Loading...
1978/08/01 78-993 Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - August 1, 1978~ 1:30 P.M. The City Council of the City of Anaheim met in regular session. PRESENT: ABSENT: PRESENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Overholt, Kaywood, Kott, Roth and Seymour COUNCIL MEMBERS: None CITY MANAGER: William O. Talley CITY ATTORNEY: William P. Hopkins CITY CLERK: L£nda D. Roberts PERSONNEL DIRECTOR: Garry McRae UTILITIES DIRECTOR: Gordon Hoyt ADMINISTRATIVE AIDE: Jim Armstrong TRAFFIC ENGINEER: Paul Singer FIRE MARSHALL: Charles Kanenbly ASSISTANT DIRECTOR FOR PLANNING: Phillip Schwartze ASSISTANT DIRECTOR FOR ZONING: Annika Santalahti Mayor Seymour called the meeting to order and welcomed those in attendance to the Council meeting. MOMENT OF SILENCE: In lieu of an invocation, the Mayor asked for a moment of silence. FLAG SALUTE: Councilman William I. Kott led the assembly in the Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag. MINUTES: On motion by Councilwoman Kaywood, seconded by Councilman Roth, the minutes of the regular meeting held May 2, 1978, were approved subject to typo- graphical corrections. 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 Overholt seconded the motion. MOTION UNANIMOUSLY CARRIED. FINANCIAL DEMANDS AGAINST THE CITY in the amount of $3,157,884.79, in accordance with the 1978-79 Budget, were approved. 123/129: AUTOMATIC AID AGREEMENT WITH THE CITIES OF ORANGE AND STANTON - FIRE PROTECTION AND RESCUE: Councilman Kott offered Resolution Nos. 78R-480 and 78R-481 for adoption, as recommended in memorandum dated July 19, 1978, from Fire Chief James Riley. Refer to Resolution Book. RESOLUTION NO. 78R-480: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR AND CITY CLERK TO EXECUTE AN AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITIES OF ANAHEIM AND ORANGE IN CONNECTION WITH FIRE PROTECTION AND RESCUE, AND APPROVING THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS THEREOF. RESOLUTION NO. 78R-481: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR AND CITY CLERK TO EXECUTE AN AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITIES OF ANAHEIM AND STANTON IN CONNECTION WITH FIRE PROTECTION AND RESCUE, AND APPROVING THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS THEREOF. 78-994 ~]~[_tj!_H__all~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - August 1~ 1978~ 1:30 P.M. Roll Call Vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: COUNCIL MEMBERS: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Overholt, Kaywood, Kott, Roth and Seymour None None The Mayor declared Resolution Nos. 78R-480 and 78R-481 duly passed and adopted. 123/153: ORDINANCE NO. 3895 - AMENDMENT TO THE MISCELLANEOUS EMPLOYEES RETIREMENT CONTRACT: After Personnel Director McRae answered several questions posed by the Council for purposes of clarification, Councilman Seymour offered Ordinance No. 3895 for first reading as recommended in memorandum dated July 26, 1978, from the Personnel Director. ORDINANCE NO. 3895: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AUTHORIZING AN AMENDMENT TO THE CONTRACT BETWEEN THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AND THE BOARD OF ADMINISTRATION OF THE CALIFORNIA PUBLIC EMPLOYEES' RETIRE- MENT SYSTEM. (maximum retirement age and increased 1959 Survivors Benefits) 153: CREATION OF PART-TIME LIBRARY CLASS: Councilman Seymour offered Resolution No. 78R-482 for adoption as recommended in memorandum dated July 26, 1978, from the Personnel Director. Refer to Resolution Book. RESOLUTION NO. 78R-482: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AMENDING RESOLUTION NO. 78R-129 WHICH ESTABLISHED RATES OF COMPENSATION FOR UNREPRESENTED PART-TIME CLASSES BY CREATING THE NEW CLASS OF LIBRARY CLERICAL ASSISTANT. Roll Call Vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: COUNCIL MEMBERS: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Overholt, Kaywood, Kott, Roth and Seymour None None The Mayor declared Resolution No. 78R-482 duly passed and adopted. 103: ANAHEIM HILLS NO. 27 ANNEXATION: Councilman Kott reiterated his philosophy relative to additional annexations to the City in that such annexations were a large expense. If the Council was interested in saving taxpayers money, they should vote in opposition. He did not believe that attitude represented an anti- growth philosophy, but merely if there were going to be annexations, the people who would benefit the most should pay for them, such as the developers and builders. He emphasized it was not in the best interest of the taxpayer to continue annexa- tions on the same basis as in the past. Mr. Phil Schwartze, Assistant Director for Planning, stated he was aware of the Council's concern regarding annexations, but pointed out in this instance, a part of the property was to be transferred to the Orange Unified School District for development of a school, and further for the extension of Serrano Avenue. Resi- dential construction would not be involved which normally resulted in a physical drain. 78-99,5 C~_ty Hail, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - August ]~ 1978~ 1:30 P.M. Mr. Philip Bettencourt, Anaheim Hills, Inc., 380 Anaheim Hi]is Road, explained that they were the property owners of the property in question. He further stated that the City of Anaheim was a party with them and the Santa Ana Canyon Improvement Association for the donation, at their expense, of an elementary school site at the subject location and the continuation of Serrano Avenue. He also confirmed for Councilman Kott that nothing in the 46.258 acres today or in the future would be residential property. Councilman Seymour offered Resolution No. 78R-483 for adoption as recommended in memorandum dated July 2], 1978, from the Assistant Director for Planning. Refer to Resolution Book. RESOLUTION NO. 78R-483: A RESOLUTION OF ~E CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM, CALIFORNIA, REQUESTING THE COMMENCEMENT OF PROCEEDINGS FOR THE ANNEXATION OF CERTAIN UNINHABITED TERRITORY DESIGNATED AS ANAHEIM HILLS ANNEXATION NO. 27. (northeast of Serrano Avenue & Canyon Rim Road) Roll Call Vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: COUNCIL MEMBERS: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Overholt, Kaywood, Kott, Roth and Seymour None None The Mayor declared Resolution No. 78R-483 duly passed and adopted. 175: ISSUANCE OF $42 MILLION ELECTRIC REVENUE BONDS: Utilities Director Gordon Hoyt first relayed some minor changes in the proposed resolutions as follows: First Resolution, Page 15, Paragraph 2, 7th line--should read, "The Board adopted August 1, 1978," instead of July 18, 1978. Second Resolution, declaring intention to sell and fixing date, time and place, Page 1--should read, "time: Tuesday, August 22, 1978". Councilman Kott asked if the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) ruling on the invest- ment tax credit had been negotiated out to a satisfactory conclusion. Mr. Hoyt explained that it had been negotiated to a conclusion, but the results were not expected out of IRS until the beginning of the next week. The general ruling which was satisfactory has been handed down, but the private ruling was presently moving through the IRS. He expected the Council on August 22, 1978, before selling the bonds, to make a finding that was required in the letter agreement with Southern California Edison (SCE) that Edison and San Diego would not lose their investment tax credits. Then the agreements could be executed. If the ruling should be favorable as expected, it would not take more than a day or two thereafter for execution of all the agreements. In the event the ruling was not favorable, the bonds would not be sold. Councilman Kott questioned the original financial figure which was $51.7 million and now $55 million. 78-996 (;~tv Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - August l~ 1978, 1:30 P.M. Mr. Hoyt explained what they had done to increase the cost of the bond issue and thus favoring the economics of the project, was to borrow the bond reserve. ~ey were required to have a bond reserve, and it was determined in the 1972 resolution covering how the reserve fund was established that when bonds were sold, a reserve fund be established. They would have to borrow $3.2 million and put that into the reserve fund and in total, would borrow $4.2 million as explained in R. W. Beck's letter shown on Galley 15 of their original statement describing the economic feasibility of the project. Councilman Kott stated it appeared to him there was n~ ~nd to the cost of the project and in his personal life, he would not becom~ involved where h~ did not know the ultimate cost. With that in mind, he would ~ot support the bond issue. Mr. Hoyt stated that the cost of the project had not inceased and costs were essentially as those set out in August of 1977. Mayor Seymour asked for further clarification on the reserve monies. Mr. Hoyt explained they were physically placed in the hands of a fiscal agent, presently the Bank of America, and invested in certain restricted investments. He estimated the reinvestment at 6 percent while paying 6.5 percent on the bonds; however, he believed they could invest at coupon rate and thus expected a wash. He confirmed that it had nothing to do with an increase in the cost of the construc- tion project. Councilman Seymour offered Resolution Nos. 78R-484, 78R-485 and 78R-486 for adop- tion as recommended in memorandum dated July 25, 1978, from the Utilities Director. Refer to Resolution Book. RESOLUTION NO. 78R-484: RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM, CALIFORNIA, AUTHORIZING THE ISSUANCE OF $42,000,000 ELECTRIC REVENUE BONDS OF SAID CITY AND PROVIDING THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS FOR THE ISSUANCE OF SAID BONDS. RESOLUTION NO. 78R-485: RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM, CALIFORNIA, DECLARING ITS INTENTION TO SELL ELECTRIC REVENUE BONDS OF SAID CITY IN THE AMOUNT OF $42,000,000 FIXING TIME AND PLACE FOR TAKING BIDS AND DIRECTING PUBLICATION OF NOTICE INVITING BIDS. (August 22, 1978, 10:00 A.M.) RESOLUTION NO. 78R-486: RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING THE OFFICIAL STATEMENT TO BE USED IN CONNECTION WITH THE ELECTRIC REVENUE BONDS, ISSUE OF 1978 OF SAID CITY. Roll Call Vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: COUNCIL MEMBERS: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Overholt, Kaywood, Roth and Seymour Kott None The Mayor declared Resolution Nos. 78R-484 through 78R-486, both inclusive, duly passed and adopted. 78-997 City Hall, Anaheim, Californi~j - COUNCIL MINUTES - August 1, 1978, 1:30 P.M. 169: S.B. 821 BICYCLE TRAIL FUNDS FOR FY 1978-79: In answer to Councilman Kott relative to costs for upkeep and maintenance of the trail, Traffic Engineer Paul Singer explained that such costs were not presently available, but would be forthcoming as soon as the feasibility study was complete. He also confirmed for the Mayor that the Council would be provided with all aupporting information prior to their making a final decision and before going into construction. Councilwoman Kaywood offered Resolution No. 78R-487 for adoption, as recommended in memorandum dated .July 26, 1978, from the Intergovernmental Relations Office. Refer to Resolution Book. RESOLUTION NO. 78R-487: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE AND FILE A BICYCLE/PEDESTRIAN FACILITIES CLAIM APPLICATION WITH THE ORANGE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION PURSUANT TO SENATE BILL NO. 821. Roll Call Vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: COUNCIL MEMBERS: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Overholt, Kaywood, Kott, Roth and Seymour None None The Mayor declared Resolution No. 78R-487 duly passed and adopted. 153: NEW JOB CLASSES TO IMPLEMENT THE 1978-79 RESOURCE ALLOCATION PLAN: Council- man Roth offered Resolution Nos. 78R-488 and 78R-489 for adoption as recommended in memorandum dated July 26, 1978, from the Personnel Director. Before a vote was taken, the City Manager confirmed for the Mayor that a Junior Zoning Enforcement Officer was included in the first resolution, it was a CETA position, and the General Fund was going to pay all monies over and above $10,000,-- $3,172. The Mayor thereupon requested the Council's indulgence in removing that particular position from the resolution, as well as one other, be- cause he wanted to vote no on those two positions. He had before stated bis opposition to CETA positions within the City and reiterated his concerns relative to the program, basically that the CETA concept was being violated from its original intent. Thus, he opposed the Junior Zoning Enforcement Officer on that basis. The other problem revolved around the Senior Systems Representative dealing with serving of the Data Processing contract with other cities. He had no qualms with the City handling its own data processing work, but when such a program was developing into an entrepreneurial function with software programs for marketing to other agencies, he did not believe that involvement to be the proper course of action for local government to take. Councilwoman Kaywood emphasized that the City had only one Zoning Enforcement Officer and the demands of that position were impossible for one person. The Mayor did not deny the need for an additional position, but preferred the matter be approached on a straightforward basi~, rather than calling it a temporary position. 78-998 (~i_tv~y_~_Hal__l~ Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - August 1, 1978, 1:30 P.M. Miss Santlahti stated that she wanted to ask for another full-time Zoning Enforce- ment Officer. The position required a great deal of training and would be perma- nent. It would never be a CETA position and she would never have asked for it that way. She intended the requested position to be for one year. She also clarified for the Mayor that what was really necessary was a full-time Zoning Enforcement Officer. A vote was then taken on Resolution No. 78R-488, but with the removal of the Junior Zoning Enforcement Officer and the Senior Systems Representative to be voted on separately. Refer to Resolution Book. RESOLUTION NO. 78R-488: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF r]~E ~]I~Y OF ANAHEIM AMENDING RESOLUTION NO. 77R-703 ~fHICH ESTABLISHED RATES OF CO~ENSATION FOR CLASSES REPRESENTED BY THE ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL EMPLOYEES ASSOCIATION, GENERAL CITY EMPLOYEES UNIT, AND CREATING A NEW JOB CLASS. (Real Property A~de) Roll Call Vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: COUNCIL MEMBERS: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Overholt, Kaywood, Roth and Seymour Kott None The Mayor declared Resolution No. 78R-488 duly passed and adopted. A vote was then taken on Resolution No. 78R-489. Refer to Resolution Book. RESOLUTION NO. 78R-489: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF R~E CITY 0¥ ANAHEIM AMENDING RESOLUTION NO. 77R-726 WHICH ESTABLISHED RATES OF COMPENSATION FOR CLASSES DESIGNATED AS STAFF AND SUPERVISORY MANAGEMENT AND CREATING NEW JOB CLASSES. (Affirmative Action Employment Specialist, Assistant Convention Center Box Off~ce Manager, Classification & Complensation Analyst, CETA Operations Supervisor) Roll Call Vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: COUNCIL MEMBERS: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Overholt, Kaywood, Roth and Seymour Kott None The Mayor declared Resolution No. 78R-489 duly passed and adopted. RESOLUTION: Councilman Roth offered a resolution creating the new job class of Junior Zoning Enforcement Officer. The resolution failed to carry by the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: COUNCIL MEMBERS: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Kaywood and Roth Overholt, Kott and Seymour None Relative to the Senior Systems Representative, Mr. Talley stated that incorrect statements had been made especially in the belief that the position had something to do with software. He clarified that the contract the City now had with eleven other cities (MDS) required it to provide certain services. The subject position was merely to be the supervisor providing those services for the outside agencies. The City had a policy that supervisors receive a higher rate of pay than the people they supervise and that was all. 78-999 --City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - August iD 1978~ 1:30 P.M. The Mayor noted that he had voted against the contract with MDS and, therefore, was voting against a position that would further that contract. That was the issue to which he was speaking and not software development. Councilman Kott explained that he was of the same mind ~n that as the City moved into an enterprising area, more problems would occur and more employees would be necessary to maintain that contract. Councilman Roth offered Resolution No. 78R-490 for adoption, establishing the class of Senior Systems Representative, as recommended in memorandum dated July 26, 1978. Refer to Resolution Book. RESOLUTION NO. 78R-490: A RESOLUTION OF THE CI%Y COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AMENDING RESOLUTION NO. 77R-726 WHICH ESTABLISHED RATES OF COMPENSATION FOR CLASSES DESIGNATED AS STAFF AND SUPERVISORY MANAGEMENT AND CREATING A NEW JOB CLASS. (Senior Systems Representative) Roll Call Vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: COUNCIL MEMBERS: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Overholt, Kaywood and Roth Kott and Seymour None The Mayor declared Resolution No. 78R-490 duly passed and adopted. Mayor Seymour directed the City Manager to prepare a report showing the length of employment of all CETA positions in the City, the person itself, not the position. He hoped to demonstrate by that report that permanent positions were being created. Councilman Overholt stated that he also believed the CETA Program was a problem area and agreed with the Mayor's philosophy. He, too, wanted answers relative to the program. %he Mayor confirmed for Mr. Talley that he should speak to the entire program in his report including the out-stationed CETA employees. Before concluding, Councilwoman Kaywood reiterated her concern regarding the workload placed upon the City's only Zoning Enforcement Officer. The Mayor stated that within the next week or so he would be happy to discuss the creation of a full-time position for that particular function, while at the same time look- ing for the elimination of another position in the City. 150: CULTURAL ARTS NEEDS ASSESSMENT SURVEY: The Mayor recalled that at the pre- vious meeting, he had asked the City Manager to provide the Council with all of the report work papers by Mr. Carlson leading to the finalization of the Cultural Arts Needs Assessment Survey. Mr. Jim Armstrong, Administrative Aide, stated that Mr. Carlson was in Santa Monica and had mailed a set July 31, 1978 and they could be expected within a day or so. 78- 1000 Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES -August 1, 1978, 1:30 P.M. 175: RECONNECTION CHARGE INCREASES - WATER & ELECTRICITY: The Mayor referred to his request the prior week for a copy of Mr. Talley's budget memo which tie had not received to date. He asked specifically because he had questions rela- tive to the raise in the turnoff and turnon rates which occurred at the meeting of July 18, 1978, when he was not present. He previously made a statement regarding the fact that Utilities would be receiving approximately $300,000 in new-found monies from the action. He, for one, would only have supported that under the guise that the $300,000 in new-found income be returned to all rate payers, but at the time Mr. Ta]ley countered by saying that was included in the Budget as new-found revenue to make up for the loss caused by Proposition 13. He was trying to clarify if the $300,000 was included in the Budget memo upon which the Council acted during Budget sessions. Mr. Talley stated it was included in the memo from the Utilities Board on how they would raise the additional $1 million. The Mayor's recommendation was to transfer the 6 percent, and the Board subsequently would tell management how they would get that 6 percent. It was not new found money as he had explained, hut it was one of the ways amongst many in which they were going to raise the additional $1 million that the Council approved for transfer. After a brief discussion between Mr. Talley and the Mayor for further clarifi- cation of the matter, the Mayor stated the issue sounded consistent with what he had said the prior week relative to user fees that, in fact, the raise in rates represented an offset of the Proposition 13 shortfall. Had he been at the meeting of July 18, 1978, he would have voted against the $240,000 increase, not on the basis that it may not have been warranted in cost of delivery of service, but because it created what he had predicted, user fees to offset Proposition 13. Councilwoman Kaywood pointed out that when the Mayor requested the full 6 per- cent transfer when Utilities had budgeted only 4.!5 percent, that difference represented $1 million. They indicated they could not raise that additional transfer without additional revenues. 2~e Mayor stated that his motion did not ask for $1 million from the Utilities Department, but for what they had agreed to transfer prior to Proposition ]3 which was approximately $.5 million and then he proposed a whole series of Budget cuts since he was looking for all types of revenues to identify so that Council could make intelligent decisions. He never envisioned it would be in the creation of increased rates and at the same time not taking those funds and passing them back to the users who were paying them before. Councilwoman Kaywood asked Utilities Director Gordon Hoyt whether the Budget when presented to the City, was to transfer 4.5 or 6 percent. Mr. Hoyt explained that it was about 4.4 percent or a little over $3 million. He then explained some of the methods that they would use to create the addi- tional $1 million. He confirmed for the Mayor that they did not all deal with increased fees, but budget reductions. The Mayor thereupon stated that he would look forward to reviewing those budget reductions. Mr. Hoyt then answered several questions posed by Councilman Kott relative to cost of service compared to rates charged by Southern California Edison. 78-1001 City Hall~ Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - August l~ 1978~ 1:30 P.M. 114: RECORDING OF EXECUTIVE SESSIONS: City Attorney Hopkins explained that he prepared a resolution for consideration relative to the recording of pro- ceedings of all Executive Sessions of the City Council as requested at the meeting of July 25, 1978. After reviewing the matter with the City Clerk, he felt it was advisable to add the last sentence to the resolution revising it as follows: "The City Clerk shall not be required to make a written transcript of any such recording or any portion thereof, except upon the affirmative vote of the total membership of the City Council." Councilman Seymour offered Resolution No. 78R-491 for adoption, as revised and as recommended by the City Attorney in his memorandum dated July 26, 1978. Before a vote was taken, Councilwoman Kaywood asked for clarification on several points which Mr. Hopkins answered as follows: Council Members could inspect the minutes, but if a transcript was to be prepared, it would require a majority vote of the Council to authorize the transcript of any of the confidential record. Relative to the borrowing of the tape or recording, it would be under the juris- diction of the City Clerk, and she would not be able to release such recording from her custody. Taking a recording of the recording would be a matter of vio- lating the confidentiality doctrine. Councilwoman Kaywood emphasized the matter needed to be clear to avoid a similar situation to the one which just occurred where one member requested something and proceeded to do something else with it. An employee was then put in a situation of having to say "No" to the boss which was an untenable position. Mr. Hopkins explained the resolution would indicate that the members of the Council could inspect the records, but they would still be in the custody of the City Clerk and should not be removed from her custody. Any Council Member could look at the record, but no transcript would be prepared by the City Clerk. Councilwoman Kaywood further expressed her concern that if the subject of Executive Sessions, which were held to clear up matters instead became public for purposes of headline seeking, she did not wish to be a party to such action. Councilwoman Kaywood's expressed concern prompted Council discussion revolving around a recent occurrence relative to the Officer Plummer situation discussed in Executive Session and the timeliness of making the matter public. MOTION: Councilman Seymour interjected and offered the following motion. That the Council speak to the resolution on the floor only without broaching the personal ethics of other Council Members. Councilman Overholt seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. Councilman Roth stated that he had no objection to the resolution as long as no one was permitted to take portions off the tape onto another tape recorder. He did not want to see the confidentiality violated. Councilman Overholt expressed his support, but he had a concern with the language of the drafted resolution. The question of confidentiality in paragraph 3 stated "...and enter in a minute book a record of topics discussed and decisions made at the meeting in accordance with the procedures and limitations specified in Section 54957.2 of the Government Code of the State of California." 78-1002 .C~it~y..Hal~, .Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - August 1~ 1978~ 1:30 P.M. Paragraph 4 with reference to the tapes stated, "... shall be subject to the same confidentiality and restrictions of the same Code section." He preferred to see the " ' ' ' ' word confxdent~al~tj added as well with regard to the minute book. C~ty Attorney Hopkins stated that could changed and pointed out that the Government Code (Section 54957.2) stated that such minute book may, but need not, consist of a recording of the Executive Session and the record could be considered ~he minute book. Councilman Overholt thereupon stated that all the more reason to tJ.~ the same language with reference to the application of that section both lot the minute book and the tape. He favored the language of the confidentialigy and restric- tion and offered that amendment to the resolution. Mayor Seymour- accepted the amen dmen t. MOTION: Councilwoman Kaywood wanted to be certain that either City Clerk Linda Roberts or keeper of the records would not be harassed or put in a position by any one Council Member of having to say "No" and to be able to bring the matter up at the next Council meeting to get permission from the majority of the Council to do what was requested. She thereupon offered a motion to amend the resolution to carry the spirit of her ~ntent as expressed. The motion died for lack of a second. A vote was then taken on the foregoing resolution. Refer to Resolution Book. RESOLUTION NO. 78R-491: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AUTHORIZING AND DIRECTING THE CI~ CLERK TO RECORD THE PROCEEDINGS OF ALL EXECUTIVE SESSIONS OF THE CITY COUNCIL. Roll Call Vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: COUNCIL MEMBERS: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Overholt, Kaywood, Kott, Roth and Seymour None None The Mayor declared Resolution No. 78R-491 duly passed and adopted. 130: REQUEST FOR COMMUNITY ANTENNA TV SYSTEM IN THE SANTA ANA CANYON: Council- man Seymour moved that the subject matter be referred to HACMAC along with the City Attorney's report dated August 1, 1978, that he could find no legal basis upon which to create an assessment district for a community antenna TV system in the Santa Ana Canyon. Councilman Kott seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. 127: PLACEMENT OF PROPOSED CHARTER AMENDMENT ON THE NOVEMBER BALLOT - EXPANSION OF THE COUNCIL TO 7 MEMBERS: Mayor Seymour stated that the Council, just before the meeting, had received a final report dated July 31, 1978, from the Charter Review Committee giving their recommendations as to proposed Charter amendments. He believed it would be in the best interest to delay the matter in order to pro- vide an opportunity for the Council to study the report. 78-1003 C~ity Hal.l~ Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - August 1~ 1978~ 1:30 P.M. The City Clerk confirmed that the Council must adopt final ballot language for measures to be submitted for the November 7, 1978 General Election ballot by August 22, 1978 to be received by the County by August 25, 1978 at 5:00 p.m. MOTION: Councilman Seymour thereupon moved to continue discussion on the proposed Charter Amendments one week, to August 8, 1978, at wbich time they could be debated and finalized. Councilwoman Kaywood seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. 167: ASSESSMENTS FOR TRAFFIC SIGNALS - COUNCIL POLICY NO. 214: (Continued from June 6, 27 and July 18, 25, 1978) Councilman Roth moved to support the recommenda- tion of the Anaheim Chamber of Commerce in supporting Recommendation No. 3C, Page 6, of report entitled Traffic Signalization & Assessment Fees Study, dated June 1978. Councilman Seymour seconded the motion. Before a vote was taken, Traffic Engineer Paul Singer stated that he had discussed the matter with Mr. Dan Rowland who represented several petitioners relative to traffic signal assessments and he asked Mr. Singer to convey his concurrence in Recommendation No. 3C. A vote was then taken on the foregoing motion. MOTION CARRIED. ORDINANCE NO. 3896: Councilman Seymour offered Ordinance No. 3896 for first reading. ORDINANCE NO. 3896: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM ADDING NEW CHAPTER 14.58 TO TITLE 14 OF THE ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO TRAFFIC SIGNAL FEES. MOTION: On motion bY Councilman Seymour, seconded by Councilman Roth, the City Attorney was directed to prepare a resolution establishing traffic signal fees as set forth in Recommendation No. 3C of report dated June 1978, from the Traffic Engineer. MOTION CARRIED. 167: SUNSET CONSTRUCTION - ASSESSMENT OF TRAFFIC SIGNAL FEES: (Continued from the meetings of July 11 and 25, 1978) On motion by Councilman Seymour, seconded by Councilman Roth, the request of Sunset Construction, Inc., for reconsideration of assessment of traffic signal fees as requested in the letter dated July 6, 1978 was approved in accordance with the new Council Policy as set forth in Recommendation No. 3C of report dated June 1978. MOTION CARRIED. 167: LYNN E. THOMSEN - ASSESSMENT OF TRAFFIC SIGNAL FEES: (Continued from the meetings of July 11 and 25, 1978) Mr. Thomsen stated he assumed the new policy was retroactive; Mayor Seymour stated it was brand new, but if Mr. Thomsen re- quested reconsideration, the Council would perhaps favor his request. On motion by Councilman Seymour, seconded by Councilman Roth, the request of Mr. Thomsen for reconsideration of an assessment of traffic signal fees for property located at 434 South Euclid Street was approved in accordance with the new Council Policy as set forth in Recommendation No. 3C of report dated June 1978. MOTION CARRIED. 167: APOLLO INN - ASSESSMENT OF TRAFFIC SIGNAL FEES: Mr. Jim Stovall acknowledged that he would be satisfied with the new policy relative to the assessment of fees for traffic signalization for the Apollo Inn. 78-1004 Ci__ty Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - August 1~ 1978~ 1330 P.M. On motion by Councilman Seymour, seconded by Councilman Roth, request for re- consideration of assessment for traffic signal fees for the Apollo Inn as requested in the letter dated July 31, 1978, was approved in accordance with the new Council Policy as set forth in Recommendation No. 3C of report dated June 1978. Councilman Overholt abstained. MOTION CARRIED. 144: REPRESENTATIVE AND ALTERNATE TO THE ORANGE COUNTY HEALTH PLANNING COUNCIL: On motion by Councilwoman Kaywood, seconded by Councilman Seymour, Marjorie Fisk was appointed the delegate and Billie Bird was appointed the alternate to the Orange County Health Planning Council. MOTION CARRIED. 174: HEW INTERGOVERNMENTAL PERSONNEL ACT DEMONSTRATION PROGRAM: (Continued from the meeting of June 27, 1978) Councilman Seymour offered Resolution No. 78R-492 for adoption as recommended in memorandum dated July 31, 1978, from the Community Services Board. Refer to Resolution Book. RESOLUTION NO. 78R-492: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO FILE AND EXECUTE A GRANT APPLICATION WITH THE DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH, EDUCATION AND WELFARE PURSUANT TO THE INTERGOVERNMENTAL PERSONNEL ACT FOR FUNDS TO OBTAIN THE SERVICES OF A SENIOR HUMAN SERVICES SPECIALIST. Roll Call Vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: COUNCIL MEMBERS: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Overholt, Kaywood, Roth and Seymour Kott None The Mayor declared Resolution No. 78R-492 duly passed and adopted. 163: RECOMMENDATION - SCHOOL TRAFFIC SAFETY COMMITTEE - CROSSING GUARD STIIDY: (Continued from the meeting of June 27, 1978) On motion by Councilman Seymour, seconded by Councilwoman Kaywood, recommendations of the School Traffic Safety Committee regarding the Crossing Guard Study was continued one week. MOTION CARRIED. RECESS: By general consent, the Council recessed for 10 minutes. (2:55 p.m.) AFTER RECESS: Mayor Seymour called the meeting to order, all Council Members being present. (3:05 P.M.) 129: PUBLIC HEARING - 1977/78 WEED ABATEMENT ROLL: To receive a report from the Fire Chief on the cost of abatement of weeds for each individual lot where work was performed under the 1977/78 Weed Abatement Program and to hear any objections from property owners liable to be assessed for the abatement. The Mayor asked if anyone wished to speak relative to the 1977/78 Weed Abatement Roll; there being no response, he closed the public hearing. On motion by Councilman Kott, seconded by Councilman Roth, the Council noted no objections to the 1977/78 Weed Abatement Roll. MOTION CARRIED. 78-1005 City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - August 1~ 1978~ 1:30 P.M. Councilman Kott offered Resolution No. 78R-493 for adoption confirming the report of the Fire Chief and authorizing the County Auditor to enter each assessment on the County tax rolls. Refer to Resolution Book. RESOLUTION NO. 78R-493: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM CONFIRMING THE WRITTEN REPORT OF THE FIRE CHIEF REGARDING THE COST OF WEED ABATE- MENT, AND DIRECTING THE FILING THEREOF WITH THE COUNTY OF ORANGE. Roll Call Vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: COUNCIL MEMBERS: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Overholt, Kaywood, Kott, Roth and Seymour None None The Mayor declared Resolution No. 78R-493 duly passed and adopted. 170: PUBLIC HEARING - WAIVER OF HILLSIDE GRADING ORDINANCE - TENTATIVE TRACT NO. 10167: Application by Shamrock Contractors, Inc., requesting a waiver of lot line requirement of the Hillside Grading Ordinance on property located east of Country Hill Road, south of Santa Ana Canyon Road for Lot Nos. 3 and 14 of the 15-lot RS-HS-22,000 zoned subdivision. The Mayor asked if either the developer or anyone wished to speak to the waiver of the Hillside Grading Ordinance on Tentative Tract No. 10167; there being no response, he closed the public hearing. On motion by Councilman Roth, seconded by Councilwoman Kaywood, waiver of the lot line requirement for Lot Nos. 3 and 14 of Tentative Tract No. 10167 was approved. MOTION CARRIED. PUBLIC HEARING - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 1846: Application by Ser Rich, Inc., to permit a drug rehabilitation center for women on CG zoned property located at 279 East Lincoln Avenue with code waiver of minimum number of parking spaces. The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC78-136, declared that the subject project be exempt from the requirement to prepare an environmental impact report pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act since there would be no significant individual or cumulative adverse environmental impact due to the project and further granted Conditional Use Permit No. 1846, subject to the following conditions: 1. That trash storage areas shall be provided in accordance with approved plans on file with the Office of the Director of Public Works. 2. That the existing structure shall be brought up to the minimum standards of the City of Anaheim, including the Uniform Building, Plumbing, Electrical, Mechanical and Fire Codes as adopted by the City of Anaheim. 3. That subject property shall be developed substantially in accordance with plans and specifications on file with the City of Anaheim marked Exhibit Nos. 1 through 4. 4. That Condition Nos. 1, 2 and 3, above-mentioned, shall be complied with prior to final building and zoning inspections. 78-1006 ~.ity Hall:, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - Augusq 1~ 1978, 1:30 P.M. 5. That the use is granted for a period of approximately 18 months, to expire on February 1, 1980, at which time possible extensions of time may be reviewed and approved by the Planning Commission, upon receipt of a written request for an extension. A review of the Planning Commission's action was requested by Mayor Seymour at the meeting of July 11, 1978, and public hearing scheduled this date. Miss Santalahti described the location and surrounding land uses. She outlined the findings given in the staff report which was submitted to and considered by the City Planning Commission. The Mayor asked if the applicant or applicant's agent was present and desirous of being beard. Mr. Russell Barrios, Executive Director of Casa Placentia, first stated that he wished to correct one thing--the program was for 20 women with a maximum of 10 women who would have children with them and the others would be pregnant women. There would be 20 children maximum. He confirmed for the Mayor that there would be 10 women with 2 children each making 20 plus 10 with child. The Mayor asked if anyone wished to speak either in favor or opposition. The following persons spoke in opposition to Conditional Use Permit No. 1846 for the below listed reasons or related comments: Mrs. Frances Sherman, President of Anaheim Senior Citizens Association, (1) a senior citizens housing development was being built with approximately 100 units just to the rear and northwest of the proposed drug rehabilitation center; (2) they were concerned with the idea of allowing children to be placed in the proposed environment; (3) at present, her seniors were often harassed as they passed the subject building; (4) drunks were sleeping on their parking lot at night, as well as on the church steps and in the alley. She had seen men living in cars and to the rear of them was a mass of pollution. It was a bad situation and adding to it would only make it worse; (5) there was a need for the proposed program, but not on the subject corner; and (6) children up to 10 years of age would be permitted and she could not en- vision them staying in a room from the time school was out until bed time. Mr. Doug Renner, 420 West Alberta: (1) he referred to report entitled "Community Services--Element for Revitalization Project in Downtown Anaheim." It revealed that there was a drug problem in Anaheim, especially among the youth, but he did not know if the way to solve the problem was to establish a rehabilitation center. If so, it should be directed to the youth living in the area. (2) The proposed location for the center was not appropriate and the drug problem should be attacked according to the recommendations of the consultants who prepared the report for the City, basically recommending counseling for local youth. (3) After spending so many years and so much money for studies and surveying the area with resultant recommendations, the City should not disregard all that input and allow the estab- lishment of something incompatible with the entire direction redevelopment should be taking. 78-1007 Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - August 1~ 1978, 1:30 P.M. Mrs. Eleanor Bay, 2148 West Grayson: (1) she recalled some months ago the Angelina Hotel was closed by court order and the tenants evicted. She wanted to know if there had been any change made to the interior of the building, and the basement was of particular concern. (2) The staff report indicated that 16 units were to be refurbished on the third floor, but there would be 20 women and a possible 20 children plus staff in those 16 units. She thus questioned the validity of it being a family situation. Bunny Cass, member of senior citizens, explained how pleased she was in the fact that a senior citizens complex was being built because it would give her an opportunity to be located close to the senior citizens center and she could "live" a little bit. The seniors were not against rehabilitation for the people involved, but it was inappropriate to have the center so close to the new complex. She was thus opposed to having to worry on any account about any problems revolving around the drug rehabilitation center. Mr. Ben Bay, 2148 West Grayson: (1) the emotional response to what was being done was not the question, but rather a question of where it was being done. (2) He heard no stipulations relative to bringing the whole building back up to Code, not just the third and fourth floors. First, in answer to Mrs. Bay's concerns, Mr. Barrios explained that work had been done on the facility by the owner and their staff. To his knowledge, all the pre- viously existing Fire Code violations had been corrected and fire escapes and fire doors installed. In cooperation with the landlord, the electrical and plumbing had been gone through and both were in working condition. He did not know what violations existed in the basement, but there were problems with the hot water which had also been corrected. Relative to the living arrangements, 16 rooms were proposed to be leased with a maximum of 20 women, 10 pregnant and 2 to a room for their own safety. The balance of 11 rooms would go to the women with children leaving an excess of one room. In answer to Mr. Bay, it was his understanding that the building had to be brought up to Code, and they were in the process of meeting that requirement from the base- ment to the other floors. They were willing to meet that challenge and they con- sidered the building an ideal place for what they were trying to accomplish] The Mayor asked if anyone wished to speak in favor of the proposed drug rehabili- tation center under Conditional Use Permit No. 1846. The following persons spoke in favor of granting Conditional Use Permit No. 1846 for the below listed reasons or related comments: Mr. Rocky Richardson, repre- senting the ownership of the building. Relative to the presence of drunks, they were trying to clean up that matter. If the building was occupied, it would help eliminate the situation. Lucille Grahada, 201 West Santa Fe, Placentia, Project Director of the Ross Program and the proposed program at the Angelina Hotel: (1) relative to the senior citizens, it was not their intent to impose upon that community. (2) At present, the hotel was open and people were living there with children, but there was no control or supervision in the building. They were proposing a 78-1008 !~.ty Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - August 1, 1978, 1:30 P.M. residential program with supervision. (3) Ail of the things that were mentioned such as drunks on the corner, drug addicts, etc., would exist with or without the proposed program. (4) ~ey intended to provide supervision with maximum control and were also prepared to lease the second floor even though it would not be occupied because their program could not be run with transients in the building. John Mezureki, Clinical Psychologist, then explained that he was involved with Casa Placentia in doing consulting work and wanted to answer the senior citizens and the Planning Commission Study. The issue being dealt with was partly to solve an epidemic problem existing in the country, that being drug abuse and the very deep-core problem of heroin use. That was essentially the issue relative to the proposed program and its focus was on women and children. In his clinical exper- ience, he found four basic characteristics of the institutionalized child which he proceeded to describe and explain for the benefit of the Council and the audience to emphasize what they were trying to accomplish in their program. It was a very systematic and comprehensive program clinically based where the bond between mother and child was maintained and where the child would have the benefit of two-child care specialists on a full-time basis. The program enabled the mother to be actively and daily involved with the child resulting in the child receiving everything he or she should have. One of the core elements of the whole program was for the partici- pants to get the necessary support emotionally, physically and economically to the point where they could return to society and be successful. Relative to the complaints of senior citizens that undesirable persons and drunks already existed in the street, he emphasized that was not the nature of the pro- posed program. It was designed to bring individuals in who would be screened through the Department of Mental Health and qualified as fit for the program and eventually rehabilitated. In answer to Councilman Overholt, Dr. Mezureki confirmed that the children would attend public school in the area. Mr. Barrios also confirmed that only children up to 10 years of age maximum would be involved. Mr. William Edleman, County Drug Program Coordinator in charge of drug problems in Orange County, stated that he was in favor of the drug rehabilitation center. He explained that he had the same concerns as the senior citizens. He would not want to be adding to their problems of harassment by persons who were undesirable or who might commit crimes, and he would not support or encourage the Council to support a program if it was thought in any way it would add to the criminality of the community or to certain negative aspects of individuals lives. The funds for the program, $80,000, came from the National Institution of Drug Abuse awarded to Orange County some time in the past and subsequently a request was put out for a bid on those funds. One bidder denied the funds and Casa Placentia was another organization who had qualified and eventually a decision was made to award those funds to them. He did not consider the funds to be adequate and from his point of view, he did not want to see the hotel being used by transients or not come under the jurisdiction or responsibility of those persons operating the program. Thus, he had spoken with people in Sacramento to secure additional revenue in order for the program to be able to pick up the rent or the cost of the other floors of the hotel. He believed they would be successful in securing those funds to do so if that was a concern of the Council. 78-1009 ~ity Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - August 1~ 1978~ 1:30 P.M. Mr. Edleman continued that from his 12 years experience working in the field, it was imperative for the drug program to develop a meaningful relationship with the citizens of the community and he would work with Casa Placentia and the seniors to see that the seniors would have an opportunity to work in an advisory capacity so that they would not feel left out. He would encourage that aspect if the program were allowed to exist. Drugs would not be allowed in the facility and people would be screened. When it was offered and demanded that the residents themselves take the responsibility of keeping the program "clean" and drug free where it was being looked at by the rest of the community, he stated that corrective and exciting things began to happen and those persons selling or using narcotics would not frequent the establishment. If the program was well run, it could improve the total environment in the downtown area of the City. Mr. Jim Perez, Assistant to Mr. Edleman, stated that he had established a drug free center in Anaheim and prior to that, one in Stanton. He knew the Anaheim area and was aware of the drug problems that existed. Another aspect of his job was to monitor all County drug programs under contract with them and a central monitoring team performed such monitoring on a bi-monthly or bi-weekly basis. As well, the Institute on Drug Abuse (IDA) would also be monitoring the program. In concluding, he stated that relative to the Drug Free Program at 1133 North Homer Street, no complaints had ever been received to his knowledge. Upon questioning by Councilwoman Kaywood and Councilman Roth, Mr. Barrios related the following: all the women in the program would be screened and recommended by the Department of Mental Health, some may or may not be married. If married, their husbands would not be sheltered in the proposed facility. Federal monies channeled through the County funded the program and they would be a subcontractor with the County. They did not have another such facility in operation, this would be the first and one of only two in Southern California, the other in Los Angeles County which had been in operation for one year. Relative to its success, the grant had tripled because response to the program had been good, but no long-term results were yet available. Their operation in Placentia was a multi-purpose community center where drug abuse service, youth services and a myriad of other services were available. In summation, Mr. Barrios stated it was unfortunate that so much opposition was expressed because at no time did they intend to cause any type of threat or dis- comfort to the community. They felt they could do their project and offer some means of bettering and improving the area. They were keenly aware of the problems in the past, the conditions of the hotel and why it was closed. They also believed that the seniors had legitimate concerns, but they could improve that situation. They would have a controlled population, they had met the required safety standards and had done everything they possibly could and had also invited the police force to sit on their advisory committee, and he extended the information to the seniors and everyone. They wanted to run an open and honest program which would be an al- most invisible one, and an exceptional one as well. There being no further persons who wished to speak either in favor or opposition, the Mayor closed the public hearing. 78-1010 ~]jty H~ll, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - August 1~ 1978~ 1:30 P.M. Upon questioning by Councilwoman Kaywood, Mr. Barrios stated that they did seek other locations for the program and made an extensive facility search for approxi- mately six months. As pointed out by Councilwoman Kaywood, the Planning Commission approved the conditional use permit conditionally for 18 months. They did not know where they would locate thereafter. Although they had put several thousand dollars into the building at this point, they did not know how much more it would take to bring it entirely up to Code to make it safe. Miss Santalahti was not aware of the modifications that had been made to the build- ing and stated that the Commission required that the building be brought up to Code before it was occupied under the program. Fire Marshall Kanenbly stated that several months prior, the Fire Department per- mitted inhabiting of the second floor because that was brought up to Code and violations corrected that were noted at the time of closure 7 or 8 months earlier. Before the proposed operation could take place in the hotel, however, they would be subject to stringent State requirements, and the City would perhaps be enforcing some of those requirements. The plumbing was bad and the sewage system was very bad. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT - NEGATIVE DECLARATION: on motion by Councilman Roth, seconded by Councilman Overholt, the City Council finds that this project would have no significant individual or cumulative adverse environmental impact and is, therefore, exempt from the requirement to prepare an EIR. MOTION CARRIED. Councilman Roth was concerned that the applicant expended funds without first gaining approval and because they had done so was no justification for such approval. He thereupon offered Resolution No. 78R-494 for adoption, denying Conditional Use Permit No. 1846, reversing the findings of the City Planning Commission. Before a vote was taken, Councilman Overholt wanted to explain his vote which would be in support of the resolution. No one has said anything negative about the program which was of great importance to society and apparently, thanks to the County people, an excellent one; however, it was in the wrong place and he encouraged the applicant to try and find another place in which to carry out their program. Councilwoman Kaywood acknowledged that the need was great, but the location was improper. Mayor Seymour stated that he did not feel as strongly as the rest of the Council relative to the matter, but more importantly that the entire property should be brought up to Code. He encouraged the proponents to go to the Redevelopment Commission before they gave up entirely to see if they could not answer some con- cerns relative to the building and what it would be like when it was restored. His colleagues indicated this was the wrong location for the program which was easy to say, but it related to a definite social problem which Anaheim had, as well as other cities in the United States. He believed the Council would be of the same mind if the group returned the next week with another proposed location. There was an obvious need and his primary concern was the condition of the property and the building. He would be interested in knowing what the Redevelopment Commis- sion would have to say regarding a specific proposal for their rehabilitation of that structure. 78-1011 City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - August 1, 1978, 1:30 P.M. A vote was taken on the foregoing resolution. Refer to Resolution Book. RESOLUTION NO. 78R-494: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM DENYING CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 1846. Roll Call Vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: COUNCIL MEMBERS: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Overholt, Kaywood, Kott, Roth and Seymour None None The Mayor declared Resolution No. 78R-494 duly passed and adopted. 176: PUBLIC HEARING - ABANDONMENT NO. 77-22A: In accordance with application filed by John D. Lusk & Son, public hearing was held on proposed abandonment of a portion of an existing public utility easement and dedicated street (Ridge Gate Road) for subdivision purposes located north of Nohl Ranch Road, pursuant to Resolution No. 78R-445 duly published in the Anaheim Bulletin and notices thereof posted in accordance with law. Report of the City Engineer was submitted recommending the following: 1. Applicant shall submit a parcel map to the City Engineer for approval showing lots to be created. 2. Reserving unto the City the westerly 5 feet for public utility purposes. 3. Applicant shall dedicate all vehicular access rights along Nohl Ranch Road to the City. Said access rights can be dedicated via above mentioned parcel map upon recordation. 4. Applicant shall construct full street improvements at no cost to the City along the east side of Old Bucket Lane, along the westerly edge of Ridge Gate Road, as required by the City Engineer. 5. Applicant shall pay all estimated costs of $600 to abandon, remove, relocate or reroute the existing 8-inch water line located 5 feet south of the centerline of Ridge Gate Road, as required by the Water Division. The Mayor asked if anyone wished to address the Council; there being no response, he closed the public hearing. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT - CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION: On motion by Councilman Roth, seconded by Councilwoman Kaywood, the City Council ratified the determination of the Planning Director that the proposed activity falls within the definition of Section 3.01, Class 5 of the City of Anaheim Guidelines to the requirements for an environmental impact report and is, therefore, categorically exempt from the requirement to file an EIR. MOTION CARRIED. Councilman Roth offered Resolution Nos. 78R-495 and 78R-496 for adoption, approving Abandonment No. 77-22A for the road and easement, respectively, as recommended by the City Engineer in his memorandum dated June 13, 1978. Refer to Resolution Book. 78-1012 Cj_ty Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - August 1, 1978, 1:30 P.M. RESOLUTION NO. 78R-495: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM DETERMINING THAT CERTAIN PUBLIC STREET(S) SHOULD BE ABANDONED AND ESTABLISHING CONDITIONS PRECEDENT TO SAID ABANDONMENT. (Ridge Gate Road - 77-22A) RESOLUTION NO. 78R-496: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM DETERMINING THAT A CERTAIN PUBLIC SERVICE EASEMENT SHOULD BE ABANDONED AND ESTAB- LISHING CONDITIONS PRECEDENT TO SAID ABANDONMENT. (Ridge Gate Road, north of Nohl Ranch Road - 77-22A) Roi1 Call Vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: COUNCIL MEMBERS: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Overholt, Kaywood, Kott, Roth and Seymour None None The Mayor declared Resolution Nos. 78R-495 and 78R-496 duly passed and adopted. 176: PUBLIC HEARING - ABANDONMENT NO. 77-24A: In accordance with application filed by Connecticut Mutual Life Insurance Company, public hearing was held on proposed abandonment of an existing public utility easement to develop a shopping center located west of State College Boulevard, south of Romneya Drive, pursuant to Resolution No. 78R-447 duly published in the Anaheim Bulletin and notices thereof posted in accordance with law. Report of the City Engineer was submitted recommending approval of the abandonment. The Mayor asked if anyone wished to address the Council; there being no response, he closed the public hearing. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT - CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION: On motion by Councilwoman Kaywood, seconded by Councilman Roth, the City Council ratified the determination of the Planning Director that the proposed activity falls within the definition of Section 3.01, Class 5 of the City of Anaheim Guidelines to the requirements for an environmental impact report and is, therefore, categorically exempt from the require- ment to file an EIR. MOTION CARRIED. Councilwoman Kaywood offered Resolution No. 78R-497 for adoption, approving Abandonment No. 77-24A as recommended by the City Engineer in his memorandum dated June 13, 1978. Refer to Resolution Book. RESOLUTION NO. 78R-497: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM ORDERING THE VACATION AND ABANDONMENT OF A CERTAIN PUBLIC SERVICE EASEMENT. (State College Boulevard, south of Romneya Drive - 77-24A) Roll Call Vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: COUNCIL MEMBERS: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Overholt, Kaywood, Kott, Roth and Seymour None None The Mayor declared Resolution No. 78R-497 duly passed and adopted. 78-1013 Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - August 1~ 1978~ 1:30 P.M. t0~: STATUS OF EMPLOYEES WHO HAVE CITY VEHICLES: Councilman Kott referred to recent newspaper article which appeared in the Santa Ana Register relative to ~lit. y cars. Because of that, as well as other calls and facts he received, he asked t~he City Manager the status of the vehicle report previously requested. If it was m~t presently available, he asked that it be submitted at the next meeting. Mr. Talley explained that he had stated that each department's vehicles were being discussed with the department head and when the Council resumed Budget hearings, It~: would be prepared to make recommendations. In the meantime, if he found other ~ar~ which were overlooked, their use would be terminated. Otherwise, if Council !;o]icy substantially changed present assignments, some orderly process should ~ke place eliminating the use of vehicles by people heretofore allowed to drive s~ch vehicles home. Councilman Kott stated that he did not believe the policy should be changed, but ~1 iminated entirely. After further Council discussion with Mr. Talley relative to the matter, Councilman Seymour moved that the subject report regarding the status of employees who have C~ty vehicles be submitted the second week in September. Councilman Kott seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. ]57/174: NO BIDS RECEIVED - SENIOR CITIZENS CENTER - REMODELING OF DAY CARE CENTER - AUTHORIZING DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS TO PROCEED WITH PROJECT: Council- man Seymour offered Resolution No. 78R-498 for adoption. Refer to Resolution Book. RESOLUTION NO. 78R-498: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM FINDING AND DETERMINING THAT THERE WERE NO BIDS RECEIVED FOR THE REMODELING OF THE DAY CARE CENTER OF THE SENIOR CITIZENS' CENTER, THAT SAID JOB NOT BE READVER- TISED AND THAT SAID IMPROVEMENTS BE PERFORMED BY CITY FORCES. Call Vote: AY ES: · ?qO ES: ,.i~SENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: COUNCIL MEMBERS: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Overholt, Kaywood, Kott, Roth and Seymour None None The Mayor declared Resolution No. 78R-498 duly passed and adopted. motion by Councilman Seymour, seconded by Councilra~n Roth~ the Director of !?ubl~c Works was authorized to proceed with the subject project on a force ~ccount basis (Account No. 14-278-6340-80090) as recommended in memorandum dated .!~[y 26, .1978. MOTION CARRIED. i05: PUBLIC UTILITIES BOARD - PROPOSED NOVEMBER 1978 WATER BOND ELECTION: After Utilities Director Gordon Hoyt clarified questions posed by Mayor Seymour and C~.mncilman Kott relative to the Water Bond Election, Councilwoman Kaywood moved that the City Clerk notify the Registrar of Voters of the City's intent to consoli- ,lat:'e a Water Revenue Bond Election on the November 1978 ballot as recommended fin der'ail, ed memorandum dated July 24, 1978, with attachments from the Public Utilities Buard (on file in the City Clerk's Office). Councilman Overholt seconded the motion. Councilman Kott voted "No". MOTION CARRIED. 78-1014 ~ity Hall, Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - August 1, 1978, 1:30 P.M. RECLASSIFICATION NO. 76-77-61 - EXTENSION OF TIME: On motion by Councilman Seymour, seconded by Councilman Roth, an extension of time to Reclassification No. 76-77-61, proposed RM-1200 zoning on property located at 430 North Tustin Avenue, was approved as requested by the R. G. Garland Corporation to expire January 26, 1979, as recommended by the Zoning Division. MOTION CARRIED. 148: RESOLUTIONS SCHEDULED FOR A VOTE AT ORANGE COUNTY DIVISION, LEAGUE OF CALIFORNIA CITIES MEETING HELD AUGUST 10, 1978: Mayor Seymour explained that he asked that the 7 proposed resolutions be placed on the agenda so that he might vote the Council's wishes accordingly at the Orange County League meeting Thursday, August 10, 1978. t. Support legislation controlling the registration and use of mopeds. On motion by Councilwoman Kaywood, seconded by Councilman Overholt, the Mayor was directed to vote in support of the proposed legislation controlling the registration and use of mopeds. MOTION CARRIED. 2. Resolution opposing the policy of the Southern California Association of Governments to use its goals and objectives in an attempt to control local land use planning. On motion by Councilman Roth, seconded by Councilman Overholt, the Mayor was directed to vote in support of the resolution opposing the policy of SCAG to use its goals and objectives in an attempt to control local land use planning. MOTION CARRIED. 3. Resolution requesting that the SCAG Executive Committee provide a 60-day comment period and information workshop for SCAG publications impacting local government. Councilwoman Kaywood pointed out that SCAGs General Assembly already passed this resolution in February. On motion by Councilman Roth, seconded by Councilwoman Kaywood, the Mayor was directed to vote in support of the proposed resolution. MOTION CARRIED. 4. Resolution urging legislative amendments revising the method of cancelling voters affidavits of registration. Councilwoman Kaywood moved to support legislative amendments revising the method of cancelling voters affidavits of registration. Councilman Overholt seconded the motion. Before a vote was taken, Councilman Kott asked for further clarification on the proposed resolution. Councilwoman Kaywood explained that it was a move to make the voting rolls more accurate. In the past if a person did not vote in a general election every two years, they were automatically removed from the rolls. That procedure was eliminated and subsequently the rolls became very lengthy since many people had died or moved away. The move would be reinstatement of purging the voting records every two years. If a person missed a general election however and wished to re- main on the rolls they could then do so by indicating same and mailing a card that would be sent to them automatically. 78-1015 Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - August 1, 1978, 1:30 P.M. A vote was then taken on the foregoing motion. Councilman Seymour voted "No". MOTION CARRIED. The Mayor explained that he voted against support of the resolution because as [~e understood, if he missed voting at a general election, unless he filed a ~ard, he would automatically be cancelled. He was thus opposed and felt a person should be able to be carried on the rolls. He did not want any road- blocks making it difficult to vote. MOTION: Councilman Overholt moved to reconsider the previously carried motion supporting the proposed resolution. Councilman Seymour seconded for d~scussion. Councilwoman Kaywood stated that with the Jarvis Initiative, if the ruling was that it considered every registered voter, then people who had died and those who had long since moved would be carried on the rolls for years and thus the rolls would be inaccurate. They would not be purged every two years as formerly done. She reiterated if a person missed voting in the general election, a card was sent asking if they wanted to be placed back on the rolls. It was merely a matter of returning the card. City Clerk Linda Roberts confirmed that the County retained names on the voting rolls until a card was sent by the County every two years if a person missed a general election. Mayor Seymour reiterated his opposition--(1) because it made it difficult to vote and (2) if he moved, the card would be mailed to him in Anaheim, whereas he would have already re-registered some place else. Thus, it would be a waste of money. A vote was taken on the motion to reconsider. Council Members Kaywood and Roth voted "No". MOTION CARRIED. (~ouncilman Seymour thereupon moved that cancelling of voter affidavits be effective after the second general election rather than one general election (every four years instead of every two). Councilman Kott seconded the motion. Before a vote was taken, further discussion followed relative to the amount mailing that was involved comparing the two procedures, purging either two or four years, at the conclusion of which a vote was taken on the foregoing mot~ion. Councilwoman Kaywood voted "No". MOTION CARRIED. 5. Resolution recommending an amendment to the League of California Cities bylaws pertaining to voting rights-- Article V, voting. Councilman Roth moved to oppose the proposed resolution. Councilman Overholt seconded the motion. Before a vote was taken, Councilwoman Kaywood noted that there were two conflicting situations. The National League voted on a proportional basis, but it appeared as though they were asking to do the opposite at the local level. 78-101 6 ~f Hal~, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - August 1, 1978, 1:30 P.M. City Manager Talley then explained that the League of California Cities was allowed only one vote per city. The proposed resolution would allow divisions, if they wished, to implement proportional voting more closely aligned with the concept of one man, one vote. Thus, it was the reverse of Councilman Roth's interpretation. Councilman Roth thereupon withdrew his motion in opposition. The confusion arose in the remarks made in the upper left-hand corner of the resolution by an administrative aide which indicated the opposite of his intent. Council- man Overholt withdrew his second. On motion by Councilman Seymour, seconded by Councilman Roth, the Mayor was directed to support an amendment to the League of California Cities bylaws pertaining to voting rights--Article V, voting. MOTION CARRIED. 6. Resolution urging the State to provide financial reimbursement to coastal cities for expenses incurred in providing recreation and parking facilities and services in coastal cities for those residing outside these cities. On motion by Councilwoman Kaywood, seconded by Councilman Seymour, the Mayor was directed to support the proposed resolution. MOTION CARRIED. 7. Resolution requesting the National League of Cities to make a change in its voting policy. On motion by Councilman Roth, seconded by Councilman Seymour, the Mayor was directed to oppose the proposed resolution. MOTION CARRIED. RECLASSIFICATION NO. 76-77-28 AND VARIANCE NO. 2882 - EXTENSION OF TIME: On motion by Councilman Seymour, seconded by Councilman Roth, an extension of time to the 30-day period of time granted by the City Council on June 27, 1978, for posting of a surety bond for public improvements, was approved as requested by Dominguez Enterprises, Inc. MOTION CARRIED. CONSENT CALENDAR ITEMS: On motion by Councilman Roth, seconded by Councilwoman Kaywood, the following actions were authorized in accordance with the reports and recommendations furnished each Council Member and as listed on the Consent Calendar Agenda: 1. 118: CLAIMS AGAINST THE CITY: The following claims were denied and referred to the City's insurance carrier or the self-insurance administrator: a. Claim submitted by Casa Grande Convalescent Hospital for property damage purportedly sustained while mowing a vacant lot (3615 West Ball Road) on or about June 7, 1978. b. Claim submitted by Merle Jacobson for property damages purportedly sustained as a result of high voltage on or about April 1, 1978. c. Claim submitted by Estela Gonzales for property damages purportedly sustained as a result: of traffic signal malfunction at Harbor Boulevard and Katella Avenue on or about. June 28, i978. 78-1017 Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - August ]~ 1978~ 1:30 P.M. d. Claim submitted by Joseph K. Mahony and Tamma L. Mahony for personal damages purportedly sustained as a result of the wrongful death of their son, killed when run over by a garbage pickup service truck, near claimant's address (2021 Bangor Way) on or about April 6, 1978. '2. CORRESPONDENCE: The following correspondence was ordered received and filed: a. 175: Monthly report for June 1978 - Utilities Field Division. b. 105: Community Services Board - Minutes of June 22, 1978. c. 105: Community Redevelopment Commission - Minutes of July 12, 1978. d. 105: Youth Commission - Minutes of July 12, 1978. e. 105: Project Area Committee - Minutes of July 11, 1978. MOTION CARRIED. 170: TENTATIVE TRACT NOS. 10442 AND 10443: Submitted by Westfield Development Company, to establish a 2-lot, 34 building (108 unit) subdivision on RM-1200 zoned property located north and south of Canyon Rim Road, northeast of Nohl Ranch Road. The subject Tentative Tracts were approved by the City Planning Commission and negative declaration status was granted. b~yor Seymour requested that the item be removed from the consent calendar as he wished to go on record as abstaining from any possible action. No action was taken by the City Council thus the action of the City Planning (~ommission became final. CONSENT CALENDAR ITEMS: Councilwoman Kaywood offered Resolution Nos. 78R-499 through 78R-501, both inclusive, for adoption in accordance with the reports, recommendations and certifications furnished each Council Member and as ]~sted on the Consent Calendar Agenda. Refer to Resolution Book. 158: RESOLUTION NO. 78R-499: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM ACCEPTING CERTAIN DEEDS AND ORDERING THEIR RECORDATION. (Frank J. Currie, et ux.; Canyon Hills Estate, et al.; Pete C. Valenti, et ux.; Covington Brothers; Jay O. DeArmond, et al.; J.F.D., Ltd.; Hiroshi Osawa, et ux.; Ton Quon NG, et ux.) ~23: RESOLUTION NO. 78R-500: 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: CONVENTION CENTER EAST PARKING LOT TICKET BOOTHS, 800 WEST KATELLA AVENUE, IN THE CITY OF ANAHEIM, ACCOUNT NO. 64-307-7107-9120; APPROVING THE DESIGNS, PLANS, PROFILES, DRAWINGS, AND SPECIFICATIONS FOR THE CONSTRUCTION THEREOF; AUTHORIZING ~HE CONSTRUCTION OF SAID PUBLIC IMPROVEMENT IN ACCORDANCE WITH SAID PLANS, SPECIFICATIONS, ETC.; AND AUTHORIZING AND DIRECTING THE CITY CLERK TO PUBLISH A NOTICE INVITING SEALED PROPOSALS FOR THE CONSTRUCTION THEREOF. (Bids to be opened August 31, 1978, 2:00 P.M.) 78-1018 City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - August 1~ 1978~ 1:30 P.M. 167: RESOLUTION NO. 78R-501: 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: TRAFFIC SIGNALS AND SAFETY LIGHTING AT THE INTERSECTION OF EUCLID STREET AND MEDICAL CENTER DRIVE, IN THE CITY OF ANAHEIM, ACCOUNT NO. 01-794-6325-4070; APPROVING THE DESIGNS, PLANS, PROFILES, DRAWINGS, AND SPECIFICATIONS FOR THE CONSTRUCTION THEREOF; AUTHORIZING THE CONSTRUCTION OF SAID PUBLIC IMPROVEMENT IN ACCORDANCE WITH SAID PLANS, SPECIFICATIONS, ETC.; AND AUTHORIZING AND DIRECTING THE CITY CLERK TO PUBLISH A NOTICE INVITING SEALED PROPOSALS FOR THE CONSTRUCTION THEREOF. (Bids to be opened August 24, 1978, 2:00 P.M.) Roll Call Vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: COUNCIL MEMBERS: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Overholt, Kaywood, Kott, Roth and Seymour None None The Mayor declared Resolution Nos. 78R-499 through 78R-501, both inclusive, duly passed and adopted. 170: FINAL MAP - TRACT NO. 9171: Developer, Wittenberg Corporation of Newport Beach; tract located north of La Palma Avenue, west of Weir Canyon Road contain- ing 28 RS-5,000 proposed zoned lots. On motion by Councilman Seymour, seconded by Councilman Roth, the proposed sub- division, together with its design and improvement, was found to be consistent with the City's General Plan, and the City Council approved Final Map, Tract No. 9171, as recommended by the City Engineer in his memorandum dated July 25, 1978. MOTION CARRIED. 170: FINAL MAP - TRACT NO. 9172: Developer, Wittenberg Corporation of Newport Beach; tract located north of La Palma Avenue, west of Weir Canyon Road contain- ing 22 RS-5,000 zoned lots. On motion by Councilman Seymour, seconded by Councilman Roth, the proposed sub- division, together with its design and improvement, was found to be consistent with the City's General Plan, and the City Council approved Final Map, Tract No. 9172, as recommended by the City Engineer in his memorandum dated July 25, ]978. MOTION CARRIED. ORDINANCE NOS. 3893 AND 3894: Councilman Roth offered Ordinance Nos. 3893 and 3894 for adoption. Refer to Ordinance Book. ORDINANCE NO. 3893: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AMENDING TITLE 18 OF THE ANAHEIM b~NICIPAL CODE RELATING TO ZONING. (72-73-51(28), RS-HS-22,000) ORDINANCE NO. 3894: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AMENDING TITLE 18 OF THE ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO ZONING. (73-74-46(9), RM-4000, Tract No. lOl06) 78-1019 City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - August 17 ]978~ l!J~ P.M. Roll Call Vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: COUNCIL MEMBERS: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Overholt, Kaywood, Kott, Roth and Seymour None None The Mayor declared Ordinance Nos. 3893 and 3894 duly passed and adopted. 112: CONFIDENTIALITY: Councilman Overholt suggested that in view of the fact that there were many times when the Council was dealing with so called confiden- tial documents or documents marked "confidential", that the City Attorney be di- rected to render an opinion on the meaning of such documentation. IIe personally did not want to have confusion as to the meaning of "confidential'ity", and an opinion by the City Attorney would provide the Council a frame of reference. Mayor Seymour stated that he supported the concept, but as an example, the Plummet matter involved a confidential document and he believed he understood what that "confidential" meant. The Cultural Arts Survey, however, may be different. They could ask for the City Attorney's opinion, but he questioned how it was possible to prevent someone from stamping a report making it confidential if, in fact, it was not confidential. Councilman Overholt stated that relative to the Plummer matter, there were two questions of confidentiality involved--(1) the Attorney/Client privilege and (2) whether it was confidential by the Council itself at a point in time. He wanted clarification as to the meaning of documents they received from time to time marked "confidential" and if the Council as a whole or one Council member was at liberty to release them. Relative to the Cultural Arts Report, he reiterated the reason that the contractor stamped it confidential lay in the fact that he was trying to keep it confidential until it was presented to the Council. It was not related to a confidential report of the Council. The Mayor stated if another consultant stamped a document confidential and be- cause he did so, the Council would have to uphold whatever opinion the City Attorney might have he voiced his disagreement in that respect. Councilman Overholt stated he had no difficulty in distinguishing between a confidential report submitted by a consultant to a committee, as opposed to a confidential report submitted to the Council. There was a big difference and he was concerned about the documents under law. He emphasized he wanted to have clarification so that there would be an understanding amongst the Council as to the overall meaning. He wanted also to have the Attorney/Cleint aspect broached. If the City Attorney counseled the Council, was that not a different category than a confidential report submitted to and received by the Council? The Mayor wondered whether after the clarification that any time someone did not want something done with certain documents, they would preclude any action by stamping "confidential" on the document. If that happened, he supposed that what- ever interpretation the City Attorney rendered, that the process would be prosti- tuted such as with the Cultural Arts Report which clearly, in his opinion, there was no reason for it to have been stamped confidential. He was concerned that two Council people saw it initially, whereas it may have been that other Council Members would never have seen it. If one elected official had the opportunity of seeing a document, then all should. 78-1020 C_ity Hall.~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - August iF 1978~ ]:30 P.M. MOTION: Councilman Overholt moved to direct the City Attorney to prepare an opinion for the Council interpreting the meaning of "confidentiality" and various aspects of the Council's functions where confidentiality was involved including the matter of Attorney/Client privilege. Councilman Roth seconded the motion. Before a vote was taken, City Attorney Hopkins explained for Councilman Roth that relative to declassification of materials, that the City's procedure was merely a work product type of classifications so that material would not get into the public record prematurely resulting in some detriment to the City, as opposed to the stringent regulations of the Department of Defense. l~he Government Code and the Public Record Disclosure Act stated if the City Council felt that the need was greater for public disclosure, ~t had the right to make the disclosure. That would basically be the opinion he would render. Councilman Kott was in disagreement with the concept and considered confidentiality as being how the person himself viewed it. He then reiterated his disagreement with the Cultural Arts Report (see minutes of July 18, 1978) and his opinion as to why it was marked confidential. As well, the Plummer report was a confidential situation that existed between the City Attorney and a Council person. Mayor Seymour asked Councilman Overholt if his request was leading to the setting of a policy because the interpretation to be submitted, if acceptable, would be considered the new rules of the game. Councilman Overholt clarified that the re- quest was merely to avoid confusion and presumed the City Attorney would render an interpretation of the law. City Attorney Hopkins confirmed that the interpretation with respect to confi- dentiality would be in accordance with the existing law. A vote was then taken on the foregoing motion. MOTION CARRIED. 101: ROLLING STONES ROCK CONCERT: Councilwoman Kaywood stated that she had attended one of the recent Rolling Stones rock concerts at Anaheim Stadium and it was a tribute to Mr. Tom Liegler, Stadium-Convention Center-Golf Director, and his staff, as well as the police and security people. It was band]ed in a most efficient manner and enjoyed by 60,000 orderly people. t14: CORRESPONDENCE WRITTEN BY THE MAYOR: Councilwoman Kaywood recommended that in order to keep the entire Council informed and promote open communication, that all letters written and/or signed by the Mayor concerning the Council be automatically copied to each Council Member. She referred to a recent letter sent by the Mayor as a result of which she received a call by the President of the School Board who was very disgruntled, and she knew nothing about the matter. The Mayor explained that particular letter was written by the City Manager and he (Seymour) signed it, and the City Manager could have supplied a copy to Council- woman Kaywood. The Mayor further explained that he received a great deal of correspondence which was routine and he considered having to make 5 copies con- cerning such matters to be ridiculous. 78-102% ~ity Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - August 1, 1978, 1:30 P.M. Councilwoman Kaywood was concerned that she was chastised for something the Mayor had done unilaterally and reiterated her request that the Council re- ceive copies of the letters sent by the Mayor, another instance being the ream of letters given to Welcome Wagon which she had not seen. Further discussion followed between Councilwoman Kaywood and the Mayor wherein the Mayor indicated he would supply copies of everything he wrote if, in turn, Councilwoman Kaywood would do likewise. 114: CONSIDERATION IN CHANGE OF STARTING TIME OF COUNCIL MEETINGS: Councilman Roth again, noting the very lengthy recent Council meetings, recommended a change in starting time from 1:30 p.m. to 9:00 a.m. or 9:30 a.m. The Mayor stated he would agree, but his personal feeling was that if more time were allowed, the longer the meeting would take. He preferred that they not allow themselves that much time because even with the morning starting time, the meeting would still extend to 5:00 p.m. He agreed that the very lengthy meetings continuing into the late night tended to become nonproductive, but believed the recent occurences to be a matter of some very difficult issues facing the Council. He asked the Council's indulgence for a month or so to see if the meetings could be completed within a reasonable time. 150: PARK MAINTENANCE: Councilman Kott stated that he had received some ca]Is which he did not know how to answer relative to a comment made by Councilwoman Kaywood at a recent Parks and Recreation Commission meeting. She felt that in view of Proposition 13 that a park should be chosen that would not be watered or grass cut. He did not believe that suggestion to be in the spirit and intent of Proposition 13, but rather an expression for a cut in spending at the top and not in terms of services provided to the people. Councilwoman Kaywood explained that the Parks Budget called for cutting back on upkeep and maintenance of all City parks and before doing so, she suggested selecting one park, any park, and testing the recommendation to ascertain the response. Thus without destroying everything, it would be possible to know if the people accepted or rejected the idea. 175: BOND ISSUES: Councilman Kott noted that somewhere ~n his agenda packet there was a request by the Utilities Director to take away from the people the ability to vote on bond issues and he felt the public bad a right to know that such action was being sought. He would oppose any such move since at the present time the Charter demanded that action take place by the electorate, rather than by the City Council, and that was the way he wished it to remain. 112: CLARIFICATION OF BROWN ACT: Regarding confidentiality, Councilman Kott re- quested that the City Attorney also delve into the specifics of the Brown Act and render an opinion to the Council on its meaning. RECESS - EXECUTIVE SESSION: By general consent, the City Council recessed into Executive Session. (5:12 P.M.) ~ 8.-1022 ~ity Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - Augu_s.t 1~ 1978~ 1:30 P.M. AFTER RECESS: Mayor Seymour called the meeting to order, all Council Members being present. (8:14 P.M.) 112: CLAIM AGAINST THE CITY: On motion by Councilman Seymour, seconded by Councilman Overholt, the City Attorney and the City's Claims Administrator were authorized to negotiate the settlement of the claim of Eva De La Cruz, a minor, by Yolanda De La Cruz against the City of Anaheim in an amount not to exceed $15,000. MOTION CARRIED. 156: RICHARD J. PLUMMER CASE: The City Attorney and Chief of Police reports in the matter of Richard J. Plummer were presented to the City Clerk for the public record. ADJOURNMENT: Councilman Kott moved to adjourn. Councilman Roth seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. Adjourned: 8:16 P.M LINDA D. ROBERTS, CITY CLERK