Loading...
1980/07/1580-888 City Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - July 15~ 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 HUMAN RESOURCES DIRECTOR: Garry McRae PUBLIC UTILITIES GENERAL MANAGER: Gordon W. Hoyt TRAFFIC ENGINEER: Paul Singer ASSISTANT PLANNING DIRECTOR: Annika Santalahti UTILITIES MANAGEMENT SERVICES MANAGER: Darrell Ament WATER ENGINEERING MANAGER: Ray Auerbach UTILITIES RATE REQUIRMENTMANAGER: Robert Erickson 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: "Captive Nations Week" - July 13-19, 1980 "Veterans Administration Day" - July 21, 1980 Mr. Frank Terry, Area Director, accepted the Veterans Administration Day procla- mation. MINUTES: The minutes of the regular meeting were deferred one week. 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 Overholt seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. FINANCIAL DEMANDS AGAINST THE CITY in the amount of $2,256,359.20, in accordance with the 1980-81 Budget, were approved. 123/174: AWARD OF CONTRACT - DEMOLITION AND SITE CLEARANCE - CONTRACT NO. BG 80-1: Councilman Overholt offered Resolution No. 80R-300 for adoption, accepting the low bid of Luther Kelly Demolition, in the amount of $4,400 for demoliton and site clearance of land located at 1008 North Patt Street, 305 and 328 East Julianna Street and 700 North Pauline Street. (Contract No. BG 80-1); and in the event low bidder fails to post required bonds or insurance, accept the second low bid of Texas Land Clearing Company, in the amount of $5,000, as recommended by the Executive Director of Community Development, Norm Priest, 80-907 City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - July 15~ 1980~ 1:30 P.M. 167: RESOLUTION NO. 80R-309: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM FINDING AND DETERMINING THAT PUBLIC CONVENIENCE AND NECESSITY REQUIRE THE CONSTRUCTION AND COMPLETION OF A PUBLIC IMPROVEMENT, TO WIT: TRAFFIC SIGNALS AND INTERCONNECT CANYON INDUSTRIAL AREA FEDERAL-AID URBAN PROJECT M-3041, ACCOUNT NO. 46-795-6325-E5070; APPROVING THE DESIGNS, PLANS, PRO- FILES, DRAWINGS, AND SPECIFICATIONS FOR THE CONSTRUCTION THEREOF; AUTHORIZING THE CONSTRUCTION OF SAID PUBLIC IMPROVEMENT IN ACCORDANCE WITH SAID PLANS, SPECIFICATIONS, ETC.; AND AUTHORIZING AND DIRECTING THE CITY CLERK TO PUBLISH A NOTICE INVITING SEALED PROPOSALS FOR THE CONSTRUCTION THEREOF. (Bids to be opened August 21, 1980 at 2:00 p.m.) 169: RESOLUTION NO. 80R-310: 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: INSTALLATION AND REPLACEMENT OF INCANDESCENT STREET LIGHTING LUMINARIES-HUD AREA IV, IN THE CITY OF ANAHEIM, ACCOUNT NO. 25-676-6328-7632-37300. (Smith Electric Supply) 176: RESOLUTION NO. 80R-311: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM DECLARING ITS INTENTION TO VACATE AND ABANDON A CERTAIN PUBLIC STREET AND FIXING A DATE FOR A HEARING THEREON. (Convention Way) (79-17A, public hearing set for August 5, 1980 at 3:00 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 Nos. 80R-307 through 80R-311, both inclusive, duly passed and adopted. 170: FINAL MAPS TRACT NOS. 10408 AND FINAL MAP TRACT NO. 10713: Developer, Canyon Pointe (a) tract is located at the southern terminus of Los Coyotes Drive, west of Imperial Highway and south of Nohl Ranch Road, containing an 8-lot RS-HS-10,000 zoned subdivision; and (b) tract is located on the northwest corner of Imperial Highway and Big Sky Lane, containing a l-lot, 54-unit RS-A-43,000 zoned condominium subdivision. On motion by Councilman Overholt, seconded by Councilman Roth, the proposed sub- divisions, together with their designs and improvements, were found to be consis- tent with the City's General Plan, and the City Council approved Final Map, Tract No. 10408 and Final Map, Tract No. 10713, as recommended by the City Engineer in his memorandums dated July 9, 1980. MOTION CARRIED. 179: ORDINANCE NO. 4147 - DEFINITION OF "FAMILY": Councilman Bay stated he would like to offer an amended first reading to the proposed ordinance. In the paragraph under 18.01.070-F. Words, Terms, Phrases--the paragraph starting with family--the next three lines ~where it stated, "as distinguished from a club...or h~tel", after the word "fraternity", add "sorority, hotel, or rehabil- itation facility". 80-908 City Hall~ Anaheim~ .California - COUNCIL MINUTE~ - July 15~ 1980~ 1:30 P.M. City Attorney Hopkins, in answer to the Mayor, stated he had reviewed the matter with the City Attorney of Santa Barbara who was considering an appeal to the U. S. Supreme Court, but the possibility of success was somewhat questionable because the decision was based on independent State grounds. The other alter- native was to seek a Constitutional amendment stating that nothing shall inter- fere with the City defining "family". This was an interim definition, and he agreed with Councilman Bay that the additional items, fraternity, sorority and rehabilitation facility would make it more complete. He recommended that the amended first reading be approved. MOTION: Councilman Bay moved that Ordinance No. 4147 read as follows in the aforementioned paragraph "...fraternity, sorority, hotel, or rehabilitation facility." Councilman Overholt seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. Councilman Bay, thereupon, offered Ordinance No. 4147 for amended first reading. ORDINANCE NO. 4147: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AMENDING SECTION 18.01.070 OF CHAPTER 18.01, TITLE 18, OF THE ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO ZONING. Mayor Seymour referred to the memorandum addressed to Councilwoman Kaywood from Miss Santalahti indicating that the 300-square foot per occupant regula- tion in the Uniform Building Code could be used to enforce what they heretofore enforced through an ordinance required to be changed because of the State Supreme Court decision. If 300 square feet per occupant, and he had a 1500- square foot home wherein five people could reside and he had four children including he and his wife, did that mean they would be in violation of the Building Code. Mr. Hopkins answered that technically that would be correct, and he believed that was why that particular section had not been enforced. It was done on the basis of complaints and normally in those situations, they would not take enforce- ment action. Councilman Bay asked what would happen if on a complaint to enforce the 300-square foot per occupant and it was not a family under the old definition, but it was under the new, and in court the defendant's lawyer stated that they were not enforcing the Code on families throughout the rest of the City, would that stand up in court. City Attorney Hopkins stated he would question whether or not that particular section could be enforced. The interim definition of "family" directly quoted the Supreme Court decision as far as that was concerned and thus, they had a good chance of enforcing that aspect. Relative to the 300-square foot per occupant, they would have to test that in court. The Mayor stated it seemed they would want to find another way to go in this case. City Attorney Hopkins stated they were seeking an additional means of enforce- ment and had contacted the California League of Cities, as well as making other ~nquiries to see if they could come up with something better. This was an in- terim measure. If Santa Barbara was successful in what they were doing or in getting a Constitutional amendment underway, that might solve the problem. 80-889 City Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - July 15~ i980~ 1:30 P.M. in his July 8, 1980 memorandum. Refer to Resolution Book. RESOLUTION NO. 80R-300: 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: DEMOLITION AND SITE CLEARANCE AT VARIOUS CITY PROPERTIES IN THE CITY OF ANAHEIM, CONTRACT NO. BG80-1, ACCOUNT NO. 25-214-6640. (Luther Kelly Demoliton, $4,400) 123: CONTRACT PROGRAMMING SERVICES: On motion by Councilman Roth, seconded by Councilwoman Kaywood, an agreement with John Cappelletti Associates, was authorized in an amount not to exceed $51,875, for contract programming services to be completed by January 31, 1981, as recommended in memorandum dated July 15, 1980 from James Curtis, acting Director of Data Processing Department. MOTION CARRIED. I53: CREATION OF NEW CLASSIFICATION - WATER ENGINEER: Councilwoman Kaywood offered Resolution No. 80R-301 for adoption, as reco~nended in memorandum dated July 2, 2980 from Human Resources Director Garry McRae, amending Resolution NO. 79R-591, establishing a new classification of Water Engineer and rate of compensation therefor, effective July 4, 1980. Refer to Resolution Book. RESOLUTION NO. 80R-301: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM RESOLUTION NO. 79R-591 WHICH ESTABLISHED RATES OF COMPENSATION FOR CLASSES DESIGNATED AS STAFF AND SUPERVISORY MANAGEMENT. 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-301 duly passed and adopted. 123: PRODUCTION OF COMPUTER OUTPUT MICROFILM CATALOGS (COM): On motion by Councilman Roth, seconded by Councilman Overholt, a contract with Baker & Taylor Company was authorized for the production of computer-output-microfilm catalogs ~COM)for library holdings; estimated cost of contract, $61,606 as recommended in memorandum dated July 9, 1980 from the City Librarian William Griffith. MOTION CARRIED. 123/155: PSYCHOLOGICAL EVALUATIONFOR ENTRY LEVEL POLICE OFFICERS: Agreement with psychologist Eric W. Gruver, PhD., at a cost of $350 per candidate for psycholo- gical evaluation of entry level police officer applicants, and $60 per hour for testimony, if required, for the period ending July 31, 1981. Councilman Roth asked if staff had evaluated the performance of Dr. Gruver rela- tive to the numbers of people who had been declined and how that corresponded to other cities also performing psychological testing. Garry McRae, Human Resources Director explained that they had not evaluated how Anaheim compared to other cities pass-fail rate. They had, however, evaluated 80-890 City Hall, Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - July 15~ 1980~ 1:30 P.M. Dr. Gruver's performance on the basis of the thoughtful evaluations he had made. His recommendations were evaluated by a group which included the Police Chief, Risk Manager and the Human Resources Department and in every case, they had supported recommendations made. The rate of applicants who passed was somewhere between two-thirds and three-fourths. They had been very satisfied with his performance as a psychologist and felt his work was intensive, in-depth and very professional. Councilman Roth was concerned that perhaps Anaheim's requirements were more stringent relative to Dr. Gruver's recommendations to staff. Some time he would like to see an evaluation of Anaheim's psychological testing procedures vs. another city also utilizing such testing to ascertain a comparison, percentage- wise. Mayor Seymour asked, of the total candidates interviewed statistically what percentage were rejected purely as a result of psychological testing; Mr. McRae reported that there were 14 who failed out of 37 candidates. City Manager William Talley stated that they could provide the Council with a report after the November class of police officers which would give approximately a year of experience under the program. The Mayor stated that he was certain the Council would be interested. Further, although he understood Councilman Roth's concerns, he felt they should continue to maintain as high a standard as possible, and he did not feel uncomfortable at all with the type of failure rate reported. MOTION: Councilman Overholt moved to authorize an agreement with psychologist Eric W. Gruver, PhD., at a a cost of $350 per candidate for psychological eval- uation of entry level police officer applicants, and $60 Per hour for testimony, if required, for the period ending July 31, 1981, as recommended in memorandum dated July 9, 1980 from Police Chief George Tielsch. Councilwoman Kaywood seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. 155: REVISION OF EIR GUIDELINES: Councilwoman Kaywood offered Resolution No. 80R-302 for adoption, as recommended, in memorandum received July 9, 1980 from Robert Kelly, Associate Planner, recommending the adoption of amended guide- lines and procedures for the evaluation of projects and the preparation of enviornmental impact reports and neative declarations pursuant to California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). Refer to Resolution Book. RESOLUTION NO. 80R-302: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM ADOPTING AMENDED GUIDELINES AND PROCEDURES FOR THE EVALUATION OF PROJECTS AND THE PREPARATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORTS AND NEGATIVE DECLARATIONS PURSUANT TO THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT. 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-302 duly passed and adopted. 80-891 City Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - July 15~ 1980, 1:30 P.M. 123/169: AGREEMENT WITH STORER CABLE T.V. TO PROVIDE TRAFFIC SIGNAL INTERCONNECT CABLING: Councilwoman Kaywood offered Resolution No. 80R-303 for adoption, as recommended in memorandum dated July 9, 1980 from City Engineer William Devitt, making certain findings and determinations with respect to the construction and installation of traffic signal interconnect cable, waiving the bidding process, and authorizing an agreement with Storer Cable T.V., at an estimated cost of $212,160 therefor. Refer to Resolution Book. RESOLUTION NO. 80R-303: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM MAKING CERTAIN FINDINGS AND DETERMINATIONS WITH RESPECT TO THE CONSTRUCTION AND INSTALLATION OF TRAFFIC SIGNAL INTERCONNECT CABLE AND APPROVING AND AUTHORIZING THE EXECUTION OF AN AGREEMENT THEREFOR WITH STORER CABLE T.V. 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-303 duly passed and adopted. 160: SOLICITATION OF BIDS FOR POLICE VEHICLES: On motion by Councilwoman Kay-wood, seconded by Councilman Overholt, the Purchasing Agent was authorized to obtain sealed bids for the procurement of Malibu police vehicles, with such bids based upon factory price, plus dealer's firm fixed fee, as recommended in memorandum dated 3uly 10, 1980 from the Purchasing Agent, Richard 3efferis. MOTION CARRIED. 123: DATA PROCESSING SERVICES CONTRACT WITH THE CITY OF FULLERTON: On motion by Councilwoman Kaywood, seconded by Councilman Bay, an agreement was authorized with the C~ty of Fullerton in the amount of $10,780, to provide data processing services (zoning and notification service) to said City, as recommended in memorandum dated July 15, 1980 from the acting Director of Data Processing. MOTION CARRIED. 175: REVISION OF WATER RATES AND FEES: Amending rates, rules and regulations for the sale and distribution of water (continued from the meeting of July 8, 1980--see minutes that date). Public Utilities General Manager Gordon Hoyt reported that pursuant to the Council's instruction the previous week, they made a quick review of the water rate making processes of some Orange County water districts. He also distri- buted documentation to the Council which contained, among other things, a Monthly Water Bill Comparison for the single-family residential customer, five- eighths inch meter--2,000 cubic feet, high elevation pumping surcharge expla- nation CJuly 15, 1980 memo from the Utilities Rate Requirement Manager) for the Cities of Glendale, Pasadena, Burbank and Los Angeles, individual explan- atory sheets regarding the setting of water rates for the Cities of Garden Grove, Yorba Linda (Yorba Linda Water District), Santa Aha, La Palma, Fountain Valley, Buena Park, Fullerton, Orange and the Southern California Water Company and also a booklet entitled, "Orange County Water Rates Survey Prepared By The Municipal Water District of Orange County and the Orange County Water Association--May 1980" (on file in the City Clerk's office). In summary, Mr. HQyt stated they found that Anaheim's water rates for the average residential 80-892 City Hall~ Anaheim~ California T, ,COUNCIL MINUTES - July 15~ 1980, 1:30 P.M. consumer were among the lowest in Orange County. He then referred to a posted chart graphically showing Anaheim's proposed rates, (average customer monthly consumption of 2,000 cubic feet) and those of other utilities. As consumption increased, an increasing number of other utilities started to go higher than Anaheim and he explained why that was so, the key being that Anaheim tried to construct water rates based on the cost to provide service. He then briefed the Council on the City's rate structure. After Mr. Hoyt's presentation, Mr. Darrell Ament, Utilities Management Services Manager, then briefed the Council on the findings relative to the rate making process in various cities which information was provided in the aforementioned sheets. Mr. Ray Auerbach, Water Engineering Manager, then explained that one of the major factors in the cost of water rates was actually the amount each agency paid for their water which totalled approximately 50% of their budget. In most cases, the amount was determined mainly by the amount of water pumped from the underground basin which was much cheaper than purchasing from the Metropolitan Water District (MW-D). On the chart--monthly water bill comparison-- all of the agencies in the lower end of the scale were heavy water pumpers over- lying the major portion of the Orange County Water Basin, including Anaheim. The City's capabilities were limited to about 70% of its total production from wells. Garden Grove had drilled wells in previous years and had been able to do so thus far. H~ever, considering the location of Anaheim within the basin in the Canyon area past Tustin Avenue, they could not pump water. Water sold in that area of the City was purchased water from MWD, and thus more expensive, which was one of the major factors affecting water rates. Another factor was the actual elevation of the ground water in relation to the ground surface. He explained the variation which occurred over different areas of the City and made a comparison to other cities as well. He emphasized that ground water was of great benefit to any City that could pump it. Most of the cities in the South County did not have ground water to pump and purchased their water totally from the MWD, and thus were on the upper end of the monthly water bill comparison chart. The actual shape of the City also had an effect on rates. Because of the difference ~n terrain from Anaheim's east city boundary to the west, it cost more for trans- mission mains in order to get the water across the City. Another item of consi- deration was the actual elevation of the City itself. The high elevation surcharge covered areas essentiallly over 600 feet. The gravity system extended from an elevat%on of approximately 600 feet down to an elevation of 50 feet and thus '~here was a 550-foot differential in elevation requiring a great many pressure zones. Anaheim had approximately 20 such zones, whereas many of the other local cities had one, two or three in cities to the south, and possibly four or five in cities to the north. Councilman Roth noted the following in the Public Utilities Board (PUB) minutes of June 26, 1980--"...that technically Garden Grove is violating the Orange County Water District Basin percentage whereby they pumped much more than what they are allowed to without paying a penalty. It is cheaper for Garden Grove to pump all the water and pay the penalty than to buy MWD water." He asked MY. Auerbach to expand on that issue. 80-893 City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - July 15, 1980~ 1:30 P.M. Mr. Auerbach explained that the Orange County Water District each year adopted a base percentage which in the past five years had been between 60 and 70%. Garden Gove pumped 90% of their water or more, technically in violation. The Orange County Water District Act provided for penalties charging an additional fee on top of the pump tax but in the final analysis, Garden Grove still pumped water cheaper even with the penalties. Anaheim could also do so to a lesser extent and had done so in the past. Paying the penalty was cheaper than buying water and, in turn, the Water District could buy more water with those penalty fees which were based on the actual cost for pumping water. Councilman Roth suggested Mr. Auerbach look into the matter to be sure there was equality among all cities belonging to the MWD to prellude one city from gaining an advantage over another city. Mr. Hoyt stated that he would be happy to share Councilman Roth's concern with the City's representative on the Orange County Water District, Gus Lenain. Councilman Bay asked Mr. Hoyt if, in his opinion, the pumping ability of Garden Grove was the most significant factor in having one of the lowest water rates or was it much more significant that the City had built up a reserve and they were using it up. Mr. Hoyt answered in the limited time they had to evaluate the situation, he believed the most significant point according to their staff was that they had been over-collecting so that they could build up a sizable reserve. What they were achieving was a very desirable rate stability. Whether they deliberately set about achieving that reserve, he did not know. Councilman Bay stated he was only interested in how Anaheim could cut down its rates. In looking over most of the cities that were compared with Anaheim, he asked if, in general, they found the most significant factor to be that most of the cities did not use a cost of service rate; Mr. Hoyt answered there were no other cities in Orange County that charged on the basis of cost of service. Councilman Bay stated they were looking for the two reasons for the increases in rates other than the cost of water and it seemed to him they were caused by the decision to institute more honest and fair charging to all users by cost of service, and Anaheim seemed to be the only city doing so. When they answered the calls of their constituents as to why rates were going up, they could answer, because they had gone t~ honest and fair charging by cost of use; Mr. Hoyt con- firmed that was correct. Mr. Robert Erickson, Utilities Rate Requirement Manager, then briefed the Council on his memorandum dated July 15, 1980--high elevation pumping surcharge, which was a part of the aforementioned documentation. Councilman Roth then stated that his question the previous week was not about the surcharge, but the charge over and above that for the electricity to pump the water to high elevations. Mr. Erickson stated considering the 22% facility surcharge as part of the water bill, currently for the average customer using 2,000 cubic feet, the monthly rate would be $9.46.' In the proposed high elevation pumping surcharge, the new rate including the 22% surcharge would be $13.63 representing an increase of 44%. 80-894 City Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - July 15~ 1980, 1:30 P.M. In concluding, Mr. Hoyt recommended the proposed resolution be approved in accordance with the recommendations of the PUB in their memorandum dated July 1, 1980, however, that the effective date of the high elevation pumping surcharge be made effective for service rendered on or after October 1, 1980, and the remaining changes in rates be made effective for services rendered on or after July 15, 1980. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT - CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION: On motion by Councilwoman Kaywood, seconded by Councilman Overholt, the City Council ratified the determination that the proposed activity fails within Section 21080 (8) of the Public Resources Code of the State of California and thus the establishment of these rates and fees are exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act. MOTION CARRIED. Councilman Overholt offered Resolution No. 80R-304 for adoption, amending rates, rules and regulations for the sale and distribution of water. Refer to Resolution Book. RESOLUTION NO. 80R-304: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AMENDING RATES, RULES AND REGULATIONS FOR THE SALE AND DISTRIBUTION OF WATER AS ADOPTED BY RESOLUTION NO. 72R-600 AND AMENDED BY RESOLUTION NOS. 73R-255, 73R-387, 73R-532, 74R-433, 75R-315, 75R-469, 75R-479, 76R-378, 78R-418, 78R-419, 78R-459 AND 79R-643. Before a vote was taken, Mayor Seymour stated he appreciated the work that Mr. Hoyt and his staff accomplished in the last week. Although they would all like to vote "no" on increases, now they should be able to justify it in their minds and subsequently be able to explain to their constituents how Anaheim set its rates. A vote was then taken on the foregoing resolution. Roll Call Vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: COUNCIL MEMBERS: COUNCI~L MEMBERS: Overholt, Kaywood, Bay, Roth and Seymour None None The Mayor declared Resolution No. 80R-304 duly passed and adopted. 123: CONSTRUCTION ENGINEERING'SERVICES - LENAIN FILTRATION PLANT AND WATER TRANSMISSION MAIN: On motion by Councilman Overholt, seconded by Councilwoman Kaywood, an agreement was authorized with James M. Montgomery, Consulting Engineers, Inc., at a cost not to exceed $68,500, to perform construction engineering services during the construction of the two-million gallon reservoir at the Lenain Filtration Plant and a 36-inch water transmission main in Santa Aha Canyon Road, as recommended in memorandum dated July 7, 1980 from the Public Utilities Board. MOTION CARRIED. 123: SECURITY PATROL SERVICES - UTILITIES SERVICE CENTER: On motion by Councilman Bay, seconded by Councilman Roth, a fourth amendment to an agreement with Bonafide Security Service, Incorporated, at an annual cost of $4,704, for security patrol service at the Utilities Service Center located at 901 East Vermont Street for 80-895 City Hall~ Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - July 15, 1980~ 1:30 P.M. the period ending June 30, 1981, as recommended in memorandum dated July 7, 1980 from the Public Utilities Board, was approved. MOTION CARRIED. 175: CONTINUED PARTICIPATION IN THE CALIFORNIA COAL PROJECT: A recommendation from the Public Utilities Board to authorize a letter agreement with the Southern California Edison Company, in an amount not to exceed $60,000, for the continued participation in the Study and Notice of Intention Processing of the California Coal Project for a period ending January 31, 1981 and authorizing the General Manager to execute same, was submitted. (See memorandum of July 7, 1980 from the PUB containing detailed data on the matter.) Councilman Roth reported that the subject was discussed at the Friday, July 11, 1980 meeting of the South Coast Air Quality Management Board. He noted that by the time the project is online, estimated to be from 1991 to 1993, the facility would experience some rapid changes because of synthetic fuels that would be available at that time. He referred to information contained in the report that the South Coast Air Quality staff intended to vigorously oppose in the attempt to utilize the proposed site for that type coal plant. He was concerned about Anaheim allocating more dollars into the project while there was a question as to whether or not it would ever get approval in California unless synthetic fuels were used. He questioned whether it would be a wise decision to proceed. Mr. Hoyt stated it was difficult to answer with any certainty, but he believed it to be worthwhile to go forward and license the project if it was licenseable. At the time the Sun Desert Project was considered by the California Energy Commission [CEC), there was a bill, AB 1852, that went through the Legislature that provided if there was no alternate to that nuclear project, then the State must l~cense Sun Desert. During those hearings, members of the Air Resources Board and the Energy Commission appeared and testified that there would be no problem with burning coal in California, but whatever problems there were could be overcome and it was possible not only to site a coal plant in California, but it was preferable to siting a nuclear plant. As they went through the Notice of Intent (NOI) proceedings before the CEC, they were hearing that perhaps some of the things testified to so strongly before, may not be as clear cut as it appeared in previous testimony. At some point, they had to go through the process and determine once and for all, could there be a coal-fired electric plant in California. If no, they would have at least spent their share of the money to find out. He 'felt it was money well spent to see if they would be able to do it. They should go forward, and it was a prudent investment for a utility t0 make according to its size, and it was an investment proportionate to the City's size. If they did not participate in the various studies, they would n~t be able to participate in any generating plants constructed as a result of the efforts of the utilities. MOTION: Councilman Seymour moved to authorize a letter agreement with the Southern California Edison Company, in an amount not to exceed $60,000, for the continued participation in the Study and Notice of Intention Processing of the California Coal Project for a period ending January 31, 1981, and to authorize the General Manager to execute same. Councilman Overholt seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. 80-896 Ci.ty Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - July 15~ 1980~ 1:30 P.M. Before concluding, Councilman Bay stated that he read where General Motors was expecting to put an electric car online before 1985. He wanted to know if they had made any "guesstimates" as to how the effect of that development would increase the needs in the electric utility between now and 1990. Mr. Hoyt answered that they had not done so because it was so far off. They felt that when the electric car came into its own, it would be a gradual transition. It appeared during that transition, the electrical load it would create would essentially be an off-peak load. It would have a marked effect on the industry because it would mean their units would keep running at full capacity for a longer time resulting in increased maintenance, perhaps increased reserves, etc. He reiterated that they had made no specific provisions in their resource plans to accommodate the electric cars. 105: APPOINTMENT TO THE PARK & RECREATION COMMISSION: Councilwoman Kaywood moved to approve the appointment of Steven H. Staveley to the Park & Recreation Commission, representing the Magnolia School District, as recommended by that District in their letter dated July 8, 1980. Councilman Overholt seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. RECESS: By general consent, the Council recessed for 20 minutes. (3:05 p.m.) AFTER RECESS: Mayor Seymour called the meeting to order, ail Council Members being present. (3:25 p.m.) 170: CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING - TENTATIVE TRACT NO. 10807: Application by Pacific Terrace Apartments, to establish a 348-1ot, 347-unit mobile home park subdivision on RS-A-43,000 zoned property located at 5815 East La Palma Avenue (continued from meeting of December 4, 1979 and April 1, 1980), was submitted. The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC79-202, stated that an environmental impact report negative declaration was approved for the subject project in conjunction with Conditional Use Permit No. 2014 on August 27, 1979, and approved Tentative Tract No. 10807. The Mayor asked if anyone was present to speak on the subject tentative tract; no one was present. On motion by Councilman Roth, seconded by Councilwoman Kaywood, the request of Mr. Boyce Jones of MPM Services, for a continuance of the public hearing to September 23, 1980, at 3:00 p.m., was approved. MOTION CARRIED. 176: PUBLIC HEARING - ABANDONMENT NO. 79-20A: In accordance with application filed by The Baldwin Company, public hearing was held on proposed abandonment oC dedicated public street together with all existing public utility easements, storm drain and sanitary sewer easement in Tract Nos. 9212 and 9215, known as Lookout Lane, Canyon View Drive, Fieldbury Lane, and Ridgeview Road, Saddleback Lane, and Oakview Lane, located in the Anaheim Hills area approximately south of Nohl Ranch Road, east of Canyon Rim Road, pursuant to Resolution No. 80R-283, duly published in the Anaheim Bulletin and notices thereof posted in accordance with law. 80-897 City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - July 15, 1980, 1:30 P.M. Report of the City Engineer dated June 5, 1980 and a recommendation by the Planning Commission was submitted recommending approval of said abandonment subject to the abandonment taking effect upon recordation of Tract No. ~0940. The Mayor asked if anyone wished to address the Council; there being no response he closed the public hearing. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT - CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION: On motion by Councilman Bay, seconded by Councilwoman Kaywood, the City Council ratified the determination of the Planning Director that the proposed activity falls within the definition of Section 3.01, Class 5, of the City of Anaheim guidelines to the requirements for an Environmental Impact Report and is, therefore, categorically exempt from the requirement to file an EIR. MOTION CARRIED. Councilman Bay offered Resolution No. 80R-305 for adoption, approving Abandonment No. 79-20A, subject to the aforementioned condition. Refer to Resolution Book. RESOLUTION NO. 80R-305: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM DETERMINING THAT CERTAIN PUBLIC STREETS SHOULD BE ABANDONED AND ESTABLISHING CONDITIONS PRECEDENT TO SAID ABANDONMENT. (79-20A) Roll Call Vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: COUNCIL MEMBERS: COUNC1LMEMBERS: Overholt, Kaywood, Bay, Roth and Seymour None None The Mayor declared Resolution No. 80R-305 duly passed and adopted. 176: PUBLIC HEARING - ABANDONMENT NO. 79-21A: In accordance with applicat$on by Anaheim Hills, Inc., public hearing was held on proposed abandonment of an existing storm drain easement in return for the construction of a new storm drain facility and the execution of a new storm drain easement in the same general location at the Anaheim Hills Professional Center at Nohl Ranch Road and Canyon Rim Road, pursuant to Resolution No. 80R-284, duly published in the Anaheim Bulletin and notices thereof posted in accordanc~ with law. Report of the City Engineer dated May 29, 1980 and the recommendation by the Planning Commission were submitted, recommending approval of said abandonment, subject ~o the following conditions: 1. That a new storm drain be constructed as specified by the City Engineer within the new storm drain easement prior to final approval of this abandonment. 2. That the deed for the new storm drain easement be recorded prior to the final approval of this abandonment. The Mayor asked if anyone wished to address the Council; there being no response, he closed the public hearing. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT - CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION: On motion by Councilwoman Kaywood, seconded by Councilman Overholt, the City Council ratified the determination Qf the Planning Director that the proposed activity falls within the definition of Section 3.01, Class 5, of the City of Anaheim guidelines to the requirements for an Environmental Impact Report and is, therefore, categorically exempt from the requirement to file an EIR. MOTION CARRIED. 80-898 City Hall, Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - July 15~ 1980~ 1:30 P.M. Councilwoman Kaywood offered Resolution No. 80R-306 for adoption, approving Abandonment No. 79-21A, subject to the two conditions of the City Engineer. Refer to Resolution Book. RESOLUTION NO. 80R-306: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM DETERMINING THAT A CERTAIN PUBLIC SERVICE EASEMENT SHOULD BE ADANDONED AND ESTABLISHING CONDITIONS PRECEDENT THERETO. 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-306 duly passed and adopted. I23: LEASE AGREEMENT WITH CANAL-RANDOLPH ANAHEIM~ INC.~ FOR OFFICE SPACE AT THE BANK OF AMERICA BUILDING BY THE POLICE DEPARTMENT: On motion by Councilman Bay, seconded by Councilwoman Kaywood, consideration of the proposed lease with the Canal-Randolph Anaheim, Inc., in the amount of $9,144 for space at the Bank of America building, 300 South Harbor Boulevard, for the period ending July 1, 1980 through June 30, 1981, was continued to July 29, 1980, as recommended by staff. MOTION CARRIED. 105: APPOINTMENTS TO BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS: Appointments to Boards and Commis- sions due to vacancies or expiration of terms ending June 30 of the following years: (continued from meetings of June 24 and July 1 and July 8, 1980). Community Redevelopment Commission (Dinndorf vacancy)~ Mayor Seymour oPened nominations to fill the vacancy on the Redevelopment Commission for the term expiring June 30, 1983. He asked for nominations from the Council, working from his left, first from Councilman Overholt. Councilman Overholt nominated Mr. Dan Martinez, 5910 Camino Manzano. There were no other nominations. Councilwoman Kaywood moved to close nominations. Councilman Bay seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. Mr. Dan Martinez was unanimously appointed to the Community Redevelopment Commission for the term expiring June 30, 1983. Community Services Board (Galaviz vacancy): (term expiring June 30, 1982) Councilman Roth nominated Mr. Bill Looper; Councilman Bay nominated Mr. Frank Cozza. There were no other nominations. Councilwoman Kaywood moved to close nominations. Councilman Bay seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. A roll call vote was taken on the nomination of Bill Looper: AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Roth NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Overholt, Kaywood, Bay and Seymour 80-899 City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - July 15~ 1980, 1:30 P.M. A roll call vote was then taken on the nomination of Frank Cozza: AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Overholt, Kaywood, Bay, Roth and Seymour NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: None Mr. Frank Cozza was unanimously appointed to the Community Services Board, for the term expiring June 30, 1982. Plannin~ Commission: (term expiring June 30, 1984) Councilman Overholt nom- inated Mrs. Mary Bouas; Councilwoman Kaywood seconded the nomination. Councilman Roth stated that due to the fact that the Mayor called for nominations first for the Redevelopment Commission, it did not give him an opportunity to speak on the matter of a Planning Commissioner for the City. He was deeply concerned that they did not get any equal opportunity to nominate a person to the Planning Commission first, because there were several people who indicated by putting their names in nomination that they either had the option first to serve on the Planning Commission or Redevelopment Commission. For that reason, he was disappointed that he was not able to nominate a person whom he considered to be avery outstanding young man for the vacancy on that commission--Mr. Dan Martinez. He was certain his colleagues on the Council were familiar with the fact that Mr. Martinez was a very qualified man. He had worked for Disneyland in the Marketing Division for the last eight years. He was also the'owner of a very successful restaurant in the City and a gentleman who had the ability and understanding both from the citizen standpoint and also from a local small businessman standpoint. Mr. Jack Lindquist of Disneyland was most supportive of Mr. Martinez, as well as Mr. Jim Garber, Director of Marketing at Disneyland, Carolyn Gillespie, Assistant Administrator of Anaheim Memorial Hospital, Herb Leo, Alan Hughes, and "Red" Patterson, to name a few. Fred Brown withdrew his request as a potential appointee to the Planning Commision and subsequently suppported Mr. Martinez. The Dfsneyland people were the givers in the community and never asked for anything special and they were a prime example of good citizenship. He would like to see Dan Martinez put in a position of greater responsibility other than the Redevelopment~Commission and that would be on the Planning Commission, and he thereupon nominated him as an appointee to the Planning Commission. Mayor Seymour acknowleged his nomination and then apologized to Councilman Roth in the event he was dissatisfied that they did not fill the vacant seat on the Planning Commission first. He was merely following the agenda and had no intent of shortcutting his (Roth's) strong feelings about a very qualified individual. Councilman Bay had no name to offer in nomination to the Planning Commission; Mayor Seymour nominated Mr. Earl McBurney, who he considered to be extremely well qualified for the Planning Commission. He had served for three years on the Planning Commission of Buena Park and 23 years in his chosen profession of Land Surveyor and Civil Engineer and thus most knowledgeable with development, partic- ularly as it pertained to development in the slopes and hillsides. The position was extremely critical, not that the other nominees were not qualified. However, as he reviewed the fine qualifications of the applicants, he felt that Mr. McBurney stood very tall among them. 80-900 City Hall, Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - July 15~ 1980~ 1:30 P.M. Councilwoman Kaywood moved to close nominations. Councilman Roth seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. Mayor Seymour announced that they had three nominations for the position of Planning Commissioner, Mary Bouas, Dan Martinez and Earl McBurney and, there- fore, he would call the roll in that order. Councilman Overholt first stated that since he nominated Mr. Martinez for the Redevelopment Commission, he wished to make a statement. He, too, was tremen- dously impressed with Mr. Martinez's qualifications. The reason he nominated him for Redevelopment was that he felt on that commission, he would get the kind of experience which he had not had in City activities that would even better qualify him to take on greater responsibility. One of the present Council Members, Councilman Bay, acquired his experience on that Commission. His nomination of Dan Martinez to that Commission should be taken as a very positive compliment to his qualifications. Councilman Roth stated that people were elected to the Council without serving on any commissions and boards. A roll call vote was then taken on Mrs. Mary Bouas: AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Overholt, Kaywood and Bay NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Roth and Seymour Mayor Seymour then stated he would like the entire roll to be called so that the votes could be recorded, the next being Dan Martinez. Councilwoman Kaywood interjected and questioned if Mr. Martinez had already been appointed to the Redevelopment Commission, how he could also be appointed to the Planning Commission. The Mayor explained that technically if he were to get the votes, and he doubted that he was going to, because there were already three votes for Mrs. Bouas, he would have the option of resigning the appointment to the Redevelopment Commission. Councilwoman Kaywood considered the procedure to be a very unusual move and one that had not occurred in the six years she had served with the Mayor; the Mayor stated he just wanted the record to reflect how the Council Members felt. Councilwoman Kaywood found the situation to be strange because someone had already been appointed. Mayor Seymour stated that nobody had been appointed as yet. If she would wait until the polling was done and give him an opportunity to conclude the process, she would not feel it so strange. Councilman Bay stated he felt the procedure was a new and different process. His experience on the Council was that when there was a majority vote, they did not go on through the rest of the candidates. The Mayor asked if his colleagues would be patient, rather than being so politically sensitive, perhaps they could get there. He proceeded to ask for a roll call on Mr. Martinez. 80-901 City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - July 15~ 1980, 1:30 P.M. Councilman Bay interjected and appealed the decision of the Chair. Mayor Seymour stated that he felt he had the right, or any other Council Member as well, to call for a roll call on anything they chose. Councilman Bay, speaking to the City Attorney, stated he was appealing the decision of the Chair and calling for a vote on the ruling of the appeal to the decision of the Chair based on past Council action. The first person receiving a majority vote was the appointee, and there were no following votes He felt that would be the ruling in this case and that the item was actually closed once there was a three-to-two vote on the first candidate. City Attorney Hopkins stated that the statement he made was correct as far as the vote of three-to-two on the first nominee. However, he saw nothing objec- tionable about an additional vote being requested by the Chairman if he asked for an additional vote. Councilman Bay asked if the appeal to the decision of the Chair should not be voted on by the Council in a majority ruling; Mr. Hopkins answered "yes". MOTION: Councilman Bay then called for a vote on the ruling of the Chair. He moved to appeal the decision of the Chair and called for a vote from the Council on the procedure. Councilwoman Kaywood seconded the motion. Before action was taken, Councilman Roth stated it was his understanding that the Council was not governed by any rules, Roberts Rules, or any others. City Attorney Hopkins confirmed that was correct and that the Council could make its own rules. Councilman Overholt stated he was opposed to the motion. He had no concern about having his vote recorded and was going to vote "no" on Mr. Martinez for the reasons he previously stated and "no" on Mr. McBurney because he was supportive of Mrs. Bouas for the position. He did not feel a "no" vote for Mr. Martinez for the Planning Commission was meant to be degrading of him or Mr. McBurney, and he felt Mr. Martinez would better serve on the Redevelopment Commission at this time. The Mayor stated he was going to oppose the motion as well. He found no difficulty whatsoever in recording publicly his decision or his vote. He found it almost embarassing that two members of the Council would find it necessary to block a public recording of a vote. He did not feel any worse about Mrs. Bouas or Mr. Martinez who Councilman Roth felt was a very qualified candidate and if he troth) should choose to vote "no" on Mr. McBurney, who he (Seymour) nominated, he would respect that vote. He was only trying to get a vote as a matter of public record. He would not deprive anyone from calling for a roll call on anything and to try to block such a public recording was immature. If they were that politically sensitive, he suggested a search of conscience. Councilman Bay stated that was not the issue, but it was whether they did one thing one time as a routine when making appointments, and then suddenly change that routine and do something different. 80-902 City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - July 1/~ 1980~ 1:30 P.M. The Mayor stated he did not recall at anytime on any issue when any individual who asked for a roll call vote on any matter had been denied that right. Because it had never been asked for in the past, obviously there was great unanimity or support for one or the other but to try to block the simple process of recording a vote, he found that distasteful. A vote was then taken on the foregoing motion by Councilman Bay. AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Kaywood and Bay NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Overholt, Roth and Seymour A roll call vote was then taken on the nomination of Dan Martinez to the Planning Co-m, ission: AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Roth NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Overholt, Kaywood, Bay and Seymour Councilwoman Kaywood stated she voted for Mr. Martinez for the Redevelopment Commission. She did not know him and her "no" vote in no way could be taken as a vote against him, because he was already appointed to the Redevelopment Commission. A roll call vote was then taken on the nomination of Earl McBurney: AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Seymour NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Overholt, Kaywood, Bay and Roth Councilwoman Kaywood stated the same was true of Mr. McBurney as was true of Mr. Martinez. She did not know him, never met him and questioned how publicly embarassing him was going to serve a purpose. MOTION: Councilman Seymour moved that Mrs. Bouas be unanimously appointed to the Planning Commission to succeed Amin David, for the term expiring June 30, 1984. Councilman Bay seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. Councilman Roth asked to have a verbatim transcript of the portion of the meeting starting with the nomination to the Redevelopment Commission and ending with the Planning Commission nomination and final appointment. Youth Commission: (terms expiring December 31, 1982, Murphy and Rangel vacancies) City Clerk Roberts announced that a letter was received late this afternoon from Scott Freeman expressing his desire to serve on the Commission, and was duplicated for the Council. Councilman Bay nominated Lisa Kaplan. Councilman Overholt nominated Anne Burke, provided she was a resident of the City, which was a requirement. However, they had no indication in their documentation if she was in fact a resident. Councilwoman Kaywood then stated she found it interesting that nobody was allowed to just nominate, but that the Mayor chose the direction that it would come from and who could go first. She found his handling of the nominations to be inter- esting, and she did not like the way he was handling them, leading and turning and twisting things into political ramifications. 80-903 City Hall~ Anaheim~ Califg~.nia' - COUNCIL MINUTES - July 15, 1980, 1:30 P.M. There were no other nominations. Councilman Roth moved to close nominations. Councilwoman Kaywood seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. Lisa Kaplan and Anne Burke (subject to residency) were appointed to the Youth Commission, for the terms ending December 31, 1982. Later in the meeting, Councilman Overholt recalled the comment he made the prior week about how flattering he thought it was that they had so many fine letters of application and recommendations for the various positions they found themselves charged with filling that day. He wished all the appointees well and to those others who applied and who were not appointed at this time, he urged them to reapply in the future. He considered it a tribute to the community that there were so many citizens who were willing to give up their time and energy and to add their talent to serve the City. He expressed his appreciation to the entire community for their participation in the process, including all of he Council Members. Councilwoman Kaywood also stated that she was pleased with the number of letters received from people who were interested in serving and that it was very fine for the City to have such a list on hand. 150: ICHTHUS ASSOCIATES INC.: Request of Mr. Frank Moore, for use of Twila Reed Park on July 26, 1980, and Mattie Lou Maxwell Park on September 27, 1980, to conduct summer concerts to foster religious activities, was submitted. Mr. Frank Moore, 627 Bel Air, Apartment No. 22, indicated his presence. Mayor Seymour stated he (Moore) was undoubtedly aware of the recommendation from staff that his request be denied as outlined in the memorandum dated July 8, 1980 from the Deputy City Manager James Ruth. Mr. Moore asked for the reasons because he had not received that report. Mr. Moore was then presented with a copy of the report and given some time to peruse it. The Mayor then explained that staff was recommending that they be provided the opportunity to use the Pearson Park Theatre, but not the general park area and that was the bottom line. Mr. Moore stated that they were hoping to get a park nearer to where they were based, Pearson Park being the opposite end of Anaheim from their location. He did not like the wording, "to f~ster religious activities." That was not their purpose. Instead, they wanted to share the Gospel with people in the park if they wished to participate. His reason for doing so was to share with people something he found to be an answer to a number of problems he had in his past life. The Mayor asked the difficulty in utilizing the Pearson Park Theatre. Mr. Moore stated it was mostly because they would be in an area that they were not associated with. He was also associated with a church and although they were not trying to make their ranks grow, if people wanted to attend their church, they w~uld be in an area where they would have access to it. 80-904 City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - July 15, 1980, 1:30 P.M. Councilman Roth then asked if they used amplifiers and if their presentation was a combination of music and preaching. Mr. Moore answered that they did use amplifiers but the music did not reach from one end of the park to the other. Thus, people who did not wish to participate would not have to listen. It was a combination of music and preaching. They were not there to try to force themselves on people, but to share with them if they wanted to participate. Councilman Roth stated he was supportive of what Mr. Moore was attempting to do, but he was not so certain about mixing church and State in this way. MOTION: Councilwoman Kaywood moved to deny the subject request. Councilman Overholt seconded the motion. Before a vote was taken, Councilman Overholt stated that he too was supportive of what Mr. Moore was trying to do, but on the other hand, the facility at Pearson Park seemed to be uniquely suited for the type of thing they were doing without interfering with other people on a Saturday afternoon who were at the park for a different purpose. When he considered the extensive research that Park and Recreation went to before they put a facility in or improved a park, it seemed that the thing to do was have it at Pearson where similar activities had been held and where it seemed to be compatible with the park and neighbor- hood. He suggested that Mr. Moore set his sights for a Pearson Park activity which he would approve. A vote was then taken on the foregoing motion. MOTION CARRIED. 181: REAPPOINTMENTS TO THE FULLERTON COLLEGE PATRONS OF THE ARTS BOARD: Request by Fullerton College, Phillip W. Borst, President in letter dated June 26, 1980, that Mrs. Jane Wolfe and Mrs. Elsie Reed be reappointed to the Fullerton College Patrons of the Arts Board for two-year terms, was submitted. On motion by Councilwoman Kaywood, seconded by Councilman Roth, Mrs. Wolfe and Reed were reappointed to the Board as requested. MOTION CARRIED. 129: PUBLIC FIREWORKS DISPLAY PERMIT: Applications for permits submitted by Disneyland to discharge fireworks on July 17, 1980, at 3:00 p.m., 9:30 p.m. and 12 midnight, with a request for an exception to the 10:00 p.m. Code limit, were submitted. Mr. Fred Duffy, Disneyland representative, clarified that the midnight display to take place next evening would be entirely silent with no aerial fireworks of any kind connected with it, whereas the 3:00 p.m request on July 17 would involve a rather noisy display. On motion by Councilman Roth, seconded by Councilman Bay, the subject applications for Public Fireworks Display Permits was approved, as recommended by the Fire Department. MOTION CARRIED. 105: PROJECT AREA COMMITTEE - RATIFICATION OF APPOINTEE: On motion by Councilman Bay, seconded by Counci!m~n Roth, the appointment of Don C. Dolphin by the Project Area Committee to fill the existing Committee vacancy for the term expiring June 30, 1981, was ratified. MOTION CARRIED. 80-905 City Hall~ Aoaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - July 15, 1980~ 1:30 P.M. CONSENT CALENDAR ITEMS: On motion by Councilman Overholt, seconded by Councilman Roth, the following actions were authorized in accordance with the reports and recommendations furnished each Council Member and as listed on the Consent Calendar Agenda: 1. 118: CLAIM AGAINST THE CITY: Claim submitted by State Farm Mutual Auto- mobile Insurance Company (Martha Rector, Insured) for damages purportedly sus- tained as a result of collision with On-Duty Emergency Vehicle, on or about April 23, 1980, was allowed. 2. CORRESPONDENCE: The following correspondence was ordered received and filed: a. 175: On June 23, 1980, the Pacific Telephone and Telegraph Company filed with the Public Utilities Commission of the State of California, Application No. 59752, requesting authority to provide new criteria for establishing credit and changes in billing and collection rules for residence service. b. 105: Public Utilities Board--Minutes of May 15 and June 5, 12 and 19, 1980. c. 107: Planning Department, Building Division--Monthly Report for June 1980. d. 105: Anaheim Youth Commission--Minutes of April 9, 1980. e. 105: Notification of election of Chairman and Vice Chairman to Project Area Committee. 3. 108: PUBLIC DANCE HALL PERMIT: In accordance with the recommendations of the Chief of Police, a Public Dance Hall Permit was approved for Cowboy Boogie Co., dba The Cowboy, 1721 South Manchester Avenue, for dancing seven nights a .week, from 7:00 p.m. to 2:00 a.m. CJanet Elizabeth Blanding, applicant) 4. 170: TENTATIVE TRACT NO. 11079: Submitted by Ed and Elsie Carattini, to establish a l-lot, 12-unit condomimium subdivision on proposed RM-3000 zoned property located at 3633 West Ball Road. The City Planning Commission granted Tenative Tract No. 11079, and granted a negative declaration status. Councilwoman Kaywood stated that she did not have the minutes from the Planning Commission meeting of June 30, 1980. She wanted to continue the item one week so that it could be voted on together with the reclassification and variance. MOTION: Councilwoman Kaywood moved to continue the item accordingly. The motion died for lack of a second. Councilwoman Kaywood then stated when the Council voted on items where they did not have any information on them, they s~metimes made a mistake, and she wanted her colleagues to rethink the matter. It would not stop, slow down or do any- thing else by having the matter wait one week. Mayor Seymour asked the Assistant Director for Zoning to speak to the matter. 80-906 City Hall~ Anaheim, California - COUNCIL ~INUTES' - July 15, 1980, 1:30 P.M. Miss Santalahti stated that on tentative tracts, they followed regulations that were established under the State Subdivision Map Act and the appeal period was 15 days as compared to the 22-day period on zoning. In the subject item, approval of the tract was subject to the approval of both the reclassification and variance and would be on the Council agenda next week. If there was a problem with the reclassification or variance .and they did set it for a hearing and then denied those items, she did not think the tract map would have any standing because it would become void by those actions. Mayor Seymour asked if she was saying by taking no action on the tentative tract map, that would not preclude the opportunity of denial when they considered the resolution on zoning, as well as the variance; Miss Santalahti clarified that was correct. Mayor Seymour asked if that satisfied Councilwoman Kaywood. Councilwoman Kaywood answered "no" and asked if it would save time and effort on the part of the Department to have everything done at the same time. Miss Santalahti reiterated the situation relative to appeal periods which differed between the State, a 15-day appeal period on tract maps, and the City, a 22-day appeal period on reclassifications and variances. They were not happy with that, but unless the State made the change, she did not think that they were prepared to do so. MOTION CARRIED. Councilwoman Kaywood noted that the record should show an abstention for her on any vote on Tentative Tract No. 11079. CONSENT CALENDAR ITEMS: Councilman Overholt offered Resolution Nos. 80R-307 through 80R-311, both inclusive, for adoption in accordance with the reports, recommendations and certifications furnished each Council Member and as listed on the Consent Calendar Agenda. Refer to Resolution Book. 158: RESOLUTION NO. 80R-307: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM ACCEPTING CERTAIN DEEDS AND ORDERING THEIR RECORDATION. (Cupertino Gardens Patio Homes; T. 0hara Farm) 164: RESOLUTION NO. 80R-308: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM FINDING AND DETERMINING THAT PUBLIC CONVENIENCE AND NECESSITY REQUIRE THE CONSTRUCTION AND COMPLETION OF A PUBLIC IMPROVEMENT, TO WIT: ACACIA STREET STORM DRAIN -'ROMNEYA DRIVE TO LA PALMA AVENUE, IN T~E CITY OF ANAHEIM, ACCOUNT NO. 47-791-6325-El160; APPROVING THE DESIGNS, PLANS, PROFILES, DRAWINGS, AND SPECIFICATIONS FOR THE CONSTRUCTION THEREOF; AUTHORIZING THE CONSTRUCTION OF SAID PUBLIC IMPROVEMENT IN ACCORDANCE WITH SAID PLANS, SPECIFICATIONS, ETC.; AND AUTHORIZING AND DIRECTING THE CITY CLERK TO PUBLISH A NOTICE INVITING SEALED PROPOSALS FOR THE CONSTRUCTION THEREOF. (Bids to be opened August 14, 1980, at 2:00 P.M.) 80-909 City Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - Jqly 15~ 1980~ 1:30 P.M. 181: PERALTA ADOBE SITE: Councilman Roth reported that there was continued dumping at the subject site located at the corner of Santa ADa Canyon Road and Fairmont Boulevard. It appeared that another problem had arisen in that as people had swimming pools built in the hill and canyon area, the dump trucks were using that site to dump fill. He suggested that the City send a CETA employee to the site immediately to install "No Dumping Under Penalty of Law" signs. RECESS - EXECUTIVE SESSION: Councilwoman Kaywood moved to recess into Executive Session. Councilman Overholt seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. (4:30 p.m.) AFTER RECESS: Mayor Seymour called the meeting to order, all Council Members being present. (5:57 p.m.) 153/125: APPOINTMENT OF DATA PROCESSING DIRECTOR: Councilwoman Kaywood offered Resolution No. 80R-312 for adoption, adjusting the rate of compensation for Data Processing Director and amending Resolution No. 79R-338. Refer to Resolution Book. RESOLUTION NO. 80R-312: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM ADJUSTING THE RATE OF COMPENSATION FOR DATA PROCESSING DIRECTOR, AND AMENDING RESOLUTION NO. 79R-338. (effective July 16, 1980) 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-312 duly passed and adopted. MOTION: On motion by Councilwoman Kaywood, seconded by Councilman Overholt, the City Council ratified the City Manager's appointment of Mr. Phil Grammatica as Data Processing Director and approved a $200 monthly automobile allowance. MOTION CARRIED. ADJOURNMENT: On motion by Councilman Roth, seconded by Councilman Overholt, the City Council adjourned. MOTION CARRIED. Adjourned: 5:58 P.M. LIN-DA D. ROBERTS, CITY CLERK