Loading...
1979/12/0479-1348 City Hallm.. Anah~.im~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - December 4~ 1979~ 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 DEPUTY CITY CLERK: Leonora N. Sohl EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMFNT: Norman J. Priest DEPUTY CITY MANAGER: James D. Ruth PURCHASING AGENT: Richard Jefferis CITY ENGINEER: William Devitt TRAFFIC ENGINEER: Paul Singer PLANNING DIRECTOR: Ronald L. Thompson ASSISTANT DIRECTOR FOR ZONING: Annika Santalahti CETA SERVICES MANAGER: Bill R. Hepburn FIRE MARSHALL: Charles Kanenbley Mayor Seymour called the meeting to order and welcomed those in attendance to the Council meeting. INVOCATION: Reverend Mitch Garcia, Melodyland Hotline Center, gave the Invocation. FLAG SALUTE: Councilman E. Llewellyn Overholt, Jr., led the assembly in the Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag. 119: PRESENTATION: Mr. Paul Thompson, President of the Anaheim Rotary Club presented a plaque to Mayor John Seymour on behalf of the Club, in recognition of his outstanding contributions to the City of Anaheim. 119: PROCLAMATION: The following proclamation was unanimously adopted by the City Council: "Bill of Rights Week in Anaheim" - December 9-15, 1979 119: RESOLUTION OF COMMENDATION: A resolution of cormnendation was unanimously adopted by the Council and presented to Anaheim Police Officer, Mike R. Manley for his contribution towards saving the life of Mr. Fred Broderick on November 14, 1979. MINUTES: Approval of minutes was deferred to the next regular meeting. WAIVER OF READING - ORDINANCES AND RESOLUTIONS: Councilwoman Kaywood moved to waive the reading, in full, of all ordinances and resolutions and that consent to the waiver of reading is hereby given by all Council Members unless, after reading of the title, specific request is made by a Council Member for the read- ing of such ordinance or resolution. Councilman Bay seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. FINANCIAL DEMANDS AGAINST THE CITY in the amount of $895,810.38, in accordance with the 1979-80 Budget, were approved. 79-1349 City Hall, Ana.heim., California - COUNCIL MINUTES - D.e.c.ember 4~ 1979~ 1:30 P.M. 160: CITY MANAGER/DEPARTMENTAL CONSENT CALENDAR: On motion by Councilman Roth, seconded by Councilman Overholt, the following action8 were authorized as rec- ommended by the Purchasing Agent: a. Bid No. 3561 - Aerial Ladder Truck - award to O'Neill Seagrave Fire Apparatus, Inc., $195,590.14 b. Authorized the Purchasing Agent to issue a Change Order to reduce the number of vehicles ordered from seventeen (17) to fourteen (14~ from Southland Chevrolet and the price from $78,761.21 to $66,928.67. MOTION CARRIED. 160: PURCHASE OF EQUIPMENT - 336.4 ACSR "MERLIN" WIRE - CHANGE ORDER: Councilman Bay pointed out an approximate difference of $6,200 between the $38,569.13 purchase total as outlined in memorandum dated November 28, 1979 from the Purchasing Agent in comparison to his calculations which totalled $32,334.76. Mr. Richard Jefferis, Purchasing Agent, stated that reel charges were involved and he would have to supply a breakout relative to those charges. City Manager William Talley stated that all wire when delivered to the City was delivered in reels and those costs should have been outlined. He asked that the matter be held over until later in the meeting in order to report how they arrived at the cost figures. Later in the meeting, City Manager Talley explained what had taken place and also submitted detailed figures, the essential points being: the wire is bought by the pound; the entered price was the controlling figure; and the contract could rise as high as $38,569.13. The laborious calculations had not been presented to the Council, but basically the purchase order had to have a ceiling. Councilman Bay stated it would save him a great deal of time if, in the future such explanatory data was included. MOTION: Councilman Bay moved to authorize the Purchasing Agent to issue a Change Order to increase the quantity of 336.4 ACSR "Merlin" Wire ordered from 10,585 pounds to 33,445 pounds, to General Electric Supply for a revised total not to exceed $38,569.13 as recommended by the Purchasing Agent in his memorandum dated November 28, 1979. Councilwoman Kaywood seconded the motion. Before a vote was taken, Mayor Seymour stated he would support this particular motion. However, if that procedure were used in the future, he could see where it could be used to avoid the bid process. They awarded the low bid to one supplier and subsequently went out to bid another need. Three bids were then received and thereafter they went back to the original bidder and asked if they could increase the initial bid. Mr. Jefferis stated that concerned him greatly but in this case the other bids were not responsive. If they had been fully responsive, he would not have supported it. A vote was then taken on the foregoing motion° MOTION CARRIED. 79-1350 .City .Hal~ Anaheim, C~lifornia u_ COUNCIL MINUTES - December 4~ 1979~ 1:30 P.Mt 160: PURCHASE OF EQUIPMENT 653.9 ACSR WIRE - BID NO. 3587: Mayor Seymour referred to memorandum dated November 21, 1979 from the Purchasing Agent wherein he had a question relative to reels once again. In reading the explanation, the problem seemed to arise when the w~re remained on the reel in excess of 12 months and thus additional expense was incurred. He, therefore, had to conclude they were assuming an inventory of wire in excess of 12 months. He questioned the philosophy of carrying that long an inventory~ Mr. Jefferis stated that the demand on wire was such th~ they purchased in volume and it was ordered either for stock or used on various Jobs. Mayor Seymour stated he understood but his point was, in the Arthur Young report, they identified inventories that were high and the thrust was to reduce those inventories thereby freeing up capital. Mr. Talley stated that normally it was prudent not to stock in excess of six months; however, two conditions should be investigated further, (1) there were exceptions to the rule where the price of a product escalated substantially faster than the cost of living and, (2) for bid evaluation purposes, some cub- off had to be made and he did not know whether 12 monthm was appropriate or not. Two out of the four bidders did not penalize the City for holding the reels, but two of them did so. Those who did had been told in advance if they penalized the City, those charges would be added as part of the cost. The Mayor stated as he evaluated the bids, if the City accepted the recommended bid which includes $6,500 in reel charges, and did not accept the reels, meaning they did not accept the fact that they should have in excess of a 12-month in- ventory, another bid would then become a better alternative for the City. Mr. Talley agreed and asked to withdraw the item for one week in order to submit a report to the Council. 158/174: RELOCATION COSTS ~ CASE NO. PS-~0-1: On motion by Councilman Overholt, seconded by Councilwoman Kaywood, the payment of a relocation claim in an amount not to exceed $15,500 in case No. PS-0-1 was approved as recommended in memorandum dated November 27, 1979 f~om Norm Priest, Executive Director of Community Develop- ment. MOTION CARRIED. 152/123: TEMPORARY CLERICAL RELIEF: Councilman Overholt offered Resolution No. 79R-695 for adoption, as recommended in memorandum dated November 28, 1979 from the Human Resources Director Garry McRae, authorizing the City Manager to execute agreements for the acquisition of labor a~d services for temporary clerical relief. Refer to Resolution Book. RESOLUTION NO. 79R-695: A RESOLUTION OF I~E CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE CERTAIN AGREEMENTS FOR TEMPORARY HELP SERVICES FOR AND ON BEHALF OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM. Before a vote was taken, Mayor Se~our stated he had been historically opposed to the utilization of temporary relief because he felt it was being used to fill in on vacations and short-term sickness situations. He had not seen a great usage of that concept in the private sector and did not think they needed it in government. Thus he was going to oppose the resolution. 79-1351 City Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - December 4, 1979~,~:30 P.M, A vote was then taken on the foregoing resolution. Roll Call Vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: COUNCIL MEMBERS: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Overhoit, Kaywood, Bay and Roth S ~ymo ur Non e The Mayor declared Resolution No. 79R-695 duly passed ~ld adopted. 153: SALARY ADJUSTMENT FOR PUBLIC SERVICE EMPLOYMENT PROGRAM TRAINEE CLASSIF- ICATIONS: Councilman Seymour offered Resolution No. 79R-696 for adoption as recommended in memorandum dated November 27, 1979 from the Human Resources Director/CETA Division, Garry McRae, amending Resolution No. 78R-659 and amend ments adjusting rates of compensation for Public Service Employment Program Trainee classifications. Refer to Resolution Book. RESOLUTION NO. 79R-696: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AMENDING RESOLUTION NO. 78R-659 AND AMENDMENTS 2~HERETO AND ADJUSTING RATES OF COMPENSATION FOR PUBLIC SERVICE F~PLOYMENT PROGRAM TRAINEE CLASSIFICATIONS. Roll Call Vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: COUNCIL MEMBERS: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Overholt, K~ywood, Bay, Roth and Seymour None None The Mayor declared Resolution No. 79R-696 duly pamsed and adopted. 174/152: OUT-STATIONED CETA PARTICIPANTS: Councilman Roth offered Resolution No. 79R-697 for adoption as recommended in memorandum dated November 20, 1979 from the Human Resources/CETA Services Division approving a form agreement with various State agencie~ ~n connection with out-stationed CETA participants and authorizing the City Manager to execute same. Refer to Resolution Book. RESOLUTION NO. 79R-697: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM ~PPROVING AN AGREEMENT WITH VARIOUS STATE AGENCIES IN CONNECTION WITH OUT-STATIONED CETA PARTICIPANTS AND AUTHORIZING AND DIRECTING THE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE §AID ACREEMENT. 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. 79R-697 duly passed and adopted. 154: ORANGE COUNTY MANPOWER COMMISSION - ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT ACTIVITIES: Councilman Bay offered Resolution No. 79R-698 for adoption as recommended in memorandum dated November 27, 1979 from the Human Resources/CETA Services Division approving a subgrant agreement with the Orange County Manpower Commission to pro- vide funding in the amount of $38,100 for Economic Development Activities Refer to Resolution Book. ' 79-1352 City Hall, Anaheim, California ~. COUNCIL MINUTES - December 4~ 1979~ 1:30 P.M. RESOLUTION NO. 79R-698: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM APPROVING THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF A SUBGRANT AGREEMENT WITH THE ORANGE COUN2~ MANPOWER COMMISSION AND AUTHORIZING AND DIRECTING THE MAYOR AND CITY CLERK TO EXECUTE SAID AGREEMENT ON BEHALF OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM. (Subgrant Agreement No. H80171, DOL Grant No. 06-0032-27) Roll Call Vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: COUNCIL MEMBERS: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Overholt, Kaywood, Bay, Rotb and Seymour None None The Mayor declared Resolution No. 79R-698 duly passed and adopted. Councilman Bay stated that the money from the grant provided the funding for an Economic Development Sepc~alist who worked with the Community Development Department and, in turn, supported the AEDC. The prime reason for funding is to develop programs to encourage job-producing industries to locate in Anaheim. 150: JOHN MARSHALL PARK ~ PRELIMINARY DESIGN PLAN: City Manager Talley briefed the Council on memorandum dated November 27, 1979 from the Deputy City Manager, James Ruth recommending that the Council approve the subject plan as well as his memorandum of November 30, 1979 recommending that the Council determine whether to appropriate an additional $55,000 from State bailout funds to complete the development of Phase I of John Marshall park. Councilman Bay reported that he strended both neighborhood public hearings on John Marshall Park. There was a good turnout, and the interest in the park was still evident even after 20 years. %he plans brought to the last meeting were not only generally accepted by everyone in attendance, but also there were com- pliments on the design. The park was planned on a low-key basis which fit well into the neighborhood. He complimented the Parks and Recreation Department and the designer on what he considered an excellent desi~ for that area. On motion by Councilman B~y, seconded by Councilman Overholt, the Preliminary Design Plan for John Marshall Park, a 12-acre site located at the northwest corner of La Palma Avenue and Romneya Lane was approved. MOTION CARRIED. On motion by Councilman Bay, seconded by Councilwoman Kaywood, $55,000 was appropriated from the Unappropriated Capital Fund for Phase I of the John Marshall Park. MOTION CARRIED. 144: A.H.F.P. PROJECT NO. 979 - ANAHEIM BOULEVARD/HASTER STREET OVERCROSSINC AT THE SANTA ANA FREEWAY: Councilwoman Kaywood offered Resolution No. 79R-699 for adoption, as recommended in memorandum dated November 27, 1979 from City Engineer William Devitt, requesting the Board of Supervisors of the County of Orange to allocate an additional amount of $200,000 to A.H.F.P. Project No. 979. Refer to Resolution Book. RESOLUTION NO. 79R-699: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM REQUESTING THE COUNTY OF ORANGE TO INCLUDE ADDITIONAL ALLOCATION OF $200,000 FOR AHFP NO. 979. 79-1353 City ..H. al.1, Anahe. im, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - December 4_~_1_97_~9 1:30 P.M. 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. 79R-699 duly passed and adopted. 169: STATE COLLEGE BOULEVARD REPAIRS AND RESURFACING: Request for Caltrans to delete that portion of their State College Boulevard Project between Romneya Drive and Sycamore Street. Councilwoman Kaywood offered Resolution No. 79R-700 for adoption, as recommended in memorandum dated November 27, 1979 from the City Engineer, approving a letter agreement with Caltrans in connection with State College Boulevard repairs and resurfacing. Refer to Resolution Book. RESOLUTION NO. 79R-700: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF ~tE CITY OF ANAI~EIM APPROVING A LETTER AGREEMENT WITH THE CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION (CALTRANS) IN CONNECTION WITH STATE COLLEGE BOULEVARD REPAIRS AND RESURFACING, AND AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR AND CITY CLERK TO EXECUTE SAID LETTER AGREEMENT. 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. 79R-700 duly passed and adopted. 123: ANAHEIM HILLS ROAD DRAINAGE REIMBURSEMENT AREA NO. 2: Councilman Roth offered Resolution No. 79R-701 for adoption, as recommended in memorandum dated November 19, 1979 from the City Engineer, authorizing a drainage reimbursement agreement with Butler Housing Corporation for drainage facilities in the Anaheim Hills Road Drainage Reimbursement Area No~ 2, in a portion of Area 5, District 39 of the Master Plan for Drainage~ Refer to Resolution Book. RESOLUTION NO. 79R-701: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM APPROVING THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF A DRAINAGE REIMBURSEMENT AGREEMENT AND AUTHORIZING AND DIRECTING THE MAYOR AND CITY CLERK TO EXECUTE SAID AGREEMENT ON BEHALF OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM. (Butler Housing Corporation) 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. 79R-701 duly passed and adopted. 103: SERRANO NO. 2 ANNEXATION: Councilwoman Kaywood offered Resolution No. 79R-702 for adoption as recommended in memorandum dated November 27, 1979 from Robert Kelley, Associate Planner requesting the Local Agency Formation Commission to commence proceedings for the annexation of certain uninhabited territory des- 79-1354 City Hall, Anaheimt~_~.~?~'nia .. COUNCIL MINUTES - December 4~ 1979, 1:30 P.M. ignated as Serrano No. 2, consisting of approximately 0.891 acres located north- west of the intersection of tbs extension of Serrano Avenue and the Edison easement south of Nohl Rsncb Road. Refer to Resolution Book. RESOLUTION NO. 79R-702: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM, CALIFORNIA, REQUESTING ~IIqE COMMENCEMENT OF PROCEEDINGS FOR THE ANNEXATION OF CERTAIN UNINHABITED TERRITORY DESIGNATED AS SERRANO NO. 2 ANNEXATION. 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. 79R-702 duly passed and adopted. 156: NEIGHBORHOOD MEETING OCTOBER 29~ 1979 RELATIVE TO PROBLEMS ON THE 700 B'LOCK OF NORTH ANAHEIM BOULEVARD: City Manager William Talley briefed the Council on report dated November 28, 1979 from his office listing actions that had been taken in response to the subject meeting (on file in the City Clerk's office). Mayor Seymour then called upon Mr. Herbert Mittman. Mr. Herbert Mittman, 726 North Zeyn Street, stated he had lived at his present residence since 1956. When he moved in, the Manpower facility and the bars were not located on Anaheim Boulevard directly behind his and the other affected pro-~ perties. Because of the open area to the rear of their homes, people waiting for jobs at Manpower were present almost around the clock during the summertime and used the alley as a place/, to wait (see report containing complaints shared by all the residents bordering the rear lots of approximately 723-735 North Anaheim Boulevard--on i~il~ in the City Clerk's office). Ail of the neighbors were es~e~ia].]y ~nterested in the safety of the women, and wives could not go out witho,.~t being molested. On many occasions, the police had been called~ bu~: in most instances were too late because the offenders disappeared. The? bad built additions onto their fences but these fences were still climbed and people slept in their backyards or threw beer cans over the fence, if possible, those businesses should have their activity limited within their property because the alley was open to those businesses and thus everything took place against the residents' property. They were willing to keep their neighborhood in good condition, but it was discouraging when such activities were taking place. They were asking the Council for help so that they could have a more disciplined or quiet neighborhood. Mr. Mittman had read the response of the City (report of November 28, 1979) and he appreciated everyone's effort. However, they wished a fence built off the alley in order to provide them with privacy. Councilman Bay asked if they were still having problems after staff had looked into the situation, for instance, in the past week. Mr. Mittman answered, "no". ?ne loitering and vandalism 'that took place occurred when people from the commercial establishments sat down to have their lunch and also engaged in drinking parties. During the winter, there was little activity 79-1355 .City Hal..l~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - December 4~ 1979; 1:30 P.M. because of the weather, but starting in March or April and continuing through September and October, it was almost a 24-hour per day condition. Councilman Bay stated, in his opinion, the key to avoiding more of the same problems was enforcement of the law in the area when summer started. He felt that there were enough existing laws to protect the residents from the problems outlined in their report. Mr. Mittman felt that although enforcement would help, ~he problem would not be solved because it would be necessary to have the situation controlled 24 hours a day. Further discussion followed between Councilman Overholt and the Mayor concerning possible solutions, at the conclusion of which, Councilman Overholt stated there might be some legal remedies available to the residents if the problems did not stop. The opinion that there was no public nuisance would not preclude any other remedies that might be open to the residents privately. City Attorney William Hopkins stated that they would look into the possibility. Councilman Overholt added that the key seemed to be the cooperation of the business proprietors in being good neighbors. Mr. Mittman noted that the Health Department had checked the Manpower Business restroom facilities and found that they were not responsible to have such facilities for people who were waiting outside to get a Job. Those people then used the alley for a restroom. He did not understand how they were not required to have the proper facilities. Mayor Seymour stated he was still of a mind to find a way to have a wall built, but it appeared there were hurdles that could not be overcome. If a high wall were constructed, that would go a long way to remedying the problem. Mr. Mittman stated that he and his neighbors were mainly interested in having the businesses run properly and they wanted to see the businesses upgraded in the manner that would be required if they started today. Councilwoman Kaywood asked if the problem again escalated, was it possible for two feet of the residents property along Zeyn to be used to build a wall so that the alley would not be narrowed making it impassable for big trucks. Mr. Mittman answered that he believed this to be one of the smallest alleys in existence in Anaheim. He did not believe it was feasible to use the alley for access by car, or by truck, either backing out or going onto the property. He did not think it would make any difference for any business if a wall was installed or not because they could not use the alley anyway. He also did not know if there was enough space in the backyards for dedication purposes. MOTION: On motion by Councilman Overholt, seconded by Councilwoman Kaywood, the report relating to the neighborhood meeting held on October 29, 1979 concerning the problems on the 700 block of North Anaheim Boulevard was received and filed. MOTION CARRIED. 79-1356 City Hall~ An~h..e. im., California - COUNCIL MINUTES - December 4, 1979~ 1:30 P.M. 112: THE GOODYEAR TIRE & RUBBER COMPANY VS. COUNTY OF ORANGE AND CITY OF ANAHEIM~ ET AL.: On motion by Councilwoman Kmywood, seconded by Councilman Roth, the Orange County Counsel was authorized to defend the City of Anaheim in litigation regarding Goodyear Tire & Rubber Company vs.'County of Orange and City of Anaheim, et al. MOTION CARRIED. 181: ANAHEIM COMMUNITY ENTERTAINERS: Mr. John Yench, President, requesting reimbursement of fees paid for the use of Pearson Park Theatre ($3800) and requesting the use of the former Anaheim Bulletin build~lg located at 224 and 232 South Lemon Street (continued from October 30 and November 20, 1979). Mr. John Yench, 609 West Lincoln Avenue, read a two-page prepared statement dated December 4, 1979 giving the background of the Anaheim Community Entertainers (ACE) program and outlining the reasons for the subject request (on file in the City Clerk's office). At the conclusion of his presentation, Councilwoman Kaywood asked where the $3800 originally came from; Mr. Yench answered, against a mortgage of John Parkson of some of his personal property. Councilwoma~ Kaywood questioned having the taxpayers provide that funding; Mr. Yench noted the other arrange- ments he had brought up. He felt in the end, the taxpayers would win because there was the capital expense of the Pearson Park Theatre to be considered which had to be justified. Mr. Yench then answered a line of questioning posed by Councilman Overholt relative to the condition of the interior of the building requested to be used by Mr. Yench for the ACE (224 and 232 South Lemon Street). Councilman Roth then asked Mr. Yench if he was aware of the report they received from Fire Marshal Kanenbley dated November 27, 1979 (on file in the City Clerk's office) relative to the condition of the building and all the requirements nec- essary if the structures were to be utilized. As well, it was reported that there was a possibility that the ceiling might fall through at the 224 South Lemon location. Councilman Bay noted in the report submitted from the Executive Director of the Anaheim Redevelopment Agency dated November 14, 1979, it stated that there was a short-term rental agreement in effect from August 17 to August 25, 1979 with ACE which had not as yet been paid. The indication from the report was the operations were still going on at 224 South Lemon, which he assumed was the north portion of the location. Mr. Yench stated it was actually a different building which they took over after the upholstery company left the premises. Their set designer was also utilizing the building while they were waiting for something definite to happen on the use of the building. Councilman Bay noted that Mr. Yench indicated they had not occupied the building since mid-September. He wanted to know if they still had equipment or set designs stored in the building; Mr. Yench answered "yes". Councilman Bay then asked Mr. Yench if he had to justify the billing on the rental to a State agency, would he agree that the rental would have run from August 17, 1979 up until today. 79-1357 .City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - December 4~ 1979~ 1:30 P.M. Mr. Yench stated that they were asking for special consideration on that. What arrangements were made were made at a point of desperation, since they had no place to go. Councilman Bay then referred to a report he had from the Anaheim Arts Council (AAC) showing how they raised money, where they spent it, plans for the future, things they accomplished, etc. It also indicated storage space was rented by the Arts Council for use of its member groups. He then questioned why the Anaheim Community Entertainers had not chosen to Join the AAC and to wor~ with the other arts groups in the City. Mr. Yench explained that they applied immediately for membership, but it was felt that their project was somewhat ambitious, and the Arts Council took a purely legalistic attitude. They had not as yet received their registration papers from the Secretary of State, but they had received non-profit status. He con- sidered the Arts Council refusal in allowing them to Join quite rude, especially since he had a very long acquaintance with that group and from the beginning helped form them. He realized that there were some internecine jealousies, but one particular person was no longer with the group. ACE wished to cooperate fully now that they had proven themselves. Councilman Bay noted that one of the requirements of the Arts Council was to have non-profit status. He felt that what ACE was trying to do was highly commendable and he was in total agreement. However, his problem in trying to approve the request was (1) they had not gone through the normal channels and (2) he had not seen any financial statements relative to funds. If they were a member of the Arts Council working through them and the City's Parks and Recreation Department, they would then have something to judge whether or not they would be giving away public funds. He could not support the request to reimburse the fees, not having any financial data. He also had other concerns on the use of the Anaheim BulLetin building, particularly the northern portion which they had been using, in view of the Fire Marshal's report. Mr. Yench stated with regard to a financial statement, they had not been in operation for a year as yet. He understood there was a financial statement in the packet presented to the (-Duncil at the previous meeting. However, he could report that the box office take was not enough to cover expenses. Councilman 0varholt stated that th~ minimal $60 Gee £or the use of ~earson Park was th~ same fee charged to the high school and junior high school groups. He had great difficulty in discriminating against other groups by favoring ACE. However, if there was a way to make it possible for them to use an available facility that was habitable and usable, he was all for that and if there was a way of getting around the road blocks, he would be supportive. Councilwoman Kaywood then posed a line of questioning to Mr. Yench pertinent to the ACE program wherein Mr. Yench confirmed that he was not saying there was no culture in Anaheim without ACE. He stated there was a great deal of culture~ but there was a potential for a lot more. Councilman Overholt then stated whatever the outcome of the action to be taken, he sincerely appreciated Mr. Yench'm personal interest in cultural activities, which went far beyond his responsibility as a reporter. 79-1358 Edith Rudolph stated that she ~ad ~ttended most~ of the productions at Pea~:son Park and they were outsta~ding~ However~ the low attendance was due to the fact that there were no plumbing facilit~ies other than to go through the dark park to get to the restrooms~ ~,q;Jch was too dangerous. Mr. John Sawyer, 3146 West (h~,~]idge stated he represented the Anaheim Civic Light Opera which was founded J~'~ i[976 snd they were members of the AAC, Anaheim Foundation for Culture and th~ A,.~. ts and Anaheim Chamber of Commerce. He was in sympathy with Mr. Yench, b~[ .It ~as also his opinion ~hat they were biting off more than they could chew. Anaheim generally was in great need of cultural facilities just as was his group. They had to go to different facilities to stage their productions and no two performances had been at one place, l]~ey' owed the Anaheim High School P~strf~cit over $1000 in rental fees since 1977. They also had a community orchestra of 50 volunteer players. The ACE were well advised about the problems of Pearson Park, and lack of restroom facilities was a major problem. If the Council were to grant the ACE a refund, they could be opening the door te ~]] of the other groups in Anaheim. They needed money but were applying fez~ ~grants and were going out into the community and raising money to accomplish ?r~eir projects, and the ACE could do the same~ MOTION: Councilman Bay stated ~.he t~est way to handle the matter since two were involved was to clearly ~epa~te them. On the basis of bis previous stat~eme~t of seeing no financial statement to Justify the request for reimbursement of fees and also the fact that there was still money owed over and above what had been paid, he moved to deny the request for reimbursement of fees to the ACE. Council woman Kaywood seconded the motion. Before a vote was takez~, C:-~un~ :i!ma~'~ Ovezholt stated he was going to support the motion, but not for the reasons stated by Councilman Bay. He felt that the $60 per performance charged k~y the ~.ity for the use of Pearson Park Theatre was a charge for rea] cost~ in('urt-eC b7 the City in making the facility available. It was not a matter of prc~:~enti~g financial statements or accounting. He felt it was inappropriate tc:~ dJsc~in~lr~z t~: agalnsll other worthwhile groups who also used the Theatre by gr~nti~g a ~efund tc Mr. Yench's worthwhile group. ~yor Seymour sta~:ed it ~;:~ ~::;bvious to him that Mr. Yench's entrepreneurial effort and that of Mr~ Parkson were caught in the middle of a number of conditions: (]) a £1J~:. that was not financJ, ally supportive of that type of activity they provided ale:hough their hearts supported it and, (2) not being part of a process in which they might have an opportunity to receive financial support, meaning the Arts Council and other groups. He considered it a sad situation to have people willing to commit their time and energy and to mortgage and "hock" their property to see that the Pearson Park Theatre was used the way it was intended when it was built. He felt personally that Mr. Yench had been subjected to a "grilling" and although he did not think that there was any malice in the hearts of any of the Council Members, nevertheless it appeared that was the type of questioning taking place. He would be hopeful that the Council after taking action on the present motion, and perhaps the next, would consider accepting the direction to ask the Anaheim Arts Council what could be done on a volunteer basis if the City were in a posture of financially supporting the type of activity that took place at such theatres back East, for example, to insure that would also become a reality in Pearson Park. 79-1359 City Hall, Anaheim., .California - COUNCIL MINUTES - December 4~ 1979~ 1:30 P.M. With great reluctance, he would support the present motion, but he also felt a strong sense of commitment to see that the activity was not permitted to die a natural death because he believed it to be worthwhile to the community. Councilwoman Kmywood stated that she was taking exception to the b~yor's comment relative to "malice in the heart of any of the Council Members"; the Mayor noted that he said there was none. Councilwoman Kaywood continued that it was the Mayor's ~"rucial vote that dissolved the Cultural Arts Commission three years ago and she honestly believed if that Commission had been able to continue, they would probably have had a theatre in Anaheim today. Everything was geared to running in that direction and all of the people were finally working together. She had just about devoted her life to cultural activities in the City and had attempted also to get the. various groups to work together because there was not enough support to have them fighting with each other. The Mayor asked if that was taking place here; Councilwoman Kaywood answered "no". She could not see supporting one group when others had not been supported~ Mayor Seymour stated there was no argument because he was supporting the motion. A vote was then taken on the foregoing motion. MOTION CARRIED. Councilman Bay then referred to the Fire Marshal's report of November 28, 1979 noting particularly Paragraph 3, Page 1, relative to 224 South Lemon Street, pointing out its unsafe condition. He stated that whatever they did with regard to the next motion, they should eliminate 224 South Lemon as a part of it. Regarding 232 South Lemon which was more structurally sound, the report indicated there were certain basic things that would have to be done for different types of occupancy of the building, and all of those things represented dollars that would have to be expended to make the building available for use. who would pay for the improvements and what the costs would be. He questioned Councilwoman Kaywood stated the building was vacant for the purpose of Redevelop- ment and scheduled to be demolished. She questioned how long such improvements would take. It could then be only a matter of months before the building could not be occupied in any case. Councilman Roth stated that he was sympathetic to what Mr. Yench was trying to do. Relative to the 232 South Lemon address, he felt if they could work out some kind of restricted use such as set design and set repair, that was the key to their problem. Also, if they could work some nominal fee for rental on an almost as-is basis, he would support that concept. He was certain Mr. Yench would accept a restriction indicating that the building would be used for set- ting up and manufacturing sets for their future productions; from the audience, Mr. Yench acknowledged that would be acceptable. Councilman Overholt asked Mr. Priest, Executive Director of the Redevelopment Agency if it would be possible for the Agency to lease the 232 building to the City on a nominal or no-rental basis pending demolition and, if so, was there any reason why the City would not be able to make that building available, subject to safety and fire considerations for the ACE or any other group. 79-1360 City Hall~ Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - December 4~ 1979~ 1:30 P.M. Mr. Norm Priest first answered "yes" to the former. Regarding the latter, upon completion of his response, it should be verified that it was in conformance with the City Attorney's opinion. They could lease to the City at no cost for a public purpose. That would imply that the City itself would put it to public service. A single organization might not be a public purpose, but perhaps if they made it available to other organizations as well, it might be considered a public purpose. Councilman Overholt stated that the Bulletin was a good size building and he did not know if ACE needed exclusive use of that building. There were other groups in the City in similar activities and it may be that part of the building could be made available to them for the same purpose. He felt the Council was inter- ested in charging the Parks and Recreation Department with the responsibility of making that building available on a no-charge basis to groups, such as Mr. Yench's, for purposes consistent with the condition of that building, it would constitute a real service to those groups and a voice of encouragement in providing them with a facility at no charge. Mayor Seymour stated he would support that action. Councilwoman Kaywood asked what the cost would be to make the building usable just for storage of sets; Mr. Priest answered that he did not have an opportunity to read the Fire Marshal's report. The storage in and of itself would not represent a particularly difficult use. Mr. James Ruth, Deputy City Manager, stated the only problem would be the safety aspect and liability to the City. It could be considerable if there were no proper controls and guidelines. His Department could coordinate such activities if the building was habitable. He noted there was considerable interest from other groups. They would be glad to present the Council with a report after discussing the matter with other arts groups. Councilwoman Kaywood asked Fire Marshal Kanenbley, relative to his report, if he were able to judge what it would cost to have the building put in a temporary safe condition so that there would be no liability. Fire Marshal Charles Kanenbley stated their best comment on that question was contained in the first paragraph of his report. They had no difficulties with the building being used for workshop storage and props (use number one outlined in the report under 232 South Lemon Street), but a public assembly usage would be a different situation. Councilman Roth stated that was his point--that the building be used for the purpose of set manufacture and storage. It was necessary to have staff report to the Council what it was going to cost so that they could make an informed decision. Councilman Roth moved to direct staff to provide a complete feasibility report rel- ative to the use of 232 South Lemon for set manufacture and storage. Councilman Bay seconded the motion. 79-1361 City. Hal~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - December 4~ 1979~ i:30 P.M. Before a vote was taken, Councilwoman Kaywood asked Mr. Yench if the building were to be used strictly for storage if that would satisfy his purposes; Mr. Yench answered that it would. Councilman Overholt stated he wanted the complete report which would allow them to shift immediately to the use of the facility since time was of the essence~ If the motion was to have a total feasibility report submitted in two weeks and consequently if it looked favorably for the building to be used immediately, he would be supportive. Councilman Roth stated that was the thrust of the motion. Councilman Bay stated he would like added to the report what Mr. Ruth suggested, that in the interim, staff talk to other art groups who might want to utilize space in the building so that they could look at the matter from the standpoint of management by the Park and Recreation Department. If that were part of the motion, he also would be supportive. Councilman Roth clarified the motion: Staff to provide a complete feasibility report relative to the use of 232 South Lemon for set manufacture and storage; and the Deputy City Manager to discuss with other arts groups in the City pos- sible use of the facility by those groups as well. A vote was then taken on the foregoing motion as clarified. MOTION CARRIED. RECESS: By general consent the Council recessed for 10 minutes. (3:20 P.M.) AFTER RECESS: Mayor Seymour called the ~meting to order, all Council Hembez£ being present. (3:30 P~M.) ?UBLIC HEARING - VARIANCE NO. 3119 AND TENTATIVE TRACT NO. 10807: ~'~p]icat~co by Pacific Terrace Apartments, to establish a ~48-1ot, 347-unit ~-~Odivision on RS-A-43,000 zoned property located at 5815 East with a waiver of required lot frontage. The City Planning Commlssion, pursuant to Resolution No. PC79-202, st~tea ~m Environmental Impact Report Negative f>eclaration was approved for ibc ~*uP]~ct project in conjunction with Conditional Use Permit No. 2014 on August nnd further, denied Variance No. ~119 and approved Tentative Tract No. 1~807. ~ubject to ;:he following conditions: 1, That should this subdi~i&ion be deve].oped as more than one sub~iivision thereof shall be submitted in tentative tract form for apprcv'ai, 2. ~at prior to the ~s]~ ~f any lots ~n this development, a ~inal of subject property shall be submitted ~.o and approved by the C!tv then be recorded in the office ~f the Orange <.;ounty Eecorder. 3~ ~'hat the original docu~aents ~,f ?~e ~.;cvenants, ~cnditlons, and and a letter addressed to <!ieve]ooer~s ~_Itle company ~uthorlzing vecordat:an ~hereof, shall be submitted to ~he City Attorney's Office and approves City Attorney's Office and Engineering '{~fvJsion prior to final tract Said doc~mentg;~ as approved, shall be filed and recorded in the Orange County Recorder. 79-1362 Ci.ty .Hall~ A~. aheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - December 4~ 1979, 1:30 P.M. 4. That the existing interior streets and sewer facilities shall remain private. 5. That standard private street name signs shall be installed. 6. That all lot numbers shall be the same as presently assigned space numbers (common property may be assigned numbers after highest existing space number). 7. That on the recorded map there shall be no street names shown for internal streets. 8. That a 9-foot, 8-inch high concrete masonry wall for sound attenuation purposes be provided adjacent to the north property line of subject site abutting the Atchison, Topeka and Santa Fe Railway righ'-of-way as stipulated by the petitioner in a report dated August 13, 1979, submitted in conjunction with previously-approved Conditional Use Permit No. 2014. 9. That the proposed subdivision shall be in accordance with the State Mobile Home Park Act. 10. That prior to the sale of any lots in this development, a written proposal in an agreement form be submitted providing for a comprehensive financing/relocation program. A review of the subject application was requested by Councilman Bay at the meeting of October 30, 1979, and public hearing scheduled this date. Miss Santalahti described the location and surrounding land uses. She outlined the findings given in the staff report which was submitted to and considered by the City Planning Commission. Councilman Roth asked if the intent of setting the subject for a public hearing was to reverse the decision of the Planning Commission. Councilman Bay answered that his intent was not necessarily to reverse the decision of the Planning Commission, but to extend the time on the operation and give the owners and/or their agents a chance to work out a comprehensive~financial and relocation program and subsequently tell the Council what they had done toward accomplishing that. It was also to give another chance for a public hearing for the people who lived in the park to voice their views on the whole idea. The Mayor then asked if the applicant or applicant's agent was present and desirous of being heard. If so, he suggested that rather than a lengthy presentation, that they speak to the issues raised. Mr. Boyce Jones, 1801 Park Court Place, Santa Aha, stated since they last reported to the Council, they had accomplished the following: they recognized that (1) it was somewhat of a beginning effort for the conversion of mobile home parks. Their legal agent, as well as First American Title who was assisting with the State Report, had found that there were a great many unanswered questions as to how it was done. They were being tested as the pioneer of how to apply. They were having to take approaches that were experimental in the application and in the method they handled themselves with coach owners. They found that they needed a great deal of input from those who would be potential buyers and those who would remain as renters and live in the complex. Therefore, they had formed an advisory committee of coach owners and invited nine couples to work with them for the next six to eight months to act as their sounding board and to, in turn, test with their neighbors things discussed in that group. The purpose was to try and formulate the rules and regulations that would be beneficial to the park when converted and that they must live with for the remaining years. 79-1363 City .~all~ Anaheim~ California ~, COUNCIL MINUTES - December 4~ 1979, 1:3__ 0~,_~_ (2) They wanted to try to find out the kinds of policies the majority of the park would like to live with. The budget they had to work with on the mobile home park was different from that of the Association. Their budget ran sub- stantially higher but relative to the input, they might be able to reduce some costs before their final budget was submitted to the State for approval. target date was January or the first part of February 1980. At that point, they would be ready for final submission for approval by the State. Relative to financing, that was the biggest anxiety fro~ their standpoint, as well as the coach owners. In repeated meetings with their source, the Bank of America~ they received approval from the home office indicating that it could be done and it seemed likely that the possibility of a land loan would now be available. By now, meant next Spring when the project would all come together and a final package with the information available from the State and with price and financing that could be accomplished. The big area they could not cover at this time was relative to any City or State funds that might be available. 2~ey had addressed themselves to that question in various ways as to what they might do as a private enterprise system, such as a sales contract or a lease option program. They were having some problems in their first round of discussions regarding that issue. If the State and/or the City Housing Department did have a program that was fundable by late Spring or early Summer, it would make it possible for them to help those people who did not have the income, but had the desire to buy. They seemed to have come to an agreement on the issue of family and adult secti~ps, The park was approximately' 60% to 65% adult versus family, but they also achieved a general meeting of the minds. As a converted park and as an Association, there would be no limit as to age coming into the park and that they would be addressing themselves only to an application, credit, and general selectivity as was the case with any association or condominium project. The board had the right to approve any incoming buyer just as with condominiums. Regarding the question as to their ~'espon$ibility relative to the condition of the park, the rear wall], was nine feet eight inches, and they planned to use a precapped concrete set-£n-place wall. The work on the engineering was now in progress and they had ~ tentative agreement from the Railroad that they would not only work with them~ but also might assist in what wa~ necessary to install the wall. They implied that that might also mean financial assistance as well. Their engineering work would be done in approximately mid-January or the end of January so that the drawings could be submitted to the Railroad and the City for approval. ~ Councilman Bay asked when setting up an advisory committee, had it been Mr. Jones' experience that he was meeting with any organized resistance within the Park from other groups that perhaps disagreed with the concept. Mr. Jones stated his answered would be "no", but there were members in the audience who could react to that. The Mayor then asked to hear from any others who were in support of the subject project. 79-1364 City Hall, Anaheim,_ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - December 4~ 1979~ 1:30 P.M. Mrs. Lucille Johnson, Space 296, Friendly Village Mobile Home Park, noted that Mr. Jones stated there would be no age limit as to the tenants in the Park. She wanted to know if that applied to the whole Park or would there still be an adult section in the Park, She also wanted to know how the couples were chosen for the advisory committee. Mayor Seymour stated they would have Mr. Jones answer the questions all at one time. Mrs. Wright, Space No. 144, stated that she had signatu-~as, approximately 54 people who could not be present today, indicating they were in favor of the program and who were looking forward to the final results. In regard to the question of Mrs. Johnson regarding the advisory committee, it was a very good group comprised of senior citizens, a retired couple, a young lady who had a daughter who she was raising by herself, a young couple with no children, couples who had children in the Junior high school level, and people who had children who were grown. She noted that there was some opposition because with a Park of that size and magnitude, there were people who were very frightened relative to any change. She felt it would be some time before they felt comfortable with the concept. Thus far, she considered it to be a fantastic program, and there were many in the park who felt the same way especially once they realized it was an opportunity for them to not have to worry about a rent increase to the point where they would have to move. She confirmed for Council- woman Kaywood that the committee had been in existence since September. Mrs. Mary Burton, Space 82, stated she was interested in buying her lot, but if she did not qualify or could not get assistance, she would not be forced to move. She would still have her home and could rent there, and thus was more protected if the subdivision took place than without. Kay Hathaway, Space 57, stated that last time it was brought up that when they were ready to sell, they would have to sell their land as well. She wanted to know if that had been changed and had they set a price on the lot. The Mayor answered "no" relative to the lot. Mr. Howard Summers, Space 72, stated he wanted to purchase his lot since he was retired and on a fixed income. He felt the biggest problem regarding the con- version was in getting people to meetings to where they could understand what was happening. He was one of the individuals who collected the signatures that were submitted. People made comments to him, and he would tell them it was not true that they would have to move, but that they could rent. He believed every- thing would turn out well if the people could be brought together to understand what was transpiring. He also submitted a letter from an individual in the park who could not be present. The Mayor asked to hear from anyone present in opposition; no one was present. The Mayor then asked Mr. Jones to sum up and also to answer the questions raised. Mr. Jones first emphasized that their tentative plans must be approved by a majority of the park and also in the final form by the Council and the City. It was their intent to leave the temporary lines that had been formally drawn years ago for the family and adult sections. It was the opinion of the group 79-1365 City Hall, Anaheim, California -~ COUNCIL MINUTES - December 4, 1979~ 1:30 P.M. that those were compatible~ There would be a section that would be rented, sold, etc. only to adults and another section for families. The other question relative to £ndividuals who would not choose to purchase but to rent only, that was one of the most difficult questions to answer. Before they were through and much further into the next year, they would have some answers as to what they could do. The~ were caught between policies and desires of a reasonable business transaction~ which meant a reasonable termination time, and the desires of individuals who had a need for some security in their housing. The intent as stated originally was to have a transition period in which those who chose not to purchase would be able to rent under their current program with reasonable increases based upon the cost of living. At some point, there had to be a cut-off time as to their i~volvement carrying those people as renters and being able to move that lot into the marketplace as an owned lot. If they decided to sell their coach at any time prior to that time, the owners would then have a right to sell the lot at that point. They felt that was a reasonable procedure because the coach owner made the choice. Councilman Bay noted that ie[~ter dated September 5, 1979 (~PM Services, Inc., to residents of Friendly Village Mobile Home Park) stated under Item "a", you will continue to pay rent; "b", when you sell your coach, the lot will also be sold. The only thing new that he thought he picked up was an implication that they were aiming toward some limit as to how long they were going to allow those who chose not to purchase, to rent. He asked Mr. Jones if that was where they were heading. Mr. Jones explained that because of the transaction and their involvement, they wanted to see a time per~od~ ~hey felt if they left it wide open, they could be there for a great many years. '~heirs was a partnership and not a corporation and thus, there needed to be s termination time. Councilman Bay stated i~t seemed they were getting through to the people since he had not heard any oppos~t!on~ It also seemed that the problem was in not understanding the concept and that was the biggest resistance. He hoped that were true and that Mr. Jo~es was able to work things out. Councilman Bay then no~ed the fact that they had submitted a tentative tract, yet technically they needed a reclassification prior to that under the normal process. It was his understanding they should be asking for a reclassification to the RM-3000 zone which would eliminate a need for the variance and should normally precede the tentative tract submittal. He wanted to know if Mr. Jones realized that, and if so, why he was asking for a tentative tract first. Mr. Jones then explained ~he process they followed up to the present time, and he believed the point they were at at present was correct. Councilman Roth touched on a point he had made at the previous meeting, that is, when converting the park and allowing more children, 'what was going to be done to provide more play areas and green areas in the park itself. Mr. Jones explained that the park as originally designed had decent green belt areas which were presently in existence and would remain so. The current playground area was 79-1366 City Ha!l,. Anaheim, Ca.lifol~nia ~ COUNCIL MINUTES -. December 42_.1__97__9, 1:30 P.M~ at best minimal, 2]~e [-~te~ *~.~ that the park would never meet totally the needs of a total fami]? complete. There was a ma~or trend in many cities, as well as the State, to p~"ov[de any kind of a rule stating that they could not rent or sell to certa[~ ~ge g'?oups,. They decided to meet the issue squarely and decided that was ~ot going ~o be one of the conditions~ He reiterated that' they recognized the ~ark ~'~:.~]d i~:~t ~'~e totally family~ Councilman Roth stated he ~nad~ the point because he was going to have a problem due to the fact that there were people to the west of t+"z park in the shopping center who complained to him that there were children playing in their parking lot because they did not~ have adequate space to play. Mr. Jones stated he believed i.[ they took a poll, they would f~nd many more children from the subdJvisio~,~ homes using the parking lot, than those from the mobile home park. They had reduced their population in children substantJ, ally during the last year. 'rhe issue was more than Just a technical one--they were also talking about people problems° As an example, they proposed to install either a day use or a ]igbtec] volleyball court in the park, and they agreed to pay for it providing that the e]ght coaches bordering the green belt area would agree to have the court in tt~at green belt, Councilman Roth repeated ti~at issue was a concern of his. The Plan. ning Commission denied the Variance and unlesg~ the Council was going to reverse the decision of the Planning Commission, whici~ they said they were not going to do, they would have to go back to the Planning Commission. Miss Santalahti stated I. ha~t. -~.'~s ~ot quite co,~.~ect. The Planning Cormnission denied the Variance, b~:t' app~:o'ved the Tentative Tract. Before that could be finalized, they would have to go back to the Planning Commission for zoning action. At the request of Council,,~,~ma~ [~:~?'~oc~d~ ~qr, Norm Priest explained that they not working with the appl~:ant~ at the pre~ent time° Early on~ however, they did conduct a survey and t:he>, had ~o reason to doubt what Mr. Jones had said. They had not gone ot~t t:~, ~:~e'~gai~ '[.date that data. They had met with Mr. Jones and his principals and the> ~,.:~ke~a at that time, until they were further along in the process, that Redevelopment not have further meetings with them. They had not met with them since~ Councilwoman Kaywood aske{t Mr. Priest if he anticipated any problems; Mr, Priest answered that they were unable to tell at this point in time, There being no further persons who wished to speak, the Mayor closed the public hearing. Miss Santalahti then clarifiee ~or Councilman Bay that the reclassification would have to be approved and the ordinance finalized before the tract could be finalized. Councilman Bay then asked, what would occur if there was tentative map approval before the reclas$ificatio~ and something went wrong relative to the reclass- ification, would the City then be exposed to a claim for investments made based on the tentative tract~ 79-1367 City Ha~l.l.~. Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - December 4~ 1979~ 1:30 P.M. Planning Director Ron Thompson stated there was a condition in the approval of the tentative tract, but as the Council was aware, the tentative tract was a discretionary matter and the final map was an administrative matter. He felt there was a danger in a sense that they would be approving a tract which was one of the better tools for insuring public purposes. Councilman Bay stated that was the answer he was looking for. He did not want the owners, nor their agent, to think that by their rulings today they were dis couraging what they were attempting to do. To him, it -as a great challenge to take an existing mobile home park and attempt to subdivide it. That was the intent and he favored that. At the outset, he stated that the hearing was not to overrule the Planning Commission's decision of denial. Councilman Bay offered Resolution No. 79R-703 for adoption, denying Variance No. 3119, upholding the decision of the City Planning Commission. Refer to Resolution Book. RESOLUTION NO. 79R-703: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM DENYTING VARIANCE NO. 3119. Before a vote was taken, Councilman Bay stated he felt strongly they should be going through the process of obtaining the RM-3000 zoning prior to tentative tract approval, as long as Mr. Jones realized they were not trying to discourage or delay him in that resolution. A vote was then taken on the foregoing resolution. 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. 79R-703 duly passed and adopted. Councilman Bay then questioned the action to be taken on the tentative tract; Miss Santalahti stated that the Planning Commission approved the tentative tract with the condition that zoning be finalized prior to the final map approval~ Mayor Seymour felt that Councilman Bay's thrust was to insure that the City Council held on to the ability to establish stipulations and conditions to zoning approval before getting a final tract map approved. He asked to hear from the City Attorney relative to the matter. City Attorney Hopkins stated that the Planning Commission did approve the tentative tract map with the condition that the zoning be finalized. At this time, if the Council upheld that action, he was of the opinion they might be making it dif- ficult for further adjustments or conditions to be made or stipulated. If they wished to keep more control, he suggested that a denial of the tentative tract be made at this time, pending the reclassification. 79-1368 City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - December 4, 1979~ 1:30 P.M. Miss Santalahti suggested the possibility of specific continuance to be heard in conjunction with conmideration of the reclassification; Mr. Jones agreed that would be acceptable. Councilman Bay moved to continue consideration of Tentative Tract No. 10807 to April 1, 1980, 3:00 p.m. at which time public hearing on the reclassification would be held also. Councilman Overholt seconded the motion. Before a vote was taken, Mayor Seymour added that he w~- extremely pleased by the open-minded and positive attitude being expressed by at least the tenants present, as well as Mr. Jones and also his perseverence to do some pioneering. The Council stated individually that they opposed the concept of rent control and also that they were interested in doing what they could to increase the supply of housing, both owner opportunities, as well as rental opportunities. On behalf of the Council, he thanked Mr. Jones and encouraged him to continue to persevere and be the first in California to achieve the objective of offering a rental space, as well as home ownership, in a mobile home park. A vote was then taken on the foregoing motion. MOTION CARRIED. PUBLIC HEARING - RECLASSIFICATION NO. 79-80-13~ VARIANCE NO. 3115, TENTATIVE TRACT NO. 10800, AND EIR N0.__1.97, ADDENDUM NO. 1: Application by Birch Ridge Estates, for a change in zone from RS-HS-IO,000 to RM-3000, to establish a 46-1ot, 44-unit condominium subdivision on property located on the northwest and southeast side of Silverspur Trail, east of Covered Wagon Trail, with waiver of maximum structural height. The City Planning Co~nission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC79-200, having reviewed Addendum No. 1 to Environmental Impact Report No. 197 for Tentative Map Tract No. 9752 (Revision No. 1) and 10800 with evidence, both written and oral, having been presented to supplement Addendum No. 1 to EIR No. I97, finds that potential environmental impacts of the project may be reduced to an insignificant level by conformance with the City plans, policies and ordinances and Addendum No. 1 to EIR No. 197 is in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act and with City and State EIR guidelines, certified Addendum No. ! to EIR No. 197; and further, approved Reclassification No. 79-80-13, subject to the following condition: That an ordinance rezoning the subject property shall in no event become effective except upon or following the recordation of Final Tract Map No. 10800 within the time specified in Government Code Section 66463.5 or such further time as the advisory agency or City Council may grant. The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC79-201, granted Variance No, 3115, subject to the following conditions: 1. That this Variance is granted subject to the completion of Reclassification No. 79-80-13, now pending~ 2. That subject property shall be developed substantially in accordance with plans and specifications on file with the City of Anaheim marked Exhibit Nos. 1 through 8; provided, however, any modifications or change~ to the approved plans shall be submitted to and approved by the Planning Commission. 3. That landscaped plans, including appropriate open non-view obscuring fencing, shall be submitted to and approved by the Planning Commission prior to the issuance of building permits. 79-1369 City Ha.~l, Anaheim, California .- COUNCIL MINUTES - December 4~ 1979~ 1:30 P.M. The City Planning Commission approved Tentative Tract No. 10800, subject to the following conditions: 1. That ownership and maintenance of Lots "A" and "B" shall be retained by the homeowner's association. 2. That the approval of Tentative Map of Tract No. 10800 is granted subject to the approval of Reclassification No. 79-80-13. 3. That should this subdivision be developed as more than one subdivision, each subdivision thereof shall be submitted in tentative fora for approval. 4. That all lots within this tract shall be served by underground utilities. 5. That the original documents of the covenants, conditions, and restrictions, and a letter addressed to developer's title company authorizing recordation thereof, shall be submitted to the City Attorney's office and approved by the City Attorney's office and Engineering Division prior to final tract map approval. Said documents, as approved, shall be filed and recorded in the Office of the Orange County Recorder. 6. That drainage of said property shall be disposed of in a manner satisfactory I~o the City Engineer. If, in the preparation of the site sufficient grading is required to necessitate a grading permit, no work on grading will be permitted between October 15th and April 15th unless all required off-site drainage facilities have been installed and are operative. Positive assurance shall be provided the City that such drainage facilities will be completed prior to October 15th. right-of-way for off-site drainage facilities shall be dedicated to the City~ or the City Council shall have initiated condemnation proceedings therefor (the of which shall be borne by the developer) prior to the commencement of grading operations. The required drainage facilities shall be of a size and type suffic~,~l~ to carry runoff waters originating from higher properties through said property to ultimate disposal as approved by the City Engineer. Said drainage facilities shall be the first item of construction and shall be completed and be functional throughout the tract and from the downstream boundary of the property to the ul~st~e point of disposal prior to the issuance of any final building inspections or permits. Drainage district reimbursement agreements may be made available to the developers of said property upon their request. 7. That grading, excavation, and ali other construction activities shall be con-- ducted in such a manner so as to minimize the possibility of any silt originating from this project being carried into the Santa Ana River by storm water originating from or flowing through this project. 8. If permanent street name signs have not been installed, temporary s~reet name signs shall be installed prior to any occupancy. 9. That all requirements of Fire Zone 4, otherwise identified as Fire Admini- strative Order No. 76-01, will be met. Such requirements include, but are not limited to, chimney spark arrestors, protected attic and under floor openings, Class C or better roofing material and one hour fire resistive construction of horizontal surfaces if within 200 feet of adjacent brushland. 10. That fuel breaks shall be provided as determined to be required by the Fire Chief. 11. That native slopes adjacent to newly constructed homes shall be hydroseeded with a low fuel combustible seed mix. Such slopes shall be sprinklered and weeded as required to establish 100 feet separation of flammable vegetation from any structure. 79-1370 City Hall, ___An_aheim, California COUNCIL MINUTES - December 4~_~19~...1:30 P.M. 12. That the owner(s) of subject property shall pay the traffic signal assess~ ment fee in (Ordinance No~ 3896) in an amount as determined by the City Council~ for each new dwelling unit prior to the issuance of a building permit. 13. That the owner(s) of subject pzoperty shall pay to the City of Anaheim the appropriate park and re~areation in-lieu fees, as determined to be appropriate by the City Council, sa~d fees to be paid at the ti~ne the building permit is issued, 14. That fire hydrant~ shall be 1,stalled and charged as required and determined to be necessary by the Chief of the Fire Department prior to commencement of structural framing. 15. In accordance with the '~equirements of Section 18.02.047 pertaining to the initial sale of residential homes in the City of Anaheim Planning Area "B", the seller shall provide each buyer with written information concerning the Anaheim General Plan and the existing zoning within 300 feet of the boundaries of subject tract. A review of the Planning Comm~_$s~or's action was requested by Councilwoman Kaywood at the meeting of October 30, 1979, and pub]lc hearing scheduled this date. Miss Santalahti descrY, bed the location and surrounding land uses. She outlined the findings given in the staff report which was submitted to and considered by the City Planning Commission. Miss Santalahti then confirmed for Councilwoman Kaywood that the original 57 units were two-story, and it was her understanding that all the units were two~ story. She also clarified for Councilman Roth that the Reclassification was consistent with the General Plan and the zoning; there were 181 off-street parking spaces and 50 on-street spaces, for a total of 231. For a condominl~m project, they counted only off-street parking spaces in meeting parking re- quirements. Councilwoman Kaywood asked ii Miss Santalahti had a record of any other bui!de~ on Anaheim Hills property who had come in to change the zoning after it had been approved. Miss Santalahti answered she believed this was the only project where a lower density was requested to be changed to a higher density~ The Mayor asked if a~yone was present in opposition to the proposed project; no one was present. He then asked Councilwoman Kaywood to present her concerns which would be followed by a presentation from the applicant or the applicant's agent. Councilwoman Kaywood explained that the Planned Community zoning was given to all of Anaheim Hills to retain control relative to what would be developed, so the City would be protected thereby. As Miss Santalahti indicated, this was the first builder to come in after the fact and change the density. If done for one, it must be done for all. Also, the underground utilities were installed for the 57 units and the 44 units, which represented 22 additional, would generate additional traffic in an already heavily traveled area. She also asked for clarification regarding the fact that it was to be an adults only project° 79-1371 City Ha,ll~ Anahe. im, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - December 4~ 1979, 1.:30 P.M~ A concern of the Planning Co~maission was the absence of common recreation areas~ Revised plans were presented and it was agreed that they would install swing sets, sandbox, etc. She was confused as to how that would be a recreational area for adults. Also it seemed to her that the ten units on the cul-de-sac would impact that cul-de-sac considerably, even though reduced from 12. The Mayor then asked to hear from the applicant or applicant's agent. Mr. Richard Owen, 4242 Campus Drive, Newport Beach, fir'~ displayed two maps of the project on the Chamber wall and working from them, he pointed out the precise location of certain areas, traffic flow, etc. It was General Planned and Master Planned for 340 units. A tentative map had now been submitted for 213 units, which would be 127 units less than originally planned for. He was asking that the 127 units be reduced by 22, resulting in 105 uni=s less than what was Master Planned for. Councilwoman Kaywood stated, in other words, the request was to increase the units from 213 to 235; Mr. Owen agreed~ Councilman Roth noted that 40 out of 44 units were two bedrooms. Thus when ta].ki~g about density and vehicular traffic, the majority buying two bedroom units would be either adults, or single adults~ and they had a tendency of minimizing vehJcula-~.~ traffic in the respective tract. Councilwoman Kaywood asked for clarification if the portion of the project Mr~ Owen pointed to (marked in yellow on one of the maps displayed) was the portion on which he was asking for a reclassification; Mr. Owen stated that was correct. Mr. Owen then passed booklets to the Council showing the kind of pro~ect it was going to be. He also gave statistics regarding the market for such units, trafflc~ experience etc. They believed there was a large market of people in their 4. O's and 50's who did not want to live in large three- or four-bedroom homes, but who liked the style of living afforded by the project they planned to build. Such projects did not add significantly to the traffic or school population. Mr. Owen then explained that a traffic study had been prepared and it was included in the EIR. There were 181 off-street parking spaces and 50 on-street, for a total of 231, which was 77 more parking spaces than required. He also explained that they were not attempting to build an adult community or one tha= excluded any- one, but homes to fit a particular market. They did plan to have an in-tract small playground area for children if it turned out that there would be any. The concern of the Planning Commission was, where small children would play, and that was the reason they provided a playground area. Within the site itself they did not provide tennis courts, a swim~_ing pool, nor did they provide open space. Discussion then followed between Councilwoman Kaywood and Mr. Owen relative to whether other projects were approved by the Planning Commission with no open space for Joint recreation, Mr. Owen was aware of two such projects which he identified. 79-1372 City H. al.l~ Anah.eim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - December 4~ 1979, 1:30 P.M. Councilwoman Kaywood stated that was her biggest concern in ever allowing some- thing to be permitted that should not go forth. Someone was always pointing to those instances where, for example, no open space was provided, followed by a request that they be granted the same. Mr. Owen then explained for Councilwoman Kaywood that there was, in fact, room in the back yards of the units to have a barbecue, as depicted in two additional exhibits that he displayed. Councilman Roth asked the square footage of the units and the price range; Mr0 Owen stated that the smaller units contained 1474 to 2000 square feet with a price range of $115,000 to $120,000 to $160,000 and the larger units 1800 to 2400 square feet ranging from approximately $150,000 to $185,000. Mr. Owen stated that they discussed the matter with Anaheim Hills and they re- ceived their approval. They did not get that approval in writing because they did not think it was necessary. After futher discussion and questioning between Councilwoman Kaywood, Council-' man Roth and Mr. Owen relative to the project, the Mayor asked if anyone else wished to speak either in favor or in opposition; there being no response, he closed the public hearing. Councilwoman Kaywood reiterated it was not the intent of the Planning Commission or the Council at the time the Planned Community zone was given to Anaheim Hills that there be resubdivisions taking place. Not only would Anaheim Hills lose control, but also the City and the initial EIR and General Plan of the whole Planned Community zone would become subject to a great credibility gap. She personally would be uncomfortable having builders come in with further requests of the kind under consideration. Anaheim Hills was the original owner of the whole area and was there to master plan the entire community. Councilman Roth stated that the developer had to go through an architectural review committee of Anaheim Hills and obtain approval before doing anything; a gentlemen from the audience confirmed that was correct. Councilman Roth continued that they were presently in a housing market situation where they had to be flexible. People needed housing and he was supportive of trying to provide that housing. When people whose families were grown moved to Anaheim Hills to purchase a two-bedroom home, it relieved a $70,000 to $85,000 home on the "flatland", which provided housing u~gently needed in the community. If government continued on the course of preventing people from building, govern- ment would be running the housing business and that was his fear. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT NO. 197 - ADDENDUM NO. 1 - CERTIFICATION: Environmental Impact Report No. 197, Addendum No. 1 having been reviewed by the City staff and recommended by the City Planning Commission to be in compliance with City and State guidelines and the State of California Environmental Quality Act, the City Council, acting upon such information and belief, does hereby certify on motion by Councilwoman Kaywood, seconded by Councilman Roth, that Environmental Impact Report No. 197, Addendum No. 1, is in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act and City and State guidelines, as recommended by the City Planning Commission. MOTION CARRIED. 79-1373 City Hall, Anaheim, California .- COUNCIL MIN-0TES - December Councilwoman Kaywood offered a resolution denying the subject Reclassification and Variance, reversing the findings of the City Planning Commission. Before any action was taken~ Councilman Bay stated there was some implication this would be a precedent~setting decision. He asked if it was staff's opinion that what was happening on the tract was happening for the first time in Anaheim Hills. Miss Santalahti stated this was the only instance she was aware of. Any concerns that Anaheim Hills had would have to be tied into thei~ future land sales in order that it not occur' again~ Mayor Seymour stated that was also a concern of his. Anaheim Hills was a Planned Community and if they began to sell off property only to have its use changed by some other developer, then it was ~o longer a Planned Community. However, from what he heard in Mr, Owen's presentation, he intended to have Anaheim Hills' approval before building. Thus, they could easily have stipulated a condition that they would have to have written approval of Anaheim Hills before finalization. Unless they had a real concern about the project, he maintained they should let the developer continue and he was going to oppose the proposed resolutions of denial. Councilwoman Kaywood reiterated her concern was the change and the precedent setting involved. Councilman Overholt stated he was going to oppose the resolutions to deny, although he felt that the hearing today was entirely appropriate. It appeared that the project was very well thought out. He also felt this would not be the only time a certain degree of flexibility would creep into the planning of that area. A vote was then taken on the resolutions to deny Reclassification No. 79-80.-t3 and Variance No. 3115 ~d failed to carry by the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: COUNCIL MEMBERS: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Kaywood Overholt, Bay, Roth and Seymour None Councilman Roth offered Resolution No. 79R-704 and 79R-705 for adoption, approving Reclassification No. 79-80-13 and granting Variance No. 3115, as recommended by the Planning Commission, subject to the stipulation that a letter of approval be made by the developer from Anahe~ Hills, Inc. Refer to Resolution Book. RESOLUTION NO. 79R-704: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM FINDING AND DETERMINING THAT TITLE 18 OF THE ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO ZONING SHOULD BE AMENDED AND THAT THE BOUNDARIES OF CERTAIN ZONES SHOULD BE CHANGED. (79-80-13) RESOLUTION NO. 79R-705: A RflSOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM GRANTING VARIANCE NO. 31i5, 79-1374 City Hal~,.. An. aheim, Ca.lifornia - COUNCIL MINUTES - December 4, 1979, 1:30 P.M. Roll Call Vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: COUNCIL MEMBERS: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Overholt, Bay, Roth and Seymour Kaywood None The Mayor declared Resolution No. 79R-704 and 79R-705 duly passed and adopted. TENTATIVE MAP TRACT NO. 10800: On motion by Councilmap Roth, seconded by Council- man Overholt, Tentative Map, Tract No. 10800, together with its design and improvement, was found to be consistent with the City's General Plan, and the City Council approved said tentative map subject to the recommendations of the City Planning Commission. Councilwoman Kaywood voted "no". MOTION CARRIED. PUBLIC HEARING - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 1923 AND NEGATIVE DECLARATION: Appli- cation by Orange County Gallery, Inc., requesting the use of signs and banners for a period of ninety days on property located at 1080 Kraemer Place, during their quitting business sale. A Negative Declaration status on the subject project was previously granted on May 15, 1979. Conditional Use Permit No. 1923 was granted by the City Council on October 16, 1979 under Resolution No. 79R-597, subject to certain conditions and stipulations (see minutes that date). A public hearing on the subject Conditional Use Permit was requested by the Council on November 13, 1979 as a result of a request from the applicant to consider amendments to the conditions imposed (see minutes that date), and public hearing was scheduled this date Miss Sanatalahti stated that the specific condition was No. 6 of Council Resolution No. 79R-597, "That no flags or banners shall be permitted on the premises." The request was to allow such flags and banners for a period of 90 days. The Mayor asked if the applicant or applicant's agent was present; Miss Carol Jones, 6595 Pasco Diago, indicated her presence. The Mayor asked if anyone was present either in favor or in opposition; no one was present. He thereupon closed the public hearing. Ms. Carol Jones asked for clarification as to how a review would be made at the end of the first year to ascertain if the business had shifted to 50% wholesale; Mayor Seymour then explained how they envisioned that would occur, as outlined in Resolution No. 79R-597, which was also explained at the meeting of October 16, 1979 (see minutes that date). Councilwoman Kaywood asked if she was reading into that question that Ms. Jones (Orange County Furniture Gallery) would like to have the opportunity to remain at their present location; Ms. Jones answered "no". 79-1375 City .Hall~ Anaheim,. California -~ COUNCIL MINUTES -December 4~ 19_79.~ 1:30 P.M. Councilman Bay stated that a~ the time the CUP was issued, inadvertently, Condition No. 9 was omitted, and he wanted to put that condition into the CUP. If they did so, they would then have to waive Condition Nos. 7 and 9 for the 90-day period. He also stated it only applied to Orange County Furniture Gallery and did not apply to the rest of the businesses on the parcel. Miss Santalahti interjected amd axp!~tned that unlemm it wam specifically stated otherwise, it would apply to ail of the businesses under the Conditional Use Pe~m!t~ Councilman Bay stated he did not beIieve it was the intent of the Council to apply that to all the businesses under the L~P, but only for the establishment going out of business~ What he needed to know was what they had to do techni- cally to put Condition No. 9 into the CUP, and if that should be done before granting any waiver. City Attorney Hopkins answered "yes" and it would be adding Condition No. 9 which was initially inadvertently omitted. Councilman Roth offered Resoiut~on No. 79R-706 and 79R-707 for adoption, the first being a nunc pro tunc ~esolution to ~nclude, "open to the public s~gns not permitted", and the second granting waiver of Condition Nos. 6, 7 and 9 of CUP No. 1923 and that after 90 days the premises would be vacated. Refer to Resolution Book. RESOLUTION NO. 79R-706: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AMENDING RESOLUTION NO~ 79R-597 GRANTING CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 1923, NUNC PRO TUNC. RESOLUTION NO. 79R-707: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CI%~ OF ANAHEIM APPROVING AN AMENDMENT OF CONDITIONS iN CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT CASE NO, 1923 AND AMENDING RESOLUTION NO. 79R-597 ACCORDINGLY. Roll Call Vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS COUNCIL MEMBERS COUNCIL MEbtBERS Ove~hoir~ Kaywood, Bay, Roth and~ Seymour None None The Mayor declared Res~lut o~~ ,~'i~ ['~o~ 79R-706 and 79R-707 duly passed and adopted~ 169: PUBLIC HEARING - CLOSURE OF WILKEN WAY: Submitted by the Public Works Department to consider the closure of Wilken Way between Orangewood Avenue and Chapman Avenue. City Clerk Roberts announced that one letter in opposition to the closure had been received today and copies furnished to each Council Member. Mr. Paul Singer, Traffic ~ng~neer, explained that he had received a petition from residents along Wilken Wa5, asking for its closure into a cul-de-sac or something similar to that done on Camino Manzano. They had taken traffic counts and in- stalled additional speed limit signs. They found that the speed limit as pre- sently posted was adequate and saw no reason with the traffic volume on that street that it should not necessarily be closed. 79-1376 City, .Hall,. Anaheim, California ~- COUNCIL MINUTES - December 4.~.....1979~ 1_.'30 P.M. Councilman Roth noted that the Police and Fire Department did not recommend closure; Mr. Singer confirmed that was correct. There was also a very low accident history on that street. Councilman Overholt asked if it were true that Wilken Way was the only through street from Harbor and Haster between Orangewood and Chapman; Mr. Singer confirmed that was correct. Mayor Seymour asked first to hear from those who would ~ike to have the street closed. He also asked for a show of hands of those in the Chamber audience who favored the closure. There were approximately eight present who were in favor. From the audience, it was indicated that about three-quarters of those who were present in favor of the closure had to leave the meeting. The Mayor asked for a show of hands of those opposed to the closures; there were none. The following people then spoke in favor of the closure for the below indicated reasons: Mr. Charles Lockhart, 109 West Wilken Way, first stated that the lady who sent the letter in opposition, Mrs. Jenkins, was present earlier and she had mlsunder~. stood where the cul-de-sac was desired. She thought they were trying to block off Harbor. He explained that their primary problem was not perhaps the amount of traffic, nor even the speed~ Haster Street was quite busy and, therefore~ cars tried to shoot the gap across oncoming traffic and they had experienced multiple accidents on the street. There had been more accidents in the last six months than recorded in the last two and half years (see October 30, 1979 memorandum from the City Engineer). Consequently~ the cars would end up bouncing on to the yards as they were coming around the corner. It was not safe to walk on the sidewalks of that street. They wanted to cul-de-sac the street on the Haster end, because the cars were coming off of Haster and turning the corner as fast as they could accelerate. Linda Moore, 112 West Wilken Way, third house from the corner on the south side, submitted letters from people who could not be present. She wanted to reconfirm what Mr. Lockhart had stated about cars turning the corner, both right- and left~ hand turns, and ending up out of control and as they were doing so, subsequently traveled across the front lawns. A lot of those incidents would not be reported as accidents. Their car was hit in front of their house and came to rest on their driveway. A few months later, the Lockhart's car was hit and knocked into their yard and children had been playing there seconds before. She also told about other such occurrences and all were coming off Haster. She was concerned about the children not being safe in their own yards, and the adults were frightened too. They had a terrible traffic problem. Kristine Massucci, 108 Wilken Way, also relayed a traffic incident that occurred which could have endangered her children° Mr. Adolfo Flores stated that he lived on the corner of Oertley and Wilken Way, and although he had no children, he was sympathetic to those families on the street who did. He favored the closure of Wilken Way because, working nights, 79-1377 City ~a. !~, Anahei%~. California - COUNCIL MINUTES - December 4~ 1979~.!:30 P.M. he could observe the daytime traffic go "flying" by. He also relayed several. traffic mishaps which he personally observed. He maintained that it was difficult to have a police officer posted to monitor the situation and the newly installed speed limits signs had not done any good. Sally Haymer, 105 West Wilken Way, stated she lived on the corner and had her car pushed next door by another car making a turn and the tow truck driver was of the opinion that the vehicle must have been traveling approximately 60 miles per hour on the right turn to have done what it did to ~.er car. She had an 18-month old son and she wanted him to be able to grow up. She noticed no dtffez ence in the situation since the installation of the speed limit signs. Charlene Lockhart, 109 West Wilken Way, second house off of Haster, stated that she had a car end up on her front yard and children were playing there Just before that occurred. Mrs. Moore's boy was hit half-way dow~ the street, although he was not injured badly enough to be hospitalized. She had two children who she cautioned about crossing the streets; however, considering the speed cars traveled around the corner, even being sure to look both ways, by the time of actual crossing, the cars were upon the pedestrians. The problem was ongoing and it was far worse in the Summertime. It was just a drag strip. Nicoli Blakely stated she lived at the opposite end of Wilken Way and they had cars speeding by their end also. They lived four houses away from the stop sign where people sometimes stopped, but most times did not. They had children who would soon be old enough to play outside. There were cars coming up and down the street and many of those cars were not those of people living on the stree~ The speed limit signs were spread out, but it was such a long block and with the downgrade, it was just one long street~ conducive to speeding. Virginia Mason, 60710~lando Drive, Huntington Beach, stated she was a property owner of one of the houses on Wilken Way and she was seriously concerned about the situation. Reading from a prepared statement, she relayed considerable dat~ which included the following: the ADT on the street was high, 2900 cars a day, and the street was being ~sed as a short-cut by getting off at Harbor onto Wilken Way. She then referred to comments in the staff report from the Police Department dated October 23, 1979 and from the Fire Department dated October 19, 1979 relative to the concern over accessibility to the tract area east of Harbor Boulevard by emergency Police or Fire vehicles. An item not discussed was the fact that the City had a cross boundary fire apparatus response provision with the City of Garden Grove who had a station located at Chapman and Debbie, a short distance from either direction. The Police Department report was primarily concerned about the possibility of a Police unit responding to an emergency call on Wilken Way which was a rare possibility and unlikely to occur. She considered it to be the least of the Council's concerns when weighed against the health, safety and welfare of the children and adults attempting to cross a residential street. She urged the Council to help the neighborhood--two of the children on the street were her grandchildren. There being no further persons who wished to speak, the Mayor closed the public hearing. Mayor Seymour asked the Traffic Engineer the projected impacts if they were to cul-de-sac Wilken Way. 79-1378 Cit~ Hall, Anaheim, California- COUNCIL MINUTES - December 4, 1~9_~_1:~0 P.M~ Mr. Singer stated the suggestion was to close the Haater Street side and thus all of the traffic de~tined for the Wiiken Way area would go to Harbor, as well as Chapman Avenue in Garden Grove, and Orangewood. Traffic would be pushed onto adjacent streets. Althougi~ he did not know the exact ADT's, Chapman carried approximately 25,000 to 30,000 cars a day and Orangewood approximately 18,000. It was his opinion that two-thirds of the approximate 3,000 vehicles dis- placed from Wilken Way would be traveling on Chapman and one-third on Orangewoo~ Mayor Seymour stated they were all ~oo familiar with th conditions of that e~ti~e area of the City even beyond the subject residential neighborhood. Although the Traffic Engineer had done an outstanding ~ob and was right relative to his reasons for not wanting to close Wilken and further he could be sympathetic with the Police and Fire response to the request, he believed there were overriding con-~ cerns which should be taken into account in approving the closure of Wilken and Haster. The only objection came from two people who owned lots on Harbor, and he could understand why they would be opposed. However, if he lived on the street and had small children with 2900 vehicles per day pamsing by at high speeds, he would want to do something about that also. If they could find it within themselves to close Wilken and Haster, they might well not only be saving a life, but also a ~eighborbood~ With that type of traffic on the street, the young people i~ving there with families were going to be looking for some other place to live and subsequently, less desirable elements might move in and consequently a neighborhood would begin to depreciate. Councilman Seymour thereupon offered Resolution No. 79R-708 for adoption, orderi~'~g the closure of Wilken Way at Haster Street, as requested by the residents, subject to staff providing some cost alternatives as to how that could best be accomplished~, Refer to Resolution Book~ RESOLUTION NO. 79R-708: A RESOLtITiON OF %HE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM ORDERING THE CLOSURE OF WILKEN WAY TO THROUGH VEHICULAR TRAFFIC PURSUANT TO SECTION 21101 OF THE VEHIC]~E CODE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA. Before a vote was taken~ (~ouncilwoman Kaywood and Councilman Bay posed questions to the Traffic Engineer for purposes of clarification, as well as possible alter-~ natives, which in the fJna! amalysis were not considered viable. Councilman Roth also que~t£oned Mro Singer relative to accessibility for trash pickup; Mayor Seymour stated he felt they could find a way to accomplish the closure with creative thinking on behalf of the staff to accommodate all prob- lem areas. Councilwoman Kaywood ststed she did not want to see another situation, such as Camino Manzano, where the street was closed at the halfway point and residents removed or ran through the barrier regularly. Mayor Seymour stated in the alternatives to be presented, he would opt for a professional job of closure rather than the barrier type approach used on Camino Manzano. He felt that was where they made the mistake. He then clarified for Councilman Bay that by the resolution, they would be committing to closure of the street and how it would be accomplished and asking staff to submit recommen- dations in three weeks. He then asked the residents who were present ~to return in three weeks when they would discus~ how the closure would be accomplished. 79-1379 City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - December .4.~ 197.9~ 1:30 P.M_____. A vote was taken on the foregoing resolution. 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. 79R-708 duly passed a~ adopted. RECESS: By general consent the Council recessed for 15 mintues. (6:05 P.M.) AFTER RECESS: Mayor Seymour called the meeting to order, all Council Members being present. (6:20 P.M.) 105: APPOINTMENT TO THE GOLF COURSE ADVISORY COMMISSION: Councilwoman Kaywood nominated Anita Austin as the appointee to the Golf Course Advisory Commission. There were no other nominations. On motion by Councilman Overholt, seconded by Councilman Roth, nominations to the Golf Course Advisory Commission were closed. MOTION CARRIED. Anita Austin was thereupon unanimously appointed to the Golf Course Advisory Commission due to the earlier resignation of Nora Davis. 105: PROPOSED CREATION OF A SENIOR CITIZENS COMMISSION: By general consent, consideration of the creation of a Senior Citizens Commission was continued one week to December 11, 1979 at 1:30 p.m. CONSENT CALENDAR ITEMS: Onmotion 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 .i'HE CITY: The following claims were denied and referred to the City's Claims Administrator or allowed: a. Claim submitted by Celestina Quintero Leos for damages purportedly sustained as a result of loss of jewelry by Police Department on or about November 4, 1979. b. Claim submitted by Ronald Louis Gandy for damages purportedly sustained as a result of automobile being towed from 506 Sabina Street, on or about October 12~ 1979. c. Claim submitted by Shirley A. Jacques for vehicular damages purportedly sus- tained as a result of City street sweeper striking automobile at 306 North Siesta, on or about October 24, 1979. d. Claim submitted by Robert C. Stace, Vice President, Ma~or Lock Supply, Inc.~ for damages to office equipment purportedly sustained as a result of power surge during installation of transformer on or about November 15, 1979. 79-1380 .~ity Ha. ll, .Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - December 4~ 19.~.9.~ 1:30 P.M. e. Claim submitted by Top Claim Service Inc., for damages purportedly sustained as a result of electrical disturbance at 631 South Amboy, on or about August 16, 1979. f. Claim submitted by Kenneth Martin Kruthaup for vehicular damages purportedly sustained as a result of accident on the corner of Richfield and La Palma Avenue, caused by a large hole in the road filled with water, on or about October 27, 1979. g. Claim submitted by George Clayton Fatheree for damages purportedly sustained as a result of actions by Anaheim Police causing detention and booking of claimant on or about August 7, 1979. h. Claim submitted by James Eugene Cook, Jr., for vehicular damages purportedly sustained as a result of accident caused by City-owned vehicle, when a grader struck claimant's parked vehicle in City parking lot, on or about November 8, 1979. i. Claim submitted by Andro Petersen, owner of Westward Ho 7 Seas Motel, for damages purportedly sustained as a result of actions by Anaheim Police during an incident at motel requiring Police to be called, on or abou~ August 1, 1979. j. Claim submitted by George N. Foster, Jr., for vehicular damages purportedly sustained as a result of hitting an unmarked rut in Cypress Street, on or about November 6, 1979. The following claims were allowed: k. Claim submitted by Allen E. Bang for damages purportedly sustained as a result of equipment placed on lawn by Utilities crew, on or about September 19, 1979. 1. Claim submitted by Ralph A. Young for vehicular damages purportedly sustained as a result of City-owned vehicle, striking claimant's parked car in private parking lot, on or about October 30, 1979. 2. CORRESPONDENCE: The following correspondence was ordered received and filed: a. 105: Public Utilities Board--Minutes of November 1, 1979. (unapproved) b. 140: Anaheim Public Library Monthly Report--September 30, 1979. c. 175: Public Utilities Commission, Application No. 59296, Advice Letter No. 1195, Southern California Gas Company, for authority to increase revenues to offset changed gas costs under its purchased Gas Adjustment Procedures resulting from adjustments in the price of natural gas purchased from Transwestern Pipe- line Company, and E1 Paso Natural Gas Company. MOTION CARRIED. 175: NOTICE OF PACIFIC TELEPHONE RATE APPLICATION TO THE PUC: Councilwoman Kaywood referred to the copy of "Notice of new Pacific Telephone Rate Application" they had received. She commented that it was doubly fortunate that the City did 79-1381 City Hal_l, A~__a.h.eim., California - COUNCIL MINUTES - December 4, 1979, 1,:,30 ._P_.....~J...__ not contract with Pacific Telephone for the City's new system since they would be adding 95¢ a month on every single telephone, which was a 42.8% increase. Councilman Overholt responded that he and Councilman Bay heard the other side of the question from Pacific Telephone when they attended the dedication of the Company's new Central Facility. Councilman Bay noted that the City was probably going to be paying some of thos~ fees on the lines they tied into. 114: CITY OF CYPRESS, RESOLUTION NO. 2158 - RESTRICTION ON SALE OF FIREWORKS: Councilwoman Kaywood referred to the subject resolution urging County-wide restr~c~- tion of the sale of fireworks to 48 hours immediately preceeding the July 4th holiday due to the number of accidents and fires that were caused by them. MOTION: Councilwoman Kaywood moved to support Cypress Resolution No. 2158 and recommended that the same type of restriction be instituted in Anaheim. The motion died for lack of a second. 114: CITY OF BUENA PARK - RESOLUTION NO. 6693: Requesting action by the State Legislature to restore original language of specific sections of the State Health and Safety Code and Welfare and Institutions Code in regard to local authority in the Establishment of Residential Care Facilities. Councilwoman Kaywood moved to support the subject resolution reestablishing 1. oca] control in the matter, and directing the City Attorney to prepare a resolution therefor. Councilman Seymour seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. 170: TENTATIVE TRACT NO. 10694: Submitted by Brookhurst Development Corporation to convert an existing 228-unit apartment complex into a 228-unit condominium complex, with certain code waivers, on property located at 1250 South Brookhurs~ Street. Councilwoman Kaywood requested that consideration of the subject tentative tract be continued one week to be heard in conjunction with Variance No. 3120; Miss Santalahti stated there was a 15-day appeal period after the Planning Commissiop took action. City Clerk Roberts stated it was her understanding that if ~here was a letter on file from the developer, Councilwoman Kaywood's request was appropriate, and there was a letter presently on file. MOTION: On motion by Councilwoman Kaywood, seconded by Councilman Seymour, con sideration of Tentative Tract No. 10694 was continued one week to be considered in conjunction with Variance No. 3120. MOTION CARRIED. Mr. Bob Michelson, 134 South Glassell, representing the property owner and developer, stated that their only concern was that perhaps the matter might be set for a public hearing. They did not have an objection to that as long as it could be set quickly. He did not encourage it, but if so, that it be heard as soon as possible because they made certain commitments that they could not hold forever~ 79-1382 Ci.t~ Hall~ Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - December 4~ 197.9, 1:30 P.M. Mayor Seymour asked if there was any intent that the matter be set for a public hearing; there was no intent on behalf of the Council to do so. CONSENT CALENDAR ITEMS: Councilwoman Kaywood offered Resolution Nos. 79R-709 through 79R-711, both inclusive, for adoption in accordance with the reports, recommendations and certifications furnished each Council Member and as listed on the Consent. Calendar Agenda. Refer to Resolution Book. 158: RESOLUTION NO. 79R-709: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM ACCEPTING A CERTAIN CORPORATION GRANT DEED. (Marriott Corporation) 103: RESOLUTION NO. 79R-710: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM APPROVING THE ANNEXATION TO THE CITY OF ANAHEIM OF THE TERRITORY KNOWN AND DESIGNATED LA PAIMA-LAKEVIEW NO. 4 ANNEXATION. (uninhabited, approximately 0.493 acres, northwest corner of La Palma-Lakeview Avenues) 124: RESOLUTION NO. 79R-711: 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: ANAHEIM CONVENTION CENTER RE- ROOFING OF ARENA GUTTER AND ARCHES, 800 W. KATELLA AVE., IN THE CITY OF ANAHEIM, ACCOUNT NOS. 64-308-7107-C9005 AND 64-308-7107-C9009. (Eberhard Roofing) Roll Call Vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: COUNCIL MEMBERS: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Overholt, Kaywood, Bay, Roth and Seymour None None The Mayor declared Resolution Nos. 79R-709 through 79R-711, both inclusive duly passed and adopted. 108: ORDINANCE NO. 4082: Councilwoman Kaywood offered Ordinance No. 4082 for adoption. Refer to Ordinance Book. ORDINANCE NO. 4082: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL AMENDING TITLE 6, CHAPTER 6.64, SECTION 6.64.010 AND ADDING SECTION 6.64.125 AND SECTION 6.64.126 TO THE ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE PERTAINING TO FOOD HANDLING BUSINESSES. 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. 4082 duly passed and adopted. 179: PROPOSED ORDINANCE - RELATING TO RETAIL SALES IN THE INDUSTRIAL ZONE: Councilman Bay moved that a substitute ordinance be offered, a copy of which he had given to the Council, which contained different wording and a different intent. 79-1383 City Hal.l~ Anaheim~ C___a..__lifornia - COUNCIL MINUTES - December 4, 1979~ 1:30 P.M. Mayor Seymour asked if it was the change they had intended to discuss with some members of the Planning Con~nission and appropriate staff; Councilman Bay stated that he did not think so0 Councilwoman Kaywood seco~ded the motion for the purpose of discussion. Councilman Bay stated they were talking about the ML zoning ordinance which they amended some weeks ago and the ordinance which was about to be read for first reading was a statement changing Section 18.61.050.600 JO5 to add the words, "businesses which primarily serve and are compatible with industrial customers and where not more than twenty-five percent (25%) of the total sales are devoted to retail sales." When he looked at the impact of that particular amendment to the existing ordinance, he wrote a substitute ordinance amendment, that which was the subject of his motion. In essence, he was vehemently opposed to watering down the present ML zoning ordinance by adding the words, industrial customers, and adding that 25% of their total sales could be retail. He felt if they amended that statement within the ordinance, they would reverse the sole intent of the ordinance by making it debatable as to what type businesses would be allowed and would be reopening the door to retail sales by the 25% stipulation~ That was the key reason. The intent of his substitute motion was to study a more explicit interpretation and try to remove some of the doubts in the inter~, pretation of the ML zoning ordinance. A meeting that he and the Mayor were going to attend was set for Thursday with the Planning Coramission and Planning staff to ascertain how they could better clarify the ML zoning ordinance. He hoped no one took that to mean that he was ready to negotiate changing the basic intent of the ordinance. He reiterated, he felt the proposed change would not only further complicate the interpretation of that ordinance, but also would tend to break down ~ts true intent~ Mayor Seymour stated he was not prepared to pass the ordinance the way it was proposed even for first reading with the 25% total sales. Conversely if Counc~l- man Bay's substitute was saying that if a wholesale business conducted one retail sale, it would be in violation of the ordinance, he would oppose the motion on that basis; Councilman Bay confi~m~ed that was his intent. The Mayor stated that alth~ugh he was willing to take the time to discuss the matter at the forthcoming meeting, he was not prepared today to support Council- man Bay's modified version. Councilwoman Kaywood suggested that the matter be continued un~il after the meeting with the Co~nissioners and Planning staff; Councilman Bay was agreeable: Councilwoman Kaywood thereupon withdrew her second to the motion. MOTION: On motion by Councilwoman Kaywood, seconded by Councilman Overholt, consideration of the subject proposed ordinance was continued one week MOTION CARRIED. ' ORDINANCE NO. 4083: Councilman Seymour offered Ordinance No. 4083 for first reading. ORDINANCE NO. 4083: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AMENDING TITLE 18 OF THE ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO ZONING. (77-78-4, RS-HS-22,000) 79-1384 City _Hall,. Anah. e.im,' Cali.fornia - COUNCIL MI.NUTES.- December .4, 1979~ 1:30 P.M. 114: COUNCIL PARKING: Councilman Overholt explained the difficulty that he and another Council Member had in parking at City Hall the previous afternoon because Council parking spaces were totally filled, presumably by members of the Planning Commission who had previously been granted permission to use those spaces on Planning Commission meeting day. Now that the parking structure was complete, it might be appropriate to ask the Planning Commissioners to use that facility on the day of their meeting since the lack of parking caused quite an incon- venience when coming to City Hall to pick up mail or to sign papers. Councilwoman Kaywood recalled that they had decided that the Planning Commission would be allowed to use three spaces and leave two vacant on their meeting day and thus, there would be no problem. MOTION: Councilman Overholt moved that the Planning Commission now use the parking structure for parking even on their meeting day, rather than the parking spaces marked for Council. Councilman Roth seconded the motion. Before a vote was taken, Mayor Seymour spoke against and stated he would vote against the motion. He personally did not find discomfort when visiting City Hall to find that the Planning Commission happened to be occupying his space~ If he had to, he could use the exercise, and would walk from the parking struc- ture for the short time they had left before the move. In fact, he would not mind if they did not have Council parking spaces at all. Councilwoman Kaywood stated that she would prefer to enforce what they had instituted originally, that the Planning Commission use three spaces only. She would therefore oppose the motion. A vote was then taken on the foregoing motion. Seymour voted "no". Councilman Bay abstained. yes. Councilwoman Kaywood and Councilman Councilmen Overholt and Roth voted With the abstention going to the majority, the MOTION CARRIED. 114: MUSIC OLYMPICS IN ANAHEIM - 1981: Councilman Overholt reported on Wednesday, November 28, 1979, he attended a meeting on the establishment of a Music Olympics in Anaheim in 1981 at the Stadium and Convention Center. There was a strong group headed by Mr. Jack Brown of the Anaheim High School District trying to stage the World International Music Olympics in the City. Present at the briefing were not only members of the City staff, but also members of the Visitors and Convention Bureau staff, Convention Center staff and the Chamber of Commerce. From the feedback he received, some people were concerned as to whether it was going to be economically feasible, but he pointed out it was only at the beginning stages. 114: FUNCTION OF THE COMMUNITY CENTER AUTHORITY: Councilman Overholt noted that Mr. Ben Shroeder had tendered his resignation from the Community Center Authority (CCA), effective December 15, 1979. People had since inquired as to what the CCA was all about. He subsequently asked the City Manager to provide him with something to let people know of the Authority's function. In the Council data was a memorandum of December 14, 1979 forwarding Mr. Tom Liegier's position statement outlining the function of the CCA, which could be utilized for any inquiries. 79-1385 City Hall, Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - December 4~.1979~ 1:30 P.M. 102: BARKING DOG COMPLAINTS: Councilwoman Kaywood recalled that she inquired as to what might be done to alleviate the problem relative to barking dogs in neighborhoods in making complaints easier to file. She understood if the City Clerk or City Attorney's office was willing to have the forms available, that the City residents could pick them up and fill them out in Anaheim, rather than have to make a tzip to Santa Ana. City Attorney Hopkins reported that he contacted Orange County Animal Contro] Officer Lt. Robilard, who indicated they did not like to mail out the forms because frequently they were returned without the proper information included. Lt. Robilard also indicated that several cities had assigned the Police Department to handle that function; however, the Anaheim Police Department indicated that they felt it would be better handled through the Animal Control office, but it would be necessary for citizens to go into Santa Ana to file a complaint. If the Council directed, the City Attorney could handle the matter and if the City Clerk would be willing to have the forms available in the City Clerk's office, Lt. Robilard would be willing to explain the necessary details as to how to fill out the forms to be sent on to Santa Ana. He recommended a motion and he would subsequently make the necessary arrangements assuming it was satis- factory from the City Clerk's standpoint. City Clerk Roberts stated if it was merely a matter of having the forms avail-~ able, there was no problem. However, if it involved staff time as far as assis- ting someone to fill out the form, there would be a cost to the City. Councilwoman Kaywood asked if there was a way the County would pick up the cost; City Attorney Hopkins answered "no". Someone would have to assist the complain- ants in filling out the form. He would be glad to handle that in his office if necessary. He would first arrange to get a copy of the form to see what it entailed. Councilwoman Kaywood suggested that the matter be continued for further invest~- gation by the City Attorney before making any decision. 148: SCAG COMMITTEE REPORT WITH REGARD TO PLANNING RESPONSIBILITIES: Council- woman Kaywood stated she believed the Council had received copies of the report from the League of Cities/Orange County Division regarding the SCAG Committee report on the planning responsibilities of SCAG and what subregional input would be from Orange County. They requested that all written comments on the matter be received by Thursday. A final meeting of the Committee would take place next week to finalize any recommendations. 173: BUS SHELTER PROGRAM: Councilwoman Kaywood referred to the letter received from Convenience and Safety requesting that the bus shelter units be charged for electrical service on a flat rate basis. She stated that she wanted to make a motion or offer a resolution to that effect and, as previously discussed and suggested, that they take the longest night, which would be the month of December, and average that cost for every shelter, rather than meter all shelters~ City Clerk Roberts reported that Convenience and Safety had been advised that the item was scheduled to be discussed at the Council meeting of December 18, 1979, and staff was preparing a report. 79-1386 city Ha. ll, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - December 47 1979~. 1:30 P.M. 148: SCAqMB ACTIVITIES: Councilman Roth reported on the recent activities of the South Coast Air Quality Management Board (SCAQMB) and the controversy on Rule 13, a very broad rule affecting industry in the Counties of Riverside, Los Angeles, San Bernardino and Orange. He suspected at the forthcoming meeting on Friday, December 7, 1979, that the Board was going to take some definite steps regarding the rules and regulations that would be mandated under Rule 13 of the Lewis Act that would seriously hamper industry. He felt it was important to understand what was going on and that they were fighting Governor Brown's appointed people who had more authority than elected re~resentatives, which he considered to be a dangerous situation. 173: RESIGNATION FROM THE CITIZENS COMMITTEE OF ORANGE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION DISTRICT: Councilman Seymour moved to accept with regret the resignation of Mrs. Billie Bird from the Citizens Committee of OCTD, with a letter of thanks to be sent for the services she rendered. Councilman Overholt seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. 105: RESIGNATION FROM THE COMMUNITY CENTER AUTHORITY: Councilman Seymour moved to accept with regret the resignation of Mr. Ben Shroeder from the Community Center Authority. Councilman Overholt seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. 114: LIAISON MEETING WITH ANAHEIM HILLS~ INC.: Mayor Seymour reported on the Liaison meeting with Anaheim Hills, Inc., Friday, November 30, 1979 which he attended, along with Councilwoman Kaywood. The discussion revolved around how the remainder of Anaheim Hills would be developed and put at ease some of the concerns previously expressed. 114: IRANIAN SITUATION: Mayor Seymour stated he had been contacted and briefed on a recent action taken by the Cypress City Council by which they were asking their citizens to fly the American flag until such time as the American hostages in Iran were released. He wanted the Council to consider not only doing the same in Anaheim, but also to lower all flags on municipal property until such time as the hostages were released. He believed there was a wave moving across the country showing a unification of spirit, the first he had seen in a long time. MOTION: Councilman Seymour moved to encourage all Anaheim citizens to fly the American flag until such time as the American hostages in Iran were released and directing the City Manager to insure that all American flags on all public buildings in the City be flown at half mast until the hostages were released. Councilman Overholt seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. RECESS - EXECUTIVE SESSION: On motion by Councilman Roth, seconded by Councilman Seymour, the Council recessed into Executive Session. MOTION CARRIED. (7:03 P.M.) AFTER RECESS: Mayor Seymour called the meeting to order, all Council Members being present. (7:30 P.M.) 112: HERNANDEZ VS. CLINE~ CITY OF ANANRIM, ET AL: On motion by Councilman Seymour, seconded by Councilman Overholt, the City Attorney and Kinkle, Rodiger and Spriggs were authorized to settle Orange County Superior Court Case No. 27-74-26 ~Mm~aandez vs. Cline, City of Anaheim, et al) for a sum not to exceed $1,500 MOTION CARRIED. ' 79-1387 City. Hall~ Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - December 4~ 1979, 1:30 P.M. 108: ORDINANCE NO. 4084: Councilman Overholt offered Ordinance No. 4084 for first reading. ORDINANCE NO. 4084: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AMENDING SECTION 7.34.120 OF CHAPTER 7.34 OF TITLE 7 OF THE ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO BINGO GAMES. 105: YOUTH COMMISSION - EXPIRATION OF TERMS: After a brief Council discussion, Tuesday, January 15, 1980, at 11:00 a.m., was tentatively set a8 the date and time for interviewing potential candidates to the Youth Commimsion. ADJOURNMENT: Councilman Roth moved to adjourn. Councilman Bay seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. Adjourned: 7:36 P.M.