Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
1978/10/03
78-1269 City ~al~, Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - October 3~ 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 CITY CLERK: Linda D. Roberts DATA PROCESSING DIRECTOR: Tug Tamaru TRAFFIC ENGINEER: Paul Singer PERSONNEL DIRECTOR: Garry McRae RISK MANAGER: Jack Love CITY ENGINEER: James Maddox EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR: Norm Priest POLICE LIEUTENANT: Randall Gaston ASSISTANT DIRECTOR FOR PLANNING: Phillip Schwartze ASSISTANT DIRECTOR FOR ZONING: Annika Santalahti ASSOCIATE PLANNER: Bob Kelley Mayor Seymour called the meeting to order and welcomed those in attendance to the Council meeting. MOMENT OF SILENCE: In lieu of an Invocation, a Moment of Silence was observed. FLAG SALUTE: Councilman Don Roth led the assembly in the Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag. 119: RESOLUTION OF CONDOLENCE: A Resolution of Condolence was adopted by the City Council to be presented to the family of Lyman Wesley Bostock, Jr., of the California Angels on his untimely death. Mr. Red Patterson, Assistant to the Board of Directors of the California Angels, accepted the resolution and commented that Mr. Bostock was one of the finest young men he had ever met and the spirit of the 1978 Angels. 119: RESOLUTION OF CONGRATULATIONS: A Resolution of Congratulations was adopted by the City Council and presented to Mr. Dave Moorhead, Vice President and General Manager of Radio Station KMET, on its 10th Anniversary of service. Mr. Moorhead was accompanied by Mr. Par McGinnis. 119: PROCLAMATIONS: The following proclamations were issued by Mayor Seymour and approved by the City Council: "United Way Month In Anaheim" - November 1978 "Chess Day In Anaheim" - October 7, 1978 The proclamation for United Way was accepted by ~rsha Vickery and the latter by Dr. Daniel Ninburg. 119: SPECIAL GUEST: Mayor Seymour introduced Mr. Alf Scowren, Councilor, Elmwood Ward, Winnipeg, Canada, who was in the Chamber audience. He also pre- sented him with a symbolic Big "A" replica and Mr. Scowren, in turn, presented a book on the City of Winnipeg on behalf of Mayor Steen of that City. 78-1270 City Hall, Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - October 3~ 1978, 1:.30 P.M. MINUTES: Councilwoman Kaywood moved to approve minutes of the regular meeting of July 18, 1978 and adjourned regular meeting of June 12, 1978. 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 $971,667.70 for the period ending September 26, 1978 and $701,383.97 for the period ending October 3, 1978, in accordance with the 1978-79 Budget, were approved. 174: CETA TITLE I FOR FISCAL YEAR 1978-79: City Manager William Talley briefed the Council on memorandum dated October 3, 1978 (on file in the City Clerk's Office) recommending the adoption of seven proposed resolutions relative to the subject program. Councilman Roth offered Resolution Nos. 78R-619 through 78R-625, both inclusive, for adoption, as recommended in memorandum dated October. 3, 1978, from~ the Personnel Department/CETA Services. Refer to Resolution Book. RESOLUTION NO. 78R-619: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM APPROVING COMPREHENSIVE MANPOWER PROGRAM AND AUTHORIZING DISBURSEMENT OF FUNDS FOR APPROVED ACTIVITIES. (CETA Title I, $876,089, expiring~September 30, 1979) RESOLUTION NO. 78R-620: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF. ANAHEIM APPROVING AND AUTHORIZING THE EXECUTION OF AN AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AND THE NORTH ORANGE COUNTY COb~UNITY COLLEGE DISTRICT RELATING TO VOCATIONAL GUIDANCE AND COUNSELING SERVICES. ($194,010, expiring September 30, 1979') RESOLUTION NO. 78R-621: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM APPROVING AND AUTHORIZING THE EXECUTION OF AN AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF'ANAHEIM AND THE NORTH ORANGE COUNTY COMMUNITY COLLEGE DISTRICT RELATING TO THE ESTABLISHMENT OF A HOUSING REPAIR TRAINING AND WORK EXPERIENCE PROGRAM. ($93,886, expiring September 30, 1979) RESOLUTION NO. 78R-622: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM APPROVING AND AUTHORIZING THE EXECUTION OF AN AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AND THE ORANGE COUNTY COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COUNCIL, INC., RELATING TO A YOUTH DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM. ($185,000, expiring September 30, 1979) RESOLUTION NO. 78R-623: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM APPROVING AND AUTHORIZING THE EXECUTION OF AN AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AND THE NORTH ORANGE COUNTY COMMUNITY COLLEGE DISTRICT RELATING TO COMMUNITY BASED INDIVIDUALIZED INSTRUCTION IN BASIC EDUCATION STUDIES. ($26,510, expiring September 30, 1979) RESOLUTION NO. 78R-624: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM APPROVING AND AUTHORIZING THE EXECUTION OF AN AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AND THE ORANGE COUNTY COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COUNCIL, INC., RELATING TO COMMUNITY BASED INDIVIDUALIZED INSTRUCTION AND VOCATIONAL SKILLS TRAINING. ($51,089, expiring September 30, 1979) 78-1271 qity Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - October 3~ 1978~ 1:30 P.M. RESOLUTION NO. 78R-625: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM APPROVING AND AUTHORIZING THE EXECUTION OF AN AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AND THE NORTH ORANGE COUNTY REGIONAL OCCUPATIONAL PROGRAM RELATING TO A PRESCHOOL PROGRAM. ($14,266, expiring September 30, 1979) 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-619 through 78R-625, both inclusive, duly passed and adopted. 174: PUBLIC SERVICE EMPLOYMENT - CETA TITLE II AND VI: City Manager Talley briefed the Council on memorandum dated October 3, 1978 (on file in the City Clerk's Office) recommending the adoption of five proposed resolutions relative to the subject program. Mayor Seymour stated he often expressed continuing concern relative to the CETA Program in Anaheim. His feeling was that CETA funded employees were being or might be placed in permanent positions carrying out duties that were permanent in nature, thereby circumventing the intent of the Federal program which was to offer training to the unemployed within the community and to help them relocate into the private sector. Thus, it was temporary in nature and a training vehicle. As he began to investigate, in his opinion, the costs of the program were out of proportion. He believed that the cost of carrying out the program, as well as supporting costs involving the General Fund, had to be questioned and investigated. Taking figures from the budget and other sources, he found the following: In 1978-79, indirect costs for CETA reflected $631,131, which sum was paid by the Federal Government to cover the costs of operating the program. That sum divided by 198 CETA jobs being allocated in the budget year came to an average cost of processing each employee of $3,155 for one year. In addition, out of the General Fund, the City was contributing $492,038 to support the program representing a contribution to CETA employee salaries and benefits over and above the $10,000 limitation on each CETA position. Dividing that by the same number of jobs in order to average the overage which was supported from the General Fund, gave a total of $2,460 to every one of the 198 proposed CETA employees. Thus, the City was not only contributing out of the General Fund, but also they were contributing services in-kind for which they were getting reimbursed a total of $1,123,169. Adding to that, the funds that then came directly from the Federal Government to support CETA funded positions amounted to approximately $2 million, resulting i~ a total price tag on those 198 jobs of $3,123,169. Averaging that out, each of the 198 CETA positions was costing Anaheim close to $15,800, which he believed to be significant. The Mayor continued that looking at the allocation of the personnel involved, he raised the question of whether or not they were doing permanent or temporary work. He gave as an example the Data Processing Department where the budget allocated 47 full-time positions and 11 CETA positions representing 19 percent of the work force, for a total of 58. He asked for a report in August which he received relative to 78-1272 City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - October 3~ 1978, 1:30 P.M. the time of service of CETA employees employed for one year or more. The report indicated that 55 percent of the CETA employees had been with the City'some where between one and four years. He questioned the fact that if the program was to train people, why were those employees in the program from one to four years. He referred back to the Data Processing Department and to a CETA employee who had been employed in that Department since January 15, 1975 and another who was paid in excess of $20,000, including benefits. There were 1,691 City positions and 198 CETA positions which accounted for 10.5 Percent of the total employee work force. He further expressed his concern as he had in the past that as the number of CETA employees continued to rise, if the Federal Government decided to discontinue the program, the City and the citizens would be faced with (1) a reduction of services or (2) having to go to the citizens for some type of tax increase in order to justify the continuing existence of the CETA positions. MOTION: Because of the foregoing concerns, the Mayor moved the following: 1. That a one-year maximum tenure be placed on CETA positions. 2. Require an explanation from the department head on each CETA position as to its temporary nature, i.e., a description of the position and justification as to its temporary condition. 3. Total cost of each CETA position; contribution from the Federal Government in the form of salary, indirect benefits, and contributions frOm the City's General Fund to cover the overage. 4. Submittal of quarterly reports from department heads'compiled by the City Manager as to the success or failure of placement of the CETA employees in jobs in the private sector. Councilman Overholt seconded the motion. Discussion followed between the Mayor and Councilwoman Kaywood wherein Council- woman Kaywood stated she had a different view of some of 'the purposes of CETA. When they recently talked about a position that was a training position (Junior Zoning Enforcement Officer), the Mayor did not want to hire that person, but now he was advocating training. As well, if it was possible to have something on a temporary basis to get better service for the City, the Mayor wanted to bypass that because sometime in the future it may be eliminated. She did not agree with that point either. Mayor Seymour recalled that on the Zoning EnfOrcement Officer, the first reques~ from staff was 'that it be a training position, but testimony revealed that the Planning Department was looking for a permanent position and at that time, he indicated that was no place for a CETA position. Relative to the question of service levels, he referred to and read from a report dated June 12, 1978, provided him in answer to budget questions relative to the elimination of CETA funded employees, which indicated there would not be a reduction in service levels as a result of the elimination of the CETA Program. Councilwoman Kaywood asked if the Mayor's ultimate goal was to have no CETA Program. 78-1273 City Hall~ A~.aheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - October 3~ 1978, 1:30 P.M. The Mayor answered "no". He totally supported the program, but when employees were making over $20,000, extraordinarily high costs were involved and CETA employees were on the payroll for four and five years, that did not reflect a temporary program. His motion did not suggest a discontinuance of the program, but was more to set parameters to measure the program to see if it carried out specific goals. Councilman Roth asked if the motion passed, would there be a phase-out. The Mayor stated he did not want a mass removal of CETA employees, but that it would be reasonable to provide 90 days in which to either help them find employ- ment or they coUld do so on their own. Councilman Roth also asked to hear from management on the ramifications of phasing out all CETA employees who had been with the City more than one year, within 90 days. Mr. Talley first stated that he wished the Mayor was in Washington a year ago be- cause most of the comments he made would be coming out of legislation that had taken months to achieve and probably only 30 to 45 days away from being achieved. CETA was spawned from the old Public Employment Program and the Mayor was correct in that much of the current CETA legislation and funding was for training and relocating in the private sector. However, also envisioned in that legislation and subsequent enactments, was the definite thought that public service employees within governmental jurisdictions would be meaningful employment and not restricted to training. He served on the Orange County Manpower Commission for two years and was still Chairman of the Audit Committee and part of their effort was to find jobs in the public sector that could be funded and would represent an increase above the basic service levels. ~e Mayor was also right in that if the City were to remove all CETA employees, current service levels would be reduced to the level that existed before CETA because they were performing some measureable amount of activity not performed prior to their coming aboard. Mr. Talley continued that it would be a wise exercise of Council time to have a dialogue with department heads as to what service levels would be reduced or changed to that before CETA in order to ascertain what the effects would be. He conceded to a small difference in speaking about the Junior Zoning Enforcement Officer. CETA was designed specifically to fund training costs until that person came up to speed when the Governmental Agency, through transition, would take over. CETA considered that the first year or two if the City wanted to include them in a training program for transitional purposes that would be very justified. What had occurred in the CETA re-enactment through the Humphrey-Hawkins Bill, the same concerns raised by the Mayor had been voiced throughout the country precipitating changes in CETA legislation. One change would be to limit the amount of.subsidy that the local Jurisdiction could contribute and to substantially reduce the number of years anybody could serve in the program. That would address those employees who had three or four years of service with a specific time for removal and any new employees that would be coming in as to how long they could stay. Therefore, many of the areas broached by the Mayor would be handled by the legislation that was supposed to have been effective October 1, 1978, but which would now be during the month. He had no problem with anything the Mayor said, other than the Council 78-1274 City Hall, Anaheim, California- COUNCIL MINUTES- October 3~ 1978~ 1:30 P.M. might be precipitious in view of the fact that the new legislation'did address most of the issues. He suggested that staff be allowed to prepare a repdrt out- lining the contents of the new legislation and as soon as it became effective on October 1, 1978, submit a report on the effects of that legislation. He further stated that Mr. William Hepburn was also present and could expiai~ more if desired since he had been in Washington on a number of occasions working ~n that legislation. Mr. Talley also suggested that the Council might want to consider all aspects before doing anything as definitive as laying-off CETA employees in 90 days if the legis- lation stated they had six months or nine months. The Mayor stated he would be happy to wait, but his concern was that Mr. Talley's recommendation was going to be tantamount to what the Federal legislation was going to be. It was likely, rather than one-year maximum tenure, it would be one and one-half years, and 90 days might be five to six months. That was a liberal- ization and he sensed that was where Mr. Talley would like to head the program. He was not certain that type of approach was the one that the City of Anaheim should take. He would not sit still for a recommendation that, in his opinion, would cause a further stretching of the principles of the CETA Program. Further discussion ensued between Mayor Seymour and Mr. Talley revolving around what was allowed by the Federal Government under the CETA Program. Mr. Talley suggested that in a work session, once legislation was adopted, Council might want to sit down with each department head and, using the Mayor's motion rather than whatever th~ legislation would allow, have them indicate how they would be affected and then make a decision which would then be the disposition of that position. For clarification, Mr. Talley also explained that relat'ive to the amount of money received to run the CETA Program, the City was allowed to charge an administrative overhead which was the $630,000 figure referred tp previously by the Mayor. That was a revenue figure and the overage was taken from that amount. One was an expense and the other a revenue and the rule used in Anaheim was that the total amount of overhead reimbursement had to meet or exceed the total amount supplemented by the City. The Mayor interjected that he disagreed relative to saying, as long as indirect costs exceeded the overage, everything was fine because it assumed there were no indirect costs. Mr. Talley stated that indirect costs involved all the administrative charges. He was saying, relative to the out-of-pocket expenses, the new requirements would indicate the City would not have to pay for retirement costs and they would be limited to the amount of overage paid. Most of the items the Mayor referred to would not be problems in the future as they were in the past. If the City was allowed to do something under the program, within the spirit of Federal and State law, they had done it. Mayor Seymour stated that is where he found disagreement all along. He thought it was the philosophy of the present Council and the previous Council that the CETA Program would only deal with training and temporary jobs and not some of the things Mr. Talley described. Although they might be Within the law, it was not within the philosophy of the Council as previously expressed. 78-1275 City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - October 3, 1978~ 1:30 P.M. Discussion then centered around the Council's philosophy relative to the meaning of the CETA Program wherein Mr. Talley indicated he did not have any doubt as to the Mayor's philosophy on CETA. At the conclusion of discussion, the Mayor stated he would withdraw his motion and await the report from the City Manager. However, he found great discomfort in the fact that, in his opinion, the Council, not just the Mayor or John Seymour, previously shared in the concern that the CETA jobs would be temporary and training in nature. Now, Mr. Talley was saying that he heard him (Seymour) express that, as an individual, but somehow heard something else from the rest of the Council justifying the conditions that had been found. He invited Mr. Talley to research the Council minutes with him to find such an expression from the Council. Mr. Talley explained that some of the policies existed before he was employed in Anaheim and none of the policies had been changed. MOTION: Councilman Seymour withdrew his first motion; Councilman Overholt with- drew his second. Councilman Seymour thereupon moved to direct the City Manager to submit a report in 60 days as to his findings and recommendations on the CETA Program. Councilman Overholt seconded the motion. Before a vote was taken, Councilman Overholt stated he shared the philosophy articulated by the Mayor. He also believed that the Council wanted to proceed in the continual monitoring of the CETA Program and how it would affect Anaheim if changed drastically. Mr. Talley stated in that regard, they filed certain reports monthly and quarterly with the Orange County Manpower Commission on the program and those would also be provided to the Council. Councilman Kott asked if the Mayor would add to the motion the request for a legal interpretation of the guidelines and standards of the CETA Program at the present time; the Mayor was amenable to the amendment. A vote was then taken on the foregoing motion amended to include directing the City Attorney to provide a legal interpretaion relative to guidelines and standards of the program. MOTION CARRIED. Councilman Seymour offered Resolution Nos. 78R-626 through 78R-630, both inclusive, for adoption, as recommended in memorandum dated October 3, 1978, from the Personnel Department/CETA Services. Refer to Resolution Book. RESOLUTION NO. 78R-626: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF. ANAHEIM APPROVING AN AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AND THE ORANGE COUNTY MANPOWER COMMISSION RELATING TO MANPOWER PROGRAMS AND AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE SAID AGREEMENT AND MODIFICATIONS THERETO ON BEHALF OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM. (CETA Title II, $272,223, expiring September 30, 1979) RESOLUTION NO. 78R-627: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM APPROVING AN AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AND THE ORANGE COUNTY MANPOWER COMMISSION RELATING TO MANPOWER PROGRAMS AND AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE SAID AGREEMENT AND MODIFICATIONS THERETO ON BEHALF OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM. (CETA Title VI, $942,747, expiring September 30, 1979) 78-1276 ~.ity Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - October 3, 1978, 1:30 P.M. RESOLUTION NO. 78R-628: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM APPROVING AND AUTHORIZING THE ~EXECUTION OF AN AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AND THE ORANGE COUNTY COM}~NITY DEVELOPMENT COUNCIL, INC., RELATING TO TIlE OPERATION OF A PUBLIC SERVICE EMPLOYMENT PROGRAM. ($3,500, October 1 through December 31, 1978) RESOLUTION NO. 78R-629: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM APPROVING AND AUTHORIZING THE EXECUTION OF AN AGREEMENT .BETWEEN THE CITYOF ANAHEIM AND THE b~GNOLIA ELEMENTARY SCHOOL DISTRICT RELATING TO THE OPERATION OF A PUBLIC SERVICE EMPLOYMENT PROGRAM. ($24,000, October 1 through December 31, 1978) RESOLUTION NO. 78R-630: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM APPROVING AND AUTHORIZING THE EXECUTION OF AN AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AND THE LEGAL AIDE SOCIETY OF ORANGE COUNTY RELATING TO THE OPERATION OF A PUBLIC SERVICE EMPLOYMENT PROGRAM. ($8,500, October 1 through December 31, 1978) Roll Call Vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: COUNCIL MEb~ERS: COUNCIL MEMBERS: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Overholt, Kaywood, Kott, Roth and Seymour None None The Mayor declared Resolution Nos. 7~R-626 through 78R-630, both £ncluSive, duly passed and adopted. 174: CETA TITLE III - YOUTH E~LOYMENT AND DEMONSTRATION PROJECTS: Councilman Roth offered Resolution Nos. 78R-631 through 78R-633, both inclusive, for adoption as recommended in memorandum dated October 3, 1978, from the Personnel Department/ CETA Services. Refer to Resolution Book. RESOLUTION NO. 78R-631: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM APPROVING AN AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AND THE ORANGE COUNTY MANPOWER COMMISSION RELATING TO MANPOWER PROGRAMS AND AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE SAID AGREEMENT AND MODIFICATIONS THERETO ON BEHALF OF THE CITY'OF ANAHEIM. (CETA Title III, $158,712, expiring September 30, 1979) RESOLUTION NO. 78R-632: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM APPROVING AND AU~IORIZING THE EXECUTION OF AN AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AND THE NORTH ORANGE COUNTY COMMUNITY COLLEGE DISTRICT RELATING TO COMMUNITY BASED INDIVIDUALIZED INSTRUCTION IN BASIC EDUCATION STUDIES. ($25,00©, ~xpiring September 30, 1979) RESOLUTION NO. 78R-633: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM APPROVING AND AUTHORIZING THE EXECUTION OF AN AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE cITYOF ANAHEIM ~D THE ORANGE COUNTY COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COUNCIL,'INC., RELATING TO COMMUNITY BASED INDIVIDUALIZED INSTRUCTION, VOCATIONAL SKILLS TRAINING, AND WORK EXPERIENCE. ($115,712, expiring September 30, 1979) 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-631 through 78R-633, both inclusive, duly passed and adopted. 78-1277 City Hall, ~ahg~m, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - October 3, 1978, 1:30 P.M. 125: REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS TO IMPROVE PRICE PERFORMANCE OF THE CITY'S COMPUTER CAPACITY AND CAPABILITIES: Councilman Kott referred to memDrandum dated September 27, 1978, from the Data Processing Department, and asked if the $201,650 was considered as part of the cost of doing business with other cities. Mr. Talley stated "no", but there was $200,000 in the budget to pay for equip- ment. The proposal would result in replacing the existing equipment with equip- ment that would do a better job and it would be a trade. The equipment they now had was budgeted and therefore, they would stop paying rent on the present equip- ment and start paying it on the new equipment if it turned out to be a better deal. Mr. Tug Tamaru, Data Processing Director, explained that their proposal was asking vendors to supply proposals where they could minimize or eliminate any retraining or any extra cost of putting on different equipment. In the last six months, they had some real competition from industry for the first time. By initiating the pro- posal, the City would stand a better chance of getting more for less, and he felt it mandatory on his part to obtain that for the City. Councilman Kott questioned if Anaheim was in competition with private industry in the Data Processing area as suggested, something was wrong because private enter- prise paid taxes while Anaheim did not, and thus should be far below the private sector in providing services. Mr. Tamaru explained when he gave his report to the Council in January, it revealed their costs were substantially below others and below the National average for cities. They also made a comparison with private enterprise on those who would give figures. Mayor Seymour asked relative to the recommendation (1) would the $200,000 investment in hardware be required if the City did not have the MDS contract and (2) what did improving the price performance of the City's computer capacity and capabilities actually mean. Mr. Tamaru answered that they would not have to upgrade if they did not have the MDS contract because that represented approximately 22 percent of the Data Processing Department's workload. Relative to the price performance, manufacturers and vendors in the last couple of years had come forth with equipment which would do. twice as much work for a small increase in cost, For example, with a 20 percent increase in cost, it was possible to get 100 percent increased capacity representing revenues that would exceed $.5 million. The Mayor stated if the proposal was not necessary if there was no MDS contract~ Mr. Tamaru would recall the concern he shared with him on a number of occasions that any capital outlay be totally covered and recovered through a signed contract with some other agency. Therefore, in answer to that concern, he wanted to know if Mr. Tamaru had signed contracts that not only covered City costs, but also additional signed contracts guaranteeing recovery of the $206,000 capital outlay. Mr. Tamaru answered that they had a Joint Powers Agreement which the Council approved and also did have contracts with other cities that they serviced. Those cities would be paying the additional $206,000 because that would be built into their cost. The whole concept of MDS was that the City share its expensive resources in 78-1278 City Hal!~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES , October 3~ 1978, 1:30 P.M. order to get the lowest possible cost and they would be billed for their share of that increased cost if there was an increase. There was a good pQssibility that costs would actually go down based on their research of the industry. Further discussion followed relative to the question wherein the Mayor emphasized that his thrust was to ascertain whether the City had signed Contracts t~at would guarantee recovery of hardware costs. Mr. Tamaru answered, not to the extent the Mayor was proposing and no one had that type of assurance. ~ The Mayor then stated as he had before that Mr. Tamaru was leading them into a speculative venture in which even the private sector was finding it hard to tread, and he was going to vote against the motion. Mr. Tamaru further explained in answer to ~Mr. Talley that the total hardware cost amounted to $251,000 and the $200,000 in the report was the additional hardware cost budgeted. The actual additional hardware costs budgeted were roughly $60,000, but he was confident that when proposals were submitted, they would not have to spend that amount. He believed that by amortizing to the unit cost over seven years, that they could recover that cost within one year. Mr. Talley asked, if all the MDS cities no longer contracted with the City starting tomorrow, would Mr. Tamaru be allowed to cancel the contract thereby, being left with a reduced workload and also, could he downgrade the equipment and get out of those costs. Mr. Tamaru explained first that the City would have to give 270 days' notice of cancellation and also that they could downgrade at any time; the point Mr. Talley wanted to emphasize was the fact that if MDS left and gave nine months' notice, the maximum exposure, if they did so on July 2nd of any year, might~be three months' risk at the most because they would downgrade in the next Year's budget at the start of the fiscal year and take the ~financial risk out of the City. Mayor Seymour stated the point that was left out was the loss of equity built up on the equipment,. ~ Mr. Talley explained that most computer equipment was like rolling stock where very little equity was built up because of technological obsolescence. The Mayor reiterated his feeling that the situation was a dangerous,, speculative type venture that Data Processing was continuing to pursue. He did not believe government was as capable as the private sector in pulling off such programs which was borne out in the Price Waterhouse report. MOTION: On motion by Councilwoman Kaywood,. seconded by Councilman Roth, the Data Processing Director was authorized to issue a request for propoSals to various vendors for the purpose of receiving proposals for improving the price.performance of the City's computer capacity and capabilities. ~Councilmen Kott and Seymour voted "No". MOTION CARRIED. RECESS: By general consent, the Council recessed for~ 10 min~utes. (3:00 P.M.) 78-1279 City Hall~ Anaheim~ Calif0r~nia - COUNCIL MINUTES - October 3~ 1978~ 1:30 P.M. AFTER RECESS: The Mayor called the meeting to order, all Council Members being present. (3:10 P.M.) 107: PUBLIC HEARING - HOUSE MOVING PERMIT: Request by Star Secretary and Printing Service, for a permit to move an office building from its present loca- tion at 125 East Broadway to 703 North Anaheim Boulevard, was submitted. The Zoning Division recommended approval of the requested move-on, subject to dedication of five feet off the rear of the property for alley widening purposes. A representative from Star Secretary and Printing was in the audience, but indicated that he did not wish to add anything further relative to the subject request. The Mayor asked if anyone wished to speak either in favor or in opposition; there being no response, he closed the public hearing. Councilman Roth noted in the report dated September 18, 1978, staff recommended approval of the move-on, but the last paragraph stated, "The Chief Building Inspector further states that the structure is not compatible with the newer commercial buildings in the area." It seemed to him that the answer to the petitioner's request was "yes" and "no". Miss Santalahti answered she believed the latter comment was intended to indicate that the physical appearance was different from others in the general area, but that was a matter of aesthetics and the Zoning Division staff did not consider that as whether or not the move-on should be accomplished. Councilwoman Kaywood Was also concerned over that aspect and asked if the neigh- bors in the area had seen the building and were notified of the proposed move-on and if any complaints had been received. Miss Santalahti did not know if they had seen the building, but they were notified, and no complaints had been received to her knowledge. Councilman Roth offered Resolution No. 78R-634 for adoption, approving the move- on requested as recommended in memorandum dated September 18, 1978, from' the Planning Director. Refer to Resolution Book. RESOLUTION NO. 78R-634: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM GRANTING A HOUSE MOVING PERMIT TO STAR SECRETARIAL AND PRINTING' SERVICE TO MOVE A COMMERCIAL BUILDING FROM 125 EAST BROADWAY TO 703 NORTH ANAHEIM BOULEVARD, ANAHEIM, CALIFORNIA. Roll Call Vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: COUNCIL MKMBERS: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Overholt, Kaywood, Kott, Roth and Seymour None None The Mayor declared Resolution No. 78R-634 duly passed and adopted. 78-1280 City Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES , October 3~ 1978~ 1:30 P.M. 107: PUBLIC HEARING - HOUSE MOVING PERMIT: Request by David Knowles for a permit to move a residential single-family structure from its present location at Fullerton College, 1000 North Lemon Street, to 1572 West Orangewood Avenue, was submitted. ,.~,. The Zoning Division recommended approval of the subject move-on. The Mayor asked if anyone wished to speak either in ~favor or in opposition; there being no response, he closed the public hearing. . Councilwoman Kaywood offered Resolution No. 78R-635 for adoption, approving the subject move-on ~as recommended in memorandum dated September 13, 1978, from the Planning Director. Refer to Resolution Book. RESOLUTION NO. 78R-635: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM GRANTING A HOUSE MOVING PERMIT TO DAVID KNOWLES TO MOVE A DWELLING FROM ITS PRESENT LOCATION OUTSIDE THE CITY TO 1572 WEST ORANGEWOOD AVENUE, ANAHEIM, CALIFORNIA. 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-635 duly passed and adopted. PUBLIC HEARING - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 1887: Application by Lazare F. Bernhard, to permit a used automobile storage and impound yard on ML zoned property located at 1595 West Broadway with code~waivers of maximum fence height and permitted encroachment into required setback. The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC78-214, 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 Conditional Use Permit No. 1887, subject to the following conditions: 1. That street lightiog facilities along Loara Street and Broadway shall be installed prior to the final building and zoning inspections unless otherwise approved by the Director of Public Utilities, and in accordance with standard specifications on file in the Office of the Director of Public Utilities; and/or that a bond, certificate of deposit, letter of credit, or cash, in an amount and form satisfactory to the City of Anaheim, shall be posted with the City to guaran- tee the installation of the above-mentioned requirements prior to the commencement of activities. 2. That the owner(s) of subject property submit a letter requesting the termina- tion of Variance No. 2546. 78-1281 City Halls Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - October 3~ 1978, 1:30 P.M. 3. That subject property shall be developed substantially in accordance with plans and specifications on file with the City of Anaheim marked Exhibit No. 1; provided, however, that the existing dead landscaping in the required 10-foot wide landscaped area along Broadway and the 5-foot wide landscaped area adjacent to Loara Street shall be replaced with dense landscaping and sprinkler system for proper maintenance as stipulated by the petitioner; that redwood slats shall be installed in the existing chain link gates; that there shall be no stacking of vehicles higher than the 6-foot high wall; and furthermore, that the entire area shall be paved with asphalt as stipulated by the petitioner. 4. That Condition No. 1, above-mentioned, shall be complied with prior to the commencement of the activity authorized under this resolution, or prior to the time that the building permit is issued, or within a period of one year from date hereof, whichever occurs first, or such further time as the Planning Commission may grant. 5. That Condition Nos. 1 and 3, above-mentioned, shall be complied with prior to final building and zoning inspections. The decision of the Planning Commission was appealed by Mr. Joseph H. Doyle, on behalf of the owner, relative to the requirement for paving, and public hearing scheduled this date. The City Clerk stated a letter from the applicant's attorney had been received dated September 27, 1978, requesting that the item be referred back to the Planning Commission. Mr. Joseph Doyle, Agent for the owner, stated that they would like to have a 30-minute continuance since their attorney had not yet arrived. The Mayor asked the Council if they had any objection to a continuance; Mr. Floyd Fa~ano, attorney for the applicant entered the Council Chamber~ He stated he was not expecting the matter to be heard as a public hearing today and his information was that it was going to be on th~ Council agenda as a consent calendar item. The Mayor explained that the applicant had appealed the hearing of the Planning Commission and therefore it was before the Council in the form of a public hearing and subsequently his letter dated September 27, 1978 was received asking that the application be referre4 back to the Planning Commission. Mr. Farano explained that the letter was written before he understood there was an appeal. He reiterated he understood the item was coming up on the consent calendar and not in the form of an appeal and thus, the letter to the Council was out of context. However, he was prepared to speak to the matter today. The Mayor thereupon opened the public hearing. Mr. Farano stated the only point of contention was the requirement of the Planning Commission that the storage yard be paved. His client intended only a short-term use of one year and not a permanent use. Their request to the Council was that the actual paving of the yard be waived in favor of other more economic treatment such as oil treatment conducted on a regularly scheduled basis since permanent 78-1282 City Hall, Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - October 3~ 1978, 1:30 P.M. paving would cost between $6,000 and $7,000. They would conform to all other requirements imposed by the Planning Commission. Councilman Roth asked if the use was an interim use for one year because DuBois and Paschall had to move out of the Redevelopment area. As he understood, they had to be relocated and he did not know if that situation was tied in with the subject request. Mr. Farano stated the location was an interim storage area and that DuBois and Paschall were going to move into different quarters. The present proposed move was an emergency-type situation because the use would not find a home easily and they wanted to go to other more suitable areas. He did not know if it was true that they had to leave the Redevelopment area. It could be that the use would not be appropriate in the Redevelopment area, but in any case, they had no desire to remain. The Mayor asked if anyone wished to speak either in favor or in opposition. Mrs. Nancy Heinz, 1649 Richard Place, read a prepared statement as spokesman on behalf of the one-year and 20-year residents of the area. The statement expressed their concern relative to Conditional Use Permit No. 1887 being con- sidered for the northeast corner of Broadway and Loara. The neighborhood felt the use would be extremely hazardous to the safety of all Loara School children, especially with regard to the heavy traffic congestion that would result, as well as the noise level mostly along Loara Street adjacent to the school. She also referred to the minutes of the Planning Commission wherein they stated that no cars would be stacked above the fence. They could not conceive that the stacking of automobiles would be a quiet operation. The past history of uses at the loca- tion had not been good regarding upkeep, and the homeowners urged ~a "no" vote on Conditional Use Permit No. 1887. Mrs. Heinz also submitted petitions containing approximately 330 signatures in opposition. Mrs. Sharon Turner stated she lived in the tract located at Loara and Broadway and reported that the noise factor caused by traffic had doubled Since they moved in. The type of use proposed would increase the noise factor and create inter- ference with television reception. Mr. Farano pointed out that the subject property was zoned M~ and their proposed use was permissible in/that zone under a conditional use permit. He believed that the DuBois and Paschall people would conduct their operation in a manner that would not be destructive to the neighborhood and it would only be for a short period of time. He emphasized they would conform to all of the require- ments of the Planning Commission such as landscaping, .setbacks, noise abatements, etc., that had been imposed. It would not be an offensive use and they would be happy to set an agreeable schedule for treatment of the lot, and the landscaping would hide the use from view. Discussion followed as a result of questioning by Councilwoman Kaywood relative to the present ownership of the parcel, at the conclusion of which, Councilwoman Kaywood stated that she was on the Planning Commission at the time the parcel was 78-1283 ~ity Hall~ Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - October 3~ 1978~ 1:30 P.M. used by McCoy Ford for storage of new vehicles. The landscaping was allowed to die and it had remained that way for many years. It was promised to be upgraded, but nothing ever happened and the slats in the fence were broken the same month they were installed and never replaced. She thus had a problem with regard to having good faith considering the past experience with the property. Mr. Farano stated that his client was taking the responsibility for landscaping. The reason the previous landscaping died was due to the fact that no irrigation system was installed, but the present plan was to install an irrigation system so as to keep the landscape in proper form. Councilwoman Kaywood stated another concern revolved around the interim use, and she wanted to know if a double relocation payment was involved, both temporary and permanent, from the Redevelopment Agency standpoint. Mr. Farano did not know since he was not familiar with the specific situation. Councilwoman Kaywood then asked if he was familiar with the recent problems that arose over an impound yard on Anaheim Boulevard (Conrad - Conditional Use Permit No. 1785). Mr. Farano was aware of the situation, but stated that such an occurrence would not be the case in this instance. The neglect of the community's concerns and the blatant violations that were committed by the user of that property was not the attitude of DuBois and Paschall. Further discussion and questioning followed between CouncilmanOverholt, Council- woman Kaywood and Mr. Farano, wherein Mr. Farano defended the fact that he did not feel the use was more offensive than any use in the past and certainly less offen- sive than what the property could be used for in the future,and it was no more intense. Mrs. Heinz then presented a crude map of the area showing surrounding land uses. She contended that the impounding of cars would be an ongoing use and there was no comparison between the proposed use and prior use by McCoy Ford. She empha- sized their concern was for the safety of children being around that location. Councilwoman Kaywood asked how many were present in the audience on the subject item. There were approximately 12 people. Mrs. Peggy Hermanes stated that many in the neighborhood had used the subject property for RV storage in the past and the neighbors indicated they favored it~ reverting back to that use and they would utilize it again for storing their recreational vehicles. They were also not certain that the zoning should remain ML. At the time, a strawberry field was located across the street, but now many residents lived on that same property and the area was continuing to become heavily travelled. The traffic that would be generated from the use would make matters worse and the nei§hbors were unhappy about the type of vehicle storage proposed. 78-1284 City Hall, Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - October 3, 1978~ 1:30 P.M. Mrs. Turner asked how it was possible to stack one car on top of another without causing a great deal of noise and dust. Mr. Farano could not suggest any techniques that the Council could require to be followed, but could only say that the space was limited, It would be used asa Police impound yard and not a storage yard and, therefore, not that many cars would be involved and there was only space for 90 cars at any rate. He did not believe they would be stacking cars as it was no~ a holding yard or storage yard for junked vehicles, but those towed in under the responsibility and direction of the Anaheim Police Department. The only reason the matter had to come before the Commission and the Council was due to the fact that it was an outdoor use and the ML zone permitted significantly more obnoxious uses. There being no further persons who wished to speak, the Mayor closed the public hearing. Councilman Kott asked Executive Director Norm Priest if the impending move was an immediate requirement of DuBois and Paschall. ~ Councilwoman Kaywood asked for confirmation if the Redevelopment Agency would then be responsible for the tem- porary plus permanent move. In answer to the first question, Mr. Priest indicated that there was a six- to nine-month time frame in which the Agency wanted DuBois andPaschall relocated, and the Agency would not normally be responsible for both the temporary and permanent relocation. Councilman Roth stated he believed that the Planning Commission approved the move with the stipulation that the yard be paved. ~He asked for clarification if the hearing today was strictly on that issue or on the entire conditional. use permit. Miss Santalahti explained that the item was appealed and although the applicant was appealing only the paving requirement, the whole~,conditional use permit was before the Council for their decision. ENVIRONMENTAL. IMPACT REPORT - NEGATIVE DECLARATION: 'On motion by Councilwoman Kaywood, seconded by Councilman'Roth, the City Council finds that no sensitive environmental impacts are involved in the proposal, and that the initial study submitted by the petitioner indicatedno significant individual or cumulative adverse environmental {mpacts and is, therefore, exempt from the requirement to prepare an EIR. MOTION CARRIED. Councilwoman Kaywood offered Resolution No. 78R-636 for adoption, denying Condi- tional Use Permit No. 1887, reversing the findings of the City Planning ~ommission. Refer to Resolution Book. RESOLUTION NO. 78R-636: A RESOLUTION OF.THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM DENYING CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 1887. 78-1285 City IIall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - October 3, 1978~ 1:30 P.M. Before a vote was taken, Councilwoman Kaywood emphasized her concern relative to the use of the property as an impound yard. While the property was zoned ML, that zoning predated the 200-plus homes now built across the street. They had an obligation to those residents so that their way of life would not be badly impacted as she envisioned it might be. In view of the fact that there was a six- to nine-month lead time for DuBois and Paschall to nmve, she believed it would be to their advantage to find a permanent location and not go into the expense that would be involved for a short period of time. Councilman Kott agreed with Councilwoman Kaywood. The Council had recently deliberated on a similar situation with another impound yard where, in 'the final analysis, the procedures ruined one man and caused other financial problems to other people as a result. He believed that a denial would not only be kind to the neighbors, the neighborhood and the school, but also to DuBois and Paschall. The use was obviously incompatible in the area and even though temporary, if the neighbors were not willing to accept the use on that basis, he would have to be guided by their wishes because they were presently located in the area. Councilwoman Kaywood added that she was also concerned with the fact that an elementary school was directly across the street and the backing-up and turning around that would be involved would make it difficult to see a small child. Councilman Overholt stated he would support the resolution of denial for all of the reasons stated. He was particularly concerned about Loara School and referred to the recent favorable ruling for traffic guards in order to relieve dangerous situations and to compound such situations would be a mistake. Councilman Roth stated he had mixed emotions relative to the matter. Since the property was zoned ML, it could be utilized for a gas station and there would be just as much danger involved. He also believed there was confusion between a junk yard and an impound yard. He understood the situation and was sympathetic. Unfortunately, particularly on the south side of Broadway, people bought homes with the knowledge that there was heavy traffic and also trains running by the eastern portion of the property which was developed'with residences. People who purchased those homes were aware beforehand that it was not an optimum environment. Mayor Seymour first stated that he concurred with Councilwoman Kaywood, Council- men Kott and Overholt.~ He did not agree that the environment in the vicinity was not a good one, and in fact, it was very positive. The people were saying that the continuing use of the property for RV was appropriate. On the other hand, they were not talking about an ML use, but an ML use that required a conditional use permit because of the type of activity that would take place--impOund and storage, 24 hours a day. He did not know how anybody could justify such a use next to a single-family residential neighborhood. It was totally incompatible and inappropriate. Councilwoman Kaywood also noted that even though the stipulation was that the hours of operation be restricted from 8:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m. daily, when a big event was in progress in the City resulting in a great number of cars being towed, she did not believe that the time deadlines would not be broken, thus causing another enforcement problem. 78-1286 City Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - October 3~ .1978, 1:30 P.M. A vote was then taken, on the foregoing resolution of denial of Conditional Use Permit NO. 1887. Roll Call Vote: AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Overholt, KaYWood, Kott, Roth and'Seymour NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: None ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: None The Mayor declared Resolution No. 78R-636 duly passed and ~dopted. 172: PUBLIC HEARING - STREET CLOSURE - CAMINO MANZANO: Citizens'.petition for traffic diverters on Camino Manzano, to consider tentative plans for the improve- ment to through vehicular traffic by closing Camino Manzano at a point midway between Avenida Palmera and Camino Arroyo, was submitted~ ~ Traffic Engineer Paul Singer gave a recap of the situation leading to today's public hearing (see minutes of August 8, 22 and 29, 1978) relative to the request by citizens on a portion of Camino Manzano for a traffic diverter in order to reduce sPeeds and traffic on their portion of the street. The Mayor first asked how many people were present in the Chamber audience in favor of the proposed closure. There were approximately 10 people in favor, as well as 10 people who indicated their presence in opposition to the closure. He then asked those who were opposed to speak f~rst. Mrs. Jan Hall, 545 Tumbleweed Road, Secretary o3 HACMAC, stated that they had sent a revised report to the Council today relative to the matter. On September 12, 1978, Mr. Bob Jones from the City's Engineering.Rivision made. HACMAC aware of the request, but they did not hear from any people in the neighborhood. HACMAC was concerned about the cost and priority, as well as the fact that there were many other streets in the area similarly designed which could possibly prompt citizens from those areas to present similar requests. Several times in the~recent past, parents had approached them regarding the unsafe routes their Children must walk to get to school such as Fairmont Boulevard and the,,south side' of Santa Ana Canyon Road, as well as Other areas. In view of the budgetary problamp due to the constraints of Proposition 13, they felt those kinds of needs in the Canyon should be prioritized. The safety of several hundred children walking to school on unsafe areas were ~ar more important than cul-de-sacing a street. The area requested to be cul-de-saced seemed to be a pl,ayground for children and it was necessary to drive very carefully to avoid ball games and other such things. They were suggesting that children be prevented from playing i~ the streets, that as many speed limit signs as possible be posted,, that speed be enforced, and that stop signs be considered at the "T's" with the cul-de~.sac and any thing else that would be less expensive and cause less, disrup~i0n to the neighborhood. She reiterated they would also like the Council to prioritize some of the needs in the Canyon, and if $25,000 were available, that they con- sider providing safe routing for the childr~ in school.~ ~, 78-1287 City Hall, Anah~im~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - October 3~ 1978~ 1:30 P.M. The following people also spoke in opposition for the reasons indicated: Steven McCollum, 210 Paseo Pacero: 1. Expressed concern relative to the accessibility of emergency vehicles and the time of response if the proposal were approved. 2. The closure would not mitigate the problem of speeders as stated by the City Engineer. 3. A less expensive approach should be taken as a first try such as stop signs or assigning a Police Officer in the area during peak hours and enforcement of existing laws. Dee Fisher, 298 Paseo Rio Blanco, (read from prepared statement on behalf of friends and neighbors): 1. The permanent closure of Camino Manzano would not necessarily eliminate the fast traffic pattern experienced, but instead would create unsafe and unsatis- factory traffic patterns in other areas. 2. There were approximately four indirect routes in and out of the area to a main thoroughfare and if Camino Manzano were closed, there would then only be two access points. 3. Fairmont Boulevard would be a through street all the way from Canyon Rim Road to Yorba Linda Boulevard in Yorba Linda. It would be a very congested ingress and egress, but the most through route to her end of Camino Manzano. 4. They had all made overtures and inquiries to the City and the Planning Department to have something done to change the fast traffic pattern on Camino Manzano, but they were not certain the proposed diverter was. the answer, espec- ially at a cost of $25,000. 5. "Warning" or "speed" signs had not been posted anywhere and they suggested some signing which would bring to the driver's attention how fast they were travelling. As well, "rumble" strips might be a deterrent. 6. They were requesting less hasty action relative to the solution of the problem. It was a neighborhood problem that could be dealt with on a neigh- borhood basis which would possibly be more effective than rerouting traffic and making an already unsafe traffic pattern even worse. 7. She would prefer to see a temporary barricade, perhaps three months, at a much more suitable cost, complete with detour signs and done with community agree- ment in order to ascertain if the traffic pattern would change. If the traffic slowed providing safety for the children on both ends of Camino Manzano, then she would concur that the road should be closed. Norman Mock, Orange Unified School District, in charge of bus transportation, 726 West Collins: 1. The closure of the street would be frustrating in that school buses would have to be rerouted around the. area with five to eight buses a day traveling through the area. 2. Problems would be caused by placing a barricade on Camino Manzano, and he would not be able to route the buses efficiently and economically. 3. He was most interested in children's safety and it would be a hardship to reroute the buses onto neighboring streets. Iii llll~lll I_ rll II I IIIIII I 78-1288 City Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - October 3~i1978~ 1:30 ~.M. Gary Louder, 140 Circulo Robel: 1. He was opposed to the diversion of traffic mainly relative to the safety of his children and because he presently lived at an exit of an outlet of the traffic and if traffic was diverted, all the exit traffic would be traveling on his street and it would be unfair tO him and his~neighbors. 2. He did not believe that erecting a cul-de-sac would slow vehicle speed, but instead the people had to be educated. Greg Kikuchi, 272 North Camino Arroyo: 1. Since he was opposed to the street closure, he recommended the following signing in order to reduce speed: the posting of "speed limit" and "children at play" signs from the corner of Solomon and Santa Ana Cany9n Road to the corner of Camino Correr, as well as on the left hand side of the street going toward Camino Manzano, so as to preclude signing on the front yards of homeowners. He also suggested stop signs instead of cul-de-sacs on Avenida Palmera and also Camino Arroyo. 2. There were two bus stops, one at the "T" of Camino Manzano and Camino Arroyo. If a cul-de-sac was placed in Camino Manzano, ~the buses would have to turn-all the way around to exit or another bus stop established and this same situation would occur on other streets. 3. There was a lack of parental guidance when the children.were ou~ playin.g in the streets. 4. There was~an overabundance of cars parked in the street, Driveways or other means should be utilized for parking vehicles. That was the :first step instead of spending $25,000 to install two cul-de-sacs which, as.hadbeen stated, would not stop the traffic. The Mayor then asked to hear from those in favor of the street closure. Mr. Murray Zoota, 6093 Camino Manzano, spokesman for those in favor,.recounted for those who were in opposition how. the request came before the Council and what had taken place at previous meetings (see minutes of August~ 8~ 22, and 28, 1978). He emphasized that they did not ask ~he City to b~ild diverters and spend money, but that there was a problem, and they needed assistance in helping to solve that problem, while offering to pay for the solution, themselves. He then explained how they had worked with the Engineering Division rel~ative to possible alternatives and gave the results of~ survey the community had taken on different days and times relative to the amount of traffic that passed their homes. He then spoke to some of the concerns expressed. The Fire Department had made recommendations relative to the closure and they were willing to go along with them and were in agreement to change the name of their side of the street for~easier identification. Relative to signing, drivers knew the laws and speed limits and if they chose to do so, they would disobey the signs.' He did not see ghat as a solution. Earlier testimony revealed that 95 percent of the drivers did not stop a~ one of the stop signs in the area. , ~ 78-1289 City Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - October 3~ 1978, 1:30 P.M. Regarding children playing the street, it was difficult to confine them. However, because of the problem, his children were not even allowed to play on the sidewalk, but in the backyard under supervision, and that was unfair. There were complaints that others would not have a through and convenient way to leave their homes if the closure occurred. However, it was at the expense of those living on his portion of Camino Manzano. He did not believe the suggestion of having a Police Officer posted at peak times to be a viable one relative to the remuneration that would be involved. The pro- posed solution would hopefully solve the problem foreve~ while a Policeman had to be paid everyday and all his life. It was simple for everybody at the far end of the street or areas where all of the cars entered to say that they did not want traffic. The people on his end of the street almost never utilized the way those at the opposite end should get to their homes, but they always utilized the way he and his neighbors got to their homes, and that was also unfair. Relative to the supposed frustrating situation that would be caused concerning school bus routes, he could not buy that argument. It was more frustrating to be waiting in a hospital waiting room. In concluding, Mr. Zoota stated that anyone who had been at the previous hearings or who read the minutes as to the way they approached the problem, could respect what they had done. They did not come to the City and make demands, but merely asked for help. They had received cooperation and were getting help. He asked that everyone consider some of the things they had to go through under the present circumstances every day of their lives. Mr. Bob Woods, 5930 Camino Manzano, stated his two-year old daughter was the child that had been hit by a vehicle. She spent two months in a coma, was crippled and they did not know what her condition would be mentally. He took issue with t~he statement made that children ran all over the street and the parents did not pay any attention. Both he and his wife were standing right next to their child, along with four other adults, and she was hit by a person who lived on the other side of the proposed barrier. Mr. Woods continued that the problem was not all speed, but volume as well. If the volume was cut 75 percent, accidents would also be cut down. He had another older daughter and he did not want the same thing to happen to her. Relative to signs, citizens of the community painted two giant signs on the street that said, "slow" which were not at all effective. They did not necessarily need a $25,000- barrier, and if it was the money, they would build it. He questioned why they should put up with other people's traffic and believed it should be shared equally. Mr. James Magerkirth, 5954 Camino Manzano, explained that he was directly involved with the initial study of the situation prior to asking for the recommendation on the solution of the problem. He emphasized that he was personally appalled over the comments equating $25,000 in relation to the injury of four children. He then commented on the following areas: Traffic Volume--if the volume was cut, it would reduce the total distance travelled on the street, thus cutting down the probability factor, while decreasing speed. 78-1290 City Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - October 3, 1978~ 1:30 P.M. Speed--speed was a definite factor and a prime contributor to the major accidents on the street. They were getting speeds in excess of 30 miles per hour. He then elaborated upon the traffic survey that was conducted as well as the speed survey. During the latter, only warnings were given and one of the vehicles involved was a school bus. They were asking for a solution to help divert the traffic and to share it and as confirmed by the testimony, stop signs were not an effective deterrent. There were also comments made that traffic was being impaired by .children playing in the street. His child was one of the victims of the four injuries that had occurred and he was not struck while playing in the street, but while he was pro- ceeding down the street parallel to parked vehicles. The child most critically injured was also not playing in the street or challenging a car. In concluding, Mr. Magerkirth stated they had a community problem and the City had given them basic solutions and one that would share the traffic in the tract the way it should have been shared initially. They were asking that the City continue to proceed in the direction they felt was the best resolution to the problem, obtain the most responsible bidding in order to bring the cost under $25,000, and come up with a solution that would protect their children and prevent the present high volume of traffic. ~They had a ~very reasonable means of transportation through the Canyon on Santa Ana Canyon Road. It was simply a matter of channeling that traffic to get it off a 25-mile per hour residential street. Mr. James Leafing, 6205 Camino Manzano, stated he was in favor of'the closure for the purposes and reasons brought out relative to the safety of children. The reason he was a proponent was due to the fact that he believed it would slow down traffic, but if there were other alternatives, he would be in favor of the street remaining open. His primary purpose in speaking to the matter was relative to the second issue of the street name change. He made a petition survey the prior evening and from the canal east to Fairmont, there were 48 r~s~dents with Camino Manzano addresses and he obtained signatures of 37 who did not want to have their address changed. He clarified'that the people on the opposite end of Camino Manzano al- ready agreed that they would go along with the name change. He lived on the other side and did not favor the name change, nor did his neighbors. Pat Rasmussen, 5929 Camino Manzano, was of the opinion that many in attendance had lost perspective as to the reason why they were at the meeting. The children represented Anaheim's tomorrow; they were merely asking for a solution to the problem and they were willing to pay for that solution. When she bought her home, she was under the impression there was going to be a cul-de-sac much closer, and the house was sold showing a cul-de-sac. One of the people, when asked why she used Camino Manzano answered, because it was faster, and she maintained that was a sad commentary. Barbara Crocco, Paseo Compo, stated she wam directly concerned, but indirectly involved as far as the location. She maintained that such a situation not only interfered with the safety of children, but also adults. She was a frequent walker, jogger and bicyclist and many times she would have to stop for traffic to speed by her. It was necessary to be very cautious and she reiterated that the situation involved all ages relative to traffic volume and also speed. 78-1291 City .Hal. l,..Aha.helm, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - October 3~ 1978~ 1:30 P.M. Susan Woods, 5930 Camino Manzano, stated the child who was critically injured was her daughter and she was present at the time. She maintained it was necessary to look under cars when driving which would make the driver as aware as looking at signs. It was necessary to take the time to look. Relative to the difficulties that would be experienced by the school bus, she stated that perhaps they should have more difficulty because she had watched them many times roaring down the street. If they had to make a detour, perhaps they would slow down. She would favor having a Policeman in the area so that he could see what took place on the street and how many school buses and other vehicles belonging to contractors working at the residences would be cited. She questioned why it would be faster to travel down Camino Manzano when traffic could travel 45 miles per hour along Santa Ana Canyon Road. She also believed that relative to the street name change, such changes were taking place constantly and the Fire Depart- ment had to learn new streets as a matter of course. There being no further persons who wished to speak, the Mayor closed the public hearing. Mayor Seymour asked Traffic Engineer Singer (1) as one of the alternatives the building of a crash gate was proposed, properly signed and reflected. He wanted to know the cost of that approach as well as his recommendations against such an approach. (2) Had "rumble" strips been used to a degree to give any satisfactory evidence of reducing speed. Mr. Singer answered that the cost of building the crash gate was estimated at $3,000, but the alternative made no provision for landscaping or turn-arounds and presented some problem with street cleaning. Regarding the "rumble" strips, they were used basically on freeways since, when a long stretch of road was involved with vehicles traveling at 60 miles per hour, vehicles became geared to high speeds. The strips were used to make the driver aware when approaching ramps, but when these strips were used from one low-volume street to another low-volume street, they had no effect. The Mayor then asked if any statistics were available relative to what effect the use of Police enforcement had, for example, if radar units were used in the area and they gave out 100 tickets a day, he wanted to know what would happen 30 days later. Mr. Singer answered that gradually the situation would build back up. He deferred to Lieutenant Gaston for further elaboration. Lieutenant Gaston, Traffic Bureau, explained that the presence of a Police Officer in the area was a deterrent to speeding, but when the Officer left, the tendency was for traffic to travel faster and retain former speeds. The Mayor stated his personal inclination was to go ahead with the traffic diverter although he had some concerns relative to fire safety, but he believed that could be answered. On the other hand, in view of Proposition 13, he was sensitive to an expenditure of $25,000. The Traffic Engineer indicated a crash gate would accom- plish the job, but aesthetically it would not look as good. Further, the street would not get swept as well in that area and people would have to clean up their own trash at the diverter site. The cost for such a barricade would be $3,000 and he therefore asked if the neighborhood would be willing to share one-half the cost. 78-1292 City Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES~- October 3~ 1978~ 1:30 P.M. Mr. Zoota indicated that they would be willing to do so, but as he recalled, Mr. Singer did not recommend the $3,000 diverter for safety reasons, and thus it could create another problem. He was personally not certain that was the answer. Relative to the monetary basis, if that was the last alternative, he would again have to poll the people in his neighborhood. Mayor Seymour asked for a show of hands ~of those who would be willing~to con- tribute toward the $1,500 payment. Approximately .six people indicated their willingness to do so; no one present i~ favor of the diverter indicated that they would not be willing to contribute. MOTION: Mayor Seymour stated he was going to offer ~an alternative that he believed to be most satisfactory since any decision would notmake everyone happy. He thereupon proposed that a crash gate-type diverter be built at a cost of $3,000, subject to that neighborhood favoring the diverter, collecting a total of one-half the cost of the project or $1,500. It was not going to be as attractive or efficient as a $25,000 diverter, but the main thrust of the neighborhood was that it provide safety first. Councilman Roth seconded the motion for the purpose of discussion. A brief discussion followed between the Mayor, Councilwoman Kaywo0d and Mr. Zoota relative to the proposal and the possibility that a further hazard migh~ be caused, at the conclusion of which Mr. Zoota stated ultimately the problem they were solv- ing was more important than the problems that might be created. There was a possibility that he would be back before the Council in slx months to report that now there was a real problem. ~ The Mayor stated that might well be true and they would then have to explore another avenue to solve the problem. Mr. Zoota recalled that the Council had previously asked the neighborhood to share in the expense on the more elaborate project where they would also benefit to a great degree. He maintained that the rules had changed somewhere along the way. Councilman Roth commented that they had now heard the matter four times and he was of the opinion that neighbors were protecting themselves from their own neighbors, ending up with neighbors pitting themselves against each other, and they were now coming to government for an answer. He would support the temporary situation as proposed by the Mayor because he believed after it was installed, it would not be long before the neighbors would be back to government asking to have the problem solved by removing the barrier. Councilman Kott asked Mrs. Fisher the basis for her objection to the barrier. Mrs. Fisher stated her objection was not the aesthetic value of the barrier. She lived in the middle between Camino Arroyo, which would befone indirect access route, and Fairmont Boulevard, which would be the other indirect access route, and she did not believe that the diverter would slQw traffic down on her end of Camino Manzano. She believed the matter to be a community problem and as neighbors, she was willing to help solve that problem. 78-1293 City Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - October 3~ 1978~ 1:30 P.M. Councilwoman Kaywood stated such decisions were very difficult where there were two sides and that the pros and cons on both had merit. Speeding, when done by neighbors was frightenin~and many of the offenders had children. She did not know what was going to solve the problem. She was concerned relative to a crash gate which might have other ramifications. The cure might be worse than the disease, and thus she could not support that proposal. Another problem in reading the Engineer's report was the fact that there were many streets with similar problems within the City and she was concerned over setting a precedent. Mr. Singer confirmed that at present there were three similar requests pending. Mayor Seymour stated he was sensitive to Councilwoman Kaywood's concerns and was also receptive to probable alternatives. His feeling was that the primary basis of objection was (1) inconvenience and, (2) some legitimate concern for safety. The reason he offered the alternative lay in the fact that it offered a temporary type of device that could be removed or changed if it did not work and also he was under the impression that in the event fire trucks had to gain access, that a crash gate meant exactly that. Mr. Singer stated that the $3,000 figure was for a metal barrier, but a crash gate would cost approximately $5,000 to $6,000. The Mayor indicated that he would be willing to go with the $5,000 to $6,000 figure with the contribution of $1,500 from the neighborhood if it would cut down the volume of traffic rather than going to a $25,000 project that would not work. His proposal, although perhaps not the best, offered flexibility. He continued that his motion was to include that staff submit a report on both the crash gate and the metal harrier so that the Council could then make a decision as to which it would be, and everything else in the motion was to remain the same. Mr. Zoota stated at the last meeting, the Council authorized Engineering to spend some money to prepare specifications on the $25,000 plan. He wanted to know if those would now be discarded. The Mayor stated they would be kept on file because they might be needed, in the future. Mr. Zoota further stated that the public hearing was set up on the basis of the $25,000 proposal and consequently, there might be different feelings in the neigh- borhood relative to the other alternative. He would not prefer, however, that the Council take no action today as suggested by the Mayor. He would rather see something a lot less than $25,000. The neighbors stated they could get it done for less, but they felt they were not getting that opportunity.. Councilwoman Kaywood suggested that if approval was given today, that relative to the other three similar requests, no action be taken on them until after a six- month period. Councilman Overholt stated he was going to support the motion and at best, it was a pilot project. He asked to be kept informed as to the resultant experience. One of the neighbors suggested a strong neighborhood association in trying to reduce speed, and he considered that to be the best suggestion made. 78-1294 Cit¥.Hall~ Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - October 3~ 1978~ 1:30 P.M. The Mayor recommended that if the item was approved, a study be made to see what changes occurred as a result of the installation of the diverter so that the Council could evaluate the situation six months after such installation. Councilwoman Kaywood asked if sanitation trucks would have to back into somebody's driveway. Mr. Singer suggested that those few houses near the proposed diverter move their containers in order to prevent the trucks from having to manuever. He believed the situation could be worked out with the Sanitation Division and the immediate neighbors. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT - NEGATIVE DECLARATION: On motion by .Councilman Kott, seconded by Councilman Roth, the City Council finds that no sensitive environmental impacts are involved in the proposal and no significant individual or cumulative adverse environmental impacts are involved and is, therefore, exempt from the requirement to prepare an EIR. MOTION CARRIED' The Mayor stated that the City Attorney reminded him that a resolution instead of a motion was required if the decision was to close the street to vehicular traffic. Councilman Seymour thereupon offered Resolution No. 78R-637 for adoption, approving the street closure and authorizing a crash gate-type diverter Or barrier to be installed at a cost of $3,000 with the neighborhood to contribute $1,500. (Traffic Engineer to advise whether barrier or crash gate would be more suitable and the matter to be assessed in six months after installation of the barrier relative to its effectiveness) Refer to Resolution Book. RESOLUTION NO. 78R-637: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM ORDERING THE CLOSURE OF CAMINO MANZANO TO VEHICULAR TRAFFIC PURSUANT TO SECTION 21101 OF THE VEHICLE CODE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA. Roll Call Vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: COUNCIL MEMBERS: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Overholt, Kott, Roth and Seymour Kaywo o d None The Mayor declared Resolution No. 75R-637 duly passed and adopted. Councilwoman Kaywood stated her "no" vote did not necessarily indicate her oppo= sition, but she just did not know of a viable solution. Mr. Singer interjected that a decision should also be made on a street name change. The Mayor suggested that they await recommendations from the neighborhood to be presented to the Council at the time the final price determination was made on the barrier. Councilwoman Kaywood suggested that they wait to see what the experience would be after six months. 78-1295 City Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - October 3~ 1978~ 1:30 P.M. 103: PUBLIC HEARING - SANTA ANA CANYON NO. 5 ANNEXATION: City of Anaheim, initiating annexation of 4.55 acres located between Santa Ana Canyon Road and the Riverside Freeway, north of Eucalyptus Drive, was submitted. Mr. Phil Schwartze, Assistant Director for Planning, reported that the annexa- tion was requested in conjunction with a proposed residential development, Tenta- tive Tract No. 10254, appearing on the Planning Commission consent calendar today and which was approved by LAFCO in July. A well site was located in the annexation area operated by the Vista Del Rio Rancho Water Company (VDRWC) and they had not consented to the annexation. Under the provisions of the Municipal Organization Act, the City Council was required to hold a public hearing on the proposed annex- ation. The site was in the proposed City of Vista Del Rio which encompassed 11,000 plus acres, and the incorporation issue was scheduled to be considered by LAFCO sometime in January of 1979. Representatives were present from both Classic Develop- ment and the Water Company to respond to any questions. In answer to questions posed by Councilman Kott, Mr. Schwartze explained that in notifying those concerned relative to the annexation, the address they had for the VDRWC turned out to be incorrect even though it was the one listed in the Assessor's Parcel Book. Subsequently, they reverted to other names and found a contact via Mr. Larry Voyer and information had been going to him as the Vice President of the Water Company. It was staff's opinion in checking they had done that the VDRWC was not the owner of the property. The contention was that whoever was listed on the Assessor's Parcel Book was the owner of the property. At this point however they were not certain who, in fact, did own the well site. The proposal on the 11,000 plus acres was that which was going to be heard by LAFCO and he brought that up as an incidental issue. They had not spoken to anyone about that matter and the only property under discussion was the annexation of 4.55 acres, the VDRWC being the only people who had not given consent. Only three people, plus the water group, were involved in the annexation. Mr. Schwartze also reported that regarding HACMAC's position on the matter, they were against the tract development and the annexation was part of the whole issue. The Mayor asked if anyone wished to speak either in favor or in opposition. Mrs. Mary Dinndorf, 131 La Paz, stated that as evidenced by the previous public hearing (Camino Manzano), they did have many traffic problems in the area and it could do nothing but get worse. She had been before Anaheim's Council and other councils and had been explaining the problem for eight years relative to poor planning of traffic circulation. She was opposed to the subject annexation be-~ cause it would increase traffic and as of now, it was a difficult situation getting traffic out of the development onto Santa Ana Canyon Road. Noise was another factor and she had yet to see all the sound attenuation measures as listed in the EIR mitigate any adverse effects. She viewed the subject annexation as Step No. 1 since the Coal Canyon area was going to be considered in the not too distant future as well as the Bauer Ranch. She wanted to give the people, residing outside of the City limits in County territory an opportunity to be heard at LAFCO with their petition before Anaheim made a decision. They should be given the opportunity to see if they could complete their case before that group, and thus she asked that the annexation be denied. 78-1296 City Hall~ Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - October 3~ 1978~ 1:30 P.M. Mr. Larry Voyer, Vice President of Vista D.el Rio Ranch Water Company, first relayed the background history as to what had occurred in the CanYon area rela- tive to the Water Company and the individual land owners in the area who were, in essence, the Water Company. It was not a private, but a mutual company. On December 5, 1977, a letter was written to Utilities Director Gordon Hoyt request- ing water line standards and protection of the newly involved water mains in the event the City of Anaheim were to absorb the Water Company. A response was never received from Mr. Hoyt and things had gone steadily downhilllwith a continuing trend. The Water Company became directly involved in March of 1978 in the incor- poration attempt and subsequently stepped aside to where the citizens themselves were now actually involved, the friends of Vista Del Rio. The move began with a letter from Mr. Schwartze acknowledging the VDRWC as the property owner within the area of Annexation No. 5. At that time, its Board Members met with Mr. Schwartze and Mr. Robert Kelley to discuss Tentative Tract Map No. 10254 and voiced its disapproval of the map and Annexation No. 5. He then elaborated upon the reasons why theywere opposed, some of which were that the roads would be placed right over water lines, homes would be built too close to the pump, and part of the Water Company would be in the City of Anaheim and part in the County. On April 24, 1978, they received a revised tract map which they again disapproved. On April 28, 1978, the VDRWC found out by accident that the well sites had been annexed on April 26, 1978, and the Anaheim Planning Department claimed they (VDRWC) did not own the property within the area of annexation and therefore a public hearing was not needed. They were not notified because LAFC0 had no concern for the Water Company at that point. On July 12, 1978, LAFCO approved Santa Ana Canyon Annexation ~o' 5 and disapproved Annexation No. 6. At that time, Mr. Ron Noise of Classic Development expressed a desire to resolve any fears the Water Company had for its well site. Approximately one week later, after the LAFCO meeting, they received a letter from Mr. Noise, and he assured them that Classic intended to follow through on the previous state- ments he made. However, no further action was ~aken by Classic and they expressed their concern at the July 31, 1978 Anaheim Planning Commission meeting on.Tentative Tract No. 10254, indicating that adequate protection for the well site, easements and pipelines had not been provided by Classic Development. The problem was not discussed at all at the meeting and they were passed by as though they did not exist. After the meet£ng, he was personally assured by Mr. Noise that measures would be taken to protect the well site, but they had yet to hear from him. They had been before the Planning Commission and LAFCO, and the City Council was the. last place to turn to, the point being no one had been listening to the people. They provided a utility service and they wanted to have the growth potential open to them. No one had proven that they did not own the well site or could show that they were not the owners. The Assessor's Rolls showed that they were the recorded owner. In concluding, Mr. Voyer stated that they all had to recognize there was a very real possibility that the incorporation of Vista Del Rio could occur. As people on the Board of Directors of the Water Company, they were responsible to their shareholders. They believed it would be very shortsighted if the annexation were not postponed until the incorporation was held in order to avoid potential problems. He urged that the matter be postponed so that the City of Vista Del Rio issue could first be decided, 78-1297 City Hall~ Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - October 3, 1978, 1:30 P.M. In answer to questions posed by the Mayor, Councilwoman Kaywood and Councilman Kott, Mr. Voyer relayed the following: The EIR that needed to be provided to LAFCO for the January 10, 1979 hearing would be submitted on or before October 25, 1978, the deadline for submitting same; there were 105 residents in Vista Del Rio; the shareholders owned the property in question and the State acknowledged them as owners when they gave the State the land to install the well site. They had to then move the well site when the freeway was built and at tha~ time, had to determine who the recorded owner was. The State acknowledged them as the owner of the property and therefore they gave the State a deed to move the well, as well as the land upon which to do so. Councilman Kott asked Mr. Voyer if he had the letter from Mr. Schwartze acknow- ledging that VDRWC was the property owner; Mr. Voyer stated it was in the Water Company records and it invited them to an informal hearing. Mr. Schwartze stated that the Assessor's Parcel Book used as a determination of ownership did not show who owned the property, but who received the tax bill. In this case, the bill was going to VDRWC and the assumption was that they were probably the owner. The title search by staff and also that submitted by Classic Development indicated they were not the owners. At that point, they took what they felt the most prudent action and proceeded on the applicant's request for annexation. Mr. Voyer emphasized that they were upset over a technicality being used to get what they really wanted in the area, and subsequently, not informing the VDRWC of what had transpired. Mr. Ron Noise, representing Classic Development, explained that as previously stated, they had a tentative tract in the area, they were the prime owner within the boundaries of the annexation and strongly favored the proposed annexation. They had been before the Council on one previous occasion, before the Planning Commission several times, and before LAFCO twice, and thus it was not true that there had been no public forum. Their development presently consisted of 15 single-family houses adjacent to several hundred single-family houses previously constructed by Classic and others. The environmental degradation caused by the 15 houses would be minimal relative to the existing land uses in the adjacent area. The property they presently owned was approximately one-half in Anaheim and one-half within the proposed annexation. Mr. Voyer had expressed concern about the dangers that might be posed to his well site and water lines, and they had at the Commission level, before the Council, and certainly at LAFCO expressed their agreement with Mr.~ Voyer that his lines should be protected and they had agreed to do so. Their development would not encroach into the area of the well site or the water lines running from the well site to the Eucalyptus Drive area served by the well. They had no plans to do any work in that area other than to seek out and to protect the Water Company facilities. They previously offered before the Planning Commission and LAFCO to remove and replace with new facilities any water lines found to be deficient, whether it was their fault or not. They stated they would seek out, cap, and remove existing water lines within their development no longer functional and which, at the present time, may be and presently were causing some leakage and problems for the Water Company. He wanted to reinforce those statements at this time. It was what they intended to do if allowed to develop the property as they proposed. 78-1298 City ~all, Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - October 3, 1978, 1:30 P.M. They had also been before the Council where concerns were expressed relative to access to Santa Ana Canyon Road being used by 700 to 800 cars a day. Their development had been revised to improve that access and, their low yield had been reduced accordingly at the Planning Commission the previous week. Me maintained that the use of the property by the 700 plus people who used the road for access each day was something that should be considered as well, and they were entitled as citizens of Anaheim to full City improvements on that street. In addition, their proposed development would not affect, in any way, the facilities or functioning of the Water Company, nor would the annexation affect them. If approved, the well site would be in the City of Anaheim, but the water system itself would not be City water and their development would not affect it. Therefore, he urged acceptance of the annexation. Mrs. Muriel Reid, 6721 Eucalyptus Drive, representing~Friends of Vista ~el Rio of which she was a member, stated she was present to protest Annexation No. 5 because the area was vitally important to their future City. Although they were a small group, it did not color the idea that'they could still propose a city of their own in order to govern themselves and try to prevent someone from destroying the lifestyle they had tried so hard to accomplish. Although they appreciated the City of Anaheim and all the amenities it could provide, it was not their lifestyle, and they felt they should have the right to ask that the Council postpone a decision on the annexation unt.il they found out if they could accomplish their dream of becoming a city. She did not accept Mr. Noise's contention that there would be no problem relative to ingress and egress to the well site. There would be more congest.ion and more problems because of such a high concentration in a very small area. They did not want to quarrel with Anaheim or LAFCO, but they did want the Council's indulgence and cooperation to simply withhold a decision until they had the opportunity to ascertain whether or not they were going to be able to establish the City of Vista Del Rio. Councilman Kott then requested an opinion from HACMAC on the matter if a repre- sentative was present. . Mrs. Jan Hall, 545 Tumbleweed Road, stated that HACMAC was asked to review the EIR on Annexation Nos. 5 and 6 as a package, which they did, and subsequently forwarded their comments to LAFCO. They were never asked their opinion on whether or not they favored the annexation. There being no further persons who wished to speak, the Mayor closed the public hearing. At the request of the Mayor, City Attorney Hopkins explained that the Government, Code requirements concerning annexation of the subject type provided that if the protests received were less than 50 percent of the persons who were owners of the land and improvements (total assessed value of the improvements and the land), the Council must then annex the territory involved. If the Council failed to act, the matter would fall under the jurisdiction of the Board of Supervisors and they would make the determination at a later date. If protests were received from more than 50 percent, then the Council would be obligated to terminate the proceedings within 30 days after the conclusion of the public hearing. 78-1299 City H.ail~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - October 3~ 1978~ 1:30 P.M. Mr. Bob Kelley, Associate Planner, stated that the only protest received was that from the VDRWC and their property comprised a few hundred square feet out of 4.5 acres. They had letter of consent from the Department of Transportation and Classic Development involving the rest of the annexation area. Mayor Seymour concluded, therefore, that the Council was placed in a position of either acting within 30 days or abrogating their responsibility to the Board of Supervisors; the City Attorney confirmed that was correct. He also confirmed for Councilman Roth that action must be taken within 30 days. Councilman Roth had suggested that they request a delay to January without taking any action today. Mayor Seymour stated if the choice was as the City Attorney explained, then he was prepared to take an action and exercise the responsibility empowered in the Council and that would be to approve the annexation. Although he would prefer to hold off until January 10, if there was no legal way to do so, he would support the annexation. Councilman Seymour thereupon offered Resolution No. 78R-638 for adoption, approving Santa Ana Canyon Annexation No. 5, finding that less than 50 percent of the total assessed value of the land and improvements within the territory opposed the annexation and with the additional requirement that the developer prepare an agreement to be approved by the City Attorney with the stipulations made by the developer relative to well site and water lines owned by the Vista Del Rio Rancho Water Company before any building permits would be granted. Before any action was taken, Councilman Kott stated that his point of view was different on the issue. He could not allow the law to supersede the wishes and desires of the people, whereby the same thing could be accomplished if the annexa- tion were achieved at a later date. The people who desired to form their own city should have the right to self determination. In the event that State law precluded such action because of the LAFCO hearing, timewise, he did not believe it was morally correct to take that right away from the people. Furthermore, it appeared to him that 15 homes on a raw 4.5 acres without streets would be a rather congested condition for that area. The Mayor answered that he shared Councilman Kott's sentiments as far as the people's right to self determination, but he did not see the annexation as a threat to that right. They were interested in incorporating a city of some 11,575 acres and only 4.55 acres were involved in the proposed annexation. Further, the density on the property was slightly less dense than a typical R1 subdivision--a 7,200 single-family development adjacent to a tract that was more dense. Thus, he did not believe that approval of the annexation was going to bring about the things that Councilman Kott described. Mr. Schwartze stated that he believed some confusion was apparent. The tract map showing the layout on that particular acreage showed three houses on the 4.55 acres. The property was a portion of the overall tract containing 15 large lots. 78-1300 City Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - October 3~ 1978~ 1:30 P.M. Councilman Roth stated that the density did not concern him, but the fact that the Friends of Vista Del Rio were asking for a postponement until January 10, ]979 did. If it went to the Board of Supervisors, it perhaps would not be heard until February and if they declared that Anaheim had to annex the land to the City, that question would then be answered. Thus, he would not support the resolution for annexation at this time. Councilwoman Kaywood stated for Anaheim to abrogate its duty and pass it to the County was something she could not accept at all. Councilman Kott felt that Councilwoman Kaywood was getting involved in semantics and he did not believe it was an abrogation of duty, but paying attention to what the people were asking them to do. Councilman Overholt stated he was in support of the Mayor's resolution and shared his view that the 4.55 acres was not going to make or break the incorporation attempt. He was sympathetic to the incorporation and was concerned that the repre- sentative of the Water Company felt he did not get a response from City Departments, and he wanted to know more about that situation. He felt that the annexation was appropriate and agreed with the Mayor and Councilwoman Kaywood that they should not abrogate their responsibility. Councilman Kott stated he wanted it clear that in voting against the annexation, he did not feel he was abrogating his duty--his duty was with the people. A vote was then taken on the foregoing resolution. Refer to Resolution Book. RESOLUTION NO. 78R-638: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM bIAKING A FINDING REGARDING THE VALUE OF WRITTEN PROTESTS FILED AND NOT WITHDRAWN IN ANNEXATION PROCEEDINGS FOR SANTA ANA CANYON NO. 5 ANNEXATION AND ORDERING THE TERRITORY ANNEXED PURSUANT TO SECTION 35229 OF THE GOVERNMENT CODE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA. (4.55 acres located between Santa Ana Canyon Road and the Riverside Freeway, north of Eucalyptus Drive) Roll Call Vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: COUNCIL MEMBERS: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Overholt, Kaywood and Seymour Kott and Roth None The Mayor declared Resolution No. 78R-638 duly passed and adopted. Before concluding, the Mayor asked the City Manager to speak with GordonHoyt relative to supplying an answer to the letter written by Mr. Voyer last December. 142/179: PUBLIC HEARING - LIMITING LENGTH OF OCCUPANCY IN RECREATIONAL VEHICLE PARKS AND '£~NT CAMPS: Amendments repealing certain sections of Title 18 and adding new sections in their place relating to mobile home parks; recreational vehicle parks and/or tent camps, were submitted. 78-1301 City Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - October 3~ 1978~ 1:30 P.M. City Attorney Hopkins first briefed the Council on proposed ordinance relative to the subject submitted with memorandum dated August 2, 1978 (on file in the City Clerk's Office). The 5~yor then asked to hear first from those in support for the proposed ordinance; there was no response, He then asked to hear from those in oppo- sition. Mr. Pete Nazarro, 1230 South West Street, referred to statement dated September 20, 1978, which was previously submitted and prepared on behalf of the RV park owners in Anaheim (on file in the City Clerk's Office). He continued that one of the prime factors adding to the problem of inflation was the current devaluation of the Canadian dollar which was a large part of their income. This had a deep effect on them recently, and in the future they anticipate an additional effect relative to the increased cost of energy. The point was, they needed the flexibility to go with longer stays at their parks and they could not depend merely on the short- time stays of tourists. That trade was not enough to support them on a year-round basis, but only for approximately three months of the year. In their statement, they also discussed a matter previously con~nented upon at a earlier Council meeting, that being children of residents in tbe park attending local schools. They pointed out, however, that the parks paid their taxes which were significant, and he paid $18,000 a year on his park alone. There were approx- imately 20 children in his park who were attending school. If they did not attend school, the City would not get money back from the State for the local school district. As well, their clientele provided a great deal of income to the City by way of sales tax, use tax and gas taxes. They paid the same amount as anyone else, and thus should not be treated differently or restricted to 30 days' stay. He believed the proposal was unfair and the people who were staying in his park were incensed at the idea, and they felt they were being given a second grade classification. Mr. Nazarro stated they were in competition for those people-- they needed them and, in turn, those tenants needed the RV parks. Mr. Nazarro added that the character of the industry had changed and RVs were now built for full-time living. He pointed out the attractiveness of living in a park as compared to living in an apartment and emphasized again that they could not survive without the income provided from longer stays. As well, there was something in writing in the State Administrative Code which recognized that RVs could be lived in as a residence and parked in a park year-round by only imposing additional requirements relative to the type of sewer hookup used. It was their understanding that the State Code took precedence over local law unless there were some police powers involved. They did not believe the situation was a police problem and they never had a problem with anybody in a park relative to the time of stay and there had never been a citizen'S complaint. The ordinance would hurt them and the City as well, not only the 30-day limitation, but also relative to the six percent transient tax. They would be in a position where they could not exempt the monthly stay from the six percent tax, However, they had received opinions from the Legal Department, License Collector and Planning Department saying they could offer a monthly rate without the six percent tax. 78-1302 City Hall~ Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - October 3, 1978, 1:30 P.M. In concluding, Mr. Nazarro stated that they were small businesses and most were locally owned and they were urging the City Council to reject the proposed ordinance or they would all be hurt by it. In answer to a line of questioning by Councilwoman Kaywood, Mr. Nazarro relayed the following: His park was Anaheim Junction across the street~from the KOA Campground; there were vacancies in his park during the tourist season the past summer because of the Canadian problem; he was paying the six percent tax on all occupants staying less than 30 days; at the present time, he had 40 monthly renters in the park and 20 to 25 that were not, although it was a variable figure; there were five people out of approximately 124 that had lived in the park more than six months; they did not keep anybody on a full-time basis except for the people who worked for them; the employees were not necessarily the ones with children, but there were people there presently who had children; for nine months of the year, they charged $120 a month for those staying on a monthly basis, but for three months during the tourist season, they did not offer rental on a monthly basis. In answer to Councilman Roth, Mr. Nazarro stated that he did not have any tents in his operation and they were not zoned for such use. Councilman Roth then stated that he would like to see a limitation on tents and he recalled that was how the whole discussion got started initially. Mr. Roy Maybee, 2651 West Lincoln, stated he had lived at that address for the past 35 years and owned an RV park for the past six years which was a successful operation. Eighty-five percent of his business was dependent upon the nine-month winter trade which were m~nthly renters. He did not have tents nor did he accept tents. His business was contributing a great deal to the other small'businesses of Anaheim because people who stayed in his park spent quite a bit of money in Anaheim on their RV vehicles. Most were purchased and maintained in the area. He urged the Council to consider the matter seriously. Mr. J. C. Lanz, 10252 Bovay Road, stated he was a partner with Donald Hartiker in the 7-11 Travel Trailer Park, 2760 West Lincoln, started in 1970. At that time, there were approximately 400 RV spaces within the confines of the Anaheim area. Presently, there were approximately 2,000 spaces, not including the spaces in Garden Grove, Buena Park and Orange. Thus, there was real competition between the parks. They would,need the balance of the nine months'to maintain their business. If they did not have that business, they would have to close their doors. Mr. Patrick Duffy, 5900 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 2900, Los Angeles, Attorney for Travel World, stated that his client made a survey at his request of'RV parks in certain areas where the Council had questioned. He thereupon submitted documentation to the Council, the first giving the results of a survey of the 13 parks in the City, the number of spaces available and the number of children in school. There were 760 spaces and 61 children were attending school from all of the parks combined which he contended was a small amount and no cost to the City as compared to property taxes and other taxes. The second sheet was a reflection of the--- economic effect that the proposed ordinance would have on the RV parks. There was an 18-week tourist season during which much higher daily rates were charged and on the average during that time, 80 percent were overnight guests, including Christmas and 78-1303 City Hall~ Anaheim~...California - COUNCIL MINUTES - October 3~ 1978~ 1:30 P.M. Easter, and 20 percent were long-term stays. During the off-season, 65 percent of the year, 15 percent were overnight stays, 55 percent were long-term and 35 percent empty spaces. There was also an estimate made based on the input of the various park owners on the revenue spent locally by park patrons. The gross sum was $18.4 million per annum which represented a large amount of sales tax for the City. The review also showed that the imposition of the proposed ordinance would eliminate over one-half of the gross income of businesses which had fixed costs which would result in their bankruptcy or foreclosure. The' facts therefore showed the financial inadvisability of the ordinance. Mr. Duffy continued that the legal implications were even stronger. His client had a conditional use permit in a CL zone with no time restriction in the ordi- nance at the time the conditional use permit was applied for and granted. In reliance on the fact that there was no time restriction, his client and other RV parks expended large sums of money building beautiful parks under a conditional use permit. As well, the Zoning Code specified that conditional use permits may not be revoked except for certain specified items which he named. Thus, the ordinance did not provide any way to revoke or change the ordinance legally. The owners of the parks had vested property rights and to pass the ordinance would be the same as passing an ordinance saying, for example, that markets in Anaheim could no longer sell food products. In fact, it would make it illegal to have an RV park in Anaheim and, therefore, a violation of due process of law and inverse condemnation of those parks. If that were to occur, the ordinance would be void or the owners would have an action for lost profits. More impor- tantly however was that the State had preempted the area in question and the Council had no authority to act. He thereupon cited the applicable sections of the Health and Safety Code pertaining to such preemption, as well as a section of the Administrative Code pertaining to the drainage requirement as previously noted by Mr. Nazarro. In concluding, Mr. Duffy stated they felt the City was powerless to act in the matter and furthermore, any such action would route out of the City a large number of retired people living in RVs, and thus it would have a vast environmental impact on the City. They did not believe any such ordinance could be undertaken without an extensive EIR. Relative to tents, his client's park was one that did allow tents, but they were for the accommodation of European tourists who preferred to stay in tents because that was their style and there was no problem with a 30-day limita- tion on tents. His client did not allow them to stay 30 days. Mrs. Mary Andrews, resident of Anaheim Vacation Park, 311 North Beach Boulevard, Space 80, asked for clarification on two points of the proposed ordinance: (1) she wanted clarification as to what was meant by a valid lease or rental agreement (Section 4) and, (2) was a similar ordinance in effect in any other city. in California. City Attorney Hopkins answered that Section 4 provided if there was an agreement stating that persons may stay beyond the 30-day period and the agreement was in effect on the effective date of the ordinance, the City would not impose the provisions of the ordinance. Those agreements in effect would be allowed to con- tinue until their expiration. 78-1304 City Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - October 3~ 1978~ 1:30 P.M. Mayor Seymour also confirmed for Mrs. Andrews if the ordinance was approved, she could not stay in the park where she lived for more than 30 days and would have to move every 30 days. In answer to the second question, Mr. Hopkins stated that he did not have any statistical data relative to whether or not such an ordinance was in effect in any other city, but he could conduct a survey if the Council desired; Mr. Nazarro interjected that there was no such ordinance elsewhere. Mrs. Andrews then explained for Councilwoman Kaywood that she had lived in a vacation park for over one year and prior to that had also lived in Anaheim in a home which they owned. She and her husband were now semi-retired and bought a trailer because they traveled out of the country from time to time and they took their vehicle with them when they did so. There being no further persons who wished to speak, the Mayor closed the public hearing. Mayor Seymour was of the opinion if the Council were to pass the ordinance, it was unfortunately going to be a case where government in trying to answer one problem would be creating others, and thus he was opposed to the proposed ordinance. On the other hand, they should recognize the developing problem. He had learned out of the experience that because of the number,of spaces in the City now over 2,000, in order to make the businesses economically successful, the operators were required to offer somewhat permanent living quarters. He also commented relative to Mr. Duffy's presentation that regardless of State regulations, he did not agree that such regulations preempted the City and further, he never had any intention when the parks were approved by conditional use permit that permanent living quarters be established. The Council had to be mindful that if additional parks were submitted for approval under the conditional use permit process, they would have to exercise some caution, otherwise they would be approving mobile home parks under the guise of RV parks. Councilwoman Kaywood stated that was apparently what they had done. As she recalled when KOA came into the City and suddenly RV parks were,springing up all over the place, no one was concerned at that point that they were not going to make it nine months out of the year. They were concerned over the pituation of childcen walking along the railroad tracks going to school from one of the parks and were horrified to learn that there were full-time residents in the park. She also did not want to put anyone out of a home, but if they thought that there was low-income housing in Anaheim, they learned otherwise today. She also had a concern relative to waiving the six percent transient tax and maintained it was something the City should not do and that such cases should be considered transient even if the stay was more than a month. Councilman Roth countered that Mr. Nazarro reported that he paid $18,000 a year in taxes and 20 children in his park were attending school. There were 13 parks all together and only a total of 61 children were att,ending school; therefore, they were paying a great deal of taxes, and he did not consider the occupancy tax to be a big issue. 78-1305 City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - October 3~ 1978~ 1:30 P.M. No action was taken by the Council on the proposed amendment; therefore the Council declined to introduce the proposed ordinance. 123/144: A.H.F.P. PROJECT NO. 846 - MEATS AVENUE CONSTRUCTION FROM NOHL RANCH ROAD TO SOUTH CITY LIMITS: (Authorizing an agreement with Texaco Anaheim Hills, Inc., relative to the subject construction.) Councilman Kott asked what recom- mendation was given by NEOCCS on the matter, as well as HACMAC. Mrs. Jan Hall, 545 Tumbleweed Road, stated HACMAC had not considered Meats Avenue individually, but they did see it with a tract although it was not a matter of specific discussion; Mayor Seymour stated that NEOCCS had approved the proposal. Councilman Seymour offered Resolution No. 79R-639 for adoption, as recommended in memorandum dated September 27, 1978, from the City Engineer. Refer to Resolu- tion Book. RESOLUTION NO. 78R-639: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM APPROVING THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF AN AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AND TEXACO ANAHEIM HILLS, INC., 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-639 duly passed and adopted. MOTION: On motion by Councilman Seymour, seconded by Councilman Roth, the Right-of-Way Certification to the Orange County Environmental Agency for A.H.F.P. Project No. 846 was approved. MOTION CARRIED. 123: ROOFING AND CONSULTING SERVICES - ANAHEIM CIVIC CENTER: Councilman Kott reiterated the following for the record relative to the subject: There was an architect, a contractor, the foreman on the job, the City inspector and as pro- posed, a roofing inspection expert who should take responsibility. However, if the roof leaked, there was no one to turn to even though there were five people taking the responsibility. Councilman Seymour offered Resolution No. 78R-640 for adoption, as recommended in memorandum dated September 26, 1978, from City Engineer James'Maddox, authorizing an agreement with Roofing Inspection and Consulting Service in conjunction with the construction of the Anaheim Civic Center at a fee of $5,385. Refer~to Resolution Book. RESOLUTION NO. 78R-640: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM APPROVING THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF AN AGREEMENT WITH ROOFING INSPECTION & CONSULTING SERVICE AND AUTHORIZING AND DIRECTING THE MAYOR AND CITY CLERK TO EXECUTE SAID AGREEMENT. 78-1306 Cit. y Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - October 3~ 1978~ 1:30 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 No. 78R-640 duly passed and adopted. 169: CONSIDERATION OF CLOSURE OF LOARA STREET NORTH OF LINCOLN AVENUE: On motion by Councilman Roth, seconded by Councilwoman Kaywood, it was determined that Loara Street, north of Lincoln Avenue, should not be closed and that the City request State funds for the installation of crossing protection (Crossing BK-508.4), as recommended in memorandum dated September 27, 1978, from the City Engineer (with attachments). MOTION CARRIED. 169: EXTENSION OF TIME - EUCLID/LINCOLN STREET IMPROVEMENT AND ASSESSMENT OF LIQUIDATED DAMAGES AGAINST BOWERS TRACTOR SERVICE: On motion by Councilman Kott, seconded by Councilman Roth, a six-day extension of time for the Euelid/Lincoln street improvement and assessment of liquidated damages against Bowers Tractor Service in the amount of $2,800 (Account No. 12-792-6325-2060), was approved, as recommended in memorandum dated September 27, 1978, from the City Engineer. MOTION CARRIED. 150: DONATION TO SENIOR CITIZENS PROGRAM FROM THE NATIONAL ASSOCIATION FOR SENIOR CITIZENS: Councilman Kott moved to accept a donation on behalf of the Parks, Recreation and the Arts Department from the National Association for Senior Citizens in the amount of $2,282, and appropriating that sum to the Senior Citizens Program. Councilwoman Kaywood seconded the motion. Before a vote was taken, Councilman Roth noted that the donation was derived from bingo proceeds and he wanted to be certain that the situation was being monitored and that the City Manager audit the organization. He had received a call at home from a representative of the group, noting that they were donating money and also that they were paying $3,000 a month rent. Councilwoman Kaywood expressed her surprise that the small facility being used by the group located on Brookhurst was costing $3,000 a month to rent. Councilman Roth did not believe that they were telling the truth relative to the rental rate and, as well, he wanted to' know where the balance of the proceeds from the game was going.' City Manager Talley first stated that they did attempt to audit bingo. He also explained that it was made clear to the organization that the funds donated would only cover a short period of the program involved and that there were absolutely no conditions attached. 155: PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT OF COAL CANYON: Mayor Seymour stated the subject development created many concerns and he could gather from the staff report that they were also concerned and he urged them to express same. Mr. Schwartze stated that they were going to write a letter to the appropriate body and appeal before them to express the concerns of the Planning Commission, HACMAC and the City Council relative to that development. 78-1307 City Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - October 3~ 1978~ 1:30 P.M. On motion by Councilwoman Kaywood, seconded by Councilman Roth, the Planning Department was authorized to monitor the proposal for development of Coal Canyon and transmit to the Orange County Environmental Management Agency appropriate comments. MOTION CARRIED. 148: AIR QUALITY MANAGEMENT PLANS: Councilman Roth asked staff if they were urging adoption of the proposed plans as submitted in report dated September 26, 1978. Mr. Schwartze answered "yes"; however, only 18 of the strategies of the draft Air Quality Management Plan (AQMP) as listed on Page 2 of the report. The plan contained 150 strategies. He also explained for Councilman Roth that questions had not been put to the citizens relative to the plan. Several weeks prior, Supervisor Anthony was supposed to appear before the Council to discuss the AQMP and staff had spent a great deal of time with the Supervisor discussing the matter. Some of the 18 strategies included in the report would have to be initi- ated in order to meet Federal standards and he believed the adoption of those strategies would be the lesser of two evils. Mayor Seymour invited Mr. Dick McMillan, representing the Chamber of Commerce, to address the Council relative to the issue. Mr. Dick McMillan, 9244 South Puritan Place, employed in Anaheim, referred to the staff report and concurred with the first recommendation, (1) that the City Council direct staff to continue to monitor and report on the AQMP for the South Coast Air Basin. It was the second recommendation with which he took issue, that being--"That the City Council transmit a letter to the Southern California Associa- tion of Governments (SCAG) and the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) urging the adoption of an Air Quality Management Plan which includes the 18 control strategies." Specifically, he and many others felt that they were being effectively boxed and put into a position that said, you have to do this or we will do that within a given time constraint. Some four County workshops were held the previous week and attendance was very poor. Those workshops were the first phase of an accel- erated schedule wherein the Federal Agency, EPA, was saying they must have a plan adopted and in their hands by July of 1979 and the State, in turn, must'approve the plan by April of 1979. In essence, it meant that the City Council had approx- imately two weeks to approve a plan, between now and October 15, 1978, and if they did not do so, the Federal Government required the State to step in and pre- pare the plan and/or there would be a withdrawal of all Federal funds. The State took the position therefore that they were mandated to take action. The local · region or the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) or the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) were taking the position that they had no alternative, but must respond with a time frame of January 1979. Mr. McMillan emphasized it was about time for someone to say "no", that they did not have to take the lesser of two evils and they would not have to accept a strategy or series of strategies stating they would follow the rules and the 78-1308 .City Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - October 3~ 19782 1:30 P.M. rules would be set accordingly. There was some 130 plus strategies involved representing a cost to the public of some multi-Billion dollars to be adopted within the next nine months and that was not a realistic approach. One of the strategies was to increase the gas tax to 57 cents a gallon. In the South Coast Basin alone'that would represent $2.5 billion to the consumers. Strategy No. 1 listed in the report represented a $100 million cost to the consumers. He questioned the figure seriously because in the South Coast Air Basin, there was some six million cars and if the cost of inspection was $15 a car per year, it could be assumed that there was going to have to be some corrective action, and he did not know what the cost of implementation of the corrective action would be. Thus, the figure might be $500 million or $1 billion instead of $100 million. The strategies presented were inaccurate because of the short time constraint involved in pulling together figures and facts by the midnight oil. He maintained that the data was questionable and at the least, incomplete. Mr. McMillan concluded that the City Council, the City of Orange, the Region and the State had to stop the mandated enforcement by a group of agencies that threatened withdrawal of funds if the rules were not followed. As of that morning, a Chamber force was established for the purpose of reviewing the plan as best they could and nine volumes were involved along with additional paper work and back-up data. He did not believe that Anaheim, at this point, should go on record as agreeing with the 18 strategies on the basis that they were the best of the 130 plus. The City of Orange and others had taken the position of saying they did not have enough time to give approval to a plan that had not been reviewed. The economic impact had not been assessed, the validity of the figures had not been validated. He emphasized that the City of Orange was not going to be pushed into the corner of giving a carte blanche approval because there was only a week to respond. Councilwoman Kaywood stated that to indicate there was only a week was not true because the plan had been around for a number of months. Mr. Bob Kelley, Associate Planner, stated they had the plan for approximately a month, but had nothing prior to that. He clarified that the particular volume was a draft plan and it was not the plan that would eventually be submitted to the Council for approval. That was scheduled to be submitted in approximately two to three weeks. The present plan was only a preliminary plan and the Air Quality Management Coordinating Council had asked the cities to give their input to the plan which would then be submitted to the cities for a final plan. This was part of the input which would then go into the final plan. Councilwoman Kaywood asked Mr. McMillan if he had problems with the 18 strategi~s listed. Mr. McMillan stated he did not represent himself as being an expert in any one of these 18 areas and he did not know of anyone in the room that could take that position. For example, he did not know how to make a 1972 car into a 1978 emission standard without putting a great deal of money into it. in looking at each one of the 18 items, he did not know of any expertise that evaluated them as far as tech- nology, truism and validity. He could not say that any one of~the 18 was good or bad, but he did not feel that anyone wanted to say we must take the top or the bottom 120 out of 130 because they had no choice. 78-1309 City Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - October 3, 1978, 1:30 P.M. Councilwoman Kaywood stated that if 18 were accepted, the City was saying it did not want 130. They could not just sit back and say that air quality would take care of itself and the 18 strategies presented would remove hydrocarbons by 240 tons a day in the Los Angeles Basin which was one of the worst in the Country. She did not have the answers either, but when they were being squeezed either rightfully or wrongfully by the State or Federal Government insisting there was a deadline, it might be noble to say they would not go along with the plan. However, she could accept the 18 strategies and if some were wrong, then they could indicate that they would not work when the plan was finalized. Mayor Seymour stated he was supportive of a position that stated they had not had enough time, but further, in a positive vein, that they would provide input on the AQMP within "x" number of days. Mr. McMillan then confirmed for the Mayor that 60 days would be enough time for the Chamber working with staff to be in a position to make intelligent comments on the 18 points and other points as well. Councilman Seymour thereupon moved to approve Recommendation No. 1 of the staff report dated September 26, 1978, relative to the AQMP and to amend Recommendation No. 2 to instead direct a letter to SCAQMD and SCAG stating that insufficient time was given for consideration and reaction to the plan, but that some reaction would be given in 60 days. Councilman Roth seconded the motion. Before a vote was taken, Councilwoman Kaywood expressed her concern that if they adopted nothing or added nothing, there would be items they could not live with, whereas they could live with certain strategies. She was thus opposed to the motion. They might not get the attainment, but if they tried implementation and did not get it, that would be better than not trying because they would lose all funds. Councilman Kott congratulated Mr. McMillan on his presentation relative to his concerns and frustrations regarding the plan and he agreed. However, he believed that what he was trying to do was too late and maintained it was not going to make any difference. For 20 years or better, he too had been trying to speak to some of the frustrations expressed, but now they were about 20 to 25 years too late. Therefore, he did not like the motion because it was not strong enough. A vote was then taken on the foregoing motion. Councilwoman ~mywood voted "No". MOTION CARRIED. RECESS: By general consent, the Council recessed for 10 minutes. (7:40 P.M.) AFTER RECESS: The Mayor called the meeting to order, all Council Members being present with the exception of Councilman Overholt. (7:50 P.M.) 153: CREATION OF NEW PUBLIC SERVICE EMPLOYMENT PROGRAM OUTSTATIONED CLASSIFICATIONS: Councilwoman Kaywood offered Resolution No. 78R-641 for adoption as recommended in memorandum dated September 27, 1978, from the Personnel Director. Refer to Resolution Book. 78-1310 City Hall, Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - October 3~ 1978, 1:30 P.M. RESOLUTION NO. 78R-641: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AMENDING RESOLUTION NO. 76R-677 WHICH ESTABLISHED RATES OF COMPENSATION FOR OUTSTATIONED PUBLIC SERVICE EMPLOYMENT PROGRAM CLASSES AND CREATING NEW OUT- STATIONED CLASSIFICATIONS. (Beginning Child Care Aide, Child Care Aide, and Child Care Assistant Director) Roll Call Vote: AYES: NOES: TEMPORARILY ABSENT: ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: COUNCIL MEMBERS: COUNCIL MEMBERS: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Kaywood, Kott, Roth and Seymour None Overholt None The Mayor declared Resolution No. 78R-641 duly passed and adopted. 153: CREATION OF PART-TIME LIBRARY CLASSIFICATION: Councilman Seymour offered Resolution No. 78R-642 for adoption, as recommended in memorandum dated September 27, 1978, from the Personnel Director. Refer to Resolution Book. RESOLUTION NO. 78R-642: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AMENDING RESOLUTION NO. 78R-129 WHICH ESTABLISHED RATES OF COMPENSA- TION FOR UNREPRESENTED PART-TIME CLASSES BY CREATING THE NEW CLASS OF LIBRARY READERS' ADVISOR. Roll Call Vote: AYES: NOES: TEMPORARILY ABSENT: ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: COUNCIL MEMBERS: COUNCIL MEMBERS: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Kaywood, Kott, Roth and Seymour None Overholt None The Mayor declared Resolution No. 78R-642 duly passed and adopted. Councilman Overholt entered the Council Chamber. (7:52 P.M.) 153: PRE-EMPLOYMENT AND EMPLOYEE ANNUAL PHYSICAL EXAMINATIONS: COuncilman Kott asked to whom the proposals would be made relative to the selection of the medical facility to perform the subject examinations. Personnel Director McRae read the general requirements, Items 1, 2 and 3, of his memorandum dated September 27, 1978 (on file in the City Clerk's Office). In the past, the General Safety Committee had prepared recommendations after visiting six or eight medical facilities and subsequently submitted those to the City Council for their decision. Therefore, he would be coming back to the Council with a recommendation for a physician or organization to conduct the procedures outlined for the time period specified. On motion by Councilwoman Kaywood, seconded by Councilman Overholt, the Personnel Director was authorized to solicit proposals from qualified physicians to perform and evaluate pre-employment physical examinations and employee annual physical examinations during calendar years 1979 and 1980, as recommended in memorandum dated September 27, 1978, from the Personnel Director. MOTION CARRIED. 78-1311 City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - October 3~ 1978, 1:30 P.M. 180: SELECTION OF BROKER OF RECORD PROGRAM: City Manager Talley briefed the Council on memorandum dated September 26, 1978, from the Risk Manager recommend- ing, "that Council, by motion, agree to accept future recommendations of the firm of Warren, McVeigh, & Griffin regarding the formal appointment of a contract Broker of Record, prior to the commencement of search; or, in the alternative, to appoint an impartial member of Council to serve on the selection panel to be convened." The report was basically requesting the Council to express their in- tent to either accept the recommendation or, in the alternative, to possibly select one of its members to participate so that at the time the recommendation was made, it would have the greatest possible credibility. MOTION: Councilman Roth moved to accept the recommendation of staff. Councilman Overholt seconded the motion for the purpose of discussion. Mayor Seymour stressed that he was strongly opposed to the recommendation on either account, and he could not understand the attitude expressed in the recommendation. It was saying the Council should go with Warren, McVeigh & Griffin and agree in advance to take their recommendation or they would not advise the City at $80 an hour. The other alternative recommended the appointment of an "impartial" Council Member, and he did not know what the word "impartial" meant in that case. He took the recommendation as a personal affront and slap in the face. They would have to agree to that selection committee with only one Council person as a member of that committee. Even if that member were himself, although obviously in the Risk Manager's viewpoint he was not impartial so he could not serve, that Council Member would have to ask the rest of the Council to accept the recommendation, like it or not. Mr. Talley stated he could share the Mayor's concern. He discussed the matter with Mr. Griffin and his (Griffin's) reaction was that it was going to be extremely difficult to organize a broker selection committee composed of four people that would be representative of the total Risk Management area and have them give the time and also participate in what might be a very extensive process. More impor- tantly, it would be difficult to get well qualified companies to spend the amount of time required to go into a broker selection unless there was some assurance it was a really meaningful exercise and the Council intended to select a Broker of Record from those recommendations, all other things being equal. He conceded it was perhaps his fault and the Mayor could take offense with him for the "impartial" member. What he did say was, if the Council was not willing in advance to commit to the recommendation, would Mr. Griffin proceed with a member of the Council sitting in. Thus, if there were any representations that a completely equitable, fair, balanced and objective evaluation had not taken place, one of the members of the Council who would be willing to give the time involved could attest to the fact that it was fair and impartial. They were quite certain unless a local Broker of Record was selected, there would be suspicions about the program. It was his opinion that Mr. Griffin was looking out for the City when he was saying, do not spend the money. If they did not come up with the answer the Council liked, and they would not accept it in advance, then it should not be done. The Mayor stated he did not know of any other decision of the type under discussion in the City where four or five Council people had abrogated their responsibility to make such a decision and that is what was being asked of them on either account. He did not like that approach, but was in favor personally of insuring that the 78-1312 ~City Hall, Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES -October 3~ 1978~ 1:30 P.M. City obtain the best possible Broker of Record, all things being equal. If that was the objective, he questioned what would be wrong with the process of getting another consultant because Warren, McVeigh & Griffin, in his opinion at this point, had become biased. That consultant would do three things: (1) review the Broker of Record and tell where there were weaknesses, (2) review the possibility of using the Independent Insurance Association of the City of Anaheim naming them broker of record, (3) look at outside brokers and have them become the broker of record. Subsequently, staff would come back with recommendations on all three, and the Council could maintain its authority in reaching a decision. Mr. Talley stated he was certain that Mr. Griffin, who he did not believe was biased, nor his letter, was meant to offend anybody. He believed the Mayor was suggesting that he would be willing to have some sort of competition because, looking at the present broker, that was an action of the Council over staff's recommendation. He felt that the Independent Insurance Association of Anaheim would be a likely candidate and could prepare a presentation in competition, as well as outside people, but in view of some of the things that happened recently, another consultant might have the same problems getting the insurance industry interested, but they would do their best to find one. The Mayor stated that neither he, nor any other Council Member, had equivocated from their position on the Broker of Record and the philosophy had.always been the same, i.e., all things being equal, including price, expertise and qualifi- cations, they preferred to do business with a local broker. If they were going to make a decision to do business with an outside broker, then a competent, qualified consultant would bring information to the Council for their interpreta- tion and decision, and not his. He did not know why that decision-making process could not remain with the Council. Mr. Talley then explained that he had seen Brokers of Record selected in other jurisdictions. A company would spend a certain amount of money to submit a prOposal. In order to evaluate how good the offering was, it would help to have a panel of technical experts such as that being proposed to evaluate the proposals. The panel would have to consist of people who did not have a finan- cial interest in the matter and who would provide information as to why they felt one proposal was better than another and the reasons why. In this case, making a recommendation directly to the Council would not allow that to take place, and he was fearful if they would get another consultant, it would be the consultant's recommendation versus an aggrieved party. His own inclination was that it would be best to have a panel providing a series of experts who would have collectively evaluated the proposals. Mr. Griffin's only concern was that he had made recommendations to the Council which he felt had been ignored, and he did not want to encourage the Council to spend any further money unless value would be received. Councilman Overholt asked the Mayor if he felt the present consultant was biased. The Mayor stated that he personally saw bias, and it was expressed in Mr. Griffin's preference for Rollins Burdick and Hunter. Therefore, they now should start off with a clean slate. 78-1313 City Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - October 3~ 1978~ 1:30 P.M. Councilman Overholt stated that he did not know that Warren, McVeigh & Griffin had ever been branded as being biased until today, but if there was any question in anybody's mind and in order to clear the air, he would Join with the Mayor's suggestion that another consultant be sought. However, he did not want Mr. Griffin to feel that he, at any time, questioned his integrity or absolute objectivity in his advice to the Council. Mayor Seymour asked Councilman Overholt if he would have any objection to getting a new consultant and have him approach the whole question by taking a look at the existing Broker of Record and making a comparison with the Independent Insurance Association and other brokers to ascertain his findings and recommendations. Councilman Overholt stated it was his understanding that Continental General Insurance (CGI) was Broker of Record for liability insurance only and not all City insurance. He would prefer to have a new consultant look at the entire insurance program to suggest how it might be best evaluated. Then CGI would have an equal opportunity. They could also entertain any input from the Anaheim Insurance Association if that is what the consultant would recommend. Mr. Talley stated that they would again bring back recommendations for a consul- tant, but when they did so before, the very best and most highly regarded firm recommended was Warren, McVeigh & Griffin. MOTION: Councilman Seymour offered a substitute motion that the City Manager be directed to have the Risk ~nager interview other consultants for subsequent con- tractual arrangement with that consultant, who would then make recommendations for the selection of Broker of Record.. Councilman Overholt seconded the motion. Before a vote was taken, Mr. Talley answered questions posed by Councilman Kott relative to Mr. Griffin's concern, at the conclusion of which he expressed that he was at a loss to understand why Mr. Griffin should be troubled by the Council not accepting his recommendations. He maintained that the City Council had the responsibility of choosing what they felt best. Further, he did not support the Mayor's motion because it would not solve anything. Councilwoman Kaywood stated that she was getting tired of the fact that every time a professional appeared before the Council and was trying to do a good job, they were getting smeared by someone on the Council, and it was time it came to an end. She had no problem with Mr. Griffin. She had also read in its entirety "Management Consultants Risk and Insurance" written in 1974 by Warren, McVeigh & Griffin and they were chosen on the basis of their capability. The problem was clear, the Council had not done one thing that was listed in the report as the best way to proceed. She was concerned with only one thing-- that Anaheim get the best insurance coverage for the least cost. It would be fine if an Anaheim broker could provide that, but if not, and an outside broker could save the City a lot of money, that was how it should be. The Mayor stated he did not think they had any evidence which could demonstrate to the Council that the City had lost money as a result of its previous action on insurance. He believed what they were trying to do was find an agreeable way to resolve the conflict that was taking place continually on insurance. 78-1314 City Hall~ Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - October 3, 1978~ 1:30 P.M. Councilman Roth stated he was interested in doing something about insurance and the Broker of Record situation was bothering him to a great degree. If an outsider came in with a policy cost of $10,000 less, he was not interested in going back to the Broker of Record to ask if he could compete with the out- side broker's quotation. A vote was then taken on the substitute motion. Councilman Kott voted "No". MOTION CARRIED. 123: FACILITY LEASE, AMENDMENT NO. 2 - SITE LEASE AMENDMENT NO. 1: City Attorney Hopkins first clarified questions posed by Councilman Kott relative to the proposed amendments to the subject leases as outlined in memorandum dated September 28, 1978, from the City Attorney's Office, at the conclusion of which, Councilman Kott then asked who would pay for the insurance involved. Mr. Hopkins stated that had not as yet been determined, but that he would supply that information before the second reading of the ordinance. Councilman Seymour offered Ordinance No. 3917 for first reading. ORDINANCE NO. 3917: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM APPROVING AN AMENDMENT NO. 2 TO THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF THE FACILITY LEASE DATED AUGUST 31, 1978, AND AN AMENDMENT NO. 1 TO THE SITE LEASE OF THE SAME DATE, AND AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR AND CITY CLERK TO EXECUTE SAID AMENDMENTS. 123: FAIR HOUSING SERVICES - ORANGE COUNTY FAIR HOUSING COUNCIL: Councilwoman Kaywood offered Resolution No. 78R-643 for adoption, as recommended in memorandum dated September 25, 1978, from the Community Development Department, authorizing an agreement with the Orange County Fair Housing Council for fair housing services in an amount not to exceed $10,000, expiring September 30, 1979. Refer to Resolu- tion Book. RESOLUTION NO. 78R-643: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM APPROVING THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF AN AGREEMENT WITH THE ORANGE COUNTY FAIR HOUSING COUNCIL AND AUTHORIZING AND DIRECTING 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-643 duly passed and adopted. 123: CHFA LOANS INVOLVING FUNDS FOR HOME IMPROVEMENT: Councilwoman Kaywood offered Resolution No. 78R-644 for adoption, as recommended in memorandum dated September 13, 1978, from the Community Development Department, authorizing an agreement with Anaheim Savings and Loan Association to allow the City to assist the Association in the disbursement of home improvement funds under the CHFA Program. Refer to Resolution Book. 78-1315 City Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - October 3~ 1978~ 1:30 P.M. RESOLUTION NO. 78R-644: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM APPROVING THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF AN AGREEMENT WITH ANAHEIM SAVINGS AND LOAN ASSOCIATION AND AUTHORIZING AND DIRECTING 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-644 duly passed and adopted. 123: RELOCATION CONSULTANTS FOR CDBG AND CHFA PROJECTS: Councilman Seymour offered Resolution No. 78R-645 for adoption, as recommended in memorandum dated September 25, 1978, from the Community Development Department, authorizing an agreement with Port & Flor, Inc., relocation consultants for CDBG and CHFA Projects, in an amount not to exceed $50,000. Refer to Resolution Book. RESOLUTION NO. 78R-645: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM APPROVING THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF AN AGREEMENT WITH PORT & FLOR, INC., AND AUTHORIZING AND DIRECTING 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-645 duly passed and adopted. 10g: DECLARATION OF ASSETS IN PROJECT ALPHA - JERRY BUSHORE: The City Clerk announced that Mr. Jerry Bushore, recent appointee to the Planning Commission, had filed his Declaration of Assets in Project Alpha stating he has no real property interest therein, in accordance with Section 33130 of the Health & Safety Code of the State of California. 105: LIBRARY BOARD - REQUEST FOR JOINT MEETING: On motion by Councilman Seymour, seconded by Councilman~Overholt, the request from the Library Board for a joint meeting with the Council on Wednesday, October 18, 1978, at 3:30 p.m., at the Euclid Branch Library, was approved. MOTION CARRIED. 105: PARKS AND RECREATION COMMISSION - REAPPOINTMENT: The City Clerk announced that the Magnolia School District reappointed Mrs. Donna Riddell to the Parks and Recreation Commission and in accordance with Chapter 13.04.010, it would be appro- priate for the Council to reappoint Mrs. Riddell to the Commission for the term ending June 30, 1980. On motion by Councilwoman Kaywood, seconded by Councilman Seymour, Mrs. Donna Riddell was reappointed to the Parks and Recreation Commission accordingly. MOTION CARRIED. 78-1316 City Hall, Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - October 3~ 1978~ 1:30 P.M. 148: BUS AND CAR TRANSPORTATION - LEAGUE OF CALIFORNIA CITIES ANNUAL CONFERENCE: Councilman Kott referred to a memorandum from David Latshaw, Intergovernmental Relations Manager, relative to an expenditure of $2~700 for a FUn Bus. He asked the City Manager to explain how the money was appropriated and under what authority. City Manager Talley stated that he could not do so tonight, but he believed the expenditure was in the IGR Program for the League of California Cities Annual Conference. Councilwoman Kaywood stated the matter was brought up at the Council meeting two weeks prior and the memorandum that they had stated the funds were from the Community Promotions Program in the 1978-79 Resource Allocation Plan and would be charged accordingly. The Council did act on the matter at that meeting; Councilman Kott stated the matter was broached, but no action was taken. Councilman Kott stated that when he inquired about the matter, he was told that the basis simply was, in order to get conventions in the City, that taxpayers pick up the tab for busing. That was not true, but instead, in the event of a large convention coming to Anaheim or using another city, and should there be a question of transportation, the hotels picked up the tab and that happened perhaps once or twice a year. If, in this case, the money was taken out of Community Promotions, he did not see how it promoted the community, and he did not believe it was appropriate to come from that fund. He also did not see how anyone could say "yes" to such an expenditure in light of Proposition 13 in order to bus politicians around from hotel to hotel or other places. Mr. Talley stated the only answer he could give, in an abundance of Caution, while the League had told them this was not only appropriate and part of bring- ing the League to the City, in order not to be criticized after the fact, he brought it to the Council's attention after they had taken the bids, determined who they should be awarding the bids to and advising the Council of what they intended to do the following week. In his meetings with the League of California Cities' staff, he was told that the City was expected to pick up transportation costs for the event. He never represented that they do that for anY other confer- ence although they might if the City was ever to host a National League of Cities Conference or the like. Councilman Kott stated he should ask for a vote of the Council in such matters and put it on the agenda just as with other items; Mr. Talley stated he would do so on the next occasion. Councilman Kott then continued that it had also come to his attention that the City Manager asked for City cars to be made available to the conventioneers. There was a reception room at the Disneyland Hotel where cars could be assigned to anyone who wanted to take them anywhere and that also was inappropriate. It was distasteful and despotic to spend taxpayer money without the consent of the Council in view of Proposition 13. 78-1317 City Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - October 3~ 1978~ 1:30 P.M. 105: APPOINTMENT TO HACMAC: Councilman Roth stated that during the period when the problem relative to poor TV reception in the Canyon area arose, Dr. Ronald Dyas called him. He was a professor at California State University at Fullerton with expertise in communications and also cable TV. He had also spoken before HAL~MAC. Also, he did not know the man personally, considering his background, he was of the opinion that he had extensive expertise and in addition, he lived north of Santa Ana Canyon Road, and nobody was represented on HACMAC from that area. Councilman Roth nominated Dr. Ronald Dyas as an appointee to HACMAC. Council- woman Kaywood seconded the nomination. Councilman Seymour moved that nominations for appointees to HACMAC be closed. Councilman Overholt seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. The Mayor announced that Dr. Ronald Dyas was unanimously selected to serve as appointee to HACMAC. 164: EASTRIDGE RESERVOIR - CHANGE ORDER NO. 1: City Engineer Maddox first answered questions posed by Councilman Kott relative to the Change Order which amounted to $3,906. On motion by Councilman Seymour, seconded by Councilman Roth, Change Order No. 1 to the Eastridge Reservoir (Anaheim Hills) contract in the amount of $3,906 from International Consolidated Contractors, was authorized, bringing the original contract price to $305,794.04. Councilman Kott voted "No". MOTION CARRIED. 173: BUS SHELTERS - REQUEST TO CONTINUE CONSIDERATION TO OCTOBER 17~ 1978: The City Clerk announced that a request dated September 28, 1978 had been re- ceived from Mr. Floyd Farano, attorney for Sheltertop, asking that the matter of bus shelters scheduled to be discussed October 10, 1978 be continued until October 17, 1978. On motion by Councilman Seymour, seconded by Councilwoman Kaywood, request from Mr. Floyd Farano that the matter of bus shelters be continued to October 17, 1978, was approved. Councilman Roth voted "No". MOTION CARRIED. 167: AWARD OF CONTRACT - INSTALLATION OF TRAFFIC SIGNALS AND SAFETY LIGHTING: (Intersection of Katella Avenue and Lewis Street - Account No. 13-794-6325-4060) In accordance with the recommendations of the City Engineer, Councilman Roth offered Resolution No. 78R-646 for adoption. Refer to Resolution Book. RESOLUTION NO. 78R-646: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM ACCEPTING A SEALED PROPOSAL AND AWA]tDING 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: TRAFFIC SIGNALS AND SAFETY LIGHTING AT THE INTERSECTION OF KATELLA AVENUE AND LEWIS STREET, IN THE CITY OF ANAHEIM, ACCOUNT NO. 13-794- 6325-4060. (Steiny and Company, $63,430) 78-1318 City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - October 3~ 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-646 duly passed and adopted. 160: PURCHASE OF EQUIPMENT - OVERHAUL OF DIGGER DERRICKS AND AERIAL MANLIFTS - BID NO. 3453: On motion by Councilman Roth, seconded by Councilwoman Kaywood, the bid of Truck Hydraulic Equipment Company was accepted and purchase authorized in the amount of $17,173.50, including tax, as recommended by the Purchasing Agent in his memorandum dated September 27, 1978. MOTION CARRIED. 160: PURCHASE OF EQUIPMENT - 25 DOUGLAS FIR POLES - BID NO. 3460: On motion by Councilman Seymour, seconded by Councilman Roth, the low bid of J. H. Baxter and Company was accepted and purchase authorized in the amount of $10,230.91, including tax, as recommended by the Purchasing Agent in his memorandum dated September 19, 1978. ~TION CARRIED. 140: POLICIES GOVERNING THE USE OF LIBRARY MEETING ROOMS: On motion by Council- man Seymour, seconded by Councilman Roth, the policies covering the use of Library meeting rooms submitted by Irving Pickler, Chairman of the Library Board, attached to his letter of September 18, 1978 (on file in the City Clerk's Office), was approved. MOTION CARRIED. 156: REQUEST FOR TYPING ASSISTANCE - HISTORY OF ANAHEIM POLICE DEPARTMENT: Request of Mr. Harry Barnes for typing assistance in conjunction with writing and compiling a comprehensive history of the Anaheim Police Department, was submitted. City Attorney Hopkins explained for Councilman Kott that in order to make any arrangement with Mr. Barnes, an agreement would have to be drawn with him showing some consideration on both sides. MOTION: Councilman Seymour moved that the City Attorney prepare an agreement relative to the subject request and submit it to the Council for approval. Councilman Roth seconded the motion. Before a vote was taken, Councilman Kott asked to be informed where the typist was coming from. Councilwoman Kaywood was interested in knowing if California State University at Fullerton still had their oral history program and if the assistance requested could be given at their expense, instead of the City's. Councilman Roth stated that Mr. Barnes was merely asking for help in typing the history and what he had done not only in the past for Anaheim, but also what he could do in the future was a great asset to the City. A vote was then taken on the foregoing motion. MOTION CARRIED. 174: REQUEST BY DIRECTOR OF H.E.R.E. TO ADDRESS THE COUNCIL ON PROGRESS OF RAPE CRISIS CLINIC: The City Clerk announced that a verbal request had been received from H.E.R.E. to reschedule their presentation to the Council meeting of October 10, 1978. 78-1319 City Hall, Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - October 3~ 1978~ 1:30 P.M. 167: REQUEST FOR PARTIAL REFUND OF TRAFFIC SIGNAL ASSESSMENT FEES: Ray Chermak, Vice President, Dunn Properties, requesting a partial refund of the traffic signal assessment fees paid in connection with the following properties: 1391 North Kraemer Boulevard, 3070 and 3080 East La Jolla Street, 3070, 3071 and 3081 East Ceena Court, 1351, 1361 and 1381 North Kraemer Boulevard, 1200, 1300, 1365 and 1385 Knollwood Circle. Councilman Roth moved to approve the subject request with the fees to be set according to the new schedule. Councilman Seymour seconded the motion. Before a vote was taken, Councilwoman Kaywood expressed her objection to the proposed action and reiterated her concern that a cut-off date must be estab- lished in honoring such requests because, in the final analysis, there would not be a traffic assessment fund. Within the last two weeks, she had received three urgent, dire and emergency-type requests for traffic signals in different locations and those signals were not even on the projected list at present, and they were approximately three, four and five years down the road with what was already on the list. A vote was then taken on the foregoing motion. Councilwoman Kaywood voted "No". MOTION CARRIED. REQUEST FOR REHEARING - RECLASSIFICATION NO. 78-79-4 (READVERTISED): Proposed RM-1200 zoning on property located north of Lincoln Avenue, east of Brookhurst, and on Abandonment No. 77-26A. Mayor Seymour stated he was sensitive to having a rehearing on the matter and would support such a rehearing, but suggested that it be held in the evening. On motion by Councilman Roth, seconded by Councilwoman Kaywood, request for a rehearing on the subject was approved to be held October 31, 1978, at 7:30 p.m MOTION CARRIED. CONSENT CALEND~dt ITEMS: On motion by Councilman Seymour, seconded by Councilman Roth, 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 Mr. and Mrs. Richard L. Johnson on behalf of Katherine L~ Johnston, a minor, for personal injuries purportedly sustained as a result of a fall at Anaheim Stadium on or about June 28, 1978. b. Claim submitted by Circle Seal Controls for property damages purportedly sustained as a result of actions of Anaheim Police on or about July 15, 1978. c. Claim submitted by Troy Richard Trim and Janice Joy Trim for personal injuries purportedly sustained as a result of being struck by an automobile while crossing the street (Magnolia and La ?alma Avenue) on or about June 3, 1978. 78-1320 City Hall, Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - October 3~ 1978, 1:30 P.M. d. Claim submitted by Wanda Ralston for property damages purportedly sustained as a result of a hole in the street at Lincoln Avenue and East Street on or about August 1, 1978. 2. CORRESPONDENCE: The following correspondence was ordered received and filed: 105: Community Redevelopment Commission - Minutes of September 13, 1978. 156: Police Department - Monthly Report for August 1978. 105: Public Utilities Board - Minutes of August 3 and 17, and September 7, 1978. 175: Utilities Department, Customer Service Division - Monthly Report for August 1978. 105: Youth Commission - Minutes of September 13, 1978. 175: Utilities Field Division - Monthly report for August 1978. 105: HACMAC - Minutes of September 12, 1978. 108: ENTERTAINMENT, PRIVATE PATROL AND PUBLIC DANCE PERMITS: The following mo f. g. 3. permits were approved in accordance with the recommendations of the Chief of Police: a. Application for an Entertainment Permit for a group of young men to practice two days a week, Saturday and Sunday, during the evening hours at the Back Door Bar, 1807 West Katella. (Helen Francis Guarino, applicant) b. Application for an Entertainment Permit for a piano bar seven days a week from 7:00 P.M. to 1:30 A.M. at Bob Burns Restaurant, 500 North Euclid. (James B. Teeter, applicant) c. Application for a Private Patrol Permit for Curtin Security Company, Inc., to provide Security Guard Services in the City of Anaheim. (James William Bennet, Sr., applicant) d. Application for a Public Dance Permit on behalf of Fleetwood Truckers of Southern California, for a public dance to be held November 18, 1978, 8:00 P.M. to 1:00 A.M., at the Brookhurst Community Center. (David Jose Ostera, applicant) MOTION CARRIED. 118: APPLICATION TO PRESENT A LATE CLAIM: On motion by Councilman Seymour, seconded by Councilman Roth, an Application to Present a Late Claim submitted by Diane Marie Thurman on behalf of Kevin Damon Thurman, a minor, for personal injuries and property damages purportedly sustained as a result of actions by Anaheim Police on or about April 15, 1978, was granted, however, the claim was denied and referred to the City's self-insurance administrator. MOTION CARRIED. 78-1321 City Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - October 3~ 1978~ 1:30 P.M. CONSENT CALENDAR ITEMS: Councilman Roth offered Resolution Nos. 78R-647 through 78R-655, 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-647: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM ACCEPTING CERTAIN DEEDS AND ORDERING THEIR RECORDATION. (David A. Gronberg, et al.; Anthony William Barksdale; Volunteer Capital Corporation; Robert Milner Murphy, et ux.; Texaco Anaheim Hills, Inc.; Evert S. Peterson, et al.; W. R. Grace Properties, Inc.; Anaheim Savings & Loan Association; Twedt & Wells; Henry E. Tafolla, et ux.; Benito Contreras Zermeno, et ux.; Lody E. Reygers, et ux.; Joseph L. Martinez, et ux.; State of California; Southern California Edison Company) 167: RESOLUTION NO. 78R-648: 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: TRAFFIC SIGNALS AND SAFETY LIGHTING AT THE INTERSECTION OF ANAHEIM HILLS ROAD AND SANTA ANA CANYON ROAD, IN THE CITY OF ANAHEIM, ACCOUNT NO. 01-794-6325-4100; 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 October 19, 1978 at 2:00 P.M.) 150: RESOLUTION NO. 78R-649: 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: BROOKHURST PARK IRRIGATION RENOVATION, IN THE CITY OF ANAHEIM, ACCOUNT NO. 16-807-7103-00003; APPROVING THE DESIGNS, PLANS, PROFILES, DRAWINGS, AND SPECIFICATIONS FOR THE CON- STRUCTION 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 October 26, 1978 at 2:00 P.M.) 165: RESOLUTION NO. 78R-650: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM FINALLY ACCEPTING THE COMPLETION AND THE FURNISHING OF ALL PLANT~ LABOR, SERVICES, MATERIALS AND EQUIPMENT AND ALL UTILITIES AND TRANSPORTATION INCLUDING POWER, FUEL AND WATER, AND THE PERFORMANCE OF ALL WORK NECESSARY TO CONSTRUCT AND COMPLETE THE FOLLOWING PUBLIC IMPROVEMENT, TO WIT: BARRIER FREE ANAHEIM--AREA 2, IN THE CITY OF ANAHEIM, PROJECT ACCOUNT NO. 12-793-6325-3010. (N.D.L Construc- sion Corporation) ' 150: RESOLUTION NO. 78R-651: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM FINALLY ACCEPTING THE COMPLETION AND THE FURNISHING OF ALL PLANT, LABOR, SERVICES, MATERIALS AND EQUIPMENT AND ALL UTILITIES AND TRANSPORTATION INCLUDING POWER, FUEL AND WATER, AND THE PERFORMANCE OF ALL WORK NECESSARY TO CONSTRUCT AND COMPLETE THE FOLLOWING PUBLIC IMPROVEMENT, TO WIT: PERALTA CANYON PARK (PHASE II) PARKING LOT CONSTRUCTION, IN THE CITY OF ANAHEIM, ACCOUNT NO. 16-805-6325-9030. (Sully-Miller Contracting Company) 78-1322 City Hall, Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - October 3, 1978, 1:30 P.M. 169: RESOLUTION NO. 78R-652: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM FINALLY ACCEPTING THE COMPLETION AND THE FURNISHING OF ALL PLANT, LABOR, SERVICES, MATERIALS AND EQUIPMENT AND ALL UTILITIES AND TRANSPORTATION INCLUDING POWER, FUEL AND WATER, AND THE PERFORMANCE OF ALL WORK NECESSARY TO CONSTRUCT AND COMPLETE THE FOLLOWING PUBLIC IMPROVEMENT, TO WIT: EUCLID STREET STREET IMPROVE- MENT, N/O LINCOLN AVENUE, IN THE CITY OF ANAHEIM, ACCOUNT NO. 12-792-6325-2060. (Bowers Tractor Service) 169: RESOLUTION NO. 78R-653: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE~ CITY OF ANAHEIM FINALLY ACCEPTING THE COMPLETION AND THE FURNISHING OF ALL PLANT, LABOR, SERVICES, MATERIALS AND EQUIPMENT AND ALL UTILITIES AND.TRANSPORTATION INCLUDING POWER, FUEL AND WATER, AND THE PERFORMANCE OF ALL WORK NECESSARY TO CONSTRUCT AND COMPLETE THE FOLLOWING PUBLIC IMPROVEMENT, TO WIT: KATELLA AVENUE, EUCLID STREET AND BROADWAY STREET IMPROVEMENT PROJECT, IN THE CITY OF ANAHEIM, ACCOUNT NOS. 13-793-6325-3030, 13-792-6325-2110 AND 13-793-6325-3040. (Blair Paving Inc.) 176: RESOLUTION NO. 78R-654: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM DECLARING ITS INTENTION TO VACATE ~AND ABANDON A CERTAIN PUBLIC SERVICE EASEMENT. (78-7A, north of La Palma Avenue, west of Tustin Avenue, public hearing set for October 17, 1978 at 3:00 P.M.) 123: RESOLUTION NO. 78R-655: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM APPROVING THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF AN AGREEMENT WITH ORANGE UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT TO REIMBURSE SAID DISTRICT FOR INSTALLING 271 FEET OF WATER MAIN AS PART OF THE SECONDARY DISTRIBUTION SYSTEM IN SERRANO AVENUE, AND AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR AND CITY CLERK TO EXECUTE SAID AGREEMENT. 131: RESOLUTION NO. 78R-656: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL.OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM REQUESTING THE ORANGE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION TO INCLUDE WITHIN THE ORANGE COUNTY FEDERAL AID URBAN PROGRAM THE DEVELOPMENT OF LISTED STREETS IN THE CITY. (fiscal years 1979 through 1982) 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-647 through 78R-656 both inclusive duly passed and adopted. ' ' CITY PLANNING COMMISSION ITEMS: The following actions taken by the City Planning Commission at their meeting held September 11, 1978, pertaining to the following applications, as listed on the Consent Calendar, were submitted for City Council information. 1. RECLASSIFICATION NO. 78-79-13~ VARIANCE NO. 3043: Submitted by Elaine B. Lowry, William J. Steinborn and John C. Steinborn, Jr., to construct a 10-unit apartment complex on property located at 1008 East Broadway with certain code waivers. The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC78-212, granted Reclassification No. 78-79-13 and granted negative declaration status; Variance No. 3043 was withdrawn. 78-1323 City Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - October 3~ 1978~ 1:30 P.M. 2. VARIANCE NO. 3040: Submitted by Ruth and Arnold Feuerstein, James M. and Helene G. Feuerstein, to permit outdoor display of plant materials on CL zoned property located at 949 Brookhurst Street with certain code waivers. The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC78-211, granted Variance No. 3040, in part, and ratified the Planning Director's categorical exemption determination. 3. VARIANCE NO. 3045: Submitted by Frank G. and Pauline C. Smith, to permit an illegal garage conversion on RS-7200 zoned property located at 110 South Emerald Street, with waiver of minimum number and type of parking spaces. The City Planning Com~aission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC78-216, denied Variance No. 3045 and ratified the Planning Director's categorical exemption determination. 4. VARIANCE NO. 3046: Submitted by James J. and Nancy Tozzie, to construct a 6-foot high block wall on RS-7200 zoned property located at 992 Chantilly Street, with waiver of maximum wall height. The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC78-217, granted Variance No. 3046 and ratified the Planning Director's categorical exemption determination. 5. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 1879: Submitted by Equitec 77 Real Estate Investors, to permit an auto sales, repair and restoration facility on ML zoned property located at 1278 East Katella Avenue. The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC78-213, granted Condi- tional Use Permit No. 1879, subject to a one-year review, and ratified the Planning Director's categorical exemption determination. 6. CONDITIONAL USE PEP~IT NO. 1588: Submitted by Harvey Hubbell Incorporated, to permit offices and restaurants in an industrial complex on ML zoned property located at 1212 North Magnolia Avenue. The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC78-215, granted Condi- tional Use Permit No. 1888, and granted negative declaration status. 7. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 1708: Request by Clyde Carpenter and Associates, Inc., for approval of precise landscaping and lighting plans. The City Planning Commission approved precise landscaping and lighting plans for Conditional Use Permit No. 1708. 8. GUIDE SIGNS FOR ANAHEIM HILLS: Request by Anaheim Hills, Inc., for a determi- nation if their proposed signs are "guide signs" as defined by'Code. The City Planning Commission determined that the proposed signs were "guide signs" as defined by Code Section 18.05.020.030. No action was taken on the foregoing items, thus the actions of the City Planning Commission became final. 78-1324 City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - October 3.~1978, 1:30 P.M. RECLASSIFICATION NO. 77-78-46~ VARIANCE NO. 2994 AND TENTATIVE~TRACT NO. 1025z~ (REVISION NO. 2): Application by Carl L. and Mildred E. Rau, Classic Development Corporation, for a change in zone from RS-A-43,000 and County AL ~to RS-7200, to establish a 16-iot subdivision on property located on the northwest side of Santa Ana Canyon Road, northeast of Mohler. Drive, with a request for waivers of: a) minimum lot width and frontage b) requirement that single-family structures rear on arterial highways. Councilman Kott removed the subject item from the Planning Commission consent calendar and requested a review of the Planning Commission's action. 170: TENTATIVE TRACT NO. 10254 - WAIVER OF COUNCIL POLICY: Request by Carl L. and Mildred E. Rau, for a waiver of Council Policy No. 538, in connection with Tentative Tract No. 10254 (Revision No. 3), on Lot Nos. 1 through 5, property located adjacent to the Riverside Freeway., on the northwest side ~of Santa Ana Canyon Road, northeast of Mohler Drive. The subject request was scheduled to be considered at the same time as the previous item (Reclassification No. 77-78-46, Variance No. 2994 and Tentative Tract No. 10254 (Revision No. 2). 170: FINAL MAP - TRACT NO. 10147: Developer, Alfred D. Paino of Anaheim; tract is located on the west side of Hayward Street, north of Rome Avenue and contains one Proposed RM-4000 zoned lot. On motion by Councilman Roth, seconded by Councilman Seymour, the proposed sub- division, together with its design and improvement, was found to be consistent with the City's General Plan, and the City Council approved Final Map, Tract No. 10147, as recommended by the City Engineer in his memorandum dated September 18, 1978. MOTION CARRIED. ORDINANCE NOS. 3915 AND 3916: Councilman Seymour offered Ordinance Nos. 3915 and 3916 for adoption. Refer to Ordinance Book. ORDINANCE NO. 3915: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AMENDING TITLE 18 OF THE ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO ZONING. (76-77-49, ML) ORDINANCE NO. '3916: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AMENDING TITLE 18 OF THE ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO ZONING. (66-67-61(86), CR) Roll Call Vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: COUNCIL MEMBERS: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Overholt, Kaywood, Kott, Roth and Seymour None None The Mayor declared Ordinance Nos. 3915 and 3916 duly passed and adopted.~ ORDINANCE NOS. 3918 THROUGH 3925: Councilman Seymour offered. Ordinance Nos. 3918 through 3925, both inclusive, for first reading. 78-1325 City Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - October 3~ 1978~ 1:30 P.M. 108: ORDINANCE NO. 3918: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM REPEALING SECTIONS 7.34.020 AND 7.34.060.020 OF TITLE 7, CHAPTER 7.34 OF THE ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE AND ADDING NEW SECTIONS 7.34.020, 7.34.060.020, 7.34.065, 7.34.135, 7.34.155, 7.34.165, AND 7.34.185 TO TITLE 7, CHAPTER 7.34 OF THE ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO BINGO GAMES. ORDINANCE NO. 3919: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AMENDING TITLE 18 OF THE ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO ZONING. (72-73-51(30), RS-HS-22,000) ORDINANCE NO. 3920: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AMENDING TITLE 18 OF THE ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO ZONING. (68-69-37(15), ML) ORDINANCE NO. 3921: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AMENDING TITLE 18 OF THE ANAHEIM b~NICIPAL CODE RELATING TO ZONING. (70-71-47(21), ML) ORDINANCE NO. 3922: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AMENDING TITLE 18 OF THE ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO ZONING. (61-62-69(87), ML) ORDINANCE NO. 3923: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AMENDING TITLE 18 OF THE ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO ZONING. (66-67-61(85), C-R) ORDINANCE NO. 3924: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AMENDING TITLE 18 OF THE ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO ZONING. (72-73-51(31), RS-HS-22,000) ORDINANCE NO. 3925: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AMENDING TITLE 18 OF THE ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO ZONING. (77-78-31, RM-2400) 114: LIAISON MEETING WITH COMMUNITY CENTER AUTHORITY: Councilman Overholt reported that he and the Mayor attended the Community Center Authority meeting last evening, October 2, 1978, and he was very impressed with the Job they were doing. 148: LEAGUE OF CALIFORNIA CITIES ANNUAL CONFERENCE: Councilwoman Kaywood reported on the League of California Cities Annual Conference that was held in Anaheim Sunday, Monday and Tuesday, September 24, 25 and 26, 1978, most of which dealt with Proposition 13. She then complimented Mr. Dave Latshaw, IGR Manager, for the outstanding job he did in coordinating the entire Conference. The comments that came from the staff of the State League were that they were very impressed and had never come across anything as good anywhere else--not just the cooperation received, but also the willingness displayed to assist and to do everything to make everyone as comfortable as possible. As well, this was the first Conference where exhibits were displayed along with the Conference, and something that would be continuing. The exhibitors she spoke with were extremely pleased with the setup, making it very convenient for everyone to obtain a great deal of information on the premises. She also extended her thanks to the City staff and employees in bringing about an extremely successful Conference for Anaheim. 114: LIAISON MEETING WITH HOUSING COMMISSION: Councilman Roth reported that he attended his first Liaison Committee meeting with the Housing Commission, along with the Mayor, wherein they discussed their search for property on which to place Section 8 subsidized housing. One of the sites that was discussed (Orangethorpe and Imperial) belonged to the State, who had talked about the possibility of placing an armory on the site. He went to visit the site and the environment was 78-1326 Cit~ Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - October 3~ 1978~ 1:30 P.M. one with the freeway on one side and also trains and a busy street. However, the Housing Commission members were supportive of the site. The Mayor then had to leave the meeting and thereafter the Commission discussed the possibility of getting together with the Council and the Planning Commission. Since that time, one of the members of the Planning Commission approached him relative to meeting with the Housing Commission. Councilman Roth stated he believed it imperative that the Council meet with both the Planning Commission and the Housing Commission to discuss objectives. The Mayor considered Councilman Roth's recommendation to be an excellent one and he asked the City Clerk to submit to the Council the next week several proposed dates for a joint meeting--Council, Planning Commission and Housing Commission. 156: LITTLE PEOPLE'S PARK INCIDENT: Councilman Roth then yielded the remainder of his time to Mr. Richard Ornelas. Mr. Richard Ornelas, People for Community Development, stated that they wanted to express their feelings about the District Attorney's report dated September 27, 1978, on the subject incident. They had not been able to get anything out of the brief report which he presumed the Council also received. Mayor Seymour stated that they did receive the report, and he agreed with Mr. Ornelas that there was not much in it. Councilman Roth stated that he had asked the City Attorney's opinion as to the subsequent course of action and the possibility of the report going to the Grand Jury. City Attorney Hopkins stated that he discussed the letter received with a member of the District Attorney's Office and he pointed out on the second page there was reference to the Orange County Grand Jury receiving the report today, October 3, 1978. He also indicated that the matter would be considered on October 5, 1978, by the Grand Jury. Whether or not they would take action remained to be seen, but they would consider the data put out by the District Attorney's Office and also consider his report. The District Attorney indicated his investigative records would not be made public, but the Grand Jury would receive that information. At this point, the District Attorney stated they concluded no criminal charges would be filed against any police officers and any further action would be subject to Grand Jury review. He confirmed for the Mayor that the statement made to him was that the Grand Jury would consider the matter on October 5, 1978 and he could not say whether they would make any statement, but he would call the District Attorney's Office and get further information on October 5 or 6, 1978. Councilman Roth suggested since the matter would be discussed in two days, they should wait to see if the Grand Jury was going to take any action. Mr. Ornelas stated that under the circumstances, they would like tO be put on the next Council agenda in the evening. 78-1327 City Hall, Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - October 3~ 1978~ 1:30 P.M. The Mayor approved the request contingent upon the City receiving the recommendation of the Grand Jury before the meeting was held because if they had not received a report by that time, it would be fruitless, and another meeting would have to be scheduled in any event. Mr. Ornelas was agreeable to the condition. He added that they would wait a rea- sonable time because they had to wait a long time for the District Attorney's report. They did not intend to do so relative to the Grand Jury's report and if they did not meet with the Council by the next meeting, they wished to do so at the following meeting because they wanted to propose some other type of demands or other action. The Mayor confirmed that the Council would meet with the People for Community Development Tuesday evening, October 10, 1978, if the report from the Grand Jury was received by that time; if not, then Tuesday, October 17, 1978, at 7:00 P.M. Mr. Michael Valenti posed a question to the City Attorney relative to the District Attorney's report. The report stated that the purpose of the investigation was to determine whether criminal violations were committed by any police officers; how- ever, the report never answered that question. It made the statement that, "Upon review of all the reports, statements, physical evidence and having in mind the need to prove any criminal action beyond reasonable doubt, we have concluded that no criminal charges"--not violations--"...will be filed against any police officer." He asked the City Attorney if he could simply ask the District Attorney's Office if any criminal violations were committed because it was only inferred, but not answered directly. Mr. Hopkins stated that the proper question to the District Attorney would be to ask them to answer that question directly and he could certainly make such a request. 124: TRANSPORTATION AT CONVENTIONS HELD IN THE CITY: Councilman Kott asked Councilwoman Kaywood if she was in favor of spending taxpayers money for busing and transportation for political conventions in the City, "Yes" or "no". Councilwoman Kaywood stated that she was not going to give a,"yes" or "no" answer, but that she believed it was an abominable and disgraceful thing when the rest of the Council was working, for Councilman Kott to take a week off and to call the press making a charge that was an out-right lie and a smear on everything. The lie was that busing was taking place at the League Conference and the tax- payers should be up-in-arms because it was for the purpose of having delegates go bar to bar. The press had called her and that was what was said. Councilman Kott said they were going from hotel to hotel; Councilwoman Kaywood noted that was because delegates were staying at hotels while at the Conference. Councilman Kott explained that when the Anaheim Dental Association Convention was held in the City, they arranged to have shuttle bus service from the Anaheim Con- vention Center every half hour to wherever conventioneers might want to go, and round-trip tickets cost $4. He therefore suggested that from now on, all conven- tions pay their own way and not be a burden to the Anaheim taxpayer. 78-1328 City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - October 3~ 1978~ 1:30 P.M.. MOTION: Councilman Kott thereupon moved that the Council go on record that the City not expend taxpayer funds out of the General Fund, nor utilize any City vehicle for transportation purposes for conventions in the City. Councilman Seymour seconded the motion. Before a vote was taken, Councilwoman Kaywood asked if Councilman Kott wanted to take into consideration that the City might lo.se conventions based on that motion. Councilman Kott answered "yes" because the experts told him that they never did so and hotels were the ones who footed the bill as clarified by the V&C. Councilwoman Kaywood emphasized that they had to look at all ~sides before they tied the City into something that could cause them to lose conventions which provided revenue. Councilman Roth asked for clarification if the motion was saying that the League would be advised in the future that they were going to have to pay for their own transportation if they wanted to come to Anaheim. Mayor Seymour answered "no", otherwise he would not have seconded the motion. The intent was not to allow City vehicles, nor use of taxpayer funds, to pay for any transportation for any conventions. Councilman Roth also wanted to know if he was saying there was a possibility of using V&C funds or other sources of funds. The Mayor added, or the hotels would be asked to provide the transportation. Councilman Roth stated he would not support the motion if the League was going to be told they had to pay for their own transportation, but that there would be a search for alternate funds. A vote was then taken on the foregoing motion. Councilman Overholt and Council- woman Kaywood voted "No". MOTION CARRIED. (Later in the meeting, Councilman Overholt changed his vote from "no" to "yes".) Councilwoman Kaywood noted that alternate funds was not a part of the original motion; the Mayor acknowleged that it was not. Councilwoman Kaywood stated that the ¥&C should be asked by the whole Council instead of one member surreptitiously to find out what their input would be, because if they were going to be losing conventions, that meant dollars as well. Councilman Overholt was of the opinion that their action was a good idea, but he did not want to tie their hands. The Mayor stated he checked the matter out to see how transportation was financed and his understanding was, the hotels did get together. In essence, Mr. Liegler or the V&C would approach them and indicate the need for transportation and if the hotels wanted the convention, they would agree to help out on a prorata basis. 78-1329 City Hall, Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - October 3~ 1978~ 1:30 P.M. With that explanation, Councilman Overholt stated that he could then support the motion and changed his vote from one of opposition, to approval. Councilwoman Kaywood stated that she would still like to receive a report from the V&C and hold off on the vote until that occurred. 101: RECENT MEETING WITH LOS ANGELES RAMS: The Mayor reported that he and Councilman Overholt had a meeting with the Rams a week ago last Monday to finalize a conclusion to the pending contracts. 105: REQUEST BY HACMAC FOR LIAISON COMMITTEE MEETING: The Mayor announced that HACMAC had asked Councilwoman Kaywood for a Liaison Committee meeting with their Committee, plus the Chairman and Vice Chairman of the Planning Commission, on Thursday, October 12, 1978, and if that was not feasible, another date should be set. The requested Liaison Committee meeting with HACMAC and the Chairman and Vice Chairman of the Planning Commission was set for October 12, 1978, at 7:30 a.m. 156: PRESS CONFERENCE, PEOPLE FOR COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT: Mayor Seymour explained that he had received a request from Cecelia Aviar asking him to attend a press conference with the Little People's Park community group the following morning. However, he had a commitment in Riverside and would be unable to attend and Mayor Pro Tem Kaywood was also unable to attend. After a brief discussion revolving around time schedules and availability of the various Council Members, the Mayor asked the City Clerk to call Ms. Aviar to ascertain the exact time of the press conference and subsequently poll the Council Members to see who could attend. RECESS - EXECUTIVE SESSION: Councilman Seymour moved to recess into Executive Session. Councilwoman Kaywood seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. (9:10 P.M.) AFTER RECESS: The Mayor called the meeting to order, all Council Members being present. (9:23 P.M.) ADJOURNMENT: Councilwoman Kaywood moved to adjourn. Councilman Seymour seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. Adjourned: 9:23 P.M. LINDA D. ROBERTS, CITY CLERK