Loading...
1977/06/1477-666 City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - June 14, 1977~ 1:30 P.M. The City Council of the City of Anaheim met in regular session. PRESENT: ABSENT: PRESENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Kaywood, Seymour, Kott, Roth and Thom COUNCIL MEMBERS: None CITY MANAGER: William O. Talley CITY ATTORNEY: William P. Hopkins CITY CLERK: Linda D. Roberts ASSISTANT CITY MANAGER: William T. Hopkins UTILITIES DIRECTOR: Gordon Hoyt PARKS, RECREATION AND ARTS DIRECTOR: James Ruth EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT: Norm Priest PLANNING DIRECTOR: Ron Thompson ASSISTANT PLANNING DIRECTOR - ZONING: Annika Santalahti CITY ENGINER: James Maddox ELECTRICAL SUPERINTENDENT: George Edwards WATER SUPERINTENDENT: Larry Sears TRAFFIC ENGINEER: Paul Singer Mayor Thom called the meeting to order and welcomed those in attendance to the Council meeting. INVOCATION: Reverend Warren Pittman, St. Michael's Episcopal Church, gave the Invocation. FLAG SALUTE: Councilman Seymour led the assembly in the Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag. MINUTES: On motion by Councilwoman Kaywood, seconded by Councilman Thom, Minutes of the Anaheim City Council regular meeting held May 31, 1977, were approved. MOTION CARRIED. WAIVER OF READING - ORDINANCES AND RESOLUTIONS: Councilwoman Kaywood moved to waive the reading, in full, of all ordinances and resolutions and that consent to the waiver of reading is hereby given by all Council Members unless, after reading of the title, specific request is made by a Council Member for the read- ing of such ordinance or resolution. Councilman Roth seconded the motion. MOTION UNANIMOUSLY CARRIED. FINANCIAL DEMANDS AGAINST THE CITY in the amount of $930,659.24 , in accordance with the 1976-77 Budget, were approved. 161: ACQUISITION AND SALE OF BUILDINGS AND IMPROVEMENTS - AGREEMENT WITH REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY: Councilman Seymour offered Resolution No. 77R-421 for adoption, as recommended in the memorandum dated June 7, 1977 from the Executive Director of Community Development, Norm Priest. Refer to Resolution Book. RESOLUTION NO. 77R-421: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM APPROVING AN AGREEMENT FOR ACQUISITION AND SALE OF BUILDINGS AND IMPROVMENTS WITH THE ANAHEIM REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY. 77-667 City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - June 14, 1977~ 1:30 P.M. Roll Call Vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: COUNCIL MEMBERS: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Kaywood, Seymour, Kott, Roth and Thom None None The Mayor declared Resolution No. 77R-421 duly passed and adopted. 137: EMPLOYEE GROUP LONG TERM DISABILITY INSURANCE: On motion by Councilman Seymour, seconded by Councilwoman Kaywood, authorization for renewal of the Long Term Disability Group Insurance on a monthly basis with Aetna Life and Casualty at the rate of $1.84 per $100 of full monthly salary was approved, as recommended in memorandum dated June 8, 1977 from Personnel Director Garry McRae. MOTION CARRIED. 137: RENEWAL OF AETNA TEMPORARY DISABILITY INCOME GROUP INSURANCE: On motion by Councilman Seymour, seconded by Councilman Roth, authorization for renewal of the Temporary Disability Income group insurance with Aetna Life and Casualty at the rate of $2.13 per enrolled employee, was approved, as recommended in memorandum dated June 8, 1977 from the Personnel Director. MOTION CARRIED. 105: CITIZENS' CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT COMMITTEE - FINAL REPORTS: (Parks and Recrea- tion, Public Works and Public Buildings) Mrs. Sally White, 809 West Broadway, Chairman of the Parks and Recreation Subcommittee of the Citizens' Capital Improvement Committee, expressed the Committee's appreciation for staff assistance and cooperation provided by Mr. Ruth, Kamphefner, Heimberger and Frick, as well as Committee Members Doug Bugee and Dr. Clifford Mattson, for their outstanding job and their many hours of dedication. Mrs. White referred to the ten recommendations of the Committee, as outlined in their comprehensive report dated March 1977 (on file in the City Clerk's Office) which she stressed in no way reflected upon the efficient performance of the Parks, Recreation and the Arts Department. She noted, particularly, recommendation 1, 5, 7, and 10; lease of undeveloped park sites, more publicity to improve park image, department head recommendations considering land dedication instead of park in-lieu fees, and reactivation of the Committee on an annual basis. Dr. Clifford Mattson, 720 South Euclid, also expressed appreciation for the staff support received and explained that after quite a number of considerations, the results were the ten recommendations in the report and the main constraints as the Committee reviewed them fell into several categories. As a businessman, he main- tained that administrative procedures could best be handled on a percentage basis, as outlined in recommendation No. 3. In reviewing the general budget from last year as an expenditure, allocation of 5% of that value to the forthcoming year would enable the department to plan ahead; the reason being a 21-year history prevailed in that area. This would put the budget more on an operating basis so that planning could eliminate starts and stops in projects. He also explained that because of maturation of the City, the best approach would be on a business basis because the intervention of federal and state funding preempted certain pro- jects from being No. 1. Dr. Mattson also stated, as outlined in recommendation No. 8, 77-668 City Hall~ Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - June 14~ 1977~ 1:30 P.M. that quarterly reviews be submitted, something not a current practice. Relative to recommendation No. 3, Page 2, the land acquisition at 90% of expenditure was de-emphasized, as the Committee felt population and Planning Department studies indicated a peak in the growth of new building, thus, a certain percentage should be applied in the future on a declining basis for development and more of the present undeveloped land be brought up to standard. This would tend to reverse the present status of land rich, but use poor. Councilwoman Kaywood, referring to Item No. 10 recommending reactivation of the committee annually, asked Mrs. White, a Member of both, if there would be an overlapping relative to the activities of the Parks and Recreation Commission. Mrs. White indicated there would be no overlapping; Dr. Mattson stated it was con- sidered from a judge advocate position. The Mayor noted that all the reports received were voluminous and he encouraged the Council and the particular committee involved if they wished to go over their reports in more depth than time allowed at the meeting, then a work session could be set up with each committee as a more productive way to pursue their contents further. He stated that the proper motion would be to receive each report since implementation of the recommendations contained therein could not be considered without more detail. On motion by Councilman Roth, seconded by Councilwoman Kaywood, final report from the Parks and Recreation Subcommittee of the Citizens' Capital Improvement Committee was received. MOTION CARRIED. 105: PUBLIC WORKS COMMITTEE REPORT: Mr. Lowell Clifford Burch, General Chairman, 1949 South Manchester Avenue, Space 32, stated that he fully endorsed the 1976-77 report of the Public Works Committee on which the members worked so diligently, and there was nothing he could add more than what was stressed in the report's cover letter. On motion by Councilwoman Kaywood, seconded by Councilwoman Seymour, final report from the Public Works Subcommittee of the Citizens' Capital Improvement Committee was received. MOTION CARRIED. 105: PUBLIC BUILDINGS COMMITTEE REPORT: Mr. Arthur R. Hasselbrink, Chairman, 2762 East Vermont, first thanked his committee for the many hours spent working for the City in order to present their report, as well as the Mayor and the Council on behalf of the Committee for the recognition dinner held June 1, 1977. The main thrust of the report summarized in the first seven pages dealt with con- sideration of a new city hall and analysis of two potential sites; the Harbor Boulevard site between the Police Building and the Public Library and the Lincoln Avenue site within the Redevelopment Area. The Committee was almost equally divided on the two locations and, therefore, maintained that a majority-minority report would not be within the objectives of the committee, as their main purpose was to ascertain if, in fact, a city hall was needed. By presenting both sides, the Council would then be in a better position to be more objective in evaluating a proper location. Both sites were presented without bias and approved unani- mously by the committee. 77-669 qity Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - June 14, 1977, 1:30 P.M. Relative to the question of whether or not a new city hall was needed at the present time, the total Committee agreed unanimously with the following two facts in mind: 1) by a consolidation of services, a possible savings of over $5 million dollars annually could be realized based on the current budget; 2) in the event of a major earthquake, loss of lives could be catastrophic considering the condition of the present city hall, as reported in the two previously submitted private Engineers' reports. The Committee, therefore, charged the Council to take action as soon as possible to initiate the necessary directives and actions to start groundbreaking for construction of a new city hall. Mr. Hasselbrink contended that the report, along with the two foregoing facts, gave the Council the mandate to do so. Councilman Roth referred to a minority report received just prior to the meeting signed by Jane Cook and two other members of the Public Building Subcommittee and passed it to Mr. Hasselbrink who stated he was not aware of the report. Councilman Seymour stated that he did not see in the report any recommendation by the Committee regarding the financing of a new city hall as to whether or not they felt a lease-back arrangement which, in essence, was the financial vehicle being recommended, should be approved by the electorate or that the City Council should proceed and enter into such an agreement without voter approval. Mr. Hasselbrink stated the Committee left the matter in the Council's hands. The Mayor commended Mr. Hasselbrink and the Committee on their report. Mr. Hasselbrink stated that the Committee would be available at any time to meet with the Council. On motion by Councilwoman Kaywood, seconded by Councilman Roth, report from the Public Buildings Subcommittee of the Citizens' Capital Improvement Committee was received. MOTION CARRIED. 167: TRAFFIC SIGNAL ASSESSMENT, MONETARY PARTICIPATION BY DEVELOPERS: Councilman Seymour prefaced his comments by expressing appreciation for the job that the Capital Improvement Public Works Committee did on the subject matter. He also referred to their report (Pages 54-73) from which he ascertained that the propo- sal and fee schedule, if adopted, would raise $4.5 million sometime over the future assuring that the City, on a regularly scheduled basis and as needed, would be afforded the funds with which to install necessary traffic signals. Currently, traffic signals have been funded out of Gas Tax funds; therefore, whatever signals were proposed in the next fiscal year, unless a schedule was adopted, would come out of the $1.8 million in Gas Tax funds for 1977-78. He agreed with the concept of equitably distributing the cost of traffic signals and philosophically was in agreement with staff and the CIC on their recommenda- tions. His question, however, was relative to the amount of the fee schedule being applied to new developments of buildings, residences, offices and the like. He wanted to know what would happen to the surplus funds created, where would they go and how much, if the proposed schedule passed, and also how much had come out of Gas Tax funds in the last five years and been applied toward traffic signals. 77-670 City Hall~ Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - June 14~ 1977~ 1:30 P.M. City Engineer James Maddox stated they did not have $1.8 million for roads and signals because 60% of the 2107 Fund was taken for maintenance. Thus, 60% of $.9 million was taken out, or $540,000, for maintenance which was not used for street construction or signals. Traffic Engineer Paul Singer stated that as of last year, $180,000 was spent for capital improvements out of Gas Tax funds, of which $85,000 went for signals and the remainder for striping, relocation and light items with very little spent on signals. In fact, they were nowhere near achieving their objective of the traffic signal plan and were quite a few years behind due to lack of capital funds. He also stated, in answer to Councilman Seymour, that including federal aid in TOPICS, approximately $1.5 million was spent on traffic signals over the last five years, $900,000 coming from TOPICS. Over ten years, if the fee schedule were adopted, it would generate approximately $4.5 million, but that did not necessarily mean it would generate $2.5 million over five years. Councilman Seymour stated the plan was a good one and would provide an equitable way to install traffic signals. He was concerned that the plan be a realistic one that would accomplish signalization in a reasonable amount of time and g~t the job done without levying such sizeable fees. The Mayor viewed the proposal as a positive step in the direction of setting policy. Previous policies included 100% and 50% participation in signaliZation and, if acceptable to the rest of the Council, the proposed policy was acceptable to him as being more concrete and better than what was presently available. Since Council policy could be easily changed, it would be best to see how it worked first and then if it started to create problems, evaluate it again at that time. Councilwoman Kaywood pointed out that proposed Method A, as outlined in memorandum dated May 31, 1977, from the City Engineer accomplished signalization of only one location without regard to traffic impact. Councilman Seymour preferred to start out slow, rather than initially applying a 75-25 formula which established the bottom line fee at the outset. Mr. Singer explained that the proportion was closer to 50-50 because the actual capital expenditure would be 75-25, with the City being responsible for all design and inspection costs, making the signal operational, and for 25% of the con- struction funds. City Engineer Maddox, referring to the comment as to what would be done with surplus funds, he explained that as of June 10, 1977, the 2107 Fund was $367,311. The 2106 Fund, however, was $146,966 in the red; the latter would take approxi- mately two months to move into the black because billing was monthly. Councilman Seymour noted that the situation was a cash flow problem rather than a permanent funding problem. On motion by Councilman Kott, seconded by Councilwoman Kaywood, the following Traffic Signal Assessment Council Policy was approved, using Method B, as outlined in memo- randum dated May 31, 1977, from the City Engineer. 77-671 City Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - June 14~ 1977~ 1:30 P.M. COUNCIL POLICY NO. 214: It is the policy of the City Council that all new developments of whatever nature share in the costs of construction of new and/or modifications to existing signals required to control vehicular traffic generated by those developments. To this end, immediately subsequent to the effective date of the Policy, the following fees for the various types of development shall be collected by the Building Division as a further condition to issuance of a Building Permit: Each new dwelling unit Each new 1000 square feet of commercial building or fraction thereof- Each new 1000 square feet of industrial building or fraction thereof- $ 36. O0 $363.00 $ 30.00 It is the intent of this Policy that all funds so collected be deposited in a separate account and used to provide new traffic signals and/or modify existing signals throughout the City as determined by established methods of prioritizing by the Engineer- ing Division. MOTION CARRIED. 131: CIRCULATION ELEMENT OF ARTERIAL STREETS AND HIGHWAYS: Councilman Kott offered Resolution No. 77R-422 for adoption. Refer to Resolution Book. RESOLUTION NO. 77R-422: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM INFORMING THE COUNTY OF ORANGE, ROAD DEPARTMENT, OF CERTAIN CHANGES IN THE CIRCULATION ELEMENT .OF ARTERIAL STREETS AND HIGHWAYS ON THE GENERAL PLAN, AND REQUESTING THE COUNTY OF ORANGE TO ADOPT SAID CHANGES INTO THE COUNTY ARTERIAL HIGHWAY MASTER PLAN. Roll Call Vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: COUNCIL MEMBERS: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Kaywood, Seymour, Kott, Roth and Thom None None The Mayor declared Resolution No. 77R-422 duly passed and adopted. STATE ABANDONMENT OF PORTION OF OLD SANTA ANA CANYON ROAD (ROUTE 91): On motion by Councilman Seymour, seconded by Councilwoman Kaywood, the City Council reviewed the proposed rights of way to be abandoned by the State of California along a por- tion of Old Santa Aha Canyon Road (State Route 91) between Redrock Street and Cerro Vista Drive. Since they are isolated rights of way and have no public access, the City Council declared them to be inaccessible for public use and unsuitable for bicycle paths or routes, as recommended in memorandum dated June 3, 1977 from the City Engineer. MOTION CARRIED. 77-672 City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - June 14, 1977~ 1:30 P.M. 123: SANTA FE RAILWAY PIPELINE AGREEMENT: (Orangethorpe Park Storm Drain) Councilman Roth offered Resolution No. 77R-423 for adoption, as recommended in memorandum dated June 1, 1977 from the City Engineer. Refer to Resolution Book. RESOLUTION NO. 77R-423: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR AND CITY CLERK TO EXECUTE A PIPELINE LICENSE AND AUTHORIZING PAYMENT THEREFOR. (Storm Drain at Kimberly Avenue lead track, north of Orangethorpe Park) Roll Call Vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: COUNCIL MEMBERS: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Kaywood, Seymour, Kott, Roth and Thom None None The Mayor declared Resolution No. 77R-423 duly passed and adopted. 123 AND 175: NONDISCLOSURE AGREEMENT - SAN ONOFRE NUCLEAR GENERATING STATION, UNITS 2 AND 3: On motion by Councilman Roth, seconded by Councilwoman Kaywood, authorization for Utilities Director, Gordon W. Hoyt, to sign a Nondisclosure Agreement with the City of Riverside and Southern California Edison regarding Confidential and Proprietary Contracts executed by Edison in connection with San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station, Units 2 and 3, was approved, as recommended in memorandum dated June 7, 1977 from the Utilities Director. MOTION CARRIED. 173: STUDY SESSION, COUNCIL TRANSPORTATION POLICY: City Manager Talley stated there was a request by staff to have an approximate one-hour study session sometime in the future on Council transportation policy. 109 AND 139: PROOF OF FINANCIAL RESPONSIBILITY FOR DRIVER'S LICENSES AND ENFORCE- MENT OF VEHICLE CODE SECTION: Councilman Kott offered Resolution Nos. 77R-424 and 77R-425 for adoption. Refer to Resolution Book. RESOLUTION NO. 77R-424: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM URGING THE ENACTMENT OF LEGISLATION THAT WOULD REQUIRE PROOF OF FINANCIAL RESPON- SIBILITY PRIOR TO THE ISSUANCE OF A DRIVER'S LICENSE. RESOLUTION NO. 77R-425: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM URGING THE DEPARTMENT OF MOTOR VEHICLES OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA TO ENFORCE STRICTLY THE PROVISIONS OF THE CALIFORNIA VEHICLE CODE, SECTION 12805(f) AND TO REFUSE A DRIVER'S LICENSE TO ANY PERSON WHO CANNOT UNDERSTAND SIMPLE ENGLISH USED IN HIGHWAY, TRAFFIC, AND DIRECTIONAL SIGNS. Roll Call Vote: AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Seymour, Kott, Roth and Thom NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: None ABSTAINED: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Kaywood ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: None The Mayor declared Resolution Nos. 77R-424 and 77R-425 duly passed and adopted. 77-673 City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - June 14, 1977, 1:30 P.M. Councilwoman Kaywood explained that she abstained on the foregoing Resolutions because she had information that the proposals were tried in some cities, but experience found them impossible to control, as well as causing excessive paper work and need for a number of clerks to maintain the system. She contended that when people did not have licenses, they subsequently drove without them. 123: REIMBURSEMENT OF COSTS FROM THE COUNTY FOR PROSECUTION OF MISDEMEANOR VIOLATIONS OF STATE LAW: Councilman Thom offered Resolution No. 77R-426 for adoption. Refer to Resolution Book. RESOLUTION NO. 77R-426: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM DETERMINING THE COST OF PROSECUTION OF MISDEMEANOR VIOLATIONS OF STATE LAW AND REQUESTING REIMBURSEMENT THEREFOR. ($84,560) Roll Call Vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: COUNCIL MEMBERS: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Kaywood, Seymour, Kott, Roth and Thom None None The Mayor declared Resolution No. 77R-426 duly passed and adopted. 105: EXISTING VACANCIES ON THE PROJECT AREA COMMITTEE (PAC): On motion by Councilman Roth, seconded by Councilwoman Kaywood, Gant Eichrodt's resignation from PAC was approved and Jesus Payan's seat declared vacant. MOTION CARRIED. The posting date for both vacancies would be June 15, 1977, thereby enabling Council to make new appointments on or after June 28, 1977. 120: LANDSCAPING AND IRRIGATION OF SLOPES, RIVERDALE AND TUSTIN AVENUES: Councilman Seymour referred to the memos and letters relative to the cooperative agreement promising to provide landscaping on the southeast corner of Tustin Avenue and Riverdale Avenue to Mr. Barry Hommey. In view of the data provided, it was his opinion the subject slope should be landscaped instead of regraded. He noted that the reason for not providing the landscaping was in the interest of water conserva- tion caused by the drought. While he agreed, he maintained that the slopes could not remain bare until the drought situation was alleviated. Councilwoman Kaywood questioned if the State performed the landscaping, whether or not they would continue with the maintenance. City Engineer Maddox indicated the State would pay for initial installation of the landscaping and sprinkler system and the City would then assume ongoing maintenance. Further discussion followed between the Council and staff relative to additional similar slopes covered by the cooperative agreement approved under Resolution No. 76R-727 of November 16, 1976 which allowed $61,000 to install landscaping and sprinkler systems on nine slopes, one of which was the subject slope, if they were all completed at one time. 77-674 City Hall~ Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - June 14~ 1977, 1:30 P.M. Councilwoman Kaywood was concerned that a precedent would be set if the request was granted. Councilman Roth considered the subject slope to be a unique situation due to ero- sion problems. On motion by Councilman Seymour, seconded by Councilman Thom, landscaping and irrigation of the slopes at the southeast corner of Riverdale and Tustin Avenues was approved at the request of Mr. Barry Hommey and per the cooperative agreement with the State previously executed. MOTION CARRIED. 120: CHEVY CHASE, ROBIN, WREN, BLUEJAY - TRASH PROBLEM: Councilman Seymour referred to the subject area wherein the Council previously, recognizing it was a neighborhood that needed assistance, requested the Planning Department to evaluate the matter and submit recommendations to alleviate some of the existing problems. After the study was accomplished, they also met with property owners and a good response was obtained. However, nothing of substance had transpired. Responding to a recent request, Councilman Seymour again visited the neighborhood and concluded that if the Council did not take vigorous action to alleviate the already unacceptable situation, very serious health problems could result, as tenants and property owners alike were bearing with unlivable conditions. Residents and property owners were interested in preserving the neighborhood in order to avoid total destruction and a redevelopment situation. He also commented on the slum lords and absentee landlords who were only interested in the monetary remuneration the property could bring, while allowing it to continue deteriorating. MOTION: Councilman Seymour was confident that the Council could take positive initial action to save the neighborhood, specifically referring to the removal of the trash bins from the streets which were located there on a 24-hour basis. With summer coming, any sanitation inspector would find such conditions deplorable. He thereupon offered the following motion: Instruct staff to send a letter to every property owner in the area allowing 30 days in which to have all trash containers removed from the streets. If not accomplished at the end of 30 days, staff to cite violators in accordance with City Ordinance and, subsequently, take appropriate legal action, if necessary, for non-compliance. A second letter to be sent simul- taneously to those property owners in the area who have shown interest in solving the problem explaining that the action was a response to their request asking the City to help them help themselves. Councilman Kott seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. Councilwoman Kaywood wanted clarified in the letter that the property owners were still responsible for a method of picking up trash. They could not just remove the bins with no alternate method for trash disposal. 160: PURCHASE OF EQUIPMENT - THREE PADMOUNT TRANSFORMERS~ BID NO. 3252: (One 500 KVA and Two 225 KVA) On motion by Councilman Roth, seconded by Councilman Thom, the low bid of General Electric Company was accepted and purchase author- ized in the amount of $11,158.62, including tax, as recommended by the Purchasing Agent in his memorandum dated June 3, 1977. MOTION CARRIED. 77-675 City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - June 14~ 1977~ 1:30 P.M. 129: PUBLIC FIREWORKS DISPLAY PERMIT: On motion by Councilman Kott, seconded by Councilman Thom, Application for Public Fireworks Display Permit filed by California Fireworks Display Company for Fun Productions to discharge fireworks at Anaheim Stadium June 19, 1977 at 9:00 P.M., was approved. Councilwoman Kaywood voted "No". MOTION CARRIED. 108: APPLICATION FOR SOLICITATION OF CHARITY FUNDS: On motion by Councilman Thom, seconded by Councilman Seymour, Application for Solicitation of Charity Funds from Advance Foundation for telephone solicitation of reusable household items from June 1 through August 1, 1977 was approved. MOTION CARRIED. 120: RELOCATION OF UTILITY POLE: Mrs. Harriet Hermann, representing the Richard A. Hermann family, 150 Cerro Vista Way, briefed the Council relative to their letter dated February 21, 1977, and a follow-up letter received by the City May 25, 1977, containing reference photos and a time-line of events leading to the request to address the Council (on file in the City Clerk's Office); the main problem being the recent placement of a utility pole in front of their prime view, the living room window. The result of this action would make the adjacent builder's land more desirable while making the Hermann's less desirable, and they (Hermann's) could do nothing about moving the pole since it was not financially possible'for them to do so. Their house was a modest one in a very affluent area. They were not opposed to the pole on their property, but contended that the City should have obtained some equitable solution between the builder and the Hermann's that would have been agreeable to both. Discussion followed between Council and Mrs. Hermann basically revolving around the information contained in the Hermann's plea of hardship document containing the time-line of events. Mr. George Edwards, Electrical Superintendent, also briefed the Council on the situation from staff's viewpoint, as well as giving a historical overview of the subject overhead lines in existence since 1922 crossing the builder's (Buchman) and Hermann's property, an easement for which was received by Edison. When Mr. Buchman developed the property, he requested the lines be relocated. After dis- cussion with staff and by mutual agreement with the Hermann's who granted the easement, the pole was placed on Buchman's easterly property line. Although he was not certain this was agreeable to the Hermann's, it was a more desirable loca- tion, even though not acceptable. If the pole paralleled the existing easement, it would have been more in the Hermann's view than at present. If it was to be placed on the Hermann's easterly property line, it would be necessary for them to participate in the relocation in the amount of $1,500. Mrs. Hermann explained that the easement was granted because it was the least offensive of the two options. Either the pole would be placed almost directly in front of the living room window instead of its present location, or pay $1,500 to have it relocated to the easterly property line, which they were financially unable to do. She contended that the City did not want to take the time to get everyone together to discuss the matter and, as a taxpayer, she resented the fact that because they did not do so, the cost would double to redo what had been done. 77-676 .~ity Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - June 14~ 1977, 1:30 P.M. Mr. Edwards explained that in order to relocate the line on the Hermann's east property line, it would be necessary to extend the surface along the north property line and would require participation of the property owner in relocation. Staff did try to resolve the matter through Buchman, but he was not interested in paying for undergrounding further than what his property required. Councilman Seymour questioned whether, in Mrs. Hermann's opinion, there was a relocation of the pole along the easement line that would be satisfactory, yet practical. Mrs. Hermann was of the opinion that the most economical solution would be to relocate the pole on the east property line or go underground along that line. Thereupon, Councilman Seymour explained that if the line were to go underground, the City would be making a gift of public funds. Additional discussion ensued wherein Mrs. Hermann stressed an immediate solution was necessary because the property adjacent to the Buchman's was about to be developed and the need for additional electricity would require a larger trans- former and more anchors to the existing pole. The situation was a unique one thrust upon them and unlike the previous utility pole relocation involving a tennis court. It was her opinion there was nothing humane about the procedures that were followed by staff; everything was black and white; and she reiterated that a meeting should have been arranged with all parties concerned, together and not separately, as was done. There was no law to protect them so they were petitioning the Council for help. Councilman Seymour considered the present situation to be different from the tennis court matter (Steinke) because, in the development of an individual property, the net result was to block the view of a neighbor with an aesthetically unaccept- able utility pole. Although the Utilities Director was charged with maintaining environmental quality, there should be some latitude exercised, as well as logic, and he would prefer that the matter be resolved at the staff level. He was inclined to give relief in the relocation of the pole where it should have been relocated the first time. In answer to Councilwoman Kaywood, Mr. Edwards stated that 80 to 100 such requests a year were received for relocation of utility poles. On that basis, Councilwoman Kaywood stated she would have to vote "No" and, as suggested by Councilman Seymour, such matters should come before the Council if it must, or be worked out amongst staff before the pole was moved. She explained that her sympathies were with the Hermann's. On motion by Councilman Seymour, seconded by Councilman Kott, staff was instructed to relocate the utility pole to the Hermann's easterly property line at no cost to them; said cost to be taken from the Council Contingency Fund. Councilwoman Kaywood voted "No". MOTION CARRIED. RECESS - EXECUTIVE SESSION: By general consent, the Council recessed into Executive Session. (2:58 P.M.) 77-677 City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - June 14, 1977, 1:30 P.M. AFTER RECESS: The Mayor called the meeting to order, all Council Members being present. (3:05 P.M.) 112: REVIEW OF SETTLEMENT PROPOSAL~ PIERRE AND JANET NICHOLAS: On motion by Councilman Roth, seconded by Councilwoman Kaywood, special counsel for the City was directed to reject the settlement proposal submitted for Pierre and Janet Nicholas under date of May 31, 1977. MOTION CARRIED. 128: RATIFICATION OF APPOINTMENT OF NEW FINANCE DIRECTOR AND ESTABLISHMENT OF SALARY SCHEDULE: On motion by Councilman Seymour, seconded by Councilman Roth, ratification of the City Manager's appointment of George P. Ferrone as Finance Director, effective August 1, 1977 was approved, along with a monthly automobile allowance of $175. MOTION CARRIED. Councilman Seymour offered Resolution No. 77R-427 for adoption establishing a new salary schedule for the management class of Finance Director from X1683 ($2,400.67 - $2,917.20) to X1816 ($2,593.07 - $3,151.20), effective June 14, 1977. Refer to Resolution Book. RESOLUTION NO. 77R-427: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AMENDING RESOLUTION NO. 76R-736 BY ADJUSTING THE RATE OF COMPENSATION FOR THE FINANCE DIRECTOR. Roll Call Vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: COUNCIL MEMBERS: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Kaywood, Seymour, Kott, Roth and Thom None None The Mayor declared Resolution No. 77R-427 duly passed and adopted. RECESS: By general consent, the Council recessed for five minutes. (3:08 P.M.) AFTER RECESS: The Mayor called the meeting to order, all Council Members being present. (3:13 P.M.) PUBLIC HEARING - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 1697 - REHEARING: Request by Larry R. and Judith I. Smith to expand an existing restaurant with on-sale beer and wine on CL zoned property located at 945 South Knott Street with code waiver of minimum kitchen area. The subject Conditional Use Permit was denied by the City Council on May 10, 1977 and, subsequently, a request for a rehearing was filed by Mr. C. Younkin, President, 2001, Inc., dba The Sting, and scheduled this date. A letter of opposition was also received dated June 9, 1977, from Mr. and Mrs. G. N. Dennis, 909 South Knott Avenue, #1. The Mayor asked if the applicant or applicant's agent was present. 77-678 City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - June 14~ 1977, 1:30 P.M. Mr. Tom Ferruzzo, Attorney representing Mr. Younkin, explained that the requested Conditional Use Permit was to expand the dining area of The Sting, which request was granted by the Planning Commission and permission given by the Alcoholic Beverage Control Board to do so. He also stated that he had not received a copy of the letter of opposition and was thereupon provided a copy for his perusal. He then pointed out from a floor plan the proposed expansion, which was a simple schematic showing The Sting at present, and including the addition of the proposed dining area. The City Code required that 25% of the total restaurant be devoted to a kitchen area; The Sting had 14% without the proposed addition, which would also be reducing the kitchen area versus the entire area to 12%. The Planning Commission recommended that the CUP be granted because most of the existing area was not used for restaurant facilities. At present, the only area used for dining was approxi- mately 300 square feet of the 5,000 available, with the kitchen area representing approximately 400 square feet. Mr. Ferruzzo briefed the Council further on the proposed expansion plans and concluded that in the financial analysis, the kitchen area would be approximtely 30% of the dining area. He then explained the new dining area was mainly to attract lunch time business; that it would be open only for the service of food; the only entrance dur- ing the daytime would be through the dining area; there was no easy access from the dining area into the dancing area in that it was separated by a 32-foot long game room; and that his client was only requesting a new use of a vacant area between the two buildings and not an increase in the area for dancing. The expanded use would not change any present conditions but, in fact, would improve them and change the crowd that patronized The Sting. Councilman Roth asked Mr. Ferruzzo if he wished to respond or add to the previously submitted Vice Detail profile. Mr. Ferruzzo contended that since it covered a period from 1975 to 1977, twelve calls during that time were not excessive for an establishment that had dancing in the evening. Also, as pointed out in the letter of opposition, the allegations of excessive numbers of people, loud music and the like, would not apply to expanding the establishment for lunch time use only. Councilman Seymour then questioned Mr. Ferruzzo relative to the proposed new use but was not convinced that it would not preclude the possibility, should the dining area not be successful as planned, of creating an additional space for dancing and drinking. If the area was so exclusive for dining, he suggested that it be blocked off entirely so there would be no flow of traffic back and forth at all. Mr. Ferruzzo recommended that such a condition be added; however, Councilman Seymour stressed that such a situation would be very difficult to police. There being no further persons who wished to speak, the Mayor closed the public hearing. Councilman Kott stated that his position remained as it was before. It was his opinion that adding dining area to the business was not going to eliminate the problems experienced. If anything, it may be an aid. If he had the opportunity 77-679 City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - June 14, 1977, 1:30 P.M. to decide whether or not a bar should have been allowed, he would have voted against it, but since that was not the case, he could not fault the owner for try- ing to make money. Thereupon, Councilman Kott offered a resolution granting Conditional Use Permit No. 1697 in accordance with the recommendations of the Planning Commission. Before a vote was taken, the Mayor explained that his position had not changed either. He was impressed with Mr. Younkin's previous presentation, and with the type of business involved, he considered the Vice Detail profile to be no better nor worse than other establishments in the City that served food and liquor. However, if a great deal more complaints were received from surrounding residents, he would view the matter in an entirely different light. At present, there were not enough complaints to justify denial, thus he was in favor of granting Conditional Use Permit No. 1697. Councilman Roth stated that he disagreed; since he had not seen any new evidence indicating there would be a suppression of problems and, as pointed out by Councilman Seymour, there were twelve serious complaints in sixteen months, not a two and one-half year period, as stated. He could, therefore, not support the resolution to permit expansion. Councilwoman Kaywood explained that if the situation were such that it could be tested for a period of one year, she would be in favor, but since it would not be feasible to do so and a sizeable investment was involved, she would have to vote against the proposed resolution. Councilman Seymour shared the concerns of Councilwoman Kaywood and Councilman Roth. He also did not agree that every establishment in the City serving liquor would elicit a similar profile. He then pointed out some of the serious issues listed in the Vice Detail report and did not consider them to be typical. If he had personally known the type of clientele who would be patronizing the estab- lishment, he would not have approved it initially. He did not want to see an expansion of a use that precipitated trouble, and that the subsequent legal pro- ceedings of trying to have the operation shut down. It was not consistent with the family-type of environment that was encouraged in the City. He would, there- fore, vote against the proposed resolution. A vote was taken on the foregoing resolution and failed to carry by the following vote: AYES: NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Kott and Thom COUNCIL MEMBERS: Kaywood, Seymour and Roth. Councilman Seymour offered Resolution No. 77R-428 for adoption denying Conditional Use Permit No. 1697. Refer to Resolution Book. RESOLUTION NO. 77R-428: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM REAFFIRMING ITS DENIAL OF (~DNDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 1697. Roll Call Vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: COUNCIL MEMBERS: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Kaywood, Seymour and Roth Kott and Thom None The Mayor declared Resolution No. 77R-428 duly passed and adopted. 77-680 qity Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - June 14, 1977, 1:30 P.M. 116: PROPOSED TERMINATION OF CITY MANAGER: Councilman Kott read a statement he prepared relative to an item he considered of grave importance. The main intent of the statement was prefaced by a brief explanation of his background in public office and various areas, wherein many times his stand was not the popular one, but he considered it to be right and had the courage of his convictions to take that stand. As a Councilman, he had the best interests and welfare of the community at heart. He stated that in the past six to nine months he had numerous contacts from people, both in and out of City government, who had unfavorable experiences with the Anaheim City Manager, William Talley, firsthand. Among other activities, it appeared to him that the City Manager was attempting to erode the responsibili- ties of the City Council, as well as department heads directly responsible to the Council, also including problems with other department heads down through the ranks of the City's work force. It also appeared that the City Manager had for- gotten that he was an appointed official not elected to his position and, therefore, not directly responsible to the taxpayers as he (Kott) was. Councilman Kott then summarized certain incidents which he concluded showed Mr. Talley lacked the ability to deal with everyday adjustments needed in management and, thus, was not competent to deal with employees and taxpayers' money, and there was much depression and low morale among the employees. It was also his opinion that the City Manager was Detrimental to the health, safety and welfare of the City of Anaheim, its employees and the democratic process. He, thereupon, offered a motion that Mr. Talley be removed immediately from his position as City Manager and requested a roll call vote. Councilman Thom seconded the motion for the purpose of discussion. Before a vote was taken, Councilman Seymour expressed his total surprise relative to the allegations presented, as well as the proposed motion, especially since there had been no discussion among the Council itself. He contended that the personality of Mr. Talley or any other City Manager was not the question, but considered the move to be another attempt to establish a strong Mayor form of government which the people were not ready to accept, as evidenced by the 2:1 vote in the November election, as opposed to the present Council-Manager form of government. Councilman Roth stressed that he did not in the least support Councilman Kott's motion and reiterated his strong support for City Manager Talley and the job he was doing. Councilwoman Kaywood expressed her displeasure with the manner and the timing in which the subject was presented, under public hearings with the press and a large audience. She had not heard one single person at any level in the City who had anything critical to say about Mr. Talley but, on the other hand, heard outstanding praise for everything he had done. The Mayor urged that, contrary to Councilman Seymour's previous recommendation, no City employee or department head should present themselves publicly to support Councilman Kott's statement, as it would not be in their best interest to do so. 77-681 City Hall, Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - June 14, 1977, 1:30 P.M. He then outlined some situations that were personal to him wherein he disagreed with Mr. Talley's actions: 1) Mr. Talley's statement that he would never again allow the Council to participate in an interview session with proposed department heads; 2) the proposed business license tax; 3) an allegation by an auditor that Mr. Talley ordered verbiage in a report he prepared changed; 4) the order to all department heads not to communicate with the City Council on a one-to-one basis without advising the City Manager and 5) approaching a Council Member eliciting his support to terminate the services of a department head without discussing the matter with all five Council Members. These matters had led to his disappoint- ment with Mr. Talley. A vote was taken on the foregoing motion and failed to carry by the following vote: AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Kott and Thom NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Kaywood, Seymour and Roth City Manager William Talley asked to address the Council and concurred that the Mayor and Councilman Kott had the privilege of feeling any way they chose about their appointed employee. He wanted, however, to specifically address the items brought forth by the Mayor. 1) It was relative to the number of interviewees and not that Council would not be allowed to interview any proposed department head prior to his selection for appointment; 2) the issue relative to the auditor was not what he had written, but the fact he had called the Council directly and recommended that he not be placed under the City Manager's authority because he considered the City Manager had less than complete integrity; if the auditor felt that way, he would not be working for the City Manager and should report to the Council and the Mayor. He considered that the other items (3, 4 and 5) had been adequately discussed since they went back some time. Mr. Talley further stated that he wanted to continue working for the Council and serve to the very best of his ability. From a professional standpoint, however, an approach such as taken by Councilman Kott without the privilege of one discussion on any of the items would not guarantee that his (Talley's) replacement could have the assurance that he also would enjoy a professional relationship with his employer. He urged the Council that in future dealings With him, if they saw fit to do so, to at least give him the opportunity to either explain or at least face such view before they were presented to the public. Ail City employees, including the City Manager, wanted to serve the Council and the community to the best of their ability, but instances such as occurred could only emasculate the desire to do so. PUBLIC HEARING - FEDERAL GENERAL REVENUE SHARING: Proposed General Revenue Sharing budget for the Fiscal Year 1977-78. Councilman Roth left the Council Chamber. (3:50 P.M.) Mr. Talley directed the Council's attention to another plan (on file in the City Clerk's Office) which he had provided to the media and the Council relative to the proposed General Revenue Sharing budget. (Items D and L through V were new 77-682 City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - June 14, 1977, 1:30 P.M. projects which replaced the concern expressed by Councilman Seymour regarding the retention of operating funds, specifically, the liability insurance premium in the General Revenue Sharing budget. Substituting Item D plus L through V would make up for removing the insurance premium.) At the City Manager's General Revenue Sharing hearing, one citizen did address the Council and Manager and recommended revenue sharing for removing barriers for the physically handicapped. He explained that the proposed plan included $134,008 for those purposes; $100,000 on housing and community development grant funds, and $34,008 in Gas Tax funds. Combined, the funds were more than an adequate commitment inasmuch as reports received today on public improvements recommended $40,000, and the amount proposed was over three times that amount. The Mayor asked if anyone wished to be heard on the Federal General Revenue Sharing proposed budget for Fiscal Year 1977-78. There was no response. On motion by Councilman Seymour, seconded by Councilman Thom, public hearing on the proposed Federal General Revenue Sharing budget for the Fiscal Year 1977-78 was continued one week. Councilman Roth was temporarily absent. MOTION CARRIED. Councilman Roth returned to the Council Chamber. (3:52 P.M.) CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING - 1977-78 PROPOSED RESOURCE ALLOCATION PLAN (BUDGET): (Continued from June 7, 1977) Since no member of the staff wished to be heard relative to the subject, the Mayor encouraged members of the public who wished to speak on the proposed budget to do so. Mr. Joseph White, 809 West Broadway, stated that he had been reading the budget, but needed more time to assimilate its contents and asked that it be continued another week. Mr. Fred Brown, 1531 Minerva Avenue, posed several questions on the following bud- get items with related comments which he urged the Council to closely scrutinize. His questions were answered accordingly by staff: UTILITIES DEPARTMENT - WATER: 1) Pg. 111-30 - Fire Hydrant Replacements - $11,098 to replace or improve 15 fire hydrants within the City. If problems were experienced with 30 instead of 15, would additional amounts be spent and, if so, were additional provisions made to cover this possibility. 2) Pg. 111-31 - Valve Replacements - $14,647 - From a taxpayer's standpoint, the combined total for fire hydrants and valve replacements (22) being $26,345, if these expenditures were coming from water sales, and water rates would be increased to accommodate same, he considered these expenditures to be a misappropriation of funds being collected. 3) Pg. 111-32 - Valve Replacement - 36-inch transmission valve at Olive Hills Reservoir - $I1,100. In concert with the above two expenditures, if water bills were to be increased because of water shortages, he considered that $40,000 was excessive for menial work that had to be done. 77-683 City Hall~ Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - June 14, 1977~ 1:30 P.M. PARKS: 4) Pg. 111-74 - Canyon High School Swimming Pool - $61,045. He questioned why park in-lieu fees were being used while no funds were contributed by the school to offset the costs, since the public at large would not benefit from the use of the pool. COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT: 5) Pg. 111-101 - Lincoln Avenue Realignment - $3,801,980. If the bid had not been let, as yet, for the work to be done, Mr. Brown questioned how the figures could have been calculated to such a fine point. 6) Pg. 111-110 - Storm Drain System - Alpha - $3,100,000. Mr. Brown contended that this expenditure, as well as the double box storm drain, 6 feet by 9 feet, was excessive and more than needed to save the downtown area or the City from a flood since the Colorado River All-American Aqueduct that pumped MWD water at that site contained four 3-feet by 3-feet pipes (36 square feet) that pumped enormous amounts of water. 7) Pg. 111-122 - Temporary Mall - $940,000. He questioned the expenditure and whether or not sealed bids had been solicited to complete the project. 8) Section IV - Page 16 - Community Services - Housing and Neighborhood Preserva- tion (Housing Rehabilitation). There was an increase in staff from one last year to three for the coming fiscal year, but they were not going to be paid, reflect- ing a total increase over all in the staff of the Agency of 3.5 positions, whereas recently there was talk of a decrease. 9) Pg. 11-74 - Housing and Neighborhood Preservation. He questioned whether the entire staff or the three Housing Rehabilitation counselors proposed for Fiscal Year 1977-78 would be working on ten housing counseling workshops to provide counseling services to more than 100 households. If three counselors were to do so, he could not find any allocation of funds for this purpose. PUBLIC WORKS: 10) Pg. 111-128 - Civic Center - $4,170,000. He questioned not the total amount, but the proposed method of financing construction of a new city hall through revenues from City departments, specifically, the $369,000 from water sales. To his knowledge, the funds were to come from tax allocation dollars, in part, and the balance from federal funds. He did not want his water bill raised to help pay for a city hall. UTILITIES DEPARTMENT - WATER: Gordon Hoyt, Utilities Director, spoke to Mr. Brown's first three questions and explained that the fire hydrant and valve replacement figures were the best estimates for the next Fiscal Year, and both items were occasioned by how many 77-684 City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - June 14, 1977~ 1:30 P.M. hydrants and valves would be broken when valves had to be turned in the distribu- tion system. He viewed the budget as a plan, and if valve and hydrant replacements were excessive, they would back off the program or ease off on some other program. Relative to the transmission valve, labor and material charges were involved and should have been broken down, but they did not get into the budget. PARKS: Relative to the Canyon High School swimming pool, James Ruth, Director of the Parks, Recreation and the Arts Department explained that Canyon High School did, in fact, participate in more than one-half of the cost of the pool. The City's operation would be during the summer with limited activities during the school year, and revenues were expected to offset operating costs. COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT: Concerning the cost of the Lincoln Street realignment, Executive Director of Community Development, Norm Priest, stated that the figure given was the consultant engineer's estimate of cost. Relative to the 6-foot by 9-foot storm drain, Mr. Priest explained that such an opening was necessary to be able to handle an uncontrolled head of water, the character of which would be different from that described by Mr. Brown flowing through the aqueduct. Another consideration would be the offsetting cost in flood zones and providing such a strong drain due to insurance costs that could substantially affect values, as well as the ability to obtain loans. Such a storm drain was very important from a development standpoint. Water Superintendent Larry Sears also clarified that storm drain design was gravity flow, consequently, necessitating a design many times larger than water supply lines and, as well, flood flows were many times greater. Mr. Priest then explained, relative to the temporary mall, that ten companies were solicited and three written proposals were received and the best one would be selected. In terms of the estimated amount involved ($940,000), this was based on 40,000 square feet and contingent upon the amount of square footage requested by merchants, seven of whom had sent letters of intent to fill the space. $432,000 in rent was expected to be derived from the businessmen who would be located in the temporary mall. Regarding the proposed increase of personnel in Redevelopment, Mr. Priest pointed out that the major increase was occurring in Housing and Neighborhood Preserva- tion in line with the increase with the Block Grant target area rehabilitation, with a decrease in redevelopment, although both were under Community Development. He also explained that relative to the housing rehabilitation counselors, salaries~ were not listed because the salary range was not approved at that point in time and these counselors would be paid. He elaborated further on some of the other ongoing programs involved in the Community Development Block Grant program, pointing out that there was a substantial number of other functions in addition to Housing Rehabilitation. 77-685 City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - June 14~ 1977~ 1:30 P.M. PUBLIC WORKS - CITY HALL: City Manager Talley pointed out that since the project was a civic center and not just a city hall, costs directly attributable to space that would be occupied by the Water Division were approached accordingly, and it was determined that the General Fund should not be used for this substantial amount of office space. The $359,999 participation could otherwise be utilized by the department in other areas. Only those departments producing revenues were assessed in this fashion. As the Mayor explained, it was a charge-back procedure. It was Mr. Brown's understanding that the funds to build the civic center were to come from private developers, tax allocation and Federal Revenue Sharing. Councilman Seymour stressed that the real question was whether or not the City should proceed with the initial phase of city hall and its relative priority. The concept proposed in the budget to charge revenue producing departments for their use of space was one method, if the Council wanted to proceed, even in the event that Federal grant funds would not be available. At the conclusion of discussion, Mr. Brown stated that he was in favor of the city hall project if goods and services to the community were not neglected. Councilman Roth explained that in a discussion with County Supervisors Riley and Schmit, they expected a 20% increase in property values next year and he questioned how this would affect the City's proposed estimate of 15.9%. City Manager Talley stated that the south county and coastal areas would have a higher assessment. When the county assessment was approximately 18%, Anaheim was at 13.3% and he expected that the City would again trail the county-wide average. If the assessment was higher, then the City would have the ability to lower the tax rate if the Council wished to do so, or additional revenues would be realized from the tax rate levied. Relative to a lower tax rate, Councilwoman Kaywood referred to the unique history of Anaheim discussed at the Mother Colony House after the groundbreaking ceremony of San Pedro Gate Park and explained that a most unfortunate situation exists, wherein there was no place to house all of the artifacts necessary to preserve the City's unique heritage. As a result of this problem, a number of items had been lost, some had gone to the Bowers Museum and others sold; the Mother Colony House Room at the Library being the only place utilized and presently filled to capacity. Rather than any cut in the tax rate, she recommended that some type of historical museum be considered, a recommendation that was made in 1968 by the Citizens' Capital Improvement Committee, many items having been lost in the interim. Councilman Seymour requested of the City Manager a list of the potential increases not included in the proposed budget document of approximately $1,000,000, as discussed at the previous week's budget session. Mr. Talley stated he would supply a specific list, however, the figure was now under $1,000,000. The Mayor asked if any further persons wished to speak relative to the proposed budget; there was no response. 77-686 City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - June 14, 1977~ 1:30 P.M. On motion by Councilman Seymour, seconded by Councilman Thom, public hearing on the 1977-78 proposed Resource Allocation Plan (Budget) was continued one week. MOTION CARRIED. Councilman Seymour left the Council Chamber. (4:48 P.M.) CONSENT CALENDAR ITEMS: On motion by Councilman Roth, seconded by Councilman Thom, the following actions were authorized in accordance with the reports and recommendations furnished each Council Member and as listed on the Consent Calendar Agenda: 1. 118: CLAIMS AGAINST THE CITY: The following claims were denied and referred to the City's insurance carrier or the self-insurance administrator: a. Claim submitted by Timothy C. Nicely, M.D., for retribution for camping knife purportedly confiscated by Anaheim Police Officers at the Stadium on or about May 6, 1977. b. Claim submitted by Interinsurance Exchange of the Automobile Club of Southern California, Subrogee of Kenneth and Joyce Dellit, for proPerty damages sustained purportedly as a result of accident with golf cart at Anaheim Municipal Golf Course on or about April 15, 1977. c. Claim submitted by Theresa Gebelin for property damages sustained purportedly as a result of golf ball hitting the windshield of a car parked in lot adjoining the "Dad" Miller Municipal Golf Course on or about April 26, 1977. d. Claim submitted by Mary Catherine Engel for personal injuries sustained purportedly as a result of absence of proper lighting causing auto accident on Lincoln near Sunkist on or about April 9, 1977. e. Claim submitted by Emma Rosas for personal injuries and property damage sustained purportedly as a result of negligent maintenance of traffic control signals at Kraemer Boulevard and Miraloma Avenue. f. Claim submitted by Guadalupe Rosas for damages for personal injuries and property damage purportedly sustained as a result of negligent maintenance of traffic control signals at Kraemer Boulevard and Miraloma Avenue. 2. PRIVATE PATROL APPLICATION: Application submitted by Bobby D. Bartlett for National Event Services (Promotion Control Corporation), 1918 Main Street, Suite 200, Santa Monica, to provide for crowd control and public safety personnel ser- vices was approved in accordance with Chief of Police recommendations. 3. CORRESPONDENCE: The following correspondence was ordered received and filed: a. Federal Power Commission Docket No. ER76-205, Southern California Edison Company, Order Granting Exception to Protective Order of November 16, 1976. b. Golf Course Advisory Commission - Minutes of May 19, 1977. 77-687 City Hall~ Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - June 14~ 1977, 1:30 P.M. c. Monthly report for April, 1977 - Water Division. d. Garden Grove Sanitary District Board requesting support in the usage of transfer stations by the public on the days the stations are idle. e. Municipal Water District of Orange County, Diemer Intertie Project. Councilman Seymour was absent. MOTION CARRIED. 150: BROOKHURST PARK COMMUNITY BUILDING, STAGE ONE~ WORK ORDER NO. 881 - CHANGE ORDER NO. 2: Councilman Kott questioned the fact that another Change Order was being requested and was concerned that thus far the two Change Orders represented an approximate 25% increase from the original bid of $107,000, now proposed to be increased to $128,000. City Engineer Maddox explained that Change Order No. 2 was necessary, due to some of the on-site materials not being suitable for compaction and imported material was required. He agreed with Councilman Kott the increase was considerable, but consideration had to be given to the fact that the bid was prepared in a very short period, due to time limitations. However, any contractor would have found the same conditions as now existed. Councilman Roth pointed out that the situation was one of the pitfalls in accept- ing Federal funds; Councilwoman Kaywood also reminded the Council that a change in site was also involved in the project. On motion by Councilman Roth, seconded by Councilwoman Kaywood, Change Order No. 2 to Work Order No. 881, in the amount of $7,762.60, Aldo's Landscaping Company, con- tractor, was approved, bringing the original contract price to $128,490.52. Council- man Kott voted "No". Councilman Seymour was absent. MOTION CARRIED. RESOLUTION NOS. 77R-429 THROUGH 77R-433: Councilman Roth offered Resolution Nos. 77R-429 through 77R-433, 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. RESOLUTION NO. 77R-429: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM ACCEPTING CERTAIN DEEDS AND ORDERING THEIR RECORDATION. (Texaco Anaheim Hills, Inc., et al.) RESOLUTION NO. 77R-430: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM APPROVING THE ANNEXATION TO THE CITY OF ANAHEIM OF THE TERRITORY KNOWN AND DESIG- NATED RED GUM-CORONADO NO. 7 ANNEXATION. RESOLUTION NO. 77R-431: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM FINDING AND DETERMINING THAT PUBLIC CONVENIENCE AND NECESSITY REQUIRE THE CONSTRUC- TION AND COMPLETION OF A PUBLIC IMPROVEMENT, TO WIT: RIVERDALE AVENUE STREET IMPROVEMENT, SOUTH SIDE 335 FEET WEST OF FINCH STREET TO TUSTIN AVENUE, IN THE CITY OF ANAHEIM, WORK ORDER NO. 908-A. (1975-76 Sidewalk Program); APPROVING THE DESIGNS, PLANS, PROFILES, DRAWINGS, AND SPECIFICATIONS FOR THE CONSTRUCTION THEREOF; AUTHORIZING THE CONSTRUCTION OF SAID PUBLIC IMPROVEMENT IN ACCORDANCE WITH SAID PLANS, SPECIFICATIONS, ETC.; AND AUTHORIZING AND DIRECTING THE CITY CLERK TO PUBLISH A NOTICE INVITING SEALED PROPOSALS FOR THE CONSTRUCTION THEREOF. (Bids to be opened July 14, 1977, 2:00 P.M.) 77-688 City Hall~ Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - June 14~ 1977, 1:30 P.M. RESOLUTION NO. 77R-432: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM FINALLY ACCEPTING THE COMPLETION AND THE FURNISHING OF ALL PLANT, LABOR, SERVICES, MATERIALS AND EQUIPMENT AND ALL UTILITIES AND TRANSPORTATION INCLUDING POWER, FUEL AND WATER, AND THE PERFORMANCE OF ALL WORK NECESSARY TO CONSTRUCT AND COMPLETE THE FOLLOWING PUBLIC IMPROVEMENT, TO WIT: TRAFFIC SIGNAL MODIFICATION AND SAFETY LIGHTING INSTALLATION AT THE INTERSECTION OF LAKEVIEW AVENUE AND RIVERDALE AVENUE, IN THE CITY OF ANAHEIM, WORK ORDER NO. 778-B. (Steiny and Company, Inc.) RESOLUTION NO. 77R-433: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM DECLARING ITS INTENTION TO ABANDON A PORTION OF WINSTON ROAD AND FIXING A DATE FOR A HEARING THEREON. (76-19A) (July 5, 1977, 3:00 P.M.) Roll Call Vote: AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Kaywood, Kott, Roth and Thom NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: None ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Seymour The Mayor declared Resolution Nos. 77R-429 through 77R-433, both inclusive, duly passed and adopted. CITY PLANNING COMMISSION ITEMS: The following actions taken by the City Planning Commission at their meeting held May 23, 1977, pertaining to the following applications were submitted for City Council information and consideration. On motion by Councilman Roth, seconded by Councilwoman Kaywood, the City Council authorized the actions pertaining to the following environmental impact require- ments as recommended by the City Planning Commission and took no further action on the following applications (Item Nos. 1 through 5): 1. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT - CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION: The Planning Director has determined that the proposed activities in the following listed zoning applica- tions fall within the definition of Section 3.01, Class I, of the City of Anaheim Guidelines to the requirement for an environmental impact report and are, there- fore, categorically exempt from the requirement to file an EIR: Variance No. 2933 Variance No. 2938 Variance No. 2934 2. VARIANCE NO. 2933: Submitted by John J. and Helen L. Ladig, Sr., to permit an existing illegal garage conversion on RM-2400 zoned property located at 613 and 617 East Wilhelmina Street with code waiver of minimum number and type of parking spaces. City Planning Commission Resolution No. PC77-109 granted Variance No. 2933. 3. VARIANCE NO. 2934: Submitted by Robert L. and Edith M. Taylor to permit an existing illegal garage conversion on RS-7200 zoned property located at 924 South Oakcrest Place with code waiver of enclosed parking spaces. City Planning Commission Resolution No. PC77-110 denied Variance No. 2934. 77-689 City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - June 14, 1977, 1:30 P.M. 4. VARIANCE NO. 2938: Submitted by Howard H. and Helen L. Gilmore to expand an approved auto repair facility on CG zoned property located at 760 North Anaheim Boulevard with code waiver of permitted uses. City Planning Commission Resolution No. PC77-111 granted Variance No. 2938. 5. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 1708: Submitted by Texaco Anaheim Hills, Inc., to permit an automobile service station on CL(SC) zoned property located on the east side of Anaheim Hills Road, north of Nohl Ranch Road with code waivers. Environmental Impact Report No. 85 was previously certified on January 30, 1973. City Planning Commission Resolution No. PC77-113 granted Condit~.onal Use Permit No. 1708, in part. Councilman Seymour was absent. MOTION CARRIED. VARIANCE NO. 2939: Submitted by Paul and Carolyn W. Kroessen to establish a 2-lot, RS-HS-43,000(SC) subdivision on property located at 451Peralta Hills. Drive with code waiver of minimum lot area. A letter of opposition from the Peralta Hills Homeowners' Association was pre- sented by their President, Mr. Herbert Christensen, dated June 14, 1977, and was read by the City Clerk; the main thrust of which opposed any reduction in the mini- mum 1-acre lot size. City Planning Commission Resolution No. PC77-112 denied Variance No. 2939. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT - NEGATIVE DECLARATION: On motion by Councilwoman Kaywood, seconded by Councilman Thom, the City Council finds that this project will have no significant effect on the environment, since the Anaheim General Plan designates the subject property for estate density residential land uses commensurate with the proposal, and is, therefore, exempt from the requirement to prepare an environmental impact report. Councilman Seymour was absent. MOTION CARRIED. No further action was taken by the Council on Variance No. 2939. TENTATIVE MAP, TRACT NO. 9899: Developer, H & H Development; tract located at 2901 West Ball Road containing a l-lot, 9-unit condominium subdivision on RM-4000 zoned property. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT - NEGATIVE DECLARATION: On motion by Councilman Roth, seconded by Councilman Thom, the City Council finds that this project will have no significant effect on the environment, since the Anaheim General Plan designates the subject property for medium density residential land uses commensurate with the proposal and is exempt from the requirement to prepare an environmental impact report as recommended by the Planning Commission. Councilman Seymour was absent. MOTION CARRIED. On motion by Councilman Roth, seconded by Councilman Thom, the following proposed subdivision, Tentative Map, Tract No. 9899, together with its design and improve- ment, was found to be consistent with the City's General Plan, and the City Council approved said Tentative Map, subject to the following conditions recommended by the City Planning Commission: 77-690 ~%ty Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - June 14, 1977, 1:30 P.M. 1. That the approval of Tentative Map of Tract No. 9899 is granted subject to the completion of Reclassification No. 76-77-13. 2. That should this subdivision be developed as more than one subdivision, each subdivision thereof shall be submitted in tentative form for approval. 3. That all lots within this tract shall be served by underground utilities. 4. That a final tract map of subject property shall be submitted to and approved by the City Council and then be recorded in the Office of the Orange County Recorder. 5. That the covenants, conditions, and restrictions shall be submitted to and approved by the City Attorney's Office and the City Engineer prior to City Council approval of the final tract map and, further, that the approved covenants, condi- tions and restrictions shall be recorded concurrently with the final tract map. 6. That prior to filing the final tract map, the applicant shall submit to the City Attorney for approval or denial a complete synopsis of the proposed func- tioning of the operating corporation including, but not limited to, the arti61es of incorporation, bylaws, proposed methods of management, bonding to insure maint- enance of common property and buildings, and such other information as the City Attorney may desire to protect the City, its citizens, and the purchasers of the project. 7. That the owner(s) of subject property shall pay to the City of Anaheim the appropriate park and recreation in-lieu fees as determined to be appropriate by the City Council, said fees to be paid at the time the building permit is issued. 8. That drainage of subject property shall be disposed of in a manner satis- factory to the City Engineer. Councilman Seymour was absent. MOTION CARRIED. VARIANCE NO. 2926, TENTATIVE TRACT NO. 9721 AND EIR NO. 198: Submitted by Jawfing Investments for a 45-1ot, 44-unit, RS-HS-22,000(SC) subdivision on prop- erty located on the northeast and southwest sides of Fairmont Boulevard, south of Santa Aha Canyon Road, with code waiver of requirement that all lots rear on an arterial highway. A communication was~received from HACMAC dated June 10, 1977 opposing the subject project, which was read by the City Clerk. HACMAC member Jan Hall, 545 Tumbleweed Road, explained, in answer to the Mayor, that there was not much discussion about compromise in their meeting with the developer. They (HACMAC) were extremely concerned about the narrow one-half acre lots and maintained that a redesign should be accomplished. Discussion followed between Council and staff relative to clarification of the acreage involved, as well as the fact that the Planning Commission recommended approval of the Environmental Impact Report, the Tree Removal Plan and the Tract. 77-691 City Hall, Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - June 14~ 1977~ 1:30 P.M. Mr. Richard King, RMA Inc., representing Boulevard Development, explained that the project was unique in that it was designed to comply with the contour of the land and the narrow lots were dictated by the design itself in minimizing grading to develop pads, but not in the traditional sense. Working from a rendering of the site, he showed the area of tree removal and considered the removal of 50 eucalyp- tus trees to be very conservative, since the streets and roads were located so as to minimize impact on the existing eucalyptus. The developer, in explaining the tree removal to HACMAC, indicated that 50 or more of the trees would be involved. Mr. King stressed in their best judgment, the figure would be 50 trees maximum. They also agreed to replace every eucalyptus tree on a 1-1 basis. Also, they eliminated one lot from the project in an effort to increase the frontage of all lots, and the 50-foot frontages occurred on the curved streets where the building setback lines themselves would be located further back and, in fact, frontage would be an acceptable 70 to 90 feet. The minimum frontage he was aware of was 60 feet. He maintained that the project was in concert with the intent of staff and the Council in developing the area and was open to any suggestions as to how it could be better developed. The project was a good one and one in which the Council would be very proud. It was ascertained, on question by Councilman Roth, that the developer did make a presentation to HACMAC and it was considered that HACMAC was looking to reduce the density of the project. He also contended there was a move afoot to set up a standard for minimum lot frontage which they were not apprised of when they began their design. The reason they retained the yield was due to the design; no lots were crowded and all were an adequate size. They felt they had done everything possible to make the project acceptable, and a continuance would be detrimental if, as suggested by Councilman Roth and the Mayor, they had to again present their project to HACMAC. After further discussion, however, wherein Councilman Roth explained that Mr. King would be facing a denial as opposed to a continuance, he (King) accepted the proposed continuance but reiterated that he would appreciate more direction from the Council. The Mayor stated that direction was to meet with HACMAC. On motion by Councilman Thom, seconded by Councilman Roth, consideration of Variance No. 2926, Tentative Tract No. 9721 and EIR No. 198 was continued for two weeks. Councilman Seymour was absent. MOTION CARRIED. 155: ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT - NEGATIVE DECLARATION: On motion by Councilman Roth, seconded by Councilman Kott, it was determined by the City Council that the filing of Parcel Map No. 644 for 230 South Country Hill Road, is exempt from the requirement to prepare an environmental impact report, as recommended by the City Planning Commission, since the project is compatible with City plans, ordinances and surrounding land uses and no sensitive environmental elements are involved and is, therefore, exempt from the requirement to prepare an environmental impact report, pursuant to the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act. Councilman Seymour was absent. MOTION CARRIED. 170: FINAL MAP~ TRACT NO. 8464: Developer, Oaktree Development Company of Newport Beach; tract located on the south side of Canyon Rim Road, west of Serrano Avenue, containing 47 RS-HS-10,000(SC) zoned lots. 77-692 qity Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - June 14, 1977~ 1:30 P.M. On motion by Councilman Kott, seconded by Councilwoman Kaywood, the propoed sub- division, together with its design and improvement, was found to be consistent with the City's General Plan, and the City Council approved Final Map, Tract No. 8464, as recommended by the City Engineer in his memorandum dated June 8, 1977. Councilman Seymour was absent. MOTION CARRIED. 170: FINAL ~MAP~ TRACT NO. 9466: Developer, Socaland Corporation of Orange; tract located on the north side of Canyon Rim Road, west of Serrano Avenue con- taining 64 RS-HS-10,000(SC) proposed zoned lots. On motion by Councilwoman Kaywood, seconded by Councilman Roth, the proposed subdivision, together with its design and improvement, was found to be consistent with the City's General Plan and the City Council approved Final Map Tract No. 9466, as recommended by the City Engineer in his memorandum dated June 8, 1977. Councilman Seymour was absent. MOTION CARRIED. 170: TENTATIVE TRACT NO. 9268 - FINAL SPECIFIC PLANS: Request submitted by Dave Lorenzini, Newport Collaborative, Inc., for approval of final specific floor plans, elevations and plot plans to establish a 132-RS-HS-10,000(SC) zoned lots on property located south of Nohl Ranch Road, west of Royal Oak Road, Texaco-Anaheim Hills, Inc., developer. On motion by Councilwoman Kaywood, seconded by Councilman Roth, final specific floor plans, elevations and plot plans for Tentative Tract No. 9268 were approved, as recommended by the Planning Department in memorandum dated June 8, 1977. Councilman Seymour was absent. MOTION CARRIED. ORDINANCE NO. 3717: Councilwoman Kaywood offered Ordinance No. 3717 for adop- tion. Refer to Ordinance Book. ORDINANCE NO. 3717: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM REPEALING SECTIONS 18.03.050, 18.03.060, 18.03.070, 18.03.071, 18.03.080, 18.03.082, 18.03,084, 18.03.090 AND 18.03.091 OF TITLE 18, CHAPTER 18.03 OF THE ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE AND ADDING NEW SECTIONS 18.03.050, 18.03.060, 18.03.070, 18.03.071, 18.03.080, 18.03.081, 18.03.082, 18.03,084, 18.03,090, AND 18.04.091 TO TITLE 18, CHAPTER 18.03, RELATING TO ZONING PROCEDURES. (Delegatingfinal approval authority to the Planning Commission) Roll Call Vote: AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Kaywood, Kott, Roth and Thom NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: None ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Seymour The Mayor declared Ordinance No. 3717 duly passed and adopted. Councilwoman Kaywood explained that the ordinance just passed was the result of many long hours spent by City Clerk Linda Roberts, Assistant City Attorney Frank Lowry and Planning Director Ron Thompson, and the projected savings to the City was estimated to be $20,000. She extended her personal congratulations to those employees for their efforts and encouraged all employees to do the same in their respective areas. She recommended that official certificates of appre- ciation be prepared and presented to each of the employees. 77-693 City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - June 14~ 1977, 1:30 P.M. Discussion followed relative to a suggestion made by the Mayor that an equitable monetary bonus be provided to all three employees. On motion by Councilman Thom, seconded by Councilwoman Kaywood, a bonus of $333.33 was awarded to the three subject employees, along with official certificates of appreciation. Councilman Roth voted "No". Councilman Seymour was absent. MOTION CARRIED. ORDINANCE NO. 3718: Councilwoman Kaywood offered Ordinance No. 3718 for adoption. Refer to Ordinance Book. ORDINANCE NO. 3718: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AMENDING TITLE 18 OF THE ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO ZONING. (65-66-59(5), CO) Roll Call Vote: AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Kaywood, Kott, Roth and Thom NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: None ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Seymour The Mayor declared Ordinance No. 3718 duly passed and adopted. ORDINANCE NO. 3719: Councilman Thom offered Ordinance No. 3719 for adoption. Refer to Ordinance Book. ORDINANCE NO. 3719: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AMENDING TITLE 18 OF THE ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO ZONING. (72-73-42, CL) Roll Call Vote: AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Kaywood, Kott, Roth and Thom NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: None ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Seymour The Mayor declared Ordinance No. 3719 duly passed and adopted. ORDINANCE NO. 3720 THROUGH NO. 3726: Councilman Roth offered Ordinance No. 3720 through No. 3726, both inclusive, for first reading. ORDINANCE NO. 3720: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM REPEALING SECTIONS 17.08.039, 17.08.090, 17.08.100, 17.08.160, 17.08.170, 17.08.180, 17.08.240, 17.08.270, 17.08.280, 17.08.370, 17.08.380, 17.08.510, 17.08.540 AND 17.08.650 OF TITLE 17, CHAPTER 17.08 OF THE ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE AND ADDING NEW SECTIONS 17.08.039, 17.08.090, 17.08.100, 17.08.160, 17.08.170, 17.08.180, 17.08.240, 17.08.170, 17.08.180, 17.08.370, 17.08.380, 17.08.510, 17.08.540 AND 17.08.650 TO TITLE 17, CHAPTER 17.08, RELATING TO SUBDIVISIONS. (delegating final approval authority to Planning Commission and/or City Engineer) ORDINANCE NO. 3721: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM REPEALING TITLE 4, CHAPTER 4.29, AND ENACTING A NEW TITLE 4, CHAPTER 4.29 RELATING TO BATHS, SAUNA BATHS, MASSAGE ESTABLISHMENTS AND SIMILAR BUSINESSES. 77-694 City Hall, Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - June 14~ 1977~ 1:30 P.M. ORDINANCE NO. 3722: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AMENDING TITLE 18 OF THE ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO ZONING. (61-62-69(80), ML) ORDINANCE NO. 3723: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AMENDING TITLE 18 OF THE ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO ZONING. (67-68-7(9), RS-HS-10,O00) ORDINANCE NO. 3724: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AMENDING TITLE 18 OF THE ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO ZONING. (76-77-16, CL) ORDINANCE NO. 3725: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AMENDING TITLE 18 OF THE ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO ZONING. (76-77-34, RM-1200) ORDINANCE NO. 3726: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AMENDING TITLE 18 OF THE ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO ZONING. (73-74-55(4), CL) ORDINANCE NO. 3720: Councilwoman Kaywood recommended that the words ..."Director of Parks and Recreation to be consulted." be added on the 6th page, paragraph 2, point .0102 to the proposed ordinance since the Parks and Recreation Commission asked that the Director be consulted on each and every request. Councilman Roth was agreeable to the~insertion of the wording, as recommended. 168: DEDICATION OF NEW STREET, VIA COPALA: Councilwoman Kaywood explained that a new street was dedicated on June 11, 1977, Via Copala, in the Santa Ana Canyon, Accordingly, a street sign was needed at Santa Ana Canyon Road, since no identifica- tion was available. City Engineer Maddox stated that he would direct Property Maintenance to supply a temporary street sign for the period it would take to supply the new permanent sign, approximately two to three months. 138: GROUND BREAKING - DURACHROME~ INC.: Councilwoman Kaywood announced the ground breaking on June 12, 1977 for a new $1 million dollar building to house Durachrome, Inc., a manufacturer of signs and decals, at 2475 La Palma Avenue, which company would provide approximately 70 new jobs in the City. 153: CITY VEHICLES: Councilman Kott requested the City Manager to provide a list of City employees assigned to City vehicles and the justification of same or those given a reimbursement allocation in lieu of a vehicle. If such were included in the proposed budget, he would personally vote against the practice unless justification was cleared. 178: JUSTIFICATION OF POTENTIAL INCREASES FROM THE METROPOLITAN WATER DISTRICT: Councilman Kott questioned whether the City had a representative on the Metropolitan Water District and, if so, requested staff to obtain in writing his approval or disapproval of the potential anticipated increases. 175: DELINQUENT ELECTRICAL BILLS: Councilman Kott inquired as to the status of overdue electrical bills, since the last communication he had still indicated approximately $40,000 was still pending. City Manager Talley recalled the last report he received stated that all bills were on a current schedule or had been referred to the City Attorney. 77-695 City Hall, Anaheim, .qalifornia - COUNCIL MINUTES - June 14~ 1977~ 1:30 P.M. City Attorney Hopkins stated that his office had accounts that were being worked on and would have to ascertain which were in court and which were completed. 114: PERMISSION TO LEAVE THE STATE FOR 90 DAYS: On motion by Councilman Thom, seconded by Councilwoman Kaywood, Councilman Roth was granted permission to leave the state for 90 days. Councilman Seymour was absent. MOTION CARRIED. 148: ORANGE COUNTY DIVISION LEAGUE OF CALIFORNIA CITIES DUES ASSESSMENT: The Mayor explained that at the Thursday, June 9, 1977 League meeting, the subject of dues assessment for each participating city was again broached, and the League adopted a reduced per capita formula of 2.25¢, as opposed to Anaheim's current position of a $500 minimum assessment for each city in Orange County and then a reduced per capita thereafter. The Consortium Cities, principally Garden Grove's Mayor Williams, was recommending formal action by instructing their staff not to pay dues for the Orange County League pending a collaborative study of the benefits of the League in relation to the Consortium Cities dealing directly with the State League. Since the Consortium Cities supported half of the budget, he moved that the Council instruct staff not to pay League dues until, collaboratively, the matter was settled whether to continue at the slightly increased rate of 2.25¢ or take some other course of action in concert with the other cities in the Consortium. Before any action was taken, further discussion followed on the matter wherein the Mayor explained that the $500 minimum assessment per city was rejected, a posi- tion which the Consortium considered equitable since, at present, they carried over 50% of the budget, yet the smaller cities with a very diminutive formula reaped all the benefits, yet had the same vote as the larger cities. By dealing directly with Sacramento, the larger cities would extract a more proportionate clout. He did not want to see the Orange County Chapter suffer, but took issue with the fact that the smaller cities expected to be subsidized by the larger. If they could not afford to pay a modest $500, then they should not belong to the League. Councilman Roth stated that although he was a supporter of the League, he also favored the $500 assessment and, thereupon, seconded Councilman Thom's motion. Councilman Kott stated that he attended last Thursday's League meeting and con- firmed that the $500 plea was blatantly overlooked. Also, a representative from the League to the State informed the State that the League was not in favor of the State telling the cities how to conduct their business but, on the other hand, the State By-laws of the League stated that each city had one vote, regardless of the size, proving the existence of the double standard. While he was not pro- League, he did not advocate withdrawal, but he hastened to point out that his spe- cific and main interest was the taxpayer of the community and not the League. Councilwoman Kaywood indicated that the League had a meeting every month and in the fourteen months that Councilman Kott was on the Council, the last meeting was the first he attended, thus he could hardly speak as an expert. Discussion followed wherein Councilman Kott stated he did not claim to be an expert relative to the League, but was merely relaying what he observed. In concluding, he remarked to Councilwoman Kaywood that she had been on the Council for three years and in his opinion she did not know what was going on. 77-696 City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - June 14, 1977~ 1:30 P.M. A vote was taken on the foregoing motion and carried by the following vote: AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Kott, Roth and Thom NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Kaywood ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Seymour MOTION CARRIED. ADJOURNMENT: On motion by Councilwoman Kaywood, seconded by Councilman Thom, the Anaheim City Council adjourned to Monday, June 20, 1977, 3:30 P.M., Multi- purpose Room, Central Library, for a joint meeting with the Library Board. Councilman Seymour was absent. MOTION CARRIED. Adjourned: 5:40 P.M. LINDA D. ROBERTS, CITY CLERK