Loading...
1978/01/03 78-1 City Hail~ Anabeim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - January 3~ 1978~ 1:30 P.M. The City Council of the City of Anaheim met in regular session. PRESENT: ABSENT: PRESENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Kaywood, Seymour, Kott, Roth and Thom COUNCIL MEMBERS: None CITY MANAGER: William O. Talley CITY ATTORNEY: William P. Hopkins CITY CLERK: Linda D. Roberts CITY ENGINEER: James Maddox EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR: Norm Priest STADIUM-CONVENTION CENTER-GOLF DIRECTOR: Tom Liegler ASSISTANT DIRECTOR FOR ZONING: Annika Santalahti Mayor Thom called the meeting to order and welcomed those in attendance to the Council meeting. INVOCATION: Reverend George Brown of the Melodyland Hotline Center gave the Invocation. FLAG SALUTE: Councilman Don Roth led the assembly in the Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag. MINUTES: Approval of minutes was deferred for one week. Councilwoman Kaywood moved that the following be added to the minutes of the regular Council meeting held December 6, 1977, Page 77-1340: "...who raised his hand to answer the questions. The Mayor objected to any further discussion since he had closed the public meeting. Councilwoman Kaywood reminded him that had never applied to Council questions before. If the Mayor continued his disruptive tactics, she would be forced to leave the meeting and there would be no quorum." The motion died for lack of a second. After clarification from the City Clerk, Councilman Seymour seconded the motion; the Mayor stated the motion would have to be restated. On motion by Councilwoman Kaywood, seconded by Councilman Seymour, the addition to the minutes of December 6, 1977, as articulated, was approved. Councilmen Kott and Thom voted "No". MOTION CARRIED. WAIVER OF READING - ORDINANCES AND RESOLUTIONS: Councilwoman Kaywood moved to waive the reading, in full, of all ordinances and resolutions and that consent to the waiver of reading is hereby given by all Council Members unless, after reading of the title, specific request is made by a Council Member for the read- ing of such ordinance or resolution. Councilman Roth seconded the motion. MOTION UNANIMOUSLY CARRIED. FINANCIAL DEMANDS AGAINST THE CITY in the amount of $1,425,592.28, in accordance with the 1977-78 Budget, were approved. 152/161/167: COUNCIL POLICY NO. 214 - TRAFFIC SIGNAL ASSESSMENT: To exempt re- development projects in Redevelopment Project Alpha from payment of fees. 78-2 City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTEf; - ,.~anL~ary 3~ 1978~ 1:30 P.M. Councilman Kott questioned the basis of the proposed amendment. Executive Director of Community Development Norm Priest explained there were two bases for the proposed amendment, (1) on traffic signalization, and most instances in Project Alpha, the Agency was empowered under the redevelopment plan to pay for such installation and, (2) when pricing the land for redevelopment to the developer, included were all of the costs the developer must pay. If he was required to pay additional costs, the net effect would be to lower the price of the land further. It was not a matter of exonerating the redeveloper from paying his fair share. Councilman Seymour also pointed out that since a redevelopment project was involved, by the time the total area was redeveloped (200 acres), there would be no more, and perhaps less, than the n~Lmber of signals that existed presently which had already been paid for once. Thus, he maintained there would be equity involved and the fees should be waived from that standpoint alone. On motion by Councilwoman Kaywood, seconded by Councilman Kott, Council Policy No. 214, Traffic Signal Assessment, was amended to exempt redevelopment projects in Redevelopment Project Alpha from payment of fees. MOTION CARRIED. 123: GOLF PROFESSIONAL AGREEMENT WITH HERBERT STUBBS: Mr. Tom Liegler, Stadium- Convention Center-Golf Director, explained that the original golf pro at Anaheim Hills Golf Course, Mr. Robert Killion, could not continue his agreement with the City, and, therefore, wished to sell his contract to Mr. Herbert Stubbs. Subse- quently, Mr. Stubbs was investigated thoroughly by the City and both he and Mrs. Stubbs were personally interviewed and found to be well qualified to take over the assignment, Mr. Stubbs having been a professional in the State of California and more recently in Chicago. Mr. Liegler recommended the approval of the assignment of the contract which would expire in 1983, upon close of the escrow and settlement of all commitments made to the City by Mr. Kil]i,u. In the meantime, the Stubbs were operating the pro shop at Anaheim Hills as ~[il. ion's official agents. Councilman Seymour noted the absence of the Golf Course Commission's recommendation in Mr. Liegler's memorandum dated December 27, ]977, and wanted to know if, in fact, the Commission approved of the assignment to the Stubbs. Discussion followed between Mr. Liegler and Councilman Seymour, at the conclusion of which Mr. Liegler clarified that tbe Commission di~:~cussed the matter on two occasions and although they did not recommend Mr. and Mrs. St'ubbs personally, because they did not have the opportunity to interview them, on the mther hand, they did not recommend against them. They knew Mr. Killion had to give up his contract and they approved the transaction of assigning the contract subject to City Council approval. Councilman Kott offered Resolution No. 78R-1 for adoption, as recommended in memo- randum dated December 27, 1977, from Mr. Liegler. Refer to Resolution Book. RESOLUTION NO. 78R-1: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM CONSENTING TO ASSIGNMENT OF THE ANAHEIM HILLS GOLF COURSE PROFESSIONAL GOLFER AGREEMENT DATED MAY 17, 1977, FROM ROBERT KILLION TO HERBERT STUBBS. 78-3 City Hall~ Ar~heim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - January 3~ 1978~ 1:30 P.M. Roll Call Vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: COUNCIL MEMBERS: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Kaywood, Seymour, Kott, Roth and Thom None None The Mayor declared Resolution No. 78R-1 duly passed and adopted. 123: PERMIT AGREEMENT WITH OKgH CATERERS~ LIMITED USE OF A PORTION OF STADIUM PARKING LOT: Councilwoman Kaywood offered Resolution No. 78R-2 for adoption, as recommended in memorandum dated December 20, 1977, from the Stadium-Convention Center-Golf Director. Refer to Resolution Book. RESOLUTION NO. 78R-2: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM APPROVING THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF A PERMIT AGREEMENT WITH OKEH CATERERS, AND AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR AND CITY CLERK TO EXECUTE SAID PERMIT AGREEMENT. (one year) Roll Call Vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: COUNCIL MEMBERS: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Kaywood, Seymour, Kott, Roth and Thom None None The Mayor declared Resolution No. 78R-2 duly passed and adopted. 150/174: COMMUNITY EDUCATION PROGRAM - GRANT APPLICATION: Councilwoman Kaywood offered Resolution No. 78R-3 for adoption, as recommended in memorandum dated December 28, 1977, from James Ruth, Parks, Recreation and Arts Director. Refer to Resolution Book. RESOLUTION NO. 78R-3: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM APPROVING THE APPLICATION FOR FUNDS FROM THE DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH, EDUCATION AND WELFARE FOR A COMMUNITY EDUCATION PROGRAM AND AUTHORIZING THE CI2~f MANAGER TO EXECUTE SAID APPLICATION ON BEHALF OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM. Roll Call Vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: COUNCIL MEMBERS: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Kaywood, Seymour, Kott, Roth and Thom None None The Mayor declared Resolution No. 78R-3 duly passed and adopted. 123: SELECTION OF ARCHITECT TO DESIGN PARK FACILITIES FOR PERALTA CANYONAND PELANCONI PARKS: On motion by Councilman Kott, seconded by Councilman Seymour, the firm of Dan L. Rowland and Associates to design a multi-purpose recreation building and picnic shelters for Peralta Canyon Park and to design a park restroom facility for Pelanconi Park, and directing staff to prepare the necessary documents, was approved as recommended in memorandumdated December 28, 1977, from the Director of Parks, Recreation and the Arts Department. MOTION CARRIED. 78-4 City Hall, Anaheim, Calil(,l-nia - COUNCIL MINUTEi{ - .January 3_~ 1978, 1:30 P.M. 123: WITHDRAWAL FROM (JOIST RE(;IONAL TRA]NIN(; C~.Ni'ER AGENCY: Councilman Roth offered Resolution No. 7,'-!R-4 for adopt it.p,, as r~,~,v.m,,?nded in memorandum dated December 27, 1977, from the Personnel Director. ,Refer to Resolution Book. RESOLUTION NO. 78R-4: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY C,~UNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM PROVIDING FOR THE WITHDP~\WAL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM FROM THE COAST REGIONAL TRAINING CENTER AGENCY. (effective immediately) Roll Call Vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: COUNCIL MEMBERS: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Kaywood, Seymour, Kerr, R~th and Thom None None The Mayor declared Resolution No. 78R-4 duly pas~d and adopted. 123: AMENDMENT TO ACREE:~ENT WITH BIDDLE & ASSOCiAqES: Councilman Kott offered Resolution No. 78R-5 for adoption approving an aa:~.ndment to the agreement, covering the Fire & Police selection validatJon consorti~ t<~ include the background check for Police and Fire, as recommended in joint memorandum dated December 27, 1977, from the Personnel Director, Police Chief and Fire Chief. Refer to Resolution Book. RESOLUTION NO. 78R-5: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY ¢~OUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM APPROVING THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF AN AMENDMENT TO AGREEMENT WITH BIDDLE & ASSOCIATES DATED SEPTEMBER 13, 1977, FOR PROFESSIONAL SERVICES TO DEVELOP APPLICATION TESTS AND EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITf MANAGEMENT TRAINING PROGRAMS FOR FIRE AND POLICE PERSONNEL AND AUTHORIZING ~tE ~IAYOR AND CITY CLERK TO EXECUTE SAID AMENDMENT ON BEHALF OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM. Roll Call Vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: COUNCIL MEMBERS: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Kaywood, Seymour, Kott, Roth and Thom None None The Mayor declared Resolution No. 78R-5 duly passed and adopted. 144: INCLUSION OF WIDENING OF BROOKHURST STREET IN AHFP FINANCING PROGRAM FOR 1978-1979 FISCAL YEAR: The Mayor noted that the proposed resolution did not specifically state Exhibit "C" modified, with acquisition of land to be from the west side of Brookhurst only. He wanted to be certain that the resolution coin- cided with pevious discussions that had taken place with the public. City Engineer James Maddox stated the actual submittal to the County did indicate acquisition of right-of-way totally on the west side, but that such wording was not contained in the resolution. It could, however, be revised in that manner. Councilman Seymour offered Resolution No. 78R-6 for adoption, as recommended in memorandum dated December 27, 1977, from the City Engineer, amended to include the wording, acquisition on the west side of Brookhurst only, Exhibit "C" modified. Refer to Resolution Book. 78-5 C. ity Hall., Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - January 3, 1978~ 1:30 P.M. RESOLUTION NO. 78R-6: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM REQUESTING THE COUNTY OF ORANGE TO INCLUDE WITHIN THE ARTERIAL HIGHWAY FINANCING PROGRAM CERTAIN HIGHWAY IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS. (1978-1979) Roll Call Vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: COUNCIL MEMBERS: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Kaywood, Seymour, Kott, Roth and Thom None None The Mayor declared Resolution No. 78R-6 duly passed and adopted. 142: PROPERTY TAX LIMITATION PROPOSED CHARTER AMENDMENT: City Attorney Hopkins prepared a resolution relative to the subject amendment as directed by the Council in October 1977 for Council approval so that it could be submitted to the electors for the April 11, 1978 municipal election. Councilwoman Kaywood noted a word change from that originally discussed; the word "change" was now being used instead of "increase" and she asked that it be changed to "increase" as previously proposed. (Page 2, paragraph (1) and (2) and Page 3, Section 3, items (1) and (2) in the body of the paragraph) Councilman Seymour was amenable to the changes. Councilman Kott noted the reference made to the CPI (Consumer Price Index) and according to information he obtained, there were two such indexes, one reflecting the buying habits of urban wage and clerical workers and the other reflecting the buying habits of all urban householders. He, therefore, wanted to know which CPI was planned to be used. City Attorney Hopkins explained that CPI referred to in the proposed resolution was published by the California Department of Industrial Relations as it was determined to be more appropriate relative to the State of California and persons residing therein, as opposed to that published by the Federal Bureau of Statistics. In order to provide further clarification, Councilman Seymour explained that whatever changes had taken place in the exact language came as a result of his discussions with the City Attorney's Office. Since the entire tax limitation plan was his (Seymour's) idea, the City Attorney's Office contacted him relative to several points in the amendment as proposed. For example, originally the National CPI was proposed to be used, but after discussions, the conclusion was, in fact, the California CPI was much more appropriate for the purposes of the Charter Amendment. Since such a large portion of the City's budget dealt with personnel and since the vast majority of labor relations agreements that were signed used the California CPI, as well as many people-represented groups in their negotiations, both public and private, he felt it more properly reflected the inten~ than the National Index. He also emphasized that the City Attorney was not acting unilaterally, but he was the one that did so in suggesting to the City Attorney that the final language, as presented, be brought back to the Council. 78-6 City Hall, Anaheim~ California- COUNCIL MINUTES -January 3~ 1978~ 1:30 P.M. Councilman Kott then read aloud excerpts from tt~e CPI which, in his opinion, reflected a number of undesirable factors, such as ambiguity and vagueness sc~ as not to be a valid basis to use for levying taxes. Councilman Kott continued that his philosophy in terms of taxation would be elimination of taxes or keeping them to a minimum, and he could favor a tax plan with no open door. As he viewed the proposed amendment, it said the City would lower taxes, but if it needed more money, all that was necessary was to levy more taxes. Thus, the tax increment could be the same as before the amendment or even higher if it was determined it should be higher. He would support a plan that stated to the bureacracy that was all the money they would receive and no more, not a plan that would allow an increase if not enough money was available. He would also be supportive of any worthwhile, meaningful or responsible tax cut, but it had to be in conjunction with a decrease in expenditures. The epitome of the whole proposal should be in the control of the budget, as opposed to control of the income, just as in business. Councilman Roth stated that when he was originally working on a similar proposal, he was looking at a total receipt limitation. The proposed amendment only spoke to the limitation of property taxes which actually represented only $9.5 million of a $146 million budget. However, he was going to support the amendment because it was a step in the right direction since any limitation would eventually limit some type of spending, and spending had to be limited. Councilman Roth continued that people were generally sick and tired of property taxes, and in June there would be an overwhelming support of the proposed .~arvis Amendment which would eliminate all property taxes going to local government. In answer first to Councilman Kott and then Councilman Roth, Councilman Seymour stated he never suggested that the tax limitation plan was going to offer reduced property taxes, but all that was being offered was a limitation on property taxes. He did not believe the public to be so naive as r~ think that government was going to cut their taxes, and if it did so in one area. it would undoubtedly come out of another. He did not intend to lead the taxpa?ers to believe that the proposal was a tax cut, but rather an opportunity, if it was placed on the ballot, for the public to preclude politicians and the bureacracy from taking any more money out of their pockets than the previous year for property taxes in the City-unless there was an increase in the CPI or a percentage increase in population. He reflected back on the four previous budget sessions in which he was involved as an elected official and considered the efforts put forth relative to tax limitation not to have been very successful. Therefore, if the money could be limited before reach- ing the bureacracy, there was a good chance it would stay in the pockets of the taxpayer. Up to this point, he had seen no other specific proposals and until he did, he could not see discrediting the only plan that was presently available. Councilman Seymour stated that Councilman Roth's appraisal could be accurate in that the people of California were distressed with what they considered an unfair tax burden from property taxes, that they could support the Jarvis Amendment. His amendment, however, if placed on the ballot in April would give the people of Anaheim an opportunity to determine their own destiny and not have to depend upon the rest of California, as well as the political games and deals that would be made. He would rather show leadership in the City of Anaheim relative to municipal tax reform. He was not at all dissatisfied with the performance of the majority of the Council over the last three years relative to property taxes and their attempts to reduce the impact. The Council did perform well and the fact that Anaheim had 78-7 City Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - January 3~ 1978~ 1:30 P.M. the lowest property tax rate of all 26 cities in Orange County supported that position. They had done a good job, but he further suggested that what his amend- ment would say was (1) you will continue to do a good job and (2) if you start playing political games, this is where you can be stopped. As an example of the latter, Councilman Seymour referred to the 10 percent tax rate cut in August of 1977, which was affected on a 3 to 2 vote, Councilmen Kott and Thom both voting no. The same tax cut was approved a year prior on a 4 to 1 vote. The thrust of examples presented was to show that political votes could go one way or the other on the Council, with the possibility of the taxpayer not getting what was properly due him. Although his proposed amendment was not the perfect answer, it was a step that showed some credibility with the voter that elected officials were trying to do something about property taxes. Councilman Seymour thereupon offered Resolution No. 78R-7 for adoption, with the wording changes as noted by Councilwoman Kaywood. Before a vote was taken, City Attorney Hopkins noted that Section 5 of the resolu- tion contained a blank for determining a date for publishing the Charter Amendment and that February 2 or 10, 1978, was suggested by the City Clerk. Councilman Seymour thereupon recommeded February 10, 1978. Councilman Kott stated that basically all of the Council had the same purposes in mind and wanted to do what was best, but it was merely a matter of viewing things differently. He referred to the 10 cent decrease the previous year which came to an approximate decrease of $7 on the average home of $60,000 to $65,000, yet the decrease to the phone company was approximately $42,000. Thus, it was obvious who the chief beneficiaries were. The reason he made the point was to show that cities had very little power to do anything meaningful for the homeowner as far as property taxes were concerned. If there were large segments that could be taxed, he maintained that would be a larger benefit. Councilman Kott also failed to see where the bureauc- racy was being precluded from levying additional taxes if enough funds were not avail- able. Councilman Seymour took issue with Councilman Kott's assessment,~ stating there was a misunderstanding since the amendment would limit taxes unless there was an emergency or a disaster. If a budget was presented calling for additional revenues, the politi- cal "heat" would be placed on the Council where it rightfully belongs to either cut the budget back or create some new tax source. If the Council chose some new source of revenue, they would face the ire of their constituents. Councilman Kott then asked for clarification relative to Paragraph "b" and Section 1, on page 2 of the resolutions. He did not feel that referred to emergency situations. Councilman Seymour pointed out that Paragraph "b" sub (1), referring to bonds, was a State law and if the voters approved the referenced bonds, the tax rate would accordingly have to be raised. When a bond issue was placed on the ballot, the source of revenue must be named. If property taxes were the source, then it would have to be stated that the result of passing the bonds would mean a rise in property taxes. City Attorney Hopkins confirmed that the section under question was identical to the Charter as it presently existed. Section "b" sub (1) covered a tax sufficient to cover all liabilities of the City, of principal and interest of all bonds, sub (2) referred to obligations under the State Employees Retirement System. Section "c" covered emergencies or disasters. 78-8 ~ity Hall~ ~naheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES -__January 3~ 1978~ 1:30 P.M. Councilman Roth emphasized that the people of Anaheim should not be under the impression that they were going to get a big ta:~ ?ut from the proposal. Although the majority of citizens thought that their entire property tax went to the City, in reality, only 9.8 percent did so. Thus, the effect of the proposal would only be a minor one. Councilwoman Kaywood also referred to Anaheim's ]ow tax rate in comparison to all the cities in the County. It was something to be proud of and should be publicized extensively. When fiscal budgets were presented, no great amount of cutting took place which was a compliment to the staff in bringing in a budget that was carefully honed. She then pointed out with Anaheim's 88-c~nt tax rate on a $40,000 home, the property tax rate sent to Anaheim was $84.15 a year, on a $50,000 house, $106 and on a $60,000 house, $128. That return did not beg~ to pay for a portion of the services granted in the City. With the proposed limitation, it could mean there would be no new services added, and if the people wanted to ~hoose that alternative, it would be their option to do so with the measure placed on the ballot. However, it must be understood no excess funds would be available for projects the City might wish to undertake. Mayor Thom first stated that he appreciated the thrust of Councilman Seymour's amendment but as most were aware, he had been a vociferous supporter of another amendment, basically the COMBAT petition/initiative which would inhibit property taxes from going over 38 cents until an alternate form of revenue was legislated, namely taxing entertainment. Since 1970, he watched budgets increase each year with attendant citizen criticism of municipal government for its failure to provide all of the services requested. He did not believe that the City could provide all of the services that citizens wanted, but it was Jncumbent upon the Council to provide a satisfactory level. As pointed out, only a small portion of property taxes was collected by the City, and the tax limitation proposed would only result in a slight reduction to the citizen. What he b~.l~eved was inferred in the citizens' demand for better services was an outcry for a ta~ shift off his property and onto something else. COMBAT's proposition was such a tax shift, removing taxes from property and placing it on the patron of entertainment to bring in an equal or actually larger amount of money so that a 50-cent per $100 reduction in Anaheim's property tax would be a significant one. It would not mean $7 or $10 a year, but closer to $100 or $150. That was one of the reasons he supported their proposal. Secondly, he was too much of a realist to believe that any City Council was going to eliminate a service. As he viewed the various departments, he could not visualize, other than Utilities, eliminating the Public Works Department, or the Library, Parks and Recreation, Police or Fire Departments, and costs were going to go up significantly in years to come, as well as the demand for revenues. At the same time, while stating they wanted to keep property taxes down, the City Council continued to annex raw property to the City and large financial measures were being approved that would enhance the developmental efforts relative to the vacant land with a big front-end load in costs. If the Council continued to approve the developmental potentiality in the eastern section of the City, it would bring about an attendant financial burden. If the City wanted to give an equal level of service, which had not yet been attained, more money would be necessary. In conclusion, he stated that the proposed initiative and Charter Amendment of COMBAT was logical and acceptable because it expanded the base far beyond Anaheim in shifting the burden to the patron of entertainment which would enable the City 78-9 City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - January 3~ 1978, 1:30 P.M. to recoup a good portion of the money needed. Thus, he would not support Council- man Seymour's proposed amendment, but would devote all of his efforts to the COMBAT proposal. Councilman Seymour countered that the COMBAT tax shift was only to a different sector of the community, the business sector, and the promise of reduced property taxes could result in a reduction today, but it did not promise anything for tomorrow. A vote was then taken on the foregoing resolution offered by Councilman Seymour. Refer to Resolution Book. RESOLUTION NO. 78R-7: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM, CALIFORNIA, ORDERING THE SUBMISSION TO THE ELECTORS OF SAID CITY OF A PROPOSAL FOR AN AMENDMENT TO THE CHARTER OF SAID CITY AT THE GENERAL MUNICIPAL ELECTION TO BE HELD IN SAID CITY ON APRIL 11, 1978. Roll Call Vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: COUNCIL MEMBERS: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Kaywood, Seymour and Roth Kott and Thom None The Mayor declared Resolution No. 78R-7 duly passed and adopted. 127: REGULATIONS FOR CANDIDATES FOR ELECTIVE OFFICE - APRIL 11, 1978, GENERAl. MUNICIPAL ELECTION: City Attorney Hopkins briefed the Council on memorandum dated December 30, 1977, from the City Clerk relative to Candidates' Statements and filing fee for the April 11, 1978, general municipal election which outlined three recommendations: a. Candidates' statement be limited to 200 words. b. Each candidate availing himself of the service be billed at the actual prorated costs for the English version only. c. Inclusion of "Other Materials" be prohibited. and that the City Council retain the $25 filing fee. Councilman Thom offered Resolution No. 78R-8 for adoption, as recommended in memo- randum dated December 30, 1977, from the City Clerk. Refer to Resolution Book. RESOLUTION NO. 78R-8: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM, CALIFORNIA, ADOPTING REGULATIONS FOR CANDIDATES FOR ELECTIVE OFFICE, PERTAINING TO MATERIALS SUBMITTED TO THE ELECTORATE AND THE COSTS THEREOF FOR THE GENERAL MUNICIPAL ELECTION TO BE HELD IN SAID CITY ON TUESDAY, THE llTH DAY OF APRIL, 1978. Roll Call Vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: COUNCIL MEMBERS: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Kaywood, Seymour, Kott, Roth and Thom None None The Mayor declared Resolution No. 78R-8 duly passed and adopted. 78-10 City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - January 3~ 1978~ 1:30 P.M. 108: PROPOSED ORDINANCE AMENDMENT RELATIVE TO SOLICITATION PERMITS FOR SURVEY' AND POLL TAKERS: Councilman Kott explained it hact come to his attention that in the City of Anaheim there were people going to the doors of homes and asking to be allowed in for purposes of poll or opinion taking with no official City identification or a solicitation permit. Although it appeared that the present ordinance required exchange of a product for money, it was his opinion that a service for which people were asking to be given in exchange for a product or money fell in the same category. It would also provide for protection for resi- dents so that those who ask to be admitted into one's home would be properly checked out by the Police Department. On motion by Councilman Kott, seconded by Councilman Thom, the City Attorney was directed to prepare a proposed amendment to the present ordinance relative to solicitation permits for individuals who entered homes for survey poll taking, etc. MOTION CARRIED. 114: DISTRICT APPOINTEES - SUBMITTAL OF QUARTERLY ORAL OR WRITTEN REPORTS: Councilman Kott explained that he had received questions regarding the activities of the Metropolitan Water District and the Orange County Water District which he could not answer. It appeared to him that since the City did have a representative on the various Water Districts, there should be some point in time when they came before the Council or submitted a report stating the important happenings that affected the City. He also maintained that direction should be asked of the City's elected officials as to what they would like to see done relative to projects that proposed millions of dollars in expenditures. He suggested that staff draw up a Council policy stating that the City's representatives keep the Council apprised of activities in various districts on a quarterly basis, also asking for direction by them in matters that involve large expenditures prior to a vote being taken. Councilman Seymour stated if the thrust of Councilman Kott's recommendation was to attain a better line of communication with various appointees made by the Council, then he was in favor. However, if it was singling out the City's appointee to the Metropolitan Water District, he would not favor such a move. What was good for one appointee, was good for ali. Councilman Kott thereupon requested that his recommendation be applied to all appointees on various water districts. Further Council discussion followed relative to the ramifications of Councilman Kott's request wherein Councilman Seymour suggested it could provide an avenue for vindictiveness toward the political appointee. Councilman Kott clarified that was not his intent, but just as he reported to the Council the activities of the Fire Authority, he expected the same from the various appointees. At the conclusion of further Council discussion revolving around the matter, Council- man Kott moved to have quarterly oral or written reports submitted to the Council from public appointees on various districts plus timely information on decisions of great import prior to the appointee voting on the matter. Councilman Thom seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. 78-11 City Hall~ Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - January 3~ 1978~ 1:30 P.M. RECESS: By general consent, the Council recessed for ten minutes. (3:00 P.M.) AFTER RECESS: Mayor Thom called the meeting to order, all Council Members being present with the exception of Councilman Seymour. (3:10 P.M.) 107: PUBLIC HEARING - HOUSE MOVING PERMIT: (Cahen house) Application by Alan Clendenen, requesting a permit to move a single-family dwelling from 211 South Claudina Street to 900 East Cypress Street. Since there were no questions directed to staff relative to their report dated December 27, 1977, the Mayor asked if anyone wished to be heard either in favor or in opposition to the requested House Moving Permit. Mr. Nicholas Netty, Attorney for the applicants, 1200 North Main Street, Suite 710, Santa Ana, explained that the Clendenens had arranged to purchase a lot at the corner of Cypress and Vine Street and found a lender who would loan all the necessary money to purchase the land, move the house and restore it, with interest only for the term of the loan. They also arranged for a savings and loan to refinance the house with a long-term mortgage. The house would be used as a single-family resi- dence only and restored as close as possible to its original state. Councilman Seymour entered the Council Chamber. (3:12 P.M.) Mr. Netty then continued to explain the Clendenen's extensive background in the restoration of antiques, as well as some knowledge of architecture. He concluded by saying that homeowners in the house move-on area had been approached and gave their support to the project with the exception of a few people. Mrs. Patricia Clancy, 303 North Bush, stated that the neighbors were generally in favor of the project, but she maintained there should be certain conditions stipu- lated: (1) time limitations for development to insure the house would not be moved and then left sitting, causing it to become a playground for children and (2) a time limit should be set for the restoration for the exterior of the house, including landscaping. Mr. James Rinker, who just sold his home immediately east of the subject property, stated that although he would be leaving the state, there were several items that should definitely be stipulated for the purposes of those people remaining in the neighborhood. Mr. Rinker was referring to the extension of the street and the drainage of the sidewalks, as well as removal of the junkyard in the vacant lot behind the property where the proposed move-on was to be located, containing 8 or 9 40-foot vans that had been side-swiped. Discussion followed between Mr. Rinker, the Mayor and staff, in which the Mayor ex- plained that extension of the street and the like was not the obligation of Mr. Clendenen, and Miss Santalahti, Assistant Director for Zoning, clarified some points relative to the vacant lot indicating also that she would ask the Zoning Enforcement Officer to look into the matter. In concluding, Mr. Rinker stated that he favored the proposed project, as well as a number of other people in the area, but reiterated it was incumbent upon the Council to insure that necessary attendant improvements took place. 78-12 City Hall~ Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - January 3~ 1978~ 1:30 P.M. Mr. Earl Rhoads, 122 North Vine Street, read aloud a letter he wrote addressing three questions to the Executive Director of Community Development, Norm Priest, and also listing six points for Council consideration. He thereupon submitted the letter to the Council and staff (on file in the City Clerk's Office). Mr. Priest stated that Mr. Rhoads' first three questions were referring to a con- cept considered by the Redevelopment Commission the prior week as they wanted to see what the proposed project would do to the area. The sale of the house to the Clendenens was approved by the Agency at their meeting this date, one condition of which was that they (Clendenens) would enter into a participation agreement if the house was moved into the project area. Thus, the Agency would subsequently propose for Council consideration the possibility of widening the existing right-of-way to a 30-foot width with a limited street or wide alley going down right through the block to the alley which presently extended from Rose to where Vine would be if it were there, thus creating a loop street which would intersect the alley. As a result, those would be developable parcels and might be available for the same kind of development being discussed, and they would not be landlocked. The first two of Mr. Rhoads' additional points to the Council dealt with the house move-on proposal and the latter four with the future development of the adjacent lots and related improvements in the area; the main thrust being that the area adjacent to that under discussion maintain its existing profile as a neighborhood of primarily single-family homes. He was in favor of the proposed project and anything that would improve the area. The Mayor emphasized that the Council could not take anY type of action affecting other lots at this time. Only the house moving was under consideration to which they could attach stipulations. When development agreements were being considered, the conditions Mr. Rhoads outlined in his letter could be imposed. Mr. Rhoads stated it was the duty of the Council to insure that the conditions outlined in Items 3 through 6 of his letter were put in writing and enforced by future Councils. He maintained it was necessary to have continuity and foresight and to think ahead and not behind. In answer to Mr. Rhoads' two points relative to the House Moving Permit, Council- woman Kaywood referred to the staff report recommending approval of the house move-on subject to its compliance to all City codes, and as well, read an excerpt indicating that the two-story frame structure would be compatible with the existing neighborhood since it would be used as a one-family residential unit. The petitioner was planning to eliminate the rental units that were added to the original structure, with conversion of the one-bedroom unit over the garage to a recreation room. Mr. Rhoads wanted stipulated that two years hence, the petitioner would not sell the house to five families with an over-abundance of people living there. The Council assured Mr. Rhoads that the petitioner could not take such action. There being no further persons who wished to speak, the Mayor closed the public hearing. 78-13 City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - January 3~ 1978~ 1:30 P.M. Councilwoman Kaywood thereupon offered Resolution No. 78R-9 for adoption, as recommended by the Planning Department in memorandum dated December 20, 1977. Before a vote was taken, Councilman Kott asked if the resolution included a time limit which he considered to be valid. Councilwoman Kaywood posed the question to the Clendenens relative to the time for moving the house onto the property, restoring the exterior and installing the landscaping. After a short discussion, it was determined that 12 months would be sufficient time. Councilwoman Kaywood added the one-year time limit to the resolution. From the audience, Mr. Rinker asked to be heard; the Mayor explained that in order to do so, a motion would have to be made to reopen the hearing. On motion by Councilman Seymour, seconded by Councilwoman Kaywood, the public hearing was reopened. MOTION CARRIED. Thereupon, Councilwoman Kaywood withdrew her resolution temporarily. Mr. James Rinker, 225 North Vine Street, stated that if the house was going to be moved in before drainage improvements were made, it would float away because the lot was under water at present, and the petitioner would be faced with difficulties unless sidewalks, curbs~and gutters were installed beforehand. Councilwoman Kaywood stated that the Clendenens had to take care of those aspects with the various departments from which he would obtain permits. At the request of Councilman Seymour, Miss Santalahti explained that the situation was similar to someone building a new house wherein they would have to dedicate where necessary and install the necessary street improvements including sidewalks, alleys, curbs, etc., or whatever necessary to meet the standard requirements. The Mayor clarified those items were all standard development conditions, but a portion of those requirements was going to be part of the agreement the petitioner would enter into with the Redevelopment Agency relative to sharing of the requirements. However, they were not matters that could be voted on presently. Mr. Clendenen confirmed that he was aware of the items Mr. Rinker brought to light. There being no further persons who wished to speak, the Mayor closed the public hearing again. Councilwoman Kmywood reoffered Resolution No. 78R-9 for adoption, approving the House Moving Permit with a one-year time period stipulated to restore and to land- scape the outside. Refer to Resolution Book. 78-14 City Hall, Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - .January 3~ 1978~ 1:30 P.M. RESOLUTION NO. 78R-9: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM GRANTING A HOUSEMOVING PERMIT TO ALAN CLENDENEN. (900 East Cypress Street) Roll Call Vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: COUNCIL MEMBERS: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Kaywood, Seymour, Kott, Roth and Thom None None The Mayor declared Resolution No. 78R-9 duly passed and adopted. On motion by Councilwoman Kaywood, seconded by Councilman Thom, waiver of Council Policy No. 542 relative to the subject request was approved. MOTION CARRIED. 107: PUBLIC HEARING - HOUSE MOVING PERMIT: Application by Margaret M. Dobroski, requesting a permit to move a single-family dwelling from 1904 East Romneya Drive to 736 North Pauline Street. Since there were no questions directed to staff relative to their report dated December 20, 1977, the Mayor asked if anyone wished to speak either in favor or in opposition to the requested House Moving Permit. Mrs. Margaret M. Dobroski, 4092 Meadowbrook, Orange, applicant, stated that she planned to move into the small house and would be ready to do so in six months or less. Mr. Ralph Montoya, 12134 Algardi Street, Norwalk, stated that he sold the property at 1736 Pauline to Mrs. Dobroski and presently he held the First Trust Deed on that property. Although she could do anything with the land, he contended that according to the Trust Deed she could not build on the property and he was present to preclude her from so doing. A long-term, 20 year period of payments was in effect, and, according to his real estate agent, she would have to pay in full. Councilman Kott interjected that the move-on would, in essence, increase the property value. Councilman Seymour stated that although he did not want to disagree with Mr. Montoya's agent, if he tried to foreclose on the property and Mrs. Dobroski took the case to court, he (Montoya) would have a difficult time. A judge would ask where Mr. Montoya's value had been risked or jeopardized since, in fact, Mrs. Dobroski was .improving the property as pointed out by Councilman Kott. He reiterated that if it were merely a matter of Mr. Montoya wanting to get paid off, it would be very difficult for him to force the issue. City Attorney Hopkins then confirmed for Councilman Kott, that the matter broached was a civil matter between the two parties involved. There being no further persons who wished to speak, the Mayor closed the public hearing. 78-15 ~ity Hall, Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - January 3~ 1978~ 1:30 P.M. Councilman Roth offered Resolution No. 78R-10 for adoption, as recommended in staff report dated December 20, 1977. Refer to Resolution Book. RESOLUTION NO. 78R-10: A RESOLUTION OF THE CItY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM GRANTING A HOUSE MOVING PERMIT TO MARGARET M. DOBROSKI. (736 North Pauline Street) Roll Call Vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: COUNCIL MEMBERS: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Kaywood, Seymour, Kott, Roth and Thom None None The Mayor declared Resolution No. 78R-10 duly passed and adopted. 160: PURCHASE OF EQUIPMENT - THREE TURF AND REFUSE VEHICLES - BID NO. 3352: On motion by Councilman Roth, seconded by Councilman Kott, the low bid of Cushman Motor Sales was accepted and purchase authorized in the amount of $13,430.95, in- cluding tax, as recommended by the Purchasing Agent in his memorandum dated December 23, 1977. MOTION CARRIED. 160: PURCHASE OF EQUIPMENT - 20 PAD-MOUNTED TRANSFORMERS - BID NO. 3354: Council- man Kott questioned items 2 and 3 of the bid since the tabulation sheet showed lower bids from other vendors on those two items than the vendor recommended by staff. City Manager Talley thereupon explained the formula used in calculating ultimate cost of the two items. Even though the costs bid by McGraw-Edison appeared to be higher than the other vendors, in the final analysis, they were the lowest evaluated bidder when considering all of the factors involved. On motion by Councilman Roth, seconded by Councilman Kott, the low bids of Westing- house Electric Supply, on Item 1, in the amount of $10,366.80; McGraw-Edison Company on Items 2 and 3, in the amount of $37,767.80; and Kuhlman Electric Company on Item 4 in the amount of $10,584.10, ail including tax, were accepted and purchases authorized as recommended by the Purchasing Agent in his memorandum dated December 27, 1977. MOTION CARRIED. 173: ORANGE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION - SUPPORT OF COMMISSION NOMINEES: Councilman Kott offered Resolution No. 78R-11 for adoption, as recommended in letters dated December 1 and 2, 1977, from the Orange County Transportation Commission. Refer to Resolution Book. RESOLUTION NO. 78R-11: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM SUPPORTING THE NOMINEES OF THE ORANGE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION FOR AN ORANGE COUNTY APPOINTMENT TO THE CALIFORNIA TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION. Roll Call Vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: COUNCIL MEMBERS: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Kaywood, Seymour, Kott, Roth and Thom None None The Mayor declared Resolution No. 78R-11 duly passed and adopted. 78-16 City Hall, Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - January 37 1978~ 1:30 P.M. 108: APPLICATION FOR SOLICITATION OF CHARITY FUNDS: On motion by Councilman Thom, seconded by Councilman Seymour, Application for Solicitation of Charity Funds by the Good Shepherd Luthern Home of the West, for phone solicitation of used materials to be sold in the Value Village stores, January 1 through March 1, 1978, was approved. MOTION CARRIED. RECLASSIFICATION NO. 72-73-10(1) AND (2): Alta Property Management Inc., communication regarding the block wall located on the north property line of Tract Nos. 7945 and 7946 adjacent to Feather and Hampstead Streets. (requested by the Council at the public hearing of November 22, 1977) On motion by Councilman Seymour, seconded by Councilman Roth, report from Alta Property Management, Inc., regarding the block wall and the problem of the children traversing it, was received and filed. MOTION CARRIED. CONSENT CALENDAR ITEMS: On motion by Councilman Kott, seconded by Councilman Roth, the following actions were authorized in accordance with the reports and recommendations furnished each Council Member and as listed on the Consent Calendar Agenda: 1. 118: CLAIMS AGAINST THE CITY: The following claims were denied and referred to the City's insurance carrier or the self-insurance administrator: a. Claim submitted by John R. Wilkinson for monetary damages purportedly sustained as a result of a building permit issued in error on or about September 17, 1977. b. Claim submitted by John Terry Calfy for personal injuries purportedly sustained as a result of actions by the Anaheim Police on or about October 21, 1977. c. Claim submitted by Joseph Cyprien for monetary damages purportedly sustained as a result of the theft of a jacket and a pair of glasses from a City pick-up truck on or about October 28, 1977. d. Claim submitted by Keith Darin Lane for personal injuries purportedly sustained as a result of actions by the Anaheim Police on or about September 14, 1977. e. Claim submitted by Joyce McMahon for persona] injuries and property damages purportedly sustained as the result of actions by the Anaheim Police on or about September 14, 1977. f. Claim submitted by Rena McMahon for personal injuries purportedly sustained as a result of actions by the Anaheim Police on or about September 14, 1977. 2. CORRESPONDENCE: The following correspondence was ordered received and filed: a. 175: Before the PUC, Decision No. 88270, Order Granting Staff Motion to Waive Portions of Rule 17.1 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure, in connection with 0II No. 1, Case No. 10342 and Application No. 57626 of Western LNG Terminal Associates. b. 175: Before the PUC, Application No. 57578 of Southern California Gas Company, Notice of Hearing, for authorization to (1) increase rates for gas service to offset the costs associated with 1978 Voluntary Load Reduction Plan, (2) establish a Conser- vation Adjustment Account and (3) implement major customer incentive programs. 78-17 City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - January 3~ 1978~ 1:30 P.M. c. 140 & 175: Monthly report for November 1977 - Library and Electrical. d. 105: Public Library Board - Minutes of November 21, 1977. e. 105: Community Redevelopment Commission - Minutes of December 14 and 21, 1977. 108: AMUSEMENT DEVICES PERMITS: The following permits were approved in accordance with the recommendations of the Chief of Police: a. Amusement Devices Permit for a juke box and pool table at Ellie's Place, 1652 West Lincoln Avenue. (Donna L. Motta, applicant) b. Amusement Devices Permit for three pinball machines at the Chubby Burger, 2564 West La Palma Avenue. (Walter Franklin Bildstein, applicant) MOTION CARRIED. CONSENT CALENDAR ITEMS: Councilman Seymour offered Resolution Nos. 78R-12 and 78R-13 for adoption in accordance with the reports, recommendations and certifi- cations furnished each Council Member and as listed on the Consent Calendar Agenda. Refer to Resolution Book. 158: RESOLUTION NO. 78R-12: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM ACCEPTING CERTAIN DEEDS AND ORDERING THEIR RECORDATION. (Stephen R. Curcie, et al.; Rovi Pacific Realty Corporation; Prince of Peace Luthern Church; Gerald G. Pyle, et al.; Helen Cox Zerbel; Flora M. Lankard) 169: RESOLUTION NO. 78R-13: 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: RIVERDALE AVENUE SIDEWALK AND LANDSCAPING IMPROVEMENT, S/O FINCH STREET TO TUSTIN AVENUE, IN THE CITY OF ANAHEIM, ACCOUNT NOS. 12-4309-706-16-0000 & 12-4309-708-16-0000; 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 February 2, 1978, 2:00 P.M.) ORDINANCE NO. 3808: Councilwoman Kaywood offered Ordinance No. 3808 for adoption. Refer to Ordinance Book. ORDINANCE NO. 3808: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AMENDING CERTAIN CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL OF ORDINANCE NO. 1491 RELATING TO RECLASSIFICATION PROCEEDINGS NO. F-59-60-18. Roll Call Vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: COUNCIL MEMBERS: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Kaywood, Seymour, Kott, Roth and Thom None None The Mayor declared Ordinance No. 3808 duly passed and adopted. 78-18 City Hall~ Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - January 3~ 1978~ 1:30 P.M. ORDINANCE NO. 3809: Council offered Ordinance No. 3809 for first reading. ORDINANCE NO. 3809: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AMENDING TITLE 18 OF THE ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO ZONING. (77-78-6, RS-7200) RECESS: By general consent, the City Council recessed into Executive Session. (3:55 P.M.) AFTER RECESS: Mayor Thom called the meeting to order, all Council Members being present. (4:44 P.M.) 112: ALLEGED VIOLATION OF SHERMAN AND CLAYTON ACTS BY SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON: Utilities Director Gordon Hoyt recommended to the City Council that (1) they approve filing of complaint alleging violation of the Sherman and Clayton Acts by Southern California Edison in connection with its sale of wholesale electric energy to the City of Anaheim; (2) that the law firm of Spiegel & McDiarmid be authorized to represent the City in this action and if any of the other retail cities determine to go forward with litigation, that an arrangement be made with them so as to share costs and (3) that Alan R. Watts act as the City's attorney to coordinate efforts of litigation. Councilman Seymour thereupon moved to approve the recommendations as articulated by the Utilities Director. Councilman Roth seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. ADJOURNMENT: Councilman Seymour moved to adjourn. Councilman Kott seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. Adjourned: 4:45 P.M. LINDA D. ROBERTS, CITY CLERK