The URL can be used to link to this page

1978/02/14 78-182 City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - February 14~ 1978~ 1:30 P.M. The City Council of the City of Anaheim met in regular session. PRESENT: ABSENT: PRESENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Kaywood, Seymour, Kott, Roth and Thom COUNCIL MEMBERS: None CITY MANAGER: William O. Talley CITY ATTORNEY: William P. Hopkins CITY CLERK: Linda D. Roberts PERSONNEL DIRECTOR: Garry McRae FINANCE DIRECTOR: George Ferrone PARKS, RECREATION AND THE ARTS DIRECTOR: James Ruth WATER SUPERINTENDENT: Ray Auerbach INTERGOVERNMENTAL RELATIONS MANAGER: David Latshaw ASSISTANT CITY ENGINEER: William Devitt ASSISTANT DIRECTOR FOR ZONING: Annika Santalahti Mayor Thom called the meeting to order and welcomed those in attendance to the Council meeting. INVOCATION: Reverend Randy Rhoades of the Melodyland Hotline Center gave the Invocation. FLAG SALUTE: Councilman John Seymour led the assembly in the Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag. MINUTES: On motion by Councilman Kott, seconded by Councilman Thom, minutes of the regular meeting held January 17, 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 Roth seconded the motion. MOTION UNANIMOUSLY CARRIED. FINANCIAL DEMANDS AGAINST THE CITY in the amount of $4,933,815.39, in accordance with the 1977-78 Budget, were approved. 137: PROPERTY INSURANCE COVERAGE: City Manager Talley introduced the three motions which covered (1) approving terms and conditions of renewal proposal from Allendale Mutual Insurance Company for a five-year property insurance policy commencing January 1, 1978, (2) approving terms and condition of the all risk property insur- ance coverage for the City's Data Processing facility at an annual cost not to exceed $3,517 and (3) authorizing the Director of Finance to cancel the current property insurance policy for Data Processing expiring June 30, 1978. The proposed motions were discussed in detail in his memorandum dated February 8, 1978 (on file in the City Clerk's Office). Councilman Seymour asked staff what procedure was used in selecting Allendale Mutual Insurance Company for the subject coverage. 78-183 C__ity Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - February 14~ 1978~ 1:30 P.M. Finance Director George Ferrone explained that Allendale had the City's Fire Insurance Policy for ten years and the primary consideration in staying with them was the relationship involved over that ten-year period, as well as the significant impact relative to earthquake coverage the City was required to keep by bond indenture for the Stadium and Convention Center. Allendale was one of the few companies with the capacity or ability to provide such cover- age. Beyond that, in working with them on negotiated agreements with the Marshall and Stevens Fixed Asset Studies, they were able to negotiate decreased rates of fire insurance thus offsetting the increase for earthquake coverage. It was Mr. Bud Griffin's (McVeigh, Warren & Griffin) decision that the City not attempt to bid the package because he was concerned if it did so, the City would lose its earthquake coverage. Councilman Seymour then posed the following questions, as well as concerns, relative to the matter: (1) why was the fire insurance on the data processing operation included in the Allendale Insurance package without going to competitive bids? (2) was the coverage of the data processing operation merely a renewal and expansion of the policy with Allendale? (3) he was concerned it was not made clear that the increase of $500 for insurance coverage also raised the deductible from $50,000 to $100,000. Thus, although coverage was doubled, the deductible was also doubled; (4) when did the City become aware that its property was insured for only 50 percent of its value. Mr. Ferrone answered as follows: relative to question number 1, the basic reason they did not go to bid was due to the fact that all fire insurance City-wide was with Allendale, and it seemed logical to stay with them on the insurance for Data Processing, as well as considering the past business relationship~ The coverage of the data processing operation was not a renewal or expansion of the Allendale policy. Data Processing was given the authority to buy their own fire insurance policy. Subsequently, a presentation made by Bud Griffin indicated the City was grossly underinsured, and adequate coverage was not provided in the present coverage. Mr. Griffin then reviewed the Allendale proposal and recommended it as being benefi- cial for the City. Mr. Ferrone was, however, willing to go out to bid on that package since Councilman Seymour took issue with the fact that, even though he under- stood Mr. Ferrone's wanting to have all insurance with one carrier, a five-year contract was being proposed, and he could see no justification for so doing without a competitive bid. Mr. Ferrone also acknowledged the fact that the deductible was raised from $50,000 to $100,000 along with the $500 increase in cost giving double coverage. A lengthy discussion then took place revolving around Councilman Seymour's concern and dissatisfaction over the length of time that elapsed between the time when the City first became aware that it was underinsured, thus leaving assets which were tied to contracts with other cities one-half insured, and February 7, 1978 when Allendale bound Data Processing. If the software was lost, there was a risk of losing the contracts. He remained adamant in his contention that the matter had not been handled in a timely fashion, thus exposing the City to a great risk if a fire had occurred. Mr. Ferrone explained that when they became aware of the situation after Mr. Griffin's study, he immediately had Allendale bind the data processing operation. At the time, Mr. Griffin thought there might be a chance that Data Processing was not covered at all. Allendale bound the City at no cost, providing coverage of 78-184 ~.ity Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - February 14~ 1978, 1:30 P.M. $3 million for that period of time. The City did not know of the situation until the Marshall and Stevens report was completed in December, and it was within one week of obtaining the report when it was ascertained the City was underinsured. Allendale then bound immediately in a phone call to them which was made within that week. Mr. Talley interjected that the minute it was known that the City was under- insured, they bound for the other $1.5 million immediately. Mr. Ferrone continued at the time Mr. Griffin made his report to the Council in Executive Session, that policy was already bound for equipment at $1.5 million. What was not covered was peripheral equipment and this was not known until the Griffin Study was complete. As soon as the report was received, however, that too was bound. Marshall and Stevens dealt only with equipment and the asset value of the proPerty, not down-time, computer tapes, etc. He then called Allendale and asked them to bind the Data Processing facility immediately until the issue was resolved. Prior to February 7, 1978, they had bound for $1.5 million for equipment only. As of February 7, when it was ascertained that peripheral costs were also involved, they bound for those costs. Councilman Seymour requested the paperwork to substantiate Mr. Ferrone's explana- tion. Mr. Ferrone pointed out that a letter dated January 19, 1978, from the Director of Data Processing to David Smith of Allendale was the first indication of the coverage Mr. Tamaru felt he needed. In a letter dated February 1, 1978, from Allendale to him (Ferrone) everything that Mr. Tamaru listed was bound. When the report was released from Mr. Griffin relative to the exposure, Mr. Tamaru was asked to inves- tigate what the costs would be to cover items such as rental costs for back-up sites, value of peripherals, terminals and the like. As soon as a response was received, that coverage was obtained. City Manager Talley stated he, as well as staff, knew of the situation in late December when it appeared the City did not have everything in their coverage that it should. However, these items involved subjective costs such as backup sites, software, over- time, etc. The point being that the majority of the additional coverage did not represent an asset. Councilman Roth asked that staff submit a chronological list of events relative to the matter. He later requested that information be sent to his office relative to when the binder was effective. Councilman Seymour stated that he, for one, would not support the all risk property insurance coverage for the City's Data Processing facility at this time unless it went out to bid, although it should be continued with a binder. He was amenable to Mr. Talley's recommendation that it be insured for the full amount while the City went to bid. Mr. Ferrone stated at this point Allendale was carrying the binder and agreed to do so at no cost to the City, but he suggested that Allendale speak to the matter since a representative was present. 78-185 ~City Hall, Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - February 14~ 1978, 1:30 P.M. Mr. Dave Smith, a representative from Allendale Insurance and accounts man for the City of Anaheim, stated he would try to clarify the Electronic Data Processing (EDP) issue. He did not know when Mr. Griffin, in his study, determined he was inadequately insured, but during the study and examination of City insurance policies, he indicated that something looked unusual and not wanting to take any chances, he notified Mr. Ferrone. Mr. Ferrone, in turn, called Allendale and stated the neces- sary coverage was not in the policy. It was then that he requested it be added that day. Mr. Smith believed that to be December 23, 1977. They actually documented the request and sent Mr. Ferrone a binder for $1.5 million "off-the-wall". Subse- quently, at the suggestion of Mr. Griffin and with Mr. Ferrone's help, they interviewed Mr. Tamaru and some of his staff, the purpose being to find out what was needed in order to make certain coverage was complete. From the meeting, numbers were derived relative to the worth of tape drives, memory units, hardware, and additionally, value of media, discs and tapes and also numbers related to extra expenses to handle immed- iate problems that would result if the equipment was destroyed. The biggest loss would not be the hardware, but the software, as maintained by Councilman Seymour. The reaction was, rather than providing a normal insurance policy, they could provide a special EDP policy. They had forms available which were set up accordingly, making it convenient to cover items such as hardware, software and extra expenses. They recommended that Mr. Ferrone use that and put the coverage in an all risk policy specifically designed for that purpose. He thus sent Mr. Ferrone a form which Mr. Griffin reviewed. Relative to timing, Allendale would be willing to back date the policy to January 1, 1978, if so desired, but the reason they did not do so was due to the fact that no loss was involved, and Mr. Ferrone was attempting to work it so one policy could be cancelled and another inaugurated, thus precluding double coverage. As far as he could determine, no gap was involved. The only gap would have been the time it took to figure out what was needed. As soon as the discovery was brought to Mr. Ferrone's attention, he called Allendale and it was bound on that day. In answer to Councilman Seymour, Mr. Smith stated that he would have no problem in continuing the binder while the City went out to bid on insurance for the data processing operation. They could carry it for a certain amount of time, for example 60 days, and charge the City for the time the company was at risk. If the bid came in at a lower cost, the City would be charged only for the time Allendale was at risk and not for any cancellation fee or the like. Mr. Smith stated that he would even be willing to start the policy as of today as suggested by Councilman Kott because ms long as there were no fires, it was easy to be flexible. On motion by Councilman Kott, seconded by Councilman Roth, of the three motions proposed as articulated by City Manager Talley, motions one and two were approved. MOTION CARRIED. City Manager Talley interjected, however, that the third motion, if not approved, would not permit cancellation of the property insurance expiring June 30, 1978, containing only one-half the coverage necessary for which the City now had a binder. Thus, if the policy was not cancelled, the City would be paying premiums on it while going to bid on insurance coverage for Data Processing. A brief discussion followed between the Council to clarify the matter, at the con- clusion of which Councilman Seymour moved to rescind the first motion because the second motion dealt with the item he wanted to go to bid. Councilman Kott seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. 78-186 City Hall, .Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - February 14~ 1978~ 1:30 P.M. On motion by Councilman Kott, seconded by Councilman Seymour, the terms and con- ditions of the renewal proposal from Allendale Mutual Insurance Company for a five-year property insurance policy commencing January 1, 1978, and authorizing the Director of Finance to execute said subsequent insurance policy and also authorizing the Director of Finance to cancel the current property insurance policy for Data Processing, expiring June 30, 1978, were approved. MOTION CARRIED. On motion by Councilman Seymour, seconded by Councilman Kott, staff was instructed to solicit bids for the all risk property insurance coverage for the Data Processing facilities at an annual cost not to exceed $3,517, and staff was also directed to submit a report on the chronological sequence of events relative to the matter. MOTION CARRIED. 123: BIDS FROM CPA FIRMS FOR AUDITING SERVICES: The Mayor suggested for Council consideration that the recommendation from staff contained in memorandum dated February 8, 1978, on the subject be changed to authorize two members of the Council and the Finance Director to review bids from interested "big eight" CPA firms and subsequently make a recommendation. He did not believe in staff recom- mending the auditor to, in turn, audit staff. On motion by Councilman Thom, seconded by Councilman Seymour, the Director of Finance was authorized to obtain bids from CPA firms for auditing services for a minimum period of 3 years, beginning with the 1977-78 fiscal year with two Council Members to take part in the auditing interview process. MOTION CARRIED. The Mayor stated he would like to see Councilmen Seymour and Kott participate in the process; both were agreeable to so doing. On motion by Councilman Thom, seconded by Councilman Seymour, Councilmen Seymour and Kott were selected to serve on the committee to interview auditing firms along with staff, including the Finance Director. MOTION CARRIED. Councilwoman Kaywood asked that Arthur Young & Company not be included; the Mayor stated that the Council could not pre-rule out anybody,and Arthur Young & Company would be automatically included because they were one of the "big eight" CPA firms just approved in the first motion. Councilwoman Kaywood wanted her recommendation made a part of the record, the reason being for a fair and impartial audit, it was her opinion that another auditing firm should perform the audit this time. 137: CITY'S BOND RATING: Councilwoman Kaywood moved to approve a letter agreement with Wainwright & Ramsey, Inc. for preparation and presentation of an exhibit relating to the City's bond rating, on a per diem basis, not to exceed $3,000. Councilman Seymour seconded the motion for the purpose of discussion. Referring to a letter dated February 3, 1978, from Frank Twohy, Senior Vice- President from Wainwright & Ramsey, Inc., Councilman Seymour asked for confirmation that, in fact, Mr. Twohy was stating he believed the City had an opportunity to improve its bond rating and thereby save some interest since the City now had an unqualified opinion on its financial statement. The Mayor, too, wanted to know if the cost of the proposed agreement, $3,000, would be reimbursed if the City did not reduce debt service costs as outlined in report dated Februar~ 8, 1978, from the Director of Finance. 78-187 City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - February 14~ 1978, 1:30 P.M. Mr. Ferrone explained first that the $3,000 would not be returned and the favorable effect of reducing debt service cost in the order of $300,000 was a possibility. He met with Mr. Twohy based on his feelings that an unqualified opinion and the low debt ratio reported in the last annual report would be worthy cause to go back to Moody's and Standard & Poors to discuss the City's bond ratings. He commented, however, that the City's bond ratings were excellent for a City the size of Anaheim. With those two factors in progress and the business boom relative to building permits issued last year and a projection for a large issuance in the coming year, the City would have an opportunity to improve its bond ratings. He (Twohy) also considered it advisable to meet with those organizations on a periodic basis just to preserve the City's present rating. The danger in not meeting with them could result in a down rating. Mr. Ferrone recommended that the City again meet with those organiza- tions~ Councilman Seymour also recommended that the $3,000 to be allocated for the agree- ment be expended from funds other than the Council Contingency Fund. A vote was taken on the foregoing motion to approve the agreement, excluding alloca- tion of $3,000 from the Council Contingency Fund. MOTION CARRIED. 123: CULTURAL ARTS NEEDS ASSESSMENT SURVEY: The Mayor stated he was told that Edmund Carlson Associates were very close to a staff member in the City and he first wanted reassurance that there was no such association. Mr. James Ruth, Director of the Parks, Recreation and Arts Department, explained that they contacted UCLA who recommended three outstanding consulting firms having experience in the subject field. As well, the entire committee interviewed all three representatives, the result of which was the selection of Mr. Carlson (Edmund Carlson Associates, Inc.). Staff gave no input whatsoever. To his knowledge, no members of staff had any association with Edmund Carlson Associates. Mr. Earl Dahl, Chairman of the ad hoc committee on the Cultural Arts Needs Assessment, stated that the Committee met last Thursday and again talked with Mr. Carlson. He was again unanimously selected to conduct the survey just as he had been selected when the Committee first met. Mr. Dahl also stated he knew of no connection between Mr. Carlson and anyone within the City. Councilwoman Kaywood offered Resolution No. 78R-105 for adoption, approving an agree- ment with Edmund Carlson Associates, Inc., to conduct a Cultural Arts Needs Assess- ment Survey within the City of Anaheim for the sum of $12,000, plus out-of-pocket expenses not to exceed $3,000. Refer to Resolution Book. RESOLUTION NO. 78R-105: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM APPROVING THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF AN AGREEMENT WITH EDMUND CARLSON ASSOCIATES, INC. FOR SERVICES IN CONNECTION WITH A CULTURAL ARTS NEEDS ASSESSMENT SURVEY AND AUTHORIZING AND DIRECTING THE MAYOR AND CITY CLERK TO EXECUTE SAID AGREEMENT ON BEHALF OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM. Roll Call Vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: COUNCIL MEMBERS: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Kaywood, Seymour, Kott, Roth and Thom None None The Mayor declared Resolution No. 78R-105 duly passed and adopted. 78-188 ~ity Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - February 14~ 1978~ 1:30 P.M. 137: METHOD OF FINANCING UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE: The Mayor asked if any letters of comment had been solicited from the various employee organizations as to which method of financing they felt would be more advantageous relative to the subject, as outlined in memorandum dated February 8, 1978, from the Personnel Department. City Manager Talley stated none had been solicited, but the matter was an obligation of the City mandated by the Federal government. The Mayor emphasized he merely wanted to give the different bargaining units the courtesy of their input which he contended would be an adjunct in improving employer/ employee relations and morale. Mr. Talley stated that he thought as much about employee relations as anyone who might sit in his position, but he did not believe in giving away management rights by consulting with employee organizations about funding. If the Council requested him to do so, he would carry out their wishes, but he would never voluntarily solicit their opinion. Further discussion followed wherein the Mayor confirmed the only issue involved was the method to be used to fund the mandated program and reiterated that he believed it was good policy to obtain comments from the various employee groups which could be obtained within the week in order to meet the deadline for submittal to the Benefits Payment Division of the Employment Development Department by February 27 1978. ' Personnel Director Garry McRae then briefed the Council on the four methods of financing provided by the new law as explained in detail in the attachment to his memorandum of February 8, 1978 (on file in the City Clerk's Office). He also elab- orated on the method he recommended be used, II-A, Individual Reimbursement Account (page two of attachment). On motion by Councilman Thom, seconded by Councilman Kott, approval of the Individ- ual Reimbursement Account, as the method for which liability unemployment insurance be financed, was continued one week to allow employee organizations to comment on the matter. MOTION CARRIED. 164: LA PALMA AVENUE STORM DRAIN: Councilman Kott offered Resolution No. 78R-106 for adoption, approving a permit with the Orange County Water District for use of the District's property for construction of the La Palma Avenue Storm Drain and authorizing the Mayor and City Clerk to execute said permit. Refer to Resolu- tion Book. RESOLTUION NO. 78R-106: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM APPROVING A PERMIT WITH THE ORANGE COUNTY WATER DISTRICT FOR USE OF CERTAIN OF DISTRICT'S PROPERTY FOR CONSTRUCTION OF THE LA PALMA AVENUE STORM DRAIN AND AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR AND CITY CLERK TO EXECUTE SAID PERMIT. Roll Call Vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: COUNCIL MEMBERS: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Kaywood, Seymour, Kott, Roth and Thom None None The Mayor deciared Resolution No. 78R-106 duly passed and adopted. 78-189 City Hall, Anaheim, California- COUNCIL MINUTES- February 14~ 1978~ 1:30 P.M. 148: 1978 LEAGUE OF CALIFORNIA CITIES ANNUAL DUES: City Manager Talley clarified for Councilman Roth that the subject dues were calculated on a population basis and cities paid dues ac'cordingly. Councilman Kott asked Councilwoman Kaywood, before voting on the issue, if Anaheim could get the League of Cities to join with it in a law suit against the Fair Political Practices Commission. Councilwoman Kaywood considered such action to be an excellent idea and indicated it was possible to do so through a resolution to go through the County League to the State League to be presented at the annual convention which, this year, was going to be held in Anaheim. Councilman Kott then referred to memorandum dated February 2, 1978, from David Latshaw, Manager of Intergovernmental Relations, recommending payment of the League dues. He noted in paragraph one under discussion, that one of the primary purposes of the League was to promote government efficiency. He thereupon'asked Mr. Latshaw to give an example. Mr. Latshaw explained that efficiencies were viewed in many different ways, one being that business license tax studies were performed by the League of California Cities each year and the information derived disseminated to the individual cities. On motion by Councilwoman Kaywood, seconded by Councilman Seymour, payment of 1978 League of California Cities annual dues in the amount of $6,280 was approved. MOTION CARRIED. 148: 1978 NATIONAL LEAGUE OF CITIES ANNUAL DUES: On motion by Councilman Seymour, seconded by Councilwoman Kaywood, payment of 1978 National League of Cities annual dues in the amount of $2,850 was approved. MOTION CARRIED. City Manager Talley asked if the Council wished to designate a delegate to attend' the Annual National League of Cities Meeting in Washington, D.C. March 5, 6, and 7, 1978, for evaluation of their 1979 budget. No designee was named. 174: EXTENSION OF CETA LEGISLATION: On motion by Councilman Roth, seconded by Councilwoman Kaywood, the Mayor was authorized to sign all correspondence related to CETA extension legislation; and, further, authorized appropriate City staff to represent the City's interests with State and Federal representatives in draft legislation for extension of 1974 CETA Act through Federal fiscal year 1982. Councilman Kott voted "No". MOTION CARRIED. 158: AMENDMENT OF ESCROW INSTRUCTIONS~ PURCHASE AND SALE OF CITY-OWNED PROPERTY AT ORANGEWOOD AND RAMPART STREET: City Attorney Hopkins stated the reason for the extension date of the closing of escrow on the subject property to June 30, 1978, was necessary due to the need to amend the General Plan. Thus, it was a City requirement causing the delay and not that of the buyer. Councilman Roth stated that since last Tuesday, he contacted two well-respected and outstanding survey corporations, and he was advised by both that even with the rains and the discovery of no monument markers, they could have supplied surveys within 30 days. 78-190 City Hall., Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - February 14~ 1978~ 1:30 P.M. Assistant City Engineer William Devitt explained that on the basis of Council Resolution No. 77R-791 of December 13, 1977, the Engineering Department requested on December 14, 1977, that Willdan Associates submit a cost for performing Record of Survey on the subject property, as well as two other companies. Bids were re- ceived from not only Willdan, but also McDaniel Engineering and Anacal Engineering, Willdan having submitted the lowest bid. The subject parcel was recorded as of today's date, February 14, 1978. Councilman Roth asked if, in the bidding procedure, a deadline date was set as to when Willdan had to provide the Record of Survey to the City and if penalties were specified if the deadline was not met. Mr. Devitt stated no deadline was set, but they did as a matter of course, follow up on such jobs. From the time of award to recording, two months elapsed and in the interim, Wilidan was involved not only with problems of the Christmas season and New Year's holidays, but also the rains, as well as the fact that the City, through the Redevelopment Agency, evicted them from their offices. He maintained that a check of the matter would show that, in reality, the parcel map was recorded very quickly compared to any parcel map that went to the Council for approval. He explained that once the parcel map was submitted, the County did not even start checking it for two weeks, and it took three to four weeks to get the parcel map out of the County. Councilman Roth stated that what was necessary relative to contracts of the nature being discussed was not an open-end contract, but one that indicated a specified number of days in which the work was to be completed with penalties assessed if completion was not accomplished during that time. He pointed out that he had already requested a report from Public Works on the matter (see minutes of February 7, 1978). Mr. Devitt stated there should be a time limit in each agreement and normally that was the procedure. However, on Jobs of smaller magnitude such as that under dis- cussion, there was a tendancy to make a telephone call and ask that the work be done. Relative to liquidated damage penalties, he did not recall the assessment of such penalties in any of the contracts dealing with professional people, such as con- sulting engineers, but penalties were included in all agreements with contractors. Councilwoman Kaywood left the Council Chamber. (2:45 P.M.) Councilman Roth offered Resolution No. 75R-107 for adoption as recommended in memo- randum dated February 6, 1978, from the Assistan~ City Attorney. Refer to Resolu- Book. RESOLUTION NO. 78R-107: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AMENDING THE ESCROW INSTRUCTIONS FOR THE PURCHASE AND SALE OF CITY-OWNED PROPERTY GENERALLY LOCATED AT ORANGEWOOD AND RAMPART STREET - ESCROW NO. 1235105-BH, AND AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR AND CITY CLERK TO EXECUTE SAID AMENDMENT TO ESCROW INSTRUCTIONS. Roll Call Vote: AYES: NOES: TEMPORARILY ABSENT: ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: COUNCIL MEMBERS: COUNCIL MEMBERS: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Seymour, Kott, Roth and Thom None Kaywood None The Mayor declared Resolution No. 78R-107 duly passed and adopted. 78-191 ..C..ity Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - February 14~ 1978~ 1:30 P.M. On motion by Councilman Roth, seconded by Councilman Kott, report from the City Engineer regarding delay in completion of Record of Survey on City-owned property located at the southwest corner of Orangewood Avenue and Rampart Street was re- ceived and filed. Councilwoman Kaywood was temporarily absent. MOTION CARRIED. Councilwoman Kaywood returned to the Council Chamber. (2:47 P.M.) 113: AMENDMENTS TO EXHIBIT "A" - CONFLICT OF INTEREST CODES: On motion by Council- man Thom, seconded by Councilman Kott, amendments to Exhibit "A" of the City Manager, Library and Public Works Departments' Conflict of Interest Codes with respect to designated employees required to file Statements of Economic Interest, were approved. MOTION CARRIED. 112: SETTLEMENT OF LAW SUIT BETWEEN THE CITY AND DR. DANIEL NINBURG: On motion by Councilman Kott, seconded by Councilman Thom, settlement of a law suit between the City and Dr. Daniel Ninburg, in accordance with the proposal submitted by his attorney, was approved, and the City Attorney was authorized to execute settlement documents. MOTION CARRIED. 113: AMENDMENTS OF CONFLICT OF INTEREST CODES FOR HOUSING AUTHORITY AND REDEVELOP- MENT AGENCY: On motion by Councilwoman Kaywood, seconded by Councilman Kott, staff was directed to prepare amendments to the Conflict of Interest Codes for the Housing Authority and Redevelopment Agency, changing the date to April 1 from February 1, relative to Form 721 to coincide with that required by the Council. MOTION CARRIED. RECESS: By general consent, the Council recessed for five minutes. (3:00 P.M.) AFTER RECESS: Mayor Thom called the meeting to order, all Council Members being present. (3:05 P.M.) 170: CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING - TENTATIVE TRACT NO. 10167: Application by Shamrock Contractors, for a 15-lot, RS-HS-22,000 zoned subdivision on property located on the north and east sides of Country Hill Road, south of Mohler Drive an~ a request for approval of removal of specimen trees. The subject tentative tract was approved by the Planning Commission and subsequently a review of the matter was requested by Councilman Thom at the meeting of January 10, 1978, and public hearing scheduled and continued from January 31, 1978. Mr. Tom Riley, President of Shamrock Contractors, 4500 Campus Drive, Suite 536, Newport Beach, explained that the last time they appeared before the Council, there was some concern on behalf of the homeowners that since they were no longer going to have a road and slope easement on the north boundary of the property, that their development could not comply with City ordinances. At that time, they reported to the Council that their engineer was working on a new design which he felt would comply. Council directed him to furnish the redesign, meet with staff and homeowners, and return to the Council to discuss whatever else was necessary. The land plan, which he displayed, and the tract map had been reviewed by the Planning Department and the map was found to comply with all ordinances, both grading and subdivision for the subject zoning of one-half acre lots in the Scenic Corridor. 78-192 City Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - Februar~ 14~ 1978~ 1:30 P.M. Relative to the question posed by Councilwoman Kaywood at the last meeting on the number of trees to be removed, the old plan allowed for the removal of 93 trees, whereas under the new plan, only 50 would be removed. Thus, double the amount of live trees would be saved. In answer to Councilman Kott relative to whether or not the homeowner groups were satisfied with the plan, Mr. Riley stated they met with homeowners at the residence of Mr. Joujon Rouche and answered their questions. The homeowners were not 100 per- cent happy with the plan since the ultimate would be to have no development in that area at all. The homeowners again met the previous evening to discuss the matter amongst themselves and the developer was not invited to attend. Regarding the problem of lot width, they met with Mr. Titus and Mr. Devitt in Engineering and discussed the ordinances for the private street. The one shown on the plan, which was always intended to be a private street, had a 24-foot right-of-way with two paved 9-foot traffic lanes. Miss Santalahti explained the original plan which the Planning Commission and the Council had seen involved the northerly leg of the private street being split approximately in half and the other half split between the subject property and the parcel to the north where there would have been an easement. When they could not acquire that, they relocated the road in a southerly direction and that impacted the useable size of the lots, the number of trees to be removed, which now was fewer, and possibly the depth of driveways. Those were the three items that were dis- cussed with the homeowners. However, the plan still complied with Code regulations. The Mayor asked if anyone wished to be heard either in favor or in opposition. Mr. Robert Wiens, 7536 Vista Del Sol, stated he was the owner to the north of the subject property and his main concern was the retaining wall running on the northerly side of the road and the height of that wall, as well as how much acreage was below the road and how much was above that was useable area. Mr. Riley, working from the displayed map, pointed to the location of the retaining wall and explained that the average height was approximately five feet, but slightly higher at the top of the radius of the cul-de-sac and at the approach to a driveway. Both of those areas were masked from vision by the house from below. Thus, he did not consider it to be a major impact. Mr. Wiens asked if it was possible to get to the parcel on top which was included in the half'acre lot or if it was even possible to get to it from across the road; the point being it was not accessible without traversing the five-foot retaining wall. Mr. Sam Gaylord, 283 Del Giorgio Road, representing SACPOA, stated that at the meeting held the prior evening there were two concerns expressed: (1) split lots--today was the first they had heard of a retaining wall to be installed along the side of the road as explained by Mr. Riley. The residents were con- cerned about the condominium effect being created by putting the houses all to- gether. Now a paved road and retaining wall were going to be installed and they were opposed to such a plan. (2) The lack of setback from the road--only six feet existed around a number of the lots and on one lot there was no room for an estate size dwelling because there was no place to put horses. The developer had a difficult piece of property and in such cases, it should be considered in advance that perhaps the density was too high. There was only so much room avail- able when building on a cliff. He reiterated, split lots, setback and closeness to the road were the major concerns. 78-193 City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - February 14~ 1978~ 1:30 P.M. Councilman Seymour wanted to clarify SACPOA's position and questioned the fact that Hank Rivera, a member of the HACMAC committee, voted favorably on the pro- ject when it was presented to HACMAC. Mr. Gaylord explained that it was not the present plan on which Mr. Rivera voted, but he assumed the plan before it, although there had been several drawings and plans. The plan submitted today was the one SACPOA discussed the night before and not the other plan. The majority of the members felt as he (Gaylord) articu- lated. Personally, he would not own one of the houses because of the split lots thus precluding the use of most of the property. In summation, Mr. Riley stated that to answer the driveway issue, at the first and second meeting of HACMAC and the first meeting with SACPOA thereafter, one of the issues raised was the opposition to having all of the houses in a straight line. They then went back to the Planning Department for advice whereupon Mr. Riley read an excerpt from the Code Section relative to the encouragement of varied setbacks stating that in such cases, the setback average shall be 12 feet with a minimum of 15 feet, except for front opening garages with automatic garage door openers. In the later case, the driveway shall not be less than 6 feet nor longer than 10 feet. Mr. Riley stated that where the driveways were less than 25 feet, all were 10 feet and where they were 10 feet, two additional off-street parking spaces were provided in compliance with the Code. On further questioning by Councilwoman Kaywood, Mr. Riley answered that in arriving at the number of addi- tional parking spaces, the Code stipulated that five off-street parking spaces be provided, the reason for the retaining wall was not to accommodate two-stall parking, 4 of the 12 houses had lO-foot setbacks, none had 6 feet, and the other houses had a 25-foot setback or more. There being no further persons who wished to speak, the Mayor closed the public hearing. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT - NEGATIVE DECLARATION: On motion by Councilman Kott, seconded by Councilman Thom, the City Council finds that this project will have no significant individual or cumulative adverse environmental impact since the Anaheim General Plan designates the subject property for hillside estate density residential land uses commensurate with the proposal; that no sensitive environ- mental impacts are involved in the proposal; that the Initial Study submitted by the petitioner indicates no significant individual or cumulative adverse environ- mental impacts and is, therefore, exempt from the requirement to prepare an EIR. MOTION CARRIED. On motion by Councilman Roth, seconded by Councilman Thom, the proposed subdivision, Tentative Map Tract No. 10167, together with its design and improvement, was found to be consistent with the City's General Plan, and the City Council approved said Tentative Map along with the removal of a maximum of 50 specimen trees. Before a vote was taken, Councilwoman Kaywood stated she would vote "no". Although she realized it was a difficult piece of property, it was a one-half acre lot area and in looking at the plan she did not get that impression. Relative to the 6-foot and 10-foot setbacks, her feelings were well known on the matter of setbacks and she did not favor under 20 or 25 feet because, even though a very short space was pro- vided, it was difficult to stop people from parking in it, thus they would protrude into the street and with its winding nature, she maintained it would be too dangerous. 78-194 ~ity Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - February 14~ 1978~ 1:30 P.M. Councilman Seymour stated that he shared the concerns of the majority of SACPOA, but on the other hand, the developer totally conformed to the rules of the game set by the City and if the tract map was to be denied at this point, the rules should be changed or architectural controls imposed wherein all Council Members could have a hand in designing the project. Councilman Kott agreed with Councilman Seymour and added that it seemed like an honest effort had been made by the developer to comply, and he would find it diffi- cult to vote unfavorably. A vote was then taken on the foregoing motion. Councilwoman Kaywood voted "No". MOTION CARRIED. PUBLIC HEARING - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 1794: On motion by Councilwoman Kaywood, seconded by Councilman Seymour, public hearing on Conditional Use Permit No. 1794, submitted by Allen A. and Hilda J. Hendry, was continued for two weeks. MOTION CARRIED. PUBLIC HEARING - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 1785 - REHEARING: Application by Lee Combs and Lowen V. and Louise E. Casey, to permit an automobile storage and impound yard with waiver of required site screening on CH and PC-C zoned property located at 801 South Anaheim Boulevard. The subject conditional use permit was granted by the City Council on January 17, 1978 (Resolution No. 78R-45) and a request for rehearing filed by Keith D. Bird. The request was granted and rehearing scheduled this date. Mr. Joseph Conrad, 2262 West Coronet, business address 801 South Anaheim Boule- vard, first presented an artist's rendering depicting his area as it would look after the installation of the 8-foot block wall in comparison to the area as it presently existed, on which he also submitted a photograph. He also had plans for the block wall fence as well as engineering studies that had been approved. Even with that information and the necessary applications, the Building Depart- ment would not let him proceed in building the wall and he questioned their right to do so. The Mayor interjected they may have done so in light of the request for a rehearing or excessive political pressure. Mr. Conrad continued that he did not know what new or different evidence could be presented. Considering recent events, Mr. Conrad expressed concern that a conspiracy was involved trying to put him out of business. Since the last hearing, he had received telephone calls at his home harassing him and letters and flyers had been passed through the neighborhood. He submitted a flyer which urged the neighbors to stop him and announcing a meeting indicating a police officer would be present along with two City Council Members. The flyer also stated that Conrad's impound and storage lot affected property values; a criminal element was involved; it was detrimental to health and safety, growth and development; and it was an attractive nuisance, traffic problem, noise level, etc. 78-195 City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - February 14~ 1978~ 1:30 P.M. At the meeting noted in the flyer, he (Conrad) presented himself and initially was refused entrance. Mrs. Bird, who was at the door, said she preferred that he not be there and she was then overheard asking someone to notify the police because Mr. Conrad and his "cronies" were going to start a commotion. The whole situation affected him to a great extent. He had also received anonymous calls questioning whether the intent behind the situation was the possibility that someone associated with another towing company was trying to cut-out the competition. No matter what he attempted to do, he could not glean anything else from the neighbors other than the fact that they wanted him off the property. The whole situation was detrimental to his new business, not only to the time he had to spend away from it, but also relative to potential customers for automobile repair on which a great part of his business depended. He questioned the possibility that a political motive might be involved relative to publicity generated. He reiterated his concern over the effect the situation had on his business which could be borne out by the AAA office in Anaheim where people call them hour after hour stating they wanted him out of business thus, directly affecting him since he was the AAA contractor for Anaheim. Mr. Conrad also pointed out that a personal friend of his who worked for the City and spoke in favor of granting the conditional use permit at the last hearing had also been affected due to letters sent to his Chief, thus jeopardizing his posi- tion. That led him to believe there was more behind the issue than was apparent. He had a lease and a conditional use permit indicating that impound and storage was a proper use; he had overextended himself in trying to satisfy the conditions imposed; he now had security guards on his property 24 hours a day to make certain no one roamed the property; he was adding the block wall fence, there were less hours of operation, less noise and light. He had seen pictures circulated showing trash and other debris supposedly caused by his operation. He had been operating under adverse conditions and if he was allowed to operate the way he properly should, he could do nothing but improve the property. Councilman Roth stated he heard rumors that Mr. Conrad was trying to renege in building the block wall. Mr. Conrad stated that was not true and he had already taken the initial steps as explained earlier. Once he received an okay, the block wall would be up in 30 days. Councilman Roth also referred to a letter received from Santa Anita Consolidated, property owners at the corner of Anaheim Boulevard and South Street, from which he read an excerpt. "I understand there is a request for CUP 1785, to permit automobile storage and impound with a waiver of required site screening." Mr. Conrad contended this was another example of the neighbors contacting any- body that might be involved and agitating them, resulting in such letters. He did not believe that the City Council had ever seen such vindictiveness against one individual trying to operate a business in the City. The Mayor asked if Mr. Keith Bird now wished to speak since he requested the rehearing. Mr. Bird stated he would speak last; thereupon the Mayor opened the public hearing to those who wSshed to speak either in favor or in opposition. 78-196 .~ity Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - February 14~ 1978~ 1:30 P.M. Mrs. Rosaria Kaesler, homeowner of 107 MacMarthur Manor, first referred to the flyer announcing the meeting to which Mr. Conrad referred, which she maintained was a neighborhood party held informally. She then referred to a form letter signed by the Mayor relative to their improving and upgrading their homes and extending a 6 percent, 15-year term loan for housing rehabilitation; the purpose being to make Anaheim neighborhoods nicer places to live. They had already done so at great expense, but the question in their mind was, how could they rehabilitate the neighborhood on one hand, and then be .downgraded by the margin of one Council vote, allowing an impound and storage yard just inches away from their homes. An 8-foot wall would not stop the detrimental impact and if the City Council was sincere in wanting to assist, they could do so by placing such businesses in a proper area, otherwise approval would open the doors to having impound and storage yards move into their residential neighborhood. Mrs. Kaesler continued that at the January 17, 1978 appeal meeting, Mr. Conrad stated that only 22 to 25 cars would be in the lot at any one time, yet on January 24, 1978, 99 cars were counted in the lot and they had pictures to con- firm that fact. At their neighborhood meeting on February 11, 1978, an employee of Mr. Conrad stated that at that time 75 cars were in the lot which he referred to as "junk" cars. At that meeting, Mr. Conrad stated that no matter what the outcome of the issue would be, he would utilize the $10,000 that he would have used to install the fence to take the issue to court. Mrs. Kaesler stated they were apprehensive about living under certain conditions presently existing: (1) cars brought into the impound lot had ruptured gas tanks, thereby posing a probable explosion factor thus causing their fire insurance rates to rise and, (2) the liquid runoff adjacent to their homes coming from the impound lot contained chemicals, grease, battery acid, gasoline, anti-freeze and the like which was detrimental to their safety, as well as that of their children. In concluding, she stated that at the previous meeting of January 17, 1978, it was emphasized what an honorable citizen Mr. Conrad was. She then recounted her back-~ ground for the Council which showed her to be a recipient of many distinguished honors, not because she wanted to build up her character, but as a citizen of the community with the hope that she would be effective in urging the Council to heed the pleas of the voters, homeowners and taxpayers of Anaheim to keep with the term, "neighborhood preservation". She further urged the Council to reconsider the issue and rescind, deny and finally resolve Conditional Use Permit No. 1785. Mrs. Keith Bird, 121 MacArthur Manor, first explained that they had nothing to do with the letter written by Santa Anita Consolidated, but surmised it was the result of the same postcard being sent to property owners within 300 feet on three occasions, each time stating the the petitioner was asking for a waiver of site screening. The Mayor interjected that Councilman Roth was concerned about an additional word- of-mouth statement being repeated that Mr. Conrad was trying to get out of building the required fence. Mrs. Bird then relayed the following: the subject property had gradually worsened and problems were becoming more evident the longer Mr. Conrad remained at that location. Relative to intimidating Mr. Conrad, the neighbors she talked to and those close to the issue felt they had enough to stand on without intimidating anybody. 78-197 City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - February 14~ 1978~ 1:30 P.M. Relative to the neighborhood meeting, she was at the door when Mr. Conrad and his followers approached, and explained that elderly people were present and they did not want them intimidated, the reason being that on January 17,~ 1978, when his petition was circulated, some of the neighbors did feel intimidated by things said to them. They were glad to have Mr. Conrad speak at the meeting because he showed his true colors. They felt he threatened and intimidated them just as he did the City government. It was her understanding, from what was said at the meeting, that if the neighbors did not give him what he wanted, he would work until 10 o'clock every night and on Sundays and the block wall would not be built, not that it was going to make that much difference. She was not aware of any complaints received by the City on the new or used auto- mobile dealerships that were operating at that location for the prio~ 6 or 7 years. In reference to the block wall fence, Mr. Conrad would have to bring the wall back 2 feet and their property (Bird's) would thus be jutting out into the alley by 2 feet and there was an existing fence there at present. She noted it had been the policy of the City in the past not to put 8-foot high walls in residential areas because of restricted vision when backing out of garages. They had a double-car garage with access from that alley. She reiterated their property would be jutting out 2 feet into the alley and she did not know what would happen to the 2 feet now connected to Mr. Conrad's fence. They were told other towing, impound and storage companies had bought land or attempted to lease land near residences but were turned away because of the attrac- tive nuisance they created for children and because such businesses had a great potential for fire as well as an increase in the criminal element. They were not inferring that Mr. Conrad or his employees were criminals, but the type of business involved had a tendancy~to elicit criminal acts. Since Mr. Conrad was now a Police impound, when people were released from jail they tried tp break into such impound yards to get their cars back and this was evident by the fact that they had seen people handcuffed by the Police and taken away after being awakened at night by the Police helicopter. At the previous meeting, Mr. Conrad indicated he looked for CH zoned property in Anaheim and could find none. They contended there were other commercial and manufacturing zones that, with the proper CUP or variance, would be more suitable for Mr. Conrad's operation not located next to residences, churches and neighbor- hood businesses. Mr. Conrad had AAA towing for approximately a year and had to lease'storage areas from other storage and impound lots because his towing business was contingent upon storage. If he relocated, he would conceivably have to move his towing opera- tion with him due to high rent and even though towing was a permitted use, towed automobiles could not be stored within public view, which would still require proper screening. Mr. Conrad stated he would store approximately 25 cars but it was never made clear if that storage was to take place in the front of the property. At the meeting of January 17, 1978, Mr. Conrad stated that no vehicle would ever be parked outside of the lot. On January 23, 1978, after numerous complaints were received relative to a semi-flatbed truck being parked out in front of the fenced impound and storage area, Police Report No. 78-02749 was filed. The truck was 78-198 ~ity Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - February 14, 1978~ 1:30 P.M. there at 8:00 a.m. and it was still there at 11:30 p.m., in view of traffic travel- ing on Anaheim Boulevard and South Street. The City previously received complaints relative to Mr. Conrad's improperly storing vehicles at this Ball and West Street location. His past performances, promises and present actions were no guarantee that such occurrences would not continue to happen. The longer Mr. Conrad stayed, the more apparent that he must relocate. The litter generated was unsightly, presenting a health and safety hazard. She thereupon submitted pictures depicting the unsightly conditions. Poor working habits were in evidence and although the block wall might be able to hide beer containers and wine bottles standing along the fence, they were concerned about the effects on health and safety with the attitudes displayed. They did not want such problems covered up, but removed, and they wanted to feel safe. The business continued to operate after 11:00 p.m. and they called and woke Mr. Conrad asking him to call and stop the noise which he did but they were concerned as to who they would call on this civil matter when 90 days had expired, They did not want to spend their money on problems that would continue to exist. Another towing company, in business for 20 years that had AAA service, was contacted and explained that they received 10 to 15 calls a night and approximately 2 or 3 of those cars were stored on the premises, not including Police impounds and other towing business late at night. Mr. Conrad previously stated, on January 17, 1978, that no trucks would come into the yard after 10:00 p.m. with the exception of one or two and calls were seldom received after that hour. They were of the opinion that Mr. Conrad planned to expand his business and they were concerned about the 24-hour increase of towed and stored vehicles. As well, the releasing of trucks on the blacktop was annoying and disruptive to their normal living patterns and CB interference was so strong that their stereos and televisions were interrupted with shop talk. Thus, the operation had managed to interfere with their lives at an~ time of the day or night. For financial reasons, Mr. Conrad stated he did not want to relocate. He was now required to build a 350-foot, 8-foot high block wall and he promised to install noise barriers as well as a proper water drainage system. Thus far, only promises had been made with the possibility of further time extensions on the building of the "spite" wall. They had been told that credit had not been cleared on Mr. Conrad to allow him to procure additional trucks. Thus, they were concerned over the effects relative to a time lapse in the installation of the block wall. If the conditional use permit were granted because of financial burdens, the residents were being asked to absorb the loss, resulting in a decrease in property values. Once the conditional use permit was granted, it was costly, difficult and troublesome to get it revoked. Theoretically, he could remain at the location for an indefinite period of time. They failed to understand why he remained in that location when there were so many desirable locations for his business. It did not improve or beautify their neighborhood, and it would not establish neighborhood preservation. She implored each Council Member to listen to their problems and to ask if they could have peace of mind for themselves and their families living within 35 feet of Mr. Conrad'~ operation. 78-199 City Hall, Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - February 14~ 1978~ 1:30 P.M. Mrs. Sharon Farmer, 106 MacArthur Manor, first referred to the flyer that had been passed out relative to the neighborhood meeting which she believed was misinterpreted by Mr. Conrad. It was not to stop Mr. Conrad, but to have those who could stop by the meeting and look and listen relative to the issue. They did call AAA and were told they had no stand on the issue and did not wish to become involved. She then referred to the petition that Mr. Conrad submitted at the January 17, 1978 meeting, hand carried by his friend, Mr. Krebs, which she felt was misleading be- cause there was no mention of an impound operation contained therein. Of the 40 signatures, only 8 were from residents on Valencia, Claudina and MacArthur Manor, and the only person from MacArthur Manor, Mr. Kinsman, an elderly gentleman, was very upset by the matter and he was not clearly aware of what Mr. Krebs told him. She maintained that no personal friends should testify as to Mr. Conrad's character and that the surrounding neighbors would be the best judge. The issue, however, was not his character but whether or not the operation belonged in the neighborhood. It was clear to them that it did not. Mrs. Farmer further stated they were very meticulous when circulating the new petition submitted which contained 104 signatures and further elaborated on the difficulties obtaining those signatures due to the poor weather conditions. They explained the entire background of the issue and indicated to those they approached that they did not have to sign it. However, those who did sign relayed facts that they were not even aware of relative to the matter, and they called the impound and storage yard a "junk" yard. Mrs. Farmer then submitted photographs showing their homes and also photos of the impound yard taken before he had an opportunity to clean it up whic~ had only been accomplished within the last week. Mrs. Farmer then elaborated upon the time, money and great effort they had spent fixing up their home, only to have some of the peace, quiet and beauty of the neighborhood taken away by Mr. Conrad's operation. It was her duty to raise her daughter in a decent neighborhood and the City Council should give her that chance. She reiterated the main issue was the concern they had for their families. Mrs. A1 Poudevigne, 110 MacArthur Manor, stated she had lived at that address for 26 years and had never found fault with her neighbors until Mr. Conrad's operation moved in. After some additional comments relative to the matter, she stated her main concern was the condition of the alley west of the "junk" cars where most of the elderly residents exited so as to avoid a left turn onto Anaheim Boulevard. Now they could not drive through the alley because of the dirty acids and oil-filled water that remained standing there coming from the new operation. She then submitted photographs depicting the conditions as articulated. She had also seen children from the neighborhood playing in the water which was a health hazard. Mrs. Poudevigne continued that the 8-foot block wall would only compound the bad situation and generate graffiti and during the summer many children would be exposed to from the church property. In addition, the wall would make it more convenient for "gangs" of boys to gather, whereas now they could be seen through the existing fence. Rather than contributing to another future redevelopment situation such ms the one in which the City was presently involved, she urged the Council to deny the permit. They also wanted the young people to stay in the neighborhood. 78-200 Cit~ ~all~ .Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - February 14, 1978~ 1:30 P.M. Mrs. Poudevigne then spoke for Mary Oliver, who could ndt attend but who asked her to relay the following: She (Mary Oliver) worked at night and arrived home late at night or early in the morning. She noted that the business, on occasion, was still open and the situation frightened her. She, too, wanted the Council to deny Conditional Use Permit No. 1785. Mr. Nick Farmer, 106 West MacArthur Manor, stated that at the last meeting he was asked if the installation of the 8-foot wall might be a solution to the problem. He agreed that it would solve the eyesore problem. At the time he was not pre- pared to debate relative to the wall as he was more concerned about the auto storage and impound itself. Now, however, he agreed with Mrs. Poudevigne that one eyesore would be replaced with another because it would be ridiculous for anyone to assume that graffiti would not end up on the wall. He then submitted photographs of existing walls within 20 and 30 feet of the impound yard and another less than a half block away that already have graffiti on them. He felt that even the church would agree this would cause a problem for them, though they previously specified the wall would meet with their complete agreement. Mr. Farmer continued that the 8-foot wall would also create problems relative to air-flow. Since the homes on the other side of the proposed wall were built in approximately 1948, they did not have forced air heating and thus, they counted on air flow, not only for reasons of health, but also for comfort, and it was again impossible to assume such a condition would not be a problem for young children and older people. Aside from the wall, Mr. Farmer stated that the criminal element relating to impound and storage yards caused concern. Vehicles delivered were indirectly involved with convicts and people who violated the law, thus creating concern over the type of people that would be drawn to the area. Other tow yards had the need to call the Police as often as 2 and 3 times a week asking for assistance where someone was trying to break in or forcefully take back their vehicle. They teuded to blame the impound yard and not the Police Department. He was personally~ concerned over what would happen when these people could not get their cars back when he was at work and his wife and children were at home. Mr. Farmer concluded that he was certain that revenues and taxes being brought in by Mr. Conrad's business were a great sum, but he asked the Council to consider the long-term effects of the storage yard. If one was allowed, others would also have to be allowed to come in, which would have some effect on redevelopment and they were located in a secondary area of redevelopment. He urged the Council to recon- sider their last vote for the sake of himself and his family, as well as for his neighbors. Mrs. Elaine Kaesler, 107 MacArthur, explained that her objections relative to the impound and storage lot were basically the health and safety factors involved. She referred to the fire that took place on January 11, 1978, which Mr. Conrad stated was a minor one, involving only a paint can being burned up and a Fire representative confirmed that fact at the meeting of January 17, 1978. They checked the Fire report and it stated the fire occurred in a five-gallon container of lacquer thinner which also caused slight damage to a work bench. Although minor, the report stated that an open container was involved as well as poor working habits. As a neighborhood they felt that with four uses combined on one piece of property, there was no room 78-201 City Hall, Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - February 14~ 1978~ 1:30 P.M. for poor working habits and their safety as a residential community was at stake. They were told that Mr. Conrad's insurance tripled because of the impound and storage lot and the attendant health and safety factors involved caused them great concern. Mrs. Kaesler then spoke to the following problems on which she elaborated: Litter in the yard--the litter generated combined with approximately 100 cars containing gasoline, battery acid, oil, cleaning solutions and the like, constituted a clear and present danger to the neighbors and their families. Eight-foot bl~ck wall-- the wall was not the solution and she would not accept it in any way because problems would remain the same. ..Eyesore problem--cars were being impounded in the front lot, contrary to what Mr. Conrad stated. Airflow--the wall would pre- vent them from getting the beneficial summer breeze. CB interference--this inter- ference was a factor they had to live with 24 hours a day relative to playing their stereos, televisions, etc. Question of business tactics--on two occasions, a trailer and a bus remained occupied overnight. The bus was parked.just within feet of their house, causing them to feel unsafe under the circumstances. Criminal element--she reiterated the same concerns expressed in previous testimony. Water in the alley--tow trucks were being washed in the alley, causing water accumulation and subsequent breaking up of the alley way, thus precipitating additional problems. In concluding, Mrs. Kaesler stated, considering the character of the neighborhood, she could not imagine them presenting any threat to Mr. Conrad, they had no political ties and this was the first time they had approached the City Council. They tried to improve their houses, and their standards as part of being good neighbors in- cluded keeping a clean yard and maintaining a good relationship amongst each other. That was not the case relative to Mr. Conrad. They disagreed with a statement made at the January 17, 1978 meeting that on too many occasions, gentlemen such as Mr. Conrad were overlooked. It was they who had been overlooked even though abiding strictly by the law. They had certain rights which were being overlooked or denied while on the other hand, the City was bending over backwards and concessions were being made on Mr. Conrad's behalf at their expense. They were suffering emotionallY, financially and in many different ways because his business was located in their neighborhood. They were paying tax dollars for redevelopment taking place a few blocks away and she did not want to be there in 20 years when they would be affected by redevelopment because an impound and storage yard was being allowed at that loca- tion. A great many people had worked hard to maintain their homes for a number of years and now, within six months, a situation had been created changing the whole atmosphere and complexion of that neighborhood to its detriment. RECESS: By general consent, the City Council recessed for five minutes. (4:30 P.M.) AFTER RECESS: The Mayor called the meeting to order, all Council Members being present. (4:35 P.M.) Mr. Gerald Bracklin, 717 South Anaheim Boulevard, physical therapist in practice in Anaheim for 31 years, stated he was a resident and taxpayer in the City for over 30 years and a wrecking yard in the subject area was undesirable and should not be allowed to go on. They were all taxpayers and were looking forward to being protected by the City Council. 78-202 City Hall.~ Anaheim~ California- COUNCIL MINUTES- February 14, 1978, 1:30 P.M. Mr. Keith Bird, 121 MacArthur Manor, first stated that the Council had been pre- sented with new evidence regarding CUP 1785, specifically relative to CB interference, drainage problems and the official fire report indicating poor working habits were the cause of the fire on January 11, 1978. Additionally, Mr. Conrad was parking remnants of vehicles outside of the facility which he was told he was unable to do for extended periods. As far as the matter affecting his property, he would have to modify his wall because after the 8-foot block wall was installed, the existing wall would extend into the alley by 2 feet as previously explained by Mrs. Bird. When he moved into the area 16 years prior, he did not anticipate any type of zoning change or variance to allow an impound and storage yard in his back yard. Mr. Bird then reiterated and stressed certain aspects of the matter which presented some of the major concerns: the criminal element such businesses attracted; their opposition was to the impound and storage lot and did not deal with Mr. Conrad's character; they saw no justification for locating such a use in a residential area; the block wall would make little difference in solving the problem. Mr. Bird then recounted that the night before, February 13, 1978, they were disturbed at 11:00 p.m. by a loud exhaust noise, chains clanking and a CB blaring, instructions. A vehicle was unloaded at 11:30 p.m. and another at 12:00 midnight. It was very disturbing and difficult to live through, not only for young children but older adults. In his opinion, the agency was operating in an unbusinesslike manner whereas children, approximately 14 or 15 years old, were allowed to go among the impound cars to clean up the area for the Council's benefit and in anticipation of the community meeting that was held. Although they appreciated the cleanup, it was because of the pressure from the community. Mr. Bird then explained that relative to redevelopment, the City was currently forcing DuBois and Pasquel (D & P), another towing facility, to find another loca- tion after being established in the area for almost 50 years while at the same time establishing Joe Conrad's business a few blocks away from the current location of D & P. He questioned whether they (D & P) would then be able to move into one of the many defunct automobile dealerships along Anaheim Boulevard and set up another impound and storage yard. If so, it could be anticipated that more towing companies would make the same move because they would be centrally located and the only re- quirement would be an 8-foot block wall, resulting in block walls lining Anaheim Boulevard in the redevelopment area. He contended there were a number of areas where the business could be located zoned M-1 or higher in East Anaheim. It seemed obvious, however, that Mr. Conrad's only concern was the estimated time of arrival between calls and the reason why he did not look for a more appropriate location. He stated that Mr. Conrad had leased storage space from other sites while he was at the former Ball Road location and therefore he would have no problem making the same type of arrangements in the future if he was not allowed storage at the present location. Mr. Conrad had been offered storage in another area at no charge which would qualify as an impound lot but he refused to take that option. If other towing agencies tried to follow the legal process to establish a similar location and were unable to do so, he questioned why Mr. Conrad had been able to do so. 78-203 City Hall, Anah~im~ Ca.lifornia - COUNCIL MINUTES - February 14~ 1978~ 1:30 P.M. At the last meeting, it was pointed out that Mr. Conrad was so civic-minded he gave vehicles to the Fire Department on which they could test their equipment, but the testimony given failed to include the fact that other agencies for years also furnished such vehicles. Thus, to infer that Mr. Conrad was doing so as a community civic duty, was very misleading. Mr. Bird touched upon the fact that Mr. Conrad was openly welcomed at their neighborhood meeting as well as his employees but upon entering, Mr. Krebs started writing names down as rapidly as possible from the petition containing signatures of those in the neighborhood who had signed it. Mr. Bird stated that Mr. Krebs openly intimidated him in making reference to his (Bird's) employer as though that had anything to do with his participation against Mr. Conrad. It was not difficult for anyone to understand his concern and justification for the participation considering the fact that the operation was located in his backyard. In conclusion, Mr. Bird stated that since their community had been intimidated and threatened by Mr. Conrad, they looked to the Council as their representative for their only defense. Nevertheless, if it became necessary, they would seek whatever action was required to assure that the peace, health and safety of the community was protected by an impartial panel. In summation, Mr. Conrad spoke to the following: relative to CB interference, the radios in his vehicles were AAA transmitters and receivers controlled completely by AAA at 150 West Vermont, two blocks away. He did not feel that CB interference could be caused by the radios, if so, AAA should be contacted. He stated the Federal Communication Commission (FCC) had also checked their frequency and indi- cated there was no problem in reference to the Mayor's suggestion that such problems should be channeled through the FCC. He was concerned over Mr. Bird's inference relative to the criminal element involved in tow operations. He pointed out that Mr. Bird worked for Allstate Insurance who had a contract association with Anaheim Towing Services. He was offered an area in which to store cars, but it was totally impractical because it was located in the City of Fullerton. An 8-foot block wall would be more difficult to traverse than a chain link fence. He did not consider graffiti to be a problem or pertinent to the issue but would make every effort to keep the wall clean if graffiti posed a problem and initially he would use an appropriate finish on the wall. His insurance had not tripled since the move and he took issue with the fact that the only way such information could be obtained since Mr. Bird worked for an insur- ance company was by going through his personal background history. With reference to his moving to the present location, Mr. Conrad submitted his lease to the Council, showing the starting lease date of October 1, 1977. He did have rules and regulations which his employees had to follow as well as a security system and other precautions to insure a safe environment. 78-204 City Hall.~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - February 14~ 1978~ 1:30 P.M. He may have stated too harshly that if he was not granted the CUP, he would still have the right to operate his business in that location except he would not be allowed to store vehicles over 24 hours, thus eliminating the need to build a block wall fence. Once the block wall fence was installed and he met all the conditions placed upon him, Mr. Conrad contended that the neighbors would see an improvement in the neigh- borhood and they would be glad of it. Councilwoman Kmywood asked if Mr. Conrad was going to do anything about the drainage problem into the alley. Mr. Conrad answered that he intended to do so and he planned to make the location his permanent place of business with attendant improvements. Eventually, the body shop, which was not his operation, would possibly be moving out of the location. Therefore, he would rearrange the area in order to solve some of the drainage problems. The addition of the block wall fence automatically precluded anything from draining into the back. He would be working on such problems as well as any others and he invited the neighbors to bring these either to his attention or the owner, Mr. Casey. Councilman Seymour, noting that the start of Mr. Conrad's lease was October 1, 1977, asked why he did not file a request for a CUP prior to the execution of the lease. Mr. Conrad explained at the time he thought the use was allowed at the present loca- tion. He checked the zoning but did not realize he would need a conditional use permit. He did not actually occupy the location until October 20, 1977, and just prior to that time was when he initially applied for the CUP and proper zoning for the property. Councilman Seymour asked for clarification as to whether Mr. Conrad was stating he did not move into the location until October 20, 1977. Mr. Conrad stated that was the date his lease expired at 1100 Ball Road, but his business license and other documents were dated before that time. He continued, in answer to Councilman Kott, that in his initial contact with the Planning Depart- ment, he understood it was an unwritten condition, whereas as long as the use was allowable on a particular type zoning and the petitioner tried to comply with condi- tions while seeking the proper zoning or CUP, the business could operate as long as conditions were not violated, and if violated, would thus be subject to reprimand. Mr. Conrad further stated when he applied for the license, he was considering becoming involved with impound vehicles. However, he did not become involved in that aspect until December 17, 1977, as one of the towing companies on location for the Anaheim Police Department. It was before that, however, when he came to the City relative to the matter. Councilman Seymour pointed out that Mr. Conrad's business license covered towing and not storage, and he asked if the license permitted him to have the impound and storage use. Mr. Conrad answered that it was a business license allowing him to operate, but it did not cover impound and storage. 78-205 C..ity Hall, Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - February 14~ 1978~ 1:30 P.M. Councilwoman Kaywood questioned Mr. Conrad's lease relative to the statement that it was a month-to-month lease. Mr. Conrad explained the lease was initially written that way, but it now coincided with the master lease on the property which had not as of yet been updated. The month-to-month basis would change when the condition relative to the block wall fence was met and then an agreement signed. Councilman Seymour asked what reply Mr. Conrad received from staff when he applied for the CUP in late October, stating that he was going to run an impound and storage yard. He specifically wanted to know if they indicated he could proceed but at his own risk because the CUP might be denied. His concern related to the possibility that staff may have misled him (Conrad). Mr. Conrad explained that the situation was, as Councilman Seymour articulated, in that staff could not advise him or say anything. He could only assume that the prop- erty allowed the use and he did not try to hide anything relative'to his operation. He emphasized that staff did not mislead him relative to impound and storage use. He knew at the time there was a risk regarding such use. Relative to other questions posed by the Council, Mr. Conrad stated that the storage space available to him on Manchester and the Santa Ana Freeway was very small and not adequate to be used for any sizeable storage yard; his prior location backed up to a commercial/recreation area with residences across Ball Road approximately 50 feet away and there were no complaints that he was aware of; he had purchased new equipment since he moved to the present location worth in excess of $25,000 and he had no difficulty in so doing. Councilwoman Kaywood questioned Miss Santalahti as to whether or not complaints had been received when Mr. Conrad was located at Ball Road. Miss Santalahti explained that the problem in that location was one of abandoned or junk vehicles in public sight with no substantial fencing at all at the service station and that constituted a zoning enforcement problem. She was not aware of any problems relative to noise or other matters. Councilman Roth stated that after the last hearing and considering the correspondence received in the interim regarding Mr. Conrad's operation, he was concerned to the point that on January 31, 1978, he wrote a letter to the Executive Vice-President of the Chamber of Commerce since he considered the Chamber to be a watchful eye of the business and residential community. A reply to his letter was received dated February 10, 1978, copies of which had been submitted to the Council. He thereupon read aloud the letter from Mr. Sierk wherein he (Sierk) stated that he previously received a request from Mr. Conrad asking if there was another location in the City suitable to fit his needs but none was available. Mr. Sierk continued by pointing out that Anaheim Boulevard had a~ways been identified as an auto service, sales and garage area which dominated the businesses on the street. Although it was a business that would be difficult to locate in any part of Anaheim, it was a very important service and the type that should be centrally located. Councilman Seymour pointed out that at the neighborhood meeting at the church, the previous Saturday afternoon a man in the audience stated that approximately 75 cars were in storage at the present time, whereas at the January 17, 1978 Council meeting, Mr. Conrad indicated there would approximately only 20 to 30 cars. He questioned the discrepancy. 78-206 .City Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - February 14~ 1978~ 1:30 P.M. Mr. Conrad answered that it was a matter of record within the last couple of weeks a dispatcher of his in the course of handling the documentation, lien sale papers for 40 vehicles disappeared. Thus, there were more vehicles on the lot than normal. Councilwoman Kaywood referred to the statement made at the February 11, 1978 neigh- borhood meeting that 30 cars were removed from the lot each day and 30 brought in. Mr. Conrad emphasized that was an excessive amount because the police did not im- pound that many vehicles off City streets and the figure was closer to 1 or 2. However, there could be 30 vehicles coming in and out for automotive repair work or from accidents each day. He also pointed out that approximately 33 employees were involved in all the combined uses on the property. The Mayor closed the public hearing. Councilman Seymour stated that new evidence had been presented relative to the number of vehicles coming and going from the facility on a daily basis; one of Mr. Conrad's employees may have caused storage of an additional amount of vehicles on the lot, far in excess of 20 to 30; one of the photographs submitted depicted a flatbed truck parked with two vehicles ready to go to the junk yard outside the facility; a mobile home occupied a public street when the Council had been told there would be no vehicles permitted outside the storage facility and, as well, it remained occupied; and drainage problems were evident, as well as a trash problem. He maintained all those items were new evidence since the last public hearing. Councilman Seymour continued that he was extremely concerned relative to the decision on the hearing because he believed its ramifications would go beyond the question as to whether or not Mr. Conrad would be permitted to operate an impound and storage yard. Instead, it would have an impact on the entire City because a precedent was at stake relative to the entire neighborhood preservation program throughout the City. His concern was for the neighborhood involved with its high percentage. of actual homeownership, along with a high degree of pride of ownership. If the conditional use permit was approved, he projected that the neighborhood would subsequently turn into one of a high percentage of absentee ownership and with it, deteriorating property conditions until the area became another barrio or decayed portion of the City with the prospect further downstream of being faced with the decision of whether or not to make it another redevelopment area. The neighborhood was on the brink and the Council had the opportunity to save it. Through the expenditure of hundreds of thousands of dollars and HCD funds, Community Development and Neighborhood Preservation, the City was saying it cared and wanted to do some- thing, thus precluding the spread of redevelopment projects in other neighborhoods. Councilman Seymour continued that if an impound and storage lot was being proposed in a neighborhood close to any Councilperson within 35 feet of single-family residences, there would be doubt of his rejection. He had seen the Council many times take great care in their decisions as to what type of development was taking place in the newer part of the City, such as Anaheim Hills and the Santa Ana Canyon, and it was equally important to take special care as to what was happening in neighborhoods such as that under discussion. If the Council's predecessors had the foresight to see what would have happened when the uses in and along Anaheim Boulevard were introduced, the City would not be involved in a redevelopment.project area today. He emphasized if the Council voted in favor of CUP 1785, then they were not voting the way they said they believed relative to neighborhood preservation. The testimony given in both hearings came from young families who had a difficult time finding housing they could afford; testimony was given as to t~eir willingness and efforts in trying to improve their neighborhoods 78-207 City Hall, Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - February 14~ 1978~ 1:30 P.M. and individual properties, as well as testimony from senior citizens in the same neighborhood who had like objectives. If the Council turned a deaf ear to their request, then the Redevelopment Department should be contacted to draw new lines for a new redevelopment project because approval of CUP 1785 would lead to such action. Councilman Seymour thereupon offered a resolution for adoption denying Conditional Use Permit No. 1785. Before a vote was taken, Councilwoman Kaywood maintained that the situation was a regrettable one and common in areas where there were mixed uses. She had attended the community meeting and viewed the neighborhood and saw, as Councilman Seymour pointed out, young couples and older people living in harmony, something which needed to be encouraged in the City. There were many complaints by the younger people that everywhere they went to look for housing, no one allowed children which was contrary to the image the City wanted to project. She emphasized it was an absolute necessity to preserve such neighborhoods. A vote was taken on the foregoing resolution, denying Conditional Use Permit No. 1785 offered by Councilman Seymour and failed to carry by the following vote: AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Kaywood and Seymour NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Kott, Roth and Thom Councilman Thom thereupon offered Resolution No. 78R-109 for adoption, approving Conditional Use Permit No. 1785, with the previously stated conditions. Before a vote was taken, Councilwoman Kaywood asked if anything was going to be added relative to the drainage problem. The Mayor stated that the applicant stipulated he would take care of the drainage problem with the block wall. A vote was then taken on the resolution approving Conditional Use Permit No. 1785. Refer to Resolution Book. RESOLUTION NO. 78R-109: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM REAFFIRMING ITS APPROVAL OF CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 1785. Roll Call Vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: COUNCIL MEMBERS: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Kott, Roth and Thom Kaywood and Seymour None The Mayor declared Resolution No. 78R-109 duly passed and adopted. 113: GENERAL MUNICIPAL ELECTION - APRIL 11.~ 1978: Councilman Roth offered Resolu- tion No. 78R-110 for adoption, establishing voting precincts, polling places, appointing Election Officers and fixing compensation therefor, for the General Municipal Election to be held April 11, 1978. Refer to Resolution Book. 78-208 .City Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - February 14~ 1978~ 1:30 P.M. RESOLUTION NO. 78R-110: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM ESTABLISHING VOTING PRECINCTS, ESTABLISHING POLLING PLACES, APPOINTING ELECTION OFFICERS AND FIXING THE COMPENSATION OF ELEdTION OFFICERS FOR THE GENERAL MUNICIPAL ELECTION TO BE HELD IN SAID CITY ON APRIL 11, 1978, HERETOFORE CALLED BY RESOLUTION NO. 78R-20, OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM. Roll Call Vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: COUNCIL MEMBERS: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Kaywood, Seymour, Kott, Roth and Thom None None The Mayor declared Resolution No. 78R-110 duly passed and adopted. 123: ACQUISITION OF RIGHT-OF-WAY~ ORANGEWOOD AVENUE: (Agreement with Y. F. Hammatt) Councilman Seymour offered Resolution No. 78R-111 for adoption, ap. proving terms and conditions of an agreement with Mr. and Mrs. Y. F. Hammatt in conjunction with acquisition of right-of-way on Orangewood Avenue and providing for payment of $53,000. Refer to Resolution Book. RESOLUTION NO. 78R-111: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM APPROVING THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF AN AGREEMENT WITH YOUNG FRANCIS HAMMATT AND LUCINDA D. HAMMATT AT 1548 WEST ORANGEWOOD AVENUE, AND AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR AND CITY CLERK TO AUTHORIZE SAID AGREEMENT. Roll Call Vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: COUNCIL M~4BERS: COUNCIL MEMBERS: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Kaywood, Seymour, Kott, Roth and Thom None None The Mayor declared Resolution No. 78R-111 duly passed and adopted. 123: INTERTIE WITH YORBA LINDA COUNTY WATER DISTRICT: Councilman Kott asked staff to report on the benefits of the subject intertie to Anaheim. Mr. Ray Auerbach, Water Engineering Manager, explained that the intertie between the City of Anaheim and the Yorba Linda County Water District would benefit the area east of Imperial Highway, bounded by the Santa Ana River and Esperanza Road on the north. An existing waterline easterly from Imperial Highway on La Palma Aven.ue presently served the area consisting of 750 single-family residences, a large trailer park, apartment complex, school and shopping center. Based upon their criteria for circulating a water system and providing flow in both directions, due to emergencies in maintenance, the Water Division tried to keep a circulating system or intertie with other agencies. They had no way presently to serve that area other than from Imperial Highway and if any outages occurred, the whole area would be out of water. The agreement thus provided for an intertie to be constructed now with the costs to be borne by the Yorba Linda Water District. Anaheim would not have to reimburse them for half the cost until the facilities were built, thus making available a reciprocal exchange of water from one agency to another. At present, the agreement would only be beneficial to the Yorba Linda Water District since they could not extend their facilities. 78-209 C_ity Ha.ll~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - February 14~ 1978, 1:30 P.M. Relative to the Diemer Intertie, that would not serve the area in question and most of the area would eventually be served by the Olive Hills Reservoir off Nohl Ranch Road. On motion by Councilman Seymour, seconded by Councilwoman Kaywood, the Utilities Director was authorized to execute an agreement with the Yorba Linda County Water District for construction of an intertie between the City and District water systems at a cost of $40,000, said amount to be shared equally by the two entities. MOTION CARRIED. 108: APPLICATION FOR SOLICITATION OF CHARITY FUNDS: On motion by Councilman Thom, seconded by Councilman Roth, application for Solicitation of Charity Funds by the Unification Church, for solicitation of funds, mainly in commercial and industrial area, for support of church centers throughout the country, February 1 through April 2, 1978, was denied. MOTION CARRIED. Councilman Roth noted that since they had been receiving many requests for the subject type solicitation, he recommended that the Council consider forming a committee consisting of a representative of the City Attorney's Office, Police Department, License Division and the Chamber of Commerce to review and recommend a procedure for handling such requests with the goal being the protection of the citizens of Anaheim since calls received indicated many groups were soliciting door-to-door without any permits. On motion by Councilman Roth, seconded by Councilwoman Kaywood, the Council approved the formation of a committee consisting of a representative from the City Attorney's Office, Police Department, License Division and Chamber of Commerce to make recommen- dations to the Council relative to new guidelines for processing requests for solici- tation of charity funds. MOTION CARRIED. 108: WAIVER OF BUSINESS LICENSE FEE: On motion by Councilwoman Kaywood, seconded by Councilman Seymour, request from the Cystic Fibrosis Foundation for waiver of business license fee for the Seventh Annual Radio Auction, as recommended in memo- randum dated February 6, 1978, from the City Engineer, was approved. MOTION CARRIED. CONSENT CALENDAR ITEMS: On motion by Councilman Roth, seconded by Councilman Kott, 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 the Southern California Gas Company for property damages purportedly sustained during the repair of electric service cable at 196 Donna Court on or about January 24, 1978. b. Claim submitted by Robert Cleveland McKeown for personal injuries purportedly sustained as the result of action by the Anaheim Police on or about October 30, 1977. 78-210 City Hall, Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - February 14~ 1978~ 1:30 P.M. c. Claim submitted by Vicki Lynn Goers for damages for loss of consortium as a result of her husband's (James G. Goers) personal injuries purportedly sustained while crossing the street at Katella and Clementine on or about November 4, 1977. d. Claim submitted by Raymond D. Hardy for personal injuries purportedly sustained as a result of action by the Anaheim Police on or about November 11, 1977. e. Claim submitted by Mrs. Jo Anne Carter for property damages purportedly sustained as the result of automobile hitting a hole in the street (La Palma Avenue near East Street) on or about January 19, 1978. f. Claim submitted by Donovan J. Floriani for property damages purportedly sus- tained as a result of high voltage on or about December 19, 1977. g. Claim submitted by Antonio Ramos and Clara L. Ramos for monetary damages pur- portedly sustained as a result of towing and storage fees and loss of income on or about January 18, 1978. h. Claim submitted by Mrs. Anne Sadler for property damages purportedly sustained as a result of a power failure on or about January 26, 1978. i. Claim submitted by Mary Gregory Biggs for property damage purportedly sustained as the result of dumped chunks of broken street material from a City vehicle onto the hood of automobile on or about October 25, 1977. j. Claim submitted by State Farm Insurance Claim Office on behalf of Laurie J. Thompson, insured, for vehicle damages purportedly sustained as a result of an accident involving a city-owned vehicle on or about November 28, 1977. k. Claim submitted by James G. Goers for personal injuries purportedly sustained while crossing the street at Katella and Clementine on or about November 4, 1977. APPLICATION TO PRESENT LATE CLAIM: The following Application to Present Late Claim was denied and referred to the City's self-insurance administrator: a. Application For Leave to File A Late Claim, Points of Law, Declaration of Yolanda De La Cruz In Support of Application to File Late Claim and Claim for Damage purport- edly sustained by Eva De La Cruz, a minor, while riding on a mechanical merry-go-round at La Palma.Public Park on or about June 1, 1977. 2. CORRESPONDENCE: The following correspondence was ordered received and filed: a. 175: Before the PUC, Notice of Hearing, Application Nos. 57359 and 57360 of Pacific Western Stage Lines, Inc., for a Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity to operate a sightseeing tour service between points in Los Angeles and Orange Counties and certain points in the City of Newport Beach and the Burbank Studios, Burbank. b. 105: Communiy Redevelopment Commission - Minutes of January 18 and 25, 1978. c. 105: Youth Commission - Minutes of January 25, 1978. 78-211 ~ity Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - February 14, 1978~ 1:30 P.M. d. 175: Monthly report for December 1977 - Customer Service. e. 107: Monthly report for January 1978 - Building Division. 3. 108: PUBLIC DANCE PERMIT: The following permit was approved in accordance with the recommendations of the Chief of Police: a. Public Dance Permit for the Sociedad Progresista Mexicana, Lodge No. 33, for a dance to be held February 26, 1978, 3:00 P.M. to 7:00 P.M. at the Carpenter's Hall, 608 West Vermont Street. (Concha C. Flores, applicant) MOTION CARRIED. 114: SCAG REGIONAL HOUSING ALLOCATION MODEL - CORRESPONDENCE FROM THE CITY OF ROLLING HILLS ESTATES: Councilman Kott moved that Anaheim join with Rolling Hills Estates in objecting to-the SCAG Regional Housing Allocation Model through their Resolution No. 967, with copies of communication to be sent to the City's repre- sentatives in Washington D.C. Before a vote was taken, Councilwoman Kaywood questioned whether or not Councilman Kott had seen the model. She sat on the Executive Committee of SCAG and the model was sent to every city for their input. Subsequently, it was worked on repeatedly and revised as a result of input received also through public hearings. Thus, statements contained in the correspondence from Rolling Hills Estates were untrue. If they did not want to apply for any funds, they did not have to comply with anything. SCAG was not making the rules, but it was being channeled through SCAG. A vote was taken on the foregoing motion and failed to carry by the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: COUNCIL MEMBERS: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Kott and Roth Kaywood, Seymour and Thom None Councilman Kott thereupon moved to have staff send a letter to the City of Rolling Hills Estates, asking why they sent out literature containing inaccurate information. Councilman Roth seconded the motion. Councilwoman Kaywood and Councilman Seymour voted "No". MOTION CARRIED. After a brief Council discussion, Councilman Kott amended his motion requesting staff to send a letter to Rolling Hills Estates but instead questioning the validity of the information contained in their letter to Anaheim. Councilman Roth accepted the amendment. Councilwoman Kaywood and Councilman Seymour voted "Nc". MOTION CARRIED. CONSENT CALENDAR ITEMS: Councilman Seymour offered Resolution No. 78R-108 and Resolution Nos. 78R-112 through 78R-114, 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. 158: RESOLUTION NO. 78R-112: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM ACCEPTING CERTAIN DEEDS AND ORDERING THEIR RECORDATION. (Richard J. Maggio, et ux.~ 78-212 City. Hall~ Anahei~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - February 14~ 1978~ 1:30 P.M. 169: RESOLUTION NO. 78R-113: 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: BROADWAY STREET IMPROVEMENT, MAGNOLIA AVENUE TO DALE AVENUE, IN THE CITY OF ANAHEIM, ACCOUNT NO. 13-4309-744-16-0000; APPROVING THE DESIGNS, PLANS, PROFILES, DRAWINGS, AND SPECIFICATIONS FOR THE CONSTRUCTION THEREOF; AUTHORIZING THE CONSTRUCTION OF SAID PUBLIC IMPROVEMENT IN ACCORDANCE WITH SAID PLANS, SPECIFICATIONS, ETC.; AND AUTHORIZING AND DIRECTING THE CITY CLERK TO PUBLISH A NOTICE INVITING SEALED PROPOSALS FOR THE CONSTRUCTION THEREOF. (Bids to be opened March 16, 1978, 2:00 P.M.) 123: RESOLUTION NO. 78R-114: 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: CONVENTION CENTER EAST PARKING LOT MODIFICATIONS, IN THE CITY OF ANAHEIM, ACCOUNT NO. 38-4855-985- 20-0893; APPROVING THE DESIGNS, PLANS, PROFILES, DRAWINGS, AND SPECIFICATIONS FOR THE CONSTRUCTION THEREOF; AUTHORIZING THE CONSTRUCTION OF SAID PUBLIC IMPROVEMENT IN ACCORDANCE WITH SAID PLANS, SPECIFICATIONS, ETC.; AND AUTHORIZING AND DIRECTING THE CITY CLERK TO PUBLISH A NOTICE INVITING SEALED PROPOSALS FOR THE CONSTRUCTION THEREOF. (Bids to be opened March 23, 1978, 2:00 P.M.) 169: RESOLUTION NO. 78R-108: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AMENDING RESOLUTION NO. 78R-13 RELATING TO INVITING SEALED PROPOSALS FOR THE RIVERDALE AVENUE SIDEWALK AND LANDSCAPING IMPROVEMENT, W/O FINCH STREET TO TUSTIN AVENUE, PROJECT ACCOUNT NOS. 12-4309-706-16-0000 AND 12-4309-708-16-0000. (Bids to be opened March 16, 1978, 2:00 P.M.) Roll Call Vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: COUNCIL MEMBERS: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Kaywood, Seymour, Kott, Roth and Thom None None The Mayor declared Resolution Nos. 78R-112 through 78R-114, both inclusive, and Resolution No. 78R-108, duly passed and adopted. 170: FINAL MAP - TRACT NO. 9960: Developer, Interstate Properties of Santa Ana; Tract located on the south side of Ball Road, east of Knott Avenue, containing 15 RS-5,000 proposed zoned lots. On motion by Councilman Thom, seconded by Councilman Seymour, 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. 9960, as recommended by the City Engineer in his memorandum dated February 6, 1978. MOTION CARRIED. 149: ORDINANCE NO. 3828: Councilman Roth offered Ordinance No. 3828 for adoption. Refer to Ordinance Book. ORDINANCE NO. 3828: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AMENDING TITLE 14, CHAPTER 14.32, SECTION 14.32.190 OF THE ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE BY ADDING THERETO SUBSECTION 14.32.190.1000 RELATING TO PARKING RESTRICTIONS. (No parking on a portion of Pinney Drive) 78-213 City Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - February 14~ 1978~ 1:30 P.M. Roll Call Vote: AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Kaywood, Seymour, Roth and Thom NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: None ABSTAINED: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Kott ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: None The Mayor declared Ordinance No. 3828 duly passed and adopted. ORDINANCE NO. 3829: Councilman Roth offered Ordinance No. 3829 for adoption. Refer to Ordinance Book. ORDINANCE NO. 3829: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AMENDING TITLE 18 OF THE ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO ZONING. (73-74-37, CL) Roll Call Vote: AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Kaywood, Seymour, Roth and Thom NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: None ABSTAINED: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Kott ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: None The Mayor declared Ordinance No. 3829 duly passed and adopted. ORDINANCE NO. 3830: Councilman Roth offered Ordinance No. 3830 for adoption. Refer to Ordinance Book. ORDINANCE NO. 3830: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AMENDING TITLE 18 OF THE ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO ZONING. (69-70-55(9), ML) Roll Call Vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: COUNCIL MEMBERS: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Kaywood, Seymour, Kott, Roth and Thom None None The Mayor declared Ordinance No. 3830 duly passed and adopted. ORDINANCE NO'. 3831: Councilman Thom offered Ordinance No. 3831 for first reading. ORDINANCE NO. 3831: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AMENDING TITLE 18 OF THE ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO ZONING. (77-78-27, RM-1200) 159: COST RELATING TO EMERGENCY SERVICES AS THE RESULT OF STORM DAMAGE: Council- woman Kaywood requested staff to submit costs involved in providing emergency City services as a result of the recent storm damage from heavy rains. She maintained that in many cases if storm drains were provided, peripheral matters would not be coming up repeatedly which had to be handled on an emergency basis as it was a very expensive way to proceed. City Manager Talley stated that he would submit the requested report as soon as cost figures were accumulated, mostly involving overtime. 78-214 City Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - February 14~ 1978~ 1:30 P.M. 175: EMERGENCY TELEPHONE NUMBER 911: Councilwoman Kaywood questioned the status of the subject emergency number with regard to Anaheim. Mr. Talley stated the latest information indicated that little action had taken place relative to the 911 number in Orange County, and the cost for installing this system was found to be substantially in excess of funds being collected. At the present time at State level, they were attempting to determine whether the cities were going to pay for the system or if rates should be raised. There was a minor phone charge at present, but not adequate to cover the service. The question was how the 911 number was going to be imposed and funded at the same time. Councilwoman Kaywood noted that San Clemente had the emergency number but she did not know how it was operating, the attendant costs, or whether the City or State was paying for the system. She wanted to know where the funds for the system were going if it was not being implemented in the 911 number. Mr. Talley stated that he would submit a report on the matter. 173: REPORT - INAUGURAL RUN~ EL CAMINO TRAIN: Councilwoman Kaywood briefed the Council on the inaugural run of the E1 Camino Train on Amtrak which took place that morning and on which she was a guest, having boarded the train in Santa Ana. The run started in San Diego and ended in Los Angeles and festivities were held in San Diego, Oceanside and San Juan Capistrano. In Fullerton, it was met with press and television coverage and from there, travelled non-stop until it reached the downtown station in Los Angeles where additional festivities were also held and Los Angeles County Supervisor Kenneth Hahn credited Supervisor Baxter Ward for his ongoing efforts in bringing the E1 Camino Train run to reality. The train itself was made up of 8 cars all different gathered from various sources and the ride was extremely smooth and very enjoyable. The train would run on a six-month trial basis for commuters. If it was not filled 80 to 90 percent with passengers it would be disbanded. Councilwoman Kaywood explained that she was sitting with Adriana Gianturco, Director of Transportation for Caltrans, and as they were passing through Anaheim, Ms. Gianturco commented she was impressed with the parking available in the Stadium area. Council- woman Kaywood emphasized there was a confluence of three freeways and three arterials and Senator Mills interjected there were also bikeways. Thus, he and Ms. Gianturco were well aware of the amenities available and hopefully it would not be too long before the City would be getting their Amtrak platform. 119: COMMENDATION OF UTILITIES DEPARTMENT AND PUBLIC WORKS FOR PERFORMANCE DURINC RECENT STORMS: Councilman Seymour stated that he was impressed with the fact that throughout all of the recent storms, Anaheim had not experienced problems anywhere near those as severe as other communities. Because of the magnitude of the rainfall, he had expected problems in some of the new housing projects in Anaheim Hills. Five or six years prior, problems had occurred during similar storms. He hoped that the City's new grading ordinance played a major role in controlling such problems. He thereupon commended the Utilities Department and Public Works Department for a job well done during the recent storms. 78-215 City Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - February 14~ 1978~ 1:30 P.M. 123: DISTRIBUTION OF REPORT FROM WARREN~ MC VEIGH & GRIFFIN - RISK MANAGEMENT AND EMPLOYEE BENEFITS AUDIT: Councilman Seymour referred to the subject report dated December 1977 wherein it was indicated at the executive seminar meeting of January 11, 1978, that copies would be available for the public. He wanted to assure that the report was totally a public document. City Manager Talley stated that a copy was given to the City Clerk. Councilman Seymour requested that a copy also be given to the Library, as well as the Chamber of Commerce. 119: COMMENDATION FOR LINEMEN AND EMERGENCY CREWS: Councilman Kott commented that during the recent storms he had an occasion to'watch the lineme~ in the Utilities Department perform. He further noted that for meritorious emergency work, more linemen were killed in the line of duty than police and firemen combined. He therefore requested staff to prepare a Resolution of Commendation/Appreciation for linemen and emergency crews for their performance during the recent storms. 114: OPPOSITION TO SB 1 PROPERTY TAX MEASURE: Councilman Roth noted the letter received by all Council Members from the Mayor of Garden Grove asking for Anaheim's support by way of a letter to respective Assemblymen, the League of Cities and other Orange County Cities, opposing the SB 1 property tax measure. Councilman Roth stated it was an excellent opportunity for the City to register its opposition. On motion by Councilman Roth, seconded by Councilman Kott, support of opposition to SB 1 by Anaheim was approved. MOTION CARRIED. 175: MEMENTO FROM UTILITIES DEPARTMENT: Mayor Thom referred to the memento given to the Public Utilities Board Members as well as other members of the City; the memento being a thermometer containing the Utilities Department seal. He thereupon requested staff to submit a report on the cost of the mementos and give him one also. ADJOURNMENT: Councilman Roth moved to adjourn. Councilwoman Kaywood seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. Adjourned: 5:50 P.M. LINDA D. ROBERTS, CITY CLERK