Loading...
1976/11/1676-840 City Hall, ,An, a. heim, California - COUNQ..IL MINUTES - November 16.. 197.6, .1'30 P,M. The City Council of the City of Anaheim met in regular session. PRESENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Kaywood, Seymour, Kott, Roth and Thom ABSENT: COUNCIL/MEMBERS: None PRESENT: CITY MANAGER: William O. Talley CITY ATTORNEY: William P. Hopkins CITY CLERK: Linda D. Roberts PERSONNEL DIRECTOR: Garry O. McRae BENEFITS AND TRAINING MANAGER: Thomas Tyre FINANCE DIRECTOR: Michael Moore UTILITIES DIRECTOR: Gordon W. Hoyt CITY ENGINEER: James P. Maddox ASSISTANT PLANNING DIRECTOR"- ZONING: Annika Santalahti The Mayor called the meeting to order and welcomed those in attendance to the Council meeting. MOMENT OF SILENCE AND .RES.OLUTION OF CON.DOLENCE' Mayor Thom requested that a moment of silence be observed on the untimely passing and in memory of Paul Hayes, who had served the City as DXsaster Services" Coordinator since July, 1962, mn4 Rego'lution. of Co. ndolence to the Hayes family .wa8 unanimously adepted by' the City Council.. INVQCATION' Captain Nell Hogan of the Salvation Army gave the invocation. FLAG SAL, .UTE' Councilman William I. Kott led the assembly in the Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag. RESOL...UTION OF _SUPPO.RT' A resolution supporting the Water Conservation Awaremess Program initiated by the Orange County Water District unanimously adopted by the City Council was presented and accepted by a representative of the Orange County Water District on behalf of the Board of Directors ..... PROCLAMAT.!ONS- The following proclamations were issued by Mayor Thom and unanimously approved by the City Council' "Alcoholism Action Week" - Week of November 15, 1976. "Week of Concern" - November 14-21, 1976.. ~ · · MIN,U~ ES' On motion by Councilwoman Kaywood, seconded by Councilman Seymour, minutes of the Anaheim City Council regular meetin~ held September 14 and 2~, 1976, and adjourned regular meetings held September 15 and 20, 1976, were approved with the following change on Page 76-672 of the September 14, 1976 meeting' Paragraph 2 - changed to read, "At Councilman's Kott's insistence~ Assistant City Attorney Hopkins confirmed there would be a conflict of interest because Councilman Seymour was a member of the Chamber of Commerce, and Councilwoman Kaywood a member of the Women's Division. Both would have to temporarily resign their membership in order to negotiate with that body. Both agreed to do so." MOT ION CARRIED. WAIVER OF ,READING - ORDINANCES AND. RES.QLUTIONS' 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 Council Member for the reading of such ordinance o~ resolution. Councilman Roth seconded the motion. MOTION UNANIMOUSLY CARRIED. FINANC .IAL DEMANDS AGAINST THE_ CITY' Financial demands against the City in the amount of $383,682.51, in accordance with the 1976-77 Budget, were approved. COMITY DEVEL.OPMENT BLOCK GRANT - pUBLIC HEARINGS' On motion by Councilman Roth, seconded by Councilman Seymour, the City Clerk was authorized to set public hearing for the Community Development Block Grant Third-Year allocations and program on the. following Tuesdays- December 14, 1976 at 7'30 P.M.; January 18, 1977, .. tentatively for 7'30 P.M., and April 5, 1977 at 3'00 P.M. MOTION CARRIED. 76-841 City Hal!, Anahe. im, California =. COUNCIL MINUTES - November 16, 1976, 1:30 HOUSING STRATEGY STUDY - AGREEMENT WITH RE~L ESTATE RESEARCH GoRpoP~..TION.' In answer to Councilman Kott's concern regardinE hourly rates of pay for the prin- ciples of Real Estate Research Corporation, Rosario Mattessich, Director of Housing and Neighborhood Development, explained that several proposals were rece~ve~ before selecttn~ subject firm. Councilwoman Kaywood offered Resolution No. 76R-721 for adoption. Refer to Resolution Book. RE_SOlUTION NO. 76R-721' A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM APPROVING THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF AN AGREEMENT WITH REAL ESTATE RESEARCH GORPORATION FOR CONSULTING SERVICES AND AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR AND CITY CLERK TO EXECUTE SAID AGREEMENT ON BEHALF OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM. Roll Call Vote- AYES' COUNCIL MEMBERS' Kaywood, Seymour, Kott~ Roth and Thom. NOES. COUNCIL MEMBERS' None ABSENT' COUNCIL MEMBERS' None The Mayor declared Resolution No. 76R-721 duly passed and adopted. ORA~, GE COUNTY TRANSIT DISTRICT - DATA Pt~OC,E$SING SERVICES AGREEMENT· Counctl~n Kaywood offered Resolution No. 76R-722 for adoption, as recommended in memorandum dated November 11, 1976 from the Data Processing Director. Refer to Resolution Book. RESOLUTION NO: 76R-7.22' A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM APPROVING AN AGREEMENT WITH THE ORANGE COUNTY TRANSIT DISTRICT FOR DATA PROCESSING SERVICES AND AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR AND CITY CLERK TO EXECUTE SAID AGREEMENT ON BEHALF OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM. Roll Call Vote' AYES' COUNCIL MEMBERS' Kaywood, Seymour, Kott, Roth and Thom NOES. COUNCIL MEMBERS' None ABSENT' COUNCIL MEMBERS' None The Mayor declared Resolution No. 76R-722 duly passed and adopted. ORANGE COUNTY MANPOWE.R COMMISSION - MODIFICATION .OF DATA..P..ROCESS .ING SER..VI.C....EM AGRE. EME~.NT' (Agreement No. H88888) Relative to the subject agreement, Mayor Thom said he could not vote favorably on the modification as outlined in memorandum dated November 11, 1976 from the Data Processing Director because he did not agree that the City should build up their electronic data processing (EDP) service beyond more than that required to fill the barest and most minimum needs of the City. City Manager Talley explained that since computer time was available, to share it at $75.00 am hour would help to reduce costs. The Mayor thereupon suggested that the City should have a smaller computer or none at all, and contract- EDP~ services 6m the ou'tside, Mr. Talley explained that the present size of the computer was needed to handle the City's utility billing system. Councilman Seymour agreed that if Data Processing Services could be provided at a lower cost by. private enterprise, then the City should proceed in that direction. He stated, however, that until such time as proposals are received fr~m facility management concerns, the City should capitalize on the opportunity to e&rn additicxtal funds such as provided for in the proposed agreement, Mayor Thom was of the opinion that the more contracts entered into, the more diffi- cult it would be for the City to divest itself of in-house data processtn$, and he would never sanction any further such contracts. 76-842 City ~ .Ha. ll, Anaheim, C_alifornia -L COUNCIL MIN~UTES - November...16, 1976, 1'30 P.M. In answer to Councilwoman Kaywood, the Mayor indicated he would reverse his position if the study in process showed the City could perform data processing services more economically than anyone else, if he accepted the credibility of the recommendations. Councilman Seymour offered Resolution No. 76R-723 fo~: adoption. Refer to Resolution Book. PoiSOLUTION NO. 76R-723- A RESOL~ION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM ~APPROV~G A MODIFICATION AND AN AMENDMENT TO AGREEMENT NO. H88888 (CETA PRIME SPONSOR) WITH THE ORANGE COUNTY MANPOWER COMMISSION AND AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR AND CITY CLERK TO EXECUTE SAID AMENDMENT TO AGREEMENT ON BEHALF OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM. Roll Call Vote' AYES. COUNCIL MEMBERS. Kaywood, Seymour and Roth NOES' COUNCIL MEMBERS- Kot t and Thom ABSENT- COUNCIL MEMBERS' N~ne The Mayor declared Resolution No. 76R-723 duly passed and adopted. BILLING AND_COLL. ECTIC~. PROCESS, CITY PROPERTY.- D.AMAGES SMA_LL CLAIMS' Michael Moore, Finance Director, outlined the present billing and collection process for City property damage claims and other small claims due the City for Councilman Kott and explained that the proposed change would now make the present fragmented procedure more systematic. He indicated that no additional personnel would be added; the Small Claims Officer would come from the Accounting Division by a rearrangement of duties and a delay of some deadlines. Councilman Kott suggested that instead of the $250.00 or less limit as set in the proposed resolution for persons authorized to compromise or settle small claims, that it be raised to $500.00 since this was presently the maximum amount under the jurisdiction of the Small Claims Court, as confirmed by City Attorney HopRins. Councilman Roth offered Resolution No. 76R-724 for adoption with the amendment that the proposed amount for said authorfzed persons to settle claims actions be raised from $250.00 to $500.00. Refer to Resolution Book. RESOLUTION NO. 76R-724' A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM SUPERSEDING RESOLUTION NO. 75R-291 AND AUTHORIZING CERTAIN PERSONS TO REPRESENT THE CITY OF ANAHEIM IN SMALL CLAIMS ACTIONS AND AUTHORIZING SAID PERSONS TO COMPRO- MISE OR SETTLE SMALL CLAIMS ACTIONS IF THE AMOUNT TO BE PAID IS $500.00 OR LESS. Roll Call Vote' AYES- COUNCIL MEMBERS' Kaywood, Seymour, Kott, Roth and Thom NOES- COUNCIL MEMBERS- None ABSENT- COUNCIL MEMBERS' None The Mayor declared Resolution No. 76R-724 duly passed and adopted. On motion by Councilman Kott, seconded by Councilwoman Kaywood, the billing and collection process for City property damage claims and other small claims due to the City was approved, as recommended, in report dated November 10. 1976~"by the Finance Department. MOTION CARRIED. PRE- =EMP_ LOYMENT .AN.D ANNUAL PH.Y. SI_CAL EXAMINATIONS. - SOLICITATION OF PR. OPOsALS FRO~ QUALIFIED PHSYCIANS' City Manager Talley explained that because there were a number of physicians interested in performing the subject service~ that proposals be solici- ted for subsequent Council approval. Councilman Kott posed questions relative to some of the services performed as out- lined on the examination criteria and procedure sheet attached to Personnel Director McRae's memorandum dated October 29, 1976, wherein he proposed the solicitation of bids for employee medical examinations, specifically, Councilman 76-84~ City Hall. Anaheim, Cal~iLfprniaL- COUNCIL MI/qUTES - November 1~6, %976, 1:30 P.M. Kott referred to the audiometry test as opposed to only .a one-view chest X-ray, questioning whether or not the latter was adequate and the former necessary. Mr. Tom Tyre, Benefits and Training Manager, explained that one of the uses of the pre-employment examination was for workers' compensation purposes in that it became a baseline for determining how much deterioration (cumulative trauma) took place during employment by establishing the condition of the employee at the start of his employment. He further indicated that hearing complaints were expanding and that the audiometry test established hearing levels at the time of employment, thereby giving some defense and relief of responsibility if it were established that the loss occurred before employment. Personnel Director McRae confirmed for Councilman Kott that, in fact, the program was essentially one of defense ~md emphasized that it was never suggested that the City medical examination be considered by the recipient as a substitute for his own health care. Further discussion followed wherein Councilman Kott expressed the opinion that some of the items included in the physical examination procedure were of a highly technical nature and may not be needed considering the costs, whereas a two-view chest X-ray was more practical than one-view. Councilwoman Kaywood commented that the Kaiser Plan physicals usually take only one chest x-ray, not two. Councilman Seymour suggested that Councilman Kott, because of his expertise, take the time to come back with a better proposal. Councilman Kott, however, was inclined to accept the present examination criteria and procedures since it was found to be adequate by the people involved in its administration. On motion by Councilman Thom, seconded by Councilwoman Kaywood, the Personnel Director was authorized to solicit proposals from qualified physicians to perform and evaluate pre-employment physical examinations and employee annual physical examinations during the calendar year 1977. MOTION CARRIED. ADJUST .M~iNT QF .SALARY SLCHEDULES- CUS~TOMER SERVICE CLASSIFICATION' (Utilities Credit Supervisor, Utilities Billing Supervisor) Councilman Seymour offered Resolution No. 76R-725 for adoption. Refer to Resolution Book. RESOLUTIO~ NO. ~76R~-7.2..5· A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM ADJUSTING SALARY SCHEDULES FOR CERTAIN CUSTOMER SERVICE CLASSIFICATIONS AND AMEND- ING RESOLUTION NOS. 76R-674 AND 76R-681. Roll Call Vote' AYES- COUNCIL MEMBERS- Kaywood, Seymour, Kott, Roth and Thom NOES. COUNCIL MEMBERS' None ABSENT- COUNCIL MEMBERS' None The Mayor declared Resolution No. 76R-725 duly passed and adopted. SUSPENSION OF R~ULE .15 .- HOLIDAY. S- (Christmas Day, 1976 and New Year's Day, 1977 Holidays) Councilwoman Kaywood offered Resolution No. 76R-726 for adoption, as recommended in memorandum dated November 3, 1976, by Personnel Director McRae. Refer to Resolution Book. RESOLUTION NO. 76R-726' A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL 'OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM SUSPENDING APPLICATION OF RESOLUTION NO. 75R-566, PERSONNEL RULE 15, HOLIDAYS, AS IT RELATES TO THE CHRISTMAS DAY HOLIDAY, 1976, AND THE YEAR'S DAY HOLIDAY, 1977. Roll Call Vote' AYES. COUNCIL MEMBERS' Kaywood, Seymour, Kott, Roth and Thom NOES' COUNCIL MEMBERS' None ABSENT~ COUNCIL MEMBERS. None The Mayor declared Resolution No. 76R-726 duly passed and adopted. 7 O- S '~ 4 _City L{all, .A..naheim, California .- COUNqlL .MINUTES.- November 16, ..1976.~. 1:3.0. P,M,. .CANCEL COU.NCIL~ .MEETINGS DECEMBER .2!,' .1976 AND JANUARY 4, 1977' Councilwoman Kaywood moved to cancel the City Council meetings of December 21, 1976 and January 4, 1977 to allow staff the opportunity to bring their work load to a current status. Councilman Seymour seconded the motion. The motion failed to carry by the following vote' AYES' NOES · COUNCIL MEMBERS' Kaywood and Seymour COUNCIL MEMBERS- Kott, Roth and Thom pANEL OF FIR. S.T-TREAT. IN.G P.H. ySIC .IANS- City Manager Talley explained that presently the City has five current providers for medical treatment for on-the-job injuries and, as outlined in Personnel Director McRae's in-depth report of October 29, 1976, he would prefer that the City remain at that level rather than allowing a broad rendering of the service so 'as to maintain control of the program as well as attendant cos ts. Councilman Kott was of the opinion that the aforementioned report was not appropriate; Mr. McRae indicated that the intent was to report staff's feelings on medical control and that was the vital issue. Councilman Roth moved to reaffirm City policy of exercising medical control of employees injured on the job and designating the panel of first treating physicians. Councilman Thom seconded the motion. Before a vote was taken on the foregoing motion, Councilman Kott suggested that staff confer with the Orange County Medical Association relative to obtaining addJ. tional information on the proposed panel of first-treating physicians; thereupon, Councilman Roth withdrew his first motion and moved instead to continue the matter for one week until additional information was obtained by staff from the Orange County Medical Association. Councilman Seymour seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. P~LOT .PAPER REC.YCLING' PROGR..&M. City Manager Talley explained for Councilman Kott that a certain amount of .staff time would be expended relative to the proposed pilot paper recycling program, but since the Council expressed great interest in resource recovery, he was willing to devote City resources to see how much the program could generate for the City of Anaheim with a report to be submitted in 90 days for evaluation and determination of its effectiveness. Mr. Raul Rangel, Vice-President of Jaycox, suggested that the City undertake the program in order to obtain information to satisfy some of the questions that have come before the Council relative to the recycling. He relayed his experience with such programs over the past ten years and was of the conviction that one of the keys to success in recycling projects was the sustained enthusiasm of the volunteer effort; he knew of only one city where such a project was successful. Councilwoman Kaywood contended that if the City was serious about conservation, the pilot program should be initiated to determine its value. On motion by Councilwoman Kaywood, seconded by Councilman Seymour, a pilot paper recycling program commencing early January, 1977, subject to obtaining adequate citizen volunteers to fulfill the notification stage as outlined in memorandum from the Sanitation Division dated November 10, 1976, was approved. To this motion. Council Membe~Kott and Roth voted "No". MOTION CARRIED. DIS__TRICT. AGREEMENT Np. 3236 - D.EPARTME.NT OF..T. RA~.. S .P~. RTATION' Councilwoman Kaywood offered Resolution No. 76R-727 for adoption approving an agreement with the Department of Transportation for landscaping overcrossing slopes on Sunkist Street, Miraloma Avenue, La Palma Avenue, Tustin Avenue and Riverdale Avenue, as recommended in memorandum dated November 2, 1976, from the City Manager. Refer to Resolution Book. .RESOLUTION NO. 76R-72.7- A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF' THE CITY OF ANAHEIM APPROVING A COOPERATIVE AGREEMENT WITH THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FOR LANDSCAPING OF CERTAIN FREEWAYS AND STREETS LOCATED WITHIN THE CITY OF ANAHEIM, AND AUTHORIZ', lNG THE MAYOR AND CITY CLERK TO EXECUTE SAID AGREEMENT FOR AND ON BEHALF OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM. 76-845 City Hall, Anaheim. California - COUNCIL MINUTES - November 16, 1976, 1'30 P.M. Roll Call Vote. AYES' COUNCIL MEMBERS. Kaywood, Seymour, Kott, Roth and Thom NOES' COUNCIL MEMBERS' None ABSENT' COUNCIL MEMBERS' blone The Mayor declared Resolution No. 76R-727 duly passed and adopted. TWO_UN_BUDGE.TED BILLING CL~ERKS - CUSTOMER SERVICE DI. VISION. Gordon Hoyt, Utilities Director, explained that the t~o positions were unbudgeted and funds to pay salaries would have to come from the working capital of the Utilities Department. Councilman Kott referred to the great number of complaints he received regarding the billing system, and he was interested in correcting the cause of the problem and thereby eliminating additional help. Mr. Hoyt elaborated on the reasons why the two new positions were needed, as discussed in his memorandum of October 28, 1976. He stated that. the Utilities Department had not added anyone since 1974, but they were at a point now where they needed additional people. He added, further, that the temporary people presently employed would be needed until the new billing system problems were resolved which he estimated to be December. MOTION- Councilwoman Kaywood moved to approve the addition of two unbudgeted Billing Clerk positions in the Customer Service Division. Councilman Roth seconded the mot ion. Before a vote was taken on the foregoing motion, Councilman Seymour expressed his concern that the need for the two additional positions was not recognized during the budget session. Although he empathized with the problem as articulated by Mr. Hoyt, he did not want the two positions to become permanent, or if they should, then he questioned the advisability of going to the TRES system in the first place, though he was cognizant of the one-time savings that was going to be realized. He was, therefore, inclined to approve the positions only for an interim period at the conclusion of which they be reviewed and possibly eliminated. Although Mr. Hoyt shared Councilman Seymour's concerns, he indicated that at the time the decision was made to proceed with the new system in 1974, two anticipated Billing Clerk positions were deferred at that time. Now, however, the system was growing due to the addition of more apartments, condominimums, houses, as well as people moving, thereby adding to the work load. He was amenable to reviewing the situation again in six months, but indicated the positions should not be temporary considering the high rate of turnover of Billing Clerks; if vacancies occurred, he suggested that these could be re-evaluated. Councilman Seymour granted that there may be a real need, but he emphasized his concern of adding two positions to the City payroll and he was not going to support any activities which increased the number of authorized positions. He therefore moved to amend the foregoing motion by adding the stipulation that the City Manager report back within two weeks and identify two other positions that would be eliminated so that the proposed request could be filled with a review in six months, and if the two positions were not warranted that they then be eliminated. The amendment to the previous motion died for lack of a second. A vote was taken on the original motion to approve the addition of two unbudgeted Billing Clerk positions in the Customer Service Division. Councilmen Seymour and Kott voted "No". MOTION CARRIED. REDUCTION .OF... ELECTRIC ~ .RATERS' Councilman Kott proposed that the problems being experienced in the Utilitie§ Department were caused by the increase in electric rates. He therefore moved that the City reduce electric rates to their prior level and, as advocated in Proposition A, keeping them below Edison rates. Councilman Seymour seconded the motion for the purpose of discussion. Councilwoman Kaywood reminded Councilman Kott that in order to reduce electric rates, the money would have to come from the City's General Fund and would result in a total loss of $4,000,000 from that Fund. 76-846 C_it¥ Hall~. An..aheim, Ca. lifornia ~- COUNCIL MINUTE,S - November !6,. 1976, 1:30 P.M. Councilman Kott acknowledged the. consequences ~of what he proposed but was adamant that the' citizen of the community be given a reason for owning the company. Councilman Roth suggested that the matter best be handled through the newly created Utilities Board wherein the subject topic would undoubtedly be top priority. Councilman Seymour stated that anybody could support a motion to return electric rates to what they were prior to the recent increase, but there was a need to identify the sources where the City could raise replacement revenues in order to maintain fiscal integrity within the City. Mr. Hoyt indicated that presently under study was a re-estimation by Southern California Edison of the City's wholesale fuel adjustment costs which would be taken up with the new Utilities Board, and he was very optimistic about the results. The vote was taken on the foregoing motion to reduce electric rates back to the level prior to the recent increase. The motion failed to carry by the following vote: AYES- NOES- COUNCIL MEMBERS- Kot t COUNCIL MEMBERS- Kaywood, Seymour, Roth and Thom RETENTION OF UNCLA~D PROPERTY FOR .MUNI.CIPAL P.URPOS.ES. Councilwoman Kaywood offered Resolution No. 76R-728 for adoption approving the retention, of certain unclaimed property for municipal purposes, as recommended'in memorandum dated November 10, 1976, by the City Manager. Refer to Resolution Book. RESOLUTION NO. 76R-.728' A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM DECI~RING CERTAIN UNCLAIMED PROPERTY IS NEEDED FOR PUBLIC USE AND TRANSFERRING THE SAME TO THE CITY PURCHASING DEPARTMENT. Roll Call Vote- AYES- COUNCIL MEMBERS' Kaywood, Seymour, Kott, Roth and Thom NOES- COUNCIL MEMBERS- None ABSENT- COUNCIL MEMBERS' None The Mayor declared Resolution No. 76R-728 duly passed and adopted. PUBLIC DISCUSSION, - SALE OF MOBILEHO .MES'IN MOBILEHOME PARKS- City Attorney Hopkins recommended that the ordinance prepared repealing various sections of the Anaheim Municipal Code dealing with the sale of mobilehomes be approved by Council, as outlined in memorandum dated November 4, 1976, since State Code and the Business and Professional Code now provided the protection formally provided by the City Code. Mayor Thom clarified that State law as of January 1, 1977, Would pre-empt that portion of the present City ordimance governing the sale of mobilehomes. Councilman Seymour explained that the matter came about as a result of a request he received from the owners of Friendly Village Mobilehome Park on La Palina, and their Manager, Mr. Jack Glover, who wanted to be able to conduct the sale of used and existing mobilehomms within their park if the owners wanted them to offer their coaches for sale through them. They were told by the City Planning Department that it would entail a variance or conditional use permit to do so which would require fees and a 60 to 90-day wait. However, it was Councilman Seymour's under- standing that State law had pre-empted the City's "closed park" ordinance. In that regard, he asked the City Attorney to investigate the matter, and subsequently it was foumj that State law, in fact, did override the City's present ordinance, effective January 1, 1977, thereby opening up the right to sell mobilehomes to park owners and managers, as well as all others authorized to do so, and without having to go through "red ta~e". The Mayor stated this was a public discussion and asked if anyone wished to be heard. Mrs. Pat Kish, 1400 Dougla~ Road, Space 90, Orangetree Mobilehome Park, and representative of the Mobilehome Owners Protective Association, 76-847 Cit Hall Anaheim California - COUNCIL MINUTES - November 6 · 1~ 1976 1.30 ~ M. wanted confirmed that after January 1, 1977, residents of mobilehome parks would have the right to display "for sale" signs in their windows thereby excluding harassment or pressure from managers or owners, and if such harassment did not cease, what recourse the residents had. City Attorney Hopkins indicated that coach owners could sell their homes after January 1, 1977, and that such matters as harassment would possibly come under the State Consumers Affairs Department or the Real Estate Commissioner. He indicated he would investigate the nmtter of enforcement and submit a report for Council, a copy of which would also be sent to Mrs. Kish, as she indicated calls were referred to her from the Fair Housing Council. Mr. Earl Wayne, associated with Goldenstate M~bilehcme qwners League, stated that the Deputy District Attorney of Orange County, Richard Cornell, had set up a committee comprised of members of the Mobile Park Owners Association and the Goldenstate Mobilehome Owners League, and complaints such as those expressed by Mrs. Kish should be referred to them; Mrs. Kish stated, however, that the newly- established procedure for so doing in her experience had thus far proven ineffective. Mr. Wayne further stated that he was opposed to allowing park owners or managers selling mobilehomes in their parks, as it would take away the oPportunity for tenants to do so themselves. Mr. Jack Glover, 531 East Arrow Highway, Azusa, explained that even though his company was contemplating a resale program, the main purpose of which was to offer a service, they rewrote all of their rental agreements to allow their tenants to post "for sale" signs on their coaches. They wished to participate in the sale because it accomplished two things. 1) it allowed better control over prospective tenants, thereby protecting existing residents, and 2) it enabled them to attract and keep better managers because they would have the opportunity to earn a commission. He stressed, however, that the owner was the person who supplied the "risk" money to build the park and subsequently maintain it, while at the same time being excluded from conducting mobilehome sales. Hazel Dilly, Satellite Mobile Estates, 1844 Haster Street, understood that if anyone in her park, which was listed as a private club, wanted to put their coach up for sale, the owner would not allow real estate people into the park and, as well, had the right to screen the prospective buyer. Councilman Seymour explained that such a prerogative was not allowable because of the law that went into effect on June 30, 1975 giving real estate people the authority to sell mobilehomes in parks. ~' Relative to screening, he explained that there was also a law preventing the owner from doing so unreasonably and, as clarified by Mrs. Kish, the screening had to be based primarily on the prospective tenant's past record of renting and paying and not on matters such as race, religion or creed. Mr. Otto Lusko, 9738 Westminster Avenue, Garden Grove, 92644, owner of Goldenwest Mobilehome Brokers of Garden Grove, spoke in favor of the individual mobilehome owner being able to sell his coach. He explained that the problem he saw in management being able to do so was the control they could exercise. If both the individual owner and the management had a prospective buyer, he contended that management's buyers were the ones who would be accepted because of the profit involved. He also stated that he knew two places currently in Anaheim where mobilehome owners were scared to sell their coaches themselves and he told of an example of coercion that he had witnessed. He suggested that owners join and take the matter up to State level and wanted to know at the City level who should be contacted to get to the State level. The Mayor explained that such information would not be available until a report was submitted by the City Attorney, a copy of which would be sent to hin~ as well as other interested parties. Mr. Frank Bond, 212 North Harbor, Santa Aaa, B and B Mobilehomes, spoke on behalf of the individual mobilehome owners citing incidents where owners have been told that they must sell their coaches through the park m~nager or not sell theft at all. He stressed that many were living in fear after they expressed a desire to sell 76-848 their own homes. He reiterated that owners should have the right to sell their coaches and intimidation on the part of managers had to stop, and he was looking for the City to take such action. Councilman Seymour explained that the movement opened up the mobilehome park to provide the consumer with the greatest possible latitude in dealing with or without services to sell their mobilehomes, and if it could be opened up further, he wanted that to come about, It was his opinion that competition would breed the best possible climate for the consumer. Mr. Bond objected because of the unfair competition inherent in the park manager's ability to also sell mobilehomes. Mr. Johnny Fuller, Goldenwest Mobilehome Owners, indicated that although what Councilman Seymour proposed would be accomplished sounded good on the surface, in reality it was a move once again toward closed parks as management would have absolute total control. He cited a case in which he was personally involved regard- ing Friendly Village where, in the final analysis, clients of his were refused admittance to the park even after credit and other preliminary checks were found to be in good order. He emphasized that park management could dictate whose people would be admitted and that the situation was reverting back to the time before laws prohibiting such occurrences were passed. He emphasized that the Council should believe the statements made by Mr. Bond and Mr. Lusko. Mayor Thom asked City Attorney Hopkins if there was a possibility of writing into the ordinance an exclusion disallowing the management or owners of mobilehome parks the right to sell coaches in their park. Mr. Hopkins indicated that a State law pre-empted such an exclusion and could not be included in local law; however, he would study the matter to see if it could be done. He stated that it was more of an enforcement problem and he would also include this aspect in his report. It was the general concensus of the Council that the proposed ordinance would have to be reconsidered before further action was taken. On motion by Councilwoman Kaywood, seconded by Councilman Seymour, the proposed ordinance repealing certain subsections of Title 18 regarding the sale of mobile- homes in mobilehome parks was continued for three weeks to allow the City Attorney to reconsider the ordinance with the possibility of retaining a way to prevent park owners and managers from selling existing mobilehomes within their parks. MOTION CARRIED. RECESS- By general consent, the City Council recessed for five minutes. (3'30 P.M.) .AFTER REC.E. SS'- Mayor Thom called the meeting to order, all Council Members being present. (3' 35 P.M.) OVERNIGHT. PARKING .RESTRIC.TI.ONS _FOR .COMP~R~C~IAL _VEHICLES- Pursuant to City Council's request of October 12, 1976, City Attorney Hopkins submitted a memorandum dated November 1, 1976, listing two alternatives relative to amending the present City ordinance or adopting a.new one prohibiting commercial trucks from parking on residential streets. On motion by Councilman Thom, seconded by Counci~n P~th~ the .City Attorney was instructed to amend existing Code Section 16.32.200 to prohi-bif: 'fidmme. rcial vetli.¢les of a certain type or over a certain designated weight (10,000 pounds) from parking in residential areas from a certain time in the evening to a certain time the next morning with appropriate notice (recommendation No. 2 of the subject report) MOTION CARRIED ° A,G .REEME, NT, WITH. TAYL,OR-DUNN' ;..GOLF.. CART MAINTENANCE. Councilwoman Kaywood offered Resolution No. 76R-729 for adoption approving an agreement with Taylor-Dunn Manufacturing Company for golf cart maintenance for both of the City's golf courses. Refer to Resolution Book. 76-849 City_Ha!!. Anaheim, California - Cou~cI~ MINUTES 'L N_?v.ember _1~6,_ _1~976, 1:30 P_.M. RE_SOLUTION NO, 76R-729' A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM APPROVING THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF A GOLF CART MAINTENANCE AGREEMENT WITH TAYLOR-DUNN MANUFACTURING COMPANY, AND AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR AND CITY CLERK TO EXE- CUTE SAID AGREEMENT. Roll Call Vote' AYES. COUNCIL MEMBERS. Kaywood, Seymour, Kott, Roth and Thom NOES- COUNCIL MEMBERS' None ABSENT' COUNCIL MEMBERS' None The Mayor declared Resolution No. 76R-729 duly passed and adopted. REMOVAL OF TREES - LINCOLN AVENUE STREET WIDENING PROJECT- Mr. Ben B. Day, President of Blair Paving, Inc., elaborated on the efforts made by his company to save the seven pine trees which were to be relocated as a result of the Lincoln Avenue street widening project, but to no avail. On motion by Councilman Seymour, seconded by Councilwoman Kaywo0d, reports dated November 11, 1976, from California Trees and Blair Paving, Inc. were accepted. MOTION CARRIED. BICENTENNIAL COMMI~EE CONTRACT_ REVIEW' Councilman Kott, relative to his previous investigation of the subject contract, stated that the contract was a good one and he did not feel that anything was wrong with it. He was concerned, however, because after personally checking with City personnel who are listed as being involved in the preparation of the bicentennial contract report he requested, he found that several did not spend the number of hours indicated for finalization of the report estimated to have cost' $2,900 to prepare. He pointed out that, in reality, no additional money was spent to prepare the report, and his main purpose was to find out the status of the quarterly reports which were supposed to have been submitted. He was not concerned about attendant activities of the Bicentennial Committee. Councilman Kott emphasized that he wanted to see better reporting and more accuracy in terms of documentary items, such as contracts and agreements on an overall basis. He further asked the City Manager for an explanation regarding the disparity he found in the number of hours reported to be spent on certain aspects of the Bicentennial Committee contract review and the actual hours as indicated by the several employees with whom he spoke. Mr. Talley explained that a review of the entire Bicentennial Committee had been requested by the Director of Finance, and the final report did not show a distinction between the costs related to Councilman Kott's request and the City's overall review costs. The information given by the employees he (Kott) contacted was related to the amount of time spent on his request, thereby reflecting a difference in the amount of total hours as given in the requested report; the hours reported were, in fact, spent in the preparation of the report. STATUS OF_LEASE.- CITY-.~OWNED PROPERTY, 72_l..NORTH EUCLID' (Sewell) In answer to Councilman Kott's request, City ~ttorney Hopkins explained that a Complaint was prepared and ready to be filed in Superior Court on the subject matter, and noti- fication sent to all concerned that the escrow was being terminated and Complaints filed. In anticipation of selling or releasing the property, Councilman Roth suggested that a new appraisal be obtained; Councilman Kott stated that he would vote "No" if the property was to be sold for anything less than the $91,400 the City originally paid for it. On motion by Councilman Roth, seconded by Councilwoman Kaywood, staff was instructed to obtain., a new appraisal as soon as possible on the property at 721 North Euclid so as to determine its market value in 1976. To this motion, Councilman Kott voted "No". MOTION CARRIED. APP.LICATI..ON FOR SOLIC. IT. ATIQN OF ~HARITy FUNDS' Submitted by Advance Foundation, Inc. for permit to solicit useable clothing and household items through December, 1976. Reports from the License Collector and the City. Attorney were received stating they had no objection to the issuance of a permit for the subject solicitation. ~ ' _1 .... l ..... .... · . iii ~! .11111 r'l . i1~I ~ I ~ III / 76-850 ~Ci_t¥ Hall, .Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - November .._16.__1976, _1'30 P.M. On motion by Councilman Seymour, seconded by Councilman Roth, the application of Advance Foundation, Inc. for a permit to solicit useable clothing and household items through December, 1976 was approved. MOTION CARRIED. APPLICA..T. ION_ FOR SOLICITATION OF CHARITY FUNDS- Submitted by Hemodialysis Foundation for permit to solicit pledges from individual businessmen during November and December, 1976. ReportS from the License Collector and City Attorney were received stating they had no objection to the issuance of a permit for the subject solicitation. On motion by Councilman Roth, seconded by Councilman Thom, the application of the Hemodialysis Foundation for a permit to solicit pledges from individual businessmen during November and December, 1976 was approved. MOTION CARRIED. SUGGESTIONS F.OR RE_VIS_ION TO_ CITY_ .CHARTER. A letter dated November 4, 1976 (on file in the City Clerk's Office).was submitted by Mr. Louis Dexter for City Council con- sideration listing recommendations A through E, which recommendations basically called for an increase in Council membership from five to seven' election of Mayor by the electors - any resident of the City eligible to be elected to the Council shall be eligible to be elected Mayor; Council or Mayoral candidates whose total campaign expenditures exceed the annual salary of the particular office would be declared ineligible and the candidate receiving the next highest votes and fulfilling the necessary requirements be declared eligible for the office' the conducting of two Council meetings each week on Tuesday afternoons for City administration matters and Wednesday evening for City commission and public matters. Mr. Louis Dexter, 305 North Ranchito Street, requested that in light of the voters' rejection of Proposition B on the November, 1976 ballot, the recommendations outlined in his subject letter be presented to the electorate at next Spring's school election. He further requested a poll of each Council Member specifically on Recommendation A, B and C, for. or against~ his main interest was to probe the minds of the Council Members. Mayor Thom prefaced the matter by stating that the Council-appointed Charter Review Committee was formed for the sole purpose of reviewing the City Charter to give a specific recommendation relative to possible changes for presentation to the electorate and most of the recommendations Mr. Dexter proposed were discussed by that Committee and subsequently discarded. The Mayor further indicated on question by Mr. Dexter that his reaction to the proposed suggestions, whether for or against, was dependent on whether or not the former Committee was for or against them, as he was more comfortable in meeting the wishes of the broad spectrum. Councilman Roth expressed the opinion that the whole issue as far as he was concerned had been "put to bed" considering the time and effort the Charter Review Committee spent specifically for the purposes which Mr. Dexter now proposed be changed. He also emphasized that the subject committee was made up of a wide range of citizens thereby enabling a broad concensus; Council concensus was in agreement with Councilman Roth's assessment of the newly proposed recommendations. Relative to a seven-member Council instead of the present five, Councilman Roth pointed out that the Charter Review Committee had no interest in the seven-member Council; Councilman Kott was not concerned with the number of Council Members, but more with 'the direction in which the City was going and what the citizens would like to see. If at some point in time the majority wanted an expansion of the Council, he would support their wishes. Councilwoman Kaywood had researched the matter with other cities and the concensus was unanimous - that there was nothing a seven-member Council could do that a five-member Council could not, and the business of the City was more easily facilitated with five members. She was not in favor of a seven- member Council. Relative to the Councilmanic districts, Councilwoman Kaywood was of the opinion it would cause a situation for compromise in voting for projects in different districts, whereas when Council Members are elected at large, they represent the entire City of Anaheim. 76-85l Ci_t¥ Ha_il, Anaheim, .Cal_i..f.grn_ia..- _COUNC. IL MINUTES. 7 November 16, 1976_, 1:30 P,M, Councilman Seymour indicated he would favor a seven-member Council only if it meant better representation and after he was assured there was a sufficient number of people who felt the same prior to putting the matter on the ballot. This was true also of Councilmanic districts and the election of a Mayor. He was of the opinion relative to a limitation on campaign funds that the amount was so limited as to insure that the incumbent would stay in office. Councilman Se)nnour also stated that tw~ Council meetings a week would cause an extra burden on the taxpayer from which he would not receive any additional benefits, and he was not in favor of such a proposal, particularly because of the willingness of the Council to meet nights when a matter of concern to the community warranted such meetings. Mr. Dexter thanked the Council for their time. APPEA.L - DENIAL OF. PERMI? FOR FIGURE MODELING STUDIO. On motion by Councilman Seymour, seconded by Councilwoman Kaywood, the appeal submitted by Steven Zwick, Attorney for William McIntosh, for denial of a permit for a figure modeling studio at 421 South Brookhurst Street was continued to November 30, 1976, at the request o f Mr. Zwick. MOTION CARRIED. RE~UES_T FOR. RE_HEARING - VARIANCE NO. 2225- (Kar Kustom) 'On motion by COuncilman Thom, seconded by CounCilman Roth, request for a rehearing on Variance No. 2225 submitted by R. A. Bender, Attorney for Carl V. Bergman, Kar Kustom, was denied. MOTION CARRIED. CONSENT CALENDAR ITE_MS' On motion by Councilwoman Kay~'ood, 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~ CLAIMS AGA_INST. TH~_ CITY' The following claims were denied and referred to the City' s self-insurance administrator. a. Claim submitted by Pacific Telephone for damages purportedly sustained by a jackhammer operated by a City employee repairing a water valve on or about August 5, 1976. b. Claim submitted by Southern California Edison Company for damages purportedly sustained as a result of the failure of a capacitor bank owned, installed and maintained by the City of Anaheim on or about August 26, 1976. c. Claim submitted by Salvadore Rallo for personal injuries purportedly sustained while in the custody of the Anaheim Police Department on or about August 7, 1976. d. Claim submitted by Carol Gunderson for personal injuries purportedly sustained as a result of a fall at the Anaheim Convention Center on or about August 12, 1976. 2. CORRESPONDENCE· The following correspondence was ordered received and filed' a. City of Santa Ana Resolution No. 76-128 urging State Legislature to enact legislation authorizing local paramedic programs on a permanent basis. b. Orange County Vector Control District minutes of October 21, 1976. c. Monthly Reports for September, 1976 - Electrical Division- and for October, 1976 - Building Division. d. Community Redevelopment Commission Minutes of October 2 0, 1976.. e. City of Cypress Resolution No. 1788 opposing the Chino Hills airport. f. Housing Commission Resolution No. HC76-1 establishing the time and place of regular meetings and Resolution No. HC76-2 approving Conflict of Interest Code and HC76-3 approving and adopting ~by-laws. g. Community Services Board Resolution No. CSB76-1 establishing time and place of meetings and Resolution No. CSB76-2 approving Conflict of Interest Code. h. Anaheim Housing Commission Minutes of October 6, 1976.. MOT ION CARRIED. RESOLUTION NO. 76R-730 THROUGH L76R-_7.32' Councilwoman Kaywood offered Resolution Nos. 76R-730 through 76R-732, both inclusive, for adoption in accordance with the reports, recommendations and certifications furnished each Council Member, and as listed on the Consent Calendar Agenda. 76-852 Ci. ty H. all.~Anah_eim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - November !6,L .1_976, 1'30 P.M. RESOLUTION NO. 76R-730: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM _ FINDING AND DETERMINING THAT PUBLIC CONVENIENCE AND NECESSITY REQUIRE THE CONSTRUC- TION AND COMPLETION OF A PUBLIC IMPROVEMENT, TO WIT: AUTOMATIC IRRIGATION SYSTEM AT THE H.G. "DAD" MILLER ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL GOLF COURSE, IN THE CITY OF ANAHEIM, WORK ORDER NO. 1526; APPROVING THE DESIGNS, PLANS, PROFILES, DRAWINGS AND SPECIFI- CATIONS 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 - December 9, 1976, 2:00 P.M. ) RESOLUTION NO. 76R-731' A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM _ , ~ FINALLY ACCEPTING THE COMPLETION AND THE FURNISHING OF ALL PLANT, LABOR, SERVICES, MATERIALS AND EQUIPMENT AND ALL UTILITIES AND TRANSPORTATION INCLUDING POWER, FUEL AND WATER, AND THE PERFORMANCE OF ALL WORK NECESSARY TO CONSTRUCT AND COMPLETE THE FOLLOWING PUBLIC IMPROVEMENT, TO WIT' RIO VISTA STREET STREET IMPROVEMENT, 121' S/O TO 174' S/O AMES STREET, IN T}M CITY OF ANAHEIM, WORK ORDER NO. 787-Ao (Val Foth and Sons) RESOLUTION NO., 76_R-7L32' A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM FINALLY ACCEPTING THE COMPLETION AND THE FURNISHING OF ALL PLANT, LABOR, SERVICES, MATERIALS AND EQUIPMENT AND ALL UTILITIES AND TRANSPORTATION INCLUDING POWER, FUEL AND WATER, AND THE PERFORMANCE OF ALL WORK NECESSARY TO CONSTRUCT AND COMPLETE THE FOLLOWING PUBLIC IMPROVEMENT, TO WIT: FIRE STATIONS NOS° 3 AND 9 HOSE DRYING TOWERS, IN THE CITY OF ANAHEIM, WORK ORDERS NOS. 873 AND 874. (General Metal Fabricators) Roll Call Vote' AYES. COUNCIL MEMBERS' Kaywood, Seymour, Kott, Roth and Thom NOES- COUNCIL I~EMBERS · None ABSENT- COUNCIL MEMBERS- None The Mayor declared Resolution Nos. 76R-730 through 76R-732, both inclusive, duly passed and adopted. CITY PLANNING COMMISSION ITEMS' The following actions taken by the Planning Commission at their meeting held October 27, 1976, pertaining to the following applications were submitted for City Council information and consideration. The City Clerk noted that the 22-day appeal period would expire November 18, 1976, 5-00 P.M. On motion by Councilman Seymour, seconded by Councilwoman Kaywood, 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 Nos. 1 through 14): 1. E~NVIR~~NTAL IMPACT P~E..?ORT - NEGATIVE DECLARATION' The Planning Commission recommends to the City Council that-the subject projects in the following listed zoning applications be declared exempt from the requirement to prepare an environ- mental impact report, pursuant to the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act' Variance No. 2852 Variance No. 2864 Variance No° 2862 Condition. al Use Permit No. 1659 2_._ ~ENVIRONME. N.TAL IMPACT REPORT - CATEGOR! .CAL EXEMPTION' The Planning Director has determined that the proposed activities in the following listed zoning applications fall within the definition of Section 3.01, Class I, III and XI of the City of Anaheim Guidelines to the requirement for an environmental impact report and are, therefore, categorically exempt from the requirement to file an EIR- Variance No. 2857 Variance No. 2863 Conditional Use Permit No. 1660 Variance No. 2859 Conditional'Use Permit No. 1657 3, . VAR..IANCE NO. 2852' Submitted by Influential Homes Company to construct four single-family dwellings on RS-5000 zoned property located at 4540 and 4544 Hightree Circle and 1755 and 1763 Azure Street with Code Waivers. City Planning Commission Resolution No. PC76-212 granted Variance No. 2852. 76-853 C. it.y H, all, An_aheim, .Cali_fo.r~nia .7. cpu~,,,ClL MINUTES - Noyemb.er !6, 1976,_ 1:~0 P.M. 4. VARIANCE NO. _2857- Submitted by William E. and Kay Bo Thompson to establish a retail market and an existing service station on CH zoned property located at 950 North Anaheim Boulevard with Code waivers. City Planning Commission Resolution No. PC76-213 denied 'Variance No. 2857. _5. VARIANCE NO. 2859' Submitted by A1 and Josephine Paino for waivezsof permitted signing on CL zoned property at 727 South Beach Boulevard. City Planning Commission Resolution No. PC76-214 granted Variance No. 2859 for one year, subject to review by the City Planning Commission. 6. VARIANCE NO. 2862. Submitted by Dale Fowler to establish outdoor manufacturing on ML zoned property at 3845 Coronado Street with Code waiver of requirement that all uses be conducted in a building. City Planning Commission Resolution No. PC76-21~ granted Variance No. 2862. 7. VARIANCE NO. 2863' Submitted by Bank of America to establish outdoor manufactur- ing on CL zoned property at2238 Sequoia Avenue with Code waiver of requirement that all uses be conducted in a building. City Planning Commission Resolution No. PC76-217 granted Variance No. 2863 for three months, subject to review by the City Planning Commission. _8._ VARIANCE NO 2864. Submitted by Fred and Helen Mayberry to establish an auto repair shop on CG zoned property at ~039 North Anaheim Boulevard with waiver of permit ted uses. City Planning Commission Resolution No. PC76-218 granted Variance No. 2864. 9. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 1657- Submitted by William Kugel to permit a square dance hall on CG zoned property at 641-643 North Euclid Street. City Planning Commission Resolution No. PC76-219 granted Conditional Use Permit No. 1657. 10_. CQNDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 1659- Submitted by E. M. Hunsaker to permit a contractor's storage yard on ML zoned property located on the west side of Red Gum Street, approximately 805 feet north of La 3olla Street, with Code waivers''' , City Planning Commission Resolution No. PC76-220 granted Conditional Use Permit No. 1659, in part. 11. CONDITIONAL USE PERMI_ T NO. 1660- Submitted by Robert R. Ralls to permit a boarding house for six developmentally disabled adults on RS-10,O00 zoned property located on the west side of West Street approximately 355 feet south of La Palma Avenue with C~de wsivers. City Planning Commission Resolution No. PC76-221 granted Conditional Use Permit No. 1660. 12. _PROPERTY T .R~SFER TO ORANGE COUNTY FLOOD. CON_T_ROL DISTRICT- Request for determination of compliance with the City of Anaheim General Plan and conformance with EIR Negative Declaration requirements for proposed conveyance of fee title to Parcel E04-603 from Santa Barbara Savings and Loan Association to Orange County Flood Control District. City Planning Commission Resolution No. PC76-222 determined that the subject request was in compliance and conformance. 1_3._ .RECLASSIFI ~CATION NO 72,-~73-42_ A!~.D VARI_ANCE_ N0:~..2,.4. 94. Request for approval of revised plans for proposed CL zoned property consisting of approximately 0.4 acre located on the south side of Lincoln Avenue approximately 365 feet west of the center- line of Magnolia Avenue. The City Council approved the revised plans for Reclassification No. 72-73-42 and Variance No. 2494. 76-854 City Hall, Anaheim, California -. COUNCIL MINUTES - November 16, .!976, 1'30 P.M. !4.. JOINT ST~UDY_~E..SS. ION.- CANYON A. REA GENERAL P~LAN. Recommendation that a joint study session for the City Council, Planning Commission and TaBk Force be scheduled December 7, 1976 at 7-00 P.M. in the Management Control ~Center to discuss the Canyon General Plan. The recommendation for the joint study session on the specified date, time and place was approved. MOTION CARRIED. E~VIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT. ~-~ NEGATIVE DECLARATIONS. On motion by Councilwoman Kaywood, seconded by Councilman Roth, it was determined by the City Council that the filings of the following grading permits are exempt frOm the requirement to prepare an environmental impact report as recommended by the Planning Commission, pursuant to the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act. a) 457 South Country Hill Road (No. 547) o b) Approximately 500 feet easterly of Nohl Ranch Road on Serrano Avenue. (No. 542). c) 350 Timken Avenue. (No. 546). MOT ION CARRIED. ENVIRONMENTAL. IMPACT REPORT - NEGATIVE DECI.ARATION AND T. REE RE.MOVA.L - TRA. CT NOS. 7_567 .AND 9268' Request by Anaheim Hills, Inc. for a negative declaration and- permission to remove eleven specimen trees in connection with Tract Nos. 7567 and 9268 located on the south side of Nohl Ranch Road, east and west of Royal Oak Road. Mr. Jacque R. Grigory, 5128 East Crescent Drive, asked that subject matter be continued for one month to give his attorney an opportunity to investigate the legal aspects and meet with Anaheim Hills, Inc. He emphasized that they proposed to remove all of his avocado trees and his home was built around his trees: and, as well, the location of the off-site storm drain would alter the look of the area since presently it was quite rural. He also produced a letter received from Anaheim Hills stating that the City of Anaheim would institute condemnation proceedings if the transaction relative to easements did not take place in the manner proposed by 5:00 P.M. on November 15, 1976. The Mayor stated that Anaheim Hills presupposed that the City woUld take action. Councilman Roth indicated that the main issue before the Council was the removal of eleven specimen eucalyptus trees. Mr. Phillip Bettencourt, 382 Anaheim Hills Road, Anaheim Hills, Inc., explained that the project in question was an off-site .storm drain which they were obligated to provide by the City who was holding an improvement bond in excess of $350,000. He pointed out from a diagram areas where permanent and temporary easements were required and explained that there were eleven trees which had to be removed along the entire right-of-way. He further indicated that the trees on Mr. Grigory's property which would have to be removed were not specimen trees, according to the Tree Preservation Ordinance. Mr. Bettencourt indicated that conventional engineering practices dictate that all efforts must be made to acquire necessary easements, and if proven unsuccessful, then the City is solicited to institute condemnation~ proceedings to acquire the area for the permanent easement. In this case, the drainage improvement would then be deeded back to the City upon completion of conBtruction. Mr. Bettencourt explained further that Anaheim Hills had been in negotiation with the property owners regarding the design possibilities of the storm drain and they were persistent in so doing. He pointed out that the proposed site was the natural water course. Mr. Grigory was not of the opinion that the City Engineers. were correct in having the drain aligned along the southerly side of Crescent Drive and suggested that it be constructed across the road. He emPhamized that the issue was not that of an easement, but of his privacy. Mrs. Rochelle Carran~, 5140 Cremcent Avenue, stated that she lived between Mr. Grigory and Iverson. She referred to the letter from Anaheim Hills wherein they 76-855 _City Hall, ABah_eim,_ Californ. ia - COUNCI_L_ MIN_UTE.S -November ~!6, 1976~ 1...:30 P,M, indicated if deeds were not signed, then condemnation would take place. .She was questioning, therefore, how they were able to proceed with grading before easements were obtained. Councilman Seymour referred to a letter received from Mrs. James R. Iverson which he interpreted as being in favor of the project. Mrs. James R. Iverson, 5206 East Crescent Drive, explained that the letter was not in favo~ as she would just as soon see the storm drain constructed across the street; but her main concern was the fact that if digging was going to take place next to the trees on her property they would most likely die, and she did not want to be held responsible for any resultant harm or damage that would be caused. City Engineer Maddox, in answer to Councilman Kott, explained that the reason for choosing the proposed alignment for the storm drain, excluding the matter of cost, was because of its practicality in that water lines and sewer lines were already existing on the opposite side of the road. However, the alternative of realigning the storm drain across the road would be substantially more expensive to accomplish because the sewer and water lines would have to be relocated as well as shoring off the bluff. Mr. Bettencourt indicated that any competent engineering review would point out the massive engineering problem that would be encountered by putting the drain on the northerly side of Crescent Drive with the large slope bank involved, and the attendant hazards if construction took place below the slope. Mr. Herb Christensen, 5108 Crescent Drive, explained that he had been watching the matter closely because it did involve Peralta Hills. ~Ie had discussed the matter with Oliver Kagle of Anaheim Hills to ascertain whether there was an alternative. Mr. Christensen was of the opinion that the storm drain could be aligned on the opposite side of Crescent Drive and offered some suggestions for so doing. He also stated that he had spoken to the Agricultural Department of Riverside County relative to the proximity of the eucalyptus trees to the proposed storm drain. He was told that if the digging for the drain occurred twenty feet away from a eucalyptus tree, the number of tree roots would be cut but it would not die. Since the proposed digging would occur fifteen feet away from the tree on Mrs. Iverson's property, he concluded that some of the trees would probably die and, therefore, her concerns were valid. Councilman Roth thereupon asked City Attorney Hopkins what assurance or protection, if any, could the City provide with regard to the trees in the event the storm drain was the sole cause of killing the trees. He was concerned that if the trees were destroyed, it would be a financial burden to remove them and he wanted to know if either the City or Anaheim Hills could relieve that burden. Mr. Hopkins indicated that the only recourse for the City would be to replace the existing trees with other appropriate trees, but he could not speak as to what Anaheim Hills might do. Mrs. Iverson stated that if the storm drain was approved in its present alignment, her concern was privacy, and she didn't want small tree replacement but, instead, wanted Anaheim Hills to build a 6-f6ot slump stone wall if the City concurred. Miss Santalahti explained that such a request was different from that proposed to the Planning Commission; they approved the removal of specimen trees and replacement, according to Code, In essence, Mrs. Iverson was asking that some trees not be replaced and, instead, would prefer the construction of a block wall. Councilman Seymour expressed his concern that Mr. Christensen's recommendations were more cumbersome and involved than what was being recommended, and it was his opinion that the five property owners on the opposite side of Crescent Drive that would be affected by the suggested alternative alignment Would subsequently be opposed and he would just as soon make the decision now. Mr. Grigory reiterated his request for continuance as he was of the opinion that another realignment would be possible, and he would be willing to give the right of easement if construction took place five or ten more feet into the middle of the street. 76-856 · 30 P.M. On motion by Councilman Seymour, seconded by Councilman Kott, the consideration of the negative declaration and tree removal relative to Tract Nos. 7567 and 9268 was continued for two weeks at the request of Mr. Grigory. MOTION CARRIED. VARIA~CELNO..2678 -L ~_REQ~UE.ST FOR TERMI.NAT!0N. Submitted by Walker and Lee, Inc. to permit a modular home sales and display complex with certain Code waivers on RS-A-43,000 zoned property located on the southwest side of Manchester Avenue, approximately 660 feet east of the centerline of Harbor Boulevard. Councilman .Thom offered Resolution No 76R-733 for adoption Refer to Resolution Book. ' · _RESOLUTION NO.. 76R-.73~3' A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM TERMINATING ALL PROCEEDINGS IN CONNECTION WITH VARIANCE NO. 2678 AS APPROVED BY THE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION ON MARCH 3, 1975. Roll Call Vote- AYES- COUNCIL MEMBERS- Kaywood, Seymour, Kott, Roth and Thom NOES. COUNCIL MEMBERS' None ABSENT- COLIN CIL MEMBERS. None The Mayor declared Resolution No. 76R-733 duly passed and adopted. ORDINANCE ..NO.. 361.6 AND 3617' Councilman Thom offered Ordinance Nos. 3616 and 3617 for adoption. Refer to Ordinance Book. ORDII~ANCE ~NO, ~36~16- AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM ADDING CHAPTER 6.97 TO THE A/qAHEIM ~IINICIPAL CODE PERTAINING TO THE USE OF LOCOMOTIVE WHISTLE. , ORD,INANCE N.,O. 3617' AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AMENDING TITLE 18 OF THE ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO ZONING. (66-67-61(75), CR) Roll Call Vote. AYES- COUNCIL MEMBERS. KaMwood, Seymour, Kott, Roth and Thom NOES' COUNCIL MEMBERS. None ABSENT- COUNCIL MEMBERS- None · The Mayor declared Ordinance Nos. 3616 and 3617 duly passed and adopted. ORDINANCE NO_. 3618. AND 3619. Councilman Seymour offered Ordinance Nos. 3618 and 3619 for adoption. Refe~ t-o Ordinance Book. 0~I.NANCE NO. ~'~.6..~_8- AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AMENDING TITLE 18 OF THE ANAHEIM ~NICIPAL CODE REI_~TING TO ZONING. (72-73-50(2), RS-HS-IO,O00) ORDIN~. CE..NO. 3.61~9- AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AMENDING TITLE 18 OF THE ANAHEIM ~NICIPAL CODE REI~TING TO ZONING. (75-76-30, RS-5000) Roll Call Vote. AYES- COUNCIL MEMBERS. Kaywood, Seymour, Kott, Roth and Thom NOES' COUNCIL MEMBERS. None ABSENT- COUNCIL MEMBERS- None The Mayor declared Ordinance No. 3618 and 3619 duly passed and adopted. _ORD.IN.~CE. NO. 3.620 THROUGH 3625' Councilman Thom offered Ordinance Nos. 3620 through 3625, b. oth inclusive, for first reading. 76-857 City Hal!, .Anaheim. Califo_rnia_7 cOIrNCIL.MINUTES - November 16. 1976, 1'30_ P.M. ORDINANCE NO..: 3620' AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM REPEALING THE SUBSECTION 16.16. 030. 020 OF TITLE 16, CHAPTER 16.16, AND ADDING NEW SUBSECTIONS 16.16. 030. 020 AND 16.16. 040. 690 TO TITLE 16, CHAPTER 16.16 RELATING TO FIRE ZONES. O_RDIN.ANCE NO. 3621' AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AMENDING TITLE 18 OF THE ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO ZONING. (70-71-52, RM-2400) ORDINANCE..NO: 3622' AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AMENDING TITLE 18 OF THE ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO ZONING. (71-72-30(7), RS-7200) Q _RDIN .ANCE NO. 3623' AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AMENDING TITLE 18 OF THE ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO ZONING. (72-73-50(1), RS-HS- 10,000) O_RD_INANCE NO, 3.624_: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AMENDING TITLE 18 OF THE ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO ZONING. (73-74-55(2), CL) ORD. INANCE NO. ..3625' AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AMENDING TITLE 18 OF THE ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE REI~_TING TO ZONING. (70-71-46 (6) , RS-A-4'3,000) T_APES OF_COUNCIL ME_E..TINGS- Councilwoman Kaywood asked that the City Clerk save the tapes of all Council Meetings from May of 1976 on. The City Clerk explained that Arthur Young and Company recommended the tapes of Council' meetings be retained for two years. MOTION- Councilwoman Kaywood moved to save' the tapes of Council meetings from May, 1976 on for four years; thereupon Councilman Seymour took issue with the length of time specified. Councilwoman Kaywood amended her motion to two years instead of four. Councilman Seymour seconded the motion. The motion failed to carry by the following vote- AYES- NOES- COUNCIL MEMBERS- Kaywood and Kott COUNCIL MEMBERS' Seymour, Roth and Thom RECOMMENDATIONS. FOR REDUCT. ION OF TWO CI_TY POSITIONS' On motion by Councilman Seymour, seconded by Councilman Kott, the City Manager was instructed to report back in three weeks with alternatives and/or recommendations for the reduction of two positions in City personnel so as to maintain the total number of budgeted positions at the level of June 30, 1976. To this motion, Councilwoman Kaywood voted "No". MOTION CARRIED. Q_RANGE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION - SUPPORT OF DAVE BRANDT- Councilman Seymour referred to the letter received from Mayor John Garthe of Santa Ana request- ing support of Dave Brandt to the Orange County Transportation Commission and explained that the Council's choice for the commission, Gil Arbiso, was defeated on the first ballot at the Orange County League of California Cities meeting. Subse- quently, there was a run-off between Dave Brandt and Mayor Wedaa of Yorba Linda, and Anaheim supported Wedaa. Since all subsequent voting ended in a tie, the matter was carried over. Pursuant to Mayor Garthe's request, Councilman Seymour recommended that Anaheim take the Same position as on the previous appointment of Jim Beam to the Southern California Air Quality Management Board, and send a letter to the Mayor expressing that as long as Santa Ana was willing to support Inter-County Airport Authority studies, including the proposa.1 of location of a Chino Hills Airport to which Anaheim was strongly opposed, knaheim would not support Dave Brandt. On motion by Councilman Seymour, seconded by Councilman Thom, the Mayor was asked to send a letter expressing the sentiments previously articulated relative to the ICAA Study, and as long as Santa Aha continued their support, Anaheim could not support Dave Brandt for the Orange County Transportation Commission~ MOT ION CARRIED. WITHDRAW SUPPORT FROM ICAA - JIM BEAM.: Councilman Seymour was concerned that Councilman Jim Beam from Orange had not yet offered a resolution withdrawinjg support of the City of Orange from the ICAA Study, as he indicated he would do rela~tive to Anaheim's support of his candidacy to the Southern California Air Quality ~anagement Board. 76-858 _City ~Hall. Anaheim, Californ. ia - COUNCIL M~INUTES .- November .16,_197.6.,. 1'~0 P.M. On motion by Councilman Seymour, seconded by Councilman Thom, the Mayor was asked to send a letter to Councilman Beam relative to his promise to offer a resolution withdrawing his support of the City of Orange from the ICAA Study. MOTION CARRIED. MULTIMODAL GROUP, .!NC, - REOUEST FOR .E. XTENSION OF TI~M~ · Councilman Seymour invited Mr. Jack Sinclair of Multimodal Group, Inc. to speak to the Council relative to his Company's transportationcenter development lease agreement with the City which would expire at Midnight on November 17, 1976. Mr. Sinclair requested an extension of the subject agreement until such time as the State of California made a decision as to whether or not Anaheim's application for funds under the Mills Bill to assist in creation of a stop for Amtrak trains in Anaheim would be honored. He also stressed that since he understood other developers ~ viewed- th& ~ City's arrangement with Multimodal a barrier to their acting successfully in the City's behalf with regard to a transportation center, these developers should be encouraged to come forward under the same terms as Multimodal and given the opportunity to propose the kind of development the City viewed as most useful. However, he was of the opinion that Multimodal was the only group who had the better understanding of transportation issues. Councilman Seymour said that he encouraged Multimodal or anybody else who had an interest in developing a transportation center along with privately-developed real estate to justify the expenditure of funds to continue to pursue the matter. The intent was not to discourage Multimodal's efforts, but since they had an exclusive right for a year, he ~a~ not in favor of anyrextension, ~r~was he in f'avor of an exclusive right with a.ny other_ developer. -~ He explained that if the State grant was approved as articulated by Mr. Sinclair, it would be for a minimum station insuring that Amtrak would stop in Anaheim, and with that objective achieved, the need for the City to rapidly develop adjacent property would be eliminated thereby giving the City the opportunity to wait until the market was right. Councilman Seymour emphasized that it was unreasonable for Multimodal to expect the City Council to extend the existing agreement any further. City Manager Talley confirmed for Mayor Thom that the present agreement was an unexecuted written contract to be executed upon receipt of $300,000. The request of Multimodal was for an extension of time to comply with this condition precedent. The Mayor then asked if any Council Member wished to move for an extension of time to the Multimodal agreement; no Council Member moved for the requested exten- sion. CO_UNCIL RE~UEST_..FOR REPO.RTS' .By S_TAFF_. Councilman Kott, relative to Council request for reports by staff, suggested that a policy be adopted as a guideline so as to prevent the belaboring of such matters during the course of Council meetings. Councilman Seymour suggested that a Council M_~mber should have the right to ask for any report desired, but consequently be responsible for such a report with attend- ant costs documented and presented along with the report; thereby each lz~n~ber would be accountable to the electorate. Mayor Thom stated that staff had already been instructed to ascertain the costs of providing reports requested by Council Members and, as well, submit such costs along with the report. P~E .CESS.- EXECUTIVE .SESSION. Councilman Seymour moved to recess into Executive Session. Councilwoman Kaywood seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED (5'35 P.M.) AFTER RECES..S- Mayor Thom called the meeting back to order, all Council Members being present. (6.17 P.M.) RECESS. Councilwoman Kaywood moved to recess to 7'30 P.M. at Fremont Junior High School, 608 West Lincoln Avenue. Councilman Seymour seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. (6' 17 P.M. ) 76-859 COUNCIL MINUTES - November 16, 1976, 7:30 P.M., Fremont Junior High School 608 West Lincoln Avenue~ Anaheim~ California PRESENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Kaywood, Seymour, Kott, Roth and Thom ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: None PRESENT: CITY MANAGER: William O. Talley ASSISTANT CITY MANAGER: William T. Hopkins CITY ATTORNEY: William P. Hopkins CITY CLERK: Linda D. Roberts DEPUTY CITY ATTORNEY: Frank A. Lowry, Jr. PLANNING DIRECTOR: Ron Thompson EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, REDEVELOPMENT: Norman Priest COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR: Knowlton Fernald ASSOCIATE PLANNER: Bill Cunningham AFTER RECESS: Mayor Thom called the meeting to order, all Council Members being present. (7:30 P.M.) PUBLIC HEARING - GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 141 AND EIR NO. 188: To consider amendment to the Anaheim General Plan as follows: I. Center City - bounded by Harbor Boulevard, Cypress Street, East Street and Broadway, for the purpose of reviewing redevelopment alternatives (Project Alpha concept); II. Orangewood Avenue/Clementine Avenue Street area - bounded by Southern California Edison Easement, Clementine Street extension (also known as Troy. Street), Orangewood Avenue, and a line parallel to and located approximately 250 feet east of Harbor Boulevard for the purpose of changing the land use from residential to commercial and/or residential uses. The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC76-223, recommended that EIR No. 188 be certified as being in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act and further recommended adoption of General Plan Amendment No. 141 in accordance with Exhibit A for Area I, and Exhibit B for Area II. AREA I: Mr. Bill Cunningham gave a brief background of Area I of General Plan Amendment No. 141, noting that this generally incorporates the downtown portion of Redevelopment Project Alpha Area consisting of 200 acres. He described the land uses and outlined the findings and history incorporated in the staff report to the City Planning Commission, noting that extensive discussion was held by the Planning Commission on the proposed decrease in parking acreage. The basic changes proposed to the General Plan for this area are as follows: 1) Anaheim Boulevard and Clementine Street are not now shown as realigned; 2) the residen- tial area has been increased, particularly into those areas previously designated for C-R Zone; 3) the commercial acreage is increased also by inclusion of areas previously designated for C-R zoning; and 4) the C-R Zone designation is deleted. Mr. Cunningham concluded that it is important to remember in these proceedings that the Anaheim General Plan is intended to be general in nature, and not a specific plan; that prior to adoption of any specifia plan for Redevelopment, there will be a number of meetings with both property owners and residents. Mayor Thom asked if anyone wished to address the Council, either in favor or in opposition to the Area I amendment proposal. Mr. Jim Poor, owner of property located at the corner of Vine Street and Broadway, inquired into the plans for that particular area of the City. He wished to know whether there would be hearings on any condemnation, whether appraisals of property to be condemned would be conducted, and who would conduct procedures. Mayor Thom responded that no answer could be given as to specific plans for this portion of Project Alpha as there is no precise plan as yet; that it is hoped this General Plan Amendment will allow the City the flexibility to deal with the private sector and work out proposals when received. Mr. Norman Priest addressed the remaining questions, advising that a hearing would be required prior to condemnation and that appraisal would be conducted by an independent appraiser, and reviewed by an appraisal board or appropriate staff. In addition, the property owner would have the opportunity to accompany 76-860 COUNCIL MINUTES - November 16, 1976, 7:30 P.M., Fremont Junior High School 608 West Lincoln 'Avenue~ Anaheim~ California the appraiser. He offered to meet with Mr. Poor and any other property owner on an individual basis to supply any further information they would desire. Mr. George H. Lang, real estate broker, 106 N. Claudina Street, Anaheim, representing Mr. and Mrs. Edward Bemat, owners of property located at 301-315 West Lincoln (northwest corner of Lincoln Avenue and Clementine Streets) addressed the Council. Mr. Lang advised that this property is improved with a large three- story commercial building, parking lot and garages, housing a large retail store and residential apartment. He advised that his clients find it inconceivable that the proposed amendments call for property on the north side of Lincoln Avenue presently zoned commercial and used commercially by private enterprise for over 40 years, which frontm on a present and proposed major traffic artery, to be down zoned from CG to r.e sidential, u~dium ~ensity' as indicated in General Plan Amendment No. 141. The proposal further calls for the south side of Lincoln to remain commercially zoned, providing two questionally compatible land uses on opposite sides of the same major traffic artery. In reference to the designation for park useage of that area on the north side of Lincoln Avenue from Clementine Street north to Cypress Street and to the south side of Pearson Park, Mr. Lang pointed out that this area incorporates the new Pacific Telephone Company industrial building; that if this use is made of that area, his clients would lose valuable vehicular access and visibility for their business. In connection with any realignment of Lincoln Avenue north or south, Mr. Lang pointed out that Exhibit "A" of General Plan Amandment No. 141 and Figure 4 in EIR No. 188 indicate that diversion of Lincoln Avenue to the south would be blocked by the projected City park, and further noted that diversion to the north when previously considered, was rejected by the City Council and vigorously opposed in public hearings. In conclusion, Mr. Lang stated that his clients request 1) that the proposed General Plan Amendment indicate zoning for the area from the east side of Harbor to the west side of Clementine Street and from Lincoln Avenue to Chartres Street remain as currently zoned, for commercial uses; 2) that Clementine Street north from Lincoln Avenue to Cypress Street be retained as a viable access to and from both private properties and Pearson Park; .3) that. the special park and parkway area as set forth in Exhibit "A" be completely deleted from the General Plan Amendment until a firm, realistic and practical solution to its location is pro- vided for the public; and 4) that the amendment be modified to state that Lincoln Avenue is proposed as a straight east/west major thoroughfare, not to be diverted, and to be changed only as required to create necessary ultimate street widths. Mr. James Alderson, 2018 South Loara, Anaheim, raised a question about potential uses for his property located south of Cypress Street, west of the Santa Fe Railroad, and was also referred to Mr. Norman Priest for specific answers to his questions. Reverend Kenneth Edwards, Assistant Pastor, Church of the Holy Presence, 325 West Broadway, questioned whether the General Plan Amendment as proposed would give carte blanche approval to the City's projected redevelopment plans, and Mayor Thom responded that it is hoped this amendment would allow the City the flexibility required to cope with plans and projects submitted by the private sector for redevelopment of the area, and that there are additional opportuni- ties for public input when specific plans are presented. There being no further persons who wished to address Area I of General Plan Amendment No. 141, Mayor Thom closed the public hearing. Prior to proceeding to Area II, Mayor Thom briefly commented that he construed the lack of opposition to this portion of the General Plan Amendment to be an indication that the Council's recent steps to redirection in redevelopment and the many meetings to obtain citizen input have been successful in generating a more cooperative atmosphere in which redevelopment might proceed. Councilman Seymour concurred with the Mayor's statement. 76-86 1 COUNCIL MINUTES - November 16, 1976, 7:30 P.M., Fremont Junior High School 608 West Lincoln Avenue~ Anaheim, California AREA II: Mr. Bill Cunningham reviewed the staff report to the Planning Commission on Area II of General Plan Amendment No. 141 noting that the property was origi- nally included in General Plan Amendment No. 140 but deleted by the City Council because of the possibility that adjacent properties might be considered for the Multimodal Transportation Center. Since then, owner, s of property in that area have requested redesignation of their property as a part of this General Plan Amend- ment to designate their property suitable for medium density residential zoning rather than C-R Zoning for construction of an apartment project. City staff has contacted OCTD and has been informed that the study to locate the Multimodal Transportation Center is not anticipated to be completed for another four to six months. Mr. Cunningham reported on the three alternatives considered by staff and the various population densities and automobile trips these would generate. It was noted that Exhibit "B", as recommended by the City Planning Commission, is the Exhibit endorsed by the affected property owners. Mayor Thom asked if anyone wished to address the Council, either in favor or in opposition to General Plan Amendment No. 141, Area II. Mr. Dale L. Ingram, Post Office Box 5592, E1 Monte, California, representing Mrs. Jane Inch, onwer of property located within Area II of General Plan Amendment No. 141, recalled that this particular area was deleted from t'he action taken by the Council on the previous General Plan Amendment because it was felt prudent to wait until the Orange County Transit District had determined whether or not property adjacent to this area might be considered for the Multimodal Transportation Center site and, in particular, whether any air transportation modes were under considera- tion. He noted that air transportation within the Multimodal Center has been ruled out and that they have ascertained that direct use of his client's property is not under consideration. He stated that the development of apartments as his client proposes would not only be a logical extension of existing development, but would be extremely desirable in close proximity to a majOr transit corridor. Mr. Ingram also cited the fact that in Area I of this General Plan Amendment it is being recommended that all C-R Zone designations be deleted. He reminded Council that the owners of property in Area II which has been designated C-R for ten years have been unable to find a market for uses in that zone. Mr. Richard McMillan, Haster Development, agent representing the Thompson property, submitted a letter from the Orange C~unty Transit District indicating that it would be highly unlikely that property within this area would ever be considered as a poten- tial site for the Multimodal Transportation Center, inasmuch as it lies outside of the immediate site selection area. There being no further persons who wished to address the Council, Mayor Thom closed the public hearing. EIR NO. 188 - CERTIFICATION: Having been reviewed by the City staff and recommended by the City Planning Commission to be in compliance with City and State Guidelines and the California Environmental Quality Act, the City Council, acting upon such information and belief, does hereby certify, on motion by Councilman Seymour, seconded by Councilman Kott, that EIR No. 188 is in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act and City and State Guidelines. MOTION CARRIED. Councilman Seymour offered Resolution No. 76R-735 for adoption, approving and adopting General Plan Amendment No. 141 in accordance with Exhibit "A" for Area I and Exhibit "B" for Area II, as recommended by the City Planning Commission. Refer to Resolution Book. RESOLUTION NO. 76R-735: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COIRNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM APPROVING GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 141, EXHIBIT "A" FOR AREA I, AND EXHIBIT "B" FOR AREA II PERTAINING TO ZONING. 76-862 COUNCIL MINUTES - November 16, 19.76, 7:30 P.M., Fremont Junior High School 608 West Lincoln Avenue~ Anaheim~ California Roll Call Vote: AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Kaywood, Seymour, Kott, Roth and Thom NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: None ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: None The Mayor declared Resolution No. 76R-735 duly passed and adopted. RATES OF COMPENSATION - DEPUTY FIRE MARSHAL. I AND II: Mr. Talley presented a resolution which would rescind Resolution No. 76R-314 and establish new rates of compensation for Deputy Fire Marshal_ I and II positions with a 5% increase, effective October 15, 1976, and an additional 2% increase, effective June 10, 1977. Refer to Resolution Book. RESOLUTION NO. 76R-734: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM ESTABLISHING RATES OF COMPENSATION FOR SOME MANAGEMENT STAFF JOB CLASSIFICATIONS AND RESCINDING RESOLUTION NO. 76R-314 AND AMENDMENTS THERETO. Roll Call Vote: .'. AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Kaywood, Seymour, Kott, Roth and Thom NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: None ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: None The Mayor declared Resolution No. 76R-734 duly passed and adopted. RATES OF COMPENSATION - DEPARTMENT AND DIVISION HEAD~ STAFF POSITIONS DESIGNATED MANAGEMENT: Mr. Talley submitted a resolution effecting various changes~ in rates of compensation for management job classes, as reviewed with the City Council. Mayor Thom pointed out the following job classifications which will receive no change in pay at this time, either because these positions were recently filled and have not completed the six months probationary period, or because salaries were negotiated prior to hiring: City Manager, Assistant City Manager, City Attorney, City Clerk, Executive Director - Redevelopment, Assistant Planning Director. In addition, Mayor Thom stated that, in his personal opinion, the rate of compensation for Personnel Director is excessive, and despite the fact that he intends to vote favorably on the res'01ution, he wishes the record to reflect that he does not concur with the amount of increase recommended for the Personnel Director. Councilman Seymour offered Resolution No. 76R-736 for adoption. Refer to Resolution Book. RESOLUTION NO. 76R-736: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM ESTABLISHING RATES OF COMPENSATIC~ FOR DEPARTMENT HEADS AND STAFF POSITIONS DESIG- NATED AS MANAGEMENT AND RESCINDING RESOLUTION NO. 76R-314 BiND AMENDMENTS~ THERETO. Roll Call Vote: AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Kaywood, Seymour, Kott, Roth and Thom NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: None ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: None The Mayor dec.lared Resolution No. 76R-736 duly passed and adopted. 76-863 COUNCIL MINUTES -November 16, 1976, 7'30 P.M., Fremont Junior Htsh School 608 West L£n. coln Avenue, Anaheim, California . ADJOURNMENT' Councilman Roth moved to adjourn. Councilwoman Kaywood seconded the mot ion. MOTION CARRIED Adjourned' 8' 40 P.M. LINDA D. ROBERTS, CITY CLERK