Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
1981/06/09
81-837 City Hall~ Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - June 9, 1981, 1:30 P.M. The City Council of the City of Anaheim met in regular session. PRESENT: ABSENT: PRESENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Overhott, Kaywood, Bay, Roth and Seymour COUNCIL MEMBERS: None CITY b~NAGER: William O. Talley CITY ATTORNEY: William P. Hopkins CITY CLERK: Linda D. Roberts CITY ENGINEER: William Devitt PLANNING DIRECTOR: Ron Thompson TRAFFIC ENGINEER: Paul Singer STREET MAINTENANCE SUPERINTENDENT: Bill Lewis ASSISTANT DIRECTOR FOR ZONING: Annika Santalahti HOUSING MANAGER: Lisa Stipkovich Mayor Seymour called the meeting to order and welcomed those in attendance to the Council meeting. INVOCATION: ~ary L. Hibbard, Anaheim United Methodist Church, gave the Invocation. FLAG SALUTE: Councilman Ben Bay led the assembly in the Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag. 119: PROCL~V~ATION: The following proclamation was issued by Mayor Seymour and authorized by the City Council: "GENE AUTRY DAY" - June 14, 1981 119: RESOLUTION OF CONGRATULATIONS: A resolution of congratulations was unanimously adopted by the City Council to be presented to Mr. Larry Sierk upon his retirement after 15 years of service to the Anaheim Chamber of Commerce. 119: INTRODUCTION AND PRESENTATION: Mr. Darrell Ament of the City's Utility Department introduced Lars and Kisa Hukenen from Karia, Finland. Three of their four children lived as exchange students in Anaheim, one to be graduating from Anaheim High School on June 11, 1981. The Mayor welcomed them on behalf of the Council and presented them with minature flags of the United States and of the City. 2~e guests, in turn, presented each Council Member with miniature flags of Finland. 119: PRESENTATION: The Mayor and Council then presented to Mrs. Jane Broadway, Senior Secretary to the City Clerk and City Council, a plant in appreciation of her almost five years of service, and upon her leaving the employ of the City. AFTER RECESS: Chairman Seymour reconvened the Redevelopment Agency meeting at 3:40 p.m. for the purpose of conducting a joint public hearing with the City Council. Ail Agency Members were present. 81-838 City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - June 9, 1981, 1:30 P.M. 123/161.123: PARTICIPATION AGREEMENT, PACIFIC TELEPHONE AND TELEGRAPH COMPANY: Public hearing was held to consider a Participation Agreement between the Agency and the Pacific Telephone and Telegraph Company for development of land located between Lincoln Avenue and Cypress Street and Anaheim Boulevard and Clementine Street. Executive Director Norman J. Priest recommended approval of an Initial Study for the proposed agreement, finding that no subsequent Environmental Impact Report or supplement to an EIR is necessary or required. He further recommended that the Redevelopment Agency and the City Council each make certain findings with respect to the consideration to be received by the Agency pursuant to the Participation Agreement, approving sale of said property, consenting to the provision of certain public improvements by the Agency, and approving the Participation Agreement. Chairman/Mayor Seymour announced that the matter under consideration was a public hearing, and he asked if anyone wished to address the Redevelopment Agency/City Council. There was no response. Chairman/Mayor Seymour declared the public hearing closed. Mr./Councilman Seymour offered Resolution No. AtLASi-13 and ARA81-14, and 81R-259 for adoption. Refer to Resolution Book. RESOLUTION NO. ARA81-13: A RESOLUTION OF THE ANAHEIPI REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY APPROVING AN INITIAL STUDY AND FINDING AND DETERMINING THAT A SUBSEQUENT ENViROi~ENTAL IMPACT REPORT NEED NOT BE PREPARED FOR THE PROPOSED SALE OF CERTAIN REAL PROPERTY AND THE PROPOSED DEVELOPP~ENT OF SUCH REAL PROPERTY IN THE REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT ALPHA PROJECT AREA. RESOLUTION NO. ARA8t-14: A RESOLUTION OF THE ANAHEIM REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY APPROVING THE PROPOSED SALE OF REAL PROPERTY IN REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT ALPHA; APPROVING THE PROPOSED PART. ICIPATION AGREEMENT PERTAINING THERETO; AND AUTHORIZING THE EXECUTION ~F SAID PARTICIPATION AGREEMENT. RESOLUTION NO. 81R-259: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM CERTIFYING 'fHE INITIAL STUDY WITH RESPECT TO THE PROPOSED PARTICIPATION AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE ANAHEIM REDEVELOPb~NT AGENCY AND PACIFIC TELEPHONE AND TELEGRAPH CO~LPANY; FINDING THAT THE CONSiDER~TION FOR THE SALE OF THE PROPERTY THEP, EUNDER IS NOT LESS THAN FAIR PDtRKET VALUE IN ACCORDANCE WITH COVENANTS AND CONDITIONS GOVERNING SUCH SALES; AND APPROVING THE SALE OF SUCH PROPERTY AND SAID PARTICIPATION AGREEb~NT. Roll Call Vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: AGENCY/COUNCIL ~MBERS: AGENCY/COUNCIL MEMBERS: AGENCY/COUNCIL P~MBERS: Overholt, Kaywood, Bay, Roth and Seymour None None Chairman/Mayor Seymour declared Resolution Nos. ARASI-13, ~81-14 and 81R-259 duly passed and adopted. ADJOURNP[ENr: There ~eing no further business to come before the Anaheim Redevelopment Agency, Mrs. Kaywood moved to adjourn. Mr. Bay seconded the motion. MOTION C~RRIED. (3:50 p.m.) 81-839 City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - June 9, 1981, 1:30 P.M. 103: THE JEFFERSON-ORANGETHORPE NO. 2 ANNEXATION: City of Anaheim to consider the annexation of approximately 24.5 acres of land located on the west side of Jefferson Street between Miraloma Avenue and Orangethorpe Avenue. Mayor Seymour asked if anyone wished to speak to the subject application; there being no response, he closed the public hearing. Councilman Roth offered Resolution No. 81R-260 approving Jefferson-Orangethorpe No. 2 Annexation to the City of Anaheim, as recommended in memorandum received June 3, 1981 from the Planning Department. Refer to Resolution Book. RESOLUTION NO. 81R-260: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM MAKING A FINDING REGARDING THE VALUE OF WRITTEN PROTESTS FILED AND NOT WITHDRAWN IN ANNEXATION PROCEEDINGS FOR JEFFERSON-ORANGETHORPE NO. 2 ANNEXATION AND ORDERING THE TERRITORY ANNEXED PURSUANT TO SECTION 35229 OF THE GOVERN~ENT CODE OF THE STATE OF CALFORNIA. Roll Call Vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: COUNCI{ MEMBERS: COUNCIL MEMBERS: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Overholt, Kaywood, Bay, Roth and Seymour None None The Mayor declared Resolution No. 8iR-260 duly passed and adopted. 106/174: CONTINUED PUBLIC HEA~RING - 1981-82 RESOURCE ALLOCATION PLAN (BUDGET) AND FEDERAL GENERAL REVENUE SHAKING: To consider the proposed 1981-82 Resource Allocation Plan (continued from the meetings of May 12 and 19, 1981) and to consider the proposed Federal General Revenue sharing budget for the fiscal year 1981-82 (continued from the meeting of May 19, 1981). Mayor Seymour noted that a/number of people were present from the Community Services Board who were interested in the proposed allocations for the community service organizations. He noted that one of the items was listed under the City Manager's portion of the agenda and suggested that they first consider that item. CITY MANAGER/DEPARTMENTAL MOTION CONSENT CALENDAR: On motion by Councilwoman Kaywood, seconded by Councilman Roth, the following items were approved as recommended: a. 160: Bid No. 3769--40,000 Pounds of 336.4 ACSR "Merlin" Wire. Award to General Electric Supply, $42,796.96. b. 160: Bid No. 3776--3 300KVA, Three-Phase Padmount %*ransformers. Award McGraw-Edison, $13,435.50. c. 160: Bid No. 3784--Covercoat existing built-up roof kitchen area at the Convention Center~ Award to Corona Coatings, $11,100. 81-840 City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - June 9, 1981, 1:30 P.M. d. 123/150: Authorizing an agreement with Catholic Social Services in the amount of $5,840 to partially fund a Mobile Community Service Center which will provide information and referral services to designated neighborhoods within the City, for a period of one year. e. 123: Authorizing an amendment to the agreement with the Orange County Harbors, Beaches and. Parks District, extending the completion date for construction of Phase III of Peralta Canyon Park to January 1, 1982. f. 123: Authorizing an agreement with Scorer Cable TV, Inc., for lease of a portion of Olive Hills Park as a microwave receiving site. g. 123: Authorizing the City Engineer to execute a Letter Agreement with the Earth Technology Corporation, dba Ertec Western, Inc., in an amount not to exceed $3,000 and payment of $1,940 for interim services, for backfill testing and inspection services for the Two-Million Gallon Lenain Reservoir. MOTION CARRIED. Mayor Seymour noted, therefore, that for those interest, the agreement with Catholic Social Services in the amount of $5,840 to partially fund a Mobile Community Service Center had been approved. City Manager William Talley explained that the Community Services Board had met previously on seven items on which they received requests for funding with three additional requests having been received after that time. He could read those along with the Community Services Board recommendations. The Mayor suggested that he do so and if there was no disagreement from the requesting organizations or queries from the Council, they could assume those would be passed favorably. Mr. Talley then stated tha~ $18,572 had been requested for Transportation, Lunch and Counseling for senior citizens and the Community Services Board recommended an allocation in that amount. Councilman Bay noted that the request represented a 101% increase; Mrs. Shirley Cohen, TLC, explained that they had moved from the Salvation Army building to the George Washington Community Center and although they now did not have to pay at that facility, they had lost their CETA staff of four or five people who were assisting the manager and thus, were propsosing no hire an aide. The bulk of the additional costs was to start an innovative program in Anaheim--a weekend meal program for seniors~ either Saturday or Sunday. They would have sufficient money in the future for additional meals, but would need transportation assistance, as well as staff assistance from the City. They were planning to do a survey to find out whether Saturday or Sunday would be preferable~ but did not want to do so until the funds were approved. If it turned out well, they might do both. They had received requests from the seniors and most especially City staff to provide weekend meals. Councilman Roth understood that they had lost their CETA people, increased their work load, and were asking for an additional sum. 81-841 City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - June 9, 1981, 1:30 P.M. Both Councilman Roth and the Mayor commended Mrs. Cohen for the work she and her group had done and were doing in the City. They considered it to be one of the finest and most outstanding of the senior citizens programs. Mr. Talley announced that Community Pride requested $2,150, and the Community Services Board recommended an allocation in that amount; no one wished to speak and there were no questions. Mr. Talley announced that the West Orange County Hotline requested $1,200, and the Community Services Board recommended an allocation in that amount. Mr. Talley announced that the Christian Temporary Housing requested $20,000, and the Community Services Board recommended an allocation of $4,324; a representative from the Christian Temporary Housing was in the Chambers audience, but had nothing to add. Mr. Talley announced that the Retired Seniors Volunteer Program (RSVP) requested $7,800, and the Community Services Board recommended an allocation in that amount. He explained that $6,633 of that amount had already been funded in the Recreation budget and that the amount represented $1,167 new dollars; no one wished to speak, and there were no questions. Mr. Talley announced that the Orange County Community Development Food Bank requested $10,502~ but that the Community Services Board did not recommend an allocation for that program. Ms. Nora Valdez, Special Program Manager, Orange County Community Development Council, first relayed the background of the Food Bank program. It was a county-wide clearing house that received surplus and salvage food from local donors such as Alpha Beta, Safeway, etc. l~he food was supplied to the needy of Orange County. They had over 50 member agencies and l0 such agencies were located in Anaheim, servin~ 319 people daily. Their sources of funding at present were Revenue Shariag funds, anticipated to be cut to 25% for the next fiscal year and Community Service Administration funds, also anticipated to be cut as well as CETA personnel. They had received no funds from other cities. Their warehouse was located in Westminster and administrative offices in Santa Ana, with one more location in Anaheim. There was a membership donation on a sliding fee schedule depending on how many pounds of food were taken from the program. They were anticipating Chat their organization would ultimately be self-sustaining in two years. The Mayor stated they would give the matter consideration. Mr. Talley announced that Garden Grove-Amparo requested $10,000 and the Community Services Board recommended $2j850; from the audience, a representative from Amparo was present to answer any questions if necessary. Mr. Talley announced the We Tip requested $6,754 and that there was no recommendation from the Community Services Board, the reason being, the CSB met on May 14 and made final recommendations on May 28. Three requests had been received after their final meeting date. 81-842 City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - June 9, 1981, 1:30 P.M. Mr. Bill Brownell, Founder/State Director of We Tip, first elaborated upon his letter of May 1981 giving up-to-date information on the organization, as well as the number of tips received and subsequent arrests and convictions. Councilman Roth asked to hear from the Chief of Police relative to the We Tip organization. Police Chief George Tielsch stated that his Department did not track the work of the organization. The person in his agency with whom he checked when they were asked for any type of endorsement was his Intelligence Commander, Lt. Wilcox. ~en he did so, Lt. Wilcox indicated he was very high on the type of work that We Tip did and found that they had been of significant value to the Department. The Mayor stated they would give Mr. Brownell's request every consideration. Mr. Talley announced that The Villa requested $12,000, but that there was no recommendation from the Community Services Board. Doris LaMagna, administrator of The Villa, explained that they had been in existence for almost 19 years based in ~anta Ana and had been serving the women of Orange County with alcoholic problems during all of that time. Last year they purchased a larger home and did some refurbishing. She then explained what they were doing to acquire funding for their operation. They were in need of help since many funding sources were uncertain. Their home was always full, and they had a waiting list. Approximately 10% of t~he residents were from Anaheim and although 10% would equal about $18,000, they were only asking for $12,000, because some people would pay for a portion of their stay when they were able to do so. She also commented that all services used each other such as the Food Bank and Christian Temporary Housing. They were a member of the Food Bank, paying $20 a month, and they received at least $500 to $700 worth of food ~a month. Mr. Talley then stated relative to Catholic Social Services at $5,200, the item on the Manager's budget was that, plus $640 for the first year of operation. He was assuming he could include it on the list at $5,840. Mr. Steve Jimenez, Chairman, Community Services Board, then expressed the feeling of the Board in that they hoped they had provided the Council with a useful tool in making decisions. The Board would like to continue to be involved in next year's and the following year's funding requests, and also that a funding level be allocated from which they could work. He also explained that although there were differences of opinion on some of the recommendations, in the final vote they all came to an agreement and there was 100% support from the Community Services Board. Councilman Roth stated he appreciated their input and commended them for an outstanding job. He felt much more comfortable with the CSB making recommendations to the Council and that was the place such requests should start. 81-843 City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - June 9, 1981, 1:30 P.M. Mr. Jimenez then confirmed for Councilwoman Kaywood that their recommendations still held firm, and they did not want to change anything after hearing the presentations today. He also explained for Councilman Overholt that he was present when the deliberations took place on the Orange County Food Bank. The one thing that stood out in those discussions was the fact that they were charging a user agency six cents per pound for food which was a large figure. Further, they felt there was a duplication of services with the Salvation Army, St. Vincent's and other like organizations. He also confirmed it was also due to the fact that they were coming to Anaheim to make up for the entire deficiency. The Mayor then announced that the Council may or may not make a decision on the foregoing items today. He then asked to hear from the Golf Course Commission. Mr. Bob Messe, Chairman, Golf Course Advisory Commission, first complimented the Golf Course staff on its performance in creating a business plan which met the goals and objectives handed to them by the City Council They had done an outstanding job in planning and budgeting; however, the Commission was concerned with ~he narrative regarding the Golf Course budget and that portion seemed rather negative, whereas their Commission was extremely optimistic as to the budget and financial future of the Golf Course. As of the 11 months ended April 30, 1981, they were $180,500 ahead of last year and $155,000 plus ahead of budget, and there was another great golf month yet to be counted. The close to break-even budget for the coming year included the payment of both principal and interest for the land debt of the Hills Course, and they had but nine years to go to a "mortgage burning" party. In addition, the budget for the coming year included only minor expenditures in the capital improvement area. This year was the closest they had come to their goals and objectives and the Commission voted unanimously to approve the budget as submitted. He asked that the Golf Course staff and City Manager's office consider it to be a City business plan and not just a Commission plan and to use their expertise and management capabilities to make the planning a reality. Mr. >~esse then deferred to Mr. Ed Klein, a member of the Commission, to speak to the improvements at the Hills Course. Mr. Ed Klein first reviewed the historical background to Cate of the Hills Course from the prospective as a member of the Master Plan Committee and also with regard to the initial Arthur Young report recommending that an architect be retained to correct the deficiencies at the Course. During the course of his presentation he explained that their goal was to make the combined courses break-even. They also felt that the profits from the two courses that would be developed after passing the break-even point would be used to make the improvements on the Hills Course which in 10 or 15 years would make that Course a profitable one in its own right. The plan to be presented provided the improvements they felt were needed. They had been defined into sections or segments so that they could operate in a near as normal capital expenditures mode. They had found some developable land and a Mr. Bob McFarland, a professional planner and architect, was present to show what land was available and could be developed. 81-844 City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - June 9, 1981, 1:30 P.M. Mr. Bob McFarland, Planner and Architect, working from a posted plan, stated he was asked to study the possibilities of developing residential land and surplus areas of the Golf Course property. They came up with four possible sites, all of which they felt were feasible: The first and most obvious was in the area of the existing third hole where the Golf Course architect was proposing to reroute the hole, creating an approximately eight-acre area. It presently had access through an existing surface road which could be developed as the access to a condominium development which would yield approximately 60 dwelling units of a typical condominium townhouse attached dwelling type. Their estimates on income derived to the City by the sale was in the range of approximately $1.6 million. Secondly, the 12th green in an area close to Canyon Rim Road would be relocated where they believed two-single family lots could be developed that would be compatible with the lots on either side. There were some problems in developing access where the City may require that a partial cul-de-sac be constructed. A very conservative estimate as to what those lots might be worth was $100,000 each. The sizes of the lots were between one-quarter and one-half acre each. The third site was on a small promontory on Walnut Canyon between the eighth and ninth fairways where they felt that the approximate three-quarters of an acre would yield approximately six condominium dwellings with a return of approximately $200,000 in the sale of the land. The fourth site was part of the existing Golf Course parking lot currently not used, because there was no demand for spaces at that end of the lot. The suggestion had been made that it be turned over to a conference type facility that could benefit from the location of the Golf Course parking lot and could be leased to groups or companies wishing to hold daytime seminars, not to be used as an overnight facility. He had not studied that and thus was not prepared to place a value Qn it. He again emphasized that their estimates of return to the City were conservative. Councilman Roth asked in 1981 dollars the cost of redesigning the course in order to make the land available; Mr. McFarland answered that the cost for redesigning the third, fourth and part of the fifth holes was $110,000 which was confirmed by Mr. Messe from the audience. Councilwoman Kaywood then asked with the proposed land use~ what the existing homes would be looking down on. Mr. McFarland answered that none of the development on the first three sites would block the view of any of the existing residences, although there would be foreground intrusion on the first and third site. Councilwoman Kaywood stated as she recalled with regard to the original lease or sale of the Golf Course property, that if they were to sell anything, they would need to immediately pay off the entire debt and secondly, that any housing that would occur would be done by Anaheim Hills, Inc. City Attorney Hopkins stated that he did not have the documents with him, but essentially that was correct. 81-845 City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - June 9, 1981, 1:30 P.M. After a brief discussion between Council Members, Messrs. McFarland, Messe and staff, Councilman Roth suggested it would be wise for the Commission to have meetings with the citizens in the area at the Clubhouse; Mr. Messe agreed and also stated perhaps this was the time to turn the matter over to some City departments to look at the feasibility of the plan. Mayor Seymour stated it was a political decision. The Commission had done what they asked them to do and they had come to the Council with a break-even budget although some might lack the faith that that could be accomplished. He felt the question of whether or not the Council was going to attempt to sell some excess land and then perhaps apply those funds to the Courses was a question that needed to be debated at another time. Today they were at the point where they should make a decision relative to the question hanging over everyone's head, whether or not they were going to continue to proceed with any negotiations or final negotiations with private management firms or whether they were going to retain the Courses under the Family Foresome. He had expressed himself previously--the Family Foresome was doing an outstanding job and he felt strongly that they should remain with the Family Foresome management. 135: MOTION: Councilman Seymour moved, as he had sometime back, that they terminate any further negotiations or proceedings with private management firms and that they continue with the management of the Golf Courses under the umbrella of the Family Foresome. Councilwoman Kaywood seconded the motion. Before action was taken, Councilman Overholt stated that he believed he had seconded the motion when it was originally made by the Mayor some months ago. His position as stated at that time had been reinforced not only by City Management, but also by the Golf Course Commission in working on the budget and also in coming up with a scheme. He felt they had a sales job to do, but if they were going to be talking about a larger condominium development, he would ask Mr. McFarland if.it was going to be noisy, could any noise be shielded by trees, etc., a~d how it would look after the trees and landscaping matured. Those were the things they were going to talk about. It was his view that the impact of condominiums on the Course would be minimal after the landscape matured. He complimented Mr. Messe and the Com~issiona and Mr. Taltey and his staff in pulling together on the effort. Councilwoman Kaywood stated she wanted to be sure that the area of any of the condominiums were not in the path of the reservoir. ~ir. Messe stated that those areas indicated were out of the overflow area of the dam and away from the Edison easement. A vote was then taken on the foregoing motion. MOTION CARRIED. Mr. Talley then announced that the next items would be Council Policy decisions on the various amendments brought to their attention: Canine Corps, $84,040; Police Computerized Information System, $75,000; Police Facility Expansion and Library Parking Lot, $597,500 total, Certificates of Participation, $178,160; Library Theft Detection System, $31,100; Street Lighting Conversion, $1,413,000; Traffic Signal Installation, $469,000; Productivity Improvement Projects, $75,000; Euclid/Cerritos Storm Drain and 81-846 City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - June 9, 1981, 1:30 P.M. Laterals, $2,410,000; Mechanical Maintenance Facility, $3,500,000; City Attorney's Office Accounting Support, pending; Park Ranger Program-Pearson Park, $10,356. Those were the items yet to be resolved. He was anticipating that relative to the changes recommended in the Utilities Department budget by the Public Utilities Board, that there were no problems with those which were merely adjustments in estimates. Reverting to the Community Services organizations, the Council left two in abeyance, although they did not take specific action on any of the others. Mayor Seymour stated, as he understood, what he (Talley) would like the Council to attempt to undertake was the allocation of the unallocated $715,000. Mr. Talley answered that would be one series of actions that would wrap up the budget. The other series would be to establish Council Policy on various fee increases--street cleaning and sewer maintenance charges, golf course green fees and cart rental rates, traffic signal assessment fees which were an increase of 15% and already in the budget, planning and zoning fees and reimbursement agreement, an executive search firm for the Assistant Utilities General Manager recruitment, and some housekeeping chores regarding the Municipal Code relating to the Public Works Department, adopting the Proposition No. 13 limitation and the claims procedure and claims settlement authority reports presented by the City Attorney and Risk Manager. Councilman Bay believed there was one additional item. He recalled that they had received a request signed by some citizens to retain the graffiti clean-up program at $41,546, General Fund money, to make up other funding losses to continue the graffiti clean-up program; Mr. Talley acknowledged that additional request. Relative to graffiti, Councilman Roth referred to letter received from Mobile Wash of America, apparently experts in cleaning graffiti. He felt it perhaps might be wise to contract free enterprise in that regard. Mayor Seymour stated if th~ Council should decide, he would be supportive of a continuation of the graffiti program and subsequently it might be in order for staff to contact that company and have them come back with a bid. At this time, they had to decide if they wanted to commit that money. Councilman Overholt noted that when the Library budget was presented, relative to the theft detection system, his impression was that it would be more effective to try one facility and use the other facility as a control which would halve the request of $31,100, for a total of approximately $15,600. Mayor Seymour suggested that they consider the following allocations: (1) Canine Corps, $84,040; (2) Police Computerized Information System, $75,000; (3) Police Facility Expansion and Library Parking Lot, $178,160; (4) Bookmobile-Outreach Program, $67,000; (5) One-half of the Library Theft Detection System, $15,600; (6) City Attorney's Office Accounting Support, $4,000 (200 hours at $20 per hour); (7) Park Ranger Program-Pearson Park, $10,356; (8) Scout Trail Traffic Signal, $79,000; (9) Continuation of the Graffiti Program, $41,546. He totalled those numbers at $591,598 and would further propose finally that the difference between the $591,598 and the $715,000 be allocated towards traffic signalization. 81-847 City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - June 9, 1981, 1:30 P.M. Mr. Talley interjected and stated that would eliminate all Community Services organization monies; Mayor Seymour stated he should have started off with those because he had them on his list. He had in that number of $591,598 the $36,896 of Community Services Board recommendations. He reiterated the difference of the balance be put into traffic signal installation programs, as recommended by priority by the Traffic Engineer. Councilwoman Kaywood asked if The Villa was included; Mayor Seymour answered "no". He thereupon included the requested $12,000, bringing the total to $603,598. The Council was also desirous of adding We Tip at $1,000, leaving a balance of $604,598. Councilman Overholt suggested that they make some contribution to the Food Distribution Program, although not at the level requested, since it was obvious that there were other serving agencies in the community. If that organization became self-sufficient in a year, it would be a one-time shot. He would recommend $2,000. Councilwoman Kaywood spoke against the recommendations since the Community Service Board labored long and hard over the matter and today still had not changed their mind. Mayor Seymour stated he would be supportive of considering it if it was only a $2,000 allocation, which he felt was more than reasonable. Councilman Roth stated there was one item he had not heard mentioned and he thought it was a very high priority, that being Pearson Park security; Mayor Seymour stated that was already included in the Chief's budget, meaning the Park Ranger Program enhanced by additional patrol. Chief Tielsch stated they would take care of the additional patrol with their own budget without any enhancement. %~he first time the matter was discussed, it was not decided whether/they wanted to continue the Park Ranger Program or do something along with Park, Recreation, and Community Services Department. Mayor Seymour stated as he recalled, they laid the problem out to the Chief and it was a very high priority. The Chief came back, along with Jim Ruth, and suggested that they try the Park Ranger Program "beefed up" with some additional patrol to see how that worked. If not, it would have to be stepped up from there. Chief Tielsch stated that was his understanding. Councilwoman Kaywood then asked relative to the Police Facility Expansion and Library Parking Lot if that was an amount of $178,000. Chief Tielsch stated as he understood the recommendation, they were to go to the lease plan, and the $178,160 would be the first year of a five-year lease. 81-848 City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - June 9, 1981, 1:30 P.M. Councilman Bay stated he would not support the $67,000 for the Library Bookmobile. He felt that was not a justifiable priority within all the przorities they were considering. He also did not agree with starting a Library Theft Detection System even with a pilot program, because what he heard was that within one year with the present EDP system, they would have some data to tell the extent of theft. At present, they had nothing that could tell them if they had any theft or, if they did, to what degree and the cost. In another year they would have data on all the Branches and the Main Library as to the dollar cost of theft. At that time, if he could see some data indicating that they had high theft costs, there was no doubt the program would pay for itself. He could not support starting a Theft Detection pilot program with no data base documenting the fact that they even needed such a system. If he could convince a majority of the Council to drop the Bookmobile and Theft Detection Program, they could have a couple of more traffic lights. The Mayor then suggested the following approach. Thus far, there had been disagreement on the Bookmobile, Library Theft Detection System and the Orange County Community Development Food Bank. He would pull those from the list and get a consensus on the remainder of the items. 106/148/150/156: MOTION: Councilman Seymour moved to approve the following appropriations: TLC, $18,572; Community Pride, $2,150; Orange County Hotline~ $1,200; Christian Temporary Housing, $4,324; RSVP, $7,800 ($6,633 already funded in Recreation, $1,167 addition to RAP); Garden Grove-Amparo, $2,850; We Tip, $1,000; The Villa, $12,000--the foregoing items were Community Services Board recommendations; Canine Corps, $84,040; Police Computerized Information System, $75,000; Police Facility Expansion & Library Parking Lot, $178,160; City Attorney's Office Accounting Support, $4,000; Park Ranger Program--Pearson Park, $10,356; Scout Trail Signalization, $79,000; and Continuation of Graffiti Program, $41,546. Councilman Roth seconded the motion. Before a vote was taken, C~uncilwoman Kaywood asked for clarification on the amount necessary for the Scout Trail Traffic Signal. She understood it to be $90,000; Mayor Seymour answered that the Traffic Engineer that morning had stated it would cost $79,000. Councilman Bay, speaking to the City Manager, noted an item totalling $12,000 to start the search on an Assistant Public Utilities General Manager. He asked if that was this year's budget; Mr. Talley stated it would be in next year's budget, but funded in the Utilities Department. He would expect a motion to be made, but it would not be part of the above items. Councilman Bay also questioned the previous discussion on the incentive pay program which totalled approximately $34,000. He asked if that was part of next year's budget as well; Mr. Talley answered it would be part of next year's budget, and they had not addressed that issue yet. He would first rather see the Council wrap the budget up and then anything else that they brought in requiring budgetary consideration, it would be an incentive for the Department to have to find the funds. They were talking about approximately $715,000 and the items they were allocating basically represented to him not 81-849 City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - June 9, 1981, 1:30 P.M. only dollars, but policy discussions. He did not think they were going to be able to pin the budget down to anything as close as $35,000. If they made the allocations, what they were telling staff was that they should make it work and if they could not do so, to come back and tell the Council what they had to do to modify it. Councilwoman Kaywood referred to the Traffic Signal installation list totalling $469,000. She asked how many lights were included. Mr. Talley answered, Chantilly and La Palma, $79,000; unspecified signal, $79,000; Modifications--East Street, Lincoln Avenue to Ball Road, Euclid Street, Ball Road to Orange Avenue modifications and unspecified, totalling $155,000; Two new signals at Fairmont Boulevard and Santa Ana Canyon Road, $78,000, and Kellogg and Orangethorpe Avenue, $78,000 (see memorandum dated April 28, 1981, Page 2--Signal Assessment fund--Status Report, submitted to the Council at the April 28, 1981 budget work session). He also clarified that there was nothing in this year's budget for any traffic signals; City Engineer William Devitt confirmed that was correct. Mr. Talley explained that their cost for maintenance went so high they could not budget anything this year. All of the money the City Engineer had available for capital, he was investing in putting in cabl~e along with Storer Cable. It was worth approximately 106 on the dollar vs cost in the future if he had to do so separately. A vote was then taken on the foregoing motion. MOTION CARRIED. Councilman Overholt expressed his feeling that the Bookmobile was a bargain. It was one way in which the service of the LibrarY-7 could be extended into the community and particularly to the Hispanic communities. To discontinue it at this point would be sheer foolishness on the part of the Council. MOTION: Councilman Overholt moved to appropriate $67,000 for the Bookmobile Outreach Program. Councilman Seymour seconded the motion. Councilman Roth stated he was going to support the motion, but that the Program should be monitored closely in order to ascertain its utilization. Councilwoman Kaywood asked relative to productivity improvement projects for $75,000, if that would be something that would be giving a return to the City. City Manager Talley answered in the view of the consultants, it would. It had a multiple payback of so many dollars for every dollar spent, but they had not designated the programs. Personally, he would be willing to wait a year and come back with demonstrated savings and also specific projects. At this point, Mr. Ron Rothschild confirmed that $200,593 now remained as the balance of the funds to be allocated; Mayor Seymour noted then that if the motion on the Bookmobile carried, they would be down to $133,593. 81-850 City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - June 9, 1981, 1:30 P.M. Councilwoman Kaywood stated relative to the Bookmobile, she felt in looking at what happened throughout the State as a result of Proposition 13, libraries had been the number one item to be slashed, while in Anaheim they had not only not cut back, but built a new library out in the Canyon. Normally she would say priority- and percentage-wise that would be more than enough, but she had to agree if people were being turned around with an exposure reading, it could prove to be one of the best investments they could have. She would like to try the program for a year to see how it would work out; Councilman Overhott stated what they were really doing was extending the program for another year, but that staff was recommending that it be monitored more closely and perhaps change the program to where there would be longer stops, rather than more for shorter periods of time. A vote was then taken on the foregoing motion. Councilman Bay voted "no". MOTION CARRIED. 140: MOTION: Councilman Overholt stated relative to the Library Theft Detection System, he was supportive of the pilot approach in the amount of $15,600. There was history, but it was not itemized as well as they would like to see it.. He thereupon moved to appropriate $15,600 for a Pilot Library Theft Detection System Program. Councilman Roth seconded the motion. Councilman Bay voted "no". MOTION CARRIED. Councilman Roth, as mentioned earlier, was of the opinion that the requested and previously approved allocation of $12,000 for The Villa should be reduced to $6,000. MOTION: Councilman Roth moved to reduce the $12,000 allocation for The Villa to $6,000. Councilman Bay seconded the motion. Mayor Seymour, speaking against the motion stated The Villa was a program to help a segment of society, alcoholic women, and, in his opinion, there was a great and tremendous need {or such a service. He was totally confident that they were providing their service in lieu of some government program trying to achieve the same objective, and they would get more return for their dollar on such a program. Councilwoman Kaywood suggested that next year their request be submitted in time so that it could be reviewed by the Community Services Board. A vote was then taken on the foregoing motion to reduce the allocation. AYES: Bay and Roth NOES: Overholt, Kaywood and Seymour The motion failed to carry. Relative to the Orange County Community Development Food Bank, Councilman Overholt stated he suggested the $2,000, but was not hung up on a given figure. With due respect to the Community Services Board, there were four member agencies of the Food Bank located in the City and the amount they 81-851 City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - June 9, 1981, 1:30 P.M. received per pound of food yielded tremendous dividends to the agencies, as was stated by the Director of The Villa. They should make some commitment to that group to enable them to get to a self-sustaining basis. They asked for $10,000, and he felt contribution of $2,000 was appropriate. 144: MOTION: Councilman Overholt moved to appropriate $2,000 to the Orange County Community DeveloPment Food Bank. Councilman Seymour seconded the motion. Before a vote was taken, Councilwoman Kaywood spoke against the motion again on the basis that the Community Services Board went through the entire procedure and Chairman Jimenez stated he was not ready to change his mind on that recommendation. She would go with their recommendation. Mayor Seymour stated he did not want the Community Services Board to misconstrue his vote. He was totally supportive of what they did, but as a Council Member, he wanted to withhold the right to adjust a few things from time to time. Councilman Bay stated relative to all the requests relating to community services, as the projected cutbacks in Federal funding occurred across the country, as well as the cutbacks from the State, and things started to get binding on budgets, he felt there was going to be a day when there would be 100 community service organizations looking for a replacement of those funds. It was up to the Council to consider that in future budget years. The organizations should be encouraged to become self-sustaining. A vote was then taken on the foregoing motion. Council Members Kaywood and Bay voted "no". MOTION CARRIED. Mayor Seymour then stated with those motions, there remained a balance of $115,993, as confirmed by Mr. Rothschild. At this point, he would like to know if there was concurrence among the Council that the Falmouth-Brookhurst signal was the top priority. If not, he would like to hear from the Traffic Engineer; Councilman Overholt gave his concurrence on that signal. 167: MOTION: Councilman Bay stated he would be glad to move that the Falmouth-Brookhurst traffic signal at $79,000 be considered as the number one priority. Councilman Seymour seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. 114: MOTION: Councilman Seymour ~hen moved that the balance of the $36,993, the difference between the $715,000 unallocated funds and the foregoing appropriations, be placed in the Council Contingency Fund, and that the adjustments to the R.A.P., as articulated by the City Manager be approved. Before action was taken, Mr. Talley asked if he would include the following in that motion: Increase the Revenue Sharing account by $82,350; Purchase Power increase, $91,000; decrease Light and Power by $6,009,000; increase Other Electric Income $t,082,500; decrease Water Supply $278,780; decrease Water Sales Income $432,000; increase Other Water Income $264,300; add the Energy 81-852 City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - June 9, 1981, 1:30 P.M. Load Research Project, $16,000; add the Energy Load Research Federal Grant Income, $16,000; add Children's Theater Tour Program, $3,480; Miscellaneous Contribution Income increase, $3,480; Facility Rental IGS Fund treatment of long distance and toll call charges, $135,000; in Project 680, reduce the amount for the San Onofre Project, $22,600,000 and the budgeted revenue from Electric Revenue Bond proceeds by $22,600,000. Mayor Seymour included the foregoing items as part of his motion. Councilwoman Kaywood seconded the motion. Before a vote was taken, Mr. Taltey explained that all the figures he read were the ones that the Public Utilities Board recommended to the Council or the ones for programs that had no effect on the budget other than changing amounts. A vote was then taken on the foregoing motion. MOTION CARRIED. Councilman Roth offered Resolution No. 81R-261 through 81R-268, both inclusive, for adoption. Refer to Resolution Book. 159: RESOLUTION NO. 81R-261: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM ADOPTING A NEW FEE SCHEDULE OF SANITATION CHARGES AND REPEALING RESOLUTION NO. 80R-583. 135: RESOLUTION NO. 81R-262: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHELM ESTABLISHING THE GREEN FEES AND CART RENTAL FEES TO BE CHARGED AT THE H. G. "DAD" MILLER ANAHE~ MUNICIPAL GOLF COURSE AND THE ANAHEIM HILLS GOLF COURSE. 167: RESOLUTION NO. 81R-263: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHE~i DESIGNATING A REVISED FEE SCHEDULE FOR INSTALLATION OF TRAFFIC SIGNALS. 179: RESOLUTION NO. 81R-2~4: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM ESTABLISHING FEE SCHEDULES FOR LAND USE APPLICATIONS AND APPEALS. 106/130: RESOLUTION NO. 81R-265: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEI~i, CALIFORNIA ADOPTING THE ANNUAL APPROPRIATIONS LIMIT FOR THE FISCAL YEA~X 1981/82. 152/112: RESOLUTION NO. 81R-266: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AMENDING RESOLUTION NO. 69R-571 TO INCREASE THE ORIGINAL AMOUNT TO $5,000.00 OR LESS FOR ANY RELEASE AND/OR SETTLEbiENT AGREE~iENTS INVOLVING CLAIblS OR RIGHTS BY THE CITY. 118: RESOLUTION NO. 81R-267: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHE~LM Ai~ENDING RESOLUTION NO. 76R-473 TO INCREASE THE ~iOUNT TO $5,000 OR LESS FOR ANY ALLOWANCE, COP2ROMISE OR SETTLEMENT OF CLAIMS. 180/118: RESOLUTION NO. 81R-268: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHE~ AUTHORIZING THE RISK ~NAGER TO ALLOW, COMPRO~IISE OR SETTLE CLA~S AGAINST THE CITY OF ANAHE~ IF THE AMOUNT TO BE PAID IS $5,000.00 OR LESS AND AUTHORIZING THE RISK ~NAGER TO SIGN ON BEHALF OF THE CITY ANY ALLOWANCE, COMPROMISE OR SETTLEMENT AGREE?~NTS OR DOCUMENTS RELATING THERETO. 81-853 City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - June 9, 1981, 1:30 P.M. Before a vote was taken, Mayor Seymour stated he assumed that the action here was not a final approval of the budget, since public hearing on the RAP was going to be continued. Mr. Talley stated that on June 30, 1981 they would be bringing a motion to adopt the 1981-81 Resource Allocation Plan, as amended. Ron Rothschild stated that the Charter indicated the Council was ~to adopt the budget on or before June 30, 1981, but there was a period after initial setting of the first public hearing, which was May 12, 1981, that must lapse prior to final approval. A roll call vote was then taken on the foregoing resolutions. Roll Call Vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: COUNCIL MEMBERS: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Overholt, Kaywood, Bay, Roth and Seymour None None The Mayor declared Resolution Nos. 81R-261 through 81R-268, both inclusive, duly passed and adopted. 123: MOTIOn: Councilman Overholt moved to approve an agreement with an Executive Search Firm for an Assistant Utilities General Manager. Councilwoman Kaywood seconded the motion. Before a vote was taken, Councilman Bay asked if the Council was involved in the selection or if it was strictly a Department selection. Mr. Tatley answered that it was a Department Head appointment by the Public Utilities General Manager. Mayor Seymour stated he was going to support the motion, but with the caveat he expressed at the morning budget session (see minutes June 9, 1981, 9:30 a.m. budget work session). A vote was then taken on the foregoing motion. MOTION CARRIED. 142/159: ORDINANCE NO. 4235: Councilwoman Kaywood offered Ordinance No. 4235 for first reading. ORDINANCE NO. 4235: ~N ORDINA~NCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIP~ A~MENDING TITLE 1, CHAPTER 1.0g, SECTION 1.04.120 OF THE ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE RELAYING TO PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT. The Mayor asked if anyone else wished to speak to the 1981-82 Resource Allocation Plan or the Proposed Federal General Revenue Sharing Budget for the fiscal year 1951-82; there was no response. MOTION: Councilwoman Kaywood moved to continue public hearing on the 1981-82 Resource Allocation Plan and the Federal General Revenue Sharing budget for the fiscal year 1981-82 to June 30, 1981, 3:00 p.m. MOTION CARRIED. 81~854 City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - June 9, 1981, 1:30 P.M. 148/173: PROPOSED REGIONAL AIRPORT SITE IN THE SANTIAGO CANYON: Authorizing a letter to be sent to the SCAG Executive Committee expressing the City's opposition to the proposed Santiago Canyon regional airport site, continued from the meetings of May 26 and June 2, 1981 (see minutes those dates). Councilwoman Kaywood indicated that somebody wanted to make a presentation on the matter and thus she was agreeable to waiting to hear that presentation. She suggested that it be continued until July. MOTION: Councilwoman Kaywood moved to defer action on the subject until July. Councilman Overholt seconded the motion. Before a vote was taken, Mayor Seymour requested that staff contact SCAG to set up a time for a presentation; Assistant City Manager Hopkins stated they would get back to SCAG, since they were awaiting word as to when they could make a presentation. Councilman Roth noted that Supervisor Nestande requested that the presentation he made sometime in July, since he was quite interested in the issue. A vote was then taken on the foregoing motion. MOTION CARRIED. MINUTES: Councilwoman Kaywood moved to approve the minutes of the regular meeting held February 3, 1981, subject to typographical corrections. Councilman Bay seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. WAIVER OF READING - ORDINANCES AND RESOLUTIONS: Councilwoman Kaywood moved to waive the reading in full of all ordinances and resolutions of the Agenda, after reading of the title thereof by the City Clerk, and that consent to waiver is hereby given by all Council Members, unless after reading of the title, specific request is made by a Council Member for the reading of such ordinances or resolutions in regular order. Councilman Bay seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. FINANCIAL DEMANDS AGAINST THE CITY in the amount of $10~398,325.57~ in accordance with the 1980-81 Budget, were approved. 174/177: ANAHEIM MEMORIAL HOSPITAL - HUD APPLICATION FOR ELDERLY HOUSING: A staff report dated June 2, 1981, recommending that the Mayor sign a letter containing comments on ~naheim Memorial Hospital's application to HUD to construct new rental units for the elderly in an area generally located east of Loara Street between Catalpa and North Streets, was submitted. (see minutes May 5 and 12, 1981) Councilman Bay stated he removed the subject item from the Consent Calendar because, in his opinion, the matter was moving too fast for him, to where it almost precluded the zoning or density action. He wanted to know from staff whether they might even need a General Plan Amendment in the area and they were certainly going to have to have public hearings. It was also his opinion that the proposed letter dated June 9, 1981 to be sent to HUD predisposed that action. 81-855 City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - June 9, 1981, 1:30 P.M. Mrs. Lisa Stipkovich, Housing Manager, explained that the letter did not commit the Council to any zoning or General Plan Amendment. It was a requirement of the Federal government that if a project of the subject nature was proposed in a locality, that it be consistent with the Housing Assistance Plan. That was the letter they were suggesting be sent. Mayor Seymour expressed the feeling that the language of the letter went beyond that, specifically paragraph three as follows: "In reference to site and zoning issues, there are no site problems associated with this parcel. This proposal is consistant with the General Plan; however, there would have to be a zoning reclassification from single family to multiple family." He noted that the proposal was not consistent with the General Plan. He concurred with Councilman Bay that they were making commitments to HUD that they did not have the power to make. Mrs. Stipkovich stated that was her fault in that her staff apparently had some misinformation. She had no problem in striking paragraph three. Both the Mayor and Councilman Bay stated they could then support the proposed letter with tha~ paragraph eliminated. MOTION: On motion by Councilman Roth, seconded by Councilman Overholt, the Mayor was authorized to sign a letter containing comments on Anaheim Memorial Hospital's application to HUD to construct new rental units ~or the elderly in an area generally located east of Loara Street between Catalpa and North Streets as proposed, eliminating paragraph number three. MOTION CARRIED. 123/129: ASSIGNMENT OF AN OFFICE OF EMERGENCY SERVICES FiRE APP~~IATUS TO THE FIRE DEP~RTMENT: Councilwoman Kaywood offered Resolution No. 8iR-269 for adoption, approving an agreement for a temporary transfer of vehicle equipment from the State of California to the Anaheim Fire Department, as recommended in memorandum dated June 2, 1981 from Fire Chief Bob Simpson. Refer to Resolution Book. RESOLUTION NO. 81R-269: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHELM APPROVING AN AGREEMENT FOR TEMPORARY TRANSFER OF VEHICLE EQUIPmeNT FROM THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA TO THE ANAHEIM FIRE DEPARTMENT. (Fire Pumper and radio equipment, July t, 1981 through June 30, 1982) Roll Call Vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: COUNCIL MEMBERS: COUNCIL Y~EMBERS: 0verholt, Kaywood, Bay, Roth and Seymour ~orle None The Mayor declared Resolution No. 81R-269 duly passed and adopted. 81-856 City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - June 9, 1981, 1:30 P.M. 123/177: PARTICIPATION IN THE STATE DEFERRED PAYMENT REHABILITATION LOAN PROGRAM FOR RENTAL HOUSING: Councilman Seymour offered Resolution No. 81R-270 for adoption, authorizing an agreement with the State Department of Housing and Community Development to borrow a total amount not to exceed $75,000 for purposes of lending deferred payment loans for the rehabilitation of rental housing within the City, and also authorizing the Community Development Department Executive Director to execute other documents necessary to secure the deferred payment loan, as recommended in memorandum dated June 2, 1981 from the Executive Director of Community Development. Refer to Resolution Book. RESOLUTION NO. 8tR-270: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIAI, CALIFORNIA, AUTHORIZING THE EXECUTION OF A STANDARD AGREEMENT, AND OTHER DOCUMENTS TO SECURE A DEFERRED PAYbIENT LOAN FOR RENTAL HOUSING FROM THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA. Roll Call Vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: COUNCIL MEMBERS: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Overhott, Kaywood, Bay, Roth and Seymour None None The Mayor declared Resolution No. 81R-270 duly passed and adopted. 107: ACCEPTANCE OF DEMOLITION WORK CONTRACT NO. BG80-2: Councilman Roth offered Resolution No. 81R-271 for adoption, accepting demolition work performed at 225 1/2, 1022 and 1022 1/2 North Patt Street in accordance with the certification of the Redevelopment Executive Director; Hintz Wrecking Company, Inc., Contractor (Contract No. BG80-2), as recommended in memorandum dated May 28, 1981 from the Executive Director of Community Development. Refer to Resolution Book. RESOLUTION NO. 81R-271: ~RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHE~I FINALLY ACCEPTING THE COMPLETION AND THE FURNISHING OF ALL PLANT, LABOR, SERVICES, P~TERtALS AND EQUIPMENT AND ALL UTILITIES aND TRANSPORTATION INCLUDING POWER, FUEL aND WATER, AND THE PERFORb~NCE OF ALL WORK NECESSARY TO CONSTRUCT AND COMPLETE THE FOLLOWING PUBLIC IMPROVEMENT, TO WIT: DEMOLiTON AND SITE CLEARANCE LOCATED AT 225 1/2, 1022 and 1022 1/2 NORTH PATT STREET, IN THE CITY OF ANAHEIM, CONTRACT NO. BG80-2, ACCOUNT NO. 25-214-6640. (Hin~z Wrecking Company, Inc.) Roll Call Vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: COUNCIL ME~fBERS: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Overholt, Kaywood, Bay, Roth and Seymour None None The Mayor declared Resolution No. 81R-271 duly passed and adopted. 81-857 City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - June 9, 1981, 1:30 P.M. 123/174: APARTMENT IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM - AGREEMENT WITH NEIGHBORHOOD REINVESTMENT CORPORATION: On motion by Councilwoman Kaywood, seconded by Councilman Overholt, an agreement was authorized with the Neighborhood Reinvestment Corporation for the development of an Apartment Improvement Program and authorizing the use of $45,000 of Community Development Block Grant funds from Housing Programs to be used for developmental costs for this program. MOTION CARRIED. 180: RENEWAL OF HELICOPTER/HELIPORT LIABILITY INSURANCE: On motion by Councilman Roth, seconded by Councilman Bay, renewal of the City's Helicopter/Heliport Liability insurance for $20 million coverage was approved, as recommended in memorandum dated June 4, 1981 from Risk Manager Jack Love. MOTION CARRIED. 109/139: POSITIONS ON STATE BUDGET ISSUES: Councilman Seymour moved that the five positions as listed below and recommended in memorandum dated June 4, 1981 from Ron Rothschild, Program Development and Audit Manager be communicated to the City's Legislative Representatives. Councilman Bay seconded the motion. 1. That the impact of the State revenue shortfall be borne by the State, local governments, and school districts equally. 2. That the AB 8 deflator be repealed. 3. That the unsecured property assessment roll remain with local government. 4. In that the formula for distributing revenue reductions is under negotiations and may not be finalized until after June 15, 1981, that the City proceed to implement its fiscal plans on the basis of the proposed Resource Allocation Plan. 5. That the current formula proposed is SB 102 for motor vehicle subvention reduction is unacceptable. MOTION CARRIED. 175: RESIDENTIAL CONSERVATION SERVICES (RCS) PROGR~Xl: Councilwoman Kaywood offered Resolution No. 81R-272 for adoption, accepting and approving the City's Residential Conservation Service (RCS) Plan as amended and authorizing the Public Utilities General Manager to submit said Plan to the Department of Energy (DOE), as recommended in memorandum dated May 26, 1981 from the Public Utilities Board. Refer to Resolution Book. RESOLUTION NO. 81R-272: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEP! ACCEPTING AND APPROVING ANAHEim'S RESIDENTIAL CONSERVATION SERVICE (RCS) PLAN AS ~ENDED AND AUTHORIZING THE PUBLIC UTILITIES GENERAL ~¼NAGER TO SUBMIT SAID PLAN TO THE DEPARTmeNT OF ENERGY (DOE). Roll Call Vote: AYES: NOES: .ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS COUNCIL MEMBERS COUNC iL ~LEPiBERS Overholt, Kaywood, Bay, Roth and Seymour None None The Mayor declared Resolution No. 81R-272 duly passed and adopted. 81-858 City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - June 9, 1981, 1:30 P.M. 123/118: AGREEMENT FOR CLALMS ADJUSTMENT SERVICES - CARL WARREN & COMPANY: On motion by Councilman Seymour, seconded by Councilman Roth, the first amendment to the agreement between the City of Anaheim and Carl Warren & Company to continue claims services with that company through June 30, 1982, was approved. MOTION CARRIED. 108/142: PROPOSED ~MENDMENT TO ORDINANCE - ~MUSEMENT DEVICE ARCADES: Continued from the meetings of May 19 and June 1, 1981. City Attorney William Hopkins referred to the Ordinance requested to be prepared at the May 19 meeting requiring a CUP for arcades if they had a certain number of machines. They proposed that number at 10 devices; however, that would be a decision of the City Council. They also submitted additional data consisting of a report by the Zoning Division dated June 3, 1981 and also some sample ordinances from other cities which documentation was submitted under memorandum dated June 8, 1981 from his office. Councilman Bay noted in the report from the Zoning Division, Item 3, that the distance factor was missing; Annika Santalahti, Assistant Planning Director for Zoning clarified that it should be one-half mile and thus it would read, "Amusement Centers must be located no closer than one-half mile to other centers..." The City Clerk announced that Mr. Fred Brown wished to speak to the matter. Mr. Fred Brown, 1531 Minerva, first referred to newspaper articles on the subject of arcades which noted those businesses were bringing in 10,000 customers per week at an average of $5.00 a customer, ranging up to $20 to play the machines, which yielded a minimum of $50,000 per week. If there were 16 such businesses in the City at present, he questioned why the Council would want to pass an ordinance of the type proposed, since it was a tremendous source of tax revenue. Also disturbing to him was the fact that the number proposed for requiring a conditional use permit, 10 or more machines, would mean that the applicant wo~ld have to go through the process of a public hearing over and above his initial costs. Further, he failed to see where such an ordinance would create a lower truancy factor in the City's schools. It was not going to bring about any further detriment to society to have those businesses operating in the community. They should not look upon the arcades with the stigma of having pinball machines stuck in a dingy pool room. The Council would be remiss in not acting upon the voice of their constituents, but before enacting such an ordinance, they should look to see if the tax revenue generated was going to be sufficient to carry their load and to enhance the community itself or would it cause such a criminal problem that they would have to get rid of them totally. He did not feel the situation had been thoroughly explored. The Police Department had indicated they did not have a problem with crime in the existing facilities. He had talked to three arcade owners and found that the complaints they received had been minimal. He did not feel they should embark on an expensive ordinance where there would be a tremendous amount of dollars spent by the City over and above that being spent for other public hearings. He felt it was a poor excuse to try to regulate a business that was obviously generating a profit and part of the private sector, and he hoped they would reconsider proposing such an ordinance at this time. Over the course of the future, once such an ordinance was on the books, they were going to be barraged by public hearings on an ongoing basis, and he felt they should spend their time for other things. 81-859 City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - June 9, 1981, 1:30 P.M. Councilman Bay pointed out that the information collected from other cities provided by staff indicating they were taking actions ranging from little or no action to a complete moratorium on arcades. He then read a statement contained in one of the ordinances enacted in another City. It seemed other municipalities had approached the matter as a serious problem within their cities. Mr. Brown felt that several of the cities in the County had taken premature action on the issue. Councilman Roth stated he was concerned about the proposed ordinance being too narrow, and they would be burning themselves out with CUP requests. However, in recent past experience on new arcades (Euclid Avenue and the Lakeview Shopping Center), the surrounding neighbors did not have an opportunity to speak to the issue. He felt the City Attorney had come up with some type of logic in specifying a certain number of machines. He emphasized that it could not become too narrow, and there was a need for defining an arcade. Councilman Overholt explained that they were getting pressure from the neighboring bus~ness people and that was the primary thrust. The conditional use permit process would give them an opportunity to be heard, as well as affected residents. Perhaps the number was too low and they should increase that or the area, or speak in terms of primary business and that was what the debate on the ordinance was going to bring obout. Mr. Brown suggested perhaps they could raise the limit or place some other parameters in the ordinance that would get it to a point where only three, four or five of the operations would come before the Council. They might use gross receipts based on the person's business. Mayor Seymour felt that some valid concerns had been raised. He had concern relative to arcades going into suburban shopping centers, for example, the new Towne Center, not that he lad an objection to the activity taking place, but rather how it would impact neighboring businesses. He felt that the ordinance as drawn went too far, was too narrow and was an overreaction. He would favor something that would insure that in a neighborhood shopping center or in asensitive area, there was some type of review process available. A blanket CUP process did not make sense. There was a place for arcades and one place was in the commercial/recreational area. Those areas were totally appropriate. However, when moving into a local shopping center with adjacent businesses and with the heavy traffic of young people disrupting those businesses, they had to then consider the concerns of the small business people. He could not support the ord{nance as proposed. Counc{lman Overhol: asked the City Attorney {f they were on ~{rm ground denying an amusement device permit where there was a legitimate react{on from surrounding businesses. 81-860 City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - June 9, 1981, 1:30 P.M. City Attorney Hopkins answered that the way the present ordinance concerning such machines was drawn, it required the Council to consider the recommendation of the Chief of Police. If the Council had further input indicating the particular facility was causing a nuisance or creating an environmental problem, the Council would be justified in denying a request for a permit. There was a need to define the arcade in some way. They had at this time 25 arcades and arcades were not defined in the present ordinance. They were more or less arbitrarily classified by the Business License Division, and for that reason there was a need for definition. Councilman Overholt questioned what was wrong with continuing the way they had been handling the permits. City Attorney Hopkins stated there was nothing wrong with that; however, they should put a definition of arcades somewhere, in the ordinance, not necessarily requiring a CUP, but somewhere in the Business License section that would define the term arcade. Councilwoman Kaywood noted one problem was that with the present procedure, no one in the neighborhood was notified. That had been one of her concerns. If the Chief approved the application, it would go through automatically and generally it was presented to the Council on the Consent Calendar. Subsequently, nobody realized the problem until it was there. She was looking to a prevention situation and she did not think it was a big problem to have a CUP involved where the neighborhood or the adjoining businesses would be notified and if they had no objection, it would be very simple and automatic. If they did have an objection, they would have an opportunity to speak on it. They had gone from nothing to 25 arcades, which he thought was 16, with five more pending. She questioned how much was too much and where was it appropriate for them to be located. Councilman Roth wanted to know the average number of machines in the arcades that were in operation tod~y. City Attorney Hopkins stated he did not have a number of machines by count, but he had a list of the various arcades classified by the Business License Division as arcades, but it did not list the number of machines. They could get that information. Councilman Roth stated he did not wane to draw the ordinance so narrow that they would be requiring CUP's on businesses that were not full arcades. He agreed with Councilman Overholt that they should perhaps continue with the present procedure. It appeared that the citizenry, the shopping centers, school administrators, etc, found out quickly about the businesses and the Council took action accordingly. Councilman Overholt asked if they had the power to revoke an Amusement Device Permit. 81-861 City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - June 9, 1981, 1:30 P.M. Mr. Hopkins answered "yes", for cause. It would require a due process hearing to review any permit, if there was a report, for example, that gambling was being engaged in, or if the machines were in some way defrauding the people playing them, or if there were other undesirable features, such occurences would warrant a hearing. Councilman Overholt asked about an undesirable impact on other businesses in a shopping center. Mr. Hopkins stated that would get more to the zoning and land use area and he felt the conditional use permit route would be a better one for that. If it became a serious public nuisance, he felt they could revoke it because of the effect on adjacent businesses. After a further brief discussion by Council Members on the matter, the Mayor indicated that he had not had an opportunity to review the proposed ordinance in any depth. MOTION: Councilman Bay moved to continue consideration of the proposed ordinance for three weeks, to June 30, 1981. Before any action was taken, Councilman Bay stated he wanted the dialogue to continue on the subject which he felt would lead them to the point of decision. Another facet he wanted the Council to think about when considering the matter, he noted applications being received requesting two devices in almost every liquor store in Anaheim. He was assuming those devices encouraged juveniles to frequent a location. It was of concern to him but he did not know what the solution might be in that regard. The Mayor having just returned from vacation should have an opportunity to look at the documentation in greater depth and since he too had just received some of the material, he wanted additional time as well. Councilman Overholt secondgd the motion. A vote was then taken on the foregoing motion of continuance. MOTION CARRIED. 105: CO~iUNITY SERVICES BOARD VACANCY: Councilman Roth nominated Mr. James Judd to fill the vacancy on the Community Services Board (CSB) for the term ending June 30, 1983. He was voicing his support due to the fact that they saw the CSB in action today making recommendations on the funding for various community service organizations. According to his resume, Mr. Judd had considerable experience along such lines, and he felt he would be a great asset to the Community Services Board. Councilman Bay nominated Joan Burda. They had received a letter indicating that Ms. Burda was currently working for a law firm in Santa Ana and her experience, education and background was considerable. He was offering her name in nomination because he was concerned about Councilman Roth's nomination. In reviewing the background on Mr. Judd, it was almost totally in social work since he graduated from college. He was more interested in having someone Qith private sector experience on that Board. 81-862 City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - June 9, 1981, 1:30 P.M. Councilwoman Kaywood moved to close nominations. Councilman Roth seconded the motion. Before further action was taken, Councilman Overholt asked th~ experience, education and background on Ms. Burda; Mayor Seymour noted that she graduated from Pepperdine Law School in 1979 and worked for the Law Firm of Parkin & Woodland in Santa Ana. Councilman Overholt asked her background; Councilman Bay did not personally know Ms. Burda and thus was not able to provide that information. Mayor Seymour stated if the motion to close nominations passed, they would then vote on the two candidates; Councilman Overholt stated he was going to vote "no" because he would like the opportunity to consider additional candidates. MOTION: Councilman Overholt moved to continue consideration of the filling of the vacancy on the Community Services Board to June 30, 1981. Councilman Bay seconded the motion. Councilman Roth voted "no". blOTION CARRIED. 105: GOLF COURSE ADVISORY COMMISSION VACANCIES: Councilwoman Kaywood nominated Mr. Jim Riley to fill one of the vacancies on the Golf Course Advisory Commission; Councilman Seymour nominated Mr. Bill Swisher to fill the other vacancy. MOTION: Councilwoman Kaywood moved to close nominations. Councilman Bay seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. Mr. Riley and Mr. Swisher were thereupon appointed to fill the vacancies on the Golf Course Advisory Commission subject to the City Clerk's confirmation that the appointees were Anaheim residents. 127: DECLARING THE RESULT{ OF THE SPECIAL MUNICIPAL ELECTION HELD JUNE 2, 1981: Councilman Bay offered Resolution No. 81R-273 for adoption, declaring the result of the Special Municipal Election held on June 2, 1981. RESOLUTION NO. 81R-273: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHELM, CALIFORNIA, RECITING THE FACT OF THE SPECIAL MUNICIPAL ELECTION HELD IN SAID CITY OF JUNE 2, 1981~ DECLARING THE RESULT THEREOF AND SUCH OTHER MATTERS AS PROVIDED BY THE PROVISIONS OF THE CHARTER. (SONGS, $92 Million Bond Issue) Roll Call Vote: AYES: NOES: ~BSENT: COUNCIL ~MBERS: COUNCIL M~BERS: COUNCIL P~EMBERS: Overholt, Kaywood, Bay, Roth and SeyMour None None The Mayor declared Resolution No. 81R-273 duly passed and adopted. & 81-863 City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - June 9, 1981, 1:30 P.M. CITY CLERK'S CERTIFICATE OF CANVASS i, Linda D. Roberts, City Clerk of the City of Anaheim, County of Orange, State of California, duly authorized by Resolution No. 81R-t40, adopted by the City Council on the 24th day of March, 1981, do hereby certify that ! have canvassed the returns of the Special Municipal Election held in said City on the 2nd day of June, 1981, and find that the nmmber of votes given at each precinct and The number of votes given in the City for and against the propositions were as follows: SPECIAL MIJq~iCIPAL ELECTION--JUNE 2, 1981 CONSOLI- DATED PRE. CINCT NO. PROPOSITION A (CHARTER ~MENDMENT AND $92 MILLION ELECTRIC REVENUE BONDS A~N-D ANTICIPATION NOTES--SAN O O RE) PROPOSITION B (CHARTER AMENDMENT, REFUNDING OF WATER ELECTRIC REVENUE BONDS) YES NO YES NO 1 58 32 53 37 2 32 17 32 17 3 69 35 65 41 4 28 5 94 99 62 56 59 10 56 11 68 12 21 13 26 14 15 57 71 92 13 25 16 34 85 42 35 33 26 3O 29 94 16 56 51 56 5O 39 20 I 63 34 78 39 29 33 34 15 59 23 3 17 7 17 22 21 11 26 45 TOTAL BALLOTS CAST 90 49 106 42 128 134 82 89 85 83 24 43 66 91 127 81-864 City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - June 9, 1981, 1:30 P.M. CONSOLI - DATED PRE- CI NCT NO. 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 SPECIALMTrNICIPAL ELECTION--JIrNE 2, 1981 PROPOSITION A (CHARTER AMENDMENT ~YD $ 92 MILLION ELECTRIC REV~NUE BONDS ~ND ANTICIPATION NOTES--SAN ONOFRE) YES 45 68 75 77 54 42 28 88 37 48 58 62 56 74 73 38 NO 24 15 ~30 29 18 14 12 17 19 2O 23 36 25 24 28 23 PROPOSITION B (CHARTER ~MENDMENT, REFUI~DiNG OF WATER ~%ND ELECTRIC REVENUE BONDS) YES NO 45 23 62 21 70 34 76 30 51 21 33 22 27 13 84 21 35 19 41 22 63 15 67 30 51 30 68 29 63 38 29 30 TOTAL BALLOTS CAST 69 83 105 106 72 56 4O 105 56 68 82 98 82 98 103 61 81-865 City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - June 9, 1981, 1:30 P.M. SPECIAL~WtrNICIPAL ELECTION--JUNE 2, 1981 CONSOLI - DATED PRE- CI NCT NO. PROPOSITION A (CF_ART~R AMENDME~ A~YD $92 F[ILLION ELECTRIC REV~rNUE BONDS A~N'D ANTICIPATION NOTES--SAN 0NOFRE) YES NO 33 80 23 34 31 22 3 5 33 9 PROPOSITION B (CHARTER AME;N-DMENT, REFUNDING OF WATER ELECTRIC REVENUE Bo~xrDS) YES NO 74 29 104 25 28 53 32 10 42 36 59 34 61 33 95 37 59 33 60 31 93 38 55 50 39 72 34 40 56 50 41 50 58 42 68 25 43 39 16 44 45 25 45 65 35 46 35 22 47 58 30 28 48 105 61 44 105 68 36 106 49 55 106 47 60 109 68 26 t 94 33 21 ] 55 40 30 72 I 58 40 I 100 31 22 ~ 59 51 38 9O 94 38 ! 135 TOTAL BALLOTS CAST 81-866 City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - June 9, 1981, 1:30 P.M. CONSOLI - DATED PRE- CINCT NO. 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 6t 62 63 64 SPECIALMUNICIPAL ELECTION--JUNE 2, 1981 PROPOSITION A (CHA2ITER A~MENDMEIfr AND $92 YfiLLION ELECTRIC REVENUE BONDS ANTICIPATION NOTES--SAN ONOFRE) PROPOSITION B (CHARTER AMENDMENT, REFUNDING OF WATER AzND ELECTRIC REVENUE BONDS) YES NO YES NO 92 39 88 42 54 37 ~9 43 42 15 39 18 78 34 76 36 78 16 68 24 47 '~ 24 46 25 51 17 39 28 111 27 113 25 57 16 52 19 82 23 76 29 34 13 27 21 33 17 100 30 30 20 95 36 48 13 43 18 48 10 41 16 TOTAL BALLOTS CAST 132 92 58 112 94 71 68 138 74 105 48 5O 131 61 58 10 81-867 City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - June 9, 1981, 1:30 P.M. SPECIAL MUNICIPAL ELECTION--JUNE 2, 1981 CONSOLI- DATED PRE- CINCT NO. PROPOSITION A (CHARTER AM_ENDMENT A~ND S92 MILLION ELECTRIC REVENUE BONDS AND .~NTICIPATION NOTES--SAN ONO Z) YES 65 27 66 58 67 55 68 50 69 43 70 62 71 45 72 33 73 47 74 52 75 27 76 39 AJ~SENTEE 195 TOTALS 4477 PROPOSITION B (CHARTER AMENDMENT, REFUNDING OF WATER ELECTRIC RE~fENUE BOL~DS) NO YES NO 12 23 16 39 9 53 12 67 13 50 18 68 9 41 17 59 26 40 29 69 22 63 21 84 t3 44 12 58 5 35 2 38 9 46 10 56 9 46 16 62 27 TOTAL BALLOTS CAST 29 12 34 18 52 74 194 74 269 2049 1781 . ! 4163 6288 DATED: June 5, 1981 CITY CLERK OF ?HE CITY OF ANAHEIM 81-868 City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - June 9, 1981, 1:30 P.M. 165: STATUS REPOR'i - POSTED STREET CLEANING PROGRAM: Continued trom the meetings of February 17, ~rch 24, April 14, April 21 and May 5, 1981. hr. Bill Lewis, Street b~aintenance Superintendent, reterred to his report dated June 9, 1981, recommending no action on the present posted street cleaning program. /hey canvassed the Orangewood-Haster area pursuant to Council direction and found there were 441 households involved to which they sent out questionnaires. ?ney received a high rate o~ response of 29~ with 63~ of those questionnaires returned, indicating a preference to not revise the current program. The Mayor stated since he nad been pushing the issue all along, he was satisfied with the action. MOTION: Councilman Seymour thereupon moved that no action be taken on the current posted street cleaning program and to receive and file the report on the status of the program dated January 30, 1981. 108: ~MUSEMENT DEVICES PERMIT - FAMILY ARCADE: Martha Miranda, Family Arcade, 401 South Brookhurst Street, tot various amusement devices, continued from the meetings of May 19 and May 26, 1981--see minutes those dates). Councilman Overholt moved to continue the subject application for an Amusement Devices Permit to June 30, 1981. Councilwoman Kaywood seconded the motion. Before a vote was taken, Councilwoman Kaywood asked i~ someone could be placed under the proposed ordinance before the ordinance when into effect. City Attorney Hopkins stated the report they had indicated there would be l0 to 20 devices at the subject location. If it were approved at that time, the new proposed ordinance relative to Amusement Devices would not be applicable. He preferred to make it o~iy prospective. A vote was then taken on the foregoing motion of continuance, b~OTION CARRIED. 108: AMUSEMENT DEVICES PERi, IT - bANSHee'S: Application by Angelo Gecrge Typaidos, for Ranshaw's No. 5, 2930 West Lincoln Avenue; 24, 218 South Magnolia Avenue; 27~ 1112 North Brookhurst Street; 37: 2060 South Euclid Street; 39, 1863 ~est ~atella Avenue; 42, 800 North Euclid Street; 45, 320 East Orangewood Street; continued ~rom abe meeting of May 26, 19~l--see minutes that date). On motion by Councilman Roth, seconded by Councilman Overholt, the subject ~musement Devices Permit applications were approved. MOTION CARRIED. 139: EMERGENCY SONGS 5VACUAIION - SUPP©R~ OF AB-953: Request by Robert D. Limberg, Mayor of San Clemente, for support of a contract for emergency services to the SOSGS and support of AB-953 to place the San Onofre facility within a community services district, was submitted. 81-869 City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL [.iINgTES - June 9, 198i, 1:30 P.M. On motion by Councilman Overholt, seconded by Ccuncilman Bay, consideration of the subject emergency services and support of AB-953 to place the San Onofre facility within a community services district was continued one week at the request of staff. )lOTION CARRIED. 158: REQUEST OF C-h ASSOCIATES FOR A GRANT OF EASEMEN% 5OR THE EXTE[3SION O~ LA PARMA AVENUE EASTERLY OF WEIR CANYON ROAD: Request by Hugo H. Prestinary, Director of Land Development for C-~ Associates, for a grant o~ easement in order to extend La Palma Avenue easterly from Weir Canyon Road to connect with the proposed secondary arterial (Esperanza Road) within the Lomas de Yorba Development, was submitted. Staff report dated June 3, 1981 recommended that the Council determine that any extension of La Palma Avenue easterly of Weir Canyon Road be considered premature at this time and that any future consideration ~or the extension of La Palma Avenue easterly of Weir Canyon Road should be basec on the impact to potential land use on the City's property. Mr. Keith Murd~ch, 516 Wedgewood Drive, representing C-W Associates, state~ because of the design changes that had been requested by the County, they would agree with staff that it was somewhat premature for final action, on the matter, but they woul~ ask ~or consideration of the concept. ~asica!l~ they were requesting permission to build a roadway across City property. 7ney did not care whether it was an easement, permit to construct or the like. Although they baa submitted a more precise document along with the application, the form was not all that necessary. %ney were not suggesting that 6-W Associates was buying property for private use or even a land purchase, but they were suggesting that they receive permission to build a road across City property at the developer's expense. The roadway would not run alongside the developer's property at all, Out zt ~ould connect to zt in a tract which would be devel6ped in Yorba Linda. It would not provide any funds to the developer at all--~ll frontage would oe on City property which they felt would add value to the City's property for ultimate development. C-~ Associates proposed to build a roadway completely and to provide the fill and whatever was necessary at its expense, an amount in excess of $2 million and on City property. Ir the developer did not pay and the City wanted the street constructed, it would be up to the City as the abutting property owner to provide that expense. The total cost was closer to $2.5 million, but part of that was on the developers property. Mr. Murdoch then presented a sketch to the Council to assist in his presentation, also supplemented by a sliae of that sketch and other slides for illustrative purposes. The first sketch depicted how the proposed roadway would fit into the overall traffic pattern. The reason for the proposal was to provide for good circulation in the region around Weir Canyon Road, Experanza Road and La Palma Avenue. The proposal of the developer was to extend La Palma to meet the new development, Tract ~o. 1050. There was also an alternative which they did not feel was as good, i.e., to extend Esperanza Road. The location of t~e roaa as currently shown on the County's General Plan, which would run along the south side of the railroad, would provide for much more direct access to ~eir Canyon and into t~e City of Anaheim. 81-870 City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES ~ June 9, 1981, 1:30 P.M. The second transparency was the one he submitted to the Council (La Palma Avenue Extension--alternate alignment). The proposal which was to be considered tomorrow morning by the City of Anaheim, Yorba Linda, the County and the property owners in the vicinity was the alternate alignment running mostly through the Southern California E~ison Company easement and very little through the unencumbered portion of the City of Anaheim property. They believed that an alignment, either this or something very close, would be much more acceptable to the City and certainly would provide all of the features required by either the County or the ~eveloper. Assumin~ that t~e aiternate alignment would be acceptable to tme County and City of Anaheim, they ~elt that the advantage to the City was apparent. %~e City would not have to depend on Weir Canyon access for ultimate development of the property. There woul~ be lrontage along the new alignment, and it ~ould ~ake very littie useable property from the City. They were asking the right to build tee road they ~el~ would be a ~etinite advantage to the City, but more than that, it had a definite advantage to the regional traffic circulation plan and thus, was a public service. Questions were then posed to Mr. Murdoch by Councilmen Roth and Bay during which some ot ~e technical aspects of the proposed road were clarified. City Engineer William Devitt also clarified that he was going to attend the meeting the next morning with the County and they were going to submit ~or the County review about three revised alignments. It was generally conceded that the original alignment was not a safe alignment. %aus they were revising both Weir Canyon and La Palma westerly of Weir Canyon. He had not seen all of the alternatives that were prepared, but as Mr. Murdoch indicated, one ~as the alternate shown. Mr. Murdoch then showed a preliminary plan and profile and stated that proposal seemed to be indicative of one of the better ways to proceed. It would serve all of the de~eloper's purposes and would enhance the City's ultimate development of the property more than any of tee others; City Engineer Devitt stated the City had no particular objection to the new proposed alignment which was superior to the one on which plans were ~repare~ and almost ready to 0e bid out. However, he wante~ to see the other three alternatives first before they accepted any one plan. Councilwoman Kaywood asked hr. Devitt, winh the idea that the plan presentea was not the specific one, did he still ~eel they should take no action at this time; Mr. Devitt answered "yes" Mayor Seymour suggested that they take an action notifying the County that they considered the alternate presented an improvement over the existing proposed contiguration, but on the other hand, were taking no final action today other than that. They would, therefore, continue the request of C-W Associates, pencing finalization ~rom the County; P~r. Levitt stated that would appear acceptable. 81-871 City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MIND2ES - 0une ~, 1981, 1:30 ~.M. Mr. Murdoch stated what that would do was set the ground work for compensation or no compensation. City Manager Talley explained that three years ago, the property was appraised at $990,000; Mr. Ron Thompson, Planning Director, stated that the amount o~ property was being used for the road was in excess o~ ~our acres or perhaps $250,000. Mayor Seymour stated part of the problem was the fact that they ~ere using an evaluation that assumed some type of development. If they could show him that they had a road configuration so that they could sell the proposed property off for development purposes, then staff was right; however, until they could do that, they had no basis for value; Mr. Tatley answered absolutely, and that was why staff was recommending action was premature until they came in with the County's thoughts on the most Yavorable alignment and the maximum development for the City and also a fair market price for the property. The concept of an alignment was not as bothersome as trying to set compensation at this point. Councilman Bay stated as he understooa, staff wanted to keep the options open when they went back to negotiate with the County or whoever was going to make the joint decision of the routing of t~e road. He was also trying to understand C-W Associates position and asked Mr. Murdoch for clarification. Mr. Murdoch stated they were asking whether the City's posit~on was that the developer should be required to purchase some property that was not a part of his ~evelopment. Although it made a better access into the aevelopment, none of that portion of the roaaway was on the ~eveloper's property at all. question was whether he should be charged a market price ~or a roadway lot which ne did not get any direct benefit. .7 A~ter furtaer discussion,~City Attorney Hopkins stated he would recommend that any action be delayed until the City Engineer obtained the information he was going to be getting ~rom the County. Mr. Devitt stated it was his understanding the alternatives they would ~iscuss tomorrow were the alignment and the grade of Weir Canyon Road and La Palma Avenue westerly of Weir Canyon Road. He did not anticipate any discussion on the easterly portion although it might be broached. MOTION: Councilman Seymour moved to continue consideration of the subject request to June 30, 1981. Councilwoman Kaywood seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. CONDIYIONAL USE PERMIY NO. 2i46 - EXIE~SION OF 2~lE: Submitted by Jerome B. Adelman, requesting an extension of time to Conditional Use Permit No. 2i46, to retain a travel and ticket sales agency on ~ zoned property located at 2i00 South State College Boulevard, continued from the meeting of ~ay 26 and June 2, 1981 (see minutes that ~ate~. 81-872 City Hall, Anaheim, California- COUNCIL I~INU2ES -June 9, 1981, 1:20 P.M. Mr. Dave Adelman, 414 Landfair Avenue, Westwood, stated they had been trying to negotiate a lease or purchase from Exxon. They (Exxon) had encouraged them to think that they were going to make a decision as to whether to reopen the location as a gas station or whether they would lease it out on a long-term basis. They did not like to do business out of the trailer themselves. They were led to believe that they would be making a decision within six months and thus needed another six-month extension of time. Councilwoman Kaywood noted in letter dated May 1981 trom ~xxon that they indicated they would be glad to remove the service station building. She asked Miss Santalahti if Exxon did so, would that at least help the situation. Miss Santalahti answered that was one of the Planning Commission's concerns, that the trailer and t~e buildings were on the property together and the building was not being used at all. It would be a step in the right direction. Mr. A~elman stated me ~elt Exxon would move the building as soon as possible. ~atever they were going to do, the building would not remain because they did not refurbism the gas station Out tore them down and started all over. Further, if the City wanted tee tanks removed, Exxon could remove them. Miss Santalahti stated if the tanks were filled with sand, which was an alternative, it would make it difficult to redevelop the property in the future. Typically, the tanks were removed to allow full use of the property. Councilwoman Kaywood stated if there was no objection, if Exxon removed the building and the tanks, she would move to approve an extension. MOTION: Councilwoman Kaywood moved to approve the requested extension of time on Conditional Use Permit No. 2146 to expire on December 30, 1981. Councilman Overhott seconded the moti~on. MOTION CARRIED. CONSENT CALENDAR IT~IS: On motion by Councilman Overholt, seconded by Councilwoman Kaywooa, the following actions were authorized in accordance with the reports and recommendations furnished each Council Member and as listed on the Consent Calendar Agenda: 1. 118: CLAIMS AGAINST %HE CITY: %he following claims were aenied and referrea to the City's Claims A~ministrator, or payment ailowea: a. Claim submitted oy Diana Guthrie, Guaraian ad litem for Jason Guthrie tor personal injury damages purportedly sustained as a result of trip-and-fall accident on asphalt in ~ront o~ i~15 ~edar Creek, on or a0o~t ~e0ruary 12, 1981. b. Claim submitted by Glenn Guadagnini, Golf h' Stuff, ~or personal property damages purportedly sustained as a result of transformers blowing out, causing damage to P.A. system at 1656 S. Harbor Bou!avar~, on or about March 26, i981. 81-873 City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - June 9, 1981, 1:30 P.M. c. Claim submitted by Carol Mendoza through her guardian ad litem Robert Mendoza for personal injury damages purportedly sustained as a result of design, maintenance, signing and supervision of school grounds at Ball Junior High School, 1500 West Ball Road, on or about March 26, 1981. d. Claim submitted by Teresa Hoferitza for personal injury damages purportedly sustained as a result of false arrest and false imprisonment by Police Department, on or about February 22, 1981. The following claim was allowed: e. Claim submitted by Ron Mayfield for personal property damages purportedly sustained as a result of City-owned vehicle backing into claimant's truck parked in the lot at rear of 500 E. Broadway, on or about March 30, 1981. 2. CORRESPONDENCE: The following correspondence was ordered received and filed: a. 105: Community Center Authority--Minutes of May 11, 1981. b. 105: Golf Course Advisory Commission--Minutes of May 21, 1981. c. 105: Youth Commission--Minutes of May 13, 1981. d. 175: Public Utilities Department, Customer Service Division--Monthly Report for April 1981. e. 105: Park and Recreation Commission--Minutes of April 22, 1981. 3. 108: APPLICATIONS: The following applications were approved in accordance with the recommendations of the Chief of Police: a. Dinner Dancing Place P~rmit: Don Diego's Restaurant, 1723 West Katella Avenue, for dancing seven nights a week, 9:00 p.m. to 1:00 a.m. (Dennis Darrezz Strickbine, applicant) b. Dinner Dancing Place Permit: Bob Burns Restaurant, 500 North Euclid Street, for dancing Monday through Saturday, 8:00 p.m. to 1:00 a.m. (Robert Burns & Sons, Inc.) 4. CHANGE ORDERS: The following change orders were approved in accordance with the recommendations of the City Engineer: a. 129: Fire Station No. 6 Apparatus Room Addition, Change Order No. i: Authorizing Contract Change Order No. 1 in the amount of $1,492, bringing the original contract price to $30~212; Martin Resnik Construction, Contractor. b. 161: DownTown Project Alpha - Phase I, Contract Change Order Nos. 7 and 8: Authorizing Contract Change Order No. 7 in the amount of $170,402.73 and Contract Change Order No. 8 in the amount of $!2,444.59, bringing the original contract price to $7,698,595.77; Steimy and Company, Inc., Contractor. 81-874 City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - June 9, 1981, 1:30 P.M. MOT ION CARRIED. CONSENT CALENDAR II,IS: Councilwoman Kaywood offered Resolution Nos. 81R-274 and 81R-275 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. 81R-274: A RESOLUTION OF 1HE CiTY COUNCIL OF IHE CITY OF ANAHEIM ACCEPTING AN EASEMENT DEED CONVEYING TO THE CITY OF ANAHEIM CERTAIN REAL PROPERTY FOR AN EASEMENT FOR ROAD AND PUBLIC UTILITY PbRPOSES. #2800-44, Anaheim Boulevard Widening) 169: RESOLUTION ~O. 81R-275: A KESOLUTION OF IHE CI2Y COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ~NAHE~i FINALLY ACCEPTING THE COMPLETION AND THE FURN~ISHING OF ALL PLANi, LABOR, SEkVICES, i~TERIALS AND EQUIPb~ENT AND ALL UTILITIES AND INCLUDING POWER, FUEL ~ND WA%Eii, A~D InE PERFORb~NCE OF ALL WORK NECESSARY TO CONSTRUCT AND COMi)LE%E 1HE ~OLLO~ING PUBLIC ~,~P~O~EMENT, ~0 WIT: DOWNIOWN PROJECT ALPHA (PHASE I) SIP, gET, SEWER, WATER, S%OP, M DRAIN AND ELECTRICAL E, IPROVL~IENTS, ~N ThE CITY OF ANAhEim, ACCOON~ NOS. 46-79Z-6325-E2190, 82-366-6327-00957 AlqD 46-795-6325-E5210. (Steiny and Company, Inc.) Roll Call Vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: COUNC IL MEP~BERS: COUNCIL MFAzBERS: COUNCIL ~EMBERS: Overholt, Kaywood, Bay, kotn and Seymour No ne ~o ne The Mayor declared Resolution No. 8iR-274 and 81R-275 duly passed and adopted. CITY PLANNING COMMISSION ITEMS: The following actions taken by the City Planning Commission at thc~ir meetins held May 18, i981, pertaining to the following applications were submitted for City Council information. 1. RECLJ~SSIFICATION NO. 80-81-20 AND V~IA£~CE NO. 3182 (TENTATIVE TP~ACT [,~O. 11030, REVISION ~,O. 2): Submitted by Gerard F. and Joyce M. Warde, for a change in zone from RS-7200 to RM-3000, to construct a one-lot, 9-unit condominium subdivision on property located at 2035 West Katetla Avenue. The City Plannirg Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC81-103, granted Reclassification No. 80-81-20 and granted a negative declaration status. Variance No. 3182 was withdrawn by the petitioner. 2. RECLAMSIFICATION NO. 80-81-34 AND VARIANCE 50. 3215: Submitted by Jeri Nut ~axson Knowles lepenke, ~or a change zn zone ~rom ~iS-A-43,000 to RS-7200, to establish a 2-lot, RS-7200 suOdivision on property located at i572 West Orangewood Avenue, with a Code waiver of minimum lo~ widt[~ and [rontage. The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution Nos. PCSi-lll and [12, graated Reclassification No. 80-8t-34 and Varzance ~o. 3215, anc granted a negative declaration status. 81-875 City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - June 9, 1981, 1:30 P.M. 3. CONDITIONAL USE PERmafIT NO. 2206: Submitted by General American Li~e Insurance Company, to retain an au.tomotive upmolstery shop on ~.~L zonec property located at 1500 "b" South Sunkist Street. The City Planning Commission, pursuant to ~esolution ~o. PCSI-104, granted Conditional Use Permit No. 2206, and granted a negative declaration statua. 4. CONDITIONAL 0SE PERMIT hO. 2210: Submitted by klbert L. and Lzda L. Smith, to expand an existing automobile rental agency on propose~ CR zoned property located at 1400 South Harbor Boulevard. The City Planning Cormmission, pursuant ~o Resolution ~o. PCSi-i06, granted Conditional Use Permit No. 2210, and granted a negative ~eclaration status. 5. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT ~O. 2211: Submitted by Kraemer Industrial Park Partners, to permit a large equipment storage yar~ on proposed ML zoned property located on the southwest corner of Frontera and Glassell Streets, with a Code waiver of minimum landscaped setback. The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PCSi-i07, granted Conditional Use Permit No. 2211, and granted a negative ~eclaration status. 6. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 22i5: Submitted by James A. and Barbara N. Stovall, to permit a restaurant with on-sale alcoholic beverages in a converted residential structure on CL zoned property located at 887 South Anaheim boulevard. The City P£anning Commission, pursuant to Resolution &o. PC8£-109, grante~ Conditional Use Permit No. 2215, and granted a negative ceclaration status. 7. CONDI%IO~AL bSE Pzk,'~I%~ ~O. 2216: Submitted by Southern ~alzfornia gdison ~ompany, c/o C. J. Lowerijon, Jr., to permit expansion of an existing miniature got~ course on ~-k zoned property located at i656 South Harbor Boulevard. The City Planning Commission, pursuant to ~esolution :qo. PCSI-110, sranted Conditional Use Permit No. 2216, and granted a negative declaration status. 8. VARIANCE NO. 2234 - REQUEST ~©R 2ERMiNATtON: Submitted by Doug Aiani, requesting termination of Variance No. 2234, to pe~nit a cocktail lounge in an existing motel on proposed CL zoned property located at 623 South ~each Boulavard. The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PCSI-llg, terminated Variance No. 2234. 9. CONDITIONAL USE PERi, II ~O. 2071 - EXTENSION CF %~iE: Submitted by Harold M. Wright, requesting an extension of time to Conditional Use Permit No. 2071, to permit an automotive and truck repair shop on ~£ zoned property located at 1290 Sunshine Way. 81-876 City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL ~INbTES - June 9, 1981, 1:30 P.M. The City Planning Commission approved an extension of time to Conditional Use Permit No. 2071, to expire April 21, 1982. 10. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 1705 - EXTENSION OF %IME: Submitted by Robert S. Anderson, requesting an extension of time to Conditional bse Permit No. 1705, to permit truck and trailer storage on ML zoned property located on the east side of Red Gum Street, south of La Jolla Street. The City Planning Commission approved an extension of time to Conditional Use Permit No. 1705, to expire May 9, 1983. 11. 170: TENTATIVE TRACT NO. 10694 - EXTENSION OF TIME: Submitted by Fred W. Hestridge, requesting an extension of time to Tentative Tract No. 10694, to permit conversions of an existing apartment complex to a 228-unit condominium subdivision on ~M-1200 zoned property located at 1250 South Brookhurst Street. The City Planning Commission approved an extension of time to %entative iract No. 10694, to expire May 19, 1982. 12. VAixI~NCE ~O. 2454 - EXTENSION OF %L~E: Submitted oy ~zll Allen, Jr., requesting an extension of time to Variance No. 2454, to permit the continued use ota non-conforming building on ML zone~ property iocated at 1332 morth Miller Street. The City Planning Commission approved an extension o~ nime ~o Variance ~o. 2454, to expire January 8, 1982. 13. ORANGE COU~%Y ~LOOD CONkROL DIS2RICT: Submitted by Orange County ~lood Control District~ requesting a determination as to conformity with the City's General Plan on tne proposed acquisition of property located on the south si~e of Crescent Avenue, west ~f the centerline of Brookhurst Street. The City Planning Commission determined the activity to be in conformance with the City's General Plan. No action was taken on t~e foregoing items, therefore the actions of the City Planning Commission became final. VARIANCE ~O. 32il (R~CLASSIFICATION NO. 80-81-33): Submitted by Ronald Timothy and Kathi Ann Short, to construct a 4-unit apartment complex on property located at 124 b~orth Cof~man Street, with various Co~e ~aivers. The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC~i-105, gran~ec Variance No. 3211, and (Reclassification ~o. 80-81-33, a change in zone trom RS-7200 to RM-2400, was set for public hearing at the meeting o~ ~iay 26, i981) a negative declaration status was granted on May 4, 1981. Councilwoman Kaywood removed the subject variance lrom the Planning Commzssion Consent Calendar and requested a review of the Commission's actzon. 81-877 City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - June 9, 1981, 1:30 P.M. CONDITIONAL USE Pg~MIT NO. 2212: Submitted by Larry R. and Judith I. Smith, to permit a cocktail lounge on CL zoned property located at 945 South Knott Street, with a Code waiver of minimum number of parking spaces. Ihe City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC81-108, grante~ Conditional Use Permit No. 2212, and granted a negative declaration status. Councilwoman Kaywood removed the subject conditional use permit from the Planning Commission Consent Calendar and requested a review of the Commission's action. 134: GENERAL PLAN AMENDMmNT NO. 164 AND ~NVIRONb~EL~TAL iMPACT REPOR% NO. 244: On motion by Councilman Seymour, seconded by Councilwoman Kaywood, June 30, 1981, at 3:00 p.m., was the date and time set for a pubiic hearing on General Plan Amendment No. 164 and Environmental Impact Report No. 244, to consider amendment to the City's housing Element. MOTION CARRIED. ORDINANCE NO. 4234: Councilman Seymour offered Ordinance No. 4234 for adoption. Refer to Ordinance Book. ORDINANCE NO. 4234: ~% ORDINANCE OF %HE CIIY OF ANAHE~I APiE~DING %ITLE i8 OF THE ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO ZONING. (65-66-63(7), CO) Roll Call Vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: COUNC IL MEP~BERS: COUNCIL M~MBERS: COUNC IL ~E~BERS: Overholt, kaywood, Bay, koth and Seymour None No ne Ihe Mayor declared Ordinance [~o. 4234 auly passed an~ adopted. ORDINA[~CE NO. 4236: CounGilman Seymour offered Ordinance Hoo 4236 tor first re ad ing. ORDI~A~CE £~O. 4236: AN CRblNANCE OF iHE CIIY OF A~,AHEI~ THE ANAHELM M~NICIPAL CODE RELATING TO ZONING. (~5-66-24~28), i48: ~UBREGIONAL PLANNING CO0NCtL: Councilwoman maywood reported on the Subregional Planning Council meeting heid %hursday, June 4, 1981, where she was re-elected Cnairman of that Council. 114: PERMISSION TO LEAVE THE CIIY - COUNCIL~LAN ROTIt: On motion by Councilman Seymour, seconded by Councilman Overholt, permisssion was ~rantec to Councilman Roth to leave the City for 30 ~ays. MOTION CARRIED. REQUEST EOR CLOSED SESSION: /he City Manager requested a Close~ oession to discuss labor relations with possible action anticipated. Councilman Bay movec to recess into Closed Session. Councilwoman Kaywood seconded the motion. MOYION CARRIED. (7:30 P.M.) 81-878 City Hall, Anameim, California - 600NLIL M1NU%ES - 0une 9, 1981, 1:30 ~.M. AFTER RECESS: 5Iayor Seymour called the meeting to order, all Council Members being present. (8:07 P.M.) ADJOURNbiENT: Councilman Rotn moved to adjourn. Councilwoman Kaywood seco~ed the motion. MOTION CARRIED. (8:07 P.M.) LINDA D. ROBERTS, CITY CLERK 81-879 City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - June 9, 1981, 9:30 A.M. The City Council of the City of Anaheim met in adjourned regular session. PRESENT: ABSENT: PRESENT: COUNCIL >~MBERS: Overholt, Kaywood, Bay, Roth and Seymour CObq~CIL MEMBERS: None CITY ~NAGER: William 0. Talley CITY ATTOKNEY: William P. Hopkins CITY CLERK: ~inda D. Roberts FIRE CHIEF: Bob Simpson ASSISTANT FINAi~CE DIRECTOR - FiN~CE: Ron Rothschild PUBLIC UTILITIES GENERAL ~AGER: Gordon Hoyt UTILITIES MANAG~ENT SERVICES MANAGER: Darrell Ament CONSERVATION SERVICES ~NAGER: Beatrice Butrum UTILIITIES RATE REQUIREMENT ~NAGER: Robert Erickson CITY LIB~RARIAN: William Griffith LIBRARIAN - BUSINESS OFFICE: Bettie Vandiver TRAFFIC ENGINEER: Paul Singer TF~AFFIC ENGINEERING ASSISTANT: Shirley Meredith ~yor Seymour called the adjourned regular meeting to order for the purpose of a budget work session with various City depart- ments. FiRE DEPARTMENT: City Manager William Talley opened the budget session with the Fire Department budget, Page C-97, Fire Services, in the amount of $10,613,000. There were no capital improvement projects, Position Control, Page E-19. Following the hearing, if Council agreed with the proposed plan, the Fire Chief requested that at the earliest possible date, the Human Resources Department be directed to begin recruitment for the two new fire inspectors in the Prevention Bureau. They would like to receive an expression from the Council today on that matter. Fire Chief Bob Simpson stRted that the Fire Department budget was 89.7% salary intensive, there were no capital projects, and exclusive of the [~et 4 Communi- cations Center, they would show a net position reduction well before the end of fiscal year 1981-82. They had already reduced total positions by four. He would prefer to speak to those areas where they were going to place major emphasis in the coming year: (1) the paramedic engine concept was in position and functioning in the manner predicted and they were providing an even better level of emergency medical service. Their response time had decreased and the work load was more evenly distributed. Paramedic engines were the only logi- cal ~ay, in his mind, to meet the increasing d~mands for that service. It had also solved another major problem of recruitment. Up until the time they began the paramedic engine company concept, they ~ere practically unable to recruit firefighters for that program. Now they had waiting lists. (2) In Fire Prevention, there were two positions requested for that bureau. Both would be filled by non-safety personnel and used principally for public fire service education. (3) In Net 4 Communications, the budget reflected an increase for that service. However, it would actually result in a savings of approximately $70,000 per year ~hen they assumed management of the Communica- tions Center. The management of the entire Net 4 facility would then rest 81-880 City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - June 9, 1981, 9:30 A.M. with the City of Anaheim. At the same time, they were working on a joint fire station to be located near Orangewood and Haster. They believed they could make that a reality if they could keep the costs to the other cities, Orange and Garden Grove, relatively close to what they were spending now. Chief Simpson then reported on new equipment currently on order. When all such apparatus was finally in place, their overall equipment inventory would be excellent, and there should be no need to budget any automotive equipment for the next five years, other than that for Station No. 10 which would be purchased by the developer. The Council recently approved the granting of citation powers to the Fire Department and they believed that to be an excellent addition which would help them tremendously in trying to curb the use of illegal fireworks in the City and also to reduce time for litigation in other cases where preparation for legal action was necessary. Finally, in this fiscal year, they were going to begin a master plan for fire protection for the City and that plan when completed would give a clear indi- cation to the Council of the fire protection needed in the foreseeable future and allow them to plan accordingly. Council questioning of the Fire Chief followed relative to certain points in his presentation. Councilman Roth also made reference to the fact that it had been a very dry Spring causing a high fire hazard in the canyon area. The area was now closed to the public. He wanted to know, therefore, if the fire inspectors caught youngsters in the area with their mopeds, bicycles, etc., if they would cite those youngsters. Chief Simpson answered they would cite, and the fine was $75 minimum, first offense. '~ Councilman Roth suggested that he discuss the matter with PlO and prepare a newspaper article for the Canyon newspaper so that parents could be made aware that the fine was that hea~f. Chief Simpson also clarified for Councilman Bay that the additional costs reflected for telephones were the costs being transferred to Anaheim from the City of Orange. Anaheim paid a proportionate and share of those costs at pre- sen~ the difference now bein~ the entire bud~e~ was reflected in Anaheim's budget, rather than only a proportionate share. The Cityls share o£ the Communication Center was 42%, with 58% of ali the costs of the communications budget borne by the other cities. ~%OTION: Councilwoman Kaywood moved to direct the Human Resources Department to begin recruitment for two fire inspectors in the Prevention Bureau. Councilman Bay seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. ADMINISTRATION: City Ymnager Talley referred to Page C-17, the City Manager's budget, totalling $283,561, and Program Development and Audit, Page C-19, totalling $446,403. There were no capital improvement projects, Position 81-881 City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - June 9, 1981, 9:30 A.M. Control E-6 and E-7. There were only two major changes in the request--a recommendation that they begin the productivity improvement training and pilot studies and also, at the last hearing, they discussed the liability claims procedure wherein they were moving Risk Management from the City Manager's office to Finance. Under date of June 1, 1981, they submitted to the Council a communication from the City Manager dated May 11 regarding the matter and also a communication from the Risk Manager under the same date. Those reports had not been forwarded to the Council previously. Mr. Ron Rothschild, Assistant Finance Director - Resources, then explained that relative to the productivity program, the $45,000 for training was in- cluded in the budget, but the $75,000 for a couple of pilot projects was not presently in the budget. Mayor Seymour asked what benefit would be achieved from the expenditure of $45,000 if the $75,000 were not approved; Mr. Rothschild stated it would pro- vide the initial training for staff in which to initiate their own productiv- ity improvement~projects without the pilot projects. UTILITIES DEPARTMENT: City Manager Talley referred to the Public Utilities Department budget comprised of 10 Control Centers on Pages C-217 through C-281; capital improvement projects, Pages D-4 through D-29, amounting to approximately $6 million for the Water Utilities and over $103 million for the Electric Utilities. The entire departmental appropriation was approximately $249 million. Issues that had been discussed previously were Council's interest in the street lighting conversion program estimated at $1.4 million. Also the Utilities had advised Council of potential rate increases for the Electric Utility of 10.3% effective July 1, 1981, and an estimate~ 18% effec- tive January 1, 1982 and Water increases in the amount of approximately 3 to 5%, effective August 1, 1981. Mr. Hoyt would be making a presentation and as part of that he had forwarded a communication dated June 5, 1981 discussing a number of recommendations made by the Public Utilities Board suggesting modif- ications to the budget and with which they concurred. Under today's date, Mr. Hoyt had forwarded another communication recommending if Council wished, they would be able to reduce the expenditure amount of the revenues approximately $22.6 million for expenditures they did not think they would make this fiscal year for purchase of the additional share in San Onofre, Units 2 and 3. Mr. Gordon Hoyt, Public Utilities General Manager, then gave a presentation wherein he discussed the overall departmental budget as depicted in slides which visually projected the chart submitted, Chart A--depicting the Public Utilities Department total budget, Charts B and E, the budget for Water, Charts F-K, the budget for Electric, and Charts L-M, the department organiza- tion (charts on file in the City Clerk's office along with a five-page narra- tive, first giving an overview of the Utilities budget, and the remainder of the narrative explaining each of the charts presented, which narrative was briefed by Mr. Hoyt and further elaborated upon in Council questions that fol- lowed on specific issues). Beatrice Butrum, Conservation Services Manager also answered questions relative to the Residential Conservation Program. Bob Erickson, Utilities Rate Requirement Manager, and Darrell Ament, Utilities Management Services Manager, answered questions relative to the Anaheim-Edison rate comparison. 81~882 City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - June 9, 1981, 9:30 A.M. Mayor Seymour asked what the proposed new Assistant General ~ianager would be doing; Mr. Hoyt answered for some time he had been personally not only trying to manage the department, but also functioning as a work doer, actually doing the work associated with the Power Supply Program. There was more work than he could do an~ still manage the department and the two large utilities. They were looking for someone who would be qualified to replace him. He was not planning on retirement at this time, but in any event there was no one present in the department who he believed was qualified to replace and that caused him concern. Should something happen to him unexpectedly, the City would have a problem in being able to carry on the work. They needed someone to devote full time to not only the continued planning of the City's power supply needs, but also on a day-to-day basis be responsible for looking at the kinds of things the Project Engineer, Project b~nager, etc., would be doing on IPP, San Onofre and like projects. They needed to be prepared to protect the millions of dollars of investment as best they could. The position was in the budget as were the other three positions, Generation Projects Manager, Economist and Engineering Aide. Councilman Overholt then posed questions to Mr. Hoyt relative to the Assistant General ~anagec position at the conclusion of which he (Overholt) emphasized that he was concerned that there be a sensitivity to the operations of the Utilities by that person, bir. Hoyt was proposing they hire somebody who would essentially have staff experience to take over his position; blr. Hoyt stated, me would have li~e experience as well. Councilman Overholt stated he would hope so. lfayor Seymour stated he had the same concern although he was not going to object to the proposal. In interpreting what Mr. Hoyt was saying, the Ctilities Department was non-labor intensive and they should look toward ~he big dollars in the cost of generation, etc. He understood that, but he also understood that Mr. Hoyt w~s responsible for a very large department and who- ever was going to replace~him was going to have to people-oriented. His per- sonal opinion was that he could hire all the expertise and brains he wanted to forecast economies, product costs, development, etc. The marketplace had that type of person, but what was lacking was good management people. He reitera- ted he was supportive but if what Mr. Hoyt really wanted was someone to relieve him from his administranive responsibilities and day-to-day opera- tions, he ought to get someone who was good in management. ~r. Hoyt stated that he would be very sensitive to the >iayor's and Councilman Overholt's comments in that regard. HCa!AN RESOURCES: City Manager Talley referred to Page C-39, the Human Resources budget, totalling $1,726,000, also including CETA Services on Page C-50, $2,431,000 and the General Benefits Fund, Page C-287, totalling approxi- mately $21.8 million. There were no capital improvements, Position Control E-il. He then directed t~e Council's attention to a communication from his office dated April 7, 1981 requesting Council reexamine a policy approximately two and a half years old wherein, under the General Benefits fund, Council authorized a member of the City, >ir. Jake ?etrosino, a Contract Agency Member 81-883 City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - June 9, 1981, 9:30 A.M. representative, to be allowed to attend meetings of the PERS and have those hours charged against the General Benefits fund. The report of April 7, noted that last year that cost $2,500 and it cost $2,000 this year. The reason he was making a "flap' about such a modest expenditure was the fact that that group this year voted a policy whereby the City, in essence, was penalized $445,000 by what he considered a devious trick. They underestimated the amount of money that the investment program would generate and then when a surplus was created, lobbied through a bill in the State Legislature which allowed them to dispense those excess funds to members without the agency who really owned the money having any ability to control it at all. He could not quarrel with the fact that that was the law, but he strongly recommended that the Council reexamine their position on whether they should continue to pay through the General Benefits fund for a representative of the employees and not the City. Mr. Garry ~lcRae, Human Resources Director, stated that his department was requesting a resource allocation of $1,726,000, of which $847,000 (Control Center 35) were federal CETA funds. The positions authorized were reduceG in the plan from 44 to 41. The resources allocated to the Employment and Affirm- ative Action P~ograms and the Labor Relations Programs had been reduced reflecting the completion of the major police officer staffing enhancement and the absence of labor negotiations due to the multi-year labor agreement. A new Employee information Program had been created by consolidating all Human Resources employee information and record keeping services from the several programs in the Control Center. The Employee Training Program was being enhanced to provide a broader range of management development opportunities. Of significance was the fact that the CETA pro~ram faced many potential changes in policy and legislative directive during the coming year. Signifi- cant reductions in funding levels were occurring; however, the full impact of the changes on local programs had not yet been totally determined. The budget presented today for CETA services was extremely tentative, and they would not know perhaps until September precisely what the CETA program would look like for the Federal fiscal year 1982. ¼uestions were then posed to Mr. McF~e by Council Members concerning the training program, health care, dental plan, and other operating expenses. LIBRARY: Mr. Talley stated the final hearing today was relative to the Library Department, Page C-70, Library Services totalling $3,354,462. There were no capital improvement projects, Position Coatrol Page E-i6. Items which had been directed to the Council attention were the bookmobile for an outreach Program in the amount of ~68,000, a theft detection system in the amount of $~1,000, a Central Library parking lot estimated to cost approximately $75,000, w~ich in his view should also be considered with the Police Depart- ment expansion proposal in that same area, and their attention had previously been directed to the need for a traffic signal at Nohl Ranch Road and Scout Trail. b~yor Seymour asked if the aforementioned traffic signal was included in the traffic signal installation portion of the adjustments; blt. Talley answered "no" 81-884 City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - June 9, 1981, 9:30 A.M. Mr. Bill Griffith, City Librarian, reiterated they were requesting $3,354,462, representing a net increase over the previous year of less than 9 1/2%. It provided for the opening of the Canyon Hills Library in mid-July and there was $321,815 requested for the facility in the coming fiscal year. $365,000 would be spent for books for the system providing for approximately 39,000 books. The existing bookmobile service was planned to be discontinued at the end of the fiscal year, and there were the two other elements that the City Manager had previously explained. $112,000 of the budget were expenditures that would be recovered from other libraries for services Anaheim was rendering to them, namely Buena Park, Placentia and Yorba Linda. The existing budget as pre- sented would enable them to maintain their present level of service and to open the Canyon Hills Library on schedule and to operate it accordingly. Mayor Seymour, speaking to Traffic Engineer Paul Singer, stated that the Library Board had requested a traffic signal at Scout Trail and he (Singer) recommended against it. He wanted to know why he did not think it appropriate. Traffic Engineer Paul Singer explained that a portion of Nohl Ranch Road between Anaheim Hills Road and Imperial Highway was, in the future, going to be very heavily traveled and according to the Western Pringle report that was prepared for Anaheim Hills, it was one portion of the roadway that would be over capacity upon build-up. Any interruption of traffic within that portion of the roadway would reduce capacity on the street. Secondly, he did not believe there were any warrants for a traffic signal upon build-up of the Library and the park. If the intersection would actually go up to warrant, they should then weigh the safety factors against the efficiency of travel. He wanted to be able to actually measure when they had warrants, rather than proceeding ahead of time and prior to having justified warrants for a signal, mainly because there were a number of areas throughout the City that desper- ately needed traffic signals and those were the school locations. One loca- tion was at Falmouth and B~ookhurst; another at La Palma and Chantilty and another at Fairmont Boulevard and Santa Ana Canyon Road. The Mayor asked what each of the signals would cost. Mr. Singer answered that the one at Fairmont would be the most expensive, approximately $85,000 to $90,000; La Palma and Chantilly, approximately $70,000; and Falmouth and Brookhurst, $79,000. A signal at Scout Trail would cost approximately $75,000 to $79,000. There was also another location at Kellogg. Shirley Meredith, Assistant Tra£~ic Engineer, explained that some of the signals mentioned were previously programmed in the budget, but there were not sufficient funds to fund those signals within the next fiscal year. They were on the list submitted to Council for possible Revenue Sharing projects. They did not have signal assessment funds or any other monies to fund them at this time. Councilman Bay stated he was very familiar with the Brookhurst and Falmouth location, and a year ago, and a year before that, signals were projected in the subsequent year's budget, and they kept moving out and more people were 81-885 City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL blINUTES - June 9, 19dl, 9:30 A.bl. getting injured in those crossings. The key in talking about priorities and in talking about a Scout Trail signal, was they had.to ask what the Scout Trail Signal would set back if their decision was to go with that light. He was assuming that the ones named by Mr. Singes were not in the budget. ~r. Talley stated that was correct. He referred to memorandum dated April 24, 1981 submitted to Council at the budget work session of April 28, 1981 listing the following signals: Fairmont and Santa Ana Canyon Road and Kellogg and Orangethorpe which were warranted school crossimgs; new signals at Chantilly ana La Paima~ modifications at East, Lincoln to Bali, and Euclid, Ball to Orange amd one unspecified signal. None of those were budgeted. Plr. Singer state~ that there were no new signals for next year; Mr. Tailey staned, therefore, they would have to take some of the maintenance out. l.~yor Seymour stated there was another alternative. As they began to evolve nne alternatives on the "shopping list" if the Council were inclined to con- sider a traffic signal at Scout Trail, they could incluce that. [~r. Talley a~r~ed an~ nh~y could also adopt a recommendation of increasing the traffic signal assessment fees 15% which would provide for more funds, t~ any event, staff would appreciate it if Council would prioritize the signals that they might want and t~e order in which they would want them installed. Councilman Roth stated he realized that the intersection of Fairmont Boulevard and Santa Aha C=nyon Road was getting busier all the time. The people using that area, however, were junior high school students and not elemennary school students. He felt that signal could be postponed for a period of time. Secondly, relative to some of the other sites where crosswalks were located, such as Brookhurst and Falmouth, crossing guards were posted there and thus, that was an alternative, lie was concerned now, as he was initially, over constructing the Canyon Hi~lls Library on its present site because of the hazardous condition. A r~port dated September 25, 1980 indicated that 85% of the people in that area were driving 51 miles per hour in a 35-mile per hour zone, yet he had seen no traffic enforcement. It would seem, if nothing else, ~at some additional amount of enforcement should be in that area especially since the opening of the library was fast approaching. He was certain that ~ir. Singer made ti~at recommendation to the Police Department~ i~r. Singer stated as he understood, they were working that area diligently. Hayor Seymour s~ated he was prepared to take a long hard look as riley began to Cinalize t~e alternatives to investing funds into signals, particularly wt~ere youth was concerned. i.'.r. Singer stated they also needed a signal at Kellogg and Woodwind because of ti~e high sci~ool traffic and two srade schools and that was not even on the priority list as yet. Councilwoman Kaywood asked if he had a total dollar figure for all of the sig- nals if the money were available. 81-886 City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - June ~, 1981, 9:30 A.M. City Manager Talley a~swered that it would easily reach a million dollars on the first blush. Councilwoman Kaywood stated she was in favor of all the signals, but also had a problem with pulling a signal from the en~ of tile ~riority list ann conse- quently a signal that had been waiting for years was moved in priority. It was a difficult situation to ~ave to explain. Councilman Overhott stated the ~ifference being that rightly or wrongly t~e Council approved the construction of a public facility at Scout Trail which, in addition to t~e school traffic, attracted traffic of its own. They had a responsibility to see that there would be safe access to and from that area. Without the library a~ that location, they perhaps would not be too concerned. Councilman Overholt then broached the theft detection system. In the previous joint meeting (see minutes May 5, 1~81) the point was raised regarding the feasibility of a pilot program, rather than the total program, which would cost approximately $31,000. He asked if any further consideration had been given to that possibility of trying the system in one facility only. ~ir. Griffith answered it was feasible and it had been considered. If the Council appropriated the money, they could institute a pilot pro~ram. Bettie Vandiver, Librarian - Business Office, explained that the ~31,000 was for the installation of a proposed theft detection system at both the Sunkist and Euclid Branch Libraries. Councilman Overholt surmised then that if they instituted a pilot program that figure could be ~alved. He asked i~ in the opinion of staff such a pilot ~ro- gram wo~id make sense. Mr. Griffit~ answered it ~Id because they coul~ use the otter library as a control and measure the r~sults at the end of a given period o£ time. Councilman Bay stated when the matter was previously discussed, he had asset if a dollar figure was available on losses via theft. l-ir. Griffitn stated they had no acutal data and would not until they put the new circulation system in place. The previous system providec very little information, but they now had the capability and could establish a comparison, but the circulation system was too new. With the new system, they would be able to ~etermine the theft loss factor. Councilman Roth stated relative to the Bookmobile Outreach Program, what he was looking for if they were'going to expend $60,000 or $70,000, was some data regarding the issuance of books from the bookmobile and the issuance of books from the library. He was concerned that sometimes they would initiate such programs and subsequently fine little participation in the program after the money had been spent. He felt it made good sense to go into such a program on a six-month basis to determine the experience at that point. He was inter- ested in knowing the cost effectiveness of the program. 81-887 City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - June 9, i951, 9:30 A.M. City I.lanager Talley stated that the Library oudget now concluded departmental hearings, tie had given to Council today a two-page analysis of where they were currently. They started out with a $356 million plus plan, they ha~ approved a reorganization plan with a savings of $63,000, added $28,000 for helicopter maintenance, and reduced the double budgeting of a secretarial position, leaving them $59,027 better off than when they started. In addi- tion, the Federal General Revenue Sharing amount had been increased $82,350. Adding that to the former $573,000 that was unallocated, gave a new figure for Federal General Revenue Sharing of $655,932. At present, there was approxi- mately $715,000 unallocated to distribute as Council policy would dictate. They could begin discussing any of the items that were under the adjustments if they wished at this time, or the proposed resolutions. The Mayor noted that since it was close to noon and knowing that they had $715,000 u~a±located, he felt it would be a goo~ idea to withdraw an~ each could reflect upon that individually and then either at the afternoon meeting take tt~e matter up again or if need be, to wait until June 30, 2981. On the o~er han~, on Pase 2 of the material submitted by the Cit~ Manager, there were a number of resolutions ~hey might want to consider at n~is time. Councilman Bay interjected and posed a number of questions~ City Mamager Talley and Ron Rothschild then answered nhose questions w~icn revolved around several aspects of the budget that could be answered immediately. REQUEST FOE CLOSED SESSION: The City P~nager requested a Closed Session to discuss labor relations, the City Attorney requested a Close~ Session to ~is- cuss potential litigation. Councilwoman Kaywood moved to recess into Clo~ed Session. Councilman Roth seconded the motion. MO'~IO[~I CARRIED. i12:23 P.M.) AFTER RECESS: l~yor Seymohr called the meeting to order, all Council Members being present. (1:20 P.Mi) ADJOU~I~ENT: Councilwomam Kaywood moved to adjourn. Councilman Roth seconded motion. MOTION CA~RIED. (1:20 P.M.) LIR~Z~=A D. ROBEK~£S, CITY CLEP~K