Loading...
1978/08/2278-1073 City Hall~..Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - August 22~ 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 ASSISTANT CITY MANAGER: William T. Hopkins CITY ATTORNEY: William P. Hopkins CITY CLERK: Linda D. Roberts ASSISTANT CITY ATTORNEY: Frank Lowry UTILITIES DIRECTOR: Gordon Hoyt STADIUM-CONVENTION CENTER-GOLF DIRECTOR: Tom Liegler PARKS, RECREATION AND THE ARTS DIRECTOR: James Ruth SENIOR REAL PROPERTY REPRESENTATIVE: Matthew Boscia TRAFFIC ENGINEER: Paul Singer ASSISTANT CITY ENGINEER: William Devitt PERSONNEL SERVICES MANAGER: Dave Hill ADMINISTRATIVE AIDE: Dave Morgan ASSISTANT DIRECTOR FOR ZONING: Annika Santalahti ASSISTANT PLANNER: Bob Kelly ASSOCIATE PLANNER: Joel Fick Mayor Seymour called the meeting to order and welcomed those in attendance to the Council meeting. INVOCATION: Reverend Warren Pittman of St. Michael's Episcopal Church gave the Invocation. FLAG SALUTE: Councilman E. Llewellyn Overholt, Jr., led the assembly in the Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag. 119: PRESENTATION - "EL DIA DE ANAHEIM": Mr. Bob Ricks of the Anaheim Chamber of Commerce relayed the schedule of events that would take place at the forth- coming annual "El Dia de Anaheim" trip to Tiajuana October 14, 1978, and urged Council's support and participation in the event. 119: PROCLAMATION: The following proclamation was issued by Mayor Seymour and approved by the City Council: "Jerry Lewis Telethon for Muscular Dystrophy Day in Anaheim" - September 4, 1978. MINUTES: Approval of minutes was deferred for one week. 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 $6,017,314.32 for the period ending August 15, 1978 and $445,822.63 for the period ending August 22, 1978, in accordance with the 1977-78 Budget, were approved. 78-1074 Cit~ H~llm. Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - August 22~ 1978~ 1:30 P.M. 105: APPOINTMENTS TO GOLF COURSE COMMISSION: Mr. Tom Liegler, Stadium-Convention Center-Golf Director, introduced Nora Davis and Lorene Zibell who were unanimously approved by the Golf Course Commission as appointees to that commission to fill the existing vacancies. On motion by Councilman Seymour, seconded by Councilwoman Kaywood, the names of Nora Davis and Lorene Zibell were offered in nomination as appointees to the Golf Course Commission. Before a vote was taken, Councilman Kott stated that although he did not oppose the two mominees, he recalled that an agreement had been made amongst the Council to wait until September before names of candidates were submitted. He broached the matter at the meeting of August 8, 1978 and was told that selection of candi- dates was to be postponed until September. The Mayor stated if Councilman Kott had the names of candidates he wished to nominate, the Council would be happy to consider those people; Councilman Kott answered that he did not have any names because he was not prepared to offer them today since the rules had been changed. A ~ma then taken on the foregoing motion. Councilman Kott voted "No". MOTION CARRIED. Councilman Kott requested the City Clerk to supply him with a transcript of that portion of the meeting of August 8, 1978 wherein the subject matter was discussed in order to point out that the action taken was not in keeping with the policy previously set. 137: $42~000,000 ELECTRIC REVENUE BONDS, ISSUE OF 1978: Utilities Director Gordon Hoyt expressed his disappointment in having to ask for a postponement of the sale of $42 million in Electric Revenue Bonds, the background for which was- contained in his memorandum dated August 22, 1978 (on file in the City Clerk's Office) and also requesting that Item 13 be taken off the agenda. That item was to have been a finding by the Council that Southern California Edison would not lose its investment tax credit by the execution of agreements for participation in San Onofre Units 2 and 3. Mr. Hoyt explained that on Friday afternoon, August 18, 1978, Southern California Edison (SCE) informed him that they had some reservations relative to the invest- ment tax ruling issued by the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) and thus were unwilling at this time to execute a participation agreement for the San Onofre Project until they received assurance from the IRS that they would not lose their investment tax credit. Mr. Hoyt emphasized that the outcome would undoubtedly be resolved in the City's favor, but in the meantime, Edison would continue to carry Anaheim's share of the investment at their cost of money of 9 percent rather than the 6.25 percent interest rate that would have been in effect had the bonds been sold today. Such a delay would cost the City approximately $50,000 to $55,000 a month more in excess interest rates. On motion by Councilman Seymour, seconded by Councilman Overholt, the sale of Electrical Revenue Bonds, Issue of 1978, in the amount of $42 million was post- poned until further recommendations were received by the Council from the Utilities Director. Councilman Kott voted "No". MOTION CARRIED. 78-1075 City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - August 22~ 1978~ 1:30 P.M. Councilman Kott thereupon reiterated his many concerns relative to the City's generating and transmitting its own electricity and his continuing opposition to such efforts. As one Council Member, he wanted to have in his possession a report which he would, in turn, submit to the newspapers giving the amount of money spent on attorneys, travel, meals, hotel rooms, etc., involved in trying to consun~nate the sale of the bonds without having something in writing. He contended it was a irresponsible of the City Manager's Office to have partici- pated and allowed such things to happen because it was a waste of taxpayer's money, as well as participation in other projects such as Sundesert. He did not approve of the situation and urged the Council to evaluate it more closely and not to become hung up on the fact that a number of years ago Proposition "A" promised to save 25 percent in electrical energy costs. Mayor Seymour then reiterated the arguments against Councilman Kott's opposition and philosophy opposing the City's generation of electricity, basically the fact that the electorate voted 2 to i directing the Council to investigate and invest in such generation. Councilwoman Kaywood asked Mr. Hoyt if San Diego Gas and Electric was satisfied with the IRS ruling. Mr. Hoyt stated they were willing to sign the agreement, but wanted to sign last in case SCE had a problem which they did not see. Councilman Seymour moved to request the Public Utilities Board to make recommen- dations to the Council if there was any basis for a law suit against Southern California Edison for an unreasonable delay in accepting the IRS ruling regarding their investment tax credit. Councilman Roth seconded the motion. Councilman Kott voted "No". MOTION CARRIED. 150: PRELIMINARY PLANS FOR PEARSON PARK SWIMMING POOL: On motion by Councilman Kott, seconded by Councilwoman Kaywood, preliminary plans for the Pearson Park swimming pool were approved, as recommended in memorandum received August 17, 1978, from James Ruth, Director of Parks, Recreation and the Arts Department. MOTION CARRIED. 150: EXPANSION OF EQUESTRIAN CENTER: Approving a lease agreement with Texaco- Anaheim Hills, Inc., to expand the Equestrian Center from five to ten acres at $1,200 per acre per year. Mayor Seymour first noted the following in memorandum dated August 16, 1978, from the Director of Parks, Recreation and the Arts Department recommending approval of the subject lease agreement: Page 2, paragraph 2--"The Real Property Representative for the City has also reviewed the proposal andis in accord with our recommendation." He pointed out that the City entered into the relationship with Anaheim Hills in 1976, but yet the numbers had not changed. Mr. James Ruth, Director of Parks, Recreation and the Arts, stated that they checked with Joe Mueller, an appraiser, and from his professional experience in appraising the property, he stated that $12,000 an acre at this time was a fair and reasonable price. 78-1076 ~ity Halj.~..Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - August 22, 1978, 1:30 P.M. At this point, the Mayor confirmed for Councilman Overholt that the $12,000 . an acre figure was a purchase price, whereas the $1,200 figure was for leasing per acre per year. Mr. Ruth continued that Anaheim Hills did have an option to buy the land at $12,000 an acre, but that proposition was subject to the City making the determ- ination as to whether or not it wanted a fair market appraisal which was obtained. However, they were not recommending selling the property at this time. Councilman Kott asked that a copy of the appraisal be submitted to him in writing. Mr. Philip Bettencourt, representing the Applicant, explained that there was some contingencies about the real estate transaction of which the Council should be aware. (1) The City did not own the property in fee. There was an outstanding note in Deed of Trust on the property held by the First Los Angeles Bank. and Bonnie B. Grant, the successor to the Grant Corporation, and there was an acceler- ator clause on the note due. Thus, it was not the City's property to dispose of solely at its discretion without the acceleration clause and the total amount of the note coming due. Any hypothecation of the existing agreement would require the approvals of the beneficiaries under the Deed of Trust and their approval was required even for an extension of the lease. (2) The property's General Plan designation was commercial/recreational use. Therefore, the ability of the property to be used for other potentially highest and best use purposes was not in existence. (3) Ail of the utility improvements on the property were made at the sole expense of Texaco-Anaheim Hills and under the terms of the agree- ment, if the lease was extended, those improvements would have to be abandoned. The property in question was "raw" and unimproved at the rear of the Equestrian Center and did not have any access to Nohl Ranch Road except through property which they already had under lease. The value of exercising the option was pro- tected under the original lease agreement of June 13, 1976, which established the values. They had proposed to purchase the property; however, staff recom- mended that not take place because of the uncertainties of the surrounding properties in the area. The Mayor asked Mr. Bettencourt if he would have any objection if the City were to have the property appraised and if such action would delay them time-wise. Mr. Bettencourt stated that they made an official proposal to purchase the prop- erty two years prior, and Council authorized the purchase. Their request had been languishing and their Equestrian Center was now full and they wanted to build an additional stable area. Thus, they would prefer to have a time certain as to when the appraisal would be performed. He emphasized that he did not want'anyone in the City's family or the public to think that they were taking'advantage of the real estate values that were not in existence relative to the subject area. He would prefer that the City obtain the appraisal if there was any doubt involved. In answer to the Mayor, Mr. Matt Boscia, Senior Real Property Representative, stated that an appraisal could be obtained within 30 days. 78-1077 ~ity. Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - August 22~ 1978~ 1:30 P.M. MOTION: Councilman Seymour moved that the subject property be appraised and that the appraisal be submitted to the Council within 30 days. Councilwoman Kaywood seconded 'the motion. Before a vote was taken, Councilman Kott stated that he did not feel the City and taxpayer should bear the burden of paying for an appraisal on the property. Since Texaco-Anaheim Hills was interested in leasing it, they should bear that burden. As well, and as he understood the situation, there were approximately 37 acres in the subject area that in recent years had been transferred to the Parks, Recrea- tion and Arts Department. He contended the obvious reason for the transfer was to make the golf course look better on paper because the interest payments alone were very high, since the property was purchased with no money so that buildings could go around it. The interest alone was approximately $100,000 a year. In his opinion, the best interest of the taxpayer would be served by selling all of the property, as opposed to taking on another burden of leasing it for another five years, including an additional 5 acres. The Mayor stated that once an appraisal was received, if the City chose to sell the property, Anaheim Hills or someone else would be a willing buyer. Secondly, it was not unreasonable at all for the City to request and pay for an appraiser. If Anaheim Hills wanted the appraisal, such action would be subject to criticism. He would prefer that the owner, the City of Anaheim, have the property appraised and subsequently an intelligent decision could be made whether to lease or sell it to Anaheim Hills or anyone else, and that was the intent of his motion. Councilman Overholt asked the Mayor if the delay was occasioned by the fact that he felt the rental or the option price might not be fair; the Mayor answered that it was on both accounts. Councilman Overholt then asked if it was the Mayor's understanding that under the terms of the agreement the lessee would have the right to purchase the property at $12,000 an acre. The Mayor stated that would be correct subject to an appraisal, but the City was not committed to selling at $12,000 an acre. Mr. Ruth interjected that as a part of the motion, an appropriation of approximately $1,500 was needed for the appraisal costs; the Mayor considered that estimate to be high for appraising 5 acres. Mr. Boscia asked if the appraisal was to be a fee fair market value or the lease value of an equestrian center. The Mayor indicated it was to be both. Mr. Boscia then explained that he would have to obtain an estimated cost since the last time he talked to the appraiser, he indicated it would co§t approximately $1,500. The Mayor suggested that the motion include cost of an appraisal not to exceed $500; Mr. Boscia stated that not much could be obtained for that sum. Councilman Overholt stated they were only questioning the reasonableness of the rent because everything else was subject to future appraisal and negotiation. He did not want to be part of a motion agreeing to sell property subject to an appraisal at $12,000 an acre when he had serious doubts it was worth more. 78-1078 ~ity Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - August 22~ 1978~ 1:30 PoM. Mr. Bettencourt stated if it would be helpful, they would volunteer to pay one- half the cost of the appraisal. They did not want to be quarrelling over the validity of the appraisal in 30 days since it was their desire to proceed as soon as possible. The Mayor stated he would amend his motion indicating that the City would pay $750 and Texaco-Anaheim Hills would pay $750. Assistant City Manager William T. Hopkins asked if the appraisal was to be on the highest and best use of the property or the present zoning and use; the Mayor stated under the present zoning and use. Councilwoman Kaywood stated that the property was originally intended to be used for an additional 9 holes to the golf course which the City decided not to do. For that portion of land, the highest and best use was as open space because it was in the path of the reservoir, and therefore could never be developed. The Mayor clarified that the property was above and beyond the path of the reservoir. After a brief discussion between Councilmen Overholt and Seymour relative to the appraisal cost, Councilman Kott reiterated his concern relative to the matter. He stated the City would not have to sell the property as long as people could be taxed to pay the interest. He questioned the merits of leasing the property for $1,200 an acre per year if the City was going to start to do something with it. He main- tained the 37 acres should be sold to get out from under the interest payments and put the property back on the tax rolls. A vote was taken on the foregoing motion clarified as follows: That the subject property be appraised on its present zoning and use for fee fair market value and lease fair market value, and such appraisal to be submitted to the Council within 30 days, with the City to pay $750 and Anaheim Hills to pay $750 to cover the approx- imate cost of appraisal of $1,500. Councilman Kott voted "No" MOTION CARRIED. 173/109: GRANT PROPOSAL UNDER SB 1879 PROGRAM - REQUEST FOR REALLOCATION OF EXISTING SB 283 FUNDS: Councilwoman Kaywood offered Resolution No. 78R-517 for adoption, authorizing the City Manager to submit a grant proposal under SB 1879 to construct an expanded train station/transportation center at the Stadium, as recommended in memorandum dated August 16, 1978, from the Planning Department. Before a vote was taken, Assistant City Manager Hopkins answered questions posed by Councilman Kott relative to the subject, at the conclusion of which Councilman Kott stated that he could support the resolution only on the condition that if any additional money was involved for the train station, that its chief beneficiaries, the Angels, Rams and Surf, absorb those additional costs. Councilwoman Kaywood was not amenable to adding that condition to the resolution. 78-1079 City Ha.ll.~ Anahe%m, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - August 22~ 1978~ 1:30 P.M. A vote was taken on the foregoing resolution. Refer to Resolution Book. RESOLUTION NO. 78R-517: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE AND SUBMIT A GRANT PROPOSAL UNDER THE AUTHORITY OF S.B. 1879 TO CONSTRUCT AN EXPANDED TRAIN STATION/TRANSPORTATION CENTER AT ANAHEIM STADIUM; REALLOCATE A PORTION OF PREVIOUSLY AWARDED S.B. 283 FUNDS TO PROVIDE ENGINEERING AND PLAN PREPARATION FOR THE SAME. 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-571 duly passed and adopted. Councilwoman Kaywood moved to reallocate a portion of the existing S.B. 283 funds to provide the required engineering and design work for the train station/ transportation center. Councilman Overholt seconded the motion. Councilman Kott voted "No". MOTION CARRIED. 103: SANTA ANA CANYON NO. 5 ANNEXATION: Initiating annexation proceedings for Santa Ana Canyon No. 5 Annexation consisting of approximately 4.55 acres located between Santa Ana Canyon Road and the Riverside Freeway, north of Eucalyptus Drive, and setting October 3, 1978, 3:00 p.m. as the date and time for a public hearing thereon. Councilman Kott stated that it was his understanding that LAFCO was going to be hearing the subject item in January 1979. He therefore recommended that Council action be postponed until the outcome of the hearing was known. Mr. Bob Kelley, Associate Planner, pointed out that the annexation had already been approved by LAFCO and transmitted to the City to hold the public hearing where the action taken by the Council would be final. Councilman Kott stated that was not his understanding. Mr. Kelley indicated there might ~be confusion with Santa Ana Canyon Annexation No. 6 which included the Weigh Station which still had to be acted upon by LAFCO. The hearing in January of 1979 would be the one on the proposal for incorporation of the City of Vista Del Rio and also Santa Ana Canyon Annexation No. 6. Upon questioning by the Mayor, City Attorney Hopkins confirmed that since LAFCO had approved the annexation, and if after the public hearing Council found acceptance, that action would be final. Councilman Roth offered Resolution No. 78R-518 for adoption, as recommended in memorandum dated August 8, 1978, from the Planning Director. Refer to Resolu- tion Book. 78-1080 City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - August 22~ 1978, 1:30 P.M. RESOLUTION NO. 78R-518: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM INITIATING ANNEXATION PROCEEDINGS FOR SANTA ANA CANYON NO. 5 ANNEXATION TO THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AND FIXING A TIME, DATE AND PLACE OF HEARING ON SAID PROPOSED ANNEXATION PURSUANT TO SECTION 35220 OF THE GOVERNMENT CODE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA. (October 3, 1978, 3:00 P.M.) 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-518 duly passed and adopted. 158/176: SALE OF EXCESS PROPERTY AND ABANDONMENT OF ROAD AND PUBLIC UTILITY EASEMENT THEREON: Property located on the east side of Tustin Avenue, north of the Riverside Freeway--Etchandy Brothers Farms, $71,895. Councilman Kott offered Resolution No. 78R-519 for adoption, as recommended in memorandum dated August 15, 1978, from the City Engineer. Refer to Resolu- tion Book. RESOLUTION NO. 78R-519 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM APPROVING THE SALE OF CERTAIN CITY-OWNED PROPERTY AND AUTHORIZING THE CITY ENGINEER TO COMMENCE ABANDONMENT PROCEEDINGS TO AN EASEMENT FOR PUBLIC ROAD AND UTILITY PURPOSES. (78-3A - east side of Tustin Avenue, north of Riverside Freeway) 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-519 duly passed and adopted. 144: A.H.F.P. PROJECT NOS. 859 AND 913: (Orangewood Avenue, Ninth Street to Euclid Street and additional allocations) Councilman Overholt offered Resolution No. 78R-520 through 78R-523, both inclusive, for adoption, as recommended in memo- randum dated August 15, 1978, from the City Engineer. Refer to Resolution Book. 144: RESOLUTION NO. 78R-520: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM REQUESTING THE COUNTY OF ORANGE TO INCLUDE ADDITIONAL ALLOCATIONS OF $10,000 AND $26,000 RESPECTIVELY FOR AHFP NOS. 859 AND 913. 123: RESOLUTION NO. 78R-521: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM APPROVING THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF AN AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AND THE CITY OF GARDEN GROVE, AND AUTHORIZING THE MAYORAND CITY CLERK TO EXECUTE SAID AGREEMENT. (AHFP Project No. 913, street & signalization improvements) 78-1081 City Rall~ ~naheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - August 22~ 1978~ 1:30 P.M. 144: RESOLUTION NO. 78R-522: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM APPROVING THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF AN AGREEMENT FOR RIGHT-OF-WAY ACQUISITION WITH THE COUNTY OF ORANGE AND AUTHORIZING AND DIRECTING THE MAYOR AND CITY CLERK TO EXECUTE SAID AGREEMENT. (AHFP No. 859, right of way acquisition) 144: RESOLUTION NO. 78R-523: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM APPROVING THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF AN AGREEMENT FOR DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION WITH THE COUNTY OF ORANGE AND AUTHORIZING AND DIRECTING THE MAYOR AND CITY CLERK TO EXECUTE SAID AGREEMENT. (AHFP No. 913, design and construction) 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-520 through 78R-523, both inclusive, duly passed and adopted. 150/174: THIRD YEAR FUNDING - SB 174 PROGRAM: Councilwoman Kaywoodoffered Resolution No. 78R-524 for adoption as recommended in memorandum dated August 15, 1978, from the Intergovernmental Relations Office. Refer to Resolution Book. RESOLUTION NO. 78R-524: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM APPROVING THE APPLICATION FOR FUNDS UNDER THE ROBERTI-Z'BERG URBAN OPEN-SPACE AND RECREATION PROGRAM ACT (SB 174) FOR PHASE II DEVELOPMENT OF PERALTA CANYON PARK AND AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE SAID APPLICATION ON BEHALF OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM. ($68,070) 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-524 duly passed and adopted. 150/174: LAND AND WATER CONSERVATION FUNDS FOR THE JOHN MARSHALL PARK PROJECT: ($250,000) Councilwoman Kaywood offered Resolution No. 78R-525 for adoption as recommended in memorandum dated August 15, 1978, from the Intergovernmental Relations Office. Refer to Resolution Book. RESOLUTION NO. 78R-525: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY oF ANAHEIM APPROVING THE APPLICATION FOR LAND AND WATER CONSERVATION FUNDS FOR THE JOHN MARSHALL PARK PROJECT AND AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE SAID APPLICATION ON BEHALF OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM. 78-1082 City Ha.ll, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - Ausust 22~ 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 No. 78R-525 duly passed and adopted. 169: ADOPTION OF MASTER PLAN OF BIKEWAYS: (Trails Element dated August 1, 1978) Councilwoman Kaywood offered Resolution No. 78R-526 for adoption as recommended in memorandum dated August 15, 1978, from the Intergovernmental Relations Office. Refer to Resolution Book. RESOLUTION NO. 78R-526: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM ADOPTING THE ANAHEIM MASTER PLAN OF BIKEWAYS, TRAILS ELEMENT, DATED AUGUST 1, 1978. 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-526 duly passed and adopted. 101/123: ANAHEIM STADIUM - REFUNDING OF BONDS: Assistant City Manager Hopkins introduced the series of resolutions involving the refunding of the Stadium Bond Issue. He explained they were not for the expansion of the Stadium, but for re- funding of the existing bond issues to reimburse the City upon receipt of the proceeds from that refunding issue for the out-of-pocket costs incurred. Mr. Hopkins stated that one further resolution was also necessary authorizing the City Attorney and the Finance Director to execute certain documents and instru- ments relating to refinancing the Stadium. In addition, if the Council were to adopt the proposed resolutions, the refunding of the existing bond issue would pay the $70,000 necessary to be advanced for the contracts. If not, the City would be required to pay the $70,000 in order to provide for the necessary changes required before bringing the Rams to Anaheim. Councilman Seymour offered Resolution Nos. 78R-527 through 78R-532, both inclusive, for adoption as recommended in memorandum dated August 15, 1978, from the City Attorney's Office. 123: RESOLUTION NO. 78R-527: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM APPROVING THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF AN AGREEMENT WITH CITY OF ANAHEIM (CALIFORNIA) STADIUM, INC., AND AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR AND CITY CLERK TO EXECUTE SAID AGREEMENT. (advancement for costs of consultant services, to be reimbursed from bond sale proceeds) 123: RESOLUTION NO. 78R-528: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM APPROVING THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF AN AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AND SRI INTERNATIONAL AND AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR AND CITY CLERK TO EXECUTE SAID AGREEMENT. (financial and economic analysis) 78-1083 ~ity Hal~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - August 22~ 1978, 1:30 P.M. 123: RESOLUTION NO. 78R-529: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM APPROVING THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF AN AGREEMENT WITH PHILLIPS BRANDT REDDICK AND L. D. KING, A JOINT VENTURE, AND AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR AND CITY CLERK TO EXECUTE SAID AGREEMENT. (EIR for Stadium expansion) 123: RESOLUTION NO. 78R-530: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM APPROVING THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF AN AGREEMENT WITH GOLDMAN SACHS & COMPANY AND AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR AND CITY CLERK TO EXECUTE SAID AGREEMENT. (underwriting services for bond sale) 123: RESOLUTION NO. 78R-531: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM APPROVING THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF AN AGREEMENT WITH MUDGE ROSE GUTHRIE & ALEXANDER AND ROURKE & WOODRUFF, ATTORNEYS AT LAW, AND AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR AND CITY CLERK TO EXECUTE SAID AGREEMENT. (bond counsel) 101/152: RESOLUTION NO. 78R-532: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AUTHORIZING THE CITY ATTORNEY AND THE FINANCE DIRECTOR TO EXECUTE CERTAIN DOCUMENTS AND INSTRUMENTS IN CONNECTION WITH REFINANCING OF THE ANAHEIM STADIUM. Before a vote was taken, Councilman Kott asked the City Attorney if Anaheim Stadium, Inc., (ASI) was a private corporation and if he considered it a prudent matter or a legal matter to have public funds loaned to a private corporation. Mr. Hopkins deferred to Assistant City Attorney Frank Lowry who was working on the contracts on a daily basis. Mr. Lowry explained that ASI owned the Stadium, but not the underlying property. In this case, ASI was the type of corporation existing for the purpose of operating a public stadium and limited by its Trust Indenture. Thus, it had no funds of its own for the advancement, and one of the purposes of the refund issue was to allow the indenture to be modified so that in the future, ASI would have the power to execute documents, such as those proposed, whereas now they did not have that authority. ASI was not without funds, but it could not use them for the proposed purpose. They needed to have the refund regardless of what happened otherwise. Their hands would be tied relative to any kinds of improvements. He pointed out that the Council had approved all 5 of the documents on July 25, 1978, but only as letter proposals. Since that time, the City's Bond Counsel and underwriters in New York preferred to have those agreements in the form of written contracts. Thus, there was no difference in what was being presented today than what the Council approved in letter proposals on July 25, 1978 (see minutes that date). Councilman Kott stated that the concept was adopted, but now that it was time to sign the papers, he questioned whether or not it was technically correct, legally correct and prudent to use public funds to be loaned to a private corporation. Mr. Lowry stated that although he did not have the power or authority to make a judgment as to the prudency of the situation, there was no doubt in his mind as to its legality. In concluding, Councilman Kott asked what would happen in the event of non-payment on the bonds. Mr. Lowry stated that if through the Facilities or Site Lease the City were to default, the bond owners would then own the Stadium. 78-1084 City Hall~ Anah~im~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - August 22~ 1978~ 1:30 P.M. A vote was taken on the foregoing resolutions and carried by the following vote: 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-527 through 78R-532, both inclusive, duly passed and adopted. On motion by Councilman Roth, seconded by Councilman Seymour, $70,000 was autho- rized to be appropriated for out-of-pocket costs relating to the foregoing series of agreements. Councilman Kott voted "No". MOTION CARRIED. 127: NOVEMBER 1978 WATER REVENUE BOND ELECTION: Councilman Seymour offered Resolution Nos. 78R-533 and 78R-534 for adoption, as recommended in memorandum dated August 18, 1978, from the Utilities Director. Refer to Resolution Book. RESOLUTION NO. 78R-533: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM, CALIFORNIA, ORDERING, CALLING, PROVIDING FOR AND GIVING NOTICE OF A SPECIAL MUNICIPAL ELECTION TO BE HELD IN SAID CITY ON TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 7, 1978, FOR THE PURPOSE OF SUBMITTING A PROPOSITION FOR THE ISSUANCE OF WATER REVENUE BONDS BY SAID CITY, AND CONSOLIDATING SAID ELECTION WITH THE STATEWIDE GENERAL ELECTION TO BE HELD ON SAID DATE. RESOLUTION NO. 78R-534: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM, CALIFORNIA, REQUESTING THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF THE COUNTY OF ORANGE TO CONSOLI- DATE THE SPECIAL REVENUE BOND ELECTION OF SAID CITY TO BE HELD NOVEMBER 7, 1978, WITH THE STATEWIDE GENERAL ELECTION TO BE HELD ON THE SAME DAY. Roll Call Vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: COUNCIL MEMBERS: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Overholt, Kaywood, Roth and Seymour Ko tt None The Mayor declared Resolution Nos. 78R-533 and 78R-534 duly passed and adopted. Councilman Seymour offered Resolution No. 78R-535 for adoption, authorizing certain Council Members to file a written argument for and against the City measure (last date to file arguments for or against a City Measure, September 1, 1978 - 5:00P.M.). Refer to Resolution Book. RESOLUTION NO. 78R-535: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM, CALIFORNIA, AUTHORIZING CERTAIN OF ITS MEMBERS TO FILE WRITTEN ARGUMENTS FOR AND AGAINST A CITY MEASURE. 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-535 duly passed and adopted. 78-1085 ~ity Hall, Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - August 22~ 1978~ 1:30 P.M. The Mayor stated that he would write the argument in favor of the Water Revenue Bond; Councilwoman Kaywood and Councilmen Roth and Overholt indicated that they would join the Mayor in so doing. Councilman Kott acknowledged that he would write the opposing argument. Councilman Seymour offered Resolution No. 78R-536 for adoption. Refer to Resolution Book. 123: RESOLUTION NO. 78R-536: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM APPROVING THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF AN AGREEMENT WITH O'MELVENY & MEYERS AND AUTHORIZING AND DIRECTING THE MAYOR AND CITY CLERK TO EXECUTE SAID AGREEMENT. (bond counsel in connection with authorization and issuance of water revenue bonds) 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-536 duly passed and adopted. 116: EXECUTIVE MANAGEMENT SEMINAR: On motion by Councilman Seymour, seconded by Councilwoman Kaywood, the Executive Management Seminar scheduled for September 6, 1978 at the Convention Center was postponed until Wednesday, September 13, 1978 at 9:00 a.m. at the Brookhurst Community Center. MOTION CARRIED. 135: PROPOSAL BY ELKS CLUB FOR UTILIZATION OF EXCESS LAND AT ANAHEIM HILLS GOLF COURSE: Councilman Kott stated that the Elks Club had submitted a proposal to the City of Anaheim to lease part of its land on a basis wherein the Elks would construct a building to the mutual benefit of the Club and the City, and at the end of 50 years the building would revert to the City. The letter proposal dated July 11, 1978 was brought to his (Kott's) attention one month later. Since that time, he received inquiries on the matter and as the Council was probably aware, the Golf Course Commission unanimously approved the concept. He then deferred to one of the repre- sentatives from the Elks Club who was present in the Chamber audience. Dr. George Kirkelie then read a prepared statement relaying the following: The Building Committee of the Anaheim Elks Lodge believed the concept of the utiliza- tion of useful excess City land at the Anaheim Hills Golf Course to be of mutual benefit to both the Course and the Anaheim Elks Lodge. They could and would pro- mote much more participation and activity as a separate entity at the same geo- graphical location than that experienced up to now, one of their most active committees being their golf committee. The proposed structure would make avail- able facilities for public social functions, now lacking, when'the facility was not in use by the Lodge. The Golf Clubhouse, food and beverage management and the Elks management would coordinate required needs and services. Revenue generated at the Anaheim Hills Golf Course came from the food and beverage concession, golf carts and green fees, and those sources of revenue could and would be increased through such a mutual venture. As mentioned in the letter to Mr. Tom Liegler, the structure would revert to the City in 50 years according to State laws relating to public City land. The Anaheim Elks Lodge was now ready to find a new home and to encourage and stimulate growth in their membership and activities, and the Anaheim Hills Golf Course location and facilities would provide that opportunity, being in the path of a growth area for years to come. 78-1086 City Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - Ausust 22~ 1978~ 1:30 P.M. In concluding, Dr. Kirkelie stated they were present to request Council consid- eration and acceptance of the proposal with specific contractual agreements pending. They, in turn, would present the recommended proposal by the Building Committee to the Elks Lodge General Membership, Officers and Board of Trustees for their approval by popular vote if the Council's decision today was in the affirmative. Councilman Roth stated that the concept proposed was something that had been discussed some months ago even in the management seminars. His problem concerned the fact that AHGC had been a loss to the taxpayers in the amount of approximately $100,000 a year and a previous report by the Assistant City Manager indicated that even under caretaker's status, it would cost approximately $150,000 a year. He was therefore interested in doing something with the facility, and they were now waiting for a report requested from staff regarding the possible sale of the facilities. When it was noted in the newspaper that he (Roth) was concerned about the Course's continuing loss to the taxpayer, he received word from two groups asking to let them know of the City's proposal in the event the decision was to sell the facility. He recommended that the Council wait until the report was provided before making any decisions. Assistant City Manager Hopkins interjected that they were in the pro- cess of concluding the report and expected it to be furnished in about two weeks time relative to alternatives. Councilman Roth asked that it be expedited and thereafter the Council should have a reasonable length of time to ascertain if there was a sincere buyer. Such action would still not prevent the Elks from doing the same thing or negotiating with new owners. Councilman Roth asked that the Council, at this time, do nothing more than wait for the report, then make it public to find out if interest could be generated in having someone purchase the Course. If not, then the City could proceed with the Elks proposal or a proposal from anyone after a reasonable length of time perhaps after it was on the market 30 to 60 days. MOTION: Councilman Kott stated it was interesting to note that Councilman Roth was now concerned with the huge debt of the Anaheim Hills Golf Course. It was actually $290,689 a year as of June 30, 1978. Yet, when he recommended selling some of the land off in the subject area ~o alleviate that debt, no one on the Council moved to support it. In fact, not only 35 acres were involved relative to the Equestrian Center, but also there were 37 acres along the road at the Golf Course and approximately 65 additional acres in the area not being used. Thus, there was a total of approximately 135 acres that could be sold which would put the Golf Course in the black since the huge expense involved the payment of interest. He did not see any problem with the proposal made by the Elks and thereupon moved to accept it in concept as submitted. Councilman Seymour seconded the motion on the condition that the concept would move further ahead only. on the basis that within the next 90 days, the City would not choose an alternative of sale or other arrangement. Councilman Kott accepted the amendment. Before a vote was taken, Dr. Kirkelie emphasized that time was of the essence since their present facility was not adequate. Also, the Building Committee felt there was a possibility that Anaheim would sell or whatever would be legal, such as subdividing the excess land, and be able to come out in the black or reasonably close to it, while still retaining the Golf Course. 78-1087 ~ity Hall, Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - August 22~ 1978~ 1:30 P.M. Mayor Seymour stated that it was necessary to establish a dialogue with the public--the people from HACMAC, the Planning Commission, the Golf Course Commissio~ Finance people, etc., and that was his reason in asking for 90 days. For example, if the property was sold off, what would be the Planning Commission's viewpoint relative to development, type of density and the like? Such questions had to be answered. After submission of the report, a work session should take place with the Planning Commission, HACMAC and Golf Course Commission as to how to resolve the matter, but that was not included in the motion at this time. Councilman Overholt stated that he was in total support of the concept proposed by the Elks which he understood to be approval in concept only, and not binding. The concept of selling a facility for a joint use of both public and private sector was not new and something which he favored. Councilwoman Kaywood acknowledged Mr. Tom Liegler, Stadium-Convention Center-Golf Director, and asked for his comments before taking a vote on the motion. Mr. Liegler stated that he believed the Elks Club concept was being weighed. The City Council should be aware that his office acted under the direction of the City Council to proceed to ask them to join with the City under the general area of Proposition 13 where taxpayers indicated they wanted private industry, and the public sector to get together on certain concepts in the best interest of the taxpayer. If there were some concerns, his department was to blame and not the Elks. The Elks, in good faith, had been working wi~h members of his department as to a general basic concept where many factors had to be worked out in the future. Up to now, no one had spent any money, but from this point on, someone, and the Elks agreed, must provide plans, drawings, conceptual factors, etc. At that point, the proposal would be submitted to the Council. He hoped there was no taint on the Elks who had been working with his department for 6 months. Mayor Seymour explained there was no such taint, but what was being expressed by the Council if the motion passed, was that they wanted to proceed with the Elks in the concept proposed. However, the problem they believed they were facing was much larger than just the transaction with the Elks. A vote was taken on the foregoing motion confirmed as follows: Accept in concept the proposal submitted by the Elks Club in the letter dated July 11, 1978 relative to utilization of excess City land at the Anaheim Hills Golf Course to the mutual benefit of the Elks and the City on the basis that within 90 days, the City does not choose an alternative of sale or other arrangement. MOTION CARRIED. 156: PRESENTATION - RECOMMENDATIONS PROPOSED BY ORANGE COUNTY HUMAN RELATIONS COMMISSION RELATIVE TO RECRUITMENT AND SELECTION OF A CHIEF OF POLICE FOR ANAHEIM: Ms. Ruth Alatori, 1272 East La Palma Avenue, representative of the Orange County Human Relations Commission (OCHRC), read the following prepared statement: "I am speaking today on behalf of the Orange County Human Relations Commission. The Commission has reviewed the proposed police chief recruitment plans submitted by Mr. Talley. We are pleased that community representatives were included in the proposals. However, the plans are cumbersome, inefficient, and lack sensitivity to the community. It would be a difficult and time consuming task to realign the proposed process. Instead of making such an attempt, the Commission is making the following recommendations. 78-1o8~ City Hal~, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - August 22, 1978~ 1:30 P.M. 1. The Personnel Department screen applications and select from 15 to 20 of the most highly qualified applicants. 2. A selection committee interview the applicants recommended by the Personnel Department. After the interviews are completed the committee should recom~nend the top 3 to 5 candidates in rank order to the City Manager and City Council for the final selection of the new police chief. Due to the severe fracture in relations between the police department and the community, we feel that it is essential for the community to be involved and participate in the selection of the new police chief, but the participation must be meaningful and must not merely provide for token input. We recommend that the selection committee be composed of 9 members, 4 of the members should be technical and administrative representatives and 5 should be community representatives. The committee should include: 1 educator of police science or criminal justice. 1 police chief from another city. 1 representative from the Anaheim Police Association 1 representative of City management 1 representative from the Community Serivces Advisory Board 1 representative from the Anaheim Police Community Relations Committee 1 representative from the County Human Relations Commission I representative of business to be selected by the Anaheim Chamber of Commerce 1 representative of the minority community to be selected by the organization, People for Community Development. The City Council, City management and the Police Department all function to serve the needs of the community. However, confidence in the system deteriorated and Anaheim is not alone in dealing with this problem. The concerns which have been voiced by the community are serious and should not be taken lightly. All segments of the community have needs which must be met if faith is to be restored. The Commission hopes that these recommendations will be adopted by City Council. On a foundation of cooperative efforts, better, more positive relations can grown and problems can be solved by constructive means. Thank you." After Ms. Alatori read the statement, the Mayor suggested a 10-minute recess in order to supply Council Members with copies of the proposal. Councilwoman Kaywood suggested a one week's continuance. The Mayor answered that the Council should take action because of the calendar laid out by the City Manager. Councilman Kott agreed that the matter should be decided at today's meeting. RECESS: By general consent, the Council recessed for 10 minutes. (3:10 P~M.) AFTER RECESS: Mayor Seymour called the meeting to order, all Council Members being present. (3:20 P.M.) 78-1089 City Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - August 22~ 1978~ 1:30 P.M.~.. The Mayor stated he had a personal concern relative to the selection process. He respected and understood that the City Charter set forth and required that the City Manager make a recommendation for approval by the City Council of any department head, including the Police Chief and, in practicality, the Council held only veto power over any candidate. On the other hand, he believed the Selection Committee should be advisory to the City Council, rather than the City Manager. The decision to be made prior to the first of the year was a very im- portant one and considering the many concerns and problems that had occurred within the Police Department, he reiterated that a Selection Committee, as pro- posed by Ms. Atatori, or another, be able to work independently of the City Manager and work for the City Council in making recommendations to them. Councilman Roth took issue with a statement in MS. Alatori's proposal that the plan submitted by the City Manager was cumbersome, inefficient and lacked sensitivity to the community, which he believed to be an opinion. He wanted the matter continued one week in order to obtain more information since he was working with a one-sided opinion. Thus, he could not support the proposal until he received documentation from both sides. Councilman Kott contended that the Council had documentation from the other side, referring to a report from the Personnel Department which he had for one week and assumed that all Council Members received it. It appeared to him that everybody would have a say in the matter, except the City Council, since there was nothing in the list of procedures that included the Council. He did not approve of the procedure and it was his opinion that the City Manager was attempting to end run the City Council in the process. As an elected official, he favored a Selection Committee independent of the City Manager to give a recommendation to the City Council instead of the City Manager and his department heads. Assistant City Manager Hopkins stated that the Charter was quite explicit in the manner in which department heads were employed by the City. The development of the selection procedure, was accomplished to give the Council as much input as possible into the process before a final decision was made. The City Manager would recommend to the City Council those candidates he felt proper. Mr. Hopkins continued that the program was devised to accomplish several things: (1) To provide for as wide an area of recruitment as possible to obtain the best candidates, (2) To make certain the technical competence question would be answered by having a technical board meet with them in going over the candidates' qualifica- tions, and (3) Because of the community interest and necessity to make certain the candidates recommended would be consistent with that community interest, the City Manager recommended a Citizens Advisory Committee also operating on the same time frame and basis as the Technical Committee. Out of that procedure, would come 2, 3, 4 or 5 top candidates to be reviewed by the management staff in terms of their relationship with the particular department. The final recommendation would then be presented to the Council who would also have the opportunity to review those candidates and come to a final decision. The difficulty in allowing more input was primarily one of logistics and secondarily was the potential in terms of candi- dates who would be willing to go through that type of process. Mr. Hopkins suggested if the Council wished to expand the advisory group, this was something that could be looked at. However, he was concerned that at the end of the process the Council might wish to go in one direction, and management the other, and this was something management wanted to avoid. 78-1090 ~ity Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - August 22~ 1978~ 1:30 P.M. The Mayor stated he did not have the type of confidence Mr. Hopkins had with the Advisory Committee reporting to the City Manager. He also did not see any violation with respect to the City Charter by asking that the Selection Committee report to the Council, while permitting the City Manager to continue his efforts in the process. MOTION: Councilman Overholt commended the Orange County Human Relations Commission for providing input, but his concern, coupled with that of the Assistant City Manager, was that the organizational setup not usurp the authority of the City Manager under the City Charter. The Mayor's proposal would do just that in saying that the Commit- tee would recommend the top candidates. The Manager's proposal provided for recruit- ment opening on August 18, 1978 with the last day to apply being October 12, 1978. Other than organizational matters, nothing would be done until October 12. He therefore proposed that the Council receive the recommendations of the OCHRC and consider those along with City Manager's program at the September 12, 1978 Council meeting to ascertain the direction in which to proceed, and he so moved. Councilman Roth seconded the motion. MOTION: Mayor Seymour was concerned relative to the time factor and thus stated he would vote against the motion. It was important that the Council truly involve itself with selecting a most important position that had come under attack twice in the last 4 to 5 years, most recently causing a great deal of concern to the entire community with the issues of the Plummer matter, Circle Seal, and Little People's Park. The community had a need to know that the process of selection of a Chief of Police was truly an independent, fair and impartial one. It was his opinion that the process outlined by the City Manager would lead to nothing more than a "rubber stamp" endorsement of the wishes of the City Manager and the Personnel Department. He was concerned that the process be separated and if Ms. Alatori's recommendations were not satisfactory, he would offer a substitute motion to accomplish the same end. There was no intent to circumvent the City Charter, and he believed the City Attorney would uphold the concurrence with the City Charter in his proposed recommendation. Councilman Seymour then moved the following: That a select committee of 5 be appointed and that committee report directly to the City Council as to their recommendations after a review of 15 to 20 applicants, as well as the thoughts and recommendations of the City Manager, which committee would be made up as follows: (1) Chief of Police of a department ideally within Orange County, but if necessary Southern California or California, that a majority of the Council could agree came from a respected department with a reputation for upholding the law and order. (2) An individual from the City of Anaheim's Police Department to be selected by a vote of that department. He used the words Police Department as different from Police Association because there were officers not members of the association, and he wanted to be certain the entire department was represented. (3) That the minority community be represented by Mr. Amin David. (4 & 5) Two respected citizens of the community, and by lending their name in hand, that the community would be assured that the procedure followed was a fair and im- partial recruitment to find the best Police Chief for the City, those being Herb Leo and Past Chief of Police and Elected Official, Mark Stephenson. Councilman Kott seconded the motion for the purpose of discussion. 78-1091 City Hall, Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - August 22~ 1978~ 1:30 P.M. Councilman Kott stated that relative to the selection, he did not perceive Amin David as representative of the minority community, but rather as one of the so-called respected citizens of Anaheim. He would view the people who were at the Council meeting on August 8, 1978 relative to Little People's Park as being representative of the minority community, and he preferred to have some- one from that community on the committee. Mayor Seymour believed Amin David did presently and had in the past represented the minority community and asked Ms. Alatori if she found agreement with what he had proposed. Ms. Alatori stated there was some agreement and some disagreement. Mr. David was an associate of hers and she had known him for some time. He had never represented himself of the minority community, nor had she. Although he had been active in minority issues for some time and was well respected, she did not consider him a member of the grassroots community group. The people who were at the previous meeting and voiced their concern asked that they have representation in the Police Chief selection process, and it was the opinion of the Commission, as well as her own, that they should be afforded that representation. The Mayor asked if, in lieu of her proposal, could she support his proposal. Ms. Alatori stated that she did not believe the Mayor's proposal provided for the broad cross-section of the population, but she would support his proposal in lieu of the City Manager's. MOTION: Councilman Overholt thereupon offered a substitute motion--to receive the recommendations of the Orange County Human Relations Commission, as well as the recommendations made by the Mayor, and consider those, along with the City Manager's program, at the September 12, 1978 Council meeting. Councilwoman Kaywood seconded the motion. Before a vote was taken, Ms. Alatori stated it was her understanding there was a meeting scheduled at the Little People's Park and the community was expecting a response from the City Council to the request made at the meeting of August 8, 1978, one being that they participate in the selection process. Councilman Overholt stated he was in full accord, but wanted to discuss the matter on September 12, 1978, when the City Manager would have returned from vacation. He did not believe the Council should be rushed into that aspect. A vote was then taken on the substitute motion by Councilman Overholt. MOTION CARRIED. 134: PUBLIC HEARING - GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 147: To consider alternate proposals of ultimate land uses, single-family residential, multiple-family residential, commercial, office, industrial, open space, and combinations of these for the areas listed below: I. Southwest corner of Ninth Street and Katella Avenue encompassing 3.2 acres. II. Area south of Miraloma Way between the Riverside and Orange Freeways Inter- change encompassing approximately 13.4 acres. 78-1092 City Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - August 22~ 1978~ 1:30 P.M. III. Area encompassing approximately 47.7 acres south of the Riverside Freeway, north of the Santa Ana River, between Glassell Street and Tustin Avenue. IV. Northwest corner of Orangethorpe Avenue and Imperial Highway consisting of approximately 5.8 acres. The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC78-161, recommended that Exhibit "A" (medium density) be adopted for Area I--approximately 3.2 acres at the southwest corner of Katella Avenue and Ninth Street; that Exhibit "A" (general industrial) be adopted for Area II--approximately 13.4 acres located south of Miraloma Way between the Riverside and Orange Freeways; that no change be adopted for Area III--approximately 47.7 acres located south of the Riverside Freeway and north of the Santa Ana River Commission has recommended that subject area be withdrawn from consideration; and that no change be adopted for Area IV-- approximately 5.8 acres located at the northwest corner of Orangethorpe Avenue and Imperial Highway since the property owner requested that consideration be withdrawn for this area. In addition, the City Planning Commission, pursuant to the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act, after reviewing the project as well as the initial studies, found no significant environmental impacts and therefore recommended that a negative declaration be approved. AREA I - EXHIBITS "A" THROUGH "D": Mr. Joel Fick, Associate Planner, described the location, as well as the 4 alternatives proposed for Area I currently desig- nated ~eneral commercial to medium density residential. Exhibit "A" carried the recommendation of the City Planning Commission calling for medium density RM-1200 zoning as sought by the property owner reflecting the highest residential intensity on the General Plan. Apartments or attached units would typically be located under this designation; Exhibit "B" proposed low-medium density; Exhibit "C" low density and Exhibit "D" commercial/professional. Mayor Seymour asked if anyone wished to address the Council regarding Area I; there being no response, he closed the public hearing on that area. AREA II - EXHIBIT "A": Mr. Fick explained this was a City initiated request to bring the General Plan into conformance with existing zoning and land uses in the area which he described. Exhibit "A" proposed a general industrial designation over the entire subject property. Mayor Seymour asked if anyone wished to address the Council regarding Area II; there being no response, he closed the public hearing on that area. AREA III - EXHIBIT "A" AND "B": Mr. Fick reported that in evaluating an exten- sion of time for Reclassification No. 76-77-49 and Conditional Use Permit No. 1703, to permit a resource recovery and recycling operation, the City Council initiated General Plan Amendment proceedings for the subject area on February 21, 1978. The Land Use Element of the General Plan presently designated the subject area for open space (special park site) land uses. Exhibit "A" proposed a general industrial designation for the entire 47.7 acres and Exhibit "B", general industrial on 17.1 acres and open space on 30.6 acres. The Santa Ana River/San Diego Greenbelt Implementation Plan (middle river segment) prepared by the Greenbelt Commission in 1976, designated portions of the site for "planned recreation". Staff in the Parks, Recreation and Arts Department indicated that currently there were no plans for 78-1093 City Hall~ ~naheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - August 22, 1978, 1:30 P.M. development of the area for park purposes. In addition, staff in the County of Orange Environmental Management Agency indicated no opposition to the proposed General Plan Amendment alternatives, provided that the development would give recognition to the River Greenbelt Corridor and not conflict with proposed trails systems. The City Planning Commission recommended that no change be adopted for Area III and that consideration be withdrawn at this time due to pending zoning actions. Mayor Seymour asked if anyone wished to address the Council regarding Area III; there being no response, he closed the public hearing on that area. AREA IV - EXHIBITS "A" THROUGH "C": Mr. Fick explained that the request was initiated by the property owner of one of the parcels in the subject area'to amend the General Plan to reflect general commercial. Exhibit "A" proposed a general commercial designation; Exhibit "B" low-medium density and Exhibit "C", low density. The applicant requested that the General Plan Amendment proceedings be terminated since he was unable to obtain Caltrans property at the intersection which he wanted to acquire to integrate with a shopping center proposal. The Planning Commission thus honored the request. Mayor Seymour asked if anyone wished to address the Council regarding Area IV; there being no response, he closed the public hearing on that area. The Mayor again asked if anyone in the Chamber wished to be heard on any of the areas, I through IV; there was no response. Councilman Roth asked Mr. Fick if the City was proceeding to purchase the property at the corner of Orangethorpe and Imperial relating to Area IV. Mr. Fick stated he had contacted the Community Development Department that morning and was informed that Caltrans offered the property to them and that department was currently evaluating the feasibility of the site for residential purposes. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT - NEGATIVE DECLARATION: On motion by Councilwoman Kaywood, seconded by Councilman Roth, the City Council finds that this project, General Plan Amendment No. 147, will have no significant effect on the environ- ment and is exempt from the requirement to prepare an EIR. MOTION CARRIED. Councilwoman Kaywood offered Resolution No. 78R-537 for adoption, as recommended by the City Planning Commission in Resolution No. PC78-161. Refer to Resolution Book. RESOLUTION NO. 78R-537: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM APPROVING AN AMENDMENT TO THE GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATED AS AMENDMENT NO. 147, EXHIBIT "A" FOR AREA I; EXHIBIT "A" FOR AREA II; AND NO CHANGE FOR AREAS III AND IV. 78-1094 City Hall~ Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - August 22~ 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 No. 78R-537 duly passed and adopted. 176: PUBLIC HEARING - ABANDONMENT NO. 77-26A: Application by Rondell Homes, Inc., to abandon an existing public easement located north of Lincoln Avenue, east of Brookhurst Street. Mrs. Judy Donnelly, 117 North Aladdin, stated she had been asked by the residents surrounding the subject parcel to request a continuance of the hearing on the abandonment because they wanted to have the hearing concurrent with the public hearing on Reclassification 78-79-4. She thereupon submitted a petition signed by 333 residents opposed to the reclassification and requested the public hearing be heard at that time. City Clerk Linda Roberts reported that the public hearing on Reclassification No. 78-79-4 would be coming before the Council on the Planning Commission Consent Calendar September 5, 1978. Councilman Kott stated it was his intention to request a public hearing on that ~tem when it was presented to the Council on their agenda that day. The Mayor asked if the applicant or applicant's agent was present and desirous of being heard. No one was present. At the conclusion of a brief discussion as to a hearing date, Councilman Seymour moved to continue the public hearing on Abandonment No. 77-26A to September 19, 1978, at 7:30 p.m. to be heard in conjunction with Reclassification No. 78-79-4. Councilman Kott seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. LITTLE PEOPLE'S PARK: City Attorney Hopkins explained that at the last Council meeting, he was requested to investigate the matter involving the Little People's Park incident July 30, 1978. After making a preliminary investigation, it was his opinion that there was a conflict of interest on the part of the City Attorney's Office due to the Charter obligations of the office. Therefore, in accordance with the directive of the City Council, the matter was referred to the District Attorney on August 10, 1978. He had cooperated and given all data possible to the District Attorney, and it was estimated that their report would be forthcoming in approximately 30 days. That was the earliest it could be accomplished due to the number of wit- nesses that had to be interviewed. The Mayor added that the Council received a letter dated August 18, 1978, from Mr. Richard Ornelas and Mrs. Connie Verdin, co-chairpersons of the People for Community Development representing Little People's Park, asking that the meeting scheduled for the next evening, August 23, 1978, at the park be held as planned. Councilwoman Kaywood questioned the intent of holding the meeting since the District Attorney's report had not yet been received. At the lengthy meeting held August 8, 1978, the intention was to have a meeting on August 23, 1978 after the City Attorney's report was available for both the Council and the People for Community Development. 78-1095 City Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - August 22~ !978~ 1:30 P.M. The Mayor stated that the purpose of the referenced letter was to confirm the meeting with the City Council as agreed upon August 8, 1978, which would be a hearing to deal with the problem of police harassment in Anaheim. They also anticipated receiving the Council's response to their request of August 8, 1978. During the interim, they had also met and discussed other concerns which they would present for Council consideration on August 23, 1978. MOTION: Councilwoman Kaywood moved that the meeting scheduled for August 23, 1978, at Little People's Park be continued for 30 days when the District Attorney's report would be available for discussion. Councilman Overholt seconded the motion for the purpose of discussion. Mayor Seymour stated that he would oppose the motion on the basis that the Council promised they would meet with the community on August 23, 1978. In spite of the fact that no report from the District Attorney was yet available, he pointed out that their letter indicated there were other concerns which they wished to discuss and the investigation of the July 30th incident was just one of those concerns. Thus, he was willing to meet with the community tomorrow evening or at any time and at any place, and nothing would be gained by putting the problem off. Councilman Roth questioned the facilities and arrangements made for the meeting relative to power, seating and the like. City Clerk Roberts stated it was her understanding that electricity was available in the park, Property Maintenance was going to set up the sound system, and 100 chairs would be provided by the Parks, Recreation and the Arts Department. Councilwoman Kaywood asked what the cost for setup would be. Assistant City Manager Hopkins stated that although he did not have the precise figures, he believed it would cost $150 to $250. He continued that an alternative might be to meet in some facility already available that would not incur the cost of the setup that would be required in the park. Councilwoman Kaywood also pointed out the fact that further discussion on the selection of a Police Chief was going to take place on September 12, 1978 and thus additional information would be available at that point. Councilman Overholt asked if any further dialogue had taken place between Mr. Ornelas and any Council Member or staff since the meeting of August 8, 1978. The Mayor explained that he did not know about staff, but that he had two or three telephone conversations with Mr. Ornelas since the last meeting, the purpose being Mr. Ornelas' inquiries regarding the investigation of the incident. At one point, he received a message from someone stating the investigation rePort would be back by August 22, 1978. He relayed that message to Mr. Ornelas, but subsequently he found out it was incorrect, and he again talked to Mr. Ornelas and informed him the report was going to be available in 30 days. In that conversation, he suggested two points: One, that the report would not be available for discussion on August 23 and secondly, there had been some concern expressed that perhaps a better meeting place might be indoors at another facility. Mr. Ornelas responded by indi- cating that he would talk to some of the people he represented and then get back to the Mayor. The next communication was the letter dated August 18, 1978. 78-1096 City Hall~ Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - August 22, 1978~ 1:30 P.M. Councilman Overholt then asked if the Library basement was available for the meeting tomorrow night as his vote on a continuance was going to be influenced by questions relating to the place of the meeting. RECESS: By general consent, the Council recessed for 5 minutes. (4:05 P.M.) AFTER RECESS: The Mayor called the meeting to order, all Council Members being present. (4:10 P.M.) City Clerk Roberts reported that the Mul[ipurpose Room at the Main Library was available tomorrow evening. A vote was then taken on the foregoing motion for continuance of the scheduled August 23, 1978 meeting for 30 days and failed to carry by the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Kaywood COUNCIL MEMBERS: Overholt, Kott, Roth and Seymour COUNCIL MEMBERS:~ None MOTION: Councilman Overholt stated that the August 18, 1978 letter indicated that the community had other concerns over and above the incident being investi- gated and assumed that they wished to present those concerns at the August 23, 1978 meeting. He contended the Multipurpose Room at the Library would provide more than adequate seating, as well as lavatories which could not be provided at the park. As well, it would be no additional cost to the City to meet at that location. He thereupon moved that the Council meet with the People for Community Development at the scheduled time, but that the meeting be transferred to the Multipurpose Room of the Public Library aG the corner of Harbor and Broadway which was approximately 2 blocks away from Little People's Park and thus would not be an inconvenience to the community. Councilman Roth'seconded the motion. Befor~ a vote was taken, Mayor Seymour spoke against the motion. He stated the Council made a commitment to that neighborhood to meet with them on their grounds within their neighborhood and he, for one, was prepared to do that at any time to share their very real and legitimate concerns. He believed it to be an act of bad faith, if not treading upon the pride that the community had'in that neigh- borhood, by moving the meeting to the Library. Councilman Kott stated he shared the Mayor's point of view. Councilman Roth stated he had no objection if the meeting was held in the park. If the meeting place was going to be an issue, it would do nothing more than open the breach between the community and the Council. He did not want to see the breach between the Council, Police Department and Mexican-American community any wider. Further Council discussion followed regarding the appropriateness' of the location relative to restroom facilities and security. Councilwoman Kaywood also pointed out that the entire incident at Little People's Park occurred because a car drove by and fired shots into the park. It was not known who did so, whether an Anaheim person or a gang from elsewhere. It did not make sense to expose the staff, the community and the Council to a risk. She was concerned over the liability to which the City could be exposed. 78-1097 City Hall~ Anahe~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - August 22~ 1978~ 1:30 P.M. The Mayor stated if there was any sector of the City where any public official was concerned for his safety by going into and meeting with that neighborhood, then the City was in worse shape than he thought. Councilman Overholt expressed his regret that in two weeks there had not been more communication between Mr. Ornelas and City people, other than apparently two conversations with the Mayor and a letter received today. He believed there should be a much closer relationship with the group to solve the very difficult problem, even on a daily basis. The Mayor acknowledged the thrust of Councilman Overholt's concern and indicated it would have been appropriate for Councilman Roth and himself as the liaison committee to continue meeting with the community as they did before. However, in his conversations with Mr. Ornelas over the last two weeks, he (Ornelas) had not expressed any further need or desires to meet with Councilman Roth, other City officials or himself. He had offered whatever assistance he could provide in whatever fashion necessary. The Mayor then relayed the action he had taken to assist, even directing the City Clerk to hire a court reporter to provide a transcript of that portion of the Council meeting of August 8, 1978, dealing with Little People's Park in order to expedite the District Attorney's investi- gation. A vote was then taken on the foregoing motion to hold the August 23, 1978 meeting at the Main Library and failed to carry by the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: COUNCIL MEMBERS: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Overholt and Kaywood Kott, Roth and Seymour None Councilwoman Kaywood stated that it should be made very clear there was no way it could be said that the Council had not supported the community. A three and o~e-half hour hearing was held on August 8, 1978, where everyone was given an opportunity to speak and a court reporter was hired to provide an expedited transcript of the meeting. Personally, she wanted to have the District Attorney's report and the transcript with her before ~end~ng-any-~he~. 126: MOBILE-HOME PARKS~ RECREATIONAL VEHICLE PARKS AND/OR TENT CAMPS: First reading of proposed ordinance repealing certain sections of Title 18 and adding new sections in their place relating to the subject. Mayor Seymour stated he had heard from a number of park owners who were concerned with the proposed ordinance relative to its adverse effect. The consensus he received was to delay first reading of the ordinance for 30 days to give the park owners an opportunity to evaluate it and to make positive, recommendations as to how the problem could be solved without an overkill. Councilman Seymour moved that the first reading of the proposed ordinance be con- tinued 30 days to provide an opportunity to receive additional input on the matter. Councilman Roth seconded the motion. Before a vote was taken, Councilman Kott questioned a portion of the proposed ordinance indicating that anyone with a rental agreement would be exempt. * ...the next meeting. (See minutes of January 2, 1979, Page 79- ) 78-1098 City Hall, Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - August 22, 1978~ 1:30 P.M. City Attorney Hopkins explained that aspect was currently in effect. The ordi- nance would exempt from the limitation any vehicle or tent being maintained under a valid lease or rental agreement prior to the date of the ordinance, but the ordinance would apply to any agreement made after the effective date. The limitation imposed would be 30 days after the ordinance went into effect, and it would make illegal any extension beyond the 30 days. Under City powers concerning health, safety and welfare, the ordinance would be appropriate be- cause of valid reasons set forth on the limitations. A vote was taken on the foregoing motion. MOTION CARRIED. The Mayor directed staff to send another mailing to those involved informing them of the Council's action. 171: PROPERTY TAX ORDINANCE: City Attorney Hopkins briefed the Council on his detailed memorandum dated August 22, 1978 (on file in the City Clerk's Office) relative to the proposed ordinance levying a property tax on all property within the corporate limits of the City of Anaheim for Fiscal Year 1978-79. After Mr. Dave Morgan, Administrative Aide, clarified questions posed by Council- men Kott and Seymour relative to the tax rate, Councilman Roth offered Ordinance No. 3902 for first reading, as recommended in memorandum dated August 22, 1978 from the City Attorney. ORDINANCE NO. 3902: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM FIXING AND LEVYING A PROPERTY TAX ON ALL PROPERTY WITHIN THE CORPORATE LIMITS OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM FOR THE FISCAL YEAR 1978-79. ($0.879/$100 of assessed valuation) 129: APPLICATION FOR PUBLIC FIREWORKS DISPLAY PERMIT: On motion by Councilman Kott, seconded by Councilman Seymour, application for a Public Fireworks Display Permit from Astro Pyrotechnics on behalf of Tasco Sound to conduct a fireworks display at Anaheim Stadium on August 26, 1978, from approximately 8:30 P.M. to 9:30 P.M. was approved. MOTION CARRIED. 127: SPECIAL MUNICIPAL ELECTION: Councilman Kott offered Resolution Nos. 78R-538 through 78R-541, both inclusive, for adoption, as recommended in memorandum dated August 15, 1978, from the City Attorney. Refer to Resolution Book. RESOLUTION NO. 78R-538: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM, CALIFORNIA, ORDERING, CALLING, PROVIDING FOR AND GIVING NOTICE OF A SPECIAL MUNICIPAL ELECTION TO BE HELD IN SAID CITY ON NOVEMBER 7, 1978, FOR THE PURPOSE OF SUBMITTING TO THE QUALIFIED VOTERS OF SAID CITY PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO THE CHARTER OF SAID CITY AND CONSOLIDATING SAID ELECTION WITH /ME STATEWIDE GENERAL ELECTION TO BE HELD ON SAID DATE. RESOLUTION NO. 78R-539: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM REQUESTING THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS TO CONSOLIDATE A SPECIAL MUNICIPAL ELECTION OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM WITH THE STATEWIDE GENERAL ELECTION TO BE HELD ON NOVEMBER 7, 1978, PURSUANT TO SECTION 23302 OF THE ELECTIONS CODE .OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA. 78-1099 City H~i.i~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - August 22~ 1978~ 1:30 P.M. RESOLUTION NO. 78R-540: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AUTHORIZING CERTAIN OF ITS MEMBERS TO FILE A WRITTEN ARGUMENT FOR AND AGAINST A PROPOSED AMENDMENT TO SECTION 504 OF THE CHARTER OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM. RESOLUTION NO. 78R-541: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AUTHORIZING CERTAIN OF ITS MEMBERS TO FILE A WRITTEN ARGUMENT FOR AND AGAINST A PROPOSED AMENDMENT TO SECTIONS 500, 507, 508 AND 511 OF THE CHARTER OF THE CItY OF ANAHEIM. 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-538 through 78R-541, both inclusive, duly passed and adopted. On motion by Councilman Kott, seconded by Councilman Overholt, the City Clerk was directed to transmit to the City Attorney a request to prepare impartial analys~s. MOTION CARRIED. Councilwoman Kaywood requested that the following minor changes be made: on page 3 of Resolution No. 78R-539--Section 508--third line from bottom of first paragraph, change to "...or if the Mayor should fail to act, ..."; Page 9-- Section 1202--third line, first paragraph--changed to "...Manager shall prepare and submit..."; on the next line, place a period after budget and cross out "...as prepared by him."; same page under Section 1203 budget, public hearing, first line, add a comma after "at the time so advertised,..." and on the second line, add the word "time" that was omitted from the end of that line. The City Attorney was given the authority to make those corrections on all the resolutions where necessary. 172: REQUEST FOR TRAFFIC DIVERTERS ON CAMINO MANZANO: Traffic Engineer Paul Singer stated that if the Council approved the citizens' petition request for traffic diverters on Camino Manzano, his recommendation was that Alternative No. 1 as outlined in his memorandum dated August 16, 1978, be approved. This alternative provided for the construction of two cul-de-sacs with full land- scaping, irrigation, curb reconstruction and provision for access to 7 driveways at an estimated cost of $42,000. Alternative No. 1 provided for all the amenities that were present along the parkways within the tract. Alternative No. 2 provided for the construction of two cul-de-sacs with limited landscaping, irrigation, curb reconstruction and provision for access to 5 driveways at a cost of $25,000. Alternative No. 3 provided for construction of a double-faced metal guard rail on wood posts with four reflector signs at a cost of $3,000. Mr. Singer continued that throughout the state, several cities had installed traffic diverters and it was found that the most successful were those which did not appear to be diverters at ail, but a continuation of lawns and landscaping as though the street had never existed. In the past, they had tried cul-de-sacs, knuckle to knuckle, and found that they created more problems than they solved. 78-1100 qity Ha!.l~ Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - August 22~ 1978, 1:30 P.M. Mr. James Majerkirth, 5954 Camino Manzano, stated that the general consensus of the neighbors and those present in the Chamber was that in order to resolve the situation, (see minutes of August 8, 1978) they were willing to go along with the most safe and prudent traffic diverder design. The situation on the street was a dangerous one and warranted the installation of a barrier. In order to save dollars however they did not want a diverter that would cause an unsafe condition. The Mayor pointed out that at the meeting of August 8, 1978, Mr. Majerkirth was concerned about safety and not aesthetics and that safety could be provided for $3,000 (Alternative No. 3). Mr. Majerkirth stated that the only question that they had relative to the $3,000 diverter would be, if that device were installed that in the future it would not be removed if some irate citizens raised some questions regarding the barrier. That alternative was acceptable to them because no homes would face the installation thus they were amenable to having the barrier installed (Alter- native No. 3) as a cost saving move and as well, residents in the area would be willing to participate as much as possible. There were also a number of contractors who would be more than willing to bid on the job whenever the course of action was decided. Their major concern was not to go overboard into a situ- ation of having to build expensive planters in order to support the life of the trees or whatever might be planted. They did however want something that could not be easily contested later on. Mr. Murray Zuta, 6093 Camino Manzano, explained that his house was in the immed- iate vicinity of the proposed installation. He agreed with the safety factor that would be provided which was his major concern since he had two children. On the other hand, he had spent a great deal of time and money making his home very presentable and thus there was some concern for aesthetics although that concern was secondary. His feelings were, safety first, but if at all possible he would prefer Alternative No. 2 or 3. If faced with the decision of no barrier or Alternative No. 1, he would choose Alternative No. 1. Councilman Kott asked Mr. Singer where the estimated cost figures were obtained; Mr. Singer explained that they were obtained by the Engineering Department based on recent bidding for the various materials. Councilman Kott stated that if a neighborhood wanted a more aesthetic barrier and there were people in the area who could participate in terms of installation, the City should also look at their figures. Another alternative, if legally possible, would be to set up an assessment district whereby just those people who would benefit would pay for the diverter over the years on some given basis. He offered both suggestions for Council consideration. Councilman Roth asked if it was legal and possible for a community group to actually work on and build a concrete barrier with City supervision; Mr. Singer believed that something could be worked out on that basis. Mr. Zuta stated that he heard of projects where people enhanced community parks to upgrade their neighborhoods. He was of the opinion that everyone in their area would contribute and help. It was an affluent area in which there were engineers, general contractors, etc. He suggested that some consideration be given to materials being provided by the City along with some supervision, but 78-1101 ~ity Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - August 22~ 1978~ 1:30 P.M. where the actual labor or the costly portion could be contributed by the community. Relative to an assessment district, the people they knew were the ones who did things in the community. He could not speak for the people in all the 57 homes on that street. City Attorney Hopkins stated there were certain requirements and certain limi- tations on assessment districts and he would want to make a study and report to be certain that the proposal would be an authorized type of assessment district. Councilman Kott suggested a continuance of 15 to 30 days to receive input from the neighbors, as well as to give the City Attorney time in which to prepare a report. Mr. Zuta indicated that time was of the essence since children had been hurt on the street. He did not want to see another accident occur such as those which he then described and relayed to the Council. They would take whatever alternative was decided upon; they preferred that it be aesthetically pleasing, but if not, that would also be acceptable. Councilwoman Kaywood stated that inasmuch as the Engineering Division recommended Alternative No. 1 as being the safest, that should be the first consideration. Mayor Seymour stated that he believed the Council was headed toward Alternative No. 2, $25,000, provided the neighborhood could contribute in one way or the other to assist in reducing that figure. He suggested that Mr. Zuta and Mr. Majerkirth return in one week to let the Council know how they were willing to help. Mr. Zuta stated he did not know how they could help. The Mayor suggested that 57 houses on the street, a contribution of $200 a piece would generate $11,400 or, as previously suggested, the job could be bid wherein the estimate could be bettered. Mr. Zuta stated he had definite feelings as to where the burden should lie and that was on whoever proposed and built the street to its present configuration. However, they were in agreement that there was a problem and they were going to try to solve it. Mr. Majerkirth asked if the City would be favorable to supplying the materials only and they could provide the labor to be done by a general contractor who would have the proper license. The Mayor asked Mr. Majerkirth and Mr. Zuta to attend the next Council meeting, August 29, 1978, where they would be heard first on the agenda,. Before concluding, Mr. Singer referred to the request of the Fire Department that if, in fact, the street were closed, that one portion or the other be renamed to facilitate emergency calls. 114: PROPOSED COUNCIL POLICY NO. 404 - PROCESSING OF REQUESTS FROM RECOGNIZED EMPLOYEE ORGANIZATIONS: On motion by Councilman Kott, seconded by Councilman Seymour, Council Policy No. 404 regarding the processing of requests from recog- nized employee organizations was adopted including procedural recommendations 78-1102 C. ity Hall; Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - August 22, 1978~ 1:30 P.M. received from employee organizations in memorandum dated August 17, 1978, from the Anaheim Municipal Employees Association and August 18, 1978, from the Anaheim Fire Association and the Police Association, as follows: "It is the policy of the City Council that all requests submitted to the City Council by recognized employee organizations shall be submitted by the City Clerk to the Office of the City Manager for comment and recommendations. The City Manager shall submit his recommendations to the City Clerk for City Council action within two Council meetings from the date of submission to the City Clerk. (If the City Manager needs additional time to prepare his reco~anendations, the Council may defer action if it so desires.) The requesting organization shall receive a copy of the City Manager's recommendations no later than 24 hours prior to the City Council meeting at which action is scheduled to be taken. Emergency requests submitted by recognized employee organizations shall be placed by the City Clerk on the next agenda of the City Council without departmental reports." MOTION CARRIED. 148: LEAGUE OF CALIFORNIA CITIES - ORANGE COUNTY DIVISION 1978/79 ANNUAL DUES: ($4,601 - continued from the meeting held August 8, 1978) Councilman Roth in- quired as to the comments made at the last League of California Cities meeting since he noted an article in the Los Angeles Times dated August 22, 1978, indi- cating that Santa Ana decided to pay League dues based on a formula where each of the 26 cities would equally share the division budget. It was apparent that such a proposal would not work since it had been suggested in the past and the concept was unacceptable thus it appeared that Santa Ana was pulling out of the Orange County League. Mayor Seymour stated that he was unable to attend the Thursday, August 17, 1978 meeting; Councilwoman Kaywood ~tated-~he heard that none of the large cities attended the 5:30 meeting of Mayors. Twenty cities were represented, but not Anaheim, Santa Aha or Garden Grove. She believed they were appbihling another committee to look into both the voting structure and a base fee. Councilman Kott suggested that the matter be continued until after the next League meeting when more input would be available. MOTION: Councilman Seymour moved that the payment of League of California Cities, Orange County Division, 1978/79 annual dues be paid in the amount of $4,6Q1. Councilwoman Kaywood seconded the motion. Before a vote was taken, a brief Council discussion followed wherein Mayor Seymour stated that although he agreed with the position of Councilmen Roth and Kott on the matter relative to the inequity of the dues structure, the way to correct the situation was through a rise in the base fee each year and that was beginning to happen. He emphasized however that for $4,601 he did not want to jeopardize all that could be learned from the experience in sharing common problems with other cities. * ...was at that regular 6:45 P.M. meeting but... (See minutes of January 2, 1979 Page 79- ) ' 78-1103 City Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - August 22~ 1978~ 1:30 P.M. Councilman Roth stated that he would support the motion under the condition that the Mayor would continue to pursue the concept of one man, one vote,~/or ~an increase in fees to the smaller cities. He did not oppose the League, but the fact that the larger cities were paying almost $5,000 a year and the cities running the League were paying $400 a year. The Mayor suggested that both he and Councilman Roth work on the problem. A vote was taken on the foregoing motion. Councilman Kott voted "No". MOTION CARRIED. APPRECIATION GIFT FOR PRESIDENT OF ORANGE COUNTY DIVISION~ LEAGUE OF CALIFORNIA CITIES: Councilwoman Kaywood moved to authorize an expenditure of $15 as the City's contribution to an appreciation gift for Duane Winters, President of the League of California Cities. Councilman Overholt seconded the motion. Before a vote was taken, Mayor Seymour stated that although the amount was small, a principle was involved in the request, and he would just as soon contribute $3 personally than to put that expense on the backs of the taxpayer. The rest of the Council, with the exception of Councilman Kott, were amenable to contributing personally and thus provided the $15; Councilman Kott declined on the basis that a matter of principle was involved. MOTION CARRIED. 167: TRAFFIC SIGNALS AND SAFETY LIGHTING~ INTERSECTION OF KATELLA AVENUE AND LEWIS STREET - REJECTION OF BIDS AND READVERTISING: (Account No. 13-794-6325- 4060) Councilman Kott offered Resolution Nos. 78R-542 and 78R-543 for adoption as recon~nended in memorandum dated August 15, 1978, from the City Engineer. Refer to Resolution Book. RESOLUTION NO. 78R-542: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANEHEIM REJECTING ALL BIDS RECEIVED UP TO THE HOUR OF 2:00 P.M. ON THE 10TH DAY OF AUGUST, 1978 FOR TRAFFIC SIGNALS AND SAFETY LIGHTING INSTALLATION AT KATELLA AVENUE AND LEWIS STREET, ACCOUNT NO. 13-794-6325-4060. RESOLUTION NO. 78R-543: 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 KATELLA AVENUE AND LEWIS STREET, IN THE CITY OF ANAHEIM, ACCOUNT NO. 13-794-6325-4060; 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 September 14, 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-542 and 78R-543 duly passed and adopted. 78-1104 City Hall.~ Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - August 22~ 19782 1:30 P.M. 164: AWARD OF CONTRACT - LA PALMA AVENUE STORM DRAIN IMPROVEMENT: (Account No. 46-791-6325-1020) Councilman Kott offered Resolution No. 78R-544 for adoption awarding a contract to the low bidder in accordance with the recom- mendations of the City Engineer in his memorandum dated August 15, 1978. Refer to Resolution Book. RESOLUTION NO. 78R-544: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM ACCEPTING A SEALED PROPOSAL AND AWARDING A CONTRACT TO THE LOWEST RESPONSIBLE BIDDER FOR THE FURNISHING OF ALL PLANT, LABOR, SERVICES, MATERIALS AND EQUIPMENT AND ALL UTILITIES AND TRANSPORTATION INCLUDING POWER, FUEL AND WATER, AND PERFORMING ALL WORK NECESSARY TO CONSTRUCT AND COMPLETE THE FOLLOWING PUBLIC IMPROVEMENT: LA PALMA AVENUE STORM DRAIN IMPROVEMENT, LAKEVIEW AVENUE TO 630' E/O KELLOGG DRIVE, IN THE CITY OF ANAHEIM, ACCOUNT NO. 46-791-6325-1020. (Nick Didovic Construction Company, $539,607.40) 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-544 duly passed and adopted. 169: AWARD OF CONTRACT - PERALTA HILLS STREET IMPROVEMENT: (Account No. 13-793-6325-3120) Councilman Roth offered Resolution No. 78R-545 for adoption, awarding a contract to the low bidder in accordance with the recommendations of the City Engineer in his memorandum dated August 14, 1978. Refer to Resolu- tion Book. RESOLUTION NO. 78R-545: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM ACCEPTING A SEALED PROPOSAL AND AWARDING A CONTRACT TO THE LOWEST RESPONSIBLE BIDDER FOR THE FURNISHING OF ALL PLANT, LABOR, SERVICES, MATERIALS AND EQUIPMENT AND ALL UTILITIES AND TRANSPORTATION INCLUDING POWER, FUEL AND WATER, AND PERFORMING ALL WORK NECESSARY TO CONSTRUCT AND COMPLETE THE FOLLOWING PUBLIC IMPROVEMENT: PERALTA HILLS STREET IMPROVEMENTS: CERRO VISTA DRIVE-1233' E/O CERRO VISTA WAY TO CERRO VISTA WAY; PERALTA HILLS DRIVE-2760' E/O CERRO VISTA WAY TO CERRO VISTA WAY; CRESCENT DRIVE-300' W/O ROYAL OAK ROAD TO PERALTA HILLS DRIVE, IN THE CITY OF ANAHEIM, ACCOUNT NO. 13-793-6325-3120. (R. J. Noble Company, $135,763.90) 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-545 duly passed and adopted. 160: PURCHASE OF EQUIPMENT - MOBILE RADIOS FOR POLICE DEPARTMENT UNDER COUNTY COOPERATIVE CONTRACT: ( Account No. 01-182-7121) On motion by Councilman Roth, seconded by Councilman Seymour, purchase from Motorola Communications and Elec- tronics, Inc., was authorized in the amount of $29,162.97, including tax, as recommended by the Purchasing Agent in his memorandum dated August 14, 1978. MOTION CARRIED. 78-1105 City Hall, Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - August 22~ 1978~ 1:30 P.M. 160: PURCHASE OF EQUIPMENT - WALKIE-TALKIES FOR FAMILY FOURSOME: (Account No. 61-299-7121) On motion by Councilman Roth, seconded by Councilman Overholt, the low bid of Motorola, Inc., was accepted and purchase authorized in the amount of $19,635.38, including tax, as recon~nended in memorandum dated August 8, 1978, from the Purchasing Agent. MOTION CARRIED. 160: PURCHASE OF SERVICES AND EQUIPMENT - RECOVERING CONVENTION CENTER ARENA SEATING: (Account Nos. 64-308-7107 and 24-308-7121) On motion by Councilwoman Kaywood, seconded by Councilman Roth, purchase from Commercial Interior Services, Inc., was authorized in the amount of $91,419.97, including tax, for Phase I and II, Bid Specification No. 3441, as recommended in memorandum dated August 15, 1978 from the Purchasing Agent. MOTION CARRIED. 150: PRINTING SERVICES - ANAHEIM ARTS COUNCIL: On motion by Councilman Kott, seconded by Councilwoman Kaywood, request by the Anaheim Arts Council, in a letter dated June 30, 1978 to have the City provide printing services with reimbursement of cost by the Arts Council was approved. MOTION CARRIED. RECLASSIFICATION NOS. 75-76-36 AND 76-77-6 - EXTENSIONS OF TIME: Request by Dyanlyn Development Company for extensions of time to Reclassification Nos. 75-76-36 and 76-77-6, proposed CL zoning on properties located generally at the southwest corner of State College Boulevard and Romneya Drive. On motion by Councilman Seymour, seconded by Councilman Roth, extensions of time were approved on the subject reclassifications, retroactive to June 22, 1977 to expire June 22, 197% and retroactive to August 31, 1977 to expire August 31, 1979, respectively, subject to the posting of a bond for street improvements within 30 days. 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. CORRESPONDENCE: The following correspondence was ordered received and filed: a. 169: Before the PUC, Notice of Hearing, to provide opportunity to all counties and municipalities to present statements and evidence concerning the street lighting issue. b. 107: Monthly report for July 1978 - Building Division. c. 105: Community Redevelopment Commission - Minutes of July 26, 1978, d. 175: Monthly report for July 1978 - Customer Service Division. e. 105: Community Services Board - Minutes of July 13, 1978. f. 105: HACMAC - Minutes of July 18, 1978. g. 105: Project Area Committee - Minutes of July 25, 1978. h. 156: Monthly report for July 1978 - Police Department. i. 105: Public Utilities Board - Minutes of July 6, 13 and 20, 1978. 78-1106 City Hall., Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - August 22~ 1978~ 1:30 P.M. 2. 108: PUBLIC DANCE, ENTERTAINMENT AND AMUSEMENT DEVICES PERMITS: The following permits were approved in accordance with the recommendations of the Chief of Police: a. Public Dance Permit for the Buena Park and La Palma Police Association for a dance to be held August 30, 1978 from 8:00 P.M. to 12:00 A.M. at the Convention Center. (Jack D. George, applicant) b. Entertainment Permit for a mariachi band seven days a week from 10:00 A.M. to 1:30 A.M. at the La Perla Restaurant Bar, 604 East Lincoln Avenue. (Pedro B. Rodriguez, applicant) c. Amusement Devices Permit for eleven pinball machines at Rocky's Billiards, 951 South Knott Avenue. (Joseph A. Kahn, applicant) MOTION CARRIED. 118: CLAIMS AGAINST THE CITY: Councilman Kott noted that of the 13 items presented, seven were Police relate~ amounting to approximately $1.5 million. On motion by Councilman Kott, seconded by Councilman Seymour, the recommended action to deny and refer the following list of claims to the City's insurance carrier or self-insurance administrator was approved. MOTION CARRIED. a. Claim submitted by John M. Loberg for property damages purportedly sustained as a result of insufficient lighting and signs at the Anaheim Stadium exit gate on or about July 8, 1978. b. Claim submitted by William Hedrick for monetary damage purportedly sustained as a result of theft from a city-owned vehicle on or about April 4, 1978. c. Claim submitted by Brooker & Associates for property damages purportedly sustained as a result of a collision with a city-owned vehicle on or about July 17, 1978. d. Claim submitted by Roy Michael Uva for damages and personal injuries purportedly sustained as a result of actions by Anaheim Police and other law enforcement agencies on or about April 28, 1978. e. Claim submitted by Elias Ramirez for personal injuries purportedly sustained as a result of actions by Anaheim Police on or about April 19, 1978. f. Claim submitted by Sheila Milgrom for property damages purportedly sustained during sidewalk repair on or about March 3, 1978. g. Claim submitted by Thomas M. Adkins for personal injuries purportedly sustained as a result of actions by Anaheim Police on or about May 7, 1978. h. Claim submitted by Joey Vargas for personal injuries purportedly sustained as a result of actions by Anaheim Police on or about July 30, 1978. i. Claim submitted by Steve J. Evans for personal injuries purportedly sustained as a result of false arrest and imprisonment by Anaheim Police on or about April 25, 1978. 78-1107 City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - Ausust 22~ 1978~ 1:30 P.M. j. Claim submitted by Carmen Fierro and Raul Fierro for personal injuries purportedly sustained as a result of being struck by a souvenir cart at the Stadium on or about July 9, 1978. k. Claim submitted by Dale Christensen for personal damages purportedly sus- tained as a result of false arrest by Anaheim Police on or about June 28, 1978 at Anaheim Stadium. 1. Claim submitted by Thomas Leigh Woolard for personal damages purportedly sustained as a result of false arrest by Anaheim Police on or about June 28, 1978 at Anaheim Stadium. m. Claim submitted by Robert Cody for personal damages purportedly sustained as a result of actions by Anaheim Police on or about May 17, 1978. n. Claim submitted by Interinsurance Exchange of the Auto Club of Southern California and Janet Lohman for property damages purportedly sustained as a result of an accident involving a city-owned vehicle on or about May 16, 1978. CONSENT CALENDAR ITEMS: Councilman Roth offered Resolution Nos. 78R-546 through 78R-552, both inclusive, for adoption in accordance with the reports, recommendations and certifications furnished each Council Member and as listed on the Consent Calendar Agenda. Refer to Resolution Book. 158: RESOLUTION NO. 78R-546: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM ACCEPTING CERTAIN DEEDS AND ORDERING THEIR RECORDATION. (Saga Property Management Corp.; Calvin L. Pebley, et ux.; Charles Leonard Pebley, et ux.; William C. Hennerty, et ux.; Influential Homes Company; Judy Johnson; Orangethorpe and Imperial Associates; Charles Panusis, et ux.; George H. Glanzmann, et ux.; Elizabeth Ann Ralston, et al.; Joseph J. Neuman; Charles R. Edwards, et ux.; Ovid A. Rader; Charles H. Moore, et ux.; August Huesca, et al.; Carl P. Lawson, et ux.) 173: RESOLUTION NO. 78R-547: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM APPROVING THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF A LICENSE AGREEMENT WITH THE ATCHISON, TOPEKA AND SANTA FE RAILWAY COMPANY ("Santa Fe") AND AUTHORIZING AND DIRECTING THE MAYOR AND CITY CLERK TO EXECUTE SAID AGREEMENT. (License BL-72082) (installation of two guy poles and anchors, south side of Orangethorpe, west of Highland) 115/149: RESOLUTION NO. 78R-548: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM FINALLY ACCEPTING THE COMPLETION AND THE FURNISHING OF ALL PLANT, LABOR, SERVICES, MATERIALS AND EQUIPMENT AND ALL UTILITIES AND TRANSPORTATION INCLUDING POWER, FUEL AND WATER, AND THE PERFORMANCE OF ALL WORK NECESSARY TO CONSTRUCT AND COMPLETE THE FOLLOWING PUBLIC IMPROVEMENT, TO WIT: CIVIC CENTER PARKING LOT, W/O PHILADELPHIA STREET, S/O LINCOLN AVENUE, IN THE CITY OF ANAHEIM, ACCOUNT NO. 10-4309-984-12-0000, (1977-1978) AND 48-984-6325-90100 (1978-1979). (Sully-Miller) 164: RESOLUTION NO. 78R-549: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM FINALLY ACCEPTING THE COMPLETION AND THE FURNISHING OF ALL PLANT, LABOR, SERVICES, MATERIALS AND EQUIPMENT AND ALL UTILITIES AND TRANSPORTATION INCLUDING POWER, FUEL AND WATER, AND THE PERFORMANCE OF ALL WORK NECESSARY TO CONSTRUCT AND COMPLETE THE FOLLOWING PUBLIC IMPROVEMENT, TO WIT: LAKEVIEW AVENUE SEWER IMPROVE- MENT 236 'FEET NORTH OF LA PALMA AVENUE TO LA PALMA AVENUE, IN THE CITY OF ANAHEIM, ACCOUNT NO. 11-790-6325-0010. (Fleming Engineering, Inc.) 78-1108 ~ity Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - August 22~ 1978~ 1:30 P.M. 164: RESOLUTION NO. 78R-550: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM FINALLY ACCEPTING THE COMPLETION AND THE FURNISHING OF ALL PLANT, LABOR, SERVICES, MATERIALS AND EQUIPMENT AND ALL UTILITIES AND TRANSPORTATION INCLUDING POWER, FUEL AND WATER, AND THE PERFORMANCE OF ALL WORK NECESSARY TO CONSTRUCT AND COMPLETE THE FOLLOWING PUBLIC IMPROVEMENT, TO WIT: LA PALMA AVENUE SEWER IMPROVE- MENT, E/O BLUE GUM STREET, IN THE CITY OF ANAHEIM, ACCOUNT NO. 11-790-6325-0030. (Fleming Engineering, Inc.) 176: RESOLUTION NO. 78R-551: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM DECLARING ITS INTENTION TO VACATE AND ABANDON CERTAIN PUBLIC STREETS AND FIXING A DATE FOR A HEARING THEREON. (77-25A - southeast and southwest corners of Riverdale and Starling Way - public hearing set for September 12, 1978, 3:00 P.M., Parcels 1 and 2) 158: RESOLUTION NO. 78R-552: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AUTHORIZING THE SALE OF CERTAIN CITY-OWNED PROPERTY AND FINDING AND DETERMINING THE FAIR MARKET VALUE THEREOF. (77-25A - Public Hearing set for September 12, 1978, 3:00 P.M., sale of Parcel 3) Roll Call Vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: COUNCIL MFaMBERS: COUNCIL MEMBERS: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Overholt, Kaywood, Kott, Roth and Seymour None None The Mayor declared Resolution Nos. 78R-546 through 78R-552, both inclusive, duly passed and adopted. CITY PLANNING COMMISSION ITEMS: The following actions taken by the City Planning Commission at their meeting held July 31, 1978, pertaining to the following applications, as listed on the Consent Calendar, were submitted for City Council information. 1. RECLASSIFICATION NO. 78-79-7 AND VARIANCE NO. 3034: Submitted by Charles F. and Alyce S. Sigala, for a change in zone from CL and RM-2400 to CL on property located at 1280 East Lincoln to construct two commercial buildings with certain code waivers. The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution Nos. PC78-177 and PC78-178, granted Reclassification No. 78-79-7 and Variance No. 3034, respectively, and granted negative declaration status. 2. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 1841: Submitted by Harold A. and Roberta Swanson, to permit an optometry office in a residential structure on RS-7200 zoned'property located at 2117 East Lincoln Avenue. The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC78-180, granted Conditional Use Permit No. 1841 and ratified the Planning Director's categorical exemption determination. 78-1109 City Hal!~.Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - August 22~ 1978~ 1:30 P.M. 3. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 1865: Submitted by Dan Shozi, to permit outdoor storage of large equipment on RS-A-43,000 zoned property located northwest of Coronado Street and Van Buren Street with certain code waivers. The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC78-176, granted Conditional Use Permit No. 1865 and granted negative declaration status. 4. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 1868: Submitted by Stadium Industrial Park, to permit an auto parts sale and repair facility on ML zoned property located at 2120 East Howell Avenue. The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC78-181, granted Conditional Use Permit No. 1868 and ratified the Planning Director's categorical exemption determination. 5. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 1870: Submitted by Glen L. Johnson, to expand a truck terminal on ML zoned property located at 1001 North Grove Street. The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC78-182, granted Conditional Use Permit No. 1870 and granted negative declaration status. 6. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 1871: Submitted by Louis L. and Alice I. Newman, to expand an automobile repair facilty on CG zoned property located at llll West Lincoln Avenue with a waiver of minimum number of parking spaces. The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC78-183, granted Conditional Use Permit No. 1871 and granted negative declaration status. 7. VARIANCE NO. 3029: Submitted by D & D Development Company, to construct a free-standing sign on CL zoned property located at 620 West Orangewood Avenue with waiver of maximum height. The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC78-175, denied Variance No. 3029 and ratified the Planning Director's categorical determination. 8. VARIANCE NO. 3032: Submitted by Andrew M. and Joyce L. Zurick, to permit the keeping of 3 horses on RS-A-43,000 zoned property located at 519 North Dale Avenue with certain code waivers. The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC78-179, granted Variance No. 3032 and ratified the Planning Director's categorical exemption determination. 9. VARIANCE NO. 3033: Submitted by Zaven and Anna M. KulaJian, to conVert a garage into a game room on RS-5,000(SC) zoned property located' at 411 South Paseo Real with waiver of minimum number of parking spaces. The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC78-184, granted Variance No. 3033 and ratified the Planning Director's categorical exemption determination. 78-1110 City Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - August 22~ 1978~ 1:30 P.M. 10. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 1720: Request by Aubrey F. Holmes for an extension of time to establish a 38-unit recreational vehicle park in con- junction with a motel on property located at 2740 West Lincoln Avenue. The City Planning Commission granted an extension of time to Conditional Use Permit No. 1720~ to expire August 1, 1979. No action was taken on the foregoing items, thus the actions of the City Planning Commission became final. 162: GLENOAKS TENANT ASSOCIATION - OWNER/MANAGEMENT ACTIVITIES AT GLENOAKS APARTMENTS: Mr. Phillip Baumfeld, 2000 Glenoaks, Apartment No. 51, stated that although the agenda indicated their purpose for addressing the Council, they wanted to address themselves to a more broad issue, that being discrimination of families with minor children in rental housing in Anaheim. Upon new manage- ment taking over at their complex, rumors started to circulate that, although the complex contained almost 50 percent occupancy of families with minor children, they would be asked to leave either en masse or systematically one by one. It was also found that the problem was not only peculiar to the Glenoaks complex, but also a situation that existed throughout the City, proba- bly throughout the County and possibly throughout the state. There were many factors involved, one being the current economic situation. It was more difficult for people to make the natural progression from apartments to single-family dwelling~ resulting in more families with children having to stay in their rental units. Mr. Baumfeld continued that the rental property situation in Anaheim was one where there was discrimination against families with minor children posing a threat to the health and welfare of a sizable segment of the community. There was a shortage of housing suitable for such families and some that was undesirable for almost anybody to live i~ let alone children. As well, there was a low vacancy rate in Anaheim of .2 percent which included the broad range of complexes and not just those restricted to families. He reiterated there was also active discrimination against families with minor children. Those apartment complexes that could very well accommodate families with children were prohibiting them from moving in and if the condition was not checked, the only place in Anaheim for families to live with children would be in a private home. Flight from the City was being encouraged, and Anaheim would then become an adult-oriented city. He could not believe that should or could ever happen in a city that was the home of Disneyland which attracted children from all over the world. Mr. Baumfeld then relayed the results of surveys taken by members of their associa- tion the previous week: 1. From an exclusively Anaheim telephone directory, they called' 99 ~partment com- plexes listed. Of those 99, 60 or 61 percent were strictly for adult living and 39 that permitted children. Of those 39 complexes, only 18 had at least one vacancy. Also of the 39, 20 had restrictions on what type of children could live there relative to age. 78-1111 City Hall, Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - August 22~ 1978~ 1:30 P.M. 2. From the local newspaper, they called 88 different apartments in Anaheim and although there may have some duplication, the facts were similar--58 percent of the complexes were for adults and 42 percent for families with children. Of the 37 apartments allowing children, only 16 had at least one vacancy and those 16 had restrictions on the type of children allowed. 3. The next survey was done not only by complex, but also by units in those complexes totalling 9,522. Out of that figure, 7,630 units were restricted to adults only or 80 percent. Thus, while the foregoing surveys revealed that there were more complexes catering to children, those were small in size because only 20 percent or 1,892 units were available for children out of 9,522. Consequently, for every 500 units, only one allowed children and then there might be some re- striction on that one unit that a child did not meet and thus, the family would again be precluded. Mr. Baumfeld then relayed additional information, the thrust of which was the untenable plight of families with minor children which, in essence, was not discrimination against children, but against people who were being penalized for having children. He and his family had lived in Anaheim at Glenoaks for over 6 years and they were being forced to move and they could not find other like places in the City. In concluding, Mr. Baumfeld stated they were present today to ask the City Council to ask the City Attorney to look into a possible ordinance for non-discrimination of children in rental housing such as had been adopted in San Francisco and Berkeley. Mr. Baumfeld also informed the Council of a problem existing with the management relative to a disabled tenant who is receiving funds through the City of Anaheim Renter's Assistance Program. That tenants'rent had been raised contrary to an agreement that such a raise would not occur before November of 1978, an action which Mr. Baumfeld considered unconscionable and immoral. Mr. Allen Brodkin, 1525 East 17th Street, Santa Ana, member of the staff of the Orange County Fair Housing Council, stated he wished to speak on the issue of child discrimination. One-third of the calls now received at the Fair Housing Council were based on child discrimination. As the Council was aware, other cities had considered ordinances such as Santa Monica and Los Angeles concerning that issue with good reason. In Los Angeles, 70 percent of the apartments would not accept families with children, but yet 70 percent of the people living there comprised families with children. They had researched legalities of the matter and wrote a meicus brief in the Marina del Rey (re: Steven Wolfson) which was not upheld by the courts, but presently under appeal. Everything pointed to the fact that soon it would be illegal to discriminate against children. It seemed that the City Council could do something for the people petitioning them ahead of time by enacting an ordinance that would make child discrimination in the City of Anaheim, excluding senior citizens developments, unlawful. The following persons, all residents of 2000 Glenoaks, Glenoaks Apartment Complex, gave testimony which included the below listed concerns: Carol McGill; Linda Simpson; Marsha Baumfeld; Richard Hallis; Anna Denbo; Greg Bostead; Marlena Castro; Terry McMillan; Sandra Hallis; Sri Jusbonda Brendashiva; Jose Palison. 78-1112 City..H~.!lf Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - August 22, 1978~ 1:30 P.M. Many of them were being evicted for no apparent reason; new restrictive rules relative to children had been instituted by ~he new owner/management causing stress and tension not only for the children, but also the entire family; if Anaheim offered Disneyland for enjoyment, it must also offer an environment where a child could grow and develop into a productive person; landlords had rights, but tenants had no rights because they could be evicted for no reason; all decent apartments were adult oriented; landlords should not have the right to discriminate against families; children were no more and perhaps less destruc- tive than adults; many of the families at Glenoaks could not afford a house and they were concerned over where they would live; there was no question but that the new owners of the apartment complex were phasing out families and converting to an all adult complex as evidenced by newly printed business cards indicating "apartments for adult living" with no reference to families; two letters from new tenants also stated that when they moved in, they were told it wan an all adult complex; a prospective renter had also been told by the manager that the complex was all adults and that remaining families would be oUt within two weeks; "family living" had been eliminated from the apartment complex sign; one resident who had been raised in Anaheim was now faced with the possibility of having to leave the City she loved; one tenant was told in a personal conversation with one of the principals of the complex that they were going to be evicted because they were troublemakers; the ownership claimed Proposition 13 did not offer enough savings and they intended to raise all rents from $50 to $75 a month. Mrs. Pat Clancy, 303 North Bush, explained that she was the owner of an apart- ment building with tenants 50 years of age and over. She relayed her earlier experiences involved in trying to find a place to live with a child. When she was finally successful, she made an agreement with the landlord that at any time her daughter was a disturbance or he could find that any destruction occurred, they would pay for that destruction and move. Today, there was a problem with children not being disciplined as in the past and there were good reasons why people objected to renting to children. Owners also had rights and should be able to preclude children if they wished. She continued that if ordinances were passed restricting owners as to who would be allowed to rent their property, the vacancy factor would be even more adversely affected because developers would not want to build in the City. She also pointed out the fact that when property was sold, the price escalated a great deal and thus payments more than doubled. The new property owner then had only one source to meet those additional costs, their tenants. Mayor Seymour stated that the theme of the tenants testimony revealed that since the ownership changed and new management moved in, they had laid down some frus- trating hard rules against which the tenants were rebelling. He then read a letter dated August 9, 1978 (on file in the City Clerk's Office). from the Robert A. McNeal Corporation, the new owners, which alleged that out of 106 units, 40 were to be maintained as family units. However, it was appareng considering the testimony and the new business card presented, there was no question that they were trying to convert the complex into one for adults only. The Mayor then asked if a representative from the McNeal Corporation was present; no one was present. 78-1113 City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - August 22~ 1978~ 1:30 P.M. In summing up, Mr. Baumfeld emphasized that all they were asking the Council to do was to pass an ordinance to preclude discrimination so that people in the future could live with their families and minor children at Glenoaks and other apartment complexes within the City of Anaheim and the State of California. Councilman Roth expressed his appreciation for the input given by the tenants. He emphasized however that before any action could be taken relative to adopting an ordinance, a public hearing would have to take place so that all those involved would have an opportunity to speak on the matter--tenants as well as apartment owners and apartment owners associations. Before he could make any decision, he would have to hear from both sides. Mayor Seymour stated first that if they were to vote on an ordinance, there was a question as to whether he, as an elected official, had the legal right to do so. He referred to the tenants protest and rent control situation in Los Angeles where- in the elected officials who owned property were precluded from voting. He under- stood that a decision as to whether or not elected officials could vote under those circumstances on rent control or the type of ordinance suggested was going to be made by the appropriate State body sometime in September. The Mayor continued that he felt there was a problem at Glenoaks emminating from the sale of property, with management perhaps too aggressive in understanding human needs and the needs of the families living in the comple% resulting in conditions they found untenable and totally unsatisfactory. He empathized with those tenants, especially the Baumfelds who had been living there for al- most 7 years. The Mayor then referred to the vacancy factor in Orange County which over the last 3 to 4 years was nearer to 2 percent. Considering that factor, it was a question of how long the demand for housing could continue with a shortage of supply. The more reasonable factor would be somewhere between 5 and 10 percent thus permitting free and easy movement of tenants. Supply was the problem and everybody was scrambling over the same supply. If there was some place else to move, management could not take action such as that experienced at Glenoaks. However, he did not believe that government should control the market place and both conservatives and liberal thinking people including very liberal United States Senators agreed that rent control and like activities would only make the problem worse. He suggested that the answer lay in government loosening up the red tape to get more apartments built so as to provide that greater supply to prevent landlords or management from exercising unreasonable force on their tenants. In concluding, the Mayor stated that if he should have a vote and the qt~estion arose again, he would not be sympathetic to an ordinance that would stipulate a percentage of the City's apartments must be for children or that all should be. Shortly thereafter, the Council Chamber would be filled with senior citizens complaining that government was encroaching on their rights. He did not see how local government or government generally could solve the problem other than to help the private sector increase the supply of housing. Councilwoman Kaywood stated that the problem was a difficult one and she empathized with the tenants. Mrs. Clancy, too, also had a point; there were destructive children, but there were also destructive adults of every age. As well, people 78-1114 City Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - August 22, 1978~ 1:30 P.M. who wanted to live only in adult complexes should also have that right. She agreed with Councilman Roth that there would be no way to introduce an ordinance before all sides were heard. She reiterated that she truly empathized with the tenants and wished that she had an answer to their concerns. It was obvious also that in spite of the letter written by the McNeal Corporation, they did not intend to devote any of their complex to families. Councilman Overholt stated that he agreed with the Mayor's sentiments on the matter, but the tenants might take comfort in the fact that the pendulum would swing. In his nine years experience on the School Board, he saw adult apart- ments built near schools in the City which then went to families doubling the school population. The children were then bused to another school and subse- quently the adult apartments again became popular and so forth. The tenants were doing the best they could by forming an association so that they could approach management over what they thought was right. He pointed out however in relation to questions he asked earlier relative to rental agreements, that tenants did have rights, but only those contained in that agreement which rights were legislated. Under such a rental agreement, they were subject to a 30 days' notice clause. Councilman Overholt continued that the Council previously had issues brought before it on the question of conversions of apartments to condominiums and particularly in elementary school attendance areas. By bringing their concerns as young parents to the Council toda~ stating that apartments or dwellings for young children were being reduced in the City, the Council might think twice before permitting a conversion of a family unit into types not suitable for families. Councilman Overholt then .asked Mr. Baumfeld to submit copies of the ordinances from Berkeley and San Francisco for Council review, which he did. ORDINANCE NOS. 3897 THROUGH 3901: Councilman Roth offered Ordinance Nos. 3897 through 3901, both inclusive, for adoption. Refer to Ordinance Book. 160: ORDINANCE NO. 3897: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AMENDING TITLE 1, CHAPTER 1.04, SECTIONS 1.04.260 AND 1.04.270 OF THE ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO PURCHASING. 179: ORDINANCE NO. 3898: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AMENDING TITLE 18, CHAPTER 18.03, SECTION 18.03.060 OF THE ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO PUBLIC HEARINGS ON PETITIONS. ORDINANCE NO. 3899: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AMENDING TITLE 18 OF THE ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO ZONING. (77-78-55, CL) ORDINANCE NO. 3900: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AMENDING TITLE 18 OF THE ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO ZONING. (63-64-62 (21) and (22), RM-1200) ORDINANCE NO. 3901: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AMENDING TITLE 18 OF THE ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO ZONING. (76-77-41(3), RS-HS-10,000, Tract No. 9750) 78-1115 City Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - August 22~ 1978~ %: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 Ordinance Nos. 3897 through 3901, both inclusive, duly passed and adopted. ORDINANCE NOS. 3903 THROUGH 3906: Councilman Roth offered Ordinance Nos. 3903 through 3906, both inclusive, for first reading. ORDINANCE NO. 3903: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AMENDING TITLE 18 OF THE ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO ZONING. (69-70-58(3), ML) ORDINANCE NO. 3904: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AMENDING TITLE 18 OF THE ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO ZONING. (68-69-37(14), ML) ORDINANCE NO. 3905: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AMENDING TITLE 18 OF THE ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO ZONING. (72-73-51(29), RS-HS-22,000) ORDINANCE NO. 3906: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AMENDING TITLE 18 OF THE ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO ZONING. (77-78-23, CL) 105: RESIGNATION OF PARKS & RECREATION COMMISSIONER AND APPOINTMENT OF NEW COMMISSIONER: Councilwoman Kaywood stated that a letter had been received from Mr. Hal Tolar, the Planning Commission representative on the Parks & Recreation Commission, resigning from the Commission due to lack of time. She thereupon moved to accept the resignation with regret, directed staff to send a letter of appreciation for his excellent service, and appointing Planning Commissioner Charlene Barnes to the Commission in his place. Council- m~n Roth seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. 114: SEPTEMBER 26~ 1978 COUNCIL MEETING DATE: Due to the fact that the annual League of California Cities Conference was going to be held in Anaheim September 24 through 26, 1978, Councilwoman Kaywood moved that no Council meeting be held ~n ~es~ayr-$ep~em~e~-~-~9~8~--~e~e~m~-~eymeur-~eee~ed-~e-me~env--~e~e~m~ 105: SEAT OF PLANNING COMMISSIONER~ ROBERT LIN-N: Councilwoman Kaywood stated that since Planning Commissioner Robert Linn had not been able to serve on the Commission, she did not feel it was appropriate to go into another year with an absentee Commissioner. She thereupon moved that the seat of Planning Commissioner Robert Linn be declared vacan~ as of Tuesday, August 29, 1978~--~e~n¢~m~n-Re~h ~eeem~e~r~e-mee~em~ Before a vote was taken, Councilman Kott asked what policy was being followed resulting in the determination that a seat should be declared vacant and if it was based on the number of absences. * ...and we participate at the Conference on Tuesday, September 26, 1978. Council- man Seymour seconded the motion. Councilman Kott voted "No". MOTION CARRIED ** ..., allowing him to attend and vote on August 28, 1978. seconded the motion. (See minutes of January 2, 1979, Page 79- ) Councilman Roth 78-1116 ~ity Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - August 22~ 1978~ 1:30 P.M. Councilwoman Kaywood explained that Mr. Linn had not been able to attend a single one of the Planning Commission's 18 morning work sessions and also he did not arrive at the 1:30 p.m. Planning Commission hearings until 3:00 or 3:30 p.m. There were a number of tie votes wherein a second public hearing had to be held because of his absence. Upon questioning by Councilman Kott, Miss Santalahti stated that at times, a second public hearing had to be held on some items, but not solely caused by Mr. Linn's absence. Mayor Seymour then explained for Councilman Kott that he was on the Council liaison committee with Councilwoman Kaywood when the matter was discussed with the Chairman and Vice-Chairman of the Planning Commission. The concern expressed in that meeting was that Commissioner Linn, because of his teaching responsibilities, was not per- mitted the time necessary for Planning Commission hearings. They felt however that they did not want to lay down into concrete any standards relative to atten- dance. In Mr. Linn's case, they concluded that, based upon his attendance record and more importantly the fact that in the foreseeable future there would be no change relative to his non-attendance at work sessions or arriving late at public hearings, that type of attendance was unsatisfactory. Councilwoman Kaywood stated at the time Mr. Linn was appointed, she voted against him for another reason--he had called her and promised if the School Board did not permit him to serve and if he could not make the morning work sessions, he would resign. That was one and one-half years ago. Councilman Kott stated that he appreciated the comments, but he was not speaking specifically about Mr. Linn and was not in disagreement. He was merely trying to ascertain what criteria was used to make such determinations. The Mayor reit- erated there was no fixed criteria other than the procedure he had described. Countilman Roth agreed with the Mayor that a Commissioner should be removed if there was dissatisfaction over attendance with no improvement. When Mr. Linn was appointed by former Mayor Thom, he (Thom) indicated Mr. Linn already had approval from the School District to take the time off to servg which was not true. Subsequently, Mr. Linn made an appeal and stated that as soon as the matter was settled, he would be able to serve. Councilman Kott did not recall it being said that Mr. Linn had clearance from the School Board, but from the Principal and Superintendent. A vote was then taken on the foregoing motion. MOTION CARRIED. Councilman Kott stated he would have the names of one or two appointees to the Commission for the Council to consider. PROPOSED CORRECTIONS TO THE MINUTES OF ADJOURNED REGULAR MEETING~ JUNE 5~ 1978: Councilwoman Kaywood read the following proposed corrections to the subject minutes: "Councilwoman Kaywood agreed with Councilman Roth that the old way was better al- though it did not seem so at the time. In her opinion, an unpopular Mayor was then in office, and that's why the petitions were signed as they were, with the confusion in the amendment, particularly having to vote twice for the same person. 78-1117 City Hall, Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - August 22~ 1978~ 1:30 P.M. The size of the campaign also concerned her. The two-year term might be a problem, since a person might want to serve for one year, but not two. She also believed it was good psychology to have in mind that the majority of the Council could remove the Mayor. Although it's probably inflammatory to say the people don't necessarily know who the best choice is, because the Council works together each week, it is nevertheless a true fact. She pointed out how few people attend Council meetings to observe for themselves, except on emotional items in which they are involved personally." She thereupon moved that the minutes be corrected accordingly. Before further action was taken, Mayor Seymour asked if the correction distorted the intent. The City Clerk stated it was a substantial change as to what was written by her office and different from the copies of the minutes the Council received for approval. The Mayor stated that under those circumstances, he would not favor the motion and asked for a transcript of that portion of the meeting in question. 116: ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION: Mayor Seymour asked that each Council Member consider appointments to the Economic Development Corporation for the next meeting. Four members were to be Council appointees. 105: BLUE RIBBON TASK FORCE: Relative to the subject task force discussed in previous meetings, Councilman Seymour moved that a Blue Ribbon Task Force be appointed consisting of 5 businessmen to be appointed by the Council to review the budget format with City staff and to also review the current budget and next year's budget (FY 1979-80) relative to recommendations, considering Propo- sition 13. Councilman Roth seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. Mayor Seymour asked that the Council be prepared to make nominations in one week. 105: LIBRARY BOARD REQUEST TO PUBLICIZE WORK: The Mayor referred to the letter from the Library Board stating that they wanted to do some public information work, the details for which were supplied at the Liaison Committee meeting attended by himself and Councilman Kott on Thursday, August 1, 1978. Councilman Kott explained that the Library Board wanted to publicize their library work, the facilities they had available, etc., through their media without going through the Public Information Office although they would provide PIO with copies of the publicity. They had a personal means of doing so, thus there would be no cost to the City. Another item broached at the meeting was that the Main Library was not in very good repair. After the meeting, he personally investigated the items discussed and noted that the carpeting, particularly in the basement area, was in bad condition, the walls had chips in them and painting was necessary in certain areas. The cost of maintenance had gone up since the new program had been instituted; the maintenance had worsened, as well as repairs, but yet costs had risen under that new system. Mayor Seymour added that relative to Proposition 13 and its impact on the Library budget, the Library Board felt they had done a good job in cutting the budget by giving up the Bookmobile, new books, and architectural planning. The Council 78-1118 City Hall~ Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - August 22~ 1978, 1:30 P.M. subsequently kept the books in the budget. He and Councilman Kott suggested to the Board that before the Council would consider any further reduction in their budget, they would ask the Board to make their recommendations to the Council, upon request, as to their recommended cuts. Councilman Kott interjected that as he understood the situation, the City Manager sent a directive to the Library Board and asked them to further cut the budget and the Board did not feel they were in a position to cut anything further. They were therefore not amenable to any further reductions. MOTION: After a brief discussion relative to the budget situation, Councilman Seymour referred to the specific request that was made relative to publicity and thereupon moved that the request from the Library Board to publicize library work through the media (no cost to the City) without going through PIO, be approved with a copy of the publicity to be provided to PIO to prevent duplication. Council- man Kott seconded the motion. Before a vote was taken, it was clarified upon questioning by Councilman Overholt that it was not and never had been a requirement for any publicity instituted by the Library to be routed through PIO; Assistant City Manager Hopkins stated there was no policy, but there should be coordination to eliminate duplication and excess paperwork. A vote was then taken on the foregoing motion. Councilman Overholt voted "No". MOTION CARRIED. Councilman Overholt stated he voted "no" because the motion was not necessary. RECESS - EXECUTIVE SESSION: By general consent, the Council recessed into Executive Session. (7:30 P.M.) AFTER RECESS: The Mayor called the meeting to order, all Council Members being present. (7:49 P.M.) 112: CITY OF ANAHEIM VERSUS JACK DUTTON: On motion by Councilman Seymour, seconded by Councilman Kott, the proposed stipulation for entry of judgment in the case of City of Anaheim versus Jack Dutton, et al., (Orange County Superior Court C~ase No. 26-19-69), was approved and the City Attorney authorized to submit said judgment to the Superior Court for approval. MOTION CARRIED. ADJOURNMENT: Councilman Seymour moved to adjourn to Wednesday, August 23, 1978, at 6:30 p.m., Little People's Park. Councilman seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. Adjourned: 7:50 P.M. LINDA D. ROBERTS, CITY CLERK