Loading...
1978/02/21 78-216 City Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - February 21~ 19787 1:30 ~.M. The City Council of the City of Anaheim met in regular session. PRESENT: ABSENT: PRESENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Kaywood, Seymour, Kott, Roth and Thom COUNCIL MEMBERS: None CITY MANAGER: William O. Talley CITY ATTORNEY: William P. Hopkins CITY CLERK: Linda D. Roberts DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC WORKS: Thornton Piersall CITY ENGINEER: James Maddox STADIUM-CONVENTION CENTER-GOLF DIRECTOR: Thomas Liegler ASSISTANT UTILITIES DIRECTOR: Edward Alario ASSISTANT DIRECTOR FOR ZONING: Annika Santalahti Mayor Thom called the meeting to order and welcomed those in attendance to the Council meeting. FLAG SALUTE: Councilman William I. Kott led the assembly in the Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag. PROCLAMATION: The following proclamation was issued by Mayor Thom and approved by the City Council: "American National Red Cross Month in Anaheim" - March 1978 The proclamation was accepted by Mrs. Jackie Roth, who also invited Mrs. Sarah Pearson and Mrs. Eileen Anthony to join in its acceptance. COMMENDATION: The Mayor stated that during the recent rain storms which caused damage in the City, various divisions in the City departments put forth great effort in restoring services, taking care of public safety hazards, preventing extensive damage, providing response to troubled areas and like duty. He thereupon presented, on behalf of the Council, appropriate documents of commendation to repre- sentatives of the Utilities Field Division of the Utilities Department, Parkway Maintenance Division and Street Maintenance and Sanitation Division of the Public Works Department, and the Operations Division of the Utilities Department. Councilwoman Kaywood added her personal thanks for a job well done and stated she had received many calls from people in the Canyon area and other sections of the City who were overwhelmed by the efficiency and courtesy of the City employees and the speed with which they restored services. MINUTES: Approval of minutes was deferred for one week. WAIVER OF READING - ORDINANCES AND RESOLUTIONS: Councilman Thom moved to waive the reading, in full, of all ordinances and resolutions and that consent to the waiver of reading is hereby given by all Council Members unless, after reading of the title, specific request is made by a Council Member for the read- ing of such ordinance or resolution. Councilman Roth seconded the motion. MOTION UNANIMOUSLY CARRIED. FINANCIAL DEMANDS AGAINST THE CITY in the amount of $563,202.39, ~n accordance with the 1977~78 Budget, were approved. 78-217 City .Hall; Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - February 21~ 1978~ 1:30 P.M. 160: PURCHASE OF EQUIPMENT - MODEL TC-410 TELECOPIER TRANSCEIVER: Councilman Roth moved to approve the purchase of one Telecopier Transceiver from Xerox at a total price of $3,050.97, for use by the Utilities Department, as recommended in memorandum dated February 15, 1978, from the Purchasing Agent. Councilman Seymour seconded the motion for the purpose of discussion. Councilman Seymour thereupon asked Mr. Ed Alario, Assistant Utilities Director, to explain in more detail the intended use of the equipment. Mr. Alario first explained that the equipment was similar to that presently in the Police Department. The major reason the Utilities Department requested this partic- ular transceiver was due to the fact that it was an automatic type which could receive and send up to 75 pages unattended. Without the automatic feature, 4 to 6 minutes per page were required for a person to literally stand and feed the pages into the machine, as well as for receiving pages. Considering the legal suits now transpiring in working with Spiegel and McDiarmid, Attorneys in Washington D.C., working on the anti-trust case, as well as power generation contracts which Mr. Hoyt was presently working on with the Northwest and the State of California, the documen- tation involved could, at times, represent as much as 10 to 12 hours with someone physically attending the machine. Another advantage of the proposed transceiver would allow for an eastern firm and the Utilities Department to send messages in off-hours thus taking advantage of lower telephone rates. Relative to maintenance, they were going to purchase a maintenance contract for approxirm~tely $300 a year, which maintenance would be performed by Xerox whose response time was within 3 to 4 hours. A vote was taken on the foregoing motion. Councilmen Kott and Thom voted "No" MOTION CARRIED. · 123/137: LIFE INSURANCE BENEFITS - PEACE OFFICERS UNIT AND THEIR DEPENDENTS: Councilman Kott offered Resolution No. 78R-115 for adoption, as recommended in memorandum dated February 15, 1978, from the Personnel Director Refer to Reso- lution Book. ' RESOLUTION NO. 78R-115: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM APPROVING THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF AN AGREEMENT WITH THE ANAHEIM POLICE ASSOCIATION IN CONNECTION WITH THE FURNISHING OF LIFE INSURANCE BENEFITS, AND AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR AND CITY CLERK TO EXECUTE SAID AGREEMENT. Roll Call Vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: COUNCIL MEMBERS: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Kaywood, Seymour, Kott, Roth and Thom None None The Mayor declared Resolution No. 78R-115 duly passed and adopted. 157/159: PUBLIC WORKS PROJECTS RELATIVE TO LATE CHARGES AND PENALTIES FOR NON-PERFORMANCE: On motion by Councilman Roth, seconded by Councilman Kott, report on Public Works projects relative to late charges and penalties for non-performance dated February 15, 1978, from the Assistant City Engineer, was received and f%led. MOTION CARRIED. 78-218 ~ity Hall~Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - February 21~ 1978~ 1:30 P.M. Councilman Roth, who requested the report, noted the last paragraph which stated, "In the future any request for the preparation of parcel maps by consultants will include a time of completion requirement to be submitted as part of their proposal." which he was pleased to see included. 158: SALE OF CITY-OWNED PROPERTY NORTH OF KATELLA AVENUE, EAST OF WALNUT STREET: (Barre-Villa Park) Councilman Roth offered Resolution No. 78R-116 for adoption, as recommended in memorandum dated February 13, 1978, from the City Engineer, authorizing the sale of the subject property to the Wrather Corporation for $3,800. Refer to Resolution Book. RESOLUTION NO. 78R-116: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM APPROVING THE SALE OF CERTAIN CITY-OWNED REAL PROPERTY AND AUTHORIZING AND DIRECTING THE EXECUTION OF A GRANT DEED THEREFOR. Roll Call Vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: COUNCIL MEMBERS: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Kaywood, Seymour, Kott, Roth and Thom None None The Mayor declared Resolution No. 78R-116 duly passed and adopted. 175: TELEPHONE CONSULTING SERVICES: City Manager Talley explained that staff was present to answer any questions relative to the proposed agreement with Mr. Donald Bushor of Communication Organization Management for telephone consulting services, not to exceed $10,800, plus expenses, with reference to report dated February 16, 1978, from the Public Works Department--Property Maintenance Division. As well, communication was received from Pacific Telephone and Telegraph that Mr. Earl White, Accounts Representative for the City, wished to speak relative to the recommendation. Councilman Kott asked first to hear from staff as to why they would not accept the recommendation of the Phone Company since they were supposed to be the experts. Mr. Thornton Piersall, Director of Public Works, explained that the Telephone Company submitted a report in November which the City evaluated and verbally relayed back to them (Pacific Telephone) that although it was a comprehensive report, staff wanted a third party consulted to evaluate the matter to see if additional recommendations or savings could be made which would subsequently be submitted to the City Council for implementation if that should come out of a study. Many cities had considered installing their own telephone systems and thereafter implemented such a system. As well, others had gone from the private system back to Pacific Telephone. Staff wanted to look at that alternative. They were not recommending something within a predetermined basis, but considering the magnitude, they felt it appropriate to look at the matter with an outside third party review. Discussion followed between the Council and Mr. Piersall wherein the Council posed the following questions: Was an attempt made to contact the telephone company to have them explain their report further since it was indicated in the February 16, 1978 report from staff, that the Pacific Telephone report was too vague; were there many organizations who stayed with the private system; was the possibility of pitting the Telephone .Company against the private communications explored, subsequently having both present their case to a select committee as to their recommendations, 78-219 C_iity Hall~ Anahei.m~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - February 21, 1978, 1:30 P.M. costs, etc. instead of going to an independent consulting service; the possibility that part of the phone bill was the responsibility of the individuals operating the equipment; whether or not staff talked to communication consultants who would make an evaluation and propose a fee based upon the assumption that they were going to save a certain amount of money each year or no fee would be charged? Mr. Piersall explained that staff did not mean to infer that the Pacific Telephone report was vague, but instead it was clear-cut. However, the savings which were indicated that might be obtained from the Madison lines and other lines was calculated on an estimated savings basis, and thus, the comprehensive information was not that clearly documented. Cities such as Cypress, Covina and Glendora did have their own system, as well as other cities. Likewise, some cities implemented their own private systems and had reverted back to Pacific Telephone. Staff felt that hiring a consultant who had no affiliation with equipment companies would be the most objective and comprehensive, whereas equipment people made claims and statements that could not be substantiated and thus difficult to prove or dis- prove. Relative to whether or not calls being made were non-business calls, that responsi- bility was being placed in the program areas and budgeted and paid for in those areas wherein the responsibility would lie. Staff did not ask specifically for a proposal where no fee would be charged if so much money was saved each year. They felt it would be a better approach if the consultant was not committed to cutting back in monthly charges just to get a fee. Mr. Piersall further explained that a few years ago when Arthur Young & Company made a survey, the results of the survey were implemented as questioned by the Mayor, and subsequently a number of lines were removed as well as call directors, but an ongoing review was necessary to keep the number down. The thrust of the new survey, however, was in preparation for the phone system in the new Civic Center. A brief discussion followed between Councilman Roth and Mr. Piersall relative to the person responsible for saying yes or no when a phone was requested in the depart- ment. It was Councilman Roth's opinion that the responsibility should be with the department head working with someone who would make a decision to say "no" if that was necessary. Mr. Piersall explained that Mr. John Roche, Property Maintenance Superintendent, was directly in charge of the telephones and if a disagreement arose, it would ultimately be referred to the City Manager's office. Mr. Earl White, City Accounts Representative, Pacific Telephone Company, explained that telephone systems changed approximately every 5 years and those who had pur- chased their own systems had outgrown them, and thus, they returned to Pacific Tele- phone. As the City Account Representative, he wanted to be certain that the City looked at every possibility beforehand, and although he was not told that the City wanted an outside, third party to review the situation, he was in full accord. He was also in the process of preparing a feasibility study that would coincide with whatever the City decided to do today. He had already completed one department study and it showed an approximate $50 a month savings just going to the new 78-220 City Hall~ ~naheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - February 21~ 1978~ 1:30 P.M. generation Centrex. Mr. White emphasized that as soon as the feasibility study for the new generation Centrex was completed, a definite savings would be reflected over and above what he already proposed as outlined in the report turned in to staff. Councilwoman Kaywood wanted to know what suggestion Mr. White had made for the new Civic Center telephone system. Mr. White explained he was presently in the process of making a recommendation on the Civic Center, but the proposal he made previously was to tell the City Manager and staff what the City presently had, what could be saved over and above the present equipment, and the training available for present employees, which savings amounted to approximately 18 percent or about $63,000 annually. Councilwoman Kaywood then posed the following questions: if the savings were possible as stated by Mr. White, why measures had not been taken already in order to realize that savings; was an ongoing training program presently available for all employees; and why, at the time of the Telephone Company's previous report, they had not in- cluded the new Civic Center? Mr. White first explained that the savings was a proposed savings and if the City wanted to adopt what they recommended in the November report, the savings would be reflected immediately. Relative to the ongoing training program, it was presently available and if their customers wanted to implement such a program, they would set up the training schedule. The reason they did not include the new Civic Center in their proposal was to avoid clouding the issue since two different types of systems would be involved. City Manager Talley then spoke to the projected 18 percent savings which Mr. White stated could be realized if the Telephone Company's proposal were implemented. In that percentage, Mr. White included such things as stopping a $10 an hour employee from answering the phone an hour a day, thus saving $10 because the person could become more productive. Therefore, the savings were vague and theoretical in many cases and not a return of real dollars to the City. If Mr. White would guarantee that in 1980 the City's telephone bill would be under $350,000, he would discount the proposed savings and for $315,000 utilize the new Centrex system and the City's current system in the new City Hall. The decision to be made was a $4 million one and he believed that spending $10,000 or one-quarter percent was proper in order 'to ascertain how good that decision would be. Even though technology changed, the City had not changed its telephone system for over a decade. He reiterated if Mr. White would guarantee phone bills of $315,000 a year, he would guarantee service from 1980 on. Mr. White stated he could not give such a guarantee. Thereupon Mr. 'Talley recommended spending the one-quarter percent for the study, and although it was also not a guarantee of savings, it would confirm that the only vendor the City had at present was right. 78-221 City Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - February 21~ 1978, 1:30 P.M. Mr. White then relayed the following upon questioning by the Council and staff: He did not make any attempt to contact the City since November when his report was submitted because he was told to hold off by Mr. Piersall until the consultants were hired and the report could not be accepted until a third party review. He submitted a list of five customers, of a large size, who had installed systems of their own, but had since returned to the Pacific Telephone System. During their study, they performed 200 manhours of maintenance to bring the City Centrex system up to date, and special maintenance telephone numbers were set up that could be called 24 hours a day. Thus, the City's existing system was "cleaned up" 100 percent. The present system could not accommodate the 911 emergency line but would be a new and different part of the system engineered, designed and operated separately. Mr. White also explained for Councilwoman Kaywood why it was difficult at times to call into City Hall either because lines were tied up or busy, although, in reality, upon checking, it was found that some department line calls had not been used. He stated the difficulty was a central office blockage rather than the initial telephone switch being utilized. Mr. Talley then pointed out that of the savings the Telephone Company recommended, removed equipment represented approximately one-half percent. The City analyzed each of those removals, and where it agreed, the removal was made. Long distance toll savings represented 10.5 percent which fact was also analyzed and where the savings could be implemented, it was done. Mr. White interjected and stated that, to his knowledge no action had been taken by them on that aspect. Mr. Talley continued that the remaining 7 percent was relative to phone use. He was willing to go along with that recommendation, but maintained it had nothing to do with the $10,000 proposed to be spent for consulting services. The Mayor relayed his experience as a board member of a large institution stating that when they elicited proposals from Pacific Telephone Company relative to the installation of a telephone system, they also req6ested the same from private companies. When the proposals were received, they hired an independent consultant to evaluate all three, and although they stayed with the Telephone Company in the final analysis, they saved themselves thousands of dollars. Eliciting the proposals and subsequently hiring a consultant had a net effect of reducing the Telephone Company's proposal considerably. It was a situation similar to what the City was proposing. RESOLUTION: Councilwoman Kaywood stated she believed there was good enough reason and need for'an outside fair and impartial study, and, therefore, offered a resolu- tion to authorize an agreement with Donald J. Bushor of Cor~nunication Organization Management for telephone consulting services, not to exceed $10,800, plus expenses. Before a vote was taken, Councilman Seymour stated he would vote against the resolution, not because he felt there was no need for a consultant somewhere along the line, but at this time it was his opinion that for the cost of a consultant, the bureacracy was passing the buck of decision-making on an ultimate $4 million matter. He did not believe it should be done in that way, but instead preferred that staff or a committee, perhaps those who interviewed consulting firms, to first go through the process and if there was no clear-cut decision, then hire a consultant. The Mayor agreed that he would feel more comfortable with a consultant only after proposals were. submitted, as well as staff's evaluation. The City did have in-house capabilities. 78-222 City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - February 21~ 1978~ 1:30 P.M. Councilman Ko tt stated that according to Councilman Seymour, the large savings would come from the plan of the equipment, type, kind, etc. As he understood the situation, that savings should come from teaching the employees how to use the equipment properly; therefore, what difference would the study make and what actually would be gleaned from the study. Councilman Seymour explained that relative to equipment, that kind of information could be obtained whether or not a consultant was hired. All that was necessary was to give Pacific Telephone, as well as private equipment sellers, plans and they would respond accordingly. For an account the size of the City, they would bring in a $50,000 a year consultant at their own expense because of the competitive situation and provide information as to how many instruments were needed, number of lines, specific types of equipment and the like. If parameters were established properly at the outset, the competition would be such that the City probably would be able to make a decision without a consultant at all. If it became too complex, then that would be the time to bring in outside consultants. A vote was then taken on the foregoing resolution offered by Councilwoman Kaywood and failed to carry by the following vote: AYES: NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Kaywood COUNCIL MEMBERS: Seymour, Kott, Roth and Thom MOTION: On motion by Councilman Roth, seconded by Councilman Seymour, the proposed agreement for telephone consulting services was removed from the agenda to be scheduled after proposals were received. MOTION CARRIED. Before concluding, Mr. Talley asked Mr. White if and when equipment would have to be ordered from Pacific Telephone in order to occupy City Hall by March 1, 1980. Mr. White answered that Central Office would be equipped for a new generation Centrex system by July of 1978 and if they had an order within one year before the City needed to occupy the new building, they would have the service available. Mr. Talley noted that Council would need to make a decision by March of 1979. He would start immediately on the matter, and from staff's standpoint, if the City was going to stay with the present vendor (Pacific Telephone), a decision should be made earlier. If the Telephone Company was making a change every five years and the City had not changed in ten years, then something was wrong and he had been advised privately that the City should have changed five years before. He noted that it took from March to November to get the report from Pacific Telephone, and he was concerned over any time lapse. He would, however, try to get something to the Council in 90 days. Both the Mayor and Councilman Seymour were confident that Pacific Telephone would now act quickly and the private companies as well would do their best. Mr. Talley confirmed, as stated by Councilman Seymour, that a committee would be formed to review the proposals and subsequently an evaluation would be submitted to the Council along with some subjective opinions. 123: ADVERTISING DISPLAY SPACE - ANAHEIM STADIUM~ CONVENTION CENTER AND ANAHEIM HILLS GOLF COURSE: (Courtesy Phone Advertising Corporation) Councilman Kott offered Resolution No. 78R-117 for adoption as recommended in memorandum dated February 14~, 1978, from Tom Liegler, Stadium-Convention Center-Golf Director. Refer to Resolution Book. 78-223 ~ity Hall, Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - February 21~ 1978~ 1:30 P.M. RESOLUTION NO. 78R-117: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM APPROVING THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF AN AGREEMENT WITH COURTESY PHONE ADVERTISING CORPORATION FOR ADVERTISING DISPLAYS AT ANAHEIM CONVENTION CENTER, ANAHEIM STADIUM, AND ANAHEIM HILLS GOLF COURSE, AND AUTHORIZING THE DIRECTOR OF THE CONVENTION CENTER, STADIUM AND GOLF COURSE TO EXECUTE SAID AGREEMENT ON BEHALF OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM. Roll Call Vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: COUNCIL MEMBERS: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Kaywood, Seymour, Kott, Roth and Thom None None The Mayor declared Resolution No. 78R-117 duly passed and adopted. 123: SECOND AMENDMENT TO SZABO/ANAHEIM STADIUM AGREEMENT: Councilman Seymour offered Resolution No. 78R-118 for adoption as recommended in memorandum dated February 14, 1978, from the Stadium-Convention Center-Golf Director. Refer to Resolution Book. RESOLUTION NO. 78R-118: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM APPROVING THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF A SECOND AMENDMENT TO AGREEMENT WITH SZABO FOOD SERVICE, INC. OF CALIFORNIA RELATING TO THE FOOD SERVICE CONCESSION AT THE ANAHEIM STADIUM. Roll Call Vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: COUNCIL MEMBERS: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Kaywood, Seymour, Kott, Roth and Thom None None The Mayor declared Resolution No. 78R-118 duly passed and adopted. 101: STATUS OF POSSIBLE MOVE OF L.A. RAMS TO ANAHEIM STADIUM: Councilman Roth asked Mr. Liegler for a status report on the subject. Mr. Liegler explained that City Manager Talley and staff from several sections of the City were working diligently with the Rams in order to bring them to Anaheim. It was taking a great deal of time considering the magnitude of the dollars involved. As well, it was not a simple lease-rental situation as with other facilities, but included development of a substantial scope. Further, Rams owner Carroll Rosenbloom wanted to know the interest expressed by Orange Countians. Many of his present season ticket patrons were located in the San Fernando Valley area. Thus, the loss of some of those patrons would have to be supported by some of Orange Countians. Although Mr. Rosenbloom was assured that support would be provided for five years, he was interested in physical evidence of such support. Thereupon, newspaper ads were placed by Supervisor Clark whicb included a coupon wherein an indication of Orange County patronage could be obtained. The coupon contained three parts: (1) relative to season ticket interest, (2) attendance at games and (3) being a Rams fan. The one in which Mr. Rosenbloom was most interested was the season ticket interest, thus indicating those who would put their money behind a ticket application. The response on the first day following the ad which was only a partial day was 2,000. Following that was a 3-day weekend, and the return was several bags of coupons. 78-224 City Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - February 21~ 1978~ 1:30 P.M. Further discussion followed wherein Mr. Liegler pointed out that when operating public assembly facilities, the community at large must be considered. Thus, if the community wanted baseball, band concerts, professional football, soccer or rock concerts, they would include those events in their schedule. In concluding, Mr. Liegler stated that under Mr. Talley's guidance, everything possible was being done to bring the Rams to Anaheim. Although it would take time, he expressed confidence that the team would ultimately be in Anaheim. 113: AMENDMENTS TO EXHIBIT "A" - CONFLICT OF INTEREST CODES - UTILITIES AND PERSONNEl, DEPARTMENTS: On motion by Councilman Thom, seconded by Councilman Seymour, amendments to Exhibit "A" of the Utilities and Personnel Departments' Conflict of Interest Codes reagarding designated employees were approved. MOTION CARRIED. 113/161/177: AMENDED CONFLICT OF INTEREST CODES - REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY AND HOUSING AUTHORITY: Councilman Seymour offered Resolution Nos. 78R-119 and 78R-120 for adoption. Refer to Resolution Book. RESOLUTION NO. 78R-119: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM APPROVING THE CONFLICT OF INTEREST CODE OF THE ANAHEIM REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY, AND AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR AND CITY CLERK TO EXECUTE SAID CODE. RESOLUTION NO. 78R-120: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM APPROVING THE CONFLICT OF INTEREST CODE OF THE ANAHEIM HOUSING AUTHORITY, AND AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR AND CITY CLERK TO EXECUTE SAID CODE. Roll Call Vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: COUNCIL MEMBERS: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Kaywood, Seymour, Kott, Roth and Thom None None The Mayor declared Resolution Nos. 78R-119 and 78R-120 duly passed and adopted. RECESS: By general consent, the City Council recessed for five minutes. (2:55 P.M.) AFTER RECESS: Mayor Thom called the meeting to order, all Council Members being present with the exception of Councilman Kott. (3:00 P.M.) 107: PUBLIC HEARING - HOUSE MOVING PERMIT: Application by Rock Bradford, request- ing a permit to move two stucco garages from their present locations in the cities of Garden Grove and La Habra to 919 West Lincoln Avenue, Anaheim. Councilwoman Kaywood noted that in staff report dated February 15, 1978, which recommended denial, it was stated the petitioner indicated verbally that he did not wish to pursue the move-on and thus, would not file a variance petition. Miss Santalahti stated that the petitioner never submitted a withdrawal in writing so the City proceeded with the advertising, and the petitioner was notified. The Mayor asked if the applicant or applicant's agent was present and desirous of being heard. No one was present. 78-225 C_itx Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - February 2.1~ 1978, 1:30 P.M. The Mayor then asked if anyone wished to be heard either in favor or in opposition; there being no response, he closed the public hearing. Councilman Seymour offered Resolution No. 78R-121 for adoption, denying the requested House Moving Permit. Refer to Resolution Book. RESOLUTION NO. 78R-121: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM DENYING A HOUSE MOVING PERMIT TO ROCK BRADFORD. (919 West Lincoln Avenue) Roll Call Vote: AYES: NOES: TEMPORARILY ABSENT: ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: COUNCIL MEMBERS: COUNCIL MEMBERS: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Kaywood, Seymour, Roth and Thom None Kott None The Mayor declared Resolution No. 78R-121 duly passed and adopted. Councilman Kott entered the Council Chamber. (3:03 P.M.) 176: PUBLIC HEARING - ABANDONMENT NO. 77-2A: In accordance with application filed by R. C.~ Shepard, Hancock Laboratories, Inc., public hearing was held on proposed abandonment of an existing public utility easement and a portion of excess street right-of-way known as Hancock Street, north of La Palma Avenue, east of Lakeview Avenue, due to the construction of new office facilities, pursuant to Resolution No. 78R-89 and 78R-90, duly published in the Anaheim Bulletin and notices thereof posted in accordance with law. Report of the City Engineer was submitted recommending approval unconditionally. The Mayor asked if anyone wished to address the Council; there being no response, he closed the public hearing. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT - CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION: On motion by Councilman Seymour, seconded by Councilwoman Kaywood, the City Council ratified the deter- mination of the Planning Director that the proposed activity falls within the definition of Section 3.01, Class 5 of the City of Anaheim Guidelines to the requirements for an environmental impact report and is, therefore, categorically exempt from the requirement to file an EIR. MOTION CARRIED. Councilman Seymour offered Resolution Nos. 78R-122 (easement) and 78R-123 (road) for adoption approving Abandonment No. 77-2A, as recommended by the City Engineer. Refer to Resolution Book. RESOLUTION NO. 78R-122: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM ORDERING THE VACATION AND ABANDONMENT OF CERTAIN PUBLIC SERVICE EASEMENTS. (77-2A, Hancock Street) RESOLUTION NO. 78R-123: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM ORDERING THE VACATION AND ABANDONMENT OF CERTAIN PUBLIC SERVICE EASEMENTS. (77-2A Hancock Street) ' 78-226 City Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - February 21~ 1978~ 1:30 P.M. Roll Call Vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: COUNCIL MEMBERS: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Kaywood, Seymour, Kott, Roth and Thom None None The Mayor declared Resolution Nos. 78R-122 and 78R-123 duly passed and adopted. PUBLIC HEARING - ABANDONMENT NO. 77-10A: In accordance with application filed by Carl Warren, Chicago Title Insurance Company, public hearing was held on proposed abandonment of an existing public utility easement, east of State College Boulevard, south of Ball Road, to permit further development of property pursuant to Resolution No. 78R-91, duly published in the Anaheim Bulletin and notice thereof posted in accordance with law. Report of the City Engineer was submitted recommending approval unconditionally. The Mayor asked is anyone wished to address the Council; there being no response, he closed the public hearing. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT - CATEGORICAL E~MPTION: On motion by Councilman Roth, seconded by Councilwoman Kaywood, the City Council ratified the determina- tion of the Planning Director that the proposed activity falls within the definition of Section 3.01, Class 5 of the City of Anaheim Guidelines to the requirements for an environmental impact report and is, therefore, categorically exempt from the requirement to file an EIR. MOTION CARRIED. Councilman Roth offered Resolution No. 78R-124 for adoption, approving Abandonment No. 77-10A as recommended by the City Engineer. Refer to Resolution Book. RESOLUTION NO. 78R-124: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM ORDERING THE VACATION AND ABANDONMENT OF CERTAIN PUBLIC SERVICE EASEMENTS. (77-10A, east of State College Boulevard, south of Ball Road) Roll Call Vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: COUNCIL MEMBERS: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Kaywood, Seymour, Kott, Roth and Thom None None The Mayor declared Resolution No. 78R-124 duly passed and adopted. PUBLIC HEARING - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 1793: Application by Rick and Donna Lee Lichtenwalter, and Bernard W. and Phyllis E. Maxson, to permit a private school with a waiver of minimum rear yard setback on RS-7200 zoned property at 925 and 1001 E. North Street. The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC78-6, approved the negative declaration from the requirement to prepare an environmental impact re- port on the basis that there would be no significant individual or cumulative adverse environmental impact due to the approval of this negative declaration since the Anaheim General Plan designates the property for medium density, residen- tial land uses commensurate with the proposal, and that no sensitive environmental 78-227 ~.ity Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - February 21, 1978~ 1:30 P.M. impacts are involved in the proposal and that the initial study submitted by the petitioner indicates no significant individual or cumulative adverse environmental impact; and further, denied Conditional Use Permit No. 1793. The decision of the Planning Commission was appealed by Carol S. Wilson, agent for the applicants and public hearing scheduled this date. A letter dated January 23, 1978, received from Mrs. Wilson, advised that the number of students would be 30 instead of 85. 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 Kott asked how sufficient play area was determined. Miss Santalahti explained that the number of children being outdoors at one time was discussed, and that the applicant would undoubtedly address the matter, but no specific formula was discussed. Councilwoman Kaywood asked if, at the Planning Commission level, discussion took place relative to the acceptable number of students. Miss Santalahti did not recall if the number was specifically discussed. She stated however, that the Commission did go out as a group to look at the property, and the traffic situation east and north of the street concerned them a great deal and that was the overriding concern. Councilman Roth was surprised over the concern expressed relative to traffic because North Street was a deadend street going nowhere except to the west and to East Street. MiSs Santalahti explained that was exactly the problem and basically it was the only way to exit the property into what was almost a five-street intersection. Alternately, it would be through residential areas. The Mayor asked if the applicant or applicant's agent was present and desirous of being heard. Mrs. Carol Wilson, agent for the applicant, stated that between the Planning Commission and today's meeting, they had purchased the property, thus they were staking everything on obtaining the permit. She then relayed the background of the school which previously operated out of a leased converted residence at 607 East Chapman in Fullerton from 1970 to 1973. They outgrew that facility with 55 children and subsequently rented space in Yorba Linda and grew to 145 students in 2 years. Since they were most interested in developing the highest possible quality of education, they made an improvement in their method of teaching, thereby encouraging a higher degree of student independence, motivation and individual responsibility. She then elaborated on the programs which enabled the 4-, 5- and 6-year old students to become highly skilled in language arts, reading, spelling and composition. Relative to the viewpoint, philosophy and purpose of the school, Mrs. Wilson explained they operated from the perspective of the Bible. They also stressed patriotic study and character building taught from the lives of the founding fathers. They also believed in free enterprise and they hoped to exemplify those benefits in the opera- tion of the school. They saw themselves as an extention of the home and parental 78-228 City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - February 21~ 1978~ 1:30 P.M. authority, thus they offered an educational alternative. Discipline was stressed in accordance with biblical standards as well as high academic and character standards. They would accept any normal child whose parents were in agreement with the philosophy. They would not accept or tolerate children with disruptive behavior problems nor mental or emotional handicaps. They did vary the tempo of activities between physical and academic, but the children were not allowed to run and play often. Relative to the staff, she anticipated teaching the students herself with one or two teaching assistants who were in training to become teachers. Therefore, there would be one adult for 15 children since they would be taking only 30 students. For the coming year, they planned to have kindergarten through third grade only. The reasons for site selection were as follows: it was centrally located, close to the freeway on a relatively quiet street which was wider than normal thus being able to absorb traffic without disturbance to neighbors, and as well, it had close access to main streets and it was not deep in the heart of a residential area. The combined properties gave seven-tenths of an acre which was more than normal space for a residential lot, allowing for play space buffered between the buildings on the property, again minimizing neighborhood disturbance. Further, the properties allowed for needed parking and substantial traffic circulation patterns so that all student delivery and pickup could be handled on the property and no street parking would be necessary. One of the structures would be used as their residence, allowing them to financially consolidate and afford the project which they viewed as an important community service and also helping to keep the tuition as low as possible. The site was in an transi- tional neighborhood with a high degree of absentee landlordism. Thus, they felt they had a reasonable chance of gaining a permit. Also, the Anaheim General Plan designated the property as potential medium density residential and presently there were apart- ments behind them and at the end of North Street. Mrs. Wilson then gave some of the arguments as to why the school should be allowed in a residential zone. First, she stated that a private school was an allowed use in a residential zone, according to City Code. Since the school delivered its services on a daily basis to the small child who originated in a residential zone, the idea of the neighborhood school was traditional in American education practice and public schools operated in residential neighborhoods on that philosophy. They were not like a service station or a 7-11 store with traffic in and out all day, commercial frontage, light intrusion and the like. Since public schools were allowed to operate in residential neighborhoods, discrimination would be involved not to allow private schools the same right. They viewed themselves as a force for law and order and property maintenance in a neighborhood which they felt could benefit by these principles. Further, theirs would be an owner-occupied situation, and they would not be renting either the dwelling or the potential school building. In concluding, Mrs. Wilson explained that many residents feared the rental, absentee landlord arrangement with the usual deterioration or property and neighborhood dis- turbances which often occurred. They were proposing no structural changes on the exterior of the buildings, with the exception of closing off two windows between two buildings. They were also proposing to extend the heavy hedge already existing across the front. Thus, the appearance would be no different than other residences on that street.. 78-229 City Hall.~ Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - February 2.~,~ 1978~ 1:30 P.M. Mr. Charles Wilson then spoke to the site plan and traffic arrangements depicted on the display diagrams and plan. He first compared their present proposal to the facility they had in Fullerton which was located on a 60 x 100 square foot lot re- zoned professional. Thus, in combining the present parcels, they had approximately four times the square footage of lot space previously available to them which was more than adequate to provide the play space, organize traffic, and the school structure itself to house the 30 students; the principal consideration being style and techniques used both in the play and structured academics within the building. When their initial plans were reviewed by the Planning Commission staff, they were basically favorable in their help and advice in analyzing the things that the Wilsons wanted to accomplish, particularly as it related to the traffic flow pattern and also the significant landscaping which they wanted to preserve. Mr. Wilson then elaborated on the landscaping as it existed and the trees on the property which would not interfere with the traffic pattern. They accomplished the 30-foot open fire lane on the property for obtaining access to the back of the school, assuming the use of the garage as a room to be used by the students. A large portion of the drive entry area existed presently and the modification would be an extension across the front, enabling the establishment of parking spaces in two places which he pointed to from the diagram related to the school, providing 13 parking spaces off-street. The entry drive was 16 feet wide with a turning point of 26 feet and the majority across the front of the school was 18 feet, allowing pauses for student pickup and drop-off. The timing arrangements were such that the parents did not need to come into the building to pick up their children since the break time was organized to coincide with the parents' arrival, and students were guided to the cars by the --- teachers. Mr. Wilson, working from the diagram, then showed the proximity of adjacent buildings to the proposed school property. He also pointed out than 19,500 square feet was available to be used for parking, driveway, play area and the school building proper which when divided amongst 30 students, would equal 650 square feet per student, comparing favorably to that of public schools which actually would encourage them to be allowed 54 students; 30 was much more generous relative to the space size. Mr. Wilson then presented another diagram showing the play area and how it was buffered from all directions. As well, he explained the style of play which was highly structured and very active, but quiet, because it did not include sports such as baseball or football, but instead folk dancing, exercises, rhythm and body con- trol activities. The play area was very adequate to serve the 30 students. Mr. Wilson spoke to traffic control within the community which was of overriding concern to the Planning Commission. North Street was wider than normal for a residential area. Although East Street would be the primary route in and out because North Street was a deadend, there were a number of other streets affording four exits from the area. It was their opinion that the volume of traffic potential for the street would absorb the parents' cars coming in and leaving twice daily. If the property was to develop to its full potential according to the master plan as apartment houses, it would provide 24 residents, potentially with 2 cars each with 10 stop-ins average per day, which would exceed 240 stop-ins per day. With 30 students, assuming 1 student per car, it would be considerably under that. figure and~ even with 85 students, which was their initial request, stop-ins would not exceed 200 per day. 78-230 City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - February 21~ 1978~ 1:30 P.M. Mr. Wilson explained that they simulated a normal day of school traffic a week prior and, compounding the test, they assumed they would be serving 85 students instead of the requested 30. They had friends make the trips in and out of North Street and accomplished in excess of 60 trip-ins from 2:30 p.m. to 3:15 p.m. Thereafter, they spoke to the neighbors who were at home, and no one was aware they made the test and no problems were encountered getting in and out of the street. They, there- fore, satisfied their own views that the traffic generated would be insignificant as it related to the engineering of the street. The intersection of La Palma, East and North, as a 5-point problem area existed before their approach to the subject property. It was a problem of a growing city and it would not go away whether they utilized the property as a school or not. The intersection did not pose a problem for them even under the present circumstances wherein extensive digging around the intersection was in progress restricting both La Palma and East Street to a single lane with no left-turn traffic. Thus, it was abnormally congested and after that congestion was solved, the in and out they were requesting would be unnoticed. Councilman Roth asked how many trips they expected and if it would be 1 student per car or several students per car. Mr. Wilson stated that a percentage of parents were cooperating with each other through car pools which they encouraged. It would be difficult to give a precise number of cars, but as a certainty, it would not exceed 30, and more likely 15 or 20. Councilwoman Kaywood asked the hours of operation. Mrs. Wilson stated the hours were 8:30 a.m. to 4:45 p.m. and a full day would run from 7:30 a.m. to 5:30 p.m. Children brought their lunches so there was no need to leave the premises during the day. No night or weekend activity would generate from the school property. Councilman Roth asked if the applicant had talked with the neighbors, and if so, what response they received regarding the proposed operation. Mrs. Wilson thereupon submitted a petition signed by residents within a 300-foot radius. The residents directly to the west who would be most affected were very receptive to them from the beginning and their's were the first signatures. They did not get everyone's signature, but most were very congenial to the idea. There were only one or two negative responses out of 19 or 20. Some were even interested in putting their children in the school or possible employment. They would just as soon become a neighborhood school and they had previously traded out all kinds of services with people and parents in the areas where they had worked and even pro- vided employment. In concluding, Mrs. Wilson pointed out that according to a City traffic survey, 14,000 cars a day traveled on East Street and 1,007 on North Street. Therefore, 30 maximum in the morning and afternoon generating from the school would not represent a large percentage increase. Councilwoman Kaywood asked if a maximum or minimum number of students was discussed at the Planning Commission level. Mrs. Wilson stated the number was not discussed, although they indicated they would consider reducing the figure. Mrs. Wilson interjected that the figure of 85 students developed out of the square footage of the building which would allow that number. 78-231 City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - February 21~ 1978~ 1:30 P.M. There being no further persons who wished to speak either in favor or in opposition, the Mayor closed the public hearing. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT - NEGATIVE DECLARATION: On motion by Councilman Seymour, seconded by Councilman Roth, the City Council finds that this project would have no significant individual or cumulative adverse environmental impact since the Anaheim General Plan designates the subject property for medium density residential land use commensurate with the proposal and that no sensitive environmental impacts are involved in the proposal and that the initial study submitted by the petitioner indicates no significant individual or cumulative adverse environmental impacts and is, therefore, exempt from the requirement to prepare an EIR. MOTION CARRIED. Councilman Seymour considered the site to be more than adequate to contain the number of students proposed since the increased traffic that would have been gener- ated from 85 Students was now greatly lessened. He also did not believe that the existing traffic patterns on La Palma and North Street would be greatly impacted by accommodating 30 students. Councilman Seymour thereupon offered Resolution No. 78R-125 for adoption, granting Conditional Use Permit No. 1793, with the reduction of students from 85 to 30 and reversing the findings of the City Planning Commission, subject to the following Interdepartmental Committee recommendations: 1. That all engineering requirements of the City of Anaheim along North Street, in- cluding preparation of improvement plans and installation of all improvements such as curbs and gutters, sidewalks, street grading and paving, drainage facilities or other appurtenant work, shall be complied with as required by the City Engineer and in accordance with standard plans and specifications on file in the office of the City Engineer; and/or that a bond, certificate of deposit, letter of credit, or cash, in an amount and form satisfactory to the City of Anaheim, shall be posted with the City to guarantee the installation of the above-mentioned requirements. 2. That trash storage areas shall be provided in accordance with approved plans on file with the office of the Director of Public Works. 3. That fire hydrants shall be installed and charged, as required and determined to be necessary by the Chief of the Fire Department, prior to commencement of structural framing. 4. That the existing structure shall be brought up to the minimum standards of the City of Anaheim, including the Uniform Building, Plumbing, Electrical, Housing, Mechanical and Fire Codes as adopted by the City of Anaheim. 5. That subject property shall be developed substantially in accordance with plans and specifications on file with the City of Anaheim marked Exhibit Nos. 1 through 4. 6. That Condition No. 1, above-mentioned, shall be complied with prior to the commencement of the activity authorized under this resolution, or prior to the time that the building permit is issued, or within a period of one year from date hereof, whichever occurs first, or such further time as the Planning Commission may grant. 7. That Condition Nos. 2, 4 and 5, above-mentioned, shall be complied with prior to final building and zoning inspections. 78-232 City Hall, .Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - February 21~ 1978~ 1:30 P.M. Refer to Resolution Book. RESOLUTION NO. 78R-125: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM GRANTING CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 1793. Roll Call Vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: COUNCIL MEMBERS: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Kaywood, Seymour, Kott, Roth and Thom None None The Mayor declared Resolution No. 78R-125 duly passed and adopted. 123: ADVERTISING SPACE ON ANAHEIM STADIUM SCOREBOARD: (Coca-Cola Company) Upon questioning by Councilmen Kott and Roth, Mr. Tom Liegler, Stadium-Convention Center-Golf Director, explained that the proposed agreement had not changed in concept, but only slightly in verbiage. Also, the first year's rent would be pre- sented to the City in one check upon completion of signing and written into the contract was the stipulation that it must be paid by June 30, 1978, to be included in the present fiscal year's income. Councilman Kott offered Resolution No. 78R-126 for adoption, authorizing an agreement with the Coca-Cola Company for advertising rights for five years on the Anaheim Stadium Scoreboard, as recommended in memorandum dated February 14, 1978, from Mr. Liegler. Refer to Resolution Book. RESOLUTION NO. 78R-126: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM APPROVING THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF AN AGREEMENT WITH COCA-COLA USA IN CONNEC- TION WITH SCOREBOARD ADVERTISING AT ANAHEIM STADIUM AND AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR AND CITY CLERK TO EXECUTE SAID AGREEMENT. Roll Call Vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: COUNCIL MEMBERS: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Kaywood, Seymour, Kott, Roth and Thom None None The Mayor declared Resolution No. 78R-126 duly passed and adopted. 153.137: INDIVIDUAL REIMBURSEMENT ACCOUNT METHOD FOR FINANCING UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE LIABILITY: On motion by Councilwoman Kaywood, seconded by Councilman Thom, the Individual Reimbursement Account was approved as the method by which liability for Unemployment Insurance would be financed and authorizing the Workers' Compensation Administrator to act as the City's Representative. MOTION CARRIED. 175.123: PARTICIPATION IN REPLICATION AGRERMENT - PALO VERDE NUCLEAR GENERATINC STATION (UNITS 4 AND 5): Mr. Alan Watts, Special Counsel, stated that one item should be added to the proposed recommendation by the Public Utilities Board, that being if Council action approved the recommendation, it should also include desig- nating Mr. Hoyt as the City's authorized representative pursuant to the Replication Agreement. 78-233 City Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - February 21~ 1978~ 1:30 P.M. Councilman Seymour asked how the dollar per kilowatt hour shown on the first addendum of the letter at an average of $1.043 per kilowatt hour compared with the dollar per kilowatt hour discussed in the past, for example, relative to San Onofre. Mr. Watts stated it was higher because the units were planned to be on-line in 1988 or 1990. As a consequence, inflationary costs were built into the ultimate costs; the inflationary factor being approximately 6 to 8 percent per year. The figure was in the "ball park" but probably higher. Mr. Watts continued and first pointed out that the cost was per kilowatt hour and the cost of just in excess of $1,000 was in the range of all base load plans whether nuclear or coal in the time frame being discussed. Ail those plans were looking anywhere from $900 to $950 per kilowatt up to $1,300 per kilowatt, depending upon the kind of assumptions made as to inflation or items of that nature. Thus, the range was from $900 to $1,300 per kilowatt. Councilman Roth posed a question relative to the possibility of a bond election to raise an additional amount of revenue, if necessary, and if the Jarvis-Gann Initiative were approved, would the result have an affect on general obligation or revenue bonds. Mr. Watts answered that if any unit were built at Sundesert, another bond election would be necessary. Relative to Jarvis-Gann, its passage would affect any bond which relied upon property tax to pay it off. A revenue bond, however, would not be affected. Councilman Kott asked City Attorney Hopkins if he believed that the proposed parti- cipation, in the Replication Agreement was legal as well as using $140,000 from Proposition "A" funds to finance the work to be performed under the agreement. City Attorney Hopkins stated that he agreed with Mr. Watts' statements, and the expenditure of $140,000 from Proposition "A" funds was legal. Councilman Kott first questioned if the study had gone out to bid and if not, why not. Further, if the company did not come back with a favorable ansWer for the people paying for the bid, they would not be hired again. Thus, the outcome could be predicted without spending $140,000 and it had already been stated and shown that the City did not have the money. He did not understand how a body could pro- ceed to approve a study or anything else that did not carry with it the responsibility of having the money to pay for it. If a bond election could be held beforehand to indicate if the people wanted the study, he could support it. Otherwise, he could not take $140,000 and throw it down the drain, when follow through money was not available. Councilman Seymour countered stating that everyone was familiar with both Council- man Kott's and Mayor Thom's position on electrical generation and Proposition "A". Thus, it would not surprise him to hear remarks made that the proposed expenditure would be money down the drain. He recognized, in fact, that it was a legal expendi- ture of Proposition "A" funds as clearly stated many times by the City Attorney. Proposition "A" permitted and directed the City Council to investigate and invest in methods of generating the City's own electricity. Obviously as stated, a $56 million bond issue could be necessary in the event that the City did not proceed or was prevented from proceeding in Sundesert. If the City wanted to move forward on the Palo Verde project instead, he would expect that the City would go to the voters with a $50 million bond issue. However, if it were presented to them before the feasibility of the project was known, then the electorate would not have a clear choice to make. He found the proposed expenditure of funds to be (1) totally and 78-234 City .Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - February 21~ 1978~ 1:30 P.M. morally consistent with the intent of a two-thirds vote on Proposition "A" and (2) in the event at the time of funding, no funds were available in the Propo- sition "A" bond, that the issue be taken to the voters to show them the facts and subsequently let them decide. MOTION: Councilman Seymour thereupon stated that he found nothing irregular with the investment of $140,000 for revenue bond funds to finance the cost of work to be performed under the Replication Agreement for the Palo Verde Nuclear Generating Station (Units 4 and 5) and moved to approve the amended agreement authorizing and directing the Utilities Director Gordon Hoyt to sign the agreement as the authorized representative for the City of Anaheim on behalf of the City, and to appropriate $140,000 from the electric revenue bond funds as articulated. Council- woman Kaywood seconded the motion. Before a vote was taken, Councilman Kott stated that everyone was also aware of Councilman Seymour's attitudes since he was one of the original prime movers on Proposition "A", and it was a known fact that better than $15,000 was poured into the campaign for Proposition "A" with the aid of the Chamber of Commerce. Even though operating under an IRS exemption, the Chamber became involved in politics. He stated as he had done previously that, in his opinion, Proposition "A" "hoodwinked" the people, and he considered it immoral, irresponsible and a direct slam against the people to spend money for a study when there was no money to spend. Councilman Seymour stated he would feel totally irresponsible not to carry forth the wishes of the people even though Councilman Kott did not believe it was the peoples' wish to proceed with such studies. They had authorized and invested in the City Council the authority to spend $150 million for the City to get into the electrical generation business and if the study indicated that an additional $56 million was necessary, then the electorate would have to be approached again for such approval. Further discussion followed between Councilmen Seymour and Kott relative to the issue in which they expressed opposing views and reiterated their respective stands relative to Proposition "A" and its ramifications. A vote was then taken on the foregoing motion. Councilmen Kott and Thom voted "No". MOTION CARRIED. REVISED PLANS - VARIANCE NO. 804: Request by Bill R. Waddle and Mary A. Bader for approval of revised plans in connection with Variance No. 804, granted by the City of Buena Park, to allow Anaheim sewer and utility services to the prop- erty located at the westerly terminus of Savanna Street in Buena Park. Mr. Bill Waddle explained that he came before the Council in April of 1975 relative to the subject property with a proposal for 8 units. Before the property was purchased, he spoke with the residents and Mrs. Todd, and they approved of the 8 units. One of the main issues, however, was the cul-de-sac street in the center and because of financing difficulty, he did not proceed further. In the fall of 1976, Mr. George Dietz informed him that the people on the northeasterly adjoining property instigated a law suit against the City of Anaheim and himself relative to a water problem on Savanna Street running down and going across their property. After Mr. Dietz approached him on several occasions, he gave Anaheim an easement across his property in order to drain the water off Savanna Street. Mr. Dietz 78-235 City Hall.~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - February 21~ 1978~ 1:30 P.M. indicated that Anaheim would bear the costs; however, later Mr. Matt Boscia, Senior Real Property Representative, indicated that the costs would more likely be shared 50-50 which was agreeable to Mr. Waddle. Thereafter, he (Waddle) changed his plans to 12 units. He then recounted the events that subsequently took place after he submitted his new plans to the Buena Park Planning Commission and he explained some of the changes in his project from the site plan of the subject property. He tried to meet with the residents and called Mrs. Todd who indicated none were interested except a Mr. Hart with whom he spoke. Councilman Seymour left the Council Chamber. (4:11 P.M.) Mr. Waddle then referred to Anaheim's Master Plan from which he understood 10 to 12 units would be allowable. He explained the problem that would be involved rela- tive to setbacks--150-foot setback away from residential with two-story buildings, 100-foot setback away from railroad tracks, thus allowing him only 480 square feet of building which would make it impossible for him to build. Relative to annexation into the City, if both cities thought it was in their best interests, he had no objection. Councilwoman Kaywood noted that Mr. Waddle was notified it would be appropriate to initiate annexation proceedings since Anaheim had to supply the utilities and if the project did not comply with the City's codes, utilities would not be supplied. Mr. Waddle stated~ he was not notified and that the Anaheim Planning Commission had a meeting of which he was not aware until he went to the Planning Commission meeting in Buena Park and the matter was broached. He subsequently inquired relative to annexation and was told it would take approximately 6 months to annex into the City. He was presently in a situation where he needed to start construction and a loan was already approved. Although he had no objection to being in the City of Anaheim, he could not live with the required setbacks as previously articulated since his property would not be of any value in Anaheim with the present zoning, but he would annex after he completed his building and would be happy to meet all Codes. Councilwoman Kaywood asked Mr. Waddle if he was aware that Anaheim utilities would have to serve the subject location and if this project did not comply, then Anaheim would not supply the service. Mr. Waddle indicated he knew that Anaheim would have had to supply the service in April of 1975, but he did not know service would not be supplied if he did not comply. The Mayor stated that he felt the Council made a commitment in April of 1975 that it would serve 8 units which was acceptable to the people on Savanna Street and now it was 12, and he would not go along with the new proposal. Mr. Waddle stated that he had a piece of property zoned for approximately 30 units but would not attempt anything close to that. Since he had nine-tenths of an acre, he asked how many units would be allowed. Miss Santalahti explained that because of the one-story height restriction, even though 15 or 20 units would be allowed normally with one-story, it would be cut approximately in half. 78-236 City Hall,.. Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - February 21~ 1978~ 1:30 P.M. Mr. Waddle, therefore, surmised that perhaps 10 units would then be allowable with one-story. Thus, 8 units would not even be the maximum. He reiterated he had an unusual piece of property and believed that some consideration should be given to that fact. On motion by Councilman Thom, seconded by Councilwoman Kaywood, approval of revised plans in connection with Variance No. 804 was denied. Councilman Seymour was absent. MOTION CARRIED. RECLASSIFICATION NO. 76-77-49 AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 1703 - EXTENSION OF TIME: Request for an extension of time to Reclassification No. 76-77-49 and Conditional Use Permit No. 1703, to permit a resource recovery and recycling operation with waiver of minimum front setback and required block wall on property located at 3200 Frontera Street. Report from the Zoning Division dated February 15, 1978 recommended approval of the subject request and initiation of General Plan Amendment proceedings for the area south of the Riverside Freeway, east of Glassell, and generally north of the Santa Ana River. Councilman Roth first asked how long it would take to rectify the water supply situation to the property. He continued that he had not seen any improvement of the property and at the time of Council approval, approximately 90 days prior, he was concerned relative to the aesthetics from the freeway. He considered the request to be a stall of time. Mr. Floyd Farano, Attorney representing the applicant, 2555 East Chapman, Suite 705, Fullerton, explained that the applicant submitted landscaping plans and they were approved by the Planning Commission February 13, 1978. There was an ongoing water problem on the property, and the petitioner was requesting and trying to get relief from that situation. If such relief was not forthcoming, they would have to aban- don the paper baling portion of the operation. He then elaborated on the water problem encountered. Councilman Roth noted that a week after the Council meeting approving the operation that the activity on the site doubled and tripled, resulting in junk piled up. Although he would support the request in this instance, he urged Mr. Farano to do whatever necessary in order to remedy the water supply situation long before the requested extension expired. Mr. Farano stated as soon as the ground dried from the recent rains, the petitioner was going to commence with his landscaping and his activity would commence shortly. On motion by Councilman Roth, seconded by Councilman Thom, request for an extension of time to Reclassification No. 76-77-49 and Conditional Use Permit No. 1703, to expire April 10, 1978 was approved. Councilman Kott abstained. Councilman Seymour was absent. MOTION CARRIED. CONSENT CALENDAR ITEMS: On motion by Councilwoman Kaywood, seconded by Councilman Thom, the following actions were authorized in accordance with the reports and recommendations furnished each Council Member and as listed on the Consent Calendar Agenda: 78-237 City Hall, Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - February 21~ 1978~ 1:30 P.M. 1. 118: CLAIMS AGAINST THE CITY: The following claims were denied and referred to the City's insurance carrier or the self-insurance administrator: a. Claim submitted by Diana Betts for monetary damages purportedly sustained as a result of water seeping under the floor tile and toilet in the bathroom on or about January 17, 1978. b. Claim submitted by Robert S. Borden for property damages purportedly sustained as a result of water seeping under the driveway (Alberta and Sycamore) on or about November 18, 1977. c. Claim submitted by the Southern California Gas Company for damages purportedly sustained as a result of earth slippage (Country Hill Drive, 100 feet south of Vista Del Sol) on or about November 7, 1977. d. Claim submitted by Joaquin R. Vendrell for damages purportedly sustained when his car was driven over two large ditches on or about January 9, 1978. e. Claim submitted by the Euclid Car Wash for damages purportedly sustained as a result of electrical blow out of switchboard on or about December 25 or 26, 1977. f. Claim submitted by Mr. and Mrs. Henry Plouffe for property damages purportedly sustained as a result of a tree falling on a car on or about February 10, 1978. 2. CORRESPONDENCE: The following correspondence was ordered received and filed: a. 114: City of Costa Mesa Resolution No. 78-15 opposing the housing distribution proposals of SCAG. b. 114: City of Costa Mesa Resolution No. 78-16 requesting that SCAG Executive Committee provide a sixty-day comment period and information workshops for SCAG publications impacting local government. c. 102: Orange County Vector Control District - Minutes of January 19, 1978. d. 105: Project Area Committee - Minutes of January 24, 1978. e. 105: Connnunity Redevelopment Commission - Minutes of February 1 and 8, 1978. f. 156/175: Monthly report for January 1978 - Police and ~Customer Service. g. 175: Monthly report for November 1977 - Customer Service. h. 159: Annual report for 1976-1977 - Engineering Division. Councilman Seymour was absent. MOTION CARRIED. CONSENT CALENDAR ITEMS: Councilman Roth offered Resolution Nos. 78R-127 and 78R-128 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. 78-238 qity Hal.~, Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - February 21~ 1978~ 1:30 P.M. 158: RESOLUTION NO. 78R-127: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM ACCEPTING CERTAIN DEEDS AND ORDERING THEIR RECORDATION. (Exxon Corp.; Irvin J. Hin~nelberg, et al.; Charles Cundiff, et ux.; Grove Street Associates; Herman Gallardo, et ux.; Hunco Development, Inc.; Bob L. Watson, et ux.; Steven W. Curren, et ux.; Florence C. Boulanger) 151: ENCROACHMENT PERMIT NO. 77-5E: Submitted by Williamson & Schmid to provide access to public storm drain system for construction of on-site drainage facilities in a portion of dedicated right-of-way at the west side of Jefferson Street, north of Coronado. The Planning Director determined the proposed activity to be categorically exempt. The City Engineer recommended approval subject to applicant submitting improvement plans of said construction to the City Engineer for approval. RESOLUTION NO. 78R-128: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM APPROVING THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF AN ENCROACHMENT PERMIT AND AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR AND CITY CLERK TO EXECUTE SAID ENCROACHMENT PERMIT WITH DART INDUSTRIES, INC. (77-5E) Roll Call Vote: AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Kaywood, Kott, Roth and Thom NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: None ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Seymour The Mayor declared Resolution Nos. 78R-127 and 78R-128 duly passed and adopted. CITY PLANNING COMMISSION ITEMS: The following actions taken by the City Planning Commission at their meeting held January 30, 1978, pertaining to the following applications were submitted for City Council information. 1. RECLASSIFICATION NO. 77-78-43: Submitted by Mariners Savings and Loan Association, for a change in zone from RS-A-43,000 to RM-1200 on property located at 2770 West Lincoln Avenue. The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC78-17, granted Reclassi- fication No.'77-78-43 and granted negative declaration status. 2. VARIANCE NO. 2985: Submitted by Wrather Inns, I~e., to construct two free- standing signs and retain a prohibited sign on CR zoned property located at 1855 South Harbor Boulevard with certain code waivers. The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC78-16, granted Variance No. 2985, in part, and ratified the Planning Director's categorical exemption determination. 3. VARIANCE NO. 2987: Submitted by Kimm Richardson and Lynn E. Thomsen, to establish a 2-lot RM-1200 zoned subdivision on property located at 1302 West Lido Place with code waiver of minimum building site width. 78-239 C~ity Hall, Ana~leim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - February 21~ 1978~ 1:30 P.M. The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC78-18, granted Variance No. 2987 and granted negative declaration status. 4. VARIANCE NO. 2989: Submitted by Scott W. and Donna Ramey, to construct a 3-car garage on RS-7200 zoned property located at 2532 Westport Drive with code waiver of minimum front-yard setback. The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC78-19, granted Variance No. 2989 and ratified the Planning Director's categorical exemption determination. 5. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 1797: Submitted by Eleven Fifty Tustin, to permit on-sale alcoholic beverages in a proposed racquetball facility on ML zoned property located at 1150 North Tustin Avenue. The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC78-20, denied Conditional Use Permit No. 1797 and ratified the Planning Director's categorical exemption determination. 6. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 1798: Submitted by Wilbur J. and Virginia D. Hank, Paul H. Reynolds, and John C. Sutherland, Jr., to permit a building material storage yard on ML zoned property located on the north side of Cerritos Avenue, east of Anaheim Boulevard. The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC78-21, granted Conditional Use Permit No. 1798 and ratified the Planning Director's categorical exemption determination. 7. ORANGE COUNTY FLOOD CONTROL DISTRICT - ACQUISITION OF REAL PROPERTY: The Orange County Flood Control proposes to acquire property located on the north side of the Santa Ana River, west of Imperial Highway, for river and bank operations. The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC78-23, determined that the acquisition of the real property by the Orange County Flood Control District to be in conformance with Anaheim's General Plan. 8. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 1772 - AMENDING RESOLUTION NO. PC77-260: To amend Resolution No. PC77-260, nunc pro tunc, granting in part Conditional Use Permit No. 1772 to permit on-sale beer and wine in a proposed semi-enclosed restaurant on property located at 444-500 South Euclid Street, to correct Paragraph No. 1 of said resolution. The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC78-24, amended Resolution No. PC77-260, nunc pro tunc, to correct Paragraph No. 1 of said resolution. No action was taken on the forgoing items, thus the actions of the City Planning Commission became final. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 1799: Submitted by Rovi Pacific Realty Corporation, to permit on-sale beer and wine in a proposed semi-enclosed restaurant on CL-HS(SC) zoned property located at 6501 East Serrano Avenue with code waiver of minimum number of parking spaces. 78-240 City Hall~ .Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - February 21~ 1978~ 1:30 P.M. Councilwoman Kaywood moved to set the matter for a public hearing. Mayor Thom interjected that their concerns should have been made known to him-- * the top--quicker. Councilwoman Kaywood explained that the residents of the area were concerned about the possibility of the subject operation infringing on their rights. Inasmuch as there were $150,000 homes and up in the neighborhood, they felt it would be inappropriate and, as well, the school was concerned relative to the serving of alcoholic beverages in such close proximity. Councilman Roth explained that he lived five blocks away from the subject site and although he heard that somebody was going around with a petition in the area, he was not approached. The way he viewed the matter, if the people were concerned, he questioned why they had not submitted their petitions and recommendations to the Council during the past week. Councilwoman Kaywood questioned why the residents should be penalized if they did not know the proper procedure. If the people were concerned with something that affected their homes, they had a right to a hearing and that was the function of the Council, to listen to their concerns. The foregoing motion by Councilwoman Kaywood died for lack of a second; thus the action of the City Planning Commission became final. 170: TENTATIVE TRACT NOS. 7587 AND 8520 - WAIVER OF SIDEWALK AND STREET LIGHTING STANDARDS: Submitted by Anaheim Hills, Inc., requesting waiver of sidewalk and street lighting standards for Tract No. 7587 located southerly of Serrano Avenue, westerly of Hidden Canyon Road and northerly of Avenida de Santiago and Tract No. 8520 located at the northeast corner of Avenida de Santiago and Hidden Canyon Road, and request for waiver of street lighting standards for the five-acre parcel located at the southeast corner of Serrano Avenue and Hidden Canyon Road. Miss Santalahti explained Mr. Phil Bettencourt, Anaheim Hills, Inc., had concerns pertaining to two specific conditions in Tract No. 7587 which also led to another. She suggested that Mr. Bettencourt could better explain what he was looking toward which was primarily clarification of the Planning Commission action which hopefully would not take a public hearing. However, a request for a public hearing on Tentative Tract No. 8520 had been received. Mr. Phil Bettencourt, 380 Anaheim Hills Road, representing Anaheim Hills, Inc., explained that the matter of street lights within the Canyon had been one of controversy in the past because luminaires which were handsome by day provided more lighting than many people felt necessary in the evening. The two subject tracts were the highest locations in Anaheim Hills and, in fact, had the distinc- tion of being the highest occupied homesites in the entire City of Anaheim because of their location, all along the ridgeline. The light was even more obtrusive when looking directly into the light standard from the bottom and from those along the ridge top. Their marketing study indicated that the view was the primary consideration in purchasing the homes and they did not feel lighting was necessary. Lighting and sidewalks were only required in that particular zone of Anaheim Hills and not in other hill and canyon areas. They presented a similar * See minute~ of April 18, 1978, Page 78- 78-241 City Hall, Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - February 21~ 1978~ 1:30 P.M. request to the Council a year earlier for 31 lots on Canyon Rim Road and at Fairmont Boulevard. The action taken then was the same as they recommended today. If the Council was doubtful that as residents moved into the area they would want street lighting later on, Anaheim Hills ~would propose to prewire the tract as they had done on the other, then post a bond with the City guaranteeing that within two years after the final tract map was recorded, if residents petitioned the Council for lighting, there would be no expenditure of City funds involved. The bond could simply be called and the lights would be installed, although their marketing research indicated that residents were unlikely to petition to do so in the future. On Hidden Canyon Road, they presented to the Planning Commission and HACMAC, a reduced lighting program they felt provided adequate safety lighting at inter- sections and curves in the roadway and they would be comparable to the same lumination that was now installed on an experimental basis on Canyon Rim Road. Relative to sidewalks and trails, the area was originally planned as an equestrian estate area and that was still their intention for the property to the south and the southeast down to the Edison easement and the Irvine Ranch boundary. However, they did not believe that stables, paddocks and horses would be compatible along the relatively narrow ridgeline, and there was not enough of a market to support it. A Trail Element in the City's General Plan would not have been identified simply for the convenience of adjacent properties because horses would not be permitted and deed restrictions were already recorded to prevent the keeping of horses. Mr. Bettencourt confirmed that their proposal of clarification was, if the Trails Element of the General Plan were amended to eliminate the trails on the subject ridgetop, they would not be required to install the trails, as horses would be precluded from the area at the outset. Relative to the sidewalks, they were re- questing that they not be required because sidewalks were not required in the other areas of the Canyon in the RS-22,000 zone which was the only area where conventional sidewalks could not be used and traffic was too low to provide a pedestrian sidewalk. HACMAC members agreed with the Anaheim Hills proposal although they did not want to get involved in the trails question, since that was in the pur- view of the Trails Committee. The lighting matter had been before HACMAC twice. Councilman Roth thereupon moved to approve the waiver of sidewalks and street lighting standards on Tentative Tract No. 7587. Before further action was taken, Councilwoman Kaywood stated that since action had previously taken place at a public hearing, she would feel remiss in not having it go through another public hearing. Miss Santalahti clarified that it had not been handled at a public hearing, but was processed as a regular tract. Thereupon, Councilwoman Kaywood asked the City Attorney, since the item was on the agenda, if that denoted that people were informed of the matter. City Attorney Hopkins referred to a letter dated February 10, 1978, from Mr. Bettencourt and pointed out that Tentative Tract No. 9520, not No. 7586, was the tract Anaheim Hills wished set for public hearing. 78-242 City Hall,. Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - February 21~ 1978~ 1:30 P.M. Mr. Bettencourt explained that rather than the usual 22-day appeal period on Planning Commission actions, he discovered belatedly that appeals on subdivision tract conditions had to be filed within 15 days. They did not want the matter merely to appear on a consent calendar giving the impression they were coming in and presenting a story to the Council not previously presented to the Planning Commission. Given the short time, Mr. Bettencourt did not know what else to ask for, other than a public hearing to get the matter before the Council. Mr. Hopkins explained that the Code section regarding tentative tracts had been revised and provided a 15-day appeal period pursuant to the Subdivision Map Act which also provided that the Council may review the request or set the matter for a public hearing. He believed it would be proper to set the matter for a public hearing under Revision No. 1. Mr. Bettencourt stated the matter was further complicated by the fact that the second tract, 7587, was involved which was already a recorded final tract and they were dealing with a condition that also applied to that final tract, that being the equestian trail to serve lots that did not or would not have horses. They wanted to deal with the matter in the best way possible and he asked if both could be dealt with at the same advertised public hearing for which they would post the appeal fee. Miss Santalahti explained that Mr. Bettencourt suggested rewording of two conditions, Nos. 17 and 20, pertaining to lights and horse trails, merely to clarify the way the Commission approved the conditions. It did not change anything but added more terminology relative to posting some kind of security that, if needed, within a two- year period after the map was recorded, the facilities would be constructed. She personally felt it went into a little more depth relative to Tract No. 7587. The street lighting question had never been brought up in the map so that was a matter of City Council's approval because it involved a modification of City standards normally required relative to street lights. The horse trails were required as a paMt of the conditions of the tract, and the condition would be amended to do that. Councilwoman Kaywood seconded Councilman Roth's motion to approve the waiver of sidewalks and street lighting standards on Tentative Tract No. 7587. Councilman Seymour was absent. MOTION CARRIED. On motion by Councilman Roth, seconded by Councilwoman Kaywood, Tentative Tract No. 8520 (Revision No. 1) and EIR No. 211 was to set for public hearing, subject to payment of the appeal fee. Councilman Seymour was absent. MOTION CARRIED. ORDINANCE NO. 3831: Councilman Roth offered Ordinance No. 3831 for adoption. Refer to Ordinance Book. ORDINANCE NO. 3831: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AMENDING TITLE 18 OF THE ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO ZONING. (77-78-27, RM-1200) Roll Call Vote: AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Kaywood, Kott, Roth and Thom NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: None ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Seymour The Mayor declared Ordinance No. 3831 duly passed and adopted. 78-243 City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - February 21~ 1978~ 1:30 P.M. 171: ORDINANCE NO. 3832: City Attorney Hopkins explained that in August of 1977, the Council approved a new section of the Anaheim Municipal Code (Chapter 2.12) covering transient occupancy tax. In checking the matter in order to provide the City Auditor with enforcement and inspection requirements, he proposed the amended ordinance allowing the City Auditor to determine the tax due where the operator refused to collect and submit the tax to the City and also establishing hearing and appeal procedures where the operator contested the accuracy of the determination. It required the operator to make books and records available to the City Auditor allowing both civil and criminal action to enforce collection of the tax. Therefore, it provided enforcement capabilities not specified in Title 2, thus correcting a deficiency. Councilwoman Kaywood offered Ordinance No. 3832 for first reading. ORDINANCE NO. 3832: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM ADDING NEW SECTIONS 2.12.060, 2.12.070, 2.12.080, 2.12.090, 2.12.100, AND 2.12.110 TO TITLE 2, CHAPTER 2.12 OF THE ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE RELATINGTO TRANSIENT OCCUPANCY TAXES. ORDINANCE NOS. 3833 THROUGH 3835: Councilman Thom offered Ordinance Nos. 3833 through 3835, both inclusive, for first reading. ORDINANCE NO. 3833: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AMENDING TITLE 18 OF THE ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO ZONING. (64-65-64(2), CL) ORDINANCE NO. 3834: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AMENDING TITLE 18 OF THE ANAHEIMMUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO ZONING. (71-72-7(2), CL) ORDINANCE NO. 3835: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AMENDING TITLE 18 OF THE ANAHEIMMUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO ZONING. (77-78-42, RM-1200) 138: GROUNDBREAKING CEREMONY - SYCAMORE JUNIOR HIGH SCHOOL GYMNASIUM: Council- woman Kaywood reported on the subject groundbreaking ceremony which took place that morning previously scheduled for February 8, 1978, but delayed due to the heavy rains. An additional gymnasium would also be built, at Dale Junior High School. The project was an excellent example of cooperation between the Anaheim Union High School District and the Anaheim Parks, Recreation and the Arts Department; the City portion being funded by the Nejedly-Hart State Bond Act. The cooperative project thus provided for two gymnasiums, whereas only one would have been possible. They would serve 90,000 residents of the City in areas where there was a critical shortage of such facilities. The Sycamore project consisted of a large gymnasium, two activity rooms, restrooms and outdoor handball and racquetball courts. She submitted a brochure outlining the cooperative project. 155: SUPPORT OF IMPLEMENTATION OF THE SANTA ANA RIVER/SANTIAGO CREEK GREENBELT PLAN: Councilman Kott referred to a letter dated February 14, 1978, from the City of Newport Beach relative to the Santa Ana River/Santiago Creek Greenbelt Plan wherein they were seeking the endorsement of the County of Orange for this important recreational amenity and thus Councilman Kott moved to support the implementation of the subject plan. Councilwoman Kaywood seconded the motion. Councilman Seymour was absent. MOTION CARRIED. 78-244 City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - February 21~ 1978~ 1:30 P.M. 175: CLARIFICATION OF PROPOSITION "A" BALLOT MEASURE: Councilman Kott produced a copy of the ballot, upon which Proposition "A" occurred which he did not have earlier in the meeting relative to the previous discussion with Councilman Seymour. For informational purposes, he read the measure aloud. "In order to provide more economical electrical service, shall the City of Anaheim be authorized to finance the construction and acquisition of facilities, property and rights related to the generation, transmission and distribution of electrical energy by issuing revenue bonds, not payable from property taxes, in an amount not to exceed 150 Million Dollars?" It said nothing further relative to electrical generation studies and like matters, and as well, he had several newspaper articles that also did not mention those aspects. 166: REQUEST BY ANAHEIM HIGH SCHOOL TO STRING A BANNER ACROSS LINCOI.N AVENUE: Councilman Roth stated he was going to yield his time to Matt Duretti, a student at Anaheim High School, and his counterpart in Youth in Government Day in 1977. Mr. Duretti explained that he was requesting permission to string a banner across Lincoln Avenue to advertise a school play, "Godspell", being held at the high school the following weekend. He had previously contacted the Parks, Recreation and Arts Department who advised him to approach the Council. They would also install the banner themselves so there would be no cost to the City. City Attorney Hopkins explained that the Anaheim Municipal Code (4.04.180) relative to banners and signs over public spaces required a permit. He 'thereupon read the particular Code section. He also emphasized that installation of the banner should be handled by City personnel and not by personal means because of the danger involved. Under Council Policy No. 006, which Mr. Talley read, all requests for banners should be referred to the Utilities Director. He stated in order to expedite the matter, he would have his assistant handle the request immediately through the Utilities Director. 177: CONCURRENCE IN APPOINTMENTS TO RELOCATION APPEALS BOARD: Mayor Thom referred to his memorandum dated February 16, 1978, relative to a Relocation Appeals Board provided for in Section 33417.5 of the California Health and Safety Code (Community Redevelopment Law). Also listed in the memo were appointments of five individuals to the Board for which he indicated he would appreciate a motion and a second concurring in the appointments. On motion by Councilman Roth, seconded by Councilwoman Kaywood, the appointments of Ed Gardner, Shirley Moss, Jane Oseid, Stella Sandoval and Rudy Valenzuela to the Relocation Appeals Board was approved. Councilman Seymour was absent. MOTION CARRIED. 105/161/175: RESIGNATION OF WILLIAM ERICKSON FROM ALL COMMITTEES IN THE CITY: Mayor Thom referred to a letter dated February 21, 1978, addressed to him and signed by Mr. William Erickson to the effect that he was resigning from all committees of the City effective this date, those committees being PAC, Avenue of the Flags Project, Lifeline Electrical Rates Ad Hoc Committee, Ad Hoc Committee studying the sale or retention of the electric utility and the ad hoc committee on social services. The Mayor stated he was sad to have this occur because in all the years he had known Mr. Erickson, he was always very anxious to participate. Un- fortunately, Mr. Erickson had some untoward experiences in the past few months while working on the various committees culminating in his decision to resign. 78-245 C. ity Hall, Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - February 21~ 1978~ 1:30 P.M. On motion by Councilman Thom, seconded by Councilman Roth, the multiple resignation of Mr. William Erickson from all committees of the City was accepted with regret, along with their sincere appreciation for his many years of outstanding voluntary service to the community. Councilman Seymour was absent. MOTION CARRIED. ADJOURNMENT: Councilman Roth moved to adjourn. Councilwoman Kaywood seconded the motion. Councilman Seymour was absent. MOTION CARRIED. Adjourned: 4:59 P.M. LINDA D. ROBERTS, CITY CLERK