Loading...
1978/07/11 78-877 City Hall.~ Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - July lip 1978~ 1:30 P.M. The City Council of the City of Anaheim met in regular session. PRESENT: ABSENT: PRESENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Overholt, Kaywood, Kott, Roth and Seymour COUNCIL MEMBERS: None CITY MANAGER: William O. Talley CITY ATTORNEY: William P. Hopkins DEPUTY CITY CLERK: Leonora N. Sohl ASSISTANT CITY MANAGER: William T. Hopkins CITY ENGINEER: James Maddox DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC WORKS: Thornton Piersall TRAFFIC ENGINEER: Paul Singer WATER SUPERINTENDENT: Ray Auerbach PURCHASING AGENT: Dick Jeffries PERSONNEL DIRECTOR: Garry O. McRae FIRE MARSHALL: Charles Kanenbly PLANNING DIRECTOR: Ron Thompson ASSISTANT DIRECTOR FOR ZONING: Annika Santalahti Mayor Seymour called the meeting to order and welcomed those in attendance to the Council meeting. INVOCATION: Reverend Johnny Carlson of the West Anaheim Methodist ChUrch gave the Invocation. FLAG SALUTE: Councilman E. Llewellyn Overholt, Jr. led'the assembly in the Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag. 119: PROCLAMATIONS: The following proclamations were issued by Mayor Seymour and approved by the City Council: "American Society of Radiologic Technologists Week in Anaheim" - July 16 to 19, 1978. "Welcome Wagon Week in Anaheim" - July 16 through 22, 1978. Ms. Lou Wagstaff accepted the proclamation on behalf of Welcome Wagon. The Mayor thereupon presented her with a supply of "Know Your City" booklets as well as a package of letters introducing residents to the City which he had signed. Likewise, Ms. Wagstaff presented each Council Member with a lapel flower and the Mayor with a plant arrangement. She briefly outlined the function of Welcome Wagon which was in its 50th year of service to the com- munity. She expressed the organization's sincere appreciation for the support of the City officials, residents and many of the businesses in the community in the form of a certificate which she also presented to the Mayor. 119: SUGGESTION AWARDS PRESENTATION: In recognition of their'service to the City, the Mayor presented plaques of appreciation to three employees of the Utilities Department: Mr. Gayle Herble, Mr. Eldon Bollom and Mr. James W. Rawson. As background for the awards, the Mayor explained that in order to comply with the State of California High Voltage Electrical Safety Orders, it was necessary that high voltage conductors and equipment be energized and ground- ing devices be installed prior to working on the conductors. In order to comply, staff secured estimates for the necessary device which indicated that the cost for installation would be approximately $22,805. The award recipients developed their 78-878 ~ity Hall~ Anahefm~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - July 11~ 1978~ 1:30 P.M. own grounding device with materials from stock costing $1,572. The device was demonstrated to OCEA and it met all of their requirements. Due to the ingenuity of these employees, the net savings to the City was $21,233. MINUTES: Councilwoman Kaywood moved to approve the minutes of the regular meeting held May 23, 1978, subject to typographical corrections. Councilman Roth seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. WAIVER OF READING - ORDINANCES AND RESOLUTIONS: Councilwoman Kaywood moved to waive the reading, in full, of all ordinances and resolutions and that consent to the waiver of reading is hereby given by all Council Members unless, after reading of the title, specific request is made by a Council Member for the read- ing of such ordinance or resolution. Councilman Roth seconded the motion. MOTION UNANIMOUSLY CARRIED. FINANCIAL DEMANDS AGAINST THE CITY in the amount of $1,305,382.06 for the period ending July 5, 1978 and $4,774,123.93 for the period ending July 11, 1978, in accordance with the 1977-78 Budget, were approved. 164: INVERT STABILIZATION OF THE SANTA ANA RIVER CHANNEL: On motion by Councilman Kott, seconded by Councilman 0verholt, plans and specifications to invert stabili- zation of the Santa Ana River Channel from Seventeenth Street to Katella Avenue (Orange County Flood Control District) were approved as recommended in memorandum dated June 27, 1978, from the City Engineer. MOTION CARRIED. 164: DESIGN AND PLAN PREPARATION - VERMONT AVENUE-LEMON STREET SEWER: (Amendment to agreement with A. R. McDaniel) Councilwoman Kaywood offered Resolution No. 78R-426 for adoption, as recommended in memorandum dated June 28, 1978, from the City Engineer. Refer to Resolution Book. RESOLUTION NO. 78R-426: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM APPROVING THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF AN AMENDMENT TO AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AND A. R. McDANIEL DBA McDANIEL & ASSOCIATES, AND AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR AND CITY CLERK TO EXECUTE SAID AGREEMENT. Roll Call Vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: COUNCIL MEMBERS: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Overholt, Kaywood, Kott, Roth and Seymour None None The Mayor declared Resolution No. 78R-426 duly passed and adopted. 132: COLLECTION OF SOLID WASTE AND FEE COLLECTION - GARDEN GROVE SANITARy DISTRICT WITHIN ANAHEIM CITY LIMITS: In answer to Councilman Kott, Public Works Director Thornton Piersall explained that the people within the District involved would be advised of the proposal by mail before any action took place. This would give them an opportunity to discuss the matter with the Sanitary District Board which would be part of the negotiations. Details of the proposals were outlined in his memo- randum dated June 29, 1978 (on file in the City Clerk's Office). Any costs incurred by the City would be collected back from the property owners involved. At this time, the City had not negotiated with its contractors or the Garden Grove Sanitary District relative to picking up the area involved, but would be coming back to the Council 78-879 City Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - July 11~ 1978~ 1:30 P.M. prior to any finalization. The request is for authorization to meet with the Garden Grove Sanitary District and the City's contractors at this time. Mayor Seymour stated he had no objection, but he was concerned that when the 14,040 apartment dwellers noted the sanitation charge on their utility bill for the first time, they would be calling City Hall. Thus, a good deal of communica- tion needed to take place with the apartment dwellers. Mr. Piersall was cognizant of the concern expressed and acknowleged that communi- cating with those people was of great importance. On motion by Councilman Roth, seconded by Councilwoman Kaywood, the City Attorney and Director of Public Works were authorized to enter into negotiations with the Garden Grove Sanitary District relative to transfer of responsibility for collection of solid waste and fee collection for this service for that portion of the Garden Grove Sanitary District which lies within the Anaheim City Limits. MOTION CARRIED. 123: PERMIT AGREEMENT - USE OF ANAHEIM STADIUM PARKING LOT - UCI MEDICAL CENTER: Councilman Kott offered Resolution No. 78R-427 for adoption, as recommended in memorandum received July 6, 1978, from the Stadium-Convention Center-Golf Director Tom Liegler. Refer to Resolution Book. RESOLUTION NO. 78R-427: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM APPROVING THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF A PERMIT AGREEMENT WITH THE REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA AND AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR AND CITY CLERK TO EXECUTE SAID AGREEMENT. Roll Call Vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: COUNCIL MEMBERS: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Overholt, Kaywood, Kott, Roth and Seymour None None The Mayor declared Resolution No. 78R-427 duly passed and adopted. 123: AMENDMENT TO MISCELLANEOUS EMPLOYEES RETIREMENT CONTRACTS: Resolution de- claring the intention to approve an amendment to a contract between the Board of Administration of the Public Employees' Retirement System and the City to provide Section 20983.6--miscellaneous members attaining age 67 may continue in employment; and Section 21382.2--an increased level of 1959 Survivors Benefits for miscel- laneous members was submitted for consideration. City Manager Talley explained that on Friday, July 7, 1978, they were advised by PERS that adopting both parts of the proposed resolution could jeopardize the City's opportunity to take State aid if they wished. Today or yesterday however they were advised that was not the case. A representative of the City employees' association, Mr. Jake Petrosino, had been kept advised and the present recommenda- tion was that the Council adopt two resolutions--the first including both amendments and the second only including miscellaneous members attaining the age of 67 continuing in employment with the idea that approximately the first of August, at first reading of the ordinance, a staff report would explain the action recommended at that time. 78-880 City .~all, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - July 11~ 1978, 1:30 P.M. Councilman Roth offered Resolution Nos. 78R-428 and 78R-429 for adoption as recommended in memorandum dated July 3, 1978, from the Personnel Director. Before a vote was taken, the Deputy City Clerk read the following figures into the record in accordance with the requirement of Section 7507 of the Government Code: (1) the annual dollar cost of these amendments for the first 12 months would amount to $21,726; (2) the increased employer rate as an ongoing percentage of updated payroll until the year 2000 would be 13.13 percent. A vote was then taken on the foregoing resolutions. Refer to Resolution Book. RESOLUTION NO. 78R-428: RESOLUTION OF INTENTION TO APPROVE AN AMENDMENT TO CONTRACT BETWEEN THE BOARD OF ADMINISTRATION OF THE PUBLIC EMPLOYEES' RETIREMENT SYSTEM AND THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM. (Sections 20983.6 and 21382.2) RESOLUTION NO. 78R-429: RESOLUTION OF INTENTION TO APPROVE AN AMENDMENT TO CONTRACT BETWEEN THE BOARD OF ADMINISTRATION OF THE PUBLIC EMPLOYEES' RETIREMENT SYSTEM AND THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM. (Section 20983.6 only) Roll Call Vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: COUNCIL MEMBERS: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Overholt, Kaywood, Kott, Roth and Seymour None None The Mayor declared Resolution Nos. 78R-428 and 78R-429 duly passed and adopted. 123: SECONDARY DISTRIBUTION MAIN - REIMBURSEMENT OF A PROPORTIONATE SHARE BY OCWD: In answer to Councilman Kott, Mr. Ray Auerbach, Water Superintendent, explained that no City funds were involved relative to the reimbursement agree- ment; that this was an agreement in accordance with the City's rules whereby the land developer, in this case the Orange County Water District (OCWD), would install the water main that would also serve additional property. OCWD purchased land for their facilities which necessitated removing some mains owned by the Anaheim Eucalyptus Water Company. Therefore, they had to connect some other people served by that water company to the City water system necessitating the installa- tion of a main, in accordance with City rules, and later they would serve some additional properties. The City would then collect a fee from the people apply- ing for that water and reimburse those fees to the Water District. Councilwoman Kaywood offered Resolution No. 78R-430 for adoption as recommended in memorandum dated June 28, 1978, from the Utilities Director. Refer to Resolu- tion Book. RESOLUTION NO. 78R-430: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM APPROVING THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF AN AGREEMENT WITH ORANGE COUNTY WATER DISTRICT TO REIMBURSE SAID DEVELOPER FOR INSTALLING 657 FEET OF WATER MAIN AS PART OF THE SECONDARY DISTRIBUTION SYSTEM IN RED GUM STREET, AND AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR AND CITY CLERK TO EXECUTE SAID AGREEMENT. 78-881 City Hall, Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - July 11, 1978, 1:30 P.M. Roll Call Vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: COUNCIL MEMBERS: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Overholt, Kaywood, Kott, Roth and Seymour None None The Mayor declared Resolution No. 78R-430 duly passed and adopted. 123: 66 kV LINE - BARRE/VILLA PARK RIGHT-OF-WAY - LICENSE 04-73-018: (Renewal of License Agreement with Southern California Edison Company for an additional 5 year period ending June 30, 1983 at $72 annually) Councilman Kott offered Resolution No. 78R-431 for adoption, as recommended in memorandum dated June 30, 1978, from the Utilities Director. Refer to Resolution Book. RESOLUTION NO. 78R-431: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM APPROVING AND AUTHORIZING THE EXECUTION OF A RENEWAL OF A LICENSE AGREEMENT FOR A 66kV LINE WITH SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON COMPANY (BARRE-VILLA PARK 220kV TRANSMISSION RIGHT-OF-WAY). Roll Call Vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: COUNCIL MEMBERS: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Overholt, Kaywood, Kott, Roth and Seymour None None The Mayor declared Resolution No. 78R-431 duly passed and adopted. 174: FUNDING FOR H.E.R.E. (HELP ELIMINATE RAPE EVERYWHERE): Recommendation that the City Council accept a grant award in the amount of $9,500 from the Office of Criminal Justice Planning, to fund the Help Eliminate Rape Everywhere (H.E.R.E.) Program, was submitted. Mary Kay Fyda Mar explained for Councilman Kott that although most rape victims were women, the Program would also counsel a male rape victim. She continued that public education programs were aimed at both men and women and were not discrimi- natory. Councilwoman Kaywood offered Resolution No. 78R-432 for adoption as recommended in memorandum dated July 5, 1978 from the Intergovernmental Relations Office. Refer to Resolution Book. RESOLUTION NO. 78R-432: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM ACCEPTING A GRANT OF FUNDS FROM THE OFFICE OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE PLANNING FOR LAW ENFORCEMENT PURPOSES. (H.E.R.E., $9,500) Roll Call Vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: COUNCIL MEMBERS: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Overholt, Kaywood, Kott, Roth and Seymour None None The Mayor declared Resolution No. 78R-432 duly passed and adopted. 78-882 City Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - July 11~ 1978~ 1:30 P.M. On motion by Councilwoman Kaywood, seconded by Councilman Roth, an allocation in the amount of $500 from the Council Contingency Fund was authorized to pro- vide the City's matching share under the provisions of the subject grant. MOTION CARRIED. On motion by Councilwoman Kaywood, seconded by Councilman Roth, a sum total of $1,000 was authorized from the Council Contingency Fund as an advance to the grantee (Rape Crisis Clinic) to defray program costs incurred to date which sum would be reimbursed by the organization. MOTION CARRIED. 123: TECHNOLOGY APPLICATION SERVICES - RENEWAL OF AGREEMENT - C. DON MC GREGOR: Councilman Kott stated that the subject was one of the items he proposed to be eliminated as part of his budget proposal. He envisioned a large expenditure of money in the program not only for the cost of the technologist, but also in the initiation of computer data systems which would be extremely expensive. He did not agree with the recommendations of the Assistant City Manager, William T. Hopkins, in his memorandum dated July 3, 1978 (on file in the City Clerk's Office) outlining the program. He continued that the departments knew nothing about the proposal and further, in view of Proposition 13, it was his opinion that the proposal could be classed as "fat". He urged the Council to oppose the recommen- dation because it had no place in the City considering the financial situation and the wishes of the people. RESOLUTION: A brief discussion followed between Councilwoman Kaywood and Council- man Kott relative to the merits of the program with which Councilman Kott did not agree. At the conclusion of discussion, Councilwoman Kaywood offered Resolu- tion No. 78R-433 for adoption, as recommended. Before a vote was taken, Councilman Roth asked the Assistant City Manager to respond to some of the questions raised. Assistant City Manager Hopkins stated that in terms of any new type of system proposed, the cost benefit analyses of the program were first explored to be certain of its resultant savings to the community. To be able to do so, it was necessary to have preliminary work performed. For example, in the Library Circulation System, viable alternative systems were derived capable of being installed which would save a known $35,000 a year once implemented. In order to get to that position, it was necessary to have the preliminary work accomplished enabling the City to request firms to submit proposals. The same was true for the other areas as outlined in his memorandum which he explained further in detail for clarification purposes emphasizing the resultant cost savings that would be realized. Mr. Hopkins also answered additional questions posed by Councilman Kott. At the conclusion of discussion, both Councilmen Roth and Overholt indicated that they had questions relative to the proposal and recommendation' to proceed, but their concerns were allayed as a result of Mr. Hopkins detailed presentation ex- plaining the benefits that would accrue. A vote was then taken on the foregoing resolution. Refer to Resolution Book. 78-883 City Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - July 11, 1978~ 1:30 P.M. RESOLUTION NO. 78R-433: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM APPROVING THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF AN AGREEMENT WITH C. DON McGREGOR FOR PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AND AUTHORIZING AND DIRECTING THE MAYOR AND CITY CLERK TO EXECUTE SAID AGREEMENT ON BEHALF OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM. Roll Call Vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: COUNCIL MEMBERS: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Overholt, Kaywood, Roth and Seymour Kott None The Mayor declared Resolution No. 78R-433 duly passed and adopted. 112: TRW~ INC. VERSUS COUNTY OF ORANGE~ CITY OF ANAHEIM: On motion by Council- woman Kaywood, seconded by Councilman Seymour, the Orange County Counsel was authorized to defend the City relative to action filed by TRW, Inc., for the refund of certain personal property taxes paid under protest ($42,576.47). MOTION CARRIED. 142: PROPOSED CHARTER AMENDMENTS: Proposed alternative amendments to Charter Sections 500 and 504 were presented for review and discussion. City Attorney Hopkins briefed the Council on his memorandum dated July 7, 1978, in which he prepared and supplied at the request of the. Council, amendments to the City Charter, Sections 500 and 504 for their review and for possible action by the Charter Review Committee. Version "A" was a set of five alternative amendments embodying all of the various suggestions expressed by the Council and was a rather lengthy and complicated package. Version "B" involved only two items dealing basically with the issue of election versus Council designation of the Mayor. MOTION: Councilwoman Kaywood stated that having gone through all of the material, she was disturbed to note that the two questions, election of the Mayor and the expansion of the Council from 5 to 7 members, were grouped into one question for the ballot--a Yes or No that would include both issues. She thereupon moved that the Council handle the question of the expansion of the Council and that the question of the election of the Mayor be referred to the Charter Review Committee immediately. Before further action was taken on the motion, Councilwoman Kaywood noted that the election of the Mayor was supposed to be offered as it was originally--that is, a reorganization would take place every year relative to the election of a Mayor just as with Mayor Pro Tem, but the documentation indicated a two-year term. After a brief discussion with the City Attorney, it was concluded that Councilwoman Kaywood was correct and Mr. Hopkins stated that it could be changed to a one-year basis. Councilman Roth seconded the motion for the purpose of discussion. Before a vote was taken, Mayor Seymour stated that he did not have an opportunity to discuss the matter with the City Attorney, but in his opinion, if the two questions were placed on the ballot in November, election of the Mayor and expansion of the Council, by so doing because there were so many changes that must take place in the City Charter, it would be confusing to the voters. In his opinion, if both 78-884 City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - July 11~ 1978, 1:30 P.M. issues were presented to the electorate in November such as in a proposal similar to Alternative "A", there would be a great deal of confusion. He suggested therefore dividing the question and sending only one to the Charter Review Committee or directly to the voters, but not both. He did not care which question was posed to the voters; the point being, the confusion would not arise if simple poll-taking questions were asked, then legal language submitted later to amend the City Charter accordingly, at a subsequent election. Confusion would arise, however, if the simple poll questions were asked and on top of that, laborious language created to effect changes in the City Charter. Otherwise, the City Attorney would have to find a more simplified method. Mr. Hopkins explained the problem would be an alternative that would consist of approximately 5 proposals and the voters would have to vote Yes or No on one of the items resulting in confusion inasmuch as someone might vote No on all alterna- tives. If the Council could resolve the basic issues they felt to be important, it would be less of a burden to the voters on the ballot if some of the additional proposals could be eliminated. However, if the Council wished all of them to go, the first package presented would accomplish that objective. Councilwoman Kaywood explained that was why she made the motion to send the method of electing the Mayor to the Committee because she believed they could simplify it. The expansion of the Council would be a simple matter for the Council to handle and subsequently both issues could be placed on the ballot. Councilwoman Kaywood and Councilman Roth withdrew the original two-part motion and second respectively. MOTION: Councilwoman Kaywood then moved that the election of the Mayor be referred to the Charter Review Committee immediately for their decision to be placed on the ballot one way or the other. Councilman Kott seconded the motion. Before a vote was taken, the Mayor stated he would oppose the motion because the question was a simple one and the Council was capable of handling it without sending it to the Committee. The Committee would subsequently make recommendations back to the Council for final approval only to have the Council change the decision if they did not like it; Councilman Kott agreed since those were the sentiments he expressed when the Committee was formed. The Mayor then reiterated his concern in placing both issues on the ballot along with the legal language that must take place in amending the City Charter. After discussing the matter with the City Attorney and looking at those legal difficulties, if they wanted a clear, distinct opinion from the electorate, only one of the ques- tions should be placed on the ballot and he had no preference as to which one that might be. Councilman Overholt stated he would support the motion because it was simply a matter of referring the mayoral election issue to the Charter 'Review Committee which Committee was trying to do a good job in providing input to the Council. Councilman Roth agreed that the Charter Review Committee could perhaps reduce the options to make the language less cumbersome. A vote was then taken on the foregoing motion. Councilman Seymour voted "No". MOTION CARRIED. 78-885 ~ity Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - July 11~ 1978, 1:30 P.M. MOTION: Councilwoman Kaywood moved that the Council determine whether or not the question of expanding the Council from 5 to 7 members should be placed on the ballot and if so, that the Council approve the wording that would comprise the ballot language. Councilman Overholt seconded the motion. Before a vote was taken, Councilwoman Kaywood expressed her concern that the people should know that if the Council were expanded, there would be two addi- tional members making speeches and thus the meeting would take longer and cost more money. She was also in the process of receiving input from the Cities of Newport Beach, Santa Aha and Huntington Beach relative to their experience with 7-member Councils. Councilman Kott suggested that Councilwoman Kaywood ask that the matter be con- tinued for two weeks; Councilwoman Kaywood preferred that it be settled now whether the Council would handle the matter or whether it would be referred to the Committee. Councilman Overholt preferred that the motion include a time frame in which dialogue would take place so that the matter could be discussed intelligently. He shared the Mayor's concern that perhaps the Council might not want the issue to be placed on the November ballot if the mayoral election issue was going to be presented to the voters. If the Council determined at this time that the Council expansion would be placed on the ballot, it would preclude the opportunity of having that simple question placed thereon. The Mayor stated that if the Council wanted to answer No to the 7 member Council, it should do so now. If not, he envisioned nothing but confusion taking place and thus he would also oppose the motion on the floor. He asked Councilwoman Kaywood if she would amend her motion to take the matter up in two weeks; Council- woman Kaywood answered No. Councilman Overholt thereupon withdrew his second to her motion, thus Councilwoman Kaywood's motion died for lack of a second. Councilman Overholt moved that the Council determine whether or not the issue of enlargement of the Council to 7 members be placed on the November ballot with discussion of same to be continued two weeks. Councilman Kott seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. 123/180: SELF-INSURANCE PROGRAM FOR AUTOMOBILE LIABILITY - AMENDMENT TO AGREEMENT - CARL WARREN & COMPANY: City Attorney Hopkins stated that it was presented and approved at the last meeting that the City would go into a self-insurance program for automobile liability. He indicated at the time if that occurred, then the Carl Warren Agreement covering the administration of the City's claims program would be increased from $850 to $1,100 per month and the potential maximum from $52,000 to $58,000. Those changes have been accepted in this proposed amendment to the agreement adding the wording "automobile liability". The additional work involved would warrant the increase proposed. Councilman Seymour offered Resolution No. 78R-434 for adoption, as recommended by the City Attorney. Refer to Resolution Book. 78-886 City Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - July 11, 1978, 1:30 P.M. RESOLUTION NO. 78R-434: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM APPROVING THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF AN AMENDMENT WITH CARL WARREN AND COMPANY BY INCLUDING AUTOMOBILE LIABILITY CLAIMS ADMINISTRATION IN SAID AGREEMENT, IN- CREASING MONTHLY SERVICE CHARGE AND MAXIMUM CONTRACT AMOUNT AND AUTHORIZING AND DIRECTING THE MAYOR AND CITY CLERK TO EXECUTE SAID AMENDMENT. Roll Call Vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: COUNCIL MEMBERS: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Overholt, Kaywood, Kott, Roth and Seymour None None The Mayor declared Resolution No. 78R-434 duly passed and adopted. 148: REPORT ON ALTERNATIVES TO MEMBERSHIP IN SCAG: (continued from the meetings of April 25, June 6 and June 13, 1978) On motion by Councilman Kott, seconded by Councilman Overholt, the report on alternatives to membership in the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) was received and filed. MOTION CARRIED. 167: PEDESTRIAN TRAFFIC SIGNAL INSTALLATION ON CORONADO STREET: (continued from the meeting of June 27, 1978) Councilman Overholt offered Resolution No. 78R-435 for adoption, authorizing an amendment to an agreement with Calcomp for a pedestrian traffic signal installation on Coronado Street. Refer to Resolution Book. RESOLUTION NO. 78R-435: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM APPROVING THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF AN AGREEMENT FOR REIMBURSEMENT OF TRAFFIC SIGNAL INSTALLATION COSTS; AND AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR AND CITY CLERK TO EXECUTE SAID AGREEMENT ON BEHALF OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM (CALIFORNIA COMPUTER PRODUCTS, INC.) Roll Call Vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: COUNCIL MEMBERS: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Overholt, Kaywood, Kott, Roth and Seymour None None The Mayor declared Resolution No. 78R-435 duly passed and adopted. 164: DIEMER INTERTIE: Councilman Kott referred to the $4 million commitment that the Council made to the Diemer Intertie to supply water requirements for the Canyon area from its present status out to the Riverside County line (see minutes of December 13, 1977). As the Council was aware, there was talk of a new city being formed that seemed to be moving ahead. He suggested therefore that it might be in the interest of the taxpayer for the Council to hold up to ascer- tain what the outcome of that action might be rather than getting involved in the expenditure of the Diemer Intertie at this time. The Mayor asked Mr. Auerbach if any difficulty would be encountered if they were to delay action on the Diemer Intertie for another 30 days. 78-88 7 City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - July 11, 1978~ 1:30 P.M. Mr. Auerbach explained that the project was under design and the City had committed to participation in it at a cost of $3 million. Councilman Kott moved that any action relative to the Diemer Intertie by the City be stopped for at least 30 days to determine the outcome on the request to form a new city which was in process. Councilman Seymour seconded the motion for the purpose of discussion. Mr. Auerbach explained that the Diemer Intertie was a joint project with 11 agencies participating and that Anaheim was not doing anything on it at the present time. Work was being performed by Boyle Engineering under contract through the Municipal Water District (MWD) of Orange County and the project could not be stopped no matter what action was taken by the Council. There were only a couple of amendments to the agreement that had been submitted to the Utilities Department for consideration and future action by the Council. Mayor Seymour noted that appropriate action could be taken by the Council as the amendments were submitted and he thereupon withdrew his second to the motion thus Councilman Kott's motion died for lack of a second. 178: WATER RATES AND METROPOLITAN WATER DISTRICT (MWD) RESERVES: Councilman Kott stated that the Council had voted to increase the cost of water to the user in the City on the basis that MWD increased its rates to the City (see minutes of June 27, 1978). His understanding from the newspaper and the report he received yesterday was that MWD did not raise its rates. Councilman Kott thereupon moved that the Council rescind its action whereby they increased water rates since the basis upon which the increase was requested was not a factor. Before any action was taken on the motion, Mayor Seymour stated if Councilman Kott recommended the matter be referred to the Utilities Department, he would second the motion because it was necessary to receive input from Mr. Auerbach or other members of staff before he could vote in favor. The motion died for lack of a second. Mr. Auerbach was asked to respond and he explained that the water rates were raised because there were increases in MWD charges, plus OCWD fees, plus a decreased pumping percentage by the OCWD among other things. They did see an increase in rates from the MWD effective July 1, 1978 of approximately 13 percent for treated water. The reference in the newspaper articles and letter was to an additional increase under consideration by MWD to go into effect September 1, 1978, and none of the figures were known at the time their budget was prepared. Therefore, they were not included in the budget so the action was not requested at that time. He reiterated that all the increases authorized were based upon M.W.D. increases effective as of July 1, 1978. Councilman Kott appreciated Mr. Auerbach's presentation, but for the purposes of the audience and the press, he reiterated according to his information, the City water people never questioned why and how come the MWD raised its rates and further that MWD had $40 million in the bank. He emphasized as he had previously that MWD should not be in the banking business, but in the business of supplying water to the residents of Southern California. He voiced the opinion that if MWD experienced increased costs, they should use the $40 million and not charge more for water. 78-888 ~ity Hall~ Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - July 11~ 1978, 1:30 P.M. MOTION: Mayor Seymour stated he tended to agree with what Councilman Kott said if, in fact, the $40 million was surplus. On the other hand, he had not seen any evidence to determine if the surplus was a reasonable operating capital po- sition and it might be of interest to try to find out. Councilman Seymour there- upon moved that the Public Utilities Board investigate what reasonable working capital would be for the Metropolitan Water District and subsequently report to the Council. Councilman Roth seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. 106: BUDGET REDUCTIONS - CITY VEHICLES: Councilman Kott moved to direct the City Manager to look at the vast fleet of City automobiles being used by the bureacracy and being taken home for personal reasons with a report to be sub- mitted to the Council within 30 days reducing that number to somewhat less than at present. He conceded that there were some cars on the list which might be justified under emergency headings, but there were many he could not justify. As part of his motion, he also wanted included those who received car allowances in lieu of a car. Councilman Seymour stated that since Councilman Kott's request was part of his recommended budget cuts, he would second the motion. City Manager Talley stated that under Council direction when the Budget was adopted, his staff was committed to setting up a Department Head Committee that would report to the Council. It was his impression that budget sessions would be continued after the effects of the State surplus were known as well as the effects of the reimbursement to the City by the County of its share of property taxes. On July 10, 1978, the Co=~ittee set up its first meeting and amongst many other areas which he outlined was the assignment of vehicles. They would review program by program so as to be ready to address all the issues. He presumed from what was being asked, that the Council now wanted to consider some part of the overall program across the board, rather than proceed as was originally planned. In speaking to the matter, Mayor Seymour stated that he had expressed his public concern that, in fact, what would come about would be user fees with the hope of receipt of some funds from Sacramento. He was not satisfied to this point and certainly not during budget sessions that there were going to be any meaningful attempts made at budget cuts. Thus, user fees or funds from Sacramento were not of concern to him, but cuts. He was therefore willing to withdraw his second to Councilman Kott's motion if Mr. Talley could tell the Council when they could look towards recommendations for budget cuts. Mr. Talley referred to a memo he received yesterday from the Committee identifying as their first goal a $1.5 million reduction in cost, but they would also be going beyond that so as to replace revenues by some $3 million by next July 1. He would be returning from vacation on September 1, 1978 and by then the other factors would be known and the Council would be setting workshops at that time where the Commitee would be recommending cuts. They were presently organizing themselves in an orderly manner for those sessions. Mayor Seymour noted that when the Budget was approved, $1.5 million was allocated from the General Benefits Fund and now Mr. Talley had in mind to find that money either through user fees or bail-out money from Sacramento, or through some realistic cuts. The next fiscal year would pose a serious problem which needed to be addressed. Councilman Kott's intent as well as his now, as during the 78-889 City Hall, Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - July 11~ 1978, 1:30 P.M. budget sessions, was to grab hold and make immediate cuts to prepare for that fiscal year. Mr. Talley was talking about work sessions and planning for next year which led him to believe that he (Talley) was assuming everything had been settled for the present year. Mr. Talley stated his impression was that if the Council diligently reduced programs or made fee adjustments to get to the $3 million, he would make a prorata share of those cuts or adjustments this year that would probably re- sult in $1.5 million worth of savings, or cuts, or adjustments in fees. They would have to do that in order to hit the $3 million by next year. One of the areas in which he had received clear-cut direction from the Council was whether or not State bail-out money would be accepted by Anaheim with all the strings attached to it. Today he heard two expressions directly contradictory and it was necessary to know what the Council wanted to do. Mayor Seymour stated that since recommendations for cuts would be coming to the Council in September, only 9 months would be left to cure a $1.5 million problem. He contended in waiting that long the pain would be so great that the temptation of the Council would be to go to user fees, a direction in which he believed they were headed all along. He questioned why it was not possible to react within 30 days. Mr. Talley stated it was possible to do anything the Council wished, but two weeks prior he thought they had a program developed and. a path to follow which they were pursuing with alacrity. This morning, he received the first estimate from the League of California Cities indicating the City would be eligible to receive $1,576,000 as its estimated share of the State surplus. Until the Council had all the information they needed to react, approximately September 1, at which time the City would also know the distribution of the 4-cent tax rate from the County, if the Council accepted the State money, only an $8,000 problem would exist this year instead of $1.5 million. Councilman Kott shared the Mayor's concern relative to timing. Secondly, in terms of what the report to the City Manager from the Committee said relative to reducing costs, he considered meaningless. They could fire laborers and secretaries and all those at the bottom of the ladder, but that was not what he wanted. The re- ductions he proposed during budget sessions had nothing to do with the returns from Sacramento, but the big waste of money that he saw in many areas, one being City vehicles. He saw this as an o~portunity to eliminate "fat" in that area, and re- called he had so moved, and that 30 days was a reasonable time frame for response. Councilman Overholt stated if a time factor of the first week in September was included, he would support the motion; Councilman Kott stated he had no objection as long as he received something back concerning that facet. Mr. Talley stated it was reasonable, but the position he was going to take was that the City did not have a fleet of cars that everyone piled into at night; that each vehicle was assigned for a purpose. He had provided the Council with a list of every car, who drove it and why. It was his opinion therefore if the Council said they did not want that service any longer and did not want that employee to provide those services for which he drove the vehicle home, that would be acceptable. He did not consider it appropriate however to take the car away without additionally taking away the assignment. 78-E90 Citx .~all~. Anaheim, California - COUNCIL' ~INUTES - July 11, 1978, 1:30 P.M. Councilman Kott stated it would not be improper for a person to go to a car pool area and pick up a vehicle if it was needed. An individual who might use a car a couple times a year should not drive it home 365 days of that year. He did not agree with what the City Manager stated and it had nothing to do with what he was trying to accomplish. Councilwoman Kaywood stated that since approximately 6 months had already been spent on the budget, she wanted to see it handled in an orderly fashion, and at present, relevent input was not available. She could not believe that if Anaheim was entitled to $1.5 million from the State, the Council would indicate they were not going to take it. There would be an outcry from the citizens stating they were entitled to it since it was their money. Unless and until the Council knew what they were talking about, there should be no further discussion on the matter since it was a very costly and inefficient way to continue business weekly. Councilman Seymour stated that what he and Councilman Kott were attempting to do and Councilman Overholt was at least willing to look at, was to effect cuts. He pointed out that during budget hearings, Councilwoman Kaywood was interested in identifying new sources of revenue and user fees to replace those lost by Propo- sition 13. He felt that there was no "fat" in the budget and therefore was not interested in cuts. Although he respected that position, others on the Council were saying they were interested in cuts and he did not feel she should oppose an attempt on behalf of one or more Council Members to effect such cuts. A vote was taken on the foregoing motion clarified as follows: that the City Manager be directed to submit by the first week in September his recommendations relative to reducing the number of City vehicles driven home at night by City employees and a reduction of those who receive car allowances in lieu of City vehicles. MOTION CARRIED. RECESS: By general consent, the Council recessed for 10 minutes. (3:10 P.M.) AFTER RECESS: Mayor Seymour called the meeting to order, all Council Members being present. (3:20 P.M.) PUBLIC HEARING - RECLASSIFICATION NO. 66-67-64: Application by the Anaheim City Planning Commission, to consider an amendment to Condition No. 1 of Resolution No. 67R-334 relating to dedication of all streets within the area prior to the finalization of ordinance and to delete Condition No. 3 relating to submittal of a Preliminary Title Report, in connection with change in zone from ML zone on property bounded by Orangethorpe Avenue to the north, Kellogg Drive to the east, the Santa Ana River to the south, and Lakeview Avenue to the west. Miss Santalahti described the location and surrounding land uses. She outlined the findings given in the staff report to the Planning Commission dated June 5, 1978. The Mayor asked if anyone wished to speak either in favor or in opposition to the request by the Planning Commission; there being no response, he closed the public hearing. 78-891 City .Hall, Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - July 11~ 1978~ 1:30 P.M. Councilman Kott offered Resolution No. 78R-436 for adoption amending Condition No. 1 of Resolution No. 67R-334 and deleting Condition No. 3. Refer to Resolu- . tion Book. RESOLUTION NO. 78R-436: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AMENDING CONDITION NO. 1 AND DELETING CONDITION NO. 3 OF RESOLUTION NO. 67R-334 IN RECLASSIFICATION PROCEEDINGS NO. 66-67-64. Roll Call Vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: COUNCIL MEMBERS: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Overholt, Kaywood, Kott, Roth and Seymour None None The Mayor declared Resolution No. 78R-436 duly passed and adopted. 162: POOR TELEVISION RECEPTION IN THE SANTA ANA CANYON AREA: Since there were a number of people in the Council Chamber interested in the subject matter, the Mayor requested that the item be considered before the public hearing on Reclass- ification No. 76-77-49. Mr. Floyd Farano, Attorney for the Applicant on that matter acknowleged it was acceptable to him to do so. Mrs. Carol Foba, 1250 Emogene, explained she had only lived in the area 6 weeks and was not aware of everybody elses' problems relative .to TV reception. They received very little reception and were requesting that the Council allocate a sum of $68,050 necessary to provide a solution to the problem and the $6,000 a year maintenance. She emphasized however that everyone would be willing to pay that amount back to the City. She also stated cable TV would not come into their area at all. They lived in the Santa Ana Canyon Hills and a ridge was located immediately behind them and although the builder was given a permit from the City to build on that location, the area was not suited for nor were provisions made for TV reception and they believed it should have been. The builders also told them that they would get cable TV. They did not have anybody to turn to at this point except the Council. Before concluding, Mrs. Foba explained that since they were in a scenic area, they were not supposed to have any protrusions above the roof, but they all had 30-foot antennas which was against the City ordinance. She stated however that they could put their antennas in the attic. Mrs. Barbara Schmidt also stated that all of the homes in the area had very high antennas and when the winds came these blew off the rooftops. The CC&Rs they signed when they bought their homes did not allow for those antennas and although they were all violating the law, it was the only way they could get any TV reception. She maintained that the builders should hav~ put up the money in order to provide good TV reception in the area. Presently they need a booster station for the approximately 1,000 homes involved, to be located at the Texaco gas station in their area. Mayor Seymour asked if a petition had been taken from the 1,000 homes affected since one of the legal ways the problem might be addressed is through the formation of an assessment district. The City Attorney could speak to the matter to indicate what types of numbers were necessary to form such a district. 78-892 City .Hall~ Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - July 11~ 1978~ 1:30 P.M. City Attorney Hopkins stated they would have to do a study to determine the numbers or if a reasonable number were interested in a specific area and sub- sequently submit a report to the Council within a week or two. As questioned by the Mayor, if only 200 or 500 out of that 1,000 were interested in an assess- ment district, public hearings would have to be held following the requirements of the Code and they would also be obligated to ascertain if the subject was one of the legal purposes for which an assessment district could be formed. Mayor Seymour then explained for Mrs. Schmidt that if they had a legitimate con- cern against the builder in not telling their buyers about the poor TV reception, that was a matter of civil litigation and not one that the Council could deal with. Councilwoman Kaywood suggested that if anyone was interested from that area, there were presently openings on the Hill and Canyon Municipal Advisory Committee (HACMAC) and she would like to see names submitted from the group. She also wanted HACMAC to be apprised of the situation because there might be other areas in the Canyon with the same problem who could benefit from any action taken and to reduce the assessment. Mr. Pat Loughboro, 421 Via LaSilva, Redondo Beach, explained that he was from an engineering firm and was asked to come to the area and do a survey. He surveyed about 12 different spots in a rectangular area bounded by Esperanza, Imperial and La Palma. At the top of the foothills all ~V reception was excellent, but in the subject area there was no reception. The high TV antennas would not solve the problem, but there was a device permitted by the FCC called a translator, simply a box that would take a channel off the air, change its frequency and re- transmit it to another channel. This could be done with whatever channel was desired and whatever the budget could stand. He believed they could make arrange- ments with the company who owned the oil lease at the top of the hill to provide space for a building with electricity. As well, reception was good at the Texaco station on Coronado and Imperial where a translator could possibly be set up on top of the station which would cover the area adequately. Relative to the $68,000 cost, he had stated it would cost $28,000 for the first channel, and about one-half as much for the second and a four channel system (ABC, CBS, NBC and PBS) would cost approximately $68,000. A license would also be required. Councilman Roth pointed out that once the adaptor was in place, it would enable others to receive the same reception and not just the subscribers such as would be true with cable TV. Without a special assessment, there was no way of control- ling the cost back to the provider, particularly since monthly costs were involved as well. Mr. Loughboro suggested that they could do what most cities in'California and the United States did, put enough extra money in the bank and merely use the interest to pay for the maintenance thus precluding having to go back to the people again. Mr. Loughboro also stated that relative to cable TV, the subject area was not sufficiently populated so that cable franchisers would be interested in serving it. They were talking about $68,000 for four channels as a one-time capital 78-893 ..~ity ~all, Ana~eim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES -- July lip 19%~ 1:30 P.M. expenditure with a useful life of 10 to 15 years. With a cable system, 1,000 families would be paying $10 a month or $120,000 a year and $1.2 million in 10 years versus approximately $68,000. Councilman Kott stated that although he sympathized, they were getting into an area where there might be a question that any assistance could be considered a gift of public funds and he would tend to adhere to what the City Attorney had to say relative to the matter. He also considered it a civil matter and not something that could be solved by government. As well, they could do better by looking to a private entrepreneur with some knowhow who could provide the service they desired. A brief discussion then followed between the Council and Chris and Carol Foba relative to some aspects of the matter, at the conclusion of which Mayor Seymour suggested that the most appropriate course of action would be to ask the City Attorney to research the question to determine legally whether or not the Council could create an assessment district to accommodate the residents' request. MOTION: Councilman Seymour moved to direct the City Attorney to investigate and subsequently submit a report to the Council in two weeks relative to the legality of creating an assessment district to assist in solving the problem of poor TV reception in the defined area. Councilman Overholt seconded the motion. Before a vote was taken, Councilman Overholt stated thatin talking about a $68,000 capital investment, on 500 homes, it would be a one-time $136 invest- ment per home and the $6,000 annual service charge would cost $1 a month each for that number of homes. Although the Council was taking an initial action to assist, he recommended that the citizens consider private financing for whatever installation they desired. A vote was taken on the foregoing motion. MOTION CARRIED. PUBLIC HEARING - RECLASSIFICATION NO. 76-77-49: Application by Holly Wade Tuszewski, to consider amendment to Condition No. 1 of Resolution No. 77R-669, relating to dedication of land along Frontera Street for street widening purposes for a change in zone from RS-A-43,000 to ML. Councilman Kott stated on the advice of his attorney he would abstain from discus- sion and voting on the matter. He left the Council Chamber. (4:07 P.M.) Miss Santalahti stated she had no additional comments to make on the matter except that the Engineering Division indicated they had no objection to the proposal. Mr. Floyd Farano, attorney, 2555 East Chapman Avenue, Fullerton, representing the owner and developer, stated that Reclassification No. 76-77-49 and Conditional Use Permit No. 1703 required that the developer and landowner dedicate 64 feet of street width measured across Frontera beginning from the freeway fence line. In taking the measurements and checking with staff, 60 feet had already been dedicated and the 78-894 C__ity Hall, Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - July lip 1978~ 1:30 P.M. Condition would require an additional 4 feet to be taken from his client. In addition, Frontera Street was now 40 feet in width and adjoined their property immediately to the north. Frontera extended from Glassell Street to a point east approximately 7- or 8-tenths of a mile. Along Frontera to the eastern terminus, only two users were involved, his clients (Orange County Steel Salvage) and a stone company immediately across the street at Newkirk and Frontera. The reason for the request to be relieved of that additional dedication was due to the fact that there was little chance that the property east of the steel salvage yard would be developed for any use due to its physical characteristics and ownership. Thus to require street widening, sidewalks and additional dedication of property might be wasteful because it would not go anywhere. He confirmed that his request was to be relieved of dedication for the additional 4 feet right-of-way; as well as the widening of Frontera for installation of sidewalks. However they would fulfill all of the other conditions. The Mayor asked when the client, Mr. Adams, was prepared to get underway with construction. Mr. Farano stated that building plans were in the Building Division and had been there about 3 weeks. The fence was ready to go up and the contracts all let. Whether or not the requested waiver was granted would determine where the fence would be located, but otherwise they were ready to proceed. Councilman Roth first expressed his displeasure with the situation as he had in the past and stated that if he could get a firm commitment that something would be initiated within the next 30 days relative to the fence along the freeway, he would support the request. He explained that he felt there was a need for the metal recycling operation, but was opposed to waiting so long for compliance with conditions. Mr. Farano reiterated tht he knew for a fact that the contracts were let for the fence and he was told it would be underway in five days and would take approximately one week to build. His commitment would be, if something was not done by the time the extension of time that was previously granted expired, he would not be before the Council again to ask for another extension. He stipulated that the fence would be started in 7 days. Councilman Roth offered Resolution No. 78R-437 for adoption amending Condition No. 1 of Resolution No. 77R-669 relating to dedication of land along Frontera Street with the fence along the freeway to be completed in 30 days. Refer to Resolution Book. RESOLUTION NO. 78R-437: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AMENDING CONDITIONS NO. 1 AND 2 OF RESOLUTION NO. 77R-669 IN RECLASSIFICATION PROCEEDINGS NO. 76-77-49. Roll Call Vote: AYES: NOES: TEMPORARILY ABSENT: ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: COUNCIL MEMBERS: COUNCIL MEMBERS: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Overholt, Kaywood, Roth and Seymour None Kott None The Mayor declared Resolution No. 78R-437 duly passed and adopted. 78-895 City Hall, Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - July 11~ 1978~ 1:30 P.M. 108: PUBLIC HEARING - REVOCATION OF BINGO LICENSE NO. 1-36442: To consider an appeal of the revocation of Bingo license issued to Colonial Manor Halfway Houses, Inc., 423 North Anaheim Boulevard, which was ordered following admin- istrative hearing held May 15, 1978 in accordance with Section 7.34.100 of the Anaheim Municipal Code. Appeal of the license revocation was filed by Mr. Larry C. Anderson, Anderson & Associates, Attorney for the Colonial Manor Halfway Houses, Inc., dated June 19, 1978, and hearing scheduled this date. The Deputy City Clerk announced that a letter dated July 7, 1978, was received from Mr. Anderson requesting that the hearing be continued to the meeting of July 25, 1978. Mr. Mark Allison, representing Colonial Manor Halfway Houses, Inc., indicated his presence to answer any questions. Councilwoman Kaywood asked if the operation would cease and desist during the interim. Mr. Allison stated that they were still operating the bingo parlor and it would not be their intent to cease and desist; Councilwoman Kaywood stated'on that basis, she would vote against the continuance. Councilman Overholt moved that the request for continuance of the matter to July 25, 1978 be granted with the understanding that there would be no further continuances. Councilman Roth seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. 106: BUDGET COMMENTS: Councilman Kott pointed out to the Council, audience and press, a newspaper article that stated that City of Orange spending was slashed and one of the contributing items was the restricted use of City vehicles. As well, the Brea Council adopted a budget that was cut by one-third. He noted that his and the Mayor's proposals for the budget cuts as previously presented were not too unusual or out of line, in comparison with this information. 164: REJECTING AND READVERTISING ALL BIDS - LA PALMA AVENUE STORM DRAIN IMPROVE- MENT: (Lakeview to 630 feet east of Kellogg Drive - Account No. 10-4309-727- 16-0000) Councilman Kott questioned City Engineer Maddox relative to the request for rejection of all bids due to a clerical oversight made by the low bidder. He suggested that not all bids necessarily be rejected in such cases because the price might escalate during the time lapse. It was his understanding that was particularly true relative to the price of concrete. Mr. Maddox first confirmed for Councilman Kott that the second highest bid amounted to $574,183.51 submitted by Nick Didovic. The first bid submitted by Chino Pipe- line was $532,737.73 shown on the face of the proposal as the sum total of all the bid items. However, in checking the extensions, the Engineering Department found that the unit prices did not match the extension. Thus, the corrected bid figure was $505,309. Councilman Kott asked if it would be cost effective to readvertise with the possiL bility that the price of concrete would rise considering the man hours, paperwork, etc., that would be involved in rebidding. Specifically, he wanted to know if Mr. Maddox felt he would be able to come in with a bid better than $574,183.51. 78-896 ~ity Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - July 11, 1978~ 1:30 P.M. Mr. Maddox explained that the City Attorney and representatives from Chino Pipeline met on Friday, June 30, 1978, and subsequently the City Attorney, Director of Public Works and he came to the conclusion that the rejection of all bids and readvertising was the best course of action. He could not guar- antee that prices would be better or worse, but he suspected the cost might rise one or two percent. He reiterated the course of action recommended was considered to be the wisest and most prudent. Mr. Michael F. Maricel, 5900 Wilshire Boulevard, Los Angeles, representing Chino Pipeline, stated that his primary purpose and Chino's in being present was to have the Council act on the request for rescission of their bid based upon the statement which they supplied the City Attorney at their referenced meeting. Mayor Seymour stated that the Council was looking for input and the question before them was whether or not to reject all bids. Mr. Maricel stated it was Chino's position that it could not accept an award of contract on the basis of the $505,309 figure. The alternatives facing the Council were, (a) reject all bids or (b) award to the second bidder, Didovic. Mr. Nick Didovic stated that the bids should not be rejected. When he was present for another bid opening on June 29, 1978, he spoke to the Engineering Department relative to the subject bid which had previoUsly been submitted and opened. Engineering explained the situation to him and gave the opinion that the bids would not be rejected because his bid of $574,000 plus was close to the Engineering Department's estimate of the job of between $525,000 to $550,000. In concluding and in answer to Councilman Kott, Mr. Didovic estimated that in the past 2 to 3 months, concrete had risen in price by 30 percent, from $24 to $34 dollars a cubic yard. Mr. Tony Page, a partner in Chino Pipeline, 16341 Chino-Corona Road, Chino, first explained that the cost of concrete per cubic yard "out in the street" did not govern the price of concrete that was put into a pipe. The bulk cement rate presently was approximately $70 a ton up from $60 a month prior. In some in- stances in the past, he had seen the price of cement "out in the street" where a bid was rejected and readvertised and subsequently the bid was lower because the street price was known from the previous bid. He did not foresee the price of the pipe going up $4,000 or $5,000. He confirmed for Councilman Roth that he was not recommending anything to the Council except that when the prices that were bid were known throughout the community, there was a possibility that another bid would bring lower prices. He also explained further for clarification some of the factors involved in the pricing of concrete. Mr. Page then explained for Councilman Roth how the clerical error occurred in their bid. Pipe companies passed out their best prices literally at the very last minute. Their last pipe cut price relative to the bid came 30 seconds be- fore the deadline for submission and the problem arose in the rush to get the prices and extensions written down as called for on the bid. The correct total should have been the $532,737.73 figure. They had talked with the City through their attorney and the conclusion was that there was no legal way to award the bid at that figure in view of the statement on the bid document. If so, he would be more than happy to have the bid accepted at that price. However, no one wanted to enter into something questionable that would come back at a later date. 78-89 7 City Hal~ Anah~im~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES~...- July 11.;. 1978; 1:30 P.M. In answer to Councilman Kott, City Engineer Maddox stated that August 10, 1978 was the date recommended for again opening bids for the project. He also con- firmed for Councilman Kott that no estimate from the Engineering Department was divulged to bidders ahead of time in that Mr. Didovic obtained the estimated figure of $525,000 after the bids were opened and after the opening of another bid on June 29, 1978. Relative to the $550,000 figure, he presumed the Engineer- ing representative in looking at the spread of bids may have indicated that the Engineering estimate was low and instead of $525,000 should have been closer to $550,000. Mayor Seymour stated that the real question was whether or not an additional 30 days would bring an increase of approximately 5 to 7 percent; Councilwoman Kaywood stated that the Council should accept the professional advice, reject all bids and readvertise. Mr. Didovic interjected that also to be considered was the fact that the cost of paving was also escalating; Mr. Maddox explained that the paving aspect was not a separate contract, but included in the same job. Councilwoman Kaywood offered Resolution Nos. 75R-438 and 78R-439 for adoption rejecting all bids on the subject and authorizing readvertising of same as recommended in memorandum dated July 6, 1978, from the City Engineer. Refer to Resolution Book. RESOLUTION NO. 78R-438: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM REJECTING ALL BIDS RECEIVED UP TO THE HOUR OF 2:00 P.M. ON JUNE 15, 1978, FOR THE LA PALMA AVENUE STORM DRAIN IMPROVEMENT, LAKEVIEW AVENUE, E/O KELLOGG DRIVE, IN THE CITY OF ANAHEIM, ACCOUNT NO. 10-4309-727-16-0000. RESOLUTION NO. 78R-439: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM F%NDING AND DETERMINING THAT PUBLIC CONVENIENCE AND NECESSITY REQUIRE THE CONSTRUC- TION AND COMPLETION OF A PUBLIC IMPROVEMENT, TO WIT: LA PALMA AVENUE STORM DRAIN IMPROVEMENT, LAKEVIEW AVENUE, E/O KELLOGG DRIVE, IN THE CITY OF ANAHEIM, ACCOUNT NO. 10-4309-727-16-0000; APPROVING THE DESIGNS, PLANS, PROFILES, DRAWINGS, AND SPECIFICATIONS FOR THE CONSTRUCTION THEREOF; AUTHORIZING THE CONSTRUCTION OF SAID PUBLIC IMPROVEMENT IN ACCORDANCE WITH SAID PLANS, SPECIFICATIONS, ETC.; AND AUTHORIZING AND DIRECTING THE CITY CLERK TO PUBLISH A NOTICE INVITING SEALED PROPOSALS FOR THE CONSTRUCTION THEREOF. (Bids to be opened August 10, 1978, 2:00 P.M.) Roll Call Vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: COUNCIL MEMBERS: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Overholt, Kaywood, Roth and Seymour Kott None The Mayor declared Resolution Nos. 78R-438 and 78R-439 duly passed and adopted. 78-898 ~ity Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - July 11~ 1978, 1:30 P.M. 164: AWARD OF CONTRACT - ORANGEWOOD AVENUE SEWER IMPROVEMENT: (from Harbor Boulevard to West Street - Account No. 11-790-6325-0020) Councilman Kott offered Resolution No. 78R-440 for adoption, awarding a contract to the low bidder in accordance with the recommendations of the City Engineer in his memorandum dated June 29, 1978. Refer to Resolution Book. RESOLUTION NO. 78R-440: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM ACCEPTING A SEALED PROPOSAL AND AWARDING A CONTRACT TO THE LOWEST RESPONSIBLE BIDDER FOR THE FURNISHING OF ALL PLANT, LABOR, SERVICES, MATERIALS AND EQUIPMENT AND ALL UTILITIES AND TRANSPORTATION INCLUDING POWER, FUEL AND WATER, AND PERFORMING ALL WORK NECESSARY TO CONSTRUCT AND COMPLETE THE FOLLOWING PUBLIC IMPROVEMENT: ORANGEWOOD AVENUE SEWER IMPROVEMENT, HARBOR BOULEVARD TO WEST STREET, IN THE CITY OF ANAHEIM, ACCOUNT NO. 11-790-6325-0020. (Peter C. David Company, $113,924) Roll Call Vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: COUNCIL MEMBERS: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Overholt, Kaywood, Kott, Roth and Seymour None None The Mayor declared Resolution No. 78R-440 duly passed and adopted. 164: AWARD OF CONTRACT - LA PALMA AVENUE-TUSTIN AVENUE STORM DRAIN IMPROVEMENT: (Account No. 46-791-6325-1010) Councilman Overholt offered Resolution No. 78R-441 for adoption, awarding a contract to the low bidder in accordance with the recom- mendations of the City Engineer in his memorandum dated July 5, 1978. Refer to Resolution Book. RESOLUTION NO. 78R-441: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM ACCEPTING A SEALED PROPOSAL AND AWARDING A CONTRACT TO THE LOWEST RESPONSIBLE BIDDER FOR THE FURNISHING OF ALL PLANT, LABOR, SERVICES, MATERIALS AND EQUIPMENT AND ALL UTILITIES AND TRANSPORTATION INCLUDING POWER, FUEL AND WATER, AND PERFORMING ALL WORK NECESSARY TO CONSTRUCT AND COMPLETE THE FOLLOWING PUBLIC IMPROVEMENT: LA PALMA AVENUE-TUSTIN AVENUE STORM DRAIN IMPROVEMENT, IN THE CITY OF ANAHEIM, ACCOUNT NO. 46-791-6325-1010. (Bebek Company, $2,240,793.90) Roll Call Vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: COUNCIL MEMBERS: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Overholt, Kaywood, Kott, Roth and Seymour None None The Mayor declared Resolution No. 78R-441 duly passed and adopted. 164: COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT PROGRAM AREAWIDE WATER SYSTEM PROJECT AREA III: (Account No. 58-4864-683-49-0330) On motion by Councilman Seymour, seconded by Councilwoman Kaywood, award of contract on the subject project was continued to July 18, 1978, as recommended in memorandum dated July 5, 1978 from the City Engineer. MOTION CARRIED. 78-899 City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - July 11~ 1978~ 1:30 P.M. 169: STREET LIGHTING IN TRACT NO. 1404~ ASSESSMENT DISTRICT NO. 77-1: (Account No. 10-4870-621-55-6992) On motion by Councilman Seymour, seconded by Council- woman Kaywood, award of contract on the subject project was continued to July 18, 1978, as recommended in memorandum dated July 5, 1978, from the City Engineer. MOTION CARRIED. 160: PURCHASE OF EQUIPMENT - 27 INCH STEEL PIPE AND APPURTENANCES - BID NO. 3430: On motion by Councilwoman Kaywood, seconded by Councilman Seymour, the bid of Ameron Pipe was accepted and purchase authorized in the amount of $4705.34, including tax, as recommended by the Purchasing Agent in his memorandum dated July 5, 1978. MOTION CARRIED. 160: PURCHASE OF EQUIPMENT - 1~152 SINGLE PHASE AND 104 POLY PHASE METERS - BID NO. 3435: On motion by Councilman Seymour, seconded by Councilwoman Kaywood, the low bid of Maydwell & Hartzell was accepted and purchase authorized in the amount of $39,463.30, including tax, as recommended by the Purchasing Agent in his memorandum dated July 5, 1978. MOTION CARRIED. 150: TENNIS INSTRUCTION PROVIDED BY PARKS AND RECREATION DEPARTMENT: Request by Mr. David Kornreich to address the Council regarding tennis instructions. Mr. David Kornreich, 1265 North Chrisden, first stated that many of the people at the meeting earlier representing Tennisland Racquet Club, Disneyland Hotel, Anaheim Tennis Center, Bushwood Apartments and others were unable to stay. Mr. Kornreich, a member of the U. S. Professional Tennis Association, then relayed his background and credentials in the field of tennis. He was now a professional tennis instructor in the private sector. The thrust of Mr. Kornreich's presentation was the fact that, in his opinion, there was a flagrant violation by the Parks, Recreation and Arts Department (P,R&A) by their intrusion into the tennis instruction business. They were able to put up large banners at 8 prime locations in the City announcing that tennis instruction was being given at schools and parks in Anaheim whereas no private citizen would have the permis- sion or right to display such banners which he claimed was unfair competition. He submitted photographs to the Council depicting the banners. Mr. Kornreich then relayed the following relative to his complaint: the P,R&A Department was offering lessons at $16 for eight hours as opposed to the $29 for 6 hours in the private sector; P,R&A should be involved with tennis, but primarily with organizing activities such as ladder matches, tournaments, etc.; most P,R&A departments in other parts of the country had 20 persons in a tennis class per instructor whereas in Anaheim the classes are limited to 6 persons which was an intrusion on the private sector; recreation departments in general should not be involved in generating a business; he did not have the right to teach on public courts and, as well, P,R&A had the priority to reserve courts for tennis instruction which courts were tax supported facilities and the program was being promoted with tax supported dollars; tennis instruction Should not be promoted in middle and upper-middle affluent areas. In concluding, Mr. Kornreich stated that he personally was having a very diffi- cult time as a private instructor and he knew of other clubs in the area who lost a tremendous amount of money due to 3 months of rain and they were looking forward to a good summer. The Anaheim P,R&A tennis program was a serious detriment to the private sector and thus their instruction should be limited to one location, perhaps Loara High School, with 20 or 30 persons in a class allowing the private 78-900 gity .~all, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - July 11~ 1978, 1:30 P.M. sector to handle group instruction in the middle and upper-middle affluent areas. Tennis instruction was a business and livelihood to the clubs and private individuals. Anaheim Parks, Recreation and Arts Department would start their next program on July 17, 1978, taking registrations on July 15th at different locations. This was the peak tennis season and he was interested in coming out a little bit ahead in his business. In answer to questions by Councilman Roth, Councilwoman Kaywood and Councilman Overholt, Mr. Kornreich first confirmed that he was recommending that P,R&A tennis instruction be free or offered at a very minimal charge, enough to pay the in- structors and that classes consist of 20 or more persons. He could then compete by having small individual classes giving the people the opportunity to make the distinction in the type of instruction they would be receiving. He had been in the tennis instruction business for 11 years having lived in Anaheim since September 1977 and presently teaching at his apartment complex at 1265 North Crisden under a permit. Councilwoman Kaywood pointed out that Conditional Use Permit No. 1840 to permit private tennis lessons at the subject apartment com- plex was scheduled on the Council agenda today; Mr. Kornreich noted that the use had been approved by the Planning Commission. The services he provided for the complex consisted of providing free tennis instruction, security for the facility and cleaning of the courts. In return, there were certain hours two nights a week and on Saturday morning, during which he was allowed to teach tennis. Mr. Kornreich continued that he was authorized to represent other tennis interests such as those previously mentioned. Relative to whether or not he believed P,R&A was making a profit on the program, he stated the fees charged may be called a salary for the instructor. However, by giving tennis instruction in small classes generating 400 to 600 persons per session detracted quite a bit from the private sector. There would be no problem if free classes were offered provided they were large enough in size. The private sector did not object to P,R&A providing tennis instruction because such instruction introduced the game to the public, but small classes presented an unfair competitive edge. Finally, Mr. Kornreich stated that he had not discussed the matter with the P,R&A staff nor with the advisory commission to P,R&A as he was not aware of such a group. However, one of the people involved did speak with Jim Ruth, who he claimed was not very accommodating. Mr. James Ruth, Parks, Recreation and the Arts Director, stated that his depart- ment had been giving tennis lessons for approximately 20 years, the philosophy being they always levy a fee to make the classes self-sustaining and also they felt they had a responsibility to provide introductory lessons at the beginning and then intermediate level. At that point, people develop skills to where they would seek more professional guidance and teaching thus moving into the private sector. The program was well received with outstanding participation. They make no profit on the fees charged of $16 for 8 hours, 85 percent of which was for the instructors under contract with the City and the remaining'15 percent used to purchase balls and for advertising and promotion of the classes. Mr. Ruth also stated that no one had contacted him and he had not discussed the matter with anyone from Tennis Concepts, Tennisland or anyone else. He had his staff contact the private sector to find out their reaction to the P,R&A program and Mr. Bob Waunch of Tennisland Racquet Club was under the impression that the City was making a profit and subsidizing lessons. When staff explained that was not true, he indicated that there was then no problem. When staff spoke to a tennis 78-901 City Hall, Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - July 11, 1978, 1:30 P.M. instructor from the Yorba Linda Country Club, he stated that the program carried out by P,R&A was a great boon since it provided the opportunity to play tennis at a beginning and intermediate level and thereafter when more professional expertise was desired, those people participated in his program. Anaheim Hills Racquet Club also indicated it was a good program and they did not see the need for any change. They considered the City's program an asset to their operation because it developed tennis interest in the community. Mr. Ruth stipulated also that only group lessons were provided and no individual lessons were given. The classes are kept to 6 to provide quality and if there were 20 beginners in a class, it would be an impossible situation. In terms of locations, he believed there was a great deal of appeal in going to the community and the neighborhood to provide a service where people would not have to travel 20 to 30 miles to participate. While he appreciated Mr. Kornreich's concerns, it was not their intent to compete with private enterprise. They were providing a very viable service in the community which was well received and at a minimal cost. For all intents and purposes, the program was not being subsidized by the City's General Fund and they were not making a profit on it. For the most part, private enterprise was supportive of what they were doing and he personally had not received one call from the private sector complaining about his operation until Mr. Kornreich's letter was received. Mr. Kornreich stated that at 11:45 today he spoke to a board member of the Anaheim Hills Racquet Club and asked his position. The board member indicated he was taking a neutral position as he was not affected by the situation. He (Kornreich) presumed the reason Anaheim Hills Racquet Club could do so was due to the fact it was managed by the Anaheim Hills Corporation, a part of the Texaco Oil Company and the club was a service to the new residents of those already living in the area. He continued that tennis instruction was a luxury and those services should be provided by the private sector if reasonable. He questioned how the unsophis- ticated person would know what was really better, recreation tennis instruction or that given in the private sector. He stated that he did not want P,R&A to stop tennis activity, but felt it should be recreational tennis with large classes, and a charge of 50 cents to one dollar an hour. Mr. Norman Brock, Ridgeland Racquet CLub, 10604 Meads Avenue, Orange, stated he was concerned about the ability of the professionals in the business such as Mr. Kornreich to continue. The City's program had cut into his income and others as well. Anaheim's P,R&A have the ability to advertise to attract the 1,500 people participating in the program. He questioned how Mr. Kornreich or other professionals could compete with the City under the present conditions. Councilman Roth noted that the City provided instruction in many areas such as golf, swimming and the like which could be equated with the tennis program. Mayor Seymour believed the situation to be a classic illustration of well-meaning people--elected officials, the Parks and Recreation Commission and professionals like Mr. Ruth, who in their zeal to deliver service to the public were in the process of driving private enterprise out of business. The City should provide some public service such as tennis, swimming, golf and the like. If in so doing, however, it was a detriment to the private sector, government would end up with its hands in everything since totally unfair competition was involved with both the public and private sector competing for the same market. If there was no 78-902 Ci. ty. Hall~ ~aheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - July 11~ 1978~ 1:30 P.M. competition, then it would be acceptable. He empathized with the private entrepreneur in trying to make a go of his livelihood. He also concurred rela- tive to the competition in signing of the type used which otherwise would not be permitted as well as the easy availability of public facilities and public land. If these were not available, then Mr. Ruth would not be able to negotiate with another professional to offer lessons at such a reduced price. He believed the situation should be corrected and noted the sense of urgency because the private instructor would be driven out of business by summer's end unless action was taken. It would be an easy move to push the matter off to the Parks and Recreation Commission and ask for their recommendation, but the situation was critical and merited immediate action. MOTION: Councilman Seymour thereupon moved to direct the Parks, Recreation and Arts Department to conclude tennis classes already begun as well as sign-ups already committed to, but any further extension of those classes should be limited to beginner-type tennis with a class size of not less than 15 people, limited to public tennis facilities west of the Santa Ana River. Councilman Kott seconded the motion for the purpose of discussion. Councilwoman Kaywood noted that even if the program was cut, affecting all of the people in Anaheim who enjoyed and wanted the service, such action might have no effect on Mr. Kornreich; the Mayor stated it would not cut off all the people or all of Anaheim--classes would continue, but more in the fashion of public instruc- tion and limited to a portion of the City west of the Santa Ana River. Further discussion followed wherein the Mayor confirmed that the intent of his motion was to eliminate future registration and specifically registrations scheduled for July 15th if that was new registration. In answer to Councilman Overholt relative to the elimination of the second summer session, Mr. Ruth stated they would have to reorganize and eliminate the standard of no more than 6 in a class, expand the classes to 15, and eliminate intermediate tennis altogether. One of the problems lay in the fact that they had several contracts with instructors for the entire summer based on enrollment. %]ney would therefore lose one-half of their instructors, or 6 to 7 people. Councilman Roth noted that there may be some people living south of the freeway participating in tennis programs at Canyon High School. The Riverdale area was not an affluent one, but low to medium income. He questioned why they should be deprived of such services because there were affluent people living in the Canyon area. He also pointed out that many people in the Canyon and Anaheim Hills belonged to the Racquet Club and most had tennis courts in their recreational facilities and did not need to participate in the program at the high school. Mayor Seymour stated that if Councilman Roth would be supportive, he would amend his motion without putting any geography on it, the intent being to create public tennis instruction at beginner level in larger classes so that all citizens could participate. He thus amended his motion to delete reference to facilities west of the Santa Ana River. Councilman Kott stated he constantly voted against tennis, skateboard parks and the like because of their intrusion into the private sector. He was a firm believer in limited government and he would therefore support the Mayor's motion. 78-903 C_ity Hall, Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - July 11~ 1978~ 1:30 P.M. Councilman Overholt stated he would oppose the motion and further he resented someone coming to the Council without first having talked with the staff in charge of the recreation program or without having familiarized himself on what was taking place and why to ascertain if there was some way of working out a compromise. Mr. Kornreich's letter was received on June 30th and in 10 days time, no contact was made with the P&R staff or Commission, which Commission was set up to hear the very type of complaint presented. He had served on the Parks and Recreation Commission for 6 years and they had received all kinds of complaints relative to tennis, most indicating that P&R was not doing enough in that area. He wanted to give Mr. Kornreich an opportunity in representing those he claimed to represent to speak to P&R to determine if they could come up with something satisfactory to both. Mr. Kornreich believed the City was making a profit which could be proven untrue, and because they were making that profit, the private tennis pro could not make a living teaching tennis. He also believed there was no comparison between the quality of instruction given by the City and that provided by a private tennis club. If information was avail- able on the 1,500 people who availed themselves of the City's tennis program, it would reveal that a large percentage of those were beginners and another large per- centage children. He was not prepared at a "first blush" presentation with no groundwork laid to take action that would completely reorient the City's tennis program. MOTION: Councilman Overholt moved to table the Mayor's motion until the next meeting. Councilwoman Kaywood seconded the motion. Before a vote was taken, Councilman Roth questioned whether or not the motion could be tabled; Mayor Seymour stated that he could accept it if he wished, however he did not agree with Councilman Overholt. Although he agreed with the procedure that ideally should be followed, he could not understand why Councilman Overholt should be irritated when a citizen with a problem came before the CoUncil to seek help. When Mr. Kornreich came to him (Seymour), he directed him to the City Clerk's Office to follow protocol in arranging a time to speak before the Council. If the motion for continuance was carried, it would mean one more session of tennis classes would begi~ thus coming closer to the end of summer and that much closer to putting Mr. Kornreich out of business. Councilwoman Kaywood was concerned that the P,R&A staff was placed in a no-win situ- ation. They were being "kicked in the teeth" for doing an excellent job; Mayor Seymour emphasized that certainly was not his intent and he apologized to any member of the staff who might feel that way. He reiterated his intent was that public tennis instruction be available to all citizens of Anaheim, but limited in such a way so as not to drive the private sector out of serving that same marketplace. Councilman Overholt agreed totally with the intent, but not wi~h the procedure and emphasized the need for a week's continuance in order to receive input. A roll call vote was taken on the motion for a continuance for one week and failed to carry by the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: COUNCIL MEMBERS: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Overholt and Kaywood Kott, Roth and Seymour None 78-904 City Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - July 11~ 1978, 1:30 P.M. A vote was then taken on the original motion with the elimination of the geographic designation. Council Members Overholt and Kaywood voted "No". MOTION CARRIED. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 1248: Submitted by Income Property Services, re- questing termination of Conditional Use Permit No. 1248. Councilman Roth offered Resolution No. 78R-442 for adoption terminating Condi- tional Use Permit No. 1248. Refer to Resolution Book. RESOLUTION NO. 78R-442: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM TERMINATING ALL PROCEEDINGS IN CONNECTION WITH CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 1248 AND DECLARING RESOLUTION NO. 71R-464 NULL AND VOID. Roll Call Vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: COUNCIL MEMBERS: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Overholt, Kaywood, Kott, Roth and Seymour None None The Mayor declared Resolution No. 78R-442 duly passed and adopted. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 698: Submitted by Joseph M. Anton Security Investments, Inc., requesting termination of Conditional Use Permit No. 698. Councilwoman Kaywood offered Resolution No. 78R-443 for adoption terminating Conditional Use Permit No. 698. Refer to Resolution Book. RESOLUTION NO. 78R-443: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHIEM TERMINATING ALL PROCEEDINGS IN CONNECTION WITH CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 698 AND DECLARING RESOLUTION NO. 65R-415 NULL AND VOID. Roll Call Vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: COUNCIL MEMBERS: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Overholt, Kaywood, Kott, Roth and Seymour None None The Mayor declared Resolution No. 78R-443 duly passed and adopted. 167: REQUEST FOR REFUND OF TRAFFIC SIGNAL ASSESSMENT: Request of Lynn E. Thomsen for refund of Traffic Signal Assessment fees in connection with Council Policy No. 214, relating to property located at 434 South Euclid was presented. Mr. Lynn Thomsen, 434 South Euclid, referred to his letter dated June 29, 1978 outlining the specifics leading to his request (on file in the City Clerk's Office). Mayor Seymour stated as he understood the situation, Mr. Thomsen was saying that his project was in the mill before the new rules were made and thus he should be exempt from the new traffic signal assessment fees. 78-905 City Hall~, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - July 11~ !978; 1:30 P.M. Mr. Thomsen indicated that was correct and further explained that plans were submitted to the Building Division prior to July 1, 1977. They were submitted by the design firm for a basis of determining some preliminary dimensions and the building permit was issued in December or January. A brief discussion then took place between the Mayor and Mr. Thomsen as to why it had taken so long for Mr. Thomsen to obtain a building permit. The Mayor then asked Mr. Thomsen if' he was surprised at the traffic signal assessment fee when he went to pull his building permit and if so, what was his reaction. Mr. Thomsen stated there was a conversation that took place when the plans were originally filed wherein they were told they would not be subject to the fee. Apparently thereafter the effective date of the plans were clarified and when the contractor pulled the permit, he informed him that the traffic signal assess- ment had been made. At that point, he did not stop to argue the point since he had acquired a lender and he was anxious to record the loan. Mr. Ron Thompson, Planning Director, stated that many developers did have pre- liminary conferences with staff when they first brought their plans to the City. However, until the plan check fee was paid, they were not officially filed with the Building Division. Mr. Thomsen interjected and stated that the fee relative to his project was paid on July 1, 1977; Mr. Thompson pointed out that was one day after the effective date of the traffic signal assessment. Mr. Thomsen contended that the minutes did not reflect the fact that the payment date of the plan check fee established the effective date, but instead, "...that no project submitted prior to the new policy would be affected by that policy." It did not say payment of the plan check fee, but submittal of the projects. City Attorney Hopkins confirmed for Councilman Kott that the date Mr. Thompson referred to, the date of the plan check fee payment, was the proper way to handle the matter. There had to be some cut-off date and merely submitting documents or discussing them with staff did not constitute a cut off date. Thus, the Planning Director's July 1, 1977 date of the plan check fee payment would be a reasonable way to establish the effective date. A discussion followed between the Mayor and Mr. Thomsen in which he (Thomsen) expressed a difference of opinion in interpretation relative to when plans were actually considered to be in process. At the conclusion of which~ Mr. Thompson reiterated that although preliminary meetings were held with many developers on their plans, those plans were not officially in process until the fees were paid. At the conclusion of further Council discussion relative to the effective date, the Mayor stated that in his interpretation, Mr. Thomsen was not in the process until the date the fees were paid. On the other hand, he wanted to know when Mr. Singer projected that the traffic light would be installed at Tedmar and Euclid where the subject project was located. Traffic Engineer Singer stated he did not have that signal installation in his budget and did not see how it could even be contemplated at this time. Further, in answer to the Mayor, he did not foresee in the reasonable future any need for a stop light at Tedmar and Euclid Street. 78-906 City Hall~ Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - July 11~ 1978~ 1:30 P.M. The Mayor maintained therefore that when looking at the question, discarding Mr. Thomsen's letter, it was a matter of asking if equity was being applied. He believed it was not being applied and thus Mr. Thomsen should have some relief. Mr. Singer pointed out that not only did businesses adjacent to the traffic signal contribute to the traffic, but also those not immediately adjacent. Mr. Thomsen's business was on Euclid thus his and all businesses contributed to the traffic. MOTION: Councilman Roth moved that the matter be continued for one week when the new traffic signal assessment study and fee schedule was expected to be submitted to the Council. The continuance would then give the Council an opportunity to review the new fee proposal in relation to the subject project. Councilman Seymour seconded the motion. Before a vote was taken, Councilwoman Kaywood emphasized that the traffic signal assessment fee from which Mr. Thomsen was asking relief had been in effect for one year. There were many people who had paid the full amount who had not asked for relief. She questioned whether or not the Council was going to give a refund to everyone who had paid the full amount assessed, thereby jeopardizing the whole fund. Mayor Seymour stated that he had paid a fee of almost $5,000 on his new building and he would not ask for a refund. Councilman Overholt stated he would abstain from voting since he represented Mr. Thomsen from time to time. A vote was then taken on the foregoing motion for continuance. Councilman Overholt abstained. MOTION CARRIED. 105: REQUEST OF ANAHEIM YOUTH COMMISSION URGING SUPPORT OF S.B. 1928: On motion by Councilman Seymour, seconded by Councilwoman Kaywood, support of S.B. 1928 establishing the State Advisory Commission on Youth was approved as recommended in memorandum dated June 22, 1978, from the Chairperson of the Anaheim Youth Commission. MOTION CARRIED. CONSENT CALENDAR ITEMS: On motion by Councilman Roth, seconded by Councilman Seymour, the following actions were authorized in accordance with the reports and recommendations furnished each Council Member and as listed on the Consent Calendar Agenda: 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 Don G. Ord for property damages purportedly sustained as a result of slope failure and soil slippage at 5412 Willowick Circle on or about March 18, 1978. b. Claim submitted by Wilhelm Eck for property damages purportedly sustained as a result of slope failure and soil slippage at 4514 Willowick Circle on or about March 18, 1978. 78-907 City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - July 11, 1978, 1:30 P.M. c. Claim submitted by Manuel Don for property damages purportedly sustained as a result of slope failure and soil slippage at 4501 Willowick Circle on or about March 18, 1978. d. Claim submitted by George W. Kershaw for property damages purportedly sustained as a result of slope failure and soil slippage at 5416 Willowick Circle on or about March 18, 1978. e. Claim submitted by Anaheim Book Dragon for property damages purportedly sustained as a result of defective roofing of city-owned property on or about March 4-12, 1978. f. Claim submitted by Art Gertz & Norman Fleming for property damages purport- edly sustained as a result of chips and tar falling onto vehicles from power pole located in front of the Fluorcarbon Building, 1745 South Zeyn, on or about May 31, 1978. f. Claim submitted by Mr. & Mrs. Joseph Jobert for property damages purportedly sustained as a result of a tree limb falling onto a vehicle parked in front of a residence on or about June 21, 1978. g. Claim submitted by E. D. Badgley for property damages purportedly sustained as a result of an automobile accident involving the Southern Pacific Transporta- tion Company at the Loara Street crossing on or about April 18, 1978. h. Claim submitted by William O. Thagard for property damages purportedly sus- tained as a result of a baseball breaking a window at the La Cuesta Apartments, 1100 North Acacia, on or about the middle of May, 1978. i. Claim submitted by John D. More and David More for personal damages and injuries purportedly sustained as a result of the death of John Donald More, caused while crossing the street at La Palma and Mayflower, on or about March 15, 1978. j. Claim submitted by Deborah Wilmeth for personal injuries and property damages purportedly sustained as a result of an accident involving a city-owned vehicle on or about June 10, 1978. 2. CORRESPONDENCE: The following correspondence was ordered received and filed: a. 114: City of Garden Grove Resolution No. 5590-78 recommending an amendment to the League of California Cities bylaws pertaining to voting rights, Article V, voting. b. 105: Community Development Commission - Minutes of June 14 and 21,'1978. c. 105: Park and Recreation Commission - Minutes of May 24, 1978. d. 105: Project Area Committee - Minutes of June 13, 1978. e. 105: Public Library Board - Minutes of May 15, 1978. f. 105: Public Utilities Board - Minutes of May 11, 1978. 78-908 ~ity Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - July lip. 1978~ 1:30 P.M. g. 105: Youth Commission - Minutes of June 14, 1978. h. 175: Monthly report for April 1978 - Utilities Department, Electrical Engineering Division. i. 140/117: Monthly report for May 1978 - Public Library, City Treasurer. j. 175: Before the PUC, Application No. 57929 in the matter of the application of Douglas Bus Lines, Inc., doing business as Commuter Bus Lines, for a partial general rate increase of $41,200 per year to offset higher operating costs and for interim relief. k. 175: Monthly report for May 1978 - Utilities Department, Utilities Field Division. MOTION CARRIED. CONSENT CALENDAR ITEMS: Councilman Seymour offered Resolution Nos. 78R-444 through 78R-447, both inclusive, for adoption in accordance with the reports, recommendations and certifications furnished each Council Member and as listed on the Consent Calendar Agenda. Refer to Resolution Book. 158: RESOLUTION NO. 78R-444: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM ACCEPTING CERTAIN DEEDS AND ORDERING THEIR RECORDATION. (Mamma Cozza's Italian Restaurant, Inc.; T. M. Sirkin, et ux.; American Investments Associates; Corporation of the President of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints; Anaheim Memorial Hospital Association; Coastal Developers Company; Anthony E. Galanis, et ux.; Daniel E. Webb, et ux.; Harry Sham, et al.; Sent-Pac Corporation; Robertshaw Controls Company; James M. Steenbergen, et al.; Henry B. Wesselin, et ux.; Q-Z, Inc.) 176: RESOLUTION NO. 78R-445: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM DECLARING ITS INTENTION TO VACATE AND ABANDON A CERTAIN PUBLIC STREET AND FIXING A DATE FOR A HEARING THEREON. (Portion of Ridge Gate Road - Public hearing set for August 1, 1978 at 3:00 P.M. - Abandonment No. 77-22A) 176: RESOLUTION NO. 78R-446: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM DECLARING ITS INTENTION TO VACATE AND ABANDON CERTAIN PUBLIC SERVICE EASEMENTS. (Ridgegate Road - public hearing set for August 1, 1978, 3:00 P.M. - Abandonment No. 77-22A) 176: RESOLUTION NO. 78R-447: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM DECLARING ITS INTENTION TO VACATE AND ABANDON A CERTAIN PUBLIC SERVICE EASEMENT. (west of State College Boulevard, south of Romneya Drive - public hearing to be held August 1, 1978 at 3:00 P.M. - Abandonment No. 77-24A) Roll Call Vote: AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Overholt, Kaywood, Roth and Seymour NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: None ABSTAINED: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Kott ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: None The Mayor declared Resolution Nos. 78R-444 through 78R-447, both inclusive, duly passed and adopted. 78-909 City Ha~l~. Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - July 11~ 1978~ 1:30 P.M. 169: PEP, ALTA HILLS STREET IMPROVEMENTS: Cerro Vista Drive, east of Cerro Vista Way, Peralta Hills Drive, east of Cerro Vista Way, Crescent Drive, west of Royal Oak Road to Peralta Hills Drive--Account No. 12-4309-775-16-0000. Councilman Kott offered Resolution No. 78R-448 for adoption authorizing the subject work to be done and opening of bids of August 10, 1978 at 2:00 p.m. as recommended in memorandum dated June 23, 1978, from the Engineering Depart- ment. Refer to Resolution Book. RESOLUTION NO. 78R-448: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM FINDING AND DETERMINING THAT PUBLIC CONVENIENCE AND NECESSITY REQUIRE THE CONSTRUCTION AND COMPLETION OF A PUBLIC IMPROVEMENT, TO WIT: PERALTA HILLS STREET IMPROVEMENTS: CERRO VISTA DRIVE-1233' E/O CERRO VISTA WAY TO CERRO VISTA WAY; PERALTA HILLS DRIVE-2760' E/O CERRO VISTA WAY TO CERRO VISTA WAY; CRESCENT DRIVE-300' W/O ROYAL OAK ROAD TO PERALTA HILLS DRIVE, IN THE CITY OF ANAHEIM, ACCOUNT NO. 12-4309-775-16-0000; APPROVING THE DESIGNS, PLANS, PROFILES, DRAWINGS, AND SPECIFICATIONS FOR THE CONSTRUCTION THEREOF; AUTHO- RIZING THE CONSTRUCTION OF SAID PUBLIC IMPROVEMENT IN ACCORDANCE WITH SAID PLANS, SPECIFICATIONS, ETC.; AND AUTHORIZING AND DIRECTING THE CITY CLERK TO PUBLISH A NOTICE INVITING SEALED PROPOSALS FOR THE CONSTRUCTION THEREOF. (Bids to be opened August 10, 1978, 2:00 P.M.) Roll Call Vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: COUNCIL MEMBERS: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Overholt, Kaywood, Kott, Roth and Seymour None None The Mayor declared Resolution No. 78R-448 duly passed and adopted. 129: FINAL ACCEPTANCE - WEED ABATEMENT CONTRACT FY 1977-78 (EDWIN WEBBER INC): COuncilwoman Kaywood stated that there was one parcel on which she received a number of complaints on Ball Road near Magnolia. A poor job was done cutting back the weeds and apparently the Fire Department was called. She wanted to know if there were such occurrences elsewhere. Fire Marshall Charles Kanenbly stated that the incident was an isolated case. They judged the quality of the weed clearance by the number of complaints re- ceived and how many parcels had to be reworked. There were a couple and the location referred to by Councilwoman Kaywood was one of the cases where the contractor had to return and do an acceptable job. He stated he would look into the matter personally. In accordance with the certification submitted by Fire Chief James Riley, Councilwoman Kaywood offered Resolution No. 78R-449 for adoption. Refer to Resolution Book. 78-910 City Hall, ~aheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - July 11, 1978~ 1:30 P.M. RESOLUTION NO. 78R-449: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM FINALLY ACCEPTING THE COMPLETION AND THE FURNISHING OF ALL LABOR, SERVICES, AND EQUIPMENT NECESSARY TO COMPLETE THE CUTTING AND REMOVAL OF RUBBISH, REFUSE AND DIRT UPON ANY PARCEL OR PARCELS OF REAL PROPERTY OR ANY PUBLIC STREET IN THE CITY OF ANAHEIM, ACCOUNT NO. 100-322-297 (1977-78). (Edwin Webber Inc.) Roll Call Vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: COUNCIL MEMBERS: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Overholt, Kaywood, Kott, Roth and Seymour None None The Mayor declared Resolution No. 78R-449 duly passed and adopted. CITY PLANNING COMMISSION ITEMS: The following actions taken by the City Planning Commission at their meeting held June 19, 1978, pertaining to the following applications, as listed on the Consent Calendar, were submitted for City Council information. 1. RECLASSIFICATION NO. 74-75-26(READV.): Submitted by Federated Department Stores, Inc., for approval of alternate commercial use on CL zoned property located at the southwest corner of Lincoln Avenue and Sunkist Street. The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC78-127, denied Reclassification No. 74-75-26 (Readv.) and ratified the Planning Director's categorical exemption determination. 2. VARIANCE NO. 3014(READV.): Submitted by James Hoops and George Olsen, to construct a 12-unit apartment complex on RM-1200 zoned property located at 417 East Broadway with certain code waivers. The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC~8-128, granted Variance No. 3014 and granted negative declaration status. 3. VARIANCE NO. 3017: Submitted by Ronald W. and Nancy R. Pharris, to construct a tennis court on RS-HS-43,000(SC) zoned property located at 130 E1 Dorado Lane with code waiver of minimum side yard setback. The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC78-129, granted Variance No. 3017 and ratified the Planning Director's categorical exemption determination. 4. VARIANCE NO. 3020: Submitted by Michael and Janet L. Bradshaw, to construct a tennis court on RS-HS-43,000(SC) zoned property located at 196 South Starlight Drive with code waiver of minimum side yard setback. The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC78-131, granted Variance No. 3020 and ratified the Planning Director's categorical exemption determination. 78-911 Ciqy Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - July 11~ 1978; 1:30 P.M. 5. VARIANCE NO. 3022: Submitted by Glenn R. and Bernadette F. Carter, to permit an existing illegal garage conversion on RS-7200 zoned property located at 1428 West La Palma Avenue with certain code waivers. The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC78-133, granted Variance No. 3022 and ratified the Planning Director's categorical exemption determination. 6. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 1840: Submitted by Canyon Village, to permit private tennis lessons in an existing apartment complex on RM-1200(SC) zoned property located at 1265 and 1275 Chrisden Street. The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC78-130, granted Conditional Use Permit No. 1840 and ratified the Planning Director's categorical exemption determination. 7. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 1844: Submitted by Lewis R. and Judith E. Schmid, to permit on-sale beer and wine in a recreational facility on ML zoned property located at 2560 East Katella Avenue. The City Planning Con=nission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC78-134, granted Conditional Use Permit No. 1844 and ratified the Planning Director's categorical exemption determination. 8. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 1845: Submitted by Bank of America National Trust and Savings Association, to expand an automobile sales agency on CG zoned property located at 300 South Anaheim Boulevard. The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC78-135, granted Conditional Use Permit No. 1845 and granted negative declaration status. 9. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 1859: Submitted by Edward H. and Margaret M. Hernandez, to permit a slaughter house on RS-A-43,000 zoned property located at 1281 Hancock Street. The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC78-132, denied Conditional Use Permit No. 1859 and granted negative declaration status. 10. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 1623: Request by Woodrow T. McClure for approval of an extension of time to permit a recreational vehicle storage yard on ML zoned property located on the south side of Howell Street, north- west of Katella Avenue with various code waivers. The City Planning Commission granted an extension of time to Conditional Use Permit No. 1623 to expire on May 24, 1980. 11. MIINICIPAL WATER DISTRICT OF ORANGE COUNTY: Acquisition of easements and rights-of-way in conformance with City of Anaheim General Plan. The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC78-137, granted the Municipal Water District of Orange County acquisition of easements and rights- of-way in conformance with the City of Anaheim General Plan. 78-9]2 ~ity Hall~ Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - July 11~ 1978~ 1:30 P.M. 12: RESIDENTIAL HILLSIDE SITE DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS: A. Minimum lot area in the RS-HS-43,000 Zone. B. Minimum contiguous lot area in the RS-HS-43,000, RS-HS-22,000 and RS-HS-10,000 Zones. C. Minimum lot width and frontage in the RS-HS-43,000, RS-HS-22,000 and RS-HS-10,O00 Zones. D. Minimum structural setback and yard requirements from private streets and accessways and equestrian easements in the RS-HS-43,000 and RS-HS-22,000 Zones. The City Planning Commission, by motion, recommended that the above-mentioned site development standards be amended and directed the City Attorney's office to prepare ordinances revising same for review by the Planning Commission prior to consideration by the City Council. No action was taken on the foregoing items, thus the actions of the City Planning Commission became final. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 1846: Submitted by Ser Rich, Inc., to permit a drug rehabilitation center for women on CG zoned property located at 279 East Lincoln Avenue with code waiver of minimum number of parking spaces. The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC78-136, granted Conditional Use Permit No. 1846 and granted negative declaration status at their meeting held June 19, 1978. Mayor Seymour requested a review of the Planning Commission decision and asked that the matter be set for a public hearing. ORDINANCE NO. 3883: Councilman Seymour offered Ordinance No. 3883 for adoption. Refer to Ordinance Book. ORDINANCE NO. 3883: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AMENDING TITLE 18 OF THE ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO ZONING. (74-75-5, CO) Roll Call Vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: COUNCIL MEMBERS: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Overholt, Kaywood, Kott, Roth and Seymour None None The Mayor declared Ordinance No. 3883 duly passed and adopted. ORDINANCE NO. 3884: Councilman Roth offered Ordinance No. 3884 for first reading. ORDINANCE NO. 3884: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AMENDING TITLE 1, CHAPTER 1.04 OF THE ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE BY REPEALING SECTIONS 1.04.330 AND 1.04.340 RELATING TO COMPENSATION OF THE CITY CLERK AND CITY TREASURER. 78-913 City Hall, Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - July 11; 1978; 1:30 P.M. ORDINANCE NOS. 3885 THROUGH 3887: Councilman Seymour offered Ordinance Nos. 3885 through 3887, both inclusive, for first reading. ORDINANCE NO. 3885: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AMENDING TITLE 18 OF THE ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO ZONING. (72-73-51(20), RS-HS-22,000) ORDINANCE NO. 3886: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AMENDING TITLE 18 OF THE ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO ZONING. (74-75-21(2), ML) ORDINANCE NO. 3887: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AMENDING TITLE 18 OF THE ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO ZONING. (77-78-32, RM-1200) 173: ANAHEIM PLAZA BUS SERVICE (PLAZA TRANSPORTATION COMPANY)' Councilwoman Kaywood reported that the Anaheim Plaza Mini-bus Service was handling approxi- mately 700 people per week with one van. They were very pleased and looking forward to adding a second van. As well, the merchants of the Plaza had noted a tremendous difference in sales. 142: PROPOSED CHARTER AMENDMENTS: Councilman Roth moved to direct the City Attorney to send copies of the proposed Charter Amendments to the Charter Review Committee for their information only and not action. Councilman Kott seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. 105: STATUS OF PLANNING COMMISSIONER~ ROBERT LINN: Councilman Roth asked for an update on the status of Planning Commissioner Robert Linn. Mayor Seymour stated that as Councilman Roth was aware, he had discussed the matter individually with the Council. Mr. Linn was hopeful of receiving a letter from the School Board that might clarify the situation relative to his serving as a Planning Commissioner. The Mayor suggested to Mr. Linn that in the event he was not able to resolve the problem with which the Council was familiar and if Council did not receive his resignation, they would be expected to take some action in the near future. He suggested that the Council be patient and wait until the meeting of July 25, 1978 at the time of discussion of appoint- ments to various commissions. 179: RETROACTIVE EXTENSIONS OF CONDITIONAL USE PERMITS AND VARIANCES: Mayor Seymour acknowleged Mr. Mike Valen, Town Tour Fun Bus, which company has been awarded a Dial-A-Ride contract with OCTD. Mr. Valen had a problem which could be resolved as well as many others based upon the recommendations of Mr. Ron Thompson, Planning Director, in his memorandum dated June 29, 1978, relative to amending the ordinance regarding time extensions to conditional use permits, etc. The proposal which he supported insured the maintenance of the quality of the City's system in handling such matters while greatly reducing red tape and response time. Mr. Thompson stated if the amendment were considered favorably by the City Council, time extensions could be granted which they did not have the flexibility to grant at the present time. It would cut down considerably on the paper work that would have to be processed through the City; would be cost effective; would give Council more flexibility and provide better service to the citizenry. 78-914 City Hall, Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - July 11~ 1978~ 1:30 P.M. Mr. Mike Valen, President of Town Tour Fun Bus Company, 304 Katella Way, explained in June his company was charged with the responsibility of implementing the OCTD Dial-A-Ride Program and community service in Anaheim. Shortly thereafter, he made an appointment with Mr. ~nompson for the purpose of ascertaining what he was required to do by the City in order to implement any building programs required. He was informed that his previously approved Conditional Use Permit was not intact whereas he was under the impression that everything was in order. They had been in their present location 8 years and had made considerable improvements on the property. He thought he had conformed to every aspect of his permit and had a copy of a letter in his file which he was required to send after the Planning Commission meeting, but which the Building or Planning Department did not receive. Thus, unknown to him, several months later when he thought everything was fine, in fact, he did not have a valid conditional use permit. He owned the property they were presently occupying and purchased the property to the rear and no complaints had ever been received relative to the operation. To the contrary, they had actually improved the area. He submitted pictures of his facility depicting the Trailways depot which was a part of the operation, reportedly one of the finest in the Country. His problem was relative to the time factor involved since he had only a little over two months to implement the new service which meant he had to park, fuel, maintain and dispatch on his property. He went to Mr. Thompson, to ask for his help who was more than willing to assist. Mayor Seymour stated he was interested in the situation in the broader sense by cutting red tape, and from a practical standpoint reducing expense. It was his understanding and opinion that the recommended procedural change would, in fact, accomplish those two goals thus he asked the City Attorney the best procedure to bring the matter forward for discussion. City Attorney Hopkins stated that they had a draft of an ordinance in line with the Planning Director's suggestion which could be placed on the agenda for first reading within one week. MOTION: Councilman Seymour thereupon moved to direct the City Attorney to prepare an ordinance repealing Section 18.03.091.060 of Title 18, Chapter 18.03 of the Anaheim Municipal Code and adding a new section in its place relating to zoning, i.e., Retroactive extensions of conditional use permits and variances. Council- man Roth seconded the motion. Before a vote was taken, Councilwoman Kaywood asked if the change would then apply to everything if there was a use of some kind where complaints had been received. The Mayor explained that the Council would still have the ability to approve, to disapprove or not renew a particular use. In Mr. Valen's case, it was not going to deny any right to disapprove or not extend the use, but if in the event there was a lapse of time, it would now be possible to go back and pick up that time. Mr. Thompson stated that in Mr. Valen's case, they would be bringing the time extension back to the Council as well as the request for approval of revised plans which would allow him to proceed within his two month time frame. A vote was then taken on the foregoing motion. MOTION CARRIED. 78-915 City Hall~ .Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - July 11~ 1978; 1:30 P.M. RECESS - EXECUTIVE SESSION: Councilman Roth moved to recess into Executive Session. Councilman Seymour seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. (6:12 P.M.) AFTER RECESS: The Mayor called the meeting to order, all Council Members being present. (7:35 P.M.) RECESS: By general consent, the Council recessed for 10 minutes. (7:35 P.M.) AFTER RECESS: The Mayor called the meeting to order, all Council Members being present with the exception of Councilman Overholt. (7:45 P.M.) PRESENT: ABSENT: PRESENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Kaywood, Kott, Roth and Seymour COUNCIL MEMBERS: Overholt CITY MANAGER: William O. Talley CITY ATTORNEY: William P. Hopkins DEPUTY CITY CLERK: Leonora N. Sohl PLANNING DIRECTOR: Ron Thompson ASSISTANT DIRECTOR FOR ZONING: Annika Santalahti PUBLIC HEARING - RECLASSIFICATION NO. 77-78-46~ VARIANCE NO. 2994~ TENTATIVE TRACT NO. 10254 (REV. 1) AND REQUEST FOR REMOVAL OF SPECIMEN TREES: .Application by Carl L. and Mildred E. Rau and Doris Gibson, for a change in zone from RS-A-43,000(SC) and County A-1 to RS-7200(SC) for a 16-lot subdivision on prop- erty located on the northwest side of Santa Ana Canyon Road, northeast of Mohler Drive, with a request for removal of 3 specimen trees and code waivers of: a) minimum lot width and frontage b) requirement that single-family structures rear-on arterial highways. The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC78-90 declared the subject property exempt from the requirement to prepare an environmental impact report pursuant to the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act and, further, granted Reclassification No. 77-78-46, subject to the following conditions: 1. 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. 2. That subject property shall be served by underground utilities. 3. That the owner(s) of subject property shall pay to the City of Anaheim the appropriate park and recreation in-lieu fees, as determined to be appropriate by the City Council, said fees to be paid at the time the building permit is issued. 4. That prior to the introduction of an ordinance a final tract map of subject property shall be submitted to and approved by the City Council and then be recorded in the Office of the Orange County Recorder. 5. That these reclassification proceedings are granted subject to completion of annexation of subject property to the City of Anaheim. 6. That all structures constructed on subject property shall comply with the requirements of the City of Anaheim Fire Zone No. 4, as approved by the Fire Department. 78-916 ~ity Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - July 11, 1978~ 1:30 P.M. 7. That the developer(s) remove the two existing illegal tract signs located on the block wall (facing north) on the south side of the Riverside Freeway in Tract Nos. 7730 and 7736. 8. Prior to the introduction of an ordinance rezoning subject p~operty, Condition Nos. 4, 5 and 7, above-mentioned, shall be completed. The provisions or rights granted by this resolution shall become null and void by action of the City Council unless said conditions are complied with within one year from the date hereof, or such further time as the Planning Commission may grant. 9. That Condition No. 6, above-mentioned, shall be complied with prior to final building and zoning inspections. The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC78-91 granted Variance No. 2994, subject to the following conditions: 1. That this Variance is granted subject to the completion of Reclassification No. 77-78-46, now pending. 2. That subject property shall be developed substantially in accordance with plans and specifications on file with the City of Anaheim marked Revision No. 1 of Exhibit No. 1. The City Planning Commission also approved Tentative Tract No. 10254 (Revision 1) and the request for removal of specimen trees. The City Planning Commission's decision was appealed by Mrs. Eve Miller, homeowner, and public hearing scheduled June 27, 1978, which public hearing was continued to July 11, 1978. Miss Santalahti described the location and surrounding land uses. She outlined the findings given in the staff report which was submitted to and considered by the City Planning Commission. The Mayor asked if the applicant was present and desirous of being heard. Mr. Craig Miller, 7688 Calle Durango, first submitted pictures of the undeveloped property in question. He stated that the street coming down from Santa Ana Canyon Road (Via Copala) was very dangerous and the corner was a blind one because there was no visibility for at least 300 feet. When it was possible to see, a vehicle would then have traveled a distance down the steep hill headed into Calle Durango. Just today there was an accident on that corner, and the visibility problem was further complicated by the weeds about which he had complained for some time. He maintained that the property directly behind their house was too small to build homes, and three vehicles, as a result of accidents, had landed on that property coming down off the side of Santa Ana Canyon Road. Further, when they purchased their house, they were told that a fence was going to be installed at the top of the hill, but in reality it was constructed approximately 15 feet in back of their home. He reiterated the fact that 3 vehicles had already ended up on the subject property and the present street configuration presented a very dangerous situation when coming down off the hill. 78-917 City Hall~ Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - July 11~ 1978~ 1:30 P.M. Mrs~ Eve Miller touched upon some of the points contained in her letters of May 15 and June 2, 1978 (made a part of the record). She stated that when they first bought their house, Classic Development told them that the parcel behind them would not be large enough on which to build a house. That was the reason they purchased the two lots (theirs and another adjacent to it) abutting the subject property. Now the developer was trying to cut the frontage for the first house directly behind them down to 40 feet and proposing to put two houses on the parcel in each of the 2 corners which they believed to be a very bad idea. For clarification, Mayor Seymour stated as he understood, the Millers were opposed to Via Copala as a street and they were also opposed to the development that would take place on the small piece of property immediately behind their property. Mr. Miller answered affirmatively, but also clarified that they were not opposed to the development proposed to take place on the other property (across Via Copala) if constructed properly and if the specimen trees were replaced. The Mayor asked if anyone wished to speak in opposition. Mr. Tony Pertali, 7691 Calle Durango, referred to his letter dated June 13, 1978, which he wrote on behalf of Mr. and Mrs. Miller (made a part of the record) out- lining points of opposition to which the Mayor had previously responded. When Classic Development sold him his home, the salesman stated that the tWo lots right behind the Miller property would not be developed, but the land would be sold to the City for "nuisance value". Mr. Pertali continued that when traveling down Via Copala if a vehicle failed to stop, it would end up in his garage. He stated, however, that he was in favor of that street (Via Copala), but he was concerned relative to the 3 accidents that had occurred before the one today wherein on all three occasions the vehicles had fallen directly into the two subject lots. It was his opinion that such accidents occurred because of the weed problem in the median on Santa Ana Canyon Road. Further, the hill was too high, complicated by a blind corner and difficulty was encountered when making a left-hand turn down into Via Copala with someone trying to get onto Santa Ana Canyon Road. He was concerned that a severe accident would occur in the future. The Mayor stated his understanding of the situation: with vehicles coming from the west and proceeding easterly turning left in the median cut and proceeding down the hill (Via Copala) first weeds in the median cut were too high so as to hamper visibility and as well, the grade of Via Copala was very steep with no stop sign at Via Copala and Calle Durango. Mr. Pertali confirmed the Mayor's assessment of the situation, but clarified that there was a stop sign at Via Copala and Santa Ana Canyon Road. He also agreed with the Mayor that a measure of safety would be added if a wall was placed at the top of the slope adjacent to Santa Ana Canyon Road that might prevent cars from tumbling onto the subject lots. He added, ~owever, that he was not in favor of homes being built on those lots. Mr. Larry Fickle, 7675 Calle Durango, stated his complaint was in giving the developer the right to change the zoning to a less restrictive requirement, and he presumed lower-priced housing would be developed on those two lots. 78-918 .~ity ~11~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - July 11~ 1978, 1:30 P.M. Mayor Seymour commented that given today's housing market, he doubted lower-priced houses would be built. He explained that if they developed without code waivers, they already had zoning that would permit them to build. They were, however, asking for a variance and a number of waivers and thus relief from the zoning standards. It was his understanding that they would have the legal right to develop totally within the standards. Miss Sontalahti confirmed that was true, but stated the developer was filing a zoning action at this time. If they developed under the current zoning, they could build one house per acre. The Mayor then explained for Mr. Fickle the procedure that was followed when variances were requested; such variances were usually requested because the petitioner claimed a hardship was created justifying such request. Mr. Fickle was of the opinion the developer knew the situation beforehand. A brief discussion followed between Councilman Roth, Mr. Fickle and staff wherein it was pointed out that, in fact, the tract in which Mr. Fickle lived was granted similar variances to those now being requested on the subject property. Mr. Luke Van Watergan, 7667 Calle Durango, stated that he supported the Millers in their opposition. Further, the increase of accidents at the corner of Via Copala and Santa Ana Canyon Road was due to the increased traffic in that area and the poor visibility of the corner. As well, the street grade was steep thus adding additional driveways onto it would create additional problems. He was opposed to any further housing in the area, not only the proposed development of the subject property, but also all 16 homes. As an alternative, he had heard several times that there were plans for a park in the area although he never looked into the matter. Miss Santalahti stated that the only park considered as shown on the General Plan was a portion of land between the Freeway and Santa Ana Canyon Road as a part of the Greenbelt, but a specific piece of property was not identified. She was not aware of any specific proposal relative to a park. Mrs. Cindy Neal, 7685 Calle Durango, stated that if the project came to pass, she had never seen anything like the situation that would result with two homes located on the property above the Miller's home. She believed it would be unfair to permit such a situation, especially when they did not know there was a possibility of such a development when they purchased, and the proposal would lower their property value. Since she had seen the builder's plans, she took issue with the fact that two streets or alleyways would have to be constructed to permit ingress and egress for the new homes adding to the already existing traffic problems on Via Copala. Another resulting problem would be drainage since even now, water came over the block wall right behind the Miller residence and into their backyard. The Mayor asked if the developer was present and desirous of being heard. Mr. Maury Nickle, representative from Classic Development, stated that unfortunately they were unable to secure the subject property prior to processsing their previous maps. However, during the development of the tract adjacent to it, they did acquire 78-919 City Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - July lip 1978, 1:30 P.M. the property and at that time quite an elevation differential existed. The property was subsequently graded down to be consistent with the property a little lower. Mr. Nickle, working from a map posted on the Chamber wall explained that in develop- ing the property, the City required the installation of a street (Via Copala) with the intent that it extend out to Santa Ana Canyon Road. They did not know'how they were going to develop the property when it was acquired, but were of the opinion that there was some possibility of installing a cul-de-sac in that location instead of a street. However, it was approximately 2 years prior when the City ]approached them relative to the need for a street because of the traffic congestion created due to the fact that all traffic had to travel west to leave the tract. That action created a problem of access to the parcel under discussion. He pointed out that the average square footage per lot at the time was exactly 7,200 square feet and some further up were 6,500 square feet, and others he pointed to ranged up to 30,000 square feet. They believed it to be logical to allow some sort of development on the subject property closing out the pattern between the Freeway and the old Canyon Road. He maintained with a 14,000 square foot average lot, they had a good develop- ment and asked the Council's indulgence in approval of their map. In answer to Councilman Roth, Mr. Nickle explained that both lots would face onto Via Copala. Relative to the height of the property and the possibility of visual intrusion into the Miller property, Mr. Nickle stated that the pad elevation on one lot was approximately 330 feet (closest to Santa Ana Canyon Road and Via Copala) and the adjacent pad elevation was about the same height as the wall separating the Miller property from theirs,, or about 6 feet higher. Mayor Seymour first expressed his concern relative to the danger that might be created with cars exiting and entering from the additional driveways that would face Via Copala. Subsequently, a brief discussion between Mayor Seymour, Mr. Nickle and the engineer on the development revealed the following: the present pavement width of Via Copala was actually out to the existing ultimate curb and gutter and the street would not be widened; the street grade was approximately 13 percent which was 2 percent below the maximum that would be approved according to Orange County and most of the cities therein; a left-turn pocket would be placed at the intersection to make it safer and in all probability a street light would be required near the intersection; a wall would be installed to prevent encroachment (adjacent to Via Copala extended towards Santa Ana Canyon Road); the weeds would be eliminated and landscaping installed; although a block wall already existed along the rear of the Miller property, more than likely an addi- tional wall would be required. Miss Santalahti explained that when the item was submitted to the Planning Commission, the Engineering Division did express their concerns relative to vehicles entering and exiting onto Via Copala resulting in Condition No.. 18 of the Tentative Tract which read: "Via Copala shall be designed so as to provide adequate visibility for vehicles exiting that street onto Santa Ana Canyon Road for a minimum distance of 300 feet of the approach lanes with the design to be approved by the Traffic Engineer." She believed that primarily had an effect on grading at that intersection. Miss Santalahti also clarified for Councilwoman Kaywood that although the Fire Department accepted an absolute maximum grade of 12 percent, she did not recall that the matter had been broached. at the hearing regarding the 13 percent grade that existed on Via Copala. 78-920 City Hall, Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - July 11~ 1978~ 1:30 P.M. Mayor Seymour then spoke to the allegation made by Mr. and Mrs. Miller that a Classic Development sales agent told them that nothing was going to be done with the subject property. Mr. Nickle stated that he could not verify what a salesman may have said, but it was never stated as a company policy that they intended to sell the property to the City. They had always intended to develop the land in some manner. When they first became involved in the Canyon, the master plan designated commercial at that intersection, but Classic did not buy it for that purpose and did not believe it to be an appropriate use. It had always been their intent to develop the parcel into residential with the possibility of considering a higher density such as apartments. Mr. Ron Thompson, Planning Director, then recounted for the Mayor the events leading up to the creation of Via Copala (see minutes of October 5, 1976, Page No. 76-735 and minutes of November 9, 1976, Page No. 76-838) wherein a number of citizens petitioned the Council in their desire to obtain additional ingress and egress to Santa Ana Canyon Road because of the distance they had to travel westerly to the next approved access. In concluding, Mr. Miller first expressed his concern relative to the water problem and the flooding during the rains and questioned whether or not more water would be flowing onto his property; Miss Santalahti explained that the developer would be required to slope the new property so that it would drain into the street resulting in improved drainage. Mr. Miller continued that the subject lot was much too small even for one home. Further, traffic would be going by his bedroom and patio due to the location of the street or alleys planned to be installed, and he was concerned regarding the noise that would be generated. Mrs. Neal questioned the statement that another wall was going to be installed behind the homes and at Santa Ana Canyon Road. She wanted to know if the wall was going to be all the way up on Santa Ana Canyon Road and if so, how high. Miss Santalahti explained the required block wall was in connection with sound attenuation from Santa Ana Canyon Road. Thus, it would have to located at the top of the hill or it would be a very high wall at the bottom of the hill. Mrs. Neal then emphasized if the wall was located at the top of the hill along with the two homes to be built on the property, the homes where she lived would no longer be able to view the mountains, trees and the beauty of the area added to the fact that the development would cause problems on that very short street. There being no further persons who wished to speak, the Mayor closed the public hearing. Mayor Seymour stated that his concern revolved around the fact that the two subject lots added to the three additional lots across Via Copala would result in five driveways exiting onto a 300 foot stretch of road with a steep grade. He was curious to know the thinking of the Planning Commission when they approved the proposal. 78-921 City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - July 11~ 1978, 1:30 P.M. Miss Santalahti stated that the Commission was aware of an ultimate signalization of the subject intersection. Because of the 9 access points on Santa Ana Canyon Road, it was expected that some day a traffic signal would be installed, but not at this point in time. She also noted that the Traffic Engineer did not favor any kind of cross traffic or access too close to arterial highways. For purposes of clarification, Miss Santalahti also explained that unfortunately most of the people who spoke at today's meeting being in the newer tract portion, did not appear on the assessor's tape, and therefore, were not notified of the Planning Commission hearing. Thus, some of the concerns now voiced by the residents were voiced by staff at the hearing and vaguely discussed, but no one was present to indicate their agreement with those concerns and most matters were handled in the conditions imposed. The homeowners were notifed of the present meeting because the Planning Department had corrected the Assessor's list manually. Mayor Seymour conceded that he did not know the right answer to solve the dilemma as he personally had a hand in creating the problem by approving Via Copala. The Council had tried to answer the concern of the citizens relative to their inability to get to Santa Ana Canyon Road. In essence, they negotiated with the developer wherein the developer would dedicate the land and the City would pay for the improvement. However, the planning left much to be desired and he was of the opinion that the Planning Commission should reevaluate the matter. On motion by Councilman Seymour, seconded by Councilman Kott, the subject request for approval of Reclassification No. 77-78-46, Variance No. 2994, Tentative Tract No. 10254 (Rev. 1) and request for removal of specimen trees was reverted to the Planning Commission for additional review, especially relative to ingress and egress. Councilman Overholt was absent. MOTION CARRIED. MOTION: Before adjournment, Mayor Seymour also referred to the request by Mr. and Mrs. Miller in their communication that the $380.50 filing fee for the rehearing b~ refunded. Fees had already been paid by Mrs. Miller before she was aware of the typical procedure in setting a matter for a public hearing. The Mayor subse- quently informed her that either himself or another Council Member in the past had always honored the request of a group of citizens to set a public hearing for a matter heard by the Planning Commission when concerns were expressed relative to a decision made. He thereupon offered a motion to refund the filing fee to the Millers of $380.50 since it was his intent originally to set the matter for a public hearing and the City Clerk's Office erroneously collected the fee. Councilwoman Kaywood seconded the motion. Councilman Overholt was absent. MOTION CARRIED. ADJOURNMENT: Councilman Roth moved to adjourn to 2:00 p.m., July 12, 1978. Councilwoman Kaywood seconded the motion. Councilman Overholt was absent. MOTION CARRIED. Adjourned: 8:45 P.M. LINDA D. ROBERTS, CITY CLERK DEPUTY CITY CLERK