Loading...
1980/07/2980-927 City Hall~ Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - July 29~ 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 FINANCE DIRECTOR: George P. Ferrone DEPUTY CITY MANAGER: James D. Ruth HUMAN RESOURCES DIRECTOR: Garry McRae CITY ENGINEER: William G. Devitt ASSISTANT UTILITIES GENERAL MANAGER: Edward Alario ASSISTANT FINANCE DIRECTOR-RESOURCES: Ron Rothschild DETECTIVE: Jim Watkins Mayor Seymour called the meeting to order and welcomed those in attendance to the Council meeting. INVOCATION: Reverend Mitch Garcia, Melodyland Hotline Center, gave the Invocation. FLAG SALUTE: Councilman Ben Bay led the assembly in the Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag. 156: POLICE OLYMPICS MEDALIST WINNERS: Detective Jim Watkins, long-standing coordinator of Police Olympics activities, reported on the 13th Annual Police Olympics held July 16 to 20, 1980 in San Diego. Thirty officers competed from Anaheim of a field of 3500 plus officers state-wide and those 30 captured 19 medals. He then introduced the medalists winners who were present at the meeting. Mayor Seymour stated on behalf of the Council and all citizens of the City, they were proud of the men because they were not only fine and outstanding professional police officers, but also because they took enough pride within themselves to extend themselves in the Police Olympics Program over and above the call of duty. Detective Watkins added that the officers prepared for all of the events on their own time and at their own expense. He reported that for the International Police Olympics, to be held in Nassau County, Long Island New York, August 20 to 24, 1980, all the officers would be paying their own way. However, they would be seeking some donations because it was going to be very expensive. The Police Department was now looking at the logistics for the possibility of using City business time for that trip. MINUTES: Councilwoman Kaywood moved to approve the minutes of the regular meetings held May 20 and May 27 and the adjourned regular meeting of March 18, 1980, subject to typographical corrections. Councilman Overholt seconded the motion. Council- men Bay and Roth abstained on the meeting of May 27, 1980 due to absence. 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 80-928 City Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - July 29~ 1980~ 1:30 P.M. 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 Bay seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. FINANCIAL DEMANDS AGAINST THE CITY in the amount of $1,816,334.44, in accordance with the 1979-80 Budget, were approved. CITY MANAGER/DEPARTMENTAL CONSENT CALENDAR: On motion by Councilman Roth, seconded by Councilwoman Kaywood, the following actions were authorized as recommended by the Purchasing Agent: a. 160: Bid No. 3666: 69KV Group Operated Disconnect Switches--award to Siemens-Allis, Inc., $39,824.20. b. 160: Bid No. 3667: Three-Phase Padmount Transformers--award to Westinghouse Electric Corporation, $72,736.14 for four 112.5 KVA, four 150 KVA, three 225 KVA, four 300 KVA-208/120 and three 300 KVA-480/277, Item Nos. 1, 2, 3, 4 and 6; and award to McGraw-Edison, $11,984.36 for two 500 KVA Three-Phase Padmount Trans- formers, Item No. 5. c. 160: Bid No. 3669: 240 Polyphase Meters--award to Westinghouse Electric Supply, $39,073.30. d. 123: Authorizing a first amendment to an agreement with Fasnack Automatic Food Service to provide the Mechanical Maintenance Yard located at 518 South Claudina Street with food service. MOTION CARRIED 123: MONTHLY FINANCIAL STATEMENT FOR THE TWELVE MONTHS ENDED JUNE 30, 1980: Finance Director, George Ferrone, first clarified questions posed by Councilman Bay on the subject financial statement. MOTION: Councilman Roth moved to receive and file the Monthly Financial State- ment for the twelve months ended June 30, 1980. Councilwoman Kaywood seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. 123/174: MURALS PROJECT - APPROVAL OF INSTRUCTIONAL CONTRACT AMENDMENT: Council- woman Kaywood moved to authorize a third amendment to an agreement with Emigdio C. Vasquez, at the rate of $11.15 per hour to a maximum of 1,000 hours for art instructional services, extending through June 30, 1981, as recommended in joint memorandum dated July 23, 1980 from the Deputy City Manager and Executive Director of Community Development. Councilman Overholt seconded the motion. Before a vote was taken, Councilwoman Kaywood noted in the joint memorandum that a mural was tentatively planned for the Civic Center as well. She wanted to know if that would be approved by the Council before it was painted. James Ruth, Deputy City Manager, stated what they had d~ne in the past, several sketches were first developed and if the Council were interested in pursuing the mural further, they would then submit it to the Council for consideration. If the Council approved, they would then proceed from there. 80-929 City Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - July 29, 1980, 1:30 P.M. Councilwoman Kaywood stated she would like that same procudure followed in this case. A vote was then taken on the foregoing motion. MOTION CARRIED. 174: SECTION 8 NEW CONSTRUCTION PRELIMINARY PROPOSALS: On motion by Councilman Overholt, seconded by Councilman Seymour, the Mayor was authorized to send letters to HUD, commenting on Section 8 new construction preliminary proposals at 2050 West Greenleaf and the southwest corner of Westchester and Lincoln, as recommended in memorandum dated July 22, 1980 from the Executive Director of Community Develop- ment, Norm Priest. MOTION CARRIED. 153: ADDITION OF UPGRADE DESIGNATION TO JOB CLASSES: Councilman Overholt offered Resolution No. 80R-319 through 80R-321, both inclusive, for adoption, amending the following resolutions accordingly, as recommended in memorandum dated July 23, 1980 from Human Resources Director Garry McRae: Resolution No. 77R-703 and up- grading the classification of Computer Operator to U752 (AMEA); Resolution No. 79R-593 and upgrading the classification of Senior Computer Operator to U869 (Unrepresented); and Resolution No. 79R-591 and upgrading the classification of Utilities System Scheduler to XU1402 (Staff and Supervisory Management). Refer to Resolution Book. RESOLUTION NO. 80R-319: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AMENDING RESOLUTION NO. 77R-703 WHICH ESTABLISHED RATES OF COMPENSATION FOR CLASSES REPRESENTED BY THE ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL EMPLOYEES ASSOCIATION, GENERAL EMPLOYEES UNIT, AND DESIGNATING A CURRENT JOB CLASSIFICATION AS AN UPGRADE CLASSIFICATION. RESOLUTION NO. 80R-320: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AMENDING RESOLUTION NO. 79R-593 WHICH ESTABLISHED REATES OF COMPENSATION FOR UNREPRESENTED CLASSIFICATIONS, AND DESIGNATING A CURRENT JOB CLASSIFICATION AS AN UPGRADE CLASSIFICATION. RESOLUTION NO. 80R-321: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AMENDING RESOLUTION NO. 79R-591 WHICH ESTABLISHED RATES OF COMPENSATION FOR CLASSES DESIGNATED AS STAFF AND SUPERVISORY MANAGEMENT, AND DESIGNATING A CURRENT JOB CLASSIFICATION AS AN UPGRADE CLASSIFICATION. Before a vote was taken, Mayor Seymour posed several questions to Mr. McRae for purposes of clarification relative to the proposed resolutions. A vote was then taken on the foregoing resolutions. 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-319 through 80R-321, both inclusive, duly 'passed and adopted. 80-930 ~1, Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - Jul 29 1980, 1:30 P.M. .23/177: AS~IGNMENT~ OF OAK WILLOW VENI~ REIMBURSEMENT AGR~ ' C ~yw.~od moved to authorize the assigr-~t of Oak ~-~ ..... ~NT~ ouncilwomar -~zxuw venture s interest in ~ne may 24, 1977 Reimbursement Agreememt to Johnson, Levine & of Special Water Facilities ~ ............ Co., for costs · ~,~uurre~ w~n the development of Tract No. 8464 · n Anaheim Hills, as recommended in m~randum dated July 21, 1980 from the Public Utilities General Manager, Gord~m Hoyt. Councilman Bay seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. 123: EXTENSION TO LEASE AGREEMENT WI~ BIDDLE & ASSOCIATES - EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY SOFTWARE SYSTEM: Human Resources Director Garry McRae first clarified questions posed by Councilman Bay rela~ive to the subject proposed extension. MOTION: Councilman Overholt moved to ~thorize a twelve-month extension to a Lease Agreement with Biddle & Associat~, In6., executed August 14, 1979, in the amount of $1,800, plus tax, for the Equal Employment Opportunity Software System, as recommended in memorandum da~ed July 23, 1980 from Human Resources Director Garry McRae. Councilwoman Ka~,~ood seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. 168: STREET NAME CHANGE FROM LINCOLN AVENUE TO OLD LINCOLN AVENUE: Changing the street name for that portion of e~ating Lincoln Avenue located between Anaheim Boulevard and Olive Street to Did Lincoln Avenue, effective August 1, 1980. Councilwoman Kaywood stated she had a ~roblem with the proposed change in that the original name of the street was Cem~er Street. Even today, there was still a portion of the street in the east am~ the west of the City called Center Street and, for historical purposes, i~ would make the most sense to change it to Center Street. She was aware that the merchants requested that it be "Old L~ncoln Avenue", but as with people na~ "Jr.", she maintained there would be constant confusion. In order to differ~atiate, a person could not say Lincoln anymore, but Old and New Lincoln. She r~lterated for historical sake and to preclude confusion, she preferred the ~mme Center Street. While "Old Lincoln" would possibly be short-term solution relative to the merchants stationary, it would be a long-term confusion. Councilman Roth noted that Mr. Don Lee, a businessman on "Old Lincoln", was present and perhaps could share his thoughts relative to the businessmen's standpoint regarding the name change. Mr. Don Lee, owner of Jackson Drugs, explained that the merchants in the area did sign a letter, which was sent to C~ty Manager Tailey, expressing their interest in having the street called "Old Llncol~ Avenue". The Pr0j~ct Area Committee (PAC) also adopted a resolution asking that it be called "Old Lincoln". The merchants considered the name of Center Street and decided against it for the opposite reasons to those of Councilw~m Kaywood. In directing a newcomer to Center Street, a problem would aris~ in the fact that they would find that portion of Center Street west of West ~r~et and then there would be nothing in between for seven blocks. Then there~as a short section of Center Street to the east with nothing for 12 blocks thereafter until approaching State College Boulevard. Such a situation w~ld be far more confusing. As well, anyone who had lived in Anaheim for more than five years would be able to relate to "Old Lincoln Avenue", whereas in order for anyone to remember Center Street, they would have to had lived in the C~ for 20 years or more. They felt it far less confusing to call the street '~ld Lincoln" for just that reason. 80-931 City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - July 29~ 1980, 1:30 P.M. Another reason was the expense to the businessmen, in his case, all his adver- tisement bags of which he had about 10,000 in stock. They could still utilize those if the only change was to Old Lincoln, but a change to Center Street would cause mass confusion. Also involved were business cards, stationery and other advertising which they contracted for, for the whole year, and such advertising would still be indicating Lincoln Avenue. For the foregoing reasons, Mr. Lee and the other businessmen who had also considered other names were requesting that the street be named Old Lincoln Avenue. He also noted that there would be no businesses on New East Lincoln Avenue. Discussion then followed between Councilman Overholt and Mr. Lee relative to advertising deadlines for the Yellow Pages, etc. At the conclusion of discussion, it was determined that a short delay in reaching a decision on the matter would not be detrimental in meeting those deadlines. Councilman Overholt then explained that he had received telephone calls relative to the issue, particularly one person who had lived in the City all her life who was very concerned in losing the name of Center Street, meaning the center of downtown Anaheim. He was concerned that anyone who wished to be heard on the subject had that opportunity. Some of the "oldtimers" felt it was a mistake to have changed the names of streets in the first place because they lost their heritage. With due respect to the business merchants in the downtown, some people still knew Lincoln as Center Street which it was for I00 years or so. He reiterated he was concerned that everybody would have an opportunity to express themselves and apparently, the first time there was any opportunity to do so was when an article appeared in the newspaper that it was going to be presented at the Council meeting today. After other people present had an opportunity to speak, he would make the motion that the matter be continued to give all interested people an opportunity to write in or be heard, since there should be more expression of opinion. Councilman Roth stated he was deeply concerned about the business community and how Redevelopment had impacted the particular group of merchants involved. He ~had a problem in beseiging them with more problems. The request was a mild one for the merchants who were trying to survive, and he was inclined to move ahead and support the request of the business community since they were most highly impacted. MOTION: Councilman Overholt moved that the matter be continued one week to enable others who might wish to express themselves, either by letter or in person, to do so when the Council again considered the matter at that meeting. Councilwoman Kaywood seconded the motion. Before a vote was taken, Councilman Roth stated that they should receive input from PAC in the meantime and also from any others interested in retaining the proposed name change to Old Lincoln Avenue and not just the opposing views. A vote was then t-aken on the foregoing motion. MOTION CARRIED. 104: FORMATION OF STREET LIGHTING MAINTENANCE DISTRICT 1980-2 - TRACT NO. 1859: Councilman Roth offered Resolution No. 80R-322 and 80R-323 for adoption, the first accepting the report of the Superintendent of Streets for certain improve- ments to be made by the City under the Street Lighting Act of 1931, in connection 80-932 City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - July 29, 1980, 1:30 P.M. with proposed Street Lighting Assessment District 1980-2 (Tract No. 1859); and the second, declaring the City's intention to make certain improvements under the authority of the Street Lighting Act of 1931; describing the improvements to be made, naming Arbor Street, Crown Street, Glen Drive and La Palma Avenue as the streets to be improved; improvements to be made over five years, to commence on or about July i, 1981; and setting August 19, 1980, 3:00 p.m., as the date and time of the public hearing, as recommended in memorandum dated July 22, 1980 from the Executive Director of Public Works, Thornton Piersall. Refer to Resolution Book. RESOLUTION NO. 80R-322: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM APPROVING THE REPORT OF THE SUPERINTENDENT OF STREETS FOR CERTAIN IMPROVEMENTS TO BE MADE BY THE CITY UNDER THE STREET LIGHTING ACT OF 1931. RESOLUTION NO. 80R-323: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM DECLARING ITS INTENTION TO MAKE CERTAIN IMPROVEMENTS UNDER THE AUTHORITY OF THE STREET LIGHTING ACT OF 1931, DESCRIBING THE IMPROVEMENTS TO BE MADE, NAMING THE STREETS UPON WHICH THE IMPROVEMENTS ARE TO BE MADE, REFERRING TO THE REPORT OF THE SUPERINTENDENT OF STREETS ON FILE IN THE OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK, FIXING THE PERIOD OF TIME FOR WHICH THE IMPROVEMENTS ARE TO BE MADE, AND SETTING A TIME AND PLACE FOR HEARING PROTESTS. 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-322 and 80R-323 duly passed and adopted. 123/158: MUTUAL EASEMENTS FOR INGRESS AND EGRESS - PARCELS 1-38, PARCEL MAP NO. 739: On motion by Councilwoman Kaywood, seconded by Councilman Overholt, an amendment to an agreement with Laderbel-Anaheim, Inc., calling for mutual easements for ingress and egress to be exchanged on property located at the NE corner of Magnolia Street and La Palms Avenue, between owner and buyer or transferee of Parcels t-38 of Parcel Map No. 739, as recommended in memorandum dated July 29, 1980 from the City Engineer, William Devitt. MOTION CARRIED. 124: AWARD OF CONTRACT - CONVENTION CENTER NORTH EXHIBIT HALL ELECTRICAL SYSTEM UPGRADING: Account No. 64-308-7107--continued from the meeting of July 22, 1980-- see minutes that date. City Manager William Talley first briefed the Council on memorandum dated July 23, 1980 recommending that the contract be awarded to Mel Smith, the low bidder, with a bid of $14,937, and that if the low bidder declined to enter into a contract with the City, the City of Anaheim retain Mel Smith's bid bond and award the contract to Gilbert & Stearnes, the second low bidder, with a bid of $18,199. Councilwoman Kaywood offered Resolution No. 80R-324 as recommended by the City Engineer. Refer to Resolution Book. 80-933 City Hall, Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - July 29~ 1980, 1:30 P.M. RESOLUTION NO. 80R-324: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM ACCEPTING A SEALED PROPOSAL AND AWARDING A CONTRACT TO THE LOWEST RESPONSIBLE BIDDER FOR THE FURNISHING OF ALL PLANT, LABOR, SERVICES, MATERIALS AND EQUIPMENT AND ALL UTILITIES AND TRANSPORTATION INCLUDING POWER, FUEL AND WATER, AND PERFORMING ALL WORK NECESSARY TO CONSTRUCT AND COMPLETE THE FOLLOWING PUBLIC IMPROVEMENT: CONVENTION CENTER NORTH EXHIBIT HALL ELECTRICAL SYSTEM UPGRADING, IN THE CITY OF ANAHEIM, ACCOUNT NO. 64-308-7107. (Mel Smith Electric, Inc., $14,937; and in the event the low bidder declines to enter into a contract, the City take his bid bond and award the contract to Gilbert & Stearnes, second iow bidder, in the amount of $18,199) 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-324 duly passed and adopted. 153: DISABILITY RETIREMENT APPLICATION - GREGORY W. SALAZAR: City Manager William Taliey stated that the staff report of July 22, 1980 noted that the subject matter was reviewed by the City's Safety Employees Disability Retirement Committee on March 12, 1980 and on July 9, 1980. He had also reviewed the file in its en- tirety and was in concurrence with the recommendation that the Council adopt a resolution granting disability retirement to the applicant effective July 30, 1980. Councilman Roth offered Resolution No. 80R-325 for adoption as recommended. Refer to Resolution Book. RESOLUTION NO. 80R-325: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM FINDING AND DETERMINING THAT GREGORY W. SALAZAR IS DISABLED WITHIN THE MEANING OF THE PUBLIC EMPLOYEES' RETIREMENT LAW FOR THE PERFORMANCE OF HIS DUTIES IN THE POSITION OF POLICE OFFICER. 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-325 duly passed and adopted. 101/123: ANAHEIM STADIUM - "OPEN HOUSE" - AUGUST 3, 1980 - HOLD HARMLESS LETTERS: Councilman Seymour moved to authorize the Mayor to execute a letter holding Anaheim Stadium, Inc., & Continental Heller Corporation harmless against claims, liabilities or damages which may occur as a result of the "Open House" to be held August 3, 1980, as recommended in memorandum dated July 28, 1980 from the Executive Director of Public Works, Thornton Piersall. Councilman Bay seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. 80-934 City Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - July 29, 1980~ 1:30 P.M. 128/175: 1979-80 WRITE-OFF OF UNCOLLECTIBLE UTILITY ACCOUNTS: Authorizing the write-off of Uncollectible Utility Accounts totalling $463,330.58. Councilman Overholt moved to authorize the write-off of Uncollectible Utility Accounts totalling $463,330.58, as reco~anended in memorandum dated July 21, 1980 from the Public Utilities Board. Councilwoman Kaywood seconded the motion. Before a vote was taken, Councilman Bay asked what percentage of return did the City experience in relation to the sum collected by the collection agency on the above accounts. Mr. Ed Alario, Assistant Utilities General Manager, stated that the agency received 50% of what they collected and the City received 50% as well. Councilman Bay then stated that considering the uncollectible total of $463,000, he understood that the uncollectibles were a very low percentage compared to the private sector. Last year according to the report he read, over $475,000 worth of uncollectibles U~re turned over to a collection agency from w~ich the City received $12,232 which implied that they collected approximately $25,000 or 5%. He wanted to know if that 5% was a good response on a sum that large, or should they be looking for a new collection agency. Mr. Alario answered that they had the same feeling, and at the present time they were receiving proposals from other agencies. They would be coming back to the Council in approximately 30 days regarding that matter. The dollar amount had increased immensely merely because of oil prices and it was possible that they might find a better deal. They were also considering, as some other utilities had done, utilizing more than one agency at a time on a random basis which would result in a competitive situation. Councilman Bay also asked if there was a trend relative to the Uncollectibles involving a certain segment of customers and also if they had considered looking at the possible need for larger deposits or better collection methods. Mr. Alario felt a larger deposit would bring losses down. Relative to collection methods, that presented a public relations aspect since the West Coast was not as stringent as the East Coast. The percentages of write-offs in the East were less; however, in the East they did not even allow a customer to be billed the second time. He reiterated they were much more stringent in their collection procedures, as well as deposit requirements. During the course of discussion, the Mayor noted that Mr. Alario indicated the median uncollectible bill to be $85 to $100. He asked the advisability, there- fore, of taking that to a Small Claims Court if for no other reason but to get a judgment. Once a judgment became a public record, when the person sought credit somewhere else, that would be picked up, and they would thus have a need to satisfy that judgement. Mr. Aiario stated they could look into that and go to Small Claims Court, for instance, with 100 claims at a time. The actual average write-off was $52, the year prior $45 and the year before that $36. The median was closer to $85 con- sidering some of the larger accounts. The biggest total write-off, however, was in the residential area. 80-935 City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - July 29~ 1980~ 1:30 P.M. Councilman Roth suggested that they might get together with Los Angeles and San Diego Power as well as Southern California Edison and share a "wanted" list; Mr. Alario stated that unofficially there had been correspondence to that effect. A vote was then taken on the foregoing motion. MOTION CARRIED. 127: GENERAL OBLIGATION BOND FOR STORM DRAIN CONSTRUCTION: City Attorney William Hopkins presented three resolutions prepared at Council direction (see minutes of July 1 and July 22, 1980) relative to placing the subject issue on the November ballot. He then recounted the information contained in the July 21, 1980 letter from Bond Counsel Rourke & Woodruff (see minutes July 22, 1980) and in concluding, stated that the three resolutions would implement the placing of the measure on the ballot, but it also required approval of the Senate Consti- tutional Amendment to authorize General Obligations Bonds, if ~pproved by two- thirds vote of the electorate of the local agency. Proposition 13 (Article XIIIA of the California Constitution) prohibited local agencies from issuing such bonds at the present time. Councilwoman Kaywood stated that she obtained figures as to what the cost would be to the average resident--for a $100,000 home, it would be $18 a year or $1.50 a month, and for what might be considered the average single-family home in Anaheim at $125,000, it would average $2.00 a month. She wondered if those figures could be included in the wording on the ballot. City Attorney Hopkins answered that they had obtained approval of Bond Counsel on the wording used in the proposed resolutions, but he could obtain a further opinion if desired. Councilwoman Kaywood also asked if they could include the wording that the $10 million bond issue would leverage the amount to the City of $20 million; Mayor Seymour interjected that they did not have any guarantee of such leverage. City Engineer William Devitt stated that they did not have such a guarantee and he never meant to imply that there was any guarantee of such leverage. Histor- ically, it was probably generally true, but with financing being much more difficult throughout the area, he would question being able ~o obtain that kind of leverage. However, they would make every effort to get the maximum amount of leverage, but he would not be prepared to make a statement there was a certainty of doing so. It was a possibility they would work hard to achieve. Councilman Roth stated that the Council would have to authorize $12,000 in tax- payer funds for the election and even if the measure received a two-thirds vote of the citizens, it would still require a two-thirds vote of the people in the State to amend Article XIIIA of the State Constitution; City Attorney Hopkins confirmed that it would require the approval of State Constitutional Amendment No. 26. Councilman Roth further stated that he was not opposed to the necessity of storm drains, but had a feeling that the people in the community first wanted to see City streets opened up again, such as Broadway, Santa Aha Street and Anaheim Boulevard, and the flow of traffic improved in the downtown Redevelopment area before embarking on any more big projects and tearing up anything else. He felt they were putting the taxpayers in double jeopardy. 80-936 City Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - July 29~ 1980~ 1:30 P.M. Councilwoman Kaywood stated that she saw no conflict between downtown Redevelopment and storm drains. They were constructing storm drains regularly as much as possible but each year were falling behind and with continually rising costs, were falling farther behind. A number one concern was potholes and chuckholes in the streets of the City that followed heavy rains and also areas where there was poor drainage causing erosion of the streets under normal circumstances. She reiterated that a new street with good drainage could last 15 to 20 years, whereas with poor drainage, the life of a street was five years. It was a matter of economics and covering their investment since they had allocated an additional amount in the budget for street maintenance. Relative to double jeopardy, everyone was surprised to learn that complete local control had been taken away if voters could no longer vote on General Obligation Bonds on local issues. Obtaining a two-thirds vote would be difficult, but if two-thirds of the City's voters were willing to have something done, but.it was not permitted to them through the provisions of Proposition 13, then they were all left in triple jeopardy. She maintained there was no better time and no cheaper time for the people to have the opportunity to vote on the issue. The November election was a combined General Election and they already had two local issues on the ballot with.the possibility that there wou%d be no additional cost to add the storm drain measure. The maximum cost was $12,000 at any rate, whereas the cost of a Special Election would be $80,000. Councilman Bay stated that he had long been a promoter of storm drains in the City, storm drainage in the budget, and long before Proposition 13, a proponent of storm drain bonds. However, the Statewide Amendment to the Constitution required a two-thirds vote, which he doubted would pass, along with a two-thirds local vote in a November election which he felt more properly belonged on the ballot in a Spring election, which was also recon~nended by the committee who studied storm drains during the last three years. Thus, without speaking against .storm drains, he personally felt this was a bad time to put the issue on the ballot. If they did get a two-thirds vote in the City and the State Constitutional Amendment failed, he wondered how much explaining to the citizens they were going to have to do if they passed the local issue and the State issue failed. Due to the new fact, he was not going to be able to support putting the storm drain bond issue on the ballot in November. Councilwoman Kaywood stated that she wanted the issue on the ballot in April of 1978 and believed it should have been on the ballot at that time. The first available election would be in November and there would not be another election until April or even June of 1982. They did not have the money for the storm drains needed at present and thus would get farther behind. She felt the people had the right to make the decision and the wording was clear that they would also have to vote on the Constitutional Amendment. The Mayor then questioned the City Clerk relative to the cost to the City fo~ the present issues (i.e., method of electing the Mayor and the Municipal Election date) to be placed on the November ballot, and was the $12,000 figure an accurate one. City Clerk Linde Roberts explained that the cost from the County alone would be approximately $12,000 for the two issues already placed on the ballot. The cost to add another measure to the ballot would depend upon ballot placement. 80-937 City Hall, Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - July 29, 1980, 1:30 P.M. Also to be considered would be the costs for election supplies and mailing. The larger the voter's pamphlet is (English and Spanish), dependent upon the number of measures, the arguments for and against the measures, and the rebuttal argu- ments, the more expensive it would be for printing and handling and mailing. To place the storm drain measure and the other two measures on the November ballot would cost approximately $20,000 total. After further discussion on the subject of election costs between the Council and the City Clerk, Mayor Seymour stated that his suspicions led him to believe that the storm drain bond issue would not cost the City a penny more to place it on the ballot if they were prepared to proceed and place the other two issues on the ballot. Thus, he did not believe the cost arguments of Councilman Roth and Bay were valid. Also, he was totally dismayed upon reviewing the City Attorney's opinion that in the fact that he did not know they voted away local right when they voted for Proposition 13. He felt once the public found out that they did so, they might feel entirely different. It seemed only reasonable to him with the two other measures going to the ballot in November, there would not be any additional expense and that question was eliminated as far as he was concerned. Speaking to the issue, as he said publicly before, his sense of the community was that they were not prepared to pay $1.50 or $2.00 a month, as reported by Councilwoman Kaywood. On the other hand, his opinion had been wrong before, as well as that of pollsters. He believed the citizens should be given an opportunity to make those decisions and, therefore, he could support placing the matter on the ballot from a purely economic standpoint, taking the politics out of it, as well as the anti-government spending emotionalism. There was no doubt in his mind, and he would ask anyone on the Council to disagree, that it was cheaper in the long run to construct storm drains and install them as soon as possible, considering escalating costs, than it was to continue to pay to fill chuckholes and repair streets on an annual basis and forever have to do that. He could not oppose the system of allowing the people to decide and thus was going to support placing of the storm drain issue on the November ballot. Additional discussion then followed between Councilman Roth and the City Clerk to further clarify the cost issue of placing the measure on the November ballot. At the conclusion of discussion, Councilman Overholt stated that he heard the City Clerk saying that they were going to have an election in November that would cost between $12,000 and $20,000 whether or not they placed the storm drain issue on it. He would prefer to have the election in the Spring, but they were not going to have another election in the City until April or June of 1982 and that was a long time to wait for the people to have an opportunity to determine whether they wished to handle the storm drain problem the way it should be handled. If they went forward with the election in November, they would find that the additional issue which could represent a substantial overall long term savings to the taxpayer, would not cost one dime to have it on the ballot. Although he was not optimistic about its carrying, Councilwoman Kaywood offered to lead the charge and along with a good education process to inform the electorate and a good campaign, that the measure would have a chance. Intermountain Power Project was a good example of such a process. If it was not going to cost anything, he questioned what the people would then lose to have the opportunity to express themselves, while on the other hand, they might have a lot to gain. 80-938 City Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - July 29~ 1980~ 1:30 P.M. Regarding the Constitutional issue, they had an opinion from Bond Counsel and there was a measure on the ballot to clarify the situation. They instead should be concerned about the local situation and testing the will of the people of Anaheim as to whether they wished to finance storm drain construction in the next two years in that fashion. Thus, he was going to support placing the storm drain bond issue on the November ballot. Councilwoman Kaywood offered Resolution No. 80R-326 through 80R-328 for adoption. Refer to Resolution Book. RESOLUTION NO. 80R-326: 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 ELECTORS OF SAID CITY, A MEASURE RELATING TO AUTHO- RIZING THE ISSUANCE OF GENERAL OBLIGATION BONDS FOR THE PURPOSE OF FINANCING STORM DRAINS, AND CONSOLIDATING SAID ELECTION WITH THE STATEWIDE GENERAL ELECTION TO BE HELD ON SAID DATE. RESOLUTION NO. 80R-327: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM REQUESTING THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS TO CONSOLIDATE A SPECIAL MUNICIPAL ELECTION OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM WITH THE STATEWIDE GENERAL ELECTION TO BE HELD ON NOVEMBER 4, 1980, PURSUANT TO SECTION 23302 OF THE ELECTIONS CODE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA. RESOLUTION NO. 80R-328: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AUTHORIZING CERTAIN OF ITS MEMBERS TO FILE A WRITTEN ARGUMENT FOR AND AGAINST A BALLOT MEASURE RELATING TO AUTHORIZING THE ISSUANCE OF GENERAL OBLIGATION BONDS FOR THE PURPOSE OF FINANCING STORM DRAINS. Before a vote was taken, City Attorney Hopkins stated that the wording that · would appear on the ballot was contained in the resolutions and if approved would be the wording that would appear on the ballot. The wording in the various arguments would be supplementary to that. Also, the third resolution required the names of the members of the Council who might wish to write the arguments for or against. Councilwoman Kaywood stated she would be glad to write the arguments for and hoped that her Council colleagues would join her in signing that. Councilman Overholt stated that after he saw the argument, he would be pleased to join her, if he agreed with it. He was certainly going to agree with the positive aspects of it; Mayor Seymour stated he, too, would reserve his judgment in signing the argument subject to the wording. Councilwoman Kmywood stated she would be pleased to have help in writing the argument for; Councilman Overholt stated he would be glad to offer help. City Attorney Hopkins asked if there was any member authorized to write the argument against; Mayor Seymour then asked Councilmen Roth and Bay if either of them would like to write an argument against. Neither Council Member indicated he was going to write an argument against. 80-939 City Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - July 29, 1980~ 1:30 P.M. City Clerk Roberts then noted that August 15, 1980, was the deadline for sub- mitting arguments. Mayor Seymour asked for clarification that the two resolutions he originally offered (see minutes March 18, 1980) changing the City election and the method of electing the Mayor were in order, if he was authorized to write the pro arguments and what needed to be done between now and August 15th. City Clerk Roberts explained that the resolutions were adopted on March 18, 1980, and they called the election and requested consolidation and also that he was authorized to write the arguments for, which are also due August 15, 1980. A vote was then taken on foregoing resolution. Roll Call Vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: COUNCIL MEMBERS: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Overholt, Kaywood and Seymour Bay and Roth None The Mayor declared Resolution No. 80R-326 through 80R-328 duly passed and adopted. 176: ABANDONMENT NO. 79-16A--ABANDONMENT OF AN UNNAMED PUBLIC ALLEY: Located east of Lemon Street, extending from Sycamore Street to Alberta Street. City Attorney Hopkins explained that the previous resolution, 80R-268, contained a condition, "That gates acceptable to the City Engineer shall be installed where said alley enters Sycamore Street and Alberta Street." Mr. Carl Anderson, applicant, contacted him and the City Engineer concerning the matter and in- dicated the people in the area no longer desired to have a fence or gate in- stalled. Accordingly, they prepared a resolution that would approve the aban- domment and the wording indicated the gates that had been specified be deleted inasmuch as Mr. Anderson did not feel they would be useful at this time. Councilman Seymour offered Resolution No. 80R-329 for adoption. Refer to Resolution Book. RESOLUTION NO. 80R-329: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM ORDERING THE VACATION AND ABANDONMENT OF AN UNNAMED PUBLIC ALLEY LOCATED EAST OF LEMON STREET, EXTENDING FROM SYCAMORE STREET TO ALBERTA STREET. 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-329 duly passed and adopted. 139: DRUG PARAPHERNALIA BILL: Councilwoman Kaywood requested that the City Attorney provide an update on the Drug Paraphernalia Bill that the Governor signed as to just how it would affect the City. 80-940 City Hall, Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - July 29, 1980~ 1:30 P.M. City Attorney Hopkins explained that he was awaiting the final edition of the bill which he understood was changed to make the penalty less difficult to cope with, and he would subsequently make a report. 105: DECLARATION OF ASSETS - DANIEL E. MARTINEZ: The City Clerk announced that DaNiel E. Martinez, newly-appointed Redevelopment Commissioner, had submitted a letter dated July 28, 1980, declaring no real property interests within Redevelopment Project Alpha, in accordance with the State of Calfornia Health and Safety Code, Section 33130 RECESS: By general consent, the Council recessed for 20 minutes. (2:55 p.m.) AFTER RECESS: Mayor Seymour called the meeting to order, all Council Members being present. (3:15 p.m.) CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2086: Application by Lease-All La Palma, to permit industrially-oriented commercial sales and office use on ML zoned property located at 4081 - 4095 East La Palma Avenue. The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC80-100, declared the subject exempt from the requirement to prepare an EIR and further denied Con- ditional Use Permit No. 2086. The decision of the Planning Commission was appealed by the Leaverton Company on behalf of Lease-All La Palma, and public hearing scheduled and continued from July 22, 1980 to this date. Miss Santaiahti described the location and surrounding land uses. She outlined the findings given in the staff report which was submitted to and considered by the City Planning Commission. Councilman Roth noted that the Planning Commission denied the CUP because the uses were too general in nature. He asked if staff had reviewed the new pro- posal containing specific uses. Miss Santalahti stated that she had reviewed the specific uses (see Exhibit No. 1, Specific List of Uses--CUP No. 2086, one of four exhibits submitted with appeal letter dated July 7, 1980 from Lease-All La Palma by the Managing General Partner, made a part of the record) and she did not have a problem with any one of the uses listed. In connection with other zoning actions, that type of list had been approved. The Mayor asked if the applicant or applicant's agent was present and desirous of being heard. Mr. Tony Natali, Leaverton Company, representing Lease-All La Palma, stated that the letter and exhibits stated their case quite well, but if there were any questions, he would be glad to respond. Councilwoman Kaywood asked what the problem would be in having their project all industrial, the entire 25 acres. 8O-941 City Hall, Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - July 29, 1980~ 1:30 P.M. Mr. Natali answered that basically it was all industrial. The uses they were asking for were complementary to the industrial uses and serviced the heavier type user within the area. Their park was a 25-acre site, 20 acres in Anaheim and 5 in Placentia. It ranged from, in Placentia, heavy industrial uses and larger buildings, and coming toward La Palma, they went into a multi-tenant type of unit. They had two other such parks in Anaheim, Lease-All Anaheim and Lease-All Orangethorpe. Lease-All Anaheim was granted similar type uses that worked within the park. Their experience indicated the uses were very compatible and the tenants were there who needed that type of space to service the larger industrial users. Councilwoman Kaywood asked if he would have a problem in leasing to only the large industrial users. Mr. Natali answered "no" and the CUP would make it easy to lease. They were not interested in furniture stores or that type of business, i.e., the retail business. They did not want nor would there be any retail. He also confirmed for Council- man Roth that they would do nothing that would jeopardize their $2.6 million investment. From their experience in managing such parks, they had gone through the cycle and knew where the problems were and what worked well. To bring in something detrimental would be against their own best interests. Councilman Bay stated as he understood, the difference between their appeal and the hearing before the Planning Commission specifically was the list contained in Exhibit 1. He assumed by that specific list under the CUP, only those uses would be allowable; Mr. Natali stated that was correct. Councilman Bay then stated as long as he was stipulating to that list, from his standpoint, when he compared it against the wording of the changed ordinance in the industrial area on CUP"s, he failed to find anything on the list that would change the intent of the ordinance as it stood presently. In his mind, every use listed was supportive of industrial uses and that was the intent of the ordinance the way it was changed. The Mayor asked if anyone wished to speak either in favor in opposition; there being no response, he closed the public hearing. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT - NEGATIVE DECLARATION: On motion by Councilman Bay, seconded by Councilman Roth, the City Council finds that this project would have no significant individual or cumulative adverse environmental impact due to the approval of this Negative Declaration, since the Anaheim General Plan designates the subject property for general industrial land uses commensurate with the proposal; that no sensitive environmental impacts are involved in the proposal; that the Initial Study submitted by the petitioner indicates no sig- nificant individual or cumulative adverse environmental impacts and is, there- fore, exempt from the requirement to prepare an EIR. MOTION CARRIED. Councilman Bay offered Resolution No. 80R-330 for adoption, reversing the findings of the City Planning Commission, due to the detailed list submitted (Exhibit 1) by the applicant, subject to the following Interdepartmental Committee recom- mendations: 80-942 City Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - July 29~ 1980~ 1:30 P.M. i. That the owner(s) of subject property shall pay the traffic signal assess- ment fee (Ordinance No. 3896) in an amount as determined by the City Council, for commercial buildings prior to the issuance of a building permit. 2. That all proposed auto and/or truck repair uses and storage shall be con- ducted wholly within the buildings. 3. That the proposed commercial and industrial uses shall comply with all signing requirements of the ML (Industrial, Limited) Zone. 4. That subject property shall be developed substantially in accordance with plans and specifications on file with the City of Anaheim marked Exhibit Nos. 1 through 12. 5. That Condition Nos. 3 and 4, above-mentioned, shall be complied with prior to final building and zoning inspections. Refer to Resolution Book. RESOLUTION NO. 80R-330: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM GRANTING CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2086. 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-330 duly passed and adopted. 106/174: ADMINISTRATIVE USE PUBLIC HEARING - AMENDMENTS TO FEDERAL GENERAL REVENUE SHARING: To consider amendments to Federal General Revenue Sharing receipts for FY 1980-81. Mr. Ron Rothschild reported that the hearing, represented an Administrative Pro- posed Use hearing, as required under Section 5115 of the Federal Revenue Sharing Regulations. Certain requirements for public participation must be met before any amendments or ratifications could be made to the Revenue Sharing Plan as adopted. The plan already adopted in the 1980-81 Resource Allocation Plan consisted of approximately $1.8 million. The amendments would not disturb any of those appropriations, but due to the increased revenue estimates and the utilization of fund balances, there was another $690,000 being added, essentially in three different projects: (1) Signal modification in the area of Anaheim Stadium at $290,000, (2) Stadium restroom addition at $175,000 and, (3) Lincoln Avenue resurfa¢ing--from Citron to I5 at $225,000. The Mayor asked if anyone wished to speak relative to the amendments to Federal General Revenue Sharing; there being no response, he closed the public hearing. On motion by Councilwoman Kaywood, seconded by Councilman Overholt, adjustments to the Federal General Revenue Sharing receipts for Fiscal Year 1980-81 were approved as articulated. MOTION CARRIED. 129: PUBLIC HEARING - 1979/80 WEED ABATEMENT ROLL: In accordance with the notice duly published in the Anaheim Bulletin, public hearing was held to receive a report from the Fire Chief on the cost of abatement of weeds for each individual lot where work was performed under the 1979/80 Weed Abatement Program and to hear any objections from property owners liable to be assessed for the abatement. 80-943 City Hall~ Anaheim~ California- COUNCIL MINUTES- July 29~ 1980, 1:30 P.M. A report was submitted from the Fire Chief. Mayor Seymour asked if anyone wished to address the Council regarding objections to the Weed assessment; there being no response he declared the public hearing closed. MOTION: On motion by Councilwoman Kaywood, seconded by Councilman Roth, the City Council determined no written or oral objections were received from the property owners regarding cost of abatement of weeds under the 1979/80 Weed Abatement Program. MOTION CARRIED. Councilman Roth offered Resolution No. 80R-330 for adoption. Refer to Resolution Book. RESOLUTION NO. 80R-331: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CiTY OF ANAHEIM CONFIRMING THE WRITTEN REPORT OF THE FIRE CHIEF REGARDING THE COST OF WEED ABATE- MENT, AND DIRECTING THE FILING THEREOF WITH THE COUNTY OF ORANGE. 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-331 duly passed and adopted. Councilman Roth asked that the Chief make an effort to have the lot located at the southwest corner of Santa Ana Canyon Road and Fairmont Boulevard also posted for weed abatement. The Chief answered that they would make note of that request. 105: JOINT WORKSHOP - COUNCIL AND PLANNING COMMISSION - DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS: Miss Sanatalahti reported that at their meeting yesterday, the Planning Com- mission suggested that a possible night meeting be held regarding RM-1200 and RM-2400 Site Development Standards, on September 2, 3 or 4, 1980, at 7:00 or 7:30 p.m. After Council discussion, the joint work session was scheduled for Tuesday, September 2, 1980 at 7:00 p.m. 127: SPECIAL MUNICIPAL ELECTION - JUNE 3~ 1980 - RESULT OF CANVASS OF ELECTION ~ETURNS: Councilm~n Seymour offered Resolution No. 80R-332 for adoption, declaring the result of the canvass of election returns of the Special Municipal Election held in said City on June 3, 1980. Refer to Resolution Book. RESOLUTION NO. 80R-332 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM, CALIFORNIA, DECLARING THE RESULT OF THE CANVASS OF ELECTION RETURNS OF SPECIAL MUNICIPAL ELECTION HELD IN SAID CITY ON JUNE 3, 1980. 80~44 City Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - July 29, 1980~ 1:30 P.M. The City Council of the City of Anaheim, California, DOES HEREBY RESOLVE, DETERMINE AND ORDER as follows: Section 1. That a special municipal election was duly called and regularly held in said city on the 3rd day of June, 1980, at which election there were submitted to the qualified voters of said city the following propositions, to wit: ~.%EAS URE "D" Shall Anaheim purchase electric power from I?P under a long-term contract, at lowest possible cost to Anaheim electric consumers? MEASURE "E" Shall Section 1210 of the Charter of the City of Anaheim be amended (1) to permit the issuance of re- funding bonds to purchase, redeem or retire revenue bonds already approved by voters without an additional vote; and (2) to permit the issuance of revenue bond anticipation notes in anticipation of the issuance of revenue bonds already approved by voters? MEASURE "W" Shall Miriam Kaywood be recalled (removed) from the office of Member of the City Council? MEASURE "F" Shall E. Llewellyn Overho!t, Jr. be recalled (removed) from the office of Member of the City Council? MEASURE "F" If the recall prevails shall the City Council fill the vacancy or vacancies by appointment or call a special election for that purpose? MEASURE "G" Shall rental housing developments as contemplated by.Article 34 of the California Constitution, for elderly, handicapped, low or moderate income persons be developed, constituted, financed, or acquired in the unincorporated areas of the County of Orange and in participating cities? Section 2. That the returns of said election have been duly and regularly canvassed by the Registrar of Voters as provided by law, and all absentee ballots, if any, returned have been can- vassed as provided by law. 80-945 City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - July 29~ 1980~ 1:30 P.M. Section 3. The total votes cast at said election for and against said measures and upon said measures are all as shown on the Certificate of Registrar of Voters to Result of the Canvass of the Primary Election Returns, attached hereto as Exhibit A. Section 4. That the votes of more than fifty percent of all the voters voting at said election upon Measure "D" and Measure "G" were cast in favor of the adoption of said measures, and said measures are hereby declared to have carried at said election. Section 5. That the votes of less than fifty percent of all the voters voting at said election upon Measure "E" were cast in favor of the adoption of said Measure "E" and said Measure "E" is hereby declared to have failed to carry at said election. Section 6. That the votes of less than fifty percent of all the voters voting at said election upon Measure "F" pertaining to the recall of Miriam Kaywood and E. Llewellyn Overholt, Jr. were cast in favor of said recall measure; however, the votes of more than fifty percent of all the voters voting at said election upon Measure "F" pertaining to filling vacancies by election were in favor of election. As a result, said Measure "F" pertaining to the recall of Miriam Kaywood and E. Llewellyn Overholt, Jr. is hereby declared to have failed to carry at said election. Section 7. That the City Clerk of this City is hereby directed to enter this resolution in full in the minutes of this City Council, which entry shall constitute the City Clerk's state- ment of the result of the election. THE FOREGOING RESOLUTION is approved and adopted by City Council of the City of Anaheim this 29thday of J~ly, 1980. CERT°-'CATE OF REGISTRAR OF VOTERS TO '~SULT OF TH.. .ANVASS OF THE PRIMARY ELECTION .TURNS STATE OF CALIFORNIA} ) SS. COUNTY OF ORANGE ) ,: I, A. E. Olson, Registrar of Voters of Orange County, do hereby certify the following to be a full, true and correct Statement of the Vote of the election listed below, consolidated with the Primary Election held June 3, 1980. CITY OF ANAHEIM ELECTION MEASURE "D" - ELECTRIC POWER {ADVISORY) YES: 37,171 NO: 12,395 80-946 City Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - July 29~ 1980~ 1:30 P.M. MEASURE "E" CHARTER AMENDMENT re REVENUE BONOS YES: 21,485 NO: 22,727 MEASURE "F" - RECALL MIRIAM KAYWOOD YES: 15,905 NO: 30,971 MEASURE "F" - RECALL E. LLEWELLYN OVERHOLT, JR. YES: 15,202 NO: 29,220 MF.J~SURE "F" - FILL VACANCY BY APPOINTMENT - FILL VACANCY BY ELECTION APPOINTMENT: 9,917 ELECTION: 33,278 MEASURE "G" - LOW RENT HOUSING YES: 28,688 NO: 17,791 TOTAL VOTES CAST: 58,744 I hereby certify that the nt~nOer of votes cast for and against the measure as is set forth above appears in the Certified Abstract of Statement of the Vote entered in the Records of the Board of Supervisors of the County of Orange. WITNESS my hand and Official Seal this 15th day of July, 1980. REGISTRAR OF VOTERS Orange County Roll Call Vote: AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Overholt, NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: None ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: None Kaywood, Bay, Roth and Seymour The Mayor declared Resolution No. 80R-332 duly passed and adopted. 123: LEASE AGREEMENT WITH CANAL-RANDOLPH ANAHEIM~ INC.: To consider authorizing an Office Lease Agreement in the amount of $9,144, for space at the Bank oF America Building, 300 South Harbor Boulevard, for Police Department use, for the 80-947 City Hall; Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - July 29~ 1980~ 1:30 P.M. period ending July 1, 1980 through June 30, 1981 (continued from the meetings of June 24, July 1 and July 15, 1980). On motion by Councilwoman Kaywood, seconded by Councilman Overholt, consideration of the subject Lease Agreement was continued one week, as requested by Staff. MOTION CARRIED. 105: RECONFIRMATION OF APPOINTMENT TO ORANGE COUNTY HEALTH PLANNING COUNCIL (OCHPC): Requesting reconfirmation of the appointment of Mr. William Postma to the Assembly of Delegates. Councilwoman Kaywood stated that one comment in the OCHPC letter of July 15, 1980 was inaccurate in that Billie Bird was no longer an alternate and she had resigned around Christmas. City Clerk Roberts stated that the Health Planning Council was notified of that resignation. Councilwoman Kaywood then stated that they should be appointing an alternate. She also noted in reading some of the accomplishments of the Planning Council, which list was attached to their letter, she did not know if the City was rep- resented at the time of some of them because she was not certain Anaheim would have voted that way. She was very concerned because she had received complaints before that the City's representatives were not being notified when various meet- ings were held although she had not talked to Mr. Postma. Notification of meetings did not seem to filter down. Councilman Bay asked if they would need an alternate in responding to the letter; City Clerk Roberts answered that an alternate was optional, but they had one in the past. The Council was asking for a reconfirmation of the delegate only at this time. Councilman Bay stated if they were going to reconfirm the whole letter, they would have to note the exception to the letter because they were stating some- thing that was not correct. The City Clerk stated she would resend a copy of the letter notifying the Council of Mrs. Bird's resignation so that their records would then be complete. On motion by Councilman Overholt, seconded by Councilwoman Kaywood, the Council reconfirmed the appointment of Mr. William Postma to the Assembly of Delegates. MOTION CARRIED. RECLASSIFICATION NO. 79-80-5 - VARIANCE NO. 3105 - EXTENSION OF TIME: Mr. Daniel L. Salceda, Anaheim Hills, Inc., requesting an extension of time to Reclassification No. 79-80-5 and Variance No. 3105, proposed RM-3000 zoned property, to establish a 99-unit condominium subdivision, with a waiver of maximum structural height; property located on the south side of Nohl Ranch Road, west of the proposed extension of Meats Avenue. Councilman Roth moved to approve the extension of time to Reclassification No. 79-80-5 and Variance No. 3105, to expire August 21, 1981. Councilman Overholt seconded the motion. 80-948 City H~!, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL ~I.NUTES - July 29~ 1980, 1:30 P.M. Before a vote was taken, Councilwoman Kaywood asked if there would be any existing views that would be blocked. She would vote to approve the extension, but wanted to know the answer to that question. A vote was then taken on the foregoing motion. MOTION CARRIED. CONSENT CALENDAR ITEMS: On motion by Councilman Roth, seconded by Councilman Overholt, 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. CORRESPONDENCE: The following correspondence was ordered received and filed: a. 105: Community Center Authority--Minutes of July 14, 1980. b. 140: Anaheim Public Library--Monthly Statistical Report for May 31 and June 30, 1980. c. 105: Anaheim Public Library Board--Minutes of March 19 and June 18, 1980. d. 156: Police Department--Monthly Report for June 1980. e. 105: Anaheim Youth Commission--Minutes of May 14, June 11 and July 9, 1980. f. 175: Public Utilities Department, Customer Service Division--Monthly Report for June 1980. g. 105: Anaheim Park and Recreation Commission--Minutes of Janaury 23, February 27 and March 26, 1980. h. 105: Community Redevelopment Commission--Minutes of July 9, 1980. 2. 123: AUTHORIZATION OF AGREEMENT WITH ANAHEIM BULLETIN: In accordance with the recommendation of the City Clerk an agreement was authorized with the Anaheim Bulletin for legal publication services for the period ending July 31, 1981. MOTION CARRIED. 105: SENIOR CITIZEN COMMISSION - MINUTES OF JUNE 9~ 1980: Councilwoman Kaywood noted in the subject minutes that the Commission had decided to send a letter regarding a Federal Law and the Council subsequently received a copy. She wanted to point out that in the future, any letters written by the Commission or any action that they wanted to take in such regard be routed through the Council first, not merely a copy after it had gone to the press and various other boards. They went through the same situation with the Hill and Canyon Municipal Advisory Committee (HACMAC) where they had taken some action which was contrary to what the Council had in mind. Councilman Roth noticed the same situation, but presumed that Steve Swaim, Community Services Manager, liaison to the Commission, must have helped them type the letter. Thus, they should instruct Mr. Swaim as the coordinator to pass such correspondence by the Council or at least get permission from the Council. 80-949 City Hall~ Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - July 29~ 1980~ 1:30 P.M~ 105: ANAHEIM GOLF COURSE ADVISORY COMMISSION - MINUTES OF JULY 18~ 1980: Mayor Seymour stated that the Commission raised some concerns relative to the Golf Courses and the possibility of that they be turned over to California Golf for management. He was particularly challenging the numbers that staff provided relative to potential savings, followed up with the article in the Anaheim Bulletin by Joe Buchanan raising similar concerns, followed up with his tele- phone ringing, primarily by golfers, as to what the City was doing. His concern was that the entire subject and the work that had been considered to date be the subject of a public hearing with both the City Council, as well as the Golf Course Commission, and any and all members of the public to have the opportunity to provide input. Relative to the subject itself, as well as some concerns that had been expressed as to what would appear to be, or what some believed to be, a rather narrow selection process for discussion, his interest was to ask his colleagues to join with him in setting a public hearing where the entire subject could be aired. Councilwoman Kaywood asked if they were at the point where they could have a meaningful public hearing, or does more info~mation need to be gathered. City Manager Taltey stated that currently proposed was that in accordance with Council's direction several years ago, there was supposed to be a multi-year effort to reduce the operating costs of the golf courses to a break-even basis. That had not occurred. Subsequently, on a number of occasions, the concept of going out for proposals had been discussed. Currently, staff was developing and recently presented to the Golf Course Commission for comment a proposal that could be sent out to the private sector. It was the intent of staff after the Golf Course Commission had commented, that the specifications would then be forwarded to the City Council with a recommendation that they be circulated to individuals and corporations in the business of operating and maintaining golf courses. At the time responses were received, a public hearing or any other forum could be held, however the Council wished to handle it. At this time, the only item before the Commission to his knowledge was the adequacy or com- pleteness of the scope of the proposal to be forwarded to the City Council. Currently he was waiting for staff to complete that report to submit it to the Council which basically would indicate whether or not the private sector could perform the service on a more cost efficient basis than the City. Further, to his knowledge they were not negotiating with any one individual or firm, and it would be his recommendation to widely solicit proposals. Councilman Roth noted in the last paragraph on page 1 of the Golf Course Commission minutes, "Mr. Liegler distributed an early draft of an operating lease proposal...". The Council did not have a copy of that draft and thus could not weigh its contents. He asked the intent of that early draft. Mr. Talley stated that he did not know. The only thing he had seen was a staff recommendation which basically enumerated the various categories of maintenance and frequency levels. It was his understanding that was to be submitted to the Commission for comments on adequacy before a suitable document was presented to the Council, whether it was encompassed in an operating lease proposal, or whether it was an operating lease proposal that had been gratuitously submitted, he did not know. 80-950 City Hall, Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - July 29~ 1980~ 1:30 P.M. Counci!m~n Roth stated the way he read it, it was actually his (Talley's) memor- andum. Mr. Talley answered "no". His memorandum of June 20, 1980 contained a series of proposed budgetary reductions that might be undertaken in the 1980-81 Resource Allocation Plan in response to Council requests. Exhibit "K" of that memorandum showed the tentative operating balance of the golf courses which were understated as they found out later, by approximately $80,000. The comment was made, if they could reduce that defiency to zero and possibly secure a premium from an operator the City could save as much as $419,000. However, for estimating purposes, they did not think that such a change in operation could happen for at least six months. Therefore, they used a figure of $195,000 if the Council wanted to consider that as an alternate. Proposition 9 did not pass, they did get the funds in, and thus none of those were implemented. That was merely one exhibit in a series regarding the Resource Allocation Plan. Councilman Roth stated that in recent play at the Anaheim Hills Golf Course, several people approached him and asked about Bill Talley's forcing them to go to California Golf. Since he had no documentation, he could not answer them. Mr. Tailey answered that he had found on a number of occasions, everytime he tried merely to bring information to the Council, some scare tactics were used by individuals unknown to him. To the best of his knowledge, he had never met with anybody from Calfornia Golf or seen a proposal at least in the last year or two. He did not think he could recommend dealing with a single vendor under any circumstances. His opinion was that they should come up with scope documents, send those to all interested parties, and then evaluate the proposals and make a determination as to whether the public interest would be better served by con- tinuing the present operation or by changing. He did not have any information to make a recommendation at this time. They had tried for three years and it might be appropriate to consider the private sector, but that would be a Council Policy decision. The Mayor asked if he was aware of any communications, perhaps not by him, but members of his staff, exclusively with Caifornia Golf. Mr. Talley answered that he was aware they had talked to indiviudals and perhaps California Golf. The only name he had heard was a Mr. Price. He had not personally seen any proposals, nor was he aware of any proposals being submitted. The Mayor stated, therefore, that neither the Council, nor Mr. Talley knew if somebody else on staff might be in the process of discussions, preliminary as they might be, with California Golf as a vendor. Mr. Talley answered that what he thought was happening, was that California Golf was a firm that had numerous courses, including public courses under oper- ation and maintenance contracts. It would seem very logical that any large vendor would probably be contacted to get the documents that other public agencies prepared on maintenance levels, scope, contracts and so forth to assemble specification documents. 80-951 City Hall, Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - July 29~ 1980, 1:30 P.M. The Mayor asked if he then thought it was probably so that some type of conversa- tions, questions back and forth, had taken place between staff and California Golf. Mr. Talley stated he was positive that members of both the City Manager's office and the Golf Course and Family Foresome on a continuing basis over the years had conversations with those people. The Mayor asked if that was at the exclusivity of others; City Manager Talley answered "no", not to his knowledge. The Mayor stated that was the allegation being made by many, and they were accusing the City Manager as having made a deal with California Golf and it was just a matter of washing it through the system. However, he believed that to be untrue; Mr. Talley confirmed his understanding that it wasn't true. The Mayor reiterated that in the interest of everybody that the matter ought to be surfaced and totally aired in public and that was his interest in calling for a public hearing. Mr. Talley stated that he could speak clearly for the Administration and that categorically his recommendation was going to be that they adopt specifications to be sent out to anyone interested. Once the proposals were received, the public hearings or whatever the Council wished, would be appropriate. His purpose was merely to provide them with information on alternatives, but it seemed for some reason or another that goal was being restrained and had been for quite some time. After further discussion, between the Mayor and Mr. Talley on the last pdint raised, the Mayor stated that in speaking with one of the Commissioners they were upset to say the least at the question being posed without proper format and proper public announcement and with the process that had taken place. In reading the minutes, they raised some very real questions he was certain that staff could answer. Those, as well as the others, should be answered in a public hearing. Councilwoman Kaywood suggested that since they did not have any proposals to bring forth at a public hearing, that a joint workshop might be better. Mayor Seymour was agreeable as long as the public was present. He did not care whether they called a workshop session or a public hearing, but he wanted to get the public, the Council and the Golf Course Commission together before concluding any process that to some appeared to be predestined. Councilwoman Kaywood reiterated her concern that if they held a public hearing and there were no proposals to present, it would be too soon. The Mayor clarified that he was asking for a public hearing to discuss the operating lease proposal and the data that had been developed thus far. The Commission was also questioning the $419,000 savings allegedly to be gained by outside management of the courses. They questioned what kind of courses did they want in the City--privately managed but not maintained, etc. Those were the types of questions that needed to be answered by the Council after some public deliberation. 80-952 City Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - JulZ 29~ 1980~ 1:30 P.M. After further discussion between the Mayor and Councilwoman Kaywood, Council- woman Kaywood repeated that she did not see the purpose of having a meeting until they knew what they were talking about. Otherwise, another meeting would have to §e set thereafter. MOTION: Councilman Seymour moved that a public hearing be set to discuss the questions raised regarding an operating lease proposal of the City's two golf courses. Councilman Overholt seconded the motion. Before a vote was taken, Councilwoman Kaywood stated it should be a workshop where they would be asking the Commission what they wanted, rather than talking about a hypothetical proposal. Mayor Seymour stated it did not matter if it was a workshop or public hearing, but that it include the Council, Golf Course Commission and the public. He thereupon amended his motion that the public hearing be a public workshop. Councilman Overholt was agreeable. The timing of such a workshop was then discussed during the course of which, Councilman Bay stated that before they attempted to set a date, he had several questions. If they were talking about having a workshop and/or public hearing to discuss the matter, he was concerned from the standpoint that if they were going to discuss the question of policy on whether they wanted to use outside management for the golf courses, that was one thing. If they were going to discuss whether or not they wanted to look into the economics of doing so, that was a second issue. The third issue might be that they were putting the cart before the horse. If it was the intent of staff to start gathering information on the economics question, he could understand the concerns that preempted discussing the policy of whether the Council wanted to consider that or not. That might have stirred some of the reactions they were getting. If they had .a workshop or public hearing without any data from outside management firms, he questioned how they could totally discuss the issue or question from the standpoint of eoc~nomics, or choosing if they wanted to continue subsidizing golf play at $6 a play with City Management, maintenance and quality control courses going to outside management with the possibility of charging more green fees, with perhaps not as good maintenance, etc., although those were assumptions. If staff had not had an opportunity to secure that economic information, he did not know how they could discuss those in a workshop or public hearing. During further discussion, Mr. Talley confirmed that he had never been contacted by any member of the Golf Course Commission and if they requested any information regarding any of. the matters, he would be very pleased personally or send the Finance Director to talk with them. Perhaps the figure was not $419,000. The staff report to Council stated that if the $219,000 proposed deficit for 1970/80 could be eliminated and a proposal granting $200,000 for the privilege of operating and maintaining the golf courses was received, that would represent a net savings to the City of $419,000. That was an "if" and that was all it said. In point of fact, the golf course lost about $300,000. Thus, if somebody were to take the courses over for $1, the City would be that far ahead; however, they did not have any proposals. He could not go back and argue one way or another, other than to say if they did write up a proposal stipulating that whoever took it over would have to maintain it at the same level, and the bid was such that the 80-953 City Hall, Anaheim,. California - COUNCIL MINUTES - July 29~ 1980, 1:30 P.M. City saved $300,000 or $400,000, that was something they would want to do. How- ever, absent a bid or specifications, they were dealing in conjecture. As far as he knew when he talked to Mr. Liegler sometime before the meeting, as was done with every other board and commission, he was merely going to solicit their input before submitting a staff report. In concluding, Mayor Seymour stated that members of the Golf Course Commission and public that had spoken with him felt strongly that if a private concern was engaged and contracted with, (1) maintenance would deteriorate, (2) they questioned if there was, in fact, going to be any significant savings to the City, and (3) that the golf courses under the management of Tom Liegler had never looked better and had never showed a better position since their inception. Perhaps they ought to have a meeting to discuss nothing more than the question of whether or not the golf courses would be managed by the City or private companies. Councilman Roth suggested that they get dialogues started as to whether the City should seek free enterprise to see if they could do it, what was their past experience, and what courses they had maintained. He liked to look at beautiful courses such as the Anaheim Hills course. They also had a responsibility to the taxpayers if the figures from the City were correct that golf play was being subsidized at $6 a player which seemed high. Perhaps it was justified, and they should consider it as another park amenity. The Mayor stated he would like to have 'that exact question answered in a public format. Councilman Roth stated he would never object to a public hearing, but they should look at the monetary situation involved. He would not support private enter- prise taking the courses over and letting them deteriorate. The basic question should be, shall they solicit proposals from free enterprise. Discussion followed between the Council and Mr. Talley relative to a date for the subject workshop/hearing. Mr. Talley stated he would like to give the Council a report next week when he could assemble staff to discuss the situation. He would then report to the Council where they were and how long it would take to do something and subsequently the Council could make a determination. Councilman Overholt suggested that they vote on a hearing and set the date for that hearing in one week. A vote was then taken on the fore§oin§ motion, MOTION CARRIED, CONSENT CALENDAR ITEMS: Councilman Roth offered Resolution Nos. 80R-333 through 80R-340, both inclusive, for adoption in accordance with the reports, recommendations and certifications furnished each Council Member and as listed on the Consent Calendar Agenda. Refer to Resolution Book. 158: RESOLUTION NO. 80R-333: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM ACCEPTING CERTAIN DEEDS AND ORDERING THEIR RECORDATION. (Anaheim Business Center; Anaheim Knolls 30 Ltd.; Santa Fe Land Improvement Company; Beverly V. Lesley Locke; Gary W. Peithman, et ux.) 80-954 City Hall.~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - July 29~ 1980, 1:30 P.M. 164: RESOLUTION NO. 80R-334: 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: MARK LANE SILT REMOVAL - NORTHFIELD SILT REMOVAL, IN THE CITY OF ANAHEIM, ACCOUNT NOS. 11-790-6325-E0280 AND 11-790-6325-E0290; APPROVING THE DESIGNS, PLANS, PROFILES, DRAWINGS, AND SPECIFICATIONS FOR THE CONSTRUCTION THEREOF; AUTHORIZING THE CONSTRUCTION OF SAID PUBLIC IMPROVEMENT IN ACCORDANCE WITH SAID PLANS, SPECI- FICATIONS, ETC.; AND AUTHORIZING AND DIRECTING THE CITY CLERK TO PUBLISH A NOTICE INVITING SEALED PROPOSALS FOR THE CONSTRUCTION THEREOF. (Bids to be opened August 21, 1980 at 2:00 p.m.) 164: RESOLUTION NO. 80R-335: 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: WALNUT CANYON SEWER RECONSTRUCTION, IN THE CITY OF ANAHEIM, ACCOUNT NO. 11-790-6325-E0300; AP- PROVING THE DESIGNS, PLANS, PROFILES, DRAWINGS, AND SPECIFICATIONS FOR THE CON- STRUCTION THEREOF; AUTHORIZING THE CONSTRUCTION OF SAID PUBLIC IMPROVEMENT IN ACCORDANCE WITH SAID PLANS, SPECIFICATIONS, ETC.; AND AUTHORIZING AND DIRECTING THE CITY CLERK TO PUBLISH A NOTICE INVITING SEALED PROPOSALS FOR THE CONSTRUCTION THEREOF. (Bids to be opened August 21, 1980 at 2:00 p.m.) 169: RESOLUTION NO. 80R-336: 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: LINCOLN AVENUE TRANSITION ROAD - TOPEKA STREET TO OLIVE STREET, IN THE CITY OF ANAHEIM, PROJECT ACCOUNT NO. 46-792-6325-E2620; APPROVING THE DESIGNS, PLANS, PROFILES, DRAWINGS, AND SPECIFICATIONS FOR THE CONSTRUCTION THEREOF; AUTHORIZING THE CONSTRUCTION OF SAID PUBLIC IMPROVEMENT IN ACCORDANCE WITH SAID PLANS, SPECI- FICATIONS, ETC.; AND AUTHORIZING AND DIRECTING THE CITY CLERK TO PUBLISH A NOTICE INVITING SEALED PROPOSALS FOR THE CONSTRUCTION THEREOF. (Bids to be opened August 28, 1980 at 2:00 p.m.) 165: RESOLUTION NO. 80R-337: 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: CENTRAL CITY NEIGHBORHOOD STRATEGY AREA ALLEY IMPROVEMENTS - AREA BOUNDED BY HAJlBOR BOULE- V~RID, LA PALMA AVENUE, ZEYN STREET AND NORTH STREET, IN THE CITY OF ANAHEIM, PROJECT ACCOUNT NO. 25-793-6325-E3350; APPROVING THE DESIGNS, PLANS, PROFILES, DRAWINGS, AND SPECIFICATIONS FOR THE CONSTRUCTION THEREOF; AUTHORIZING THE CON- STRUCTION OF SAID PUBLIC IMPROVEMENT IN ACCORDANCE WITH SAID PLANS, SPECIFICA- TIONS, ETC.; AND AUTHORIZING AND DIRECTING THE CITY CLERK TO PUBLISH A NOTICE INVITING SEALED PROPOSALS FOR THE CONSTRUCTION THEREOF. (Bids to be opened August 28, 1980 at 2:00 p.m.) 169: RESOLUTION NO. 80R-338: 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: SWAN STREET- ANAHEIM BOULEVARD STREET IMPROVEMENT-SWAN STREET-ROMNEYA DRIVE TO ANAHEIM BOULEVARD - ANAHEIM BOULEVARD-100' E/O SWAN STREET TO 50' W/O SWAN STREET, IN THE CITY OF ANAHEIM, PROJECT ACCOUNT NO. 47-793-6325-E3370; APPROVING THE DESIGNS, PLANS, PROFILES, DRAWINGS, AND SPECIFICATIONS FOR THE CONSTRUCTION THEREOF; AUTHORIZING THE CONSTRUCTION OF SAID PUBLIC IMPROVEMENT IN ACCORDANCE WITH SAID PLANS, SPECIFICATIONS, ETC.; AND AUTHORIZING AND DIRECTING THE CITY CLERK TO PUBLISH A NOTICE INVITING SEALED PROPOSALS FOR THE CONSTRUCTION THEREOF. (Bids to be opened August 28, 1980 at 2:00 p.m.) 80-955 City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - July 29, 1980, 1:30 P.M. 169: RESOLUTION NO. 80R-339: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHELM FINDING AND DETERMINING THAT PUBLIC CONVENIENCE AND NECESSITY REQUIRE THE CONSTRUCTION AND COMPLETION OF A PUBLIC IMPROVEMENT, TO WIT: LOARA STREET AND STORM DRAIN IMPROVEMENT - FROM 203' N/O WESTMONT TO WILSHIRE STREET, IN THE CITY OF ANAHEIM, ACCOUNT NO. 12-793-6325-E3360; APPROVING THE DESIGNS, PLANS, PROFILES, DRAWINGS, AND SPECIFICATIONS FOR THE CONSTRUCTION THEREOF; AUTHORIZING THE CONSTRUCTION OF SAID PUBLIC IMPROVEMENT IN ACCORDANCE WITH SAID PLANS, SPECI- FICATIONS, ETC.; AND AUTHORIZING AND DIRECTING THE CITY CLERK TO PUBLISH A NOTICE INVITING SEALED PROPOSALS FOR THE CONSTRUCTION THEREOF. (Bids to be opened August 28, 1980 at 2:00 p.m.) 150: RESOLUTION NO. 80R-340: 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: GEORGE WASHINGTON COMMUNITY CENTER,' IN THE CITY OF ANAHEIM, ACCOUNT NO. 25-848-7105-84808; APPROVING THE DESIGNS, PLANS, PROFILES, DRAWINGS, AND SPECIFICATIONS FOR THE CONSTRUCTION THEREOF; AUTHORIZING THE CONSTRUCTION OF SAID PUBLIC IMPROVEMENT IN ACCORDANCE WITH SAID PLANS, SPECIFICATIONS, ETC.; AND AUTHORIZING AND DIRECTING THE CITY CLERK TO PUBLISH A NOTICE INVITING SEALED PROPOSALS FOR THE CONSTRUCTION THEREOF. (Bids to be opened August 28, 1980 at 2:00 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 Nos. 80R-333 through 80R-340, both inclusive, duly passed and adopted. ORDINANCE NO. 4148: Councilman Seymour offered Ordinance No. 4148 for adoption. Refer to Ordinance Book. ORDINANCE NO. 4148: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM REPEALING SECTION 18.05.043, INCLUDING SUBSECTIONS .010, .011, .012, .020, .021, .022 AND .030 THEREOF, OF CHAPTER 18.05, TITLE 18, OF THE ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE AND ADDING NEW SECTION 18.05.043 TO CHAPTER 18.05, TITLE 18, OF THE ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO ZONING. (signs approved in conjunction with CUP) Before a vote was taken, Councilwoman Kaywood asked if they would be informed of what the existing signs were. Miss Santalahti stated the current Code regulations stated that if, for instance, in an industrial zone, a commercial use was proposed and a CUP processed, that commercial usage would then have the rights of commercial signing. What they were saying with the proposed ordinance was that they would be under the industrial or underlying zoning unless they made a specific sign proposal at the time the conditional use was processed. Councilwoman Kaywood then asked if it was an existing use, would they then be approving what was in existence. 80-956 City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL ~INUTES - July 29, 1980, 1:30 P.M. Miss Santalahti stated she did not think so unless staff totally missed the sign. When there was an existing illegal activity, they asked that they show the signing. What they had been doing on all their CUP's was requiring as a condition that they comply with the industrial signing regulations. Councilwoman Kaywood wanted to be certain they were not automatically approving illegal signs. A vote was then taken on the foregoing ordinance. Roll Call Vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: COUNCIL MEMBERS: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Overholt, Kaywood, Bay, Roth and Seymour None None The Mayor declared Ordinance No. 4148 duly passed and adopted. 142/149: ORDINANCE NO. 4149: Councilwoman Kaywood offered Ordinance No. 4149 for adoption. Refer to Ordinance Book. ORDINANCE NO. 4149: AN ORDIANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AMENDING SECTIONS 14.32.170 AND 14.32.173 AND ADDING NEW SECTIONS 14.32.173 AND 14.32.176 TO CHAPTER 14.32 OF TITLE 14 OF THE ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO PARKING. (on City Parking Lots) Roll Call Vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: COUNCIL MEMBERS: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Overholt, Kaywood, Bay, Roth and Seymour None None The Mayor declared Ordinance No. 4149 duly passed and adopted. ORDINANCE NO. 4150: Councilwoman Kaywood offered Ordinance No. 4150 for first reading. ORDINANCE NO. 4150: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AMENDING TITLE 18 OF THE ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO ZONING. (78-79-5(1), RS-HS-10,000, Tract Nos. 10408 and 10713) 114: RETIREMENT OF JOHN KIMBALL SAVILLE: Councilman Overholt reported on his attendance on behalf of the City at the retirement party of Reverend John Kimball Saville honoring his 35 years as Rector of St. Michael's Episcopal Church held Friday, July 25, 1980, at the Grand Hotel, where 400 to 500 people were in attendance. Reverend Savi!le especially asked him (Overholt) to express to each of the Council Members individually his thanks for the recog- nition through the resolution presented to him acknowledging his service to the c ommuni ty. 114: TALBOT FURNITURE WINDOW SIGNING: Councilwoman Kaywood stated she was distressed to see that Talbot Furniture continued to paint their windows with signing after being granted special privileges and after they had promised that they would not utilize that type of'signing any longer. They were still down- grading the area and not living up to the industrial requirements. 80-957 City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - July 29,. 1980, 1:30 P.M. 114/139/134: AB 2464: Councilman Roth thanked Nancy Johnson, Intergovernmental Relations Manager, Norm Priest, Executive Director of Community Development, and Ron Thompson, Planning Director for thier response given to his request for comments and also Councilman Bay's request for comments on AB 2464. It was well done and appreciated. Now that the League of Cities had moved from support to opposition, there was not much more that could be done unless they took addi- tional action. 142: BREA ORDINANCE PERTAINING TO APPOINTMENTS TO CITY BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS: Mayor Seymour noted that at the previous week's meeting, Councilman Roth reported on the subject ordinance. He asked his intent relative to that ordinance. Councilman Roth explained how the matter came to his attention (see minutes July 22, 1980) and that he did not have a copy of the ordinance until the City Attorney handed one to him before the meeting today which he asked also be routed to all the Council for comments. The City Attorney stated that, in his opinion, it would take a Charter change although he (Roth) did not necessarily share that opinion. It should be looked at; it had merits; and he did not see anything wrong with it. It paralleled some of the ideas used by the Board of Supervisors in making their appointments and four out of five Council Members in Brea con- sidered it to be a good ordinance. He did not introduce it or recommend its adoption last week, but merely asked the City Manager to acquire and make copies for the Council in order to get feedback. The Mayor stated he read it and considered it to be "political garbage". He was amazed that Councilman Roth would support or introduce such a subject as many times as he had heard him speaking against "machine" politics, "Chicago" politics and "Tammany Hall" 'type politics. As he understood, after reading and studying the ordinance, it would permit him, as a Council Member, to appoint his appointee which smacked of favortism and political payoff. The process they had used in the past, which worked exceptionally well, even though their last appointment was difficult and trying, it was purely in the minority. The vast number of appointments had been made with unanimity and with less politics in the process. He felt the past service of the commissioners and appointees approved by the entire Council rather than one had served the City well. Councilman Roth stated he did not agree with the Mayor's statement. To get anybody appointed it took three votes and thus, rather than going out and making agreements with other people to support either this or that person, that smacked of a different type support. If a Council Member had an appointee, that person better be good because of the reflection on the Council Member who appointed him. He did not think it smacked of political payoff or favortism at all. Mayor Seymour stated in Councilman Roth's words "better be good" meant that an appointee should do exactly as instructed, that was totally wrong. Councilman Roth stated that was not the intent--the idea was that no deals had to be made if people were appointed by the respective Council Member. Mayor Seymour countered that the only "deal" they would be making was with the individual appointed. As long as a majority of the Council spoke, there was some safety in that democratic process, but when they individually had that power that would corrupt. 80-958 City Hall, Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - July 29,. 1980, 1:30 P.M. Councilman Roth stated he had not had an opportunity to review the ordinance in depth and felt that any type of improvement that could take it out of trying to get two additional votes might be healthy. He was not trying to change the Council or their thinking. Councilwoman Kaywood stated that she did not see the ordinance, but the newspaper article. She asked if he was saying that if one person made the appointment, that same person could also remove someone, or what would it take. Councilman Roth stated if would take a four-fifths vote to remove an appointee. Councilwoman Kaywood then stated she joined somewhat in the Mayor's amazement The concept was not new and it was something they had with a prior Mayor, and they subsequently had to remove two of his appointees. They previously had that practice and had seen the political payoffs. The best person did not get appointed necessarily. Councilman Roth reminded Councilwoman Kaywood that the appointees had to get two additional votes to be appointed. Councilman Overholt stated from his reading of the ordinance, it meant that each commission was made up of individual appointees of individual Council Members. He agreed with the Mayor that when appointments had been made, at least in his two and one-half years on the Council, they had tried to get a consensus and then after the votes were cast normally the Council would cast a unanimous vote for the appointee. In the last appointments, they received applications from numerous people. The process, although difficult, he thought was to be commended because so many citizens did apply. He did not know why Councilman Roth was so concerned with the manner in which the last appointments were made. Mayor Seymour also pointed out that the ordinance was so political that they even changed the dates of appointments to~ coincide with a time period immedi- ately following City elections. No further action was taken on the matter. 162: COMMUNITY PRIDE PROGRAM: Mayor Seymour referred to the request received from Mr. Gene Beyer, Director of the Community Pride Program. He asked Mr. Beyer to visit with him, the bottom line being, Mr. Beyer was looking for Anaheim to contribute $2,500 to the program under the auspices that a certain segment of the City was served by the Orange Unified School District. The way they intended to fund it was, Orange would make a $9,900 commitment, Villa Park, $1,000 and Anaheim, $2,500. That breakdown was based upon student population within the City boundaries. He was not asking for action today but an expres- sion of how the Council might want to handle the matter. Councilwoman Kaywood stated she needed time; Councilman Bay stated that prior to any presentation, he would want to know whether the other cities involved had made those commitments. The Mayor requested the City Clerk to have Mr. Beyer present at next Tuesday's Council meeting. RECESS - EXECUTIVE SESSION: By general consent, the Council recessed into Executive Session. (4:40 p.m.) 80-959 Cit~ H~ll~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - July. 29.,. 1980~ 1:30 P.M. AFTER RECESS: Mayor Seymour called the meeting to order, all Council Members being present. (6:55 p.m.) 108/112: REQUEST OF GUY R. LOCHHEAD: Councilman Seymour moved to direct the City Attorney to inform Attorney Guy R. Lochhead that his client's request (Camelot- Anaheim Card Club) would not be placed on the Council agenda. Councilwoman Kaywood seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. 123: EMPLOYMENT CONTRACT FOR CITY MANAGER WILLIAM O. TALLEY: Councilman Overholt moved to direct the City Attorney to prepare a two-year, six-month termination clause, employment contract for William O. Talley to be dated July 29, 1980, and effective July 25, 1980. Councilman Bay seconded the motion. Mayor Seymour again expressed his extreme displeasure over the fact that the City Manager is the only City official who feels he needs a contract Co perform the duties of his office for which he is well paid. In his opinion, that trans- lated to insecurity on the part of the City Council and the City Manager. Councilman Roth stated he was pleased with the City Manager's performance in bringing the Rams to Anaheim, negotiating for a major hotel adjacent to the Convention Center and developing a workable and readable budget and if a con- tract would encourage the City Manager to continue in such a mode on future activities, he, for one, was going to change his position and vote for the contract. Council Members Kaywood and Overholt both expressed their gratitude for the many accomplishments Mr. Talley had made for the City and commended him for his un- selfish dedication in so doing. Councilman Overholt stated that if, in fact, the City Council and the City Manager differed~philosophically, there was a six-month termination clause in the proposed contract which would 'permit the City Council to seek a new City Manager and the City Manager, ~6 §eek employment elsewhere. Mayor Seymour responded that in his opinion the six-month termination clause, should it be exercised, would cost the City approximately $30,000 and that presently the City Charter provided for removal of the City Manager which was far less expensive. Councilman Overholt stated that the Mayor had expressed himself on several occasions prior and he did not expect him to change his position today. To the motion previously offered, Councilman Seymour voted "no". MOTION CARRIED. ADJOURNMENT: Councilman Roth moved to adjourn. Councilwoman Kaywood seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. Adjourned: 7:06 P.M. LINDA D. ROBERTS, CITY CLERK