Loading...
1978/11/0778-1 490 - ~ o 1978, 1:30 P.M. 2j_t~i_Hal_l~_Anaheim~ California COUNCIL MINUTES__- N___~yem___ber 7~ The City Council of the City of Anaheim met in regular session. PRESENT: ABSENT: PRESENT: COUNCIL M~EMBERS: Overholt, Kaywood, Kott and Seymour COUNCIL MEMBERS: Roth CITY MANAGER: William O. Talley CITY ATTORNEY: William P. Hopkins CITY CLERK: Linda D. Roberts EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR: Norm Priest CITY ENGINEER: James Maddox WATER SUPERINTENDENT: Ray Auerbach ASSISTANT CITY ENGINEER: William Devitt TRAFFIC ENGINEER: Paul Singer ASSISTANT DIRECTOR FOR ZONING: Annika Santalahti Mayor Seymour called the meeting to order and welcomed those in attendance to the Council meeting. MOMENT OF SILENCE: A moment of silence was observed in lieu of an Invocation. FLAG SALUTE: Councilwoman Miriam Kaywood led the assembly in the Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag. 119: PRESENTATION: Mr. Joe Wright, Pacific Telephone Company, explained that his company was starting distribution of the.new Orange County Telephone Directory which contained two unique features: (1) a new survival guide consisting of first aid information, emergency items, disaster items, etc., and (2) the cover picture selected was Anaheim Stadium. Mr. Wright then read the cover story and thereafter presented a plaque to each Council Member containing a depiction of the directory's C(}ver. 1i~): PROCLAMATIONS: ~]ae following proclamations were issued by Mayor Seymour at~d approved by the City Council: Youth Appreciation Week - November 12-]8, 1978. A Week of Concern - November 13-19, 1978. ~[e Y~uth Appreciation Week proclamation was accepted by Mr. Dean Stockwell 1i9: RESOLUTION OF CONGRATULATIONS: A Resolution of Congratulations was adopted by the City Council and presented to Mickey Mouse upon the occasion of his 50th birthday as Anaheim's most distinguished resident. Mrs. Mary Jones, Community Relations Director of Disneyland, who was present along with Mickey, expressed her gratefulness for the recognition given to Mickey and stated they were looking for~*ard to many more happy years in the City of Anaheim. MIN[~TES: On motion by Councilwoman Kaywood, seconded by Councilman Overholt, minutes of the regular meetings held June 27 and July 11, 1978 were approved, subject to typographical corrections on June 27th minutes, and minutes of the adjourned regular meetings held July ]2 and August 23, 1978, were approved. Councilman Roth was absent. MOTION CARRIED. 78-1491 City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - November 7~ 1978~ 1:30 P.M. WAIVER OF READING - ORDINANCES AND RESOLUTIONS: Councilwoman Kaywood moved to waive the reading, in full, of all ordinances and resolutions and that consent to the waiver of reading is hereby given by all Council Members unless, after reading of the title, specific request is made by a Council Member for the read- ing of such ordinance or resolution. Councilman Overholt seconded the motion. Councilman Roth was absent. MOTION UNANIMOUSLY CARRIED. FINANCIAL DEMANDS AGAINST THE CITY in the amount of $936,998.08, in accordance with the 1978-79 Budget, were approved. NEW AGENDA FORMAT: Councilman Kott referred to the new agenda format of consent calendar items under the City Manager's portion of the meeting. He was told at one time that consent calendar items were those basically acted on by a govern- mental group such as a commission wherein thought and consideration were previously given to the item and merely needed the Council's sanction. He was wondering how, under that interpretation, the City Manager could have items of large expenditures come under a consent calendar category without acting on them individually. Mayor Seymour stated that the matter of consent calendar items was broached at a work session of the City Council and, of those Council Members present, it was unanimous to institute such a concept under the City Manager's portion of the agenda for purposes of expediting those items in which the Council felt there need not be in-depth discussion or separate action. And thus, it was in the interest of creating a more efficient and effective City Council meeting that the concept was given consent by those Council Members present. The other benefit expressed was that various department heads and some of the staff, from time to time, were required to sit throughout lengthy sessions only to have their items come up very late in the meeting, thus causing the expenditure of taxpayers' money awaiting a matter to be heard. Mayor Seymour continued that, as he understood, unless any one Council Member removed any particular item or all items from the consent calendar for debate, discussion or question, all items would be approved in a single action. If there was a concern that a member of the public might want to speak to a partic- ular matter on that consent calendar, he could do so by notifying the City Clerk prior to the meeting or upon arrival as was now~noted on the agenda. He emphasized that the bottom line of the whole concept was to insure that the Council was not giving up any of its right of review, debate, discussion or question, and built into the concept was the ability for any Member of the Council to remove any or all items and have them heard individually. Councilman Kott asked the City Attorney if he had any problems with the procedure; City Attorney Hopkins stated that the precautions being taken to make certain that each Member of the Council and public had the right to comment should make the procedure a valid one, and one that would save time. If any Member of the Council wished an item to be acted upon individually, there was provision for so doing, and under that concept, there was no problem. Councilman Kott stated that as elected officials, he believed they were abrogating more of their responsibility to the City Manager. In his opinion, the items con- tained expenditures of large sums of money, and he, for one, considered it his responsibility and they should not be placed on the consent calendar. He did not feel that it would achieve much of what had been said although, in principle, he agreed. 78-1492 Cit~ Hall..~ Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - November 7~ 1978~ 1:30 P.M. Councilwoman Kaywood cormnented that at the Council/Management Seminar on October 4, 1978, when the whole matter was discussed, the four Council Members present had no problem with the new concept. Councilman Overholt stated that although he shared Councilman Kott's concern, it was not his understanding that the format being tried for the first time today was intended to reduce the Council's responsibility or right to inquire. He be- lieved the only area where there might be disagreement with the City Manager would be as to what items were considered routine. They were entirely open to suggestions that certain items he chose to place on the consent calendar were not routine and should not be placed thereon. Hopefully, the new procedure would expedite certain routine matters and he wanted to see it tried in order to ascertain the outcome. CITY MANAGER/DEPARTMENTAL CONSENT CALENDAR: On motion by Councilwoman Kaywood, seconded by Councilman Overholt, the following actions were authorized, as recom- mended by the Purchasing Agent: a. 150: Brookhurst Park Irrigation Renovation - Account No. 16-807-7103-00003 Continue award to November 14, 1978. b. 160: Bid No. 3482 - Authorizing purchase and installation of 773 yards of Milliken Times Square Carpet Modules on the first floor of the Anaheim Police Department. Award to Custom Floor of Garden Grove - $17,915. c. 160: Bid No. 3474 - Authorizing purchase of four hundred current transformers. Award to Maydwell and Hartzell, $9,752. Councilman Roth was absent. MOTION CARRIED. 160: PURCHASE OF EQUIPMENT - TRAILER MOUNTED STUMP CUTTER - BID NO. 3462: After questioning City Manager Talley on the subject purchase for purposes of clarifica- tion, Councilman Overholt moved to approve the purchase of one trailer mounted stump cutter from Vermeer, Ontario, in the amount of $11,766. Councilwoman Kaywood seconded the motion. Councilman Roth was absent. MOTION CARRIED. CITY MANAGER/DEPARTMENTAL CONSENT CALENDAR - AWARD OF CONTRACT: Councilwoman Kaywood offered Resolution No. 78R-711 for adoption, awarding a contract as recommended by the City Engineer. Refer to Resolution Book. 174: RESOLUTION NO. 78R-711: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM ACCEPTING A SEALED PROPOSAL AND AWARDING A CONTRACT TO THE LOWEST RESPONSIBLE BIDDER FOR THE FURNISHING OF ALL PLANT, LABOR, SERVICES, MATERIALS AND EQUIPMENT AND ALL UTILITIES AND TRANSPORTATION INCLUDING POWER, FUEL AND WATER, AND PERFORMING ALL WORK NECESSARY TO CONSTRUCT AND COMPLETE THE. FOLLOWING PUBLIC IMPROVEMENT: COMMUNITY BLOCK GRANT PROGRAM PATT STREET ALLEY IMPROVEMENT, IN THE CITY OF ANAHEIM, ACCOUNT NO. 25-793-6325-3130. (T. J. Crosby Company, Inc., $20,482) Roll Call Vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: COUNCIL MEMBERS: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Overholt, Kaywood, Kott and Seymour None Roth .Mayor declared Resolution No. 78R-711 duly passed and adopted. 78-1493 ~ity Ha.l..l~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - November 7~ 1978~ 1:30 P.M. AMENDMENTS TO AGREEMENTS - REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY: The following items were removed from the consent calendar by Councilman Kott for discussion and questions, which questions were answered by Executive Director Norm Priest. The following action was then taken by the City Council. Councilman Overholt offered Resolution Nos. 78R-712 and 78R-713 for adoption authorizing amendments to two agreements with the Anaheim Redevelopment Agency as recommended by the Executive Director. Refer to Resolution Book. 123: RESOLUTION NO. 78R-712: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM APPROVING THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF A SECOND AMENDMENT TO COOPERATION AGREEMENT NUMBER 3 FOR THE CONSTRUCTION AND INSTALLATION OF PUBLIC IMPROVEMENTS, AND AUTHORIZING AND DIRECTING THE MAYOR AND CITY CLERK TO EXECUTE SAID AGREEMENT. (Project No. 2, Alpha) 123: RESOLUTION NO. 78R-713: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM APPROVING THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF A FIRST AMENDMENT TO COOPERATION AGREEMENT NUMBER 7 FOR THE CONSTRUCTION AND INSTALLATION OF PUBLIC IMPROVEMENTS, AND AUTHORIZING AND DIRECTING THE MAYOR AND CITY CLERK TO EXECUTE SAID AGREEMENT. (Project No. 1, Alpha) Roll Call Vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: COUNCIL MEMBERS: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Overholt, Kaywood, Kott and Seymour None Roth The Mayor declared Resolution Nos. 78R-712 and 78R-713 duly passed and adopted. 123/177: KISSELL COMPANY AGREEMENT: Councilman Kott offered Resolution No. 78R-714 for adoption, authorizing an agreement to allow the City to assist the Kissell Com- pany in the disbursement of home improvement loan funds under the California Housing Finance Agency Program, as recommended by the Executive Director. Refer to Reso- lution Book. RESOLUTION NO. 78R-714: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM APPROVING THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF AN AGREEMENT WITH THE KISSELL COMPANY AND AUTHORIZING AND DIRECTING THE MAYOR AND CITY CLERK TO EXECUTE SAID AGREEMENT. R011 Call Vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: COUNCIL MEMBERS: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Overholt, Kaywood, Kott and Seymour None Roth The Mayor declared Resolution No. 78R-714 duly passed and adopted. 123/177: CROCKER NATIONAL BANK - LOW-INTEREST LOANS FOR MULTI-FAMILY STRUCTURES: Executive Director Norm Priest clarified one aspect of the agreement for Mayor Seymour, after which Councilman Kott offered Resolution No. 78R-715 for adoption, as recommended in memorandum dated October 31, 1978, from the Community Development Department. Refer to Resolution Book. 78-1494 City ~.1.1~. Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - November 7~ 1978~ 1:30 P.M. RESOLUTION NO. 78R-715: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM APPROVING THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF AN AGREEMENT WITH CROCKER NATIONAL BANK AND AUTHORIZING AND DIRECTING THE MAYOR AND CITY CLERK TO EXECUTE SAID AGREEMENT. Roll Call Vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: COUNCIL MEMBERS: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Overholt , Kaywood, Kott and Seymour None Ro th The Mayor declared Resolution No. 78R-715 duly passed and adopted. 123/177: CROCKER NATIONAL BANK~ AMENDMENT - LOW-INTEREST LOANS~ COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT NEIGHBORHOOD REHABILITATION PROGRAM: Mayor Seymour asked how many of the subject type loans had been made and the dollar volume of those loans. Mr. Priest explained that not many loans had been made under the program. The lending rate at 6 percent was apparently not that attractive to local residents, but he did not know the total experience in the program. Mayor Seymour asked Mr. Priest to provide the Council with information in report form relative to the success ratio of the program. If the 5 percent rate now pro- posed also proved not to be favorable, the Council should not wait another 6 months to a year to find out that it was not working. Mr. Priest stated he would like to give the Council a full report on all programs in Neighborhood Preservation. Councilwoman Kaywood offered Resolution No. 78R-716 for adoption, authorizing a second amendment to an agreement with Crocker National Bank for low-interest loans in the Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) Neighborhood Rehabilita- tion Program to reduce the interest rate to 5 percent, as reco[~ended in memo- randum dated October 24, 1978, from the Executive Director. Refer to Resolution Book. RESOLUTION NO. 78R-716: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM APPROVING THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF A SECOND AMENDMENT TO AGREEMENT WITH CROCKER NATIONAL BANK AND AUTHORIZING AND DIRECTING THE MAYOR AND CITY CLERK TO EXECUTE SAID AGREEMENT. Roll Call Vote: AYE[;: NOES: ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: COUNCIL MEMBERS: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Overholt, Kaywood, Kott and Seymour None Roth The Mayor declared Resolution No. 78R-716 duly passed and adopted. 123/161: DESIGN OF THE DISTRICT 17 STORM DRAIN: After Mr. Priest and City Engineer Maddox clarified questions posed by Councilman Kott, Councilman Overholt offered Resolution No. 78R-717 for adoption authorizing an amendment to an agreement with Willdan Associates for design of the District 17 Storm Drain, changing the compen- sation schedule, as recommended in memorandum dated October 27, 1978, from the Public Works and Community Development Departments. Refer to Resolution Book. 78-1495 City Hall, Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - November 7~ 1978~ 1:30 P.M. RESOLUTION NO. 78R-717: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM APPROVING THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF AN AMENDMENT TO AGREEMENT WITH WILLDAN ASSOCIATES, AND AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR AND CITY CLERK TO EXECUTE SAID AMENDMENT TO AGREEMENT. Roll Call Vote: AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Overholt, Kaywood, and Seymour NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Kott ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Roth The Mayor declared Resolution No. 78R-717 duly passed and adopted. 164: EXTENSION OF BID TIME - HIDDEN CANYON RESERVOIR: (Account No. 51-619- 7105-92180-31200) Councilman Overholt offered Resolution No. 78R-718 for adop- tion, extending the bid date on the subject project from November 9, 1978 to November 30, 1978, 2:00 P.M. Refer to Resolution Book. RESOLUTION NO. 78R-718: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AMENDING RESOLUTION NO. 78R-668 TO EXTEND THE BID DATE FOR THE HIDDEN CANYON RESERVOIR, ACCOUNT NO. 51-619-7105-92180-31200. (November 30, 1978, 2:00 P.M.) Roll Call Vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: COUNCIL MEMBERS: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Overholt, Kaywood, Kott and Seymour None Roth The Mayor declared Resolution No. 78R-718 duly passed and adopted. 124/149: PARKING COMPLAINTS IN THE AREA OF THE CONVENTION CENTER: Councilman Kott stated that at a meeting of the Community Center Authority the prior evening, November 6, 1978, parking complaints were voiced. He thereupon moved that the City Manager be directed to investigate the parking complaints received at the meeting and also to include recommendations relative to "no parking" signs and a place for buses to park and report to the Council within 30 days. Councilman Overholt seconded the motion. Before a vote was taken, Mayor Seymour stated that if alternatives were being considered, he suggested that the cul-de-sacing of Convention Center Way be considered, as well as Eleanor, as they exited out onto West Street. Councilwoman Kaywood noted that some of the people at the meeting mentioned that the elderly people were concerned over the possibility of cul-de-sacing those two streets because emergency vehicles might be slowed down. Mayor Seymour stated that would be a trade-off and he wanted to have the matter analyzed. A vote was then taken on the foregoing motion. Councilman Roth was absent. MOTION CARRIED. 78-1496 City Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - November 7~ 1978, 1:30 P.M. Councilwoman Kaywood also noted for the record that Councilman Kott had made a comment at the meeting which inferred that the Convention Center, when placed on the ballot, had been voted down. She clarified that the issue was never on the ballot. 123: LEGAL SERVICES WITH OLIVER, STOEVER AND LASKIN: Councilwoman Kaywood offered Resolution No. 78R-719 for adoption, as recommended in memorandum dated October 26, 1978, from the City Attorney's Office. Refer to Resolution Book. RESOLUTION NO. 78R-719: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM APPROVING THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF THE FIRST AMENDMENT TO AGREEMENT WITH OLIVER, STOEVER & LASKIN AND AUTHORIZING AND DIRECTING THE MAYOR AND CITY CLERK TO EXECUTE SAID FIRST AMENDMENT. Roll Call Vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: COUNCIL MEMBERS: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Overholt, Kaywood, Kott and Seymour None Ro th ~e Mayor declared Resolution No. 78R-719 duly passed and adopted. 112: RELOCATION OF CITY ATTORNEY'S PROSECUTION SECTION: On motion by Councilman Kott, seconded by Councilman Overholt, the relocation of the City Attorney's Prosecution Section including records, secretarial staff and equipment, to the North Orange County Municipal Court building in Fullerton for better efficiency and reduction in costs, as requested by Judge Luis A. Cardenas, was approved, as recommended in memorandum dated November 2, 1978, from the City Attorney (4 rooms at no charge to the City for as long as use is desired). Councilman Roth was absent. MOTION CARRIED. 166: POSTING OF ILLEGAL SIGNS ON UTILITY POLES: Councilwoman Kaywood stated that over the weekend, the City was inundated with signs saying "Save Anaheim - No on C" placed on every telephone pole, utility pole and tree on Lincoln Avenue and all major streets with no identifying mark. She thereupon asked the City Attorney if such signing was illegal. City Attorney Hopkins answered that the Anaheim Municipal Code made it unlawful to put a sign on any lamp post, power pole, wall, tree or public place. As well, since there was no indication of who sponsored the signs, there was probably a violation of the Elections Code. About all that could be done would be to ask the Chief of Police to investigate the matter to see if he could determine who was responsible for the posting of the signs. Councilwoman Kaywood stated that she did not believe it was any secret as to who was behind the signs, but questioned whether someone had to be caught in the act. Mr. Hopkins confirmed that it would be necessary to observe the violation in order to prosecute. In the past, his office sent letters to all campaign commit- tees when identified, advising them it was unlawful to post such signs on power poles. However, when there was no identification, it would be a matter of inves- tigating to ascertain those responsible, and he would request the Chief of Police to look into the matter. 78-1497 ~ity Hall~ ~aheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - November 7~ 1978, 1:30 P.M. Councilman Kott agreed with Councilwoman Kaywood, but stated further that the City should investigate the signing that occurred with identification. Thus, in order to apply the law equally, all such signing should be investigated. Councilwoman Kaywood explained that a great deal of time and effort had been spent on the matter trying Constitutionally to do something about it. She was concerned that using staples or other means of securing the signs resulted in a hazard for utility workers when climbing the poles. If the law was going to be continually violated, consideration should be given as to whether or not that law should be removed. That had been discussed in the past and the feeling was that the law should stand to preclude a proliferation of signing. In this case, there was a proliferation of signing even with the law. Mayor Seymour stated that he agreed with both viewpoints expressed, that there appeared to be a violation of the ordinance and that ordinances should be enforced equally. He also agreed, as expressed by Councilman Kott, that it was impractical to enforce the law by posting policemen to watch the poles. Since most of the complaints arose at election time, a better direction would be to ask the City Manager to come back with a procedure, with the agreement of the City Attorney, that could be followed at the next election. If that procedure was acceptable, the ordinance could be maintained or, in the event that the process to enforce the ordinance was too cumbersome or expensive, the ordinance should be repealed. He did not believe they had ever asked for specific action that the City would take prior to an election. What had to be considered was perhaps what role the Police Department was going to play two days before the election. He reiterated either the ordinance should be taken off the books or a plan of action, rather than reaction, instituted. Councilman Overholt asked that, in this instance, the City Attorney direct a letter to the committee which was probably responsible for the signs asking them to remove them in the same manner as they were placed on the poles. 113: COMMENDATION - CITY CLERK'S DEPARTMENT: Councilman Kott commended the City Clerk and her staff on job performance and cooperation received from that office; other Council Members agreed. 167: REQUEST FOR REFUND OF TRAFFIC SIGNAL ASSESSMENT FEE: Request of Castille Builders, Ltd., dba Coastal Developers Company, for a partial refund of the traffic signal assessment fee paid in connection with property located at 1900 East La Palma Avenue, was submitted. Mr. Paul Singer, Traffic Engineer, stated that his recommendation would be that the fee not be changed because the project involved took place prior to the effect of the new ordinance setting fees. If Council chose to do so, however, the fee should then be calculated on the $180, as at present, which would make the assessment $2,700 resulting in a reimbursement of $2,745. Councilman Seymour moved to reimburse Castille Builders, Ltd., dba Coastal Developers Company, a partial refund of $2,745 on the traffic signal assessment fee paid in connection with the subject property. Councilman Overholt seconded the motion. 78-1498 City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - November 7, 1978~ 1:30 P.M. Before a vote was taken, Councilwoman Kaywood stated she believed it was beyond the time of allowing such reimbursements, and she did not know how the Traffic Division could rely on any kind of budget under such circumstances. There had been enough publicity relative to traffic signal assessment fees so that it was reasonable to set a firm cut-off date when no more reimbursements would be allowed. A vote was then taken on the foregoing motion. Councilwoman Kaywood voted "No". Councilman Roth was absent. MOTION CARRIED. Councilwoman Kaywood thereupon moved that no further refunds for traffic signal assessments be allowed after two weeks' time so that the Traffic Division would have a budget on which they could rely. The motion died for lack of a second. 175: AMENDMENTS TO DIEMER INTERTIE AGREEMENTS: Mr. Ray Auerbach, Water Superin- tendent, clarified questions posed by Councilman Kott relative to the three amend- men~ proposed to the Diemer Intertie agreements as outlined in memorandum dated November 3, 1978, from the Public Utilities Board. Councilman Seymour offered Resolution Nos. 78R-720 through 78R-722, both inclu- sive, for adoption, as recommended by the Public Utilities Board. Refer to Resolution Book. RESOLUTION NO. 78R-720: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM APPROVING THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF THE FIRST AMENDMENT TO AN AGREEMENT WITH MUNICIPAL WATER DISTRICT OF ORANGE COUNTY AND AUTHORIZING THE UTILITIES DIRECTOR TO EXECUTE SAID AMENDMENT. RESOLUTION NO. 78R-721: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM APPROVING THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF AN AGREEMENT WITH THE MUNICIPAL WATER DISTRICT OF ORANGE COUNTY IN CONNECTION WITH THE DIEMER INTERTIE AND AUTHORIZING AND DIRECTING THE UTILITIES DIRECTOR TO EXECUTE SAID AGREEMENT. RESOLUTION NO. 78R-722: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM APPROVING THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF AN AGREEMENT WITH THE MUNICIPAL WATER DISTRICT OF ORANGE COUNTY IN CONNECTION WITH LEASING CAPACITY IN THE DIEMER INTERTIE PROJECT AND AUTHORIZING AND DIRECTING THE UTILITIES DIRECTOR TO EXECUTE SAID AGREEMENT. Roll Call Vote: AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Overholt, Kaywood and Seymour NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Kott ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Roth The Mayor declared Resolution Nos. 78R-720 through 78R-722, both inclusive, duly passed and adopted. 129: FIREWORKS PERMIT: On motion by Councilman Seymour, seconded by Councilman Kott, application for a Public Fireworks Display Permit submitted Astro Pyrotronics on behalf of Cypress High School to discharge fireworks on November 17, 1978, 8:30 P.M., at Western High School Handel Stadium, was approved. Councilwoman Kaywood voted "No". Councilman Roth was absent. MOTION CARRIED. 78-1499 City Hall~ Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - November 7~ 1978~ 1:30 P.M. 148: ORANGE COUNTY DIVISION LEAGUE OF CALIFORNIA CITIES - VOTING AND ASSESSMENT SYSTEMS: Mayor Seymour stated that relative to the League of California Cities meeting on Thursday evening, November 9, 1978, he was soliciting the Council's suggestions and guidance as to the proposed apportionment of fees and voting. Councilwoman Kaywood reiterated what she had stated in the past, even if the most equitable system possible was devised and yet 10 small cities dropped out, there would no longer be any Orange County League of Cities. She was concerned that unity be maintained with all of the cities in the County, and thus, she would not be that firm on any of the proposals. Councilman Kott stated that he agreed relative to unity, but he was concerned how that could be accomplished and still maintain equity and fairness with the people the Council was elected to represent. The formula he had proposed in the past, as well as others, would be more equitable than to base voting on population. The fact that a city paid more money because it had a larger population, did not give it any more voting power. On that basis alone, he would not be able to support the concept. b~yor Seymour stated that he would take the Council's comments with him to the meeting and as well, would ask, relative to the number of votes the City would have as questioned by Councilwoman Kaywood, whether the voting delegate or more Council Members would cast a vote, or if one person would cast a vote. RECESS: By general consent of the Council Members present, the Council recessed for 10 minutes. (2:50 P.M.) AFTER RECESS: The Mayor called the meeting to order, all Council Members being present, except Councilman Roth. (3:00 P.M.) PUBLIC HEARING - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 1889: Application by Dale E. and Sarah Ann Fowler, to expand an automobile sales, service and restoration facility on ML zoned property located at 3182 East La Palma Avenue. The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC78-226, reported that the Planning Director has determined that the proposed activity falls within the definition of Section 3.01, Class 3, of the City of Anaheim Guidelines to the re- quirement for an environmental impact report and is, therefore, categorically exempt from the requirement to file an EIR and further, granted Conditional Use Permit No. 1889, subject to the following conditions: 1. That sidewalks shall be installed along La Palma Avenue and Shepard Street as required by the City Engineer and in accordance with standard plans and specifications on file in the Office of the City Engineer. 2. That the owner(s) of subject property shall pay to the City of Anaheim the sum of 95 cents per front foot along La Palma Avenue and Shepard Street for tree planting purposes. 3. That the owner(s) of subject property shall pay the traffic signal assess- ment fee difference (per Council Policy No. 214) between industrial and commercial use at $150.00 per 1000 square foot of building or fraction thereof. 78- 1500 City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - November 7, 1978~ 1:30 P.M. 4. 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 3. 5. That Condition Nos. 2 and 3, 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. 6. That Condition Nos. 1 and 4, above-mentioned, shall be complied with prior to final building and zoning inspections. 7. That there shall be no sales of automobiles on the subject property. 8. That all work on and storage of automobiles shall be conducted wholly inside the building. 9. That the use, as granted, is permitted for a period of approximately twenty (20) months to expire May 22, 1980 unless an extension of time is granted in conjunction with Conditional Use Permit No. 1837. That said time limitation is to determine whether the use has had a detrimental effect on the area; and that extensions of time may be granted by the Planning Commission upon written request by the petitioner, following a determination that the use has not had a detrimental effect. The decision of the Planning Commission was appealed by Joseph Crevier and public hearing scheduled this date. Miss Santalahti described the location and surrounding land uses. She outlined the findings given in the staff report which was submitted to and considered by the City Planning Commission. The Mayor asked if the applicant or applicant's agent was present and desirous of being heard; no one was present. Miss Santalahti stated that the applicant was asking relief from two conditions, Condition No. i--the requirement for sidewalk installation, and Condition No. 3-- payment of the commercial rate traffic signal assessment. The traffic signal fee situation apparently arose because the previous Conditional Use Permit No. 1837 did not include such an assessment. That policy was not adopted by the Council until July 1, 1978. However, because they were now expanding, they did Come under the present policy. In answer to the Mayor, the City Clerk stated that the applicant was properly notified of the public hearing. Mayor Seymour asked if the Council wished to proceed with the hearing or continue the matter due to the absence of the applicant. Councilwoman Kaywood wanted to know how many others were in the audience to hear the matter. Mayor Seymour asked if anyone was present to speak to Conditional Use Permit No. 1889; there was no response. 78-1501 City H~ll, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - November 7, 1978, 1:30 P.M. On motion by Councilman Kott, seconded by Councilman Overholt, the public hearing on Conditional Use Permit No. 1889 was continued for two weeks. Councilman Roth was absent. MOTION CARRIED. Later in the meeting, Mr. Joseph Crevier, 3182 East La Palma, Agent for the applicant, appeared to speak to the matter. Councilman Kott thereupon moved that the Council's prior motion for a two weeks continuance be rescinded and public hearing be held presently. Councilman Overholt seconded the motion. Councilman Roth was absent. MOTION CARRIED. Mr. Crevier stated that he had a conditional use permit in effect at present for the same piece of property and all he had done by applying for a new one was to change units going from 2,000 square feet to 7,200 square feet. He was told it was merely a formality to apply for a new conditional use permit at the new address. He then found out that several new conditions were added that were not on the original conditional use permit which he had since June 2, 1978, those being traffic signal assessment, sidewalks and tree planting assessment. Rela- tive to the tree planting, Condition No. 2, the landlord had no objection to that item. Thus, he was questioning Condition Nos. 1 and 3. He understood that a letter to the Engineering Division would settle the matter relating to sidewalks because the area was already landscaped. However, another item of concern was Condition No. 7 prohibiting him from selling cars. It would not make sense for him to buy the classic cars, spend 6 months to a year refurbishing them like new and not be permitted to sell them, which sales were only three or four cars a year. He added that all work was done on the inside, as well as sales. He had a continuous ad running in the Los Angeles Times and also advertised in the Ferrari Club and Maserati Club newsletter. The signing at his place of busi- ness was merely a logo signifying the only type of cars worked on, Ferraris and Maseratis, sales and service. The same was indicated on his previous sign, but it faced Shepard Street instead of La Palma Avenue. Councilwoman Kaywood interjected that a gentleman from Rockwell which is located directly across the street was present earlier, but left because the item was continued. Mayor Seymour noted that at the time he asked if anyone wished to speak to the matter, no one indicated they wished to do so. C0unci]woman ~aywood continued that a concern of the Redevelopment Commission and the Planning Commission was relative to permitting commercial uses in industrial areas. Mayor Seymour stated the only issue to be resolved presently was whether or not the public hearing should be stopped or continued. Councilwoman Kaywood thereupon moved to rescind the motion for continuance and again continue the matter for two weeks so that everyone interested would be in attendance. Councilman Overholt seconded the motion for purposes of dis- cussion. Councilwoman Kaywood clarified the purpose of her motion was due to the fact that there was a gentleman present from Rockwell she recognized, which company was lo- cated directly across the street from Mr. Crevier's place of business. The reason why the Planning Commission had a concern with the use was due to the fact that previously the business had been located in the back of the industrial area facing Shepard Street, and there was no problem if a few sales took place. However, when considering the front portion on La Palma and the large glass display windows, 78-1502 City Hall~ Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - November 7~ 1978~ 1:30 P.M. a commercial use was being placed in the heart of the industrial area. Commercial uses in the northeast industrial area was something the Chamber of Commerce had opposed, as well as the Planning Commission and Redevelopment Commission. The gentleman she recognized had left, but there also could have been others. A gentleman from the audience indicated he was not present when the item was continued, but he was present to speak to the matter. Mayor Seymour spoke against the motion because he maintained that the other gentleman or anyone else present earlier did not express themselves as wanting to speak, and the only person filing the appeal was the applicant. Councilwoman Kaywood noted that the appeal was filed relative to Condition Nos. 1 and 3, and now the applicant was talking about Condition No. 7 pertaining to sales. In so doing, a different area was being considered. Councilman Overholt stated that on the basis of the Mayor asking if anyone was present on the matter and receiving no response, he would withdraw his second. The foregoing motion rescinding the previous motion died for lack of a second, and the public hearing proceeded. Miss Santalahti reported that the Commission was interested in the specific lo- cation of the business which previously had been within the interior of the project. They felt that people going to the facilities would be specifically seeking that business as the result of an ad. However, when located on an arterial highway, they believed it might very well attract a casual passerby, thus generating more traffic than at the location in the rear. Mr. Crevier stated that their average customer flow was approxmately three people per week due to the type of cars they worked on. Mayor Seymour stated if Mr. Crevier was saying that the market going to his business would be generated exclusively from advertising, then he should have no objection to changing his sign from reading "sales and service" to "service only". Mr. Crevier stated that he had no objection at all to indicating "service only". Councilman Kott stated that having been interested in such cars at one time, he believed very little traffic would be generated. From the testimony,.he gathered that sales were somewhat incidental to the restoration and service, and he would be in favor of granting the conditional use permit. Upon Council questioning, Mr. Crevier revealed the following: The reason he wanted relief from the traffic signal assessment was due to the fact that the owner of the prQperty indicated the amount of traffic involved did not warrant such an assessment and if he had to pay the fee, his (Crevier's) business would be asked to vacate although he had a 3-year lease on the 7,200 square foot unit. Nothing was done outside of the building except parking for himself and his employees. The Mayor asked if anyone wished to speak either in favor or in opposition. 78-1503 City Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - Novmber 7,. 1978~ 1:30 P.M. Mr. Uldes Dailacis, Gilroy Industries, 2230 East Imperial Highway, E1 Segundo, referred to a letter dated November 7, 1978, written by Mr. Gilroy which he read and then submitted to the Council. The letter expressed opposition to and the granting of the proposed conditional use permit because it would allow the operation of an automobile restoration, sales and service facility which would have adverse effects on the businesses located in the northeast industrial area, since it was an intrusion of unrelated activities into that area. biayor Seymour noted from the Planning Commission minutes that no one indicated their presence in opposition, and no correspondence was received in opposition. As well, Gilroy Industries would have been notified that a public hearing was to be held by the Planning Commission. Mr. Dailacis stated that the notifica- tion for the public hearing today was the first time they received such a notice. Miss Santalahti clarified that if they were notified of the current hearing, they should have been notified of the Planning Commission hearing since both mailings were made from identical lists. Mayor Seymour stated in reading the letter just submitted, it seemed that Mr. Gilroy did not understand totally what was transpiring and he perhaps received a notice indicating that a sales car lot was being proposed. He believed that after hearing the testimony, it may have proven that, in fact, the use was not what Mr. Dailacis or Mr. Gilroy might have thought. Mr. Dailacis stated knowing that the whole operation was going to take place inside the building, Mr. Gilroy would perhaps change his mind, and he would relay that information to him. There being no further persons who wished to speak, the Mayor closed the public hearing. Councilwoman Kaywood stated she had a number of reservations regarding the matter, especially in continually allowing intrusion of commercial uses into an industrial area. There was a great deal of commercial as opposed to a limited amount of industrial and industrial created jobs. She wanted Mr. Crevier's business in the City, but felt that the location needed to be re- served for industrial. No matter what was done to mitigate visibility, display windows were involved and with fancy cars, there could be a lot of traffic which was not needed in an industrial area. Traffic generated from commercial retail was different from that of industrial. Mr. Crevier questioned nearby uses to his business which he considered to be commercial, generating much more traffic than his business, and they did not have to acquire a conditional use permit. Miss Santalahti explained that some uses probably did not have a conditional use permit, but the majority very likely did. On November 5, 1978, the Planning Commission was going to have a work session to consider the whole problem. Councilwoman Kaywood reiterated that she was concerned about cutting into the amount of industrial square footage available because it would be cutting down on the creation of jobs in Anaheim. She, therefore, was prepared to offer a resolution of denial or a continuation until after the November 15, 1978 Planning Commission work session. 78-1504 City ~all~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - November 7~ 1978~ 1:30 P.M. Mayor Seymour noted that the motion for a continuance had already failed. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT - CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION: On motion by Councilwoman Kaywood, seconded by Councilman Overholt, the City Council ratified the determina- tion of the Planning Director that the proposed activity falls within the definition of Section 3.01, Class 3, of the City of Anaheim Guidelines to the requirements for an environmental impact report and is, therefore, categorically exempt from the requirement to file and EIR. Councilman Roth was absent. MOTION CARRIED. Councilwoman Kaywood offered a resolution to deny Conditional Use Permit No. 1889, on the basis the location was wrong and, as well, it was brought out that others were already violating the integrity of the industrial zone, thus discouraging large industrial uses from coming into the area. Before action was taken, Mayor Seymour stated that he would vote against the denial. He was in support of the request with the understanding and stipula- tion that there would be no signing on the premises indicating sales. He was familiar with the particular area in question and there were quite a number of businesses that would create more traffic than Mr. Crevier's business. He saw the subject business as one falling in a category of those master planned for the area that could be allowed with a conditional use permit. He shared Council- woman Kaywood's concern relative to the protection of industrial space, but there was a whole trend of quasi-commercial/industrial uses taking place, not just in Anaheim, but throughout California, and it was obvious that such development could occur if properly observed and structured in a positive fashion. Councilman Overholt stated he was also going to oppose the resolution because he considered the nature of the business involved unique, as well as the fact that the applicant stipulated to eliminating any reference to sales in his signing. A vote was taken on the foregoing resolution for denial and failed to carry by the following vote: AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Kaywood NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Overholt, Kott and Seymour ABSENT: COUNCIL ~MEMBERS: Ro th Councilwoman Kaywood asked that any resolution for approval indicate that such action was not setting a precedent and that no other automobile agency would automatically be able to say that because Mr. Crevier's business was allowed, they should expect theirs to be also. Councilman Seymour offered Resolution No. 78R-723 for adoption, granting Condi- tional Use Permit No. 1889, eliminating Condition Nos. 1, 2, 3 and 7, with the additional stipulation that there would be no signing on the property to indicate sales activity, and that it was not the Council's intent to establish a precedent by this action. Refer to Resolution Book. RESOLUTION NO. 78R-723: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM GRANTING CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 1889. Mayor Seymour asked if she would then vote in support of the resolution, and she agreed. (See minutes of March 6, 1979 - Page 79- ) 78-1505 City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - November 7z.1978, 1:30 P.M. Roll Call Vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: COUNCIL MEMBERS: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Overholt, Kaywood, Kott and Seymour None Ro th The b~yor declared Resolution No. 78R-723 duly passed and adopted. Mayor Seymour clarified for Councilwoman Kaywood that the 20-month time limi- tation left on the previous conditional use permit was to remain, expiring May of 1980. 169: PUBLIC HEARING - STREET CLOSURE: City of Anaheim, Community Development Department and Public Works Department, requesting the closure of public streets and alleys between Olive Street and Harbor Boulevard for the construction of the realignment of Lincoln Avenue, was submitted. Mayor Seymour asked what process was used to notify all the people that would be affected by a Council decision and how many were notified. The City Clerk stated that legal advertising in the newspaper had taken place and approximately 66 people in the area of the street closures were notified. Mayor Seymour noted that the closure of 8 different alleys was involved and he believed that was going to impact a great deal more than 66 residents. He suggested, therefore, that the Council take testimony from the three people who indicated their presence to speak on the matter, but he for one would not vote on the closures until he had some assurance that notification of a greater number of people had been made. If that was not done and the closures were approved, consequently the Council Chamber would be filled with citizens ques- tioning such a decision. City Engineer Maddox stated they did not propose to do the actual closing until the construction project was under way. As it progressed, the alleys would be closed as needed. Mayor Seymour invited those who wished to do so, to speak to the matter today. The following people posed questions relative to the closures: Mr. James Perkins, Loara Street, who had a business on Anaheim Boulevard and Cypress Street, asked how long the project would take. Marian Harvey, speaking on behalf of Mr. and Mrs. L. N. Wisser, stated that she was concerned with the alley south of Chartres at a point approximately 210 feet west of Clementine. The notice received was indefinite, and she had questions regarding the time element involved and how the alleys would be barricaded. The alley in which she was interested ran south of Chartres right to the back door of Martenet Hardware. They had garages that were rental property on that alley and thus, the concern as to how it would be closed to vehicular traffic'. She also questioned the fact that a letter from the City Clerk's Office stated the start of construction on the new Lincoln Avenue was 4 to 5 months away, but the subject alleys had to be closed in advance for removal of utilities which led them to be- lieve action would take place immediately. 78-1506 City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - November 7~ 1978~ 1:30 P.M. Mr. Yed Ohira, 207 North Emily, approximately 115 feet north of Chartres and Emily, questioned whether both ends of tbe alley would be closed, thus precluding access to his garage. Another gentleman from the Chamber audience who owned property at the northeast corner of Emily and Cypress (227 North Emily and 210 East Cypress), questioned how the trash trucks would be able to ingress and egress from the alley in that area. Mr. William Devitt, Assistant City Engineer, stated the alignment of Lincoln Avenue was approved by the Council, with the depicted closures, in January of 1977. The plans presently were basically complete, and they proposed to have them ready to submit for advertising and Council approval in early January of 1979 which would mean a construction start after the bidding process and award of contract of March 1, 1979. In terms of a time frame, they were talking about having decisions made with sufficient lead time to permit the completion of the plans by December 15, 1978. He noted that time was of the essence in the determi- nation of the closures. Mayor Seymour stated that no one on the Council was interested in changing the alignment of Lincoln Avenue, so consequently Engineering could proceed with their plans knowing that the alignment would remain the same. The concern was whether notifying 66 people was sufficient. Mr. Devitt explained that they did notify people 300 feet to the north and 300 feet to the south of the proposed new Lincoln Avenue realignment, in addition to public advertising. If that was considered to be an inadequate area, he wanted some ex- pression from the Council in terms of how wide an area they wished notified. Mr. Dave Hedlund of Willdan was present to address problems relative to the design of the closures and the effect on traffic. Additionally, Dave Roper of Behren and Associates was present to answer any questions. Mr. Hedlund would address th~ four ,questions posed. Mr. Dave Hedlund, Willdan and Associates, stated that the actual closure of a particular alley would take place one end at a time and that closure would occur as construction approached the alley. That answer also would respond to the next three questions: The alley located westerly of Clementine Street would be closed at the southerly end as it presently intersected with where the new align- · ment of Lincoln Avenue would extend. It would remain open at the northerly end of that alley for continuous access to the property. The streets of Claudina and Emily and the alley located between those two streets would also remain open to access from the northerly end from Cypress Street. That would be terminated prior to intersecting with the realigned Lincoln. In the vicinity of Chartres, there would be a loop-type access that would continue for those three streets. Anaheim Boulevard itself would not be closed at any time, and there would be continuous through access throughout construction. Relative to the permanency of the closures, Mr. Hedlund explained that the alley west of Clementine and the alley between Claudina and Emily would be a permanent closure at the southerly end so that it would no longer intersect with Chartres which would become realigned Lincoln Avenue. However, it would remain permanently opened from the northerly end or from Cypress Street. The same would be true for both Claudina and Emily. That would continue to remain open to access from Cypress, but would connect together to form the loop previously referred to located just northerly of realigned Lincoln Avenue. 78-1507 City Ha~l~ An.~heim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - November 7~ 1978~ 1:30 P.M. Relative to the stoppage of utilities, Mr. Hedlund did not believe that was accurately stated because he did not know of any need to close those streets for construction or relocation of utilities in advance of the award of a con- struction contract. The purpose of closing the streets and alleys was to pro- vide a separation and protection to the existing residential neighborhoods from the projected increase in traffic volumes that would occur on Lincoln. A map depicting the alignment and closures would be provided to anyone who wished a copy at any time. Councilman Seymour moved to continue the public hearing to December 5, 1978, 3:00 P.M.,and directed that the notification process again include those who received the first mailing, the map that the Council received depicting the closures, and that the mailing be sent to all property owners and tenants within the bounds of Lincoln Avenue on the south, Harbor Boulevard on the west, the railroad tracks on the east and Cypress Street on the north. Councilman Kott seconded the motion. Councilman Roth was absent. MOTION CARRIED. Mr. Devitt interjected that they deliberately stopped Phase I of the project at Olive Street, but there were to be additional closures in the area beyond the railroad tracks, basically to East Street. The project in terms of totality of closures would go all the way to East Street. If the Council wished to ex- pand the scope, it might be convenient to discuss closures all the way from East Street to Harbor Boulevard, although the underpass would not be under construction for 3 years. Mayor Seymour stated, in that case, he believed it would be premature to expand the area of consideration at this time, and another public hearing would have to be held at that time. Mr. Devitt then clarified for Councilwoman Kaywood that they did not believe they were including too much, but possibly since there was an expansion to the east, the Council might want to go all the way to East Street. ~ayor Seymour suggested drawing back to the street just east of the Number 1 closures which would be Olive Street. He thereupon amended his motion to make the eastern boundary Olive Street. The motion was then clarified as follows: Notification process to include those who received the first mailing, plus property owners and tenants within the bounds of Lincoln on the south, Harbor on the west, Olive on the east and Cypress on the north. i01: PUBLIC HEARING - LOS ANGELES RAMS FOOTBALL COMPANY: To consider the Exhibition Lease with the Los Angeles Rams Football Company, the Ground Lease with Anaheim Stadium Associates, and the Stanford Research Institute International Report - Executive Summary. Mayor Seymour stated that the City had not received the signed final documents from Mr. Carroll Rosenbloom and the Rams. It was therefore appropriate to con- tJnue the public hearing, including the Juliette Low School matter, and to conduct a public hearing on the entire situation on November 21, 1978. 78-1508 ~i~ty Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - November 7~ 1978~ 1:30 P.M. On motion by Councilman Seymour, seconded by Councilman Overholt, consideration of the subject was continued to November 21, 1978, which public hearing would also include the Juliette Low School matter relative to Conditional Use Permit No. 1897, to permit a multi-purpose facility for park, recreational and professional sports training uses on the Juliette Low Elementary School property. Councilman Roth was absent. MOTION CARRIED. CONSENT CALENDAR ITEMS: On motion by Councilman Kott, seconded by Councilman Seymour, the following actions were authorized in accordance with the reports and recommendations furnished each Council Member and as listed on the Consent Calendar Agenda, except the tentative tracts, which action thereon by the Plan- ning Commission became final: 1. 118: CLAIMS AGAINST THE CITY: The following claims were denied and referred to the City's insurance carrier or the self-insurance administrator: a. Claim submitted by Dennis Yoshioka for property damages and personal injuries purportedly sustained as a result of lights not functioning at Harbor Boulevard and Katella Avenue on or about July 15, 1978. b. Claim submitted by Jackie Alba, Lupe Alba and Joe Alba III, for personal injuries purportedly sustained as a result of actions by Anaheim Police on or about July 12, 1978, and amended claim (Jackie Alba) for personal injury damages purportedly sustained as a result of actions by Anaheim Police on or about July 12, 1978. c. Claim submitted by Mike Hensley for personal injuries purportedly sustained resulting from being struck on the head by a golf ball at Anaheim Hills Golf Course on or about July 22, 1978. d. Claim submitted by Great Southwest Fire Insurance Company for Mary Jane Clutter, insured, for personal injuries purportedly sustained at the Anaheim Convention Center during a Ceramic Hobby Craft Associates Trade Show on or about June 18, 1978. e. Claim submitted by Jack Boone for the wrongful death of Lisa Boone, daughter of claimant, purportedly resulting from the lack of proper traffic lights and stop signs at the corner of Orangewood and Mountain View Avenues on or about September 9, 1978. 2. CORRESPONDENCE: The following correspondence was ordered received and filed: a. 175: Utilities Department - Electrical Engineering - Monthly report for July 1978. b. 105: c. 105: d. 105: Golf Course Advisory Commission - Minutes of October 12, 1978. Community Center Authority - Minutes of October 16, 1978. Youth Commission - Minutes of October 25, 1978. 3. 108: APPLICATION FOR PUBLIC DANCE PERMIT: The following permit was approved in accordance with the recommendations of the Chief of Police: 78-1508 ~ity Ha~l~ Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - November 7~ 1978~ 1:30 P.M. a. Application for a Public Dance Permit on behalf of Empresa Frias, for a public dance to be held November 23, 1978, 7:00 P.M. to 1:00 A.M., at the Anaheim Convention Center. (Cruz Munoz Frias, applicant) 4. 170: TENTATIVE TRACT NO. 10155: Submitted by Bear Brand Ranch Company, to establish a 21-lot subdivision on RS-A-43,000(SC) zoned property located west and southwest of Santa Ana Canyon Road and Avenida Margarita. The City Planning Commission, at their meeting of October 23, 1978, approved Tentative Tract No. 10155 and granted negative declaration status. 5. 170: TENTATIVE TRACT NO. 10476: Submitted by Sand Dollar Development Company, Inc., to establish a 50-lot, 249-unit subdivision of RM-1200 zoned property located north of Chapman Avenue, east of Harbor Boulevard, in connec- tion with Reclassification No. 78-79-9, Variance No. 3039, and EIR No. 219. ~Fhe above Tentative Tract was withdrawn by the Petitioner. Councilman Roth was absent. MOTION CARRIED. CONSENT CALENDAR ITEMS: Councilman Kott offered Resolution Nos. 78R-724 through 78R-727, both inclusive, for adoption in accordance with the reports, recommendations and certifications furnished each Council Member and as listed on the Consent Calendar Agenda. Refer to Resolution Book. 158: RESOLUTION NO. 78R-724: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM ACCEPTING CERTAIN DEEDS AND ORDERING %HEIR RECORDATION. (C. Darle Hale, et al.; Berkeley Square Associates; Texaco Anaheim Hills Inc.; Errol Michael Burke) 123/144: RESOLUTION NO. 78R-725: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM APPROVING THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF AN AMENDMENT TO AGREEMENT BE- TWEEN THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AND THE CITY OF GARDEN GROVE, AND AUTHORIZING THE b~YOR AND CITY CLERK TO EXECUTE SAID AGREEMENT. (AHFP No. 913, Orangewood, North Street to Euclid, to include storm drain improvements) 164: RESOLUTION NO. 78R-726: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM ESTABLISHING DRAINAGE FEES. (Lakeview Avenue and Clementine Street Drainage Areas, $2,436 and $1,200 per acre, respectively) 123/103: RESOLUTION NO. 78R-727: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM APPROVING THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF AN AGREEMENT BE~EEN THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AND CLASSIC DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION AND AUTHORIZING AND DIRECTING THE b~YOR AND CITY CLERK TO EXECUTE SAID AGREEMENT ON BEHALF OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM. (to provide access to an existing water well and appurtenances owned by Vista Del Rio Water Company, between Santa Ana Canyon Road and Riverside Free- way, north of Eucalyptus Drive) Roll Call Vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: COUNCIL MEMBERS: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Overholt, Kaywood, Kott and Seymour None Roth The Mayor declared Resolution Nos. 78R-724 through 78R-727, both inclusive, duly passed and adopted. 78-1509 City Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - November 7~ 1978, 1:30 P.M. ORDINANCE NOS. 3933 AND 3934: Councilman Kott offered Ordinance Nos. 3933 and 3934 for adoption. Refer to Ordinance Book. 170: ORDINANCE NO. 3933: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AMENDING SECTION 17.06.140 OF CHAPTER 17.06, TITLE 17, OF THE ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO GRADING. (to allow construction of downdrains of natural grey concrete with a natural riverbed rock surface) ORDINANCE NO. 3934: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AMENDING TITLE 18 OF THE ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO ZONING. (73-74-54, CL) Roll Call Vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: COUNCIL MEMBERS: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Overholt, Kaywood, Kott and Seymour None Roth ~e Mayor declared Ordinance Nos. 3933 and 3934 duly passed and adopted. ORDINANCE NO. 3935: Councilman Overholt offered Ordinance No. 3935 for adoption. Refer to Ordinance Book. ORDINANCE NO. 3935: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AMENDING TITLE 18 OF THE ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO ZONING. (72-73-2, CL) Roll Call Vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: COUNCIL MEMBERS: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Overholt, Kaywood, Kott and Seymour None Roth The Mayor declared Ordinance No. 3935 duly passed and adopted. ORDINANCE NOS. 3936 THROUGH 3941: Councilwoman Kaywood offered Ordinance Nos. 3936 through 3941, both inclusive, for first reading. 129: ORDINANCE NO. 3936: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AMENDING TITLE 6, CHAPTER 6.40 OF THE ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE BY ADDING THERETO SECTION 6.40.055 RELATING TO FIREWORKS. ORDINANCE NO. 3937: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AMENDING TITLE 18 OF THE ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO ZONING. (77-78-48, CL on Portion A, CO on Portion B) ORDINANCE NO. 3938: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AMENDING TITLE 18 OF THE ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO ZONING. (74-75-14(3), RS-HS-22,000) ORDINANCE NO. 3939: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AMENDING TITLE 18 OF THE ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO ZONING. (75-76-36, CL) ORDINANCE NO. 3940: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AMENDING TITLE 18 OF THE ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO ZONING. (76-77-6, CL) ORDINANCE NO. 3941: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AMENDING TITLE 18 OF THE ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO ZONING. (78-79-7, CL) 78-1510 ~ity Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - November 7~ 1978~ 1:30 P.M. TLC PROGRAM - ANAHEIM CLUB NO. 1 - 4TH ANNIVERSARY: Councilwoman Kaywood stated that yesterday she attended the 4th Anniversary of Anaheim Club No. 1, TLC Program, and was delighted to see such a large group of seniors in attendance who had re- turned to the mainstream of interest in life. She was present at the opening of that club, as well as their first birthday when only a few people were in attendance. Now, there were 21 centers throughout the County with 1,350 seniors actively parti- cipating. She hoped that Proposition 13 would not make a difference in the City being able to support the program since it was extremely worthwhile. 150: ANAHEIM HISTORICAL MUSEUM COMMITTEE: Councilwoman Kaywood referred to a letter received from Howard Louden, a member of the Anaheim Historical Museum Committee, which pointed to an apparent legal problem. The Committee had funds available for the museum from private individuals and foundations, but they could' not accept those funds until they were considered to be a tax deductible organiza- tion. The way that could be accomplished would be for the Council to appoint 3 members to their committee. She therefore directed the City Attorney to supply the necessary information in order to make the Anaheim Historical Museum Committee a tax deductible organization. 160: ALLEGED RESTRICTIVE SPECIFICATIONS ISSUED BY THE CITY: Councilman Kott referred to a communication written to the Purchasing Agent by a Mr. Whitehead from RCA, wherein he claimed that when the City requested certain communication systems, the specifications were so restrictive that that item could be obtained from only one company. If that was the City's policy, thus basically eliminating the bid process, something was wrong, and he wanted to know if the allegation was true. City ~nager Talley stated that when the bid award was received, he asked that the Purchasing Agent be prepared to defend his position if only one company could actually bid. The last time such a contention was made, it was totally without merit and there were three bidders. Frequently when they requested bids based upon the City's needs and someone was written out of the specifications, that company would communicate with either the administration or the Council. A report would be submitted to the Council before they were asked to make an award. 158: SALE OF EXCESS LAND SURROUNDING THE SAVI CANAL: Councilman Kott questioned what the policy was in terms of the sale of excess land surrounding the SAVI Canal. It had been quoted that someone from the City made statements that the property around the canal was worth approximately 85 cents a foot. He wanted to know the criteria used in selling the property. City Manager Talley stated he would provide a report on the City's policy regarding the matter and include in it all land sales for the last year. 175: COMPLAINT RELATIVE TO WATER SHUT-OFF: Councilman Kott explained that he called a Mrs. Carson who had phoned in a complaint to the City stating that her water had been shut off on several different occasions, causing her great inconven- ience. The problem was not a result of her not paying her bill. She had called the City and received no response, and he wanted to know if the City Manager could answer as to why no response had been received. 78-1511 Cit~ Ha~l~ Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - November 7~ 1978~ 1:30 P.M. Mr. Talley stated that he did not know the reason, but the complaint was re- ferred to Utilities on November 3, 1978 and no reply had yet been received. However, he would submit a report in one week. NEWSPAPER ARTICLE - QUOTE BY COUNCILMAN OVERHOLT: Mayor Seymour referred to a November 1, 1978 article which appeared in the Register containing the follow- ing quote by Councilman Overholt: "I'm not surprised the former Mayor is behind it, he added. He and the present Mayor are both advocates of a Strong Mayor." He wanted to clarify for Councilman Overholt there was either a misunderstanding on his (Overholt) part as far as his position on a Strong Mayor was concerned or perhaps he did not research the matter sufficiently. He explained that in the City Election of 1976, the question of a Strong Mayor was placed on the ballot. At that time, he wrote the ballot argument in opposition to that. Also, both in 1974 when he ran for election and again in 1978 for re-election, he responded to that articular issue in both contests as being in opposition to a Strong Mayor form of government. Thus, he did not know where Councilman Overholt got the idea that he supported a Strong Mayor form of government and wanted to correct him on that issue. Councilman Overholt responded that he did make the statement, although he did not see the article. It was his opinion that Mayor Seymour's activities in the 7 months he (Overholt) had been on the Council indicated that although the Mayor may have previously stated that he did not advocate the Strong Mayor form of government, he was very much in favor of the Executive/Mayor form of government which was an item he wished to place on the ballot at the last election. That was a position that former Mayor Thom took, and it was his feeling that Mayor Seymour's activities since he became Mayor indicated that he too had adopted that policy. He reiterated, that was his opinion--he might be wrong and he would stand to be corrected, but he would still stand on the statement he had made. Mayor Seymour questioned what Councilman Overholt meant by the statement that he supported an Executive form of Mayor and that he wanted the question on the ballot that created such a form. Councilman Overholt stated his understanding was an Executive Mayor elected by the people for a position totally separate from the position of a Council Member and one which would be the top official in the City. It was his opinion that was the direction in which the Mayor was proceeding since he took the office of Mayor. It was not an opinion formed rapidly, but one ~ormed as he observed his activities as Mayor. His was not a political statement because he believed the die was cast relative to Proposition "C". Mayor Seymour then clarified for the record and officially that (1) he opposed a Strong Mayor form of government and (2) it was the first time he had heard the definition of an Executive form of Mayor. The question he wanted to see on the ballot was to permit the people to elect their own Mayor which he supported, but he was equally adamant in placing a question on the ballot that would permit a "cleaning up" of the process of electing the Mayor as it presently existed, i.e., the confusion of running for a City Council seat and Mayor at the same time. He clarified the question he wanted to see placed on the ballot was to create an office of the Mayor with no more powers and no more responsibilities than the Mayor now had, and that was the only change. Thus, he would oppose an Executive Mayor that might 78-1512 City Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - November 7~ 1978~ 1:30 P.M. connote further responsibilities or further powers. He favored giving the people the opportunity to make a decision if they wanted to elect their own Mayor and wanted to clear up the confusion of (1) in order to run for Mayor, you must first be a City Council person and (2) there were times when it was necessary to run for both seats (Council person and Mayor) simultaneously. He failed in his attempt to clear that confusion because the majority of the Council only wanted to pose one question to the people and that was, would the people agree to returning the process of the selection of Mayor back to the City Council. Relative to his conduct, the Mayor assumed that Councilman Overholt was specifi- cally referring to his actions toward the City Manager. He had take a position from time to time in the past since elected Mayo~ in opposition to the City Manager, but stated that attitude should not be confused with a desire to eliminate the City Manager position. That was specifically an attitude in opposition to some of the acts of the current City Manager, but had nothing to do with the Council/ Manager form of government which he always supported and would continue to support. Councilman Overholt stated that no one would be more delighted than he to hear that the Mayor was opposed to the Executive Mayor form of government. He was saying, based upon the Mayor's conduct, it was his judgment that his philosophies and the philosophies of the former Mayor were in concert. Mayor Seymour asked that he attempt, in the future, to reflect to the public record rather than to his personal opinion. Councilwoman Kaywood referred to the Council Minutes of July 11, 1978, under the proposed Charter Amendments discussion wherein the Mayor was quoted as saying, "...if the two questions were placed on the ballot in November, election of the Mayor and expansion of the Council, by so doing because there were so many changes that must take place in the City Charter, it would be confusing to the voters." Thus, he did not want both issues posed to the voters. That was why the simple "yes" or "no" vote was placed on the ballot. She also concurred with Councilman Overholt that having worked with Mayor Seymour for 8 years, she, too, noticed a complete change in him when he was elected Mayor. 120: POLICY ON RENT CONTROL: Mayor Seymour stated that as the Council was aware, they had received countless inquiries from tenants in the City suffering from rent increases. The Council, unanimously, had previously gone on record as philosophically opposing rent control as an answer, but on the other hand, he did not believe they, as a body, had done anything to mitigate the tenants' plight. He suggested in the event Council did not take some action, that the complaints and cry for rent control would be ever-increasing. Therefore, he wanted to propose to the Council a concept which might be assessed and studied and hopefully implemented in order to take a positive step towards eliminating or greatly decreasing the situation in which many tenants found themselves. He believed that all agreed rent control was a very negative action to take, and historically, it had proven disastrous in the long term. It would lead to property owners drastically reducing preventive maintenance programs and further, ~t would inhibit new construction of rental housing, thereby worsening the supply and demand factors in a free market place. Finally, if they were to pass a rent control ordinance, they would be creating a new bureacracy to implement and over- see a new government regulated program, thereby increasing the cost of government. Proposition 13 promised reduced property taxes and implied reduced rent or at least 78-1513 ~ity Hall, ~aheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - November 7, 1978, 1:30 P.M. rent stabilization at a minimum. As a positive direction, therefore, he suggested (1) encouragement of the development of rental housing through an elimination of red tape in the processing of building permits, as well as offering to the builder an incentive to create a greater supply of rental housing. In order to accomplish that objective, the Planning Commission should be asked as early as their upcoming session to consider, in consultation with the City Attorney, the possibility of an emergency ordinance that would cut the entire processing time of hearings, etc. now taking from 4 to 6 months, down to 2 months; (2) Immediately seek increased renter credit benefits through State emergency legislation. He had talked to a number of legislators in Sacramento who were interested and eager to help tenants in increasing the renter's income tax credit from $37 to $300 per year. Such action would have a price tag of $1 billion and those he had spoken with indicated that could be financed out of existing surpluses in Sacramento; and (3) Amend City ordinances to permit the development of mobile home subdivisions, as well as to permit conversion of existing mobile home parks to subdivisions or condominiums. ~is would provide the opportunity for many senior citizens now residing in mobile home parks on fixed incomes to be placed in a position of ownership where they could control their own destiny relative to housing cost. Mayor Seymour continued that rent control was becoming a reality in an alarming number of cities and he did not believe that the Council should permit that to happen in Anaheim, but rather take positive steps to solve the real problem which was one created by too little supply checked by too much demand. In the last four years, an existing vacancy factor in Orange County and in Anaheim was between zero and 2 percent. As long as that miniscule vacancy factor existed, a tenant would have little choice but to pay many times unjustified rental increases passed on by landlords. The only true and permanent relief they could provide was to increase that supply of rental housing so that tenants would have a choice of either paying a rent increase or if they felt it to be exorbitant, they could find other quarters. Councilwoman Kaywood stated that she had given a great amount of thought to t~e matter and it was a very real and sad problem. She had seen the negative results that occurred with rent control and there was no way she could approve that course of action. It was definitely a political, short-range, easy way out with disastrous long-range effects. However, she had some problems with what the Mayor suggested. First, the present rate between homeownership and rentals in Anaheim was half-and-half, and she would be very careful before turning Anaheim into a large rental community, rather than a homeownership city. She did not think that Anaheim could be alone in making such a move. Cutting red tape might also be cutting some of the safeguards, the proper method of building, and complying with all that was necessary. She wanted to be very sure of the quality of building for the single-family, condominiums, apartments, etc. Relative to the emergency renters' credit and raising it from $37 to $300, she d~d not believe it would do one thing relative to those landlords who were gouging their tenants. This was one of the fallacies of Proposition 13, wherein Jarvis made a prom- ise of voluntary rent relief that was not written into the law, but people believed it, as it was their right to do so. Mr. Jarvis worked for the Apartment Owners' Association in Los Angeles and perhaps that was why it was deliberately written out of the amendment. She did not want to tie the hands of landlords so that maintenance 78-1514 City Ha_.ll~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - November 7, 1978~ 1:30 P.M. or upkeep would not be done, but on the other hand a certain amount or percentage had to be enough. The $300 renters' credit would still allow landlords to charge whatever they pleased and even more, because they would consider they could do so on the basis of the kick-back. Councilwoman Kaywood then explained that another recommendation that the State League of California Cities had made with which all cities seemed to agree, was that an additional one cent of sales tax be turned back to all the cities on the basis of population as a help in areas where there had been a tremendous amount of hurt on the local budget because of Proposition 13. Relative to mobile home subdivisions, she questioned if that would change what was now being paid as a motor vehicle fee to the State. That was something that needed to be researched and changed. It could be of benefit to the City and per- haps more of an incentive for land to be used for mobile homes. Thus, an immediate and positive step would be to change the mobile home concept of the motor vehicle tax to make it a property tax instead. It would be an opportune time to bring such a concept forward at the next League of California Cities meeting. Councilman Overholt stated that he was totally supportive of the Mayor's first point in shortening the building permit process. He was also supportive of the renters' credit aspect. Regarding the mobile home subdivision concept, he wanted more information on that aspect because there were both positive and negative aspects in terms of providing the kind of housing they were trying to stimulate. His understanding was that the City and County Government Committee of the Chamber was also looking at the problem. In the final analysis, perhaps renters could be furnished with the kind of relief they wanted. He concurred that rent control was not the answer. MOTION: Councilman Seymour thereupon moved (1) to take steps to eliminate or reduce to the greatest degree the red tape to shorten the building permit process; (2) seek rental credit benefits through State emergency legislation; and (3) amend City ordinances to permit the development of mobile home subdivisions, as well as permit conversion of existing mobile home parks to subdivisions or condominiums, with staff directed to work with the Planning Commission, builders, developers, financial institutions and the Chamber of Commerce to develop this beginning concept and submitting it for final discussion and debate in 90 days or sooner. Councilman Overholt seconded the motion. Before a vote was taken, Councilwoman Kaywood referred to a mobile home park wherein the Council had been deluged with complaints relative to rent increases, and she did not know the solution to the problem. Mayor Seymour stated what he had been doing with the many complaints received generally was to ask the tenants for the name of the property owners and subse- quently he would call those owners to try and convince them in the event they did not roll back or rescind a rent increase, then what they were risking was the possibility of some type of rent control. Each time he indicated the position of the Council. His method was averaging about a 60 percent success rate, but there was no way he could possibly return all of the calls. What he had done relative to the mobile home park on Gilbert, to which Councilwoman Kaywood 78-1515 .qity Hall~.. Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - November 7, 1978, 1:30 P.M. referred, was he had identified the owner, but it was one who he might not be able to talk with by telephone. However, he intended to write a letter to the owner and, as well, a letter to the tenants relative to the action that the Council was about to take so that they would know the Council was trying to be responsive. Councilwoman Kaywood interjected that Anaheim was ahead in Housing Assistance Payments with 1,565 units at present. Through SCAG, the City had received addi- tional bonus units a number of times, and she did not believe any other city came close to what Anaheim was doing. In order to give more direction to the Planning staff and the Planning Commission, Mayor Seymour stated with the cost of land and interest rates as they were today, resulting in the high cost of development or rental housing, a matter for consider- ation would be a process which could provide a density bonus to an apartment house developer if they would agree to some type of rental schedule that would not permit unreasonable rates or increases. A number of cities and counties had considered such a course of action and subsequently enacted the program. It was a builder incentive that would insure that the City would be provided with reasonable rental housing, that would be kept reasonable, in exchange for other benefits. A vote was then taken on the foregoing motion. Councilman Roth was absent. MOTION CARRIED. 170: ALLEGED REMOVAL OF SPECIMEN TREES: Mayor Seymour stated that he invited Dr. Garber to speak under his portion of the meeting relative to a specific problem. Dr. Howard Garber, 523 Peralta Hills Drive, stated that the problem was not only a specific one, but it also applied generally to the hill and qanyon area and other people were present to speak to the issue. He first stated that the memo- randum from the Planning Director, Ron Thompson, dated October 31, 1978 (on file in the City Clerk's Office) indicated that the situation was a complicated one, but he maintained it was very simple. On July 10, 1978 after seeing heavy grading equipment approach the trees that bordered the western part of his property, he went out and spoke to the engineer stating that they were coming very close to the trees. The engineer explained that the trees were going to be removed upon which he (Garber) stated that they could not be removed. In a letter dated July 10, 1978 (on file in the City Clerk's Office) he pointed out to the Planning Director the planned removal of a number of eucalyptus trees scheduled to occur the next day. He also handed a copy of that letter to Mr. Todd Brown, owner/builder of the adjacent property who assured him that the trees were not going to be removed the next day. That was the only reason why he did not make a citizens arrest~at that time. He also wanted someone from the Planning Depart- ment to visit the property that day to issue a notice to the responsible party to preclude the destruction of the trees. He then explained other actions which he took in contacting City departments relative to the matter. On July 12, 1978 he wrote a letter to the City Council (on file in the City Clerk's Office) relating the unlawful act of tree destruction which did take place to which he received no response. On October 27, 1978, he also wrote a letter to Mr. Jay Titus in Engineer- ing and relayed a drainage problem which was in addition to the removal of the trees. 78-1516 City H~.i.i~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - November 7~ 1978, 1:30 P.M. Dr. Garber continued that the issue as presented by Mr. Thompson and Mr. Whitey Walp, Zoning Enforcement Officer, with whom he had discussed the matter, indicated that there was not a full stand of trees existing on July 10, 1978. However, he had slides and other evidence and Mrs. Jan Hall was a witness to the fact that there was a complete stand of trees existing. A copy of Mr. Brown's grading plan showed a eucalyptus tree row and also indicated 12 trees in the plans that were approved. Today, only 4 trees remained and one of those was dying. It was obvious, therefore, that Mr. Brown had violated the tree ordinance and had done something that his grading plan had not called for. As well, it depicted topograph- ical lines showing the water going in an entirely different direction with the water travelling down his (Garber's) hill to the back of his property. Mr. Jack Judd from the Engineering Division was out to his property 4 days prior and agreed that it was an error and that he would have a flooding problem. That situation would be further aggravated by the fact that the eucalyptus trees were gone with no root systems to hold the hill in place, subjecting him to the possibility of thousands of dollars worth of damage if the hill eroded. Dr. Garber concluded that the City had an ordinance which had not and was not being enforced and the responsible departments were refusing to enforce it. Those concerned, such as himself, were going to see that the ordinance was enforced. Mr. Herb Christensen, 5108 Crescent Drive, first passed some slides to the Council for their information. He stated that the City had made an effort to develop a tree preservation ordinance in the Canyon, but there were situations where it had shown weak points that needed to be considered. A number of incidents had almost caused him to give up in despair because there was no enforcement provision in the ordinance. He then cited a specific incident for the Council where in the final analysis, 50 eucalyptus trees had died because of the deliberate action of a property owner even after the Zoning Enforcement Officer was called in. There was no enforce- ment provision in the ordinance and Mr. Walp also stated that there was nothing he could do. Mr. Christensen emphasized there was a serious problem inherent in the tree ordinance. Mrs. Jan Hall, 545 Tumbleweed, stated that she was Dr. Garber's insurance agent and thus was familiar with the situation and the company did have photographs of the trees which were standing the earlier part of July. Dr. Garber did not live in Peralta Hills when the tree ordinance was adopted and the trees were in place when he moved there in July. As a member of HACMAC, she and the committee were concerned about the tree ordinance. There was a large loophole in the whole system requiring some tightening up so that the Zoning Enforcement Officer would not have to be called out continually. Peralta Hills was a unique area and something had to be done to preserve its natural amenities. She urged the Council to assist Dr. Garber and to also tighten up the tree ordinance. As well, public relations were needed in the area to inform the new owners of the existence of such an ordinance, and she suggested perhaps having an insert placed in the escrow packet upon closing containing pertinent information relative to trees. Mr. Tim Miller, 160 South Valley View, suggested placing a stiff penalty in the ordinance for anyone cutting trees without a permit. 78-1517 CfrX Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - November 7~ 1978~ 1:30 P.M. Mr. Gary Einstein, 524 East Beverly, Los Angeles, Attorney for Mr. Brown, stated that, in essence, two problems were involved: (1) the general problem of people cutting trees in the area and (2) the trees on the subject location. The two should be separated because Mr. Brown had nothing to do with any of the trees except those on his property. Mr. Brown informed him that he did not receive a notice of the tree ordinance until after the trees were cut, and he suggested that perhaps a solution to the problem would be for those who desired to build in the area receive a copy of the ordinance at the time they obtain the initial building permit or builders should receive a copy of the ordinance. In the subject instance, it appeared there were several dead trees on the property that were removed and there were 3 living trees that were removed at the time of grading. It was Mr. Brown's intent from the start to replace the 3 trees once grading and construction were complete. He did not know whether this was part of the permit procedure, but Mr. Brown was not familiar with the permit. He was however following through with the letter of the ordinance in that he removed only dead trees with the exception of 3 living trees which were removed so that grading could be accom- plished in order to insure proper drainage from the property. Because of that, he believed no further action should be taken because the trees would be replaced. He conceded that it was an emotional issue, and he noted in the Report of Investi- gation dated July 10, 1978, that Dr. Garber called the City and threatened be was going to shoot Mr. Brown if the trees were removed; from the audience, Dr. Garber denied the statement. Mr. Einstein continued that in discussing the matter with Mr. and Mrs. Brown, they received a call from an individual who identified himself as the Doctor threatening physical violence to them. The matter was reported to the Police Department, but no further action was taken by the Browns in order not to cause major problems. Also for the Council's information, he stated that it appeared Dr. Garber had carved a road in the back of his propery fronting Mr. and Mrs. Brown's property. It was apparently done improperly so that at the first rain it migi~t wash out part of their hill. He stated for purposes of the record, Dr. Gather should be apprised if any damage occurred because of that situation, he would be held responsible. Mayor Seymour reminded Mr. Einstein that was a civil matter between himself, his client and Dr. Garber. Mr. Einstein explained that the question was broached relative to drainage and the Browns did hire a local Anaheim firm to prepare specific drainage plans which were approved by the City in late June. On the hill behind their house, the water would be diverted to both sides of their dwelling and flows naturally along the course of the property, and thus should not change any drainage from what existe~ ?riot to building. Mrs. Rosemary Brown, 501 Valedo Road, Arcadia, stated that Dr. Garber called her on approximately July 12, 1978 and asked where her husband was. She in- formed him that he was in the hospital. He then asked the name of the hospital which she refused to give. He thereupon told her that if either her sons, her- self or her husband set foot on the property, he had weapons and he would shoot them. She subsequently called an Officer Easely of the Anaheim Police Department and he told her to go to the Police Department and file a complaint against Dr~ Garber because it was illegal to call and make threats over the phone. She was not able to do so because her husband was in the hospital, and they wanted mo more of the situation. 78-1518 City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - November 7~ 1978~ 1:30 P.M. Dr. Garber took issue with what he considered defamatory statements made by Mrs. Brown, as well as the fact that her attorney stated the Browns were not aware of the ordinance, since he personally handed Mr. Brown a copy of his letter on July 10, 1978. Relative to the number of trees, the plans showed 12 trees and only 4 re- mained, and a minimum of 20 to 25 trees were removed, and not 3. Mrs. Hall also testified she was a witness to those trees. Relative to the drainage problem, the City Engineering Division was aware he was currently working with Anacal to remedy the problem which was totally irrelevant to the flooding problem Mr. Einstein referred to. Mr. Einstein again referred to Report of Investigation, entry dated July 14, 1978, as follows: "Checked aerial taken December 19, 1973--does not indicate there was at that time over 12 trees. Difficult to count, but at very maximum 12 trees, possibly less." Thus, the testimony that over 20 trees were removed could not be true. City Attorney Hopkins then referred to and read portions of the tree ordinance which did provide for penalty if violated, but it was a matter of obtaining evidence that would stand up in court basically necessitating having a witness to the action. Councilman Kott was of the opnion that in order to preclude violations of the ordinance, the rules had to be made clear at the very beginning in the Planning Department when the people came to the City to get necessary permits. Councilwoman Kaywood believed it should begin even before that stage at the time a person sold a piece of property and somebody purchased it. Mayor Seymour referred to the staff report dated July 6, 1978 (on file in the City Clerk's Office), page 2, providing two alternatives to the problem: (1) develop an acceptable plan that would replace any specimen trees that were removed, or (2) seek legal remedies against Mr. Brown if Dr. Garber files the appropriate complaints, ...". He was inclined to ask that action be taken on both alternatives with a further action directing the City Attorney, with the Assistant of the Planning Department, to check with other cities to see how they enforce their specimen tree ordinance. MOTION: Councilman Seymour thereupon moved to implement Alternative Nos. 1 and 2, as stated in memorandum dated November 6, 1978, from the Planning Director, and directing the City Attorney and Planning staff to bring recommendations to the Council as to how to make the tree ordinance more formidable. Councilman Kott seconded the motion. Before a vote was taken, the Mayor stated he would hope that it would not be necessary to file legal suit and that a tree replacement plan could be devised that would replace not only the dead trees, but also all the trees that were removed. Councilman Overholt commented that he believed there were more teeth in the ordinance than thought, and any violation was a misdemeanor. The problem was that the ordinance did not comtemplate some of the devious ways of getting 78-1519 C~i.t_f....H~ll, Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - November 7~ 1978~ 1:30 P.M. around it. He supported the Mayor's motion, but had some difficulty knowing what was meant by Alternative No. 2. He believed that to be Dr. Garber's choice and if he chose to file a complaint, then it had to be determined whether the City was going to prosecute Mr. Brown for violation of the ordinance. What disturbed him even more, however, was the disharmony between the two parties involved, and he urged that they try to get along with each other. After further discussion and in answer to Mr. Christensen, the Mayor recommended that he and Dr. Garber meet with the City Attorney so that he could explain to them how they should handle the report to the City on trees that were being cut down. A vote was then taken on the foregoing motion. Councilman Roth was absent. MOTION CARRIED. lOl: SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA ALLIANCE FOR SURVIVAL - REQUEST TO DEMONSTRATE: Mr. Irving Sarnoff, 5255 College Avenue, Eagle Rock, stated that the organization he represented, Southern California Alliance for Survival, was planning to have a "presence" at the Anaheim Convention Center area at the time of the International Military Electronics Exposition, November 14 through 16, 1978. They had requested and received from the Parks, Recreation and Arts Department permission to meet at Stoddard Park and then conduct a procession to the Anaheim Convention Center area for which they had obtained a permit from the Anaheim Police Department. They would arrive at the Convention Center area on Katella Avenue, and hold an approximate one-half hour service, somewhat religious in tone, to bear witness to their concern with the Exposition which was being held at the Convention Center. During the other days of the Military Electronics Exposition, 20 to 30 people representing various concerns including a group of Buddhist Monks, priests, nuns and some other concerned citizens from the secular point of view wished to con- duct a 24-hour vigil and fast bearing witness to their concern with the continued development of electronic military equipment. Mr. Sarnoff advised they were seeking permission to have a "presence" on Tuesday evening, November 14, 1978, for a short period of time for a service and the other days they would have a "presence" in front of the south lobby of the Convention Center for a 24-hour vigil and fast. They also wished to have an opportunity to invite the people attending the Exposition to an Exposition for Life that would be conducted at the Inn at the Park by handing the participants handbills. That would be done at the entrances to the parking lot and the entrance to the south lobby of the Convention Center. Mr. Sarnoff explained that those requests were submitted in written form to the City Council, in a letter dated October 10, 1978, and they were informed in a letter dated October 19, 1978 that the Council Members were advised of the request, and the organization would be advised of a date for a hearing. They were also told that the Council Members had been polled and the City Clerk in- formed him that afternoon that the opinion of the Council was not to take a position on the matter themselves. Both the Police Department and the Anaheim Convention Center personnel had referred them to the Council. 78-1520 City Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - November 7~ 1978~ 1:30 P.M. Mayor Seymour stated that the request had been submitted to the Council and they were polled individually. Although a Parade Permit to conduct the planned parade concluding at the north side of the Convention Center on Katella Avenue was granted, the Council was opposed to approving a request to conduct an activity at the entrance to the south lobby of the Convention Center because during the dates that the Southern California Alliance for Survival planned to conduct their activities, four other major events would be taking place at the Convention Center along with the Military Electronics Exposition (Western Plastics Show, Southern Baptist Convention, Orange County Firemen's Show, California Math Convention). The people expected to attend those events numbered approximately 17,000. The Council's concern, therefore, was that those events which Mr. Sarnoff's organization would have no interest in demon- strating before or have any conflict with their activity, should not be mixed. Thus, he asked that the organization's activity be confined to the public street and sidewalk on Katella Avenue in front of the Convention Center. Mr. Sarnoff stated that they intended to have a "presence" on the sidewalk areas as the people entered and egressed and at no time did they intend to interfere with ingress or egress with any of the individuals going to any of the events, including the Military Electronics Exposition. The logistics were such however that the only way they could have a "presence" that would be observed by the participants in that exposition was in front of the south lobby to the Exposi- tion Hall and that was the reason for the request. Mayor Seymour stated that with all due respect, they did not want to inhibit the groups' rights to demonstrate in the fashion Mr. Sarnoff described, but he could not approve any expansion of that activity in light of the other events taking place simultaneously in the Convention Center. He did not know how the Council could justify the inconvenience, as well as the concern there might be of the other 17,000 people that would have nothing to do with the Alliance's cause, nor with the exhibit taking place. He then polled the Council. Councilman Overholt stated he shared the Mayor's view. The organization had a Parade Permit and he was favorable to their demonstrating as provided by ordi- nance, but to go further than that, would be an interference with the function of the Convention Center far and beyond the particular event they were opposed to. He would be inclined to deny any further privileges other than those already granted. Councilwoman Kaywood and Councilman Kott both agreed with the views of the Mayor and Councilman Overholt. Mayor Seymour stated that the Council wished the organization well in their demonstration as long as it was confined as previously approved by City staff. He confirmed for Mr. Sarnoff that the Council was denying their request to demonstrate in the three additional areas at the Convention Center. RECESS - EXECUTIVE SESSION: Councilwoman Kaywood moved to recess into Executive Session. Councilman Seymour seconded the motion. Councilman Roth was absent. MOTION CARRIED. (6:10 P.M.) 78-1521 ~ity Hall, Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - November 7~ 1978, 1:30 P.M. AFTER RECESS: The Mayor called the meeting to order, all Council Members being present with the exception of Councilman Roth. (6:32 P.M.) 112: LARRY HULL VERSUS CITY OF ANAHEIM: On motion by Councilman Seymour, seconded by Councilman Kott, the City Attorney was authorized to negotiate a settlement of Case No. 26-64-26 (Orange County Superior Court), Larry Hull versus the City of Anaheim, for a sum not to exceed $2,500. Councilman Roth was absent. MOTION CARRIED. 112: FAMILY GROUP HOMES FOUNDATION VERSUS CITY OF ANAHEIM: On motion by Council- woman Kaywood, seconded by Councilman Kott, the City Attorney was authorized to negotiate a settlement of Case No. 28-07-86, Family Group Homes Foundation versus the City of Anaheim (Orange County Superior Court), for a sum not to exceed $1,000. Councilman Seymour abstained. Councilman Roth was absent. MOTION CARRIED. ADJOURNMENT: By general consent, the City Council adjourned. Adjourned: 6:35 P.M.