Loading...
1980/09/0280-1106 City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - Septem.ber 2, 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 ASSISTANT CITY MANAGER: William T. Hopkins CITY ATTORNEY: William P. Hopkins CITY CLERK: Linda D. Roberts PUBLIC UTILITIES GENERAL MANAGER: Gordon W. Hoyt POLICE CHIEF: George P. Tielsch WATER ENGINEERING MANAGER: Ray Auerbach ASSISTANT FINANCE DIRECTOR-RESOURCES: Ron Rothschild COMMUNITY SERVICES MANAGER: Steven Swaim POLICE VNOC BUREAU COMMANDER: Dale Wilcox Mayor Seymour called the meeting to order and welcomed those in attendance to the Council meeting. INVOCATION: Reverend Robert Campbell, First Presbyterian Church, gave the Invocation. FLAG SALUTE: Councilman Don R. Roth led the assembly in the Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag. 156: PRESENTATION - OFFICERS FROM INTERNATIONAL POLICE OLYMPICS: Detective Jim Watkins introduced to the Council those Anaheim Police Officers who dis- tinguished themselves by winning medals at the International Police Olympics, and thanked the Council for their support of the officers participating in this event. 119: PROCLAMATION: The following proclamation was issued by Mayor Seymour and authorized by the City Council: Constitution Observance Month, September 1980 The proclamation was accepted by Steve Gossett of the Mother Colony Masonic Lodge. 119: RESOLUTION OF COMMENDATION: A resolution of commendation for Dr. Nancy Parry for her numerous outstanding contributions and services to the community was authorized by the City Council, to be presented to Dr. Parry at a later date. 119: RESOLUTION OF SUPPORT: A resolution indicating the Anaheim City Council's support of the Senior Health Fair to be held Sunday, September 7, 1980, at La Palma Park was accepted by Andrea Manes and Herb Leo, both active organizers of the event. MINUTES: Approval of the minutes was deferred to the next regular meeting. WAIVER OF READING - ORDINANCES AND RESOLUTIONS: Councilman Bay moved to waive the reading in full of all ordinances and resolutions of the Agenda, after reading of the title thereof by the City Clerk, and that consent to waiver is hereby given by all Council Members, unless after reading of the title, specific request is made by a Council Member for the reading of such ordinance or resolution in regular order. Councilwoman Kaywood seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. 80-1107 City Hal.l, Anahe!m~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - September 2, 1980, 1:30 P.M. FINANCIAL DEMANDS AGAINST THE CITY in the amount of $874,484.27, in accordance with the 1980-81 Budget, were approved. 130/139: OPPOSITION TO S-2827 REGARDING CABLE TV OPERATION: In accordance with the recommendation submitted by the City Manager's office, Councilman Bay moved to oppose S-2827 (Hollings) regarding restriction of goverp~ental authority relating to cable television operation. Councilwoman Kaywood sec- onded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. 139/173: SEPARATE TRANSPORTATION DISTRICT FOR ORANGE COUNTY AB-512: Councilman Roth introduced the subject of AB-512 which would create a separate transit district for the County of Orange, allowing it to break away from Los Angeles and Ventura Counties, and advised of a telephone call from Senator Briggs's office indicating that the Governor was now being lobbied by legislators from Los Angeles and Ventura Counties not to sign the bill. Should the bill be vetoed, because of the very close nature of the vote, there would be little chance of overriding same. Therefore, Senator Briggs requested that the Anaheim City Council, Anaheim Chamber of Commerce and other citizen groups support AB-512 by mailing telegrams, letters and making phone calls to the Governor urging that he sign the bill. Mayor Seymour responded that he had already asked staff to prepare and immed- iately send a telegram with his signature to Governor Brown on this subject. He concurred that the Council should attempt to inspire both the business and residential members of this community to write or call the Governor and ad- vised how important AB-512 was to Orange County. 160: PURCHASE OF EQUIPMENT - ONE 2-3 TON ROLLER - BID NO. 3672: On motion by Councilman Overholt, seconded by Councilwoman Kaywood, the bid of Essick Machinery Company, which was the only bid received, was accepted and purchase authorized in the amount of $13,397.87, for one, 2-3 ton roller, as recommended by the Purchasing Agent in his memorandum dated August 27, 1980. MOTION CARRIED. 160: PURCHASE OF EQUIPMENT - ONE 84-INCH TORO TURF PRO MOWER - BID NO. 3676: On motion by Councilman Seymour, seconded by Councilman Roth, the bid of Toro Pacific Distributors was accepted and purchase authorized in the amount of $10,537.46, for one 84-inch Toro Turf Pro Mower, as recommended by the Purchasing Agent in his memorandum dated August 27, 1980. MOTION CARRIED. 158: SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON COMPANY EASEMENT - CONVENTION WAY: In accor- dance with the recommendation submitted by the Public Works Department, Council- woman Kaywood offered Resolution No. 80R-384 for adoption, approving the request from Southern California Edison for dedication of a public utility easement to allow relocation of their existing facilities located south of Convention Way from 1,250 feet east of West Street to West Street, and further authorizing execution of an easement deed therefor. Refer to Resolution Book. RESOLUTION NO. 80R-384: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AUTHORIZING THE EXECUTION AND DELIVERY OF A GRANT OF EASEMENT DEED FROM THE CITY OF ANAHEIM TO SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON COMPANY. 80-1108 Cit~ Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - September 2, 1980~ 1:30 P.M. Roll Call Vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: COUNCIL MEMBERS: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Overholt, Kaywood, Bay, Roth and Seymour None None The Mayor declared Resolution No. 80R-384 duly passed and adopted. 175: LICENSE AGREEMENT SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON COMPANY - UTILITY EASEMENT: Recommendation of the Public Utilities General Manager was submitted that the City Council approve Southern California Edison License Agreement No. 04-80-025 for a utility easement on the Barre-Vitla Park 220 kV transmission line right-of-way in the vicinity of the Santa Ana Freeway and Manchester Street, to permit instal- lation and maintenance of an anchor and down guy for the City's 12 kV electrical facilities, and further authorized the payment of the $50 license fee. MOTION: On motion by Councilwoman Kaywood, seconded by Councilman Overholt, the City Council authorized the utility easement License Agreement No. 04-80-025 and the payment of the $50 license fee. MOTION CARRIED. 123: CALTRANS AGREEMENT NO. 7-UT-5048 - RELOCATION OF ELECTRICAL FACILITIES DUE TO CONSTRUCTION OF SANTA ANA FREEWAY: In accordance with the recommendation submitted by the Public Utilities General Manager, Councilwoman Kaywood offered Resolution No. 80R-385 for adoption, authorizing Utilities Agreement No. 7Ut-5048 with the State Department of Transportation for reimbursement to the City for relocation of electrical facilities due to the construction of the Santa Ana Freeway in the vicinity of Katella Avenue and Harbor Boulevard. Refer to Resolution Book. RESOLUTION NO. 80R-385: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AUTHORIZING AND DIRECTING THE MAYOR AND CITY CLERK TO EXECUTE UTILITIES AGREEMENT NO. 7Ut-5048 WITH THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA. 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-385 duly passed and adopted. 123: SECONDARY WATER MAIN REIMBURSEMENT AGREEMENT - SENT-PAC CORPORATION: In accordance with the recommendation submitted by the Public Utilities General Manager dated August 22, 1980, Councilman Overholt moved to authorize an agreement with Sent-Pac Corporation for reimbursement of fees collected for the secondary water main distribution system installed in Bel Air Street, at the rate of $18.40 per front foot. Councilman Roth seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. 113/175: DESTRUCTION OF RECORDS: Request of the Public Utilities General Manager was submitted for authorization to destroy appliance repair records for the years 1967 though 1977 in the possession of the Conservation Services Division, was submitted. 80:1109 Cit~_Hall, Anahe.im, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - September 2,. 1980, 1:30 P.M. Councilman Bay offered Resolution No. 80R-386 for adoption. Refer to Resolution Book. RESOLUTION NO. 80R-386: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AUTHORIZING THE DESTRUCTION OF CITY RECORDS MORE THAN TWO YEARS OLD. 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-386 duly passed and adopted. 175/137: NEGOTIATED SALE OF ELECTRICAL REVENUE BONDS: Memorandum from the Public Utilities General Manager dated August 27, 1980 was submitted, recommen- ding (1) that the Council authorize the negotiated sale of approximately $84 million of Electric Revenue Bonds to finance Anaheim's share of San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station, Units 2 and 3; (2) that the Council authorize James J. Lowrey and Company to prepare a request for proposals from investment bankers and bond underwriters to act as senior managers and co-managers for sale of the bonds. Mr. Hoyt further reported that this Issue was taken to the Public Utilities Board meeting of August 28, 1980, at which time the above referenced recommen- dation was approved by a five to one vote with one member absent. He advised that because of the time constraints faced for sale of the bonds and the time by which the money must be delivered to Southern California Edison and the fact that the coupon rates were established for the City by election, the 15- day advertising period required for competitive bids, as well as the condition of the bond market, all have led to the recommendation that a negotiated sale process be utilized, rather than going to competitive bids. Mr. Hoyt advised that the City's Financial Advisor, James J. Lowrey and Company, George Ferrone, Finance Director, and the City Manager's office, all concur in the recommendation that the negotiated sale will result in the most favorable situation for the City of Anaheim. Therefore the proposal is that the City begin marketing the bonds the week of October 13, the City Council to execute the sale with the successful underwriters at a City Council meeting on October 16 or 17. A portion of the action proposed for the Council this date was to authorize James J. Lowrey and Company to prepare the RFP with answers to be received by September 11. From those firms which respond as interested in being managers, a list would be submitted to the City Council shortly before September 16th meeting. During the week of September 23 through 25, the bonds would be rated in New York, the preliminary Official Statement would be scheduled for approval by the Council on September 30, so that by the 13th or 14th of October, they would hope to have the bonds sold and underwritten. This time table would allow for the execution of the Participation Agreement with Edison by November 4, and November 14th would be the last day for the City to deliver the money to Southern California Edison. He concluded that he believes because of the time constraints involved, the City could get the best results with a call provision that is the most favorable to a negotiated sale for these Electrical Revenue Bonds. 80-1110 City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - September 2, 1980, 1:30 P.M. Councilman Bay requested that the cause of all these time constraints be explained, and Mr. Hoyt summarized that the City's agreement with Southern Calfornia Edison requires that once the Nuclear Regulatory Commission approves transfer of the ownership interest from Southern California Edison to Anaheim, and after Edison and San Diego complete their Participation Agreements, the City has 75 days according to our Letter Agreement within which to execute the Participation Agreement, and then ten days to deliver the money to Southern California Edison. Mr. Hoyt further explained that the coupon rate for the response was set during the 1974 Bond Election at 8% and cannot be changed except through another election. Therefore they are limited to the 8% coupon rate and the maximum discount rate was set by Ordinance No. 2980 at 6%. Because of the condition of today's bond market, Mr. Hoyt stated that he believed it necessary to be able to get the maximum discount possible so that the bonds might deliver a yield which will be attractive to purchasers and, therefore, later on this agenda there is an ordinance proposed for first reading to amend Ordinance No. 2980 which would provide for sale of revenue bonds at a discount not to exceed 10%. The 15-day advertising requirement necessary for sale of bonds by competitive bid would add another constraint under which, in the condition of today's market, Mr. Hoyt did not think the sale could be structured to the City's best interest. Mr. Hoyt advised that in a normal bond market situation, he would never recom- mend that bonds be sold by any manner other than competitive bid. He advised that if the market improves, the City will want to call the'bond and refund, but first will have to go back to the electorate and do a better job at ex- plaining what is meant by refunding bonds. Mr. Hoyt corroborated for Councilman Bay that it was the Nuclear Regulatory Commission approval on the transfer of ownership which was not given until the 6th of August, 1980, which caused the delay, and that the time clock on execution of the Participation Agreement began running August 21 when San Diego and Southern California Edison completed their Participation Agreements. Mayor Seymour stated that it was his understanding in the Council Liaison Com- mittee meeting that if the City Council were not satisfied with the negotiated bids for these bonds, they could reject these and would have time to go to com- petitive bids. He noted from the presentation thus far that there does not seem to be sufficient time left in the schedule to accomplish ~his. Mr. Hoyt replied that there would be time for using the competitive bidding process only if the Council were :o hold special meetings. Using the regular Tuesday meeting schedule, they would not have sufficient time. Mayor Seymour stated that special meetings would pose no problem to him, but he did not think the Council should be deprived of the opportunity to go to the competitive bid process if they feel that would be the alternative way to go. Councilman Bay asked what would happen if the City did not make the November 14th deadline and was advised that it was really an unknown, although Southern California Edison does want the City to meet its obligations, there are no promises or guarantees as to what would happen if the City does not make it. It could be that the City would be foreclosed from participation in the project. 80-1111 City Hal~, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - September 2, 1980, 1:30 P.M. In further response to Councilman Bay, Mr. Hoyt advised that the bonds could be federal and state tax exempt and would yield about 9%. He assured Council Members that there would be sufficient time for an additional negotiated bid if the first attempt was not successful and further, gave assurance that it could be worked out so that there would be time for a competitive bid as well. Mr. Hoyt emphasized that the Council does not have to accept the bids as negotiated, but has the option of sending the negotiators back. He explained that the money market will gather together a syndicate which will come to a consensus as to what the bonds ought to be worth. The conditions will have to be negotiated, but he will certainly make room in the schedule for a competitive sale. Mayor Seymour stated that the other item which was of concern to him was the cash flow from the project itself and questioned (1) how closely on budget the San Onofre Project was proceeding; and (2) how certain is the City that it will be up and operating within a time table to provide for reasonable cost of electricity; and (3) what are the positive cash flow proceeds the City may expect to enjoy. Mr. Hoyt responded that the cash flow figures he has are those used by Southern California Edison and that the City has employed R. W. Beck and Associates to work on this project for some time. They have reviewed the cost estimates and there is in the City's Official Statement a letter from that firm indicating they have reviewed the cost estimate and find them to be reasonable in compar- ison with other projects under construction at this time. He explained that although there are always risks involved in these kinds of projects, at this time San Onofre Unit 2 is 90% complete and Unit 3 70% complete, so that overall they are 80% complete which means that most of the money has been spent. Mr. Hoyt acknowleged that there is also a contingency amount of $2.8 million which is included essentially to protect ~he City from a slippage in the schedule. The one hurdle yet to be overcome for this project is the approval of an op- erating license by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. It is unlikely they will deny the project a license, but may ask that some additional safeguards be carried out, particularly in light of the Three-Mile Island incident. He summarized probably there will be an effort to review the seismic data again, but this is not considered a serious problem. Also there may be new regulations concerning an emergency evacuation plan. Southern California Edison has cate- gorically stated that they will comply with whatever regulations are promulgated. The Southern California Edison schedule calls for loading nuclear fuel in April of 1981 and be in full power operation by December 1981. The Nuclear Regulatory Commission feels this schedule may be optimistic by two months, that they will not reach full power stage until February of 1982, however this should present no problem to the City of Amaheim. Councilman Bay noted that most of the safety and regulatory rules coming out of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission since Three Mile Island are related to Operator Training and minor hardware changes which represented only a small part of the overall economics of putting a plant on-line. Mayor Seymour questioned what Anaheim's total share in the project will amount to and Mr. Hoyt summarized that $36.6 million is the City's total construction cost responsibility; there's another $4 million for loading of nuclear fuel con- sidered to be an operating cost, plus taxes, which comes to about $41 million, 80-1112 City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - September 2, 1980, 1:30 P.M. plus a $2.8 million contingency. He advised that Anaheim's contingency account should carry the City by paying the interest on the debt for a possible ten months of slippage of the schedule for full operation (December 1981) or to October of 1982 for Unit 2. Unit 3 is scheduled to load fuel in June of 1982 and to provide full power by February of 1983. On this unit all interest will be capitalized to October of 1982 and then 50% of the interest to December 31, 1983. In response to Mayor Seymour's question regarding the cash flow situ- ation for the project, Mr. Hoyt explained that the savings projected by the City's consultants for 1982, the first year of operation for Unit 2, were $810,000, which would increase proportionately into the 1990's to some $8.8 million. It is estimated that savings over the first nine years of the project will total $43.7 million, so that the City would be saving approximately $52.5 million in the first ten years of the project, as compared with the forecast cost of buying all of the City's energy needs from Southern California Edison. Mayor Seymour stated that his concern relative to the project has to do with the profit margin, particularly in the first three years, where in his opinion, it is extremely narrow. He explained that while he is as bullish and as en- thusiastic about the San Onofre Project as he was in the past, he still has some sincere concerns that if the schedule slips and that unit does not go into operation, the possibility is there, even with the ten-month extension that the City might have to increase rates on a temporary basis to cover the indebtedness, and this is a situation he would not want to come about. Mr. Hoyt stated that the City Council of the City of Riverside expressed these same concerns when this matter came before them and determined to hire two consulting engineering firms to review the R. W. Beck figures. The end result of this was that these firms gave the opinion that R. W. Beck and Company was much too conservative in their approach to the savings. Additionally he explained that in the bond negotiations, they will make every effort to spread the bond cost out, as these would decrease the annual debt service. Mayor Seymour addressed the next point of concern to him, that of the appropriate amount of cash reserves. He noted that the City is entering a new era in which it will be a partner in generating electricity and it would seem to him prudent to operate fiscally in a different fashion. Therefore it seems logical that the City should be looking at its liquid reserves to identify what is adequate. Mr. Hoyt, with the assistance of Darrell Ament, summarized the current status of the Utilities' cash reserves, which consist of the R&R account, working capital and bond reserve account. Mayor Seymour questioned whether the amounts and percentages summarized by Gordon Hoyt reflect a reasonable sum for a municipal utility to hold as a liquid reserve in view of the type of utility they're are about to become i.e,, one which is participating in the generation of nuclear energy. He emphasized that he is not concerned for the bondholders, but for the constituents who are also the rate payers and, therefore, felt it was imperative that the City have suffi- cient liquid reserves to prevent them from having to increase rates to cover bonded indebtedness for a reasonable period of time. Mr. Hoyt stated that what he thinks the City needs to do, to protect the rate payers, is to go back to the electorate sometime within the next year and put to them a ballot question which would allow the City to refund these bonds so 80-1113 City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - September 2, 1980, 1:30 P.M. that the City might have the flexibility to carry this debt in a manner which would insure that everyone pays a prorata share of the cost of the useful life of the project. Mayor Seymour advised that he would like to ask the Public Utilities Board for their input on this matter, specifically as to what are reasonable reserves, and in the event the Public Utilities Department doesn't have these, how to go about accumulating them. MOTION: Councilman Seymour thereupon offered a motion to authorize the negotiated sale of approximately $84 million of Electric Revenue Bonds to finance the City's share of San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station, Units II and III, with the under- standing that the City will be provided an opportunity to go to competitive bids and further, that the Public Utilities Board will forward to the Council within 90 days their estimate of what adequate working reserves are for utilities par- ticipating in generation and a recommendation as to how to build this reserve if it is not already sufficient. Councilman Overholt seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. MOTION: Councilman Seymour moved that the City Council authorize James J. Lowrey and Company to prepare a Request for Proposals (RFP) from investment bankers and bond underwriters to act as senior managers and co-managers for the sale of the bonds. Councilman Overholt seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. Councilman Bay commented that taking into consideration the time constraints facing the Public Utility and the volatility of the bond market at this time, he did not see how the Utilities Manager and Board could have worked up a better plan. 164: AWARD OF CONTRACT - MARK LANE/NORTHFIELD SILT REMOVAL: In accordance with the recommendation submitted by the City Engineer, Councilman Roth offered Reso- lution No. 80R-387 for adoption, awarding the Mark Lane Silt Removal-Northfield Silt Removal contract. Refer to Resolution Book. RESOLUTION NO. 80R-387: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM ACCEPTING A SEALED PROPOSAL AND AWARDING A CONTRACT TO THE LOWEST RESPONSIBLE BIDDER FOR THE FURNISHING OF ALL PLANT, LABOR, SERVICES, MATERIALS AND EQUIPMENT AND ALL UTILITIES AND TRANSPORTATION INCLUDING POWER, FUEL AND WATER, AND PER- FORMING ALL WORK NECESSARY TO CONSTRUCT AND COMPLETE THE FOLLOWING PUBLIC IMPROVE- MENT: MARK LANE SILT REMOVAL - NORTHFIELD SILT REMOVAL, IN THE CITY OF ANAHEIM, ACCOUNT NOS. 11-790-6325-E0280 AND 11-790-6325-E0290. (Empire Pipe Cleaning & Equipment, Inc., $93,897.30) Roll Call Vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: COUNCIL MEMBERS: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Overholt, Kaywood, Bay, Roth and Seymour None None · he Mayor declared Resolution No. 80R-387 duly passed and adopted. 80-1114 City Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - September 2., 1980, 1:30 P.M. 164: AWARD OF CONTRACT - WALNUT CANYON SEWER RECONSTRUCTION: In accordance with the recommendation submitted by the City Engineer, Councilwoman Kaywood offered Resolution No. 80R-388 for adoption, awarding the Walnut Canyon Sewer Reconstruction contract. Refer to Resolution Book. RESOLUTION NO. 80R-388: 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 PERFORM- ING ALL WORK NECESSARY TO CONSTRUCT AND COMPLETE THE FOLLOWING PUBLIC IMPROVEMENT: WALNUT CANYON SEWER RECONSTRUCTION, IN THE CITY OF ANAHEIM, ACCOUNT NO. 11-790- 6325-E0300. (Mark Dakovich, Inc., $33,000) 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-388 duly passed and adopted. 169: AWARD OF CONTRACT - HARBOR BOULEVARD STREET IMPROVEMENT (NEAR DISNEYLAND ENTRANCE): In accordance with the recommendation submitted by the City Engineer, Councilman Roth offered Resolution No. 80R-389 for adoption, with the provision for cost sharing by Disneyland. Refer to Resolution Book. RESOLUTION NO. 80R-389: 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 PERFORM- ING ALL WORK NECESSARY TO CONSTRUCT AND COMPLETE THE FOLLOWING PUBLIC IMPROVEMENT: HARBOR BOULEVARD STREET IMPROVEMENT - 2651' N/O KATELLA AVENUE TO 2211' N/O KATELLA AVENUE, IN THE CITY OF ANAHEIM, PROJECT ACCOUNT NO. 13-793-6325-E3430. (Luz Pina General Engineering, $23,699.05) 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-389 duly passed and adopted. 128: MONTHLY FINANCIAL STATEMENT - PERIOD ENDING JULY 31, 1980: Councilman Bay questioned the statement submitted by the Finance Director, specifically noting three areas, Public Works Capital Improvement Projects, Human Resources Capital Improvement Projects and Engineering Capital Projects which was sig- nificantly over their budgets, having expended 73.3%, 69.2% and 25.8%, respec- tively, of their annual budget within the first month. It was explained that the Public Works Capital budget item related to the last two or three progress payments on the Civic Center; the Human Resources had only one pro- ject, a new payroll personnel system; and Engineering Capital Improvement Projects were over their monthly allotment because of year-end accruals from Project Alpha. 80-1115 City Hall,. Anaheim,, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - September 2, 1980, 1:30 P.M. Mr. Hopkins advised that the managers were attempting to allocate the funds to be extended throughout the year for cash flow and investment purposes, and these instances were more a reflection of the need for fine tuning of the allocation system than they are a budget problem. On motion by Councilman Overholt, seconded by Councilman Roth, the Monthly Financial Statement for the one-month period ending July 31, 1980 was ordered received and filed. MOTION CARRIED. 123: AGREEMENT WITH THE WOMEN'S TRANSITIONAL LIVING CENTER - USE OF 630 NORTH ANAHEIM BOULEVARD: Recommendation of Mr. James Ruth, Deputy City Manager, that the City Council approve an agreement allowing temporary use of the former office of Parks, Recreation and Community Services Department by the Women's Transitional Living Center (WTLC) was submitted for Council consideration. It was clarified for Councilman Roth that one of the terms of the agreement was that the lease be on a month-to-month basis with a 15-day cancellation clause and that this would provide the City with more flexibility than a straight six-month term as he had suggested. Further it was understood by the license fee that this was to be a temporary use and, therefore, no capital improvements would be made, and that the space would be used for offices and counseling, and not for living quarters. MOTION: On motion by Councilwoman Kaywood, seconded by Councilman Overholt, the City Council authorized an agreement with the Women's Transitional Living Center for temporary use of the former Recreation office located at 630 North Anaheim Boulevard in accordance with the terms recommended by the Deputy City Manager. MOTION CARRIED. 101: PERMISSION FOR THE LOS ANGELES HERALD EXAMINER TO DISTRIBUTE SPECIAL RAMS SECTIONS AT THE STADIUM: The City Attorney advised that he had received request from the Los Angeles Herald Examiner for permission to distribute spe- cial sections of their paper at the Anaheim Stadium which pertained to the Rams football team. He recommended that the Council grant special permission by authorizing the Mayor to sign a letter which he had prepared. MOTION: On motion by Councilman Seymour, seconded by Councilman Bay, the City Council authorized the Mayor to sign the letter granting permission to the Los Angeles Herald Examiner to distribute special Rams sections at the Stadium. MOTION CARRIED. 175: LETTER AGREEPfENT - LOS ANGELES DEPARTMENT OF WATER AND POWER, IPP TRANS- MISSION SERVICE: On motion by Councilman Roth, seconded by Councilman Overholt, the City Council authorized the letter agreement dated July 3, 1980 with the Los Angeles Department of Water and Power for transmission service of the City's Intermountain Power Project (IPP) power, in accordance with the recom- mendation submitted by the Public Utilities Board dated August 22, 1980. MOTION CARRIED. 123: AGREEMENT - PRICE WATERHGUSE AND COMPANY - FINANCIAL REPORTING SYSTEM FOR UTILITIES DEPARTMENT: On motion by Councilman Roth, seconded by Councilman Overholt, the City Council waived requirements of Council Policy No. 401 and authorized an agreement with Price Waterhouse and Company in an amount not to 80-1116 City Hal~, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - September 2, 1980, 1:30 P.M. exceed $76,500 in connection with planning an improved work order and financial reporting system for the Utilities Department, as recommended by the Public Utilities Board and Finance Director. MOTION CARRIED. 175: WHITE PINE POWER GENERATION PROJECT: Recommendation of the Public Utilities Board that the City Council approve participation in the development work for the White Pine Project and authorize the General Manager to execute the White Pine Project Election Letter, was submitted. Councilman Bay commented that the materials submitted indicated there is a dead- line for execution of the Election Letter by September 8, 1980 and again, the Council is being asked to act on a power project within a short time constraint. Mr. Hoyt noted that the project had been under consideration by the Public Utilities Board for several weeks to allow them time to review it and be familiar with the project and the recommendations prior to presenting them to the Council. He also reported, in response to Councilman Bay, that per mega- watt, the cost of this project, as compared with San Onofre, is not yet known, but that his guess would be, the cost would be higher. The primary reason for this is that San Onofre is almost complete, whereas this project will not start for three years, subjecting it to a lot of inflation potential. Mr. Hoyt additionally reported that the next step to be taken in the White Pine Project would be to obtain the necessary approvals from the regulatory agencies; that the maximum liability facing the City of Anaheim for this particular project at this time is $1,086,300, and this would be in the event that the entire $30,000,000 projected for the study phase is expended. He explained that a note has been negotiated providing for $17 million to carry forward the studies on this project over the next three years. It is intended that this will accomplish the obtaining of regulatory agencies' approvals. MOTION: On motion by Councilman Overholt, seconded by Councilman Seymour, the City Council approved the City's participation in development work for the White Pine Project and authorized execution of the White Pine Power Supply Development Agreement and further, authorized the Public Utilities General Manager to execute the White Pine Project Election Letter. MOTION CARRIED. 175/137: ORDINANCE NO. 4158: AI~ENDMENT TO ORDINANCE PERTAINING TO ELECTRIC REVENUE BONDS: In accordance with the recommendations submitted by the Public Utilities Board, Councilman Seymour offered Ordinance No. 4158 for first read- ing, amending Ordinance No. 2980 to provide for sale of revenue bonds at a discount not to exceed 10%. ORDINANCE NO. 4158: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM, CALIFORNIA, AMENDING ORDINANCE NO. 2980 OF SAID CITY, RELATING TO ELECTRIC REVENUE BONDS. 175: REQUEST FOR REPORT ON GENERATION STUDIES: Councilman Bay requested that the Utilities General Manager prepare and submit to Council a report stating the amounts of funds spent on research/studies for generation projects, with a breakdown as to how much of these funds went for studies which did not end up in a contract and project. Said report to be submitted to the Council by December 31, 1980. 80-1117 City Ha!~, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - September 2~ 1980, 1:30 P.M. Councilman Overholt suggested that this report include those projects which are still alive as then the figures would have some meaning. RECESS: By general consent the City Council recessed for 10 minutes. (3:50 P.M.) AFTER RECESS: Mayor Seymour called the meeting to order, all Council Members being present. (4:00 P.M.) 123/101: AMENDMENT TO GROUND LEASE - ANAHEIM STADIUM ASSOCIATES: City Attorney Hopkins reported that when the original Ground Lease was prepared, it was intended that certain portions of the land be exempted, one of which would be that area on which the Big A Scoreboard was to be located. The precise location for the Big A was not, however, known at that time. This amendment would exclude from the original lease agreement that property on which the Big A Scoreboard is located. MOTION: On motion by Councilman Overholt, seconded by Councilman Roth, the City Council authorized an amendment to the Ground Lease with Anaheim Stadium Associ- ates. MOTION CARRIED. 150/106: SENIOR CITIZENS' CENTER ENTRANCE MODIFICATIONS PROJECT: On motion by Councilwoman Kaywood, seconded by Councilman Bay, the appropriation of funds for the Senior Citizens' Center entrance modifications project was continued for two weeks to the meeting of September 16, 1980. MOTION CARRIED. 175: PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION APPLICATION NO. 59863 - SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON: Application No. 59863 before the Public Utilities Commission in the matter of the application of Southern California Edison for authority to increase base rates for electric service to recover increased operating costs resulting from the conversion to monthly billing of customers previously billed bi-monthly, was continued from the meeting of August 26, 1980 for staff investi- gation of any possible impact on the City's utility. On motion by Councilman Bay, seconded by Councilman Roth, the Public Utilities Commission Application No. 59863 was ordered received and filed, together with report from the Public Utilities General Manager indicating that the California Public Utilities Commission has jurisdiction over retail rates, whereas the City of Anaheim purchases electricity wholesale from Southern California Edison. MOTION CARRIED. 170: TENTATIVE TRACT NO. 10167 - ~XTENSION OF TIME: Request of Shamrock Con- tractors, Inc., for an extension of time to Tentative Tract No. 10167, to establish a 15-lot subdivision on proposed RS-HS-22,000 zoned property located on the northeast side of Country Hill Road, south of Mohler Drive, was submitted together with a report from the Zoning Division, recommending said extension be granted. On motion by Councilwoman Kaywood, seconded by Councilman Overholt, the City Council granted an extension of time to Tentative Tract No. 10167, expiring August 5, 1981, as recommended by the Zoning Division. MOTION CARRIED. i08: REVIEW - THREE-DAY BINGO PERMIT - ST. ANTONIO DE PADUA CHURCH: Request of Mr. Arnold H. Justice, St. Antonio de Padua Church, for a Council review of the decision by the Chief of Police denying a three-day bingo permit for the Church's Fall Festival to be held September 19, 20, and 21, 1980, at 3800 80-1118 City Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - September 2, 1980, 1:30 P.M. Santa Ana Canyon Road was submitted, together with reports from the Police Department and City Attorney. Lt. Dale Wilcox summarized the report submitted by the Chief of Police indicating that their recommendation for denial is based on the fact that this is not an annual event and that the organization and church are new, just under construc- tion, and further because other similar requests have been denied and the Police Department would not like to set any precedents in view of the ongoing litigation on bingo matters at this time. In response to Mayor Seymour's comment as to what situation is then covered by Section 7.34.240 of the Anaheim Municipal Code, Lt. Wilcox emphasized that this section of the Bingo Ordinance indicates that the Chief of Police may permit a license to conduct bingo games for more than one day, which is a permissive statement. In this case, the Police Department feels there are extenuating circumstances for which reasons they should not approve the permit. He explained that they have had two other similar requests for exemption under this clause, and these were both also denied. Councilwoman Kaywood clarified that there is no problem with granting this group and the other two organizations one-day permits, to which Lt. Wilcox replied affirmatively that these have been allowed. Mr. Arnold H. Justice, Bingo Chairman for St. Antonio de Padua Church Fall Festival, gave a brief account of his activities in attempting to obtain the necessary permit through the City of Anaheim to hold three days of bingo at the Festival. He emphasized that this is a fund raising activity for the Church and that the bingo would be staffed completely by volunteers and that this Festival is the third such event held for the Church which is now in the process of being built. Although he advised they did not have bingo in the prior years, they did hold Festivals at approximately the same time, mid-September. He advised that when he originally planned bingo at the Festival, he made certain commitments such as erecting a tent, and renting of equipment and if allowed to play bingo only six hours in one day, his organization would lose, rather than raise money. He explained that he had visited a similar event held at the Saint Anthony Claret Church and noted that the bingo was a good fund raiser and there- fore decided to include this in their Festival the next year. Mr. Justice explained that when he initially contacted the City and spoke with Detective Briggs of the Police Department about obtaining a bingo permit, the ordinance did not indicate he would be limited to one day. It was ascertained that when he initially called in February of 1980, there was not such a limi- tation, but the ordinance was subsequently amended. In answer to the Council, Mr. Justice advised that his organization has enjoyed a tax exempt status since January 22, 1976. It was clarified during discussion with the City Attorney that Section 7.34.240, which permits the exemption for playing of bingo three days in one calendar year sets forth no requirement that the applicant had to have played bingo previously, the requirement is that the organization conduct an event annually. Mr. Hopkins stated that he believed what the Police Department was referring to is the fact that they have not issued any other three-day permits at the discretion of the Chief of Police for any other annual event. 80-1119 Citl. Hall~ Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - September 2, 1980, 1:30 P.M. Councilman Overholt stated that he felt it was unfortunate, but that the appli- cant had been misled into thinking that the three-day permit would he allowed. He recalled for Mr. Justice that the City Council, Police Department, City Attorney's office have gone through many court appearances and lengthy Council sessions in an attempt to control a very serious bingo problem in the City of Anaheim. The Police Chief feels that if this particular permit is granted, others will come forth and want the same privilege. Mayor Seymour stated that he disagreed with Councilman Overholt's position, that he personally feels when the Ordinance was amended, if it was the City Council's intent not to permit any charitable organizations, such as this Catholic Church, the opportunity to play bingo three days per week, then the Council and City should have been straightforward about it and not include the provision for any waiver at all. He indicated that he did not think =his is a request for an exception, that these people are asking for something which was intended to be allowed them when they voted for bingo, i.e., an opportunity to use this as a fund raising activity for charitable organizations. He stated that unless the City Attorney is prepared to say that the City's current lawsuits will be jeopardized by the approval of this permit, he will fully support the position of the Church. City Attorney Hopkins advised that he did not think approval of this three-day permit would impair the City's present litigation. He remarked however that the Ordinance states the permit may be allowed at the discretion of the Chief of Police and so it would be necessary for Council to direct the City Manager to overrule the Chief's decision. Mayor Seymour stated that the only reason he has heard so far set forth for not granting this permit was the fear of establishing a precedent, and the City Attorney has stated the approval would not weaken the City's position in the lawsuits pending. In view of the fact that this Church building is halfway complete and they have held two previous festivals, he felt it would be un- fair to place them in the same category as professional bingo people. MOTION: Mayor Seymour thereupon moved that the City Council direct the City Manager to have the license issued in accordance with Section 7.34.240 of the Anaheim Municipal Code to permit the playing of bingo three days in con- junction with the St. Antonio de Padua Church Fall Festival. Councilman Roth seconded the motion. Prior to voting on the foregoing motion, in response to Councilman Bay, Chief Tielsch was summoned to the Council meeting. Councilman Bay asked the Chief whether he had uncontested evidence that this was the third year of the Festival, although no bingo was played the first two years, that when he received a request for permission to play three days in one year, would his response have been the same, to which Chief Tielsch replied affirmatively. Mayor Seymour asked then whether the Chief would recommend that this Section be struck entirely from the Ordinance. 80-1120 ~ity Hall, ~qaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - September 2, 1980, 1:30 P.M. Chief Tielsch replied that it was very difficult to separate and distinguish which organizations should be allowed permits and which should not, that he felt if the Council decided to grant this request, they would be inundated with similar appeals. Further, in response to Mayor Seymour, he felt it too soon to change the Ordinance again, that the Council should give this some time to see how and whether the climate of the City with relation to bingo changed. Councilman Overholt stated that he believed the decision of the Chief of Police to be a good one and the Council should support it, at least until the bingo situation in Anaheim changed. Mayor Seymour explained that he was not speaking against the Chief of Police, but for what the people of the State of California voted in favor of in the State-wide proposition to allow bingo for charitable fund raising. Despite the fact that the City has tightened its Ordinance, he did not see any good reason to deny the St. Antonio de Padua Church its permit. After considerable discussion on this subject, Mayor Seymour moved to recess into Executive Session. Councilman Overholt seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. (5:15 P.M.) AFTER RECESS: Mayor Seymour called the meeting to order, all Council Members being present. (5:30 P.M.) Mayor Seymour called for a vote on the foregoing motion to direct the City Manager to issue a permit allowing the playing of bingo for three days in conjunction with the St. Antonio de Padua Festival. Said motion failed to carry by the following vote: AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Roth and Seymour NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Overholt, Kaywood and Bay MOTION: Councilman Overholt moved that the City Council uphold the decision of the Chief of Police to deny a three-day bingo permit in conjunction with the St. Antonio de Padua Festival. Councilman Bay seconded the motion. Councilmen Roth and Seymour voted "no". MOTION CARRIED. CONSENT CALENDAR ITEMS: On motion by Councilman Overholt, seconded by Councilman Roth, the following actions were authorized in accordance with the reports and recommendations furnished each Council Member and as listed on the Consent Calendar Agenda: 1. 118: CLAIMS AGAINST THE CITY: The following claims were denied and referred to the City's Claims Administrator, allowed payment, or denied Application for Leave to Present Late Claim: a. Submitted by David S. Tilley for personal injury damages purportedly sustained as a result of bicycle accident caused by wire strung from telephone pole north of Ball Road on Magnolia Avenue, on or about July 1, 1980. b. Submitted by Robert A. Zeoli for vehicular damages purportedly sustained as a result of hitting a section of roadway 5 inches below grade on Ball Road, west of Gilbert Street, on or about June 15, 1980. 80-i121 City Hall~ A~aheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - September 2, 1980, 1:30 P.M. c. Submitted by LeRoy J. and Glenda K. Cordrey for damages purportedly sustained as a result of plumbing repairs caused by sewer blockage, at 5211 Rolling Hills Drive, on or about June 24, 1980. d. Application for Leave to Present Late Claim submitted by Laura Esquivel for personal injury damages purportedly sustained as a result of a vehicular acci- dent caused by condition of roadway (curve on eastbound Ka~ella Avenue near Haster Street), on or about August 18, 1979. e. Application for Leave to Present Late Claim aubmitted by Aida Salgado for personal injury damages purportedly sustained as a result of vehicular accident caused by condition of roadway, (curve on eastbound Katella Avenue near Haster Street), on or about August 18, 1979. The following claim was allowed: f. Claim submitted by Allan Kirvan Davidson for vehicular damages purportedly sustained as a result of accident caused by City employee traveling south on State College Boulevard, on or about May 20, 1980. '2. CORRESPONDENCE: The following correspondence was ordered received and filed: a. 175: Public Utilities Department, Customer Service Division--Corrected Monthly Report of June 1980. b. 105: Community Redevelopment Commission--Minutes of August 6, 1980. c. 140: Anaheim Public Library--Monthly Statistical Report for July 1980. d. 105: Anaheim Public Library--Minutes of July 16, 1980. e. 105: Community Services Board--Minutes of July 10, 1980. f. 105: Public Utilities Board--Minutes of August 21, 1980. (unapproved) 3. 108: APPLICATIONS: The following applications were approved in accordance with the recommendations of the Chief of Police: a. Public Dance Permit: The Concert Factory, for a dance to be held October 31, 1980, 8:00 p.m. to 1:00 a.m., at the Brookhurst Community Center. (Joseph Jonathan Yukech, applicant) b. Amusement Devices Permit: The Interspace Arcade, 1600 North Lemon Street, for various amusement devices. (Martin Leon Skirzynski, applicant) 4. 169: CHANGE ORDER - CERRITOS AVENUE STREET IMPROVEMENT: In accordance with the recommendations of the City Engineer, Change Order No. 1 was authorized in the amount of $17,485.51, bringing the original contract price to $129,125.96, R. J. Noble, contractor. MOTION CARRIED. 80-1122 City Hall~ Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - September 2, 1980, 1:30 P.M. 108: APPLICATION FOR ENTERTAINMENT PERMIT - FOXEY'S: Application for an Enter- tainment Permit to allow two dancers at Foxey's, 1007 East Balsam Street was removed from the Consent Calendar due to question regarding the hours of opera- tion during which the entertainment would be performed and, on motion by Council- woman Kaywood, seconded by Councilman Overholt, continued to the meeting of September 9, 1980. MOTION CARRIED. CONSENT CALENDAR ITEMS: Councilwoman Kaywood offered Resolution Nos. 80R-390 through 80R-394, 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 so Resolution Book. 158: RESOLUTION NO. 80R-390: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM ACCEPTING CERTAIN DEEDS AND ORDERING THEIR RECORDATION. (Anaheim Motel Ltd.; Grove Construction Company) 169: RESOLUTION NO. 80R-391: 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: DALE AVENUE STREET IMPROVEMENT, 380' S/O TO 900' S/O CRESCENT AVENUE, IN THE CITY OF ANAHEIM, ACCOUNT NO. 13-792-6325-E2630; 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. (Bid~ to be opened October 2, 1980, 2:00 P.M.) 150: RESOLUTION NO. 80R-392: 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: JOHN MARSHALL PARK DEVELOPMENT, IN THE CITY OF ANAHEIM, ACCOUNT NO. 16-812-7103; APPROVING THE DESIGNS, PLANS, PROFILES, DRAWINGS, AND SPECIFICATIONS FOR THE CONSTRUCTION THEREOF; AUTHORIZING THE CONSTRUCTION OF SAID PUBLIC IMPROVEMENT IN ACCORDANCE WITH SAID PLANS, SPECIFICATIONS, ETC.; AND AUTHORIZING AND DIRECTING THE CITY CLERK TO PUBLISH A NOTICE INVITING SEALED PROPOSALS FOR THE CONSTRUCTION THEREOF. (Bids to be opened October 2, 1980, 2:00 P.M.) 129: RESOLUTION NO. 80R-393: 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: FIRE STATION NO. 8, IN TNE CITY OF ANAHEIM, ACCOUNT NOS. 24-914-7107 & 47-914-7107; APPROVING THE DESIGNS, PLANS, PROFILES, DRAWINGS, AND SPECIFICATIONS FOR THE CONSTRUCTION THEREOF; AUTHORIZING THE CONSTRUCTION OF SAID PUBLIC IMPROVEMENT IN ACCORDANCE WITH SAID PLANS, SPECIFICATIONS, ETC.; AND AUTHORIZING AND DIRECTING THE CITY CLERK TO PUBLISH A NOTICE INVITING SEALED PROPOSALS FOR THE CONSTRUCTION THEREOF. (Bids to be opened October 9, 1980, at 2:00 P.M.) 167: RESOLUTION NO. 80R-394: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM FINALLY ACCEPTING THE COMPLETION AND THE FURNISHING OF ALL PLANT, LABOR, SERVICES, MATERIALS AND EQUIPMENT AND ALL UTILITIES AND TRANSPORTATION INCLUDING POWER, FUEL AND WATER, AND THE PERFORMANCE OF ALL WORK NECESSARY TO CONSTRUCT AND COMPLETE THE FOLLOWING PUBLIC IMPROVEMENT, TO WIT: TRAFFIC SIGNAL MODIFICATIONS AT EAST STREET BETWEEN ROMNEYA DRIVE AND LINCOLN AVENUE, IN THE CITY OF ANAHEIM, ACCOUNT NO. 01-795-6325-5193. (Steiny and Company, Inc.) 80-1123 City Hall, Anaheim,. California - COUNCIL MINUTES - September 2, 1980, 1:30 P.M. Roll Call Vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: COUNCIL MEMBERS: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Overholt, Kaywood, Bay, Roth and Seymour None None The Mayor declared Resolution Nos. 80R-390 through 80R-394, both inclusive, duly passed and adopted. CITY PLANNING COMMISSION ITEMS: The following actions taken by the City Planning Commission at their meeting held August 11, 1980, pertaining to the following applications, as listed on the Consent Calendar, were submitted for City Council information. 1. VARIANCE NO. 3162: Submitted by William and Mildred Margolink et al, to retain two free-standing signs on RM-1200 zoned property located at 2704 West Ball Road, with a Code waiver of maximum number and size of signs. The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC80-127, granted in part, Variance No. 3162, and ratified the Planning Director's categorical exemption status. 2. VARIANCE NO. 3164: Submitted by Magic Lantern, Inc., to expand an existing motel on C-R zoned property located at 1030 West Katella Avenue, with various Code waivers. The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC80-128, granted Variance No. 3164, and granted a negative declaration status. 3. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2096: Submitted by Lester Elbert, et al, to permit on-sale beer and wine in an existing restaurant on CL zoned property located at 320 "E" East Orangewood Avenue. The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC80-123, granted Con- ditional Use Permit No. 2096, and ratified the Planning Director's categorical exemption determination. 4. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2097: Submitted by La Palma Business Park, to permit a bank on ML zoned property located at 2900 East La Palma Avenue. The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC80-124, granted Con- ditional Use Permit No. 2097, and granted a negative declaration status. 5. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2099: Submitted by Frances M. Bartlett, to permit a child day-care center on RS-7200 zoned property located at 711 and 715 North Harbor Boulevard. The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC80-125, denied Con- ditional Use Permit No. 2099, and granted a negative declaration status. 6. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2100: Submitted by Gilbert R. Reyes, McDonald's System (Franchise Realty Interstate Corporation), to permit a drive-through restaurant on CL and CH zoned property located at 119 West Ball Road. 80-1124 City Ha.l.~, Anaheim., California - COUNCIL MINUTES - September 2, 1980, 1:30 P.M. The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC80-126, granted Con- ditional Use Permit No. 2100, and granted a negative declaration status. No action was taken on the foregoing items, therefore the actions of the City Planning Commission became final. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2035 (READVERTISED): Submitted by Braille Institute of America, Inc., to permit an expansion of an existing private educational insti- tution in an existing residence and to retain an existing recreational field on RS-A-43,000 zoned property located at 541 North Dale Avenue. The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC80-122, granted Conditional Use Permit No. 2035, and granted a negative declaration status. Conditional Use Permit No. 2035 was removed from the Consent Calendar due to a question regarding the traffic signal assessment fee, and it was clarified by Zoning Supervisor Annika Santalahti that the traffic signal assesment fee was not included in theme conditions as it had already been stipulated to under a separate ordinance and would be required at the time that they apply for a building permit. 134: GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NOS. 158 AND 159: To consider (1) GPA No. 158, alternate proposals of ultimate land uses including but not limited to single- and multiple-family residential development for approximately 13.4 acres located on the south side of Rio Grande Drive approximately 420 feet west of Fairmont Boulevard, and (2) GPA No. 159, a proposal to delete the Santiago Trail (back- bone trail) from the Trails Element of the General Plan; said trail is proposed to extend from the Ridgeline Trail to the Weir Canyon Trail, a distance of approximately 9,400 feet. The City Clerk advised that a request had been received for General Plan Amend- ment No. 159 to be held at an evening public hearing. On motion by Councilman Seymour, seconded by Councilman Roth, the City Council set September 23, 1980, at 7:00 p.m., as the date and time for a public hearing on both General Plan Amendment Nos. 158 and 159. MOTION CARRIED. ORDINANCE NO. 4156: Councilwoman Kaywood offered Ordinance No. 4156 for adoption. Refer to Ordinance Book. ORDINANCE NO. 4156: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AMENDING TITLE 18 OF THE ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO ZONING. (65-66-63(6), CO) 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. 4156 duly passed and adopted. ORDINANCE NO. 4157: Councilman Seymour offered Ordinance No. 4157 for adoption. Refer to Ordinance Book. 80-1125 City H~ll~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - September 2, 1980, 1:30 P.M. ORDINANCE NO. 4157: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AMENDING TITLE 18 OF THE ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO ZONING. (72-73-51(41), RS-HS-22,000) 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. 4157 duly passed and adopted. 114: PROPOSED CANCELLATION OF COUNCIL MEETING: Councilwoman Kaywood requested that the City Council consider cancelling the regular City Council meeting to be held Tuesday, October 21, 1980 due to the League of California Cities Annual Convention to be held in Los Angeles on October 19 through 22, 1980. Council Members requested that copies of the Convention agenda be supplied each member and determined to consider this question at the end of this evening's meeting. 105: POLICY GOVERNING ACTIVITIES OF CITY COMMISSION AND BOARD MEMBERS: Mayor Seymour introduced the letter received by all Council Members from Mr. Lou Dexter regarding a proposed policy to govern activities of City commission and board members. By general consent the City Council determined to allow Mr. Dexter an opportunity to make his presentation at the meeting to be held September 16, 1980. RECESS - EXECUTIVE SESSION: Councilwoman Kaywood moved to recess into Executive Session. Councilman Bay seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. (5:45 P.M.) AFTER RECESS: Mayor Seymour called the meeting to order, all Council Members being present. (6:30 P.M.) 101: SECURITY SERVICES ANAHEIM STADIUM: Councilman Seymour moved that the City Attorney be directed to prepare an agreement with Contemporary Security Service to provide security services at Anaheim Stadium. Councilman Overholt seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. RECESS: Councilwoman Kaywood moved to recess to 7:00 P.M. Councilman Bay seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. (6:31 P.M.) AFTER RECESS: Mayor Seymour called the meeting to order, for the purpose of conducting a joint work session with the Planning Commission. PRESENT: ABSENT: PRESENT: ABSENT: PRESENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Overholt, Kaywood, Bay, Roth and Seymour COUNCIL MEMBERS; None PLANNING COMMISSION MEMBERS: Fry, King, Barnes, Bushore, Tolar, Bouas and Herbst PLANNING COMMISSION MEMBERS: None ASSISTANT CITY MANAGER: William T. Hopkins CITY ATTORNEY: William P. Hopkins CITY CLERK: Linda D. Roberts PLANNING DIRECTOR: Ron Thompson ASSISTANT PLANNING DIRECTOR FOR ZONING: Annika Santalahti 80-1126 City Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - September 2, 1980, 1:30 P.M. ASSOCIATE PLANNER: Dean Shearer DEPUTY CITY ATTORNEY: Jack White ZONING REPRESENTATIVE: Leonard McGhee Chairman Tolar called the Planning Commission meeting to order. 179/177: RM-1200 AND RM-2400 SITE DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS: To consider proposed amendments to the RM-1200 and RM-2400 Multiple-Family Residential Zones pertaining to structural height and dwelling unit size. A comprehensive package of material describing the various alternatives to the affordable housing question was submitted to each of the Council Members and Planning Commissioners prior to the meeting. (One set on file in the Office of the City Clerk.) Mr. Ron Thompson briefed the Council on the action taken by the Planning Commission at their meeting of June 27, 1980 after considering the alternatives shown in the package, determining they would consider granting a density bonus of up to 25% for any affordable sales or rental development of five or more units in any residential zone. It was further determined at that time that these types of projects should be processed through the vehicle of a conditional use permit with the approval of precise plan. Mr. Thompson also reviewed recent projects which were before the Planning Commission and explained the rationale for granting of the various Code waivers in conjunction with these affordable units, i.e., a 30-unit affordable project which received a 57% density bonus and 60-unit project which committed 47% to 100% of it being affordable, and received a 52% density bonus. These are in conformance with the policy recommended by the Planning Commission to the City Council and also are in compliance with the State law. Mr. Thompson also noted that the results as a survey of other cities were also included in the package. The following is a brief summation of the discussions held during the work session on the topics listed. The general concept of affordable housing provided by the government vs. private industry: The City Council and Planning Commission generally agreed that they would prefer the private sector be s~imula~ed by government to provide the nec- essary housing units, rather than government directly becoming involved in the housing of its citizens through any kind of subsidy programs. Mayor Seymour in particular voiced his opposition to any kind of resale price controls or controls on price indexing or rent as these would interfere with the demand and supply dynamics of the marketplace. He stated that he strongly feels if there was an adequate supply of housing units with a decent vacany factor in the area of 5%, this marketplace situation would determine what the rents would be. On the other hand, Mayor Seymour voiced the opinion that while he strongly feels Anaheim should do its fair share as far as affordable housing is concerned, he did not wish to see the City become the capital of low cost housing. Councilwoman Kaywood in particular voiced concern that Anaheim not become the haven for low cost housing developers, particularly if this is at the expense of the existing long-term residents of the City. She recalled that the Council and Planning Commission worked long and hard to put together the City's zoning ordinances as they exist and that she was proud of the job which was accomplished. 80-1127 City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - September 2, 1980, 1:30 P.M. She did not think it advantageous to the City to begin chipping away at them for the sake of creating affordable housing units. She voiced the opinion that the existing neighborhoods needed to be protected so that the quality of life remained. Other Council Members also felt that the City should work on what its affordable housing goals are--would it be 1200 additional units period, 1200 units per year, a 25% increase over the existing number of units. They felt it needed to be defined specifically. Councilman Bay pointed out that in order to make the dent in the low cost housing problem, there must be a much larger effort than just the City of Anaheim. If Anaheim were the only City getting into any of these programs, the units would be taken up immediately and not necessarily by its own residents. The need to stimulate construction of new units: Mayor Seymour voiced his phil- osophy that the City and Planning Commission should be looking at a loosening of some restrictions relating to density, front setbacks, etc., but that he does not view this as "losing" on the part of the City, so much as it is a giving back to the developers some of what was taken away while the City was tightening up its ordinances. He recalled that the City Council and Planning Commission had just gone through an e~a of tightening up on the size of units, number of parking spaces, front setbacks, etc., however because of the current economic situation the game was now changed and in his opinion the City should be respon- sive to that change to meet the housing needs of it constituents. Councilman Roth indicated that he was happy to be meeting with the Planning Commission to discuss ways the City might assist in improving the stock of housing in general which to his mind was the message to resolve the problem and not government subsidy. He voiced the opinion that the more governmental restrictions that exist relative to housing construction, the less construction will result and this will cause more government subsidy. To illustrate his point, Councilman Roth cited statistics on permits pulled in Anaheim for apartment con- struction which decreased from 1,191 permits in 1976 to 644 in 1979 and only 140 for the first half of 1980. He also pointed out that there is an annual need for two hundred thousand new housing units in California, whereas the building industry has been able to provide only approximately 105,000. In his mind, it was therefore incumbent upon the City Council to sit down and look intelligently at what the City can do to assist free enterprise in providing the necessary additional housing. Planning Commissioners and Council Members also pointed out during discussion that the cost of money and lack of available land in Anaheim have also contri- buted to the lower building rates. It was generally agreed that one of the better methods to obtain good projects with the current land situation, where only infill lots are available in the western part of the City, would be land assembly wherein more than one owner would pool properties to create a parcel of sufficient size upon which the appropriate kind of housing units, access and amenities could be located. Planning Commissioners and Council Members also agreed further that this is a very difficult process to carry out with private owners and builders and noted that the technique was successfully used in the Redevelopment Project Alpha area primarily because the City and Redevelopment Agency were able to use powers of eminent domain to condemn needed parcels. 80-1128 CitZ ~all, Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - September 2, 1980, 1:30 P.M. R&duc~ion of ~it~ development stAhd~rd~: Th& only'staddard specifically addressed was reduction of front setback requirements adjacent to other residential zones from 150 to 75 feet. It was recognized that this just one of the alternatives considered by the Planning Commission, but one which has recently come up in consideration of projects. Council and Planning Commission Members were all in general agreement that the City's site development standards should not be revised to allow the reduced standards by right, but that there would be some situations where these could be allowed without detrimentally affecting neigh- boring residential property. Therefore they felt it necessary to continue to consider these requests for variance on a case-by-case basis. Additional rationale for maintaining current standards was that it would be contemplated if the 75-foot front setback were considered the standard, then the City would begin to receive requests for a variance from that requirement. Councilwoman Kaywood pointed out that the results of the survey of other cities which were included in the information package, are not giving a full picture since some of the comparisons included setbacks in beach cities where property is at a premium, and cities such as Villa Park which require very large lot sizes. In her experience, the problems she has seen occur in this City over the past ten years most frequently are between apartment and single-family homes. She concluded that she would never want to see the City become a place where there are more apartment units than single family homes. Commissioner Tolar pointed out that even with government funds being made avail- able to provide development for low cost housing construction, because of the restrictions and requirements laid down by HUD, he did not think many projects would be accomplished. Public input: The Mayor invited members of the public in attendance to give their views on the subject and the following are summaries of the comments solicited. Lt. Col. Rhoades, 1122 North Pine Street, spoke on the situation created in his area (North Rose and West Street) when the 150-foot setback was reduced and the resultant impact on the existing homes and long-term residents. Patricia Clancy, owner and resident at 303 North Bush, spQKe on the subject of absentee apartment owners and the need for good management of quality apart- ment buildings, so that these will not be poor neighbors to single-family residential areas. Mr. Walt Bowman, 7936 Cerritos Avenue, Stanton, Real Estate Broker, spoke to the study performed by Planning staff which, in his opinion, indicates that the 150-foot front setback should either be eliminated or greatly reduced, and that he hoped this work session would help to resolve the matter. Mr. Cliff Beckler, no address given, advised that he has lived for 34 years on East La Palma and that he and his neighbors have done exactly what the Council and Planning Commission discussed earlier, i.e., put three parcels together to create one project. He also spoke in favor of the reduced stan- dards for front setbacks. Mr. Norman Croip, 2327 Puritan Lane, stated that he owns property at 1250 East La Palma and spoke in favor of reducing the front setback requirements. 80-1129 City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - September 2, 1980, 1:30 P.M. Mrs. Chaulare Nokes, 1634 West Orangewood Avenue, spoke against high density apartment buildings as these create a deteriorated living environment, which tenants want to move away from as soon as possible. She also noted that it is unfair and unjust to impact the existing residential neighborhoods with high density apartment buildings. She expressed hope that the Council and Planning Commission will find ways to create new housing opportunities without sacrificing living conditions of those citizens already living in Anaheim. Mr. Gordon Slater, t254 East La Palma, spoke in favor of reducing the 150-foot setback. At the conclusion of the public input section, Councilman Bay thanked the residents and owners of the property on East La Palma which would be coming up shortly for approval, who spoke in favor of reducing the front setback requirement, but doubted that their comments could be viewed as having any objectivity at this point. SUMMARY: At the conclusion of discussion, Mayor Seymour summarized that it is clear there is not consensus on the part of the Council regarding the 150-foot setback. He indicated that he felt a majority of :he Council and consensus of the Planning Commission would like to do what they can to provide Anaheim's fair share to increase housing supplies without giving the City away. He felt at this juncture this is all the Council and Planning Commission can do. He again reaffirmed his belief that the primary need to improve the housing situ- ation is an increase in the overall supply, and restated his opposition to re- sale or indexed price controls. Commissioners Bouas and Herbst introduced the subject of the difficulties in proving a hardship for granting of some of the variances they are seeing in connection with affordable housing. It was noted that ABIi51 will allow Planning Commissions some additional freedom and flexibility in this regard. CouDcilman Herbst also pointed out the importance to the City's industrial tax base of being able to provide housing for workers in these industries whose average wage was $5 to $9 per hour. Mayor Seymour stated that he thought the direction the Council gave the Planning Commission this evening was that the City was going to have to bend in some areas generally as they have been, to make it more economically feasible to develop more housing and at the same time to try to avoid impact problems for the neighbors. Councilman Overholt summarized that he felt the evening's discussion to be use- ful, but he also feels the Council stands firmly in opposition to rent and re- sale controls; that he has never heard any of the Council Members speak otherwise. Mayor Seymour thanked the Planning Commission and public for their participation this evening. 114: MOTION: On motion by Councilwoman Kaywood, seconded by Councilman Overholt, the City Council determined not to hold the regular City Council meeting of October 21, 1980, due to the League of California Cities Annual Convention. MOTION CARRIED. 80-1130 CitM Ha~l~ ~naheim~ C.alifornia - COUNCIL MINUTES - September 2, 1980, 1:30 P.M. ADJOURNMENT - PLANNING COMMISSION: By general consent the Planning Commission adjourned. (10:45 P.M.) ADJOURNMENT - CITY COUNCIL: Councilman Roth moved to adjourn. Councilwoman Kaywood seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. (10:45 P.M.) CITY CLERK