Loading...
1980/07/0880-873 City Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - July 8, 1980~ 1:30 P.M. The City Council of the City of Anaheim met in regular session. PRESENT: ABSENT: PRESENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Overholt, Kaywood, Bay, Roth and Seymour COUNCIL MEMBERS: None CITY MANAGER: William O. Talley CITY ATTORNEY: William P. Hopkins CITY CLERK: Linda D. Roberts PUBLIC UTILITIES GENERAL MANAGER: Gordon Hoyt UTILITIES MANAGEMENT SERVICES MANAGER: Darrell Ament Mayor Seymour called the meeting to order and welcomed those in attendance to the Council meeting. INVOCATION: Reverend Warren Pittman, First Presbyterian Church, gave the Invocation. FLAG SALUTE: Councilman Don R. Roth led the assembly in the Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag. 119/128: PRESENTATION: Mayor Seymour presented to Mr. George Ferrone, Finance Director, Certificate of Conformance and Award of Financial Reporting Achievement from the Municipal Finance Officers Association for National recognition for outstanding financial reporting for the City's Annual Financial Report. On behalf of the Council, the Mayor commended Mr. Ferrone and his staff in re- ceiving the prestigious award. MINUTES: Councilwoman Kaywood moved to approve the minutes of September 18, 1979 and April 8, 1980, subject to typographical corrections. Councilman Roth seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. WAIVER OF READING - ORDINANCES AND RESOLUTIONS: Councilman Bay moved to waive the reading in full of all ordinances and resolutions of the Agenda, after reading of the title thereof by the City Clerk, and that consent to waiver is hereby given by all Council Members, unless after reading of the title, specific request is made by a Council Member for the reading of such ordinance or resolution in regular order. Councilwoman Kaywood seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. FINANCIAL DEMANDS AGAINST THE CITY in the amount of $2,613,432.81, in accordance with the 1980-81 Budget, were approved. 123: SAFE ROAD SYSTEMS IMPROVEMENTS - KATELLA AVENUE AT HARBOR BOULEVARD AND AT CLAUDINA: On motion by Councilwoman Kaywood, seconded by Councilman Overholt, an agreement was authorized with Basmaciyan-Darnell, Inc., for the preparation of studies design, plans and specifications for the Safe Road Systems at the inter- sections of Harbor Boulevard and Katella Avenue and Katella Avenue and Claudina Street, in the amounts of $4,300 and $2,500, respectively, for each project, as recommended in memorandum dated July 8, 1980 from the City Engineer. MOTION CARRIED. 160: PURCHASE OF EQUIPMENT - THREE-PHASE POWER TRANSFORMERS - BID NO. 3652: On motion by Councilman Roth, seconded by Councilman Overholt, the low bid of McGraw- Edison was accepted and purchase authorized in the amount of $283,263.80, for one 30/40 MVA and one lot spare parts, Transformer No. 1 - Fairmont Substation; 80-874 City Hall, Anaheim, California .- COUNCIL MINUTES. r July 8, .1980, 1:30 P.M. the low bid of Westinghouse Electric Corporation was accepted and purchase authorized in the amount of $212,925.30, both including tax, for one 30/40 MVA and one lot spare parts, Transformer No. 2 - Hannum Substation, as rec- ommended in memorandum dated July 1, 1980 from the Purchasing Agent. MOTION CARRIED. 175: REVISION OF WATER RATES AND FEES: Amending rates, rules and regulations for the sale and distribution of water. Public Utilities General Manager Gordon Hoyt first explained some minor changes, the first being that the effective date of the new high elevation pumping sur- charge be October 1, 1980, instead of September 1, 1980, since they had reviewed the time it was going to take the program to work, and it would not be completed in two months. He also submitted a revised Exhibit RWE-9, Page 1 of 1 (entitled City of Anaheim Public Utilities Department Comparison of Typical Monthly Water Bills as of June 1, 1980", part of extensive documentation on the subject, on file in the City Clerk's office) reflecting an updated change in the rate schedule for the Cities of Fullerton and Yorba Linda. Staff was present to answer any questions, including Darrell Ament, Utilities Management Services Manager, Bob Erickson, Utilities Rate Requirements Section, and Ray Auerbach, Water Engineering Manager, all of whom had presented testimony to the Public Utilities Board (PUB) in connection with the proposed rate increase. Mr. Hoyt also referred to memorandum dated July 1, 1980 from the PUB, with attachments, recommending that in connection with the proposed increases in water rates and fees, the Council, by resolution, adopt the findings of the Public Utilities Board with respect to the matters contained therein and adopt the water rates and fees as shown in the attachments. Councilwoman Kaywood stated that she was concerned that this was the second of three steps regarding single-family residential rates going from the 25% at present to 30% in attaining the equal rate of return. She wondered whether this was really what they wanted to Mr. Hoyt explained that the City Charter provided that rates shall be based on the cost of service with the proviso that the Council may establish lifeline rates not necessarily based on the cost of service. In 1978 when they took their first rate case before the Board, the Council at that time determined that they should move in three steps to equal rate of return from all customer classes and water and electric rates each moved the first third of the way. At the end of 1979, they recommended on electricity that they take it one full step rather than two steps. Relative to water, they were recommending that they advance one- half the way to equal rate of return and the next rate increase would then bring them to equal rate of return. After further questions posed to Mr. Hoyt, Councilwoman Kaywood stated that she realized the rate setting was in the Charter and there was nothing they could do about it, except have another Charter amendment. As questioned previously, she wanted to know if that was what they really intended. Mr. Hoyt answered that the next time the increases came through, they would look much like the present increases being proposed. From then on, the increases would not be the same amount for each customer class, but the rate of return should be the same. 80-875 City Hall~ Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - July 8, 1980, 1:30 P.M. Councilwoman Kaywood stated that residential would be paying higher increase than com- mercial and industrial; Mr. Hoyt answered "no" since they had only one commodity block, and they charged the same amount for water to everybody. He then explained how that occurred. Councilman Roth noted, in looking at the percentage increases, the differential in rates between Anaheim and Anaheim's highest elevation areas. He wanted to know why the percentage of increase was so much greater. Mr. Hoyt explained that under the rates now being charged in Anaheim, everyone in the City was paying for the cost of electricity being used to pump water to the high elevation district. They were proposing not to charge the rest of the City for that service and to assign that whole cost to the high elevation district. Discussion then followed between Councilman Roth and Mr. Hoyt which encompassed an explanation of the 22% facilities surcharge (Council Policy No. 15) for those residents in Anaheim Hills and a reiteration of the fact that the cost of elec- tricity for pumping that water was now proposed to be borne only by those in the high elevation area. At the conclusion of discussion, Councilman Roth stated that he basically wanted to know what the increase was over the 22% sur- charge for the average residential customer in Anaheim Hills. It was determined that the additional increase representing the power to deliver the water to Anaheim Hills was approximately $2.40 per month over and above the surcharge. Mayor Seymour then asked in the comparison of typical monthly water bills, why Anaheim compared so badly with other cities. Mr. Hoyt explained that part of the problem lay in the fact that they used whoily allocated cost method when setting their water and electric rates. Although he did not want to disparage the methods used by other cities, he suspected that cities used their rates as a means of attracting business and industry and those rates were perhaps subsidized from the General Fund. Extensive discussion then followed between the Mayor and Mr. Hoyt wherein the Mayor was adamant in wanting to know why adjoining and neighboring city rates were substantially lower than Anaheim. Mr. Hoyt stated that he could not respond, reiterating that he did not know how they made their rates, but only Anaheim's, and he did not think it was that differ- ent from other cities. He was not making it as a charge, but he did not believe all of the costs in other cities were recovered by their respective rates. Anaheim did have a better water system with more storage and more emergency capability than perhaps other cities. He emphasized that the City's rates were not subsidized by the taxpayer at all, but he did not know that to be true of other cities. The Mayor then stated if that were so, it would be easy for him to explain that to his constituents when they questioned him as to why their rates were higher than that of their neighbors in adjoining cities. Any citizen could understand that. He would not vote for the hefty increases proposed unless he first had some answers in that regard. 80-876 City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - July 8, 1980, 1:30 P.M. Councilman Roth also emphasized the need to have an answer for those citizens who would approach him and ask why their rates were so much higher. It was not reasonable to expect that they should not have such an answer to give. Mr. Hoyt stated that if the Council wished, they could go to the other cities and ask their City Managers and Water Utility Managers how they made rates and if all their costs were included. However, he did not know what measure of success they would have. Councilman Bay stated that Mr. Hoyt would probably find almost as much a variation as they now had in their equal rate of return rates. He was also going to have to find out if they used equal rate of return and, if so, what were their variations compared to Anaheim's. He did not feel it was going to be a simple thing to do. Mr. Hoyt stated they were very confident that other cities did not use an equal rate of return and that Anaheim was the only city doing so. Mayor Seymour asked what would occur if they did not take action today but asked him (Hoyt) to come back in one week with some information so that the Council would have a better handle on approving the proposed rates. Mr. Hoyt answered that it would probably not hurt them financially, but it would mean at the end of the year they would have somewhat less working capital than proposed, and the variance would be taken up in working capital. The Mayor explained that he was not suggesting that they not consider approving the rates but he exphasized that he was looking for some justification when explaining to his constituents why their rates were 30% or 40% higher than their neighbors. If it could be provided and substantiated with some degree of cred- ibility, that would be fine, because then it would be justified. Councilman Roth asked if when the Board was given the same data as the Council, was there any similar dialogue; Mr. Hoyt answered it was the same general dia- logue as was now taking place. Councilman Roth thereupon stated that Mr. Hoyt could have anticipated the Council was going to ask the same questions. He considered it imperative that the matter be held over a week and that line of questioning be answered before taking a vote on it. Councilwoman Kaywood asked if the proposed increases were included in the adopted budget. Mr. Hoyt stated they had forecast somewhat higher rates. They had thought, going into the budget, that their rate increase would be in the order of 35%. They had since found that their ten-month statement showed they were doing better than anticipated and thus were able to drop their revenue requirement down considerably because they would be starting the year with more capital than anticipated. Councilwoman ~mywood reiterated as far as the rate of return based on cost of service, they did not have a choice because it was set in the Charter. She recalled at the time the issue was on the ballot, she had taken the negative 80-877 City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - JulM 8, 1980~ 1:30 P.M. position and wrote the argument against, based on the fact that they did not yet know what that meant and that the cost of service could mean higher rates for the residential consumer and that was what was happening; Mr. Hoyt stated that was correct. Mr. Hoyt then explained that over the years since Anaheim started in the utility business, the situation in water and electric utility turned out to be opposite. In the electric utility, it turned out that the industrial consumers were not paying their full share and were being subsidized by the residential consumers. On the water side, it was just the opposite--the residential consumers were not paying their full share and so were being subsidized by the commercial- industrial consumers. They were proposing to continue the Council's pSlicy until their next rate increase and have them continue to be subsidized, al- though not as heavily, by the commercial-industrial users, and the next time there would be no subsidy. MOTION: Councilman Seymour moved to continue the proposed revision of water rates and fees for one week, directing the Utilities Department to provide the Council with information to substantiate the variance in rates between Anaheim and neighboring cities. Councilman Roth seconded the motion. Before a vote was taken, Mayor Seymour stated, going back to 1974 when he first had the opportunity to sit down and talk with Mr. Hoyt about the future of the City utility, the electrical utility and generation, he made a statement at that time that, in his opinion, there was one reason for the City to be in the utility business, that it could provide service at a rate lesser than the private sector. When that reason no longer existed and they could no longer provide cheaper utility service to the City's citizens, they should no longer be in the utility business. Councilman Overholt asked what it would cost to delay the decision; Mr. Hoyt answered approximately $30,000 by a reduction in working capital. Councilman Overholt then referred to the statement made that the Public Utilities Board address the question of comparable rates, but he saw nothing in the rec- ommendations from the Board indicating their conclusion. If they did address the question, as an advisory body of the Council, it was incumbent upon them to advise the Council of the conclusion. Presumably they would get a conclusion that the Utilities Department was rendering good service at a fair rate. If the Board addressed that, it would have made his (Hoyt's) presentation easier today. He suggested that the Board in the future indicate that the City was providing water service competitively if not at a cheaper rate. Mr. Hoyt pointed out that the resolution essentially reflected the findings and he thereupon referred to and read certain sections of the resolution that he considered pertinent to Council questioning. Extensive discussion and questioning again followed between the Council and Mr. Hoyt at the conclusion of which, Councilwoman Kaywood stated that in addition to the information requested to be provided to the Council next week, she considered it important to know the quality of water and service being provided as well, and also the minutes of the June 26, 1980 meeting of the PUB wherein the subject request was discussed. 80-878 City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - July 8, 1980, 1:30 P.M. Councilman Roth asked that the information on the high elevation rates as pre- viously discussed also be included. A vote was then taken on the foregoing motion of continuance. MOTION CARRIED. 139/156: DRUG PARAPHERNALIA: Councilwoman Kaywood reported that the Council had signed a letter to be sent to Governor Brown today urging him to sign SB 1660 concerning drug paraphernalia. She explained that the bill had been strengthened so that there would be more local control involved. 103/179: "FAIR SHARE" OF PROPERTY TAX REVENUE: Continuance of discussion re- lating to a moratorium on the issuance of any building or grading permits or the approval of any plan, zoning reclassification or tentative tract map for any property annexed between January 2, 1978 and July 24, 1979, pending a property tax exchange agreement with the County (continued from meetings of April 8 and 29 and May 27, 1980). City Manager Talley explained that relative to the subject situation, AB 2376 encompassing that situation would be considered by the State Senate Finance Committee in August. In the meantime, yesterday at a meeting which the Mayor also attended, they discussed with County officials the status of the negotia- tions with the various cities. They were advised that basically the plan they discussed over two months ago had now tentatively almost been accepted by other cities in the County. The status of negotiations at the present time was that the County's proposal would be presented to the City Manager's meeting this Thursday and following that, it would go to the Orange County Division of the League of California Cities. In the meantime, there were no annexations or developments being affected. Mrs, Talley thereupon recommended that the issue be removed from the Unfinished Business portion of the agenda or to continue it for 30 days, and he would continue to report back. MOTION: Councilman Seymour moved to continue the subject for 30 days with a status report to be provided. Councilman Roth seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. 105: APPOINTMENTS TO COMMISSIONS AND BOARDS: Appointments due to vacancies or expiration of terms (continued from meetings of June 24 and July 1, 1980). Mayor Seymour stated in discussing individually with a number of the Council Members, there did not appear to be a consensus for a number of the subject appointments. MOTION: Councilman Seymour thereupon moved to continue the subject appointments for one more week with the understanding, this being the third continuance, it would be the final continuance. He would like to be able to find a consensus amongst the Council but, if unsuccessful, they would do the best they could. Councilman Overholt seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. Later in the meeting, Councilman Overholt stated that he shared the Mayor's concern that they should act promptly and deliberately on the appointments because one of the most important things they did on the Council was to determine who should serve on those groups since the Council relied on the activities and opinions of those serving on City Boards and Commissions. He 80-879 City Hall~ Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - July .8., 1980~ 1:30 P.M. had one telephone call this week from someone who wished to express their feeling about such appointments. He thereupon invited anyone, Council Members or other- wise, who wished to share a point of view with him this week to contact him. It was something that should be discussed so that when they acted, they could do so from knowledge and not "out of the blue". They had postponed the appoint- ments so that their action would be deliberate and they could fill those seats with the best possible people. 105: COMMUNITY SERVICES BOARD BYLAWS REVISION: On motion by Councilwoman Kaywood, seconded by Councilman Roth, the revised Bylaws of the Community Services Board were approved, as requested in memorandum dated June 30, 1980 from the Chairman of the Community Services Board Steve Jimenez. MOTION CARRIED. RECESS: By general consent, the Council recessed for 10 minutes. (3:00 p.m.) AFTER RECESS: Mayor Seymour called the meeting to order, all Council Members being present. (3:10 p.m.) PUBLIC HEARING - VARIANCE NO. 1314 - APPROVAL OF SPECIFIC USE: Request by Barry Manthe, for approval of a "studio for the instruction of chess and backgammon" as a specific use under said Variance, RS-A-43,000 zoned property located at 401 West Katella Avenue, "C". The subject request was denied by the Planning Commission at their meeting of May 18, 1980. The Mayor asked if the applicant or applicant's agent was present and desirous of being heard. Mr. John H. Dawson, 4650 Von Karman, Newport Beach, attorney for the applicant, explained that his client had an arrangement whereby for $10 an hour, people could go to his place of business and play backgammon or chess and also receive instruction for both. That use did not fit precisely within the category allowed by Variance No. 1314 and its permitted uses. One of the problems was that of semantics. His client called his operation Studio for the Instruction or Playing of Backgammon or Chess not exclusively for adults. One of the Planning Commissioners asked specifically whether he and his family and children could go and participate and his client said they could. Although there was no selling of merchandise and services, it could fall properly within the category. At the Planning Commission after some period of time, it was determined that it did not fit and the applicant could apply for a CUP. If the business was going to be considered an adult business, the restrictions of Ordinance No. 4079 would exclude any possibility of a CUP in that an adult operation had to be 500 feet from a residential lot. It was actually on a residential agricultural lot and thus there would be no point in attempting to seek a CUP. Under the ordinance, there was a non-conforming use clause which permitted the continued use either to comply or to cease by the 20th of November of this year. If the Council could see its way clear to declare the action he was seeking as falling within Variance No. 1314, that would be fine. Otherwise, the City Attorney's office suggested that they would have until the 20th of November of this year to operate. He felt certain that his client would be happy to leave at that time. 80-880 City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - July 8, 1980, 1:30 P.M. Councilman Roth asked the City Attorney if he agreed that they had one year to operate according to the Ordinance that was effective November 20, 1979, and that they were in conformance at the time of the Ordinance. City Attorney William Hopkins explained that the Ordinance they were discussing was approved on the 20th day of November,' 1979, but became effective approximately the 20th day of December, 1979. The factor being considered was whether or not the operation was lawfully in existence as of the date of the Ordinance. It was their contention that it was not because it did not fit the requirement of Variance No. 1314. If not, the one-year extension did not apply. Councilman Roth noted that Mr. Dawson stated they gave instruction on backgammon and chess. He asked what else took place at the establishment. Mr. Dawson stated personally he believed that "hanky-panky" was going on, but he did not know. He had seen a report that one of the operators was picked up and convicted of prostitution, but that was the only one. All other matters were pending at this time. In speaking to his client about the situation, he stated if that did go on, the girls would be suspended. They were all indepen- dent contractors and, therefore, what went on behind the doors was something else again. He had not gone down to test out what was going on at the business. Councilman Roth asked when he said possibly "hanky-panky" was going on, did that fit the category of prostitution. Mr. Dawson stated that was his thought, but he was not sure what was taking place, whether prostitution or what it was. It operated in a manner where a patron would pay $10 and they were then shown to a room. He assumed there was a backgammon and chess table in that room and someone who knew how to play those games. The game presumably was backgammon and chess but he believed there were other things going on. As far as the zoning was concerned, it was one thing to try to control such activities through zoning, but there was another way, and that was through the Police Department. Even though the Planning Commiss±on denied the request, they did it entirely on the basis of the zoning ordinance. He was seeking to have Variance No. 1314 include backgammon and chess. Mayor Seymour stated if the City were to grant his client's request, whatever activity was taking place on the premises could then continue. Mr. Dawson answered, "yes". The Mayor continued if so, then according to his statement and the information they had relative to it, at least one case of prostitution and a number still pending, that the Council would be, in essence, approving a continuation of that type of conduct on the premises. He did not believe the Council wanted to take an action to permit that type of activity to continue. Mr. Dawson stated perhaps he was right, but he felt certain in his own mind if he were to go back to his client and ask him to completely limit the operation to the playing and instruction of backgammon and chess, that he could not get that promise from his client. Mayor Seymour referred to the statement made that the girls were independent contractors and they could not control them; Mr. Dawson stated that was correct. 80-881 City Hall, Anaheim, California - CO .UNCIL MINUTES - July 8, 1980, 1:30 P.M. Mayor Seymour explained that was the case in the other establishments as well. There were shams for prostitution sometimes called modeling studios, massage parlors, escort studios, etc. The proprietor each time would state that the girls were independent contractors and he could not control the fact that they were selling themselves for prostitution purposes. The Mayor then asked if anyone wished to speak either in favor or in opposition; there being no response, he closed the public hearing. MOTION: On motion by Councilwoman Kaywood, seconded by Councilman Overholt, the City Council found and determined that a studio for the instruction of chess and backgammon is not a specific permitted use under Variance No. 1314. Before a vote was taken, Councilman Bay asked the City Attorney if they or the Planning Commission were working into a legal trap on the question of controlling by zoning. City Attorney Hopkins reported that the Supreme Court of the United States upheld in Detroit the use of zoning to control and prevent the congregating of adult type businesses. Based on that case, they felt it was a valid way in which to handle the matter. A vote was then taken on the foregoing motion. MOTION CARRIED. CONSENT CALENDAR ITEMS: On motion by Councilman Roth, seconded by Councilman Overholt, 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 Claims Administrator: a. Claim submitted by Susan Cummings for personal injury and vehicular damages purportedly sustained as a result of collision with another vehicle on Broadway, 87 feet east of Rosebay Street, caused by obstruction of vision of the other driver by vehicles parked along the street in a "No Parking" zone which was inadequately signed, on or about March 21, 1980. b. Claim submitted by Rebecca Roza for damages purportedly sustained as a result of claimant not being notified in a timely manner of stolen vehicle recovery, on or about March 28, 1980. c. Claim submitted by Alan David Sime for personal injury and vehicular damages purportedly sustained as a result of motorcycle accident caused by unmarked con- struction depression in roadway on Orangethorpe at Kellogg, on or about June 2, 1980. d. Claim submitted by Charles W. Smith for vehicular damages purportedly sustained as a result of parkway tree branch breaking and striking claimant's car, on or about June 24, 1980. e. Claim submitted by Mrs. David Zimmerman for damages purportedly sustained to plumbing/sewer as a result of parkway tree roots causing stoppage, on or about June 22, 1980. 80-882 City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - July 8, 1980, 1:30 P.M. 2. CORRESPONDENCE: The following correspondence was ordered received and filed: a. 105: Community Redevelopment Commission--Minutes of June 11, 1980. b. 175: Before the Public Utilities Commission, Application No. 59750, Southern California Gas Comapny and Pacific Lighting Service Company, for authorization to continue to submit new and/or revised Gas Exploration and Development projects as authorized in the Gas Exploration and Development Adjustment (GEDA) Procedure approved by the Commission in Decision No. 81898, Application No. 53625, issued September 25, 1973 and Decision No. 88121, Application No. 56471, issued November 22, 1977. 3. 108: APPLICATION - PUBLIC DANCE PERMIT: In accordance with the recommendation of the Chief of Police, a Public Dance Permit was approved for The Concert Factory, for a dance to be held July 25, 1980, 8:00 p.m. to 11:00 p.m. at the Brookhurst Community Center. (Joseph Jonathan Yukech, applicant) MOTION CARRIED. 114: CITY OF SEAL BEACH RESOLUTION NO. 2985 AND 2986: Opposing the transfer of aircraft tie downs from Meadowlark Airport to Los Alamitos Airport and opposing all joint use of general aviation and/or civilian aircraft at Los Alamitos Air Station. Councilwoman KaMwood stated that the two subject resolutions were similar and she asked that Anaheim support the resolutions by a letter rather than by a resolution. CounciLman Roth asked in that case, would she add .that they invite the Navy to come back for full military activities at Los Alamitos? Councilwoman Kaywood answered that she would not change the use that was there, but was talking about Seal Beach's objection to 250 civilian tie downs. Councilman Roth assumed by her reply that she was saying "no". He then asked if she was aware that they were trying to close down Meadowlark Airport to private pilots and that Orange County Airport was now at its capacity relative to tie down space. He questioned what they were to do with private pilots. Councilwoman Kaywood answered she was aware of the situation both at Meadowlark and Orange County Airport. Councilman Roth stated that Los Alamitos Naval Air Station was under Federal mandate in any case and he felt they had a right to make that decision themselves. Councilwoman Kaywood asked if he was saying that if cities had an opinion they should keep it to themselves. CounciLman Roth answered "no" but the Federal government had the jurisdiction in this case. There were also the rights of the private pilots and they did not have an opportunity to defend themselves or have anybody looking after them with resolutions. 8O-883 City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - July 8, 1980, 1:30 P.M. Councilwoman Kaywood countered that there were people living by the airport and they had rights also. Councilman Roth stated that although he had repeated the same many times over, he again stated that the first time he flew into Los Alamitos it was in the middle of a bean patch. Then the developers came and people bought right up against the gate of the station long after it was established. One of the problems was there was never any respect for an airport that was there first. The pressures of the people successfully forced out the military at Los Alamitos, who needed the facility to train Naval Reserve pilots, and now they were trying to eliminate private pilots. MOTION: After further discussion between Councilwoman Kaywood and Councilman Roth, Councilwoman Kaywood moved to support City of Seal Beach, Resolution No. 2985 and 2986, supporting that City's opposition to the aircraft tie downs and the joint use of general aviation and/or civilian aircraft at Los Alamitos Naval Air Station. The motion died for lack of a second. Councilman Roth moved to receive and file the subject resolutions. Councilman Seymour seconded the motion. Councilwoman Kaywood voted "no". MOTION CARRIED. 158: DEEDS OF EASEMENT: Councilwoman Kaywood offered Resolution No. 80R-299 for adoption, accepting deeds of easement. Refer to Resolution Book. RESOLUTION NO. 80R-299: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM ACCEPTING A CERTAIN DEED AND ORDERING ITS RECORDATION. (Texaco Anaheim Hills, Inc.) Roll Call Vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: COUNCIL MEMBERS: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Overholt, Kaywood, Bay, Roth and Seymour None None The Mayor declared Resolution No. 80R-299 duly passed and adopted. CITY PLANNING COMMISSION ITEMS: The following actions taken by the City Planning Commission at their meeting held June 16, 1980, pertaining to the following applications, as listed on the Consent Calendar, were submitted for City Council information. 1. RECLASSIFICATION NO. 79-80-40 AND VARIANCE NO. 3152: Submitted by James E. and Lois A. Hundley, for a change in zone from RS-7200 to CO, to construct a two-story office building on property located at the northeast corner of Center and Coffman Streets, with a Code waiver of minimum landscaped setback. The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution Nos. PC80-96 and 97, granted Reclassification No. 79-80-40 and Variance No. 3152, and granted a negative declaration status. 2. VARIANCE NO. 3147: Submitted by Ken W. and Lynda Lea Bogardus, et al, to retain an outdoor storage yard on ML zoned property located at 1130 Red Gum Street, with certain Code waivers. 80-884 City Hall~ Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - July 8~ 1980~ 1:30 P.M. The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC80-93, granted Variance No. 3147, in part and ratified the Planning Director's categorical exemption determination. 3. VARIANCE NO. 3151--READVERTISED: Submitted by Texaco, Inc., to permit a gasoline price sign on CL zoned property located at 400 South Anaheim Hills Road, with certain Code waivers. The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC80-95, granted Variance No. 3151, in part, and ratified the Planning Director's categorical exemption determination. 4. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2084: Submitted by Jerry L. Poe, et al, to retain a trucking yard on ML zoned property located at 918 East Vermont Avenue, with a Code waiver of maximum fence height. The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC80-94, granted Con- ditional Use Permit No. 2084, and granted a negative declaration status. No action was taken on the foregoing items, therefore the actions of the City Planning Commission became final. RECLASSIFICATION NO. 79-80-41 AND VARIANCE NO. 3153: Submitted by Donald R. and Nancy A. Skjerven, for a change in zone from RS-A-43,000 to RS-7200, to establish a two-lot subdivision on property located at 1628 West Orangewood Avenue, with a Code waiver of minimum lot width. The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC80-98 and 99, granted Reclassification No. 79-80-41 and Variance No. 3153, and granted a negative declaration status. City Clerk Linda Roberts announced that the letter and petition in opposition had been received and copied for the Council. Councilwoman Kaywood thereupon requested a review of the subject reclassification and variance. AMENDMENT TO TITLE 18 - RELATING TO DEFINITION OF "FAMILY": Amendment to Section 18.01.070 of Chapter 18.01, redefining the words, terms and phrases for "Family". Councilman Overholt offered Ordinance No. 4147 for first reading. ORDINANCE NO. 4147: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AMENDING SECTION 18.01.070 OF CHAPTER 18.01, TITLE 18, OF THE ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO ZONING. Councilwoman Kaywood wanted to know how they would limit the number of people in a residence and how Code enforcement would be implemented. She felt that local control was now gone again. City Attorney Hopkins explained that the particular ordinance provision had been made pursuant to a Supreme Court of California case--Santa Barbara vs. Adamson-- in which the Supreme Court invalidated the zoning ordinance defining the term "Family" because they placed a numerical limit on the number of unrelated persons 80-885 City Hall~ Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - July 8, 1980, 1:30 P.M. living together in a single housekeeping unit. The court stated the ordinance could not be used to Constitutionally limit the number of unrelated persons who could live together while placing no similar limitation on persons related by blood or marriage. The City's ordinance at present limited the unrelated persons to five and that was the same situation that Santa Barbara faced. The proposed ordinance would conform to the Supreme Court's decision. In the Adamson case, there were about 10 persons who were not related living together in a large house in Santa Barbara. The court said that they could not be limited in that manner. So by rewording the City's ordinance, Anaheim would now conform to the Court's ruling. It did not apply to groups living together in a boarding house or lodging house, club, fraternity, hotel or any commercial type activity. It would be persons living together who had some domestic bond of social, economic, or psychological commitment to each other. Admittedly, it was going be difficult to enforce. He suggested that perhaps Planning could comment on the problems that they could foresee. Councilwoman Kaywood asked that a report be submitted by next week. Councilman Overholt asked the source of the definition proposed in the amended ordinance. He wanted to know if the Court did define "Family" in the Adamson case. City Attorney Hopkins stated that the Court merely indicated that they could not restrict the persons living together, but he did not think they prescribed a definite wording. The wording used in the proposed ordinance was based on that particular case. Councilman Bay stated that he assumed the report Councilwoman Kaywood asked for would delineate what other controls the Council would have in the future pertaining to square footage living space, number of bedrooms, health code, etc. He wanted to know where they could go from there on control, since the Supreme Court had taken away a control they had on running illegal rooming hQuses and a number of other things. City Attorney Hopkins stated that they would address those items. 142/156: ORDINANCE NO. 4142: Councilman Roth offered Ordinance No. 4152 for adoption. Refer to Ordinance Book. ORDINANCE NO. 4142: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AMENDING SECTION 4.75.090 OF CHAPTER 4.75, TITLE 4, OF THE ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO VEHICLE IMPOUNDS. (relating to content and placement of warning signs for vehicle impounding, to include new telephone number of Police Department) Roll Call Vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: COUNCIL MEMBERS: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Overholt, Kaywood, Bay, Roth and Seymour None None The Mayor declared Ordinance No. 4142 duly passed and adopted. 142/105: ORDINANCE NO. 4145: Councilwoman Kaywood offered Ordinance No. 4145 for adoption. Refer to Ordinance Book. 80-886 City Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - July 8, 1980, 1:30 P.M.. ORDINANCE NO. 4145: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AMENDING SECTION 13.04.010 OF CHAPTER 13.04, TITLE 13, OF THE ANAHEIM PARKS AND RECREATION COMMISSION. Roll Call Vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: COUNCIL MEMBERS: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Overholt, Kaywood, Bay, Roth and Seymour None None The Mayor declared Ordinance No. 4145 duly passed and adopted. ORDINANCE NO. 4146: Councilman Bay offered Ordinance No. 4146 for adoption. ~Refer to Ordinanc Book. ORDINANCE NO. 4146: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AMENDING TITLE 18 OF THE ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO ZONING. (79-80-17, CO) Roll Call Vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: COUNCIL MEMBERS: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Overholt, Kaywood, Bay, Roth and Seymour None None The Mayor declared Ordinance No. 4146 duly passed and adopted. 181: CARNEGIE LIBRARY HISTORICAL MUSEUM: Councilwoman Kaywood asked that staff provide an update relative to the status of the Carnegie Library Historical Museum. 144: PERALTA ADOBE SITE: Councilman Roth referred to the Peralta Adobe site at the corner of Fairmont Boulevard and Santa Ana Canyon Road which belonged to the County and which they were going to restore. It was still sitting there untouched and it was continuing to deteriorate. Additionally, the site had now become the Anaheim Hills dump site. It was a continuing eyesore and something should be done. He requested staff to contact the County to ask them to clean up the site and post "No Dumping" signs immediately. 164: STATUS ON STORM DRAINS: Councilman Bay requested from staff a status report on City storm drains. He wanted to know out of the storm drains that were in last year's budget, howmany were actually completed vs. how many were carried over in this year's budget. As well, he wanted a comparison of priorities on storm drains vs. the 1976 Capital Imrovements Committee priorities. RECESS - EXECUTIVE SESSION: By general consent, the Council recessed into Executive Session. (3:55 P.M.) AFTER RECESS: Mayor Seymour called the meeting to order, all Council Members being present. (4:05 P.M.) 112: CITY OF ANAHEIM VS. BIELEK: On motion by Councilman Seymour, seconded by Councilman Roth, the City Attorney was authorized to settle Orange County Superior Court Case No. 25-83-57 (City of Anaheim vs. Bielek) for a sum not less than $3,250. MOTION CARRIED. 80-887 City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - July 8, 1980, 1:30 P.M. ADJOURNEMENT: Councilwoman Kaywood moved to adjourn. the motion. MOTION CARRIED. Adjourned: 4:06 P.M. Councilman Bay seconded LINDA D. ROBERTS, CITY CLERK