Loading...
1980/02/2680-~197 City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - February 26~ 1980, 1:30 P.M. The City Council of the City of Anaheim met in regular session. PRESENT: ABSENT: PRESENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Overholt, Kaywood, Bay, Roth and Seymour COUNCIL MEMBERS: None CITY MANAGER: William O. Talley CITY ATTORNEY: William P. Hopkins CITY CLERK: Linda D. Roberts PUBLIC UTILITIES GENERAL MANAGER: Gordon W. Hoyt POLICE CHEIF: George P. Tielsch CITY 'ENGINEER: William G. Devitt TRAFFIC ENGINEER: Paul Singer BENEFITS AND TRAINING MANAGER: Thomas Tyre Mayor Seymour called the meeting to order and welcomed those in attendance to the Council meeting. INVOCATION: Reverend Mitch Garcia, Melodyland Hotline Center, gave the Invocation. FLAG SALUTE: Councilman E. Llewellyn Overholt, Jr., led the assembly in the Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag. 119: PROCLAMATIONS: The following proclamations were issued by Mayor Seymour and authorized by the City Council: "Red Cross Month in Anaheim"--March 1980 "Anaheim Conservation & Wildlife Week"--March 3-9, 1980 "Ride Sharing Week in Anaheim"--February 25-29, 198© Mrs. Bernice Douglass accepted the Red Cross proclamation, and Mr. Bill Griffiths, Oak Canyon Nature Center, accepted the Conservation proclamation. 119: RESOLUTION OF COMMENDATION: A resolution of commendation was unanimously adopted by the City Council and presented to Mr. Fred Bercher, Mr. Richard Haynie and Mr. Evan Walden of the Delco-Remy Company, commending them for their engineering expertise and for volunteering their technical assistance which resulted in not only a cost savings to the City, but also provided a greater emergency response readiness of its police officers through the reopening of the City's indoor weapons range, which for nearly 10 years had remained.idle because of possible health hazards from inadequate air circulation. 119: RESOLUTION OF COMMENDATION: A resolution of commendation was unanimously adopted by the City Council and presented to Chief of Police George Tielsch, commending him for his past year of service as President of the California Police Chiefs' Association, for furthering the law enforcement profession and for representing the City of Anaheim in the quest for a safer and more law abiding citizenry. MINUTES: Councilwoman Kaywood moved to approve the minutes of the regular meeting of July 17, November 13, and November 20, 1979 and the adjourned regular meeting of February 13, 1980, subject to typographical corrections on the meetings of July 17 and November 20. Councilman Bay seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. 80-198 City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - February 26~ 1980, 1:30 P.M. 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 ordinance or resolution in regular order. Councilman Bay seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. FINANCIAL DEMANDS AGAINST THE CITY in the amount of $701,594.20, in accordance with the 1979-80 Budget, were approved. 175: SALE AND ISSUANCE OF $7,350~000 WATER REVENUE BONDS, 1980 SERIES: Public Utilities General Manager Gordon Hoyt noted that morning when they received three bids, the fourth being invalid, the bids were all slightly about 94% of par, with bids ranging between 8.70634% and 8.64017%. Mayor Seymour commented that it was an excellent interest rate. Councilman Roth offered Resolution No. 80R-73 for adoption, as recormnended in memorandum dated February 22 and February 26, 1980 from Public Utilities General Manager Gordon Hoyt, approving the change in the Official Form of Proposal and Notice of Sale for $7,350,000 Water Revenue Bonds to increase the discount rate to 94% of par instead of the 98% previously authorized. Refer to Resolution Book. RESOLUTION NO. 80R-73: RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM, CALIFORNIA AMENDING RESOLUTION NO. 80R-40. Roll Call Vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: COUNCIL MEMBERS: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Overholt, Kaywood, Bay, Roth and Seymour None None The Mayor declared Resolution No. 80R-73 duly passed and adopted. Councilman Bay offered Resolution No. 80R-74 for adoption, as recommended in memorandum dated February 22 and February 26, 1980 from the Public Utilities General Manager, awarding $7,350,000 in Water Bonds to Merrill Lynch White Weld Capital Markets Group in accordance with proposal dated February 26, 1980 of $6,917,054 at an effective interest rate of 8.64017%. Refer to Resolution Book. RESOLUTION NO. 80R-74: RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM, CALIFORNIA~AWARDING $7,350,000 WATER REVENUE BONDS OF SAID CITY TO THE BEST BIDDER AND REJECTING ALL OTHER BIDS. Roll Call Vote: AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Overholt, Kaywood, Bay, Roth and Seymour NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: None ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: None The Mayor declared Resolution No. 80R-74 duly passed and adopted. 80-199 City. Hall, Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - February 26, 1980, 1:30 P.M. Councilman Roth offered Remolution No. 80R-75, 80R-66 and 80R-76 for adoption. The firmt authorizing the ismuance of $7,350,000 Water Revenue Bonds and pro- viding the terms and conditions for said issuance; the second approving the Official Statement pertaining to the Water Revenue Bonds, 1980 Series; and the third appointing paying agents for the Water Revenue Bonds, 1980 Series as recommended in memorandum dated February 22, 1980 from the Public Utilities General Manager. Refer to Resolution Book. RESOLUTION NO. 80R-75: RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM, CALIFORNIA, AUTHORIZING THE ISSUANCE OF $7,350,000 WATER REVENUE BONDS OF SAID CITY AND PROVIDING THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS FOR THE ISSUANCE OF SAID BONDS. RESOLUTION NO. 80R-66: RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM, CALIFORNIA APPROVING OFFICIAL STATEMENT PERTAINING TO WATER REVENUE BONDS, 1980 SERIES. RESOLUTION NO. 80R-76: RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM, CALIFORNIA APPOINTING PAYING AGENTS FOR WATER REVENUE BONDS, 1980 SERIES. Roll Call Vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: COUNCIL MEMBERS: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Overholt, Kaywood, Bay, Roth and Seymour None None The Mayor declared Resolution No. 80R-75, 80R-66 and 80R-76 duly passed and adopted. In concluding, Mr. Hoyt stated he believed the bids they received verified their selection of James J. Lowry and Company as their Financial Consultants as they were right on with regard to the discount rate. He was especially pleased that they received three valid bids, considering that all over the country today either cities, agencies or utilities in similar circumstances were not receiv- ing bids. Their consultants had done a fine job. Mayor Seymour stated it was also testimony of the financial stability of Anaheim. 160: CITY MANAGER/DEPARTMENTAL CONSENT CALENDAR: On motion by Councilwoman Kaywood, seconded by Councilman Bay, the following actions were authorized as recommended by the Purchasing Agent: a. Bid No. 3608: Six 2-Phase LOC Traffic Signal Controllers. Award to Computer Service Company, $41,045.32. b. Bid No. 3612: Fifteen thousand feet of 25 pair Communication Cable. Award to Qualified Electric, $13,162.66. c. Bid No. 3616: Fifteen thousand feet of URD Secondary Service Cable. Award to General Electric Supply Company, $13,817.10. d. Bid No. 3620: Portable Refuse Compactor. Award to Cal-Quip Material Handling Specialists, $13,781.13. MOTION CARRIED. 80'200 City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - February 26~ 1980, 1:30 P.M. 169: AWARD OF CONTRACT - WINSTON ROAD STREET IMPROVEMENT: Councilwoman Kaywood offered Resolution No. 80R-77 for adoption, awarding a co~tract as recommended by the City Engineer in him memorandum dated February 20, 1980. Refer to Resolution Book. RESOLUTION NO. 80R-77: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM ACCEPTING A SEALED PROPOSAL AND AWARDING A CONTRACT TO THE LOWEST RESPONSIBLE BIDDER FOR'THE FURNISHING OF ALL PLANT, LABOR, SERVICES, MATERIALS AND EQUIPMENT AND ALL UTILITIES AND TRANSPORTATION INCLUDING POWER, FUEL AND WATER, AND PERFORMING ALL WORK NECESSARY TO CONSTRUCT AND COMPLETE THE FOLLOWING PUBLIC IMPROVEMENT: WINSTON ROAD STREET IMPROVEMENT, W/O SUNKIST, IN THE CITY OF ANAHEIM, ACCOUNT NO. 47-792-6325-2510. (Holmes & Trott, $19,197) Roll Call Vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: COUNCIL MEMBERS: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Overholt, Kaywood, Bay, Roth and Seymour None None The Mayor declared Resolution No. 80R-77 duly passed and adopted. 169: AWARD OF CONTRACT - WEST STREET STREET IMPROVEMENT: Councilman Overholt offered Resolution No. 80R-78 for adoption, awarding a contract as recommended by the City Engineer in his memorandum dated February 20, 1980. Refer to Resolution Book. RESOLUTION NO. 80R-78: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM ACCEPTING A SEALED PROPOSAL AND AWARDING A CONTRACT TO THE LOWEST RESPONSIBLE BIDDER FOR THE FURNISHING OF ALL PLANT, LABOR, SERVICES, MATERIALS AND EQUIPMENT AND ALL UTILITIES AND TRANSPORTATION INCLUDING POWER, FUEL AND WATER, AND PERFORMING ALL WORK NECESSARY TO CONSTRUCT AND COMPLETE THE FOLLOWING PUBLIC IMPROVEMENT: WEST STREET STREET IMPROVEMENT, W/S FROM SOUTH STREET TO HAMPSHIRE STREET, IN THE CITY OF ANAHEIM, ACCOUNT NO. 47-792-6325-2560. (Wayne Stevens, $20,192) 167: AWARD OF CONTRACT - LINCOLN AVENUE TRAFFIC SIGNAL INSTALLATION: Councilwoman Kaywood offered Resolution No. 80R-79 for adoption, awarding a contract as rec- ommended by the City Engineer in his memorandum dated February 20, 1980. Refer to Resolution Book. RESOLUTION NO. 80R-79: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM ACCEPTING A SEALED PROPOSAL AND AWARDING A CONTRACT TO THE LOWEST RESPONSIBLE BIDDER FOR THE FURNISHING OF ALL PLANT, LABOR, SERVICES, MATERIALS AND EQUIPMENT AND ALL UTILITIES AND TRANSPORTATION INCLUDING POWER, FUEL AND WATER, AND PERFORMING ALL WORK NECESSARY TO CONSTRUCT AND COMPLETE THE FOLLOWING PUBLIC IMPROVEMENT: PEDESTRIAN TRAFFIC SIGNAL AND SAFETY LIGHTING ON LINCOLN AVENUE BETWEEN ANAHEIM BOULEVARD AND OLIVE STREET, IN THE CITY OF ANAHEIM, ACCOUNT NO. 42-848-6325. (Steiny and Company, Inc., $23,312) 80-201 City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - February 26, 1980, 1:30 P.M. Roll Call Vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: COUNCIL MEMBERS: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Overholt, Kaywood, Bay, Roth and Seymour None None The Mayor declared Resolution No. 80R-79 duly passed and adopted. 158/164: ACQUISITION OF THE NECESSARY RIGHT OF WAY - SOUTH SIDE OF CERRITOS EASTERLY OF EUCLID STREET: City Manager William Talley briefed the Council on memorandum dated February 15, 1980 from City Engineer William Devitt, recom- mending initiating appraisals for four "jutting out" parcels, "Brewer, Steinhauser, Helps & Maus" and attempting to negotiate acquisition of the necessary right of way on the south side of Cerritos Avenue, easterly of Euclid Street or if unsuccessful that the City acquire the property through eminent domain proceedings, with the City to construct full street improvements at its cos t. Mr. John Helps, 1670 West Cerritos, stated that he was speaking for himself and the other subject property owners on three points for Council consideration relative to the proposed widening of the south side of Cerritos. They felt that such widening in front of their homes was an unneccessary expense and not needed, because there was no traffic flow problem on that side of the street. If the road were widened, it would be an improvement for the businesses and the City at large, but a detriment to the residents. There was no traffic problem on the south 'side of Cerritos, no congestion, and not many speeders. The narrowing of the street east of the Stop-and-Go market and by the homes discouraged fast through traffic and the speed limit there at present was 30 miles per hour. Secondly, a widening of Cerritos by their homes would give wider access and egress for traffic traveling to Disneyland Hotel, the Convention Center and to the various tourist oriented facilities in the Disneyland area. It would also increase parking for the Stop-and-Go market already using that portion of the intersection on Cerritos to park large trucks for unloading and for truckers to pick up refreshments at the donut business and the Stop-and-Go Market, both of which were open 24 hours a day. The large trucks did not fit in the parking lot, and they did not use the alley behind the store for loading and unloading. Thirdly, the improvement would not be to the benefit of the property owners but a deterrent, since it would encourage increased use by heavier trucks, more cars and faster traffic by their homes. Traffic noise and dust would then be 25 feet closer to their homes. They would also lose the protective and beautiful land- scaping presently existing in that 25-foot area. A~ well, without the 25-foot buffer, trash dropped by Stop-and-Go Market patrons would now blow directly onto their front lawns instead of down ~he ~teet a~ at present. He also recently installed a $2,000 cement driveway and 25 feet of that would be removed by the proposed improvement. Extending the curbing from the intersection by Stop-and-Go market would encourage people frequenting those businesses to use the front of their homes for parking. Some market customers presently sat on the property by the alley and if the improvements were installed, they would now loiter closer to the homes because the residents would not have the protection of that buffer area. Cars oftentimes "screeched" out of the parking lot at the market and usually turned left onto Euclid. If the steet were widened as planned, they 80-202 City ~all, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - February 26, 1980, 1:30 P.M. would be able to turn right and travel at a faster speed by their homes which would be hazardous to them as they backed out of their driveways. The smaller frontages would cause a depreciation in the value of their homes, and it would be harder to sell a house on a four-lane street. In concluding, Mr. Helps stated it was their contention that they did not favor the proposed improvement but if the street were widened, that the four property owners be given compensation for the loss of privacy, real property, landscaping, improvements and market value. Councilwoman Kaywood referred to the staff report, which Mr. Helps stated he had not seen. She asked if the problem of water continually standing in the shoulder area of the unimproved street was a problem to him. Mr. Helps stated it was not a problem nine years ago. At that time, the street and gutter were surfaced and graded. Subsequently there were occasions when they complained about pot holes as a result of water backing up. He believed the neighbors to the east complained about the water problem which was caused by the lack of a well-kept gutter. Further, they had not had street sweeping service since the gutter had deteriorated. He clarified that they were not opposed to a sidewalk, but to 25 feet of their property being taken, amounting to 20% of their lot. Mayor Seymour stated that having spoken with Mrs. Helps on the phone a number of times, he got the impression from her that the neighbors probably favored the widening as long as they were compenmated fairly for their land. In listening to Mr. Helps, the situation seemed to have taken a 180-degree turn, and he wanted to know what had transpired in the meantime. Mr. Helps stated that he did not believe the situation had changed. They felt that the City would widen the street because it was in the General Plan. What they did not like was that the City had been "pestering" them for a long time about, it. They did not favor the widening, did not need it and were not asking that it be done. Improvements to the gutter or a sidewalk would satisfy the community and also satimfy the drainage problem, but, if widened, they felt they should be compensated rather than to merely deed the property to the City. They did not feel that the improvements would be on their property but on City property. Mr. Robert Maus, 1680 West Cerritos, the property immediately adjacent to the Stop-and-Go market, stated he had lived there approximately 17 years. They were told that there would be no attempt to widen Cerritos through to Euclid because it was not going to be a heavily traveled road and that Ball Road and Katella were to handle the major portion of the traffic, with Cerritos still to be kept as an egress for the property owners in the area. He was opposed to the building of the Stop-and-Go market, and he expressed to the Council at that time his reluc- tance to go along with the proposal because of the problems and trash that usually accompany those markets, which had proven to be the case. He thereupon explained those problems and he felt that the widening of the road would only add to them. Aisc, his property had nice trees which presently buffered the noise from both Euclid and Cerritos. Relative to the drainage, a number of years ago the City did take good care of the road and provided drainage, but until 9 years ago they had not done much to alleviate the problem right at the corner of the Bruner residence where the water began to back up. To his knowledge, no attempt had 80-203 City Ha.~l., Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - February 26, 1980~ 1:30 P.M. been made by the City to try to alleviate that situation. He was opposed to the widening of the street. The opposite side of the street was also narrow, and he questioned, if the City was going to widen the street, why not widen both sides at the same time. The property owners on that side of the street had not been contacted at all to his knowledge. City Engineer William Devitt stated at this point in time, the basic problem was one of drainage and a nuisance problem on the south side of the street. They had been continually subjected to complaints because of the lack of maintenance, but he had been advised by the Street Maintenance Superintendent that he probably did four times as much in that general area as he did in similar areas. The property just to the east of the four subject properties had continually com- plained to them regarding the lack of drainage. They made engineering surveys as to what the solution to the problem might be and it was their judgment that the only way they could solve that drainage problem was to put in the ultimate curb and gutter. Mayor Seymour referred to the question previously raised, was it necessary to take 25 feet in order to solve the drainage problem? Mr. Devitt answered "yes". He explained if they were to get ultimate dedication, the curb would go in at 32 feet. The street wam a secondary highway and had been on the arterial system in excess of 20 years. The curb, gutter and improvements were in, both to the east and west of the subject property, but not on the north side of the street. A curb and gutter existed on the north side but the street had not been widened. Mayor Seymour asked if they were going to widen, why not widen both sides? If the problem was drainage, they should solve that particular problem. Mr. Devitt stated the widening on the south side would correct the drainage problem, improve the circulation on the street, and resolve their present problems. At some point in time when the traffic would reach volumes that would require the street to be widened, it would then also be widened on the north side, but that would be many years hence. The problem had been existing for 20 years and at one point in time, approximately 15 years ago, they had a petition from a number of mtudents from Loara High School regarding the problem associated with having to walk in the street. He also relayed other such occurrences and, in each instance, it had been their policy to offer full improve- ments for full dedication. In this ca~e, they had not been able to resolve the issue on the basis of that policy and the essential difference between past offers and this offer had been the City'm willingness to have the property appraised, determine what damages may be involved in the property, and pay a fair market price to install the improvements. Further, in anmwer to the Mayor, he reported they had no report indicating they were experiencing a large number of accidents as a result of the street widening not taking place, but through the last 15 years there had been many citizen complaints regarding children walking in the streets because of the lack of side- walks on the south side. If the improvements were installed, there would be a continuous curb and gutter along the mouth side of the street all the way to Euclid, which would then permit adequate drainage. 80-204 City .Ha!l, Anaheim,. California - COUNCIL MINUTES - February 26~.1980, 1:30 P.M. Mr. Maus noted if improvements were made on the south side, the road would be 10 feet from his house. He felt there was another way to solve the drainage problem other than taking their property. The Mayor then asked Mr. Helps, if the City were willing to improve with curbs and sidewalks without ultimate widening, would he, as well as the other property owners, be willing to dedicate. Mr. Helps answered "yes"--a portion of the 25 feet. He noted the 25 feet included a parking strip between the sidewalk and the curb which did not exist east of them. The City was asking for 25 feet which included an additional amount of property beyond what it took from the houses further up from them. The complaining neighbor was one at the point where flooding occurred, and he could understand his concern. If the gutter was improved and surfaced in concrete instead of asphalt, it would provide a smooth transition. He also explained that the student survey mentioned earlier was a result of a class promoted project at Ball Junior High School and not Loara. The studentm that came by and talked to them had not been apprised by the teacher or the school that the City was going to take their property free and clear. Mayor Seymour stated that logic would dictate that they should proceed in having the property appraised and subsequently to widen the ~treet. On the other hand, there was no great need today or within the foreseeable or immediate future for widening that street. Most of the development going easterly on Cerritos had already taken place. They were told there had not been a large number of accidents near that property, and they were not going to be widening the street full width on the north side. He suspected that one day it would have to be widened and at that time, it should be widened on both mides. At this particular time, however, they were trying to solve (1) a drainage problem and (2) provide a safe place for kids to walk to school. Him inclination would be to leave the peace and quiet presently existing for the residents and try to solve the foregoing problems. If that could be done with the property owner~ dedicating to the City, at no cost, enough property so that they could lay some sidewalk or asphalt, merely a place to walk, and at the ~ame time in exchange get improved drainage for the foreseeable future, they would have solved the problem. It was not the "prettiest" solution, but it would work for the property owners. Councilman Bay asked the ADT on Cerritos at the present time, as well as that projected for 1985, and also if they approved the Mayor'8 recommendations, would that solve the drainage problem. Relative to the latter, Mr. Devitt answered "no" the drainage problem would not be solved without installing the curb and gutter. The normal cross-section on a secondary highway right of way acquisition was 45 feet. Presently there was 20 feet and an additional 25 feet would be required. The curb and gutter on an arterial was at 32 feet, which meant there was a 13-foot parkway. It was conceivable that one could install the curb and gutter and a sidewalk within 40 feet with the parkway being reduced down from 45 to 40 feet. He emphasized that the problem could not be resolved without the installation of the curb and gutter, but it was conceivable to make the installation without going as deeply as 25 feet. I / 80-205 City Hall., ,~n.ahei~,..California - COUNCIL MINUTES - February 26~ 1980, 1:30 P.M. Councilman Roth asked the last time Mr. Devitt received a request from citizens relative to widening. Mr. Devitt explained that in terms of widening, the Plettnicks, the property owners to the east, had continuously asked them to make the improvement to widen the street. As a result of the "jutting out" of the parcel, the drainage did not continue and flooding took place in front of their property. From the standpoint of complaints, they had primarily been of a drainage nature. Mr. Paul Singer, Traffic Engineer, reported that the ADT on Cerritos to the east of Euclid in 1978 was 8,500 vehicles and it had been averaging that for the last three years. To 1985, there would perhaps be a 1.2% increase per year at the most. If widened, 'they would have to assign certain trips to it, but the street had adequate capacity for far more than it was carrying at present. If widened, probably just the appearance of the street might encourage a very small percen- tage of increase, but he did not foresee any great increase. Any such increase would primarily be along Katella Avenue and Ball Road. Councilwoman Kaywood stated she had a problem with the situation. With the shortage of housing everywhere and considering the nice neighborhood involved and without a significant increase in traffic, she was concerned in taking that much footage from the residents, thereby changing their living environment in exchange for drainage. Mayor Seymour stated if the drainage problem could be solved, the Council was of one mind, to not take that street back to the residents' front p~mch. Councilman Bay stated what they needed to have was some idea if perhaps they took 10 feet instead of 20 feet, how that might solve the drainage problem. It did not sound like too much of an engineering problem to him. Mr. Devitt stated the curb had to go back to 32 feet because that was where the existing curb was at the present time. Mr. Maus explained that up until the time the street was widened, there was no drainage problem on the south side, but after widening, the drainage problem was created. He felt the problem could have been alleviated by proper engineering design. The corner property had been complaining for some time because they were most affected by the flooding problem. MOTION: Councilman Seymour moved to direct the City Engineer to submit a proposal to So'%~e the drainage problem, requiring only a minimum dedication by the affected property owners; after so doing, the property owners to cooperate relative to the necessary dedication as stipulated. Councilwoman Kaywood seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. Mayor Seymour asked that the property owners be notified the next time the matter was discussed. He emphasized that they had to have cooperation from the residents relative to dedication in order to solve the drainage problem. He would not be part of trying to solve that problem unless they had that co- operation. 80-206 Cit~ Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - February 26, 1980, 1:30 P.M. 153: NEW CLASSIFICATION - LEAD CETA WORKER: Councilwoman Kaywood offered Resolution No. 80R-80 for adoption, as recommended in memorandum dated February 19, 1980 from the Human Resources Director Garry McRae, amending Resolution No. 79R-696 and establisblng a new classification of Lead CETA Worker and rate of compensation therefor, effective March 13, 1980. Refer to Resolution Book. RESOLUTION NO. 80R-80: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AMENDING RESOLUTION NO. 79R-696 WHICH ADJUSTED RATES OF COMPENSATION FOR PUBLIC SERVICE EMPLOYMENT PROGRAM TRAINEE CLASSIFICATIONS AND CREATING A NEW CLASSIF- ICATION. Roll Call Vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: COUNCIL MEMBERS: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Overholt, Kaywood, Bay, Roth and Seymour None None The Mayor declared Resolution No. 80R-80 duly passed and adopted. 174/106: STATE OFFICE OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE PLANNING FUNDS TO FUND H.E.R.E.: Councilman Bay moved to appropriate a grant award received from the State office of Criminal Justice Planning in the amount of $6,000 in Account No. 17-344-6340, to fund the Help Eliminate Rape Everywhere (H.E.R.E.) Rape Crisis Clinic, as recommended in memorandum dated February 14, 1980 from Deputy City Manager James Ruth. Councilwoman Kaywood seconded the motion. Before a vote was taken, Councilman Roth explained that he was told yesterday that the Community Services Board made a study of the Rape Crisis Clinic and as a result had gathered some interesting information relative to that program. He hoped that they would solicit a report from the Community Services Board before appropriating any money. Mayor Seymour stated that the CSB had been asked to look at the program, but the funds under consideration were previously committed. A vote was then taken on the foregoing motion. MOTION CARRIED. 174/150: TERMINATION OF THE BURRIS/PIT FIVE COVES STUDY: On motion by Councilwoman Kaywood, seconded by Councilman Overholt, the termination of the Burris/Pit Five Coves Study was authorized, which study was initiated by agreement dated October 21, 1977 begween the City and Orange County Flood Control District, Harbors, Beaches and Parks District, the County of Orange, and the Orange County Water District, with the unused funds of $3,733 being returned to the City, as recommended in memorandum dated February 20, 1980 from the Deputy City Manager James Ruth. MOTION CARRIED. 123: CANCELLATION OF CONTRACT - HMO CONCEPTS~ INC.: City Manager William Talley briefed the Council on report dated February 20, 1980 from Human Resources Director Garry McRae relating, to the subject. 80-207 City Hall, A~aheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - ~ebruary 26~ 1980~ 1:30 P.M. On motion by Councilman Overholt, seconded by Councilwoman Kaywood, the Human Resources Director Garry McRae was directed to notify ~0 Concepts, Inc. that the City was siring the required 30-day written notice to cancel its contracts with }{MO Concepts, effective March 31, 1980, as recommended in memorandum dated February 20, 1980. MOTION CARRIED. On motion by Councilman Overholt, seconded by Councilwoman Kaywood, staff was authorized to withhold the March payment to HMO Concepts, Inc., until further notice, and authorized the transfer of all affected employees to the' Galbraith & Green program effective this date. MOTION CARRIED. 175: INCREASING THE LIFELINE ENERGY COST ADJUSTMENT BILLING FACTOR (ECABF): A recommendation by the Public Utilities Board to increase the lifeline ECABF to 0.572c/KWH; to increase the non-lifeline.ECABF to 2.506C/KWH, effective March 1, 1980; and to increase the electric sales revenue appropriation for FY 1979-80 by $13,451,000, was submitted. Public Utilities General Manager Gordon Hoyt briefed the Council on the extensive report dated February 21, 1980 from the Public Utilities Board (PUB) with attachments, recommending the subject increase due to an increale in fuel COltS. ~t represented a significant increase in the COlt of electricity for everyone in Anaheim. Sixty-five percent of the Utilities residential customers using 500 KWs per month or less were still going to be paying bills that were equal to or lower than that of Southern California Edison (SCE), but the remain- ins 35% were goin$ to pay a significant increase, and in addition would be payin$ hisher rates than Edison. The increase was on a per kilowatt hour basis and since industry used the sreatest amount of electricity, they would see the greatest percentage increase. They were maintaining their competitive position since the City's electrical rates fell above or below that of SCE because of timing in tbs EtA. He emphasized, however, tbs fact that as indicated in attachment B, it was expected that Anaheim's rates would again be less than Edison's retail rates in neighboring communities after May 1, 1980. This was due to the fact that in prepared testimony submitted by Edison to the CPUC in its request for a February 3, 1980 increase, Edison indicated that it would be requesting an additional $950,000 increase to be effective May 1, 1980. Mr. Hoyt also explained that relative to water rates, as they were aware, their water rates rules and regulations contained a water commodity cost adjustment clause. That clause would increase or decrease as the price of electricity fluctuated up and down. It was their estimate that the average water customer in Anaheim would see an increase of about 18C per month from $7.57 to $7.75 with average customer using 2000 cubic feet of water or an approximate 2.4X increase in water rates. Mr. Hoyt than answered questions posed by the Council for purposes of clarification relative to the ratel and other utility matters. Councilman 0verholt offered Resolution No. 80R-81 for adoption, as recommended in report dated February 21, 1980 from the Public Utilitiem Board increasin~ She lifeline Energy Cost Adjustment Billing Factor to 0.572¢/XW~; increasin~ She non-lifeline ECABF to 2.506C/XWH, effective March 1, 1980, and increasing the electric sales revenue appropriation £or ~f1979-80 by $13,&51,000. Refer to RelOlUtiOn Book. 80-208 City Ha.ll., Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - February 26, 1980, 1:30 P.M. RESOLUTION NO. 80R-81: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM APPROPRIATING ADDITIONAL FUNDS FOR PURCHASED POWER AND AMENDING THE RATES, RULES AND REGULATIONS FOR THE SALE AND DISTRICUTION OF ELECTRIC ENERGY AS ADOPTED BY CITY COUNCIL qESOLUTION NO. 71R-478 AND AMENDED BY CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION NOS. 73R-25, 73R-373, 73R-531, 74R-75, 74R-630, 75R-243, 75R-344,~75R-345, 76R-41, 76R-377, 76R-528, 76R-817, 77R-464, 77R-628, 78R-458, 78R-655, 79R-292, 79R-309, AND 79R-699. Roll Call Vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: COUNCIL MEMBERS: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Overholt, Kaywood, Bay, Roth and Seymour None None The Mayor declared Resolution No. 80R-81 duly passed and adopted. 136: ANAHEIM MEMORIAL HOSPITAL (AMH) - DESIGNATION AS TRAUMA SERVICE HOSPITAL: Councilman Roth referred to letter dated February 25, 1980 from Steven P. Yerxa, President, Anaheim Memorial Hompital, requemting the Council's support that AMH be designated as the trauma service hospital of their service area. He thereupon m°ved that such support be given to AMH in submitting their request to the Board of Supervisors on Thursday, February 28, 1980. Councilman Bay seconded the motion. Councilwoman Kaywood asked if another hopital was planning to submit the same kind of request. Mr. Bill Platt, AMH, answered that he was aware that Martin Luther Hospital and West Anaheim General Hospital were also applying. He then relayed some back- ground information relative to their request. Currently, AMH was the base station for the paramedic system in the County of Orange and met all of the criteria stated by the County for trauma designation. Based on their paramedic calls, they handled approximately two-third~ of thome patients currently in the North Orange County area. As well, because of the minimum amount of expense it would require for them to become the designated trauma service hospital, they were asking for the Council's recommendation and endorsement. Councilwoman Kaywood stated she had no problem with the request but wondered what would happen when Martin Luther and West Anaheim H0~pital~ approached them thereafter; Councilman Overholt stated, relative to that point, the Council would not then be in a position to endorse either of those hospitals. He con- tinued that before they endorsed one of the three of the local hospitals, they should be sure they were doing the right thing. He asked why Anaheim Memorial would be any better qualified than Martin Luther or Wemt Anaheim Hospitals. Mr. Platt stated that as a base station hospital now with the paramedic program, they handled all the calls for their service area which included six receiving centers, including Martin Luther and West Anaheim. They directed all the patients as to designation, and also the accessibility of the hospital in terms of its locatio via major surface streets and highways was ideal. Relative to response time, 80-209 City Hall_, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - February 26~ 1980, 1:30 P.M. there was an extensive study done by Southland Ambulance and the City Fire Department revealing a response time of 15 minutes which proved that AMH could cover all North Orange County, including the East Canyon in a minimum amount of time. Along with that was their himtorical commitment to the care of the critically ill and injured patient, and facilities were already in place at AMH. Therefore, if they were designated mo by the County, there would be very little expenme involved which meant they would not have to pasm anything on to the community. Those were the major pointm to the proposal they were submitting as to why AMH vs. anyone else. Councilman Overholt stated he had concerns even though he was a member of the AMH Double-Ii Club, am was Councilman Roth. He was going to vote "yes", but was concerned, as he had been concerned in the past, that there seemed to be a com- petitive situation between the health delivery systems particularly between AMH and Martin Luther and that the competition, in him opinion, was sometimes not particularly healthy. He almo had been very vocal on that situation. An attitude of cooperation would be much more healthy than what appeared to be a cut-throat competitiveness between the two facilities. In concluding, he stated that since AMH appeared first, he was going to support the request, but added merely because the City was affiliated with a particular hospital, in his opinion, was not a good reason for the City to give a "blessing" on that particular facility without a thorough view of alternatives. A vote was then taken on the foregoing motion. MOTION CARRIED. Councilman Roth stated that AMH requested if they received Council support that the City Clerk submit a letter in writing by Thursday indicating that support. 164: REQUEST FOR WAIVER OF OFFSITE STORM DRAIN FACILITIES~ ANAHEIM HILLS UNITS XIX A & B: On motion by Councilman Seymour, seconded by Councilman Roth, request for Waiver of Offsite Storm Drain Facilities prior to commencement of grading operations (GP No. 831 and GP No. 778, Development Units XIX A & B) was approved, as recommended by the Planning Commimsion at their February 25, 1980 meeting and the City Engineer in his memorandum dated February 20, 1980. MOTION CARRIED. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 1923 - REQUEST FOR REHEARING TO AMEND CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL: Request by Mr. Floyd Farano, attorney, for a hearing to amend con- dittons of approval under CUP No. 1923, am outlined in his letter dated February 21, 1980, was submitted. Councilwoman Kaywood noted that they had previously held very lengthy hearings on the subject CUP, and mhe was not certain as to the present request. Mayor Seymour stated that the Council sometime ago requested clarification of what, in finality, the City's ordinancem were going to may relative to the question of quasi-commercial developments in the City. They had promised ~nitially they would be back to the Council sometime in February on the matter, but it did not appear that they were going to make it. He had no problem in granting the request and, in the meantime, he would hope that he and Councilman Bay in a liaison meeting would have developed something by the time they again met with Mr. Farano on the subject. 80-210 City Hall, Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - February 26, 1980~ 1:30 P.M. Councilwoman Kaywood stated her concern lay in the fact that they were talking about Curtis Furniture, who had taken out more ads harassing the City relative to their problems, when they had deliberately falsely filled out a business license application initially. City Clerk Roberts noted that Mr. Farano was representing Frederick R. and Ruth E. Sacher, the owners of the property. Councilman Bay stated that the problem was possibly that two of the buildings on the parcel were empty since Orange County Furniture and Mooney Carpets had moved out. Curtis Furniture was still in the throes of its quitting business sale. He wanted to know what Mr. Farano had in mind for the hearings, since he did not state that in his letter, other than he wanted to talk about one portion of the CUP relating to the percentage of commercial versus wholesale over a three-year period. He saw nothing wrong with setting another hearing but wanted to know what it was about before he set it. Also, the timing of the hearing was critical because time was needed to hold a liaison meeting, as the Mayor suggested, to try to come up with the results of the input they had been gathering regarding ML zoning and before they could make a final decision on what he felt Mr. Farano was requesting. Councilman Roth noted that the Council had not turned down a request for anybody to come forth. The earliest date would be the middle of March as indicated by the City Clerk, and he felt that within the next three weeks, they would have a liaison meeting to devise ground rules which was anticipated since last December. On motion by Councilman Roth, seconded by Councilman Seymour, the request sub- mitted by Mr. Floyd Farano for a hearing to amend conditions of approval under Conditional Use Permit No. 1923 was approved, and public hearing set for March 18, 1980, at 3:00 p.m. MOTION CARRIED. CONSENT CALENDAR ITEMS: On motion by Councilman Roth, seconded by Councilman Overholt, the following actions were authorized in accordance with the reports and recommendations furnished each Council Member and as listed on the Consent Calendar Agenda: 1. CORRESPONDENCE: The following correspondence was ordered received and filed: a. 105: Public Utilities Board--Minutes of January 31, 1980. (Unapproved) b. 175: Public Utilities Department--Annual Report for the year ended June 30, 1979. c. 156: Police Department--Monthly Report for January 1980. d. 105: Community Services Board--Minutes of January 10, 1980. 2. 170: TENTATIVE TRACT NO. 10713 (Revision No. 1): Submitted by Carlton Homes, Inc., to establish a l-lot, 54-unit condominium subdivision on proposed RS-HS-10,000(SC) zoned property located west of Imperial Highway and south of Nohl Ranch Road. The City Planning Commission approved Tentative Tract No. 10713 (Revision No. 1), and EIR No. 218(5) was certified on June 4, 1979. 80-211 City Ha. ll,. Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - February 26~ 1980~ 1:30 P.M. 3. 170: TENTATIVE TRACT NO. 10954: Submitted by the City of Anaheim and T. Keith Pocock, to establish a l-lot, 86-unit condominium subdivision on RM-3000· zoned property located south of Citron Street, south of Vermont Avenue. The City Planning Commimsion approved Tentative Tract No. 10954, and granted a negative declaration status. 4. 170: TENTATIVE TRACT NOS. 10967, 10968, 10969, 10970, 10971~ 10972, 10973~ 10974,...!~5., 10976, 10977 and 10978 (Revision~ No. 1): Submitted by Texaco Anaheim Hills, Inc., to establish 12 tracts consisting of 207 RM-2400(SC) units, 327 RM-3000(SC) units, 25 RS-HS-22,000(SC) units, all having OS(SC), and one OS(SC) tract (all zones proposed), on property located southwesterly of Nohl Ranch Road between the intersection of Nohl Ranch Road with Canyon Rim Road and Serrano Avenue, and request for removal of 62 mpecimen trees within Tract Nos. 10967, 10968, 10969, 10971, 10973, 10974 and 10975. The City Planning Commission approved Tentative Tract Nos. 10967, 10968, 10969, 10970, 10971, 10972, 10973, 10974, 10975, 10976, 10977 and 10978 (Revisions No. 1), and certified EIR No. 235. Mayor Seymour noted that Mr. Dan Salceda from Anaheim Hills was in the Chamber audience and stated that he had undoubtedly received a copy of the two-page letter dated February 24, 1980 from the Stone Gate Hills Homeowners Association signed by Rod Fick, Treasurer of that A~sociation (made a part of the record). Mr. Salceda anmwered that he had not seen a copy of that letter; the Mayor thereupon afforded Mr. Salceda an opportunity to read the letter. Later in the meeting, Mr. Dan Salceda, Anaheim Hills, Inc., 380 Anaheim Hills Road, stated that since reading the letter, he was obviously quite concerned over its contents. He knew Mr. Fick as a very responsible, decedt and one of the nicest people in their planned community. Since September of 1979, he (Salceda) attended a pre-EIR meeting with City staff in December followed by a liaison meeting between Anaheim Hills and the City and then subsequent additional meetings with City staff as late as February 4, 1980. During the entire week of February 4 through February 11, Anaheim Hills met with mtaff to resolve some of the issues that were brought to them at the Interdepartmental Committee meeting of February 4. It was his understanding and Traffic Engineer Paul Singer's understanding that the issues staff had broached were resolved prior to the Planning Commission meeting on February 11, 1980. There was one outstanding issue that was brought to his attention on the afternoon of February 11 during the Planning Commission hearing and that was regarding the issue of speed along one of the arterial streets in the tract. That was somewhat of a mtalemate in the sense that they thought the streets were safe to a certain speed and the City Engineer requested that they redesignate the speed safety factor to a higher speed. Am he recalled, Commissioner Herbmt suggested that Anaheim Hills and staff go back and discuss the situation and, absence some major reconfigurations, come up with a compromise. However, Mr. Salceda noted that Mr. Fick's letter suggested that he had little faith in Anaheim Hillm having the ability to do Mr. Salceda then stated he wam glad to report that they did reconcile the problem with the Engineering Department. Mr. Schor met with Mr. Judd in Engineering and it was him (Salceda's) understanding that the imsue was resolved. He did go back 80-212 City Hal~,. Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - February 26, 1980, 1:30 P.M. to the Planning Department and because of some of the concerns expressed, he told them Anaheim Hills would be willing to submit to another Interdepartmental Com- mittee meeting on the 12 tentative tract maps and whatever conditions were im- posed upon them at the time, they would be willing to live with. He would like to think that was a manifestation of their good intent to make the tracts work. In term~ of the ismues of parks and schools, he talked to Mr. Larsen from the Orange Unified School District (OUSD) in charge of Planning, minimally twice a month, telling him of their projects and tentative tract approvals or denials, any~and all things pertinent to the District for their population projections. Mr. Larsen told him that over the next five years, the OUSD would have no increase in student population. He recognized, however, that did not neces- sarily mean that there would not be a student increase in the hill and canyon area, but it suggested to him that they would have the wherewithal to accept the shifts in school population within the School District. Also, on March 6, they would be appearing before the OUSD to offer them, and it was his understanding they would accept, a 14-acre park site on the corner of Serrano and Canyon Rim Road. That would be the third school site that Anaheim Hills offered and dedicated to the School Dimtrict at no cost to the District and subsequently would enter into an agreement with them in terms of assisting them in the grading operations of the school site to avail them the opportunity to have the school when funding was available. Every EIR which they submitted to the Planning Commission and subsequently to the Council, a good portion of that EIR took into consideration the impact of schools and so, in each instance, that issue was addressed and resolved between Anaheim Hills, the developer, City staff and the Orange Unified School District. He did not know that it was his position to say too much about the parks other than to say they were presently in a conceptual stage of providing a park site, Deer Canyon, a 60 to 65-acre park. The recognized the need for parks as one of the integral parts of a planned community, a balanced community. In concluding, he stated just prior to the Planning Commission hearing on February 11, he received a call from a lady in the Stone Gate Homeowners tract and he sub- sequently met with her. She stated after that meeting that she was glad to receive the i~formation provided and especially appreciated the density involved of 1.61 units per acre, and she did not have a problem with the development. Mayor Seymour stated he believed Mr. Salceda'~ presentation clarified the matter, and they were appreciative of the information provided. MOTION CARRIED. CONSENT CALENDAR ITEMS: Councilwoman Kaywood offered Resolution Nos. 80R-82 and 80R-83, 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. 80-213 City Ha!l, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - February 26, 1980, 1:30 P.M. 150: RESOLUTION NO. 80R-82: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM FINALLY ACCEPTING THE COMPLETION AND THE FURNISHING OF ALL PLANT, LABOR, SERVICES, MATERIALS AND EQUIPMENT AND ALL UTILITIES AND TRANSPORTATION INCLUDING POWER, FUEL AND WATER, AND THE PERFORMANCE OF ALL WORK NECESSARY TO CONSTRUCT AND COMPLETE THE FOLLOWING PUBLIC IMPROVEMENT, TO WIT: CANYON HIGH SCHOOL POOL LIGHTING, IN THE CITY OF ANAHEIM, ACCOUNT NO. 16-811-7105. (Allen Electric Company) 150: RESOLUTION NO. 80R-83: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM FINALLY ACCEPTING THE COMPLETION AND THE FURNISHING OF ALL PLANT, LABOR, SERVICES, MATERIALS AND EQUIPMENT AND ALL UTILITIES AND TRANSPORTATION INCLUDING POWER, FUEL AND WATER, AND THE PERFORMANCE OF ALL WORK NECESSARY. TO CONSTRUCT AND COMPLETE THE FOLLOWING PUBLIC IMPROVEMENT, TO WIT: PERALTA CANYON PARK LIGHTING PHASE II, IN THE CITY OF ANAHEIM, ACCOUNT NO. 16-805-7103-0000. (Allen Electric Company) Roll Call Vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: COUNCIL MEMBERS: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Overholt, Kaywood, Bay, Roth and Seymour None None The Mayor declared Resolution Nos. 80R-82 and 80R-83 duly passed and adopted. 142/149: ORDINANCE NO. 4103: Councilwoman Kaywood offered Ordinance No. 4103 for adoption. Refer to Ordinance Book. ORDINANCE NO. 4103: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AMENDING TITLE 14, CHAPTER 14.32, SECTION 14.32.150 OF THE ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE BY ADDING THERETO SUBSECTION .040 RELATING TO ONE-HOUR PARKING RESTRICTIONS. (both sides of Lincoln Avenue, Melrose Street to Anaheim Boulevard) Roll Call Vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: COUNCIL MEMBERS: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Overholt, Kaywood, Bay, Roth and Seymour None None The Mayor declared Ordinance No. 4103 duly passed and adopted. 142/179: ORDINANCE NO. 4104: Councilman Bay offered Ordinance No. 4104 for adoption, Refer to Ordinance Book. ORDINANCE NO. 4104: AN oRDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM ADDING SUBSECTION .070 TO SECTION 18.45.025 OF CHAPTER 18.45, TITLE 18, OF THE ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO ZONING. (outdoor storage in CG Zone) Roll Call Vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: COUNCIL MEMBERS: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Overholt, Kaywood, Bay, Roth and Seymour None None The Mayor declared Ordinance No. 4104 duly passed and adopted. 80-214 City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - February 26~ 1980~ 1:30 P.M. ORDINANCE NO. 4105: Councilman Roth offered Ordinance No. 4105 for adoption. Refer to Ordinance Book. ORDINANCE NO. 4105: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AMENDING TITLE 18 OF THE ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO ZONING. (79-80-22, RM-3000) Roll Call Vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: COUNCIL MEMBERS: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Overholt, Kaywood, Bay, Roth and Seymour None None The Mayor declared Ordinance No. 4105 duly passed and adopted. ORDINANCE NO. 4106: Councilman Overholt offered Ordinance No. 4106 for adoption. Refer to Ordinance Book. ORDINANCE NO. 4106: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AMENDING TITLE 18 OF THE. ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO ZONING. (77-78-46, RS-7200) Roll Call Vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: COUNCIL MEMBERS: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Overholt, Kaywood, Bay, Roth and Seymour None None The Mayor declared Ordinance No. 4106 duly passed and adopted. ORDINANCE NO. 4107: Councilwoman Kaywood Ordiance No. 4107 for first reading. ORDINANCE NO. 4107: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AMENDING TITLE 18 OF THE ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO ZONING. (79-80-15, CL) 144: PROPOSED CONSOLIDATION OF THE FIVE MUNICIPAL COURTS OF ORANGE COUNTY: Councilman Overholt referred to a letter dated January 28, 1980 from Supervisor Ralph Clark, Chairman of the Board, to the Board of Supervisors attached to which was a letter from Paul Rycoff, Mayor of Newport Beach, dated February 22, 1980 to Supervisor Clark. That letter triggered his interest in the subject matter relative to the proposed consolidation of the five Municipal Courts in the County of Orange. He thereupon read the letter, a portion of which stated, "...we would appreciate receiving any data or reports that you may have on the advantages and/or disadvantages of a proposed consolidation." He again referred to the January 28th letter from Supervisor Clark, the most critical point of which asked the Chief Adminimtrative Officer to submit a report to the Board no later than March 4, 1980 and if the Board chose to place the question on the ballot, it would take action on March 11, 1980 to do so. That was the concern expresmed by Mayor Rycoff, that the Board might place the matter on the ballot before municipalities who would be impacted by it would have a chance to react to it. 80-215 C~t3 Hall~ Anaheim., California - COUNCIL MINUTES - February 26, 1980, 1:30 P.M. Councilman Overholt continued that he took the opportunity of talking to the City Attorney who indicated he had been contacted by the Chief Clerk of the North Orange County Municipal Court, where Anaheim carried out its municipal court business, and subsequently he received a letter dated February 22, 1980 from Robert R. Rill, Clerk and Administrative Officer, with a lengthy memorandum he sent to the Chief Administrative Officer, R.E. Thomas, on behalf of all Court Administrators rather pointedly objecting to the consolidation, indicating that it may or may not save money and would create all kinds of problems. The only reason he raised the point, if they shared the view of Mayor Rycoff, then the Council may like the opportunity to react to the proposal before it was put on the ballot by the Board of Supervisors, so that they too might express them- selves. He asked City Attorney Hopkins if he would have any objection to his asking his feelings about how a consolidation of the Municipal Courts could impact Anaheim's business with the North Orange County Municipal Court. City Attorney William Hopkins stated he was contacted by the Clerk of the North Orange County Court and was asked his opinion and also to get the opinion of Chief Tielsch. Purportedly, it would be a cost savings move and perhaps reduce some of the administrative procedures. They had at the present five judges in the North Orange County Court who were familiar with the problems of the North Court area and of Anaheim. They knew the City's police officers and it was felt that was a distinct advantage. The Police Department had from time to time con- ducted seminars to inform the judges of some of the problems in the area and the proposed move would be one which would place some judges from other judicial districts into these courts to handle cases involving Anaheim and other North Court cities. He felt that would be a disadvantage relative to the administrative program and as far as the judicial program was concerned. Whether it would be cost effective or not was speculative. As Councilman Overholt indicated, the letter attached to Mr. Rill's letter stated there would be no monetary savings as a result of the consolidation. His feeling, from the standpoint of the administration of justice, was that they would lose something in having judges brought in who were not familiar with the City's particular problems. Councilman Overholt stated it should be made clear and particularly to Supervisor Clark that if the Council were to request the opportunity to react to such a proposal, it was only for that purpose and not prejudging in advance the advan- tages or disadvantages of some kind of consolidation program. It was his (Overholt's) thought and proposal that the Council similiarly request of the Supervisor that they be given the opportunity to react to any proposal for consolidation of the Municipal Courts in the County prior to having the matter placed on the ballot for a vote of the people, so that they may give input as to how they felt such a program might impact City operations. MOTION: Councilman Overholt moved that the Council request of the Supervisors an opportunity to react to any such proposal prior to having the matter placed on the ballot in order to give input as to how such a program might impact the City's operations. Councilwoman Kaywood seconded~the motion. MOTION CARRIED. 105: YOUTH COMMISSION - 30-MINUTE FILM - "OPERATION HOMETOWN": Councilwoman Kaywood reported that she received a request from the Youth Commission relative to the subject film which they had made, with the request that the Council view it sometime between March 13 and March 21, 1980. 80-216 City H~ll.~ Ana.h.eim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - February 26~ 1980~ 1:30 P,M. By general consent, it was decided that the film would be shown to the Council on Tuesday, March 18, 1980, at 12:30 P.M., before the regularly scheduled Council meeting. 142: TWO PRGPOSED CITY CHARTER AMENDMENTS: Mayor Seymour stated that the Council should receive in their mailbox tomorrow the two proposed Charter amendments he had previously discussed with them (see minutes February 19, 1980). The two amendments would involve the following: (1) changing the time of City elections to the June primary. (2) Changing the method in which the Mayor was elected in the City. The amendments are to be discussed at the Council meeting in one week, March 4, 1980. RECESS - EXECUTIVE SESSION: Councilman Bay moved to recess into Executive Session. Councilwoman Kaywood seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. (3:47 P.M.) AFTER RECESS: Mayor Seymour called the meeting to order, all Council Members being present. (4:35 P.M.) 112: NICOLE BOYD VS. CITY OF ANAHEIM: On motion by Councilman Seymour, seconded by Councilman Bay, the City Attorny and Kinkle, Rodiger & Spriggs were author- ized to settle Orange County Superior Court Case No. 27-42-19 (Nicole Boyd vs. City of Anaheim) for a sum not to exceed $2,000. MOTION CARRIED. 112: CLAIM OF THE CITY AGAINST JOANN GRACE STOCKTON: On motion by Councilman Seymour, seconded by Councilman Bay, the City Attorney was authorized to settle the claim of the City of Anaheim against Joann Grace Stockton for the sum of $25,000. MOTION CARRIED. RECESS: Councilwoman Kaywood moved to recess to 7:30 p.m. for a joint meeting with the Public Utilities Board relative to the Intermountain Power Project. Councilman Bay seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. (4:36 P.M.) AFTER RECESS: Mayor Pro Tem Overholt called the joint meeting with the Public Utilities Board to order, all Council Members being present, with the exception of Councilman Seymour. (7:30 P.M.) PRESENT: ABSENT: PRESENT: ABSENT: PRESENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Kaywood, Bay, Roth and Overholt COUNCIL MEMBERS: Seymour PUBLIC UTILITIES BOARD: Keesee, Anderson, Stanton, Haynie and White PUBLIC UTILITIES BOARD: Townsend and Kie£er ASSISTANT CITY MANAGER; William T. Hopkins CITY ATTORNEY: William P. Hopkins DEPUTY CITY CLERK: Leonora Sohl PUBLIC UTILITIES GENERAL MANAGER: Gordon W. Hoyt PUBLIC UTILITIES ASSISTANT GENERAL MANAGER: Edward G. Alario Chairman Ken Keesee called the Public Utilies Board to order, all members being present, with the exception of James Townsend and Carl Kiefer. 80-217 City Hall, Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - February 26, 1980, 1:30. P.M. Public Utilities General Manager Gordon Hoyt stated he had promised to present to the Council, the Public Utilities Board (PUB) and the public some measure of the estimated annual savings from participation in the Intermountain Power Project (IPP) that would be understandable to the ordinary customer not versed in power supply matters. He referred to his memorandum dated February 26, 1980-- subject: Estimated Annual Savings From Participation In The IPP (on file in the City Clerk's office) copies of which were made available to those in the Chamber as well am memorandum dated December 7, 1979--subject: Intermountain Power Project Advisory Election (on file in the City Clerk's office). The latter recommended that the Council, by resolution, establish either April 8, 1980 or June 3, 1980 as the date for the Advisory Election on the Intermountain Power Project along with proposed ballot wording. Attached to the memorandum were drafts "A" through "G" containing alternate ballot wording as well. Mr. Hoyt explained that in the Estimated Savings From IPP Participation (page 2, February 26, 1980 memorandum, projecting figures from 1987 through 1996, with and without IPP, dollar savings and percentage savings) they used part of their current 1979-80 operating budget. They took the purchased power cost, subtracted that from their normal operating budget as well as the revenue required to support purchased power and the revenue needed to be raised for their customers to support everything other than purchased power. They then escalated "other" costs at 8% a year through the 10 years covered by the study. He briefed the second page worksheet containing the above mentioned information. In concluding, Mr. Hoyt stated, that in trying to analyze customer savings, it was necessary to take the percentages and apply them to individual bills to ascertain what the savings might be. For example, in 1992 if the City par- ticipated in IPP, an electric bill should be 11.7% less than if the City did not participate. Councilman Bay asked if the projected cost without IPP was based on a projected curve of increase in oil prices. Mr. Hoyt answered "yes"--it was a very conservative projection and it considered the energy costs which were forecast by Edison at the time the study was made. Since that time, there had been enormous increases in oil costs. Their own projections showed that average cost~ of energy in 1980 would be 4.3¢ per kilo- watt hour. Escalating that for seven years at 8%, the energy cost should be 73 mills rather than the 53 mills shown in 1987. The cost without IPP utilized Edison's rates and resources plan and escalated the cost of the fuels and the construction costs of their present plans and cranked them into Edison's whole- sale rate structure in the same manner that they currently included costs for wholesale power purposes. They had basically escalated the cost of oil and con- struction items at 8%. After further discussion and questioning between Councilman Bay and Mr. Hoyt, Councilman Bay stated he was trying to get at the fact that the estimate presented was perhaps the most conservative he had ever seen, and probably the minimum savings they could attain with IPP were nowhere close to the maximum savings, even if the current trend of inflation and rises in oil prices followed on their present curve. 80-218 City Hall., Anaheim~ C~%ifornia - COUNCIL MINUTES - November 26, 1980~ 1:30 P.M. Mr. Hoyt agreed and he further stated that they needed to look at the estimate as their "best shot" using their consultant's figures and their own budgeted costs. He would expect in the coming weeks that those savings would show to be considerably larger. Mr. Alan Watts, Special Counsel, stated that in December, all of the utilities, including Anaheim were involved in a proceeding with the State Energy Commission wherein they were looking at the costs of power plants. As a part of that pro- ceeding, consideration was given in the forecasting side of the business to what escalated oil costs would do with respect to conservation. It was the view of the Energy Commission, and most of the utilities concurred, the costs most of the utilities were using for oil were very conservative and were un- doubtedly going to be much higher. Thus, Councilman Bay's observation was supported by the State Energy Commission findings. Mr. Richard Haynie, Public Utilities Board Member asked if the figures reflected the payment for the bond. Mr. Hoyt referred to the R & W Beck analysis of January 31, 1980 which was dis- tributed at both joint meetings, January 31 and February 13, 1980, (see minutes those dates). He explained that when Beck developed cost of power with the project, they included the cost of debt service and it was included in both power costs. Councilman Roth stated as he understood from previous meetings, Edison indicated from their projections that in the latter part of the 1980's, the demand for power from their company would be greater than the supply of energy available. This evidently meant there would be a pro rata share of power to make a deter- mination of their supply for retail and wholesale customers. Mr. Hoyt stated that they had not tried to convey any idea that there would be a shortage in supply in the 1980's. At a previous meeting, Mr. Watts explained that IPP was a part of Edison's resource plan. Edison had included Anaheim in the past by footnote and recently indicated the same when he (Hoyt) wrote and asked for integration of the project. Edison, in turn, prepared a letter indi- cating they would accept the project for integration, so that it would appear in their forecast to meet the loads of the Southern California area for both Anaheim and Edison. Mr. Watts stated that what he indicated in the first meeting (see minutes January 31, 1980) was that Southern California Edis0n showed a resource plan, which plan was composed of two elements. The first was their prediction as to what the demand for energy would be in certain periods of time. The par- .ticular forecast was projected to 1998 and in conjunction with that, their resources to supply that demand showed a deficit situation in the late 1980's. Thus, one of two things had to happen--they either had to bring resources on line, or the demands had to decrease and that was what he intended to say. Councilman Roth stated that even after the City was on-line with the IPP if they participated, they would still have to rely on SCE to supply approximately 50% of the City's power. He wanted to know what would occur if Edison said that they were going to reduce that percentage. 80-219 Cit~ Hall., .A~!a..heim., California - COUNCIL MINUTES - February 26, 1980, 1:30 P.M. Mr. Hoyt explained that the Integrated Operations Agreement (IOA) with SCE provided that to the extent that Anaheim did not provide its own resources, SCE would meet their load; Mr. Watts confirmed that it was required by contract (see minutes February 13, 1980). He also added if the situation should occur where Edison found itself short of resources to supply the demand, the contract also stated that Anaheim would agree to curtail its usage of power in the same percentage that Edison agreed to curtail i~s usage. The essence of the agree- ment was that they were operating the Control Area, a technical term meaning the electrical system of Anaheim and Edison as one system. Mr. Hoyt then explained that in addition to the IPP and SCE, they were looking at other things such as the White Pine coal-fired project in Ely, Nevada; some geothermal development in the Imperial Valley; hydroelectric resources both at Balsam Meadows and the Feather River; and they were involved in hydro resources with the Federal government in connection with the expiration of the existing Hoover Power Dam contract. They looked at anything that came along to ascertain if it had sufficient promise. Councilman Roth then explained that since he was a member of the South Coast Air Quality Management Board (SCAQMB) representing all 26 Orange County cities, he was aware of what Congress had mandated relative to the Clean Air Act, a provision of which was that California must have a motor vehicle inspection program. It was an unpopular situation among constituents and the State Senate stated they were not going to pams laws mandating an annual motor vehicle inspection without some trade-offs. The environmentalists stated they were not going to accept trade-offs--such as dropping the California standards to pick up the mandated Federal laws. The Air Resource~ Board (ARB) also would not accept that concept. The State wam at oddm with the ARB and the Fed- eral government. Because California had not complied with the January 1, 1980 law, they would not approve any major plant expansions in California including energy plants. As of last week, there were approximately 50 permits being held up involving plants trying to produce energy. The reason for his explanation was due to the fact that he felt it important to look for sources of power out- side of California since the Federal government would not approve those within the State. Mr. Joseph White, Public Utilities Board Member was concerned that they had not yet received the updated cost of the project from Mr. Anthony, the Project Engineer, as promised at the two previous meetings. Mr. Hoyt stated that the current promise for those figures was March. Mr. White also noted that the R. W. Beck letter of January 31, 1980 stated a total project cost of $2,913,430,900 and that on February 13, 1980 Bond Counsel quoted figures of between $5 and $6 billion in bonds to pay for IPP. He consi- dered the differential to be very significant. Mr. Hoyt explained that the $2 billion project cost used by Beck was the 1979 cost which came from the Project Engineer. There was a previous letter sub- mitted to the Board and the Council dated January 8, 1980 ~etting forth both Intermountain and San Joaquin as alternative sources. In that letter they wade through the derivation of the $2 billion figure in term~ of 1979 dollars. They had to accept two things--they were talking about money which was going to be spent over a ten year period, and no one knew what inflation was going to be. 80-220 ~ity Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - February 26; 1980~ 1:30 P.M. Things that changed that figure would be the refinement of the design and ob- taining the exact costs as manufacturers submitted proposals and what would happen to inflation relative to the manufacturers of the equipment over the construction period of the project. As they received better information and had a more accurate construction cash flow, they would be able to talk about the size of the issues, reinvestment earnings, etc. They had no choice but to deal with estimates because there were no guarantees in the future. Mr, White noted that SCE and Texaco together spent several millions of dollars on gasification of coal. If that was perfected, he wanted to know what effect that could have on a coal-fired plant 600 or 700 miles away in comparison to one that could be operated with coal gas close to home. Mr. Hoyt answered that he did not believe it would have any effect. The early costs of the Texaco/Edison demonstration units were enormous but with a perfection of those costs and a perfection of the process, would not be as severe. They would still be faced with the problem of what to do with the coal. It could be gasified~or liquified at the site or transported on a train or slurry line some place else. They would be faced with the basic problem of transporting fuel or electricity. Over the life of the project (IPP) he did not think there would be any significant degradation of economy. However, they had to leave themselves open to the possibility that something new might happen such as a startling breakthrough in fusion power or something else not yet conceived. The problem being to manufacture it in sufficient quantity to replace the plants built in the 1980's in a 35-year period, which would be an enormous undertaking. Mr. Ken Keesee, Chairman, Public Utilities Board stated in reference to the inflation situation broached by Councilman Bay earlier, two to three years ago, the Public Utilities Deparment, Public Utilities Board and the Council were under a great deal of "flak" because they were considering San Onofre. They could substantiate a savings at San 0nofre at that time to warrant going into the project with an oil cost at $14 a barrel. That same oil was now costing $32 a barrel with an approximate rise to $40 a barrel by March. It was the same situation in the present project. When figuring what costs were going to be over the long range, they were being ultra-conservative. If the inflation rate was at 10%, they could figure oil costs at 30%, since oil costs were running three to-one higher than inflation. They had to go into alternative sources of power to "get the,hands of the Arabs off our neck." He believed that c0al wag the answer because this country has one of the largest reserves of coal in the world. Therefore~ he was supportive of IPP. Mayor Pro Tem Overholt then asked to hear from members of the public. Mr. Charlie Hilfenhaus, associated with the Unitarian Church, 1127 West Santa Ana Street, residence--9770 Holder Street, Buena Park asked what rate of peak load expansion was used in determining the calculations for the City's power needs. Mr. Hoyt then explained the extensive procedure used (see minutes January 31, 1980 giving a detailed explanation). 80-221 City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - February 26, 1980~ 1:30 P.M. Mr. Hilfenhaus stated the reason he asked was that in looking at the electrical statistics publimhed for 1974 through 1978 (see Page 10--City of Anaheim Public Utilities Deparment--Annual Report, Year Ended June 30, 1979--on file in the City Clerk's office) the demand remained fairly constant. Mr. Hoyt explained that the peak demand had increased at an outstanding rate. Five years ago it was approximately 286 megawatts as compared to the last year when it was 396 megawatts or an increase of better than one-third in' that period. It was far above average, but could be expected'considering the growth taking place in the City and recognizing that a great bulk of the activity in electricity is on the commercial-industrial side. Mr. Hilfenhaus then noted that at one of the previous meetings, Mr. Watts stated that no firm coal contracts had been signed. Mr. Watts explained the reason was due to the fact that California utilities are prohibited by the California Environmental Quality Act from entering into contracts of that nature until they complied with that Act. It was expected that they would be completed with the EIR procesm in March or April and when that was no longer subject to challenge, they could then proceed. Thus far, they had lined up many sources, but no. contracts had been signed. Mr. Watts then also clarified for Mr. Hilfenhmus that relative to water rights, that was one part of the project that had been firmed up. They had acquired an approximate total of 45,000 acre feet of water estimated to be needed by the power plant and they were currently in the process of having filed Change-of- Use applications with the State Engineer, changing the use of that water from agricultural to industrial. They expected approval very shortly. Mr. Hilfenhaus stated his specific concern in raising the issues revolved around his knowledge that other projects had been tied up in litigation, and he was wondering if that might be the fate of IPP as well. Mr. Watts answered that they did not think so. As an example, in the Katparowitz coal-fired project which had gone through some litigation, the Secretary of the Interior at that time did not give approval to the project. However, on December 19, 1979, the IPP project received approval from the present Secretary of the Interior and that was a very important milestone. Mr. Hoyt added that some of the litigation that tied up the Kaiparowitz project was engendered by environmental groups who were desirous of protecting the par- ticular section of the country where the plant was sited. He then explained that the IPP project ran into a similar situation initially and he briefed Mr. H~lf~mhaus on the subsequent occurrence which finally, brought about approval of the present Lyndyll site (see minutem January 31, 1980--presentation made by Mr. James Anthony,. Project Engineer, relative to the site selection, envi- ronmental compliance and the long approval-process involved). At the hearings on the Lyndyll site, they essentially did not have opposition from any of the environmental groups and he did not anticipate such litigation. Mr. Hoyt and Mr. Watts then answered additional questions posed by Mr. Hilfenhaus, the answers for which were covered by :wo previous meetingm of January 31 and February 13, 1980. 80-222 City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - February 26~ 1980, 1:30 P.M. Mr. Hilfenhaus then stated in talking about alternatives, they left out the 'possibility of supplying a certain amount of Anaheim's need in solar power. He asked if the City had done any systematic studies as to what would happen if Anaheim was committed to meeting a certain fraction of their peak expansion needs by using solar photovoltaics in the City. Mr. Hoyt answered that they had looked at solar photovoltaics and to the best of his knowledge at the moment, the energy consumed in producing photovoltaics exceeded the energy which the device produced over its lifetime. Therefore, they had not actually actively pursued that alternative. He did not believe they would be able to consider any solar or wind source as a firm capacity resource, but would treat them as a non-firm energy source. In the economic study, they did weigh that as against the cost of energy alone because it could not be called upon to provide demands whenever they wanted to, such as at night. There were some local manufacturers of photovoltaics and also local manufacturers of a device which produced steam and which ran on a steam engine but it was quite expensive in terms of current technology. In concluding, Mr. Hilfenhaus stated that he was aware that Anaheim was already one of the leaders in the applied solar field. He asked Mr. Hoyt if he was familiar with a study by a Los Angeles engineering firm (Theodore Perry and Associates) stating that solar would expand from its present level of $150 million a year to $20 billion a year within the next 20 years because the government was committed to solar power as it once was to developing the atomic bomb and putting a man on the moon. He asked what effect that would have on the cost. Mr. Hoyt stated, in terms of the cost of the IPP, he was not sure it would affect that cost at all. He emphasized that any source which would be more economically attractive to purchase from somebody else, they would want to explore to the best of their ability. Mr. Hilfenhaus stated that his questions had been answered and further stated that he was with Solar Anaheim, a group that intended to advocate that alter- native because they felt there was a substantial need. Mr. Hoyt stated that they had enthusiasm for all forms of energy geperation. Mr. Gerald Nissen, 1716 Arbutus, noted that Anaheim's estimated cost of the project was $350 million as i~ndicated in the draft ballot wording, and the estimated savings $466 million over the ten year period 1986-1995. He contended before going to the voters, they owed it to the public to give the latest figures. Every meeting he had attended showed all the figures to be lagging and the voters needed to have an updated figure. Mr. Hoyt stated they would provide the best estimated cost at the time which would probably be the estimate released in March. Six months from that time however, there would be another number, and again in six months from that as well. When the Project Engineers submitted their estimated cost of the project and those costs had been reviewed by the independent consulting engineer, he hoped that would be the number they would have available to use. 80-223 C~t~ Hall, Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - February 26, 1980, 1:30 P.M. Mr. Nissen felt that all the people involved, the Project Engineer, consultants, staff, etc. had done a great job of presenting facts and figures to everybody and he hoped they did as well on the ballot. Councilman Bay, speaking to Mr. Nlssen, wondered if he would admit that the key was not so much exact dollar figures showing the difference in estimated alter- natives. Rather, in projecting the IPP, a coal-powered source, against Edison, the important thing was not the exactness of the dollar cost of each, but whether they were estimated the same way and the delta between the two. That was the key to the decision-making on alternatives. Mr. Nissen was emphatic in his agreement. Not only that, but he also felt that the delta in this case was understated. Mayor Pro Tem Overholt then stated that the first question was whether they wanted to place the issue on the ballot and, if so, on the June 3rd election date. The Council was prepared tonight to give direction along that line and subsequently a resolution would be prepared accordingly including ballot language. City Attorney William Hopkins recommended that the Council give some direction on the preparation of the resolution which would include the wording on the advisory vote. Mayor Pro Tem Overholt stated it was not the intention of the Council to decide on the precise language of the ballot wording tonight. Mr. Hopkins suggested that they use Mr. Hoyt's recommended wording with the caveat that it could be changed or modified as the Council decided. They would use Mr. Hoyt's December 27, 1979 memorandum containing the proposed wording as a basis for preparation of the language. Mr. Hoyt stated that the City Clerk had advised that March 21, 1980 was the deadline for submitting the ballot language. The Council would probably take action at one of their next two meetings when the resolution would be adopted to allow time to forward it to the County, hopefully with one extra week to spare. Mr. Watts then confirmed some technical points: Under the Elections Code, the Council was authorized to ask for an advisory vote. However, that section re- quired that the ballot proposition be labeled--"advisory vote only". In their resolution, the Council would be setting an election and if it were the June 3rd statewide election, they would be requesting consolidation with the statewide election and thus were required to comply with State laws as they pertained to the wording of the proposition. As well, he understood the ballot proposition itself might be limited to no more than 100 words. Mayor Pro Tem Overholt asked for an expression of the Council as to whether or not it was their desire to place the issue on the June 3rd ballot. Councilman Roth stated that he did not think the Council had to go through that exercise again since he felt the reason for the meetings was to insure that there would be a vote of the people on the matter. He was highly supportive of placing the question on the June 3rd ballot. 80-224 Cit% Hall., Anaheim~ .qalifornia - COUNCIL MINUTES - February 26, 1980~ 1:30 P.M. Councilman Bay stated that he was definitely in favor of the question going to the people. Although technically they may be calling it an advisory vote, in his opinion, when placing something this serious on the ballot so that the voters could tell the Council what they wanted to do, it would carry more than advisory weight to his vote. Councilwoman Kaywood stated that she favored putting the issue on the ballot. Although they might not have the exact dollars and cents, there was a tremen- dous savings involved for all of the users in Anaheim and she wanted to see the question on the June 3rd ballot. Mayor Pro Tem Overholt stated that he concurred and he also felt that he could speak for Mayor Seymour as well who was in favor of placing the question on the June 3rd ballot. The Mayor indicated he would also be willing to write the argument in favor of the proposition which would be discussed when he was present at the next meeting. They now had clear direction to place the question on the IPP on the June 3, 1980 ballot. The next question was relative to the language. He stated it would now be appropriate to hear from the public on that matter. Mr. Dwight Carey, representing the Southern California group of the Sierra Club, 330 Highland Court, La Habra, stated rather than addressing specific language, he briefly reviewed the proposed ballot wording alternatives. He was going to make some general recommendations relative to some of the concepts he believed needed to be presented to the people of Anaheim to convey the key pieces of in- formation they would need in terms of making a determination. He felt that one of the things necessary to evaluate whether or not the Council should sign the long-term contract was a discussion, either on the ballot itself, or in the arguments, of what alternatives the City was faced with, and the cost of those alternatives. Otherwise, they would be making a Judgment in at least a partial vacuum. Some statements needed to be made about the fact that the cost might increase for the project; that the figures were only a preliminary estimate and that the City was having to commit itself early in the estimated process with the likelihood that the cost of the project might be greater and, therefore, the savings less; and, that Edison's estimate of costs might increase and therefore, the savings could increase. At this point costs were stated as $350 million in 1980 dollars with a savings of ~466 million. Clarification on the variability of those figures was necessary. Mr. Carey then referred to alternative ballot wording, draft E, which he read. He concluded that payments were not dependent upon the commencement of operation of the project but dependent upon the commencement in 1986, if the bonding arrangements were filed as they were intended at present. He conceded that they could be extended to a certain degree. Mr. Watts interjected and explained with respect to that question, it would ordinarily be anticipated and planned for that the principal payments, as dis- tinguished from interest payments, would not commence until sometime after it was estimated that the units would come on-line, perhaps in terms of a year or two after, as he had discussed at previous meetings. 80-225 City ~al~,. Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - February 26, 1980, 1:30 P.M. Mr. Carey stated that the ismues as he articulated were the three key concepts necessary to have on the ballot proposition or in the arguments in favor or againmt so that the people could make an informed choice rather than a choice based upon much statements aa contained in the proposed ballot wording, i.e. "The Intermountain Power Project (IPP), which will burn American coal rather than imported fuel oil...". They needed more objective information than that. Councilman Roth wanted to know if the Sierra Club supported nuclear energy, coal, oil, or natural gam. Mr. Carey answered that the National Organization had gone on record as not being mupportive of nuclear energy. At present they were evaluating the one coal proposal in California, that being Southern California Edison and they were assisting the Department of Water and Power in their siting evaluation for a coal-fired power plant somewhere in the State. Oil was leading to interesting discussion within the Sierra Club, and, relative to the burning of natural gas for the generation of electricity, there were certain occasions where that might be supported, just as with oil or nuclear. Councilman Roth was in a quandaMy as to which fuels the Sierra Club would support for energy and if in fact there were any. Mr. Carey stated that the Club was on record in support of geothermal energy as well as any use of solar energy. They were certainly on record in implementing conservation as much as practicable as it was a very cost-attractive alternative which would decrease the need for implementing generation alternatives. Mr. Hoyt agreed that they needed to talk about the alternatives but he maintained they needed to talk about alternativem which were available now at decision time. The only alternatives currently available, for certain, were to buy power from Edison or from the Intermountain Power Agency. Those were the two concepts they were talking about--purchasing power from two places and paying the costs associated with the construction of a generating facility. As a practical matter, it was difficult to say they should conmider a molar alternatiVe which they were unable to price out, any more than they should say that the White Pine project in Nevada was an alternative because they had no concept of the cost as yet. As well, they were not in a position to price out the cost of geothermal because there had not been one project developed accessible to Anaheim. Councilwoman Kaywood stated that she served on a committee with Supervisors from Imperial County and they were not all that pleased about the use of geo- thermal because they were concerned over ground buckling and subsequently the water needed to be injected into it. Further discussion followed at the conclusion of which, Mayor Pro Tem Overholt stated that the matter was to come before the Council in one week regarding precise ballot wording. It was decided that the ballot wording would be discussed at the Council meeting in one week at 3:00 p.m. when public input could again be received. 80-226 Cit~ Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - February 26, 1980, 1:30 P.M. MOTION: On motion by Councilman Bay, ne¢onded by Councilwoman Kaywood, the City Attorney wan directed to prepare the proposed ballot wording regarding the Intermountain Power Project for Council consideration, such wording to be placed on the June 3rd ballot; final wording to be discusned at a public meeting Tuesday, March 4, 1980 at 3:00 p.m. Councilman Seymour was absent. MOTION CARRIED. ADJOURNMENT - PUBLIC UTILITIES BOARD: Board Member White moved to adjourn. Board Member Stanton seconded the motion. Board Members Townsend and Kiefer were abnent. MOTION CARRIED. ADJOURNMENT - CITY COUNCIL: Councilwoman Kaywood moved to adjourn. Councilman Roth seconded the motion. Councilman Seymour was absent. MOTION CARRIED. Adjourned: 9:20 P.M.