Loading...
1980/08/19 80-1037 City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - August 19, 1980, 1:30 P.M. The City Council of the City of Anaheim met in regular session. PRESENT: ABSENT: PRESENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Overholt, Kaywood, Bay, Roth and Seymour COUNCIL MEMBERS: None CITY MANAGER: William O. Talley CITY ATTORNEY: William P. Hopkins CITY CLERK: Linda D. Roberts POLICE CHIEF: George P. Tielsch DEPUTY CITY MANAGER: James D. Ruth RISK MANAGER: Jack Love PLANNING DIRECTOR: Ronald L. Thompson HOUSING MANAGER: Lisa Stipkovich ASSISTANT DIRECTOR FOR ZONING: Annika Santalahti CIVIL ENGINEERING ASSISTANT: 'Robert Herr POLICE CAPTAIN: Jimmie Kennedy DETECTIVE: Jim Watkins Mayor Seymour called the meeting to order and welcomed those in attendance to the Council meeting. INVOCATION: Dr. Ray Niederer, Bethel Baptist Church, gave the Invocation. FLAG SALUTE: Councilwoman Miriam Kaywood led the assembly in the Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag. 156: INTRODUCTION: Police Chief George Tielsch introduced the following five newly appointed School Resource Officers and gave the background of each: Detective Wayne Guthrie, Detective Sandra Kay, Detective James Moore, Detective Jim Mosher and Detective Phil Tuttle. At the request of the Mayor, Chief Tielsch described the School Resource Officer Program. Mayor Seymour stated, on behalf of the Council, in hearing the credentials, back- ground, education and training of the five officers selected for the program, the community was very well served. He congratulated each of them being selected for the program. 119: PROCLAMATION: The following proclamation was issued by Mayor Seymour and authorized by the City Council: Phoenix Club Days in Anaheim, August 30-31, 1980 Mrs. Lisa Sarabyn accepted the proclamation and invited all to join in their celebration on August 30 and August 31, 1980. 119: INTRODUCTION AND PRESENTATION: Mr. Lynn Buffington, President and Mr. Mark Oden, Vice-President of the Anaheim Hills Lions Club, introduced Miss Takako Fujita, an exchange student from Japan, sponsored by the Anaheim Hills Lions Club. Miss Fujita then presented a small token gift from Japan to Councilman Don Roth, a Lions Club member. On behalf of the Council and the City, Mayor Seymour presented Miss Fujita with a replica of the Big "A" and the book, "Historic Buildings of Pioneer Anaheim", as a gesture of welcome from the City. 80-1038 City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - August 19, 1980, 1:30 P.M. MINUTES: The minutes were deferred for one week. WAIVER OF READING - ORDINANCES AND RESOLUTIONS: Councilwoman Kaywood moved to waive the reading in full of all ordinances and resolutions of the Agenda, after reading of the title thereof by the City Clerk, and that consent to waiver is hereby given by all Council Members, unless after reading of the title, specific request is made by a Council Member for the reading of such ordinance or resolution in regular order. Councilman Bay seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. FINANCIAL DEMANDS AGAINST THE CITY in the amount of $1,127,295.09, in accordance with the 1980-81 Budget, were approved. 123/158/174(.CDBG): ACQUISITION OF LOT 15 OF THE SCHAFFER-OSWALD SUBDIVISION: Councilwoman Kaywood offered Resolution No. 80R-362 for adoption, as recom- mended in memorandum dated August 13, 1980 from the Executive Director of Community Development, Norm Priest, authorizing an agreement for the acqui- sition of Lot 15 of the Schaffer-Oswald Subdivision. Refer to Resolution Book. RESOLUTION NO. 80R-362: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM APPROVING THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF AN AGREEMENT FOR THE ACQUISITION OF REAL PROPERTY AND AUTHORIZING AND DIRECTING THE MAYOR AND CITY CLERK TO EXECUTE SAID AGREEMENT 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-362 duly passed and adopted. 160: PURCHASE OF EQUIPMENT - 40~000 POUNDS OF 336.4 KDMIL '~ERLIN" WIRE AND DEPOSIT CHARGES ON WHEELS - BID NO. 3673: On motion by Councilman Roth, seconded by Councilman Bay, the iow bid of General Electric Supply was accepted and pur- chase authorized in the amount of $44,223.20, as recommended by the Purchasing Agent in his memorandum dated August 13, 1980. MOTION CARRIED. 160: AWARD OF BLANKET PURCHASE ORDER FOR DATA PROCESSING STOCK CARDS - BID NO. 3674: On motion by Councilman Overholt, seconded by Councilwoman Kaywood, the Purchasing Agent was authorized to issue a blanket purchase order to Globe Ticket Company at a total price of approximately $16,500, for providing manila stock cards on an "as required basis" during Fiscal Year 1980-81, as recommended in memorandum dated August 13, 1980 from the Purchasing Agent. MOTION CARRIED. 160: AWARD OF BLANKET PURCHASE ORDER FOR CONTINUOUS STOCK FORMS - BID NO. 3675: On motion by Councilman Roth, seconded by Councilman Overholt, public advertising was waived and the Purchasing Agent was authorized to issue a blanket purchase order to Ricobben Business Forms at an approximate cost of $65,000, for contin- uous stock, forms required through June 30, 1981, as recommended in memorandum dated August 13, 1980 from the Purchasing Agent. MOTION CARRIED. 80-1039 City Hall, Anaheim, California- COUNCIL MINUTES- Augus.t 19~ 1980, 1:30 P.M. 169: ORANGEWOOD AVENUE AT THE SANTA ANA FREEWAY TO BE DECLARED A COUNTY HIGHWAY: Councilman Bay offered Resolution No. 80R-363 for adoption, as recommended in memorandum dated August 19, 1980 from City Engineer William Devitt, declaring a portion of Orangewood Avenue across the Santa Ana River lying within the City limits, to be a County Highway during the period of improvement of said road by the County. Refer to Resolution Book. RESOLUTION NO. 80R-363: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM EXPRESSING ITS DESIRE TO DECLARE THE PORTIONS OF ORANGEWOOD AVENUE ACROSS THE SANTA ANA RIVER, LYING WITHIN THE CITY LIMITS OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM, TO BE A COUNTY HIGHWAY DURING THE PERIOD OF IMPROVEMENT OF SAID ROAD BY THE COUNTY OF ORANGE. 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-363 duly passed and adopted. 104: FORMATION OF STREET LIGHTING MAINTENANCE DISTRICT 1980-3 - TRACT NO. 1097: (Naming Sycamore Street, north side, from Harbor Boulevard to approximately 160 feet west of Clementine Street as streets to be improved). Councilman Roth offered Resolution No. 80R-364 and 80R-365 for adoption, as recommended in memorandum dated August 12, 1980 from the Public Works Executive Director, Thornton Piersall. Refer to Resolution Book. RESOLUTION NO. 80R-364: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM APPROVING THE REPORT OF THE SUPERINTENDENT OF STREETS FOR CERTAIN IMPROVEMENTS TO BE MADE BY THE CITY UNDER THE STREET LIGHTING ACT OF 1931. RESOLUTION NO. 80R-365: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM DECLARING ITS INTENTION TO MAKE CERTAIN IMPROVEMENTS UNDER THE AUTHORITY OF THE STREET LIGHTING ACT OF 1931, DESCRIBING THE IMPROVEMENTS TO BE MADE, NAMING THE STREETS UPON WHICH THE I24PROVEMENTS ARE TO BE MADE, REFERRING TO THE REPORT OF THE SUPERINTENDENT OF STREETS ON FILE IN THE OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK, FIXING THE PERIOD OF TIME FOR WHICH THE IMPROVEMENTS ARE TO BE MADE, AND SETTING A TIME AND PLACE FOR HEARING PROTESTS. (September 9, 1980, 3:00 p.m.) Roll Call Vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: COUNCIL MEMBERS: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Overholt, Kaywood, Bay, Roth and Seymour None None The Mayor declared Resolution No. 80R-364 and 80R-365 duly passed and adopted. 104: FORMATION OF STREET LIGHTING MAINTENANCE DISTRICT 1980-4 - TRACT NO. 1392: (Naming Helena Street, from South Street to approximately 120 feet north of Hampshire Avenue as the streets to be improved). 80-1040 City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - Au~us.t 19, 1980, 1:30 P.M. Councilwoman Kaywood offered Resolution No. 80R-366 and 80R-376 for adoption as recommended in memorandum dated August 12, 1980 from the Public Works Executive Director. Refer to Resolution Book. RESOLUTION NO. 80R-366: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM APPROVING THE REPORT OF THE SUPERINTENDENT OF STREETS FOR CERTAIN IMPROVEMENTS TO BE MADE BY THE CITY UNDER THE STREET LIGHTING ACT OF 1931. RESOLUTION NO. 80R-367: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM DECLARING ITS INTENTION TO MAKE CERTAIN IMPROVEMENTS UNDER THE AUTHORITY OF THE STREET LIGHTING ACT OF 1931, DESCRIBING THE IMPROVEMENTS TO BE MADE, NAMING THE STREETS UPON WHICH THE IMPROVEMENTS ARE TO BE MADE, REFERRING TO THE REPORT OF THE SUPERINTENDENT OF STREETS ON FILE IN THE OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK, FIXING THE PERIOD OF TIME FOR WHICH THE IMPROVEMENTS ARE TO BE MADE, AND SETTING A TIME AND PLACE FOR HEARING PROTESTS. (September 9, 1980, at 3:00 p.m.) Roll Call Vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: COUNCIL MEMBERS: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Overholt, Kaywood, Bay, Roth and Seymour None None The Mayor declared Resolution No. 80R-366 and 80R-367 duly passed and adopted. 123: SOUTHWEST INNOVATION GROUP, INC. - RENTAL SPACE AT ANAHEIM CIVIC CENTER: On motion by Councilman Roth, seconded by Councilman Bay, a letter agreement was authorized with the Southwest Innovation Group, Inc., at a monthly rental rate of $260 for 778 square feet of space in the Anaheim Civic Center, as recommended in memorandum dated August 13, 1980 from James Armstrong, Assistant to the City Manager. MOTION CARRIED. Mayor Seymour welcomed the Innovation Group to the Civic Center. 123/112: PAYMENT OF WITNESS LEGAL FEES - DONNA PATH AND MORRISON & SMITH: On motion by Councilman Overholt, seconded by Councilman Bay, an amendment to an agreeement was authorized with Donna Path and Morrison & Smith in an amount not to exceed $2,500, to include Client's costs resulting from appeal taken from the judgment of dismissal entered in Case 32-77-77, as recommended in memorandum dated August 8, 1980 from the Chief of Police George Tielsch. MOTION CARRIED. 123/129: HELICOPTER PATROL CHECK SERVICES FOR THE CITY OF BREA: City Manager William Talley briefed the Council on memorandum dated August 6, 1980 from the Chief of Police recommending the approval of a short-term contract with the City of Brea to supply helicopter patrol check services for fire suppression purposes to the Carbon Canyon area in the City of Brea. Councilman Roth moved to authorize an agreement with the City of Brea at the rate of $153.57 per hour to supply helicopter patrol check services for fire suppression purposes to the Carbon Canyon area in the City of Brea, effective August 1, 1980 through December 31, 1980. Councilman Overholt seconded the motion. 80-1041 City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES.- Au~us.t 19, 1980, 1:30 P.M. Before a vote was taken, Councilman Roth asked if the proposed agreement paralleled the previous agreement Anaheim had with the City of Bred and that there were no additional services included; Police Chief Tielsch stated that it was identical. Councilman Bay asked if they experienced any conflict problems last year under the 'short-term agreement. Chief Tiel$ch reported that there were no conflicts and the patrol was more or less a wider bank when the helicopters were out in that area. They were not out of the City premises for any extended period of time. Mayor Seymour repo~ted that last year he voted against the agreement because he had a concern that even though Bred was paying a fair price for the service, some of the areas in Anaheim would suffer if the City's helicopters were patrolling in Bred. He asked for confirmation that the Chief was stating unequivocally that no neighborhood or section in Anaheim suffered as a result of the contracts; Chief Tielsch answered, "yes". A vote was then taken on the foregoing motion. MOTION CARRIED. 180: GENERAL LIABILITY EXCESS INSURANCE RENEWAL INCLUDING PUBLIC OFFICIAL ERRORS AND OMISSIONS - 1980: City Manager Talley briefed the Council on memorandum dated August 13, 1980 from the Risk Manager, Jack Love. He also pointed out what was omitted on the staff report was the extremely fine job that had been done by the City's broker of record and the Risk Manager. The policies he was about to recommend had a larger coverage than two years ago and yet, ~f they used the cost in 1978, it would be approximately $730,000 to $740,000 for equivalent coverage. Today, they were g~ing to be making recommendations which, in effect, cost the City $500,000 less. He considered it to be an outstanding effort and that some- times they did not recognize the efforts of the people working for them. Councilwoman Kaywood moved to accept the offer of Marsh & McLennan to renew the City's General Liability insurance and liability insurance for dam collapse at the price and terms quoted in their letter of August 6, 1980 for $500,000 self- insured retention level, and to renew the City's public official errors and omissions coverage as contained in their letter dated August 8, 1980, at the current deductible level of $10,000, as recommended in memorandum dated August 13, 1980 from the Risk Manager. Councilman Overholt seconded the motion. Before a vote was taken, Councilman Roth stated he would like to add his congrat- ulations as well. The big winner was the taxpayer of the community and it was a job well done. Councilman Overholt echoed Councilman Roth's comments and extended the same to the Risk Manager Jack Love and his staff, as well as Marsh & McLennan. Councilwoman Kaywood asked if she understood that there was a half-million dollars savings over what they would have paid in 1978; Mr. Talley explained that the majority of the savings were made last year, but in the staff report, Mr. Love was too modest when he stated it was $64,000 or 20% less than last year's. How- ever, he (Talley) asked what it was two years ago, and it was approximately $730,000 for $10 million of coverage, as opposed to $20 million. 80-1042 C~ty Hall, Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - August 19~ 19,80~ 1:30 P.M. Mayor Seymour stated that he would like to know how the deductible worked on error and omissions coverage. Was the City liable to pay for the deductible or the individual Councilperson. Mr. Jack Love, Risk Manager, stated that the deductible meant that the insurance company had the right to administer or settle any claim and then charge back to the City the amount of the deductible. The City was liable for the first $10,000 and it was not an individual Council Member's liability. Councilman Overholt asked, if there was an award for punitive damages on errors and omissions, where they would stand. Mr. Love answered that in California, any award for punitive damages whether errors or omissions or any other liability, would be assessed against the individual, be it a Council Member, himself or any other employee and, there- fore, there was that exposure and that question could best be addressed by the City Attorney. City Attorney William Hopkins stated that punitive damages were not reimbursable in California and, therefore, if one was found to have performed some act that warranted punitive damages being assessed by the Court, it would be a personal matter and not something that the City or any insurance company could handle. The policy would cover any ordinary type of negligence or mistake, or error or omission, but if there was a malicious act on the part of a Council Member and he used his official position to gratify that grudge, if a court or jury decided that there was a punitive damage assessment, the Council Member would be personally liable and not be covered by any insurance policy. It was rare and it would have to be a very serious effort to use official power to get even with someone. Councilman Overholt stated the reason he raised the question was to point out that there was a risk against which they could not insure and there was no insurance available for that; Mr. Love stated, not in California. The City Attorney confirmed that was correct. A vote was then taken on the foregoing motion. MOTION CARRIED. 101/123: TRAFFIC CONTROL IMPROVEMENTS AT ANAHEIM STADIUM: On motion by Councilman Overholt, seconded by Councilman Roth, an agreement was authorized with Berryman & Stephenson, Inc., in an amount not to exceed $9,500, for preparation of plans, specifications and cost estimates for traffic control improvements at Anaheim Stadium, as r~commend~d in m~morandum dated August 6, 1980 {rom the City Engineer William Devitt. MOTION CARRIED. 156/106: ENHANCEMENT OF THE POLICE DEPARTMENT BUDGET: City Manager William Talley briefed his report dated August 13, 1980 relative to the subject. It was his recommendation that the Police Chief's plan dated August 7, 1980, "Plans for Progress in 1980" be adopted. Councilwoman Kaywood moved to authorize the tranfer of $762,015 from the City Council Contingency Account and appropriating $32,290 in additional revenues, to various Police and Public Works accounts as detailed in the report dated August 7, 1980 from the Chief of Police in order to implement enhancements to the Police Department. Councilman Overholt seconded the motion. 80-1043 City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - August 19, 1980, 1:30 P.M. Before a vote was taken, Councilman Overholt stated that he felt that perhaps the most important sentence in the Chief's report and recommendations was that the expenditure of the additional funding, "will provide the stimulus to allow us to aggressively work towards the City Council's stated goals and objectives of maintaining a zero increase in Part I Crimes in Anaheim during the next three (3) years." That was a very worthy goal and he commended the staff members who were involved in putting the report together. He had great confidence that the goal would be achieved. Mayor Seymour added his personal thanks to the Chief and his staff for coming up with an in-depth report. He felt it was a plan of action and he could sense the conversations that the Chief had with the Council, that he was really committed' to the stated objective. He knew it would perhaps take almost a year to get the program implemented and to see some results. However, he was certain that two years hence, they would find that this was one of the wisest decisions they had made. It stated clearly the policy of the Council, as well as the Police Depart- ment, that the City's neighborhoods came first, and they were going to take care of them. City Manager Talley stated he had seen so much activity in the Police Department since the Council gave the Chief direction in June that it might be interesting to know just how many officers he had acquired in a little over six weeks under the program the Council approved. Chief Tielsch reported that as of today and for the first time in years, the Department was not only up to strength, but also one officer over strength. He felt that they could make it a lot sooner than they all felt, they would be seeing some results before the end of the fiscal year. Mayor Seymour asked for an update of the recruitment process in the reserve force. Captain Jim Kennedy stated that although he did not have exact numbers, he could report that the response to their recruitment efforts had been tremendous using radio spots, newspaper ads, etc., they had six officers ready to go to the next academy and others that were being processed. A vote was then taken on the foregoing motion. MOTION CARRIED. 155: OPEN SPACE EASEMENT IN THE DEER CANYON AREA: Determining that the proposed grant to the County of Orange of Open Space easements in Anaheim Hills and locations proposed at this time within the sphere of influence of the City is in conformance of the General Plan of the City; recommending that the City continue to secure all Open Space easement acreage in the Deer Canyon area as originally presented by Anaheim Hills, Inc., on Exhibit "C" of the 1974 Agreement and not consent to the adjustment of Open Space easement boundaries in Deer Canyon as presently proposed by Anaheim Hills, Inc., on the map exhibit submitted to the County on August 11, 1980. Mr. James Ruth, Deputy City Manager, reported at the direction of the Council at the June 3, 1980 meeting (see minutes that date under General Plan Amendment No. 155), it was their understanding that the Council directed staff to pursue the feasibility of preserving Deer Canyon and also to attempt to get flat usable 80-1044 Citz .Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - August 19, 1980, 1:30 P.M. park space for the residents in the hill and canyon area. They had pursued that issue for weeks and months with Anaheim Hills, Inc., and in a letter dated August 11, 1980, presented from Anaheim Hills to the County, they requested a modification of the boundaries in Deer Canyon. It was the considered opinion of staff that the modification would impede to a certain degree the Council's options in terms of trying to maximize their options in obtaining flat usable land in the Deer Canyon area and possibly preserving the entire Deer Canyon area for recreational purposes. Their objective today was to present the matter to the Council to illustrate the impact of those modifications and then to seek Council policy direction so that they might advise the County accordingly. Mr. Dan Salceda of Anaheim Hills met with staff that morning and did have an alternative to present to the Council for consideration which staff would be glad to respond to after Mr. Salceda's presentation. From a posted map on the Chamber wall, the original proposed boundaries in the 1974 agreement between Anaheim Hills and the County were explained,, as opposed to those adjusted or modified boundaries that Anaheim Hills was seeking approval of at present. Mr. Ron Thompson, Planning Director, working from the map, explained that the green boundaries were the original part of the agreement offered to the County in 1974. The red boundaries would be the shift proposed by Anaheim Hills on August 11, 1980. He then explained the map in further detail with regard to the shaded areas, boundary lines etc, to put the situation in perspective. He stated that the proposed offering to the County at this point in time would take away some 13 to 15 acres of level area along the easterly portion of Deer Canyon. Mr. Ruth stated it was their feeling that the removal of that acreage from the Open Space easement would then limit Council's options as directed to the staff to maintain those maximum options for a possible future development of a park site in Deer Canyon. Mr. Dan Salceda, Anaheim Hills, Inc., 380 Anaheim Hills Road, explained that in 1974, Anaheim Hills and the County entered into a cancellation agreement. Para- graph (c) of that agreement stated, "...precise boundaries...cannot be determined at this time and that the boundaries shown on Exhibit "C" may be adjusted from time to time...". He suggested that was the operative language one should con- sider particular to Deer Canyon. He maintained that the agreement was somewhat ambulatory and a living document because in 1974 they did not have tracks or precise boundaries, and it was the recommendation of all the parties concerned that there would be time for refining. It was his distinct impression in working with County and City staff, particularly since December 1979 through today, that was precisely what they were doing. Since December 1979, they had been meeting with both the staffs and in many instances they proffered acreage to the County for open space that was not part and parcel of the 1974 agreement because they recognized subsaquently that there was acreage which, for certain ecological reasons, had value. He was speaking particularly to riding and hiking trails that would bisect Area X up and along the Four Corners Pipeline easement. There were also two additional pieces of property in the Santiago Creek area that the County was particularly concerned about that they include it as part of their offerings for the Open Space easement. What they spoke about with staff today were the possibilities of resolving the County problems and resolving concerns of the Council and the staff regarding the area in Deer Canyon. The 1974 agreement in rough figures suggested dimensions of open space of approximately 65 acres. The offering they made to the staff for their studies 80-1045 City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - August 19, 1980, 1:30 P.M. suggested offering some 76 acres of open space. There also presently existed Storm Drain District No. 41 for the Deer Canyon area. That particular district suggested that there would be approximately a 12-foot paved service road which would require grading, an approximate 72-inch storm drain or open channel to service the area, and power, water and service lines would also be required to be installed in Deer Canyon. Ail that, unfortunately, would not allow them to leave Deer Canyon in the pristine state that it was in today. The acreage they were offering for open space was totally within the flow line and thus, they would be able to maintain the integrity of the flow line in open space. The Council had given great consideration to the possibility of a park site in Deer Canyon. That morning, Anaheim Hills offered the largest "flat acre" parcel in all Deer Canyon to be included for the Open Space acreage. The particular parcel was the corral area. They had further made the offering to the County and staff that they would insure that a riding and hiking trail go through the entirety of Deer Canyon. They would like to think with that latest tendering they had allowed for that passive park which suggested the character of Deer Canyon to be allowed to be given at some future point in time should the City want a park there with no in-lieu park fee credits to be given to the developer, i.e., the six-acre parcel in and around the corral area, yet recognizing that the needs of the residents of Anaheim Hills to have a flat usable park site. They had talked in the past of approximately a five-acre parcel somewhere in the Area of IX and X where all the density was located. It was his impression that the concerns of the Council, the County in terms of providing additional acreage and riding and hiking trails through Anaheim Hills, and the concerns of staff in providing to the Council all of their options were available because of their latest offerings to staff as of 10:00 a.m. today. Mayor Seymour asked to see a diagram of Anaheim Hillf latest offering and asked staff if they would care to respond to it. Mr. Salceda, working from a posted diagram, explained that the additional parcels he spoke of were in the lower Santiago Creek area. There were two additional parcels to allow a continuous east-west corridor also abutting the future lower Santiago Creek Park. The additional riding and hiking trail bisecting Area X was in the northerly part of Anaheim Hills. There would also be the riding and hiking trail through the entirety of Deer Canyon. An additional concern of the County staff was the effective or private open space that was adjacent to Weir Canyon. Those were the concerns of County staff. Also, as of 10 o'clock this morning, there was the additional six-acre parcel being provided to the County for open space which was the corral area. Council Members Kaywood and Bay then posed questions to Mr. Salceda for purposes of clarification with respect to certain areas indicated on the map. Mr. Ruth then asked if in Mr. Salceda's opinion after all the studies Anaheim Hills had performed in the Deer Canyon area, if a park site in Deer Canyon was feasible. Mr. Salceda answered that a passive park site within the "hashed" area shown on the map was feasible because that was the area that would require the minimum amount of grading for purposes of a park setting in Deer Canyon. 80-1046 City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - August 19, 1980, 1:30 P.M. Councilman Roth stated, as one individual who spent some time hiking in Deer Canyon~ he could ~magine a picnic grove or barbeque type arrangement if water was avail- able. The only problem he could see, although he felt it was possible to overcome, was to provide an adequate road into the Canyon. He was not particularly interested in ball diamonds being located there, but was most interested in maintaining the Canyon as one of the most beautiful left in Orange County. In taking people to the area, they could not believe they were still in Anaheim. It was necessary to see the area before evaluating it. He saw many more people walking, jogging and hiking in the Canyon than he saw the need for ball diamonds, and school sites should be able to provide that need. Anaheim Hills was a unique area and nothing was more unique than Deer Canyon. It was imperative, in his opinion, to provide a mix in the area. He was glad that Deer Canyon was being considered--it had the natural setting that should be preserved and it would be a very viable park site and different from any other park site in Anaheim. He was supportive of retain- ing Deer Canyon and the only concern he had was in providing an adequate amount of ingress and egress to the site, that parking areas be provided, as well as flat areas. It was impossible for people to park on Canyon Rim Road and thus adequate parking would have to be provided in some manner. Mr. Ruth then continued that they looked at the corral area in Deer Canyon that morning. There was a drop structure that was going to be installed there to carry water flow. Their concern was the fact that they did not have a handle on the significance or impact of that structure and they needed to have input in tha~ regard. If Anaheim Hills was saying that there was a six-acre site of which two may be flat and one acre was going to be consumed by a concrete struc- ture, they were not doing justice to the open space area. As well, Mr. Salceda in his presentation reached a point on the future flat park site and then stopped. In their discussions that morning, he (Salceda) agreed they would provide the City with a minimum of five plus flat acres of land for a park site in Areas IX and X. Mr. Salceda stated he thought he explained that there would be work that staff and Anaheim Hills would 'do to find five acres of flat usable traditional baseball- soccer park type facility in Areas IX or X, whichever was most convenient. The Deer Canyon parcel would not preclude a park site in either Areas IX or X and that parcel was not going to be included as part of the in-lieu park fee credits to the developer. The other comment regarding the open channel or drainage could be answered by Mr. Horst Schor, their engineer, but they should recognize that the City still had the police powers of addressing whatever permits were required. Mr. Ruth stated he could appreciate that, but in the morning dipcussion, they felt uncomfortable when it was explained there was a possibility that three plumes would be coming down centralizing in that one area within the six-acre site. If that was the case, it would be a significant intrusion that everybody should be aware of up front, so that they would not have to fight the battle a year from now. Mr. Horst Schor, Anaheim Hills, responding to the question concerning the drop structure, stated that they did not have any plans for any specific drop structure at the present time. What they were referring to in terms of downstream drainage improvements was the Council's policy requiring downstream channel improvements 80-1047 City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - August 19, 19.80, 1:30 P.M. concurrent with upstream development. The present Storm Drain District No. 41 proposed for that area called for a 72 inch pipe or a concrete lined channel. They would be making the improvements in that area subject to the City Engineer's approval and would be submitting their plans in the future whenever development upstream was proposed. Thus, they had no plans at the present time and they did not know what the final improvements would look like, but they would be submitted upon development to the City Engineer for review and checking. Mr. Ruth stated that satisfied their questions. The only thing he would like to bring to the Council's attention was that, in essence, the land Anaheim Hills was giving up was the land already offered to the County in 1974 and the land they were gaining as a result of the boundary adjustment was of significant value. They were gaining a substantial amount of acreage, about 10 acres, flat, good, usable land that would be extracted from the Open Space area, and not be able to be used for a park site in the future. Mr. Salceda stated he respectfully differed with the comment. It was his impression having talked with staff, even in certain public discussions, that particular acreage Mr. Ruth was talking about was going to inherently have some significant fire and police problems and it was his recollection that staff was suggesting long ago that they did not want to have that particular acreage as their responsibility. What they were offering today was really the choicest of all the land in Deer Canyon for the possibility of a park site. It had never been his understanding that staff was so enamored with the area they were deleting from open space. Mr. Ruth responded they just wanted to make certain that the Council was aware that potentially Anaheim Hills could build some estate houses on the property they were pulling out of the easement area. Mr. Salceda rebutted by suggesting that the agreement specifically stated "it is agreed that the precise boundaries of the areas shown on Exhibit "C" cannot be determined at this time and that the boundaries shown on Exhibit "C" may be adjusted from time to time upon the mutual consent of the County and the landowner..." He reiterated that was the operative language, "...provided that the gross acreage of the areas shown on Exhibit "C" shall not be materially increased or decreased..." In fact, they were being increased by approximately 12 acres to the benefit of the County and the City. Mr. Ruth stated they did not necessarily agree with that but they wanted to be sure that the Council was aware of the potential for the future use of that land and that was all. Councilwoman Kaywood asked, relative to the area to the south, the red line added next to the existing tracts, was any of that area supposed to be in the mminten- ance of the homeowners groups. Mr. Salceda answered, "no". Subsequently it would be within the maintenance responsibility of the overall Master Association. The reason why the red lines went to the south and west was because in 1974, they did not know the tract boundaries of Stonegate, Singing Wood Hill and VIIIC. Now they were abutting the lines to those tracts because to do less than that would suggest that certain of those areas would be pockets or little islands over which no one would have j ur isdic tion. 80-1048 City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - August 19~ 1.980, 1:30 P.M. Councilwoman Kaywood then asked, in the area that Anaheim Hills removed, were they planning to do any building; Mr. Salceda answered "no, right~ now they did not have any plans for that." Councilwoman Kaywood also asked if it were flatter land; Mr. Salceda explained it was nearly as flat as the corral area and if they were to do something, grading would be required. That was not the portion about which they spoke of during the jeep ride through the area. The portion he was speaking of at the time was due north. That was not included in what they were donating to the County and it was never suggested to be a part of the County Open Space. That was the area that was within the Four Corner Pipeline easement for a potential park site. That particular area he was referring to at the time was in Open Space under the General Plan. Mr. Ruth then clarified for the Mayor the two proposals made by Anaheim Hills as previously outlined, was the acreage in Deer Canyon and that in Area IX and X. The Mayor then asked if that were the case, where did staff have difficulty. Mr. Ruth answered that they did not, but they wanted to make sure that they were satisfying the direction received from the Council on June 3, 1980, i.e., to be certain that staff provided maximum options in terms of future development for a park site in Deer Canyon. They were merely saying that the adjustment of those boundaries would limit that development. They could live with it, but if the entire acreage had not gone to the County, the Council would have had all those options to develop whatever acreage they wanted in Deer Canyon for a park site. Mayor Seymour stated it was his understanding the only feasible flat area to do the type of thing the Council discussed was the corral area. Mr. Ruth did not feel that was accurate. There were two or three different flat areas within Deer Canyon that were flat which totalled about five or six acres. As previously expressed, staff had some serious reservations about developing any park in Deer Canyon, but wanted to be sure, based on Council's direction, that the Council knew the present proposal would.limit those options. If the Council had no problem with lesser space as far as the park location in Deer Canyon, staff did not either. Mr. Ruth further stated that one of the assurances given by Anaheim Hills that morning was that they would provide a suitable hiking and riding trail through Deer Canyon, and provide access to that. He did not think it was worth anything in dollars, as questioned by the Mayor, because it already existed. The access road was there although they would have to do some grading and make improvements on the road. Access off Canyon Rim Road was available and the riders and hikers were already there. Councilman Roth explained that the access road was a single lane and there was a steep slope paralleling the single-lane road going into the Canyon. He could not visualize using that road without a considerable amount of grading, because on the other side it dropped off completely into the stream area. If Anaheim Hills would provide an adequate amount of ingress and egress, it would indicate to him a two-lane road from Canyon Rim Road going down into the Canyon. He foresaw major costs and problems in doing so, but if Anaheim Hills subscribed to that, he thought it was "great". 80-1049 City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - August 19, 1980, 1:30 P.M. Mayor Seymour again asked what that would be worth; Mr. Ruth stated the point raised was a good one relative to access to Canyon Rim Road down to the bottom. Regarding the trail, hikers and equestrian units were down in the Canyon all the time. However, relative to improved access about which the Mayor was speaking, that would involve a significant amount of money for grading, drainage and erosion control, perhaps a couple of hundred thousand dollars. The Mayor asked if that was what Anaheim Hills offered this morning; Mr. Ruth answered that they did not get into any dollars at all. Ail they indicated was that they would offer to the City reasonable access and provide a suitable hiking and riding trail through Deer Canyon. He felt the City could put some conditions on that and appropriately so. The Mayor asked Mr. Salceda to clarify the matter. Mr. Salceda stated that he did not recall the issue of access coming up, but that all they said was that they were going to provide a hiking and riding trail through the entirety of Deer Canyon. Mr. Ruth explained that the 1974 agreement required public access as they inter- preted it. Otherwise, there would be no value to the trails if the public could not use them. He believed that was what the Council had been concerned about from day one. Mr. Salceda answered that many people already, with just the present service road, were frequenting Deer Canyon. His intentions that morning were to come to the City and indicate if the Council wanted the "best of both worlds", Anaheim Hills would provide them with the corral area because that was the flattest area in Deer Canyon. In totality, it was about six acres with one to one-and-half flat acres. The only reason for doing so was to allow limited access into an area, but that had to be coupled with the fact that they were still going to provide plus or minus five flat usable acres somewhere in Areas IX and X which was the concern and desire of staff at the time the General Plan was being processed. The Mayor asked in the event they followed staff's recommendation rather than Mr. Salceda's, what were they required to give to the City in the way of land or in-lieu payments? He was trying to determine whether or not those five acres in Areas IX and X met the requirements of dedication. Mr. Salceda explained it would be the land plus the grading and possible improve- ment costs. It was not just five acres of land with regard to Areas IX and X. He was saying they were going to get together with staff and figure out where those five acres should be. Mayor Seymour stated he would then agree to five acres of flat land in Areas IX and X plus grading; Mr. Salceda added, also whatever the dollar amount worked out to be pursuant to the City ordinance for in-lieu park fee credit. The Mayor surmised, then if the City were willing to accept the Anaheim Hills recommendation indicated by the map on the wall from the 10:00 a.m. meeting, they wanted the City, in exchange for that, to give up the original boundaries. 80-1050 City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - August .19~ 1980, 1:30 P.M. Mr. Salceda felt that was a fair summation except for the fact that they believed the boundaries in 1974 were flexible and what they were agreeing to in 1974 was to provide plus or minus 65 acres in Deer Canyon and now they were giving the County 76 acres. They were also saying to the City, if they wanted a passive park in Deer Canyon, they were including the land most developable for a park site to insure to the City that it would not have to compensate Anaheim Hills for the property. Mayor Seymour asked when they indicated they would provide access on that piece of property, were they talking about the access road off Canyon Rim Road or access from the north. Mr. Salceda stated that they did not get into that issue in the morning meeting. Staff was referring to the agreement which stated that they were supposed to pro- vide access. Mr. Ruth interjected and stated staff felt that was key and they had to be careful they were not giving that up. Through the County agreement, Anaheim Hills was required to provide public access into those areas, all 504 acres they were giving to the County. This case would be no different. He reiterated they had to be careful that if Anaheim Hills was going to give the City the acreage and adjust the boundaries, that they had the same condition relative to providing public access into it, otherwise there was no value. Mayor Seymour stated he was trying to determine whether or not Anaheim Hills had the responsibility to give access to the County in open space being dedi- cated to them. Mr. Salceda answered that they were not providing a parcel of land that was land- locked. The property abutted Canyon Rim Road; the Mayor stated then that could possibly be defined as access. Councilman Bay first outlined what he understood to be the issues of the matter and then stated that he would question if the Council had made up its mind whether it wanted a park in Deer Canyon from a standpoint of the cost, the access cost, the problem of taking roads there and if they wanted to take roads there. There was a difference in public opinion which he had heard from people in the Canyon area wanting Deer Canyon to be left in its present state as much as possible, taking into account the hiking and riding trails already there. He then asked how many acres of in-lieu park land Anaheim Hills owed the City at this time. Mr. Ruth answered that under General Plan Amendment No. 155, which was the issue discussed at the June 3, 1980 meeting, based on the density Anaheim Hills pre- dicted, they were going to generate about 7,000 residents in the area. The City's park dedication required 2 acres per 1,000 population. Thus, they were talking about 14 acres and staff's position was that it was unreasonable to expect the developer to give up 14 flat acres in the hill and canyon area. They were willing to compromise the amount of land with the understanding that for the other nine acres, they would get the fees which would help develop the park and also pay for some grading. He also pointed out that section "e" on the 1974 agreement stated, "the landowner agrees that in planning for develop- ment adjacent to areas shown on Exhibit "C", it shall provide public access to said areas to the extent possible." 80-1051 City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - August 19, .1980, 1:30 P.M. Councilman Roth stated that could mean a trail or a one- or two-lane road; Mr. Ruth stated that it could, but the City Council and Planning Commission con- trolled that. Councilman Overholt asked if they were to adopt the proposal that Anaheim Hills made that morning, what would the City be giving up as far as the ability to negotiate in the future for appropriate park sites, active or passive, and in-lieu fees. Mr. Ruth stated under the provision made that morning, he would take exception to the indication that they offered the best land. He felt they offered ac- ceptable land, but it was already in the 1974 agreement which they would have acquired anyway. What he would say they were giving up was really based on the Council's direction and not so much his. The Council was aware that he was opposed to developing an active park in the Deer Canyon area, but they followed Council direction that they did not want to exclude the possibility. Therefore, based on the adjusted boundaries, he felt they were limiting their capability for developing an active park in Deer Canyon in the future, certainly to the size and extent they could have under the 1974 agreement. They could get a small active recreation area, but it was dependent on the policy direction of the Council. The Mayor asked how many flat acres in the 1974 proposal were not being included in the 10:00 a.m. proposal; Mr. Ruth answered that they had taken out about 13 flat acres. Mayor Seymour stated, in essence, they started off in 1974 with 65 acres and they were currently proposing 76 acres, 11 more than in 1974, but four of the 76 acres, they were going to pull out 13 flat acres. Mr. Ruth stated that was pretty much the story. They were giving back one and a half acres, but that was already in the original Open Space easement so they were not giving anything. Mr. Schor explained that he was a party to the agreement in 1974 when the exhibit was developed. The intent was not to establish precise boundaries for the Canyon. The boundaries on Exhibit "C" for each of the parcels shown were very general in nature, just as the General Plan, and the differences could be several hundred feet. It was being said that they were changing the boundaries from the original agreement. They were not--they were now defining them. They were never described before and there was no legal description nor calculated boundaries, but merely an 8½ X i1 sketch attached to the agreement which was very general in nature. There was never any discussion of any flat land to be dedicated either to the County or the City for park purposes. This was a whole new concept they never had before. The Mayor asked if conversely the land was all to be sloped; Mr. Schor answered not ail sloped--it was to be passive open space with very limited use by the public primarily for riding and hiking purposes. There was never to be any paved road built through the open space parcels, or any traffic through them, or parking lots. Relative to the concept of flat land, there was no flat land in Deer Canyon, just land less sloped than other portions. He reiterated the boundaries were very adjustable and that was why there were irregular lines and there were no legal descriptions attached to the agreement. They were now 80-1052 City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - August 19, 1980, 1:30 P.M. defining those boundaries and they had reached consent with the County as to the boundaries of Deer Canyon, and they thought they were very close with the City. Councilman Roth stated he had to agree with Mr. Schor because in 1974 the now existing tracts were not under development. The red lines indicated on the map, swinging towards Canyon Rim Road, were the pockets left over from the end of developments of several tracts. Mr. Schor confirmed that was correct; the County recognized that, and they wanted to be sure that the boundaries be flexible, so that they could be made contiguous to future development occurring in that area so that there would not be any strips of land that could be used for development purposes and thus, they were complying with the intent of the agreement. He also pointed out that the green lines as shown on the map were not accurate and not representative of the terms of the intent of Exhibit "C" attached to the cancellation preserve agreement. Aside from that, they were to be boundaries to be adjusted for the benefit'of the County and the landowner. After further clarification by Mr. Salceda and questions posed to him by Council- woman Kaywood, Councilman Overholt asked if the Council were to act on staff's recon~nendation today, how would Anaheim Hills be prejudiced in their future nego- tiations with respect to the land in that area--what would their organization be losing if the Council acted favorably on staff's recommendation. Mr. Salceda stated that staff's recommendation was premised on the offering that Anaheim Hills made several weeks ago to the County and was, in fact, the basis of the staff recommendation as of 10:00 o'clock this morning. Councilman Overholt amked staff if their recommendation was different now; Mr. Ruth answered that they could live with the new proposal a lot ~asier than the original. They were trying to set the policy direction of the Council who in- dicated they wanted to maintain their options in Deer Canyon and the present proposal did not do that. Councilman Overholt then asked how Anaheim Hills would be prejudiced if they were to adopt staff's recommendations. Mr. Salceda explained that instead of having to offer 65 acres per the 1974 agree- ment, they would now not be offering 76, but 88 or 98, because they would be offering all of the land that was not part of the 1974 agreement, but must be offered as part of the agreement in order to preclude the small pocket or islands of "no man's land". Rather than providing 75 acres they would now have to provide 90 and thus it was additional consideration. Granted, they would take certain areas out of open space, but he felt the integrity of Deer Canyon was still being preserved by the 76-acre parcel. He repeated that the staff had not made any overtures to them that the land not being offered had any potential for a park site. The only concern in addressing the issue in the staff report was stating the Council's mandate that they be given the maximum options. He was saying, they were being protected to 99.44% and the question was whether they wanted that additional .56%. Mr. Salceda also stated they might subsequently be able to make use of that land for their own purposes. I 80-1053 City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - August 19~ 1980~ 1:30 P.M. Councilman Overholt stated then that the bottom line was that the modification of the boundaries would give them an opportunity to have some building sites they did not have now; Mr. Salceda answered, possibly so. Discussion and questioning followed between the Mayor, staff and Mr. Salceda, essentially revolving around the pockets or islands indicated in red in the south and southwesterly portion. Mr. Salceda explained that particular acreage, utilizing a strict interpretation of the map for the 1974 agreement, would not be credited to their 504 acres because they were not part of the 1974 map. Councilman Bay asked who would have to maintain that area; Mr. Salceda stated that whenever Anaheim Hills developed out, he did not know who would do so, probably the Master Homeowner Association. Mr. Thompson stated it would have to be maintained by someone but the bonus acreage Mr. Salceda was talking about was 504 acres because they had only offered 504 acres to the County. They had actually just shifted it further to the west to cover the "no man~s land". Mr. Salceda explained that the 1974 agreement showed only the green area. In looking at the 1974 agreement, it had only 504 acres in it and the area to the south and southwest was not part of the 504 acres. Therefore, that acreage, because it was not part of a Homeowners' Association, it was already open space and a buffer zone and currently there was nothing they could do with it. That acreage would not be given to the County for additional credit. They had to either turn to the '74 agreement or not--he was saying that the 1974 agreement was a living body. In finality, they were trying to preclude those pockets of land. Mr. Thompson stated that land, as a condition of subsequent development, could be put in either a tract by itself or incorporated into part of the subsequent development as a lot of a particular tract and could be given to the Master Home- owner's Association. Mayor Seymour stated, in any event, it would amount to another 25 additional acres of open space going from 65 to 98 acres. Mr. Salceda made the statement that no- body from staff had given him an indication that the areas not given had any potential for a park site. Mr. Salceda clarified that nobody indicated they had a desire that that area be developed as a park site. The Mayor asked Mr. Ruth if he agreed; Mr. Ruth answered "no". They were not talking about a staff position, but a Council direction. The Mayor felt, however, that staff had to tell them from the acreage they were holding out to the north and northeast, whether it was developable park acreage in accordance with the policy last set by the Council. 80-1054 City Hall~ Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - August 19, 1980, 1:30 P.M. Mr. Ruth stated it was valuable open space acreage and they could use it for park development. Mr. Salceda then asked Mr. Ruth, in his position, would he recommend to the Council that that parcel be developed for park purposes. Mr. Ruth answered that he would not recommend that as a park, but would recommend to the County that they keep it for open space. Mayor Seymour then questioned, if it was acreage he would not recommend for the development of a park as previously discussed and debated by the Council, why were they so concerned that they shift the boundaries to the south and southwest. Mr. Ruth answered it then became a value judgment in terms of protecting the Scenic Corridor of the Canyon and its integrity. Most of the additional acreage was in manufactured slopes and that additional acreage was not suitable for park purposes or scenic value, or anything. Mayor Seymour concluded, what was being traded off if the Council were to adopt the Anaheim Hills recommendation, would be some manufactured slope area, while giving up some other equally as severe slope area although not manufactured. Holding to the original agreement, they were going to get another 25 acres out of Anaheim Hills. Mr. Ruth stated "no", and that the commitment to the County was for 504 acres and that was what they were going to give. They were not going to give any more than the original proposal. The Mayor stated, he was saying those pockets would remain open and that was the same thing. It just meant the County would not maintain them, but Anaheim Hills and the Master Homeowner Association would maintain them. Mr. Ruth stated his guess would be that acreage would probably go to the Master Homeowner Association in time. Councilwoman Kaywood then posed questions to Mr. Salceda revolving around the 504 acres to be donated to the County. In concluding, Councilwoman Kaywood asked if they would be donating more than the 504 acres or not. She was looking for a total figure. Mr. Salceda stated, effectively, "yes", if they used the 1974 agreement as the "bible". Councilwoman Kaywood referring to Deer Canyon, stated there was no way she could see a ball park in that canyon because it simply was not that kind of place, not even for "throwing a football around." If it were opened up all the way, then there must be access and parking and, if so, they would be taking away some part of the pristine natural beauty existing there and thus destroying that amenity. If that was donated to the County as part of the open space and not counted toward Anaheim, she was satisfied with that portion. Mr. Salceda stated that they had accepted the comments that staff had been making to them since January of last year and had abandoned their desire to put a very comprehensive, high-use park site in Deer Canyon. His comment to staff this 80-1055 City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - August 19, 1980, 1:30 P.M. morning was that they would put that particular kind of park some place other than Deer Canyon. Again, the only reason they even extended the offering in Deer Canyon was at some future point in time, should the Council wish, the opportunity was there should they ever want to exercise the possibility of a passive park. Councilwoman Kaywood then reported that it was a unanimous decision of the Park & Recreation Commission, as well as the Planning Commission, that that portion of Deer Canyon be available but never as an active park. Councilman Bay then asked relative to the new orange lines indicated on the one page map that he had, if the existing riding and hiking trails followed the stream bed. Mr. Schor answered that there were no existing riding and hiking trails. There was the old Ranch Road which was constructed a number of years ago and presently maintained by Anaheim Hills and Southern California Edison. The ultimate riding and hiking trail would probably be in a somewhat different location. Councilman Bay then expressed some concerns he had relative to the lines indicated on the map particularly looking back along the stream bed where the new orange lines on the east had cut out a great deal of the stream bed, and what Anaheim Hills had in mind by cutting that out. Mr. Schor explained that the map did not accurately represent the boundaries. Their intent in the legal description they provided to the County was to include the stream bed and there was no question about that. · Councilman Bay then surmised that the orange lines were not correct; Mr. Schor confirmed that they were not correct and reiterated that their intent and the legal description would prove that the stream bed would be included in the offering to the County. They intended to cover the stream bed and would stip- ulate to that. The line should be shifted to the east and cover the stream bed. Mr. Salceda commented that because of Storm Drain District No. 41, it seemed to him that the issue of the steam bed as it now existed was somewhat moot because with the paver road and all the facilities that were going to be placed in Deer Canyon, the probability was that the stream bed, as it existed today, would be altered somewhat and even considerably. He confirmed for Councilwoman Kaywood that Anaheim Hills was going'to bear the cost for those improvements. Mayor Seymour, speaking to Mr. Ruth, stated that he (Ruth) indicated that the acreage being excluded under the 10:00 o'clock proposal, he could not recon~nend for park development but if the Council accepted that proposal, they should concur that there was no possibility to build a park. He (Seymour) had hereto- fore described a par. k in Deer Canyon--a picnic bench, a place to roast hot dogs, certainly hiking and riding trails, walking through Deer Canyon, and if one chose to, to play softball or throw a football with their youngsters. In order for that to occur, he imagined they would need a road into the canyon, a place to park, and water,~ and he guessed that would be the extent of public im- provements. With all that said, he wanted to clarify his thinking relative to 80-1056 City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - Au.gust 19~ 1980, 1:30 P.M. two statements made by Mr. Ruth: (1) the land that was being excluded, he could not recommend for park development, and (2) if the Council approved what Anaheim Hills was asking for, then he could not recommend a park in Deer Canyon. Mr. Ruth answered "no" and taking the second question first, if they accepted the adjusted boundaries, he indicated to the Council that there was really only one and a half acres of potential flat usable land that could be developed as active recreation 'area, but it would be extremely limited and very unlikely that a ball diamond could be accommodated while still accommodating picnic facilities. Thus, there would be limited potential to develop anything in the way of an active park, but it could be done although very small and not within the con- text of what they felt was Council direction at the June 3, 1980 meeting. It was their feeling initially at that meeting and Anaheim Hills stipulated, quoting Mr. Salceda, that that acreage they recommended for a park in Deer Canyon was ideal for a suitable park site and that was part of the 13 acres they were pulling out. It was his reaction that he was not really favorable toward a park development at that time and he probably let that influence his judgment today. He agreed, however, that an active park could be developed in some of the flat acreage they would be pulling out, but he would not recommend it for a lot of reasons just enumerated by the Mayor, the cost, grading, access, and fire hazard. He felt that there would be an inordinate amount of costs involved and he was not certain it would be compatible with the passive hiking, equestrian type of situation. After further discussion between Council and staff, the Mayor concluded in looking at the exhibit which attempted to cover the relatively flat areas in yellow, and if they were to accept at face value the stipulation of Anaheim Hills that their boundary line would be no=th and east of the stream bed, then what he saw with that colored map was that the County was picking up a great deal more in relatively flat land than what the map had originally indicated. He did not know why they could not permit Anaheim-Hills their request because clearly it gave additional relatively flat areas that Mr. Ruth told them they should have if they wanted any type of active park. It provided an opportunity for Anaheim Hills to do something with the pockets that were created in developments they proposed and which the City approved and clearly, the Council would have the flexibility of the options as last stated by them. With that understanding, he did not see what was wrong. Mr. Ruth stated, if the map was accurate, they Could live with that. Mayor Seymour stated he was going to suggest a motion that very specifically would state that the boundary would be continuing on the northerly side and easterly side folloWing the stream bed. Mr. Ruth stated that would be fine and it would be acceptable to them with some additional conditions which Anaheim Hills already agreed to, to be included in the motion. Councilman Seymour first offered Resolution No. 80R-368 for adoption, as recommendec in memorandum received August 14, 1980 from the Planning Director and Deputy City Manager. Refer to Resolution Book. 80-1057 City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - August 19, 1980, 1:30 P.M. RESOLUTION NO. 80R-368: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM FINDING THAT THE PROPOSED GRANT TO THE COUNTY OF ORANGE OF OPEN SPACE EASEMENTS CONSISTING OF OVER 504 ACRES OF LAND IN ANAHEIM HILLS IS IN CONFORMITY WITH THE GENERAL PLAN OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM. Roll Call Vote: AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Overholt, Kaywood, Bay, Roth and Seymour NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: None ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: None - The Mayor declared Resolution No. 80R-368 duly passed and adopted. MOTION: Councilman Seymour moved the following: (1) City to receive a minimum of five plus acres of flat, active park site in Areas IX and X central to the development area. (2) The open space easement proposal to the County would be amended to include level acreage in the "L" portion of the Deer Canyon and that acreage not be offered to the City for dedication or receive any park dedication credit. (3) Assurances that a suitable hiking and riding trail be provided through Deer Canyon and access be provided with that. (4) That the boundary lines on the north and east, be northerly and easterly of the stream bed as indicated on the exhibit. Councilman Bay seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. RECESS: By general consent the Council recessed for 15 minutes. (4:15 p.m.) AFTER RECESS: Mayor Seymour called the meeting to order, all Council Members being present. (4:30 p.m.) 104/174(CDBG): PUBLIC HEARING - STREET LIGHTING ASSESSMENT DISTRICT 1980-2: To consider objections to the improvements of the proposed Street Lighting Assessment District 1980-2 for Arbor Street, Crown Street, Glen Drive and La Palma Avenue in Tract No. 1859. Mayor Seymour first referred to staff report dated July 22, 1980 relative to the subject and then asked if there was any member of the public would like to address the Council. Mrs. Helen Brace, 1192 Crown Street, stated when the person circulated the petition for the people to sign for the-street lights, they were assured that there would be no charge to the residents for those lights. Mr. Bob Herr, Civil Engineering Assistant, confirmed for the Mayor that all of the residents in the District would be charged an assessment; Mayor Seymour explained to Mrs. Brace that the cost to those in that Assessment District would be $24.61 per year for five years, but apparently somebody had indicated there would be no cost. Mrs. Brace stated that was correct and that was the only way they would sign the petition. Mr. Daddario passed the petition to the neighbors and there were also two other residents in the audience who were in the same position, Mrs. Flecstein, 1187 Crown, and Mr. Bob Purcell, 1193 Crown and 1196 Arbor. 80-1058 City Hall, Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - August 19~ 1980, 1:30 P.M. Mr. Dominic Daddario, 1180 North Crown, first stated that all the neighbors were friendly about the situation. They had been working actively with the Neighborhood Council at the Patrick Henry School, and the establishment of the Street Light District was an outgrowth of the activities of the Council. He was under the opinion in dealing with the people from the City that the District could be established and the funding for the installation and maintenance of the Street Lights could be allocated from the Community Development Block Grant(CDBG). As it turned out in dealing with Mr. Herr and other members of the Electrical Department, the CDGB would pay for 50% of the street lights not installed by the City. If his figures were correct, the Electrical Department determined that creation of the District would mean the installation of a total of 18 street lights of which the City would be responsible for 10, leaving 8 to be paid for. CDBG. funds would pay for 50% or four of those lights, leaving a deficit of four to be paid for by the residents of the proposed Street Lighting District. Originally it was their belief that CDBG funds would pay for those 8 street lights, but in the final analysis, they were only permitted by law to pay for 4 of the 8. In concluding, Mr. Daddario stated that as residents of Crown, Arbor, and a portion of La Palma Avenue, it was their belief that street lights were a necessity in that neighborhood for many reasons. It was a very dark and poorly lit area, the only lights avialable in the evening hours coming from front porch lights, post lights or individual homeowners providing a light. There was a dangerous condition in that area where there were a lot of children, everybody seemed to like to use that particular area as the local drag strip, a lover's lane and whatever else they could think of. As well there had been a high incidence of vandalism and break-ins. The residents were interested in maintaining and preserving the integrity of the neighborhood and quality of life. The Mayor then questioned staff relative to the number of people who had been told that CDBG funds were going to pay for the lights; Mr. Herr answered 83% of 65 property owners. Councilman Roth suggested that the matter be continued for two weeks and notifica- tion be sent to all 85 people in the District stating that they were going to be assessed $2 a month for the next five years. Mayor Seymour asked why they did not use another $7,000 in Block Grant Funds and not go through the Assessment District process. Mr. Herr explained that the estimated cost from the Electrical Department was $33,000 and the Community Block Grant people indicated they would pay 50%. Fourteen lights were going to be installed and CDBG would pay for half of the total of construction. Thus, they were talking about $17,000 that the property owners would have to pay. The Mayor noted that the staff report indicated that the total over a five-year period would be $7,998.25; Mr. Herr stated that was correct, but that an Assessment District covered a period of five years and there would have to be another five-year assessment period after that. They were talking about a total of 10 to 11 years to pay off the amortization of the City's cost of the street lights. 80-1059 City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - August 19, 1980, 1:30 P.M. The Mayor then asked if the cost was half of $33,000, or $16,500, why that could not be paid by the Block Grant funds. Miss Lisa Stipkovich, Housing Manager, stated that the citizens were told during citizen participation meetings that CDBG funds would pay 50% and that fact was also stated in their application to HUD. It was something that sup- posedly everyone understood. Fifty percent of the cost would be paid out of those funds if the residents showed the initiative to form a lighting district and were willing to pay for the other 50%. There was no legal reason why that could not be changed, but they would have to go back through the petition pro- cess. She did not know how many more neighborhoods would be involved because they told each neighborhood council if they wanted to do the same, whoever came in first would get first preference on the money, and there was about $40,000 in that fund. · She knew of at least one other area who wanted to form a district and be funded Under the program. Councilman Bay expressed concern that the staff report did not have the true dollar figures indicated there; CitY Manager Talley stated he could not under- stand why the Council was not provided with the correct information, and it would be his recommendation tha: the matter be continued two weeks so that staff could provide the Council and citizens with an accurate report of the liabilities and alternatives which should be circulated to all the property owIler S. MOTION: Councilman Bay moved that public hearing on proposed Street Lighting Assessment District No. 1980-2 be continued one week and that all citizens be informed of the true costs involved. Councilman 0verholt seconded the motion. Before a vote was taken, the Mayor stated that the legal process for setting up an assessment district required circulation of a petition, and it seemed to him that although not done intentionally, it was circulated improperly. He asked the City Attorney if they would have to recirculate the petition. City Attorney Hopkins stated it would seem so because the testimony today revealed that the people who signed the petition were inadvertently misinformed. The Mayor stated he would also be interested in knowing just how much money would be involved in Block Grant funds for the neighborhoods that they talked with. One alternative would be to use the Block Grant funds in totality for financing the cost. He wanted to know if that was possible. Councilman Roth, speaking to staff', stated that when forming a district, it was imperative that they structure the wording on the petitions for the people in bold print, giving them all the necessary information, as well as the person passing, the petition. Mayor Seymour suggested that the motion instead ask staff to provide a report relative to the possibility of using Block Grant funds to finance the cost with a decision to then be made relative to the necessity of resetting the public hearing. 80-1060 City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - August 19, 1980, 1:30 P.M. Councilmen Bay and 0verholt were agreeable to the suggested amendment to the mo tion. Councilwoman Kaywood stated that if there were only a limited amount of money in the Budget, she also needed to know how many other neighborhoods were inter- ested in lighting. A vote was then taken on the amended motion as articulated by the Mayor. MOTION CARRIED. 170/112: AMENDMENT TO COVENANTS, CONDITIONS & RESTRICTIONS OF GRAMERCY PARK: On motion by Councilwoman Kaywood, seconded by Councilman Overholt, a proposed amendment to the CC&R's of Gramercy Park was approved, changing the amount of homeowners who must consent in order to allow the Association to use the Contin- gency Fund, from 100 per cent to 66 2/3 per cent, as recommended in memorandum dated August 12, 1980 from the City Attorney's office. MOTION CARRIED. 114/173: ODD-EVEN GAS DISTRIBUTION SYSTEM: Councilman Roth offered Resolution No. 80R-369 for adoption, urging the Governor to lift the odd-even gas dis- tribution system immediately. Refer to Resolution Book. RESOLUTION NO. 80R-369: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM URGING THE GOVERNOR TO LIFT THE ODD-EVEN GAS DISTRIBUTION SYSTEM IMMEDIATELY. 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-369 duly passed and adopted. 108: PUBLIC DANCE PERMIT: On motion by Councilman Bay, seconded by Councilman Overholt, administrative approval of a Public Dance Permit application submitted by the Vietnamese Dance Club for a dance held August 16, 1980, 8:30 p.m. to 1:00 a.m., at the Convention Center, was ratified with approval recommended by the Chief of Police. MOTION CARRIED. 127: ARGUMENT AGAINST ELECTION OF MAYOR'AND ELECTION DATE M~ASURE ON THE NOVEMBER 4, 1980 BALLO~: Councilman Seymour offered Resolution No. 80R-370 and 80R-371 for adoption, the first amending Resolution No. 80R-116 relating to the November 4, 1980 Special Municipal Election, authorizing Councilwoman Kaywood to file the argument against the election of the Mayor issue, and the second amending Resolution No. 80R-120 relating to the same election, autho- rizing Councilwoman Kaywood to file the argument against the election date measure. Refer to Resolution Book. RESOLUTION NO. 80,R-370:, A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AMENDING RESOLUTION NO. 80R-116 RELATING TO A SPECIAL MUNICIPAL ELECTION. RESOLUTION NO. 80R-371: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANANEIM AMENDING RESOLUTION NO. 80R-120 RELATING TO A SPECIAL MUNICIPAL ELECTION. 80-1061 City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - August 19~ 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-370 and 80R-371 duly passed and adopted. 114: LIAISON MEETINGS PROCEDURE: Councilman Bay referred to a copy of his pro- posed motion dated August 19, 1980 which he read as follows: "When Liaison Meetings are called, the Senior Staff Member involved will see that the City Clerk's Office is notified of the date, time ami place of said meeting. This information will be posted on a "public information" calendar, readily available in. the City Clerk's Office. Within five working days following all Liaison Meetings, the Senior Staff Member will see that a written "outline" report is delivered to the City Clerk for distribution and filing. This report should contain a list of attendees, items discussed, and a name and phone number where additional information might be obtained. The City Clerk will distribute copies of the report to each City Council Member, the City Manager, and file one copy for future reference." Councilman Bay then stated he felt they had a communication gap within the Liaison Meetings and that it was very difficult to report on those meetings under "Council Comments" of the agenda particularly after long, ardous Council meetings. There was no intent to criticize Liaison Meetings since they served a very good purpose. He was looking for a little more formalized control so that everyone was aware the meetings were taking place, the subject matter and if more information was needed, anyone could call and get it. Councilman Seymour thereupon seconded the motion which he wholeheartedly supported. When they created the liaison process to achieve more quickly results relative to direction set by the Council, they had in mind that they would have a calendar in the City Clerk's office for not only the Council's information, but also the public and the press and further, that they would report the results at the next Tuesday's Council meeting. He felt strongly that the liaison system had been extremely successful, owing to the success the Council had enjoyed in achieving specific objectives. However, they had fallen down on what was to be a communication device and thus, Councilman Bay's motion was in order ami he was supportive of it.. Councilman Overholt stated that he did not think it was Councilman Bay's inten- tion, by the motion, to eliminate the reports at the Council meetings by Liaison Committee Members; Councilman Bay confirmed there was no intent to subdue any of the reporting that any Liaison Member wished to make. A vote was then taken on the foregoing motion. MOTION CARRIED. 80-1062 City Hall, Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - August 19~ 1980~ 1:30 P.M. Chairman Seymour reconvened the Anaheim Housing Authority for a~joint meeting with the City Council, all Authority Members being present. (5:00 P.M.) 155/177: STATUS REPORT OF FREMONT AND APOLLO JUNIOR HIGH SCHOOLS: Recommen- dation 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 relative to housing for low and moderate income families and the Planning Com- mission'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 meet- ings of August 5 and 12, 1980). Mayor/Chairman Seymour asked staff to make a brief presentation on the course of action recommended. Ms. Susan Schick, Redevelopment Manager, first briefed the Council on reports dated August 15, 1980 to the City Manager/Housing Authority from the Executive Director of Community Development, Norm Priest, "Intent to Purchase Surplus School Site"--one regarding the Fremont Junior High School site and the other the Apollo Junior High School site and recommending that the Anaheim Housing Authority approve a letter of intent to purchase both surplus school sites. They met with the City Attorney's~office, Parks and Recreation and the Planning Department to come up with a series of recommendations that may be appropriate. To briefly summarize, -they were trying to take advantage of an opportunity that the School District presented by using the surplus property for a couple of possible uses. One would be to attempt to accommodate recrea- tion potential on the sites. There might be a possibility to provide Senior Citizen facilities on the Apollo School site and possibly some cultural art facilities on the Fremont site. In addition, the Housing Authority involve- ment and the staff recommendation for the Housing Authority involvement was to try to pursue an opportunity to provide additional housing resources in Anaheim, including a percentage of those units being developed and what they defined as affordable housing, affordable being housing opportunities that could be made to cater to the individual in the City with an income anywhere between 80% to 120% of the median income. In order to do so, they were rec- ommending that the Housing Authority submit a letter of intent of their interest in purchasing the Apollo and Fremont School sites on two conditions. One would be that on the Fremont site, they enter into negotiations on what would actually be the Fair Market Value of the property and on the Apollo site, the offer would be based on the stated value in the School District notice of $3,030,000. In addition, they would be telling the School District if they were to proceed with a firm offer for the property, they would do so only on the condition that they would be able to select and enter into a contract for the sale and purchase of the property with the developer to be selected in the 60-day time period set up. The other condition would be that the sale of land from the Housing Authority to the developer would be used to close any escrow that may be entered into between the Housing Authority and the School District. The 60-day time period would end approximately October 15, 1980. During that time, they would be required to send out a request for proposals--the Housing Authority--to any qualified, interested housing developer and ask them to put together a proposal 80-1063 City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - August 19~ 1980, 1:30 P.M. for the property involved in the two sites. The proposal would require the developer to front all the capital costs of the Housing Authority so that the Housing Authority would merely be the pass-through agency between the developer and the School District. The involvement of the Housing Authority would be to try to assure that a portion of the housing be developed in the affordable housing costs range. The proposal would state that they would like responses with a 45% requirement for affordable housing. However, in order to accommodate the Parks & Recreation interest in pursuing recreation uses on the two sites, that they also ask the developers to convey a portion of each of the sites for recreation purposes. In the case of Fremont, they were talking about the possible convey- ance of approximately 4 acres which would include approximately 2 acres and parking and at least the main auditorium facing Lincoln Avenue. At Apollo, they were talking about the possible conveyance of two buildings to the City and about one and a half acres of parking supporting that use. In return for that conveyance, if the Council felt that was a feasible thing to do, the Housing Authority would then negotiate with the developer to possibly reduce the 45% affordable requirement if that developer could show the Authority that the financial feasibility of that conveyance to the City adversely affected the overall development program so that it no longer made any sense to proceed. In addition, in order to begin the necessary work to put together a housing package in such a short time period, they were also recommending that the Council initiate a General Plan Amendment that would consider alternate parks & recreation and low-to-medium residential uses on both the Apollo and Fremont School sites. They believed if they initiated the General Plan Amendment, as well as proceed to work with an EIR consultant to do an EIR analysis, by the end of 60 days (October 15), at which point they should have developer propo- sals and hopefully selected one, they would have sufficient information to be able to enter into a commitment with that developer on what his housing pro- posal would be were the Housing Authority to act as the instrument to transfer the property from the School District to a private developer. In addition, they were also requesting that the Housing Authority authorize staff to proceed with submitting a request for proposal to developers interested in the property. She also clarified with regard to the motion on the environmental assessments that needed to be done, in order to get the developer decent direction and to talk about the possibilities for the type of housing uses that may be most appro- priate on the site, they wanted to proceed with the EIR as soon as possible, the recommendation being that the Community Development Director and the Plan- ning Director proceed to select and negotiate a contract with an EIR consultant immediately and then return to the Council with that contract for execution. That was the basic proposal. In summary, they had an opportunity and a chance to proceed with that opportunity without committing themselves irrevocably during the 60-day time period and thus, they could accomplish two goals--possible park and recreation usage and the possibility of securing affordable housing in Anaheim. In answer to a line of questioning posed by Authority/Council Members Kaywood, Bay, and Overholt, Ms. Schick relayed the following: If they could not come to a conclusion on a Fair Market Value and sales agreement within the 60-day time period, the School District had submitted a notice stating they would proceed to advertise the site publicly. Relative to the possible influx of children as 80-1064 City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - Au~s~ 19, 1980, 1:30 P.M. a result of affordable housing and the question as to where they would go to school, that was something the EIR would address at a minimum. In addition, the School District in coming to a determination on the need for the sites, any EIR they had done, that issue had also been addressed. It was something they could look into and report on to the Council prior to any final selection of a developer. Further, the affordable housing requirement would come in a series of housing types and use. It would be a mix, not all three and four bedrooms, and it would not be their intent to seek such proposals. They had a method to control the school population if the EIR showed it to be a problem. They would not limit children, but the private developer would be able to provide a mix of housing units. She reiterated, she would be surprised if a developer came back with all units as two, three and four bedrooms in which there would be children based on the mix of units already existing in the neighborhoods. The risk factor, if the Council took the necessary actions today, would be the cost of the EIR, but it would be a very minimal risk. Planning Director Thompson already pointed out in their discussion that the school site would be used for some type of residential and park and recreation use and thus they were investing in a future review of the situation earlier' than normal. It was estimated that the cost of the EIR for the two sites would be approximately $32,000 to $35,000. The other factor would be the time ex- pended by staff; the notice of intent was simply a requirement in the Education Code to make the School District aware that there was interest from public entities to sit down and negotiate and purchase that property, and it did not represent a legal commitment by the City. They wanted to sit down and nego- tiate with the School District on the Fremont value, but felt that the price on Apollo was Fair Market Value. The one unknown in the process as previosuly mentioned was that although they could ask the developer to submit a proposal with housing units with at least 45% of those affordable with the right to negotiate on the reduction of that if the conveyanace of the property adversely affected his financial proforma, they might be asking developers for too much because they were aware there was an interest from the cultural arts group in the Fremont site. It appeared in discussions with the Parks & Recreation staff that in order to accommodate the cultural arts group and their interest in the physical buildings on the Fremont site and to provide a minimum parking standard, they were talking about a possible conveyance of four acres. In addition, the developer had to demolish those heavy school buildings before he could gain an effective use of the property. A very minimum requirement would have to be 25% for affordable housing, otherwise, the Housing Authority would have no business being involved if it were less than that. Councilman/Authority Member Bay asked to hear from Mr. Ruth relative to the plan just described, putting it into operation and thereby ending up with what they wanted., how would they proceed from that point. Mr. James Ruth, Deputy City Manager, explained that staff had more work to do in terms of assessing the potential of the two sites. They explored Apollo in terms of whether they ever wanted it as a park site and said, "no". They recognized, however, that' there was a tremendous need for senior citizen facilities in the City and although that site was in the westerly portion & 80-1065 City Hall, Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - August 19, 1980, I:30..P.M. amenable to the approach, they would negotiate with the City of Buena Park and Cypress to see if they could get a three-party agreement to share in the cost of that facility because it would accommodate more than Anaheim seniors, thus keeping cost at a minimum. At Fremont, he had discussed the matter with Mr. Ray Campbell and certain members of the Cultural Arts Foundation and the estimate on the maintenance, if they were to acquire all the facilities they were asking for, would be $126,000 a year. Currently, the City was paying approximately $30,000 a year for the Horace Mann School on indoor and outdoor.maintenance. The Foundation had not made any decision on giving up the Horace Mann School, but if so, that $30,000 could be applied toward a new center for maintenance and operation. Mr. Herb Leo per- formed a study at one of the meetings where he indicated based on the greater flexibility of the facilities, greater potentials for rentals existed and, therefore, the Foundation could generate substantially more income than at the Horace Mann School which would offset some of the operational costs. In terms of rehabilitation, they had explored that with Norm Priest relative to getting some Community Development Block Grant money that might assist and also exploring grants. They felt they could show benefit to the Project Area and thus felt that would be a source of funding. The $126,000 dollar estimate was based on five buildings. He did not have the estimate on just the main front building, but Mr. John Roche, Facility Maintenance Superintendent, had toured the facility and spent considerable time on the matter and he was certain that maintenance costs were broken down by buildings. Councilman/Authority Member Bay stated t!%at he would like to lcnow, the difference between the maintenance cost for five buildings as opposed to the one main building. Councilwoman/Authority Member Kaywood asked if the parking area was included in the Fremon~ site; Mr. Ruth answered that it was going to be difficult for the developer but that it was a necessity to have the parking. The Mayor/Chairman asked to hear from any member of the public who wished to speak to the matter. Although no one indicated a desire to speak, a show of hands revealed that there were nine people present in favor of the staff recommendation. Councilman/Authority Member Bay asked Mr. Campbell, who was in the Chamber audience, if it was the intent of the Foundation, if Fremont were made avail- able, to give up the Horace Mann School. Mr. Campbell deferred to the President of the Foundation, Marzuerite Lee. Mrs. Lee stated that she did not think the sitation was discussed, and assumed that they would give up the Horace Mann School when they moved in to the much- needed larger quarters. Discussion then followed between Councilman/Authority Member Bay and Mr. Campbell relative to the space needs'of the Foundation, specifically the need for five buildings vs. one, and also maintenance cost per square footage. Mr. Campbell also explained that relative to rehabilitation, the City need not become involved in that aspect because he felt they would get enough grants from the Foundation and possibly the government to take care of rehabilitation over a protracted period of time. 80-1066 City Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINU.TE~ - .August 19~ 1980~ 1:30 P.M. Mayor/Chairman Seymour stated that they were going to need something in black and white, a written proposal from the Cultural Arts Foundation that would outline everything in detail before they could build that into their final decision-making process. Councilman/Authority Member Overholt reported that people called him this week and even those who had some doubts as to whether the Fremont facility would provide what they really wanted, now seemed to be for the project because they felt all kinds of flexibilities were built in. No one was negative and the Foundation should be complimented for forging ahead, and they should proceed with considerable confidence that people were behind them. The Mayor/Chairman cautioned, however, that there were many unknowns as of this time. Before concluding, Mrs. Lee asked what the chances might be of their being the tenant and the City the landlord. They had been self-supporting at the Cultural Arts Center and were using every inch of their present space and had to turn people down everyday. They were in the hopes that the City could be of help. Ms. Schick then confirmed in answer to a question posed that at the Fremont site they estimated that they would require two acres of parking or parking for 240 or 260 cars. She then asked the Council if they were intending to have the letters of intent submitted by the Housing Authority; the Mayor/Chairman answered "yes". MOTION: On motion by Councilwoman/Authority Member Kaywood, seconded by Councilman/Authority Member Overholt, the Housing Authority was authorized to submit a letter of intent to the Anaheim Union High School District to purchase two surplus school sites, Fremont Junior High School and Apollo Junior High School and authorizing the Chairman and Secretary to execute said letters. MOTION CARRIED. City Clerk Linda Roberts asked as a point of clarification if the motion included ali of staff's recommendations including initiating the General Plan Amendment; the Mayor answered "yes". Later in the meeting, Councilman/Authority Member Overholt referred to the letter received from the Anaheim Union High School District regarding Trident Junior High School as another possible surplus school site. He presumed that at some time they would be hearing whether or not there was any possible use for that facility as well. Having been on the Anaheim City School Board when the Horace Mann School issue was raised, it seemed that was a beneficial arrangement for the City and the School District and if there were surplus properties, that was a good way to look at those properties. He looked forward to seeing if there was any possibility relative to Trident also. Councilwoman/Authority Member Kaywood moved to adjourn. Councilman/Authority Member Overholt seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. (5:40 P.M.) CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 1872: Councilman Roth reported that he received a call that morning reminding him that one year ago, Mrs. Elizabeth Schafer, the "bee lady" obtained CUP No. 1872 which permitted her to maintain nine 80-1067 City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - August 19, 1980, 1:30 P.M. beehives on her property at 1500 West Broadway (see minutes of November 27, 1979). One of the conditions of the permit was to grant it on the basis of a one-year period, which period expired on August 14, 1980. Mrs. Schafer was very concerned because a Zoning Enforcement Officer had been to her premises asking about the renewal of the CUP. MOTION: Councilman Ro~h thereupon moved to have a public hearing set to extend CUP No. 1872 So that Mrs. Schafsr could retain her bees on her property. Council- man Seymour seconded the motion. Before a vote was taken, Councilwoman Kaywood stated she assumed they would receive a report on whether.or not there was any bee activity in the neigh- borhood. Councilman Roth explained that there had been no complaints received for one year. Mrs. Schafer was trying to be a good neighbor and had reduced her bees down to nine hives. He understood that a lot of people who were opposed originally were now buying honey from Mrs. Schafer as well as avocados, etc. A vote was then taken on the foregoing motion. MOTION CARRIED. Councilman Roth also directed staff to refrain from citing Mrs. Schafer until they had the public hearing. 156: INTERNATIONAL POLICE OLYMPICS - NEW YORK~ AUGUST 20-24~. 1980: Detective Jim Watkins briefed the Council on his detailed letter of July 23, 1980 which reported the outcome of Police Olympics XIV held in San Diego, July 16-20, 1980 and which reflected the success of Anaheim Police Officers who entered several areas of competition (see minutes July 29, 1980). The letter also announced the International Police Olympics to be held in New York starting the next day, August 20-24, 1980 in which seven Anaheim Police Officers would be competing. The request to the City as in previous years, because of the distance involved and the International level of competition, was for the Officers to convert some of their own vacation or "comp" time to City business time for the dates in which they were in actual competition. Councilwoman Kaywood amked the total cost to the City. City Manager Talley reported that he had talked to Detective Watkins on the matter. Staff recognized that the Council had committed in the past to support activities of various types. He wanted to point out three things. In moving from a Local or State activity to National, represented a higher plateau. The time requested to do so, nine days representing 152 work hours or somewhat over one month of service by police officers, and the value in work hours, was approximately $3500. If the Council considered the request favorably, it should be noted that the City would be exposed to a liability during the entire time the employees were gone and any type of injury could be considered compensible. The risk of injury in any of the activities and the. resultant liability undoubtedly would be the City's.. Staff was' suggesting if the Council was favorably disposed to the request, that consideration be given to taking from some category the dollar value of the request so that the officer would have not have to take their own time to compete, but possibly through an agreement with the Anaheim Police 80-1068 City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - August 19~ 1980, 1:30 P.M. Association or something, the money could be paid to them. They would thus be removed from direct participation with the City and the City would not be charged effectively with one month's worth of work hours. Also, staff recog- nized as those types of activities became more prevalent or the Department became larger, that undoubtedly more officers would be involved, and the Council might start thinking not only about the cost and number of work hours being taken from the Police Department budget, but also the very real liability that existed in supporting the individuals and the activities. Detective Watkins explained that in the nine years he had been in charge of the Olympics, no claims had ever been filed, and in any given year they had from 21 to as many as 56 officers participating. That did not mean, of course, that something could not happen. They had also never asked for money from the City Council. Councilwoman Kaywood asked which cities in California gave City time for the Olympics and which did not. Detective Watkins answered that he did not believe there were any that did so. Councilwoman Kaywood then asked if it was due to the liability factor, or the money or both; Detective Watkins answered that he believed both. Councilman Roth stated that he agreed that participation in the Police Olympics helped to keep the officers in better physical condition than normal and he appreciated that fact and also the fact that Anaheim had done so well in the past and that the officers paid their own transportation. He supported the request realizing that it would take officers off the beat in some areas. However, moral-wise and considering the aspect of physical fitness, it was a healthy situation for the City. MOTION: Councilman ROth moved to approve participation of Anaheim Police Officers in the International Police Olympics to be held in New York between August 20 and August 24, 1980 on City business time. Councilman Overholt seconded the motion. Before a vote was taken, Councilman Bay stated as he understood, the City Manager was saying if the Council saw fit to absorb the $3500, his concern was in the exposure to injury liability. Although he favored the motion, he would have to ask Detective Watkins if the Council approved the 152 hours of City business time, if they could proceed as suggested by the City Manager or set up some kind of hold harmless.on the injury liability. Detective Watkins answered that they could be as flexible as anybody wished. The only concern he had, was he was not so certain about a donation of money toward their amateur standing in the Police Olympics, which donation might jeopardize that standing. Mayor Seymour asked if Councilman Roth would accept in his motion to the degree that it could'be negotiated to cover the areas the City Manager was talking about, the intent of the motion would carry that. However, if it could not be worked out, then Councilman Roth's motion, as originally stated which meant they would approve it anyhow, would stand. 80-1069 City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - August 19,. 1980~ 1:30 P.M. Councilman Overholt stated he would accept the modification, but the officers were leaving tomorrow morning and it was rather late to work things out. It would be his suggestion that they go back to the original motion with the thought that it was a plan that could be worked out for future events. Perhaps there was something they could do to insure against risks. He was so supportive of the program and with officers leaving tomorrow, the Council should get behind them. Councilwoman Kaywood stated if the City was being exposed to risks, she could not support the motion. Mr. Talley stated that he did not want to lead the Council to believe that they could definitely work the situation out. If it could be worked out, it would make it one more step removed but he did not want to guarantee even if the police officers were let off at no pay and then give the APA or somebody money to reimburse them, that would preclude them filing and receiving an award. It would reduce that risk, but he did not want them to believe it would solve the problem unequivocably. Councilwoman Kaywood stated she wanted Detective Watkins to understand that she was highly supportive .of the Police Olympics, but felt that with Proposition 13 and the possibility of liability which could run into a half million or one million dollar.s, she had to be concerned with the fact that she represented the taxpayers of the City. A vote was then taken on the foregoing motion as articulated. Councilwoman Kaywood voted "no". MOTION CARRIED. Detective Watkins asked if he could be placed on the Council agenda next week to present Anaheim's World Champions. VARIANCE NO. 3122- EXTENSION OF TIME: Request of George H. Sadaghiani, for an extension of time to Variance No. 3122, to retain four existing dwelling units on RS-7200 zoned property located at'3403, 3405 3409 and 3411 West Thornton Avenue, was submitted. Councilman Bay noted that the applicant was asking for a 120-day extension, to expire November 6, 1980, the reason being his problem in obtaining financing. A few months ago he could understand that, but about two or three weeks ago, the interest rates bottomed out and were now starting to increase again. He asked if any indication had been received that Mr. Sadaghiani had been successful in getting his financing. Annika Santalahti, Assistant Director for Zoning, stated that she did not know about the financing, but they did look at the properties involved to ascertain whether or not the applicant had done any of the work he was supposed to do (see minutes May 6, 1980). As of that morning, the fence was down and the area was being used for parking. Some of the asphalt had been removed. There was still someconcrete in the City right- of-way which they would have to check. New garage doors had been installed on what was an apartment, but they did not know if anybody was living in that area or not. The petitioner had therefore gone part of the way in resolving the problem. 80-1070 City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - August 19, 1980, 1:30 P.M. Councilwoman Kaywood stated she wanted to be sure that no one was living in the garage. MOTION: On motion by Councilman Roth, seconded by Councilman Overholt, an exten- sion of time to Variance. No. 3122 was granted, to expire November 6, 1980. MOTION CARRIED. 103: ANAHEIM HILLS - APPROVAL OF PROJECT PLANS PRIOR TO RESOLVING THE TRANSFER OF PROPERTY TAX AGREEMENT: Request by Dan Salceda of Anaheim Hills, Inc., for the processing of .certain plans~ as specified in letter dated August 13, 1980, was submitted. Mr. Dan Salceda explained that he merely wanted to suggest to the Council at the time the plans came back With corrections as suggested by the City Engineer, that the Council be apprised of the plans that were being submitted and at the time the correc=ions ~weremade, that the Council suggest to the City Engineer that those plans be'approved by him, rather than wasting the Council's time because of the~AB8 moratorium issue. The Mayor asked how the plans were impacted by the AB 8 issue. Mr. Salceda answered it was his impression that they were not. He thought AB 8 only referred to Santa Ana Canyon Annexation No. 7 and did not go back to Proposition 13. The plans they were submitting had no impact per AB 8, which was effective January 1978. Ail of the properties were annexed into the City prior to January of 1978. It.would simplify the issue to direct the City Engineer to approve the plans, rather than the Council. Mayor Seymour asked the City Engineer and Executive Director of Public Works if they felt the request was needed. Mr. Devitt answered that if it was'the Council's wish that they sign the plans upon their correction and approval, he had no objection. Mayor Seymour asked if i= were true that the projects involved were prior to AB 8; Mr. Devitt answered that he had been advised by the Planning Department that was correct. MOTION: On motion by Councilman Seymour, seconded by Councilman Overholt, the processing of certain ~plans, as specified in letter dated August 13, 1980 by Anaheim Hills~ Inc., according to the above requested procedure was approved. 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: Notice of Pacific Telephone Rate Increase Application N.O.I. 23. b. 105: Anaheim Housing Commission--Minutes of June 4, 1980. 80-1071 City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - Aq~u.st 19, 1980, 1:30 P.M. c. 105: Community Redevelopment Commission--Minutes of July 23 and 30, 1980. d. 156: Police Department--Monthly Report for July 1980. e. 105: Public Utilities Board--Minutes of July 3, July 17 and July 24, 1980. f. 105: Senior Citizen Commission--Minutes of July 14, 1980. g. 175: Before the'Public Utilities Commission, Application 59869, in the matter of the application of the Southern California Gas Company for autho- rization to implement a Conservation Cost Adjustment (CCA) procedure for adjust- ing its Tariffs covering Commission approved conservation programs and for authorization to implement a financing program for financing solar water heaters to be included in the proposed CCA Procedure in its tariffs. 2. 108: APPLICATIONS: The following applications were approved in accordance with the recommendations of the Chief of Police: a. Amusement Devices Permit: American Automatic Amusement, 970 South Anaheim Boulevard, for various amusement devices. (Georgia Wood, applicant) b. Amusement Devices Permit: Fiesta Ice Cream, 2424 West Ball Road, for one Atari Video Game. (H. Jimmie Sellers, applicant) c. Public Dance Permit: Empresa Fr±as, for a dance to be held September 6, 1980, 6:00 p.m..to 1:00 a.m., at the Anaheim Convention Center. (Cruz Munoz Frias, applicant)' 3. 131/I74: RIGHT OF ~WAY CERTIFICATION: In accordance with the recommendations of the City Engineer, right of way certification was approved for La Palma Avenue, Brookhurst Street to Sequoia Avenue. (Account No. 13-793-6325-3230, FAU No. M-L073)~ MOTION CARRIED. CONSENT CALENDAR ITEMS: Councilwoman Kaywood offered Resolution Nos. 80R-372 through 80R-374,. both inclusive, for adoption in accordance with the reports, recommendations and certifications furnished each Council Member and as listed on the Consent Calendar Agenda. Refer to Resolution Book. 169: RESOLUTION NO. 80R-372: 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: SLURRY SEAL APPLICATION, IN THE CITY OF ANAHEIM, ACCOUNT NO. 01-232-6340-00002; 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 11, 1980, 2:00 p.m.) 80-1072 City Hail, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - August 19, 1980, 1:30 P.M. 169: RESOLUTION NO. 80R-373: 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: EAST STREET STREET IMPROVEMENT, NORTH STREET TO WILHELMINA STREET, IN THE CITY OF ANAHEIM, ACCOUNT NO. 13-792-6325-E2570; 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 18, 1980, 2:00 p.m.) 115: RESOLUTION NO. 80R-374: 'A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM FINALLY ACCEPTING THE COMPLETION AND THE FURNISHING OF ALL PLANT, LABOR, SERVICES, MATERIALS AND EQUIPMENT AND ALL UTILITIES AND TRANSPORTATION INCLUDING POWER, FUEL AND WATER, AND THE PERFORMANCE OF ALL WORK NECESSARY TO CONSTRUCT AND COMPLETE THE FOLLOWING PUBLIC IMPROVEMENT, TO WIT: ANAHEIM CIVIC CENTER - ACCOUNT NO. 48-4309-984-12-0000. (Del E. Webb Corporation) Roll Call Vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: COUNCIL MEMBERS: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Overholt, Kaywood, Bay, Roth and Seymour None None The Mayor declared Resolution Nos. 80R-372 through 80R-374, both inclusive, duly passed and adopted. Mayor Seymour noted that relative to the Notice of Completion on the Anaheim Civic Center, that they were'still experiencing elevator problems and that the air conditioning was'not working as it should. He wanted to be certain these items were on the p.unch list to be handled accordingly. The Executive Director of Public Works, Thornton Piersall, explained the filing of the Notice of Completion created the starting of a lien period. The punch list was quite lengthy and also included on it was the speaker system in the Chamber, as well as the voting system. The contractor had recently changed sub- contractors to work on both. He confirmed for Councilman Bay that everything that was wrong at present was included on the list to be rectified. CITY PLANNING COMMISSION ITEMS: The following actions taken by the City Planning Commission at their meeting held July 28, 1980, pertaining to the following applications, as listed on the Consent Calendar, were submitted for City Council information. 1. RECLASSIFICATION NO. 80-81-1: Submitted by Rosalie M. Metzger, et al, R. W. Blanchard, et al, and Fred W. Morgenthaler, for a change in zone from RS-A-43,000 to CL, to construct a commercial office complex on property located south and west of the southwest corner of 'Lincoln Avenue and Rio Vista Street. The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC80-116, granted Reclassification No. 80-81-1, and granted a negative declaration status. 2. VARIANCE NO. 3160: Submitted by Mary Leal Myrdahl, to retain a fence on RS-7200 zoned property located at 407 South Ohio Street, with a Code waiver of maximum fence height. 80-1073 City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - August 19, 1980, 1:30 P.M. The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC80-119, denied~, Variance No. 3160, and ratified the Planning Director's categorical exemption. 3. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2091: Submitted by Rios and Rios Construction Company, to permit on-sale beer and wine in an existing restaurant on CL zoned property located at 2528 West Lincoln Avenue. The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC80-117, granted Conditional Use Permit No. 2091, and ratified the Planning Director's categorical exemption determination. 4. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2095: Submitted by Allan and Sara Fainbarg, et al, to permit a pre-school on CL zoned property located at 2636 West La Patma Avenue. The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC80-118, granted Conditional Use Permit No. 2095, and granted a negative declaration status. 5. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2098: Submitted by California Drive-in Theatres, Inc., to permit swap meets at an existing drive-in theatre on ML zoned property located at 1520 North Lemon Street. The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC80-118, granted Conditional Use Permit No. 2098, and.granted a negative declaration status. 6. 170: TENTATIVE TRACT NO. 8520, REVISION NO. 2 - EXTENSION OF TIME: Submitted by Anaheim Hills, Inc., requesting an extension of time to Tentative Tract No. 8530, located at the southwest and southeast corners of Serrano Avenue and Hidden Canyon Road and the east side of Hidden Canyon Road, south of the centerline of Serrano Avenue, respectively. The City Planning Commission, approved an extension of time to Tentative Tract No. 8520, Revision No. 2, to expire September 12, 1981. 7. RECLASSIFICATION NO. 77-78-1 - EXTENSION OF TIME: Submitted by Anaheim Hills, Inc., requesting an extension of time to Reclassification No. 77-78-1, proposed RS-HS-10,000 zoned property located on the south side of Nohl Ranch Road, west of Royal Oak Road. The City Planning Commission, approved an extension of time to Reclassification No. 77-78-1, to expire August 15, 1981. 8. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 1958 - EXTENSION OF TIME: Submitted by Herbert Brown/Mervada Inc., requesting an extension of time to Conditional Use Permit No. 1958, to permit office uses in a residential structure on CO zoned property located at 2050 South Euclid Street. The City Planning Commission denied an extension of time to Conditional Use Permit No. 1958. No action was taken on the foregoing items, therefore the actions of the City Planning Commission became final. 80-1074 City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - August 19, 1980~ 1:30 P.M. 142/173: ORDINANCE NO. 4151: Councilwoman Kaywood offered Ordinance No. 4151 for adoption. Refer to Ordinance Book ORDINANCE NO. 4151: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM REPEALSING 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 & limousine services) Roll Call Vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: COUNCIL MEMBERS: COUNCIL MEMBERS: 0verholt, Kaywood, Bay, Roth and Seymour None None The Mayor declared Ordinance No. 4151 duly passed and adopted. 142/126: ORDINANCE NO. 4152: Councilman Bay offered Ordinance No. 4152 for adoption. Refer to Ordinance Book. ORDINANCE NO. 4152: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM REPEALING TITLE 4, CHPATER 4.09, SECTION 4.09.010 AND ENACTING A NEW TITLE 4, CHAPTER 4.09, SECTION 4.09.010 PERTAINING TO HOTEL AND MOTEL RATE SIGNS. Roll Call Vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: COUNCIL MEMBERS: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Overholt, Kaywood, Bay, Roth and Seymour None None The Mayor declared Ordinance No. 4152 duly passed and adopted. ORDINANCE NO. 4153: Councilwoman Kaywood offered Ordinance No. 4153 for first reading. ORDINANCE NO. 4153: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AMENDING TITLE 18 OF THE ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO ZONING. (77-78-63(1), CL, repeals Ordinance No. 4053, correcting the legal description) 124/142/149: ORDINANCE NO. 4154: Counci]m~n Bay offar~d Ordinance No. 4154 for first reading. ORDINANCE NO. 4154: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM ADDING NEW SECTION 14.32.450 TO CHAPTER 14.32. OF TITLE 14 OF THE ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO PARKING. (permit parking in Convention Center area) Councilman Bay offered Resolution No. 80R-375 for adoption. Refer to Resolution Book. RESOLUTION NO. 80R-375: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OFANAHEIM DESIGNATING CERTAIN STREETS AS PERMIT PARKING ONLY IN THE AREA OF THE ANAHEIM CONVENTION CENTER. 80-1075 C~ity Hall, Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - August 19, 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-375 duly passed and adopted. RECESS - EXECUTIVE SESSION: By general consent, the Council recessed into Executive Session. (6:11 p.m.) AFTER RECESS: Mayor Seymour called the meeting to order, all Council Members being present. (6:18 p.m.) RECESS: Councilman Bay moved to recess to 7:00 p.m. for a joint meeting with the Golf Course Advisory Commission. Councilman Seymour seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. (6:18 p.m.) AFTER RECESS: Mayor Seymour called the meeting to order, all Council Members being present. (7:00 p.m.) PRESENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Overholt, Kaywood, Bay, Roth and Seymour ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: None PRESENT: CITY MANAGER: William O. Talley CITY ATTORNEY: William P. Hopkins CITY CLERK: Linda D. Roberts ASSISTANT CITY MANAGER: William T. Hopkins CONVENTION CENTER GENERAL MANAGER: Tom Liegler GOLF COURSE MANAGER: Neal Beeson ASSISTANT TO THE CITY MANAGER: Jim Armstrong Mayor Seymour reconvened the meeting at 7:00 p.m. Chairman of the Golf Course Advisory Commission, Bob Messe, called the Commission to order, all members being present, with the exception of Helen Sweet, Marry Herling and Bill Martin (Mr. Martin entered the meeting at 7:27 p.m.). 135: JOINT MEETING/WORKSHOP~WITH GOLF COURSE ADVISORY COMMISSION: To determine whether to proceed with a request for proposals from the private sector to operate and manage the City's golf courses (continued from the meetings of July 29, August 5 and August 12, 1980--see minutes that date). Mayor Seymour welcomed those in attendance and explained that the meeting was being held because the City Council was emphathetic and sensitive to some con- cerns raised by the Commission, as well as members of the public, relative to Golf Course operations and the possibility of turning the management of the courses over to private enterprise. Mr. Bob Messe, Chairman of the Golf Course Advisory Commission, stated he was speaking for the Commission in saying that they were not opposed to looking at the private sector golf course management. A few weeks ago, however, they did question City Manager Talley's figure of a potential $419,000 turn around sug- gested by virtue of a preliminary proposal and the reversal of a budgeted 80-1076 City Hall, Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - Au~u.st ..1..9.~ 19.80~ 1:30 P.M. $219,000 loss. Consequently, they asked for a financial analysis and before discussing that report, he had a few comments to make. Prior to seeking proposals and finalizing bid specifications, they had to realize the directions which the two Courses were taking. Preliminary results showed that the combined courses did $82,000 better in Fiscal Year 1980 than in 1979. For the Hills Course through the first six months of the current calendar year, play was up 23 golfers per day, or a 15% increase in play, representing a 20% increase in green fee revenues prior to raising the green fees by $1 on July 1, 1980. In addition, cart revenues were up as well as concession revenues. The Anaheim Hills area was Anaheim's single largest growth poten- tial. The improvements that Tom Liegler and Neal Beeson and the rest of the Golf Course staff had made at the Courses had been outstanding. At the Hills Course, the changes had the effect of speeding up play and making the Course more playable. They had saved both courses from serious erosion damage the last two years. Such improvements cost money and for the most part, were expenditures that should have properly been made during the design and construction phases of the Hills Course. Under the City accounting efforts, these were expensed during the year in which they were incurred. Those were things they had to consider whether or not they. negotiated with private firms for management. They should also talk about the financial and historical analysis submitted last Tuesday. There were a few areas that bothered him which he wanted to discuss, specifically Page 2 of the August 8, 1980 memorandum from Assistant City Manager William T. Hopkins to the City Manager first in paragraph two. The fact that State and Federal money had been used on the City Golf Courses seemed to be considered as bad. If that same money had been used in other City departments, it would have been good. Relative to paragraph three, CETA funds, to his knowledge, those were not scheduled for the current yea~ yet the report still showed CETA fund expen- ditures for the current fiscal year and then later in the report used to show additional costs per round of golf. In the fourth paragraph ~under accounting methodology, he believed that acceptable methods of accounting had been used throughout the history of the Courses. How- ever, those acceptable methods had changed from year to year and only in the last two years had they come close to being similar enough to be used for comparison purposes. In doing that, the last fiscal year improved over the previous fiscal year and thus, they should not be comparing years that were not comparable. The final sentence was also significant. They had to realize there would be costs transferred to o~her departments if they contracted with a private management firm. Again, he was not against seeking proposals and talking to private management firms. He merely wanted to know the facts before going into it. There were over $60,000 of indirect, administrative overhead being charged to the Golf Courses that would have to be absorbed by other City departments and that would be a net savings to the City. Therefore, he was not certain if they accepted $200,000 from a management firm, paid the land debt, interest and prin- cipal, spread the indirect costs to the City now absorbed by the golf courses, consider that some other direct charges might not be abosorbed, what would the net result be. That was one of the reasons for asking for a financial analysis. In addition, they needed to know the real potential and where money could be saved. & 80-1077 City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - August 19, 1980~ 1:30 P.M. Whether private enterprise or the public sector operated the Courses, the money had to come from somewhere. The $200,000 that a company would be willing to pay must come from either decreased expenses or increased sales. They should analyze and understand where the potentials were for profit before sending out a set of specifications inviting proposals, which proposals should be written keeping that analysis in mind. They should not send out specifications prior to that analysis. In concluding, Mr. Messe stated that was what they had discussed in their Commission meeting last month and which brought about the present public workshop. He invited any other Commission Member to speak at this time. Golf Course Commissioner Bill Martin entered the Council Chamber. (7:27 p.m.) Councilman Roth felt it would be appropriate for the City Manager or a staff member to respond to the Chairman's questions. Mr. Talley stated he would be happy to answer any of the questions. He agreed with most of the facts stated which were that the accounting systems had changed prior to the advent of the accounting system they were installing now, hundreds of thousands of dollars of costs were absorbed by other departments and not levied to the Courses over the years. They had tried to make all costs attri- butable to the Courses placed there as a result of a continuing management audit by the firm of Price Waterhouse which he felt agreed with what they were doing. He also agreed there was probably about $60,000 apportioned as admini- strative overhead and the vast majority of that would not be saved if they commissioned the Golf Courses to'a private enterprise. It would reduce the amount of subsidy somewhat, but nothing more. The problem they had right now was that the majority of courses in the Country were not maintained by municipalities. They believed that the private sector indicated a successful operating record in the past and there were numerous courses in the County that were under private management. They had merely requested a chance to let the free enterprise system function and his rec- ommendation was that at some point in the process, it would be appropriate to test that marketplace. Perhaps the salaries and fringe benefits and possibly the work hours assigned to a golf course by the private sector would be less than government because the City was a larger employer and did tend to give enhanced fringe benefits as did large employers. Even though they tried to run the City as a business as much as possible, he had to admit that the profit motive was not paramount in their decisions. His opinion was that a set of specifications should be developed representing the current level of maintenance at the Golf Courses and that the private sector be encouraged to quote against those specifications--tell the City what they would charge for the same type of operation and also where they thought they might change those specifications. Attempting at this point to come up with all the economy and efficiencies might be somewhat of a fruitless task because if they had all of the answers now, he would hope that City management would have instituted those. Therefore, he would rather turn to the private sector who made a living at that type of operation and where possible benefit by that experience and expertise instead of continuing to rely solely upon Anaheim who had very dedicated City employees and very conscientious people working long hours, but whose entire life, quite frankly, was not Golf CourSe maintenance and management. As a matter of fact, Mr. Leigler spent more time on Golf Courses for the return than he (Talley) 80-1078 City Hall, Anaheim,. California - COUNCIL MINUTES - August 19, 1980, 1:30 P.M. would prefer because of the vast responsibilities he had with the new 1,000 room hotel coming in, the Betterment II Program, and the operation of the Convention Center and the Stadium. If there was any way they could ameliorate or assist him in his endeavors at the Golf Courses, he would think it would be in the best interest of the golfing public and the citizens of Anaheim. He was not advocating anything other than testing the market and using whatever expertise the private sector had to assist in running a good operation. Mr. Ed Klein, Golf Course Commissioner, stated that he agreed with Mr. Talley. He believed that the Golf Course could be run better by free enterprise. He also agreed with Mr. Messe that there had been great improvement in the Course. It was presented to the Commission about three days before their July meeting with a gross simplification of the accounting system with regard to the $419,000. He felt it was very important to look at the operating statement. He did not have any doubt that, in general, free enterprise could run it better and more efficiently. It was more important that it was for the betterment of the City and for it to be so, they should know what the Request For Proposals (RFP) and contract were going to say and know the potential of the Golf Courses before giving it away. They ought to study the operating statement in detail to know what it was made up of and to know the potential for savings in that operating statement before writing the contract. They were also presented a specification at the meeting stating that the course must be run with all the people running it at present. He wanted to know how many people it took to do the job. There were a number of items on the operating statement that had first to be understood before suggesting they could save money. He felt they could save money and they ought to study the situation carefully. He did not think the analysis given really did that. It did not tell him what was in the operating statement and how it could be improved. Mr. Messe stated that there had to be $200,000 in that statement for the private sector to give them. They had to be making some money and the City had to know before sending out specifications where that might be. Councilman Bay stated after the Liaison meeting of April 30, 1980, he wanted to be sure he understood that there was no report back to the Con~nission as to what was discussed relative to the solicitation of proposals. Mr. Klein explained that they did not discuss the matter of going to private enterprise at the Commission meeting following that meeting; Mr. Messe stated that they reported on everything else that went on in the Liaison meeting and except as Mr. Hopkins' memo stated. Some of the material, because of its sensitivity, was kept confidential. Councilman Bay asked if the July 18, 1980 meeting when the Commission was presented with early drafts of operating lease proposals, was the intent of giving them the proposal to put it out for bid or for the Commission to look at it from the s~tandpoint of agreeing or disagreeing whether that proposal could meet thehigh standards they had in mind or of retaining those maintenance standards; Mr. Klein stated that he felt it was meant to be discussed. Councilman Bay continued that from his view of the written material he had received, he reached some conclusions and he wanted to be certain he was correct. First, he wrongly assumed that what happened in the Liaison meeting 80-1079 City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - Ausu.st 19, 1980, 1:30 P.M. was generally reported back to the Commission; Mr. Messe stated that was a good assumption, but on this one particular subject, it was not. Councilman Bay stated that secondly, the Commission received a page or two out of a document that was given to the Council at the time they were trying to move $1 million into the Police operations and that page included the City Manager's response as to some of the places they might find that $1 million. It included a statement which the Commission apparently discussed a great deal in the meeting of July 18 to the point of indicating they did not believe the figures and wanted more detailed information as back-up. That was perfectly understandable and a normal function of any Commission. He also agreed with the position they took of questioning it because he took the same position when it was presented in the budget. What he could not understand was where the demand came from for the workshop before the Commission received a response to their questions re- garding wanting a more detailed analysis on the $419,000. He asked if the demand came from the Commission. Both Mr. Messe and Klein indicated it did not come from the Commission. Councilman Bay thereupon stated it was his opinion that until they got a response and the detailed analysis they wanted, he felt having the workshop was presumptive and thought so all along, and still felt that way. He had nothing against airing the matter at this point, but was questioning if there was a communication problem, and apparently they had some with their Liaison meetings. If the whole problem, and one of the reasons they were present, was simply a communication problem, that was one thing. If it was an attempt to steamroll a public hearing before all the facts were available, that was a second issue. What he was really interested in was the Commission's opinion if they were willing to wait for the City Manager to answer their direct request for more analysis on the financial statement, plus did the Commission then take the proposal and look at it from the viewpoint of whether or not it was a good way to go. Mr. Messe answered that they looked at the proposal, but he did not believe they gave it as much verbal discussion as they gave the $419,000. That hit them hard. They cOuld not understand it and it. was not conducive to discussing the proposal because the proposal might change if they knew what the numbers were all about. Mr. Klein stated he felt they ought to write the RFP and point it toward results, since they felt it was too detailed. They wanted to know how to get to the operating statement and break it down. He also felt that the $419,000 was a "kick in the pants". Commissioner Bartholomew stated if private management could come in and make changes and affect decreased costs or increased rates, they were going to use some methods to do so. It was important for them to understand and perhaps their proposal would outline how the-City could get the same kind of playing quality for less money. Councilman Bay then stated his question would be how would they even find out if the figure was $200,000 or $400,000 or $100,000 in savings if they did not request proposals based on certain criteria. 80-1080 City Hall, Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - August 19, 1980, 1:30 P.M. Mr. Klein felt they could specify the results in terms of rounds of play. The play would not continue if they did not maintain the Golf Courses properly. Councilman Overholt, speaking to Mr. Klein, asked if from his statements he was saying that the Golf Course Commission Members did not see copies of the operating statements of the Courses; Mr. Klein answered that they did see the statements. They wanted to know where in the operating statement the $419,000 was going to come from. Mayor Seymour felt they were saying if a private management company could save the City $419,000 and make a profit, then it was not $419,000, it may be $819,000, because they would have to add their profit in; Mr. Klein stated they had to know what that represented. Mr. Bartholomew stated that private enterprise was looking at the Golf Courses and seeing a profi~making capacity. The City operated the Courses for a number of years without specific profit motives. If private management saw ways to bring in large revenues, then the City must not be looking at their assets clearly. The Commission wanted to know more about those assets represented by the Courses and what they could gain specifically in terms of net dollars before going to private enterprise, i.e., the lease back-up equipment. He did not think they had ever been able to see where the Courses received any credit for a capital asset, and there must have been some transfer of funds or should have been relative to equipment. There were a number of things of that type reflecting real benefits of the Courses. He did not believe the operating statements as they were put together now reflected that. Councilman Roth asked if the Golf Course was handled differently than other Departments in the City relative to equipment and prorated costs. Mr. Talley stated that the Commission had a point. At one time when the City converted to a flat rental system, they began charging rent for all equipment, including equipment they owned which included new equipment and some pieces of "junk" that were replaced at no cost the next year. Currently, all Depart- ments of the City paid a rental rate covering their maintenance and operating costs, plus their reserve for depreciation. No additional capital amount was charged for that when there was a replacement. The year that transition took place, the statement could be made that they were owed something on the books, but not in years after that. Thus, that statement was not correct today. It was no different for the Electrical or Water Division. The $419,000 was prob- ably not a good number and perhaps $200,000 was a better figure. What they were talking about were savings and if the Golf Courses did not break even, they had to find money in other City funds to make up for that deficit. If the private sector was responsible and they did not break even, they had to go to the bank for a loan or reach into their pocket. Thus, there was more incentive for them to break even if they said they could save the City $200,000, and put their money on the line. It was not his problem if they did not break even. Mr. Messe pointed out that it would be a problem to the City if the Golf Courses deteriorated or if all of a sudden, they were asked for increased fees. Disussion then followed between Mr. Talley, the Mayor, Mr. Messe and Mr. Klein, relative to fees charged at the Anaheim Courses and how those fees compared to other private and municipal courses. 80-1081 City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - August 19, 1980, 1:30 P.M. Councilwoman Kaywood then asked if there was any question that the Commission ever asked where they did not receive responses or information they wanted from staff; Mr. Messe answered, not that he knew of. Councilwoman Kaywood, following on Councilman Bay's question as to why the work- shop session was called, asked if they now had all the answers they needed. Mr. Messe, referring to the packet of material provided, answered "no". Mr. Talley stated for the Commission's information, that report was prepared because the Council three weeks ago asked staff to tell them what they were doing and, therefore, they tried to attempt to answer Council's questions on the status of their effort. If the Commission ever wanted to know anything at all about the operating statements, the Director of Finance was present, and he would be pleased, upon any request, to send him or the auditors, Price Waterhouse, or anyone they wished, and spend all the time with them that the Commission wished. Mr. Klein emphasized they never had a problem relative to cooperation in obtaining answers to questions. There had never been a problem with staff. Councilman Bay asked when they expected to get answers to the questions raised at the July 18 meeting; Mr. Klein stated that he did not think there were answers. He felt they needed to sit with staff and talk about what made up that operating statement and how they might prepare a specification that would allow people to bid in a sensible way. Mr. Talley stated that questions had solely been proposed by newspaper articles. If someone wanted to pick up the phone or request tonight that someone appear, that would be fine. In reviewing minutes, he had never been under the impression that the Commission was doing more than reacting to facts with which they dis- agreed, which was their right. Councilman Bay then referred to the minutes of the Commission meeting of July 18, 1980 and read four of the questions posed, which questions he assumed staff would be busy getting ready to answer at the next Commission meeting. Mr. Talley answered briefly that relative to question No. 1, where was the $419,OOO coming from--that figure was used in a report to the Council saying that they had indications in that magnitude from the private sector. They were no more definitive than that. No. 2--what would happen to the present personnel would be a policy decision based upon receiving bids. No. 3--were the Golf Courses in the business to make a profit was a policy question he was not prepared to address. No. 4--if they were looking for better management, they should investigate that phase--he invited them to be his guest and he would assist in so doing. Mr. Talley continued that they never had a definitive discussion with any private sector representative on how they intended to do those things. The specifica- tions before the Council were staff recommendations to the Commission to go one way--i.e., a detailed specification. If they wanted to proceed on a performance 80-1082 City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - August 19, 1980, 1:30 P.M. specification, staff would live with that. Members of the City Departments had on occasion met with private management people, and he would be glad to provide whoever had done so. To the best of his knowledge, he never had any conversation with any of those people. The Mayor then opened the meeting for public input. Mr. Sandy Burns, President of California Golf, stated he was present only because he happened to see a copy of a newspaper article which he received today. He wanted to reiterate that they were still willing, as they were in 1973 when they made their first offer to the City, to operate the two Courses. He would also be willing as so stated in approximately seven different offers, to guarantee the City $210,000 a year against a perGentage of the gross of the operations. He noted there had been many questions raised tonight which he would be willing to answer. Mr. Burns then explained the situation relative to the Fullerton Golf Course which they managed under contract and which Course sustained one,half million dollars in losses generated by the flooding conditions which occurred. He also explained the problems involved and the reasons for the delay in improve- ments, which improvements were done at their expense. There were a number of reasons why a free enterprise could and would be able to operate in a different manner than the City found itself able to operate. They were the largest buyers of golf course materials in the world with 27 locations. They had never failed in their· 14-year history to make a lease payment on time. They dealt w~th other cities and government agencies and strongly suggested that those other entities be asked directly the type of job they were doing for them. They dealt with the City of Huntington Beach, Fullerton, Los Angeles, the East Bay Regional Park District in Northern California and the City of Rohnert Park in Northern California. Relative to an increase in rates, the philosophy that an operator could milk a golf course was false, since there was no way to do so. Their offer continued to be the same as before. They would agree over a three-year period to spend in excess of $500,000 in improvements. The City probably had the finest public facility in the Dad Miller Municipal Course. The Anaheim Hills Course itself was very poorly designed and although a tremendous amount of work had been done to rectify those problems, a tremendous amount yet needed to be done to correct the problems to bring the Course to a point where the golfers would accept it. The only thing they did for a living was to operate golf and tennis facilities. They had what they considered to be the finest staff in the world in each one of their different departments necessary to running a golf course. They would guarantee to maintain the Golf Courses in their present condition or better throughout the duration of the term of the lease. Another advantage would be that the facility itself would go back on the tax rolls which was not the case at present. He would guess that perhaps 4% or 5% of the total con~nunity availed itself of the golf course facilities and wondered, if put to a vote, whether or not the taxpayers of~the City would be willing to subsidize the Golf Courses. The only way they could possibly make money was to increase the play which at the Miller Course would be difficult to do. The entire "ballgame" happened to be the Anaheim Hills Course. In order to do that, numerous improvements would have to be made as mentioned before. There were still a number of un- playable holes, as well as other things, that needed to be corrected. 80-1083 City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINU..T. ES .- August 19~ 1980~ 1:30 P.M. Mr. Burns continued that, with no disrespect to anyone, it was possible to make an operating statement say anything one wished. They operated on a cash flow basis--money in-money out--and he personally suggested that was the way the City look at their facilities. In concluding, Mr. Burns stated the only reason for his presence was to reiterate their interest in the City's Golf Courses. They would be willing at any time to meet with staff or to answer any questions. Councilwoman Kaywood noted Mr. Burns' comment that if they were to lease the Courses, they would go back on the tax rolls. Mr. Burns stated that was correct, a Possessory Interest Tax and not Personal Property tax, because they would not own the courses. Councilwoman Kaywood asked what would happen to the present personnel. Mr. Burns answered that they tried to cover that aspect in their offer. They had indicated that they would retain any qualified personnel. They also suggested that the normal attrition in the hiring for that type of help was fixed. In a relatively short period of time, there would be no lay-offs. Councilman Bay asked if there were tax write-offs in private enterprise operations of golf courses that would help in their profit picture that a public sector could not use. Mr. Burns answered "yes", there were tax write-offs. Any new capital improvement was a write-off to them, but not a replacement. Mr. Burns also relayed the following in answer to questions posed by Commissioners Klein and Messe: The nature of their contracts with other cities were long-term leases with guarantees, as opposed to a percentage of the gross. It was worked out in the wording of the lease that the City basically had control over fees charged at the facility. That seemed to be the largest factor they faced when dealing with governmental agencies. The contracts with Huntington Beach and Los Angeles were public documents and could be viewed. He had looked at the operating statements of the Golf Courses in Anaheim for about seven years now. Relative to their statement saying they could pay the City $210,000, they could guarantee they would make those payments. At the Anaheim Hills Course, they would "lose their shirts" for three or four years. On that type facilit~y, it normally took three years to turn the situation around. Councilman Overholt asked, in looking at a letter of April 15, 1980 from a Mr. Price, was he connected with California Golf. Mr. Burns explained that Mr. Price was the owner of the Company, and he (Burns) was President of California Golf Development Company, a wholly-owned subsidiary. He was Senior Vice President of California Golf/Tennis. Councilman Overholt noted that the letter from Mr. Price directed to the City stated, we would pay for both Courses $200,000 per year minimum rent versus 15% of the green fees, cart fees, driving range fees and 5% of the food & beverage and pro shop sales. The "versus" means that we would pay whichever 80-1084 City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - Au~u. st 19, 1980~ 1:30 P.M. rental i$ higher.., the minimum or the percentage. The rental would be net in all respects, except that we would look to you to pay any debt service on mortgages and any Possessory Interest..." He presumed that Mr. Burns was then talking about a different deal. Mr. Burns explained if he looked back in the file, he would find that was in one of seven offers. In that particular one, that was the case, but tonight he was saying that was not the case, and they would pay Possesory Interest Tax, but not the debt service. A line of questioning was then posed by the Mayor to Mr. Burns relative to the concern expressed by some over the deal between the City and California Golf. Mr. Burns stated chat he could find six offers that were made to the City, although he could be off by one, but he did not know how many offers had been made since 1978. There was an offer made June 6, 1978 and a letter dated June 22, 1978 was received in response from Mr. Talley indicating the City was not inter- ested. There had been quite a bit of communication but he believed only one formal offer had been made since that time. It was an unsolicited offer as were all the other offers. Nobody had come to California Golf in any way asking for any type of offer that he could recall. The Mayor asked if he would classify the correspondence, information and meetings that had been taking place and the information exchanged back and forth as nego- tiations. Mr. Burns answered "no" unless they wished to go back six or seven years. There was a time when they actually went to the City Council and were on the agenda for approval, but they were turned down by the Council in, he believed, 1974. Mayor Seymour stated that they had negotiated something because Mr. Price indicated he would not pay Possessory Interest, and ~fr. Bumns said he would. Mr. Burns pointed out that those were discussions between Mr. Price and himself and in this case, he was in charge of all the operations and authorized to make any changes he so wished. Commissioner Bill Martin stated that Mr. Talley indicated he thought they should give private enterprise a shot at running the Golf Courses. Mr. Burns indicated all their contracts were long-term. He (Martin) did not think 40 years was just giving them a shot. If they were going to do extensive improvements on the Hills Golf Course, it was going to entail the probability of spending their own money. Therefore, he could not recommend anybody unless he could first analyze their financial statement to ascertain where the money would be coming from. Mr. Burns stated that one would be available to him. Their net worth was in excess of $30 million and they did have long-term leases with Huntington Beach, Los Angeles and Fullerton. Councilwoman Kaywood asked the shortest period they would be talking about for a lease; Mr. Burns stated they would like to have as long a term as possible if they were talking about investing a minimum of $500,000. They would not be interested in a 10-year contract if they were investing that amount. If the City was really interested, they would be more than happy to sit down and discuss the entire proposal and needs of the City for as long as it would take. 80-1085 City Hall~ Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - Augus. t 19, 1980, 1:30 P.M. Councilman Roth explained that many golfers had spoken to him of late relative to the possibility of negotiating a contract with free enterprise on the Golf Courses. One of the greatest fears particularly relative to the Dad Miller Course, which was a joy to play, was that if free enterprise was going to make a profit, they were going to take away from the condition of the Course itself. He asked for Mr. Burns' response to that concern. Mr. Burns explained that he heard that many times and that aspect could be written into the contract to a certain degree. If greens and fairways were left to deteriorate, they would lose money quickly. They had to have the finest product or the golfer would go elsewhere. Mr. Martin asked his feelings on the Men's Clubs since both Courses had very active Men's clubs and played a lot of golf at the two courses. He wanted to know what importance they attached to Men's Clubs as they pertained to the Golf Courses. Mr. Burns answered that they prized the Men's Clubs, but also prized the Women's Clubs and Senior Citizen's clubs just as much. If they treated them poorly, they were going to lose their shirt. They had better do a good job for those clubs because they were the regular players all throughout the week and on Sundays. If they wanted to lose money, the best way was to alienate those people. The Mayor then asked to hear from other members of the public who wished to speak. Mr. Dan Wise, Anaheim resident, stated he played a great deal of golf at the Courses in the City. His foremost consideration was the playability of the .Courses and their maintenance. In speaking to the City Manager, he got the impression that he (Talley) assumed that private enterprise could provide a high caliber of management and more efficient ideas than the City, and he wanted to take exception to that. City Manager Tailey stated that he did not know that, but felt they were entitled to a chance to at least bid and that was his only position. Mr. Wise then questioned what would be wrong with paying for a study to find out where California Golf, or whoever it might be, was going to make their money. They could then put that money back into the City coffers if it could be a profit- making entity. He wanted to keep that profit in the City. He also wanted to know if the City Council would rather not go on record favoring that the City make the money, make the official changes that needed to be made, and show the tax- payer that they had been looking out for their best interests. If they signed a ten-year or 40-year agreement with someone, some of those figures would become written in concrete and it would not do them any good to vote against any individual sitting on the Council if such an agreement were signed and sealed. Forty years or 20 years from now when they were paying the price either for bad or good management, they would have no recourse through the ballot box. He had experience with a municipality turning the golf courses over to private manage- ment. After a few years the company folded. There was nothing to preclude those people from saying the operation was not profitable, closing it down and walking away. 80-1086 City Hall~ Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - Aq.~st 19, 1980, 1:30 P.M. In concluding, Mr. Wise explained that the AD, helm Hills Course offered a challenge and he also compared it with many of the other courses which he had played in the State. He also commented on the wild life found at the Anaheim Hills Course and indicated there was no other place that could be found while participating in active recreation. It was not readily avail- able in the area. Councilman Roth then commented that the City Golf Courses were goin~ to be golf courses forevermore. However they had to take a look at the deficit which was occurring year after year. They were talking about subsidizing the Hills Course by $6.12 per player for 18 holes of golf. Perhaps it was justi- fied, but th~ responsibility of the elected officials and management was to keep the Council advised when an enterprise did not look good as far as the general taxpayer was concerned. If 5% were utilizing the facilities with 95% of the people subsidizing the Courses, it was something they should look into. He emphasized that he wanted to maintain high standards at the Courses, if not, he was not interested in changing. However, they had to see some daylight when considering the taxpayer. Mr. Wise agreed that the Council's responsibility was to the taxpayer, but he believed if. the expertise was available to California Golf, it should be avail- able to the City. If there was a profit to be made, plus debt service, he felt they should find it and make the profit for the City and to keep it where it belonged, with the people who made the initial investment. Mr. Tom Pool, Goldfinch Street, Anaheim Hills, asked if either of the Courses was making a profit, or merely holding their own. Commissioner Martin answered that the Dad Miller Course was profitable and the Anaheim Hills Course, depending upon whatever City report one might read, was losing money. It was a fairly new Course, but no one knew where it was located for the first eight years. However, play was up, but it was a very expensive Course to maintain. Mr. Pool then asked where the profits would potentially come from--the Men's, Women's, or Senior Citizen clubs, raising the green fees, etc. He did not want to see his membership fee escalate so that a private firm could make their profit. Mr. Martin stated that Mr. Burns indicated they would not be able to do that. Mr. Pool then stated that relative to union employees and their ability to do the job equally as well as any other employees, i.e., retaining Anaheim City employees to do the job, he felt they had ample opportunity to pay good people to do the job within the City. He questioned why they needed to go outside and he also stated that they wanted to see the Course maintained as it was at present. Mr. David Schumacher, Anaheim resident, Reporter for the Anaheim Bulletin, stated that he listened to Mr. Talley's argument and even though they did "butt heads" everyday, he felt that Mr. Talley was right. Private enterprise ought to be given a chance to respond to a request for a proposal from the City as to how they would best manage the two Municipally owned Golf Courses. 80-1087 City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - August 19, 1980, 1:30 P.M. It did not mean there was a commitment. He used to play golf when he was in college although he now did not do so. Councilman Roth spoke about the fact that taxpayers in Anaheim subsidized the play at Anaheim Hills to the tune of $6.12 per player. Not all of the players were residents of the City he lived in, and he was concerned that part of his taxes were subsidizing somebody else to have a good time. He did not think other citizens would be happy knowing that they did so. If the question were on a ballot, he did not know if the voters would advise keeping the Golf Courses. He reiterated that Mr. Talley was right when he stated the private sector should be given a chance to re- spond to RFP's. They would be reviewed by the City, screened by the Golf Course Commission and City Council and then either accepted or rejected after extensive input from citizens in the City. It would not be a frivolous decision or action. Mr. Bob Fox, 1527 Beacon Avenue, questioned why they did not do something to induce people to play the Anaheim Hills Course. He then gave some suggestions as to how to improve the Course and the play. He also commented that the cost to play was about $1 higher than other public courses. Mrs. Donna Riddell, Anaheim resident and speaking in her own behalf, stated it was hard for her to understand how private enterprise could make a profit and the City could not do so. As elected officials, the Council had to find out how they would be making that profi~ and it should stay with the City. If private enterprise could do so much better, why not turn the Stadium, Convention Center and Parks & Recreation over to them. She was proud to say as a citizen, those were the City's Courses and if their management needed to be overhauled, that was what should be done. Mr. Mike Jacobs, Avenida Encina, stated he was not sure why they were even present tonight because he had heard ambiguous figures mentioned from $419,000 down to $200,000 down to 0. There did not seem to be a problem as yet, because no one had researched how much the Golf Courses were costing, if anything. Mayor Seymour interjected and explained why the workshop had been called. He asked his colleagues to join him for the meeting although they knew they would not have all the figures and answers. Concern was expressed by the Commission as to the advisability of the process that was taking place. Concern was also expressed by some citizens in the way the City was going about the process. Mr. Jacobs stated it seemed to him that the course of action should take a different path. %~ there was a problem, which he did not think had been established yet, it would be reconciled down to the point where they could put their finger on it. The different alternatives would be brought to light and a meeting called once a course of action or alternate courses of action were clear, aired in front of the public and input received. As far as private enterprise, he had been around galf all his life and moved to Anaheim Hills to be closer to the Golf Course. He had an emotional interest in the Course and the way it was maintained and an economic interest in what they charged to play. He had become aware of what it took to increase revenues at a course--either speed play or raise rates. He appreciated the Anaheim Hills Course and also what had been done in trying to get public opinion. He hoped that the Council made a wise decision and that they would do the right thing for the betterment of the Course and the community. 80-1088 City Hall, Ana.heim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - August 19, 1980, 1:30 P.M. Mr. Doug Renner, 516 South Paseo Carmel, stated that improvements had to be made at the Anaheim Hills course to make it more playable, and Mr. Burns mentioned those would be in the neighborhood of $500,000. The nice thing about private enterprise was that it made those gambles, the risk being that they would not get their money back. Mr. Burns felt it was worth investing the money to make the Course more playable. He questioned if Anaheim was willing to make that $500,000 capital improvement and if that was the kind of gamble they as elected officials should take. He was not specifically endorsing that the Course be turned over to a concessionaire, but it was something that should be considered. He did not feel that private enterprise was going to do a worse job, but perhaps better or equal, while being willing to make an invest- ment so that more people could use the Course. Mr. Ed Laterno, Canali Lane, stated that the biggest concern seemed to be the subsidy the City was having to put out on the Anaheim Hills Course and anyone knew that going into business was a big investment and gamble involved. It took a number of years to fulfill obligations and the debts to go into that business. Eventually those would be paid off to where the business would start to make a profit. That seemed to be the case with Anaheim Hills once the indebtedness was off the books and more money invested into it for improvements. Mr. Dennis Cowan, resident of Anaheim since 1952, stated that he worked at the Anaheim Hills Golf Course. In speaking to Mr. Burns, he asked for confirmation that he stated the standards at the Anaheim Hills Golf Course would be the same as at present or better; Mayor Seymour stated that he believed Mr. Burns did make that statement. Mr. Cowan then asked if Mr. Burns was familiar with Tom Liegler's standards. He had worked at the Course for three years and had just now figured out those standards. For emphasis, Mr. Cowan pointed out how important it was to Mr. Liegier if a rock was found on a fairway or small branch from a tree. Mayor Seymour conceded that Mr. Cowan made his point. Mr. Hank Ricker, Anaheim resident, stated that he worked for the City of Anaheim in the Maintenance Department of the Anaheim Hills Course. He questioned how Mr. Burns thought that he could take the Golf Course and do a better job when in looking at the Fullerton course, it was in worse condition. Although he (Burns) had $30 million backing him, he was not putting any of that money into the course. He suggested that they look at some of the courses California Golf had taken over. Commissioner Ralph Riddell then explained that in 1979/80 Fiscal Year, rental paid to the City on the equipment for the Hills Course was $181,485. Rental on equipment for Dad Miller was $113,182. Mr. Burns stated he would not rent that equipment and that on-site equipment would be turned over to him. They would maintain it, but they would not pay the total of $924,667 to the City. The total loss in 1979/80 was $243,502. Excluding the rental money, there was still a profit just under $52,000 to the City. It was a hidden payment to the City and they were making a profit from both Courses of $52,000 plus. If they leased the courses out, that would be lost. 80-1089 City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - Au§ust 19~ 1980, 1:30 P.M. Mr. Talley stated they would be pleased to sit down with the Commission and go over each one of those figures. The fact was that the Courses were losing money, and it was not so that they were making a profit of any kind. A majority of the cost quoted were rents paid to the people who maintained the golf carts and it was a strict pass-throu~h. The vast majority of the expenses were for gasoline, oil mechanics' time to keep them running, and for parts. Whether ~r not ~he City provided those at favorable contract prices, if they used the equipment, they were going to use fuel, lubricant, tires and mechanical time. Mayor Seymour felt what was being stated was that at the time the City changed the accounting system to take over all the equipment, there was no credit given back and what Mr. Riddell was trying to point out was the fact that in the event they should enter into a contract with a private management company and they asked to give them the equipment, it would be another time they would be making a move on that equipment with any appropriate credit to the golf courses. Mr. Talley stated, without ever having the opportunity to negotiate with anyone in the private sector, he was not prepared to answer that. The Council nego- tiated two good terms tonight. Mr. Burns came down in terms and he went up in price. He did not know what he would do if he had a chance to propose against his position. The Mayor stated he was talking from a standpoint the Golf Course Commission had raised on a number of occasions. He knew the same procedure was used in every Department, but he felt the statement was fair when the Commission said, when the City began accounting for the equipment, they took it away and did not give any credit back for it. Mr. Talley stated that was true. Mayor Seymour stated he felt they had now had a chance to share some of the concerns with the Golf Course Commission, and they heard the concerns of the public. He believed there was no doubt in anyone's mind on the Commission or the Council that they should continue the process. Perhaps the Commission needed to take a look at some of the questions raised tonight and try to develop answers. He felt what the Council was going to want, was to have them to proceed with the process, with the RFP's, and they would then look to the Commission to analyze the situation and answer not only some of the questions raised, but also questions they had. Mr. Messe suggested that prior to proceeding with going out for proposals, it would be good for them to sit down with Messrs. Talley, Ferrone and Hopkins to have some of the questions they had answered in order to decide if they wanted to go out for a tight specification or one based on performance. Some of those things should be done prior to mailing the specifications. Mayor Seymour stated, in his opinion, what should happen from here with additional guidance from the Council, was that the Commission should be directed to do exactly that. Sit down with Mr. Talley and whatever staff was necessary and go over the financial statement to see where he felt there were savings, pre- pare the specifications for the RFP's, get them back in and see if they could stand the test of daylight. 80-1090 City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - August 19, 1980, 1:30 P.M. Councilwoman Kaywood stated that Mr. Jacobs made the comment earlier that he felt he did not know why the meeting was called. She agreed with him, and there would now need to be another meeting. There were some accusations circu- lating, accompanied by confusion and questions. Thus, rather than continuing on a normal course, they had the public meeting. Mr. Wise also made the comment that the Council first ~hink very carefully and make a wise decision. She had known the Council to make nothing but wise decisions and to think very carefully. She was very much for maintaining the Courses in exactly the kind of condition they were in. He had also expressed concern over entering into a long-term contract with the possibility that the Courses would be run down. She was certain that with the Commission, one of the qualifications would be a cancellation clause and there would be no way that they or the Council would allow someone to completely run down the courses before there would be an end to the contract. Any fears of that nature were unfounded and should not be in anybody's mind. They all realized the fantastic amenity they had in both Courses. Most knew the kind of job Tom Liegler had done. She had the experience of touring the Courses with Mr. Liegler and it became a "pick up litter" campaign. She did not think that anybody was criticizing the job he had done and everyone was aware of the way he and his staff worked. The idea was to go out for proposals to see what any professional in the business could offer and to show how it could be done better. She did not think any- body could do any better than Anaheim. She was very proud of it, but they must always be on the lookout to do whatever they could to improve anything in the City. Councilman Overholt asked Mr. Burns howmany other companies there were in the business of his company and, in his opinion, if an RFP were to go out, how many responses they would receive. Mr. Burns answered that a lot would depend on the qualifications put in the RFP. There could be 50 if some of the qualifications as discussed were not included, or a maximum of perhaps three if they were included. Councilman Overholt stated that the hearing tonight had been beneficial, and he supported the Mayor's efforts from the start to call the workshop. He personally felt it was healthy to take a look at operations such as the Golf Courses to ascertain if there was a better way of doing the job and it was no black eye to the staff running it. He considered it regrettable that the Commission felt that they were not fully informed and did not have access to all of the inforraa- tion they wanted. He understood the Mayor's proposal to be as follows: That the Commission sit down with management and see if both could understand how much the Courses were losing or making, and then proceed with the preparation of the RFP's on a basis that seemed reasonable in light of those concerns. Subsequently, it would come back to the Council and if the Council felt at that time there was another opportunity or a purpose for having a workshop or public hearing, he was certain they would do that. In concluding, Councilman Overholt stated he wanted to get away from suspicions, accusations or assumptions on the part of anybody that the Council would approve negotiating with any one operator. It would be a process where everybody would get a chance to bid. 80-1091 City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES -August 19, 1980, 1:30 P.M. Councilman Roth appreciated the participation by the public and their input. At this point, he did not know precisely the route to take, not having any figures with which to work. He felt it was a responsibility of the Commission to develop those figures and to come back to the Council who was ultimately responsible for taxpayer dollars. One of his concerns was the apparent lack of communication between the Commission and some members of staff and also that there was a misunderstanding relative to the lease rental arrangement. It was necessary to know the system being used in the City and an educational process was definitely in order. He hoped at the next Commission meeting, Assistant City Manager Hopkins, Assistant Finance Director-Resources Ron Rothschild and Assistant to the City Manager Jim Armstong could provide a better understanding on how the process worked. In concluding, Councilman Ro~h stated he was concerned over the continuing deficit at the Anaheim Hills Course. Perhaps it was proper and they had to look at it as they did other Park & Recreation facilities in the City. He reiterated until he saw in black and white a proposal from California Golf and as many others who wished to submit them and subsequently review the Golf Course Commission recommendation, he could not make an intelligent decision on the matter. The responsibility should be handed to the Commission to get the facts and figures and to bring those back for another public hearing so that the public could be apprised as well. He wanted to have the best golf courses in California and to decrease losses as much as possible. Councilman Bay wanted to quote one line from the Assistant City Manager's report to the City Manager as he was certain the Commission would be looking into it and getting all the details relative to it, Page 4: "Excluding equity payments, capital contribution and CETA contribution, the cumulative losses from fiscal 1974 through fiscal 1980--$1,879,953." Calling it $1.9 million, it averaged $268,565 a year. That alone was enough to make him deeply interested in what alternatives there were to that type of loss, plus or minus 20% on that loss, or 50% one way or the other. He would assume at this point until someone changed his mind, that the Anaheim Hills Golf Course was losing a great deal of taxpayer's money. City Management's prime reSponsibility was to run the City effectively and as cost effective as possible, and the Council's responsibility as well. If there was any possibility that private enterprise on a contractual basis could stop those losses and still retain the City's standards, he urged that those possibilities be investigated and the information be brought to the Council. Mayor Seymour stated that he knew somewhere in the future that Anaheim Hills was going to be a profitable course. They bought a Golf Course with no down payment to a large degree, that was a problem they inherited, and it was not going to go away. He saw a dramatic change in the Courses since Mr. Liegler had taken them on. He charged the Commission with an additional responsibility, not to look at just today. He wanted them to look down the road five years, ten years, whatever the life of the agreement they might enter into, to see where they would be, or if they could project where they might be, if they did not go to a private management company but'kept the management of the Courses within the City. It was always easy to point a finger at a financial loser today. He used as an example the Stadium and Convention Center and the fact that Anaheim now had the only municipally-owned Stadium and Convention Center that was making a profit although it did not happen overnight. He maintained that the Anaheim 80-1092 City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - August 19, 1980, 1:30 P.M. Hills Course was not any different especially since it was saddled with all that d~t. ADJOURNMENT - GOLF COURSE ADVISORY COMMISSION: By general consent, the Golf Course Advisory Commission adjourned. ADJOURNMENT - CITY COUNCIL: Councilman Roth moved to adjourn. Councilwoman Kaywood seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. Adjourned: 9:50 P.M.