1986/03/0411,
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - March 4, 1986, 10:00 A.M.
The City Council of the City of Anaheim met in regular session.
PRESENT:
ABSENT:
PRESENT:
COUNCIL MEMBERS: Kaywood, Overholt, Bay, Pickler and Roth
COUNCIL MEMBERS: None
CITY MANAGER: William O. Talley
CITY ATTORNEY: Jack White
CITY CLERK: Leonora N. Sohl
ASSISTANT GENERAL MANAGER - OPERATIONS: Ed Alario
ASSISTANT DIRECTOR FOR ZONING: Annika Santalahti
PUBLIC UTILITIES GENERAL MANAGER: Gordon Hoyt
ASSOCIATE TRAFFIC ENGINEER: Dan Schiada
PURCHASING AGENT: Diane Hughart
Mayor Roth called the meeting to order and welcomed those in
attendance to the Council meeting.
INVOCATION: Reverend Don Dexter, 1st Presbyterian Church, gave the Invocation.
FLAG SALUTE: Council Member Ben Bay led the assembly in the Pledge of
Allegiance to the Flag.
119: PRESENTATION - EMPLOYEE INVOLVEMENT PROGRAM: Mayor Roth presented the
following employees with Certificates of Achievement earned through their
participation in the Employee Involvement Program: Barbie Hoisington, Marsha
Gray, Lewis Vecchione and Herb Hillard. Charles Kelley was not present to
receive his certificate. Council Members subsequently congratulated each
employee.
PROCLAMATIONS: The following proclamations were issued by Mayor Roth and
authorized by the City Council:
Red Cross Month in Anaheim, March 1986,
Save Your Vision Week in Anaheim, March 2-8, 1986,
American Association of University Women Week in Anaheim, March 2-8, 1986,
Arbor Day in Anaheim, March 7, 1986,
Afganistan Day in Anaheim, March 21, 1986.
Myrtis Pebley and a contingent of representatives from the Orange County
Chapter of the Red Cross accepted the Red Cross month proclamation. In turn,
Mrs. Pebley presented the Mayor and Council a Red Cross Flag to be flown in
front of the Civic Center for the month of March.
Robin Griffen accepted the American Association of University Women
proclamation.
149
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - March 4, 1986, 10:00 A.M.
119: RESOLUTION OF CONDOLENCE: A Resolution of Condolence was unanimously
adopted by the City Council to be presented to the family of Frank Oswald.
Mr. Oswald was a City Employee for fourteen years in the Maintenance
Department.
119: RESOLUTION OF WELCOME: A Resolution of Welcome was unanimously adopted
by the City Council to be presented to Association of Operating Room Nurses,
Inc., National Congress to be held March 9 through 14, 1986 in the City of
Anaheim.
MINUTES: Approval of the minutes was deferred to the next regular meeting.
WAIVER OF READING - ORDINANCES AND RESOLUTIONS: Councilwoman Kaywood moved to
waive the reading in full of all ordinances and resolutions of the Agenda,
after reading of the title thereof by the City Clerk, and that consent to
waiver is hereby given by all Council Members, unless after reading of the
title, specific request is made by a Council Member for the reading of such
ordinances or resolutions in regular order. Councilman Pickler seconded the
motion. MOTION CARRIED.
FINANCIAL DEMANDS AGAINST THE CITY in the amount of ~1,741,112.38, in
accordance with the 1985-86 Budget, were approved.
1. 118: The following claims were filed against the City and action taken as
recommended:
Claims rejected and referred to Risk Management:
a. Claims submitted by Harry E. Poetshlag for property damage sustained
purportedly due to actions of the City on or about December 30, 1985.
b. Claim submitted by Tamara Mecum for property damage sustained
purportedly due to actions of the City on or about December 24, 1985.
c. Claim submitted by Dr. Paul V. Lindstrom for property damage sustained
purportedly due to actions of the City on or about October 9, 1985.
d. Claim submitted by Duane Gary Scheeler for bodily injury sustained
purportedly due to actions of the City on or about November 3, 1985.
e. Claim submitted by Sir Speedy Printing for property damage sustained
purportedly due to actions of the City on or about January 7, 1985.
2. Receiving and filing the following correspondence: (on file)
a. 105:
b. 105:
c. 105:
d. 105:
Library Board--Minutes of November 20, 1985 and January 15, 1986.
Senior Citizens Commission--Minutes of January 9, 1986.
Community Services Board--Minutes of January 9, 1986.
Community Redevelopment CommissionmJanuary 29, 1985.
150
City Hall~ Anahe/m, Californ/a - COUNCIL MINUTES - March 4, 1986, 10:00 A.M.
3. 108: Approving an application for a Public Dance permit submitted by Musa
Madain, for Green Eyes Productions, to hold a dance at the Anaheim Convention
Center, March 29, 1986 from 8:00 p.m. to 1:00 a.m.
4. 159/152/172: Authorizing the Mayor and City Clerk to sign the Consultant
Selection Procedure for Federally Funded Highway Projects.
5. 123: Authorizing an agreement with BSI Consultants, Inc., in the amount
of $88,900, for consulting services in connection with an Operations
Assessment Study for the Anaheim Commercial/Recreation area, to be completed
within six months.
6. 144/126: Authorizing the filing of an application for Orange County
Unified Transportation Trust Funds for a cooperative project of Event
Communications and Traffic Management in the Disneyland/Convention Center Area
and committing to participation in the project funding in an amount not to
exceed $125,000 for each of the the Fiscal Years of 1986/87 and 1987/88.
7. 179: Granting an extension of t~me to comply with conditions of
Conditional Use Permit No. 2631, to construct a 196-unit senior citizens'
apartment complex on RM-1200 zoned property located at the northeast corner of
Santa Ana and Citron Streets, with Code waiver of the required type of parking
spaces, to expire on February 5, 1987.
8. 160: Accepting the low bids for roof replacement at Anaheim Stadium, in
accordance with Bid No. 4310, as follows:
Coast Roof Company, Inc., in the amount of $29,584 to reroof Stadium Gate
No. 4 canopy plus options as required to paint and/or replace steel and
plywood sub-structure decking.
J. Scigliano Roofing Company, in the amount of $13,260 to replace roofing
over the Stadium Press Box area.
9. 129: RESOLUTION NO. 86R-80: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF ANAHEIM AWARDING A CONTRACT FOR CERTAIN PUBLIC WORK. (P.H. HAGOPIAN)
(Awarding a contract to the lowest and best responsible bidder, P. H.
Hagopian, in the amount of $1,718,762, for Fire Station Nos. 2 and 3, Account
No. 01-935-6325) Councilman Bay voted no because he did not agree with the
financing method.
10. 176: RESOLUTION NO. 86R-81: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF ANAHEIM DECLARING ITS INTENTION TO VACATE CERTAIN PUBLIC STREETS, HIGHWAYS
AND SERVICE EASEMENTS. (85-8A) (Declaring intent to abandon a water pipeline
easement, extending westerly from that private road located easterly of
Peralta Hills Road and southerly of Crescent Avenue, Abandonment No. 85-8A,
and setting a date for the public hearing therefor, suggested date: March 25,
1986, 1:30 p.m.)
11. 176: RESOLUTION NO. 86R-82: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF ANAHEIM DECLARING ITS INTENTION TO VACATE CERTAIN PUBLIC STREETS, HIGHWAYS
AND SERVICE EASEMENTS. (85-10A) (Declaring intent to abandon a portion of
Water Street, west of Orange Street, to insure full use of property involved
151
l0
City Hall~ Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - March 4, 1986, 10:00 A.M.
for future development, Abandonment No. 85-10A, and setting a date for the
public hearing therefor, suggested date: March 25, 1986, 1:30 p.m.)
12. 158: RESOLUTION NO. 86R-83: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF ANAHEIM ACCEPTING AN EASEMENT DEED CONVEYING TO THE CITY OF ANAHEIM CERTAIN
REAL PROPERTY FOR AN EASEMENT FOR ROAD AND PUBLIC UTILITY PURPOSES. (R/W
#3292-5A)
Roll Call Vote on Resolution No. 86R-80:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
Kaywood, 0verholt, Pickler and Roth
Bay
None
The Mayor declared Resolution No. 86R-80 duly passed and adopted.
Roll Call Vote on Resolution Nos. 86R-81 through 86R-83:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
Kaywood, Overholt, Bay, Pickler and Roth
None
None
The Mayor declared Resolution Nos. 86R-81 through 86R-83, both inclusive, duly
passed and adopted.
End of Consent Calendar. MOTION CARRIED.
179: EXTENSIONS OF TIME - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 1905 AND VAPJANCE
NO. 3060: Annika Santalahti, Assistant Director for Zoning, confirmed for
Councilwoman Kaywood that the 3-story office building under the subject zoning
actions had been approved in 1979.
MOTION: Councilman Roth moved to grant extensions of time to comply with
conditions of Conditional Use Permit No. 1905 and Variance No. 3060, to permit
the construction of a 3-story office building and a parking lot on property
located at 800 South Harbor Boulevard, with various Code waivers, to expire on
January 2, 1987, as recommended in memorandum dated February 18, 1986 from the
Assistant Director for Zoning. Councilman Bay seconded the motion. MOTION
CARRIED.
115: CiViC CENTER STRUCTURE - SIGNING AND GRAPHICS: Awarding a contract to
the lowest and best responsible bidder, California Neon, in the amount of
3108,787 for the Civic Center Structure Signing and Graphics, Account
No. 75-252-7101. Submitted was report dated February 21, 1986 from the City
Engineer recommending the Award of the subject contract.
City Manager William Talley stated while costs proved to be considerably
higher on the subject signing, the contract would finally answer a need
experienced since occupying the Civic Center, that is, the confusing parking
structure and the continuing comment by the citizenry about the difficulty
they had in using the structure.
152
Cit~ Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - March 4, 1986, 10:00 A.M.
Dan Shiada, Associate Traffic Engineer, explained the project consisted of
resigning the Civic Center Parking structure area with more informational
signs such as illuminated signing on the outside, architectural type signing
on the inside and color coding the different levels to further clarify the
parking situations. The lowest and best responsible bid received was $108,787
which was less than the $130,000 estimate. The cost for the consultant hired
previously to lay out the design was $9,600.
Mayor Roth recounted that he had sent a memo to the City Manager and
Engineering Office over a year ago addressing his concern and the concern of
citizens relative to the confusion experienced when parking in the structure
and finding, after entering the Civic Center, that the floors in the parking
structure do not coincide with those in the building. At that time, he
suggested changing the number of the parking levels to letters A, B, C and D
which would have perhaps cost several hundred dollars. Signing had now grown
to an elaborate scheme. He had a problem approving such a scheme when he felt
there were other less costly alternatives.
Councilwoman Kaywood agreed. She personally would like the Council to review
the specific plan and give their approval before the project was started; Mr.
Talley explained that the consultant's recommendations were presented by the
Traffic Engineer before the bids were taken.
Councilman Overholt stated that perhaps some of the Council Members could not
recall the specifics of the recommendation and with the review might have
second thoughts. He also asked if a survey had been taken on how many
non-employee vehicles came in and out of the parking structure every day, the
point being if the greater usage was by employees and with a program designed
to benefit those who were not employees, he agreed that there may be a more
reasonable way to assist those people than spending over $100,000. He
suggested that the matter be trailed for two weeks.
After additional discussion between staff and Council Members on the issue,
the item was first trailed until later in the meeting. (10:45 a.m.)
Later in the meeting (1:50 p.m.) Councilman Bay moved to continue the award of
contract on the subject signing for two weeks to Tuesday, March 18, 1986.
Councilman Pickler seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED.
Mr. Talley stated that in the interim the Traffic Engineer would be directed
to contact each of the Council Members regarding the signing plan.
116: ACCEPTING DONATIONS OF GIFT FROM AMFAC ELECTRIC SUPPLY COMPANY: City
Manager Talley briefed report dated February 27, 1986 from the Purchasing
Agent, recommending acceptance of a gift of (up to 4) Hawaiian holiday trips
from Amfac Electric Supply Company subject to the conditions set forth in the
report. Councilman Bay stated he had a problem with the basic principle
involved and also from an image standpoint with the City accepting any kind of
gifts from vendors.
Councilman Pickler found no fault in accepting gifts that came to the City
voluntarily and subsequently having a drawing amongst employees who had
participated in the Employee Involvement Program (EIP) as recommended.
153
City Hall, Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - March 4, 1986, 10:00 A.M.
Mayor Roth asked if the Purchasing Agent or the Purchasing Department could
participate in the drawing; Mr. Talley explained they could if one of the
employees in the Department had submitted a suggestion in accordance with the
EIP.
Mayor Roth felt that the concept was an excellent one, that of allowing
employees who offered worthwhile suggestions for the streamlining of City
government to participate, but he did not want to tarnish the image of the
City in any way. He would be supportive only if the Purchasing Department was
prohibited from participating.
Diane Hughart, Purchasing Agent, then explained how the City became a
recipient of the gifts. The award was based on the dollar amount of sales
that had been made in over a certain time period. The City was not a big
purchaser through Amfac; Ail purchases were on a competitive bid basis and
some of the City's items had been purchased through Amfac with similar items
purchased through other companies as well. She was not certain exactly how
Amfac determined the City to be a winner. She confirmed for Councilwoman
Kaywood that the City did not pay more for purchases because of the contest.
Her initial reaction was that the City could not accept the gifts. A sales
person from Amfac came in and talked to her and asked if the City could not
somehow consider accepting the gifts. Her feeling was that the Purchasing
Department could not become involved, but the City as the whole might so she
brought the matter to the attention of the City Manager's Office.
After further discussion between Council Members and staff, Councilman Pickler
moved that the City accept the gifts of Amfac Electric as a result of a
contest made available to all companies purchasing materials from Amfac
Electric, with those gifts to be awarded subject to the conditions set forth
by staff in memorandum dated February 27, 1986.
Before action was taken, Councilman Roth stated he would second the motion if
it was amended to include that all Purchasing Department employees be excluded
from participating in the drawing; Councilman Pickler agreed to the amendment.
Councilman Overholt stated he was going to vote against the motion because of
his feeling that this type of promotion might not be in the best interest of
the City. It was a sales incentive and not truly a contest and he was not
certain that should be encouraged.
Mayor Roth asked if because of the discussion that had transpired on the
matter the City Manager had changed his mind in making the recommendation.
City Manager Talley answered no because it was already generally known that
the City had the tickets and would like to see employees use them. However,
in the future, he would like a policy declaration from the Council since the
City intended to continue to solicit as widely as possible to award to low
bidders. He would not ever want to reject a bid because the City might win
something as a result of it. If a Council Policy determined that such gifts
be rejected in the future, then the City would do so. This was the first time
that he could recall a city having been given free tickets to anything,
154
City Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - March 4, 1986, 10:00 A.M.
and these he felt were of limited value, being trips of only four days and
three nights and on specific days. He asked for an expression of Council
Policy.
Mayor Roth stated he wanted to treat this as an isolated case and not
establish a policy; Councilwoman Kaywood stated her only concern would have
been had there been any consideration given for the particular vendor. Since
there was not and purchase was strictly based on low bid, she felt it was a
good idea to reward those who had been giving their bright ideas to the City
and saving taxpayers money.
A vote was then taken on the foregoing motion.
Roll Call Vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
Kaywood, Pickler and Roth
0verholt and Bay
None
175: ADOPTING THE CHARTER OF THE WATER ADVISORY COMMITTEE (WAC0) OF ORANGE
COUNTY: Approving and adopting the Charter of the Water Advisory Committee of
Orange County and appointing an alternate Council representative and approving
the appointment of Edward G. Alario as staff representative. Submitted was
report dated February 25, 1986 from the Public Utilities General Manager
recommending approval of the Charter and recommending Edward G. Alario,
Assistant General Manager, Operations, be appointed as staff representative.
Since a copy of the Charter was not readily available, the matter was trailed
until later in the meeting. (11:15 a.m.)
Later in the meeting, (1:40 p.m.) after Charters were provided to each Council
Member, Councilman Roth offered Resolution No. 86R-85 for adoption. Refer to
Resolution Book.
RESOLUTION NO. 86R-85: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ANAHEIM APPROVING AND ADOPTING THE CHARTER OF THE WATER ADVISORY COMMITTEE OF
ORANGE COUNTY.
Before a vote was a taken, Councilman Bay noted that relative to financial
cost sharing for authorized WAC0 activities, Anaheim shall pay one-ninth of
all costs. He wanted to know an estimate of the costs involved.
Councilman Pickler answered that it was on any projects in which the City
wanted to get involved with WACO and it would take approval of the cities
before proceeding; Councilman Bay stated if that was understood there was no
problem. He wanted to know who paid for the administrative costs.
Ed Alario, Assistant General Manager - Public Utilities, reported that at the
present time there were no costs involved. Administrative costs were handled
at the Orange County Water District level.
155
City Hall, Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - March 4, 1986, 10:00 A.M.
Councilman Bay surmised that the only cost would be things that the group
approved and those would be brought back to the Council; Mr. Alario confirmed
that was correct.
A vote was then taken on the foregoing resolution:
Roll Call Vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
Kaywood, Overholt, Bay, Pickler and Roth
None
None
The Mayor declared Resolution No. 86R-85 duly passed and adopted.
MOTION: Councilman Pickler moved that Edward G. Alario be appointed as staff
representative on the Water Advisory Committee of Orange County. Councilwoman
Kaywood seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED.
No alternate Council representative was appointed as alternate to Councilman
Pickler at this time.
175: REVISION OF ELECTRIC RATES: Councilwoman Kaywood offered Resolution
No. 86R-84 for adoption amending Resolution No. 86R-37, amending the rates,
rules and regulations for the sale and distribution of electric energy adopted
by Resolution No. 71R-478 and amended by Resolution No. 85R-445, nunc pro
tunc, to correct two pages of the table of contents, as recommended in
memorandum dated February 24, 1986 from the Secretary of the Public Utilities
Board. Refer to Resolution Book.
RESOLUTION NO. 86R-84: A RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM
AMENDING RESOLUTION NO. 86R-37 AMENDING THE RATES, RULES AND REGULATIONS FOR
THE SALE AND DISTRIBUTION OF ELECTRIC ENERGY AS ADOPTED BY CTIY COUNCIL
RESOLUTION NO. 71R-478 AND MOST RECENTLY AMENDED BY CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION
NO. 85R-445, NUNC PRO TUNC.
Roll Call Vote:
AYES:
NOE~:
ABSENT:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
X~ywood, Overholt, Bay, Pickler and Roth
None
None
The Mayor declared Resolution No. 86R-84 duly passed and adopted.
179: SENIOR CITIZEN CONDOMINIUMS: State-Wide Developers, Inc., requesting
consideration that the development standards for Senior Citizen's Apartments
be expanded to include Senior Citizen's condominiums. This matter was
continued from the meetings of February 11 and February 18, 1986, to this date.
MOTION: Councilman Roth moved to continue consideration of the development
standards for senior citizens apartments be continued for two weeks at the
request of staff. Councilman Overholt seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED.
156
City Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - March 4, 1986, 10:00 A.M.
CITY PLANNING COMMISSION ITEMS: The following actions taken by the City
Planning Commission at their meeting held February 19, 1986, pertaining to the
following applications were submitted for City Council information.
1. RECLASSIFICATION NO. 85-86-22: Submitted by Nancy Ann Lauder, (Kiddie
Korner Nursery), for a change in zone from RS-7200 to CL on property located
at 1636 Catherine Drive.
The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC86-47, granted
Reclassification No. 85-86-22, and granted a negative declaration status.
2. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2761: Submitted by Jack Bennett, et al,
(ANAHEIM JUNCTION RV PARK), to permit a fast-food and dinner house complex on
CR zoned property located at 1230 South West Street, with Code waivers of
minimum landscaped setback (in part) and minimum number of parking spaces.
The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC86-48, granted in
part, Conditional Use Permit No. 2761, and granted a negative declaration
status.
3. VAkIANCE NO. 3537: Submitted by Lena Trapani and Rudolph W. Blanchard, to
construct a 10-unit apartment complex on proposed RM-1200 zoned property
located at 1280 East La Palma Avenue, with the following Code waivers: (a)
maximum structural height, (b) minimum landscaped setback, (c) minimum
structural setback, (d) required type of parking spaces.
The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC86-51, granted
Variance No. 3537, and granted a negative declaration status.
4. RECLASSIFICATION NO. 85-86-23, CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2763 AND REQUEST
FOR WAIVER OF COUNCIL POLICY NO. 543: Submitted by Chandulal K. Patel, for a
change in zone from CG to RM-1200, to permit a 10-story, 75-unit senior
citizens apartment project on property located at 261 East Center Street, with
request for waiver of Council Policy No. 543, and the following Code waivers:
(a) minimum number of parking spaces, (b) minimum building site area per
dwelling unit, (c) minimum floor area, (d) minimum recreational-leisure areas,
(e) minimum recreational-leisure activity, (f) minimum structural setback, (g)
required site screening.
The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC86-49 and 50,
granted Reclassification No. 85-86-23, Conditional Use Permit No. 2763 and
Request for Waiver of Council Policy No. 543, and granted a negative
declaration status.
Waiver of Council Policy No. 543 was also recommended by the Planning
Commission.
Annika Santalahti, Assistant Director for Zoning, explained that the subject
is the senior citizens affordable project plan for the northwest corner of
Philadelphia Street and Lincoln Avenue. In approving the density on the
project, it does not comply with Council Policy No. 543 pertaining to density
bonuses, i.e., if 25 percent of the project is set aside for affordable there
157
City Hall, Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - March 4, 1986, 10:00 A.M.
may be a maximum additional density over code of 25 percent. The project is a
fair amount higher than that number. The Planning Commission approved the
project and recommended approval of the waiver of Council Policy No. 543 as
well. A motion was necessary before actual construction of the project could
take place.
MOTION: Councilman Pickler moved to approve the waiver of Council Policy No.
543 on the subject project. Councilman Roth seconded the motion. MOTION
CARR/ED.
5. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 617: Submitted by Code Enforcement and Police
Department, to consider modification and/or termination of Conditional Use
Permit No. 617, specifically, Radio City, 919 South Knott Street, one of two
restaurants approved in connection with said conditional use permit on CL
zoned property located at 919-959 SouthKnott Street.
The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC86-52, granted
Conditional Use Permit No. 617, and ratified the Planning Director's
categorical exemption determination, as Class 21.
The decision of the Planning Commission was appealed by Radio City and,
therefore, a public hearing will be scheduled at a later date.
6. 179: CODE AMENDMENT: T. Steven Rolland, Straight Shooter, Inc., to
determine (a) whether an indoor rifle range and training facility is an
appropriate conditional use in the Anaheim Canyon Industrial Area, in
connection with Section 18.03.030 "Conditional Use Permits - General; (b)
whether to amend subsection 18.61.050.600 to allow such uses in the Canyon
Industrial Area in connection with approval of a conditional use permit; or
(c) whether the use should specifically not be permitted in the Canyon
Industrial Area.
It was determined by the Planning Commission that the proposed use was not
compatible with the industrial community.
Annika Santalahti, Assistant Director for Zoning, reported that a public
request had been received regarding the potential use in the canyon industrial
area of a shooting range. The Commission determined that the use is not
compatible with the industrial community but the request0r, Steve Rolland,
wanted to speak to the Council on the issue and asked if the Council would be
willing to continue discussion on the item until March 18, 1986. It was not a
public hearing and there was no petition submitted at this time. The proposal
was presented to the Planning CommiSsion and after having discussed it, the
Commission felt it was inappropriate. Mr. Rolland, however, wanted to make
his presentation to the Council. All it would mean at the end was that it
would have to go through a public hearing procedure.
Councilman Bay noted that under the Code, there was no way for Mr. Rolland to
officially demand the hearing process on the CUP because the use was not one
allowed in the northeast industrial area, the question being did the Council
want to listen to his appeal to even start the process.
158
City Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - March 4, 1986, 10:00 A.M.
Jack White, City Attorney also explained that the Council did not have the
Jurisdiction to approve the proposed use because Code provisions did not allow
it as a conditional use in the canyon industrial area. The question before
the Council was whether or not the Council wanted to continue the matter to
allow the requestor to come before the Council or if the request was of such a
nature they felt they could act on it today. It was properly in front of the
Council.
MOTION: Councilman Roth moved to grant the request of Steven Rolland to speak
to the Council on the subject proposed use in the canyon industrial area to be
scheduled for the Tuesday, March 18, 1986 Council meeting. Councilman Pickler
seconded the motion. Councilwoman Kaywood voted no because she felt the issue
is very clear, that it was not a compatible use in the industrial community.
MOTION CARRIED.
End of Pl~n~ing Commission Information Items. MOTION CARRIED.
139/114: SB1717 - URBAN OPEN SPACE BOND: Councilwoman Ks. ywood explained that
at the recent Parks and Recreation Commission meeting Chris Jarvi, Director of
Parks, Recreation and Community Services reported on SB1717 (Maddy), the
$500,000,000 Urban Open Space Bond providing the possibility of purchasing
lands in urban areas. Based on population, Anaheim would specifically have
one and a quarter million dollars available to buy open space lands close to
the City. The reason for bringing the matter forward today was that the
Senate Natural Resources Committee was meeting on March 11, 1986 to discuss
the bill and Senator John Seymour was on that Committee. It was important
that a letter be sent to Senator Seymour asking for his support of the bill,
and also to sign on as a co-author.
Councilwoman Kaywood moved that a letter be sent immediately to Senator
Seymour asking for his support at the next hearing of the Senate Natural
Resources Committee meeting on March 11, 1986 and asking him to sign on as
co-author of the bill. Councilman Pickler seconded the motion.
Before a vote was taken, Mayor Roth stated he wanted to have an opportunity to
read the bill; Councilman Bay suggested that the matter be trailed to give the
Council an opportunity to read the bill.
Councilwoman Kaywood stated it was not a matter of making a decision on the
bill because the people would have the opportunity to vote on the Bond issue
but it was necessary to get the support and thus the need for the letter.
The matter was trailed until later in the meeting. (11:58 a.m.)
Later in the meeting, (1:45 p.m.) Councilwoman Kaywood repeated her motion and
Councilman Pickler confirmed his second. Councilman Bay voted no. MOTION
CARRIED.
144/114: JOINT POWERS AUTHORITY MEETING - FOOTHILL AND EASTERN CORRIDORS:
Councilman Bay reported on the February 27, 1985 Joint Powers Authority (JPA)
meeting wherein issues were brought to bear on which he needed to have Council
input. The first was an assessment for administrative costs with a
159
2
City Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - March 4, 1986, 10:00 A.M.
recommendation from the Finance Committee that each voting member of the
Authority be assessed $25,000 which would mean $50,000 from the County and
$25,000 from each City member or vote to cover the first year's administrative
costs while the Authority lobbied Sacramento for changes that would allow the
fee money and/or interest from the fee money to pay for administrative costs
associated with the JPA. There was a split vote on the argument that if they
got a two-thirds vote for the assessment, if legally possible, then the
assessment should be returned. The second issue was how he should vote on the
possibility of returning that money to the City if they were successful in
getting the law changed. He recommended that the Council approve his voting,
if necessary, for an assessment of $25,000 per vote and urging him to attempt,
if possible, to get the clause included that would at least return the money
once the legislation had been performed to use the fee money or interest from
that money for administrative costs for the JPA.
Councilman Pickler stated it was a split vote but the majority were in favor
of maintaining the assessment and not having it returned. It was creating a
lot of antagonism and he did not feel it was that important. What the
Authority was trying to achieve was important. The $25,000 was something they
had to contribute but getting it back was immaterial.
Councilman Overholt suggested a separate motion for each issue.
MOTION: Councilman Bay moved that he be authorized to vote for an assessment
of $2S,000 per vote on the JPA for administrative costs. Councilman Overholt
seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED.
MOTION: Councilman Bay moved to support the possible return of the $25,000
through legislation. Councilman Overholt seconded the motion. Councilman
Pickler voted no. MOTION CARRIED.
REQUEST FOR CLOSED SESSION: Mayor Roth announced that a Closed Session would
be held to confer with the City's Attorney regarding:
a. Pending litigation pursuant to Government Code Section
54956.9(a), to wit: Golden West Baseball Co. vs. City of Anaheim,
O.C. Superior Court Case No. 40 92 46.
b. Personnel matters pursuant to Government Code Section No. 54957.
c. To confer with the City's designated representative regarding
labor relations pursuant to Government Code Section 54957.6.
d. A Utility matter as requested by Councilman Bay.
Councilman Roth moved to recess into Closed Session and a lunch break.
Councilman Pickler seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. (12:il p.m.)
AFTER RECESS: The Mayor called the meeting to order, all Council Members
being present. (1:40 p.m.)
160
City Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - March 4, 1986, 10:00 A.M.
176: PUBLIC HEARING - ABANDONMENT NO. 85-6A: In accordance with application
filed by Michael M. Hanafi, public hearing was held on proposed abandonment of
a portion of an existing access easement to a sewer line, located south of
Mohler Drive, east of Timken Road, pursuant to Resolution No. 86R-51, duly
published in the Anaheim Bulletin and notices thereof posted in accordance
with law.
Report of the City Engineer dated February 10, 1986 was submitted recommending
approval of said abandonment.
Mayor Roth asked if anyone wished to address the Council; there being no
response he closed the public hearing.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT - CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION: The City Engineer also
determined that the proposed activity falls within the definition of Section
3.01, Class 5, of the City ofAnaheim guidelines to the requirements for an
Environmental Impact Report and is, therefore, categorically exempt from the
requirement to file an EIR.
Councilman Roth offered Resolution No. 86R-86 for adoption, approving
Abandonment No. 85-6A. Refer to Resolution Book.
RESOLUTION NO. 86R-86: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ANAHEIM VACATING A PORTION OF AN EXISTING ACCESS EASEMENT TO A SEWER LINE,
LOCATED SOUTH OF MOHLER DRIVE, EAST OF TIMKEN ROAD. (85-6A)
Roll Call Vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
Kaywood, 0verholt, Bay, Pickler and Roth
None
None
The Mayor declared Resolution No. 86R-86 duly passed and adopted.
176: PUBLIC HEARING - ABANDONMENT NO. 85-7A: In accordance with application
filed by Robert E. Bentley, public hearing was held on proposed abandonment of
an electrical easement on the west side of State College Boulevard, north of
Center Street, pursuant to Resolution No. 86R-54, duly published in the
Anaheim Bulletin and notices thereof posted in accordance with law.
Report of the City Engineer dated January 31, 1986 was submitted recommending
approval of said abandonment.
Mayor Roth asked if anyone wished to address the Council; there being no
response he closed the public hearing.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT - CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION: The City Engineer also
determined that the proposed activity falls within the definition of Section
3.01, Class 5, of the City of Anaheim guidelines to the requirements for an
Environmental Impact Report and is, therefore, categorically exempt from the
requirement to file an EIR.
161
City Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - March 4, 1986, 10:00 A.M.
Councilman Roth offered Resolution No. 86R-87 for adoption, approving
Abandonment No. 85-7A. Refer to Resolution Book.
RESOLUTION NO. 86R-87: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ANAHEIM VACATING AN ELECTRICAL EASEMENT ON THE WEST SIDE OF STATE COLLEGE
BOULEVARD, NOP. TH OF CENTER STREET. (85-7A)
Roll Call Vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
Kaywood, Overholt, Bay, Pickler and Roth
None
None
The Mayor declared Resolution No. 86R-87 duly passed and adopted.
170: PUBLIC HEARING - WAIVER OF HILLSIDE GRADING ORDINANCE, TENTATIVE TRACT
NO. 10971:
APPLICANT:
Presley of Southern California,
17991 Mitchell
South Irvine, Ca. 92714
ZONING/LOCATION/REQUEST: Requesting waiver of the requirement of the Hillside
Grading Ordinance as it relates to the location of manufactured slopes within
residential lots and within the tract boundary of Tract No. 10971 located
within the Anaheim Hills area, adjacent to Camino Grande and south of Nohl
Ranch Road.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: Approval of the requested waiver was recommended
by the Planning Commission at their meeting of January 20, 1986.
PUBLIC NOTICE REQUIREMENTS MET BY:
Publication in Anaheim Bulletin February 20, 1986.
Posting of property February 21, 1986.
Mailing to property owners within 300 feet - February 21, 1986.
STAFF INPUT:
See Staff Report from the City Engineer dated January 10, 1986 recommending
approval of the requested waiver.
Mayor Roth asked if anyone was present to speak to the issue; no one was
present to speak.
COUNCIL ACTION:
Mayor Roth closed the public hearing.
MOTION: Councilwoman Kaywood moved to waive the requirement of the Hillside
Grading Ordinance as it relates to location of manufactured slopes within
residential lots and within the tract boundary of Tract No. 10971. Councilman
Roth seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED.
162/142: NO SMOKING ORDINANCE: A proposed No Smoking Ordinance, adding new
Chapter 6.30 to the Code, relating to smoking in public places. First Reading
162
City Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - March 4, 1986, 10:00 A.M.
of the Ordinance took place at the meeting of December 17, 1985 and Amended
First Readings at the meetings of January 7 and February 4, 1986. This matter
was continued from the meetings of November 26, and December 17, 1985,
January 7 and February 4, 1986, to this date (see minutes those dates).
By his report dated February 18, 1986, the City Attorney submitted a copy of
the revised smoking ordinance incorporating changes to the sections relating
to restaurants and revising a section to clarify the meaning of food service
areas.
Also submitted was report dated February 25, 1986 from the City Manager to the
City Council which was an update to the formal staff report of January 30,
1986 presented at the February 4, 1986 Council meeting.
STAFF INPUT:
Jack White, City Attorney. ,
The ordinance before the Council today was revised in line with
the Council's request to provide that restaurants would set
aside an adequate amount of no smoking area and posting signs to
that effect. The ordinance previously given first reading was
not the one before the Council today. The Council could adopt
the ordinance given first reading on February 4, 1986 which
contained the 50 percent smoking and 50 percent non-smoking
provisions for restaurants, give first reading to the revised
ordinance presented today, or find that it needs further
revisions, request that those revisions be made and not take any
action today.
Councilman Overholt.
The purpose of the four-week continuance was to give the Chamber
of Commerce an opportunity to study the matter and come back
with recommendations. If there was nothing more than their
letter of February 20, 1986 indicating they chose not to make
recommendations, there was not too much more to talk about today
regarding work place provisions.
Allan Hughes, Executive Director, Anaheim Chamber of Commerce.
The Chamber, at the request of the Council, devoted extensive
research in study of the proposed ordinance and came to the
conclusion that any revision or changes to the ordinance would
still not make it acceptable to the business community. The
Chamber notified the Council a week ago that their original
position still stands. They are opposed to the ordinance as far
as the work place provisions are concerned. They did not check
with any of the Chambers in cities where there was such an
ordinance.
Councilman 0verholt.
The ordinance presented today with reference to restaurants did
not include the provision contained in the Santa Cruz ordinance
requiring a sign to be posted in the front of the restaurant
notifying patrons that the restaurant did have smoking and no
smoking sections. His recollection also was that smoking and no
163
City Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - March 4, 1986~ 10:00 A.M.
smoking would be designated by an appropriate sign and the
restaurant operators agreed that could be accomplished by a sign
placed on tables or a moveable sign. If the ordinance as
drafted did not contain either the signage in front of the
restaurant or the signing requirements of the the Santa Cruz
ordinance designating smoking and no smoking areas, it did not
incorporate all the provision he intended.
Jack White, City Attorney.
His original understanding was Councilman Overholt's concern
whether or not there was a provision at the entrance of the
restaurant that would designate customers in one direction or
the other for no smoking and smoking areas where there was no
host or hostess. That provision was not in the ordinance but
could be provided. One alternative would be to have tables
designated as smoking or no smoking tables with signs on each
table or both could be done.
Councilwoman Kaywood.
There was no concern on the part of the restaurant owners
objecting to the sign. She felt that was important and wanted
it included in the ordinance. She then questioned the City
Attorney relative to other provisions of the ordinance, i.e.,
wording with regard to food preparation area and the percentage
of no smoking in cafeterias and lunchrooms.
Councilman Overholt.
He referred to the February 25, 1986 memorandum from the City
Manager which contained what he felt softening language that
might be incorporated in the private work place portion of the
ordinance.
City Manager William Talley.
He agreed it was softening the language. There was some
inconsistency in that Council had ameliorated two of the areas,
major public facilities and food and beverage, and not the third
which was the work place. This was the one area that was the
subject of the Chamber's letter to the City. However, staff was
not suggesting language or taking a position.
Dave Morgan, Resource Development Manager.
Regarding volunteer programs, various organizations were
contacted as well as the Tobacco Institute and Californians for
Non-smokers' Rights. Tucson Arizona, San Jose California and
Sunnyvale California all had gone through a process of
attempting a voluntary program sponsored by a Chamber of
Commerce, but in each of those three cases they were in various
stages of moving away from that program and going to an
ordinance. As recently as last week, he had contacted Ron
Saldana of the Tobacco Institute to ask again to report any
voluntary program they could bring to the City's attention that
had worked successfully and was advised that the one they were
164
City Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - March 4, 1986, 10:00 A.M.
working on and had great hope for was the current one with the
Orange County Board of Supervisors. He was not advised of any
others.
Discussion then followed wherein Council Members posed questions to the City
Attorney for clarification of certain provisions of the proposed ordinance.
Additional input was also given by City Manager Talley.
Councilman Pickler.
His concern is relative to a voluntary vs. a mandatory plan for
the work place. He received many calls from people regarding
the no smoking issue. He received calls from Rockwell, Kwikset,
The Employment Office, Los Angeles Times, etc. Many mentioned
they had tried a voluntary program but stated that such a
program did not work. He is concerned mainly with the health
factor. He believed that smoking does affect an individual who
does absorb second-hand smoke. He preferred a mandatory program
at this time to protect the health of people working in an
environment hazardous to their health. Something had to be done
immediately.
Councilwoman Kaywood.
She questioned what Council Policy was going to be relative to
the Council Chamber, whether to leave it at 50 percent or
provide that there be no smoking in the Council Chambers.
Councilman Overholt.
He asked if the ordinance was adopted was there anything to
prevent a Council at any time from altering the smoking
regulations as they apply to the Chamber.
Jack White, City Attorney.
He answered no, adding as long as 50 percent remains no smoking.
Councilman Overholt.
He then preferred to have the ordinance give the discretion to
the City Council at any given point.
ORDINANCE NO. 4678: Councilman Overholt offered Ordinance No. 4678 for an
amended first reading including the three amendments as previously articulated
by the City Attorney relating to inclusion of the provisions of the Santa Cruz
ordinance as he (0verholt) had requested: designating, by signs, an adequate
amount of seating capacity to fully meet demands of non-smokers, signs at the
entrance directing customers to the correct area and signs designating the
smoking area which could be accomplished by placing signs on tables or other
moveable signs.
ORDINANCE NO. 4678: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM ADDING NEW CHAPTER
6.30 TO TITLE 6 OF THE ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE RETATING TO SMOKING IN PUBLIC
PLACES.
165
City Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - March 4, 1986, 10:00 A.M.
Mayor Roth stated that a copy of the ordinance as amended today would be voted
on at the March 18, 1986 Council meeting unless further amendments were made
at that time.
The matter was continued to Tuesday, March 18, 1986 at 1:30 p.m.
RECESS - CLOSED SESSION: Councilman Roth moved to recess into Closed Session
to discuss the balance of the items previously announced. Councilwoman
Kaywood seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. (2:45 p.m.)
AFTER RECESS: The Mayor called the meeting to order, all Council Members
being present with the exception of Councilman Bay. (5:32 p.m.)
175/137/123: SALE OF ELECTRIC AND WATER REVENUE BONDS FOR THE PURPOSE OF
ADVANCE REFUNDING OUTSTANDING BONDS: Public Utilities General Manager, Gordon
Hoyt first introduced all of the principals involved in the subject
transaction. He then briefed his memorandum dated March 4, 1986 recommending
the approval of two agreements, one employing Mudge Rose Guthrie Alexander &
Ferdon and Rourke & Woodruff as Co-Bond Counsel regarding the sale of Electric
and Water Revenue Bonds for the purpose of advance refunding certain
outstanding bonds, and the second employing James J. Lowrey & Company, Inc.,
as financial advisor to the City regarding the sale of the 1986 Bonds. Also
proposed were four resolutions authorizing the issuance of Electric Revenue
Bonds and approving a Bond Purchase Agreement relating to Electric Revenue
Bonds Issue of 1986 and resolutions authorizing the issuance of Water Revenue
Bonds and approving a Bond Purchase Agreement relating to Water Revenue Bonds
1986 Series. He explained that this was one of the best "financial deals"
transacted by any public power agency. The True Interest Cost (TIC) of 7.006
percent was the lowest TIC of any long-term public power bond issue over the
past 7 years and the underwriting cost of 1.175 percent per bond was one of
the lowest ever for public power issues. He was pleased to bring to the
Council a proposal for the sale of $136.4 million of Water and Electric
Revenue Refunding Bonds in a negotiated sale with Goldman Sachs and Company on
behalf of the underwriters which would reduce the municipal utilities' debt
payments by an average of ~542,000 annually with a gross savings from the
refunding at approximately ~11.9 million over the life of the bonds. There
would be no impact on the 1985/86 Resource Allocation Plan. All the costs
associated with the issue would be paid from the proceeds of the Bond Issue.
Bob MacDonald, Financial Advisor, James J. Lowrey.
Althoushmany times previously he had stated this was a great
deal, this time it was the best deal the City ever received. In
addition to their records, he researched over the last 8 years
and did not find a rate of interest or a gross spread as low as
the ones the City was receiving today. These were long-term 30
year bonds at the 7 percent level. The way the bonds were sold
this time was different than what they normally did as
previously explained by Mr. Hoyt. He recommended that the
Council accept the bid. He also complimented Goldman Sachs on
their fine work.
166
City Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - March 4~ 1986, 10:00 A.M.
Brad Higgins, Vice President, Goldman Sachs.
The reason the TIC was so low was due to the credit strength of
Anaheim as well as the ability to move quickly. A great deal of
the credit should go to Darrell Ament, Assistant General Manager
- Management Services, who initiated the phone call to Goldman
Sachs. The fact that the Utilities had their financials in such
good shape was also a major reason they were able to take
advantage of the rally in the market. The long-standing
relationship with the City of Anaheim was another reason why
they were able to come back last Friday with other co-managers
and submit the low bid. He then briefed the pricing proposal,
Exhibit A, (see brochure submitted - Pricing Proposal for the
City of Anaheim by Goldman Sachs & Company - March 4, 1986) for
the Electric Revenue Bond Issue at a TIC of 7.006 percent and
the Water Proposal a~ a TIC of 7.048 percent. The Water Issue
was slightly higher because the Bond Issue was two years
longer. The refunding summary was contained in Exhibit B and
some discussion of what happened in the Bond market last week
was contained in Exhibit C. He also briefed Exhibit D, the one
Goldman Sachs was most proud of which showed that this issue was
the lowest TIC of negotiated long-term public power issues from
January 1985 to present. They were making their proposal today
and thanked the City for the opportunity to do so.
MOTION: Councilman Roth moved to approve a letter agreement employing Mudge
Rose Guthrie Alexander & Ferdon and Rourke & Woodruff as Co-Bond Counsel
regarding the sale of Electric and Water Revenue Bonds for the purpose of
advance refunding certain outstanding bonds, as recommended in memorandum
dated March 4, 1986 from the Public Utilities General Manager. Councilman
Pickler seconded the motion. Councilman Bay was absent. MOTION CARRIED.
MOTION: Councilman Roth moved to approve a letter agreement employing James
J. Lowrey & Company, Inc., as financial advisor to the City regarding the sale
of the 1986 Bonds, as recommended in memorandum dated March 4, 1986 from the
Public Utilities General Manager. Councilman Bay was absent. MOTION CARRIED.
Councilman Roth offered Resolution No. 86R-89 through 86R-92, both inclusive,
for adoption. Refer to Resolution Book.
RESOLUTION NO. 86R-89: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ANAHEIM, CALIFORNIA, AUTHORIZING THE ISSUANCE OF ~129,275,000 ELECTRIC REVENUE
BONDS, ISSUE OF 1986, OF THE CITY; PROVIDING THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS FOR THE
ISSUANCE OF SUCH BONDS; AND APPROVING THE EXECUTION AND DELIVERY OF AN ESCROW
AGREEMENT IN CONNECTION THEREWITH.
RESOLUTION NO. 86R-90: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ANAHEIM, CAIJFORNIA, APPROVING BOND PURCHASE AGREEMENT RELATING TO ELECTRIC
REVENUE BONDS, ISSUE OF 1986, AND AUTHORIZING THE EXECUTION, DELIVERY AND
PERFORMANCE THEREOF; APPROVING OFFICIAL STATEMENTS RRLATING TO SAID BONDS; AND
AUTHORIZING OFFICERS OF THE CITY TO DO AI,I. OTHER THINGS NECESSARY OR ADVISABLE
THEREFORE.
167
City Hall', Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - March 4, 1986, 10:00 A.M.
RESOLUTION NO. 86R-91: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF TH.E CITY OF
ANAHEIM, CALIFORNIA, AUTHORIZING THE ISSUANCE OF 37,160,000 WATER REVENUE
BONDS, 1986 SERIES, OF THE CITY; AND APPROVING THE EXECUTION AND DELIVERY OF
AN ESCROW AGREEMENT IN CONNECTION THEREWITH.
RESOLUTION NO. 86R-92: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ANAHEIM, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING BOND PURCHASE AGREEMENT RELATING TO WATER
REVENUE BONDS, 1986 SEP~IES, AND AUTHORIZING THE EXECUTION, DELIVERY AND
PERFORMANCE THEREOF; APPROVING OFFICIAL STATEMENT RELATING TO SAID BONDS:
APPOINTING PAYING AGENTS FOR SAID BONDS; AND AUTHORIZING OFFICERS OF THE CITY
TO DO ALL OTHER THINGS NECESSARY OR ADVISABLE THEREFORE.
Roll Call Vote:
AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Kaywood,
NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: None
ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Bay
Overholt, Pickler and Roth
The Mayor declared Resolution No. 86R-89 through 86R-92, both inclusive, duly
passed and adopted.
ADJOURNMENT: Councilman Roth moved to adjourn. Councilman Pickler seconded
the motion. Councilman Bay was absent. MOTION CARRIED. (5:50 p.m.)
LEONORA N. SOHL, CITY CLERK
168