Loading...
1979/01/0979-35 Cit~ Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - January 9, 1979, 1:30 P.M. The City Council of the City of Anaheim met in regular session. PRESENT: ABSENT: PRESENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Overholt, Kaywood, Kott, Roth and Seymour COUNCIL MEMBERS: None CITY MANAGER: William O. Talley CITY ATTORNEY: William P. Hopkins CITY CLERK: Linda D. Roberts PERSONNEL DIRECTOR: Garry O. McRae PARKS, RECREATION AND ARTS DIRECTOR: James D. Ruth ASSISTANT DIRECTOR FOR ZONING: Annika Santalahti Mayor Seymour called the meeting to order and welcomed those in attendance to the Council meeting. MOMENT OF SILENCE: In lieu of an Invocation, a moment of silence was observed. The Mayor requested the Council to remember in their prayers former Police Chief Mark A. Stephenson and "Dad" Miller, who were very ill. FLAG SALUTE: Councilwoman Miriam Kaywood led the assembly in the Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag. 119: RESOLUTION OF APPRECIATION: A Resolution of Appreciation was adopted by the City Council and presented to Mr. Olin D. Johnson, Lead Parkway Maintenance Worker, a City employee for 20 years, for heroic action taken at the scene of a serious traffic accident. It was the opinion of Police Officers at the accident site that Mr. Johnson's actions and willingness to take a calculated risk on his own life in rescuing the two occupants of the vehicle involved in the accident prevented severe injuries or even death. 126: INTRODUCTION: Mrs. Mary Jones, Community Relations Director for Disneyland, presented Miss Leona Dombroske, the 1979 Disneyland Ambassador. Miss Dombroske was welcomed by the Council and on their behalf, Mayor Seymour presented her with roses, a briefcase with the City seal and a replica of the Big "A" Scoreboard. MINUTES: On motion by Councilwoman Kaywood, seconded by Councilman Roth, minutes of the regular meeting held September 12, 1978 and the adjourned regular meeting held December 6, 1978, were approved subject to typographical corrections. MOTION CARRIED. WAIVER OF READING - ORDINANCES AND RESOLUTIONS: Councilwoman Kaywood moved to waive the reading, in full, of all ordinances and resolutions and that consent to the waiver of reading is hereby given by all Council Members unless, after reading of the title, specific request is made by a Council Member for the read- ing of such ordinance or resolution. Councilman Overholt seconded the motion. MOTION UNANIMOUSLY CARRIED. FINANCIAL DEMANDS AGAINST THE CITY in the amount of $5,164,418.35, in accordance with the 1977-78 Budget, were approved. 160: PURCHASE OF EQUIPMENT - 69 KV OIL CIRCUIT BREAKERS - BID NO. 3487: On motion by Councilman Kott, seconded by Councilman Roth, the low bid of McGraw-Edison Com- pany was accepted and purchase authorized in the amount of $49,936.60, including tax, as recommended by the Purchasing Agent in his memorandum dated January 3, 1979. MOTION CARRIED. 79-36 ~ity Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - January 9, 1979, 1:30 P.M. 153: ADJUSTING RATES OF COMPENSATION FOR UNREPRESENTED PART-TIME AND OUTSTATIONED PUBLIC SERVICE EMPLOYMENT CLASSIFICATIONS - COMPLIANCE WITH MINIMUM WAGE LAW: Councilman Overholt offered Resolution Nos. 79R-18 and 79R-19 for adoption, as recommended in memorandum dated January 3, 1979, from the Personnel Director. Refer to Resolution Book. RESOLUTION NO. 79R-18: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AMENDING RESOLUTION NO. 78R-129 WHICH ESTABLISHED RATES OF COMPENSATION FOR UNREPRESENTED PART-TIME CLASSIFICATIONS AND ADJUSTING RATES OF COMPENSATION FOR SELECTED CLASSIFICATIONS TO COMPLY WITH THE MINIMUM WAGE LAW. (effective January 5, 1979) RESOLUTION NO. 79R-19: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AMENDING RESOLUTION NO. 76R-677 WHICH ESTABLISHED RATES OF COMPENSATION FOR OUT- STATIONED PUBLIC SERVICE EMPLOYMENT CLASSIFICATIONS AND ADJUSTING RATES OF COMPEN- SATION FOR SELECTED CLASSIFICATIONS TO COMPLY WITH THE MINIMUM WAGE LAW. (effective January 5, 1979) Roll Call Vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: COUNCIL MEMBERS: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Overholt, Kaywood, Kott, Roth and Seymour None None The Mayor declared Resolution Nos. 79R-18 and 79R-19 duly passed and adopted. 123: 1976 NEJEDLY HART URBAN AND COASTAL BOND ACT FUND - DEVELOPMENT OF PHASE III, PERALTA CANYON PARK: Mr. James Ruth, Director of Parks, Recreation and the Arts Department, clarified questions posed by Councilman Kott relative to the subject funds. Councilwoman Kaywood offered Resolution No. 79R-20 for adoption, as recommended in memorandum dated December 22, 1978, from Mr. Ruth. Refer to Resolution Book. RESOLUTION NO. 79R-20: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM APPROVING AN AGREEMENT WITH THE COUNTY OF ORANGE FOR PAYMENT OF CERTAIN FUNDS FROM THE COUNTY FOR COMPLETION OF PHASE III OF PERALTA CANYON PARK. Roll Call Vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: COUNCIL MEMBERS: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Overholt, Kaywood, Kott, Roth and Seymour None None The Mayor declared Resolution No. 79R-20 duly passed and adopted. 123: LEASE OF CITY-OWNED LAND TO ANAHEIM MEMORIAL HOSPITAL FOR PARKING: Council- man Kott offered Resolution No. 79R-21 for adoption, as recommended in memorandum dated January 8, 1979, from the Director of Parks, Recreation and the Arts Depart- ment approving a 3-year lease agreement with Anaheim Memorial Hospital to use 4.01 acres of unimproved City-owned land north of La Palma Park for employee parking at an annual fee of $87,400. Refer to Resolution Book. 79-37 ~ity Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - January 9~ 1979, 1:30 P.M. RESOLUTION NO. 79R-21: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM APPROVING THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF A LEASE AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AND THE ANAHEIM MEMORIAL HOSPITAL, AND AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR AND CITY CLERK TO EXECUTE SAID AGREEMENT. Roll Call Vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: COUNCIL MEMBERS: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Overholt, Kaywood, Kott, Roth and Seymour None None The Mayor declared Resolution No. 79R-21 duly passed and adopted. 102: DOG DEFECATION ORDINANCE: City Attorney Hopkins briefed the Council on the proposed dog defecation ordinance. Councilman Kott offered Ordinance No. 3956 for first reading. ORDINANCE NO. 3956: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AMENDING TITLE 8, CHAPTER 8.08 OF THE ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE BY ADDING THERETO SECTION 8.08.060 RELATING TO DOGS. Councilman Roth stated that he was not opposed to the ordinance, but was curious to the cost of enforcement and if the fine imposed would cover the cost of such enforcement. City Attorney Hopkins stated that he did not believe that any study had been made relative to the cost of enforcement, nor of the fines that would come back to the City. There would be a cost relative to investigation, but that would be something for the Police Department to estimate. Councilman Kott stated that they could get involved in studies of costs, etc., but maintained that part of the responsibility of government was to try and help citizens of the community to do things they would like to see done. The cost of protection of not only lives but also property, came out of the cost of government, to which the people contributed, and he considered any cost relative to the matter to be a very legitimate expenditure. Mayor Seymour stated that as with Councilman Roth, he supported the philosophy of the intent behind the ordinance. The situation was a problem in the community and one that had been addressed in other cities. On the other hand, be was mindful that at present they faced numerous complaints relative to the spread of the Police Department's responsibilities. They should, therefore, be concerned about adopting an ordinance without giving it due consideration since it would create an additiona~ burden of enforcement and one more priority. He was concerned if they did not have the proper staff to handle the matter, they would then be receiving numerous warranted calls and complaints from citizens that they had placed an ordinance on the books which was not being enforced. He was very sensitive to such a situ- ation occurring, especially since establishing the Mayor's Hotline which reached the grassroots of some of the complaints in the City. He reiterated that he was 79-38 C~ty Hall~ Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - January 9, 1979~ 1:30 P.M. supportive, but some thought should be given, without an elaborate study, as to what fines would be charged in order to off-set the service required, the bottom line being that perhaps $20 was not enough and maybe $50 or $75 would be more appropriate. It had to be high enough to cover the cost of enforcing one more City law. As long as he could be assured by City management that the fine being imposed was reasonable in accordance with the cost of delivering that service or creating that law, he would be totally supportive. Councilman Kott stated that he did not think $50 was an unreasonable fine. Mayor Seymour continued that since it was the first reading of the ordinance, he requested a recommendation, not an elaborate study, from the City Manager as to the projected cost in relationship to carrying out the service that would be required. Councilman Overholt supported the views expressed by the Mayor and Councilman Kott, but submitted that the real purpose of the ordinance was to put teeth into the complaints of neighbors who were tired of having other neighbor's pets trespass on their property on a daily basis. He maintained however that no matter what was done, it would be a low priority in terms of Police enforcement. If a neighbor was approached with the situation and the activity did not stop, he could be informed that there was an ordinance against such trespassing and that would be the impact. Mr. Talley asked for a clarification relative to submitting a report, the reason being, the way he understood the matter and as the ordinance was written, unless a policeman viewed the violation, the officer would not be making the citation, but it would require someone else to do so. Mr. Hopkins confirmed that the householder or the person who observed the actual offense would be the person to file a complaint. %he Mayor stated he was interested in knowing, if the City Attorney had to go to court to collect the fine, what time would be involved, and he also asked the City b~nager to check with other cities to see what they were doing relative to fines. Mr. Hopkins stated that he would submit a report. He added that they had four attorneys at the Court at all times, thus no additional burden would be involved. It would be a very minor matter and the processing would be routine. Mr. Talley stated that many of the agencies who had the subject type ordinance had their own animal control agencies, but Anaheim did not. Those agencies made routine sightings and citations as part of their patrol. If a violation was sighted, a citation would be issued, but other than that it would be a complaint to the City Attorney. 112: GOLDMAN & SACHS CENSURE REPORT: City Attorney Hopkins briefed the Council on the report dated January 5, 1979, from his office (on file in the City Clerk's Office) relative to the subject. 79-39 City Hall, Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - January 9~ 1979, 1:30 P.M. On motion by Councilwoman Kaywood, seconded by Councilman Roth, the Goldman & Sachs censure report from the City Attorney's Office was received and filed. MOTION CARRIED. 105: REQUEST FOR JOINT MEETING - COMMUNITY CENTER AUTHORITY AND ANAHEIM UNION HIGH SCHOOL DISTRICT: The City Clerk announced that a request had been received for a joint meeting with the Community Center Authority and the Anaheim Union High School District Board of Trustees to be held Monday, January 15, 1979, at 7:30 p.m., at the Convention Center. There was no objection by the Council Members to holding the joint meeting as requested. 153: PRE-EMPLOYMENT AND ANNUAL MEDICAL EXAMS: (Continued from the meeting of December 26, 1978) City Manager Talley briefed the Council on memorandum dated January 3, 1979, from the Personnel Department, outlining in detail the criteria for recommending the Acacia Medical Group to perform subject examinations (on file in the City Clerk's Office). He stated as the Council would recall, two weeks prior (see minutes of December 26, 1978), they had received a communica- tion from the Anaheim Police Association (APA) requesting that the Council continue the matter for a two-week period. He had heard nothing further from the Associa- tion and he did not see any other communication before the Council from the APA. He quoted from the letter, "We are requesting the Anaheim City Council to postpone its decision for one to two weeks to allow our two associations to complete further evaluation of these groups and be allowed to submit our own recommendations for consideration." The Fire Association, referred to in the letter, however, concurred with the staff's recommendation. Therefore, unless a representative from the Police Association was present, he knew of no other employee group that had a concern. Mayor Seymour asked if any attempt had been made to contact the APA. Personnel Director Garry McRae stated he had talked to Jack Jansen earlier this past week and indicated to him that they were interested in what the APA concerns might be. Mr. Jansen indicated they would get back to him, but no contact had been made. MOTION: Councilman Seymour moved to continue consideration of accepting the pro- posal of Acacia Medical Group to perform pre-employment and annual medical examina- tions for one week, and that an attempt be made to contact the APA to ascertain their concerns. Councilman Overholt seconded the motion. Before a vote was taken, Mr. McRae stated that the Fire Association called him and indicated they were not certain who the second organization was, as mentioned in the letter, but they wanted it clear it was not their organization and they were not opposed to the Acacia Medical Clinic. Councilwoman Kaywood was concerned that the APA had asked for a two-week continuance initially and received it, but in the meantime had done nothing, and also that they implied there was another organization involved when, in actuality, there was no other one. As well, because the City paid the entire amount of the subject examina- tions, she did not favor any further continuation. 79-40 ~ity Hallt Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - January 9t 1979, 1:30 P.M. The Mayor commented that while he agreed legally and technically that the City Council need not even go to the employee association to take action on the matter, by delaying one more week, they would be giving every opportunity for the APA to respond. It would show good faith on the part of the Council in trying to obtain a concurrence from an employee's association. A vote was then taken on the foregoing motion. Councilwoman Kaywood voted "No". MOTION CARRIED. 139: GANN GOVERNMENT SPENDING LIMITATION INITIATIVE: City Manager Talley ex- plained that an extensive analysis had been prepared by staff on the subject under report dated January 3, 1979, with attachments, and staff was available if the Council wished to discuss the matter. Mayor Seymour indicated that he wanted to pursue the matter at today's meeting; Councilmen Rotb and Kott also indicated their willingness to do so. Councilman Overholt stated he would prefer to set discussion for the next meeting as a date certain at which time action could be taken. He did not have an oppor- tunity to evaluate the detailed analysis to make a decision today. He would be prepared to vote on the matter in one week, but it did not mean that the Initiative could not be discussed presently. Councilman Kott moved to proceed with the discussion of the Gann Government Spend- ing Limitation Initiative. Councilman Roth seconded the motion. Before a vote was taken, the Mayor stated that he would first rather give the entire Council an opportunity to review the matter. The motion and second were withdrawn. On motion by Councilman Seymour, seconded by Councilman Roth, consideration of the Gann Government Spending Limitation Initiative was continued for one week. MOTION CARRIED. 158: SALE OF ANAHEIM HILLS EQUESTRIAN PROPERTY: City Manager Talley prefaced the subject recommendation explaining that some time ago, the Council requested that after discussion with the Golf Course Commission that the City enter into negotiations with Texaco-Anaheim Hills on the approximate 15 acres of equestrian property now owned by the City. The original appraisal was for approximately $162,000; however, the City's lease would have required a payment of approximately $176,500. Assistant City Attorney Frank Lowry, Director of Public Works Thornton Piersall, Planning Director Ron Thompson and he subsequently had a series of meetings with Texaco-Anaheim Hills and had reached an agreement where they could recommend a selling price in the amount of $210,000 with the proviso that the deed contain a reversionary clause stating that should the land use be changed or used for any other purpose other than an equestrian center and related uses, the property would revert back to the City. Eight conditions were included in the contract (see memorandum dated January 9, 1979 from the Director of Public Works, on f~le in the City Clerk's Office). If the Council acted favorably upon the recommendation, the City Attorney would have to draw up a resolution notifying the appropriate governmental agencies of tile City's intent to sell the parcel, 79-41 City Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - January 9~ 1979~ 1:30 P.M. giving them 60 days in which to notify the City if they wished to purchase the land at fair market value. With the provisions as outlined, he could therefore recommend approval of the sale if the Council was still interested in pursuing the matter. MOTION: Mayor Seymour commended Mr. Talley on an excellent job done in negotiating the sale. The price was well in line and, in fact, it was $50,000 higher than the appraisal indicated. He was totally supportive and thereupon moved to approve the terms and conditions outlined in memorandum dated January 9, 1979, from the Director of Public Works for the sale of 14.71, plus or minus, acres of City-owned land to Texaco-Anaheim Hills for $210,000 ($14,276 per acre) and authorizing the City Attorney to prepare the necessary documents to consummate a sale, including the notice to other governmental agencies. Councilman Roth seconded the motion. Before a vote was taken, Mr. Talley outlined for Councilman Kott the concept in- volved in the sale which was basically to acquire for Texaco-Anaheim Hills additional acreage for equestrian purposes because of the need which existed in the Canyon area. Councilman Kott stated the reason he asked for the explanation was to give him an opportunity to read the January 9, 1979 memorandum that they received just before the meeting. He noted that Condition No. 8 stated, "that all funds received from the sale of said land may be used for any purpose." He did not agree with that condition and maintained that the sale of any land in any way directly or indirectly connected with the sale should be applied toward the golf course deficit. It would be in the best interest of the taxpayer of the community for the Mayor to incorporate within his motion that the funds received would be used to pay off the indebtedness upon which the land was purchased. The Mayor answered that he would include in the motion that the funds be held in suspense or set aside in some separate account so that they would not end up in the General Fund, with the intent that those funds be used in one way or another to eliminate the deficit. The deficit was from (1) mortgage payments and (2) the golf course needed certain improvements. Therefore, he agreed with Councilman Kott's intent, but could not support the recommendation to specifically apply those funds today without knowing what additional lands might be sold tomorrow. Councilman Kott agreed with the Mayor and his intent. He merely wanted to be certain that the funds did not go into the General Fund where they could be expended for things that were unrelated. Councilman Roth accepted the amendment to the motion. He further stated he thought that was the intent at the last meeting where they discussed at length that the funds would be applied to the existing encumbrances. He realized however with all the flood and drainage problems occurring at the course, that they had to apply some of those dollars for improvements to get more play at that golf course. Mr. Talley confirmed that Condition No. 8 merely reflected an agreement that the funds were not restricted to liquidating the indebtedness. They were not suggesting that anything be done with the money, but the purpose was only a matter of getting all parties'to acknowledge the City could use all the funds as they wanted. 79-42 City Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - January 9~ 1979, 1:30 P.M. The Mayor then recounted for Councilman Kott that relative to the encumbrances on the golf course property, on any sale of land, the proceeds must be used to reduce those encumbrances. On the other hand, the agreement relative to the Equestrian Center property amended that particular portion and indicated instead, that the funds could be used for any purpose. However, in accordance with the amended motion, he could be assured that the funds would be applied toward the golf course deficit. Councilman Overholt stated that since he made a specific issue of the fact that the City Manager was authorized to negotiate the sale of the Equestrian Center and that they did not vote to sell it until the Council saw the results of the negotiations, he too commended the City Manager on an excellent job. Of great importance to him as a part of the transaction, was the fact that there was a reversionary clause which, in fact, dedicated the property to equestrian uses, as expressed several times to the residents living in the Anaheim Hills area. He believed that the proposed sale with such a clause was another indication of the Council's dedication to preserve the environment in the area and if at any time the property was not going to be used for that purpose, that it would revert back to the City. Councilman Kott agreed, but felt that the only conflict might lie in the price that Texaco-Anaheim Hills was going to pay. He maintained that $14,000 plus per acre was a very reasonable price, considering that the City paid about $10,000 for it 10 years ago. Mayor Seymour indicated that the value at the time the property was purchased from the Nohl Ranch was about $4,000 an acre which occurred in 1968 or 1969, i.e., the entire Anaheim Hills property. Mr. Talley reported that the particular piece of property in question was somewhere between $8,700 and $9,400 an acre, but unrestricted. Now the City was selling it back restricted and under a restricted use, they had an appraisal indicating it was worth no more than $11,000 per acre, and they were selling it now 30 percent higher, with restrictions. The Mayor then explained how the value of the property was affected by its being restricted, whereas if it were sold unrestricted, it would probably bring a value of $30,000 to $40,000 an acre. Councilwoman Kaywood stated ~e-w~t-~-~a~-~e~m-~-t-~-~-~-M~e-~me-~e-~e~r-mm~_m~e i-r~t-ea~-~~-~i-~-f-e~-a~-add~i~-~e-~e~-~-e~e~-~e-~ee-wb~-~e Gg~M-m~g~-~em-~e= However, she did not object to the proposed sale and she con- sidered the amount to be quite substantial. Coupled with the reversionary clause, she no longer had mmp concerns. A vote was then taken on the foregoing motion as amended. MOTION CARRIED. CITY PLANNING COMMISSION ITEMS: The following actions taken by the City Planning Commission at their meeting held December 18, 1978, pertaining to the following applications, as listed on the Consent Calendar, were submitted for City Council information. ...at the joint meeting with the Golf Course Advisory Commission that the Council vote had been three to one to sell, while she favored leasing for an additional five years in order to see what the City might then do. (See minutes of March 6 1979 - Page 79- ) , ...the same... (See minutes of March 6, 1979 - Page 79- ) 79-43 City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - January 9, 1979, 1:30 P.M. 1. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 1921: Submitted by William W. Lange, to permit an automobile detailing facility on ML zoned property located at 1536-1538 West Embassy Street. The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC78-289, granted Conditional Use Permit No. 1921 and granted negative declaration status. 2. VARIANCE NO. 3068 AND EIR NO. 196 (TENTATIVE TRACT NOS. 9744, 9745 AND 9601): Submitted by Texaco-Anaheim Hills, to establish a 30-lot subdivision on RS-HS-22,000 zoned property located at the northeast corner of Canyon Rim Road and Fairmont Boule- vard with a waiver of minimum lot width. Variance No. 3068 was determined no longer necessary because of revised plans and the Planning Commission previously approved EIR No. 196. No action was taken on the foregoing items, thus the actions of the City Planning Commission became final. The following items, 1 through 4, were removed from the Planning Commission Calendar by Councilman Kott (1, 2 & 3) and Councilwoman Kaywocd (4) for discus- sion and questions, following which, no further action was taken by the Council: 1. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 505 - APPROVAL OF REVISED PLANS: Request of Jeffrey A. Rose, Plotkin-Rosen Development Company, for approval of revised plans to construct two 2-story office buildings, rather than the originally approved 10-story office building, on CL zoned property located on the east side of Euclid Avenue 982 feet north of the centerline of Crescent Avenue. The City Planning Commission approved revised plans for Conditional Use Permit No. 505 and granted negative declaration status. 2. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 1359 - EXTENSION OF TIME: Request by Leo Freedman for an extension of time to Conditional Use Permit No. 1359, to establish a 10-story hotel tower on C-R zoned property located at 1700 South Harbor Boulevard, with a waiver of minimum number of parking spaces. The City Planning Commission granted an extension of time to Conditional Use Permit No. 1359, to expire December 27, ]979. 3. TENTATIVE TRACT NO. 10168 - REQUEST FOR AN EXTENSION OF TIME: Request of Richard A. Rafanovie, Orange Crest Corporation, for an extension of time to Tentative Tract No. 10168, to establish a 3-lot subdivision on RS-HS-10,O00(SC) and an il-lot subdivision on RS-HS-22,000(SC) zoned properties located on the south side of Rio Grande Drive and 185 feet northeast of the centerline of Canyon Woods Road. The City Planning Commission granted an extension of time to Tentative Tract No. 10168, to expire June 5, 1980. 79-44 City Hall~ Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - January 9, 1979~ 1:30 P.M. 4. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 1874 - CLARIFICATION OF CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL: Request of Vincent L. Rock of Tait and Associates for clarification to Condition No. 5 of Resolution No. PC78-195, in conjunction with Conditional Use Permit No. 1874, to permit a lumber yard on ML zoned property located on the north side of Ellsworth Street, 405 feet on the south side of Santa Ana Street, 150 feet on the east side of Claudina Street, and 130 feet on the west side of Olive Street. The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC78-290, clarified conditions of approval to Conditional Use Permit No. 1874. VARIANCE NO. 3067: Application by Canyon Plaza Shopping Center to erect a shopping center identification sign on CL(SC) zoned property located at the northeast corner of Santa Ana Canyon Road and Imperial Highway with code waivers of: (a) type of sign (b) Maximum number of signs (denied) (c) maximum sign area Councilman Kott removed the item from the Planning Commission Consent Calendar and requested a review of the subject application. Mayor Seymour stated that he would abstain from any discussion or action on the matter since he rented space in the shopping center. FINAL MAP - TRACT NO. 10155: Developer, Classic Development Corporation; tract is located south of Santa Ana Canyon Road, west of Imperial Highway and contains 21 proposed RS-7200(SC) zoned lots. On motion by Councilman Seymour, seconded by Councilman Roth, the proposed sub- division, together with its design and improvement, was found to be consistent with the City's General Plan, and the City Council approved Final Map, Tract No. 10155, as recommended by the City Engineer in his memorandum dated January 2, 1979, subject to CC&Rs being approved by the City Attorney's Office and the City Engineer prior to tract recordation. MOTION CARRIED. 170: ORDINANCE NO. 3955: Councilwoman Kaywood offered Ordinance No. 3955 for adoption. Refer to Ordinance Book. ORDINANCE NO. 3955: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AMENDING ORDINANCE NO. 3933, NUNC PRO TUNC. (relating to grading) Roll Call Vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: COUNCIL MEMBERS: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Overholt, Kaywood, Kott, Roth and Seymour None None The Mayor declared Ordinance No. 3955 duly passed and adopted. 79-45 qity Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - January 9~ 1979, 1:30 P.M. 150: ADOBE HOUSE HISTORICAL SITE: Councilman Roth stated that he passes by Fairmont Boulevard and Santa Ana Canyon Road daily and had previously discussed the historical site located at that corner, consisting of a small cafe and an adobe house. The site however was more and more becoming an eyesore and additional damage was occurring on a weekly basis. He therefore recommended that the Council give the authority to HACMAC to look into the situation and contact the Historical Committee of Orange County or representatives of the Board of Supervisors in order to do something about the site. He understood from staff that no funds were available to restore the building and thus it would be a drawn-out affair. The Council had authorized the development of a new shopping center on that corner and he did not want to see a new center being developed with nothing being done about the corner because the County decided to make it an historical monument. MOTION: Councilman Roth thereupon moved to direct HACMAC to look at the old adobe house historical site (Fairmont & Santa Ana Canyon Road) and contact the Historical Committee of Orange County or representatives of the Board of Super- visors to ascertain disposition of the site. Councilwoman Kaywood seconded the motion for the purpose of discussion. Councilwoman Kaywood asked staff if the Board of Supervisors had been approached regarding their plans for the site. Miss Santalahti answered that the money was budgeted about a year prior and they were hoping to work with the developer of the property so that the commercial site would be developed and subsequently the County would come in to do their work. When the developer was actively involved, they were all ready to go, but then nothing happened so the money was put into a reserve fund, and it was next to impossible to get it out until the next fiscal year. Thus, it was tied up until June at this point. While the staff had prepared a set of what they called conceptual drawings, only the Chairman of the Historical Committee had seen them and liked them, but they had not been taken to the Committee and ultimately the Committee would have to approve them. Approximately $75,000 had been set aside which they considered to be fully adequate. Councilman Roth emphasized if something was not done quickly, the historical site would be destroyed, and then the taxpayers would have to pay additional monies for the restoration. A vote was then taken on the foregoing motion. MOTION CARRIED. 114: COUNCIL/MANAGEMENT WORKSHOP: Councilman Roth asked that the Council/Management Workshop set for Wednesday, January 10, 1979 at 8:00 a.m. be delayed to 9:00 a.m so that he might then be able to attend the Anaheim Board of Realtors meeting that morning. There were no objections from the Council Members to changing the time from 8:00 a.m. to 9:00 a.m. 178: PROPOSED INCREASE IN WATER RATES TO CITY: Councilman Kott noted that the Council had received a copy of a memorandum to Gordon Hoyt from the Metropolitan Water District (MW-D) regarding the automatic increase in the water commodity adjust- ment applicable to retail water customers. He believed it would be a prelude to an increase in water rates. The memorandum stated that the MWD increase would be from $95 to $100 for all uses, and he then questioned if anyone had asked MWD why they were increasing the cost of water to Anaheim. 79-46 .~ity Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - January 9, 1979~ 1:30 P.M. City Manager Talley stated that he had not done so, but the City's representative of MWD did appea~ before the Public Utilities Board (PUB) meeting the prior week and he was certain the Board had the opportunity to question the matter. However, he (Talley) was not present. He noted that the action was a system-wide increase. That was the rate the City would be charged and, in turn, they did reflect the cost of water in the rate structure to customers. Councilman Kott stated that rather than make a personal inquiry to the PUB, he would prefer that it be public since the public had a right to know whether or not someone representing the City inquired as to why rates were increasing. He continued that the memorandum further stated an increase from 20 cents to 22 cents because the water table was very low requiring abnormally high consumption, but in the following months, after the heavy rains, the pumping had very poor electri- cal factors and the energy would have to be purchased in higher priced energy blocks. Thus, in two cases, when the water table was low and when the water table was high, rates increased. He wanted to know under what conditions would the rates decrease. Mr. Talley stated a reply would be forthcoming, but added that as long as the costs of energy, oil or labor were going up, costs would not decrease. Councilman Kott also requested an answer relative to what the MWD reserves were and why they were not being used to make up for the additional costs. Mr. Talley stated that he would reply relative to both questions. 178: DIEMER INTERTIE ADVANCE FUNDS REFUND: Councilman Kott asked if there was any possibility that the City would be receiving a refund on its costs relative to the Diemer Intertie. Mr. Tailey answered that if the City had advanced funds for the project, they would receive a refund. However, what was being indicated was that the prospec- tive cost for Anaheim was lower than originally estimated. If the funds had been advanced and the City did not get its share in the Intertie, a refund would be due. He added that he would supply an answer for Councilman Kott as to whether the City advanced funds in excess of those for the new share. 116: GENERAL BENEFITS FUND: Mayor Seymour stated that last week Assistant City Manager Hopkins mentioned that there was a sum of $17 million to $18 million in the General Benefits Fund; City Manager Talley confirmed that it was $17 million. The Mayor asked that the City Manager provide a breakdown of that fund to be submitted to the Council. RECESS: By general consent, the Council recessed until public hearing time. (2:54 P.M.) AFTER RECESS: The Mayor called the meeting to order, all Council Members being present. (3:10 P.M.) 79-47 C.ity Hall, Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - January 9~ 1979, 1:30 P.M. 176: PUBLIC HEARING - ABANDONMENT NO. 78-11A: In accordance with application filed by Connecticut Mutual Life Insurance, a public hearing was held on the proposed abandonment of an existing public utility easement located on the southwest corner of Romneya Drive and State College Boulevard, pursuant to Resolution No. 78R-815, duly published in the Anaheim Bulletin and notices thereof posted in accordance with law. Report of the City Engineer dated November 8, 1978 and a recommendation by the Planning Commission were submitted, recommending unconditional approval of said abandonment. The Mayor asked if anyone wished to address the Council; there being no response, he closed the public hearing. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT - CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION: On motion by Councilman Kott, seconded by Councilwoman Kaywood, the City Council ratified the determination of the Planning Director that the proposed activity falls within the definition of Section 3.01, Class 5, of the City of Anaheim Guidelines to the requirements for an environmental impact report and is, therefore, categorically exempt from the require- ment to file an EIR. MOTION CARRIED. Councilman Kott offered Resolution No. 79R-22 for adoption, approving Abandonment No. 78-11A. Refer to Resolution Book. RESOLUTION NO. 79R-22: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM ORDERING THE VACATION AND ABANDONMENT OF A CERTAIN PUBLIC SERVICE EASEMENT. (78-11A) Roll Call Vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: COUNCIL MEMBERS: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Overholt, Kaywood, Kott, Roth and Seymour None None The Mayor declared Resolution No. 79R-22 duly passed and adopted. 176: PUBLIC HEARING - ABANDONMENT NO. 78-13A: In accordance with application filed by Mr. and Mrs. David F. Brooks, a public hearing was held on the proposed abandonment of 2.5 feet of an existing 5-foot public utility easement lying within Lot 37 of Tract No. 6375 located at the southwest corner of Bluerock Street and Holtwood Avenue, pursuant to Resolution No. 78R-816, duly published in the Anaheim Bulletin and notices thereof posted in accordance with law. Report of the City Engineer dated November 3, 1978 and a recommendation by the Planning Commission were submitted, recommending unconditional approval of said abandonment. The Mayor asked if anyone wished to address the Council; there being no response, he closed the public hearing. 79-48 City. Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - January 9~ 1979~ 1:30 P.M. City Engineer William Devitt clarified for Councilwoman Kaywood that there were no overhead lines located over the pool. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT - CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION: On motion by Councilwoman Kaywood, seconded by Councilman Roth, the City Council ratified the determination of the Planning Director that the proposed activity falls within the definition of Section 3.01, Class 5, of the City of Anaheim Guidelines to the requirements for an environmental impact report and is, therefore, categorically exempt from the require- ment to file an EIR. MOTION CARRIED. Councilwoman Kaywood offered Resolution No. 79R-23 for adoption, approving Abandon- ment No. 78-13A. Refer to Resolution Book. RESOLUTION NO. 79R-23: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CI%Y OF ANAHEIM ORDERING THE VACATION AND ABANDONMENT OF A CERTAIN PUBLIC SERVICE EASEMENT. (78-13A) Roll Call Vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: COUNCIL MEMBERS: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Overholt, Kaywood, Kott, Roth and Seymour None None The Mayor declared Resolution No. 79R-23 duly passed and adopted. ADJOURNMENT: Councilwoman Kaywood moved to adjourn to Monday, January 15, 1979, at 7:30 P.M., at the Convention Center for a joint meeting with the Community Center Authority and the Anaheim Union High School District Board of Trustees. Councilman Overholt seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. Adjourned: 3:20 P.M. LINDA D. ROBERTS, CITY CLERK