Loading...
1979/03/2779-327 City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - March 27, 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 M~MBERS: None CITY MANAGER: William O. Talley CITY ATTORNEY: William P. Hopkins DEPUTY CITY MANAGER: Jack White CITY CLERK: Linda D. Roberts UTILITIES EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR: Gordon W. Hoyt DEPUTY CITY MANAGER: James D. Ruth EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, REDEVELOPMENT: Norman J. Priest WATER ENGINEERING MANAGER: Ray Auerbach TRAFFIC ENGINEER: Paul Singer DEPUTY FIRE MARSHALL: Garthe Menges ASSISTANT DIRECTOR FOR ZONING: Annika Santalahti Mayor Seymour called the meeting to order and welcomed those in attendance to the Council meeting. INVOCATION: A moment of silence was observed in lieu of Invocation. FLAG SALUTE: Councilwoman Miriam Kaywood led the assembly in the Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag. 119: PROCLAMATION: The following proclamation was issued by Mayor Seymour and approved by the City Council: "Salute To The American Youth Soccer Organization in the City and at Anaheim Stadium." - Wednesday, March 28, 1979 MINUTES: On motion by Councilwoman Kaywood, seconded by Councilman Roth, the minutes of the regular meeting of October 3, 1978 were approved subject to typo- graphical 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 CARRIED. FINANCIAL DEMANDS AGAINST THE CITY in the amount of $940,439.70, in accordance with the 1978-79 Budget, were approved. 164: PROJECT ALPHA OFF-SITE WATER MAIN: (Account No. 51-606-25070-34350) On motion by Councilman Kott, seconded by Councilwoman Kaywood, award of contract on the subject off-site main was continued to April 3, 1979 as recommended in memorandum dated March 21, 1979 from the City Engineer. MOTION CARRIED. 123: CERRITOS AVENUE IMPROVEMENT: On motion by Councilman Kott, seconded by Councilwoman Kaywood, payment of $12,549.86 to the City of Stanton as Anaheim's portion of the construction cost for the Cerritos Avenue Improvement from Magnolia to Dale Avenue was approved as recommended in memorandum dated March 15, 1979 from the City Engineer. MOTION CARRIED. 79-328 City Hall~ Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - March 27~ 1979, 1:30 P.M. 158: QUITCLAIM DEED - WITTENBERG CORPORATION: On motion by Councilman Kott, seconded by Councilman Roth, the request of Wittenberg Corporation to release interest held in common with said Corporation of an easement lying within a portion of Lot No. 9 of Tract No. 9170, located betweeen La Palma Avenue and Esperanza, east of Imperial Highway, and authorizing execution of a quitclaim deed therefor was approved as recommended in memorandum dated March 7, 1979 from the City Engineer. MOTION CARRIED. 151: BUS TURNOUTS - WEST STREET SOUTH OF CERRITOS: Councilman Kott offered Resolution No. 79R-166 for adoption as recommeded in memorandum dated March 20, 1979 from the City Engineer approving a License Agreement with Wrather Hotels, Inc., and Walt Disney Productions to operate two bus turnouts, to be constructed by Wrather Hotels, Inc., on West Street, south of Cerritos Avenue. Refer to Resolution Book. RESOLUTION NO. 79R-166: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM APPROVING THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF A LICENSE AGREEMENT BETWEEN W-RATHER HOTELS, INC., WALT DISNEY PRODUCTIONS AND THE CITY OF ANAHEIM, 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-166 duly passed and adopted. 158: SALE OF EQUESTRIAN CENTER PROPERTY TO ANAHEIM HILLS~ INC.: On motion by Councilwoman Kaywood, seconded by Councilman Overholt, the preparation of a parcel map in connection with the proposed sale of the Equestrian Center property to Anaheim Hills, Inc., was approved; Anacal Engineering was authorized to prepare the said parcel map at a cost not to exceed $2,250, with payment of the $2,250 to be made from the proceeds of the sale of said property, as recommended in memorandum dated March 19, 1979 from the City Engineer. MOTION CARRIED. 150: NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION GRANT PROPOSAL: Councilwoman Kaywood offered Resolution No. 79R-167 for adoption as recommended in memorandum dated March 21, 1979 from the Deputy City Manager James Ruth authorizing the Parks, Recreation and Community Services Department to submit a funding proposal to the National Science Foundation in the amount of $68,500 to fund the implementation of the citizens' participation element of the Human Resources and Action Plan, and authorizing the City Manager to execute an application. Refer to Resolution Book. RESOLUTION NO. 79R-167: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNDIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM APPROVING THE APPLICATION FOR GRANT FUNDS FROM THE NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION FOR THE PARTICIPATION OF CITIZENS WITH SCIENTISTS IN COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT AND AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE SAID APPLICATION FOR AND ON BEHALF OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM. 79-329 City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - March 27, 1979, 1:30 P.M. Roll Call Vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: COUNCIL MEMBERS: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Overholt, Kaywood, Kott, Roth and Seymour None None The Mayor declared Resolution No. 79R-167 duly passed and adopted. 158: SALE OF CITRON PARK PROPERTY AND WAIVER OF PUBLIC BID REQUIREMENT: Council- woman Kaywood moved that the subject sale was in the best interest of the City and to waive Charter Section 1222. Councilman Seymour seconded the motion for the purpose of discussion. Before a vote was taken, for purposes of clarification, Councilman Kott posed questions relative to the subject the terms of which were contained in memorandum dated March 21, 1979 from the Deputy City Manager, James Ruth, (on file in the City Clerk's office). Both Mr. Ruth and Deputy City Attorney Jack White answered the line of questioning which also included clarification of items in the escrow instructions, which instructions were part of the documentation submitted to the Council. Following the questions and discussion, Councilman Kott stated that potential buyers of the property were two attorneys and he had a problem with the situation. He found that they not only dictated the terms, but also made up the escrow instructions and the riders to those instructions. He was dissatisfied with the initial dealings and was now dissatisfied with the present proposal. He found things that were inconsistent as far as dealing with staff were concerned and in dealing with the whole property. Until he was certain that $14 a square foot was a reasonable amount of money for the taxpayer, he could not support the proposal and looked upon it as a gift of public funds. Mayor Seymour stated when the City agreed to lease the property for purposes of a skateboard facility run by private enterprise, those Council Members who supported the action were mindful that the City did not have available or would it want to make available the capital to improve the property to provide a recreational amenity to the citizenry. Through the vehicle of a joint venture with private enterprise, they were able to achieve that amenity which otherwise would not have been attainable and which provided the service to the co~unity as evidenced by its great use. He had been and still was totally satisfied with the economic terms, as well as the social terms, of the agreement originally entered into. What they were faced with today was a simple decision, whether to sell the property and take the profits from the sale and improve a park as close to that neighborhood as possible, or continue in a situation encumbered by the encroachment that was created through some error. He continued that there was also the question of value and being freeway property, it might be worth more than the value given by the professional appraiser. However, unless Councilman Kott had seen the site, he would feel differently because it was land locked from both Harbor Boulevard and Ball Road and in order to get to it, it was necessary to travel down apartment house streets as there was no access from main thoroughfares, which had an obvious impact on 79-330 City Hall~ Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - March 27, 1979, 1:30 P.M. the value. A professional appraiser had evaluated the property and if there was a question after receiving his opinion, the Council could obtain another opinion if they wished to do so. However, he was satisfied with the one they received (see letter dated February 19, 1979 from Cedric A. White, Jr. M.A.I. to John Kogler) and supported Councilwoman Kaywood's motion that he hoped would lead to the investment of over $200,000 for the improvement of a park in that neighborhood. If they did not take the option at this time, he did not know when they would have the money to accomplish that. Thus, he was supportive of the action and he disagreed with Councilman Kott's statement that it was a giveaway of public funds. Councilman Kott stated he did not disagree with anything the Mayor stated, but he was interested in obtaining a counter-offer, since in the past they had accepted what the two attorneys had said. The Mayor stated that he expected that Mr. Ruth and others in the City had been in negotiations with those two gentlemen. Mr. Ruth explained that they had approximately 1! meetings, some with the attorneys and some with the gentleman whose property was encroached upon, and all where the City Attorney was in attendance. Furthermore, they did not discuss price until an appraisal was submitted. Thus, it was not a matter of the lessee making an offer and the City accepting same. Councilman Roth stated that two issues were involved, the first in 1974 when the State divested itself of title of the property to the City; however, a survey was not taken at the time. The other issue was relative to the appraisal of the property and he was satisfied with it. He agreed with the Mayor that if there was ever an opportunity to utilize the property, it was at the time the new motel was built on Harbor to the rear of the subject property. Now however the property was landlocked and the present use appeared to be the highest and best use. Councilwoman Kaywood suggested if Councilman Kott was determined to investigate the situation, it might be in order for him to question the gentleman who bid the highest on the sliver of land, bought it, and discovered there was an encroachment involved. Otherwise, the City purchased~the property for $91,000 and were in the process of selling it for $268,000 which was a favorable situation. At the same time the citizens of Anaheim had a skateboard park they would not have had. Mr. Keith Pocock, owner of the adjacent property, asked to address the Council relative to the subject and stated that he intended to develop his parcel which had legal access off the alley next to Henning Paint and which enjoyed better access and a better freeway site than Henning. He defied anyone to find a piece of property that had freeway type prominence in the County of Orange that was ap- praised at $2.50 a foot. He had worked with Mr. Cedric White when he condemned land for the State of California, Department of Tranportation, and he was aware of his qualifications, but maintained that the appraisal submitted to the City did not have one comparable sale to suggest that $2.50 a foot was a fair market price. If the matter was put to bid, a procedure which he recommended, he would 79-331 City Hall~ Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - March 27, 1979, 1:30 P.M. work to syndicate what he believed the value of the property to be - $3.25 a foot. Mr. Pocock then explained the negotiations that took place between him and Mr. White wherein he (Pocock) suggested that the matter be put to bid since the open market would determine the value of the land. Mr. White said "no" and subsequently he received a letter from Mr. White indicating that he wanted to sell the property to the adjacent owner for $1.50 a foot. He then referred to the appraisal of February 19, 1979 and indicated that Mr. White was using a present value of the depression of the lease over fair market value of a 10% factor. He believed the appraisal to be an improper one insofar as that item was concerned. Mayor Seymour asked Mr. Pocock what he purchased the property for and when the purchase was made. Mr. Pocock answered $56,000. He cut off 75 feet on each end of the property and calculated the square footage on that usable portion at $2.25 a foot. The cost on gross square footage was approximatley $1.25 and he had purchased the property last summer. Further discussion and questioning followed between the Mayor and Mr. Pocock relative to the sale and the value of Mr. Pocock's property wherein Mr. Pocock indicated his property was not for sale. He suggested that perhaps Councilman Kott could make a motion that the only thing the taxpayers and citizens of Anaheim would suffer by allowing the subject property to go to bid was a small delay with the likelihood that the taxpayers would receive more money if it was put out to bid than if it was sold on a private basis by an appraiser's opinion of value who was hired by the property owner. Mayor Seymour questioned what Mr. Pocock was hoping to do since the subject property was not contiguous to his property. Mr. Pocock referred to Exhibit "A" showing his parcel (0.88) and the property leased to C&K Skateboard (1.85 acres) and noted that the property being sold was contiguous to his from the access at the alley to a point in the middle of the skateboard park to the far corner. The Mayor then stated as he understood, if Mr. Pocock were to buy the property, he would remove the skateboard facility. Mr. Pocock stated he did not think he could do so because the City had a lease on the property, but the property that should be sold was the underlying fee to the skateboard park. Mayor Seymour asked why he would be interested in buying the skateboard facility; Mr. Pocock answered that he thought it would be an excellent apartment site. As well, he did not think that if the property was worth $6.50 a foot that Mr. Kogler would keep a skateboard park on it. 79-332 City Hall, Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - March 27, 1979~ 1:30 P.M. Mr. Pocock then answered a line of questioning by Councilwoman Kaywood in which he revealed that before he had a survey performed on the property, he anticipated there was probably an encroachment involved but not to the extent that was finally ascertained. It was only after the survey that he realized the line went through approximately one-third of the skateboard park concrete area. Mayor Seymour stated that Mr. Pocock brought up a key point and an important one relating to the future use of the property. Thus they should ascertain from the present lessee their intention, because if they were similar to Mr. Pocock's, the skateboard park would be removed in order to develop apartment houses. If that was the intent, he did not think that the Council wanted to go that route. He would not vote for it, but wanted to see the property zoned commercial/recreational. He wanted to know what Mr. Pocock was going to do with the property. Mr. Pocock explained that he suggested to Mr. White since Henning was a fast paint shop and since he had clients that had several body and paint shops, the best use of the parcel would be a full service body and paint shop/automotive center. The City would not lose its skateboard park if they kept the property, but if it was sold to Mr. Kogler by the 13th of April, he would build a fence across the back one-third of the skateboard park because he did not have any other way to protect his rights. He wanted either one parcel or the other in a trade-off with rezoning for mini-storage or apartments. Mayor Seymour emphasized he wanted to be sure that the recreational amenity remained. The City did not want to buy the property and that was the reason why it was developed as it was in the first place. Councilman Roth stated he was not going to give anybody permission to disassemble the parcel to build apartments or mini-storage on the property as was suggested by Mr. Pocock. Mr. Pocock stated that in his offer to Mr. White to trade, he stated that the offer would be conditioned upon the normal procedure of the zone change. After additional discussion, the Mayor stated that they were not having a hearing on Mr. Pocock's triangular piece of property, and what he and Councilman Roth were referring to was the existing skateboard facility property devoted to a recreational amenity and for it to remain so. Mr. Michael T. Collins, 1400 Bristol Street, Newport Beach, stated he was one of the officers of the lhssee and that the discussion nad gone far afield. They did not come to this City in the first place to steal anything or be made a gift of public funds. He then gave a historical background on events leading up to their establishment of a skateboard park in Anaheim, not only at no cost to the City, but also it turned an unattractive site into a public facility that provided revenue to the City. When they entered into the transaction, it was their understanding that the 3.65 acres involved were about to be developed 79-333 City Hall, Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - March 27, 1979, 1:30 P.M. as a public park. There was an option in the lease with the City where they agreed to switch over to another lease site so that the park could surround the skateboard park and supposedly everybody was thinking at that time that the funds for park development were going to be in the following fiscal year's budget. Shortly before Proposition 13 was enacted, they began to understand there would never be a City park at the site, and it was at that time that they broached the City through the Park and Recreation staff on the possibility of purchasing the site to generate capital funds so that the City could buy and improve a site someplace else. Last summer, someone mentioned to them informally that they had encroached on the State parcel. At that time, the State was going through the process of selling off the sliver of land next to the leased site. They were not aware of the encroachment, but as time went on, the magnitude of the encroachment became clear. A survey was performed within the next 60 days revealing that the encroachment would ruin a skateboard park by taking the top of the three good runs, making the park virtually useless. Three weeks prior, Mr. Pocock indicated that they had 30 days to do something or he would fence off his property which would force the skateboard park to shut down. Without threatening, they had tried to make it clear to the City that if they were shut down, they would be filing a complaint against the City. In their opinion, it was the fault of the lessor that the encroachment existed. They had offered to indemnify the City against the encroachment, but he reiterated if they were shut down, they would file a complaint and undoubtedly there would be a resultant lawsuit. They were not interested in a lawsuit and that was the reason why they wanted to buy the property and also because it would never be the great skateboard park it could be unless a City park were surrounding it. The inference that they took advantage of the City three years ago was not true, and it was not their intent. In answer to a line of questioning by Councilwoman Kaywood, Mr. Collins relayed the following information: if they purchased the site, it would not prevent them from being shut down because the encroachment would still exist. They had talked to Mr. Pocock about a lot line adjustment but he (Pocock) wanted to swap 6000 or 9000 less square feet than he wanted to get without paying the difference. They had no interest in obstructing Mr. Pocock's development. If they were to buy the property, they would not agree to a condition that it would remain either a skateboard park or commercial/recreational facility in perpetuity and they would not be interested in purchasing any property with such a commitment. If it became uneconomical, they could not afford to subsidize an uneconomic use. For the present time, thay had no intention of turning it into an apartment site. Part of the problem with the site, while it was on C-R, it had no commercial access. Unless the City was willing to allow commercial access down a relatively long residential block, it would either have to be some other use or somebody would have to gain access out on to Harbor which would make it commercially viable. Councilwoman Kaywood then stated that the commitment to the City was that for the next 12½ years the site would be a skateboard park; Mr. Collins stated that their lease started June 1, 1976 on a ten-year primary lease with a five-year option, and thus it had 7½ years to run. 79-334 City Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - March 27~ 1979, 1:30 P.M. Mayor Seymour asked if the City were to sell the property to them, would it be their intention to continue the skateboard park facility to the expiration of the lease. Mr. Collins answered that he could not say that, but it would be their intention to operate the skateboard park as long as it would remain economical to do so. Mayor Seymour stated he was beginning to understand where Mr. Collins was coming from and he did not like that any better than what he heard from Mr. Pocock. He was suggesting if Mr. Pocock built his fence, he (Collins) might have to shut down and then he might be back to eliminate the recreational amenity in order to develop the property; Mr. Collins stated that was not what he was saying. Mayor Seymour stated the Council should not spend any more time on the issue, but refer it to the City Attorney and have staff subsequently submit a proposal or an agreement to do business with Mr. Pocock, or whatever other course of action they would recommend. He did not think that the Council was of a mind to sell the property which was developed with a recreational amenity and within a short period of time to have that amenity taken away from the community. MOTION: Councilman Roth moved to continue the matter until the City Attorney could provide information surrounding the issue and subsequently to report that information to the Council. Councilman Overholt seconded the motion. Before a vote was taken on the substitute motion, Councilman Kott noted there was already a motion on the floor. The Mayor stated they were continuing that motion. Councilman Kott then stated there was one point he wanted clarified. Mr. Collins threatened litigation in the event a fence was constructed and he wanted to know how purchasing the property would change that. Mr. Collins answered that they would then be in a position to effect a lot line adjustment with Mr. Pocock that would allow them to continue to operate. Councilman Kott then asked if they purchased the property, would they then waive the litigation. Mr. Collins answered "yes" and they had offered to do that. A vote was then taken on the foregoing motion. MOTION CARRIED. RECESS: By general consent the Council recessed for 10 minutes. (2:55 P.M.) AFTER RECESS: Mayor Seymour called the meeting to order, all Council Members being present. (3:05 P.M.) PUBLIC HEARING - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 1923 AND NEGATIVE DECLARATION: Appli-__ cation by Frederick R. and Ruth E. Sacher, to permit the sales of home furnishings in the ML zone on property located at 1040 Kraemer Place. The City Clerk announced that a request had been received from the applicant's attorney for a continuance of the matter to May 8, 1979, 3:00 P.M. 79-335 City Hall~ Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - March 27, 1979, 1:30 P.M. The Mayor first asked if anyone was present to speak on the matter; no one was present. On motion by Councilman Kott, seconded by Councilwoman Kaywood, public hearing on Conditional Use Permit 1923 and Negative Declaration was continued to May 8, 1979, 3:00 P.M. MOTION CARRIED. 176: PUBLIC HEARING - ABANDONMENT NO. 78-16A: In accordance with application filed by Mr. Kirk Evans public hearing was held on proposed abandonment of existing public utility easements lying within a portion of Lot Nos. 58 and 63 in Tract No. 9750, to permit the installation of a retaining wall, pursuant to Resolution No. 79R-129 duly published in the Anaheim Bulletin and notices there- of posted in accordance with law. Report of the City Engineer dated January 31, 1979 and recommendation by the Planning Commission were submitted recommending 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 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 requirement to file and EIR. MOTION CARRIED. Councilman Kott offered Resolution No. 79R-168 for adoption approving abandonment No. 78-16A. Refer to Resolution Book. RESOLUTION NO. 79R-168: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM ORDERING THE VACATION AND ABANDONMENT OF A PUBLIC UTILITY EASEMENT ADJACENT TO THE EAST SIDE OF SCOUT TRAIL STREET. (78-16A) 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-168 duly passed and adopted. 169: PUBLIC HEARING - CLOSURE OF PATT STREET: Request of the Public Works Department, to consider the closure to through Vehicular traffic of Patt Street, at point 655 feet north of La Palma Avenue, pursuant to Section 21101 of the Vehicle Code, was submitted. On motion by Councilwoman K~ywood, seconded by Councilman Overholt, public hearing on the closure of Part Street was continued to April 24, 1979, at 3:00 P.M., as recommended in memorandum dated March 21, 1979, from the City Engineer. MOTION CARRIED. 79-336 City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - March 27, 1979, 1:30 P.M. No one from the public was present to speak on the continuance. 107/161: HEARING - APPEAL FROM NOTICE AND ORDER TO ABATE A DANGEROUS BUILDING - 114 EAST LINCOLN AVENUE: To consider appeal of Jodyne Roseman, Trustee, from Notice and Order of City Building Official to abate a commercial structure located at 114 East Lincoln Avenue, which has been determined a dangerous building within the meaning of the Uniform Code for the Abatement of Dangerous Buildings, in accordance with Section 501 (c) of said Code, was submitted. City Attorney William Hopkins reported that a request was received from Jodyne Roseman, Trustee and also the attorney in the matter, for a continuance of one week. The Mayor asked if anyone was present to speak on the matter; no one was present. On motion by Councilwoman Kaywood, seconded by Councilman Roth, consideration of the subject appeal from Notice was continued one week as requested. MOTION CARRIED. 123/173: TRAIN PLATFORM AT ANAHEIM STADIUM: Councilman Kott offered Resolution No. 79R-169 for adoption as recommended in memorandum dated March 12, 1979 from the Planning Director approving an agreement with the State in connection with funds for a train platform at Anaheim Stadium (SB 283). Refer to Resolution Book. RESOLUTION NO. 79R-169: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM -- APPROVING THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF AN AGREEMENT WITH THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA IN CONNECTION WITH FUNDS FOR A TRAIN PLATFORM AT ANAHEIM STADIUM; AND AUTHORIZING AND DIRECTING 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-169 duly passed and adopted. 124: REQUEST FOR WAIVER OF PARKING FEE - ANAHEIM CAROUSEL OF ~JSIC: On motion by Councilwoman I<~ywood, seconded by Councilman Seymour, the request of Betty Lillis, Anaheim Sister Cities Committee, for waiver of parling fee at the Anaheim Convention Center for the Anaheim Carousel of Music on May 1, 1979 was approved with the stipulation that the vehicles be counted, as recommended by staff, and parking fees to be allocated from the Council Contingency Fund. MOTION CARRIED. 123/154: ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION CONTRACT: Mr. John Flocken, Chairman of the Board Economic Development Corporation, stated after the presentation to the Council on March 6, 1979 they met with the Council Liaison Members, Mayor Seymour and Councilman Kott, as well as other City staff. There were questions regarding the contract itself, and Section 2 was changed to accommodate the City Council to insure that they had complete control over the performance clauses in the contract. The Council now had total protection so that the Corporation would not exceed any expenditures previously approved through the budgetary proces=. 79-337 City Hall~ Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - March 27~ 1979~ 1:30 P.M. The source of funds was discussed and through the vehicle of the 1978-79 budget, there was a provision for funds for the Economic Development Corporation (EDC) and those funds still existed. Some had been used for other EDC purposes pending the specific need of the Corporation, and the Corporation at this time anticipated using $19,614 for the balance of fiscal 1979. The funds were available through a combination of Block Grant, CETA, and Redevelopment monies. The Community Development Department had submitted a recommendation and memorandum dated biarch 20, 1979 that the amount be approved and that for the 1979-80 budget, the City Council accept in principle the proposed EDC expenditures in the amount of $137,900 for fiscal 1979-80 to be incorporated in the normal budgetary process of the City. He was requesting that budget be part of the contract at the appropriate time. At this time, on behalf of the Board of Directors of the EDC, he was requesting approval of the contract and the budget of $19,614 for the balance of fiscal 1979. Councilwoman Kaywood asked Mr. Flocken if he would be able to guarantee that the benefits derived were going to be better for the City than the costs involved. Mr. Flocken stated the whole purpose of the Corporation was to provide the City with a good economic development program as a private, non-profit corporation. At any time it failed to do that, it should be shut down. Relative to a time limitation, he explained that the contract was cancellable in 180 days, and it was part of their agreement that (1) the City Council would control the funds, (2) the contract could be terminated in 180 days, and (3) they planned to raise outside monies as a contingency fund so that in the event the contract was cancelled, they would be able to meet any obligations they would have in closing down the Corporation. As well, they had five goals and all their objectives were oriented to those goals. As soon as staff was on board, they would set specific target dates to accomplish their goals. There were specific yardsticks for measuring their performance which were part of the contract. Mayor Seymour commended Mr. Flocken for his personal efforts, as well as others. involved. What the Corporation was looking for today was (1) a re-endorsement of the concept and (2) an action that would put the EDC into business by appro- ving the remaining budget for the fiscal year with the understanding that they would look at a budget for the next year, yet to be finalized, and which would become part of the normal budgetary process. Mr. Norm Priest, Executive Director of Community Development stated that when discussing specific objectives, in talking to firms who would want to expand or move to the City, he believed it would put them in an awkward position in trying to tie them to a very specific objective because they would looking for decision-making from others. Secondly, they would often be dealing in private kinds of negotiations. What the Council would be looking at was more of the process rather than coming to the City with a set of products. He wanted to make that clear. Councilman Kott, Roth and Overholt also commended Mr. Flocken and those others who devoted much time and effort in making the EDC a reality. 79-338 City H~ll~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - March 27, 1979, 1:30 P.M. Councilman Seymour offered Resolution No. 79R-170 for adoption as recommended in memorandum dated March 20, 1979 from the Community Development Department, approving an agreement with the Economic Development Corporation. Refer to Resolution Book. RESOLUTION NO. 79R-170: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM APPROVING THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF AN AGREEMENT WITH ANAHEIM ECONOMIC DEVELOP- MENT CORPORATION AND AUTHORIZING AND DIRECTING 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-170 duly passed and adopted. On motion by Councilman Seymour, seconded by Councilwoman Kaywood, a proposed budget in the amount of $19,614 for the balance of 1978-79 fiscal year for the EDC was approved. MOTION CARRIED. On motion by Councilman Seymour, seconded by Councilman Kott, the proposed Economic Development Corporation expenditures in principle in the amount of $137,900 and incorporating said proposal into the normal budgetary review and analysis process of the City for the fiscal year 1979-80 was approved. MOTION CARRIED. 153: DISPOSITION OF DISABILITY RETIREMENT APPLICATION OF DALE C. WALTERS, POLICE OFFICER: Mr. Michael Nezin, attorney for Officer Walters, 1212 North Broadway, Santa Ana, stated as he understood, the Council would be acting as the appellate body in terms of the decision of the Retirement Committee and that they had several options. They could affirm the decision of the Retirement Committe, call for a new hearing, modify the holdings, or reject the decision and make a determination on their own. Because the new procedure was involved, he asked that the Council treat the matter as a new case before them and not "rubberstamp" approval of the Retirement Committee's decision. He emphasized that they were dealing with an injured employee with a number of years of service to the City who had a life to lead and had been trying to do so for a year waiting for a hearing. One of the things that had clouded the proceedings was that the Risk Management Department had initiated an investigation of officers that were on Industrial Accident (I.A.) time which might have been an over-reaction to the Officer Plummer situation. The investigators had obtained 20 minutes of motion picture film showing Officer Walters washing his car and they found a doctor to review the film who, based upon the picture, stated that Officer Walters was fit for duty as a Police Officer. He asked the Council to seriously examine that aspect and not make the assumption that 20 minutes of film out 12 months disability was representative of an individual's capacity to fulfill his obligations as a sworn Officer ..... He continued it was assumed that someone who was disabled would be sitting in their living room in a wheelchair watching TV, but that was not the case. Officer 79-339 City Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - March 27, 1979~ 1:30 P.M. Walters was not totally disabled and he was not in a gurney or a hospital bed. He took out the garbage, washed his car, played with his children and he had been doing that for a year while on sick time, I.A. time and disability. The inference had been placed in the record that in some way he was a fraud and had fooled the doctors and the City of Anaheim. They were not ashamed of those motion pictures, but they did not approve of them. He maintained it was not right for someone to have waited outside of Mr. Walters house 12 months after the injury and after they had asked on four separate occasions for retirement hearings and disability hearings and then be turned down, to take pictures in 20 minutes and subsequently to say that the man was a fraud. The doctor the City called in, Dr. McAllister, indicated as much by stating, "Mr. Walters is obviously after an easy life of retirement on disability and worker's compensation." Living on one-half of a Police Officer's salary for compensation was not his idea of an easy life. Mayor Seymour stated he wanted to permit Mr. Nezin an opportunity to speak, but not to conduct a public hearing. Mr. Nezin stated he was not going to do so, but another point he wanted to raise was the fact that every time they had been to the City, the investigator was also present. He objected to the procedure and believed it to be intimidating to have the investigator present with the motion pictures. Deputy City Attorney Frank Lowry who acted as counsel to the Retirement Committee told them the pictures could not be shown in open session without notice to the parties and certainly not without notice that a hearing was going to be conducted. Wherever he went with his client, the investigator was "tailing" them and he was now waiting out in the hallway. If there was an opportunity, the Council should inquire as to why that type of conduct was being permitted. City Attorney Hopkins stated that the City of Anaheim Safety Employee Disability Retirement Evaluation Committee had submitted a recommendation to the City Council and it was now the Council's duty to make a decision. They might affirm the recommendation of the Committee, reverse or modify it or set the matter for a rehearing. At this point the Council had heard the attorney for Officer Walters. If the Council desired to hear the statement of the Chairman Of the Committee, that would be in order and at that point, then one of the three above actions would be in order. The Council would then be required to offer a resolution if dispostion were made today. Mr. Nezin respectfully submitted it would be premature for Council to rule today on any of those three actions because the documentation they had before them was voluminous and they should have an opportunity as individuals to read what had occurred. He also presumed that they had been provided with copies of everything provided to the Council. If the Council felt there had been a fair hearing, they obviously would not want another, but he did not know how such a position could be taken today without the Council thoroughly familiarizing themselves with the record. He asked that they delay their determination until they had the time to review the record and then to subsequently decide what they wished to do. Mayor Seymour stated that the Council had the documentation for two weeks. 79-340 City Hall~ Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - March 27, 1979, 1:30 P.M. Mr. Nezin apologized since he did not mean to infer they had not done their homework. He then again asked that he be provided with a copy of the docu- mentation submitted to the Council because, merely by looking at it, he did not believe he had all of that data. City Attorney Hopkins confirmed that City Clerk had provided each Council Member with a copy of the record and it had been available for two weeks to the Council. Mayor Seymour stated that he thought the new procedure was to include a recommenda- tion from the City Manager, but he did not see that in his packet of materials. City Manager Talley stated that was given verbally the previous week. He had reviewed all documentation in the case, discussed the matter with the members of the Retirement Committee and specifically, on the record, he did recommend their action, and he further recommended that the Council sustain that action. Mayor Seymour stated that he had an opportunity to review the documentation and it was a very complete and a thorough analysis of the matter. He apologized to Mr. Nezin that the Retirement Board hearing did not occur in a more timely fashion but the facts, in his opinion, revealed that it was a fair hearing. Mr. Nezin stated he wanted to preserve his record by making a formal motion that the matter be a subject of a rehearing, leaving that to Council's discretion and also to request that out of equity and perhaps under law, that he should have a copy of the documentation the Council was relying upon in terms of making their decision. Councilman Kott asked who the investigators were that Mr. Nezin was referring to. City Manager Talley explained that part of the discussion and the hearing related to the fact that the City employed an investigator to observe the applicant and during his observation not only presented evidence, but also movies that in the Committee's opinion totally refuted the claim made. He did not follow anyone around but at any announced hearing, not only the Risk Manager, Chairman and other members of the Committee and the attorneys were present, but also the investigator with the movies in the event the Council wished to have them shown or had any questions. MOTION: Councilman Seymour thereupon moved to deny the request for a rehearing on the disability retirement application of Dale C. Walters. Councilman Overholt seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. Councilman Seymour moved to approve the recommendations of the Safety Employees Disability Retirement Evaluation Committee recommending denial of the application for disability retirement submitted by Dale C. Walters. Councilman Overholt seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. Councilman Seymour offered Resolution No. 79R-171 for adoption as reco~nended by the Safety Employees Disability Retirement Evaluation Committee determining that Dale C. Walters was not incapacitated within the meaning of Public Employees' Retirement laws, thus denying the application for disability retirement. Refer to Resolution Book. 79-341 City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - March 27, 1979, 1:30 P.M. RESOLUTION NO. 79R-171: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM FINDING AND DETERMINING THAT DALE C. WALTERS IS NOT INCAPACITATED WITHIN THE MEANING OF THE PUBLIC EMPLOYEES' RETIREMENT LAW FOR PERFORMANCE OF HIS DUTIES IN THE POSITION OF POLICE OFFICER. 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-171 duly passed and adopted. Councilman Overholt asked if Mr. Nezin would be furnished with a copy of the record furnished to the Council. City Attorney Hopkins stated that the City Clerk had a copy which she could give to Mr. Nezin. He would then have a copy in the presence of the Council. City Clerk Linda Roberts submitted the complete documentation to Mr. Nezin. 114: COUNCIL COMMUNICATIONS - HANDLING AND DISTRIBUTION: Councilman Kott referred to memorandum dated March 15, 1979 from Jim Armstrong, Administrative Aide in the City Manager's Office (on file in the City Clerk's office), concerning communica- tions to the City Council. He requested that the item be discussed at today's meeting in order to consider the Council Policy so as to preclude future misunder- standing or problems regarding the receipt of personal inquiries or complaints. He felt that any communication directed to him was a personal item, and he did not feel that the City Manager should be privy to those or any inquiries that he might make. Such inquiries should not be general information or subjected to general distribution unless the person to whom the communication was addressed chose to do so. Councilman Kott thereupon moved that any personal inquiries, either telephonic or written, remain the personal property of the addressee unless addressee so chooses to have a general distribution among other Council Members or others with whom they choose to share that information. Before further action was taken, Mayor Seymour asked for clarification that Councilman Kott's concerns revolved around only paragraph three of the memorandum relative to inquiries or complaints referred by individual Council Members and not paragraphs one and two regarding hotline complaints or those inquiries or complaints brought up at a Council meeting. Councilman Ko tt confirmed that he did not have a problem with paragraphs one or two. Mayor Seymour continued that he was somewhat ambivalent to Councilman Kott's motion. He was interested in seeing that something consistent was done. In the event they were going to copy and distribute inquiries and complaints for one Councilperson or two or three, it should be done for all. His intent in discussing the matter 79-342 City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - March 27~ 1979~ 1:30 P.M. with the City Manager was to create a consistent policy. When it came to some matters involving the City Attorney or even the City Clerk, there were perhaps good reasons why those matters should remain private. However, he would second the motion for the purpose of discussion relating to Item 3 of the March 15, 1979 memo. Councilman Roth wanted to be certain that the situation did not affect hot line complaints or those brought up at the Council meeting, Otherwise there might be a duplication of effort on something the City Manager or staff had already supplied and answered. He stated that personally there was no inquiry he made, written or oral, that he would not want the City Manager or any Depart- ment Head to distribute to the whole Council since his tenure in 1976. Mayor Seymour explained that he had more than one experience where a citizen had written him on a confidential matter or that was confidential to them. If that type of inquiry was to be copied to the entire Council, he was not certain that he would be keeping good faith with that citizen. If in his judgment he received a communication that he wished distributed to the whole Council, that was no problem. As the Council was aware, on hotline complaints, he established a policy that every Council Member be copied as well as on whatever written responses, there might be. Councilman Kott was right relative to those areas where a Council person might be sensitive to the privacy of an issue and that Member should have the right to say whether or not an item should be distributed to the Council if it was addressed to an individual Council person. Councilman Overholt stated that he shared Councilman Kott's concern but he did not think it was a matter of whose property was involved, but it was an issue of confidentiality. The problem with the statement of policy lay in the fact that a staff member determined whether or not there would be a publication of the inquiry and the answer. He suggested that they devise a system that would leave that decision with the Council Member. He also broached the situation where the City Attorney could not give information relative to confidentiality. City Attorney Hopkins stated as far as his office was concerned that such a requirement would impair their operation if they had to answer that they could not give a reply. Frequently they received conflict of interest opinion requests which were usually of a nature that would not be appropriate to disseminate to all Members of the Council. Councilman Overholt then asked what would happen if a Council Member asked for a confidential opinion and the City Attorney felt it was a matter of greater interest. That was an area of conflict and thus the City Attorney would have to say he could not give that opinion confidentially. City Attorney Hopkins stated that if the canon of the bar applied, he would feel obligated not to make a public dissemination of his reply. He might have to do so if written communication were involved. However, such a situation had not yet occurred. Councilman Overholt then asked if Councilman Kott would eliminate personal propert and use confidential property instead; Councilman Kott agreed. 79-343 City. Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - March 27, 1979, 1:30 P.M. Councilman Roth recalled that several months prior the Council was interested in releasing all kinds of confidential material to the press even though it was stamped "confidential" and even after they received a legal definition of the word "confiden- tial.'' Now they were reversing their direction. He did not have any objection, but felt it would be a radical departure to what had been done. For purposes of clarification, Mr. Talley stated the policy on Item 3 existed long before the hotline was instituted. He explained that three levels were involved; (1) the individual Council person, (2) the Council as a body, and (3) the public. They were talking about whether the distribution would go to level one or two. If level two, it would not mean that it would go public unless a Council Member decided to make it so. The problem staff had was two-fold, there was the potential for abuse when a Council Member directed staff to do a tremendous amount of work thus creating an information flow to only one Council Member, or taking thousands of dollars worth of staff time without Council knowledge. As well, a Council person might be trying to get information generated from staff that they would use publicly. On those occa- sions, staff felt much more comfortable in informing the other Council Members so that everybody would be aware of the situation. However, it did not mean staff was going public. Councilman Kott stated that he did not feel it was within the City Manager's province to decide that issue, but to abide by the policy of the Council. He then questioned if, in fact, he (Talley) had been asked to do thousands of dollars of work on a confidential basis. Mr. Talley stated they had done thousands of dollars worth of work at the request of a Council person which, under the policy being advocated, would then become that Council person's property and not be available to other Council Members. Mayor Seymour stated if Mr. Talley was saying that there had been an individual Council person who had called him or a Department Head and the result was an expenditure of $1,000 or $2,000, that was wrong, and they ought to clear it up. Mr. Talley clarified that what he said was it was that type of request, but not a single request in itself. The Mayor then stated that it was part of staff's job to respond to the inquiries of the Council individually or collectively. They did not want an individual Council person directing a study that would cost thousands of dollars and if he (Talley) were confronted with such a situation, it should be brought to the Council's attention, either to him personally or another Council person indivi- dually or in public. Further discussion followed wherein Councilwoman Kaywood suggested putting a money limit on the situation by monitoring the cost of any requested reports by the Council in answer to inquiries. Mr. Talley stated he would look at the matter in 90 days. btayor Seymour stated if the motion carried, it would be appropriate to have the City Manager monitor the cost of any requested report in answer to inquiries and report back in 90 days on the experience factor. 79-344 City Hall, Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - March 27, 1979~ 1:30 P.M. A vote was then taken on the foregoing motion with the word "personal property" changed to "confidential property." MOTION CARRIED. Before concluding, Mayor Seymour stated that the hotline procedure was working well and the City Manager's office and staff was very responsive. However, he wanted the City Manager and staff to know that in the event that some hotline complaints could be handled quickly and concisely with a phone call, he would favor that. As an example, if a verbal report came back to the City Clerk's office, that office could make a note in response with copies to the Council. He did not see the need to have a memorandum dictated at all times. Councilwoman Kaywood was of the opinion that they should not be putting a priority on hotline calls. The previous week, about 90% of the calls she had seen either applied to a different City or jurisdiction or to something that had already been handled or that was out of line in some way; Mr. Talley confirmed when a complaint said "Mayor" and "hotline", it was given priority. The Mayor was glad to hear that citizens were being served. He maintained that 90% of the complaints were solid valid complaints. He emphasized that it was incorrect to lead anybody to believe that the complaints were coming from out of town or the like. He had been keeping watch on how long it took to respond and although they might be given priority, it did not mean a response was given in the next half-hour or hour because some took as long as four or five days. However, he was not complaining and felt that an adequate service level was being maintained. 175: DEIMER INTERTIE: GeneralManager of the Public Utilities Department Gordon Hoyt briefed the Council on his memorandum dated March 26, 1979 recommending that the Council approve the attached amendment to the Deimer Intertie Agreement and authorizing him to execute the proposed amendment. The memorandum discussed the amendment in detail (on file in the City Clerk's office). Mr. Dennis McClain, General Manager of the Municipal Water District of Orange County further clarified that as Mr. Hoyt mentioned, under the agreement, the Irvine Company would purchase for approximatley $2~ million dollars, 22cfs capacity in the Intertie and that money would pay for the oversizing designed in an increment of 80cfs. At the end of two years under either arrangement, the Irvine Ranch Water District would have the option of buying the remaining 58 cfs for $10~ million dollars. If Irvine did not excercise that option, the capacity would be distributed proportionate to the investment of the participants. Some of the agencies had not agreed to that arrangement at the present time, preferring an arrangement under which, as a paper convenience, the MWDOC would hold that capacity in trust on behalf of the participants. In actual fact, all of the participants in the project would be holding that capacity. The phrase he preferred was that it was held in trust for all of the participants. The capacity would then be sold on a first-come, first-serve prorata share basis and as the funds were received in disposing 58cfs, they would be deposited to theparticipating agency, thereby reducing the cost of participation. If that 58 cfs capacity were never purchased, the capacity would remain unused, head losses in the pipeline would be less and the capacity would still be available. The City would be reducing costs immediately by $40,000 with the potential of reducing costs eventually of $400,000. 79-345 City Hall~ Anah. eim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - March 27, 1979, 1:30 P.M. Councilman Seymour offered Resolution No. 79R-172 for adoption as recommended in memorandum dated March 26, 1979 from the General Manager of the Public Utilities Department. Refer to Resolution Book. RESOLUTION NO. 79R-172: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM APPROVING THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF THE SECOND AMENDMENT TO AN AGREEMENT WITH MUNICIPAL WATER DISTRICT OF ORANGE COUNTY IN CONNECTION WITH THE DIEMER INTERTIE AND AUTHORIZING THE GENERAL MANAGER OF THE PUBLIC UTILITIES DEPARTMENT TO EXECUTE SAID AMENDMENT. 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-172 duly passed and adopted. 153: USE OF CITY VEHICLES ON PERSONAL BUSINESS: Councilman Kott reported that on Saturday, March 24, 1979 at 8:45 A.M., a City Parks and Recreation vehicle No. 1008 drove up to the grocery store on the corner of Citron and Santa Ana Street, did some shopping and left. He had spoken to the people at the store and they stated that happened quite often. Yesterday, March 26, 1979, a Parks and Recreation vehicle was parked in the Broadway Shopping Center and he had the license number. He wanted to know what the City Manager was going to do about the situation. City Manager Talley stated in every such instance, they would submit to the reporting party the Department Head's report regarding what the vehicle was doing at the location. If the reason was not satisfactory, disciplinary action was taken. He would investigate the two instances cited. 123: DESIGN OF HIDDEN CANYON RESERVOIR AND PUMPING STATION: Recommendation of Public Utilities Board in memorandum dated March 16, 1979 that the City Council approve the First Amendment to an agreement with Boyle Engineering for design of the Hidden Canyon Reservoir and Pumping Station, an increase of $14,300, thereby increasing the cost of said project to $130,200, was submitted. Councilman Roth offered Resolution No. 79R-173 for adoption as recommended in memorandum dated March 16, 1979 from the Public Utilities Board. Refer to Resolution Book. RESOLUTION NO. 79R-173: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM APPROVING A FIRST AMENDMENT TO AGREEMENT WITH BOYLE ENGINEERING AND AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR AND CITY CLERK TO EXECUTE SAID FIRST AMENDMENT. 79-346 City Hall~ Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - March 27, 1979~ 1:30 P.M. Before a vote was taken Ray Auerbach, Water Superintendent, answered questions posed by Councilman Kott for purposes of clarification. A vote was then taken on the foregoing resolution. 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-173 duly passed and adopted. 175: SAN ONOFRE NUCLEAR GENERATING STATION UNITS 2 AND 3: Recommendation of the Public Utilities Board that the City Council approve the First Amendment to the November 1, 1977 Letter Agreement relating to San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station Units 2 and 3 (SONGS), with Southern California Edison Company, San Diego Gas and Electric Compnay and City of Riverside, extending the termination date to July 1, 1979, and authorizing the Public Utilities General Manager to execute same, was submitted. Gordon Hoyt, General Manager of Public Utilities, stated that relative to the subject, Southern California Edison (SCE) had made some revisions to the first amendment they had proposed, which revisions had been received late last night and copies ~ distributed to the Council. It was an amendment that had been approved by SCE and San Diego Gas and Electric and it was going before Riverside, as well as AnaheJ today. However, the recommendation of the Public Utilities Board had not changed. He pointed out that all of Section 2 was a new section dealing with general over- head costs which he explained. Those costs were paid on a percentage of the construction cost instead of as actually recorded on the books of the company. This procedure had also been used with San Onofre Unit No. 1. Councilman Roth offered Resolution No. 79R-174 for adoption as recommended by the Public Utilities Board. Refer to Resolution Book. RESOLUTION NO. 79R-174: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM APPROVING THE FIRST AMEMDMENT TO LETTER AGREEMENT DATED NOVEMBER 1, 1977, WITH SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON COMPANY, SAN DIEGO GAS & ELECTRIC COMPANY AND THE CITY OF RIVERSIDE IN CONNECTION WITH SAN ONOFRE NUCLEAR GENERATING STATION AND AUTHORIZING THE PUBLIC UTILITIES GENERAL MANAGER TO EXECUTE SAID AMENDMENT. 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-174 duly passed and adopted. 175: PALO VERDE NUCLEAR GENERATING STATION REPLICATION AGREEMENT: Recommen- dation by the Public Utilities Board that the City Council approve Amendment No. 1 to the Amended Palo Verde Nuclear Generating Station Replication Agreement, and for completion of negotiations of the Participation Agreement by September 1, 1979, and authorizing the Public Utilities General Manager to execute same, was submitted. 79-34 7 City Hall~ Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - Mmrch 27, 1979, 1:30 P.M. Councilman Roth offered Resolution No. 79R-175 for adoption as recommended in memorandum dated March 16, 1979 from the Public Utilities Board Secretary. Refer to Resolution Book. RESOLUTION NO. 79R-175: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM APPROVING AMENDMENT NO. 1 TO THE PALO VERDE NUCLEAR GENERATING STATION REPLICATION AGREEMENT OF FEBRUARY 1, 1978, AND AUTHORIZING THE PUBLIC UTILITIES GENERAL MANAGER TO EXECUTE SAID AMENDMENT ON BEHALF OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM. Roll Call Vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: COUNCIL MEMBERS: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Overholt, Kaywood, Roth and Seymour Kott None The Mayor declared Resolution No. 79R-175 duly passed and adopted. 167/150: REQUEST FOR WAIVER OF PARK AND RECREATION IN LIEU FEE AND TRAFFIC SIGNAL ASSESSMENT FEE: Request by Reverend John R. Steinhaus, Walnut Manor, for waiver of the subject fees as requested in letter dated February 28, 1979, was submitted. Mayor Seymour asked if Reverend Steinhaus was present; there was no response. Mr. Paul Singer, Traffic Engineer spoke relative to the Traffic Signal Assessment fee explaining that California Lutheran Homes had made an addition of several residential units for elderly persons. He stated that they could not waive the requirement for traffic signal fee because dwelling units were involved, and it would have to be Council's decision. Although the project would not generate a great deal of traffic, nevertheless, they needed money for traffic signals. Councilman Roth also noted in memorandum dated March 19, 1979 from the City Attorney's office that to waive either of these would be a gift of public funds to a religious organization. On motion by Councilman Seymour, seconded by Councilwoman Kaywood, waiver of Park and Recreation in lieu fees and Traffic Signal Assessment fees in connection with construction of eight additional units at 891 South Walnut Street, was denied. MOTION CARRIED. 129: PUBLIC FIREWORKS DISPLAY PERMIT: Application by Astro Pyrotechnics on behalf of California Surf Major League Soccer, to display fireworks at Anaheim Stadium on a total of seventeen different dates, between March 27 and June 8, 1979, between 7:15 P.M. and 9:30 P.M., was submitted. Councilwoman Kaywood wanted to know if the display would be after every goal. However as pointed out by the City Clerk, the application did not specify exactly when the display would occur, but only between the hours of 7:15 and 9:30 P.M. Deputy Fire Marshall Garthe Menges confirmed that Astro Pyrotechnics were licensed by the State and approved by the State Fire Marshall's office and were a reputable firm. 79-348 City Hall~ Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - March 27, 1979, 1:30 P.M. On motion by Councilman Roth, seconded by Councilman Kott, application for Public Fireworks Display Permit submiited by Astro Pyrotechnics was approved. Councilwoman Kaywood voted "no". MOTION CARRIED. RECLASSIFICATION NO. 76-77-40 AND VARIANCE NO. 2918 - EXTENSIONS OF TIME: Request by Mr. Daniel A. Salceda, Anaheim Hills, Inc., for an extension of time to Re- classification No. 76-77-40 and Variance No. 2918, proposed RS-HS-22,000 zoning to establish a 30-lot subdivision with a waiver of requirement that all lots rear-on an arterial highway, on property at the northeast corner of Canyon Rim Road and Fairmont Boulevard, was submitted, together with a recommendation by the Zoning Director. On motion by Councilman Kott, seconded by Councilman Overholt, extensions of time to the subject Reclassification and Variance were approved, to expire April 19, 1980, as recommended. MOTION CARRIED. RECLASSIFICATION NO. 76-77-37 AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 1691 - EXTENSIONS OF TIME: Request by Mr. Walter E. LaForce for an extension of time to Reclassification No. 76-77-37 and Conditional Use Permit No. 1691, proposed CL zoning to permit a mini-warehouse on property located on the north side of Lincoln Avenue west of Western Avenue, was submitted together with a recommendation by the Zoning Director. Councilwoman Kaywood asked staff how many mini-warehouses were now in the City. Miss Santalahti, Assistant Director for Zoning, believed there were two, but while they had been approved, it was not certain they were going to build and there was a possiblity that other proposals would be submitted instead. The alternate use would be another zoning altogether. She also confirmed for Councilwoman Kaywood that it would be less time and money for the City to automatically extend the time. On motion by Councilman Kott, seconded by Councilman Roth, extensions of time on the subject Reclassification and Conditional Use Permit were approved, to expire April 12, 1980, as recommended. MOTION CARRIED. CONSENT CALENDAR ITEMS: On motion by Councilman Kott, seconded by Councilman Seymour, 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. 118: CLAIMS AGAINST THE CITY: The following claims were denied and referred to the City's insurance carrier or the self-insurance administrator: a. Claim submitted by Amelia Mackey for personal injuries purportedly sustained as a result of a trip and fall near Lakeview and Riverdate Avenues on or about April 10, 1978. b. Claim submitted by Lorraine Akin for vehicle damages purportedly sustained as a result of "No Parking" sign at Lincoln Avenue and Rio Vista Street falling, on or about January 18, 1979. 79-349 City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - March 27, 1979, 1:30 P.M. The following claims were recommended to be allowed: c. Claim submitted by Victor Sanchez for vehicle damages purportedly sustained as a result of accident involving City-owned vehicle, Unit No. 217, on or about February 22, 1979. d. Claim submitted by Dale Nuzum Construction for vehicle damages purportedly sustained as a result of negligent operation of City-owned vehicle or or about January 16, 1979. 2. CORRESPONDENCE: The following correspondence was ordered received and filed: a. 173: Before the PUC, Application for Certificate of Convenience and Necessity for passenger sightseeing service, Robert N. Katayama and James A. Kaylor. b. 173: Notice of Application for Rate Increase, Hunt Transportation, on three commuter routes beginning in Orange County and terminating at Hughes Aircraft Company facilities in Los Angeles International Airport Service Area. c. 175: Utilities Department, Field Division - Monthly report for February 1979. d. 105: Golf Course Advisory Commission - Minutes of February 15, 1979. e. 105: Community Center Authority - Minutes of March 5, 1979. f. 105: Community Redevelopment Commission - Minutes of March 5 and ~rch 7, 1979. g. 105: Anaheim Youth Commission, Resolution regarding City Council's proposed tightening of the newsrack ordinance and their stand on pronography. 4. 108: APPLICATIONS: The following applications were approved in accordance with recommendations of the Chief of Police: a. Dinner-Dancing Place Permit submitted by Daniel E. and Estella Martinez, to allow dancing 7 days per week from 7:00 P.M. to 2:00 A.M., at Las Lomas Mexican Restaurant, 5638 East La Palma Avenue. b. Dinner-Dancing Place Permit submitted by Bastian Wm. Van Solingen, Sr., to allow dancing Tuesday through Saturday, 9:00 P.M. to 1:00 A.M., at the Kettle Restaurant, 1778 West Lincoln Avenue. c. Dinner-Dancing Place Permit submitted by Michael J. Genovese, to allow dancing Wednesday through Saturday, from 9:00 P.M. to 1:00 A.M., at Don Jose #12 Restaurant, 5665 East Santa Ana Canyon Road. d. Dinner-Dancing Place Permit submitted by Jose B. Tavera, to allow dancing three days per week from 8:00 P.M. to 12 Midnight, at La Cabana Anaheim, Inc., 3921Miraloma Avenue. 79-350 City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - March 27, 1979, 1:30 P.M. 4. 170: TENTATIVE TRACT NO. 8520 (Rev. 1): Texaco-Anaheim Hills, Inc. to add an open space lot to an existing 18-lot, RS-HS-22,000(SC) subdivision, located on the east side of Hidden Canyon Road, south of Serrano Avenue. (Submitted in conjunction with Reclassification No. 78-79-33 and EIR No. 211 which will appear on the April 3, 1979 agenda under Planning Commission Consent Calendar.) The City Planning Commission approved Tentative Tract No. 8520 (Rev. 1) and certified EIR No. 211. MOTION CARRIED. 148: PUBLIC HEARING ON AIR QUALITY MANAGEMENT PLAN: Councilwoman Kaywood questioned whether Anaheim was going to be represented at the public hearing before the Air Resources Board regarding the adoption of the Air Quality Management Plan for the Southern Calfornia Air Basin on April 25 through 27, 1979. City Manager Talley stated that the City would be represented; Mayor Seymour presumed that the representative would also recommend Council's opposition to the plan. Mr. Talley stated they did not intend to do so but merely cover the hearing; however, if the Council wished to send a position, they would be happy to voice that position at the hearing. The Mayor recalled that the Council took a position of strong opposition to the plan and that they would want to do so again. Councilwoman Kaywood noted that the hearings were before the Air Quality Management Board and the sanctions were great if the plan was not complied with. She pointed out that the City was presently complying with at least one-half of the requirements in the plan. She felt that before taking a position of opposition, staff should come back to the Council for further direction if sanctions were going to be applied. MOTION: Councilman Seymour moved to direct staff to represent the City at the hearing to present the Council's position of strong opposition to the plan based upon the economic fact that it would cost the citizens of Anaheim $10 million a year. Councilma Overholt seconded the motion. Before a vote was taken, Councilwoman Kaywood stated it was also indicated there would be a savings of $2 billion dollars by precluding the detrimental effects of air pollution. Mayor Seymour emphasized that when the plan was discussed briefly, it was agreed that, if implemented, it would cost Anaheim taxpayers $10 million. Councilman Roth also emphasized that the majority of the Council made it very clear that they were violently opposed to the plan and should advise all of the City's legislators in Washington of that opposition. Councilman Overholt also recommended that there be continuing direction to staff to so represent the Council until further notice. 79-351 City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - March 27, 1979, 1:30 P.M. A vote was then taken on the foregoing motion. Councilwoman Kaywood abstained. MOTION CARRIED. 111: OPPOSITION TO STANDBY CONSERVATION PLAN NO. 1: Councilwoman Kaywood referred to the Anaheim Chamber of Commerce Resolution dated March 15, 1979, urging opposition to the U.S. Department of Energy emergency weekend gasoline sales restrictions designated the Standby Conservation Plan No. 1. While she agreed with that opposition, she felt that some of the items in the Resolution were objecting to the shortage of gasoline. She wanted to enforce the fact that having gasoline stations closed from Friday until Monday, which was a part of the Department of Energy's proposal, would cause extremely long lines at stations and waste more gasoline than it would save. Mayor Seymour asked for clarification that Councilwoman Kaywood was asking the Council to adopt the position on the Resolution with some rewording. Councilwoman Kaywood stated that was her intent if the Council wished. Councilman Overholt suggested that she might also include in the rewording con- sideration of the economic effect on some of the City's local industries, speci- fically the tourist industry. A statement was made to him on his recent trip to Disney World that if the proposal were implemented, it would shut down that facility. By general consent, the matter was continued one week wherein the Council would adopt a position on the Chamber's Resolution after a rewording by Councilwoman Kaywood. 114: CITY OF GARDEN GROVE, RESOLUTION NO. 5734-79: Endorsing the policy that the City of Garden Grove should not be adversely impacted by the expansion of Anaheim Convention Center and Anaheim Stadium. Councilwoman Kaywood asked if a meeting was scheduled with Garden Grove to discuss the subject and she had some concerns regarding the matter. Mayor Seymour stated that he had been trying for some time to set up a meeting with the Mayor and City Manager of Garden Grove, City Manager Talley and, as liaison, Councilman Overholt. He had spoken with the Mayor of Garden Grove at the last Orange County League of Cities meeting, who indicated he would be happy to meet with Anaheim. Councilwoman Kaywood pointed out that the Mayor of Garden Grove asked Caltrans to stop the proposed Orangewood Avenue-Haster Street Overcrossing, which was already funded. The Mayor stated he would report back to Councilwoman Kaywood on that aspect. CONSENT CALENDAR ITEMS: Councilman Roth offered Resolution Nos. 79R-176 through 79R-184, both inclusive, for adoption in accordance with the reports, recommendations and certifications furnished each Council Member and as listed on the Consent Calendar Agenda. Refer to Resolution Book. 79-352 _City Hall, Anah~.im, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - March 27, 1979, 1:30 P.M. 158: RESOLUTION NO. 79R-176: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM ACCEPTING CERTAIN DEEDS AND ORDERING THEIR RECORDATION. (Audrey T. Day, Dean D. Hesketh, et. ux.; Kenneth M. Light, et ux.; Tetsuo Ozaki, et ux.; Gary L. Johnson, et ux.; LeRoy E. Ostrander, et ux.; Frank L. De Benedetto, et al.; Cal-West August #1; Albert J. Etchandy, et al.; Zion Evangelical Lutheran Church; U-Haul Company of Orange County; Catherine Kapsner) 167: RESOLUTION NO. 79R-177: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM FINDING AND DETERMINING THAT PUBLIC CONVENIENCE AND NECESSITY REQUIRE THE CONSTRUCTION AND COMPLETION OF A PUBLIC IMPROVEMENT, TO WIT: TRAFFIC SIGNAL AND SAFETY LIGHTING AT THE INTERSECTION OF AGATE STREET AND BROADWAY, IN THE CITY OF ANAHEIM, ACCOUNT NO. 01-795-6325-5100; APPROVING THE DESIGNS, PLANS, PROFILES, DRAWINGS, AND SPECIFICATIONS FOR THE CONSTRUCTION THEREOF; AUTHORIZING THE CON- STRUCTION 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 April 19, 1979, 2:00 P.M.) 167: RESOLUTION NO. 79R-178: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM FINDING AND DETERMINING THAT PUBLIC CONVENIENCE AND NECESSITY REQUIRE THE CONSTRUCTION AND COMPLETION OF A PUBLIC IMPROVEMENT, TO WIT: TRAFFIC SIGNAL AND SAFETY LIGHTING AT THE INTERSECTION OF LA PALMA AVENUE AND SUNKIST STREET, IN THE CITY OF ANAHEIM, ACCOUNT NO. 01-795-6325-5120; APPROVING THE DESIGNS, PLANS, PROFILES, DRAWINGS, AND SPECIFICATIONS FOR THE CONSTRUCTION THEREOF; AUTHORIZING THE CONSTRUCTION OF SAID PUBLIC IMPROVEMENT IN ACCORDANCE WITH SAID PLANS, SPECIFICATIONS, ETC.; AND AUTHORIZING AND DIRECTING THE CITY CLERK TO PUBLISHA NOTICE INVITING SEALED PROPOSALS FOR THE CONSTRUCTION THEREOF. (Bids to be opened April 19, 1979, 2:00 P.M.) 167: RESOLUTION NO. 79R-179: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM FINDING AND DETERMINING THAT PUBLIC CONVENIENCE AND NECESSITY REQUIRE THE CONSTRUCTION AND COMPLETION OF A PUBLIC IMPROVEMENT, TO WIT: TRAFFIC SIGNAL AND SAFETY LIGHTING AT THE INTERSECTION OF ACACIA STREET, ANNA DRIVE AND LA PALMA AVENUE, IN THE CITY OF ANAHEIM, ACCOUNT NO. 01-795-6325-5110; APPROVING THE DESIGNS, PLANS, PROFILES, DRAWINGS, AND SPECIFICATIONS FOR THE CONSTRUCTION THEREOF; AUTHORIZING THE CONSTRUCTION OF SAID PUBLIC IMPROVEMENT IN ACCORDANCE WITH SAID PLANS, SPECIFICATIONS, ETC.; AND AUTHORIZING AND DIRECTING THE CITY CLERK TO PUBLISH A NOTICE ~NVITING SEALED PROPOSALS FOR THE CONSTRUCTION THEREOF. (Bids to be opened April 19, 1979, 2:00 P.M.) 167: RESOLUTION NO. 79R-180: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM FINDING AND DETERMINING THAT PUBLIC CONVENIENCE AND NECESSITY REQUIRE THE CONSTRUCTION AND COMPLETION OF A PUBLIC IMPROVEMENT, TO WIT: TRAFFIC SIGNAL AND SAFETY LIGHTING INSTALLATION AT THE INTERSECTION OF CERRITOS AVENUE AND SUNKIST STREET, IN THE CITY OF ANAHEIM, ACCOUNT NO. 01-794-6325-4130; APPROVING THE DESIGNS, PLANS, PROFILES, DRAWINGS, AND SPECIFICATIONS FOR THE CONSTRUCTION THEREOF; AUTHORIZING THE CONSTRUCTION OF SAID PUBLIC IMPROVEMENT IN ACCORDANCE WITH SAID PLANS, SPECIFICATIONS, ETC.; AND AUTHORIZING AND DIRECTING THE CITY CLERK TO PUBLISH A NOTICE INVITING SEALED PROPOSALS FOR THE CONSTRUCTION THEREOF. (Bids to be opened April 19, 1979, 2:00 P.M.) 79-35 3 City Hall~ Anaheim, California -COUNCiL MINUTES - March 27, 1979, 1:30 P.M. 176: RESOLUTION NO. 79R-181: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AMENDING CONDITION NO. 1 OF RESOLUTION NO. 78R-767. (78-2A, Orange County Water District, permit posting of a bond for a cul-de-sac) 103: RESOLUTION NO. 79R-182: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM APPROVING THE ANNEXATION TO THE CITY OF ANAHEIM OF THE TERRITORY KNOWN AND DESIGNATED FEE ANA STREET ANNEXATION TO THE CITY OF ANAHEIM. (.08 acre, 78-2A) 176: RESOLUTION NO. 79R-183: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM ORDERING THE VACATION AND ABANDONMENT OF A PORTION OF FEE ANA STREET SOUTH OF LA PALMA AVENUE. (78-2A) 176: RESOLUTION NO. 79R-184: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM DECLARING ITS INTENTION TO VACATE AND ABANDON A PORTION OF A CERTAIN PUBLIC STREET AND FIXING A DATE FOR A HEARING THEREON. (78-8A, public hearing set for April 17, 1979, 3:00 P.M.) Roll Call Vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: COUNCIL MEMBERS: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Overholt, Kaywood, Kott, Roth and Seymour None None The Mayor declared Resolution No. 79R-176 through 79R-184, both inclusive, duly passed and adopted. 113: DESTRUCTION OF CERTAIN CITY RECORDS MORE THAN TWO YEARS OLD:' Councilman Kott asked how the determination was made as to what records would be destroyed and the length of time involved. City Clerk Linda Roberts answered that the determination was set by the Government Code of the State and they could not destroy any records without the City Attorney approving the destruction, as well as obtaining authorization from the City Council. Councilman Overholt asked if there was an official witness to the destruction of records. City Clerk Roberts answered "yes" and a bonded destroyer was used, after which she was required to sign a certificate of destruction. Councilman Kott offered Resolution No. 79R-185 for adoption. Refer to Resolution Book. RESOLUTION NO. 79R-185: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AUTHORIZING THE DESTRUCTION OF CERTAIN CITY RECORDS, DOCUMENTS, INSTRUMENTS, BOOKS AND PAPERS MORE THAN TWO YEARS OLD. 79-354 C~ty Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - March 27, 1979, 1:30 P.M. Roll Call Vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: COUNCIL MEMBERS: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Overholt, Kaywood, Kott, Roth and Seymour None None The Mayor declared Resolution No. 79R-185 duly passed and adopted. 142/170: ORDINANCE NO. 3988 RELATING TO TREE PRESERVATION: Councilman Roth stated he did not realize the proposed Ordinance was changed to include a permit requirement necessitating a trip to the Planning Department to obtain a permit to top a tree at a fee of $10. Ms. Santalahti interjected and stated that no fee was involved; City Attorney Hopkins clarified there was no fee specified, but that was not to say there would never be a fee. Ms. Santalahti then briefed the Council on the procedure involved to obtain a permit for topping trees. Councilman Roth was concerned that the Ordinance as it was now proposed would pass the decision-making on to City staff and controversy could arise surrounding the tree topping permit, thus causing more problems. Mayor Seymour agreed that staff would be placed in an unfavorable position. City Attorney Hopkins clarified that the definition of "cut down" was trimming, topping or pruning a specimen tree to a height of at least 25 feet and, as Councilman Roth indicated, required issuance of a permit by staff. It also provided that if the owner or person in charge of the property directed someone else to do the cutting, he would now be responsible. There was an appeal procedure whereby the decision of the Planning Commission could be appealed to the City Council. Amendments could be made but the objective was to put more enforcement into the Ordinance, as requested by Council. Mayor Seymour stated he was certain the entire Council wanted that, but as far as trimming a tree, he agreed with Councilman Roth. He did not want to see staff routinely issuing a permit or signing a permit that would be interpreted as a right to remove a tree. Ms. Santalahti explained under the current Ordinance, if the tree was cut down, it required a permit. What she believed was being asked was for the permit requirement to be removed as it pertained to the topping of trees, but that a permit still be required for removing trees. The Mayor confirmed Ms. Santalahti's understanding. Councilman Roth was of the opinion that government was getting too involved in the tree situation and emphasized the way the Ordinance was worded originally provided for a $500 fine or 6 months in prison, or both, for tree removal since it was considered a misdemeanor violation. 79-355 City Hall,. Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - March 27, 1979, 1:30 P.M. City Attorney Hopkins suggested that the Ordinance be reviewed before the next meeting and that a revised Ordinance then be submitted eliminating reference to the permit process for trimming. Mayor Seymour stated the primary emphasis at the outset was good and would provide a police officer with something concrete with which to face the alleged tree cutter. If the City Attorney could amend the Ordinance to capture that spirit, but not make an overkill, that would be the intent. By general Council consent, consideration of proposed Ordinance No. 3988 was continued one week. 149: ORDINANCE NO. 3989: Councilman Roth offered Ordinance No. 3989 for adoption. Refer to Ordinance Book. ORDINANCE NO. 3989: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AMENDING TITLE 14, CHAPTER 14.32, SECTION 14.32.272, SUBSECTION .110 AND ADDING THERETO A NEW SUBSECTION .115 OF THE ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO NO PARKING DURING SCHOOL HOURS. (NS/o Orange Ave., from Magnolia Ave. to W. property line of Maxwell Elem. School; Western Ave. to 1300 ft. W/o Western Ave.; S/o Western Ave. 500 to 1300 ft. W/o Western Ave.; S/o Palm Lane, from E. property line to W. property line Palm Lane Elem. School) 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. 3989 duly passed and adopted. ORDINANCE NO. 3990 AND 3991: Councilman Overholt offered Ordinance No. 3990 and 3991 for first reading. ORDINANCE NO. 3990: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AMENDING TITLE 18 OF THE ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO ZONING. (71-72-44(6) RM-2400, Tract No. 8140) ORDINANCE NO. 3991: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AMENDING TITLE 18 OF THE ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO ZONING. (78-79-27, CL) 178: REPORT ON MUNICIPAL WATER DISTRICT OF ORANGE COUNTY MEETING: Councilman Overholt reported that the Mayor, City Manager Talley, members of staff and he, as liaison, met with representatives of the Metropolitan Water District of Orange County and the Irvine Company and the engineer in charge of the Diemer Intertie on Friday, March 23, 1979, to delve into the complexity of the problem which was presented to the Council today and passed by a unanimous vote. 105: LIBRARY BOARD MATTERS: As the liaison Council Member, Councilman Overholt reported on the recent meeting of the Library Board indicating that the Board was still wrestling with their communication problem. He was trying to assist them in understanding how they should communicate with the Council, not through him but directly with the Council. He felt there was a better understanding now in the fact that the Council welcomed their direct input and not that the liaison 79-356 City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - March 27~ 1979, 1:30 P.M. person would necessarily be that vehicle. When they had something they felt should be brought to the Council's attention, he explained that the Board should communicate in writing to the Council with copies to management. The Board was also appreciative of the contact he made when he was in Washington, D.C., relative to possible assistance in Library expansion. The Mayor then followed up and presently the Man-in-Washington was doing so as well. Thus if there was some possibilities of getting funds to assist particularly relative to the Hill and Canyon Library building they would know quickly. The Orange County Historical Society and Friends of the Anaheim Public Library had scheduled a public meeting on Thursday, May 10, 1979 at 7:30 P.M., at the Anaheim Public Library. However, at the Council meeting of May 10, 1979, the Council would be offering a Resolution of Commendation to Leo Friis and an announcement would be made of a book written by Mr. Friis under the auspices of the Friends of the Anaheim Public Library, Historical Buildings of Pioneer Anaheim. The May 10, 1979 meeting would be a tribute to Mr. Friis and number of organizations would be participating, including the Council, to honor him, not only relative to his official capacity to the City, but also in his capacity as a writer and for the contributions he had made to the City. Mayor Seymour stated he had heard the Council might be bestowed with a gift of that book. Councilman Overholt stated that the Council would be presented with copies of the book, and it occurred to him that it might be a nice token to be used for presenta! ns on very special occasions, but something that the Friends should not have to donate. 114: MEETING WITH SUPERVISOR CLARK: Councilwoman Kaywood reported on the Friday, March 23, 1979 breakfast meeting held by Supervisor Clark at Knott's Berry Farm and hosted by Buena Park. They were updated on the new Caltrans District, the Fire District update, and the Work for Welfare Recipients proposals which Councilman Roth broached at a previous Council meeting. The County of Midland, Michigan Welfare Plan had been referred to him (Roth) by Stan Meyer. It turned out that Orange County might do a better job because people were on welfare for less time. They were also updated on the status of the bus system and with the computerization of dispatch for Dial-a-Ride; it was felt that better use could be made of that service. They also discussed the possiblity that the fixed routes would not be available any longer in the future and the fact that the request by the handicapped for a system where every bus would be equipped to service the handicapped, rather than Dial-a-Lift, could do exactly the opposite and ruin the service that Orange County Transportation District was performing, by eliminating Dial-a-Lift. 114: RELEASE TIME CHRISTIAN EDUCATION BANQUET: Councilman Roth reported that on Thursday, March 22, 1979, he attended the Release Time Christian Education Banquet at the First Presbyterian Church. The leader of the program was Dr. Sutherland, President of Biola College who dwelled for some time on the Anaheim City Council and City staff, praising them for their cooperation relative to that program. 79-358 City Hall~ Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - March 27, 1979, 1:30 P.M. 150: REQUEST TO REPAINT AIRPLANE AT BOYSEN PARK: Councilman Roth requested that staff repaint the airplane at Boysen Park since the graffiti that was spray painted on it looked very bad. It was his opinion that as soon as something was defaced with the City, if it could be repainted immediately, it seemed to be a deterrent. Although the repainting of the airplane should not be a priority, he requested something be done about it because of its unsightliness. 114: BUSING - BILL SCA2: Councilman Roth reported that the State Assembly passed the Robbins Bill, SCA2, and it was expected to be out of Senate Committee on Thursday. The Bill originally called for a June 1980 election; however, there was another bill to move it up to a special election. Either way, he felt that the City Council's Resolution and their efforts helped to get the Bill out of Committee. The Senate had passed the Bill three times previously, and it was killed twice in the Assembly Committee. To see it come out of the Assembly Committee and receive an overwhelming 67 "yes" votes was a positive sign. Everyone who wrote letters in behalf of the Robbins Constitutional Amendment were to be commended. In response to Councilwoman Kaywood's inquiry as to the cost of the special election, Councilman Roth answered around $9 million, but in Los Angeles alone the cost for forced busing as he recalled was approximately $110 million a year. Pasadena spent $10,000 a day for forced busing. Orange County did not have to worry about busing this coming fall because the Metropolitan Plan would not be effective prior to June 1980. He maintained it would be more economical to have a special election to halt busing in areas like Los Angeles and Pasadena, since the cost to do so was so high. 114: GANN INITIATIVE: Mayor Seymour reported that the Gann Initiative, "Spirit of 13" qualified for the ballot with over 900,000 signture$ having been gathered and thus there was a possibility with two burning issues, busing and the "Spirit of 13", the possibility was good for a special election in August. The Council approved the previous motion on a 4-0, 1 abstention vote, for staff to review the "Spirit of 13" and to keep the Council posted as to how it would impact the City. RECESS: By general consent the Council recessed into Executive Session. (5:12 P.M.) AFTER RECESS: Mayor Seymour called the meeting to order, all Council Members being present. (5:32 P.M.) 112: JACK WALSTEAD VS. CITY OF ANAHEIM: On motion by Councilman Seymour, seconded by Councilman Roth, the City Attorney was authorized to settle Orange County Superior Court Case No. 28-57-80 (Jack Walstead vs. City of Anaheim) for a sum not to exceed $1,500. MOTION CARRIED. ADJOURNMENT: Councilwoman Kaywood moved to adjourn. Councilman Seymour seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. Adjourned: 5:33 P.M. LINDA D. ROBERTS, CITY CLERK