Loading...
1978/06/06 78-684 C. ity. Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - June 6~ 1978, 1:30 P.M. The City Council of the City of Anaheim met in regular session. PRESENT: ABSENT: PRESENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Overholt, Kaywood, Kott, Roth and Seymour COUNCIL MEMBERS: None CITY MANAGER: William O. Talley CITY ATTORNEY: William P. Hopkins CITY CLERK: Linda D. Roberts FINANCE DIRECTOR: George Ferrone CITY ENGINEER: James Maddox ASSISTANT CITY ENGINEER: William Devitt TRAFFIC ENGINEER: Paul Singer EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR: Norm Priest PARKS, RECREATION AND ARTS SENIOR STAFF ASSISTANT: Lloyd Trapp WATER SUPERINTENDENT: Ray Auerbach FIRE MARSHAL: Charles Kanenbley ASSISTANT DIRECTOR FOR ZONING: Annika Santalahti Mayor Seymour called the meeting to order and welcomed those in attendance to the Council meeting. FLAG SALUTE: Councilman E. Llewellyn Overho!t, Jr. led the assembly in the Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag. MINUTES: Approval of minutes was deferred for one week. 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 $950,498.65, in accordance with the 1977-78 Budget, were approved. 174.123: YOUTH COMMUNITY CONSERVATION AND IMPROVEMENT PROJECT: (Orange County Community Development Council, agreement ending September 30, 1978) Councilwoman Kaywood offered Resolution No. 78R-360 for adoption, as recommended in memorandum dated May 26, 1978, from Executive Director Norm Priest. Refer to Resolution Book. RESOLUTION NO. 78R-360: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM APPROVING THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF AN AGREEMENT WITH ORANGE COUNTY COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COUNCIL AND AUTHORIZING AND DIRECTING THE MAYOR AND CITY CLERK TO EXECUTE SAID AGREEMENT. Roll Call Vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: COUNCIL MEMBERS: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Overholt, Kaywood, Kott, Roth and Seymour None None The Mayor declared Resolution No. 78R-360 duly passed and adopted. 78-685 City Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - June 6~ 1978~ 1:30 P.M. 150/174: CHANGE ORDER - BANQUET ASSEMBLY TABLE AT BROOKHURST COMMUNITY CENTER: Upon questioning by Councilman Kott, Lloyd Trapp, Park, Recreation and Arts Depart- ment Senior Staff Assistant, clarified the necessity for the Change Order as outlined in detail in memorandum dated May 31, 1978, from Mr. James Ruth, Director of the Parks, Recreation and the Arts Department. On motion by Councilwoman Kaywood, seconded by Councilman Overholt, a Change Order for necessary modification to the banquet assembly table for the Brookhurst Community Center in the amount of $500, including tax, was approved. MOTION CARRIED. 128: FINANCIAL STATEMENT REVIEW FOR TEN-~NTH PERIOD ENDING APRIL 30, 1978: Mr. George Ferrone, Finance Director, clarified several points relative to the subject financial statement upon questioning by the Mayor. On motion by Councilman Roth, seconded by Councilman Seymour, the Financial Statement Review for the ten-month period ending April 30, 1978, was received and filed. MOTION CARRIED. 123/153: REPORT ON COST OF LIVING INCREASE FOR RETIRED EMPLOYEES: Mr. Edward Stringer, 701 South Emily Street, President of the Retired Public Employees Association, Chapter 40, stated that he received a copy of the subject report. He thanked the Mayor, the Council, City Manager and Personnel Director McRae for the time and effort spent on the preparation and finalization of the report. On motion by Councilman Roth, seconded by Councilwoman Kaywood, the report on the one-time cost of living increase for the retired employees was received and filed as recommended in memorandum dated May 30, 1978, from the Personnel Director. MOTION CARRIED. 144/174: ORANGE COUNTY SAFER OFF-SYSTEM {SOS) ROADS PROGRAM: (approving program allocation of funds for 1976-77 FY, $51,349; allocation of funds for 1977-78 FY, $50,755) Councilwoman Kaywood offered Resolution Nos. 78R-361 through 78R-363, both inclusive for adoption, as recommended in memorandum dated May 31, 1978, from the City Engineer. Refer to Resolution Book. RESOLUTION NO. 78R-361: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM APPROVING THE ORANGE COUNTY SAFER OFF-SYSTEM ROADS PROGRAM AND THE METHOD OF DISTRIBUTION OF FUNDS. RESOLUTION NO. 78R-362: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM, CALIFORNIA, REQUESTING THE COUNTY OF ORANGE TO ALLOCATE SAFER OFF-SYSTEM ROADS PROGRAM FUNDS FOR THE 1976-77 FISCAL YEAR. ($51,349) RESOLUTION NO. 78R-363: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE~CITY OF ANAHEIM REQUESTING THE COUNTY OF ORANGE TO ALLOCATE SAFER OFF-SYSTEM ROADS PROGRAM FUNDS FOR THE 1977-78 FISCAL YEAR. ($50,755) Roll Call Vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: COUNCIL MEMBERS: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Overholt, Kaywood, Kott, Roth and Seymour None None The Mayor declared Resolution Nos. 78R-361 through 78R-363, both inclusive, duly passed and adopted. 78-656 City Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - June 6~ 1978~ 1:30 P.M. 158: CONVEYANCE OF EXCESS PARCEL OF STATE PROPERTY TO THE CITY AT NO COST: (north of Ball Road, between Harbor and the Santa Ana Freeway) Councilman Kott offered Resolution No. 78R-364 for adoption as recommended in memorandum dated May 17, 1978, from the City Engineer. Refer to Resolution Book. RESOLUTION NO. 78R-364: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM APPROVING THE ACQUISITION OF CERTAIN STATE OF CALIFORNIA OWNED REAL PROPERTY LOCATED GENERALLY NORTH OF BALL ROAD ADJACENT TO CITRON PARK AT NO COST TO THE CITY AND AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR AND CITY CLERK TO EXECUTE A LETTER AGREEMENT FOR THE ACQUISITION OF SAID PROPERTY. Roll Call Vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: COUNCIL MEMBERS: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Overholt, Kaywood, Kott, Roth and Seymour None None The Mayor declared Resolution No. 78R-364 duly passed and adopted. 137: CATASTROPHIC PROPERTY INSURANCE FOR CITY VEHICLES STORED AT 518 SOUTH CLAUDINA: Councilman Roth moved to authorize the purchase of fire and extended coverage insurance from Allendale Mutual Insurance Company for vehicles stored at 518 South Claudina Street, as recommended in memorandum dated May 30, 1978, from Mr. Jack Love, Risk Manager. Councilwoman Kaywood seconded the motion. Before a vote was taken, Mr. Jack Love, Risk Manager, answered questions posed by both Mayor Seymour and Councilman Kott as follows: three bids were received on the subject coverage, the most favorable being the one recommended; the quotations submitted included vandalism and malicious mischief as opposed to only fire coverage. At the conclusion of discussion, Councilman Seymour offered an alternate motion to continue the matter for one week during which time the Risk Manager would obtain quotations for fire coverage only instead of an all risk quotation. Councilman Kott seconded the motion. Thereupon, Councilman Roth withdrew his motion and Councilwoman Kaywood withdrew her second. A vote was then taken on the alternate motion. MOTION CARRIED. 180: WORKERS' COMPENSATION - EXCESS COVERAGE: On motion by Councilman Roth, seconded by Councilman Kott, the Risk Manager was authorized to submit the City's Excess Workers' Compensation policy, $5 million excess of $5 million, for short-rate cancellation, as recommended in memorandum dated May 30, 1978, from the Risk Manager. MOTION CARRIED. Before concluding, Mr. Love noted that a correction was necessary in his report, last paragraph--the annual savings should have been reflected as $11,098 instead of $11,162. 78-687 City Ha~ll, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - June 6~ 1978~ 1:30 P.M. 180: TEMPORARY INSURANCE COVERAGE: Mayor Seymour stated it was his under- standing that relative to liability insurance, the City had $10 million worth of excess coverage and that the premium on that amount was approximately $600,000--Mr. Love clarified it was approximately $800,000. Also, Warren, McVeigh & Griffin recommended $20 million of excess coverage in the event a dam burst or a catastrophe occurred at the Stadium or Convention Center, creating a large liability. Further, the City had an opportunity to pick up that excess $10 million (the second $10 million) at a rate 10 percent less than what the first $10 million cost. He was concerned as to why no action had been taken to pursue the matter. Mr. Jack Love first confirmed the Mayor's understanding and indicated that he had submitted a memorandum to the City Manager on the subject for resubmission to the Council. He had evaluated the matter and had serious questions regarding the nature of the exposure itself, cost, etc. The Mayor emphasized his concern relative to the time factor involved wherein the price quoted on the premium had been extended only to June 15, 1978; Mr. Love stated that although Mr. Griffin indicated that the City was under-insured in the area of liability, how m~ch insurance the City really needed remained to be answered, especially in regard to dams. He did not consider it a serious problem necessitating the purchase of insurance immediately without thorough evaluation. After a brief discussion relative to insurance costs for the period of time to September 1, 1978, he directed the Risk Manager to be prepared in one week to discuss temporary insurance coverage, as well as submit a written report to facilitate the Council's decision. 106/142: DISCUSSION AND CLARIFICATION RELATIVE TO STATUS OF CITY MANAGER'S ADMINISTRATIVE WORK PAPERS: Mayor Seymour stated that he and City Manager Talley had a confrontation the previous week at a City Management meeting over his (Seymour's) request for work papers relative to a contingency plan in the event of passage of Proposition 13. He believed he was being deprived as an elected official of documentation that might assist him in doing a better job for the people of the City. As a result, he asked the City Attorney for his opinion and interpretation of the City Charter since there seemed to be a misunderstanding as to what it em- powered regarding the ability of a member or a majority of the Council to gain access to certain work papers. The answer was provided in his memorandum dated May 31, 1978, copies of which were also distributed to the Council. Thus, he wanted to clarify publicly what information a Council person had a right by the Charter to obtain and what information a majority of the City Council by action had a right to obtain. In order to set a basis for clarification and discussion, he wished to interpret, in his own words, the City Attorney's opinion and if there was disagreement, he wanted it clarified publicly so that no elected official in the future would be faced with such a confrontation. In essence, the City Attorney answered four questions: (1) Can the City Council order the City Manager to furnish copies of certain administrative work papers, and in this particular case, budget work papers? 78-688 City ~a~l, Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - June 6~ 1978, 1:30 P.M. INTERPRETATION: Yes, the City Council or a majority could ask for such budget work papers, and the City Manager would respond by furnishing copies of such papers, not originals. If he had to give up the originals, this might preclude the Manager from carrying out his duties. (2) Can an individual member of the City Council order the City Manager to furnish copies of certain administrative work papers, i.e., budget work papers, to such Council Member? INTERPRETATION: It was clear in the City Attorney's opinion that an individual member could not do that unless the City Manager was willing to do so. If he was unwilling, the individual could not obtain the documentation, but a majority vote of the Council could require that it be provided. (3) Do budget work papers constitute public records which must be made available to the general public if disclosed to the City Council or an individual Council Member? INTERPRETATION: The Mayor first explained the reason he raised the question was due to the fact that the City Manager felt if he gave such work papers to all or an individual Council Member, it would be public information and have to be treated as such. The City Attorney said no, it would not be a public record and all the City Manager need do was to stamp the papers "honfidential" and tha~ confidentiality would be passed on as the responsibility of the person receiving the papers. Thus, the City Manager would not have to be concerned with the public nature of distributing such work papers. (4) Would such an order--meaning to furnish work papers--interfere with execution by the City Manager of his powers and duties and therefore be in violation of Section 607 of the City Charter (Administrative Interference portion)? INTERPRETATION: The Mayor conceded that aspect was much more complex and thus cited some conditions that might exist in order to be certain he understood the opinion given. If a member of the Council asked a department head or the City Manager a question--that is, if a call were placed to the Police Chief relative to a certain matter, the Chief would not have to respond, but if he wished to do so, he could, resulting in no administrative interference. Therefore, the Council person would have the right to make the inquiry. Likewise, if the City Manager were asked on behalf of a majority of the Council for whatever papers he might have, no matter how raw in form, the City Manager was bound by the City Charter to pro- vide such information. As well, if a majority of the Council asked the City Manager to obtain from a department head certain information, even if that information were still in the posession of the department head, the City Manager had the responsibility of carrying out his duties as expressed in the Charter by obtaining same and deliver- ing it to the entire City Council. City Attorney William P. Hopkins stated that the Mayor's interpretation of his opinions was correct as articulated. City Manager Talley stated he would not speak to the interpretation of the City Attorney's opinion, but as far as how the City Manager operated, he agreed with the Mayor. He worked for the City Council and other than his checkbook, anything in his desk that the majority of the Council wanted to see, they were welcome to it. 78-689 City Hall~ .Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - June 6~ 1978~ 1:30 P.M. Relative to the discussion he had with the Mayor, he was operating under the basis that department heads had confided in him certain information that he thought he was going to present to the Council on June 13, 1978, if Proposition 13 passed. He assured them that he would treat the information in confidence until (1) there was a declaration from the voters, and (2) they had a chance to review it. There was never any indication on his part that whatever the majority of the Council wanted they could not have. As well, if an individual Council Member wanted anything that he felt was within the realms stated by the Mayor, that was acceptable. If there was a question as to whether it should be distri- buted without consulting, he would probably distribute it to everybody in order to be as open as possible. The confusion may have arisen since in past years when the Council asked for information on the budget, it had always been Council policy to file a copy with the City Clerk. He always considered anything that the staff prepared as a finished product a public document. If the City Attorney stated that was not the case, then that was a legal distinction he would have to define. He never thought that the budget itself and the information furnished the Council for their decisions thereon could be covered up. He (Talley) preferred when he distributed amendments to give those to the City Clerk, but if the Council did not want to do so, he did not have any problem. The only situation with which he might disagree might be where the Council might make an inquiry of a department head because he would either be transgressing verbal or written orders from the City Manager. He believed that would be strictly administrative interference and thereupon gave a hypothetical example of same. The Mayor repeated his interpretation of the rights of an individual Council Member which he believed the City Manager misunderstood; that being that if a department head did not wish to answer a question, a majority vote of the Council to direct him to furnish the requested information would be necessary. Mr. Talley conceded that under those circumstances, he misunderstood, but he wished to emphasize that when a department head was asked a question by a Council person, they felt a pressure to reply if at all possible since the Council was their boss. There was a pervading incentive in the back of their minds to figure out a way to answer the question and to the satisfaction of the Council person. Mayor Seymour stated that he would like to go on record wherein--unless he saw some attempt being made by a requesting Council person to do something that might injure the City, his attitude toward any request of any of his colleagues on the Council was that they were entitled to gain all the knowledge possible to seek every opportunity to better educate themselves. As long as the request was rea- sonable, he would go along with whatever they wanted even though technically it might require a vote. He hoped that his colleagues would pay the same respect to whatever his request might be. Councilman Kott stated that Mr. Talley had been quoted as stating that many recommendations had been made by department heads, but he (Talley) considered them unfeasible and there were cuts he would not recommend. He believed that the department heads should know best what was going on in their departments. Thus, he wanted to know what those recommendations were and be able to call that department head to ascertain what the City Manager did not go along with. City Hall, Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - June 6, 1978, 1:30 P.M. 78-690 Discussion followed between Councilman Kott and Mr. Talley wherein Mr. Talley explained that in the final analysis, he was responsible for any recommendations made, and he thereupon gave examples of the need for better coordination between departments and pointed to the consequences if such coordination did not occur. The Mayor stated the point that Councilman Kott was attempting to emphasize was the same as his. The reasons given by him (Talley) for not wanting to disclose certain information was that (1) it had not been finalized and (2) it could cause a negative impact on employee morale. The reasons he (Seymour) asked for the information last week were two-fold: (1) he wanted to prepare himself as far in advance as possible relative to the budget even though he knew the infor- mation would not be conclusive and (2) in the event Proposition 13 did not pass, he would never see the recommendations that might contain some good cuts that he would like to have implemented, discussed or debated. Mr. Talley stated that his greatest fear lay in the fact that misstatements, which on a number of occasions occurred because of a lack of total understanding of the process of department heads, might be conveyed, and he thus wanted to get the complete story. A point had been raised, if the list was prepared and Proposition 13 did not pass, it was necessary to know the Council's policy. If the Council wanted the report they would get it privately or publicly, however they wished. If a majority of the Council did not want the list and one Council person demanded it, then the Manager should not be put in that dilemma, and the Council person should merely ask for it. After further discussion, Councilman Kott suggested that the area under discussion, that is the request of one Council person or a majority of the Council relative to such matters, might be an area in which the Charter Review Committee should become involved. As was pointed out, each Council person was interested in pro- viding everyone in the City with as much services, as possible, as economically as possible. He maintained that each should have a right to ask for any documenta- tion that might lead to that conclusion. Regarding what was confidential and what was not, he did not believe that to be the primary consideration. He pointed out that Mr. Talley had released documents before marked confidential, but merely because a document was released, did not necessarily mean it had to be public. He emphasized that this was an area that should be evaluated and if, in fact, it was what the Charter said, then the people who designed the Charter overlooked an important aspect. Councilman Overholt stated that he agreed with the Mayor's interpretation of the City Attorney's opinions, but he wished to expand on the fourth point. The partic- ular fact situation involved was a request that certain documents represented to be in the custody of the City Manager be turned over immediately even though the City Manager stated he did not have an opportunity to review that documentation. He submitted that the test of reasonableness was something to be considered in whether or not the City Council was interfering with the City Manager's powers and duties which they could not do. Regarding the fact situation, if the Council (majority of 3) requested the Manager to turn over certain documents in his posses- sion without an opinion, then reasonable time should be given to assemble documents, copy them and turn them over and if he wished, in his transmittal, state that he 78-691 ~ty Ha~l~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - June 6~ 1978~ 1:30 P.M. had not reviewed those documents. If the Council requested the Manager to turn over documentation in his posession with an opinion, then he should have reason- able time in which to do so, form an opinion, transmit the documents with his opinion, which action might take a little longer. City Attorney Hopkins stated that agreed with his opinion and the doctrine of reasonableness applied to any matter. Councilman Overholt concluded that out of a sense of fairness to the parties supplying the documents, that they have time to do whatever they had to do. If he received the documents, he would also like to know the circumstances under which they were submitted. He believed the City Attorney's opinion clearly stated that the Council, by at least 3 votes, was entitled to see copies of the documentation with or without opinion. Mr. Talley stated there was no concern on his part relative to the clarification made. Councilman Overholt believed it needed to be clarified because that was essentially the problem. 106: QUESTIONS ON RESOURCE ALLOCATION PLAN: Mayor Seymour stated that the Council originally planned to conduct the first public hearing on the BUdget today. He advised the City Charter requires the Council to receive the Budget prior to setting the date for public hearing thereon and to cause to be published a notice thereof not less than 10 days prior to said hearing. Since the timing was such this date that the Charter requirements had not yet been met, the Council was precluded from discussing the Budget in a formal public hearing mode. However, he did have ten questions which he wished to have answered although he did not expect those answers at today's meeting since department heads were not available. He commented first that he had spent many hours in reviewing the Budget, but even at that, he did not understand it. It left little or no tracks, and he would not be capable of voting on it one way or the other the way it was submitted. His questions were as follows after which clarification or comments were given by City Manager Talley: 1. Page A-3 - Budget Message - Fiscal Summary~ Paragraph 1: Relative to the Water Utility Fund, where in the Budget did it reflect the water utility fund balance of working capital and what had that balance been for the last 3 years? 2. Page A-3 - Budget Approach: The approach had been changed to reflect a one year plus two ensuing years programs. Although he believed that the intent was good providing longer range planning, he wanted to know, if the Council approved the project or an amended form of same, would they also be giving tacit approval of the following 2 years? Mr. Talley explained that the intent on the 2-year program was totally to give the Council and citizenry a broader perspective of the implications of their decisions. It was merely an attempt to provide the Council with greater flexi- bility, but there was no obligation attached to it. He believed with reasonable- ness, however, it could be anticipated that if there were no comments by the Council, it would basically be assumed next year that the new program was acceptable. The Mayor reiterated he did not want anyone to interpret that he was giving tacit approval to the following years. 78-692 City Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - June 6~ 1978~ 1:30 P.M. 3. Page A-3 - Program Development: Relative to CETA positions, where in the Budget did it reflect how much City dollars were spent to supplement CETA positions? 4. Page A-3 - Program Development: Where did the Budget reflect how many CETA positions were permanent? Mr. Talley stated that was not reflected in the Budget because there were none. He thereupon gave his definition of a permanent position as requested by Mayor Seymour as one that he would recommend the Council furnish with General Funds if the CETA program ended tomorrow. Mayor Seymour emphasized his ongoing concern that CETA positions were filling permanent positions. His interpretation of a CETA position was one filled by somebody doing a job that was necessary to the fulfillment of the activity of a department; a temporary person doing a very temporary job that would not exist beyond a given period of time. Mr. Talley stated that was not entirely true; although many CETA positions fqllowed the Mayor's definition, many others consisted of work where the City could continue an expanded level of service for some period of time, not temporarily. Councilman Seymour expressed his concern that upon the passage of Proposition 13, Mr. Talley would be recommending the elimination of CETA positions while at the same time being placed in a position of telling the Council that services were ~going to suffer as a result of that action. If so, he predicted another confron- tation would take place. Mr. Talley stated clearly there was no question in his mind that he would be informing the Council that service levels would be cut because of the elimination of CETA employees. After further discussion on the matter, Mr. Talley stated that he would supply the Mayor with a report on the cost of CETA by fund. 5. Page A-4 - Program Development - Paragraph 3: Statement: "for comparative purposes, the Budget is down nine (9) personnel in administratively recommended positions." The Mayor wanted to know where in the document the 9-person reduction was reflected? 6. Page A-6 - Finance Charges: When was it projected that the Utility Billing System would be revised; an estimate of the cost; did anyone else have an estimate of the cos~? 7. Page A-6 - Finance Charges: Where in the Budget did it reflect an additional ~$200,000 of interest income as the result of the Moneymax Software Computerized Data Processing Program? 8. Page A-6 - Finance Charges: The message stated that another $40,000 of revenue would be generated as the result of increasing the monitoring of new businesses and business licenses. Where did the Budget reflect this additional $40,000? 78-693 City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - June 6~ 1978~ 1:30 P.M. 9. Page A-6: Where in the Budget did it reflect $100,000 savings in reduced inventory levels as indicated? 10. Page A-9 - Park Services: Relative to capital improvements in parks, where in the Budget did it reflect an expenditure of $1,583,000 in park improvements and for what parks? Mr. Talley stated that the only question for which a specific answer would not be provided in the Budget document was relative to inventory controls (9) be- cause the objective was to automate that aspect and the figure given was felt to be achievable. 151: HOME OCCUPATION PERMITS AND CHILD DAY CARE CENTERS: City Attorney Hopkins briefed the Council on memorandum dated May 25, 1978, (on file in the City Clerk's Office) recommending adoption of proposed revisions to Home Occupation and Day Care Center Ordinances as outlined. Councilman Kott offered Ordinance No. 3868 for first reading. ORDINANCE NO. 3868: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM REPEALING SECTIONS 18.02.052.040 OF CHAPTER 18.02; 18.22.050.030 OF CHAPTER 18.22; 18.23.050.020 OF CHAPTER 18.23; 18.24.050.020 OF CHAPTER 18.24; 18.25.050.020 OF CHAPTER 18.25; 18.26.050.020 OF CHAPTER 18.26; 18.27.050.020 OF CHAPTER 18.27; 18.31.050.020 OF CHAPTER 18.31; 18.32.050.020 OF CHAPTER 18.32; AND 18.34.050.020 OF CHAPTER 18.34, TITLE 18, OF THE ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE AND ADDING NEW SECTIONS IN THEIR PLACE AND STEAD, AND ADDING NEW SECTIONS 18.21.030.035 AND 18.21.050.105 TO CHAPTER 18.21; 18.22.030.035 TO CHAPTER 18.22; 18.23.030.035 TO CHAPTER 18.23; 18.24.030.035 TO CHAPTER 18.24; 18.25.030.025 TO CHAPTER 18.25; 18.26.030.035 TO CHAPTER 18.26; 18.27.030.025 TO CHAPTER 18.27; 18.31.030.025 TO CHAPTER 18.31; 18.32.030.025 TO CHAPTER 18.32; AND 18.34.030.025 TO CHAPTER 18.34, TITLE 18, OF THE ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO ZONING. Councilwoman Kaywood asked for clarification relative to the new Code Section that would be added (.043) limiting vehicular traffic to 3 vehicles or 6 pedes- trians and .045 relating to outdoor storage or activity. She pointed out that with reference to outdoor activity, there could be a conflict relative to home nurseries. Mr. Hopkins stated that on the former question, it would have to be a matter of merely a "good faith" evaluation of the situation as to whether the vehicles and pedestrians were friends or business-related. On the latter, he agreed that a correction was necessary relative to outdoor activity in that "other than nurseries" should be included as Councilwoman Kaywood suggested. Mayor Seymour also questioned the 3 vehicles and 6 pedestrians that would be allowed and stated there could be 6 people per vehicle, 18 per day, coming and going which could evolve into the same problem as that experienced in a recent zoning petition to allow tutoring. His concern was that particular portion of the proposed Code Section was too flexible and could create a future problem. Councilman Overholt expressed the same concern and maintained if the ordinance was going to mean anything, some formula that was reasonable had to be developed. 78-694 .City Hall..~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - June 6~ 1978~ 1:30 P.M. Mr. Hopkins stated that further study would be made relative to that particular point and a recommendation for modification would be submitted. Jean Glenn, President of Orange County Day Care Centers, 2151 East Pioneer, Fullerton, first asked if the 6 pedestrians were exclusive of the members of the household. Mr. Hopkins confirmed that the 6 persons would be those connected with the home activity and not residents. Ms. Glenn then asked in the case of a particular family day care situation, could an A.M. child be replaced by a P.M. child if neither of the children were ever at the residence concurrently and did not exceed the numbers allowed. Mr. Hopkins stated it would appear that the number of children would be limited by the figure given and a substitution of children could lead to abuse where there could be a constant changing and thus the purpose defeated. If there were more than 6 children, a conditional use permit would be required. Ms. Glenn explained that she had a unique situation in one of the homes in Anaheim where there was a mother who needed child care service 5 mornings a week, but not in the afternoon, and another who had need of service in the afternoon only, but the 2 children involved were never there together. She wanted clarification as to whether or not the provider would be in violation if there was one child in the morning which would make 6 and a different one which would stili make 6 in the afternoon. Mr. Hopkins stated if there were more than 6 children it would require a conditional use permit. Ms. Glenn pointed out that a fee of $125 would be necessary for the conditional use permit for just that one afternoon child. Mayor Seymour then explained the recent problem which had occurred resulting in the proposed ordinance amendment. He realized the dilemma with which Ms. Glenn was faced and asked for input from her that would assist the City in what they were trying to accomplish, while at the same time giving protection to providers. MS. Glenn stated that the only problem she could see lay in the fact that there were needs in the community for part-time service of the nature under discussion. If a provider was limited to counting a 2-hour child a day as a full-time child, a limit was then being placed on the amount of service that could be provided to the community by imposing a CUP fee. It made it difficult for the provider to stay within the law and not go "underground". She agreed to return in one week as suggested by the Mayor and would give some thought to the matter. Councilwoman Kaywood stated the reason the previous problem arose revolved around the fact that the particular use was being conducted on a smali closed residential street. If it had been an arterial or through street, in her opinion, it would not have been a problem. 114: NO CITY COUNCIL MEETING - W~mK OF JULY 3~ 1978: Councilwoman Kaywood moved that no Council meeting be held on Wednesday, July 5, 1978 (Tuesday, July 4, 1978, observed as legal holiday). Councilman Roth seconded the motion. 78-6~ 5 City Hall, Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - June 6~ 1978~ 1:30 P.M. Before a vote was taken, Mayor Seymour stated that he was opposed since all public offices were open on July 5, 1978. Councilwoman Kaywood pointed out that the Charter stated the City should have two meetings a month whereas the Council met every Tuesday. Since a holiday fell on the usual meeting day, postponing the matter to the next week would give an opportunity for staff to catch up, especially relative to Council minutes. After a brief discussion on the matter, a vote was taken on the foregoing motion. Councilmen Seymour and Kott voted "No". MOTION CARRIED. 167: TRAFFIC SIGNAL ASSESSMENT FEES: (Discussion of Council Policy No. 214) Councilman Kott stated that a number of complaints had been recieved relative to the new traffic signal fee, thus he invited a number of concerned people to the meeting to discuss the matter. He hoped that as an outcome, staff would be directed to restudy the ordinance and come back with recommendations that would either remove or mitigate the effects of the ordinance in areas where new con- struction was occurring, but where there were already existing signals. Mr. Dan Rowland, Dan L. Rowland and Associates, 1000 West La Palma, stated that relative to the impact of the traffic signal assessment on the commercial element of the private sector, the shear weight of numbers, like many policies and ordi- nances that were drafted, were not readily ascertained until specific applications were made. Two clients of his firm were making application for building permits shortly--Anaheim Memorial Hospital, rebuilding existing facilities, and West Anaheim Community, absorbing abandoned Garden Park Hospital. The impact in dollars increased the building permit fee by $90,000 and that increase could only be re- flected and absorbed in increased patient care cost. Both hospitals were in well developed areas of the cormnunity where all intersections impacted by their activity were presently signalized and paid for, in one instance as a construction cost item by one of the hospitals. He maintained that the impact relative to West Anaheim Community would be less because they were absorbing another hospital; the impact from Anaheim Memorial Hospital would also be less because a better traffic pattern would evolve, thus removing the impact from the corner intersection and placing it on a minor street. Mr. Rowland continued that the cost of traffic signal assessment was distressing to commercial activities. A single-family home paid $36 as a one-time assessment; an industrial building, $36 per 1,000 square feet, and a commercial building, $363 per 1,000 square feet. It was a heavy cost for commerce to bear. He there- upon suggested such assessments be evaluated. If a project was going to bring in a tremendous traffic impact in a portion of the community that did not presently have signals, the community's past commitment in having the developer pay his own way might apply. However, when it was a matter of remodeling, adding to, or refurbishing, the economic value of the project and the jobs created far outweighed a potential traffic signal impact. He thereupon submitted a letter from Anaheim Memorial Hospital as well as West Anaheim Community Hospital and urged the Council to give relief relative to the very-difficult-to-finance traffic signal assessment. 78-696 City Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - June 6~ 1978~ 1:30 P.M. Dr. Richard Garabedian, 641 South Peralta Hills Drive, stated that approximately two months prior, his property was condemned by the City to permit the widening of Harbor Boulevard. Since that time, new plans had been drawn for another office also on Harbor (Harbor at North) approximately 3 blocks to the north. In so doing, he was informed that he had to pay $1,500 for another traffic signal which was already in front of where his proposed office was going to be. There was also a signal at the location he was leaving. He emphasized that it was not a just assessment since (1) due to condemnation, he was forced to move and (2) he was being assessed another fee and it would be a hardship. As well, there would be no additional impact relative to traffic flow. He asked that the fee be waived or the traffic signal law revised giving relief from such assessments. Mr. Doug Roberson, 2775 West Ball Road, stated that in his case, his was a 26-unit motel built next to Anaheim Stadium wherein the fee was $4,300. Consid- ering the minor traffic flow from his property, he believed it would be difficult to tell any difference with that of the Stadium. Mr. Earl Garth, 1650 South Harbor, stated he recently applied for an addition of 262 square feet to his motel wherein there was a $43 building fee and $363 for the new traffic signal assessment. He pointed out that there were many traffic signals on Harbor Boulevard and his was just a minor addition, yet he was paying the same amount as though adding 1,000 square feet. He believed that a pro-ration formula should be devised per square foot under 1,000 square feet. Mr. Earl Nellesen, (Earl's Plumbing) 1232 Westmont Drive, stated that he was a native of Anaheim and had seen it grow into a large city. There was still a great deal of land that needed to be filled with the right businesses. He main- tained, however, that businesses and jobs would be lost by the imposition of such assessments. Mr. Hank Wesslin, 9382 Thistle, stated he was building a 37-unit motel at 2255 Lincoln Avenue, and to his surpise a $5,800 fee had been added when he went to get his building permit. He was concerned as to how the fee would be paid. Mr. Ralph Boethling, Redondo Beach, employed by the Disneyland Hotel, spoke in opposition to the new ordinance and suggested that the City Manager study it to ascertain what could be done to change the funding of traffic signals. He further stated that it was in the public's best interest to stimulate the capital investment in Anaheim, but he believed the assessment of the tax on traffic signals to be counter-productive. From his standpoint, the only way the cost of such fees could be recovered would be to increase room fees which would have the potential possibility of reducing the competitive effect the tourism industry had in'Anaheim as opposed to San Francisco, Los Angeles and other cities with whom Disneyland Hotel competed for conventions and tourism. In areas already adequately signalized, such as Disneyland, relief should be given from the tax. He reiterated that a restudy of the matter be undertaken. Mr. Paul Singer, Traffic Engineer, stated that the traffic signal assessment fund was one of the results of the studies undertaken by the Capital Improvement Committee. At that time, staff presented a long-range plan for traffic signals throughout the City in order to ascertain methods of financing. One possibility was the Map Act 78-697 City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - June 6, 1978~ 1:30 P.M. permitting assessment through map recordation. Trip generation by uses was also considered and these were boiled down into three categories for the sake of simplicity--residential, commercial, industrial. Based directly on traffic generation, they came up with fees in accordance with capital improvement needs necessary over the next 10 years. They took the fixed number of $6.5 million needed to maintain the system and subsequently took the number of new projected buildings planned to be constructed, put these two together, and took 75 percent of that as the basis. An extensive study was conducted and many hours spent with the CIC, as well as considering what other cities were doing. Orange County cities had instituted similar fees either through building permits, tract maps or acreages. Anaheim had made considerable progress in collecting fees to the point where it was able to catch up to where it had been lagging in not only construction of new signals, but also traffic signal modification. Presently there was a list with 23 items on it covering long-range improvements ranging in cost from $100,000 to $500,000--$600,000 per item. Relative to the signal at Harbor and North Street, it was not interconnected, but a free running fixed timer which had been in opera- tion for at least 25 years and that machine and system had to be improved. Traffic problems were growing and the streets were not capable of processing traffic safely and efficiently without signal modification, and that was where the money was going to be spent. Councilwoman Kaywood did not believe that businesses would go elsewhere considering the benefits of being located in Anaheim. She was at a loss to know where the funds needed would come from if the new assessments were cut or changed at this point. Mayor Seymour believed that it was necessary to consider a refinement of the present formula to more equitably distribute the cost of signalization. There were situations where (1) a waiver system was necessary enabling further consid- eration of certain cases and (2) study be given to an amendment of the ordinance so that the commercial sector was not receiving such a large "bite". MOTION: Councilman Kott stated he could understand staff's concern relative to the traffic signal fund, but as pointed out, inequities existed and thus a more equitable solution should be sought. He did not believe it was in the best interest of the City to allow the taxation to be placed on business, particularly where traffic signals already existed and/or the entity did not contribute to the traffic burden. Councilman Kott thereupon moved that staff be directed to restudy the policy and submit recommendations to the Council in three weeks. Within this period, any person pulling building permits who felt that a waiver was justified would be placed on the Council agenda to ask for relief with case to be decided individually. Councilman Seymour seconded the motion. Before a vote was taken, Councilwoman Kaywood stated she was certain a great number of people had already paid fees under the new assessment policy and questioned what their position might be. Councilman Seymour stated that he was one of those people and he did not expect a rebate of any kind. He maintained that the City had to hold fast to decisions made in the past and those people who paid fees previously would have to live with the situation. However, if the City had an ordinance that was negative and driving business away, it was necessary to come to grips with it. 78-698 C, ity Hall, Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES, -,June 6~ 1978~ 1:30 P.M. Councilman Roth agreed with the Mayor and maintained that considering the testimony given, the ordinance needed to be reevaluated. Councilman Overholt stated he supported the motion, but disagreed philosophically that it made any difference as to the degree of the development of the traffic control system in the particular area of development. The concept of the ordinance had to do with raising the monies to develop a traffic control system throughout the entire City. He supported the motion because it was obvious from the testimony given that the ordinance was unfair. Council discussion followed at the conclusion of which a vote was taken on the foregoing motion. MOTION CARRIED. Before concluding, Mr. Singer emphasized for informational purposes that the City was using perhaps the least expensive control mechanism and they were not "gold gilding" the City's traffic signals. As well, the City would probably not need a computerized system because the signals were self-sufficient in their operation. CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING - REMOVAL OF SPECIMEN TREES: Application by Frederick M. Culmann, requesting removal of 18 specimen trees on property located at 244 South Owens Drive. The City Planning Commission declared that the subject project be exempt from the requirement to prepare an environmental impact report pursuant to the proviSions of the California Environmental Quality Act since there would be no significant individual or cumulative adverse environmental impact due to.this proposal, and further approved removal of the specimen trees. A review of the decision of the Planning Commission was requested by Councilman Kott, and public hearing scheduled May 30, 1978, and continued to this date. Mrs. Lourdes Ratanavaraha, 244 South Owens, stated that she and her husband were the property owners and they were requesting permission and approval to remove some specimen trees on their property. They bought the property because they were attracted by the number of trees it contained. However, in order to be able to build their house, driveway and pool, some of the trees needed to be removed. As well, there were trees they considered unsafe and dangerous due to their con- dition. She then posted a site plan of the property for further clarification. Mr. Phil JouJon-Roche, 21517 Mohler Place, stated that he and the applicant dis- cussed the matter between themselves earlier in the meeting. He was not opposed to the house, but with the 3 or 4 trees to the rear of the property that would have to be removed. They jointly agreed that those trees could be saved by jogging the retaining wall one way or the other, but some arrangement Would have to be worked out with their neighbors. At present, the wall was going right through the center line of the trees. He also maintained that the trees were sufficiently far away from the other improvements on the property so that they could remain without jeopardy. Mr. Joujon-Rouche posted another map similar to the applicant's which had been marked by the developer at the Planning Commission hearing showing the trees to be removed in red. He reiterated that the 3 trees to the rear of the property on the property line could be saved. 78-699 City Hall~ Anaheim; California - COUNCIL MINUTES - June 6~ 1978~ 1:30 P.M. Mayor Seymour asked Mrs. Ratanavaraha if she would or could agree to save the 3 trees in question. Mrs. Ratanavaraha answered affirmatively and further stated that she had no objections to the request because they wanted to save as many trees as they could. Councilman Roth noted that the attendant documentation indicated that no one was in opposition at the Planning Commission hearing. He preferred that such matters be resolved beforehand and believed it imperative that interested people such as Mr. Joujon-Rouche give input to HACMAC and the Planning Commission so as to avoid time, money and effort necessary to set matters for a public hearing. There being no further persons who wished to speak either in favor or in opposition, the Mayor closed the public hearing. Miss Santalahti stated her understanding of the proposed action to be that the 4 trees (not 3 as stated) at the northeast corner of the property as shown in the plan would be retained. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT - NEGATIVE DECLARATION: On motion by Councilman Kott, seconded by Councilwoman Kaywood, the City Council finds that this project would have no significant individual or cumlative adverse environmental impact and is, therefore, exempt from the requirement to prepare an EIR. MOTION CARRIED. Councilman Kott moved to approve the removal of specimen trees as requested with the exception of the 4 trees on the northeasterly portion of the property as stipulated. Councilman Roth seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. Before concluding, Mr. Joujon-Rouche stated that prior to the hearing and request for action, there had been evidence of tree removal and he had photos of trees that had been cut on the property. That was true not only on the lot in question, but also generally on several lots up hill on the Owens property. Someone was prematurely cutting in preparation for building. He did not have evidence that the present owners cut the trees, but they could have been cut before. It was apparent that there had been cutting of specimen trees without any permits, a hearing or whatever was necessary. It was further apparent that the cutting was not being done by amateurs; tree services had been seen cutting the trees and stumps were being removed with fairly heavy equipment. Mayor Seymour asked staff, considering the alleged violation of the tree ordinance in the area, how the ordinance might be enforced. Miss Santalahti explained that when such allegations occurred, they tried to verify their accuracy, but the most that could be done if someone was in the process of removing trees was to get them to file a tree removal'plan. If the tree was down, however, there was nothing.that could be done to restore it al- though they issue a citation and take those responsible to court. Presently, there was no fine involved and no way to force replacement of the trees. City Attorney Hopkins stated that a review of the ordinance would be advisable including the addition of penalties for violation. He would study the matter and make recommendations accordingly. 78-~00 City Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - June 6~ 1978~ 1:30 P.M. Councilwoman Kaywood stated that such tree removal was a dreadful problem and relayed a case on which she received a call wherein trees were standing when the woman left her home in the morning and when she returned, the trees were gone. On motion by Councilwoman Kaywood, seconded by Councilman Kott, the City Attorney was directed to make the tree ordinance more formidable relative to penalties for its violation. MOTION CARRIED. PUBLIC HEARING - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 1831: Application by Lloyd E. Klein, to permit commercial uses and a restaurant on proposed ML zoned property located on the south side of La Palma Avenue, between White Star and Armando Street with code waiver of minimum number of parking spaces. The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC78-101 declared that the subject project be exempt from the requirement to prepare an environmental impact report pursuant to the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act since there would be no significant individual or cumulative adverse environ- mental impact due to this project, and further denied Conditional Use Permit No. 1831. The action of the Planning Commission was appealed by the Agent for the applicant, and public hearing scheduled this date. Miss Santalahti described the location and surrounding land uses. She outlined the findings given in the staff report which was submitted to and considered by the City Planning Commission. The Mayor asked if the applicant or applicant's agent was present and desirous of being heard. Mr. Richard Broadway, Director of Projects, Income Property Services (IPS), Agent for the applicant, stated that after reviewing the history of the other developments mentioned by Miss Santalahti, they performed studies, marketing surveys, etc. and believed what they proposed, an industrial park with quasi, but industrial related uses on lots 2 and 7, would result in an inter-related type of business park. In working with the City Planning staff and in meeting with the Redevelopment Agency staff over the past several months, they believed they had satisfied staff's desires and worked out some of the problems they felt existed. He considered it safe to say that staff was comfortable with the plan they proposed. Mr. Broadway then described the physical characteristics of the buildings which IPS would not only develop and construct, but also manage in the years to come just as they did with their multiple-family developments. They had taken consid- erable time and effort in the planning stage and assembled an excellent team of consultants which he named to develop the property. Mr. Broadway then introduced Mr~ Ray Olmsheid, Coldwell Banker, 4040 McArthur Boulevard, Newport Beach, who stated that they had been working with IPS for 6 months on the development wherein they had performed market research, surveys 78-701 Ci..ty Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - June 6~ 1978, 1:30 P.M. and studies within Anaheim to determine the highest and best use for the subject property. Parcels 2 and 7 proposed for commercial development (permitted in an ML zone subject to a conditional use permit) connoted retail business such as men's shops, etc., found in shopping centers. Mr. Olmsheid emphasized that that was not what they were proposing, but instead a commercial project to service households mostly in the Anaheim area and up and down the Riverside Corridor. The furniture manufacturer, wholesaler, distributor, seller, was a unique person in that a large space was needed for big ticket items such as sofas, chairs, dining room sets and the like, but the dealer was unable to afford the high commercial rates of a commercial shopping center. In order to accommodate the public and to keep selling prices down, these people who did some manufacturing in their facilities, as well as 50 to 60 percent warehousing, also sold out of these facilities. Staff indicated 34 percent of the project was devoted to commercial. Out of that commercial, excluding the restaurant, over 50 percent was in warehousing, assembly, packaging and the like. Mr. Olmsheid continued that one of the problems facing the City of Anaheim was relative to the project's impact on parking. They had done extensive study on the matter, a copy of which was distributed to the Council, wherein they paid particular attention to 2 new developments--the Laguna Hills Commerce Center and the Fountain Valley Industrial Park approximately 15 miles apart off the San Diego Freeway. They personally interviewed 23 tenants located in an average size space of about 15,000 square feet, all furniture related. They too would only accommodate furniture related uses on the lots in question. He then elaborated upon some of the results of the study: most large ticket item purchases were husband and wife decisions made in the evening when traffic counts were down and on weekends when there was very little traffic in industrial parks. In the small- er shops of 15,000 square feet, the average employee load was approximately 7 employees. Thus, the ratio of required parking was only about 1 space per 1,000 square feet and much of the space was never used. He then submitted photographs of the 2 centers taken on Saturdays and some during the week when the traffic was heaviest. They also performed a car count at the Laguna project (250,000 square feet) and only 26 vehicles were parked in the lot at 10:00 a.m. on a Saturday. Relative to the proposed project, Lot 2 which was perhaps the most controversial, contained a number of 5,000-square foot units and what they hoped to attract in that location were home-service type tenants as well as some industrial-commercial uses, nuts and bolts to garden supplies, wholesale supply and things of that nature. The parking required in that type of unit was less than 1 per 1,000 square feet. Of the 2 projects mentioned, at Laguna Hills the parking ratio approved was 2.6 per 1,000 square feet and in Fountain Valley 2 per 1,000 square feet. They were projecting 3.4 per 1,000 or approximately 82 parking stalls over the required minimum. Councilman Roth commented that the Council had heard several times from commercial realtors such as Mr. Olmsheid relative to the problem of the invasion of commercial use into industrial areas with emphasis on maintaining the industrial integrity of an area. He wanted to know Mr. Olmsheid's response and whether or not he felt there was a problem in that regard. 78-702 City Hall, Anaheim, California- COUNCIL MINUTES- June 6; 1978~ 1:30 P.M. Mr. Olmsheid responded by questioning the definition of industrial use and how it was distinguished. To his way of thinking, it might be a furniture manufacturer or assembler and in most industrial areas in Orange County and even Los Angeles where enough parking was available, wholesaling and some retailing was being conducted out of facilities such as those under discussion. He did not believe such uses affected the integrity of the industrial areas and noted some instances where service oriented facilities were placed within the industrial park itself to service the community therein and it was found after a few years that was the most efficient way of putting together an industrial project. Discussion followed relative to Councilwoman Kaywood's question regarding the number of employees that would be involved in the proposed uses wherein Mr. Olmsheid again stated that approximately 7 employees would be involved in 15,000 square feet compared to approximately 25 in pure industrial use. In answer to Councilwoman Kaywood's comment about the large sign displayed in one of the facilities in the photo of the Fountain Valley project, Mr. Olmsheid stated that was a sofa factory and he believed it to be the worst use of an industrial facility on a freeway site in Orange County. The reason the photograph was included was to demonstrate the point that no signing would be placed on the windows of the proposed project; it would not be allowed. Their CC&Rs would be very tight and they would pass with the land if that eventually occurred. With good controls, there would be no problem relative to outdoor displays and Similar matters. Councilwoman Kaywood was concerned that if the uses were going to be open to the public, they would be attracting heavy retail commercial uses. She recounted the situation wherein Wickes Furniture on North Magnolia came into an industrial area and indicated there was going to be only light retail use. That not being the case, she emphasized that a very fine parcel of industrial property with a railroad spur was destroyed. Thus, she had a problem with the proposed project. Mayor Seymour stated that he had met with Mr. Broadway to discuss the project some weeks before and one of the concerns he (Seymour) expressed was relative to the fact that the Fountain Valley and Laguna Hills projects catered to "furniture type businesses". Although he heard the applicants say they were going to be catering to home-oriented type businesses, on the other hand in looking at the list submitted containing 66 uses, most were not home oriented. He had no doubt that IPS was a high quality developer with an excellent record; however, the use was clear in the other two projects, but the list of potential uses in the pro- posed project would result in a development offering all types and varieties of commercial uses. Mr. Olmsheid explained that Lot 7 would be strictly furniture (7 a & b) and Lot 2 on La Palma was the area where some of the uses that were listed of wholesale type people would be located. On the first list, the majority of the uses were all related to homes. The other was merely a "laundry" or working list which the Council should not have received. For confirmation, Mayor Seymour asked if what Mr. Olmsheid was saying on behalf of the applicant was, if approved, they would be willing to limit uses as expressed in the staff report; Mr. Olmsheid confirmed that uses would be limited to those listed in the report. 78-703 City Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - June 6~ 1978~ 1:30 P.M. Councilwoman Kaywood acknowledged Mrs. Carrie Kirkendahl in the audience who was opposed to the project at the Planning Commission meeting. Mrs. Kirkendahl stated that she was opposed to the lack of parking spaces to which she spoke at the hear- ing. She was not now opposed to the project. There being no further persons who wished to speak, the Mayor closed the public hearing. Mayor Seymour expressed his concern over the fact that the list of uses was loosely drawn. For Parcel 2, commercial uses listed were patio furniture, art gallery, plants, baby furniture, etc. For Parcel 7, sofas, furniture, antiques, etc. That type of a list could only cause future problems and arguments with the Planning Department if challenged, whereas in the past, very specific lists of types of uses were created. Miss Santalahti confirmed that such specific lists were generally the rule although longer than that as articulated by the Mayor and listed in the staff report. Discussion then followed between the Council and applicant relative to specific uses and the confusion evolving from the lists submitted. Mr. Broadway stated that the uses listed in the staff report were taken off the site plan, but the list he submitted to the Council with 65 uses was the list of suggested'uses for Lot 2. He could not be definitive on Lot 7. He did stipulate however at the request of Councilman Kott that selling of stereos or TVs would not be' one of the uses. MOTION: At the conclusion of discussion, Mayor Seymour stated~that he sensed the Council wanted to approve the applicant's request, however, he reiterated the con- fusion relative to the lists submitted. He thereupon moved that the matter be continued one week during which time the applicant could compile a list of specific uses for the lots in question and submit that list to staff for subsequent Council review. Councilman Roth seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. RECESS: By general consent, the City Council recessed for 10 minutes. (5:00 P.M.) AFTER RECESS: The Mayor called the meeting to order, all Council Members being present. (5:10 P.M.) PUBLIC HEARING - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 1825: Application by Robert H. Schuller Institute for Successful Church Leadership, to permit a cemetery on RS-A-43,000 zoned property located on the south side of Orangewood Avenue, east side of Lewis Street, southwest side of Manchester with code waivers of: a) maximum f~nce height b) maximum structural height c) minimum front-yard setback d) minimum side-yard setback The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC78-87 declared that the subject project be exempt from the requirement to prepare an environmental impact report pursuant to the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act since there would be no significant individual or cumulative adverse environ- mental impact, due to this project and further granted Conditional Use Permit No. 1825, subject to the following conditions: 78-70~ City Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - June 6~ 1978; 1:30 P.M. 1. That the owner(s) of subject property shall deed to the City of Anaheim a strip of land 35 feet in width from the certerline of the street along Lewis Street for street widening purposes. 2. That all engineering requirements of the City of Anaheim along Lewis Street, Orangewood Avenue and Manchester Avenue including preparation of improvement plans and installation of all improvements such as curbs and gutters, sidewalks, street grading and paving, drainage facilities or other appurtenent work, shall be complied with as required by the City Engineer and in accordance with standard plans and specifications on file in the Office of the City Engineer; that street lighting facilities along Lewis Street, Orangewood Avenue and Manchester Avenue shall be installed as required by the Director of Public Utilities; and/or that a bond, certificate of deposit, letter of credit, or cash, in an amount and form satisfactory to the City of Anaheim shall be posted with the City to guarantee the installation of the above-mentioned requirements. 3. That trash storage areas shall be provided in accordance with approved plans on file with the Office of the Director of Public Works. 4. That appropriate water assessment fees, as determined by the Director of Public Utilities, shall be paid to the City of Anaheim prior to the issuance of a building permit. 5. That a strip of land 92 feet south of the existing centerline of Orangewood Avenue be reserved for a period of eight years for future ultimate right-of-way for a future Orangewood Avenue Crossing of the Santa Ana Freeway. 6. That subject property shall be developed substantially in accordance with plans and specifications on file with the City of Anaheim marked Exhibit No. 1. 7. That Condition No. 1 and 2, above-mentioned, shall be complied with prior to the commencement of the a~tivity authorized under this resolution, or prior to the time that the building permit is issued, or within a period of one year from date hereof, whichever occurs first, or such further time as the Planning Commission may grant. 8. That Condition Nos. 3 and 6, above-mentioned, shall be complied with prior to final building and zoning inspections. The action of the Planning Commission relating to Conditions of approval was appealed by the applicant, and public hearing scheduled this date. Miss Santalahti described the location and surrounding land uses. She outlined the findings given in the staff report which was submitted to and Considered by the City Planning Commission. Before further discussion, Mayor Seymour asked for an opinion by the City Attorney as to whether or not he should abstain from discussion and voting since he was a member of the Garden Grove Community Church. 78-7C5 City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - June 6~ 1978~ 1:30 P.M. City Attorney Hopkins stated that although the Mayor perhaps did not have any financial interest in the matter, from an ethical standpoint, it might be prudent to abstain. Mayor Seymour stated he would abstain and he thereupon left the Council Chamber after turning the meeting over to Mayor Pro Tem Kaywood. (5:12 P.M.) Councilman Roth referred to a letter dated May 11, 1978, from Caltrans responding to a letter of the Garden Grove Community Church dated May 3, 1978, and asked Miss Santalahti if she had seen the correspondence. Miss Santalahti stated she had not seen the letter. Mayor Pro Tem Kaywood asked if the applicant or applicant's agent was present and desirous of being heard. Mr. Carl C. Wallace, Director--Planned Giving, Garden Grove Community Church, stated that several months prior they purchased 3.96 acres of land on the corner of Lewis and Orangewood for the purpose of developing it for ministerial uses. For some time, they were desirous of having a cemetery for use of the Church, Church membership and those interested in the Church, thus it was decided that the property be developed into a cemetery. They acquired the plot plan'drawings from the engineers and presented them to the Planning Commission where, for the first time in reading the staff report, they were made aware of the fact that a reservation of a 92-foot easement would be required from the centerline of Orangewood Avenue and into their property which he pointed to from the displayed map. The easement would represent approximately 50 feet or one-half acre of usage of their property which had never been dedicated, but was proposed as a future portion of an overcrossing of the Santa Ana Freeway. Such a revelation was distressing to them in view of the fact that the property was expensive. After the Planning Commission hearing, Mr. Wallace assumed from what he heard that a Caltrans project was involved and left the meeting not with the idea of an ob- structionist, but instead to go to Caltrans to ascertain the status with the possibility that the item might have been put in their dead file as far as any future plans were concerned. He had several discussions with people at Caltrans which resulted in their response of May 11, 1978, Item 1 of which indicated that the possibility of an overcrossing in the subject location had been in the planning stage for 13 years and the condition (No. 5) placed upon their request for a condi- tional use permit ~dded another 8 years relative to the reservation of the easement. He was thus before the Council to obtain a determination from the City of Anaheim on the matter since Caltrans indicated in Item 3 of their letter that it was the City's responsibility to provide for the overcrossing. Councilman Roth asked staff to respond to the letter submitted by Caltrans. Mr. James Maddox, City Engineer, stated that the letter was essentially correct. The purpose of the request to reserve the 92-foot width was to be able to build the Orangewood overcrossing some time in the future. In 1966, the City purchased approximately 4 acres on the east side of the freeway on the north side of Orange- wood for that purpose. At that time, it was believed that the overcrossing would become a reality in the near future, but since that time funding from Caltrans had been irratic and the project was on and off their program. He felt the overcrossing of the freeway still to be highly desirable in order to improve the access to the 78-706 C.ity Hail, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - June 6~ 197.8~ 1:30 P.M. Stadium and east and west general traffic. The City was intending if plans proceeded for the overcrossing to buy the property at a later date. Mr. Maddox was merely asking that it be reserved from use for a period of 8 years. Councilman Roth was concerned that restrictions were being put on the property without due compensation and there were two alternatives under which to proceed: (1) condemn the property and buy it or, (2) approve Conditional Use Permit No. 1825 deleting Condition No. 5 requiring the reservation of the easement with a subsequent letter to Caltrans requesting immediate action. He reiterated to continue the situation as it now stood, was tantamount to condemning the property. Mr. Maddox stated that he did not know the applicant's plan of use, whether they intended to use the whole area or whether they were going to start at the north and work to the south or vice versa. He was asking that they start at the south and work to the north. He conceded however that as Councilman Roth pointed out they were restricting the use of the property by the owners for 8 years without compensation. Mr. Wallace explained for Mayor Pro Tem Kaywood that although it was conjecture, it would be 2 years before initiating development of the property on the north section if they began development on the southerly portion first. He also con- firmed that the seller who sold the property to the Church did not know about the situation relative to the potentiality of the overcrossing. Mayor Pro Tem Kaywood expressed her concern that if graves were placed on the site, there would be no possibility for the City to ever go through with the project. In answer to Councilman Overholt, Mr. Wallace stated that at this time he did not know how they would proceed to develop the balance of the property if the Council did not remove Condition No. 5 although they had discussed the possibility. He pointed out that in relation to the property, approximately 700 grave sites would be involved and, using a figure of from $400 to $600 each, they were talking about $400,000 worth of property. In answer to further Council questions, Mr. Wallace confirmed that they owned the property since March 24, 1976 and that the property was not tax exempt at this time because it was directly useable by the Church. There being no further persons who wished to speak either in favor or in opposition, the Mayor Pro Tem closed the public hearing. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT - NEGATIVE DECLARATION: On motion by Councilman Roth, seconded by Councilman Kott, the City Council finds that this project will have no significant individual cumulative adverse environmental impact and is, therefore, exempt from the requirement to prepare an EIR. Councilman Seymour was temporarily absent. MOTION CARRIED. Councilman Roth offered Resolution No. 78R-365 for adoption granting Conditional Use Permit No. 1825, upholding the action of the City Planning Commission, in part, deleting Condition No. 5 eliminating the reservation of an easement for the Orangewood overcrossing. 78-707 City H.a..1.1, Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - June 6, 1978, 1:30 P.M. Mayor Seymour entered the Council Chamber. (5:35 P.M.) Before a vote was taken, Mayor Pro Tem Kaywood posed several questions to Mr. Wallace for purposes of clarification. She also pointed out that if the City proceeded with the overcrossing and acquired the land, the applicant would be reimbursed. Mr. Wallace explained that their concern was the environmental impact of telling people when they purchased a site that there would be a possibility of a freeway overcrossing instead of a beautiful lawn area. Mayor Pro Tem Kaywood emphasized that if the City relinquished the land, there would never be the possibility of constructing the overcrossing which she believed was vital to the City. Councilman Overholt asked if there was another way of constructing the overcrossing in the general vicinity without utilizing the property in question. Mr. Maddox explained that was the only location, but there were alternatives to construction, one being an entirely supportive overcrossing on columns such as a viaduct. Although the cost would be considerably higher, it would require less right-of-way thus it would not doom the project completely. Councilman Kott stated he was going to support Councilman Roth's resolution because of the property right question. A vote was taken on the foregoing Resolution. Refer to Resolution Book. RESOLUTION NO. 78R-365: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM GRANTING CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 1825. Roll Call Vote: AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Overholt, Kott and Roth NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Kaywood ABSTAINED: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Seymour ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: None The Mayor Pro Tem declared Resolution No. 78R-365 duly passed and adopted. Councilman Roth then moved to direct staff to send a letter to Caltrans immediately advising them of the action taken by the Council to permit them to act accordingly. Councilman Kott seconded the motion. Councilman Seymour abstained. MOTION CARRIED. Councilman Roth left the Council Chamber. (5:39 P.M.) 176: PUBLIC HEARING - ABANDONMENT NG. 77-16A: In accordance with application filed by the Utilities Department, public hearing was held on proposed abandonment of a public utility easement located west of Peralta Hills Drive, south of Santa Aha Canyon Road, pursuant to Resolution No. 78R-318 duly published in the Anaheim Bulletin and notices thereof posted in accordance with law. 78-7~8 City H.al.l~.. Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - June 6~ 1978~ 1:30 P.M. Report of the City Engineer dated April 25, 1978 was submitted recommending approval of subject abandonment and the Planning Commission recommended approval. The Mayor asked if anyone wished to address the Council either in favor or in opposition; there being no response, he closed the public hearing. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT - CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION: On motion by Councilman Kott, seconded by Councilwoman Kaywood, the City Council ratified the determina- tion of the Planning Director that the proposed activity falls within the defini- tion of Section 3.01, Class 5 of the City of Anaheim Guidelines to the requirement for an environmental impact report and is, therefore, categorically exempt from the requirement to file an EIR. Councilman Roth was absent. MOTION CARRIED. Councilman Kott offered Resolution No. 78R-366 for adoption approving Abandonment No. 77-16A as recommended by the City Engineer. Refer to Resolution Book. RESOLUTION NO. 78R-366: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM ORDERING THE VACATION AND ABANDONMENT OF A CERTAIN PUBLIC SERVICE EASEMENT. (west of Peralta Hills Drive, south of Santa Ana Canyon Road, 77-16A) Roll Call Vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: COUNCIL M~4BERS: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Overholt, Kaywood, Kott and Seymour None Roth The Mayor declared Resolution No. 78R-366 duly passed and adopted. 106: DISCUSSION - PROPOSED 1978-79 RESOURCE ALLOCATION PLAN (BUDGET): On motion by Councilman Kott, seconded by Councilman Seymour, June 20, 1978, at 3:00 P.M. was the date and time set for a public hearing on the 1978-79 Budget. Councilman Roth was absent. MOTION CARRIED. .REQUEST FOR REHEARING - RECLASSIFICATION NO. 77-78-53 AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 1815: Request by Rodeffer Investments, for a rehearing on the subject reclass- ification and conditional use permit for a change in zone from RS-A-43,000 and ML to ML on property located on the east side of Dale Avenue, south of Orangethorpe Avenue, to permit a racquetball facility (fee already submitted). Councilman Kott moved to approve the request for a rehearing. Councilman Seymour seconded the motion for the purpose of discussion. Before a vote was taken, Councilwoman Kaywood questioned why, since the rehearing had been scheduled for the prior week, and the applicants did not show up for the meeting. 78-709 City Hall~ Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - June 6~ 1978~ 1:30 P.M. The Mayor noted that they claimed they were not notified. The City Clerk stated that the public hearing was continued to a date and time certain and further notification was not given. The applicant was present at the time the rehearing was set. A vote was then taken on the foregoing motion. Councilwoman Kaywood voted "No". Councilman Roth was absent. MOTION CARRIED. REQpEST FOR CHANGE IN PUBLIC HEARING DATE ON CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 1826: On motion by Councilman Seymour, seconded by Councilman Kott, request by Vacation- land to change the public hearing date on Conditional Use Permit No. 1826, to June 27, 1978, at 3:00 P.M. instead of June 20, 1978, was approved. Councilman Roth was absent. MOTION CARRIED. REQUEST FOR REHEARING - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 1810: Request by Mr. Bill Asawa for a rehearing of Conditional Use Permit No. 1810 to permit a veterinary hospital on property located on the northwest side of Rio Grande, southwest of Fairmont Boulevard. Councilwoman Kaywood noted in a letter dated June 25, 1978, requesting the rehearing that the rehearing request would not address an access on Santa Ana Canyon Road and as she recalled, that was the only problem. Dr. Robert Grosse, stated that as far as a veterinary hospital was concerned, that never had been an issue, and it was only broached at the request of the Planning Commission and HACMAC. He confirmed for Mayor Seymour that he was now saying they would be back for the public hearing without requesting any ingress or egress from Santa Ana Canyon Road. On motion by Councilman Seymour, seconded by Councilwoman Kaywood, the request for a rehearing of Conditional Use Permit No. 1810 was approved (fee already submitted). Councilman Roth was absent. MOTION CARRIED. 156/160: DECLARING UNCLAIMED PROPERTY NEEDED FOR PUBLIC USE - TRANSFER TO CITY PURCHASING DEPARTMENT: Councilman Kott offered Resolution No. 78R-367 for adoption as recommended in memorandum dated April 25, 1978, from the Chief of Police. Refer to Resolution Book. RESOLUTION NO. 78R-367: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM DECLARING CERTAIN UNCLAIMED PROPERTY IS NEEDED FOR PUBLIC USE AND TRANSFERRING THE SAME TO THE CITY PURCHASING DEPARTMENT. Roll Call Vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: COUNCIL MEMBERS: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Overholt, Kaywood, Kott and Seymour None Roth The Mayor declared Resolution No. 78R-367 duly passed and adopted. 78-710 City Hall~ .Anaheim; California - COUNCIL MINUTES - June 6~ 1978~ 1:30 P.M. 148: REPORT ON ALTERNATIVES TO MEMBERSHIP IN SCAG: Councilman Kott moved that the subject be continued one week since Councilman Roth wished to speak to the matter, but had to leave the meeting. Councilman Seymour seconded the motion. Councilman Roth was absent. MOTION CARRIED. Mr. Talley stated that since the information was requested by the Council in order to provide input before the Congress of Cities meeting on Thursday, June 8, 1978, he asked if the Council wished to consider any position to be taken at that meeting. There being no response, Mayor Seymour stated that the Council took no position. 169: REPORT ON TRADITIONAIRE LUMINAIRE LIGHTING: Councilman Kott stated that he understood that problems had been encountered in the past relative to maintenance of the lights which were approved by Anaheim Hills and others. He preferred to have approval by City staff because Anaheim was the agency who had to maintain the lights, thus he did not wish others to be in a position to approve or disapprove the lighting. On motion by Councilman Seymour, seconded by Councilman Overholt, discussion of the report on Traditionaire Luminaire lighting was continued to July 25, 1978, as requested by staff. Councilman Roth was absent. MOTION CARRIED. 175: REPORT ON DIEMER INTERTIE: (continued from May 16, 1978) Councilman Kott referred to a report dated June 1, 1978, from the Utilities Director which he (Kott) requested, and questioned a statement on Page 2 stating that the Santiago Lateral was not given serious consideration since it involved utilizing untreated water. He maintained according to Page 1 of the report, it was not given any consideration and the report further stated that there would be a required cost of approximately $6 million for the construction of the ~reatment plant to purify the untreated water. His sources of information informed him that the Lenain Filtration Plant cost $.5 million. He thus questioned why the filtration plant would cost 12 times that of the Lenain plant. Mr. Ray Auerbach, Water Superintendent, explained that on Page 1, the report did not actually say that they did not consider water from the Santiago Lateral. When they considered expanding their filtration plant, Alternate No. 3, that water came from the Santiago Lateral and the lower feeder. Relative to cost which had been studied, they contacted several engineering firms and in some of the reports pre- pared by them they indicated cost of a treatment plant was different from the water utilities present plant because it did not have coagulation-sedimentation facilities. The present plant filtered only raw Colorado River water, and it was a State Health Department requirement if there was a blend of State water, plus Colorado River water, the City would have to provide the full treatment. The cost figures were based on that requirement. The Metropolitan-Water District (MWD) had indicated that at some time in the future they would supply a blend of Colorado River and the State Project water into the lower feeder and then into the Santiago Lateral. The cost of a full treatment plant was almost twice that of a filtration plant and, as well, construction costs had risen 3 to 4 times in the past 12 years. 78-7]1 City Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - June 6~ 1978~ 1:30 P.M. Mr. Auerbach then relayed the following in answer to questions by Councilman Kott: (1) the new plant would be 1.5 times the size of the Lenain Plant pro- viding 30 cfs of water as compared to 20 cfs. The Lenain Plant had a peaking capacity of 22 cfs. (2) Although the Lenain Plant was designed to be expandable, the Public Utilities Board considered that option, but the cost proved to be higher than the cost of participation in the Diemer Intertie. As well, there would be no backup source of water. (3) The water elevation in the Santiago Lateral would be higher than that of the Diemer Intertie if a new plant was built. The Diemer had a higher gradient and would require less energy than the expansion of the Lenain Plant. (4) He confirmed water was now being treated at Lenain from the Santiago Lateral. Relative to the last question, Councilman Kott pointed out that when Mr. Auerbach was before the Council for approval of the Diemer Intertie, he (Kott) asked what other sources were available and the Santiago Lateral was not mentioned. The Council was told that there was a pipe at Imperial Highway and Santa Ana Canyon Road that was being repaired and the Diemer Intertie would be necessary. Now there was another source, and further, he was not convinced that a new plant, if necessary, would cost $6 million. Mr. Auerbach reiterated that the $6 million was based upon research and the consulting engineers and others in the business estimated a "ballpark" figure of $200,000 per cfs. They were talking about a cost of $3 million of the Diemer Intertie and a rough cost of $6 million for a new treatment plant which he did not believe would ever be less than $3 million. The $6 million represented construction costs only and did not even consider other costs such as land, engineering and many other considerations which were added to the $3 million for the Diemer Intertie. Mayor Seymour asked what was planned for the Lenain Treatment Plant when the MWD started to offer a mix of water? Mr. Auerbach believed that blend would take place well into the future, at least a minimum of 5 years. He explained there were several filtration plants on the Santiago Lateral at present. The cost to provide pretreatment, coagulation- sedimentation, would be approximately $1 million just to add that function to an existing plant. Thus, for each of the agencies to do so would require a great deal of time and a method of funding. Therefore, he did not believe the MWD would seriously consider the blend for the near future, and they might decide to build a regional plant themselves. Mayor Seymour stated that one of the justifications for not considering the con- struction of a new filtration plant at a much reduced cost was due to the fact that MWD was going to offer a mix of water and the City would have to accept that mix. This would require Anaheim to build not a filtration plant, but a treatment plant at a cost of $6 million. Now Mr. Auerbach was saying (1) it would be quite some time before the blend occurred and (2) there was a possibility because such action would create a burden on Anaheim and other agencies involved, that a regional 78-712 City Hall, Anaheim; California - COUNCIL MINUTES - June 6~ 1978~ 1:30 P.M. plant would be built with everybody sharing in that facility. Therefore, getting back to the point made by Councilman Kott, why was it not possible to build another treatment plant utilizing the other feeder line? Mr. Auerbach stated that in the staff report they did consider merely expanding the Lenain Plant without pretreatment which was left open as an option. He then relayed the following cost figures as requested by the Mayor (see Page IV-4 of report dated August, 1977--"Additional Water Source for Santa Ana Canyon Area Study", on file in the City Clerk's Office): Alternate 1--Diemer Intertie Project, $4,374,000; Alternate 2--Santa Ana Canyon Road Transmission Main, $5,703,000; Alternate 3--expand filtration plant and add pretreatment, $6,455,000; Alternate 3a--expand filtration plant, $4,544,000. Mr. Auerbach noted that at the time the economic study was made, it considered 1977 dollars. Councilman Seymour asked if the Lenain Plant was built at a cost of $.5 million why it now would cost approximately 9 times as much to merely expand the plant? Mr. Auerbach explained that many other things entered into the total cost of the project and $1.3 million was for the plant expansion itself. That would not pro- vide all the capacity needed and they would still require a smaller~capacity in the Diemer Intertie of 6 cfs. The feeder mentioned provided the raw water, but the finished product came out of the plant and that plant was only capable of being expanded a certain amount. It would actually be a duplicate plant as suggested by the Mayor. Mr. Auerbach explained further that they needed a capa- city of 30 cfs which could not be obtained by expanding the plant because it could not be expanded to that capacity. Ail of the piping and controls built from the Walnut Canyon Reservoir into the plant were only capable of a total capacity of 44 cfs. A duplicate could be built with all new pipes, but the original piping would have to be replaced making the cost much greater. They were trying to compare the 2 alternatives, the Diemer Intertie providing 30 cfs, and expanding Lenain to 30 cfs. The alternatives relative to cost came out to within a couple of hundred thousand dollars of each other. Relative to building a new treatment plant and tying into it as suggested by the Mayor, Mr. Auerbach stated that as an alternative it would not be sufficient to provide the amount of water that the study revealed would be necessary for the Canyon area. Mayor Seymour believed the cost may have even been closer or gone the other way if the recommendation included Diemer in that one alternative and instead included the already existing feeder that Councilman Kott and Mr. Lenain referred to. Mr. Auerbach answered that it was included and the Santiago Lateral was the source of water for the reservoir which was also the source of water for the filtration plant. They assumed that they could get an unlimited amount of water out of the Santiago Lateral and then build a filtration plant as large as possible to provide another 22 cfs; however, another 6 cfs would be needed out of the Diemer Intertie. Further discussion and questioning followed between the Council and Mr. Auerbach at the conclusion of which Mr. Auerbach reiterated that for $3 million the Diemer Intertie would provide a complete package, construction costs, engineering, land, etc. compared to roughly $6 million for the treatment plant alone. He believed the 78-713 City Hall, Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - June 6~ 1978~ 1:30 P.M. Diemer Intertie to be an excellent project for the City. Further, he stated that relative to the discussion today, different lines and theories were being discussed which were difficult to explain. He believed that Mr. Lenain in his previous Council appearance was speaking about the lower feeder which was 1 mile north of the Santa Ana River in an area that did not even cross Anaheim where the cost of the transmission line alone to carry water across the river would be approximately $.5 million. He again referred to the August 1977 report which explained such aspects in detail. Councilman Kott stated that he was not convinced that the Council had made a correct decision in accepting the Diemer Intertie and it was his opinion that the information provided was incomplete. He suggested it would be worthwhile to obtain the whole picture by asking Mr. Lenain to appear before the Council. Different information was provided him by Mr. Lenain and he did not accept the report submitted by staff. Mayor Seymour stated he would be happy to hear from Mr. Lenain since the matter involved a very large financial decision, and it was his opinion that relative to alternatives, serious consideration was not given by the Public Utilities Board or the Council. Councilwoman Kaywood recalled that the contract relative to the Diemer Intertie was already signed; the Mayor stated that if in listening to Mr. Lenain it was concluded that the City could get by with an expenditure of $2 million or $3 million rather than a $4.374 million investment, he would find a way to get out of the contract. Mr. Auerbach noted that the comparison would be between $4.374 million (Diemer Intertie Project) and $4.544 million (expansion of filtration plant). After polling the Council (Councilman Roth was absent) and hearing no objection, the Mayor asked the City Manager to invite Mr. Lenain to speak to the subject matter in two weeks. The Mayor also asked Mr. Auerbach to recopy for the Council the last report on which they based their decision approving the Diemer Intertie as well as any other additional information. 144: REQUEST FOR REPRESENTATION ON THE TRANSPORTATION COMMITTEE OF THE ORANGE COUNTY SENIOR CITIZENS COUNCIL: (continued from the meetings of May 23 and 30, 1978) On motion by Councilman Seymour, seconded by Councilwoman Kaywood, request by the Transportation Committee of the Orange County Senior Citizens Council for City representation on their committee was continued one week. Councilman Roth was absent. MOTION CARRIED. DISCUSSION - CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL IN CONNECTION WITH RECLASSIFICATION NO. 77-78-23: Request by Mr. Jack Tarr, Diversified Investment Company, to discuss conditions of approval in connection with Reclassification No. 77-78-23 on property located at the southeast corner of Lincoln Avenue and Gilbert Street. 78-714 .City Hall~ Anaheim; California - COUNCIL MINUTES - June 6~ 1978~ 1:30 P.M. Mr. Jack Tarr, Diversified Investment Company, 1000 Quail Street, Suite 190, Newport Beach, stated that the issue at hand was one of fairness, equity and reasonableness relative to the subject and further they had a suggested alter- nate that would accommodate that doctrine and as well, prove to be a better solution to the problem. They had been ready to commence construction of their project since 1974 and they never tried to circumvent the existing drainage problem which was the point of contention. Mr. Tarr then elaborated upon the subject from 2 posted maps (one prepared by the City Engineer and one which they prepared) depicting approximately 38 acres which included surrounding property indicated by colored zones used to accentuate the drainage situation. Of the 38 acres, their property (shown in green) consisted of approximately 7 acres and the balance was owned by Gemco and the Basin Street Apartment complex (shown in red). The Gemco/Basin Street property drained to the south- west through a hole in the wall behind Gemco down to the south with a bigger bulk proceeding through Transit Avenue (shown in yellow). When their development was approved in November 1977, certain conditions had to be met relative to the zoning reclassification, one of those being an engineering condition stating that drainage facilities had to be suitable to the City Engineer. Mr. Tarr emphasized that at no time was there any request for them to install or share in the install- ation of a 36-inch storm drain to interconnect with Broadway of approximately 70 lineal feet. In their interpretation, the condition was an unusual one and they felt that their project, while adding to the drainage problem of the property, did not warrant their paying for the entire storm drain down to Broadway. They agreed they should pay their fair share, however, but they also felt that the 36-inch storm drain would not alleviate the real problem and be of benefit to those in the area. Mr. Tart stated that they met with the City numerous times over the past four weeks, but it appeared there was an inflexible status and that was the reason for coming to the Council. He pointed to the area they believed should be attacked relative to the problem of drainage (southwest of Gemco in the area of Transit Avenue) and recommended that an easement be obtained by the City across the Cornelia Connelly School lot thus alleviating drainage on the acreage involved. They maintained that was the fair alternative. As well, since they were not causing the whole drainage problem, they did not feel they would be legally liable for any damage which would occur as a result since the cause would be from other entities than merely their extra runoff into the system. Mr. Tarr pointed to two areas from the map where in one instance, they estimated the cost of drainage would be $50,000 to $55,000 and another at $70,000 to $90,000. According to the percentages they used, 18 percent would represent their 7 acres of the total 38. If 80 percent of the higher limit were taken, that would be approximately $16,200. It was their suggestion therefore to take that percentage and give it to the City and, in turn, the City obtain the easement mentioned to correct the real drainage problem. That proposed action seemed to them to be a better solution in both fairness and equity as well as a better alternative than the one proposed. Mayor Seymour stated that the proposal came down to the dollars involved. As he understood the situation, they were faced with a requirement of installing a storm drain at a cost of between $70,000 and $90,000 and the alternative they were offering was to pay the City a sum of money to be put in an account'as 78-715 City Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - June 6~ 1978~ 1:30 P.M. payment towards the drain one way or the other. Mr. Tarr agreed and stated they were willing to pay $20,000. Mr. Cal Queyrel elaborated further on the situation from the posted map, his main thrust being that they felt by taking the "red" drainage (Gemco/Basin Street Apartment complex) straight out to Broadway would be much less costly. Mr. William Devitt, Assistant City Engineer, explained that the condition of drainage was pointed out in 2 places in the Council minutes, general conditions, and it was also a specific condition. It did not indicate the size of the pipe, but the requirement of the City Engineer. The next thing the Engineering Depart- ment heard of the project was when they received a plan from Anacal Engineering which indicated drainage off the total land all to Gilbert Street which surprised them, particularly because Anacal was the Engineering firm for a project with a similar condition imposed. Engineering then checked with all those to whom the developer should have spoken and, to his knowledge, it was not discussed with anyone on staff. He maintained that the developer should have been aware that the conditions meant more than to shove the drainage off into the street. City Engineer James Maddox explained for Councilman Kott that if Mr. Queyrel's plan was adopted, the drainage from Gemco and the Basin Street Apartments could be brought through on an easement and intersect with the storm drain down in Broadway so that the total amount would not get to Broadway and Gilbert. The problem in acquiring an easement first lay in the fact that it would not be free, and the second problem would be relative to access to the easement and to the manholes within that easement. Mr. Devitt then relayed the following information as the result of questions posed by the Mayor, especially concerning the list submitted, giving examples of previous policy applied to other projects regarding storm drains. The Mayor did mot feel that the examples presented (see City Engineer memorandum dated May 30, 1978 on file in the City Clerk's Office) had much correlation with the property in question. Mr. Devitt referred to Example No. 5 which he considered to be a similar project (Condo Development--Orangewood Avenue - West Street to Eugene--S60,000 plus) wherein the developer was required to build a line in Orange- wood from West Street to drain his property. The City then participated in the cost of the drain to Eugene. He maintained therefore that the present developer should be required to participate in the drain from Broadway to his property. What had been overlooked was the fact that the ultimate intent was the drainage of Lincoln. He then relayed the problems relative to the lack of drainage on Lincoln Avenue. Mr. Devitt then continued as follows: he considered the proposal to build a drain through an easement to pick off the Gemco property alleviating the problem on Gilbert to be a myopic view of the situation; it would not resolve the major problem. Relative to its effect on Transit Avenue, if the developer were to con- struct a storm drain in Gilbert from Broadway to the subject property's southerly boundary, it would be anticipated that the City would contribute in the cost of two catch basins in Transit. Ultimately, the other drains would be constructed providing relief on Transit Avenue. With the construction of catch basins, water coming down Transit would no longer build up in Gilbert. A situation was already 78-716 City Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - June 6~ 1978~ !:30 P.M. existing on Gilbert where the water topped the curb. In terms of a 10-year frequency storm, the development of the subject property would increase the flooding condition on Gilbert. Presently, the property acted as a sponge that would relieve additional runoff. Mr. Devitt conceded that a major error and wrong doing occurred at the time Gemco and Basin Street Apartments were allowed to dump down to Transit. In this case however he emphasized that the basic thrust was that the development of the subject property and the introduction of water to Gilbert would impose an additional burden on the downstream property. The relief that would be provided on Transit would be a drainage facility built in Gilbert at some point in time. As well, there should be an additional smaller drain built in Transit where it would pick up water and maintain the travel lanes. Councilwoman Kaywood questioned if the drain was not built in Gilbert, whether Transit Avenue was going to be under water most of the time; Mr. Maddox confirmed that was correct. Relative to cost, Mr. Maddox stated that they did run an estimate on the cost of a storm drain which came to approximately $48,000; he considered the figure of $70,000 to $90,000 mentioned by the developer to be high. Mr. Queyrel stated that (1) unlike the conditions placed on his similar project which was made a condition of approval of the final tract map at both the Planning Commission and City Council levels, there was no such condition on the subject development regarding the storm drains. It was implied that the statement was included which was not the case, but only the usual standard statement. (2) Relative to the drainage on Lincoln, drainage was on the north side and not the south side. Thus, it should not be confused with the drainage problem involved in the project. (3) It was mentioned that a major error was made on the drainage in the area initially which was true because drainage should not have been allowed to go down Transit. Although they were adding to the problem, that additional approximate 1-inch deeper flow in Gilbert was not appreciable. He concluded there should be a storm drain built there sometime, but the burden should not be placed entirely upon them. Mr. Queyrel then reiterated the fact they had not known about the requirement for a storm drain and such a requirement was usually specified initially at the early stage of the engineering analysis, not later after the plan was approved. Mayor Seymour stated he empathized with the owner and in order to correct the situation he believed to be unfairly placed on one party, his inclination was to provide some relief by having the builder contribute $25,000 and if the cost of the drain was $48,000, the City would have to contribute the additional $23,000 necessary and install the storm drain. Councilwoman Kaywood contended that Mr. Queyrel was not a newcomer with the City and had dealt with staff many times. She was not willing to concede that an error occurred by staff and did not agree that the responsibility should be placed on the City. If the developer estimated $70,000 to $90,000 for the storm drain and the City's estimate was $48,000, that in itself was in the developer's favor. She maintained the City should not participate in the matter wherein the developer was going to be removing what was now a porous area. Thus, the storm drain was a necessary part of the project. 78-717 ~ity Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - June 6~ 1978~ 1:30 P.M. Councilman Kott maintained that since an error had occurred, the City had to pay for that error and although he did not like having to do so, neither should the developer have to shoulder that burden entirely. He thus favored the idea of splitting the cost with the developer in the area of 50 percent. Councilman Overholt maintained the engineering solution was not a total one and a better solution would be to install the drain running south from the Gemco property; Mr. Queyrel agreed. As well, no one had looked into an easement as previously mentioned other than the fact that it would cost money. Mr. Devitt interjected that he had spoken to Sister Lois at Cornelia Connelly who stated she would discuss the matter with the property committee and call back, but no answer as of yet had been received. A discussion then followed between Council and staff relative to points of clarification requested by Councilman Overholt, at the conclusion of which Mr. Devitt summarized that the most normal and desirable place to install catch basins was in the street. It was necessary to build a line in Gilbert to pick up the Lincoln water, a point upon which he elaborated, but without the develop- ment of the storm drain, water would continue on westerly through the existing residential neighborhoods, which presently it did not do. Water did flush onto Lincoln and although the major flow of water was on the north side of Lincoln, it had flooded properties on the south side. Councilman Overholt stated his major question was answered in that, even if the Gemco and Basin Street runoff was not a problem, there would still have to be some kind of storm drain running from the subject property. Thus, he maintained that the developer should know he had a set commitment dollar-wise although he believed the $25,000 figure to be low. He would be agreeable to participation by the developer of $35,000. Mr. Queyrel stated that they would be agreeable to $25~000. Councilman Seymour moved that the developer pay the City $25,000 which sum was never to be returned. The City would set this amount aside for alleviation of drainage problems existing between Lincoln and Broadway along Gilbert, Transit and water runoff from Gemco and the Basin Street Apartment complex. Councilman Kott seconded the motion. The motion failed to carry by the following vote: AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Kott and Seymour NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Overholt and Kaywood ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Roth Councilman Overholt thereupon moved that the developer pay $35,000 prior to issuance of a building permit for the purposes articulated. Councilwoman' Kaywood seconded the motion. Before a vote was taken, Mr Tarr suggested that 2 or 3 cost estimates be obtained to ascertain if the estimate was accurate. Mayor Seymour explained that the thrust of Councilman Overholt's motion was that he was not convinced as to the best course of action to follow relative to the drain, thus it would not be possible to obtain a specific estimate at this time. 78-718 City Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - June 6~ 1978~ 1:30 P.M. Councilman Overholt confirmed that his position was that the developer might well be required to install a storm drain in spite of the Gemco problem. Speci- fically he was talking about having $35,000 deposited with the City to be used to solve the drainage problem with that being the end of the developer's respon- sibility on drainage. A vote was taken on the foregoing motion. Councilwoman Kaywood voted "No". Councilman Roth was absent. MOTION CARRIED. 129: AWARD OF CONTRACT - WEED ABATEMENT CONTRACT FOR FISCAL YEAR 1978-79: Councilman Kott offered Resolution No. 78R-368 for adoption awarding a contract to the only bidder in accordance with the recommendations of the Fire Chief in his memorandum dated May 30, 1978. Refer to Resolution Book. RESOLUTION NO. 78R-368: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM ACCEPTING A SEALED PROPOSAL AND AWARDING A CONTRACT TO THE LOWEST RESPONSIBLE BIDDER FOR THE FURNISHING OF ALL LABOR EQUIPMENT TO CUT AND REMOVE ALL RANK GROWTH AND WEEDS AND REMOVE RUBBISH, REFUSE AND DIRT UPON ANY PARCEL OR PARCELS OF REAL PROPERTY OR ANY PUBLIC STREET IN THE CITY OF ANAHEIM, ACCOUNT NO. 10-4380-202-10 (1978-1979). (Edwin Weber, Inc., $27,772) Roll Call Vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: COUNCIL MEMBERS: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Overholt, Kaywood, Kott and Seymour None Roth The Mayor declared Resolution No. 78R-368 duly passed and adopted. 169/174: REPORT ON BIDS - COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM: (Area 1 and 2, Street and Alley Improvements--Area 1, 2 and 4, Barrier Removal) Councilman Kott offered Resolution Nos. 78R-369 and 78R-370 for adoption as recommended in memorandum dated May 31, 1978, from the City Engineer. Refer to Resolution Book. RESOLUTION NO. 78R-369: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM REJECTING ALL BIDS RECEIVED UP TO THE HOUR OF 2:00 P.M. ON THE 25TH DAY OF MAY, 1978 FOR THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM - AREA 1 & 2 STREET & ALLEY IMPROVE- MENTS; AREA 1, 2 & 4 BARRIER REMOVAL, AREA BOUND BY LA PALMA AVENUE, UNION PACIFIC RAILROAD, CYPRESS STREET AND ANAHEIM BOULEVARD, IN THE CITY OF ANAHEIM. RESOLUTION NO. 78R-370: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM FINDING AND DETERMINING THAT PUBLIC CONVENIENCE AND NECESSITY REQUIRE THE CONSTRUC- TION AND COMPLETION OF A PUBLIC IMPROVEMENT, TO WIT: COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM - AREA 1 & 2 STREET & ALLEY IMPROVEMENTS; AREA 1, 2 & 4 BARRIER REMOVAL; Area bound by La Palma Avenue, Union Pacific Railroad, Cypress Street and Anaheim Boulevard, in the City of Anaheim. APPROVING THE DESIGNS, PLANS, PROFILES, DRAWINGS AND SPECIFICATIONS FOR THE CONSTRUCTION THEREOF; AUTHORIZING THE CONSTRUC- TION OF SAID PUBLIC IMPROVEMENT IN ACCORDANCE WITH SAID PLANS, SPECIFICATIONS, ETC.; AND AUTHORIZING AND DIRECTING THE CITY CLERK TO PUBLIC A NOTICE INVITING SEALED PROPOSALS FOR THE CONSTRUCTION THEREOF. (Bids to be opened July 6, 1978, 2:00 P.M.) 78-719 City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - June 6~ 1978, 1:30 P.M. 160: PURCHASE OF EQUIPMENT - METERS~ DETECTOR CHECK - BID NO. 3428: On motion by Councilwoman Kaywood, seconded by Councilman Overholt, the low bid of ITT Grinnel Corporation was accepted and purchase authorized in the amount of $12,508, including tax, as recommended by the Purchasing Agent in his memorandum dated May 30, 1978. Councilman Roth was absent. MOTION CARRIED. 160: PURCHASE OF EQUIPMENT - EIGHT (8) THREE-PHASE PADMOUNT TRANSFORMERS - BID NO. 3424: (Account No. 32-1701) On motion by Councilman Kott, seconded by Councilwoman Kaywood, the low bid of General Electric Company was accepted and purchase authorized in the amount of $15,221.60, including tax, for two (2) 1000 KVA padmount transformers, and the low bid of Westinghouse Electric Supply was accepted and purchase authorized in the amount of $13,960.20, including tax, for six (6) 112.5 KVA padmount transformers as recommended by the Purchasing Agent in his memorandum dated May 30, 1978. Councilman Roth was absent. MOTION CARRIED. 160: PURCHASE OF EQUIPMENT - DUCTILE IRON PIPE - BID NO. 3427: (Account No. 31-1701) On motion by Councilman Kott, seconded by Councilman Overholt, the low bid of U. S. Pipe & Foundry Company was accepted and purchase authorized in the amount of $20,797.96, including tax, as recommended by the Purchasing Agent in his memorandum dated May 30, 1978. Councilman Roth was absent. MOTION CARRIED. 160: PURCHASE OF EQUIPMENT - ONE COMPOUND WATER METER - BID NO. 3429:' (Account No. 31-1701) On motion by Councilwoman Kaywood, seconded by Councilman Kott, the low bid of Hersey Products was accepted and purchase authorized in the amount of $2,859.88, including tax, as recommended by the Purchasing Agent in his memo- randum dated May 31, 1978. Councilman Roth was absent. MOTIONCARRIED. 144: REAPPOINTMENT OF CITY REPRESENTATIVE TO THE ORANGE COUNTY MANPOWER COMMISSION: Councilwoman Kaywood moved that City Manager William Talley be reappointed as the City'~ representative to the Orange County Manpower Commission. Councilman Overholt seconded the motion. Before a vote was taken, Mr. Talley suggested that due to the press of time, that the Assistant City Manager, William T. Hopkins, be appointed as the representative on the Commission and that he (Talley) be appointed as the alternate. Councilwoman Kaywood and Councilman Overholt were agreeable to the change. A vote was taken on the foregoing motion as amended. Councilman Roth was absent. MOTION CARRIED. 108: APPLICATION FOR SOLICITATION OF CHARITY FUNDS: On motion by Councilwoman Kaywood, seconded by Councilman Seymour, application for Solicitation of Charity Funds requested by the Good Shepherd Lutheran Home, for solicitation of used materials and sale of said items for a period of sixty days was approved. Council- man Roth was absent. MOTION CARRIED. CONSENT CALENDAR ITEMS: On motion by Councilman Kott, seconded by Councilman Seymour, the following actions were authorized in accordance with the reports and recommendations furnished each Council Member and as listed on the Consent Calendar Agenda: 78-720 City Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - June 6~ 1978~ 1:30 P.M. 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 Juan Manuel-Islas Cortez for personal and monetary damages purportedly sustained as a result of actions by Anaheim Police on or about March 12, 1978. b. Claim submitted by Thomas J. Condon, Jr. for personal injuries purportedly sustained as a result of actions by Anaheim Police on or about March 16, 1978. c. Claim submitted by Jerald L. Hoerauf for personal injuries purportedly sustained during a high speed chase on SR-91, approximately .2 miles west of Brookhurst Street, on or about April 5, 1978. d. Claim submitted by Pamela Diane Hoerauf for personal injuries purportedly sustained during a high speed chase on SR-91, approximately .2 miles west of Brookhurst, on or about April 5, 1978. e. Claim submitted by Bankers Box Company for monetary damages purportedly sustained as a result of a water leak at 1354 South Claudina Street on or about May 2, 1978. f. Claim submitted by Gene M. Kloempken for damages purportedly sus'tained as a result of actions by Anaheim Police on or about May 15, 1978. g. Claim submitted by William R. Pack for personal injuries purportedly sustained as a result of actions by Anaheim Police on or about February 23, 1978. CORRESPONDENCE: The following correspondence was ordered received and filed: a.. 109: State of California, State Solid Waste Management Board; Notice of public hearings to be held June 9 and July 14, 1978 to consider proposal by State Solid Waste Management Board relative to regulations for litter control grants and minimum standards for litter receptacles. b. 105: Community Center Authority - Minutes of May 15, 1978. c. 117: Monthly report for April 1978 - Treasurer. 108: ENTERTAINMENT PERMIT: The following permit was approved in accordance with the recommendation of the Chief of Police: a. Application for entertainment Sunday through Saturday, 6:00 P.M. to 2:00 A.M., at the Red Lion, 120 East Lincoln Avenue. (Arnulfo Gomez Granados, applicant) Councilman Roth was absent. MOTION CARRIED. 158: DEEDS OF EASEMENT: Councilwoman Kaywood offered Resolution No. 78R-371 for adoption. Refer to Rmsolution Book. RESOLUTION NO. 78R-371: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM ACCEPTING CERTAIN DEEDS AND ORDERING THEIR RECORDATION. (James P. Edmondson, Trustee; Lewis Properties, Inc.; The Tax Crew; ABJ Developments; James P. Edmondson, Trustee; Fredericks Development Corporation; Family Health Program, Inc.) 78-721 _City Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - June 6, 1978~ 1:30 P.M. Roll Call Vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: COUNCIL MEMBERS: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Overholt, Kaywood, Kott and Seymour None Roth The Mayor declared Resolution No. 78R-371 duly passed and adopted. 149: ORDINANCE NO. 3865: Councilwoman Kaywood offered Ordinance No. 3865 for adoption.~ Refer to Ordinance Book. ORDINANCE NO. 3865: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AMENDING TITLE 14, CHAPTER 14.32, SECTION 14.32.420 OF THE ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO PARKING RESTRICTED TO FACILITATE STREET SWEEPING. (Portions of Alberta, Bush, Cypress, Rose, Sycamore, Vine and Wilhelmina Streets) Roll Call Vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: COUNCIL MEMBERS: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Overholt, Kaywood, Kott and Seymour None Roth The Mayor declared Ordinance No. 3865 duly passed and adopted. ORDINANCE NO. 3866: Councilman Overholt offered Ordinance No. 3866 for adoption. Refer to Ordinance Book. ORDINANCE NO. 3866: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AMENDING TITLE 18 OF THE ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO ZONING. (77-78-51, RS-5000) Roll. Call Vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: COUNCIL MEMBERS: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Overholt, Kaywood, Kott and Seymour None Roth The Mayor declared Ordinance No. 3866 duly passed and adopted. ORDINANCE NO. 3867: Councilwoman Kaywood offered Ordinance No. 3867 for adoption. Refer to Ordinance Book. ORDINANCE NO. 3867: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AMENDING TITLE 18 OF THE ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO ZONING. (61-62-69(85), ML) Roll Call Vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: COUNCIL MEMBERS: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Overholt, Kaywood, Kott and Seymour None Ro th The Mayor declared Ordinance No. 3867 duly passed and adopted. 78-722 City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - June 6, 1978, 1:30 P.M. ORDINANCE NOS. 3869 THROUGH 3872: Councilman Seymour offered Ordinance Nos. 3869 through 3872, both inclusive, for first reading. ORDINANCE NO. 3869: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AMENDING TITLE 18 OF THE ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO ZONING. (67-68-68(3), RM-1200) ORDINANCE NO. 3870: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AMENDING TITLE 18 OF THE ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO ZONING. (73-74-55(7), CL) ORDINANCE NO. 3871: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AMENDING TITLE 18 OF THE ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO ZONING. (76-77-70, CL) ORDINANCE NO. 3872: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AMENDING TITLE 18 OF THE ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO ZONING. (77-78-39, RM-1200) 105: PLANNING COMMISSION - COUNCIL LIAISON MEETING: Councilwoman Kaywood reported on the Council Liaison meeting with the Planning Commission Chairman and Chairman Pro Tem wherein a joint meeting was set with the Council, Planning Commission and HACMAC for Monday, June 12, 1978. Amongst topics of discussion would be apartment house conversions, lot frontages in the Hill and Canyon area, HACMAC--purpose, function and timing, commercial-industrial development, new condominiums, general plan, development standards--industrial/commercial, mobile home park condominiums and any other items the Council would like to discuss. By general consent, the Joint meeting as articulated was set for Monday, June 12, 1978, at 7:00 P.M. in the Main Library, 500 West Broadway. 114: COUNCIL LIAISON MEETING ON ENTERPRISE ACTIVITIES: Mayor Seymour reported briefly on the meeting he attended along with Councilman Overholt specifically centering on the Los Angeles Rams potential move to Anaheim. The meeting was advisory in nature and no conclusions were reached. 150: PARKS, RECREATION & ARTS DEPARTMENT SUMMER PROGRAM BROCHURE: Mayor Seymour stated he had received the subject brochure and recalled that 2 or 3 years prior he emphatically expressed his concern relative to what he considered an elaborate tri-color brochure published by the Department. This year's 2-color brochure, although undoubtedly nowhere near as expensive, the glossy print and set-up appeared to him to be an expensive process. He thus directed staff to provide the total cost of the brochure, giving cost of setup, art work, paper, printing and mailing. 123: REQUEST BY Y. F. HAMMATT: Mr. Y. F. Hammatt, P. O. Box 2004, Anaheim, explained that they hoped to be moved from their house on August 1, 1978 and, as outlined in his letter of June 6, 1978, they were asking that the City add their garage to the list of items to be removed. Their agreement also calls for the City to replace the irrigation system that would be removed by the taking of 25 feet from the front of his property. However, if the garage was removed, they would consent to eliminating the irrigation system replacement requirement thereby saving the City an estimated $2,000. 78-723 City Hall~ Anaheim, California- COUNCIL MINUTES - June 6~ 1978~ 1:30 P.M. City Manager Talley stated that he had not seen the letter and he would recommend approval subject to his coming back to the Council after he had an opportunity to evaluate the matter. On motion by Councilman Kott, seconded by Councilwoman Kaywood, request by Y. F. Hammatt in letter dated June 6, 1978 to have his garage removed and eliminating the irrigation system replacement requirement was approved, subject to the City Manager's evaluation and subsequent recommendatior~ to the City Council. Council- man Roth was absent. MOTION CARRIED. ADJOURNMENT: Councilwoman Kaywood moved to adjourn to Monday, June 12, 1978 at 7:00 P.M. at the Main Library. Councilman Seymour seconded the motion. Councilman Roth was absent. MOTION CARRIED. Adjourned: 7:20 P.M.