Loading...
1980/08/1280-1001 City Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - August 12~ 1980~ 1:30 P.M. The City Council of the City of Anaheim met in regular session. PRESENT: ABSENT: PRESENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Overhol[, Kaywood, Bay, Roth and Seymour COUNCIL MEMBERS: None CITY MANAGER: William O. Talley CITY ATTORNEY: William P. Hopkins CITY CLERK: Linda D. Roberts FINANCE DIRECTOR: George P. Ferrone EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT: Norman J. Priest STADIUM, CONVENTION CENTER AND GOLF GENERAL MANAGER: Tom Liegler CITY ENGINEER: William G. Devitt PLANNING DIRECTOR: Ronaid L. Thompson ASSISTANT DIRECTOR FOR ZONING: Annika Santaiahti 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: ANAHEIM'S FIRST ANNUAL BICYCLE RODEO: Mr. Frank Feldhaus, Jr., first passed to the Council information relative to the subject rodeo, outlining the activities to take place scheduled for October 4, 1980 at the Anaheim Plaza. He also reported that as of last July, Orange County recorded 1,023 injuries and five deaths due to bicycle accidents, with Anaheim leading the way relative to injuries with 126. The Anaheim Police Community Relations Committee, at the suggestion of the Police Department, decided to conduct a bicycle rodeo with the overall objective being to significantly reduce such injuries and deaths to children, and ha was the chairman of that event. The first problem was how to conduct the event without funds, since the Committee was a non-profit committee. Secondly, the Committee agreed that the community services groups would be a good source for manpower and sponsorships. With those thoughts in mind, the Committee came up with ideas and subsequently formulated the First Annual Bicycle Rodeo. Mr. Feldhaus then explained the work that had been done in setting up the event, the people contacted, what was planned for the day and how They planned to raise the money to finance the rodeo. In concluding, he stated his reason for appearing before the Council was that their budget at this point was approx4m-tely $4,000. He assumed that the sale of T-shirts depicting the logo and slogan they devised relative to safe biking, would offset most of the expenses. He also had pledges from some of the major companies and firms in the area to help underwrite the program and from some of the service groups to offset printing costs. He was asking that the Council underwrite any left-over deficit they might have as a result, so that he could go to the T-shirt company with a letter of credit and get the shirts ordered. He was not asking for a handout of taxpayer funds, but he did want to be able to tell suppliers that they need not worry about receiving their payment. He confirmed for Councilman Bay that they needed approximately $3,000. 80-1002 City Hall, Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - August 12~ 1980~ 1:30 P.M. MOTION: Councilman Seymour moved to appropriate up to $3,000 from the Council Contingency Fund as a backup for any deficit, if necessary, in financing the First Annual Bicycle Rodeo coordinated by the Anaheim Police Community Relations Committee to be held October 4, 1980. Councilman Bay seconded the motion. Before a vote was taken, Councilman Overholt stated that the project sounded like an excellent one; Mayor Seymour expressed on behalf of the Council, as well as the many citizens not present today, their thanks to Mr. Feldhaus and the Committee for taking such a positive step with regard to bicycle safety. A vote was then ~aken on ~he foregoing motion. MOTION CARRIED. MINUTES: Approval of the minutes was deferred to the next regular meeting. WAIVER OF READING - ORDINANCES AND RESOLUTIONS: Councilman BaY 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. Councilwoman Kaywood seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. FINANCIAL DEMANDS AGAINST THE CIT~ in the amount of $8,232,377.10, in accordance with the 1980-81 Budget, were approved. 123/158/177: SALE OF CITY-OWNED PROPERTY TO THE ANAHEIM HOUSING AUTHORITY: On motion by Councilman Roth, seconded by Councilman Bay, a purchase and sale agreement was authorized with the Anaheim Housing Authority in the amount of $28,000 for the sale of certain City-owned property located at 1008 North Part Street, and authorizing the Mayor and City Clerk to execute the deed therefor, as recommended in memorandum dated August 5, 1980 from Executive Director of Community Development Norm Priest. MOTION CARRIED. 123/158: CONVEYANCE AND EXCHANGE OF REAL PROPERTY AND ESCROW INSTRUCTIONS WITH HILLVIEW ASSOCIATES: Councilman Bay offered Resolution No. 80R-353 for adoption, authorizing an agreement with Hillview Associates for the conveyance and exchange of real property located at the northwest corner of Orangethorpe Avenue and Imperial Highway and escrow instructions, amd authorizing the Mayor and City Clerk to execute the deed therefor, as recommended in memorandum dated August 5, 1980 from the Executive Director of Community Development. Refer to Resolution Book.. RESOLUTION NO. 80R-353: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM APPROVING THE TERMS. AND CONDITIONS OF AN AGREEMENT FOR THE CONVEYANCE AND EXCHANGE OF REAL PROPERTY AND ESCROW INSTRUCTIONS BY AND BETWEEN ASSOCIATES, AND AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR AND CITY CLERK TO EXECUTE SAID AGREEMENT AND RELATED DOCUMENTS ON BEHALF OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM. 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-353 duly passed and adopted. 80-1003 City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - August 12, 1980, 1:30 P.M. 160: PURCHASE ORDER FOR MOTOROLA RADIOS AND ACCESSORIES: On motion by Council- woman Kaywood, seconded by Councilman Roth, the Purchasing Agent was authorized to issue a Purchase Order in the amount of $10,750.52 to Motorola Communications and Electronics, Inc., for eleven Mitrek Mobile Radios with accessories, as recommended in memorandum dated August 6, 1980 from the Purchasing Agent, Richard Jefferis. MOTION CARRIED. 156: AUCTION OF UNCLAIMED PROPERTY: Councilman Roth offered Resolution No. 80R-354 for adoption, as recommended in memorandum dated August 6, 1980 from Chief of Police George Tielsch, authorizing the Police Department to conduct an auction of unclaimed property on August 30, 1980. Refer to Resolution Book. RESOLUTION NO. 80R-354: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AUTHORIZING THE POLICE DEPARTMENT TO CONDUCT AN AUCTION OF UNCLAIMED PROPERTY ON AUGUST 30, 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-354 duly passed and adopted. On motion by Councilman Roth, seconded by Councilman Bay, the City Clerk was directed to publish a notice of intention to transfer certain unclaimed property~ to the Purchasing Division for City use. MOTION CARRIED 123: EXTENSION OF CONTRACT - STREET STRIPING AND PAVEMENT MARKINGS: On motion by Councilman Overholt, seconded by Councilwoman Kaywood, an amendment to an agreement with Safety Striping Service, Inc., was authorize~, to extend said agreement through November 30, 1981 at an increase in the contractual amount to $118,552, for the installation and maintenance of street striping and pave- ment legends, as recommended in memorandum dated August 7, 1980 from Executive Director of Public Works Thornton Piersall. MOTION CARRIED. 123: STATE OF CALIFORNIA COOPERATIVE AGREEMENT NO. 3564: Councilman Roth offered Resolution No. 80R-355 for adoption, as recommended in memorandum dated August 6, 1980 from City Engineer William Devitt, authorizing a cooperative agreement with the State for the construction of that portion of Magnolia Avenue Storm Drain within the Route 91 Freeway right-of-way, Caltrans District Agreement No. 3654. Refer to Resolution Book. RESOLUTION NO. 80R-355: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM APPROVING THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF AN AGREEMENT WITH THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA (DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION) AND AUTHORIZING AND DIRECTING THE MAYOR AND CITY CLERK TO EXECUTE SAID AGREEMENT. (DISTRICT AGREEMENT NO. 3564 - MAGNOLIA STORM DRAIN) 80-1004 City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - August 12, 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-355 duly passed and adopted. 123: AMENDMENT TO AGREEMENT WITH TRES COMPUTER SYSTEMS: Councilman Roth offered Resolution No. 80R-356 for adoption, as recommended in memorandum dated August 6 1980 from Public Utilities General Manager Gordon Hoyt, authorizing an amendment to an agreement with Tres Computer Systems, to increase by $32,000 the maximum compensation to be paid for technical and programming services relating to the Customer Information System maintenance and enhancements. Refer to Resolution Book. RESOLUTION NO. 80R-356: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CI%Y OF ANAHEIM APPROVING A FIRST AMENDMENT TO AGREEMENT WITH TRES COMPUTER SYSTEMS, INC., AND AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR AND CITY CLERK TO EXECUTE SAID AMENDMENT ON BEHALF OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM. 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-356 duly passed and adopted. 123: SELECTION OF CONSULTANT FOR COST ALLOCATION PLAN AND INDIRECT COST PROPOSAL ASSISTANCE: Councilman Overholt moved to authorize an agreement with David M. Griffith and Associates, Ltd., in an amount not to exceed $28,500, as consultants for the development of a cost allocation plan and indirect cost proposal assist- ance, as recommended in memorandum dated August 6, 1980 from Finance Director George Ferrone. Councilman Roth seconded the motion. Before a vote was taken, Councilman Bay posed several questions to the Finance Director for the purposes of clarification relative to determining the difference between direct and indirect costs and the necessity for utilizing a consultant in making that determination. At the conclusion of discussion, it was determined that the direct costs were no problem, but portions of the indirect were the problem and the definitions and arguments between Federal bureaucracies and the City's accounting systems. Mayor Seymour then asked if the $28,500 was allocated from the Council Contingency Fund, would the fund be reimbursed. Mr. Ferrone answered it would be an allocation from the Council Contingency Fund that would not be reimbursed, but the cost would be recovered. The funds could be replaced at the time the revenues were received. A problem, however, was the fact that they were talking about crossing fiscal years. It was likely that they would not receive increased funds from the Federal government until the next fiscal year and that was the reason they needed to appropriate the funds this year to start the project as a legal requirement. 80-1005 City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - August 12, 1980, 1:30 P.M. The Mayor asked since they were only a little more than 30 days into the new fiscal year, why the funds were not budgeted in the Finance Department. Mr. Ferrone answered that they did not finalize their negotiations with the Department of Health, Education and Welfare on this year's rates until well after the budget was adopted. After further discussion and a further explanation by the City Manager, the Mayor asked if Councilman Overholt would accept an amendment to the motion stipulating that should the Council determine the need for those funds later in the fiscal year that the City Manager be instructed to transfer the $28,500 back into the Council Contingency Fund. The amendment was agreeable to Councilman Overholt and also to Councilman Roth in his second. A vote was then taken on the foregoing motion amended as articulated. MOTION CARRIED. 123: HIGHWAY PATROL TRAINING: Councilman Roth offered Resolution No. 80R-357 for adoption authorizing and directing the City Manager to execute training agreements between the City and the State Department of California Highway Patrol for FY1980-81, as recommended. Refer to Resolution Book. RESOLUTION NO. 80R-357: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AUTHORIZING AND DIRECTING THE CITY MANAGER OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM TO EXECUTE TRAINING AGREEMENTS BETWEEN THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AND THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF CALIFORNIA HIGHWAY PATROL FOR THE FISCAL YEAR 1980-1981. 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-357 duly passed and adopted. 123/116: APPROVING THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF AN AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY AND WILLIAM O. TALLEY PERTAINING TO EMPLOYMENT: City Attorney William Hopkins first briefed the Council on the provisions that his office was directed to set forth in the subject agreement. Councilman Overholt offered Resolution No. 80R-358 for adoption, approving the terms and conditions of an agreement between the City and William O. Talley per- taining to employment and authorizing the Mayor and City Clerk to execute said agreement. Refer to Resolution Book. RESOLUTION NO. 80R-358: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM APPROVING THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF AN AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AND WILLIAM O. TALLEY PERTAINING TO EMPLOYMENT AND AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR AND CITY CLERK TO EXECUTE SAID AGREEMENT. Before a vote was taken, Councilman Bay stated that the City Charter provided that the City Manager may not be terminated by the City Council within 90 days following an election; Mr. Hopkins answered that was correct. 80-1006 City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - August 12, 1980, 1:30 P.M. Councilman Bay then asked, hypothetically, if notice could be given within that 90-day period or not the way the contract was written. He did not mean the exe- cution of the contract, but the notice to start the six months' termination. He wanted to know if that could be held up three months due to the Charter provisions. Mr. Hopkins answered "no". It would only apply in the event there was an action proposed to terminate the City Manager and it would not be applicable in this case. Mayor Seymour then referred to Page 2, paragraph 3--Terms and Conditions of Employment--"A. Employee shall~be permitted instructing, writing, lecturing and consulting on his time off provided that the City Council, with respect to consulting, is advised thereof and gives its p~o~ express approval to said consulting." He asked if that meant that the City Manager could be paid o~ in fees, have an additional source of income under that condition. Mr. Hopkins answered "yes", but it would be during his time off and as stated, the City Council must give its express approval to the consulting activity. The Mayor asked how time off was determined; Mr. Hopkins stated they had not gone into ~ specifically, but it would be at a time when the City Manager was not normally required to perform the duties of the City Manager. The Mayor asked if that would be other than 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m.; the City Attorney stated it could be so construed if the Council gave permission after 5:00 p.m., or weekends, vacation time, etc., anytime other than the time for his regular duties. He also confirmed for the Mayor there was nothing that 'spedi~ically defined that aspect and further confirmed for Councilmen Bay and Overholt that the section under discussion was in the prior contract, and he believed that it was also in the contract that existed prior to July 1978, but would have to check specifically. City Manager Talley stated that condition and all except the term and the new provision of the six months' notice had been included in the contract continuously since he had been with the City, starting December 1975, until today. Mayor Seymour asked Mr. Talley if he would care to relate to the Council what types of activities he had instructing, writing, lecturing and consulting. Mr. Talley answered "no", but if the Council wished he would do so. The contract provided that he was allowed to instruct and write and lecture on his time off and if he chose to do some consulting, that he would go to the Council and receive ~heir prior express approval before he did so. Councilman Overholt asked the materiality of the Mayor's question; the Mayor answered that he would like to know whether the City Manager's pay package on the job~:=being in excess of $83,000, might be "sweetened" by outside activities to whatever degree. He would like to know to what degree that would be true. Councilman Overholt then asked the Mayor if this was the first time he had knowledge that the City Manager engaged in instructing outside normal hours, since he was on the Council when the first contract was approved in 1975, and if at that time did he deliberate the effect of that particular provision. 80-1007 City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - August 12, t980, 1:30 P.M. Mayor Seymour answered it was not the first time he had such knowledge, but he did not know whether the City Manager did teach, lie was on the Council when the first contract was approved, but that was when Mr. Talley was hired as Assistant City Manager and they did not deliberate to any great degree that provision of the contract, and it was not related at the time that such activity was taking place or anticipated. Councilman Overholt then questioned why the provision was included in the agree- ment; the Mayor answered because Mr. Talley wanted it included. City Manager Talley stated that he did in some detail express to the Council the reason for that request at the time of the July 1976 contract. Mayor Se~mour stated he was merely interested in the contract Mr. Talley had since he had become City Manager and this was the second contract. Mr. Talley answered that it was not, and it was the third since he had been City Manager and that provision had been in all three contracts. Mayor Seymour again asked if he (Talley) cared to relate just what those involve- ments were and what type of income he had been receiving. Mr. Talley answered if the Council wished him to disclose the type of income, it was not required as p~rt of. his contract other than consulting, and he had not requested approval in that area in the last two years. Councilman Overholt asked what activities , other than his duties as City Manager, was he (Mr. Talley) now engaged in. Mr. Talley answered that he was an instructor at the Center for Public Policy and Administration for Cal State University, Long Beach. He had also been required on a number of occasions to work for various non-profit organizations, the Department of Health and Urban Development (HUD), National Science Foundation and the California Innovation Group on projects in which they requested his profes- sional advice where he received no pay but, on occasion, expenses. His teaching position with the University was on a contract basis tendered on a semester-by- semester basis. He instructed three hours a week, 6:30 p.m. to 9:00 p.m. on Wednesday nights, and it took approximately an additional three hours a week of time directly related to that. The courses in the Master Program, however, were primarily relative to urban management, so that a great deal of his exper- tise was gained on the job. On a number of occasions, he had spent hundreds of dollars in substitute instructors because his City job required him to be out of town or at meetings and, therefore, he could not cover the classes. The Mayor then asked how much time he spent relative to instructing for the various non-profit agencies he described and where the activities had taken place. Mr. Talley answered that he spent no more than perhaps 100 hours a year on those activities which generally took place in Anaheim or Soub~hern California. Some had taken place in Washington, D. C.. He was certain there were probably other areas over the last four or five years. 80-1008 City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - August 12, 1980, 1:30 P.M. Mayor Seymour stated he would be interested to know how much time, and when, the dates, he had been absent from the City. Mr. Talley stated he would like a motion to that effect. Councilman Overholt felt that the question as to how much time had been answered. He wanted clarification that the Mayor was asking for specific dates and places. The Mayor answered that he would like to know specifically how much time the City Manager spent out of the City on that type of activity; Councilman Overholt wanted to know if he required that information before voting on the contract. The Mayor answered that he feit "everybody in the world" knew ho~ he was going to vote on the contract, but he would still like to receive that information after the vote, and he questioned if anybody would be opposed, to that. Councilman Overholt stated he had no opposition, Councilwoman Kaywood stated she would be interested in the time the Mayor spent out of Anaheim for the Presidency and Vice Presidency of the California Association of Realtors. The Mayor stated that was a fair questio% but he died-not think there was any comparison between an $83,000 plus a year City Manager and a $1000 a month Mayor. The Mayor again referred to Page 2, paragraph 3 of the agreement--"C.--City has elected to provide as a retirement benefit that unused sick leave shall be credited the retirement of a City employee so as to extend the period of service credit for such employee. Therefore, City agrees to credit 180 days to Employee's account for accumulated sick leave, unused and earned during Employee's service with the City of Long Beach..." He asked how much that was worth. The City Manager stated that he did not have any idea, but that it was negotiated with the City in December 1975 as part of his coming to Anaheim as its Assistant City Manager. It was granted to him permanently at that time. City Attorney Hopkins clarified that was correct and they had checked with the Personnel Department concerning that aspect and as he understood, it would be a credit upon retirement due to the fact that it was negotiated in the agreement at the outset. The Mayor asked in negotiating a new contract what effect that would have on other contracts; the City Attorney answered that the new contract would super- cede any previous agreement. The Mayor stated, therefore, if that were so and the Council would be of a mind to exclude that paragraph, they could so so. Mr. Hopkins answered that they could do so, but he did not know if it would be acceptable to the other party. Councilman Overholt stated that apparently the Mayor was involved in the prepar- ation of the first contract in 1975 in that he understood the reason for the request for that provision; the Mayor confirmed that was correct but his under- standing at the present time was that they were not negotiating the same contract, and Councilman Overholt seemed to be confusing the position of an Assistant City Manager with a City Manager. 80-1009 Cimy Hall, Anaheim, California - COUI~CIL MlN~inL~-_August 12, 1980, 1:30 P.M. Councilman Overholt countered that he was not confusing a thing and was perfectly clear on the fact that an employee was hired by the City in 1975 and the provision under discussion was included in the contract. The Mayor stated that he just wanted the Council and public to know, in his opinion, what type of "sweetheart deal" was before them. Councilman Overholt stated that he (Seymour) could take credit for it in 1975; the Mayor answered that the record clearly stated his position on the contracts with Mr. Talley as City Manager. He did not vote against the contract in 1975, but that was as Assistant City Manager. He had continuously opposed the contract as City Manager, and Mr. Talley had gone to work as City Manager without a contract. Mr. Talley interjected and stated categorically that was not so. The provision was in his July 9, 1976 contract, voted for unanimously by the Council, and it had been in every agreement since. He had continuously worked as City Manager with a contract with those provisions since his appointment as City Manager. Mayor Seymour stated that he did not knov that when Mr. Talley was appointed City Manager he received unanimous approval on a contract; Mr. Talley stated that could be checked. Thereupon the Mayor asked~to see that information. Councilman Overholt pointed out there was nothing new in the contract other than the term extended for two years and the provision with respect to six months' notice of either side and the severance pay in the event the Council should choose to terminate the Manager. The Mayor stated that he did not think that such questions had ever before been raised publicl~ and he did not see why they should be offended if he raised some of them. Councilman Overholt stated he was not offended in the least~ but he felt the Mayor was harassing the Manager and the Council; the Mayor answered if harassment was disclosure, then indeed he was guilty. , The Mayor then referred to Page 4, first paragraph--"B.--City shall give at least six (6) months' prior ~,~itten notice of termination to Employee or shall pay to Employee a lump sum cash payment equal to six (6) months' aggregate salary..." He asked how much that would be. Mr. Talley answered that he believed it was approximately $33,200 or $33,300. The Mayor referred to Page 4, last paragraph--"9. In the event City, at any time during the term of this Agreement, reduces EMPLOYEE'S salary or other financial benefits in a greater percentage than the average of any reduction for miscellaneous employees of the CITY, or in the event CITY refuses, following written notice, to comply with any other provisions benefiting EMPLOYEE herein, it shall be deemed that this Agreement is terminated at the date of such reduction." He asked the City Attorney if, in fact, the City Manager were to receive a reduc- tion for whatever good, bad, or indifferent reason, would the contract automatically be terminated. 80-1010 City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - August 12, 1980, 1:30 P.M. The City Attorney answered if it were a greater percentage than the average of any reduction for miscellaneous employees, then it would. If the Ci'ey Manager's salary or other benefits were specifically reduced at a greater percentage, ~-that would be correct. The Mayor asked if that in any way would relate to potential salary increases. As an example, if miscellaneous employees were to receive a 6% increase, would the City Manager have to receive that in order to keep the contract in effect. Mr. Hopkins answered that the wording carried over from the previous agreement referred specifically to reductions. Thus it implied it would only be a reduc- tion that would cause it to trigger a termination. The Mayor, speaking to the City Manager, stated that ~e would like to receive, u~less there was any Council Member in opposition, a report as to his activities and instructing and so forth that he had described as to where he was and what length of time he was gone from the City. Councilman Overholt stated that he felt that was a fair question, and he would join in the request. Councilwoman Kaywood stated that she would like to see the amount of time the City Manager spent in the process of bringing the Rams to Anaheim, the gO-hour weeks. The Mayor stated that was fair. Councilman Roth called for the question. Mayor Seymour stated his position had not changed. He felt this was a big mistake-- the only individual in the City to receive a contract when nobody else had that type of security. A vote was then taken on the foregoing resolution. Roll Call Vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: COUNCIL MEMBERS: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Overholt, Kaywood, Bay and Roth Seymour None The Mayor declared Resolution No. 80R-358 duly passed and adopted. Before concluding, Mr. Talley stated that inasmuch as he had been requested to go back and go through his personal records for nearly five years, he presumed they had no objection to his charging City time to that activity. The Mayor stated he did not think he needed an accounting for five years, but that three years would be adequate. 80-1011 City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - August 12, 1980, 1:30 P.M. Mr. Talley stated that three years would still be on a day-by-day basis. He wanted to be certain that nothing was distorted and thus, to the best of his ability, he would give such an accounting. He did not think there was a great deal of time involved, but he did not want to superficially do a job and then later have a one- or two-hour segment pulled out and brought to his attention for whatever purpose. He could not do it from memory and he did not think he should do it on his own personal time. If the Mayor wanted to know every hour that he could find, he would look up every hour or otherwise the Mayor could accept the fact that it did not average more than 100 hours. Instead the Mayor requested the date, the number of hours and the location, and he would go back and pull out that information. The Mayor stated that the City Manager was taking a lot of other actions in the City that would be taking a great deal more time than what was being discussed. He did not know why he needed special dispensation at this point. Mr. Talley stated he was just advising the Council that he would do it durinz normal City business hours. He did not mind devoting I00 hours a week of his own time to activities that would benefit the City. However, he felt tha~ when someone was obviously on some other type of mission, he did not want to do so unless directed. The Mayor stated, in reference to some other type of mission, he had been opposed to the contract from the very beginning and there was no changing his position. He and the City Manager had met privately a number of times talking man to man. What he wanted was a ~ull disclosure to the public of his (Talley's) activities, the benefits he was receiving, as well as salary. He wanted the world to know and to the degree that the City Manager or any Council Member chose to block that process, then the voters could decide. Mr. Talley stated that he did not intend to block the process at all and he (Seymour) could a~k for anything he wanted to ask for. Councilman Overholt questioned, in order to simplify the process, if the City Manager could submit a summary of activities for. the past year taken from his appointment book, with the understanding that there may be an error in minutes or hour~ to see if that was what the Council was looking for. Then, ~fmmore information was needed, he could subsequently go into more detail. The Mayor stated it was only a matter of checking his calendar, or expense accounts or checking with the various non-profit corporations. Mr. Talley gave an example where he was asked to speak at a local Chamber of Commerce meeting. He did so and would expect that would be a City and not a personal event; the Mayor agreed. Mr. Talley asked if from January 1, 1979 to June 30, 1980 would be sufficient, and, if not, he would go further; the Mayor asked that his research cover the last two years. Mr. Talley was agreeable. 80-1012 City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - August 12, 1980, 1:30 P.M. Mr. Talley then reported that on July 6, 1976, Council Members Kaywood, Seymour, Kott, Roth and Thom adopted his City Manager contract unanimously with all of the provisions included that were discussed today; Councilman Overholt noted the only exceptions being the term and six months' notice. Mayor Seymour stated, because he made a mistake once, he should not continue to make the same. 105: RESIGNATION OF BRUCE UNDERWOOD FROM THE ANAHEIM YOUTH COMMISSION: On motion by Councilman Roth, seconded by Councilwoman Kaywood, the resignation of Bruce Underwood from the Anaheim Youth Commission was accepted, with regret, with a letter of thanks to be sent for his service and declaring a vacancy on the Youth Commission. MOTION CARRIED. 162: COMMUNITY PRIDE PROGRAM: Mr. Gene Beyer, Director, requesting funding in the amount of $2,500 for the Community Pride project (continued from the meeting of August 5, 1980). Mr. Gene Beyer, Director of the subject program, first confirmed for Councilman Roth that they did, in fact, receive a commitment from the City of Orange for $9,900 and Villa Park as well for $1,000. The Mayor stated it was a "super" program and that someday he would like to see it City-wide. MOTION: Councilman Seymour moved to approve $2,500 to be appropriated from the Council Contingency Fund for the Community Pride project. Councilman Roth seconded the motion. Before a vote was taken, Councilman Overholt stated that one of the tremendous things about the program was the fact that it was funded not only from the private sector, from parent groups, service groups and now, three municipal agencies and the Orange Unified School District. The fact that it was a com- bined effort having a positive impact on a segment of the community was what was so marvelous about it. Mr. Beyer also stated that they would be continuing to raise money in addition to the money obtained from the cities. They tried to keep it at the grass roots level as much as possible. A vote was then taken on the foregoing motion. MOTION CARRIED. 179: JAPANESE THERAPY CENTER - REQUEST FOR TWO-YEAR EXTENSION OF TIME TO THE PERIOD OF ABATEMENT: Robert and .Amy Harding, requesting a two-year extension of time to the period of abatement set forth in Subsection 18.89.040 of the Code relating to Adult Entertainment (continued from the meeting of August 5, 1980 for receipt of undue hardship evidence). City Clerk Linda Roberts noted that evidence of undue hardship had been sub- mitted in letter dated August 7, 1980, signed by Mr. Robert W. Harding. 80-1013 City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - August 12, 1980, 1:30 P.M. MOTION: Councilman Seymour moved that a two-year extension of time to the period of abatement set forth in Subsection 18.89.040 of the Anaheim Municipal Code relating to Adult Entertainment be granted, as requested, based upon evidence submitted in a letter dated August 7, 1980, from Robert W. Harding, that undue hardship had been demonstrated by the Japanese Therapy Center. Councilman Roth seconded the motion. Before a vote was taken, Councilman Overholt stated that he had questions to ask of Mr. Harding. The City Attorney announced that Mr. Harding had indicated his willingness to make any statements under oath relating to his hardship. City Clerk Linda Roberts thereupon administered the oath to the petitioner that the testimony he was about to give was true and correct to the best of his belief and knowledge; both Mr. and Mrs. Harding answered affirmatively. Councilman Overholt, speaking to Mr. Harding, stated that he had presented a letter dated August 7, 1980 indicating in the event he was forced to close the Japanese Therapy Center in accordance with the City Adult Entertainment ordinance they could suffer a financial loss that would not be replaceable, in the total sum of $20,800, and he itemized those improvements in his letter (see letter dated August 7, 1980 on file in the City Clerk's office). He asked Mr. Harding if that statement was true and correct. Mr. Harding answered "yes". He then explained what led up to the move. They had been in Anaheim for 10 years prior to the last move and would still have been at their previous location had their lease been extended. A new man pur- chased the building and he (Harding.) could not quite understand some of the laws involved. The previous owner told him that he had a five-year option, but the new man wanted them out in 30 days. It was not possible to find a place in 30 days and several people found the present location which at the time was very much in need of improvements. He then described some of the conditions of the building which had to be improved and he had documentation, if necessary, for all that was spent on those improvements. He could also verify the trouble they had in acquiring the building. They also did not know at the time that they were going to move that the City was in the process of adding the new Code Section. They had submitted their plans to the Planning Department who knew about the new provision, but still let them move. Had they known of th~ new ordinance provisions, they would have tried to move into a hospital, since Fullerton Community Hospital had space at the time and thus, they could have avoided the Adult Entertainment stigma attached to the art of shiatsu which he explained, and also acupressure. Relative tO the improvements, it was important to have a good appearance for the public they were serving which included the Mayors of two or three cities, as well as people from the Walter Knott clan. Councilman Overholt was cognizant of the excellent recommendations that the Japanese Therapy Center had, but he maintained the issue was whether there was undue hardship. He asked if the maker of the motion would include that the extension, if granted, be limited only to the use of the premises by Robert Harding and Amy Harding and that it would not apply to any other buyers; the Mayor was agreeable to adding that to this motion. 80-1014 City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - August 12, 1980, 1:30 P.M. Councilman Bay, speaking to the City Attorney, stated his only concern in the whole matter, which had nothing at all to do with the integrity of the business, if the Council ruled that on the basis of $20,000 plus investment which occurred during the passage of the ordinance, was that it would open up a two-year extension to any massage parlor that would come to the Council between now and December if they could show certain dollars invested which would be lost if they were pdt out of business. Also he questioned if it would open up the City's ordinance to abate massage parlors to where they would more than likely have to give two years on every other request that was submitted on a like basis. City Attorney Hopkins stated that the present ordinance provided that the extension may be granted upon a determination by the granting body, i.e., the City Council, that such an extension was reasonably necessary to prevent undue hardship. He believed that the Hardings represented an unusual cir- cumstance where they had a facility and had to move and during that period the Adult Entertainment ordinance went into effect. Each case would have to be judged on its own merits as to hardship, and the City Council would have that determination to make. If other Adult Entertainment activities presented a hardship, not only financial but other types that could result, the Council would have to make that decision at the time as to the degree of hardship. The Harding situation was an extreme case because of the double move. A vote was then taken on the foregoing motion, including the stipulation by Councilman Overholt. Councilman Bay voted "no". MOTION CARRIED. 135: SETTING A DATE FOR HEARING/WORKSHOP ON GOLF COURSE OPERATIONS: (continued from the meeting of July 29 and August 5, 1980) City Manager William Talley, referring to his report dated August 11, 1980--Review of Golf Course Operations and Maintenance Alternatives, noted that it was composed of approximately a little more than four pages attached to which were Exhibits A through X. They had answered, or attempted to answer, all the questions posed at the meeting of July 29, 1980 (see minutes that date) and to the best of their knowledge had included all staff contacts and all activities they could recall since 1978 when the Council held a meeting on the matter. Staff recommended that they continue the process that they thought had been approved and subsequently bring infor- mation to the Council approximately October 1, 1980 upon which they could make a decision. However, he recommended that the Council determine its policy in the matter as to whether they wanted to continue the process which he assumed met with Council's approval. Councilman Roth first referred to Exhibit '~" and in reading it yesterday after- noon, he noted it was undated and unclear. Tom Liegler, Stadium, Convention Center and Golf General Manager, explained that the notes were made the same date as the Liaison meeting of April 30, 1980. Those were not official, but merely notes he took at the meeting as he always did. Councilman Roth then asked if all the items listed on the agenda were discussed at the meeting and, if so, at the Liaison meeting with representatives of the Golf Course Commission was the possibility of seeking proposals for management of the Courses discussed. 80-1015 City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - August 12, 1980, 1:30 P.M. Mr. Liegler stated that was correct; Councilman Roth stated that was what he wanted to know since at the Council meeting two weeks ago, it sounded like it had never been discussed prior to that date. MOTION: Councilman Seymour moved to set a hearing to discuss the entire matter with the Golf Course Commission and the public at large two weeks from today at an evening meeting. Before action was taken, Councilwoman Kaywood stated she had not had an oppor- tunity to read the report. She just got it today and it was very lengthy. Councilman Overholt stated he might not be available on the 26th of August; City Manager Talley stated he would be present on the 19th, but not on August 26th and September 2nd. Councilman Overholt stated he would prefer to have the meeting next Tuesday, August 19, 1980. The Mayor thereupon amended his motion that the meeting be held next Tuesday, August 19, 1980, at 7:00 p.m., in the Council Chambers. Councilwoman Kaywood asked if they would have enough information at that time to have any reason for having a meeting or should they wait until they did have such information. Councilman Overholt seconded the motion. Councilwoman Kaywood stated she would like the opportunity to read the report and ascertain if there was any reason for a meeting; the Mayor suggested that · she could then vote "no" to the motion. Before a vote was taken, Councilman Bay stated his understanding of what had happened up to now, and he had not had an opportunity to study all the infor- mation either. There was a Liaison meeting as evidenced by Exhibit "W" attended by Councilman Overholt and Mayor Seymour and some people from the Golf Course Commission and one of the things discussed was solicitation of proposals to look into possible ways to save money or possibly go to private enterprise for management of the Golf Courses without going into detail. A few weeks ago at a Golf Course Commission meeting, staff brought forward a recommendation that they proceed with soliciting the proposals and to look at ways of saving money on the continual year-after-year loss on the Golf Courses. To him, that was a perfectly normal function of City staff whether directed or not, to look at ways to save the City money. He also did not understand the press forwa work- shop or public hearing when the normal process was underway. Somewhere in the middle of the process, the Council, specifically Mayor Seymour, chose to interrupt that process and call for a public workshop with the Council and Commission when, in fact, the Commission and staff were doing not only what they were directed by implication from the Liaison meeting, but also the normal way to do anything. He did not think it was right, nor normal routine, for the Council to step into that process and call for a public hearing in a hurry. He did not see any need for that and he had not from the beginning. He felt that staff should have an opportunity to go back to that Commission, answer the questions asked, and then the Commission could take its action or whatever it saw fit to do and recommend its action to the Council. The Commission and 80-1016 City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - August 12, 1980, 1:30 P.M. staff could bring it to the Council and at that time, if they decided they had to have a public workshop and air the whole issue publicly, that would be acceptable. However, he did not feel until those figures were obtained and questions answered at the Commission level any urgent need to place that before the Council nor a workshop. Councilman Roth stated he could not agree more and that was the point he was trying to make a week ago. Until they had all the documentation necessary, they could not make an intelligent approach as to what they might want to do. He maintained it should be held over until sometime in September when the Council would have all documentation, including any proposals, and then a hearing held. Mayor Seymour stated that the Anaheim Bulletin article of July 18, 1980 which was a part of Exhibit "V" should give every Council Member enough concern merely by the questions raised by the Commission itself. Councilman Bay would lead someone to believe that the Golf Course Commission was in favor when, in fact, to an individual they were in opposition in one form or to some degree or another with the process that was taking place. He thereupon quoted from the article statements made by Commissioner Bartholomew and Riddell, the reason for doing so being to refute the idea that everything was "peaches and cream". What the Golf Course Commission was trying to do, as well as quite a large number of people, was to make the matter public and get it aired. He did not disagree with the proposal and its objectives and if it were possible to do a better job in any area of the City, he would support such a move and had always done so in the past. However, it was a process that was of concern not only to the Golf Course Commission, but also to members of the public at large. Relative to interrupting the process, there was no need to stop any process. The City Manager accused him of interrupting the administrative process pre- viously and he did not know how he had done so merely by asking what was going on. They all had a right to know and thus the purpose of the hearing would be to receive input, not only from the Golf Course Commission who previously had some grevious concerns about the matter, but also to hear from the general public. He did not understand how any Member of the Council would want to keep the information from the public unless there was some hidden agenda that he did not know about. They had not dialogued the matter with the Commission and he felt that they should. That was why he offered the motion from the beginning, on which he would urge a positive vote. Councilman Roth stated that the Mayor twisted words to the point where he indi- cated certain Council Members did not want to bring the matter to the public. He maintained that until staff solicited proposals and obtained information, they did not have enough information. His opinion was that there would always be an Anaheim Hills Golf Course since it was a spill-way for the 950,000,000 gallons of water upstream in the Walnut Canyon Reservoir. There was not a plot to make it a cemetery or utilize it for housing. He felt that if the Anaheim Hills Course was losing $6 per player, it was alarming enough that the staff had a responsibility to submit proposals to the Council. They may reject such proposals and consider it justified to subsidize play, but he was looking for proposals in order to make a decision and to rush into the matter within the next week, would only result in the necessity for another hearing. 80-1017 City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - August 12, 1980, 1:30 P.M. After further discussion between the Mayor and Councilman Roth, Councilman Overholt stated that he was supportive of the hearing which he felt would air the matter and dispel apprehension that obviously existed on the part of two members of the Golf Course Commission who came out strongly against something before they saw it. His understanding of the workshop was that it would be a session participated in by the Council, by the Commission, by the management team and by the public. Council already voted for the meeting and the only issue was when. Mayor Seymour then clarified for the Council the motion that he made at the meeting of July 29, 1980. He read from a transcript of a portion of the meeting when the subject was discussed wherein there was a unanimous vote of the Council that a public hearing/workshop be set. Councilman Roth emphasized that he and Councilman Bay had repeatedly said they were not opposed to having a hearing, but wanted to be certain they had data available in order to make an intelligent decision as to how to proceed. Councilwoman Kaywood referred to the Storm Drain Bond issue when the Mayor seconded her motion to put the measure on the ballot and indicated he would sign the argument for, after reading it. She showed him the rough copy last evening and the Mayor stated that it was fine, but today told her he would not sign it, nor give any reason for not doing so. Apparently it had become her issue, rather than a Storm Drain Bond Issue. Thus, she was having very grave doubts wondering what was his hidden agenda. She was not going to sit still for it, and she was not going to open up anything for it. When they had the information for the hearing, that was when she would be very happy to have the hearing. Mayor Seymour responded in order to clarify the Storm Drain matter, he voted to place it on the ballot to let the people decide and stated upon review of what- ever her argument was going to be, he would determine whether or not he would sign it. He did not say he was going to sign it. He did not see the comparison between the Storm Drain issue and the Golf Course issue, and he did not know how she could confuse those two issues. A vote was called for on the foregoing motion. Councilwoman Kaywood voted "no". Before the vote was completed, Councilman Bay asked that the motion be restated. Mayor Seymour clarified the motion as follows: that a hearing be held on August 19, 1980, at 7:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers to discuss the process and the work that had been completed relative to the feasibility of turning the public Golf Courses over to private management companies. Councilwoman Kaywood asked if there would then be a second meeting when the proposals were received from private management; the Mayor stated that the law would require such a public hearing. Councilman Overholt, noting that Mr. Bob Messe, Chairman of the Golf Course Commission, was present in the Chambers asked if a workshop to be held on next Tuesday evening was agreeable; Mr. Messe answered that it would be fine. 80-1018 City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - August 12, 1980, 1:30 P.M. A final vote was then taken on the motion. Councilwoman Kaywood stated she was going to change her "no" vote to "yes" just to confuse the Mayor. MOTION CARRIED. City Clerk Roberts asked, for technical purposes, if they could refer to the meeting as a workshop because there would be insufficient time for advertising a formal public hearing; the Mayor stated that was acceptable. He also stated that he woUld like not only the Commission notified, but also would like to get the word to others interested in the Golf Courses. Councilman Roth recalled that the last time, Dan Salceda of Anaheim Hills, Inc., sent letters out to the residents of Anaheim Hills and perhaps he would be willing to do that again. The letter should be structured to advise that a discussion and workshop was going to be held relative to the losses experienced by the Hills Course and looking at the possibilities of having free enterprise manage the Courses and not for the purposes of rezoning the land or doing any- thing else. Mr. Dan Salceda, Anaheim Hills, Inc., answered he would be very willing to submit a letter to all residents in the Anaheim Hills area. He also suggested, however, that he would ask City Manager Talley to help him author the letter, so that it would state exactly the concerns of the Council. The Mayor asked Mr. Talley if he would be willing to assist; Mr. Talley stated if the Council directed him to do so; however, he was confused as to why they kept restricting the process to just the Anaheim Hills area. If they were talking about the Golf Courses and costs, were they only talking about Anaheim Hills. The Mayor emphatically answered "no", but the entire City. They should also find a way to contact those in the West, East and Central portions of Anaheim as well. He wanted as wide a distribution and spectrum of attendance as pos- sible. He guessed they could attempt to begin to do that by contacting various organizations and trying to work through them. Councilman Bay stated that they could place an advertisment in the Anaheim Bulletin, not a legal one, but one indicating they were going to hold a workshop. Councilwoman Kaywood stated she would think with four members of the press present from different newspapers there would be publicity and she would not be in favor of spending any taxpayer funds to advertise the meeting. RECESS: By general consent, the Council recessed for 20 minutes. (3:20 P.M.) AFTER RECESS: Mayor Seymour called the meeting to order, all Council Members being present. (3:40 P.M.) 106/174: PUBLIC HEARING - FEDERAL GENERAL REVENUE SHARING BUDGET: To consider amendments to the Federal General Revenue Sharing Budget receipts for Fiscal Year 1980-81. The Mayor asked if anyone wished to speak relative to the proposed amendments to the Federal General Revenue Sharing Budget receipts for Fiscal Year 1980-81; no one wished to speak. 80-1019 City Hall~ Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - AuHust 12, 1980, 1:30 P.M. The Mayor closed the public hearing. On motion by Councilman Roth, seconded by Councilman Overholt, amendments were approved to the 1980-80 Federal General Revenue Sharing Budget as detailed in the report from the City Manager dated August 12, 1980. MOTION CARRIED 155: PUBLIC HEARING - AREA DEVELOPMENT PLAN NO. 108 AND NEGATIVE DECLARATION: Request by N. W. Ranill, Realty World-Ranill Realty, for an amendment to Area Development Plan No. 108, Exhibit "D", to delete a portion of La Mesa Avenue, west of White Star Avenue and north of the Riverside Freeway, in order to develop property with an industrial complex on proposed ML zoned property bounded on the north by La Palma Avenue, the east by Kraemer Boulevard, and on the south and west by the Riverside Freeway. The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC80-109, recommended that the subject plan be exempt from the requirement to prepare an environmental impact report and further, denied Exhibit "E" of the subject plan. The action of the City Planning Commission was appealed by Mr. N. W. Ranitl, and public hearing scheduled this date. Mayor Seymour said he was going to abstain from participation and voting on the subject since he believed one of his sales associates was involved in the listing of the subject property. He thereupon turned the Chairmanship of the meeting over to Mayor Pro Tem Overholt. Councilman Seymour left the Council Chamber. (3:45 P.M.) Miss Santalahti described the location and surrounding land uses. She outlined the findings given in the staff report which was submitted to and considered by the City Planning Commission. She also referred to and elaborated upon Exhibits "D" and "E" posted on the Chamber wall. Mayor Pro Tem Overholt noted that they had received a letter from the law office of Floyd L. Farano dated August 12, 1980 which he requested be read into the record. The City Clerk thereupon read the letter (made a part of the record) in which Mr. Farano advised that his office represented the owner of certain properties located directly adjacent to the western boundary line of the County line, south of La Palma Avenue and north of the Riverside Freeway. His client and others in the area had developed the property in reliance on the fact that La Mesa Avenue was to be a through street and would provide a much needed access to the establishments in the area. To delete the proposed portion of La Mesa would cause the property owners a great hardship. They urged that the City Council deny the petition to delete the proposed portion of La Mesa Avenue. Mayor Pro Tem Overholt also noted the letter received from Carrie H. Coykendall, dated August 8, 1980 also urging that the request be denied (made a part of the record). The Mayor Pro Tem asked if the applicant or applicant's agent was present and desirous of being heard. Mr. Nick Ranill, applicant, stated that the letter from Floyd L. Farano just read did not really talk about the real issue. Their main complaint would be that it would block their window to the freeway. He felt they did not have 80-1020 City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - August 12, 1980, 1:30 P.M. freeway-oriented property. It was a piece of property owned in fee by other individuals that, if developed, would block their window to the freeway. As good businessmen, he was certain they wanted to get all the exposure they could for their businesses, but at the sacrifice of another property owner to develop his property. Mr. Ranill continued that the Planning Department recommended approval of his project and the Traffic Engineer also recommended approval and said that he 'had no objection to it. He (Ranill) felt that the street did not serve any purpose although he agreed that it might make for better traffic circulation. However, he questioned how they could justify to their constituents an inverse condemnation proceeding and paying in the neighborhood of $800,000 for that property to later construct a street and taking a piece of property off the tax rolls that could provide thousands of dollars in tax benefits to the City. Councilman Bay asked, if along the area south of White Star and in that whole triangle, if he owned a great deal of that property. Mr. Ranill answered "no". The only piece was about 97,000 square feet of land. The roadway would take approximately 73% of that. Their property ranged from the cul-de-sac at White Star to the west, almost to the line at Canal Street indicated in red on the posted Exhibit, which was the northerly boundary of the property. It was about 12,000 feet long and 100 feet wide, and a 64-foot street would take 73% of the property, leaving him virtually nothing and creating a hardship. Councilman Bay asked how long he had owned the property; Mr. Ranill stated the one piece had been in his client's family since 1915 and the other piece a gentlemen acquired from Caltrans in approximately 1974 or 1976. The property had been sold three or four times and no one had ever brought it to issue. It had never closed in escrow because it had been denied before anybody ever got started. Councilman Bay stated on August 3, 1971 when the City Council at that time approved ADP No. 108 where it designated it would become a street, he asked if Mr. Ranill was the owner of the property. Mr. Ranill answered "no" but that the Dinkler's owned the property, the uncle of his client who now owned the property. He did not know if they came to speak against that at the time, but he knew that his clients were never aware of the plan until they got into the development process. He was requesting development of the property or for the City to condemn it, take it, and pay them for it. They would like to develop the property as it would be an asset to the City and provide a better tax base. As far as the Coykendalls were concerned, development of the property could be served by three streets. It fronted on La Palma Avenue, it had frontage all the way down to White Star, and the cul-de-sac proposed would also serve their property in the southwestern corner and thus, that access was nowhere near a problem for them. 80-1021 City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - August 12, 1980, 1:30 P.M. Councilwoman Kaywood asked if the property Mr. Ranill indicated was purchased very reasonably from Caltrans in 1974 or 1976, was a freeway remnant. Mr. Ranill indicated that was correct. The other piece had been owned by the family and was severed from the original acreage when the freeway went through. Councilwoman Kaywood then asked if any improvements had been made to the remnant piece of property; Mr. Ranill answered "no". Councilwoman Kaywood stated therefore that, in effect, it was still the same reasonable piece of property if nothing had been done to it. Mr. Ranill stated that property values had escalated in the County throughout the years and that property had as well appreciated in value. Councilwoman Kaywood stated she was curious about the figure Mr. Ranill gave for condemnation of $800,000; Mr. Ranill explained it was roughly $8 a square foot which comparable property was selling for. Councilwoman ~Kaywood asked if that was with or without access; Mr. Ranill answered that it did not matter, there was access by combining both parcels. Miss Santalahti stated that she wanted to make a correction to what Mr. Ranill had said. He had stated that the Planning Department and the Traffic Engineer recommended approval. However, neither, Planning certainly, had recommended approval, and the Traffic Engineer's comments were based on what was existing at the present time, namely, a fully industrial area. As they were aware, they were looking at the possibility of perhaps an industrial-commercial zone or certain areas in the industrial area which might appropriately include certain commercial types of uses which existed northeast of the property. In view of that, the Police Department would be particularly concerned if a front- age road such as the one under discussion were deleted. Another point, in 1971 when the ADP was originally considered by both Planning Commission and City Council public hearings, staff set up a specific meeting in the morning before the public hearing and notified all affected property owners at that time. The Dinklers were among the people notified. As far as she knew, at the public hearings Mrs. Coykendall was the only one who spoke. Al- though she was not positive, she was the only one referenced. Thus, everybody was notified once to come to a special meeting and the second time the normal notification where everybody, including those 300 feet away, were invited to attend the public hearing. Mr. Ranill then read from the staff report to the Planning Commission dated June 30, 1980, Page llb--"The Planning Commission may wish to adopt Exhibit "E", thereby amending Area Development Plan No. 108 to delete that portion of La Mesa Avenue between the Anaheim City Limits and the southerly terminus of White Star Avenue." He also quoted from Page lla of that report--"The Traffic Engineer has ind.icated he has no objection to subject deletion provided a cul- de-sac is provided for turnarounds at the easterly terminus of the improved portion of La Mesa Avenue." 80-1022 City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - August 12, 1980, 1:30 P.M. Miss Santalahti clarified that was not a recommendation, but indicated they may wish to adopt Exhibit "E"; Mr. Ranill countered that it also did not say they should not approve it. Several Council Members explained that the report never would say that, that they were not allowed to say that, and that it was one of many options. Mayor Pro Tem Overholt asked if anyone wished to speak in favor of the request. Mr. David Carson stated that his company, Carson Enterprises, in 1970 purchased a state remnant from the State Department of Transportation which was a 28,000- square foot parcel on the east end of the White Star cul-de-sac. They were not advised of the rezoning in 1971. Miss Santalahti explained that such a situation arose every so often. The Assessor's tax rslls were used as a basis for their mailing lists. They had real property verify after the Planning Commission action that the names ap- pearing on the list were the names on the tax assessment rolls in effect on the date mail-out was made. It was still shown as Caltrans property, and there was about a year's lapse of time involved on any sales that occurred. Unfortunately, there was no way of knowing about it. Councilman Roth stated it was not required by law to be advised by mail, and only a public notice in a newspaper of general circulation was required. The mailing was a courtesy of the City to locate owners when zoning was involved. Mr. Crawford explained that they went to obtain a permit since they wanted to put a facility on the property at this time and when they did so were advised that they would not be issued one, because the property was master planned for a street. They ~favored abandonment to the west on the stipulation that they wanted it abandoned to the east, so that they could construct a building. They were not there when it was rezoned, and he wanted to know where they were left in the whole situation. Miss Santalahti stated that unfortunately they were not covered by the proposed amendment to the ADP. This one only covered the westerly extension of La Mesa Avenue. If the Council were to look favorably on the request and overturn the Commission action, another amendment to the ADP would have to be made taking out the easterly section as well. Mr. Crawford stated they would like to go on record that they were for the abandonment of the westerly end on the stipulation that the easterly end would also be abandoned. Mr. Lowell Dukleth, 1268 West Shelly Lane, Santa Ana, stated he was the owner of the westerly portion of the Ranill parcel which he secured from the freeway people as a remnant in about 1976. It was County at the present time, zoned M-lO for oil production, 20,000. No one at the County level advised him that there were any plans for a road through the area. He suggested that perhaps there was a communication gap between Anaheim and the County. He was unaware of it until he had a buyer. The reason he was able to purchase it for a very reasonable price was because it was a "landlocked" parcel. Combining it with the adjoining parcel solved the problem. He considered it a good use for the .& 80-1023 City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - August 12, 1980, 1:30 P.M. property. At such time as the property to the north, the Coykendall's property, will be developed, they wou~d have to provide the roads at that time as a condition of Subdivision Map tract. The properties Mr. Ranill was combining had frontage on White Star. They did not need .the road and the Coykendalls did not want the road. He would recommend that Council adopt Exhibit "E". Councilwoman Kaywood asked if he read letter dated August 8, 1980 from Mrs. Coykendall indicating that they did want the street to go through. Mr. Carson stated, through his property however. He had not read the letter. The Mayor Pro Tem then asked if anyone wished to speak in opposition. Mr. Dick Broadway, IPS Companies, explained that they developed, owned and managed the 25-acre site, La Palma Business Park on the northeasterly side of White Star, south of La Palma Avenue. He was present today to encourage the Council to uphold the action of the Planning Commission and deny the appeal. Mr. Broadway continued that the Area Development Plan contained approximately 80 acres and that over 80% of the property had presently been developed relying on ADP No. 108 and the street alignments shown thereon. When they developed the La Palma Business Park, like any prudent developer, they went to the City and looked at what the City was desirous of in the way of street alignments, drainage, utilities, etc. They adhered entirely to ADP No. 108 and created Armando Street, and it was entirely on the westerly leg. They also dedicated and posted a bond for street improvements on the portion of the property fronting on La Mesa Avenue. He was also confused when Mr. Ranill stated his clients had owned the property since 1915 because a check with the title company indicated that one parcel was purchased in 1972 and the other from Caltrans in 1976. The La Mesa Avenue alignment had been on the books for nearly 10 years. The property constituted approximately two and one-half percent of the overall land contained in ADP No. 108. Since 80% of the properties had developed relying on the future alignment and configuration, they had constructed and developed all their buildings oriented towards not only La Mesa Avenue, but also Armando, White Star, etc. Thus, the request to approve Exhibit "E" would be a definite hard- ship on the majority of property owners in that area It had been his experience that remnant parcels purchased from Caltrans were purchased for a very small amount of money. The intent of the frontage road was not only for good traffic circulation, but also intended to provide an image industrial area in the northeast industrial region. He believed that had been accomplished. For the most part, all of the development was good- looking with landscaping, proper setbacks, etc. He maintained if La Mesa Avenue was deleted and buildings were constructed right up to the freeway, they would have a very undesirable appearance and such action would destroy the majority of that area. The street was both vital and necessary not only to La Palma Business Park, but also to the entire 80-acre Area De-;elopment Plan No~ 108. He encouraged the Council to uphold the Planning Commission's action. Councilwoman Kaywood asked how they knew there was an ADP or street proposed in that area. 80-1024 City Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - Augus. t 12~ 1980, 1:30 P.M. Mr. Broadway answered, in 1977 when they were entertaining developing what was now La Palma Business Park, he conducted meetings with members of City staff in Engineering, Planning, Utilities and so forth. Any prudent developer did the same and they tried to identify from the outset what would be required, potential problems, and they subsequently approached their design and develop- ment based upon that information. Development was a very risky business and in any event in every development company he knew of, and he had been in the business for 15 years, proceeded accordingly. Mrs. Carrie Coykmndall, 15332 East La PRima, stated all they heard was the claim of hardship on La Mesa Avenue, but they knew the risk when they bought a small piece of property from the State in 1976, which property was landlocked. They paid taxes for four years and she had paid taxes on the property for 58 years. She felt the Council should consider their support of the property for 58 years. If they favored the request, the hardship would be pushed onto the other property owners. It would damage them by the denial Of access on La Mesa Avenue as a free flowing street. As stated in her letter, they have one- half of their entire length of White Star, 150 feet wide through their property, for La Mesa Avenue, some for the Riverside Freeway, and some was going to be needed for the completion of La Mesa Avenue. If La Mesa was deleted, the whole area would suffer damage from lack of circulation. They were asking that La Mesa Avenue be completed as the City planned it for the benefit of the whole area. They did not think they should be asked to give another road through their property. In rebuttal, Mr. Ranill first wanted to clarify the ownership of the properties. Part of the property was excess Caltrans property and the other piece was owned by the Dinklers at the time of the Area Development Plan adoption in 1971. It was sold or given to his nephews. At that time, there was no mention made of the ADP. In checking on the property, it was in the County, it was zoned M-1 and they would be allowed to do whatever they wanted there.' The big problem lay in the fact that Anaheim would have to supply utilities and the City would not do so until the land was annexed. When investigating the annexation pro- cedure, it was then they learned of the ADP. He did not feel their request was unreasonable. He could see the IPS viewpoint in looking across at other buildings, but it was still a free enterprise system. He questioned if they felt the benefit of all would be served by the frontage road or by productive growth in that area by buildings being added that would fill a demand. He felt that was the basis of the question. Councilman Roth then posed several questions to Mr. Ranill regarding the property and his knowledge as to what was going to occur on it. At the conclusion of discussion and questioning, Councilman Roth stated that he was supportive of Mr. Ranill's efforts attempting to change the Area Development Plan, but he did not want the public to think the City was taking action arbitrarily. For ten years, information was available to anybody who had looked at the property, listed or sold it. To clarify a point, Mr. Carson explained that before they bought the property from the State, they found it was M-1 and not Master Planned for a street at the time. They did plan later on to build something on it which they were present to do. They were not landlocked, but had access from White Star. He 80-I025 City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - AuRust 12, 1980, 1:30 P.M. reiterated they had 28,000 square feet and an adequate piece of property for their purposes. If they were not going to install a through street, he questioned why they would not issue a building permit and let them build something on the property. Councilman Seymour entered the Council Chamber. (4:10 P.M.) There being no further persons who wished to speak, the Mayor Pro Tem closed the public hearing. Councilman Roth stated he had to agree with not only the Planning Commission, but also staff in their claim that there was a serious situation relative to circulation in the industrial area and it was vital for orderly growth that La Mesa Avenue should go through. He would support the Planning Commission's denial on Exhibit "E". ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT - NEGATIVE DECLARATION: On motion by Councilman Bay, seconded by Councilwoman Kaywood, the City Council finds that this project would have no significant individual or cumulative adverse environmental impact due to the approval of the negative declaration; that no sensitive environmental impacts are involved in the proposal and that the initial study submitted by the petitioner indicates no individual or cumulative adverse environmental impacts and is, therefore, exempt from the requirement to prepare an EIR. Councilman Seymour abstained. MOTION CARRIED. Councilwoman Kaywood offered Resolution No. 80R-359 for adoption, denying Exhibit "E" of Area Development Plan No. 108, upholding the findings of the City Planning Commission. Refer to Resolution Book. RESOLUTION NO. 80R-359: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM DENYING AREA DEVELOPMENT PLAN NO. 108, EXHIBIT E. Before a vote was taken, Mayor Pro Tem Overholt stated he agreed with Councilman Roth and that there were many things to be said for retaining ADP No. 108. A vote was then taken on the foregoing resolution. Roll Call Vote: AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Overholt, Kaywood, Bay and Roth NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: None ABSTAINED: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Seymour ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: None The Mayor Pro Tem declared Resolution No. 80R-359 duly passed and adopted. 103: PROPERTY TAX EXCHANGE AGREEMENT WI~H THE COUNTY: Continuance of discussion relating to a pending property tax exchange agreement with the County on property annexed to the City between January 2, 1978 and July 24, 1979, (continued from meetings of April 8 and 29, May 27 and July 8, 1980). 80-1026 City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - August 12, 1980, 1:30 P.M. City Clerk Roberts announced that staff requested a 30-day continuance of the subject. Councilman Roth moved to continue consideration of the subject for 30 days, as requested by staff. Councilman Overholt seconded the motion. Before a vote was taken, City Manager Talley explained that the committee appointed by the League of California Cities had sent to City Managers Association a proposed tax allocation proposal that was being reviewed by the Planning and Program Development people. Basically it was perhaps as good a document or a solution as they could expect. Recently the State Legislature which included besides the City-County problem, special districts taking them back almost to ground zero in certain areas. They did not have any problems right now with existing developers relative to what was formerly considered under the agree- ment. There had been an expression by Anaheim Hills with respect to some of the engineering-type permits, as opposed to grading permits. He had requested them to communicate by letter with him on any of those that might cause them problems, and he would bring those to the Council for resolution. When they started the process, they did not anticipate that the State would amend special districts. Mr. Talley then explained for Councilman Bay that before they were talking about annexation of territories and a split of tax revenues between the City and the County. However, recently they also said they wanted to make computations to take in the split of tax revenues between the City and the County and special districts if they were rendering any services. In some areas in Anaheim Hills territory, they were working in areas covered by special districts. Rather than hold them up in their plans relative to engineering, he had told them to send him a letter if any of the work they wanted done was going to be held up, and he would bring that to the Council for resolution. Councilman Bay asked in his opinion then, even though they had gone through a lengthy process of negotiating and coming to a solution, he still had every confidence they they would accomplish the same thing with the special districts but that it would just take more time. Mr. Talley stated he believed that would become a very minor part of the Anaheim problem, but that might be greater with regard to the County. Mr. Dan Salceda, Anaheim Hills, Inc., stated that in May, they went to the Orange County Sanitation District to annex Area 19 into the Sanitation District at which time there was a particular provision of the agreement such that they would pay to the District any monies that they had historically received from either the City or the County or the developer prior to AB8. It was his sus- picion, therefore, that for those special districts, they would continue to occur in their development so that there would not be any AB8 impact to the special districts on their projects. They would be paying the Sanitation District any monies that they would be losing because of AB8. A vote was then taken on the foregoing motion. MOTION CARRIED. 80-1027 City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - August 12, 1980, i:30 P.M. RECLASSIFICATION NO. 76-77-56 - EXTENSION OF TIME: Submitted by William Morris, Bonmor Development Corporation, requesting an extension of time to Reclassifi- cation No. 76-77-56, proposed RS-7200 zoned property, to establish a 17-lot subdivision on property located at the southwest corner of the intersection of Arboretum Road and Quintana Drive. On motion by Councilman Roth, seconded by Councilman Overholt, an extension of time was approved, to expire July 5, 1981 on Reclassification No. 76-77-56, as recommended by the Zoning Division in memorandum dated August 6, 1980. MOTION CARRIED. 177: STATUS REPORT OF FREMONT AND APOLLO JUNIOR HIGH SCHOOLS: Recommendation by the City Planning Commission that the City Council send a letter to the Anaheim Union High School District Board indicating the City's concerns rela- tive to housing for low- and moderate-income families and the Planning Commis- sions's willingness to participate in a joint meeting with the School Board, the Community Redevelopment Commission and the Housing Commission, to discuss future development and land uses of surplus school sites (continued from meeting of August 5, 1980). Mr. Ron Thompson, Planning Director, reported that the Planning Commission had been wrestling with the problem of providing affordable and low- and moderate- income housing and wished to go on record with the Council and the School Distirct that they would be happy to sit down with the District and any of the pertinent committees to discuss future land uses on the subject surplus school sites. The School District was going to bid them without respect to future land use and zoning and thus the Planning Commission would be glad to, up front, get everything started with respect to initiating any appropriate general plan amend- ment and zoning that would be necessary so that it would not delay any plans that might be forthcoming for the reuse of the school sites for some type of low, mod- erate and affordable housing. Councilman Roth asked if it were true that the School Board passed a resolution to offer the properties for sale within the next 60 days. Mr. Thompson answered that he had not heard that, but he believed they had advertised and Mr. Priest could perhaps give specifics. Mr. Norm Priest, Executive Director of Community Development, reported the School Board did pass such a resolution that had been addressed to the City Redevelopment Agency and Housing Authority, the effective date of which was going to be Friday, August 15, 1980 when the clock would start running on the 60 days. Councilman Overholt asked the amount of the offer. Mr. Priest explained that each school had, not an offer as such, but rather a minimum price set forth. The minimum price for the property was as follows: Apollo Junior High School, $3,030,000: Fremont Junior High School, $4,800,000. Councilman Overholt asked if there were appraisals of the parcels; Mr. Priest answered it was his understanding there were, but he was not certain from whom they obtained the appraisals. 80-1028 City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - August 12, 1980, 1:30 P.M. Councilman Roth stated it was his understanding that Fremont had an appraisal of $2.8 million and the School District would like $4.8 million. Thus, the best thing to do was to go out and get another appraisal and hope it would be higher. Mr. Thompson stated he heard they had a bonified appraisal of $4.8 million; Mr. Priest stated he heard all sorts of versions and that was why the situation was confusing. Mr. Thompson then clarified for Councilwoman Kaywood that the appraisal included both parcels (_the junior high school property and buildings and the playing field on Broadway and Citron). The Mayor asked if any member of the public wished to speak to the matter. Mr. Ray Campbell, 620 Gilbuck, Board Member, Anaheim Foundation for Culture and the Arts, reported that there were two appraisals for Fremont, one from Tait at $2.8 and then they had a management consulting firm appraisal which came in at $2.7 million. Where and how the $4.8 million figure surfaced, he did not know. However, it was his understanding that the Fremont School facility was the only one of the six schools closed unencumbered by the State. This, therefore, was an opportunity to try to get as much cash as they could. On that basis, he was requesting possibly that the City perform their own appraisal and check the Education Code to ascertain what was a fair and equitable price for the property. The Foundation was interested in providing an adequate home for all of their cultural facilities in the community. He noted that the schools were dropping a considerable amount of their arts programs, and orchestras were now non- existent in the schools. He reiterated their problem was in trying to get a proper home for all of ~their cultural activities and the Fremont site was almost ideal. There was approximately 113,000 square feet, 45,000 along Citron which was stick construction in which they were not particularly interested. However, they were interested in the cluster of five buildings consisting of the main structure which was reinforced concrete and that was approximately 50,000 square feet. The gym was about 8,000 square feet which could be used for ballet and sports activities which could be shared with other community organizations. There was also the cluster of three smaller buildings of approximately 3,000 square feet, one that fed into the auditorium which could be used for constructing and storing scenery. There were also choral groups and coming up was a Music Olympics which would bring in people from other parts of the country to help the economy. It would not involve just one thing, but local entertainment for people who appreciated the arts. The Foundation wanted to see the school made a living memorial to the community and take its place with the sports, entertainment and tourist people. Councilman Bay asked Mr. Campbell what he would like Council to do. Mr. Campbell asked that Number 1 to start "plowing the ground" because they only had 60 days, and to have the City Attorney's office review the Education Code to ascertain if what the school was doing was fair. Secondly he hoped the City would buy the property possibly with a back-to-back escrow with a developer, 80-1029 City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINU~ES - August. 12, 1980, 1:30 P.M. of which he understood there were four, so they could dedicate the cluster property to the City and the City, in turn, maintain it and lease it to the Cultural Arts Foundation in the same manner as was being done presently with the property on North Harbor (Horace Mann School site) where the facility was now completely inadequate. Councilman Roth asked Mr. Campbell if he was aware of the bill Governor Brown just signed into law mandating that on every school site sold, a portion was to be retained as a playground and recreational area and then a price set. The Council had previously discussed the bill (AB859-Naylor--see minutes February 12 and 19, 1980) wherein the School District would be reimbursed for whatever they paid for the property, plus the CPI as appropriate, or 25% of the Fair Market Value, whichever was greater. Mr. Campbell stated he was not familiar with that bill. He asked if the school sold the property to a developer straight out if that would still apply; Council- man Roth stated that he was certain it would. Mr. Campbell then stated, if that were so, then no school could be disposed of in its entirety. Mayor Seymour also explained that the Council opposed the bill on the premise that if they expected the School Board to do an effective job in education, they should not be taking money from them and forcing them by law to sell their assets at 25% under the Fair Market Value. Letters were sent to all State Legislators in opposition to the bill. Therefore, with the majority of the Council having gone on record in opposition, taking the position that they would not want another bureaucracy to do that to the City, why should they ask the School Board to do any different. He did not want Mr. Campbell to believe that somehow the Council might force the School Board to sell at 25% less than Fair Market Value. On the other hand, he had some concerns on the justification for paying over Fair Market Value. Councilman Overholt stated it seemed to 'him that with the resolution passed to be effective August 15, 1980, the first question as Mr. Campbell indicated was to ask whether the offer to sell was in compliance with appropriate Education and Government Code sections. It appeared the only appraisal made was the one that came in at $2.8 million and then the Board raised the offer price by $2 million. If it was not a bonafide offer, then there was something wrong with it. Secondly, in the next 60 days, the City was going to have to decide whether it was interested in getting involved financially in the acquisition of the property. The time was going to be tight. He asked, other than to investigate the legality of the offer at the $4.8 million figure, what else could be done now. Mr. Campbell stated that he understood there were at least four developers who were quite interested in the property. When the ante was raised from $2.8 million to $4.8 million, they indicated it would not pencil out with the dedication of the school cluster back to the City and they would have to take the entire 16 acres to make it pencil out. He also reported on questioning by Councilman Overholt that besides Mr. Priest, they had conversations with James Ruth, Deputy City Manager as well. 80-1030 City Hal.l, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - Au.gust 12, 1980, 1:30 P.M. Mayor Seymour felt they would be best advised to ask staff specifically, Norm Priest, Ron Thompson and James Ruth, to submit a report and then next week they could take a position relative to the School Board. The recommendation they had come to them was narrowly worded and he was sure the Council would agree that there was much more involved than low cost housing and, therefore, a broader format might be the alternative that they would select to discuss with the School Board. He reiterated they would best be served by a full and complete update with some advice from staff as to direction. If the clock was starting and they needed to notify the School Board of something immediately, then perhaps the letter expressing their interest could be sent out immediately with notification in that letter that the Council would look forward to recei- ving more information and perhaps meeting with them. However, he felt they would be premature in doing anything until they heard from staff. He agreed, however, the time was short. Councilman Roth asked Mr. Campbell during any of the discussions with the School Board trustees, did they make any recommendations or were there any discussions that the City was interested and so forth. Mr. Campbell stated that did not come up. He pointed out however that the School Board wanted $1.7 million up front and one-quarter million dollars in escrow and then whatever arrangements they could make from that point. Mr. Norm Priest stated from a time standpoint that they needed to move along with considerable dispatch because at the end of that cycle, he would expect that they would want to take a couple of weeks to look at whatever a developr would bring back in. One of the suggestions that they had considered and which they might be able to prepare for them, either as a Council or Housing Authority, since they had the option under either perspective, was to draft a letter of intent which would meet the requirements of the Code. Mr. Campbell raised an interesting point, and he did not know the legalities, whether it was a proper appraisal or not. If the Council wished, they could proceed to get the papers together and by next week submit them either as a Housing Authority or as a Council, so that they could consider them both ways and so that a developer would have to proceed with them and reduce the front-end cash flow. Mayor Seymour stated if he could come back with such a draft letter next week, together with a report, as well as having the City Attorney research the Codes to determine the legal position, he felt they would be prepared to make some type of preliminary decision as to direction next Tuesday. After further Council discussion with Mr. Campbell, the Mayor stated in answer to a question posed by him (Campbell) that the Foundation should continue to work with the staff to provide input, political/philosophical or practical suggestions, recommendations or lobbying. At the conclusion of further discussion, Councilman Seymour moved to continue consideration of the subject one week, with appropriate staff to prepare a full report as to their recommended action; City Attorney to investigate appropriate civil codes as well as the bill recently passed and signed by the Governor on the matter, and the Council to make a decision relative to the direction the City would take. Councilwoman Kaywood seconded the motion. 80-1031 City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - August 12, 1980, 1:30 P.M. Before a vote was taken, Gouncilman Overholt stated that next week would also be a good opportunity for other people who wanted to be heard on the issue to let the Council know their feelings. A vote was then taken on the foregoing motion. MOTION CARRIED. CONSENT CALENDAR ITEMS: On motion by Councilman Roth, seconded by Councilwoman Kaywood, the following actions were authorized in accordance with the reports and recommendations furnished each Council Member and as listed on the Consent Calendar Agenda: 1. CORRESPONDENCE: The following correspondence was ordered received and filed: a. 175: Before the Public Utilities Commission, Application No. 59831, in the matter of the Application of Southern California Edison Company for authority to modify its Energy Cost Adjustment Billing Factors and to otherwise modify the Energy Cost Adjustment Clause. b. 175: Before the Public Utilities Commission, Application No. 59832, in the matter of the Application of Southern California Gas Company for authority to increase rates charged by it for gas service until rates to be authorized in Application No. 59316 are made effective. c. 107: Planning Department, Building Division--Monthly Report for July 1980. 2. 108: AMUSEMENT DEVICES PERMIT APPLICATION: In accordance with the recommendations of the Chief of Police, an Amusement Devices Permit was approved for Yogi's Amusement Center, 515 Chapman Avenue, for various amusement devices. (Seiyu Yogi, applicant) MOTION CARRIED. 173: SUPPORT REPEAL OF ODD-EVEN GAS DISTRIBUTION SYSTEM: City of Pinole, Resolution No. 1598, urging the Governor to lift the odd-even gas distribution system immediately. Councilman Roth stated that relative to the subject resolution, originally it was against the law to purchase gas on days other than that dictated by a person's license plate, and it was obvious they were seeing a complete disregard for the law. The counties had recommended that the odd-even system be eliminated with the responsibility for same to be given to each respective county. MOTION: Councilman Roth stated he favored the subject resolution by the City of Pinole. He thereupon moved that Anaheim support the position of repealing the imposed emergency odd-even gas distribution system until a shortage occurred and to leave the use and implementation of such a system to the responsibility of the counties. Councilman Seymour seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. CONSENT CALENDAR ITEMS: Councilwoman Kaywood offered Resolution Nos. 80R-360 and 80R-361, 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. 80-1032 City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - August 12, 1980, 1:30 P.M. 158: RESOLUTION NO. 80R-360: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM ACCEPTING CERTAIN DEEDS AND ORDERING THEIR RECORDATION. (Armo Corpor- ation; First Congregational.Church of Anaheim; Anthony E. Galinas, et ux.; Classic Development Corporation) 150: RESOLUTION NO. 80R-361: 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: SCHWEITZER PARK IMPROVEMENT, IN THE CITY OF ANAHEIM, ACCOUNT NO. 16-817-7103; APPROVING THE DESIGNS, PLANS, PROFILES, DRAWINGS, AND SPECIFICATIONS FOR THE CONSTRUCTION THEREOF; AUTHORIZING THE CONSTRUCTION OF SAID PUBLIC IMPROVEMENT IN ACCORDANCE WITH SAID PLANS, SPECIFICATIONS, ETC.; AND AUTHORIZING AND DIRECTING THE CITY CLERK TO PUBLISH A NOTICE INVITING SEALED PROPOSALS FOR THE CONSTRUCTION THEREOF. (Bids to be opened September 4, 1980, at 2:00 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 No. 80R-360 and 80R-361, both inclusive, duly passed and adopted. 170: FINAL MAP - TRACT NO. 10794: Developer, Kennedy and Hause; tract is located on the south side of Wagner Avenue, east of State College Boulevard, and contains one-lot, 21-unit RM-3000 zoned condominium subdivision. On motion by Councilman Roth, seconded by Councilman Overholt, the proposed subdivision, together with its design and improvement, was found to be consistent with the City's General Plan, and the City Council approved Final Map Tract No. 10794, as recommended by the City Engineer in his memorandum dated June 13, 1978. MOTION CARRIED. ORDINANCE NO. 4151 AND 4152: Councilwoman Kaywood offered Ordinance No. 4151 and 4152 for first reading. 142/173: ORDINANCE NO. 4151: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM REPEALING SECTION 3.76.070 OF CHAPTER 3.76, TITLE 3, OF THE ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE, AND ADDING A NEW SECTION 3.76.070 IN ITS PLACE AND STEAD RELATING TO TRANSPORTATION. (sightseeing and limousine service) 142/126: ORDINANCE NO. 4152: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM REPEALING TITLE 4, CHAPTER 4.09, SECTION 4.09.010 AND ENACTING A NEW TITLE 4, CHAPTER 4.09, SECTION 4.09.010 PERTAINING TO HOTEL AND MOI~L RATE SIGNS. 101/114: COMMENTS ON RAMS OPENING EXHIBITION GAME AT ANAHEIM STADIUM - AUGUST 11, 1980: Councilman Overholt reported on his attendance at the subject game and what he termed the new Big "A" and he felt privileged just to be present along with the approximately 69,000 people who were also in attendance. He "tipped his hat" again to the many people in the City who were involved in making it all happen--the people on the negotiating team, the Mayor and City Manager Talley, the management team and the many Department Heads in the City, especially Tom Liegler. It was a great achievement for the City and an evening that he 80-1033 City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - August 12, 1980, 1:30 P.M. would never forget. Congratulations were extended to everyone, the Traffic people, Szabo Foods and the people who constructed the Stadium addition. It marked the beginning of a new era. Councilman Roth also felt that last night's game represented one of the most fantastic events in Anaheim history. He commended the City Manager, the Chief of Police, the Traffic Division and other offices, Tom Liegler, Thornton Piersall and their staffs for a job well done. Although there may have been problems, he did not see them, and everything ran smoothly and he saw nothing but the "Anaheim Way" of doing things. He was proud to be a part of a City Council that made the final decision to have the Stadium expanded and to support the Rams' move to Anaheim. He wanted'to see one more thing done and that was to convince the Rams management to call the team the Anaheim Rams which he preferred over the California Rams. Anaheim was a City known throughout the world. He felt they should push to convince the owners that starting next year they call the team the Anaheim Rams. Mayor Seymour stated he would like to add to the accolades to all those involved in bringing the Rams to Anaheim and the construction project to fruition. It was an extremely successful opening night and a milestone in City history. Now that that project was complete, they must find "other mountains to climb and other challenges to meet." He felt they could meet them with the same fervor and spirit as with the challenge of moving the Rams to Anaheim. He, too, offered his congratulations to all who were involved. He then deferred to Mr. Fred Brown who wanted to speak to the matter. Mr. Fred Brown, 1531 Minerva Avenue, stated he was present primarily to offer his congratulations to each and everyone of the Council Members and the City management team, as well as City staff involved in putting together what he felt was one of the most heartwarming, proudest moments he had experienced since a resident of the City. As one resident, he wanted to thank the Council personally and hoped that whatever new project they might undertake, it would be as successful as the Rams' move. 114: PROBLEMS EVOLVING FROM CYPRESS VILLAGE APARTMENTS: Councilwoman Kaywood then referred to the number of complaints that had been received from Mr. Ron Waltz on Rose Street relative to the problems the neighbors were having with the Cypress Village Apartments located at East and Cypress Street. Underground sump pumping was taking place every night, causing a constant mud flow. She did not know if anything had been done and wanted to know the s~atus of the situation. A letter she recalled seeing from the apartment owner stated that there was a shortage of housing so why care how anybody else was impacted. That was an intolerable answer. They had worked with Mr. Waltz and the area trying to accomplish a Neighborhood Preservation project, and having such problems occur was something she did not want to see happen. Mayor Seymour stated that he could give a status report of the situation. He had been working closely on the matter. He had been out to the property, met with Mr. Waltz, talked to Patricia Clancy, looked at the Clendennon's property, and looked at the vacant field between the tracks and the Clendennon's property which had received a lot of stagnant water resulting in mosquito infestation. He also went to the apartment house and observed firsthand what he considered to be the problem. On the west side of the property they had a small concrete 80-1034 City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - August 12, 1980, 1:30 P.M. channel through which they were running one spigot wide open with water running down and going into a sump pump and apparently there was dirt in the sump pump which was being pumped out, making life miserable for the people to the west. When he was first appraised of the matter, he wrote a note to staff indicating that, in his opinion, they should not finalize the building permit on the apart- ment project until the situation was straightened out. It was his understanding that many staff people had been out to the property and currently the City Attorney's office was looking into the matter to determine whether or not the owner of the apartment house could be legally charged for cleaning up the mess they created. He asked for a full report from Public Works and they would make it available to all Council Members. He concurred that they could not bring upon the neighborhood the type of conditions that apartment project had brought in the name of providing housing. There was no excuse for their actions, and he would support any action to whatever strength they could muster to insure that the situation was not permitted to continue. It was a disgrace. Councilwoman Kaywood thanked the Mayor for the update on the status of this situation. 127: STORM DRAIN BALLOT MEASURE - ARGUMENT IN FAVOR: Councilwoman Kaywood stated that she had written the ballot argument in favor of the $10 million Storm Drain Bond issue, and she had given a copy to the Council for comments, pro, con or whatever. Councilman Roth stated that he had not had a chance to read it yet; Councilman Overholt stated he had read it and although he was still pessimistic as to the possibility of getting a two-thirds vote of approval, he felt the people should have an opportunity to vote, and he was going to sign the argument. Mayor Seymour wanted to state his position as to why he was unwilling to sign the argument as discussed earlier. He stated before that he felt the question had to go to the voters and he did not think he had ever ~pposed a question-going to the voters to let them decide. He did not believe it was going to pass, but it was an issue that made sense, i.e., leveraging the money that would be obtained with County and Federal monies in an attempt to double that leverage. On the other hand, he was also pessimistic about its passage, one of the reasons being he did not think that people, since the passage of Proposition 13, felt much differently about government spending as in the past. He did not want to put his name down to endorse something that would encourage a mass of spending even though financially it made some sense. It was something that would be nice to have, but they did not need to positively have it. For thos~ reasons, h~ was not going to sign the ballot argument although he supported letting the voters decide. In signing such an argument, the indication was that it was of extreme importance and there should be a "yes" vote. He was not convinced of that argu- ment in the ranking of his priorities. Discussion and debate followed between the Mayor and Councilwoman Kaywood relative to the subject issue and that of the other two ballot measures that were to be placed on the November ballot. At the conclusion of discussion, Councilman Overholt stated that he and the Mayor both agreed that the measure should be placed on the ballot to let the people decide. The difference was that since he was in support, he was going to sign the argument for. If it failed, he did not feel it would be a mark of bad judgment on his part anymore than it would be on the Mayor's part if it carried. If the people decided not to do it, then they would do it in the budget at a slower pace. 80-1035 City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - August 12, 1980, 1:30 P.M. Mayor Seymour stated that he did not feel that the mood or pulse of the people was to spend money. By virtue of a signature going on an argument for the measure, the community leadership was saying that they wanted to spend the money. Because he was sensitive to that anti-government spending attitude to a greater degree than he was for a $10 million bond issue, was the reason he was not signing the argument. 114: GENERAL MOTORS ENERGY ASSESSMENT MEETING: Councilman Bay reported that the subject meeting was taking place in Detroit on September 3 through 5, 1980. He felt he should attend that meeting, being Liaison. He had gone through a great deal of the draft report and considering the amount of mqney the City had to put into the program, he maintained that report alone was worth many more dollars than they had put into the Phase I program thus far. MOTION: Councilman Overholt moved that permission be granted for Councilman Bay to attend the General Motors Energy Assessment meeting in Detroit, Michigan, September 3 through 5, 1980, including reimbursement of expenses. Councilwoman Kaywood seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. 150: STATUS OF IMPROVEMENTS AT JOHN MARSHALL PARK: Councilman Bay referred to a letter received from a citizen who read the article on the improvements that were going to be made in Pearson Park and subsequently questioned what was happening on John Marshall Park. Councilman Bay continued that since he knew there were monies in this year's budget and that a great deal of discussion about John Marshall Park had taken place last year, along with meetings in the area, he asked the City Manager to provide an update on the status of what was taking place at John Marshall Park and the tentative schedule of improvements. RECESS - EXECUTIVE SESSION: By general consent, the Council recessed into Executive Session. (5:25 P.M.) AFTER RECESS: Mayor Seymour called the meeting to order, all Council Members being present. (6:15 P.M.) 112: HARDY VS. CITY OF ANAHEIM: On motion by Councilman Seymour, seconded by Councilman Overholt, the City Attorney was authorized to settle Orange County Superior Court Case No. 29-62-80 (Hardy vs. City of Anaheim) for a sum not to exceed $5,000. MOTION CARRIED. 118: TINA CASILLI VS. THE CITY OF ANAHEIM: On motion by Councilman Seymour, seconded by Councilman Overholt, the City Attorney was authorized to settle the claim of Tina Casilli against the City of Anaheim for a sum not to exeed $3,000. MOTION CARRIED. 112: INTERINSURANCE EXCHANGE OF THE AUTOMOBILE CLUB OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA VS. CITY OF ANAHEIM: On motion by Councilman Seymour, seconded by.Councilman Overholt, the City Attorney and Ruston & Nance were authorized to settle North Orange County Municipal Court Case No. A-28705 (Interinsurance Exchange of the Auto- mobile Club of Southern California vs. City of Anaheim) for an amount not to exceed $1,900. MOTION CARRIED. 80-1036 City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - August 12, 1980, 1:30 P.M. ADJOURNMENT: Councilwoman Kaywood moved to adjourn. Councilman Roth seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. Adjourned: 6:17 P.M.