Loading...
1978/06/20 78-777 City Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - June 20~ 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 UTILITIES DIRECTOR: Gordon Hoyt CITY ENGINEER: James Maddox RISK MANAGER: Jack Love STADIUM STAFF ASSISTANT: Jim Dooley ADMINISTRATIVE AIDE: Jim Armstrong DATA PROCESSING DIRECTOR: Tug Tamaru PARKS, RECREATION AND ARTS DIRECTOR: Jim Ruth CHIEF BUILDING INSPECTOR: Les King PLANNING DIRECTOR: Ron Thompson ASSISTANT DIRECTOR FOR ZONING: Annika Santalahti ASSISTANT DIRECTOR FOR PLANNING: Phil Schwartze Mayor Seymour called the meeting to order and welcomed those in attendance to the Council meeting. FLAG SALUTE: Councilman William I. Kott led the assembly in the Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag. 119: "1978 MOTHER OF THE YEAR": Mrs. Patricia Ann Knight, selected as the "1978 Anaheim Mother of the Year" was introduced to the Anaheim City Council and presented flowers and an "A" frame by Mayor Seymour. 119: PROCLAMATION: A proclamation declaring June 14 through July 4, 1978, the official period for citizens to honor America and congratulating Tommy Walker on his "Fourth Encounter" patriotic fireworks spectacular to be held July 4, 1978, was unanimously approved by the City Council and presented to Mr. Walker. MINUTES: Approval was minutes was deferred to the next regular meeting. 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 Seymour seconded the motion. MOTION UNANIMOUSLY CARRIED. FINANCIAL DEMANDS AGAINST THE CITY in the amount of $1,390,185..30, in accordance with the 1977-78 Budget, were approved. 123: AGREEMENT WITH TOMMY WALKER PRODUCTIONS - SUBLRASE OF ANAHEIM STADIUM FOR FIREWORKS SHOW: The proposed agreement between the City and Tommy Walker Produc- tions for exclusive rights to lease or sublease Anaheim Stadium on available July 4th dates for the years 1978 through 1985 for the purpose of producing patriotic fireworks spectaculars was submitted for Council consideration. 78-778 City Hal.l, Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - June 20~ 1978~ 1:30 P.M. Councilman Roth recalled that the California Angels contract provides that they have the first rights to the Stadium dates and that the Angels game schedule is' not known until November or December of each year. He therefore stated that since it not even known until then whether the facility would be available on the fourth of July, he did not understand the long-range contract concept up to 1985. He felt, although he recognized Mr. Walker to be an exceptional professional in his field, that there is the need for some competition, perhaps in the form of competitive bidding for the dates in question. Mayor Seymour noted that this question came up when the Anaheim City Council determined previously to engage the services of Tommy Walker Productions on a long-term basis and the rationale was that (1) Mr. Walker needs sufficient lead time to organize a production of this type; (2) that this is a community event and the Council wishes to provide an opportunity to the community to have the best available patriotic celebration. Mayor Seymour stated that he felt these reasons were still valid. In answer to Councilman Roth's concern, Mr. Tommy Walker was recognized and indicated he was willing to abide by the existing contract terms between the California Angels and the City of Anaheim. Councilman Kott offered Resolution No. 78R-387 for adoption. Refer to Resolu- tion book. RESOLUTION NO. 78R-387: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM APPROVING THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF AN AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AND TOMMY WALKER FOR EXCLUSIVE RIGHTS TO LEASE OR SUBLEASE ANAHEIM STADIUM ON AVAILABLE JULY 4TH DATES FOR PURPOSE OF PATRIOTIC FIREWORKS SPECTACULARS. Roll Call Vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: COUNCIL MEMBERS: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Overholt, Kaywood, Kott and Seymour Roth None The Mayor declared Resolution No. 78R-387 duly passed and adopted. 180: LETTER AGREEMENT - CONTINENTAL GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY - AIRPORT AIRCRAFT LIABILITY INSURANCE: Submitted was a recommendation from the Risk Manager that the Council, by motion, accept the offer of coverage for airport- aircraft liability insurance by Stewart, Smith & Haidinger, Inc., as submitted by Continental General Insurance Brokers, for the period from June 15, 1978 through June 15, 1979. (annual premium of $11,652.53) Mr. Talley reported that in accordance with Council direction, bids were solicited for the coverage, and three were received. The recommendation for continuation of coverage with Stewart, Smith & Haidinger, Inc., is made despite the fact that their bid is $403 over the low bid because this company, as the City's existing carrier, has not dropped the City through two incidents regarding coverage and the premium quoted for the 1978-79 coverage is $1,212 lower than last year. 78-779 City Hall~. Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - June 20~ 1978~ 1:30 P.M. Councilman Kott questioned why the insurance company which submitted the higher bid is considered better, and Mr. Talley reiterated that the Risk Manager and Insurance Broker recommend continuing coverage with the firm which has a proven track record and who are apparently a good company with which to work. On motion by Councilwoman Kaywood, seconded by Councilman Overholt, the City Council accepted the offer of coverage for airport-aircraft liability insurance from Stewart, Smith & Haidinger, Inc., for the period June 15, 1978 through June 15, 1979, for an annual premium of $11,652.53. MOTION CARRIED. 175: ANAHEIM "911" EMERGENCY PHONE PLAN: Report from Mr. Jim Armstrong, Administrative Aide, City Manager's Office, recommending that the Council approve the proposed City of Anaheim "911" Emergency Phone Plan, was submitted. In response to Mayor Seymour, Mr. Armstrong advised that the surtax proposed to fund this program will not permit sufficient build-up of money to finance the capital cost and a change is proposed to the legislation to resolve the funding problem. Therefore, there will not be sufficient State funds to finance the program when it goes on-line. It is however required that the City submit a plan by July 1, 1978. Councilman Kott questioned what this Emergency Phone Plan would do that is different from the service the citizens now have. Mr. Armstrong explained that the plan would allow any citizen any where in the City who desired some type of emergency service--fire, police, ambulance, etc.-- to dial the three digits 911, the call would be answered at the Public Safety Answering Point and aid dispatched. Councilman Kott voiced the opinion that this service is not worth the money which it will cost; that he felt individuals should take the responsibility for having the emergency numbers available and being able to dial them; that this is another example of a "bureacractic boondoggle" and additional inter- vention into the realm of local government. Mayor Seymour stated that although he is concerned regarding the fiscal conclu- sions of the legislation indicating or enacting this program, he would support it as (1) it is a service which the public has long indicated they desire; (2) the Council is presently being asked to approve or reject the plan in concept only and can alter that decision in the future if necessary; (3) because he believes there are circumstances when emergency telephone numbers would not be handy, and it is easier to remember the 911 number especially when an individual is in a panic situation. Councilwoman Kaywood added that many times accidents occur out on the road where individuals are not familiar with the town and are making a call for emergency services from a public pay phone; that even small children can be trained to re- member and dial the 911 number; and that the use of this number should reduce con- fusion as to which number should be called by people living in unincorporated areas and the resultant time-consuming referral to neighboring emergency aid systems. 78-780 City Hall, Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - June 20~ 1978~ 1:30 P.M. MOTION: On motion by Councilman Seymour, seconded by Councilwoman Kaywood, the City Council approved the proposed City of Anaheim "911" Emergency Phone Plan, as submitted by the City Manager's Office. Councilman Kott voted "no". MOTION CARRIED. 123: FIRST AMENDMENT TO AGREEMENT WITH YOUNG FRANCIS AND L. D. HAMiMATT (A.H.F.P. PROJECT NO. 859): On motion by Councilman Roth, seconded by Councilman Overholt, the City Council continued this matter until later in the meeting, pending the appearance of Mr. Hammatt. MOTION CARRIED. 131: REQUEST FOR CALTRANS ACTION ON ROUTE 55 THROUGH CITY OF COSTA MESA: Council- man Seymour offered Resolution No. 78R-388 for adoption, prepared by the City Attorney at Council's direction given during the meeting of June 13, 1978. Refer to Resolution Book. RESOLUTION NO. 78R-388: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM, CALIFORNIA, REQUESTING ACTION BY THE CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION ON FULFILLING TRANSPORTATION AND SAFETY NEEDS ALONG ROUTE 55 (FREEWAY) THROUGH THE CITY OF COSTA MESA. 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-388 duly passed and adopted. 108: PUBLIC DANCE PERMIT - J & J PRODUCTIONS INC.: The City Clerk submitted an Application for Public Dance Permit by Jack Dean George, J & J Productions, Inc., for a dance to be held at the Anaheim Convention Center, June 23, 1978, in conjunction with the Garden Grove and Stanton Police Associations, and advised that the Chief of Police has recommended approval. MOTION: On motion by Councilman Roth, seconded by Councilman Overholt, the permit for J & J Productions to conduct a public dance at the Anaheim Conven- tion Center on June 23, 1978, was approved as recommended by the Chief of Police. MOTION CARRIED. 123: JOINT POWERS AGREEMENT - MUNICIPAL DATA SYSTEMS: Report and recommendation that the City Council, by resolution, enter into a Joint Powers Agreement with Municipal Data Systems (MDS) to provide joint data processing services for 9 cities .through June 30, 1979, was submitted. Mr. Tamaru introduced representatives present from MDS, Steve Nordic, President, John Hackney, Vice President, and Mr. Gillespie, Councilman from the City of Westminster. Councilman Kott commented that he personally considered the program to be very expensive; that if it were such a good deal, the other cities would have their own system; that he would like to see Anaheim phase out the program and look to private enterprise for its needs; and that he preferred to stop the situation wherein the City Manager requires department heads to attend meetings and become "brainwashed" on the possible uses of this equipment and to encourage more use 78-781 City Hall~ Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - June 20~ 1978~ 1:30 P.M. of same in order to justify having it. Councilman Kott further voiced the opinion that this type of equipment becomes outdated in very short periods of time and for all these reasons, he could not support the proposed resolution. Mayor Seymour questioned what assurance there was in this agreement that the City of Anaheim receive some benefits from placing its capital up front for develop- ment of software programs. Mr. Tamaru explained that the City does not by this agreement commit to develop- ment of any software that it does not want for its own sole benefit. These programs are then available for MDS cities if they feel they can make use of them. According to the agreement, the City of Anaheim will be receiving funds from the MDS cities by the unit charge under the rental agreement which will recover 42 percent of development costs. Mayor Seymour stated that in this arrangement there appears to him to be a great deal of risk capital being put up front by the City of Anaheim, and he recalled the $500,000 spent by the City on a utilities billing system which never became operational. Mr. Tamaru stressed that no software would be developed unless the C~ty of Anaheim agreed to it, that they needed the program and that it was cost effective. If these criteria are met, then the City could recover at least one-half of the development costs. Mayor Seymour noted that there are numerous companies in the private sector, as well as governmental entities, who have gone down the path seeking a computer answer and expended huge sums of money only to find in the end that they did not have a program which was effective at all. He stated that if he were one of the MDS cities, he would encourage the City of Anaheim to develop the particular software programs they might need and if the City gets into financial problems with them, that city could then wipe out their financial participation. He called attention to the terms of the proposed agreement which allow either party to terminate with 270 days' notice. He inquired if such a situation were to occur, where the program was developed and the cities determined it didn't do what they anticipated, then where would the City of Anaheim be in terms of re- covery of amortized costs? Mr. Tamaru responded that this is one of the risks as might be incurred in any business deal. He indicated that since Proposition 13, there is a greater interest from cities in sharing these services and in eliminating duplication. Mayor Seymour stated that he feels there are far-reaching future implications made in this proposed agreement; that he would support an agreement whereby the City of Anaheim would continue as a service bureau, but the portion wherein the City of Anaheim will, by virtue of software development, be committing to some risk capital, frankly scared him. 78-782 City Hall~ Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - June 20~ 1978~ 1:30 P.M. Mr. Steven Nordic, President of MDS, stated that all software programs, even though initiated by the City of Anaheim would come before the Anaheim City Council for approval; that there are cities in MDS who will use software pro- grams already developed from which the City of Anaheim will recoup costs they had not planned on recovering; that the rate committee concept proposed in the agreement whereby the City of Anaheim and MDS management would form a rate committee to review and set the rates paid for a particular program should insure the City's recovery of the software development costs. In reply to Mayor Seymour who asked whether the City of Anaheim would have voting control of the rate setting committee, Mr. Nordic explained that there would be three members from the City of Anaheim and three from MDS cities, but if the committee could not agree, then the matter would go to the various city councils for determinations. Mayor Seymour compared the relative position of Anaheim and the MDS cities, noting that he personally would much rather be in the decision mode available to the MDS cities of being able to see what a program does before determining whether or not they can use it and consequently pay their prorata share, versus the position in which Anaheim finds itself of putting out the up-front money to develop the pro- gram. He suggested that the contract be revised to allow Anaheim and the MDS cities to continue the relationship they have had in the past without getting into the areas of binding future relationships relative to development of software programs. Mr. Nordic explained that these sections were placed into the contract agreement in order to lessen the City of Anaheim's financial burden, as were the four-year term and the 270-day termination notice placed in the contract on the recommenda- tion of the City of Anaheim. He indicated that he could not foresee the MDS cities requesting any major program development inasmuch as the major sys rems and programs were already existing. Councilman Kott asked Mr. Nordic if the City of Manhattan Beach would consider taking over the City of Anaheim's role in this project. Mr. Nordic responded that the City of Manhattan Beach does not have the population base to support a computer the size of which Anaheim is using. He remarked that the City of Anaheim would still require the computer even if the MDS cities pulled Out. Differences between the existing and proposed contract were discussed during which it was pointed out that the proposed agreement provides that the development costs incurred by the City of Anaheim shall be amortized and recovered through unit charge and contractual arrangement as approved by a rate committee; that the MDS cities will convert to Anaheim's MA~t8 System, but deleted reference to payroll and utility systems; that it sets forth the method for determining rates for a new software pro- gram and provides that the rates will be the same when the same system and software are used, but if otherwise, rates may differ; provides that business license system conversion costs shall be the responsibility of Anaheim. In response to Council Members questions, Mr. Tamaru explained that it is standard procedure for any service bureau to absorb in-house file conversion and training costs; that these costs would be recovered in the conversion cost placed in the 78-783 City Hall, Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - June 20~ 1978~ 1:30 P.M. proposal given to the individual city. In addition, he assured Councilman Kott that in the 42 percent recovery rate for software program development, all fixed costs, operating costs, overhead and indirect costs were taken into consideration in development of the formula to establish the charge. At the conclusion of discussion, Councilman Kott noted that as an elected official, he is compelled to look at the entire picture and he felt the requirement that all department heads attend a 3-day computer meeting on the use of this equipment adds up to a large sum of money, therefore, he could not support the resolution. Councilman Roth offered Resolution No. 78R-389 for adoption. Refer to Resolution Book. RESOLUTION NO. 78R-389: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM PROVIDING A JOINT POWERS AGREEMENT WITH MUNICIPAL DATA SYSTEMS, A JOINT POWERS AGENCY, PERTAINING TO DATA PROCESSING SERVICES AND AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR AND CITY CLERK TO EXECUTE SAME. Roll Call Vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: COUNCIL MEMBERS: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Overholt, Kaywood and Roth Kott and Seymour None The Mayor declared Resolution No. 78R-389 duly passed and adopted. Mayor Seymour explained that he does not oppose the extension of the MDS contract, but his "no" vote reflects his concern over the software development concept which he felt should be split out and placed into a separate agreement. 123: AMENDMENT TO LEASE AGREEMENT - NOXSEL'S INVESTMENT COMPANY: On motion by Councilwoman Kaywood, seconded by Councilman Overholt, the proposed amendment to a lease agreement with E. Ray Noxsel, dba Noxsel's Investment Company, for office space at 1020 South Anaheim Boulevard for use by Manpower Services, for $1,000 per month, term ending May 31, 1979, was continued to June 27, 1978 at the request of staff. MOTION CARRIED. 150: REPORT ON COST OF PARKS~ RECREATION AND ARTS DEPARTMENT SUMMER BROCHURE: Report outlining the cost for printing of the 1978 summer Parks, Recreation and Arts Department brochure was submitted for Council review. In response to Council questions, Mr. Ruth explained that the CETA contribution was 150 work hours of one artist totalling $900. As this individual is an hourly employee, no additional fringe benefit costs were incurred. He added that the fee for any class given by the City includes a cost for advertising estimated to be 15 percent of the fee. With Council approval, Mr. Ruth noted that he does intend to pursue the placement of private enterprise advertising in future brochures to defray the costs. Mayor Seymour stated that he had requested the report and had brought the matter up because, although he recognized the City's responsibility of informing the public of the Parks, Recreation and the Arts programs, he had received a number of calls requesting how, in light of Proposition 13, the City could afford such an expensive brochure. 78-784 City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - June 20~ 1978~ 1:30 P.M. Mr. Ruth noted that the brochure is printed on cheaper paper, but the overall cost is roughly the same as last year taking inflation into consideration. On motion by Councilman Seymour, seconded by Councilwoman Kaywood, the report was accepted and ordered received and filed. MOTION CARRIED. 169: REJECTION OF BIDS - EUCLID STREET STREET IMPROVEMENT: The City Engineer's recommendation that the City Council, by resolution, reject all bids received for the Euclid Street Street Improvement, Riverside Freeway to La Palma Avenue (A.H.F.P. No. 836) Account No. 13-4309-737-16-0000, was presented. In answer to Councilman Kott, Mr. Maddox advised that the low bid was considered to be unbalanced because the unit price for work done in the early parts of the contract did not come anywhere near the actual cost of performing that work; that the second low bid was also unbalanced, but not as badly as this one. Councilman Kott stated that he did not understand this answer nor the reasoning for rejecting the bids. He questioned whether the City Engineer felt the price would go down if the Job is bid at a later date. Mr. Maddox reported that they intend to advertise again late in July and feel they will get a better response at that time primarily because the contractors are in an extremely busy period now, and there is a cement shortage. Councilman Roth offered Resolution No. 78R-390 for adoption. Refer to Resolution Book. RESOLUTION NO. 78R-390: 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 8TH DAY OF JUNE, 1978 FOR THE EUCLID STREET STREET AND STORM DRAIN IMPROVEMENT, A.H.F.P. NO. 836, ACCOUNT NO. 13-4306-737-16-0000. Roll Call Vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: COUNCIL MEMBERS: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Overholt, Kaywood, Roth and Seymour Kott None The Mayor declared Resolution No. 78R-390 duly passed and adopted. 167: INSTALLATION OF REFLECTIVE AND NON-REFLECTIVE RAISED PAVEMENT MARKERS AT VARIOUS LOCATIONS: On motion by Councilman Roth, seconded by Councilwoman Kaywood, the award of contract for installation of reflective and non-reflective raised pavement markers at various locations (Account No. 17-4309-776-16-0000) was continued to the meeting of June 27, 1978 as requested by the City Engineer. MOTION CARRIED. 123: FIRST AMENDMENT TO HAMMATT AGREEMENT REGARDING PROPERTY AT 1548 WEST ORANGE- WOOD AVENUE: Mr. Hammatt advised that in response to his request at the June 6, 1978 Council meeting, his understanding was that the City was going to take over the $650 expense for moving his house and save the difference, and that the Council's motion indicated Mr. Hammatt to keep the garage and the irrigation system would be deleted from the plan. Since that time, Mr. Hammatt stated he has been informed that since his garage exceeds 400 square feet (it is 20x22 or 440 square feet in size) the City's Building Code requires that he obtain a permit, place a foundation and cement floor, all of which amounts to $1,150. Since he intends to use the .~ity Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - June 20~ 1978~ 1:30 P.M. 78-785 garage for storage of a tractor, rototiller and garden tools, Mr. Hammatt re- quested Council to instruct staff to consider the possibility of waiving the extra fees for the permits. Councilman Roth stated that he would abstain from discussion and voting on this as he was not present when the original discussion took place. Mr. Talley requested clarification as to whether Mr. Hammatt, in actuality, is not only asking for waiver of fees and permits, but also to be allowed to move a structure and use same without a foundation, cement floor, or installation of electricity. Mayor Seymour stated that he was of the opinion that the structure to be moved should conform to the Building Code and as reasonably applied. He noted that if the structure were a few square feet less, these requirements would not apply. Mr. Talley requested a representative of the Building Division speak to this matter and Council determined to continue decision on same to the beginning of public hearings following a lO-minute recess. RECESS: By general consent, the Council recessed for 10 minutes. (3:00 p.m.) AFTER RECESS: Mayor Seymour called the meeting to order, all Council Members being present. (3:10 P.M.) 123: FIRST AMENDMENT TO HA~TT AGREEMENT REGARDING pROpERTY AT 1548 WEST ORANGE- WOOD AVENUE: Mr. Les King, Chief Building Inspector, stated all that would be required under the building would be a foundation only and they would not require a floor slab, the permit for which would be approximately $5. They would not require electricity in a detached garage. The Mayor stated he believed it was the concensus of the Council to waive the fee since Mr. Hammatt was kind enough to make such a favorable trade to the City. On the other hand, the Council wanted to make certain the building was safe and suggested that a safety inspector check the building to insure that was so. Mr. Hammatt was agreeable to that action. Relative to the $650, Councilman Kott recommended that it be made part of the resolution to grant it to Mr. Hammatt as requested. A vote was taken on the foregoing resolution including the $650 to Mr. Hammatt. Refer to Resolution Book. RESOLUTION NO. 78R-391: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM APPROVING THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF A FIRST AMENDMENT TO AGREEMENT WITH YOUNG FRANCIS HAMMATT AND LUCINDA D. HAMMATT IN CONNECTION WITH PUBLIC WORKS A.H.F.P. PROJECT NO. 859, AND AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR AND CITY CLERK TO EXECUTE SAID AGREEMENT. Roll Call Vote: AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Overholt, Kaywood, Kott and Seymour NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: None ABSTAINED: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Roth ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: None The Mayor declared Resolution No. 78R-391 duly passed and adopted. 78-786 City Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - June 20~ 1978~ 1:30 P.M. PUBLIC HEARING - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 1700 - WAIVER OF CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL FOR ALTERNATE FENCING: Application by Euclid-Romneya Company requesting amendment to Resolution No. 77R-321, Condition No. 2, for approval of alternate fencing material for Conditional Use Permit No. 1700, to permit a drive-through restaurant on CL zoned property located north and east of the intersection of Romneya Drive and Euclid Street. The City Planning Commission recommended approval of the subject waiver. A negative declaration status was previously approved. 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; a gentleman from the audience indicated his presence and his willingness to answer any questions. The Mayor asked if anyone wished to speak either in favor or opposition; there being no response, he closed the public hearing. Councilman Kott asked if there was any opposition to the project expressed at the public hearing. Miss Santalahti stated that no one from the single-family tract appeared at the public hearing and they were notified. Councilman Roth offered Resolution No. 78R-392 for adoption, amending Resolution No. 77R-321, as recommended by the City Planning Commission. Refer to Resolution Book. RESOLUTION NO. 78R-392: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AMENDING RESOLUTION NO. 77R-321 RELATING TO CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 1700. 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-392 duly passed and adopted. PUBLIC HEARING - VARIANCE NO. 3011: Application by Roger Pannier, et al., to convert an existing ll6-unit apartment into a condominium project on RM-1200 zoned property located at 1230 South Euclid Street with code waivers of: a) minimum building site area per dwelling unit b) maximum site coverage c) minimum front-yard setback 78-787 City Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - June 20~ 1978~ 1:30 P.M. d) minimum recreation-leisure area e) minimum distances between buildings f) buildings facing arterial highways g) minimum number and type of parking spaces h) maximum distance between parking and units The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC78-96 reported that the Planning Director has determined that the proposed activity falls within the definition of Section 3.01, Class 1 of the City of Anaheim Guide- lines to the requirement for an environmental impact report and is, therefore, categorically exempt from the requirement to file an EIR and further granted Variance No. 3011, subject to the following conditions: 1. That a final tract map of subject property shall be submitted to and approved by the City Council and then be recorded in the Office of the Orange County Recorder. 2. That street lighting facilities along Euclid Street, Palm Lane, Palm Way and Ball Road shall be installed prior to the final building and zoning inspections unless otherwise approved by the Director of Public Utilities, and in accordance with standard specifications on file in the Office of 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 the covenants, conditions, and restrictions shall be submitted to and approved by the City Attorney's Office prior to Council approval of the final tract map; said covenants, conditions, and restrictions to include provisions requiring that units shall be sold and occupied only by senior citizens (persons 50 years of age or older). The approved covenants, conditions and restrictions shall be recorded concurrently with the final tract map. 4. That prior to filing the final tract map, the applicant shall submit to the City Attorney for approval or denial a complete synopsis of the proposed functioning of the operating corporation including, but not limited to, the articles of incorporation, bylaws, proposed methods of management, bonding to insure maintenance of common property and buildings, and such other information as the City Attorney may desire to protect the City, its citizens, and the purchasers of the project. 5. That subject property shall be developed substantially in accordance with plans and specifications on file with the City of Anaheim marked Exhibit Nos. 1 through 7. 6. That Condition Nos. 1 and 2, above-mentioned, shall be complied with prior to the commencement of the activity 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. 7. That Condition No. 5, above-mentioned, shall be complied with prior to final building and zoning inspections. 78-788 City Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - June 20~, 1978~ 1:30 P.M. A review of the Planning Commission's decision was requested by Councilwoman Kaywood at the meeting of May 30, 1978 and public hearing scheduled this date. Mayor Seymour stated that he had a lease-hold interest in the property directly across the street which he would be vacating on June 30, 1978. He thus asked the City Attorney if a potential conflict of interest was involved if he voted on the matter. City Attorney Hopkins explained if the proposed action would cause the value of the lease-hold to increase, there could possibly be a conflict, but he believed it to be rather remote. The Mayor stated that he would participate in the discussion and voting on the matter. The Mayor asked if the applicant or applicant's agent was present and desirous of being heard. Mr. James Christensen, 3822 Campus Drive, Newport Beach, representing Mr. Roger Pannier and the Robert P. Warmington Company, stated this was a special conversion request, not an ordinary such as the Covington Brothers conversion (see minutes of April 4, 1978) and it was not without precedent in the City. A similar con- version to condominiums was made on the Magnolia Street apartments, now called The Pines, a condominium for senior citizens. He referred to a letter received from the Board of Directors of The Pines indicating that it was an extremely successful conversion and the parking was more than adequate. The project's news sheet indicated that 10 parking spaces were available for rent because they were not being used. The parking ratio at the project was the same as that set by HUD of 1.82 spaces for senior citizens. In the existing subject apartments, there were some spaces being leased not involving senior citizens. Mr. Christensen continued that Americans enjoyed the freedom to own property and be able to develop or change it to the needs of people. The Warmington Company had a concern for the apartment dwellers already living in the complex and the senior citizens contacted were very much interested in purchasing the units because of the fact that housing could be provided to them at a much lower cost than new housing while providing pride of ownership. They also had a program similar to that offered by Covington Brothers where they would assist the present residents in relocating, as well as giving them allowances on their rents and deposits--free rent for a 30-day period for those currently paid up to date. As well, they would do all of the things stated in their letter of May 10, 1978 sent to all the residents (made a part of the record). Mr. Christensen further explained that 116 units were involved.and since it was a financial risk for Warmington to go into that many units, there would be a protracted period for sale of the units. Therefore, residents would not be moved out all at one time. They were also cognizant of those with special problems relative to moving and those residents would not be moved first. Councilman Roth asked what the proposed sales price of the units would be. 78-789 City Hall~ Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - June 20~ 1978~ 1:30 P.M. Mr. Christensen indicated he would have to check with Mr. Carr of Warmington; from the audience, Mr. Carr stated that unit selling price would be in the upper $40,000 and the $50,000 range although the bank loans had not been finalized. Mr. Christensen stated that they would assist the existing tenants who wished to buy in their downpayment by allowing them free rental during the time they were there to accrue towards their downpayments. Councilman Kott noted that Mr. Christensen stated that they had plans to return certain refunds, deposits and so forth and would make special considerations in hardship cases to allow people to remain. Should he be successful in getting an affirmative vote, he asked Mr. Christensen if he would stipulate to those conditions. Mr. Christensen stated that they would do so and would be happy to make the letter sent to the residents a matter of record for the Council. The Mayor asked if anyone wished to speak either in favor or in opposition. The following persons all living at 1230 South Euclid Street spoke in opposition to the granting of Variance No. 3011 for the below listed reasons and pertinent comments: Sally Newman, Phyllis Kulpa (sent letter dated June 1, 1978 expressing reasons why in opposition, made a part of the record), Harry Frye, Robert Cokley, Bea Lozinski, Dusty Anderson, Eva Orris, Allen Rice, Joann Stanton, 1509 Harle Street: 1. There was a concern relative to why so many apartment buildings facing a school did not allow children. 2. There should be a City ordinance not allowing apartment buildings to be constructed unless children were allowed. 3. Relocation with children and/or pets was going to be difficult because such accommodations were rare. 4. The complex was located near four schools, Palm Lane Elementary, Ball Junior High, Loara High School and Trident Junior High. The loss of students in those schools would have an adverse financial impact relative to Federal aid since the population of those schools was comprised of many students from the apartment complex. 5. The location was ideal for residents with children considering the close proximity to schools and a new library. 6. Anaheim was a family town and if it was not possible to find a place to rent with children, it should not be called a family town. 7. Of the 14 buildings within a 2-block radius, only one other building contained 3-bedroom apartments. It was located directly next to the Palm Lane School, but would not accept children. 8. The relocation aids and efforts offered by Warmington were.not sufficient; another complex approved for conversion to condominiums offered 4 months' rent which was equitable as well as return of deposits. Thirty days' rent was not an equitable arrangement. 9. Not all residents were contacted and apprised of the plan. 10. Although the apartments were nice, they needed help. 11. Concern was expressed over the health, safety and welfare of the children going through adult communities to and from school; there would be no block parents without family units in the area. 12. The complex represented a good community and community support was needed to assist the Police Department in precluding or mitigating crime in an area. 78-790 qity Hall~ Anahe~m~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - June 20~ 1978~ 1:30 P.M. 13. There was a question as to why public hearing notice signs were removed and why not all residents were notified of the meeting. 14. Concern was expressed relative to relocation with both an elderly person and a young grandaughter. 15. It would be unfortunate to ruin the present apartment complex and displace people. 16. If the complex was not converted exclusively for senior citizens and the people living there had an opportunity to purchase, the proposal might be amenable. 17. If 62 units had to be removed to meet requirements, the owners would be losing money in the purchase price of the property unless they doubled the price they were asking for purchase. 18. The Building Code was established to protect the public interest in general; the Council should abide by the Code which would require denial of the requested variance. 19. When the Cerritos-Walnut condominium project "Pepperwood" was first introduced four years prior, it came in at 18- to 19-units per acre, causing a major dispute. The City was now doing the same thing citizens had worked so hard against in their opposition to the density of the "Pepperwood" project. 20. It would be difficult for people over 50 to make high monthly payments for a period of 30 years, retirement would not cover monthly costs. Before proceeding, Miss Santalahti clarified that the developer was not proposing any removal of buildings; the Mayor further confirmed that in order to meet the requirements and standards of the City totally, parking~availability would have to be increased. However, the developer asked and the Planning Commission granted a waiver on parking. In summation, Mr. Christensen stated he recognized the concerns of the people, but there was also conflicting testimony wherein one tenant stated it was a good place to live and another indicating it was run-down. They also realized that hardships were involved, but just as with the concept of redevelopment, the complex was getting to the point where it needed to be completely renovated. They were going to completely paint it, install all new appliances, carpeting and whatever was needed to bring it up to a fine, livable place. Mr. Christensen continued that the Planning Commission recognized there was a problem relative to the tenants with children. Although it was reflected in the Planning Commission minutes, it was stated that children would be allowed 14 years of age and older because in this case such action would be warranted. At the hearing, they indicated that the Federal Government, the State of California, the County of Orange or any other county did not have any program for senior citizens to assist them in owning a home, but only a rental subsidy program. The Anaheim City Council and Warmington two years prior did venture forth on a senior citizens complex in Anaheim (Pines) on a trial basis with many restrictions placed upon that conversion. He reiterated that venture was living proof of success and the residents had expressed their pleasure with it to Warmington. There were over 20,000 senior citizens in Anaheim thus posing a need. In the tenant-landowner relationship, the tenant could leave and move whenever he~ wished, but the landlord, it seemed, could not do what he wanted to do. He then stated that the idea of four months' rent sounded like blackmail and they would meet the same type of arrangements as that proposed by Covington Brothers. He 78-791 City Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCI.L. MINUTES - June 20~ 1978~ 1:30 P.M. pointed out that three months' rent versus four months was reserved for those tenants who wanted to purchase. That was why the letter of May 10, 1978 only informed the tenants that the property was going to be sold and arrangements for those people who had to relocate. It did not say anything about the people who wanted to purchase since special arrangements would have to be made in that case and they would stipulate to giving three months' rent towards the purchase as well as all fees and things that residents would request back if they wished to purchase. They were being more than fair in giving more than ample time for people to move. In concluding, Mr. Christensen stated if the Council agreed with the Planning Commission, it could help several of the people already in the complex. The prices were right and they were well aware of what they could accomplish. They would not have to remove buildings and that was the reason they asked for variances, several of which they could do nothing about. Anaheim was the only City thus to his knowledge that had worked with the developer to provide senior citizens with housing and he asked for a continuance of that concept in the granting of Variance No. 3011. Councilwoman Kaywood thereupon posed several questions to Mr. Christensen who answered as follows: 1. The major cost difference between a developer building a new condominium or converting apartment lay in the cost of labor and materials. A new building would cost approximately $35 to $40 a square foot versus a building already constructed that could be renovated for a lesser price thereby being able to provide lower cost housing which was their major thrust. There were no condominiums in Orange County today that sold for less than $75,000. 2. The monthly payments for purchase had not been determined because they had not received their bank loans so they did not know what the prices would be or the interest on the long-term loan a person would make. It was estimated however that payments would be approximately $500 a month and association fees approximately $40 to $45 a month. 3. He did not know the average age of people living at the "Pines", but the residents were all over 50. Councilwoman Kaywood took issue with the last statement made by Mr. Christensen since he had previously indicated to her that the average age was 48; Mr. Christensen stated that the remark was made relative to the several condominium projects they had built wherein the average age was 48. Councilwoman Kaywood then asked if it was ever brought out at the Planning Commission or would Mr. Christensen have attempted to secure the eight waivers requested for a conversion without the "gimmick" of calling it senior citizen housing? Mr. Christensen took exception to the question and stated their's was a sincere concern for senior citizens and they recognized the need and the market for such housing. There being no further persons who wished to speak either in favor or in opposi- tion, the Mayor closed the public hearing. 78- 792 City Hall~ Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - June 20~ 1978~ 1:30 P.M. Councilwoman Kaywood stated that she had been by the "Pines" condominium project on Magnolia and submitted there was wall-to-wall parking on the curb every time she did so. The street was always full of cars. She had been by the project just that afternoon and noted small children coming out of the complex gate with adults. She believed it would be interesting to monitor the complex to ascertain who purchased the units, especially since all waivers were approved on the baSis that it was for senior citizens over 50 years of age or older. Also, at the Planning Commission hearing, for which she had the minutes, Mr. Christensen stated, "He pointed out that in the "Pines" project, no one had been allowed to occupy the premises under 14 years of age, which had created problems with senior citizens who still had a child left at home, and he would like to see that restriction left off this project." Councilwoman Kaywood further submitted there was no re- striction and that any age child could live in the complex. At 16, they could all have cars and could be creating for Anaheim a real monstrosity. There were also many other apartments in the subject project area and if this complex was converted, she believed the Council would be inundated with similar requests and no older apartment houses would be left in Anaheim. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT - CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION: On motion by Councilwoman Kaywood, seconded by Councilman Roth, the City Council ratified the determination of the Planning Director that the proposed activity falls within the definition of Section 3.01, Class 1 of the City of Anaheim guidelines to the requirements for an environmental impact report and is, therefore, categorically exempt from the requirement to file an EIR. MOTION CARRIED. RESOLUTION: Councilwoman Kaywood offered Resolution No. 78R-393 for adoption, denying Variance No. 3011, overturning the Planning Commission's decision. Before a vote was taken, Councilwoman Kaywood stated that she had spoken to a couple of the Planning Commissioners who felt that since the Council had over- turned their unanimous recommendation of denial on the past project, that they would try to get the best they could out of this one, not that they approved of it. She also maintained that the findings made did not apply, specifically Finding No. 2 (see Resolution No. PC78-96)--the Commission denied similar waivers in the past; Finding No. 4--the Magnolia Street project was not in the same vicinity and they were all garden apartments of one-story, whereas the subject project was both one- and two-stories; Finding No. 5--when considering the 348 residents, 4 schools within 2 blocks and a library, it was apparent the apartment house was built for family living. She was very concerned over what was happening in Anaheim where it was difficult to find a place to live with children. It was time to address that problem and not make any further mistakes. Councilman Roth stated that the cornerstone of freedom in America stemmed from individual property rights which he believed in strongly; however, in this instance, he was concerned with the great amount of code waivers required to make the con- version conform to the Code. He commented further that due to the incredibly high cost of housing, they were getting more pressure as elected officials to provide low- and medium-cost housing which the condominium conversion would represent. That type of pressure would lead to tax money being used for sub- sidized housing under government programs. That was another consideration about 78-793 ~.ity Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - June 20~ 1978~ 1:30 P.M. which he was concerned. He would, therefore, like to keep the door open on conversions as an avenue for providing the low-cost housing sorely needed, but without government subsidy. He reiterated however that because of the numerous code waivers requested, he would vote for denial of the subject project. Councilman Kott was in agreement with Councilman Roth relative to the matter due to the number of waivers requested to where the term "property rights" would be exceeded. He would also vote in support of Councilwoman Kaywood's resolution. Before concluding, he asked the City Attorney if, in his opinion, the Council had the right to attach a condition on a variance or zoning action that denied certain people occupancy because of their age. City Attorney Hopkins stated he did not believe that would be appropriate be- cause it had nothing to do with land use and age would not be relevant. Councilman Overholt stated he would also support the resolution. Although there was a great need for senior citizen housing, the subject property located in close proximity to 4 schools was not the place for such housing, but more suited to families who could afford the rent they were paying. The area was an ideal place to reside for those with children in school. He agreed that the list of requested waivers in itself was an indication of the problem involved with the project. Councilwoman Kaywood interjected and brought to the Council's attention the fact that several new condominium projects in surrounding cities and one in Anaheim were presently being advertised with prices ranging from $37,950 to $69,900 with a number of amenities. Councilwoman Kaywood also pointed out that Planning Commissioner Barnes offered the resolution before the Planning Commission granting Variance No. 3011 on the basis that the proposal was specifically to provide lower cost housing for senior citizens 50 years of age or older. With the 8 waivers requested, she believed there was no question if it had not been requested on the basis of senior citizen housing, no one would have considered it at all at 18 units to the acre. Mayor Seymour stated he would support the resolution for denial of the project although there was something in Councilwoman Kaywood's resolution he did not want misunderstood. He felt that low- and moderate-income housing would be provided through creative ideas such as conversion of apartments to condominiums. Another alternative was to provide such housing with Federal, State or local subsidies because there was no so called low-cost housing that could be newly constructed. Anaheim was not the only city faced with the tenants' rights question. When entering into a legal 30-day contract on tenancy with a landlord, either party could break that contract on 30 days' notice. Although he understood the human aspects of the problem and empathized with it, the matter was really a civil one. He did not believe a local zoning body such as a Planning Commission or City Council should be making decisions based upon their interpretation of what was morally correct. The Mayor continued that extensive waivers were requested for the subject project such as density, 18 units to the acre, when under new construction it would not be more than 10 to 11. He recommended that the Planning Commission look at that matter with the view that the Council would not support a condominium conversion- type ordinance permitting 18 units to the acre, but perhaps somewhere between 78-794 City Ha.!.l., Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - June 20, 1978, 1:30 P.M. 10 and 18. As well, the variance requested for parking on the subject project was a substantial one, approximately 50 percent. With 14 year olds being per- mitted in the complex, this would generate more vehicles within two years. Plus, the Planning Commission should also consider parking standards and try to uphold those standards. He could live with the other requested variances on the project because they were not unreasonable. The Mayor concluded that he would support Councilwoman Kaywood's resolution and also requested the following: (1) ask the Council to consider the tenants' rights question because it would be arising time and again and, (2) ask the Planning Commission to devise a new conversion ordinance. Councilwoman Kaywood clarified that she was in no way against property rights, but the number of waivers requested and the extremeness of them in this case were unreasonable. A vote was then taken on the foregoing resolution. Refer to Resolution Book. RESOLUTION NO. 78R-393: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF ~HE CITY OF ANAHEIM DENYING VARIANCE NO. 3011. 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-393 duly passed and adopted. 176: PUBLIC HEARING - ABANDONMENT NO. 77-19A: In accordance with application filed by Mr. and Mrs. Franklin D. Snyder, public hearing was held on proposed abandonment of an existing public utility easement located at 2923 West Devoy Drive, to build a garage to property line, pursuant to Resolution No. 78R-353 duly published in the Anaheim Bulletin and notices thereof posted in accordance with law. Report of the City Engineer dated May 4, 1978, was submitted recommending approval of the abandonment and the Planning Commission also 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 Roth, seconded by Councilwoman Kaywood, the City Council ratified the determination of the Planning Director that the proposed activity falls within the definition of Section 3.01, Class 5 of the City of Anaheim Guidelines to the requirements for an environmental impact report and is, therefore, categorically exempt from the requirement to file an EIR. MOTION CARRIED. Councilman Roth offered Resolution No. 78R-394 for adoption approving Abandonment No. 77-19A as recommended by the City Engineer. Refer to Resolution Book. City ~all~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - June 20~ 1978~ 1:30 P.M. 78-795 RESOLUTION NO. 78R-394: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM ORDERING THE VACATION AND ABANDONMENT OF A CERTAIN PUBLIC SERVICE EASEMENT. (77-19A, 2923 West DevOy Drive) 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-394 duly passed and adopted. 176: PUBLIC HEARING - ABANDONMENT NO. 77-20A: In accordance with application filed by Kim R. Farley, public hearing wam held on proposed abandonment of 3-foot, 3-inches of an existing 10-foot public utility easement located at 141 South Kingsley Street, in Lot 14, Tract No. 4412 to permit installation of a swimming pool pursuant to Resolution No. 78R-354 duly published in the Anaheim Bulletin and notices thereof posted in accordance with law. Report of the City Engineer dated May 4, 1978, was submitted recommending approval of the abandonment and the Planning Commission also 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 Roth, seconded by Councilwoman Kaywood, the City Council ratified the determination of the Planning Director that the proposed activity falls within the definition of Section 3.01, Class 5 of the City of Anaheim Guidelines to the requirements for an environmental impact report and is, therefore, categorically exempt from the requirement to file an EIR. MOTION CARRIED. Councilman Roth offered Resolution No. 78R-395 for adoption approving Abandonment No. 77-20A as recommended by the City Engineer. Refer to Resolution Book. RESOLUTION NO. 78R-395: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM ORDERING THE VACATION AND ABANDONMENT OF A CERTAIN PUBLIC SERVICE EASEMENT. (77-20A, 3-foot, 3-inches of existing 10-foot public utility easement located at 141 South Kingsley Street, in Lot 14, Tract No. 4412) 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-395 duly passed and adopted. 78-796 City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - June 20~ 1978~ 1:30 P.M. 134: PUBLIC HEARING - GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 146 AND EIR NO. 212: Circulation Element to the General Plan (roadway widths, locations and City Policies). Pursuant to request from property owners for a General Plan Study, the City Planning Commission directed City staff to prepare a General Plan Amendment for the Circulation Element to change the current designations of the follow- ing existing and proposed highways: (1) Harbor Boulevard - Riverside Freeway to Santa Ana Freeway, change from a Primary to a Major; (2) Lincoln Avenue - Orange Freeway to Santa Ana Freeway, change from a Primary to a Major and align in compliance with "Downtown Anaheim Schematic"; (3) Broadway - East Street to Harbor Boulevard, change from a Major to a Secondary; (4) Rio Vista Street - Wagner to Ball Road, delete from the plan; (5) Santa Ana Canyon Road - County line to Weir Canyon Road, change from a Hillside Primary to an Expressway and also generally west of Crescent Drive; (6) E1 Rancho Road - Santa Ana Canyon Road to Serrano Avenue, change from a Hillside Collector to a Hillside Secondary and extend to Santa Ana Canyon Road; (7) Romneya Drive - west of Euclid Street curving to La Palma Avenue added as a Secondary Highway; (8) Olive Street - Cypress Street to Broadway add as a Collector; (9) La Jolla Street - Kraemer Boulevard to La Palma Avenue, delete from element; (10) Orangewood Avenue - crossing over Santa Ana Freeway added to Plan; (11) Miraloma Avenue -' Lakeview Avenue to Jefferson Street change to conform alignment approved by Cities of Anaheim and Placentia; (12) Imperial Highway - south of Santa Ana Canyon Road modify from a Hillside Major to a Primary Hillside Highway; (13) Coronado Street - east of Van Buren Street extending to La Plama Avenue delete from plan; (14) Vermont Avenue - add as Collector between Anaheim Boulevard and East Street; (15) Gypsum Canyon Road - south of Serrano Avenue delete from plan - outside sphere of influence area; (16) Vista Del Rio Road - delete from Circulation Element. The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC78-76 recommended adoption of the Anaheim General Plan Amendment No. 146, Circulation Element, as follows: That "Exhibit A", as modified to retain Via Escollo as a "Hillside Collector" and deleting Vista del Rio from the Plan, representing the existing Circulation Element and the addition of the "Downtown Anaheim Schematic", inclusive of the recommendations of the Redevelopment Commission, and thirteen (13) policies; and which replaces the Arterial Highways and Rights-of-Way maps, as well as the exception list as part of the General Plan, be adopted. Subsequently, pursuant to a request from property owners for a further General Plan Study, the City Planning Commission recommended adoption of Resolution No. PC78-103, amending Resolution No. PC78-76 as follows: That previously adopted "Exhibit A" depicting the following changes be adopted again: a. That Weir Canyon Road be located westerly of its current proposed location generally in the vicinity of the current westerly property ownership boundaries of the Wallace, Baptist Church Loan Corporation and Anaheim Hills, Inc., properties. b. That the designation of Weir Canyon Road be "Scenic Expressway". c. That Serrano Avenue be generally located north of the ridgeline and extend easterly to proposed Coal Canyon Road. 78-797 City Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - June 20~ 1978~ 1:30 P.M. d. That a "Scenic Expressway" designated replace "Expressway" on the legend of the map with a standard of six (6) lanes divided (74 feet of half-width) roadway established for "Scenic Expressway". In addition, the Planning Commission having considered EIR No. 212 on March 9, 1978, recommended certification of the supplemental information submitted May· 8, 1978, entitled Supplement, Draft Environmental Impact Report No. 212, dated May 1978. Thus, Environmental Impact Report No. 212 was amended to include the Supplement. Mr. Phil Schwartze, Assistant Director for Planning, explained that General Plan Amendment No. 146, Circulation Element, was one of the 11 Elements comprising the General Plan. The report today would discuss a new revised Element with proposed modifications to the existing Circulation Plan. Additionally, a Downtown Schematic was included setting forth parameters such as roadway widths and generalized loca- tions of the arterial highways within the City, also including the ultimate Sphere of Influence of the areas ultimately anticipated to be annexed to the City. It was proposed in the Amendment as requested by the City Engineer to also change the current designations on a number of existing and proposed highway rights-of-way encompassing 16 modifications as previously listed which were "housekeeping" items. As well, the new Circulation Element as proposed would replace the arterial highways and rights-of-way map, as well as the exceptions list as part of the General Plan. These would become tools of implementation, but not necessarily be part of the General Plan, thereby, not requiring amendments as each of the "housekeeping" items would arise. Mr. Schwartze then referred to the report submitted to the Planning Commission, Redevelopment Agency and HACMAC, as well as the one map which basically outlined the Circulation Element. He also explained that a number of lengthy meetings had been held relative to the Plan, and the only outstanding concern which surfaced dealt with the extension of Weir Canyon and the Serrano alignment which he pointed to from a map posted on the Chamber wall. The primary concern was the change in the extension of Weir Canyon which was moved to meet the Serrano extension. The Planning Commission tried to achieve a generalized Circulation Element in that area which would meet the needs of all major property owners concerned. The immediacy of the activity was due to the fact that Bauer Ranch was in the process of coming in- to the City, and the Serrano extension, as proposed by Anaheim Hills, was already in-house awaiting action on the Circulation Element in order to proceed. Mayor Seymour asked if anyone wished to address the Council regarding General Plan Amendment No. 146, Circulation Element. Mr. Philip Bettencourt, representing Anaheim Hills, Inc., 380 .Anaheim Hills Road, stated that they supported the position of the Planning Commission in their unanimous recommendation on the amendment to the Circulation Element. He believed with the possible exception of the Wallace Ranch interests and their counsel, all other parties were in accord with the Commission's position. It was consistent with the Bauer Ranch proposal and the property owners immediately adjacent to Anaheim Hills, the Baptist Church Loan Corporation, were also in agreement. The Irvine Company, as well, interposed no objection to the plan as it affected them. The Anaheim Hills analysis of the letter filed with the Council from Rutan and Tucker, repre- senting the Wallace property (dated June 13, 1978 and made a part of the record), 78-798 City Hall~ Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - June 20, 1978~ 1:30 P.M. was that they (Wallace) had an innocent misunderstanding of the purposes of the General Plan Amendment based on study exhibits which were submitted and used to justify the feasibility of the plan. It was their conclusion that not only the horizontal alignment was set, but also the vertical alignment; however, these were not set in a General Plan. Mr. Bettencourt continued that their concern was obvious. If the Wallace prop- erty which was outside the City was allowed to dictate the alignment, it would be a case of one interest overruling the remaining interests; those interests having reached the consensus that the possibilities for the utilization of their property would not be precluded by the adoption of a more practical alignment as proposed. Anaheim Hills filed for a grading plan solely on their property for an acceptable alignment of Serrano Avenue which would not preclude the Wallace property from doing whatever they could do to meet their own circulation needs. Obviously, the adjustment would be compatible with and therefore helpful to them in the utilization of their property which would have some impact on the remaining interests. He emphasized that Anaheim Hills agreed with the findings of the Planning Commission and urged adoption of the proposed Circulation Element. Working from the posted map, Mr. Bettencourt explained for Councilman Kott the point of contention of the Wallace interests as far as Weir Canyon was concerned. He pointed to an area requiring embankments to support the roadway; the more embankment required, the less accessible, developable surface remaining in the rest of the property for urban uses. To the extent that they were able to minimize that embankment, the Wallace interests would have more useable property. Mr. Bettencourt contended however that every property owner was faced with some com- promise or penalty on his property. The only way the embankment could be reduced was to flatten out the grades with a significant cut through the pass of other properties to which he pointed. They believed the only logical way the roadway should develop was from either end and not the middle. Mr. Bruce Harrison, Williamson and Schmidt, engineers representing the Wallace property, working from a chart which he displayed, stated that they had looked at the Weir Canyon alignment and were pleased and could find no faults with it. In pointing to the elevations involved, he noted that at the top of the ridge on the Douglass property, there was quite a cut which was the original County vertical alignment through the area. Thus, on the Wallace Ranch, a large fill was involved. The problem was at the intersection of Serrano--if the intersection was made on the top of the vertical curve as on the original plan, the centerline would have no effect on the curve. Whether it was built a little higher or lower was not the question at this time, but something that could be worked out by the City Engineer. However, when moving the centerline north of the ridge and along the 10 percent gradient already existing, flattening to the 4 percent grade re- quired through the intersection would result in a differential vertically of 65 feet in the~ amount of fill that would go on their property, or the amount of cut that would go on adjacent property or some in between. If 30 feet, it would necessitate adding a trapezoid another 65 feet higher thus ending up 95 feet in the air with the present 148-foot right-of-way. The trapezoid on the bottom when widened out 4 feet horizontally for every 1 foot vertically would become a very large area, as well as the fact that it would create a roadway suspended extremely high. The other option would be the possibility of trying to meet with Monte Vista 78-799 City Ha.l%~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - June 20~ 1978~ 1:30 P.M. Road which was to be intersected with Weir Canyon. They were suggesting that a study be undertaken to ascertain if there was a way to swing Serrano as originally shown where it intersected in a window up on top of the hills so that no further aggravation of the existing problem of cutting and filling the bottom would occur. That was the only point they wished to make at this time except that Weir Canyon was certainly acceptable in their view, and they did not want to hold up Anaheim Hills as far as their development was concerned. They had no interest in Serrano, but did have an interest in the effect it would have on the vertical alignment of Weir Canyon. Mr. Douglas Bird, Attorney, Wenke, Taylor, Schumacher and Evans, 1055 Main Street, Santa Ana, representing the Baptist Church Corporation, owners of the Douglass property, stated that they were the third party to the dispute in the major property owners interested in the future location of the road. As the Council was aware, the matter had been under dispute for 8 or 9 months. Ail of the major property owners however met and agreed basically on what their acceptable alignment was for Serrano and Weir Canyon. The Planning Commission accepted that agreement, and they (Baptist Church Corporation) still stood by it, as did Anaheim Hills. Mr. Bird did not believe it would be appropriate at this time to reopen the entire matter except to state that, once again as far as Anaheim Hills and the Douglass Ranch interests were concerned, they were in agreement with the Planning Commission and supported their recommendations. Their being no further persons who wished to speak, the Mayor closed the public hearing. In answer to Councilman Kott, Mr. Schwartze stated he was present at the meeting which was attended by the three property owners (April 26, 1978, Board Room, Anaheim Stadium) and approximately 30 interested participants, amongst which were two Planning Commissioners and others involved, wherein a final agreement was reached prior to Planning Commission approval. It was his understanding at the time that all 4 major affected property owners--Bauer Ranch, Wallace Ranch, Douglass Ranch and Anaheim Hills--were in agreement with the proposed alignment. Mr. Schwartze emphasized that it was important to keep in mind that it was a General Plan and considered as a very general alignment. He believed that part of the problem was due to the fact that it was being considered as a specific plan and alignment both vertically, horizontally and otherwise; however, that was something the engineers were going to have to do when the time arrived. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT NO. 212 - CERTIFICATION: Environmental Impact Report No. 212, along with informational Supplement to that report dated May 1978, having been reviewed by the City staff and recommended by the City Planning Commission to be in compliance with City and State Guidelines and the State of California Environmental Qualit~ Act, the City Council acting upon such information and belief does hereby certify on motion by Councilman Roth, seconded by Councilman Seymour, that Environmental Impact Report No. 212, with Supplement, is in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act and City and State Guidelines. MOTION CARRIED. Councilman Roth offered Resolution No. 78R-396 for adoption, adopting General Plan Amendment No. 146, Circulation Element, to the General Plan, Exhibit "A", in accordance with the City Planning Commission's recommendations as presented. Refer to Resolution Book. 78-800 Ci~ty Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - June 20~ 1978~ 1:30 P.M. RESOLUTION NO. 78R-396: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM APPROVING AN AMENDMENT TO THE GENERAL PLAN AS AMENDMENT NO. 146, EXHIBIT "A", AMENDING THE CIRCULATION ELEMENT TO SAID GENERAL PLAN. 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-396 duly passed and adopted. Before concluding, Mayor Seymour spoke to staff wherein he recalled that approxi- mately two years prior, the Council went on record as being in opposition to the extension of Lakeview Avenue, but yet he continually saw maps with Lakeview ex- tended. He emphasized that he would not like to see any more Anaheim maps with Lakeview extended because it inferred that the will of the Council might not be carried out. If the present supply of maps was very large, however, staff should inform the Council so that a decision could be made relative to retaining them or not. Mr. Schwartze stated that in the new graphic being proposed, Lakeview Avenue would be expunged. City Engineer James Maddox indicated that a problem could arise because the County and the City must be in conformance in order to participate in ~tFP funds. If the County could be convinced that they did not need Lakeview, it could be removed. Thereupon, Mayor Seymour questioned Mr. Maddox as to what had been done in the last two years to convince the County that they did not need it; Mr. Maddox answered that nothing specific had been done. Mayor Seymour expressed his displeasure over the fact that nothing had yet been done indicating his concern that in the future with newly elected officials, the matter of the extension of Lakeview would start all over again. He directed Mr. Maddox to inquire as to what was going to happen relative to the extension of Lakeview, and reiterated the mandate of a full Council two years prior that there be no extension of Lakeview. Mr. Maddox assured the Mayor that the matter would be explored with the County as to its removal. 106: PUBLIC HEARING - 1978-79 RESOURCE ALLOCATION PLAN (BUDGET): The City Clerk announced 6hat cormnunication dated June 16, 1978 had been received relative to the proposed 55th Annual Halloween Festival. City Manager Talley stated that there were a number of individuals present to either present testimony to the Council relative to the Budget, or who wished to be heard. The Council had been provided with additions to the Resource Alloca- tion Plan including four special requests from different groups: Senior Citizens TLC meals project; West Orange County Hotline; Orange County Community Development Council and the Anaheim Halloween Festival Association. Each group had been 78-8©1 City Hall~ ~naheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - June 20~ 1978~ 1:30 P.M. notified of the public hearing. In addition, under date of June 20, 1978, recommended alternatives to the plan of June 8, 1978 achieved the requirements of Proposition 13 as mandated on the City. He understood there were represen- tatives of various employee associations present who might wish to address the Council specifically in regard to revenue items that would have to be passed by the Council today if at all. He encouraged the Council therefore to allow them at some point in time in the hearing to express their desires because by doing nothing, the Council in effect would be making a decision. An added item on which action would be required today was a motion authorizing the Parks, Recrea- tion and the Arts Department to utilize CETA funds to provide supporting recrea- tional services on parks and playgrounds. The Mayor thereupon opened the public hearing asking first to hear from those representing the special interest requests. No representatives were present from the TLC Program, Hotline or the Community Development Council. Mr. Rita LeFevre, World Management Public Relations, 1400 North Harbor Boulevard, Fullerton, indicated her presence to answer any questions relative to the Hallo- ween Festival. She explained for the Mayor that the Council's historical contri- bution relative to the support of the Halloween Parade was approximately $6,000. She also explained for Councilwoman Kaywood that relative to the complaints of the previous year that the parade route was too dark with the possibility of holding it in the daytime, that aspect had not as yet been broached since their present overriding concern dealt with the necessity of acquiring a working budget. The first concern was to have phone service and a secretary in order to conduct a membership and sponsorship drive to cut down on expenses that the City might have to contribute towards the event. Mayor Seymour interjected that a breakfast meeting had taken place this morning with community leaders who were concerned about the future of the Anaheim Halloween Festival and Parade. They committed leadership within the City to make the event an ongoing one. He assured Ms. LeFevre that he would be in touch with her to explain specifically how that would be done. He stated however that Council should be looking at potential funding of approximately $5,000 to $6,000. Councilwoman Kaywood commented that prior to the last year, which was the first year the Chamber was not involved, Council funding was in the area of $2,500 and it more than doubled last year. Ms. LeFevre stated that she had been in contact with the Chamber and informed by them they would not assist in this year's activities. Councilwoman Kaywood was concerned that the Council's contribution not be doubled. The Mayor asked Ms. LeFevre to return the following week to give the Council additiOnal opportunity to consider her request. Councilman Roth requested that before the next meeting, Ms. LeFevre submit to the Council suggestions relative to fund raising so that the festival and parade could be continued without using taxpayer funds. There being no further persons present who wished to speak to the special interest requests, the Mayor opened the public hearing to members of the public, as well as representatives of the employees associations. 78-802 City Ha~l~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - June 20~ 1978~ 1:30 P.M. Mr. Johnny Dobson, 1082 South Rimwood Drive, stated he was representing the employee representatives of the City of Anaheim in expressing their feelings regarding the impact of Proposition 13. After attending the previous week's Council meeting and listening to some of the Council Member's proposals, they felt input should be given concerning that impact on employees and citizens of the City. They were willing to postpone or modify certain capital expendi~ tures at the discretion of the department heads and the City Manager and would welcome the opportunity to work with all concerned in developing a reasonable solution. However, the proposal previously made of a reduction in pay or defer- ment in pay adjustments well below the cost of living increases would be extremely difficult to sell to members of the employee organizations. It was unanimous amongst the employee organization representatives that they could not accept either a salary cut or deferment of increases scheduled for October until ex- hausting every means to deal with the situation. If a crisis occurred, they would sit down and deal with it at that time. For the responsible leadership of the community to reach for the expedient solution rather than developing a rational solution to maintain vital levels of service to the community was not conceivable. Mr. Dobson continued that added revenue could be generated through an increase in the transient occupancy tax, enabling the City to sustain services both for the citizens and the tourists. If the State did supplement the City budget and addi- tional revenue was not necessary, the Council would not have to implement the increase in the transient occupancy tax. He emphasized 'that time was of the essence and if action did not occur today, it would be too late. An increase in the transient occupancy tax of 2 percent would be in keeping with other major convention cities in California. The increase would be borne by the tourist and managed by the businessmen who would be receiving property tax relief along with citizens. The businessman, citizen and tourist all would benefit from the level of service provided by the City in making it the best place to live in and visit. Mr. Jim Townsend, Chairman of the Telephone Taxpayers Committee of Anaheim, stated that the people recently gave a clear-cut expression of how they felt about taxes and spending. The time had come for government at all levels to look at ways to live within the means the public could afford. Relative to the bed tax, Mr. Townsend emphasized he was opposed to it. The average room in Anaheim cost approximately $50. Those people who had invested their money in the City deserved to be given consideration along with the rest of the citizenry even if it came to the point where employees would not be given a cost-of-living increase or any increase at all. The Jarvis Initiative stated that the people had spent all the money they cared to spend and from that point on, the responsibility should rest with government officials to do what they could to hold expenditures down which included public employees wage increases. He was resentful when he heard a sta{ement or threat that public employees would not tolerate one thing or the other. If they were not capable of living and working within that ground, they should seek employment elsewhere. Mr. Dobson countered by explaining that no threat was made and what he tried to convey was the unanimous consensus of the organizations that they would not accept either a salary cut or deferment until every means of dealing with the situation had been exhausted and any crisis would be dealt with when, and if, the time came. The fact was, they had signed a 3-year contract and were scheduled to 78-80~ City Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - June 20~ 1978~ 1:30 P.M. receive a 6 percent increase in October and one the following year of 6 percent. Inflation however was projected in double digit figures by the end of the curren't year, and they were going to regress even under the present circumstances. It was rational to pass an additional 2 percent tax onto the visitors who utilize the City services. They should bear the brunt of Proposition 13, not City employees. There being no other members of the public who wished to speak, the Mayor closed the public hearing and then asked for input by the Council. Councilman Roth stated the most interesting document of all those submitted on the budget was that dated June 20, 1978, by the City Manager entitled, "Revisions to Alternative Proposition 13 Plan." The City Manager and staff presented some interesting reductions and cuts along the line that he had been looking for and which he considered to have merit basically seeking other types of revenue without asking for additional taxation and including other items without a loss of services. Councilman Kott stated he had just looked at the document and did not have an opportunity to evaluate the material. Page 2, however, indicated additional revenues, and he did not know where they were coming from, or if, they had been substantiated. Some of the numbers listed looked familiar and he concluded they were not new figures, but were included in the original alternative plan. Mr. Talley explained that the revision contained approximately $1.2 million worth of sales tax and additional utility transfers both of which were new. The concept utilized revenues that several members of the Council indicated were acceptable to offset reductions rather than a mere reduction package. Thus, it was a matter of combining both the $2,950,000 from the June 8th plan, along with some cuts staff recommended, plus new revenues and transfers ending up with a new proposal that contained many of the elements of the old. The last one had a total of $8 million in revenues and reductions to solve a $4.9 million problem. It was an updated approach with all of the new information received since June 8, 1978, including approximately $1.2 million in additional revenues and transfers which they did not know or believe existed at the time. Councilman Kott stated that as one member of the Council, he would have to com- pare the new 3-page document with what he already had to ascertain the differences. Thus, he was not in a position to speak on the new proposals since he had received it only 5 minutes before the meeting. Mr. Talley then briefed the Council on his alternative plan dated June 20, 1978 (on file in the City Clerk's Office) item by item. In concluding, he stated his recommendation at this time if the Council approved of the approach, was to hold off one week to see what the State would do in regard to the appropriation or distribution of the State surplus. No final decisions should be made until the next week when the method and amounts of the distribution of the surplus would be made known. The recommendation of an increase to 8 percent on the bed tax remained the same, however, because even if the City took the State distribution of surplus this year, there would be no surplus next year. He advised the real problem in implementing Proposition 13 was not for fiscal year 1978-79, but 1979-80 when there would be no surplus. If the State did not act in a favorable manner next week, management of the City was willing to assume an even greater responsibility than identified in the June 8th communication and work to balance 78-804 City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - June 20~ 1978~ 1:30 P.M. the budget every way possible. This would include going back to the priority list, pulling out a few items and then committing to find the rest through a special committee he would recommend setting up to report to the Council on a regular basis to identify those revenues and balance the budget on an interim basis only. This might include a transfer of some of the money from the General Benefits Fund used to pay vacation and retirements to bring the budget into balance with a subsequent transfer back during the year as savings were identified. It might also be that a reduction could be made in the equipment account or that some success might be achieved in the CETA base rising or other such items. He would hesitate to make a recommendation that would finalize the budget because of the unknowns. Councilman Kott then posed a question relative to the $400,000 transfer from the Workers' Compensation Fund, as well as the transfer of Utilities funds. Mr. Talley first clarified the matter relative to the Workers' Compensation Fund (see minutes of June 13, 1978), and Utilities Director Hoyt then spoke to the transfer from the Utilities Fund, specifically the $800,000 the City would be receiving from Southern California Edison for overcharges. Mr. Hoyt stated that they had been reviewing the electric budget in particular in the past week because that was where the additional transfer would come from as identified by the Public Utilities Board (PUB). They were preparing a budget with a reduction of $1 million in the electric utility which the Board or the Council may not find desirable. They were trying to identify new sources of revenue which were user fees that could be used to reduce cost. They were also looking at the possibility of presenting to the Board recommendations regarding potential funding of certain long-term capital expenditures by means of electric revenue bonds and also to be considered was the $800,000 they anticipated receiving in the next couple of months from Southern California Edison representing a refund on the fuel cost adjustment. They were also evaluating their working capital position. In combining the items, Mr. Hoyt believed they would be able to achieve the additional transfer into the General Fund. There might be a risk that sometime during the course of the fiscal year where their working capital would be such that if Edison missed their fuel cost adjustment payment for a couple of months as it had the past couple of months, that the Utilities Department could be in trouble, consequently having to ask for a rate increase or the elimination of other items, depending on how the situation developed during the year. Mr. Hoyt then clarified the following for Councilman Kott: according to the Charter, there was an allowable 6 percent transfer to the General Fund from Utilities on the electric side amounting to approximately $3,800,000. They had currently budgeted approximately $2,800,000. The Charter now provided for transfer of a maximum 6 percent of the previous year's revenue from sales and that was what they were working towards. Council policy stated that no more be transferred each year than the prior year. The potential sources for the additional transfer were: $800,000 from Edison or a combination of some part of the $800,000 possibly all, existing working capital, a reduction in the budget or new revenue sources. A combination of ways existed to get to the additional transfer of $1 million which he believed could be reached. 78-8C5 .City Ha. ll~ Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - June 20~ 1978, 1:30 P.M. Councilman Kott asked if it would be incorrect to state that there was a reasonable possibility of receiving at least $4.5 million from the Utilities Department--S3.8 million plus $800,000? Mr. Hoyt stated that if Councilman Kott was talking strictly about the electric utility, the answer was "no". He referred to the recommendations of the PUB with regard to the budget, appended to which was a series of financial forecasts, several for water and one for the electric utility. The electric utility showed what the increases were and where the $800,000 was on the revenue side. Details of the cuts they would propose were in the process of being prepared. Mayor Seymour expressed his concern over statements made by Mr. Hoyt specifically relative to the possibility of a rate increase. He personally did not want to see a recommendation from the PUB that showed potential rate increases during the year. Citizens were promised in the budget message that there would be no rate increases. If the Utilities were going to be put into such a dangerously low working capital position, then they should declare that only "X" amount of money could be transferred. As well, in light of the passage of Proposition 13, the public was led to believe that Edison's rates would be dropped. If that should happen, he wanted to know if Mr. Hoyt would be back to ask for a rate decrease in order for the City to maintain its position with Edison and further requested that the Commission be asked to consider the questions raised. Mr. Hoyt explained that Southern California Edison would perhaps do what San Diego Gas and Electric had done. San Diego had a rate increase request pending before the California Public Utilities Commission. His understanding was that they (SDG&E) asked the Commission to reduce their request for an increase by the amount of the property tax savings. He supposed that Edison would do the same. If an increase were granted to Edison, it would tend to move their rates away from Anaheim's even further. He did not propose coming back with a recommendation for a rate decrease because if the additional transfer was made, the possibility of a rate decrease would be very minimal. Relative to the possibility of coming back to ask for a rate increase sometime in mid-year, Mr. Hoyt stated they might do that at any time. Their budget was compiled based on the assumptions of Southern California Edison with regard to what their fuel cost was going to be. The Mayor interjected and emphasized that he did not want to hear about increasing rates to the citizens. The following is a verbatim transcript of a portion of the Budget hearing relative to the Transient Occupancy Tax as requested by Councilwoman Kaywood: KOTT: Mr. Mayor, I have this one other thing that if you feel it's appropriate at this time, I think we ought to have an expression from the Council regarding the increase in room tax. In other words, I think it's been mentioned numerous times, several occasions, different places and I think we ought to get an ex- pression (SEYMOUR: Okay.) and perhaps vote on... SEYMOUR: Go ahead and express yourself and we'll ask the rest of the Council. 78-806 City .Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - June 20, 1978, 1:30 P.M. KOTT: Well, my particular feeling on it is that I think that the timing for such a thing is very poor. I think the people, in their ex- pression of Proposition 13, have said we don't want any more taxes. They haven't said to me, anyway in my mind, that we should transfer taxes from one segment to another. I feel that I ought to state that I spoke with, I truly spoke with people in the business, I spoke with the V & C and they too do not favor increased taxes of any type, let alone in this area. I think the thrust, the main thrust of at least my proposals are involved in seeing what happens for the next year. I think I've come up with a good plan. I think it does not involve additional revenues which I believe is important as a City Councilman is concerned because I feel I represent the tax- payer of the community and I don't believe they want taxes or in- creased taxes and as such, I would oppose an increase~in that area. Now, if necessary for the purpose of conversing and getting it over with, I'll move that this body go on record as opposing increased taxation in the area of bed, what is it called, transient occupancy tax. KAYWOOD: SEYMOUR: Dr. Kott... Excuse me Councilwoman Kaywood, we have a motion. ROTH: SEYMOUR: I'll second that motion. The motion has been seconded by Councilman Roth. Before we proceed with any discussion, we're going to take a 5-minute break to change the tapes. We're ready to go back to work. Okay, we have a motion on the floor that would oppose an increase in the existing bed tax. Now, Councilwoman Kaywood, you were about to speak. KAYWOOD: I was about to speak and I didn't get a chance to look at this. I have labored long and hard and spent some sleepless nights and at 3:00 a.m., I wrote out a speech so I'm not sure what it looks like. KOTT: Sounds like me Miriam. KAYWOOD: There was another time a couple of years ago that I worried greatly about an action that was to be taken and this is a little bit similar. If there were a possibility of, well if it doesn't work-we go ahead and do it, we don't have that luxury right now~ Part of the confusion that was in the Proposition 13 was the requirement for a two-thirds vote of all the qualified electors. That has not yet been clarified to my knowledge. I don't know if that means everybody 18 or over, whether it means all of the registered voters. In either event, I think you never get that many out to vote, let alone all vote the same way. 78-807 City Hall~. Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - June 20~ 1978~ 1:30 P.M. So, we do have a deadline that's staring us in the face and that's today. We either take action or we lose it. I think that to raise a 2 percent additional which certainly is not an unreasonable thOught with inflation and cost of everything that have escalated higher for the City than for individuals, that it is a logical alternative to relieve a local burden on the homeowners and residents with a user fee for the 10 to 15 million annual visitors that we get in the area of Disneyland, Convention Center and Stadium. That's as opposed to an admissions tax which also impacts the Anaheim residents and businesses. It is already a long-established procedure, nothing new, no additional cost to raise the additional 2 percent from the present 6 up to 8 percent. That would make us consistent with other California cities. Anahe±mers when they go there pay their rates when traveling. I have not heard anybody say'%'ll never go there again, they've got an 8 percent or 9 percent or 10 percent taxi' It's part of the business or vacation expense. The hotels and motels will receive larger rebates in property tax too. I personally have heard no objection from anyone. They would further benefit from the assur- ance that they would receive continued excellent services in that area for repeat business. That's where we get caught up. Anaheim has got to remain competitive in the convention center business in attracting and retaining the conventions, trade shows and so forth. We dare not be complacent. An aggressive ongoing sales program is necessary and it takes money. Long Beach has newer facilities. Los Angeles is building their hotel rooms which is what had slowed down their convention center. They charge 7.5 percent, San Diego 8 percent. They are close, they are all competitive. We cannot afford to reduce the maintenance level. It's part of Anaheim's top reputation and when you let it slide, the deterioration sets in very, very fast. It is reasonable and sensible for a portion of that 2 percent fee, I believe, to finance improvements and maintenance at the Convention Center. Anaheim is very fortunate to have that revenue source with no burden whatsoever on the local taxpayers. Six percent utilities transfer is a one time only transfer and in listening to the conversation here and from having read the proposal in the book, my feeling too is that that was going to be dangerously close. That if we were to do that and then have to raise additional revenues, I wondered what Justice that is to raise the utility rates to Anaheim residents and hitting hardest, of course, on the fixed income people, rather than a 2 percent to out-of-town tourist and visitors for the fine services that we provide for them.- I would like to point out that two years ago on August 10th, that I have the minutes in front of me, the proposal that was to go on the ballot at that time was for a 6 percent utility transfer the first year, 4 percent the second year, 2 percent the third year and nothing in the fourth and successive years. That was when 78-808 City Hall~ Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - June 20~ 1978~ 1:30 P.M. SEYMOUR: I lost sleep a lot last time. I note that there has been a modification of that prior stand and I applaud that. I think it's obviously to the City's benefit. I think it is a big person who will be flexible and see where the needs exist. There is a very real possibility that the State may impose a sharing of the sales tax revenues by the County or the region, that was what Governor Brown had proposed in his original urban strategy. There is no way that we can say now it wouldn't happen. It can happen. It would have a tremendous negative impact on Anaheim. We'd have a loss of millions of dollars. It would be, I think, risky and foolhardy to freeze our City into a lower room tax rate than necessary to cover the fair share cost and insure our ability to provide the same good services. The City's ongoing needs continue. The State and the Federal mandates with no revenues to cover cost are an ongoing thing. Increased postage rates are not even in the new budget to my knowledge and they are going to have a tremendous impact. These are continual and unexpected inflationary costs. They must be met. The cost of asphalt and concrete is another example. Those are not what the ordinary homeowner is faced with. They're not cranked into the CPI increase --the Nalco property, the Mechanical Maintenance facility, that was recommended by an expensive Arthur Young audit a couple of years ago. It showed the necessity and the great savings that would result. I don't believe it should be delayed. Now, the Council has to introduce the ordinance today. We have a deadline and there is no second chance. If the Council doesn't vote for it now, I'm going to ask the City Clerk to include this portion of the minutes verbatim because my conscience will not allow me to be a party to deliberately crippling Anaheim's response as a city we were all sworn to protect. I submit that allowing this deadline to pass without taking positive action is a violation of that trust that we all took. If we pass the ordinance today and then find we can do without the additional 2 percent revenues, we can always rescind it, but if we fail to act now in a responsible manner, we have deliberately or even maliciously thrown away and lost our options to maintain flexibility and local contro~ and that local control means that we have to be up in Washington or Sacramento asking for what should be ours to get it back. The negative reverberations will be felt in Anaheim long after we're all gone. I don't think anyone will ever thank you for it. Everyone will suffer needlessly due to our short, sightedness, lack of vision, courage and leadership. We have the choice. I don't do so bad for 3:00 a.m. Councilman Kott, if you'll delay any comment, if I could ask you to do that 'til we've had the other input. Councilman Overholt? 78-809 City Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - June 20~ 1978~ 1:30 P.M. KOTT: OVERHOLT: HOPKINS: OVERHOLT: HOPKINS: OVERHOLT: Sure. Thank you Mr. Mayor. Last week I stated that I was in favor of considering favorable action on increasing the transient occupancy tax from 6 to 8 percent and I believe I stated publicly, if I did not so I stated privately to the Mayor, that I would bring this matter before this Council today if nobody else did. My only concern is that if we do not act today to raise the transient occupancy tax, and we forever put it beyond our control to utilize this source of revenue if we find it necessary under the present crisis circumstances, we are, by our well it's a positive resolution to not raise the occupancy tax, we are by this action if we vote favorably on the motion on the floor today forever removing that from our power. Now, I'm not prepared to state today whether or not that we should raise the transient occupancy tax from 6 to 8 percent, and I'd like to see some of these unknowns that the Manager has spoken of, reduced to something that we know about. For example, I'd like to ask the question of the City Attorney, if we were to take action today to raise the transient occupancy tax from 6 to 8 percent, could we do so and implement it effective January 1, 19797 The ordinance could be passed, yes sir, and it could be made effective on such a date. Merely passing the ordinance at this time would, in my opinion, qualify under the Jarvis-Gann; effective date then would be the actual collection of the tax. By doing that, in effect, we would have 6 months in which to see where we're going to be in termm of the present fiscal situation, and if at the end of that 6 months or any time during that 6-month period, this Council, if they were not to pass Councilman Kott's motion, and were to take a motion that we would impose a tax effective January 1, 1979, then could rescind it prior to that time. Could we not? Councilman Overholt, I believe under the situation we now operate in with Jarvis-Gann, we would have to have either an emergency ordinance which would require a four-fifths vote of the Council to make this ordinance effective immediately, and it would require reasons stated for the urgency. We would also then have the option of a first and second reading under another provision of the Charter which provides for tax related ordinances and that would only require a majority of the Council. There would be a first and second reading required and the ordinance would then be effective on the date of the second reading. As to the actual collection of.the tax, that would be something that could be deferred as you suggested. Are you saying that you have to have a 4 out of 5 vote today to raise the transient occupancy tax? 78-810 City Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - June 20~ 1978~ 1:30 P.M. HOPKINS: OVERHOLT: HOPKINS: OVERHOLT: HOPKINS: OVERHOLT: HOPKINS: OVERHOLT: SEYMOUR: For the emergency ordinance to go into effect immediately, we need a four-fifths vote. The other option would be to have a first reading today and a second reading next Tuesday, at which time the ordinance would be effective and that would only require a majority of the Council. Majority vote. Yes sir. So, the time schedule that you're giving us is based upon a majority vote taking appropriate action. Right? That's correct, yes Sir, unless you wish to make an emergency ordinance which is... ...which we could do next week. That could be done next week if there's a four-fifths vote, yes sir. Well, time is my problem and I hate to, it's like a wife giving up alimony because she hates her husband so much, you know, it's a matter once she gives it up, she's given~it up. I have talked, Councilman Kott, also with some of the management people in hotels, and I think you may know that, and they aren't concerned about it. They expressed to me they weren't concerned about it. I'd like the' opportunity to really make that decision at a time when we don't have the gun at our temple and all I'm asking for is time so, therefore, I'm going to oppose the motion on the floor, and unless Councilwoman Kaywood, and if it fails, and unless Councilwoman Kaywood makes a substitute motion, I think I will probably make a motion that it be raised to 8 percent, but that the implementation of it be postponed for a substantial period of time or whatever is appropriate so that it's something that would not pose an immediate threat to anybody. I'd like to make one other statement too. I'm opposed to any adjustment in the professional and business license area. I'm also, as I stated when I campaigned, opposed to the entertainment tax. And, some of the people have felt that this is just a step in the direction of an entertainment tax. Well if an entertainment tax is not imposed today it's not going to be imposed, and I am opposed to that. I'm just opposed to cutting off our, burning oUr bridge behind us today when we really don't know where we are, and I'm looking for time is what I'm looking for. That's my statement, Mr. Mayor. Councilman Roth, did you want to speak? 78-8~1 City Hall, Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - June 20~ 1978~ 1:30 P.M. ROTH: SEYMOUR: KOTT: ... must turn my mic on. Okay. I'm just going to repeat myself what I have said previously and I'm sensitive to the people that put me in office and when I read that the citizens of this community and throughout particularly Orange County, and I guess California, voted 2 to 1 for Proposition 13, they gave me a message and that message was very, very clear to me. First of all they told me.to reduce taxes and they told me to reduce the cost of government. No where did I ever see in the people who supported the Jarvis-Gann or Proposition 13 tell me to shift and shaft other type of taxation, so I'm not going, I'm not intersted in shifting and shafting of taxes of any sort. So, I can't support a room occupancy tax at this time whether it has to be done on emergency or anything else or any other additional amount of taxation. I think that we as the elected representatives have been given the charge that we must take the responsibility. People are saying to me they're willing to take a little bit less services. They've got to get government in hand. People want to take command of their own doings and they want to reduce taxes and I, you know, the only people that are running around trying to circumvent the real true meaning of the people going out and voting for Proposition 13 are people at the public trough. Those people in San Francisco suing now for the legality of it. School districts are now getting together and saying that it only should be applied to the single-family owner-occupied residents. I think the people were pretty well informed. I have never seen a campaign to put across a proposition that has much publicity and got so much voter attention and such a voter turnoff, a turn-on, as Proposition 13. So, the way I read it, I'm not supposed to be going out looking for additional revenue, I've got to sit here and look what we have within, start reducing possibly some of the services, some of the conditions we would like to have in government, but we've got to keep it in line and so I feel very strong. Councilman Kott. Mr. Mayor, I just have a few comments that I would like to add to the ones I've already made. Now, as other memebers of this Council well know, we've been asked by certain groups to increase the bed tax or the room occupancy tax so that they would be assured of certain salaries and non-release of some employees from the City. Now, I think that's an honorable request and I think they mean well. I referred them to my budget. My budget is very simple, it's very plain and very easy to read. My budget achieves that without additional taxation, but apparently they don't want to hear it, but for some reason they latched on to tax given industry or given thing although they aren't residents of the City I admit, but 'certainly the timing for such a tax, in my mind, with 13, is not reasonable. Furthermore, I have a copy here of Ordinance No. 1848 which I think was passed in 1971 which is the room occupancy tax and it says in one paragraph, "whereas it is proposed by the City Council of the 78-812 .City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - June 20, 1978~ 1:30 P.M. HOPKINS: KOTT: HOPKINS: KOTT: KAYWOOD: SEYMOUR: KAYWOOD: KOTT: City of Anaheim that revenues obtained by said license fee here- inafter set forth shall be applied to the establishment and maintenance of said convention hall, auditorium." That is the purpose and function of that tax. That tax is suppose to support the Convention Center, the payments thereof and the maintenance thereof. It isn't suppose to support employees of the City and I'm not going to put myself on the line of being sued. Have I got any insurance yet, City Attorney, on that? The Risk Manager was to obtain that, Sir. Oh, I hope he gets in the next minute or so. So, I cannot vote for that particular entity and it's that simple. Also, I think I would like to point out where it's been said we have to be better than other cities and so on and so forth. I don't see anything in this thing that says we aren't going to be better or there's going to be anything different than there has been that there won't be any ongoing programs for advertising. The records will show that the last fiscal year there was $3.2 million brought in in bed taxes in this City. The records will also show that this fiscal year will bring in $3.7 million in this City and the estimate for the next fiscal year is $4.2 million. So it's going up approximately 20 percent per year just on the basis of additional rooms and inflation without raising. What more do you want? Twenty-percent a year just on the bed tax and $3.2 million and $4.2 million in two years. God, that's better than employees salaries. I don't know what people want. I think you're looking in the wrong place. I agree with your principle, but you're just looking in the wrong spot for it. What I'm saying is look at my budget. Furthermore, the last item, Mr. Mayor, I want to bring to the attention of this Council and the audience and the press is this thing called the deadline. You know, there is no deadline. The taxes can always go up next year, the year after, but the people have to do it. See? We can't do it. So, is that right Mr. City Attorney? I didn't mean to wake you up. That would be the vote of the people pursuant to Jarvis-Gann. Vote of the people ... so you want it to go up, put it on the ballot. Let the people vote on it. What's the big deal? May I clarify... Councilwoman Kaywood, now Councilman Kott's got the floor. Okay. I don't see anything wrong with that and I think if we're going to represent the people as was stated, that that's actually what I'm doing. I'm representing the people. 78-813 _City Hall, Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - June 20~ 1978~ 1:30 P.M. SEYMOUR: KAYWOOD: KOTT: KAYWOOD: KOTT: KAYWOOD: KOTT: KAYWOOD: KOTT: KAYWOOD: SEYMOUR: KAYWOOD: SEYMOUR: KAYWOOD: SEYMOUR: Okay Councilwoman Kaywood you want to clarify... I'd like a clarification on that because if it takes more people to vote on it than turn out to vote, then that really is not a choice. It takes more people than turn out to vote? That's right. If the total registered voters or the total qualified electors, two-thirds of those are required to pass something and you don't get that many people out, in other words, you could have 65 percent of the registered voters voting all saying yes and it would fail. But that's the law Miriam, but that's the law. You can't ... · ..that nobody understood. Well, 70 percent turned out, 70 percent turned out on Jarvis so I would, you know, they're here, they're in the woodwork somewhere, you got to get them out. I'd like to respond to two other things that you said. One is you're talking about the increase in room tax and this is definitely based on the same aggressive sales program that we've got now. Without the conventions, without the trade shows, well trade shows don't bring the hotels as much, without the conventions, without a clean first class City, they will not be here, not to the same degree, and you would not have the same amount of room tax. Why won't the City, what do you mean? Why won't they... If the rooms are vacant, then you don't have the tax... Let's not get where he's going, let's stay with the question. Okay. I haven't had time to read this all yet, but there's an analysis here on your alternative budget, Dr. Kott and I think... Now wait. Councilwoman Kaywood, do you want to talk about the alternative budget, we'll talk about that after this motion has been decided. Right now we're discussing the question of increase in bed tax (KAYWOOD: Well.) so I'd appreciate if we keep our comments limited to that. All I'm saying is that Dr. Kott brought that up. He said that's the viable alternative. From what I see here, it is not. Okay, fine. Ail right. I'd just like to make a few comments. There hasn't been any change in my mind relative to my position concerning any new sources of taxes to bail us out of Proposition 13. I sincerely believe that this time pressure that two members of our 78-814 qity Hall~ Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - June 20~ 1978~ 1:30 P.M. Council feel that they are under is not an accurate one. I feel that we, as elected officials, have a responsibility to the voters, and the voters clearly, in this City, somewhere to the tune of 70 percent to 30 percent, said that they want the decision-making capability as we increase new revenues. So now, we find ourselves technically in a legal time capsule in which we have a one last chance to pull the chain on the taxpayer before the death knell falls on the approval of our budget June 30th and therefore July 1, and quite frankly, I think it's unfair play. It's like trying to squeeze it in knowing that the inning, this particular inning of the game, is almost over, and I think that's unfair to the voter. The voter's message was loud and clear, at least I think I understood it to be loud and clear, and they want the right to approve these new sources of revenue. So as far as the suggestion that forever we will lose the opportunity to increase bed tax or some other source of revenue, no, we're not losing that forever unless we've lost faith in the electorate. If we can show the electorate that we've done a good job of preparing our budget, of delivering responsible service levels in return for the dollars that we collect, and we have a good well meaning, well documented proposal to go to the electorate and sell them on it and can convince them to vote for it at the polls, then they have said they will give us the funds. On the other hand, if we intend to circumvent the voters and circumvent the electorate, then I think we're drawn into this game of the time pressure capsule and get it in before it's too late because you may never see it again.~ So, I don't agree with that philosophy. I don't think we're under that time pressure. I don't believe a responsible answer to Propo- sition 13 is to increase any types of revenues although it may become necessary after we make some adjustments as we go down the road to ask people, down the road, after the dust settles on 13 and we know which direction we're coming from, just as we were talking about in the summer Parks and Recreation program last year, hey, if you want your kid to play ball, well, how about coming up with 5 or 6 bucks so that he can and I guess what I'm talking about is user fees, but clearly today, I don't think we have to become concerned about chaos in this City of Anaheim. I don't think we have to be concerned about the closing jails and closing golf courses and huge lay offs of City personnel. I feel confident that we're going to be able work this out in the same positive fashion that this City has always shown in a leadership capacity, not only in Orange County, but in the State of California. We're a strong city financially. The facts are that the City Manager has begun to make some progress in answering the solution to 13 and I'd only point out to this Council that in that progress he has made and he is now a $1,475,000 or so short of reaching the goal line, but I'd point out to the Council that by finding all of that, we have, we're only City Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - June 20~ 1978~ 1:30 P.M. 78-815 ROTH: ~OTT: KAYWOOD: SEYMOUR: KAYWOOD: SEYMOUR: KAYWOOD: SEYMOUR: KAYWOOD: SEYMOUR: KAYWOOD: SEYMOUR: KAYWOOD: ROTH: KAYWOOD: looking at reductions at this particular time of $680,000. Now where is the big cut? So, what I'm saying is that I'm confident the City Manager, with our help, will achieve the intent of Proposition 13 without all the dire circumstances and the crying on one hand and the hand out begging for funds on the other. This City's just going to be in fine shape when the process is completed. So again my position hasn't changed, I oppose any types of increased revenues and I'm going to vote to support the motion in opposition. Okay, roll call vote. Ask for roll call vote. Roll call. May I clarify? You said we're only $680,000? We've only made reductions, Councilwoman Kaywood, of $680,000 at this point. That's what the City Manager has recommended in his most recent proposal. Those are the only reductions we made. Are you including ... Ail the other monies are coming from new found monies that some how have just, you know, either been recently discovered or under- estimated at the time the budget was originally proposed. Are you including a million dollar additional transfer from the Electrical that may not occur? That has no reduction. I'm talking about what cuts, what fat have we eliminated from this budget so far. So far all this talk and what we've got is $680,247 if we can agree upon those cuts. That's all. Well I... No more cuts. Okay, I think when the Mayor continues to say the fat we cut, when I know we were bleeding last year, that you will surely get a vote on your good performance. I think I received a vote on my good performance at the polls in April, Councilwoman Kaywood, and I suggest you go back and check the vote talley to see how you did. I didn't spend $57,000. I would like to call for the motion. I would like to have the City Attorney tell us what the two-thirds vote means. 78-816 City Hall, Anaheim~ California -. COUNCIL MINUTES - June 20~ 1978~ 1:30 P.M. HOPKINS: KAYWOOD: HOPKINS: KAYWOOD: HOPKINS: KAYWOOD: HOPKINS: OVERHOLT: ROTH: SEYMOUR: ROBERTS: Mayor Pro Tem Kaywood, there is some ambiguity in the Jarvis proposal on Prop 13 with respect to what two-thirds majority of the qualified electors means. Section 4 of Prop 13 refers to qualified electors and if you take the literal interpretation of that, it would mean the registered, it would not mean the registered voters, but it would mean a person who is a citizen of the United States, 18 years of age or older, a resident of an election precinct at least 29 days prior to an election. So, it does not mean a registered elector. The latest interpretation that has been given out, I believe, by Mr. Jarvis is that a registered voter is what he meant so if that were the final determination that it was a registered voter, we could then determine what the two-thirds re- quirement would mean, but the way it is at the present time, any qualified electors the way it is stated would mean the said citizens 18 years of age and who have lived in the area for 29 days and there would be no way of really computing that. So there is possibly some court test going to be involved over what that means in the Jarvis- Gann proposal. But in either event it does not mean two-thirds of the people voting? It means, the interpretation that has been given is two-thirds of the registered voters. The way that it is stated in the Jarvis-Gann proposal is that it would be two-thirds of the qualified electors and that would be almost impossible to ascertain. But in either way it means that we are ruled by the minority, the apathetic that don't care or whatever. Well, the ... The one-third is determining. It could be stated in that manner, yes. Mr. Mayor, can we go ahead and vote on this matter? I would like to ... Okay, the question has been called for. This is a motion to deny any increase in bed tax. Roll call vote. Motion has carried by the following vote: AYES: NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Kott, Roth and Seymour COUNCIL MEMBERS: Overholt and Kaywood 78-81 7 City Hall~ Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - June 20~ 1978~ 1:30 P.M. Councilman Roth asked the City Attorney's opinion regarding the legal ramifications of Proposition 13. It appeared there was going to be some interpretation by the Supreme Court, and he wanted to know if it were found that a portion of the amendment was illegal, would that hold true in its entirety. City Attorney Hopkins stated that the Court could decide that certain portions were unconstitutional, but the remaining portions would remain in effect. If major problems were found, the Court could declare the amendment entirely unconstitutional, but more than likely it would only involve a portion. Additional Council input was as follows: Councilwoman Kaywood: Relative to the number of Big "A" frames, roses, paperweights, etc. Although these were nice to present, they were a frill and not really necessary. Such presentations should be reserved for very special occasions. She noted particularly the high cost of engraving which she believed to be completely overdone and suggested it be cut out. If the Boysen Park expansion was not able to be accomplished, she wanted to know if it was possible to get the farmer back who leased the land previously for strawberry growing. She was concerned with cuts that would, in effect, raise costs or delay maintenance of items that would then be more expensive or raise the' City's insurance or become a safety factor. She did not want to see any such cuts that would result in the foregoing. Councilman Roth: Relative to the Anaheim Hills Golf Course, a report from the City Manager indicated if the golf course were closed and put under caretakers status, the City could possibly save up to $150,000. He recommended instead that the City persist in trying to dispose of the Anaheim Hills Golf Course to free enterprise with an offer that could not be refused. He wanted staff to ascertain how much the City owed on the property and deed restrictions that could be placed upon it so that no building could take place thereon other than the flat land that would not be in the flood plain. He emphasized that a high priority be placed in accomplishing his recommendation. Councilman Roth also recommended that all properties owned by the City and avail- able for disposal be evaluated for possible sale so that such properties could be put on the tax roll and, as well, bring additional revenues to the City. Councilman Kott: (1) Regarding his proposed budget submitted at the June 13, 1978 meeting, he asked the City Manager to explain the facility rental charge in the amount of $2.136 million--what happened to that money, where was it reflected, etc. (2) Relative to Mechanical Maintenance, he had been told those services were approximately three times over what they would cost on the outside and such a situation should be investigated. (3) Relative to City vehicles, that an analysis be made of the situation as to the employees driving City vehicles home. He suggested that be eliminated and cars that had to be used from time to time be put into a pool. Further, the Council should also be notified of those employees who instead of having received cars, received allowances; and those employees who had credit cards, an explanation of the basis for those cards and what they were used for. 78-818 Qi.ty Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - June 20~ 1978~ 1:30 P.M. Item one: Mr. Talley, working from the Line Item Budget, explained from pages 191, 196, 198, 200 and 201 what such costs represented and that they were costs representing a collection of cost centers that serviced all City buildings. An amount was paid into a central fund employing the worker to do the work for all various units. Property Maintenance was treated in the same manner. Mr. Roche ran the central crew of custodians, craftsmen and repairmen who serviced buildings and facilities all over the City. Thus, by removing the fund as suggested would mean laying off 98 men. Councilman Kott noted that according to the budget document, the expenses came under what was known as the facility rental charge, but according to the Line Item Budget, it was all under Public Works. He wanted to know if it was listed under Public Works as another expense? Mr. Talley answered no; it was a separate fund of its own, but supervised by the Director of Public Works. Mayor Seymour stated the thrust of Councilman Kott's questioning, and he shared the concern, was what basis was being used to compute the facility rental charge. He recommended that it was one of the directions the City Manager could take relative to finding the $1.4 million being sought. The same could be done for automobiles to ascertain if conservative estimates were made to insure adequate coverage. He wanted the City Manager to make a reevaluation to see if there was less likelihood of ending up with a surplus. Mr. Talley believed the suggestion to be a good one and one of the items he would propose under the departmental committee to be formed, and to be looked at on a monthly basis to see if the charges could be reduced. Mayor Seymour interjected that he did not like what Mr. Talley was recommending-- setting up a committee who would promise to extend their best efforts to find "X" amount of dollars. The Council had to have something better than that, they had to have specifics. If the City managed to get through the crisis without some lay offs, wage increase deferrals, etc., then it was necessary to look ahead and lay plans to meet this situation a year from now. He would not accept a recom- mendation entrusting the responsibility to a committee, and he did not know how a responsible Council could pass a balanced budget the way it was being recommended. Based on that premise, he was looking for specific additional cuts between today and June 30, 1978 even if it took extended work sessions by the Council. Item two: Mr. Talley stated that inquiries had been made in the past relative to Mechanical Maintenance and a suggestion had also been made that the City go to the outside and rent police cars. This was done and in the final analysis it was found, in checking the figures, that the City was charging the. Police Department the exact cost per mile as the outside agency. He had no problem with trying to find private industry that would do the same thing at less cost and would go to private industry if that could be accomplished on a firm bid basis. Item three: Mr. Talley noted the request and briefly commented that relative to credit cards, he would investigate the matter, but to his knowledge the City held no credit cards. 78-819 City Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - June 20~ 1978~ 1:30 P.M. Councilman Kott concluded that his two positive recommendations which were very meaningful as outlined in his proposed budget cuts were (1) the cuts in City administration and, (2) the use of City vehicles. Relative to the latter, if eliminated, he was certain there would be an appreciable impact on the amount of money saved. Mayor Seymour stated that the suggestions offered such as those by Councilmen Kott and Roth be compiled by the City Manager for consideration next Tuesday, along with all other recommendations that staff and the City Manager had made. Mr. Talley noted that Councilman Roth's recommendation on the sale of the Anaheim Hills Golf Course would take some time. Mayor Seymour then referred to Mr. Talley's recent recommendation of a cut of $50,000 in library books and supplies. He wanted that proposed cut made else- where. He then asked for a consensus of the Council relative to their willingness to go into extended sessions up to June 30th in order to finalize the budget if such finalization was not accomplished at the next meeting. The Council indi- cated its willingness to do so. Before concluding, Councilman Kott stated he felt the Council Contingency Fund should be cut to a greater extent. Mayor Seymour was of the opposite opinion and stated he would even be willing to make some reallocations into the Council Contingency Fund because the Council has control over that fund. Mr. Tatley reminded the Council that the prior week the summer recreation program had been cancelled. All school districts had closed summer school and when that happened they had to release CETA employees. The City had 60 people in outstations who were relieved from service. Manpower asked if these people could be utilized to offset the majority of the programs, and Mr. Ruth believed that they could. Through discussion that had taken place with the Secretary of Labor, it was ascertained that CETA could be used and that the summer recreation program could, in fact, be reestablished and implemented. On motion by Councilwoman Kaywood, seconded by Councilman Overholt, the Parks, Recreation and the Arts Department was authorized to utilize CETA funds to pro- vide supporting recreational services on parks and playgrounds for the summer recreation program. MOTION CARRIED. 108: APPLICATION FOR SOLICITATION OF CHARITY FUNDS: On motion by Councilman Seymour, seconded by Councilman Roth, Application for Solicitation of Charity Funds requested by the American Diabetes Association, to solicit pledges for a bike-a-thon, August 1 through October 8, 1978, was approved. MOTION CARRIED. 101/108: REQUEST - TENT SHOW - STELLAR PRODUCTIONS' LASER WORLD: Request by Stellar Productions' Laser World to hold a tent show from June 28 through August 14, 1978, on property located at Freedman Way and Manchester Avenue was submitted. Mr. Bruce Coine, Associate Producer, Stellar Productions, stated that he had been in touch with various departments relative to the subject request and came prepared with all the necessary documents required, including insurance. 78-820 City Hall~ Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - June 20, 1978~ 1:30 P.M. Councilman Roth first questioned Mr. Coine relative to the information released from Washington D.C. that lasers were the cause of some type of illness. Mr. Coine explained there was an application in the requirements dealing with public use of lasers and their expert who was supplying them with the equipment they would use was one of the draftees of the Federal Regulations. Problems arose in uncontrolled situations where the lasers were directed at the audience. Mr. Coine then relayed the following information on questioning by the Council: 1. Three hundred and fifty would be the maximum number of parking spaces necessary. 2. Seating arrangements had been redrawn to comply with the Fire Code and seating capacity was now approximately 800 to 850 maximum. 3. Theirs was a family-type exhibit as opposed to that of a rock concert. 4. They had retained a consultant who had given recommendations in areas of security and discussions had also taken place with the Chief of Police. 5. Although this was the first such show to be staged by them, their organization had extensive experience over many years in the entertainment industry. 6. Tickets would be sold on the basis of seat occupancy. After capacity was reached, tickets would be sold for a later show. 7. Eighteen full-time employees would be on the premises to deal with crowds and they would also supply additional manpower of the security-type that the Police would recommend. 8. Stellar Productions was a production arm of Pandora~Enterprises, the operating company. Pandora was a limited partnership between two individuals. 9. Several shows a day were contemplated on a 7-day per week basis. Mayor Seymour stated that he had serious concerns about the request, especially considering the problems experienced approximately one year before with a religious tent event at the same location generating complaints from Melodyland because of trespassing. In this instance, he saw an orientation to young people and envisioned similar problems. Councilman Roth suggested, considering the problems of the past particularly in regard to traffic on~i Freedman Way, that the matter be continued for one week to receive input from the Grand Hotel and Melodyland. Mr. Coine answered that they were doing business with the Grand Hotel and had also talked to Melodyland so that show times would not conflict with events occurring there. The Mayor stated he would oppose the application, but on the other hand would also like to see the type of activity proposed take place in the City; however, not at the requested location. As Councilman Overholt pointed outi there would be several shows daily 7 days a week in one of the most congested areas of the City in the summertime. He thereupon asked Mr. Coine if he had spoken to anyone out at the Anaheim Stadium property? Mr. Coine stated he had done so, but it was felt there would be conflicting dates. As well, he was not permitted to get to Mr. Dooley to discuss the matter. 78-821 City Hal.!~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - June 20~ 1978~ 1:30 P.M. The Mayor reiterated that the activity and intensity of use proposed would not be acceptable for the area proposed. He therefore suggested that Mr. Coine and Mr. Dooley, who was present in the Council Chamber, adjourn to the hall to discuss the possibilities of locating the show on Stadium property and subsequently come back to the Council with the results of their discussion. Later in the meeting, Mr. Jim Dooley, Stadium Staff Assistant, explained that initially Mr. Coine had gone to the Anaheim Convention Center and inadvertently talked to someone from the Visitor and Convention Bureau who assumed he was speaking with a trade show person. Mr. Dooley then explained that in speaking with Mr. Coine, he informed him of the prevailing rates and contractual terms for use of the Stadium property. Mr. Coine did not feel under his financial capability that he could perform under the contract. He could provide a space on the parking lot contingent on seeking approval of the California Angels, the Surf, and the recreational vehicle show. The dirt area of the lot was recently oiled, however, and might not be conducive to the show under summer conditions. They could try to accommodate Stellar Productions on the lot and their charges were three cents net square foot and ten percent of the gross paid admissions against $5,000 a day. Mr. Coine had stated he could not live with that percentage. Mr. Coine first clarified that although they came under tent show regulations, they were not a tent show, but an air-supported structure. Upon the recommenda- tions of Melodyland, they were able to make a deal on the property adjacent to it through the property owners, specifically Mr. David Hook. In terms of traffic and the security situation, they had discussed the situation with the Chief of Police. They were not in the same venue as a religious tent show, but the same type of show as staged by the Los Angeles Observatory for four years. Councilman Seymour moved to deny the request of Stellar Productions' Laser World to hold a tent show from June 28 through August 14, 1978, on property located at Freedman Way and Manchester Avenue. Councilwoman Kaywood seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. 108: APPLICATION FOR SOLICITATION OF CHARITY FUNDS: On motion by Councilman Seymour, seconded by Councilman Kott, Application for Solicitation of Charity Funds by Cosmopolitan Club of Anaheim, for solicitation in connection with service projects, on July 8, 9 and 10, 1978, was denied. MOTION CARRIED. RECLASSIFICATION NO. 76-77-49 AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 1703 - EXTENSION OF TIME: Floyd L. Farano, requesting an extension of time to Reclassification No. 76-77-49 and Conditional Use Permit No. 1703, to permit a resource recovery and recycling operation with code waivers on proposed ML zoned property located at 3200 Frontera Street. Councilman Kott stated he would abstain from discussion and voting on the matter, on the advice of his Attorney. Councilman Roth questioned if the provision, from which relief from the obligation to dedicate additional land along Frontera Street was being requested, was one of the conditions of approval (Condition No. 1), how it was possible to do so without a public hearing. City Attorney Hopkins clarified that it must be done in a public hearing as stated in staff report dated June 20, 1978. The extension of time being requested was a separate item. 78-822 City Hall, Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - June 20~ 1978~ 1:30 P.M. Councilman Roth expressed his disappointment in the item back before the Council and considered the project one of a disgrace, considering the buses, trailers, sign, etc. in evidence on the property. He would not favor a retroactive exten- sion of time which, in essence, would provide an additional 120 days. He wanted something done within 30 days and again reiterated his displeasure with the present status. Mr. Floyd Farano, 2555 East Chapman Avenue, Suite 705, Fullerton, Attorney, stated that he concurred with Councilman Roth in part, but the project was in much better condition than before. The junk buildings had been eliminated and the trailers were on the property because of the construction taking place. At present, building plans had been submitted to the Building Division for permits and were now in plan check. When he stated in his letter dated June 12, 1978 that in 7 days the fence would be constructed, he meant to say that the contracts had been let. When he submitted his letter, he was hoping to get an extension of time coupled with the request for the waiver both held at the same time. That was not possible thus even if the extension were granted, the fence would not be up in 7 days since it was necessary to wait until the waiver was determined. Serious problems had occurred, but he could not question Councilman Roth's dissatisfaction with the matter. Upon questioning by Mayor Seymour, Mr. George Adams answered from the Chamber audience that property taxes on the subject land were $1,500 a year, and he em- ployed 75 people at his facility. The Mayor stated that he understood Councilman Roth's concerns and they did not want the matter to continue indefinitely. However, a large investment was involved and he was inclined to favor the extension of time, as well as a rehearing on Condi- tion No. 1. On motion by Councilman Seymour, seconded by Councilman Overholt, an extension of time to Reclassification No. 76-77-49 and Conditional Use Permit No. 1703, retro- active to April 11, 1978, to expire August 11, 1978, was granted, with the request for an amendment to Condition No. 1 of the reclassification to be considered at a public hearing (fee already paid). Councilman Kott abstained. Councilman Roth voted "no". MOTION CARRIED. RECLASSIFICATION NO. 76-77-56 - EXTENSION OF TIME: On motion by Councilman Roth, seconded by Councilman Seymour, request for an extension of time to the subject reclassification by Anacal Engineering Company on proposed RS-7200 zoned property located on the south side of Arboretum Road, near Palo Alto Drive, was granted to expire July 5, 1979. MOTION CARRIED. REQUEST FOR EVENING MEETING - RECLASSIFICATION NO. 77-78-46, VARIANCE NO. 2994 AND TENTATIVE TRACT NO. 10254: (Proposed RS-7200 zoning for a' 16-lot subdivision on property located on the northwest side of Santa Ana Canyon Road, northeast of Mohler Drive. Public hearing set and published for June 27, 1978 at 3:00 p.m.) On motion by Councilman Seymour, seconded by Councilman Kott, the request for an evening meeting on the subject reclassification, variance and tentative tract was approved; therefore, public hearing would be continued to July 11, 1978, at 7:30 p.m. MOTION CARRIED. 78-823 City Hall~ Anahetm~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - June 20~ 1978~ 1:30 P.M. CONSENT CALENDAR ITEMS: On motion by Councilman Kott, seconded by Councilman Seymour, the following actions were authorized in accordance with the reports and recommendations furnished each Council Member and as listed on the Consent Calendar Agenda: 1. CORRESPONDENCE: The following correspondence was ordered received and filed: a. 175: Before the PUC, Application No. 57963, in the matter of the Application of Southern California Edison Company for authority to modify its Energy Cost Adjustment Clause to increase its Energy Cost Adjustment Billing Factor. b. 102: Orange County Vector Control District - Minutes of May 18, 1978. c. 105: Community Redevelopment Commission - Minutes of May 31, 1978. d. 156: Monthly report for May 1978 - Police Department. e. 105: Youth Commission - Minutes of May 24, 1978. 108: PUBLIC DANCE PERMIT AND ENTERTAINMENT PERMIT: The following permits were approved in accordance with the recommendations of the Chief of Police: a. Public Dance Permit for the Anaheim Soccer Club to hold a dance at the Anaheim Convention Center on July 1, 1978, from 5:00 p.m. to 1:00 a.m. with an admission fee of $10.00 per person. (Joel Aguirre Guerena, applicant) b. Entertainment Permit for entertainment seven days a week from 6:00 p.m. to 12:00 p.m. at King Henry's Court, 823 South Beach. (Larry Dale McKee, applicant) MOTION CARRIED. 114/163: RESPONSIBILITY FOR CROSSING GUARDS: Councilwoman Kaywood referred to the City of Costa Mesa's Resolution No. 78-55 urging the adoption of State legislation which places the responsibility for crossing guards with school districts which matter was going to be brought up for a vote at the League of California Cities meeting on August 10, 1978. She believed that such action would create less confusion and would be a more direct and sensible way of handling crossing guards. She thereupon moved to support Resolution No. 78-55. Councilman Kott seconded the motion. Before a vote was taken, Mayor Seymour asked that the matter be continued one week to give the Council an opportunity to deliberate the question. Councilman Overholt stated that he believed the district would like the responsi- bility, but not the added expense. Mr. Talley noted that the crossing guard pro- gram was approximately $118,000 a year. Councilwoman Kaywood agreed to an alternative motion and thereupon Councilman Overholt moved to continue the matter one week. Councilwoman Kaywood seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. 78-8~4 City Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - June 20, 1978, 1:30 P.M. 170: TENTATIVE TRACT NO. 10434: Developer, Robert P. Warmington Company; tract located south of Ball Road, west of Palm Way, north of Palm Lane and east of Euclid Street, to establish a l-lot, RM-1200 zone, ll6-unit condominium subdivision, was submitted, together with the Planning Commission's action of approval. (see minutes June 20, 1978, public hearing on Variance No. 3011 which was denied) On motion by Councilwoman Kaywood, seconded by Councilman Seymour, the proposed subdivision, Tentative Tract No. 10434, was denied. MOTION CARRIED. CONSENT CALENDAR ITEMS: Councilman Roth offered Resolution Nos. 78R-397, 78R-398 and 78R-400 for adoption in accordance with the reports, recommendations and certifications furnished each Council Member and as listed on the Consent Calendar Agenda. Refer to Resolution Book. 150: RESOLUTION NO. 78R-397: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM FINDING AND DETERMINING THAT PUBLIC CONVENIENCE AND NECESSITY REQUIRE THE CONSTRUCTION AND COMPLETION OF A PUBLIC IMPROVEMENT, TO WIT: REMODELING OF DAY CARE CENTER AT SENIOR CITIZENS CENTER, 222 EAST CHARTRES STREET, IN THE CITY OF ANAHEIM, ACCOUNT NO. 17-4309-276-17-5000; APPROVING THE DESIGNS, PLANS, PROFILES, DRAWINGS, AND SPECIFICATIONS FOR THE CONSTRUCTION THEREOF; AUTHORIZING THE CONSTRUCTION OF SAID PUBLIC IMPROVEMENT IN ACCORDANCE WITH SAID PLANS, SPECIFICATIONS, ETC.; AND AUTHORIZING AND DIRECTING THE CITY CLERK TO PUBLISH A NOTICE INVITING SEALED PROPOSALS FOR THE CONSTRUCTION~THEREOF. (Bids to be opened July 20, 1978, 2:00 p.m.) 169: RESOLUTION NO. 78R-398: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM FINALLY ACCEPTING THE COMPLETION AND THE FURNISHING OF ALL PLANT, LABOR, SERVICES, MATERIALS AND EQUIPMENT AND ALL UTILITIES AND TRANSPORTATION INCLUDING POWER, FUEL AND WATER, AND THE PERFORMANCE OF ALL WORK NECESSARY TO CONSTRUCT AND COMPLETE THE FOLLOWING PUBLIC IMPROVEMENT, TO WIT: LINCOLN AVENUE MEDIAN ISLAND STREET IMPROVEMENT, EUCLID TO WESTERN, IN THE CITY OF ANAHEIM, PROJECT NO. 13-4309-724-16-1000. (Leonite Concrete, Inc.) 179: RESOLUTION NO. 78R-400: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM TERMINATING ALL PROCEEDINGS IN CONNECTION WITH RECLASSIFICATION NO. 76-77-57 AND DECLARING RESOLUTION NO. 77R-488 NULL AND VOID. 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-397, 78R-398 and 78R-400 duly passed and adopted. 156: FINAL ACCEPTANCE - POLICE PISTOL RANGE RENABILITATION: Councilwoman Kaywood asked if a penalty was assessed since Property Maintenance completed the project and deducted that portion from the contract. City Engineer Maddox stated that there were no penalties and that a report would be submitted within one week. 78-825 --City Hall~ Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - June 20~ 1978~ 1:30 P.M. Councilman Roth offered Resolution No. 78R-399 for adoption. Refer to Resolution Book. 156: RESOLUTION NO. 78R-399: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM FINALLY ACCEPTING THE COMPLETION AND THE FURNISHING OF ALL PLANT, LABOR, SERVICES, MATERIALS AND EQUIPMENT AND ALL UTILITIES AND TRANSPORTATION INCLUDING POWER, FUEL AND WATER, AND THE PERFORMANCE OF ALL WORK NECESSARY TO CONSTRUCT AND COMPLETE THE FOLLOWING PUBLIC IMPROVEMENT, TO WIT: REHABILITATION OF THE POLICE PISTOL RANGE, IN THE CITY OF ANAHEIM, WORK ORDER NO. 1055, ACCOUNT NO. 50-4804-188- 09-0000. (Contractor: James P. Reid; completed by Property Maintenance) 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-399 duly passed and adopted. 170: FINAL MAP - TRACT NO. 8775: Developer, Matreyek Homes of Upland; tract is located north of La Palma Avenue, south of Romneya Drive, and contains 38 proposed RM-2400 zoned lots. On motion by Councilwoman Kaywood, seconded by Councilman Roth, the proposed sub- division, together with its design and improvement, was found to be consistent with the City's General Plan, and the City Council approved Final Map, Tract No. 8775, as recommended by the City Engineer in his memorandum dated June 13 1978. MOTION CARRIED. , 170: FINAL MAP - TRACT NO. 8796: Developer, Matreyek Homes of Upland; tract is located north of La Palma Avenue, south of Romneya Drive, and contains 43 proposed RM-2400 zoned lots. On motion by Councilwoman Kaywood, seconded by Councilman Roth, the proposed sub- division, together with its design and improvement, was found to be consistent with the City's General Plan, and the City Council approved Final Map, Tract No. 8796, as recommended by the City Engineer in his memorandum dated June 13 1978. MOTION CARRIED. ' 170: FINAL MAP - TRACT NO. 9684: Developer, Matreyek Homes of Upland; tract is located north of Falmouth Avenue, west of Romneya Drive, and contains 7 RM-2400 proposed zoned lots. On motion by Councilwoman Kaywood, seconded by Councilman Roth, the proposed sub- division, together with its design and improvement, was found to be consistent with the City's General Plan, and the City Council approved Final Map, Tract No. 9684, as recommended by the City Engineer in his memorandum dated June 13 1978. MOTION CARRIED. , 78-826 City Hall~ Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - June 20~ 1978~ 1:30 P.M. ORDINANCE NOS. 3873 THROUGH 3875: Councilwoman Kaywood offered Ordinance Nos. 3873 through 3875, both inclusive, for adoption. Refer to Ordinance Book. 149: ORDINANCE NO. 3873: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AMENDING TITLE 14, CHAPTER 14.32, SECTION 14.32.190, SUBSECTION .690 OF THE ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO PARKING RESTRICTIONS. (Broadway Street) 142: ORDINANCE NO. 3874: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM REPEALING SECTION 17.08.039.040 OF TITLE 17, CHAPTER 17.08 OF THE ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE AND ADDING A NEW SECTION IN ITS PLACE AND STEAD RELATING TO LOT lINE ADJUS2~MENTS. ORDINANCE NO. 3875: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AMENDING TITLE 18 OF THE ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO ZONING. (72-73-51(26), RS-HS-22,000) Roll Call Vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: COUNCIL MEMBERS: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Overholt, Kaywood, Kott, Roth and Seymour None None The Mayor declared Ordinance Nos. 3873 through 3875, both inclusive, duly passed and adopted. ORDINANCE NO. 3876: Councilman Roth offered Ordinance No. 3876 for adoption. Refer to Ordinance Book. ORDINANCE NO. 3876: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AMENDING TITLE 18 OF THE ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO ZONING. (73-74-9(9), CL) Roll Call Vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: COUNCIL MEMBERS: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Overholt, Kaywood, Kott, Roth and Seymour None None The Mayor declared Ordinance No. 3876 duly passed and adopted. ORDINANCE NOS. 3868 AND 3877 THROUGH 3882: Councilman Kott offered Ordinance Nos. 3868 and 3877 through 3882, both inclusive, for first reading. 179: 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 i8.31; 18.32.050.020 OF CHAPTER 18.32; AND 18.34.0~0.030 OF CHAPTER 18.34, TITLE 18, OF THE ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE AND ADDING NE~W 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 L8.27; 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. 78-82 7 City Hall, Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - June 20~ 1978~ 1:30 P.M. ORDINANCE NO. 3877: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AMENDING TITLE 18 OF THE ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO ZONING. (72-73-51(24), RS-HS-22,000) ORDINANCE NO. 3878: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AMENDING TITLE 18 OF THE ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO ZONING. (72-73-51(25), RS-HS-22,000) ORDINANCE NO. 3879: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AMENDING TITLE 18 OF THE ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO ZONING. (61-62-69(81), ML) ORDINANCE NO. 3880: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AMENDING TITLE 18 OF THE ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO ZONING. (77-78-59, CL) ORDINANCE NO. 3881: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AMENDING TITLE 18 OF THE ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO ZONING. (77-78-43, RM-1200) ORDINANCE NO. 3882: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AMENDING TITLE 18 OF THE ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO ZONING. (77-78-58, ML) 107: ALUMINUM VERSUS COPPER WIRING: Councilwoman Kaywood commented on an article she had read on the dangers of aluminum wiring with estimates ranging from $300 to $600 for minor repairs and $2,000 to $3,000 for rewiring an entire house. As well, homeowners were not warned properly of the potential fire hazards involved. Although an extensive public hearing was held on the ma~ter, she recommended that another evaluation be made and thereupon moved for such an evaluation by staff. Councilman Kott seconded the motion. Before a vote was taken, Mayor Seymour spoke against the motion because he believed it to be a step in the wrong direction. He maintained that a great deal of pro- fessional testimony had been received on the subject and a newspaper article was no reason to spend the time and energy to run the matter through the bureacracy once again. After a brief Council discussion, Mr. Ron Thompson, Planning Director, explained that the new edition of the Electrical Code would be coming to the Council in the near future. In view of this action, Councilwoman Kaywood withdrew her motion and Councilman Kott his second. 150: ARTS NEEDS - AD HOC COMMITTEE REPORT: Councilwoman Kaywood reported that the ad hoc Committee on Arts Needs met on Wednesday night, June 14, 1978, and pre- sented a draft of the final report by Mr. Edmund Carlson who had met all of his deadlines. The Committee suggested some changes and asked for an extension of time to present the final report. On motion by Councilwoman Kaywood, seconded by Councilman Roth', request for extension of time by the ad hoc Committee on Arts Needs to present the final report from Mr. Edmund Carlson to the Council July 18, 1978, was approved. MOTION CARRIED. 78-828 City Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - June 20~ 1978~ 1:30 P.M. 155/179: APARTMENT HOUSE CONVERSIONS TO CONDOMINIUMS - PUBLIC NOTICES: On motion by Councilman Seymour, seconded by Councilman Kott, staff was requested to send public notices to tenants of apartment houses when planned to be converted to condominiums. Councilwoman Kaywood voted "no". MOTION CARRIED. Councilwoman Kaywood was of the opinion that the person wanting to make the conversion should be responsible for sending such notices. RECESS - EXECUTIVE SESSION: Councilman Seymour moved to recess into Executive Session. Councilman Kott seconded the motion. (7:55 P.M.) AFTER RECESS: Mayor Seymour called the meeting to order, all Council Members being present. (10:07 P.M.) 112: CITY OF ANAHEIM VERSUS WILLIAMS: On motion by Councilman Seymour, seconded by Councilman Kott, the City Attorney was authorized to accept the sum of $15,000 in full settlement of the case of the City of Anaheim versus Williams. (Damage to golf carts by juveniles at Anaheim Hills Golf Course.) MOTION CARRIED. ADJOURNMENT: Councilman Kott moved to adjourn. Councilman Overholt seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. Adjourned: 10:08 P.M.