Loading...
1980/03/0480-227 City Hall~ Anaheim, California - cOuNCIL MINUTES - March 4, 1980~ 1:30 P.M. The City Council of the City of Anaheim met in regular session. PRESENT: ABSENT: PRESENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Overholt, Kaywood, Bay, Roth and Seymour COUNCIL MEMBERS: None CITY MANAGER: William O. Talley CITY ATTORNEY: William P. Hopkins CITY CLERK: Linda D. Roberts POLICE CHIEF: George P. Tielsch FINANCE DIRECTOR: George P. Ferrone DEPUTY CITY MANAGER: James D. Ruth PUBLIC UTILITIES GENERAL MANAGER: Gordon W. Hoyt Mayor Seymour called the meeting to order and welcomed those in attendance to the Council meeting. INVOCATION: Mary L. Hibbard, Anaheim United Methodist Church, gave the Invocation. FLAG SALUTE: Councilwoman Miriam Kaywood led the amsembly in the Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag. 119: PROCLAMATIONS: The following proclamations were issued by Mayor Seymour and authorized by the City Council: "Arbor Day in Anaheim" - March 7, 1980 "Police Reserve Offi~g~sC ~emk" - March 10-16, 1980 Mr. Stuart R. Miller, Orange County Chapter, California Association of Nurserymen, accepted the Arbor Day award. Chief of Police George Tielsch, Captain Jimmie Kennedy and Sergeant Gerald LeMar were present in conjunction with the prementation of the "Police Reserve officers' Week" proclamation in recognition of the outstanding services and contributions provided by those citizens while serving the 210,000 residents of Anaheim. Sergeant LeMar then introduced the following seven of the City'm 21 Police Reservists who subsequently relayed their personal background, all expressing the satisfaction they felt in being able to serve the City in the capacity of a Police Reserve Officer: Mike Bradshaw, Carol Bauer, Bruce Magness, Marjorie Diller, A1 Valdez, Glen Hagler, Mike Hays. Mayor Seymour stated it was extremely unique and enlightening to see such a broad segment of professionals represented. On behalf of the Council, they were happy and proud to recognize each and every one of the officers present, as well as the remaining Remervists for the commitment they were making; theirs was truly a service to the community. 119: PRESENTATION: Mayor Seymour first explained relative to the award about to be presented, it was the third time much an award had been presented to the City. He thereupon presented Mr. George Ferrone, the City's Finance Director, with the award from the California Society of Municipal Finance Officers for meritorious financial reporting for the City 1978-79 Annual Report. The Council was appreciative of the great strides he had made in the financial reporting of the City. 80-228 City Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - March 4, 1980~ 1:30 P.M. MINUTES: Councilwoman ~mywood moved to approve the minutes of the adjourned regular meeting and regular meeting of June 12, 1979, subject to typographical corrections on the adjourned regular meeting. Councilman Bay 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 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 ordinance or resolution in regular order. Councilman Roth seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. FINANCIAL DEMANDS AGAINST THE CITY in the amount of $758,072.83, in accordance with the 1979-80 Budget, were approved. . CITY MANAGER/DEPARTMENTAL CONSENT CALENDAR: On motion by Councilman Bay, seconded by Councilman Overholt, the following actions were authorized as recommended: a. 128: Monthly Financial Statement for the seven months ended January 31, 1980. b. 160: Authorizing the Purchasing Agent to issue a Purchase Order, without obtaining competitive bids, to Paul Mun~oe Hydraulics, Inc., (sole U.S. source), in an amount not to exceed $35,998, for a~itchers mound lift assembly. c. 160: Bid No. 3615: Three 6-cylin~ns. Award to T~d Jones Ford, $22,627.57. One V-8 van. Award t~S~d Chevrolet, $8,506.31. d. 160: Bid No. 3623: One Video~S'ystem for Jail. Award to Pacific Video, $20,845.48. e. 160/101: Bid No. 3628: Waiving Council Policy No. 306. Repainting ramps at Anaheim Stadium. Award to Wilson and Hampton, $63,000. f. 123: Approving an agreement with Boulevard Development, Inc., in the amount of $!13,860.99 for reimbursement of fees advanced for Special Facilities to serve Tracts 9601, 9744 and 9745. g. 123: Approving an agreement with Haven Hill, in the amount of $72,439.77, for reimbursement of fees advanced for Special Facilities to serve Tract 9749. h. 123: Approving an agreement with Lease-All La Palma for reimbursement of a portion of the costs for installation of a secondary water distribution system in Van Buren Street at Coronado Street. MOTION CARRIED. 158: ACQUISITION OF LOT 6 - GRESSWELL SUBDIVISION: Councilman Roth offered Resolution No. 80R-84 for adoption, as recommended in memorandum dated February 26, 1980 from Executive Director of Community Development Norm Priest, authorizing an agreement for acquisition of Lot 6 of the Gresswell Subdivision in the amount of $54,000, as part of the CDBG Program. Refer to Resolution Book. 80-229 City mall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - March 4, 1980~ 1:30 P.M. RESOLUTION NO. 80R-84: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM APPROVING THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF AN AGREEMENT FOR THE ACQUISITION OF REAL PROPERTY AND AUTHORIZING AND DIRECTING THE MAYOR AND CITY CLERK TO EXECUTE SAID AGREEMENT ON BEHALF OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM. Roll Call Vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: COUNCIL MEMBERS: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Overholt, Kaywood, Bay, Roth and Seymour None None The Mayor declared Resolution No. 80R-84 duly passed and adopted. 123: DESIGN OF MULTIPURPOSE RECREATION BUILDING AND PICNIC SHELTER - PERALTA CANYON PARK: Councilwoman Kaywood offered Resolution No. 80R-85 for adoption, as recommended in memorandum dated February 27, 1980 from James Ruth Deputy City Manager, authorizing an addendum in the amount of $3,450, to the agreement with Dan L. Rowland and Associates to provide for the performance of certain extra work in connection with the design of a multipurpose recreation building and picnic shelter for Peralta Canyon Park. Refer to Resolution Book. RESOLUTION NO. 80R-85: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM APPROVING THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF AN ADDENDUM TO AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AND DAN L. ROWLAND AND ASSOCIATES, INCORPORATED, AND AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR AND CITY CLERK TO EXECUTE SAID AGREEMENT. Roll Call Vote: i~:'~ AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: 0verholt, Kaywood, Bay, Roth and Seymour NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: None ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: None The Mayor declared Resolution No. 80R-85 duly passed and adopted. 150: PELANCONI PARK DEVELOPMENT PLAN: On motion by Councilwoman Kaywood, sec- onded by Councilman Roth, the development plan for Pelanconi Park, a 20.5-acre site located between Avenida Margarita and Westridge Circle, west of Imperial Highway, was approved, as recommended in memorandum dated February 21, 1980 from the Deputy City Manager. MOTION CARRIED. 156: UNCLAIMED PROPERTY RECOVERED BY THE POLICE DEPARTMENT: Councilwoman Kaywood offered Resolution No. 80R-86 for adoption, as recommended in memorandum dated January 15, 1980 from Chief of Police George Tielsch, declaring certain un- claimed property needed for public use and transferring the same to the City Purchasing Division. Refer to Resolution Book. RESOLUTION NO. 80R-86: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM DECLARING CERTAIN UNCLAIMED PROPERTY IS NEEDED FOR PUBLIC USE AND TRANSFERRING THE SAME TO THE CITY PURCHASING DEPARTMENT. 80-230 City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - March 4, 1980~ 1:30 P.M. Roll Call Vote: AYES: COUNCIL M~24BERS: NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: ABSENT:. COUNCIL MEMBERS: Overholt, Kaywood, Bay, Roth and Seymour None None The Mayor declared Resolution. No. 80R-86 duly passed and adopted. 167: AWARD OF CONTRACT - TRAFFIC SIGNAL MODIFICATIONS~ LINCOLN AVENUE AND SUNKIST STREET: Account No. 01-795-6325~5200. Councilwoman Kaywood offered Resolution No. 80R-87 for adoption, awarding a contract as recommended by the City Engineer in his memorandum dated February 25, 1980. Refer to Resolution Book. RESOLUTION NO. 80R-87: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM ACCEPTING A SEALED PROPOSAL AND AWARDING A CONTRACT TO THE LOWEST RESPONSIBLE BIDDER FOR THE FURNISHING OF ALL PLANT, LABOR, SERVICES, MATERIALS AND EQUIPMENT AND ALL UTILITIES AND TRANSPORTATION INCLUDING POWER, FUEL AND WATER, AND PER- FORMING ALL WORK NECESSARY TO CONSTRUCT AND COMPLETE THE FOLLOWIN~ PUBLIC IMPROVE- MENT: TRAFFIC SIGNAL MODIFICATION AT THE INTERSECTION OF LINCOLN AVENUE AND SUNKIST STREET, IN THE CITY OF ANAHEIM, ACCOUNT NO. 01-795-6325-5200. (Steiny and Company, Incorporated, $39,765) Roll Call Vote: AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Overholt, Kayw~od, Bay, Roth and Seymour NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: None ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: None The Mayor declared Resolution No. 80R-87 duly passed and adopted. 123: PREPARATION OF THE 1978-79 REPORT TO WATER REVENUE BONDS SERIES 1971 BOND- HOLDERS: On motion by Councilman Roth, seconded by Councilman Bay, an agreement was authorized with PRC Toups Corporation for the preparation of the 1978-79 Report to Water Revenue Bonds Series 1971 Bondholders, at a cost not to exceed $1,500, as recommended in memorandum dated February 22, 1980 from the Public Utilities Board. MOTION CARRIED. 123: PREPARATION AND REPRESENTATION OF THE CO~ON FORECASTING METHODOLOGY III (CMF III): On motion by Councilwoman Kaywood, seconded by Councilman Overholt, an agreement was authorized with Economic Sciences Corporation for professional services to assist the City staff in the preparation and representation of the Common Forecasting Methodology III (CMF III) Demand Forecast required by the California Energy Commission, in an amount not to ~xceed $55,000, ag r~c0mmanded in memorandum dated February 22, 1980 from the Public Utilities Board. MOTION CARRIED. 124: ORDINANCE NO. 4108: Councilman Seymour offered Ordinance No. 4108 for first reading. 80-231 City ~al~,. Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - March 4, 1980~ 1:30 P.M. ORDINANCE NO. 4108: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM (A) APPROVING A FOURTH AMENDMENT TO COMMUNITY CENTER FACILITY LEASE DATED FOR CONVENIENCE AS OF MARCH 1, 1980, BETWEEN THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AND THE COMMUNITY CENTER AUTHORITY, AND (B) AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR AND CITY CLERK TO EXECUTE AND DELIVER SAID FOURTH AMENDMENT TO COMMUNITY CENTER FACILITY LEASE. 127: PROPOSED CHARTER AMENDMENTS - DATE OF GENERAL b~NICIPAL ELECTIONS AND ELECTION OF MAYOR: Proposed resolutions ordering, calling, providing for and giving notice of a Special Municipal Election to be held on November 4, 1980, for the purpose of submitting to the voters proposed Charter Amendments relating to the date of General Municipal Elections and the election of Mayor; and re- questing the Board of Supervisors to consolidate said Special Municipal Election with the Statewide General Election to be held November 4, 1980, were submitted. Mayor Seymour explained that he had asked the City Attorney to prepare language for two potential City Charter Amendments to be placed before the voters. He asked to take the matters separately and discuss first the proposed language that, in his opinion, would open up the process of the way the Mayor was elected. He then relayed the historical background relative to the way the MayOr had been, and was now being elected, which had resulted in conflict points, those being for a person having to run for two offices at one time as he had to do in the last election--for a Council seat and the Mayoralty. As well, only one of five people were eligible to run for Mayor. There were many, himself included, who felt if a person was a qualified citizen in the City, they ought to be able to run for Mayor. He suggested that support for that position was that there were no special qualifications other than being a qualified citizen, a registered voter, to run for the County Board of Supervisors, State Assembly and Senate, the United States Congress and Senate, and few restrictions to run for President of the United States. Such an Amendment had been reviewed by more than one committee, most recently by the last Charter Review Committee. The Council was unable to reach a decision on the matter with the only decision being by the majority of the Council to place a question on the ballot that would revert the process back to where the majority of the Council might select the Mayor. That measure was defeated overwhelmingly by Anaheim voters two-to-one. Since the initiative process changed the way the Mayor was elected, i.e., to be elected at large rather than being selected by the Council, by the end of 1982, it would be eight years under that process and only once had there been any opposition to the office of the Mayor. The process did not provide the citizens with any selection at all. The Council had a copy of the recommended changes which first, would give no more power to the Mayor. He wanted to state clearly, he would be~opposed, Just as in the past, to what was referred to as a strong Mayor form of government. There would be no more powers given to the Mayor than the Mayor had today, which powers were the same as any other Council person, the only difference being the Mayor chaired the meeting and extended the Council's official policy positions from time to time. What it would change would be: (1) it would create a body of four Council seats and one Mayor rather than five Council seats, one of those being the Mayor. (2) It would extend the term of the Mayor from two years to four years. He was not committed to that aspect and could be totally satisfied with the Mayor's office being a two- year term. His thinking, if it were a two-year term, there would be a majority of the entire Council and the Mayor up for election every two years. 80-232 Cit~ ~al.!,' ~nahei~,..Cal~fqrnia .- COUNCIL MINUTES - Ma.rch 4~ 1980~ 1:30 P.M. City Attorney William Hopkins then stated the Mayor had covered the principal points and the actual wording for the ballot had been prepared and submitted to the Council. The proposed resolution was one that would actually order and call the election for the November 1980 ballot and the ballot wording was set forth on Page 2 of the Resolution. CouncilwOman Kaywood asked if there was a date when items had to be ready for the November ballot; City Clerk Linda Roberts stated approximately August 21, 1980. Councilwoman Kaywood thereupon asked if the Council would delay consideration of the matter for two weeks. She had had a very heavy schedule and thus did not have an opportunity to review the proposal to the degree that she would have liked. They had just been handed the five- or six-page document, and she wanted to review it before placing it on the ballot. Mayor Seymour asked if there was anything different in the proposed amendments other than separating the two issues; Mr. Hopkins clarified that the basic wording was the same. The Mayor stated he agreed there was no urgency relative to setting the language for the November ballot, and it was not necessary to do that today. However, there was an ur§ency in determining whether or not the Council was going to permit, by a majority vote, the questions to go to the voters in November. If not, then an initiative process would take a great deal of time, and he wanted to know as early as possible if that was going to be the case. As long as the objectives were registered, and ~h~r~ ~s an agreement on the Council, he would be happy to delay. He suggested t~ Councilwoman Kaywood that she had well advance notice that the proposals were coming and she received those in her Council box late last Tuesday. A brief discussion then followed between the Mayor and Councilwoman Kaywood relative to the timing aspect at the conclusion of which, Councilwoman Kaywood stated that there was going to be a League of California Cities meeting Thursday night which could provide a good opportunity to ask for more input with respect to the direct election of the Mayor and to solicit input on the different reactions from those who had actual experience with that method of election. Councilman Roth stated that he had no problem in moving the election date from April to June. He had talked to people previously relative to the need for getting a larger voter turnout, and either November or June would be satisfactory, although June might be better. He was supportive of that proposed amendment and had no £urther recommendations w~th regard to it. Relative to the election of the Mayor, he was supportive of the proposed changes to Section 501 and 504 of the City Charter. However, in Section (b) a write-in vote was still not permitted, and he did not see any reason for that provision. Mayor Seymour stated he had asked the City Attorney to prepare language as close as possible to that of eligibility for the City Council which indicated no write- in votes. He would be agreeable to allowing write-in votes--anything to further open up the process. 80-233 City Hal~., .Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - March 4, 1980~ 1:30 P.M. Councilman Roth continued that they also needed to clarify Section 504(c) re- garding the election of a Mayor Pro Tem to state that they would select a new Mayor Pro Tem every April, since there was confusion a year or so ago, because that was not spelled out. He concluded that as far as he was concerned, if Section 504(b) were changed to allow a write-in vote, along with clarification' that the Mayor Pro Tem was selected on a yearly basis, he was supportive of the complete proposal and would vote that it be placed on the November ballot. Councilman Bay stated that he agreed completely with the idea of putting the issues before the voters because he felt it was up to the voters to decide. He thought that way on the quemtion two years ago as a member of the Charter Review Committee. He personally favored the two-year term for Mayor because there had been some experiences in other cities where new Mayors without any past exper- ience whatsoever were elected to office and found that they really could not handle the job and their cohorts found that out am well. The election of the Mayor every two years would be a good starting point and if after six or eight or even only four years, turned out not to be the problem, it could be put to the people at that time to consider a four-year term. Going further than that, he would agree to a selection being put to the people,~whether it be a two- or four-year term and place that choice on the ballot along with the whole propo- sition. He agreed with Councilman Roth's suggestion relative to a write-in vote and that the Mayor Pro Tem should be selected by the Council on a yearly basis. Councilman Overholt stated he was supportive of both concepts generally. He had taken the trouble this week to talk to members of other City Councils in the County, primarily those cities that elected their Mayor in the manner proposed. The general reaction was why Anaheim had not done mo a long time ago. He favored a four-year term after talking with members of other Councils and Mayors, par- ticularly the Mayor of Garden Grove, who had previously run for Mayor as a Council Member and was defeated by a citizen at large. That individual's feeling about the four-year term, and he (Overholt) shared the view, was if a citizen was going to run for Mayor, that person must face a long-term commitment of time and personal and financial backing to assume that responsibility. To do so for four years would cause that citizen to put him house in order before seeking the position. The feeling relative to the two-year term was that anybody could stand anything for two yearm. Relative to the write-in vote, he was interested in knowing if disqualifying write-ins was consistent with the Council Member election. City Attorney Hopkins answered, "yes." The provision concerning City Council elections did not have a prohibition against write-ins. However, included in Section 504, there was a no write-in provision. He confirmed for Councilman Overholt that deleting it would, therefore, make it consistent in the manner in which the City Council was elected. Councilman Overholt concluded that both proposals had merit, and he would be supportive of them. 80-234 City.Hal%, .Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - March 4, 1980, 1:30 P.M. City Attorney Hopkins then clarified questions posed by Councilwoman Kaywood relative to the proposed amendments and language, particularly with regard to Section 501, Eligibility, wherein she indicated her preference for the wording, "...at least 30 days before filing or appointment." Councilwoman Kaywood then stated when the matter of the time of election was previously broached, the Mayor said he wanted more people voting and Councilman Roth commented, if that be the case, November would be the proper election. She agreed with that. She raised the point at the time, if it were a June election, newly elected Council Members would have a difficult time absorbing the City budget which would have to be adopted within a two-week period thereafter. Mayor Seymour then explained why he felt the alternative should be a June election. He did some statistical research as to the voter turnout in Anaheim City elections in April, comparing those to the June primary elections which revealed the following: Elections Registered Voters Total Votes Cast April 1974 78,878 16,511 or 20.9% June Primary 81,190 39,840 or 49% April 1976 74,214 18,825 or 24.64% June Primary 77,526 (no number provided) but equaled 74% April 1978 88,502 13,016 or 14.7% June Primary 92,608 56,453 or 61% More dramatic, however, was the 1978 Municipal Election where he (Seymour) received the highest vote count for his Council seat of 7,697 votes, representing 8.7% of all the registered voters in Anaheim, Councilwoman Kaywood, 5,680 votes or 6.4% and Councilman Overholt, 3,837 or 4.3%. His point in sharing the statistics was to emphasize that it was a disgrace when somewhere between four and nine percent of the total registered voters in the City were making the decision aa to the leadership in their local government which impacted their lives to a greater degree than any other level. Thus, the statistics justified the change to June instead of November. As well, November elections were clearly partisan elections, and he wanted to see City government stay out of partisan elections. Relative to the budget, there was no more information that he was aware of that was made available to the incumbent Council person that could not be made avail- able to any candidate who sought it, study, absorb and learn more about it. They would not be deprived at all of the budgetary process to any greater degree than an incumbent and, therefore, he did not see that as a valid argument. 80-235 Cit~ ~11.~ Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - March 4, 1980, 1:30 P.M. Councilwoman Kaywood stated having seen some of the misstatements that had been used as a campaign issue regarding budgets in past years, until .someone was on the Council and considered the budget in depth, they had to concede it was not the way they thought it was. Councilwoman Kaywood also questioned how a candidate could get the voters atten- tion without buying a great deal of advertising since a June or November election would be burying Anaheim's vote along with ones that would take the voter's attention, such as voting for Governor or the President. Mayor Seymour stated he totally trusted the people and preferred getting 49% of the vote, as opposed to 14%. Councilman Roth, noting that he had not covered the aspect of either a two- or four-year term for Mayor, stated that he was supportive of a four-year term for two reasons: (1) the cost of campaigning every two years was costly and time consuming. (2) A good qualified individual looking at the race for Council Member or Mayor would be more encouraged to run for a fOur-year Council seat, rather than a two-year term as Mayor. He also noted that the Mayor did not have veto power, but was the ceremonial head of the City and "Chief" in rank at Council meetings. Mayor Seymour also pointed out that there would be a savings to the taxpayers of somewhere around $20,000 minimum every two years with the propoSed change in the date of election. Mr. Louis Dexter, 305 North Ranchito, stated, listening to the Council discussion, he could support the proposed amendments 100%. Relative to the two- or four-year term, he could argue persuasively either cause. Council leadership was an issue and not administrative leadership. His own personal preference would probably be for a four-year term. He believed in representative government because now every issue needed to be rubber stamped by the people. He felt that many times people did not vote in their own interest. He reiterated he was totally supportive of the proposed Amendments. Councilwoman Kaywood suggested with the changes that had been discussed today and since the language would have to incorporate those changes, that they post- pone the matter one week. Mayor Seymour stated that he believed Councilmen Roth, Overholt, Bay and himself were in accord with what had been presented, along with the changes recommended by Councilman Roth. Relative to the four-year term for Mayor, he did not have any preference and being Mayor, he did not necessarily want to lean one way or the other. Logic told him, however, that it should be a four-year term for the reasons stated. He thereupon asked Councilman Bay if he would consider a four- year term after listening to the arguments and debate that took place today. Councilman Bay answered, "yes" and after listening to the arguments, he found that there were reasons he never thought about, particularly the time and expenditure necessary to run for office every two years, which was quite a draw- back. 80-236 C~ty Hall, Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - March 4, 1980, 1:30 P.M. Councilwoman Kaywood asked if there was any opposition to putting the selection of a two- or four-year term on the ballot; Mayor Seymour stated that he felt it would complicate the issue, and he wanted to make it as simple as possible for the voters to decide. It appeared there were four who favored placing the question of four years to the people, rather than the alternative, and he preferred to go with that. MOTION: Councilman Seymour moved to direct the City Attorney to prepare proposed amendments to the City Charter as follows: Section 504(b), strike the sentence, "in determining which candidate shall be elected Mayor, no write-in vote shall be counted"; Section 504(c), clarify to indicate the selection of the Mayor Pro Tem for a one-year term and when; designate a four-year term for Mayor. Upon preparation of the final language, that the proposed amendments be placed on the November ballot. Councilman Roth seconded the motion. Before a vote was taken, Councilwoman Kaywood asked again whether they could clarify Section 501, Eligibility, last sentence, by stating, "at least 30 days before filing or appointment" rather than, "next preceding such date". After a brief discussion relative to Councilwoman Kaywood's suggested wording, it was determined first that the words, "next" preceding were important. Councilwoman Kaywood thereupon suggested using "immediately" preceding rather than "next" preceding. Councilman Overholt stated that "immediately" would be acceptable, but there had to be that provision whereby it indicated a residency period immediately before. A vote was then taken on the foregoing motion, including the noted minor changes and suggested wording. MOTION CARRIED. Councilman Seymour offered Resolution No. 80R-88 for adoption, ordering, calling, providing for and giving notice of a Special Municipal Election to be held on November 4, 1980, for the purpose of submitting to the voters proposed Charter Amendments relating to the date of General Municipal Elections. Refer to Resolution Book. RESOLUTION NO. 80R-88: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM, CALIFORNIA, ORDERING, CALLING, PROVIDING FOR AND GIVING NOTICE OF A SPECIAL MUNI- CIPAL ELECTION TO BE HELD IN SAID CITY ON NOVEMBER 4, 1980, FOR THE PURPOSE OF SUBMITTING TO THE QUALIFIED VOTERS OF SAID PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO THE CHARTER OF SAID CITY AND CONSOLIDATING SAID ELECTION WITH THE STATEWIDE GENERAL ELECTION TO BE ~ELD ON SAID DATE. Before a vot~ was taken, Councilwoman Kayw00d asked if there was a way to attempt the change so that if it were not successful, it would be a one time trial basis. A brief Council discussion followed at the conclusion of which a vote was taken on the foregoing resolution. 80-237 Cit~..Ha~l, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - March 4, 1980, 1:30 P.M. Roll Call Vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: COUNCIL MEMBERS: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Overholt, Kaywood, Bay, Roth and Seymour None None The Mayor declared Resolution No. 80R-88 duly passed and adopted. Later in the meeting, Mayor Seymour commended the Council for the action taken on the foregoing amendments to the City Charter. He realized how long those matters had troubled~all in the community, and he was proud that the Council saw fit to let the voters decide those questions. 164: STORM DRAIN BOND ISSUE: Councilwoman Kaywood first asked if it would cost any more to add another question to the November ballot; City Clerk Roberts answered that it would probably not cost anymore. Councilwoman Kaywood thereupon stated that she would like to see a storm drain bond issue placed on the November ballot. She referred to the recent storms and the condition of some of the City streets and felt it was obvious they were not able to take care of the great needs of the City just through the budget and the General Fund. The Mayor suggested that perhaps the proper course of action would be a motion to have such an issue drawn up after having staff study the matter, with a report to be submitted for consideration as to its scope and specifications. MOTION: Councilwoman Kaywood stated that they had recommendations of the 1968 Capital Improvement Committee which was probably the same recommendations from the 1959 committee. In other words, the recommendations were still in existence. Some had been taken care of while others had not. Those recommendations should be included as well as anything additional from the Executive Director of Public Works. She thereupon moved to direct staff to submit a report for Council con- sideration and subsequent decision relative to placing a storm drain bond issue on the November 1980 ballot. Councilman Bay seconded the motion for the purpose ~f discussion. Councilman Bay stated that he supported the idea of a storm drain bond issue being placed on the ballot, but not a November ballot. The rains came now, and November was a long way off with a great deal of ~dry period in between. He would support it being on the June ballot or as close to the rainy season or immediately following the rainy season as possible, because then it would have a much better chance of passing. Councilwoman Kaywood noted that she wanted it placed on the ballot in April of 1978, but was not successful. Councilman Roth stated that he was going to oppose the motion because he had not heard a public outcry telling them to encumber the City by another couple of million dollars. He would oppose such an issue until he received some public input to justify placing the question on the ballot. Councilman Overholt stated that the motion was merely a request that staff submit a report so that the matter could be discussed and until they received that infor- mation, he did not know whether they were in a position to know whether or not 80-238 City Hall, Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - March 4~ 1980~ 1:30 P.M. there was some public outcry. He shared Councilman Roth's view that before going into something, that~ there should be public hearings to obtain the public viewpoints even if those hearings were held in mid-summer. A vote was taken on the foregoing motion. Councilman Roth voted "no". MOTION CARRIED. 127: OPPOSITION TO THE RECALL MOVEMENT: Mayor Seymour stated that he had been silent throughout the period of recall of two City Council members. He expressed himself publicly at the outset in August or September of 1978. At that time, he made a statement, as he could best recall, where, in essence, he stated that the recall issues were so broad--the articles of recall--that any of the five members serving on the Council could be recalled on one or more of those articles. Since that time, they were all too familiar with the history--the first recall having failed, the articles of recall being redrafted, and a second attempt made. He felt since September of 1978 that he should remain silent and allow the democratic process to determine the direction, success or failure, of a recall petition. He found now that he could no longer remain silent on the subject, and it was incumbent upon the Office of the Mayor, not so much John Seymour, to speak out relative to the recall. The Mayor continued that he felt it had become all too clear that the recall of two members of the Council was motivated by outside monied influences, more specifically, gambling influences, that in his opinion could only drag down the image that the City had invested in for so many years with so many of its citizens giving a great deal of time to maintain that image in a very high and positive degree. He suspected if those monied interests, gambling interests, were successful in bringing together a recall that, in fact, they would attempt to influence the very basic morals of the community. Secondly, the reason he felt compelled to speak out now in opposition, it had been going on since September of 1978, and he believed the community had enough of the type of upheaval, uncertainty, and pot stirring that had been taking place. He was suggesting that the people of Anaheim dig in their heels and say, this has gone far enough and it's time to conclude the process and get on with the important business confronting the City. Thirdly, he felt compelled to speak out because he saw those same interests in- fluencing the City Council campaign, the same ~ambling interests, threatening the viability of the community and he did not want in any way to deprive or put down any well meaning citizen attempting to run for office. He was also not taking ~artic~lar ~id~ in the eleetlon. We was saying those candidates who were in the current City Council campaign being financed by bingo interests, as well as massage parlor interests, which as he had said before for the most part were shams for prostitution, that fact had to be made known. He felt very strongly that as the Mayor of the City, he must speak out to make the citizens aware of exactly what was going on in the City. Finally, in his opinion, Councilman Overholt, although not agreeing with him on all issues, had to be commended for the job he had thus far done in his term of office, and he offered much. He felt confident that Councilman Overholt had the best interests of the citizens of the City at heart and, therefore, the recall was certaintly unreasonable and unfounded as it pertained to his case. 80'239 Ci.ty Hall~ Anaheim, ,California - COUNCIL MINUTES - March 4~ 1980, 1:30 P.M. Relative to Councilwoman Kaywood, the public at large was well aware that she (Kaywood) and he differed, sometimes vehemently, on issues and they would perhaps continue to do so. He would have to say honestly if this were a re-election campaign, he might even be inclined to support somebody in opposition to Councilwoman Kaywood. On the other hand, relative to the recall, this was the wrong process to change the leadership. There was nothing in those recall articles that to him smacked of or inferred malfeasance in office or dishonest conduct or any type of conduct that would merit the recall process. Those articles dealing with issue oriented matters should be debated routinely in a regular City Council election. In finality, he wanted to emphasize that the citizens of Anaheim should be very aware as to the powers moving behind the recall process and the powers that had injected themselves into the City Council campaign and to recognize those powers for what they would mean to the future of the City. Later in the meeting, Councilman Overholt stated as a member of the Council and particularly since he was a target of the recall effort, he appreciated the Mayor's public comments. The recall was something that had a tendency to drain on one, on one's family, friends and on the community. The Mayor's remarks, so beautifully put, were most appreciated at this critical time. 163: REQUEST FOR CROSSING GUARD - HARBOR BOULEVARD AND NORTH STREET: Naoma J. Sweet, requesting a crossing guard at the intersection of Harbor Boulevard and North Street. On motion by Councilman Roth, seconded by Councilman Overholt, consideration of the request for a crossing guard and the subject intersection was continued one week at the request of Mrs. Sweet and Paul Miller, Principal of Horace Mann School, who were present in the Council Chamber. MOTION CARRIED. RECESS: By general consent the Council recessed for 20 minutes. (3:10 P.M.) AFTER RECESS: Mayor Seymour called the meeting to order, all Council Members being present. (3:30 P.M.) 176: PUBLIC HEARING - ABANDONMENT NO. 76-26A: In accordance with application filed by Santa Fe Land Improvement Company, public hearing was held on proposed abandonment of former Edison Company easements, located north of La Palma Avenue, west of Kellogg Drive, pursuant to Resolution No. 80R-61, duly published in the Anaheim Bulletin, and notice thereof posted in accordance with law. Report of the City Engineer (at the time, James Maddox) dated July 28, 1977 and a recommendation by the Planning Commission were submitted, recommending approval of said abandonment. The Mayor asked if anyone wished to address the Council; there being no response he closed the public hearing. 80-240 C.i~y Hal~, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - March 4, 1980~ 1:30 P.Mo ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT - CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION: On motion by Councilman Bay, seconded by Councilman Roth, the City Council ratified the determination of the Planning Director that the proposed activity falls within the definition of Section 3.01, Class 5, of the City of Anaheim guidelines to the requirements for an Environmental Impact Report and is, therefore, categorically exempt from the requirement to file an EIR. MOTION CARRIED. Councilman Bay offered Resolution No. 80R-89, approving Abandonment No. 76-26A. Refer to Resolution Book. RESOLUTION NO. 80R-89: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM ORDERING THE VACATION AND ABANDONMENT OF CERTAIN PUBLIC SERVICE EASEMENTS. (76-26A) Roll Call Vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: COUNCIL MEMBERS: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Overholt, Kaywood, Bay, Roth and Seymour None NOne The Mayor declared Resolution No. 80R-89 duly passed and adopted. 127/175: ADVISORY VOTE - INTERMOUNTAIN POWER PROJECT: Ordering, calling, pro- viding for and giving notice of a Special Municipal Election to be held on June 3, 1980, for the purpose of an Advisory Vote on the Intermountain Power Project; requesting the Board of Supervisors to consolidate said Special Municipal Election with the Statewide General Election to be held June 3, 1980; authorizing certain of its Members to file a written argument for and against said measure. Mayor Seymour, speaking to Public Utilities General Manager Gordon Hoyt, first stated that he not only supported the measure, but on behalf of the Council, he would like to lead the campaign to see it approved, because he believed in the issue, and it was a good one. He then made a suggestion amending the proposed ballot wording submitted in order to simplify it in the minds of the voter, in essence, stating when the power came on-line or at the completion of construction, it would deliver a projected 40% of the City's electrical needs. With reference to the financial aspects, they should indicate what the cost of purchase of that same 40% would be from Southern California Edison (SCE) also giving a number relative to what it would cost construction-wise, including interest, subtracting from that the cost of what the City would be paying Edison, and that would give the savings. If they presented the data in that fashion, he felt it would be a total, complete, open disclosure which would lead the voters to the bottom line~ justifyin§ why they were completely supportive of it.. Mr. Hoyt stated that was essentially the information presented in the R. W. Beck letter of January 31, 1980 (on file in the City Clerk's office--also see minutes January 31, February 13 and February 26, 1980, the public hearings held relative to the Intermountain Power Project). Mayor Seymour stated he felt if they conducted a good campaign, the people would see the issue clearly and would support it. As he began to look at what the opposition might say, he did not want to open it up to charges that they did not 80-241 C~t.y Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - March 4, 1980, 1:30 P.M. "tell it like it is" because it was too good a story not to do so. After a brief discussion between Mayor Seymour and Mr. Hoyt regarding the proposed wording change, Mr. Hoyt concluded that they could accommodate what the Mayor was requesting, bearing in mind the 100-word limit. If it met with approval of the Council, he wanted to be able to work on the language during the week and speak with the Council Members in that time, and resubmit language at the Council meeting next week. The Mayor asked for any additional Council input. Councilman Bay stated that durin§ the previous public meetings on IPP when Mr. Hoyt projected Southern California Edison's cost, he (Bay) felt that those pro- jections were much too conservative and those projections had to be figured on something better than the 8% inflation ratio, which projections were also without regard to the climbing costs of foreign oil. He did not want it to be open for criticism for being overestimated, but what they were talking about was under- estimated. Mayor Seymour stated he felt the same way but they also should be mindful of the fact that the figures were based on the consultant's estimate. He did not want to be subject to the charge of refuting the word of the consultant. He would, therefore, rather use a conservative approach because even conservatively, it was a good story to tell. Mr. Hoyt explained that the Chamber of Commerce had formed a task force to study the issue,, and they were meeting with them in the morning. They, too, had asked a number of questions, one being the same that CounCilman Bay raised regarding the price of oil. He therefore asked the consultants to make another computer run to ascertain what those numbers would be at today's oil prices. Further, they now had the cost estimate of the project at the Lynndyl site, the final selected site for the IPP, which was just completed yesterday, and they were going to incorporate those numbers as well. The Mayor recognized that there might be some citizens who wanted to speak to the matter. From the audience, a gentlemen (recognized as Mr. Charlie Hilfenhaus from his presence at a previous meeting) noted that the City Attorney was to report when pro and con arguments could be filed on IPP. He knew of some residents who would be con. Councilman Roth commented that it was interesting to note at the last IPP public hearing (see minutes February 26, 1980) three citizens participated in the dis- cussion; one from Anaheim, one from Buena Park and one from La Habra. Mayor Seymour asked what the interests of Buena Park and La Habra might be; Councilman Roth noted that the gentleman in the audience was interested in solar energy and that the Sierra Club was represented at the last meeting and was opposed to everything, but "windmills" and solar energy. Mr. Hilfenhaus stated that they were involved in public education relative to solar, conservation, and alternative energy. 80-242 City Hal!~ Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - March 4~ 1980, 1:30 P.M. Mayor Seymour then stated that there would certainly be an opportunity provided to present a con argument. He asked the City Clerk the time frame for the public to file a con argument. City Clerk Roberts stated, in order to meet the County deadline of March 21, and allowing time for rebuttal, there would be only a very short period of time in- volved. She would have to have the con argument by March 10, because it would be necessary to translate into Spanish as well, the same for arguments for, against and rebuttal. Clerk Roberts stated she would call the County to see if they would allow a time extension. Councilman Bay stated he was concerned that there wa8 a group wanting to write a con argument, that their time was not cut so short to not allow them to do so properly. Clerk Roberts al~o explained that there was a priority as to who could file arguments for and againmt. If there was a bona fide organization who-wished to file the con argument, she would take that over an individual person. From the audience, a small group of people questioned the organization who wished to write the con argument and if not from Anaheim, why would they be allowed to file such an argument. Mr. Hilfenhaus stated that he was associated with a property holder of the Unitarian Church, 1127 West Santa Ana Street, as he said the February 26, 1980 meeting and also an Anaheim resident would write the con argument so as to avoid the ismue of a non-resident doing so. Mayor Seymour stated that he felt that they had enough information on the issue and the thrust of what the question was going to be. He therefore suggested that Mr. Hilfenhaus and his people start writing the con arguments so as to avoid missing the opportunity to be part of that process. Councilwoman Kaywood, speaking to Mr. Hilfenhaus, stated that last week after the hearing (February 26, 1980), he had with him a flyer on solar Anaheim. She knew he had spoken with Mr. Hoyt at the time and she was wondering if he (Hilfenhaus) had any further questions or comments and, if so, would he like to air those now, especially because of the innuendos that were contained in that flyer. Mr. Hilfenhaus stated that they had removed all of that material from their flyers; Councilwoman Kaywood asked if he would submit a copy of the new flyer to the Council (copy of flyer entitled, Solar Anaheim, revi~ed March 3, 1980, on file in the City Clerk's office), which he did. Clerk Roberts reported that her office had been advised that the County would allow until April 1, 1980 for arguments to be filed, and she reiterated it was necessary to allow sufficient time for arguments for, against and rebuttal to be received and also translated into SpaniSh. By g~neral consent, the three proposed resolutions relative to the Intermountain Power Project were continued one week for finalization of the ballot wording. 80-243 City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - March 4~ 1980, 1:30 P.M. 108: COSMIC AGE LODGE AND GALAXY MOTEL - PENALTY ASSESSMENT: Request by Mr. Ken Baxter, for waiver of the penalty assessment for late payment of the November 1979 Transient Occupancy Tax. Mr. Ken Baxter, Manager, Cosmic Age Lodge and Galaxy Motel, stated that the owners of the two motels also owned three others, totaling approximately 700 rooms. Taxes paid to the City last year were approximately $400,000. Their November taxes for two of the five properties which were all mailed on the same day in late December, did not arrive at the City until the first few days of January (see Mr. Baxter's letter dated February 7, 1980) o He was personally responsible for seeing that the checks signed by two different owners and putting them in the mail. He did not understand why the two checks were late, but the total penalties were $859. He did not think they were late and believed they were post- marked December 29 or 30, 1979. They had not been late before. As the Council was aware, mail was very heavy around Christmas and New Year's holidays and in this case, it was the mail that was stating they were lake. Both the Mayor and Councilwoman Kaywood noted that the envelopes were postmarked January 3, 1980; Mr. Baxter stated he was not aware of that. The Mayor stated he was certain the Council would want to consider the request, but their concern was relative to setting any precedent in that particular area. They would be opening the door to every motel-hotel operator to come in and plead the same case. However, if Mr. Baxter could give them something to "hang their hat on", other than what they had, they could be receptive. Perhaps Mr. Baxter could get a letter from the Post Office that could add some credence to the fact that the checks were deposited in the Post Office, but that it was possible they did not get out of the Post Office until January 3, 1980. Mr. Baxter remarked that all he could say, to his knowledge, they got the checks out in late December, and he did not know how to approach the Post Office relative to the Mayor's suggestion. Councilman Overholt first stated that he was going to disqualify himself because he had done business for the Stovalls; however, he would suggest to Mr. Baxter how he could approach the Post Office because he had to do the same on late filings himself. He would find that the Post Office, particularly with regard to the rush Christmas season, would be very cooperative in giving him statements that it was entirely possible the mail was received by them before January 1, but postmarked on the 3rd for one reason or another. That, coupled with a declaration by the employee who posted the envelope, was good enough for the IRS and, therefore, it might be good enough for the City Council. If Mr. Baxter exerted himself and talked with the postal authorities, he could obtain the proof that the Council needed. MOTION: Councilman Roth moved to continue the subject one week to allow the petitioner to try to obtain a statement from the Post Office indicating the possibility that the checks were received by them in time to preclude a penalty assessment on the November 1979 Transient Occupancy Tax paid, but postmarked on a later date. Councilwoman Kaywood seconded the motion. Councilman Overholt abstained. MOTION cARRIED. 80-244 City ~al~. Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - March 4~ 1980~ 1:30 P.M. CONSENT CALENDAR ITEMS: On motion by Councilman Roth, seconded by Councilwoman Kaywood, 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 Claims Administrator: a. Claim submitted by James and Jeanne Patterson for damages and personal injuries purportedly sustained by minor James Bruce Patterson, as a result of roadway conditions on Brookhurst Street, north of Crestwood, on or about November 13, 1979. b. Claim submitted by Daniel Currier for property damage and personal injuries purportedly sustained as a result of an automobile accident caused by sudden end of road on La Palma, east of Jenifer Road, on or about December 25, 1979. c. Claim submitted by Vincent Dimaggio for damages purportedly sustained as a result of claimant's vehicle being broken into and articles stolen therefrom while parked in the Anaheim Hills Golf Course parking lot on or about February 6, 1980. d. Claim submitted by John D. Arnold and Lisa D. Allen for personal injury damages purportedly sustained as a result of accident caused by malfunctioning traffic signals at Harbor Boulevard and Orangewood Avenue, on or about December 28, 1979. e. Claim submitted by Anthony Guisa for damages purportedly sustained as a result of rain water causing portion of Santa Ana Canyon Road to collapse and damage residential property on or about January 28, 1980. f. Claim submitted by Mrs. Jo Ann Walker for vehicular damages purportedly sustained as a result of unmarked hole in street in Magnolia Avenue, southbound, north of Woodland Drive, on or about January 18, 1980. g. Claim submitted by Lillian May Sonnnerhauser for personal injury and property damages purportedly sustained as a result of an accident involving a City vehicle at La Palma and East Street, on or about January 15, 1980. h. Claim submitted by Safeco Insurance Company for vehicular damages purportedly sustained as a result of accident involving a City vehicle at East Street and La Palma Avenue, on or about January 15, 1980. i. Claim submitted by Stephen C. Schroeder for personal injuries purportedly sustained as a result of actions by Anaheim Police Officers during arrest of claimant at the Convention Center, on or about October 25, 1979. 2. CORRESPONDENCE: The following correspondence was ordered received and filed: a. 105: Community Redevelopment Commission--Minutes of January 30, 1980. b. 105: Anaheim Public Library Board--Minutes of November 21, 1979. c. 140: Anaheim Public Library--Monthly Statistical Report for January 1980. 80-245 City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - March 4, 1980, 1:30 P.M. d. 175: Public Utilities Department, Customer Service Division--Monthly Report for January 1980. MOTION CARRIED. CONSENT cALENDAR ITEMS: Councilman Roth offered Resolution Nos. 80R-90 through 80R-93, 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. RESOLUTION NO. 80R-90: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AUTHORIZING AND DIRECTING THE ACCEPTANCE OF A DIRECTOR'S DEED FROM THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA (S/O VERMONT AVENUE, E/O SANTA ANA FREEWAY). 164: RESOLUTION NO. 80R-91: 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 STREET STORM DRAIN, SEQUOIA STREET TO CRESCENT AVENUE, IN THE CITY OF ANAHEIM, ACCOUNT NO. 13-791-6325-1110; 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 April 3, 1980, at 2:00 P.M.) 164: RESOLUTION NO. 80R-92: 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: GILBERT STREET STREET IMPROVE- MENT, IN THE CITY OF ANAHEIM, ACCOUNT NOS. 47-792-6325-2440 AND 47-792-6325-2460. (Ruiz Engineering Company) RESOLUTION NO. 80R-93: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM TERMINATING ALL PROCEEDINGS IN CONNECTION WITH CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 1480 AND DECLARING RESOLUTION NO. 74R-400 NULL AND VOID. Roll Call Vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: COUNCIL MEMBERS: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Overholt, Kaywood, Bay, Roth and Seymour None None The Mayor declared Resolution Nos. 80R-90 through 80R-93, both inclusive, duly passed and adopted. CITY PLANNING COMMISSION ITEMS: The following actions taken by the City Planning Commission at their meeting held February 11, 1980, pertaining to the following applications, as listed on the Consent Calendar, were submitted for City Council information. 1. RECLASSIFICATION NO. 79-80-20: Submitted by Fortunato, Angelina and Ruben Aguayo Gutierrez, for a change in zone from RM-2400 to RM-1200 on property located at 314 West Elm Street. 80-246 C~ty Ha%l, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - March 4~ 1980~ 1:30 P.M. Reclassification No. 79-80-20 was withdrawn by the petitioner, and granted a negative declaration status. 2. RECLASSIFICATION NO. 79-80-23: Submitted by Paul A. and Nancy J. Waterman and David R. and Nancy C. Mellon, for a change in zone from RS-7200 to RM-2400, to retain an existing residence and construct 3 additional units to create a 4-unit apartment on property located at 757 North East Street. The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC80-25, granted Reclassification No. 79-80-23, and granted a negative declaration status. 3. RECLASSIFICATION NO. 79-80-25~ VARIANCE NO. 3136, EIR NO. 235, AND REQUEST FOR REMOVAL OF SPECIMEN TREES.~ (~ENTATIVE TRACT NOS. 10967, 10968, 10969, 10970, 10971, 10972, 10973,. 10974, 1097,5~ 10976, 10977 AND 10978): Submitted by Texaco Anaheim Hills, Inc., for a change in zone on all portions (A, B, C & D) from County A-1 and RS-A-43,000 on Portion A to RM-2400(SC) and OS(SC); Portion B to RM-3000(SC) and OS(SC); Portion C to RS-HS-22,000(SC) and OS(SC); and Portion D to OS(SC), on property located southwesterly of Nohl Ranch Road between the intersection of Nohl Ranch Road with Canyon Rim Road and Serrano Avenue, with certain Code waivers. The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution Nos. PC80-30 and PC80-31, granted and approved Reclassification No. 79-80-25, Variance No. 3136, certified EIR No. 235, and approved the request for removal of trees. 4. VARIANCE NO. 3133: Submitted by Chhotubhia Madhavbhai Patel, to expand an existing motel on C-R zoned property located at 1769 South West Street, with a Code waiver of minimum number of parking spaces. The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC80-28, granted Variance No. 3133, and granted a negative declaration status. 5. VARIANCE NO. 3135: Submitted by Lucia Ritta Corporation, to construct a tennis court on RS-HS~43,000(SC) zoned property located at 5021 Crescent Drive, with a Code waiver of minimum structural setback. The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC80-29, granted Variance No. 3135, and ratified the Planning Director's categorical exemption determination. 6, CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO, 1973 (READVERTISED) AND EIR NO. 218(5)~ (TENTATIVE TRACT NO, 10713, Revision No. 1.): Submitted by Carlton Homes, Inc., to permit a 54-unit condominium subdivision on proposed RS-HS-10,000(SC) zoned property located on the west side of Imperial Highway and south of Nohl Ranch Road. The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC80-27, granted Condi- tional Use Permit No. 1973 (Tentative Tract No. 10713, Revision No. 1), EIR No. 218(5) was certified on June 4, 1979. 7. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 1799 - EXTENSION OF TIME: Submitted by Rovi Pacific Corporation, requesting a retroactive extension of time to Conditional Use Permit No. 1799, to permit on-sale beer and wine in a proposed semi-enclosed restaurant on property located at 6501 East Serrano Avenue. 80-247 ~ity Hall~ Ana~..~i~,L~Ca.~ifornia - COUNCIL MINUTES - March 4, 1980, 1:30 P.M. The City Planning Commission approved an extension of time to Conditional Use Permit No. 1799, to expire January 30, 1981. 8. VARIANCE NO. 2247 - EXTENSION OF TIME: Submitted by Esther D. Munoz, requesting an extension of time to Variance No. 2247, to continue operating a beauty salon in an existing single-family residential structure on RM-1200 zoned property located on the east side of Sabina Street, south of Sycamore Street. The City Planning Commission approved an extension of time to Conditional Use Pemit No. 2247, to expire April 19, 1983. No action was taken by the City Council on the foregoing items, therefore, the action of the City Planning Commission became final. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2052: Submitted by California Services Corporation, to expand an existing automobile auction and reconditioning facility on ML zoned property located at 1320 North Tustin Avenue. The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC80-26, granted Condi- tional Use Permit No. 2052, and granted a negative declaration status. Councilwoman Kaywood removed Conditional Use Permit No. 2052 from the Planning Commission Consent Calendar and asked for a review of the Commission's action. ORDINANCE NO. 4107: Councilman Seymour offered Ordinance No. 4107 for adoption. Refer to Ordinance Book. ORDINANCE NO. 4107: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AMENDING TITLE 18 OF THE ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO ZONING. (79-80-15, CL) Roll Call Vote: AYES: NOES: AB SENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: COUNCIL MEMBERS: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Overholt, Kaywood, Bay, Roth and Seymour None None The Mayor declared Ordinance No. 4107 duly passed and adopted. 142/149: ORDINANCE NO. 4109: Councilwoman Kaywood offered Ordinance No. 4109 for first reading. ORDINANCE NO. 4109: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AMENDING TITLE 14, CHAPTER 14.32, SECTION 14.32.190 OF THE ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODERELATING TO PARKING. (no parking, N/S of Cerritos Avenue, from Moon8tone Street to WCL) 114: PROPOSITON 9: Councilman Roth extended an invitation to the Council to attend a meeting Friday, March 14, 1980, at 12 Noon, at the Jolly Roger Inn (Katella and Harbor); featured speaker, Howard Jarvis, "Why We Should Support Proposition 9"--$5.00 charge. 114: RETIRED EMPLOYEES ASSOCIATION LUNCHEON: Councilman Roth reported on his attendance at the subject luncheon today wherein concerns were expressed partic- ularly by those who retired in the 1960's and the problems of living on the same income today. 80-248 City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - March 4, 1980, 1:30 P.M. Mayor Seymour also commented that at the luncheon, which he also attended, he continued to hear, as he did in the community, satisfaction and a good feeling for the direction of the City and for the way the Council was working together even though not always agreeing on issues. He thanked the Council for pulling together in what he considered presently to be a good term. 105: SENIOR CITIZENS ADVISORY COMMISSION APPOINTMENTS: Councilman Roth asked the City Clerk when the selection of the members for the subject commission was going to take place. Clerk Roberts stated that the Ordinance was now in effect, and it was just a matter of scheduling appointments to that Commission on the agenda. Councilman Roth thereupon requested that appointments to the Senior Citizens Advisory Commission be agendized and that copies of letters from those who requested to serve be made for Council consideration. RECESS - EXECUTIVE SESSION: Councilman Roth moved to recess into Executive Session. Councilman Bay seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. (4:10 P.M.) AFTER RECESS: Mayor Seymour called the meeting to order, all Council. Members being present. (4:25 P.M.) ADJOURNMENT: Councilwoman Kaywood moved to adjourn. Councilman Overholt seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. Adjourned: 4:25 P.M. ~BERTS, CITY CLERK