076~ 1:30, P.,!. AYES: COUNCIL }~.~.~ERS: Xaywood, Ceymour, gneegas and Thom NOES; COUNCIL I'~MBEF. S; None ABSIL'!T: COUNCIL }~5!BEP. S: Pebley The Mayor declared Resolution No. 76R-130 duly passed and adopted. PROPOSED kX~ND}-bPlTS - t!OUSINC ASSIST~MCE GOALS: On motion by Councilwoman Kaywood, seconded b~ councilman Seymour, public hearings were set on proposed amendments to the First Year Community Development Block Grant Application, Itousing Assistance Goals, for ~farch 30, 1976, 2:30 P.~. and April 6, 1076, 2:30 RESOLUTIOI'! NO. 76R--13111.i.i -- TRAFFIC SIGNAL~ CERRITOS AVENUE ?C~D GILBERT ~TP~. "' Councilman Seymour offered Resolution Mo. 76R-131 for adoption. Refer to Resolution Book. A RESOLUTION OF TilE CITY COUNCIL OF %liE CITY OF ANAHEIM APPROVINC J!'~ ACPgE..~:,T- ~,~ '? WITiI '~iE CObq';TY OF O ' ~ .~lGE FOR ~IE INST~LATION OF A T~FFIC SIGN~ AT GILBEPT ST~E~ ~'ID CEI!RITOS AVENUE ~lD AUTHORIZING TItE 5~AYOR ~ND CITY CLE~I TO EXECUTE SA~ AGF~E~.~NT. Roll Call Vote; AYES: COLP{CIL ~MEMBEKS: Kaywood, Seymour, Sneegas and Thom NOES: COLR]CIL }.~EMBERS: None ABSEI'Tr: COL~NCIL FY~MBERS: Pebley The Mayor declared Resolution No. 76R-131 duly passed and adopted. RE(~UEST - WAIVER OF SECTION 12.28 STREET IMPROVEmeNTS: Request of Mr. and Mrs. Ilarold Clayton, 1238 Devonshire Road, Anaheim, for waiver of Section 12.28 of the Anaheim ~[unicipal Code in connection with property located at the southwest corner of Romneya Drive and Citron Street was continued from the meeting of March 9, 1976 pending additional information regarding the street improvements required of properties to the west of subject parcel also fronting on Eor. u~eya Drive. Report from the Planning Department dated March 23, 1976 was submitted. Ur. Clayton reiterated the reasons they are requesting that the street improvements be postponed, that they do not wish to lose the existing palm trees any sooner than absolutely necessary and that they believe the improve- ment on their property without continuation of the sidewalks along the prop- erties to the west .would encourage children to walk in the street. ~r. C].ayto~ further clarified that the palm trees which will be necessary to re['ove are located on property which has been dedicated to the City and therefore when removal is necessary, should be done at the City's expense and not at his. ?~rs. Clayton questioned why they were not informed of these necessary street improvements when they made application ~o the various City Pepartr~ents for clearance to improve their property, as this would have been a deter~.ining factor in their decision to proceed. Council lIembers generally 'concurred with the Claytons that street improve- ments on their portion of Romneya Street could be postponed until the prop- erties to the west were also required to make these improvements and indicated they were amenable to postponing the improvements provided some means of insuring these would be installed in the future could be provided. Discussion ensued during which various alternative methods of postponing street improvements were discussed including bonding, use of the 1911 Act, ~d preparation of an agreement which would, in effect, be a lien on the property. ]~r. Watts outlined the type of agreement which might be drawn up. Mr. Joe l.~ite, 809 West Broadway, Anaheim, advised that he was the real estate agent involved in the sale of subject property to the Claytons, and to his knowledge the property upon which the palm trees are located was dedicated to the City by the previous owner, and these trees never belonged to }~r. and Mrs. Clayton. 76-214 City HallI Anahe.imI Ca!i. fornia _ COUNCIL MINUTES - March 23j 1976j 1:30 F.tI. At the conclusion of discussion, Councilman Seymour moved that the City Council approve an exemption to Section 12.28 of the Anaheim Municipal Code subject to an a§reement being entered into between the City and the property owner and being recorded, placing a lien against the property for the street improvements to be installed on demand by the City or upon sale of the prop- erty; and further finding that the palm trees involved in the street improve- ment would be removed by the City. Councilwoman Kaywood seconded the motion. Councilman Pebley absent. MOTION CARRIED. Mr. Clayton stated he would concur with such an agreement provided however that the "on demand" section of the agreement permit him a period of six months in which to comply with street improvement requirements. Council Members generally agreed, however, Mr. Talley suggested that removal of the trees might be carried out prior to 9treet improvements if City funds are available. RECE§S: By general consent, Council determined to recess for five minutes. (3:00 P.M.) AFTER RECESS: Hayor Thom called the meeting to order, all Members of the City Council being present with the exception of Council Members Sneegas and Pebley. (3:05 P.M.) CONS~T CALENDAR ITEMS: On motion by Councilwoman Kaywood, seconded by Councilman Seymour, the following actions were authorized in accordance with the reports and recommendations furnished each Council }~ember and as listed on the Consent Calendar Agenda: 1. P~3BLIC DANCE PERMIT: Permit to conduct public dance was granted, subject to the recommendations of the Chief of Police, for the Canta Ana Police Association and Tustin Police Association Benefit Show and Dance to be held at the Anaheim Convention Center, ~!arch 26, lq76, from 8:00 p.m. to 1:00 a.m.. (Jack D. George, Applicant). 2. CORRESPONDENCE: The following correspondence was ordered received and filed: a. PAC Committee (Alpha) - Minutes - February 10 and 24, 1976. b. Community Redevelopment Commission - Minutes - February 11 and lg, 1976. c. Planning Commission/Community Redevelopment Commission - Minutes - February 18, 1976. d. Anaheim Arts Council - Minutes - February 10, 1976. e. Cultural Ar~s Commission - Minutes - February 12, 1976. f. LAFCO - Minutes - February 25, 1976. Orange County Human Xelations Commission - Minutes - February 11, 1976. h. Financial and operating reports for the month of February, 1976 for the Customer Service Division and the Police Department. i. Orange County Mosquito Abatement District - Minutes - February 19, 1976. J. County of Orange, Environmental Management Agency - Resolution ~Io. 76,239 - Re funding the proposal for a circulation study for ~!ortheastern Orange County. Councilman Sneegas temporarily absent. Councilman Pebley absent. MOTIO~ CARRIED. CLAIMS ~D LEAVE TO PRESENT LATE CLAIM; Claims against the City were removed from the Consent Calendar. On motion by Councilwoman Kaywood, seconded by Councilman Seymour, an Application for Leave to Present Late Claim submitted by John D. Wise on behalf of Karen L. Morton, was denied, and the following claims were denied and referred to the insurance carrier: a. Claim submi:ted by Ms. Carolyn Roquet for damages sustained to home purportedly as a result of actions of Anaheim Police Officers, on or about December 12, 1975. 7f-215 City Hall, Anaheim, California -. COUNCIL MINUTES - Marc.h 23~ 1976~ 1:30 P.H. b. Claim submitted by Gerald W. Kirkness for loss purportedly sustained as a result of having personal tools being stolen from City of Anaheim Electrical Division Truck No. 28, on or about February 11 to 16, 1976. Councilman Sneegas temporarily absent. Councilman Pebley absent. HOTION CARRIED. RESOLUTION NOS. 76R-132 ~tROUGIt 76R-136: Councilman Seymour offered Resolution Nos. 76R-132 through 76R-136, 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. RESOLUTION NO. 76R-132 - 1975-76 WEED ABATE~,~NT CONTRACT - ACCEPTD2'~CE: A RESOLUTION OF ~{E CITY COU~ICIL OF TIlE CITY OF ANAltEIM FINALLY ;~CCEPTING TJtE CO~L.EffION A~D TIlE FUP~NISHIiIG OF ALL LABOR, SERVICES ~f~ KQUIP~qZl~T 7~ECESSARY TO CO!~7LETE TIlE CUTTING AND P~MOVAL OF ALL RANK GROI,~flI A.>rD I.~EDS, AND ~E~fOVAL OF RUBBISiI, PJ~FUSE ~2{D DIRT bTON ~2';Y PARCEL OR PARCELS OF REAL PROPERTY OR ANY PUBLIC STFgET IN /q!E CITY OF ~3IAI~IM, ACCOUNT NO. 322-297 (1975-76). (ilarold lIatts) RESOLUTION NO. 76R-133 - AB~DONI~NT NO. 75-13A: A RESOLUTION OF TIIE CITY COUNCIL OF ~IE CITY OF BI~AHEIM DECLARING ITS II!TEL'TION T~ VACATE CERTAIN EF.,AL PROPEXTY AND FIXING A DATE FOR IiEARING TI~Pd~ON. (L'o. 75-13A, April 13, lO7&, ~.30 P.lr.; portion of an existing public utility easement located 'west of Sunkist Street, south of South Street) ?J220LUTIOU NO. 76.°..-134 - EiiCROAC}9~NT PERlflT NO. 75-5E: A P~ESOLUTION OF TIlE C~ .... ~ C~U,~CIL OF ~"~.~1~ ~' CITY OF .~At~IM APYROVI~JG T!IE TEP&IS ;~D ~O~DI~IO~'~,*' ~ "~ OF ~" ]2~CROAC,..~..~I t=R,'iIT A~ID AUTilORIZING Tiie ,,~vn. :~.-~,r, ~D CITY CLEPZ ~n ~,-~ .... ZJCROACI2,21~ PERt!IT !JITlt T. E. YELLIS. (75-5E) 2ZSOLUTIO!: NO. 76R-135 - ,,.70PM. ORDER 1IO. S12: A PdZSOLUTIO~; OF TIiE CITY COUi;CIL OF T[iE CITY OF AiL\iiEIM FINDING AJD DETER'.~TJIiiG TiIAT PUBLIC CO~7VEHIENCE AiD 7Z;C2SCITY REQUIRE ~[E CO:ISTRUCTION AND COMPLETION OF A PUBLIC I}.,T.'ROVEl%71T TO rrIT: 21,.'ILA RI;ID GRADING IHPROVE~.~P~T - tilASE II, IN Tt~; CITY OF A:IAIII]IH, 1.7ORK ORDER ]iO. gl2; APPROVING %qtE DESIGNS, PLPf]S, PROFILES, DRA!,.rI,NG? ?.fid SPECIFICA- TIONS FOR TiIE CONSTRUCTION 7~IEREOF; AUTIIORIZING T!~ CONSTRUCTIO.'I OF SAID PUBLIC IHPROVEI~NT 1~ ACCORDfC~CE WITit SAID PLA~S, SPECIFICATIOL'S, ETC.; ATD AU%iORIZING AllD DIP~CTING ~IE CITY CLERK TO PUBLISH A ]?OTICE ILWITI}~C SEALED PROPOSALS FOR Tile CONSTRUCTION TtiEPd~OF. (Bids to be Opened - April 15, 1976, 2:00 P.I[.) P~SOLUTION NO. 76R-136 - WOPI'. ORDER NO. 755-A: A P~ESOLUTION OF TIlE CITY COUi;CIL OF ~IE CITY OF ANA~IEIM FINDING AND DETERMI,"?ING THAT I"UBLIC COJ* lr.~',.:~IE.,'~,'" .... A/'iD NECESSITY REQUIRE T~IE CONSTRUCTION A.'_P3 COI~rPLETION OF ,~ PUBLIC IHPROVE~NT TO WIT: BROADWAY-IIANCttESTER AVENUE STREET IMPROVEmeNT, I!ORTIi~ST CORNER, IN Tile CITY OF 32IAJ{EIM, WORK ORDER ~70. 755-A; APPROVING Tilt; ..DESIGI'.?S, PLA,US, PRO- FILES, DRAWINGS AND SPECIFICATIONS FOR TItE CONSTRUCTION TtlEREOF; AUTIIORIZlq~C %]IE CO'~STP. UCTION OF SAID PUBLIC IMPROVEmeNT IN ACCORDANCE ~.rITH SAID PLANS, SPECIFICATIONS, ETC.; ;J{D AUTHORIZING ;2~D DIRECTING TIlE CITY CLERK TO PUBLISII A NOTICE D~VITING SEALED PROPOSALS FOR THE CONSTRUCTION Tt~REOF. (Bids to be Opened -April 22, 1976, 2:00 P.M.) Roll Call Vote: AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Kaywood, Seymour and Thom , ..... NOES: COUNCIL ~MBERS: None ~ PORARILY ABSENT: COUNCIL ~MBERS: Sneegas ABSP;T: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Pebley The Mayor declared Resolution Nos. 76R-132 through 76P-136, both inclusive, duly passed and adopted. Councilman Sneegas returned to the Council Chamber. (3:10 P.M.) C. ITy PL~PJING CO~..{ISSION ITEMS: Actions taken by the City Planning Commission at their meeting held March 1, 1976, pertaining to the following applications were submitted for City Council information and consideration. 76-216 City Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - ~arch 23~ 1976; 1:30 P.M. On motion by Councilman Sneegas, seconded by Councilman Thom, the City Council authorized the actions pertaining to the following environmental impact requirements as recommended by the City Planning Commission and took no further action on the following applications. (Item ~!os. 1 through 5) 1. ENVIRON. MENTAL IMP..A. CT P~PORT - ~.~ECATIVE DECLARATION: The Planning Com- mission recommends to the City Coun'~il that the su'bJ'~'Ct projects in the following listed zonin8 applications be declared exempt from the requirement to prepare an environmental impact report pursuant to the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act. Conditional Use Permit ~.~o, 1414 Conditiona! Use Permit ?~o. 1603 Conditional Use Permit ?~o. 1605 2. CO~ITIOtIAL USE PEF3{IT ?~0. 1414 (READVERTISED~: Submitted by Eetdine Prop- erties, Inc., to expand an existing drive-in ~heatre on ML zoned property located at the southeast corner of Durst Street and Lemon Street (Anaheim Drive-In Theatre). I/~e City Planning Commission pursuant to Eesolutlon ~,?o. PC76-42, granted said conditional use permit as readvertised, subject to conditions. C0}~ITIONAL USE ~EP~IT NO. 1605: Submitted by Jacob Logar, et al, to permit a contractor's storage yard on RS-A-43,000 zoned property located on the south side of La Cresta Avenue, east of Blue Gum Street. The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution ?~o. PC76-44, granted Conditional Use Permit ~o. 1605, subject to conditions. 4. ~O~ITIOIIAL USE PE~,~IT U.O. 1603: Submitted by Ceneral Pipe & Supply Company, Inc., to permit outdoor recreational vehicle storage on ?~ zoned prop- erty located on the south side of La Palma Avenue, west of Grove Street with Code waiver of: a. Permitted uses. The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC76-43, granted Conditional Use Permit Mo. 1603 for a period of eight years with review at the expiration of that period, subject to conditions. 5. CO~'IDITIO~-~AL USE PER,MIT NO. 1577 - PJ~VISED PLANS: Submitted by Joan Hamilton, T. M. Shamma Associates for approval of revised plans for an apart- ment complex on CL zoned property located on the east side of Dale Avenue, north of Lincoln Avenue. The City Planning Commission, by motion, approved the revised plans sub- mitred. Councilman Pebley absent. ~OTIO~ CARRIED. RIDING A~D HIKI~,~G TRAILS - CANYON AREA: The riding and hiking trails plan for the canyon area as recommended by the Canyon Area General Planning Task Force was submitted, together with excerpt from the Minutes of the City Planning Commission meeting held ~{arch 1, 1976, indicating adoption of said riding and hiking trails plan in principle and recommendation for similar action to be taken by the City Council. Mr. Horst Schor of Anaheim tlills, Inc., urged Council approval of the plan on behalf of the Riding and Hiking Trails Committee. Council discussion indicated that Council Members did not construe this riding and hiking trail~ plan as anything more than a policy to be adopted by Council. Mr. Watts advised that since it is not then to be a supplement or amendment to any of the Elements of the City's General Plan, a motion to approve the plan in principle would be sufficien~, and it would be an appro- priate condition which might be applied in zoning actions. On motion by Councilman Seymour, seconded by Councilwoman Kaywood, the City Council approved the riding and hiking trails plan for the canyon area in 7r~,-2 ] 7 City HallI Anaheiml California - COUNCIL }~NUTES - Harch.23; 197.6; 1:30 ]'.'!. principle, as recommended by the Canyon Area General Planning Task Force. Councilman Pebley absent. ~OTION CARRIED. RECLASSIFICATION NO. 74-75-24 - PRECISE LANDSCAPI~G PLA:IS: mn motion Councilman Seymour, seconded by Councilwoman Kaywood, precise landscaping plans for a commercial development located north and west of the northwest corner of La Palina Avenue and State College Boulevard were approved as recommended by City Planning Commission. Councilman Pebley absent. ~OTIOI.~ CARRIED. T.Z]f'fATIV. E TRACT I,~OS. ~775~ C793~ 8795....... )~'~D ~796 - LA/'g; PLA/IS (7CIAtlI;I'~f.... SII~PEC); ~n motion by Councilman Seymour, seconded by councilman s'neegas, the City Council approved plans for development of a lake in. conjunction with Tentative Tract Uos. 8775, o°793, ~795 and 8796 on property located north of La ?alma Avenue., west of Euclid Street (Anaheim Shores) as recommended by the City FI. arming Commission. Councilman Pebley absent. ~OTION CARRIED. FIi~,~L ,~,~o~ , ~ TRACT NO. 8910: Developer, Eernard & Spengler; tract located on t]~e west side of Sunkist Street, north of ~outh Street; containing 39 proposed RS-7200 zoned lots. ~te City Engineer recommended approval and reported that said final r~.ap conforms substantially with the tentative map previously approved, that bond has been forwarded to the City Attorney for approval and required fees pai~. On motion by Councilman Seymour, seconded by Councilwoman Ka~.~ood, the proposed subdivision, together with its design and improvement, was found to be consistent with the City's General Plan, and the City Council approved Final ~:[ap, Tract ~o. 8910, as recommended by the City Engineer. Councilman Pebley absent. MOTION CARRIED. SOLICITATIO)~ PEP~MIT - CO!,fMUNITY CRUSADE AGAIi;ST DRUGS. f~ DISEASE: The request for per,.it to solicit charitable funds, door-to-door, in the City of Anaheim from June 17 through September 30, 1976, submitted by the Community Crusade Against Drugs & Disease, an effort which is supported by the Seventh-Day Adventists Church, was continued to the meeting of March 30, 1976 to determine whether or not the local Seventh-Day Adventists Church was sponsoring this solicitation effort, on motion by Councilman Thom, seconded by Councilman Snee~as. Councilman Pebley absent. ~OTION CARRIED. SOLICITATION PEP~IT - PIONEER WO~N: On motion by Councilwoman liaywood, seconc]ed by Councilman Thom, the request of the Long Beach-South Coast Council of Pioneer Women, for permit to solicit for charitable funds in the City of Anaheim through the street sale of tags, from April 15 to ~ay 15, 1976 was approved. Councilman Peb ley absent. MOTION CARRIED. Councilwoman !~aywood requested that citizen complaints regarding aggres- sive solicitation techniques used by any organization or individual be forwarded to the City Council so that they might be aware of these should thc offending organization request a solicitation permit in the future. EXEfEi~IOU OF SERPJ~,]O AVEi'~Z: The letter addressed to ~fayor Thom from ;~nahei~ ttiils, Inc., regarding an agreement entered into between the City of o*nahei~:~, Orange Unified School District and Anaheim IIills, Inc. relative to an elementary school site at Serrano Avenue and '!ohl Ranch ~..oad, which is con- ditioned upon affirmative action by the County in the extension of Serrano Avenue, was presented to the City Council, together with a sample reso].ution, urging the Board of Supervisors to proceed with the selection of specific alignment from Loma Avenue easterly approximately 2.6 miles to the existing Serrano Avenue. ~:~OLU~IO, NO. 76R-137: Councilman Seymour offered ?.esolution ~7o. 76P.-137 for adoption. lefer to Resolution Book. ' ?.F~?OLUTIO:'; OF "~'~ CITY COUNCIL OF ~IE CITY OF AIIAIIEIZ~ URCIUC TU7' EOA~ '~F ogP~:,TIoOP~ OF ~I~ COLq~ O~GE TO CLARI~ THEIR POSITIO~I I~ Cm~I!ECTIO~I !~Til i~SOLUTIO:~ UO. 76-275 Ai~D P~QUESTIPIG O~CO~SIDE~TID~ ~F TUE BOARD, ~F ~PEPJJIEORS~ ~P~ER. TO HOLD Ii: ABEY~'~CE, DESIGN ;2ID CO~STRUCTIOiI DF SI]EP~Uq AVENUE AS A ~'~O-L~IE COLLECTOR ROAD. 76-218 City Hallt Anaheim~ Cal~ ...... :.~.ernia - COUNCIL ,,L~UTES - :~arch 23~ 1976~ 1:3~ ?. Rell Call Vote: AYES: COUNCIL ?TY!BERS: Kaywood, Seymour, Sneegas and Thom NOES: ~OU~,.~IL ~:~MBE~S: None The Mayor declared Resolution No. 76R-137 duly passed and adopted. ORD ~.~A2'~CE NO 3516 Councilman Thom offered Ordinance No 3516 for adoption Refer to Ordinance Book. ~? ORDINANCE OF ~1i2 CITY OF /~qAHEIM REPEALING TITLE 4, CtlAPTER 4.32, SECTION 4.32.020 OF %]IE NiA/IIT. IM MWNICIPAL CODE AND ADDING A NEW SECTION 4.32.020 IN ITS PLACE PERTAINING TO AUCTIONEERS. Roll Call Vote: AYES: COUNCIL }~MBERS: I'.aywood, Seymour, gneegas and Thom NOES; COUINCIL ~ ' ~ ~? ' ,~E~IB~RS. None ABSE}~f: COm. ICIL 5'~?BERS: Pebley The Mayor declar'ed Ordinance No. 3516 duly passed and adopted. ORDIN~CE NOS. 3517~ 3518 ;J~ID 3519: Councilman Thom offered Ordinance I:os. 3517, 3518 and 3519 for first reading. ORDIN/~.~CE NO. 3517: A'~ O?~DIU.&NCE OF ~E CITY OF AI,~At{EIN AMENDING TITLE 18 OF T. IE ANA/IEIM ~,RD~ICIPAL CODE P~LATING TO ZONING. (70-71-25 (3), RS-5000) ORDINA2ICE. NO. 3518 : AN O",,~hDI,~,,/,ICE"' ^ OF THE CITY OF /%NAHEIM AMENDING TITLE 18 O,F, TtiE ANAltEIM LRDAICIPAL CODE RELATING TO ZONING. (74-75-40, CO (SC) OPd3INANCE NO. 3519: AU OPDI',IANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AMENDING TITLE 18 OF THE Af~AHEIM MIP{ICIPAL CODE RELATING TO ZONING. (66-67-61 (62), C-R) URBAN PAPd'( ASSISTIC,ICE: Councilwoman Kaywood noted that the recent League of Cities Legislative Bu!tatin requests that cities forward any information that they have prepared in connection with Urban Park Assistance Funds, so that they will have sorae idea as to how much development is planned. She noted that there is a new S25,00~,000 inclusion in these funds in the Urban Open Space and Recreation Grant Program. WASH!NGTON,,UPD,,A. TE.: Councilman Seymour reported on three areas of success resulting from his recent trip to Washington, D. C., (National League of Cities Conference) with the Assistant City Manager: !.'. General Revenue. Sharing: It was determined that in its present context Federal Revenue Sharing would seem to be safe for another year. The direction appears to be that Congress will in the future years attach conditions which might affect how the money is spent· 2. Flood Hazard Zone Map: The final revised Flood Hazard Zone Map for purposes of the National Flood Insurance Act has been obtained. It goes into effect April 16, 1976. Councilman Seymour requested that the Planning staff and the Public Information. Officer work together to achieve wide-spread publicity to inform the. citizens as to how they may obtain refunds for insurance paid. 3. Electric Utility Rates: Councilman Seymour reported that he had met with the Congressional Delegation from California and found some support for legislation which would require that formal public hearings be conducted prior to. any wholesale price, increase being granted by the Federal Power Connnission. Because of tine constraints, it is not probable that this legislation will be accomplished in this current session of Congress. !IAiDICAPPED STICKERS: Councilman Sneegas displayed a sample of the decal designed to be used by handicapped persons to indicate their cars when parked in spaces designated for the handicapped, lie again urged one of the service clubs in Anaheim to take on the production and distribution of these stickers as a cot~nunity service project. City ttall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MIi~UTEE -!~arch 23; 1976; 1:30 r, ECZSS - EXECUTIVE SESSIOn.;: Councilman ?eymour moved to recess to Executive ~qession. Councilwoman K~ywood seconded the motion. Councilman Pebley absent ?~OTIOT? CARRIED. (3:30 P.~,[.) ' ,\FTER RECESS.' .,',[ayor Thom called the meeting to order, all :~embers of the City Council being present with the exception of Councilman Pebley (5:!~ ~.~{.). P~CESS: On motion by Councilwoman Kay~,ood, seconded by Councilman geym, our, the City ~ouncil recessed to 7:30 P.M at the Fremont Junior tfJgh School, 608 I*est Lincoln Avenue, Anaheim. Councilman Pebley absent *.{OTIOI. I CARRIED. (5'1.1 ?.:~.) · . ALO?,~A }f. tIOUGARD, CITY CLERK PP,~:SE~-IT: COUNCIL MEPlBERS; Kaywood, Seymour, Sneegas and Thom ABSE~';T: COUi-~CIL ,~,~Y, EERS: Pebley PEESEi-,~T: CITY :tAg~;AGER; Keith A. Murdoch ASSISTAWT CITY MANAGER: ~-~illiam O. Talley CITY ATTOR3~EY: Alan R. Watts DEPUTY CITY ATTOP~;EY: }~alcolm Slaughter CITY CLE~i: .&lena M. };ougard PLT~'P,~I~.,~G DIRECTOR: Ronald Thompson ASSISTANT DIP~CTOR, PLaYthING: Don ~!cOaniel ASSISTAMT ~LAMNER: John Ja~derson ASSOCIATE PLA~,~ER: Bill Cunningham CO~Jt~ITY DEVELmP:~E'~T DI?ECTOP,.: Knowlton Fernald CITY ,~GI.~EE,R: James P. '~ad~ox CO~'C~U:.~ITY DEVELOP~WT CO~D,~ISS IO~,~ER$: ,St ewart ,Moss, Herb Leo and Jane Oseid ~,~yor Thom called the meeting to order at 7:30 P . .~. and announced that the t~earing would be conducted in sections, with a Erief summary of the proposed an~endnent given by staff, following ~ich coat, eats from the public would be heard. Po.:LIC :U:ARIi,~G - GENEPJLL PLD2-~ ,~',IE?n'm,"~ ~'O. 139 AND ';'0. !,tiC: To consider amendments to the ~naheim General Plan affecting four areas of the City, as described ip separate sections following, entit~eJ, Areas I, ii, !II and IV. - ' T?m City Flanning Commission, pursuant to Resolution '~o. PC76-35, reco~:~- ?.ended that Environ~ental Impact Report ~:o. 16C ]~e certifed as being in com- pliance with the California Environmental ~uality Act and further recommended adoption of 7,xbibit A for ,'\rea I, Center C~ty; Exhibit A be adopted for Area II, Patt Street; Exhibit A be adopted for Area III, Lincoln Avenue and gilbert Street; and that E×hibit E, as modified to eliminate any property westerly of I~perial Ilighway be adopted for Area II;, La Falma Avenue an~] !rperial llighway. ?~[r. Don ~!cDaniel ,briefly described the differences between the general Plan ,~mndment procedure and zoning procedures; gave a brief definition of t'~e General Plan Amendment procedure as it relates to recent changes in State law; and briefly described the areas which would be affected by the amendments labeled I, II, III and IV which comprise general Plan Ar~endment ?'o, 13q. I ~"~ CITY: - The area bounded by !-~arbor Boulevard, · ~:'~:~' ~ypress Street, I~ast Street and Broadway for the purpose of reviewing redevelopment alternatives (Project Alpha Concept Plan). .'-!r. John Anderson gave a brief summation using slides, which outlined land uses proposed in Alternative A for the Center City Area and the proposed changes in the circulation pattern. It was noted that Alternative A proposes no change in total acreage to be used for remidential and commercial uses; that 2,q acres are proposed for open space/parks whereas there is no designation for such in the current General Plan; and the total amount of acreage devoted to roads and streets would be decreased from 65 to 40 acres. Generally, 76-220 City Ilall~ Anaheim~ California - CO~CIL MI.~TES - ~arch .23; 10761 1:3~ P.?~. Alternative A provides a circulation and land use plan which would accommodate the Redevelopment Concept Plan. ~{r. Fernald stated that the General Plan Amendment is just the first step in the approval process for the downto%m redevelopment program, and as such it does not make all o£ the final determinations or decisions. These will be handled at future hearin2s. He commented that at the Planning Commission level many of the concerns rcl~ted by citizens were not related to the amendment as a whole, but rather to h~w it would affect individual property owners. Ue stated that these are the k~nd$ of questions which can best be discussed in the Community Development ,qffices on a one-to-one basis. He assured property owners that they would have sufficient time to make decisions and react to their particular situation. ~'.~ayor Thom opened the hearing to comments from the public. >~r. Gant Eichrodt, 2D3 South 5~elrose Avenue, Anaheim, voiced the opinion that Alternative A, as described, accommodates the concept of Redevelopment Project Alpha and very little else. Consequently, adoption of this General Plan Amendment in fact approves the Alpha concept and therefore the meet~n? scheduled sometime in \pri]. for public input on Redevelopment Project Alpha is a "whitewash". :~r. Eichrodt further urged that the Council direct a specific, detailed plan, which i~ total and complete, be prepareJ and the issue place~! on the ballot to be 4eterrined by the voters, thereby eliminating the step-by-step approach to redevelopment. In conclusion he requested the ~ounci] either continue or vote to ~Icny ~ection I of the C~neral Plan ~.rend~ent at this t iz~:~. .~{r..~ichael Pollak, /25 ~outh ~Test Street, Anaheim, questioned thc neces- sity of constructing two ~ajor s~;-:-lane arterial highways runni~.g north ~.n,i mouth through the Center City Area as described in Alternative ;. llc felt the citizens should be informed as taxpayers and residents of the do~.,~to~nn area what they can expect to be built in the redevelop~nent project area. Ue re~arked that he could nat understand why the plans call for a lake w~.'~ich ~,~ill not generate any ta~: revenues. ?~!r. Fred Brown, g]2 ~'est 7~roadway, Anaheim, questioned the reasoning behind realigning Lincoln ;.venue to accommodate the redevelopment project. also questioned the proposal for two 120-foot wide arterial highways within such close proximity. He .~tated that he foresees a tremendous traffic jam where the road will di~inish to its existing width. Mr. Rhodes, 122 ~orth Vine Street, Anaheim, pointed out that Broadway terminates at State College Boulevard and this will create difficulties in the proposed circulation Fattcrn. He urged further consideration to the realizn- ment of Lincoln Avenue ns ~t would affect that roadway east of State Colle£e Boulevard. Mr. Adoif Miller, 1859 ~andom Drive, Anaheim, also voiced concern about the traffic circulation pattern proposed, particularly as it relates to Lincoln Avenue and Anaheim Boulevard. !ie felt the costs and benefits of these circula- tion changes should be presented to the public for use in making a deter- mination. He was of the opinion that the expense involved will not be justified by the returns. Mr. Ronald D. P. oluffs, 150] :~inerva, Anaheim, urged that the Council con- tinue Section I of General Plan Amendment No. 139 to a later date. lie stated that if it is proposed ~hat these streets which will be widened to six-lanes will be extended at this width to the freeways, this fact should be presented to the public at this time. He contended that this General Plan Amendment would cause massive "infra structural" changes and a reassessment of land values, causing property o~ners to pay higher taxes. He further content',ed that this redevelopment project will require massive funding which w~ll not con~e from the private sector but from the public and the citizens of Anaheim will ],e the ones who have to support redevelopment financially, as well as the "imf re structure" improvements ,~uch as road and sewers. Mr. Louis Dexter, 3~5 ~orth Ranchito Street, Anaheim, remarked that California Law makes it mandatory that large developments dedicate land for 7~-221 City ~ ~,,a~ Ana-e~mI~ = California. - COUNCIL YINUTFS - ~'~arch 23~ 1~76~ 1:30 P.,..~. roadways and public domain and ]~e sees the redevelopment project as being a similar situation and felt that the City could dedicate the amount of land necessary to assure £ood transportation, ingress and egress to the project area. lie remarked that this is the time for citizens to show a sincere dedJ_- cation to the good redevelopment planning necessary to encourage ~nvestpent by tl~e private sector, and not to slow down a project which has been 20 years in cor~ing. ~:r. Gerald Bushore, property owner in the 2D0 bloc~ of East Broadway, \nahai~.~, and Wice Chairman of the Project Area Committee stated that those individuals who are now questioning the redevelopment concept should ~avc ~,~eco~e involved in the projec~ 1~ or 12 ~eetings past when citizen input could be incorporated and their questions and concerns would have been given every consideration. ?'~rs. Oneida Copeland, 207 South C]audina Street, Anabeir~, urged Cc, uncil .~?c~.-.hers to vote "yes" on t]~e General Plan Amendment Area I. She advised that s~e wo~ld prefer to see her tax dollars coming back into the community to clear up the problems in the downtown area rather than placed into worthless projects. '?rs. qusan Eichrodt, 203 South ~elrose Avenue, Anaheim, stated that she felt t]~e Jecision on redevelopment should be determined by vote of the people. ~!r. '~ichael Pollak commented~ in response to ~'~r. Bushore, that he and several other of ti~e speakers have actively participated in these redevelopment proceedings for some ti~e and have attended every meeting of which they ~,ere informed, lie concurred that some redevelop~ent is necessary in the dowmto~ area to make this portion of the City something delightful for the people to live in, as well as to improve the tax base. However, he commented that the plan s],o~ is not what ti~e people want to see in the do~mtown area; they do not want 12 super highway lanes running through the center of town; and that the people would like to see a plan which is more conservative anJ economical. ~'~r. George Lang, 201 ~ast Lincoln ~.venue, inaheir~, advised that he attended the Plannin£ Commission hearing on February 24, 1~76, and was told at tl~at time that the circulation pattern of streets as shown for Area I was not a part of the proposed General Plan Amendment vR~ereas now he is being told that they are. Itc further referred to the fact that several different plans for circulation were presented and in his opinion the Council should postpone deci- sion until one final plan is proposed rather than three modifications which are subject to change without notice. In response to these public comments, it was explained by staff and Council ~.~embers that road alignments proposed in a C~neral Plan Amendment are just general guidelines and separate public hearings would be held to consider precise alignments; that in order to make any redevelopment legally possible t]~e Council must tackle the problem step-by-step, and according to law the City's General Plan and redevelopment concept must be in conformance; that if the Council were to direct that a complete and final redevelopment plan were to be prepared and then presented to the public, the response of the public would be even more adamant that they had no input on the plan, whereas in the current situation many members of the public have had the opportunity to participate as the redevelopment concept has progressed; that the redevelopment issue as a ballot measure would be very complex.a~e~-~-~m~t~-b~-e~e~]~.~_~m~mN~.~ Councilman Seymour elaborated on some of the points brought out, particularly that there is no way anyone can know in advance what specifically will be developed on 200 acres of property that is owned by many different people. It is not until a private enterprise developer comes to the City with a proposal for a particular location that the determination will be fade and these ~rill be accomplished through proceedin?s which include public hearings. ~le furt]~er emphasized that for a developer to be willing to ma~e any sizable investment in the downtown area he must first know ~M~at is generally going to ha?pen in the surrounding area. The developer must generally know that the downtown area is not ~oing to continue to deteriorate, hut that the City is co~mit ted to a redevelop~.~.ent concept. See Council Minutes of April 27, 1976, 1:30 P.M., Page No. 76- , '~inutes". 76-222 City Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL 5{IT~UTES -.~.[arch 23~ 1976~ 1:30 P."{. Councilman Seymour pointed out that the proposed Ceneral Plan Amendment for Area I even with the six highway lanes, would reduce thc amount of space utilized in roads by 40%. %?ith respect to the proposed lake, Councilman Seymour agreed that this is a radical change from the present land form, and difficult to imagine, but if it is determined that this will be the use of the 20 acres in open space included in Area I, (he stressed that this decision has not yet been made) the reasoning behind it will be that this is an amenity ~ich will attract developers. Councilman Seymour concluded that people in the City of Anaheim have been saying something should be done about downtown ~maheim for 20 to 25 years; that ]~e was elected on a platform that he would take some kind of action in tills c!irection and he is consequently prepared to make a positive decision. TI,is <lecision is not all-encompassing, but one step further in the process. Mr. Eichrodt was again recognized by the ~[ayor and he charged that there are already specific plans developed by ~ahe~m-~v~g~-.~-~a~ and the >]ational Space Institute for facilities to be located in P,.edevelo~]ent Project Alpha and for a monorail system; tha~ the decrease in acreage dedicated to roadways will not regain many fine old homes and structures ~]ich will have to be torn down. Mr. Eichrodt was informed that these development interests have nothing more than an exclusive right to negotiate for locations within the project area and no specific development plans have yet been approved. l.h%yor Thom, with the consent of the other Council ~Iembers present, determined that further input on Area I would not be productive and on motion by Councilman ghee:as, seconded by Councilwoman Kaywood, the public hearing on Area I of General Plan Amendment No. 139 was closed. Councilman Pebley absent. ~[OTIOi{ CARRIED. RECESS: By general consent the Council recessed for 15 minutes. (9:15 P.'.[.) AFTER RECESS: ~L~yor Thom called the meeting to order, all Members of the City Council being present, with the exception of Councilman Pebley. (9:30 P.I[.) II. PATT STREET AREA: - Generally bounded by Kemp Street, Julianna Street, Olive Street and La Palma Avenue for the purpose of changing the land use designation from industrial to residential uses. Mr. John Anderson reviewed the planning considerations for the Pat: Street neighborhood as described in the Flanning staff report. The location, existing conditions and land uses were outlined. The objective of the General Plan Amendment is to allow for maintenance and renovation of the Pat: Street neighborhood, and the proposed amendment, Alternative A, would designate the area as suitable for medium density residential, and would allow 36 units per acre or 350 dwelling units total. ~'1r. John Aguilar, affiliated with Urban Projects, Inc., 10850 Uilshire Boulevard, Los Angeles, addressed the Council. Itc advised that his firm has been retained to work with and represent the owners and residents of the Pat: Street Area, for the express purpose of developing a realistic and viable neighborhood improvemen~ plan. Speaking on behalf of the Pat: Street Steering Committee and contingent of homeowners and tenants present at the hearing, }.Ir. Aguilar requested favorable consideration and adoption of General Plan Amendment ~o. 139, Exhibit A as it relates to Area II. Mr. Aguilar requested tha~ the Council recognize that the majority of the Patt Street community's foremost concerns are: 1) that the owners and residents want ~o remain within ~heir own homes which are designated suitable for rehabilitation; 2) that they wish their neighborhood designated as medium density residential in the City's General Plan. ~le further reported that his firm's approach thus far has been based on the premise that the area will remain in medium density residential and not be inclu4ed in any industrial park development plans. They wish Council to recognize that the boundaries of subject area and surrounding land uses, particularly the vacant property west of Kemp Street, will be analyzed to determine its role in any further iraprove- n~ents. He advised that this community is made up of a cohesive group which is Home Savings and Loan (later corrected to Anaheim Savings and Loan) See Council Minutes of April 27, 1976, 1:30 P.M., Page No. 76- , "Minutes". City l!all, AnaheimI California. - COUNCIL ?~I?~TFS - ITarch 231 1976 willing to expend a great deal of time anH energy to help realize the potent~.~] of their neighborhood. >ir. Steve Valdez, Chairman of the Yatt Street neighborhood Steer!nc Committee, stated that h~. concurred with the presentation made by :~r. Aguilar. Their being no further persons who wisl~ed to speak on Area II, on motion by Councilwoman Kaywood, seconded by Councilman Seymour, the public hearing on t]~is section of General Plan Amendment ?lo. 139 was closed. Councilman Pebley absent. MOTION CARRIED. IIt. LI:ICOLN AVENUE/GILBERT STREET AREA: - The southeast corner of Lincoln Avenue and Gilbert Street for the purpose of changing the land use designation from residential to commercial and/or residential uses. ~,Ir. Bill Cunningham advised that this area was included in the General Plan Amendment as a result of action taken by the City Council on !!ovember 25, 1075 when denying a reclassification petition to rezone the property from PS-A- 43,.q00 to CL. The primary reason for Council's denial of that reclassification was the homeowners' objections to increased traffic on Gilbert Street, tl~erefore each of the alternatives presented in the General Plan A~mendment has been evaluated with the emphasis on its potential traffic impact on Gilbert Street. lie reviewed the alternative presented in the staff report, includin2 Alternative A which was recommende~ by the City Planning Core, mission. ?,~r. 5{ichael Pollak, f~25 ~outh T~est Street, Anaheim, stated that throughout the redevelopment process discussion has been given to ways of bringing commerce into the downtown area. tie stated that if the City continues to place more commercial zones out of the downtown area, they are defeating this purpose. ?4r. Dean Graham, 133 South Gilbert Street, Anaheim~ stated that the Planning Con,mission recommendation for commercial zoning on this area wi].l encourage strip commercial development. '!e related that the homeowners do not wish Gilbert Street, a 4D-foot wide residential street, to be burdene~, with the ad~=itional traffic a corm?~ercial development would create. !lc referred to the traffic intrusion and excessive noise levels which would result from commercial development, ~ich were previously cited at the public hearing 7'iover. ber 25, 1~75. :'~r. Graham voiced the opinion that this particular property should not be the subject of a General Plan .Ar.~enct.~.ent, but these ~'~atters would ))cst bc discuss~d in a pablic hearing to rezone said property. ITc pointed out that the t',~ree other areas included in the General ?lan Ar~endment were larger in size t]~gn subject property and zoned for Jifferent types of uses and under ?'ulttp]e ownersi~ip whereas Area III is a seven-acre parcel of property with one owner. '~;r. Graham stated that he did not think sufficient consideration was given to medium density resi4ential uses of this property, tie urged that Council take no action on Area III of General Flan Amendment ?~o. 139. In response to Councilrmn Seymour, ?:r. Graham stated that his preference for use of this prop- erty would be professional offices, in. the C-O Zone. :~r. ~'~arvin Freitag, 2437 Transit Jvenue, Anaheim, recalled that the prop- erty owners in the immediate area of subject property opposed the previously requested zone change and this General Plan Amendment proceeding is just a different tactic to achieve that same zone change. Ue stated that the sur- rounding property owners do not wish to subsidize the development of this prop- erty with their residential environment or their children's safety. Ue urged that the Council reject any kind of commercial use for Area III. !!e replied to Councilman Seymour that he would prefer this property be developed to a low- density residential project such as single-family homes or a mobile home The following individuals who addressed the Council attesting to the facts that additional traffic impacts on Gilbert Street would be unsafe and intolerable and that there are a number of schools in the immediate area ~ich co~..pound the safety problem: '~rs. Jacqueline Dvorman, 2433 Transit J,.venue, Anaheim; ),{r. William Vachon, 2380 '.'.all, Anaheim; Mr. Chuck Burnes, 2341 !,"est Transit Avenue, Anaheim; ??r. Don Payne, 245~ Transit Avenue, Anaheim; Y,r. T'.rnin Stilling, 209 South Gilbert Street, Anaheim; ~.fr. tlarold Rattenbury, 511 South Gilbert Street, Anaheim. 76-224 City Hall! Anaheim! California - COUNCIL MINUTES - !.!arch 231 19761 1:30 P.~. Several of these aforementioned individuals also request that if commercial development is permitted on subject property, that consideration be given to closing Gilbert Street off from traffic access onto Lincoln Avenue. The following citizens voiced their favorable opinion of a light com- mercial use of this property in preference to apartments; Mr. Robert Atkins, 128 South Topo Street, .Inaheim; Mr. Robert Kuehn, 2515 Beryl Avenue, Anaheim; ~{r. Sherrill Pohlmann, 2333 West Lincoln Avenue, Anaheim. Messrs. Dan Rowland and Randy Bosch, 1000 !'~est La Palma, Planning Consultants and Architects retained by subject property owners presented a brief description of the various alternative uses developed by the Planning staff and demonstrated how these might be implemented with emphasis on the traffic increases on Gilbert Avenue generated by each. ]7uring the presentation ~]r. Bosch mentioned the possibility of signalization at the temco Pepartment Store location, which it is anticipated would relieve some of the traffic burden on Gilbert Street. He gave various examples of existing situations which were felt to be comparable to the alternative uses. Mr. Huber~ Conley, 517 South Gilbert, took issue with some of the examples given by Mr. Bosch stating that these were not truly comparable to the situa- tion at Lincoln and Gilbert. He noted that there is considerable difficulty presently in financing the homes in the Gilbert Street area because of the noise and traffic. Ee noted that according to the regulations posted for Gilbert Street, trucks of the size necessary to service a drug store or super- market would not be legally permitted on Gilbert Street. Y,r. Irv Pickler, 2377 l~all Avenue, Anaheim, President of the Gilbert Ho~,e- owners Association referred to the petition previously submitted with 500 signatures representing 200 families living in this immediate area who are opposed to a commercial' development on sub3ect property. IIe coranented that since the beginning of these discussions the commercial development has been represented by the owner and developer as the only thing feasible. He stated that he would like to see further consideration of the RS-5000 Zone for this part icular property. Mr. Don Ralston, 138 South Gilbert Street, Anaheim, owner of subject prop- erty, stated that he has tried, with the help of consultants to determine the best alternatives for his property and for the immediately surrounding neighborhood. }le read a letter from a neighbor, .~{r. Felix Rexach, 2381 Transit Avenue, favoring a light commercial development. In response to Council questions, Mr. Pmlston stated that he could acce'pt the situation of closing off access to Gilbert Street from subject property. ~{r. Ben Bay, 2148 West Grayson Avenue, Anaheim, remarked that he did not like this particular method of handling public hearings and General Plan Amend- ments. Inasmuch as the City is limited to three times a year, these lengthy proceedings will eventually wear down the public until there is less and less part ic ipatton. l~r. Bay read from the City's General Plan Book "Community Goals" Section that it is one of the City's stated goals to maintain and enhance the residential environment of Anaheim's living areas. He also noted that Anaheim has a high proportion of land devoted to commercial uses as compared to the National averages. Therefore, he could not understand why the Council would consider using subject property, which is adjacent to residential area, for co~ercial development. Mr. Bay reiterated that the primary factor in the study charged to the Planning Department in connection with Section III of this General Plan Amend- ment was to review the resultant traffic impacts of the various alternatives on Lincoln Avenue and Gilbert Street, and the use with the highest adt levels, 5,600 trips per day on Lincoln, was the commercial usage and this was the alternative selected by the Planning Commission for recommendation to the City Council. He urged that the Council not vote for a commercial designation in the General Plan for this property or that they a~ least delay this decision for further information. He advised that putting aside economics, he would consider a park the best use for the property, and felt that not enough ._"[ti' '~-..lll Anaheiml. California. - CeU.~CII, "I:R~TF.C, - ?tarch ..oF"' ln761 1'~ ...... ~ ~' in ror?.ation ]]as been presented to make a decision for commercial t}~ou~'~''~;,,. o~-40DQ,, and R~-50O0 ought to be considered further amc~ statec] n~.~~, sure that all cor~;ercial uses wo~].d be i~appropriate. on motion by Councilman T]~or~, seconded by Councilman Seymour, thc t u]~c hearing on Area III of general Plan A:~endn~ent ?:o. l~q was closed. Ccuncilr:~.an Fabley absent. ~OTI~, ,~ARKI~.). .......... By general consent the 'ouncil recessed for five minutes. (11:20 ~ ") ......... ~.~, S, ilayor Thor~ called the meeting to order, all :~embers of the City Council being present with the exception of Councilman Pebley. (11:25 l.'~ IV - LA PAL:~A/I?fPEP, IAL IIICili7AY ;,REA: - The area located at the intersectJ~op of I~p~ri,~l tlighway and La Palma Avenue, between Esperanza Poad and the fanta Ana River and extending from 600 feet west of Imperial ]t. ighway easterly to the proposed alignment of Weir Canyon P, oad for the purpose of changing the land use designation from industrial and residential to conunercial uses. :lr. Bill Cunningham reported that this General Plan Amendment was initiated by the City Council at the meeting of ?~ovember 25, 1975, x~.~en the public hearing on Reclassification Vie. 75-76-2 was conducted. Said item~, was continued pending the outcome of the General Plan Ar'endnent and further referred to the Canyon Area General Planning Task Force for revlew and recom- mendation. The area within Reclassification No. 75- 76- 2 consists of a nineteen- acre site at Imperial ilighway and La Palma Avenue. The Plannin£ staff, during initial evaluation of the study area determined that a need existed to expand said study area to include the eptire property between Esperanza P. oad and the Eanta Aaa River from 6,qq feet west of Iv. peri,~l Highway to I~eir Canyon Poad. ~r. Cunningham briefed the land use alternatives presented to the Planning Commission and reported that the Planning Commission action was to recommend a ,l~slo~nation of commercial for that area which would correspond with what was shown on P. eclassification ~;o. 75-76-2 as commercial, and the balance of that property to the rear is recommended for medium density residential. Further the City Planning Commission action omitted the 600-foot property to the west of Imperial Highway, thereby leaving it designated for industrial uses. Mrs. P.. Burnap, 1195 South Ililda Street, Anaheim, recommended that the City Council delete Area IV from the General Plan Amendment on the basis that it is too premature. She Doted that based on a reclassification petition affecting 19 acres, the General Plan Amendment review has been expanded to include 240 acres; and that there is great resistance to extending !~eir Canyon ?.oad across the Santa Ana River. ~[r. Horace Camp, 123A East Lincoln Avenue, ~^mahein, representing ~r. and ~'rs. lay Spehar, owners of the 19 acre parcel of property located at the nort]~- east corner of La Palma and I~perial Highway related the letters of intent anc~ other notifications of interest received from potential tenants in a shopping center if developed at this property, tie stated that the owners and developers of tills parcel feel that 19 acres of commercial property as recommended ~y tho Canyon Area General Planning Task Force is far too much. They can only envision support, from the market research they have completed, for 1n, acres (of co"~ercia] property in that location. Furthermore vehicular access ri~jhts to Ir~pcrial llighway from this property have been relinquisl~ed. ~akin£ it even more difficult to develop with adequate vehicular circulation. They therefore request that the Council accept the recommendation of the City Planning Commission and approve .*lternative ~ for ;rea IV of General Plan Amend~ent '~o. 139 which provides for a 10-acre commercial area o,~ tl~c southerly portion of ~;r. Spehar's property and medium density residential to the north. >Ir. Art Allard, 44q ~uclid, San. Diego, California, representing thc, prop- crty owners at the southwest corner of Irperial ]:ighway and La False encouraged the Council to support the Planning staff's recot~endation that a: end~.~ent to the General Plan designation for Area IV include commercial for t],e property at the southwest corner of Imperial Highway and La Palma .~venue f~r tl~e following reasons: 1) approximately 37;"., of the acreage fronting that intersection is either zoned or in commercial use; 2) the intersection is l_ 76-226 City Hall, Anaheim.~ California - CO~;CIL MINUTES - March 23) 1976) 1;30 within the ~cenic Corri<tor Overlay Zone and the commercial designation would allow for a better environmental solution aa it is more compatible with that Overlay Zone; 3) the proper~y would not be subject to "strip" commercial development as there is axisttnc industrial use to the west; ~) the Canyon Area General Planning Task: Force supports the recommendations of the Plannin~, staff for commercial desig~ation of this property. Mr. Jack Hall, Civil Engineer, representing IPS, the potential developers of the proposed apartment area located on the northerly portion of Mr. Spehar's property stated that they have prepared and submitted plans and an environ- mental impact report go support development of this property to a medium density residential use. He advised that one of the sound a~tenuation measures planned is to buffer the project with carports along the total length of the property abutting the railroad tracks. They plan to construct tennis courts adjacent to the Imperial Highway frontage and will be able to meet ]IUD noise st an dard s. In response to the public comments, both Council ?.~embers Seymour and Kaywood voiced concern over the proposed medium density residential area which would be surrounded by heavily used railroad tracks, Imperial IIighway, a mobile home park and a shopping center; Councilman Seymour noted that this is an environmentally undesirable property which is being forced into this particular There being no additional persons who wished to address the Council, by general consent the public hearing on Area IV of General Plan Amendment No. 139 was closed. (11:50 P.~,~.) Council discussion disclosed that the Members present were in agreement with the recommendations made by the Planning Commission with respect to Areas I and II, i.e., the alternatives labeled Exhibit A in each case. With respect to Area III, it was the general consensus of opinion that a commercial use as recommended by the Planning Commission would be appropriate and that this direction has been established over the past 1D to 15 years by surrounding development. ?-~owever, it was also recognized by the Council that this particular parcel is not comparable to other corner parcels in the City primarily because of the residential status of Gilbert Street. Therefore Council felt that no access to Cilbert Street from this parcel) neither infress nor egress, should be permitted. In addition, a Joint signalization with con'mon entry at the property line between subject parcel and the Gemco Depart- ment Store property was considered to be an important factor in. alleviating some of the traffic or.. Cilbert Ctreet, and in providing safe access to both commercial properties. Some discussion was addressed to including provisions regarding restriction of access to Gilbert Street and signalization in the General Plan Amendment, but at the conclusion of discussion, Council Members felt these provisions would be too specific for placement in a General Plan Amendment and might cause even more difficulty in development of the property. In addition, Councilman Seymour wished to first have some expert opinion as to ~M]ether or not the joint signalization would have any impact on Gilbert Street. The City Attorney pointed out that subject parcel of property is still in the RS-A- 43,000 Zone and would, prior to any commercial development, first have to be rezoned. The types of safeguards discussed by Council pertaining to ingress and egress on Gilbert Street and signaliza~ion would be appropriate conditions which could be imposed upon approval of a reclassification. The Council therefore determined that they could then accept the recommendation of the Planning Commission as it related to Area III, as shown on Exhibit A. They wished however that the record be absolutely clear tha~ no ingress and egress to Gilbert Street from the commercial development would be entertained. In Area IV, Council ~{embers Thom, Seymour and Kaywood voiced negative opinions towards the residential uses adjacent to the railroad tracks. Councilman Thom initially favored either Alternate A or B. Councilman Seymour suggested that in-lieu of either of these alternatives that the medium density residential area be supplanted by a light industrial use. Councilman Seymour further concurred with the Planning staff recommendation relative to the inclusion of the 6G0-foot property located westerly of Imperial 'Highway. Corrected to read "economic use without planning considerations." See Council Minutes of April 27, 1976, 1:30 P.M., Page No. 76- , '94inures". 76-227 City ttall, An&h~&mm C&l%fornia - COUNCIL MINUTE5 - ~,tarch 23m 1976, 1:30 ?.M. Following brief c~m~nts from the representatives for Mr. Spehar objecting to the industrial designations, Council Members' determined to accept Alternative C, indicating commercial uses for the entire area, rather than light industrial or medium density residential on the northerly portion of ~r. Spehar' s property. ENVIRONMENTAL .IMPACT REPORT NO. 168 - CERTIFICATION: Environmental Impact Report No. 168 having been reviewed by the City staff and recommended by the City Planning Commission to be in compliance with City and State Cuidelines and the State of California Environmental 0uality Act, the City Council acting upon such information and belief does hereby certify on motion by Councilman Sneegas, seconded by Councilman Seymour that E.I.P.. Uo. 168 is in compliance with thc California Environmental Quality Act and City and State guidelines. Councilman Pebley absent. MOTION CARRIED. PESOLUTION NO. 76R-138: Councilman Seymour offered Resolution ~o. 76R-133 for adoption, approving general Plan Amendment :~o. 139, in accordance with 7xhibit A for Area I, Exhibit A for Area II, Exhibit A for Area III and Exhibit C, including the property located westerly of Imperial Highway, for Area IV. ~afer to Resolution Dook. ~oOLUTIOJ OF ~._-tE CITY COUNCIL OF TtIE CITY OF A~;/!EIM APPROVING ;2~ ,~n .... .~,~, ~i T~q T:IE GENE~ ~ DESI~:ATED AS ~'~ND~I;T i~O. 139, EXI!IBIT A - Apda I, ~,,~...~-. A - ~A II, ~ItIBIT A - ~ III, ~ ZXttIBIT C I~ICLUDIi~G ~tE PROP~K~i L~CATED I~ERLY OF IMPERI~ HI~5~AY FOR ~A IV. Roll Call Vote: AYES: COUNCIL }'~EM~ERS: Kaywood, Seymour, Sneegas and Thom :~OES: COUNCIL ~.~{BEK$: ~one ABCZi~: COLq~CIL '~EMBERS: Pebley The l{ayor declared Resolution No. 76R-138 duly passed and adopted. 2[PLO~F~T OF FINANCE DIRECTOR: Mr. Talley briefly reported that as a result of recruituent ef'forts for a Finance Director, from over 130 candidates, ~'~r. Michael Moore, presently of Seattle, Washington, has been selected. gave a brief description of Mr. Moore's qualifications and requested an expression of approval from Council as to his appointment to this position. On motion by Councilman Sneegas, seconded by Councilman Seymour, the City Council approved the employment of Mr. Michael Moore, as the City's Finance Director. Councilman Pebley absent. MOTION CARRIED. ADJOU~qMErTr: Councilman Sneegas moved to adjourn. Councilman Seymour seconded the motion. Councilman Pebley absent. MOTION CARRIED. Adjourned 12:25 A.,.. Signed ~.~-~'~z.~ 27 ? City Clerk