1980/09/3080-1236
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - September 30~ 1980, 1:30 P.M.
The City Council of the City of Anaheim met in regular session.
PRESENT:
ABSENT:
PRESENT:
COUNCIL MEMBERS: Kaywood, Bay, Roth and Overholt
COUNCIL MEMBERS: Seymour
ASSISTANT CITY MANAGER: William T. Hopkins
CITY ATTORNEY: William P. Hopkins
CITY CLERK: Linda D. Roberts
EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR FOR COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT: Norman J. Priest
CITY LIBRARIAN: William J. Griffith
PUBLIC UTILITIES GENERAL MANAGER: Gordon W. Hoyt
TRAFFIC ENGINEER: Paul Singer
ASSISTANT DIRECTOR FOR ZONING: Annika Santalahti
FACILITIES MAINTENANCE STAFF ASSISTANT: Sharon Hepburn
Mayor Pro Tem Overholt called the meeting to order and welcomed
those in attendance to the Council meeting.
INVOCATION: Dr. Wayne E. Faust, Anaheim First Presbyterian Church, gave the
Invocation.
FLAG SALUTE: Councilman E. Llewellyn Overholt, Jr., led the assembly in the
Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag.
119: PROCLAMATION: The following proclamation was issued by the Mayor Pro
Tem and authorized by the City Council:
Chess Weekend in Anaheim - October 3 to 5~, 1980
Mr. Bill Kyle of the Anaheim Chess Club accepted the proclamation.
MOTION: On motion by Councilman Roth, seconded by Councilman Bay, request by
Peggy Johnson, Project Chairman, for permission and support for the Anaheim Junior
Ebell Club "Tie a Yellow Ribbon" project in remembrance of the hostages in Iran,
was approved. Councilman Seymour was absent. MOTION CARRIED.
The following proclamation was then issued by the Mmyor Pro Tem, authorized
by the City Council and accepted by Peggy Johnson.
Anaheim Supports the Hostages Release Month - October 4 to November 4, 1980
Councilman Roth commended Miss Johnson and her organization for such a worth-
while project.
119: RESOLUTION OF CONDOLENCE: A resolution of condolence was unanimously
adopted by the City Council on the passing of former City Librarian Elva
Haskett, which was to be delivered to her family. Miss Haskett was a resident
of the community for 54 years, touching the lives of many young people as they
grew and enjoyed the story telling and learning experiences in the library
where Miss Haskett joined the staff in 1925, later being selected as Children's
Librarian, a post she held for 36 years.
119: RESOLUTION OF CONDOLENCE: A resolution of condolence was unanimously
adopted by the City Council on the passing of Fred Krein, which was to be de-
livered to his family. Mr. Krein, a resident of the community for 28 years,
80-1237
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - September 30, 1980~ 1:30 P.M.
was elected to the Anaheim City Council in 1962 and served as Mayor from 1965
to 1967. He helped to shape and guide a better Anaheim for the enjoyment of
many generations to come.
MINUTES: Councilwoman Kaywood moved to approve the minutes of the adjourned
regular meeting of June 26, 1980 and the regular meeting held August 26, 1980,
subject to typographical corrections on the meeting of June 26, 1980. Council-
man Bay seconded the motion. Councilman Overholt abstained on the minutes of
August 26, 1980. Councilman Seymour was absent. MOTION CARRIED.
WAIVER OF READING - ORDINANCES AND RESOLUTIONS: Councilwoman Kaywood moved to
waive the reading in full of all ordinances and resolutions of the Agenda, after
reading of the title thereof by the City Clerk, and that consent to waiver is
hereby given by all Council Members, unlems 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 Roth seconded the motion. Councilman Seymour was
absent. MOTION CARRIED.
FINANCIAL DEMANDS AGAINST THE CITY in the amount of $1,365,490.61, in accordance
with the 1980-81 Budget, were approved.
CITY MANAGER/DEPARTMENTAL MOTION CONSENT CALENDAR: On motion by Councilman
Roth, seconded by Councilwoman Kaywood, the following actions were authorized
as recommended by the Purchasing Agent.
a. 160: Bid No. 3694--Ninety-three 200 KVAR, 19.9KV Capacitors. Award to
General Electric Company, $44,853.90.
b. 160: Bid No. 3696--2,430 feet of 12-inch Ductile Iron Pipe. Award to U.S.
Pipe Foundry Co., $32,073.86.
c. 160: Bid No. 3698--Two each electric submersible pumps and complementary
equipment. Award to Klein-Tieman Associates, $13,589.22.
Councilman Seymour was absent. MOTION CARRIED.
128: MONTHLY FINANCIAL STATEMENT - TWO-MONTH PERIOD ENDED AUGUST 31, 1980:
Councilman Bay referred to the subject statement under Control Center and
Expenditures and stated his question again was relative to Control Center
45, Human Resources Capital. That account had already expended 127% of its
annual budget. He wanted an explanation on that overrun.
Assistant City Manager William T. Hopkins explained that the item would con-
tinue throughout the year since it was an overexpenditure on the Personnel/
Payroll Capital Project. They did not anticipate any further overruns on the
project, but would continue to show because it was an overrun. They were pre-
paring a general report to Council on the whole program and project itself
relative to Data Processing operations.
Councilman Bay stated if they were going to get a report, he would refrain from
asking for one each month.
MOTION: On motion by Councilman Roth, seconded by Councilman Overholt, the
monthly financial statement for the two-month period ended August 31, 1980 was
ordered received and filed. Councilman Seymour was absent. MOTION CARRIED.
80-1238
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - September 30, 1980, 1:30 P.M.
107/174: ACCEPTANCE OF DEMOLITION WORK - CONTRACT NO. BG80-1: Councilwoman
Kaywood offered Resolution No. 80R-434 for adoption, accepting demolition work
performed by Luther Kelly Demolition at 1008, 1015, 1015½, 1040 and 1042 North
Patt Street, 328 and 305 East Julianna Street and 700 North Pauline Street,
and directing the City Clerk to file a Notice of Completion, as recommended
in memorandum dated September 23, 1980 from Executive Director of Community
Development Norm Priest. Refer to Resolution Book.
RESOLUTION NO. 80R-434: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ANAHEIM ACCEPTING THE COMPLETION AND 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 COMPLETE DEMO-
LITION AND SITE CLEARANCE. Contract No. BG80-1, Account No. 25-214-6640
Roll Call Vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
Kaywood, Bay, Roth and Overholt
None
Seymour
The Mayor Pro Tem declared Resolution No. 80R-434 duly passed and adopted.
123/174(CDBG): AGREEMENT ~ITH THE ORANGE COUNTY FAIR HOUSING COUNCIL - 6TH
YEAR COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT PROGRAM FOR FAIR HOUSING ACTIVITIES:
Councilman Roth questioned the amount the Fair Housing Council received from
the City last year; Executive Director of Community Development Norm Priest
answered $10,000.
Councilman Roth then asked why they were now proposing to give $5,000 more than
the previous year.
Mr. Priest answered that the quality of their service warranted the continuing
relationship with them and their costs had gone up.
Councilman Roth asked when such large increases were proposed, that the staff
report indicate why such an increase was taking place.
Mr. Priest stated that the matter had been presented to the Council as part of
the public hearing on the Block Grant this year and it was discussed at that
hearing. It had been considered by the Council and approved and the subject
agreement was pursuant to that approval. However, they would be happy to bring
the supporting documentation to the Council for review.
Councilman Roth stated that he did not intend to vote for the proposal although
he did not know if there was a deadline involved between today and two weeks
from today; Mr. Priest answered that they were looking at a October i, 1980
contract expiration date, but he did not see any problem if the matter were
continued for two weeks.
On motion by Councilman Roth, seconded by Councilman Overholt, consideration of
the subject agreement was continued to October 14, 1980, with staff to supply the
requested documentation during the interim. Councilman Seymour was absent.
MOTION CARRIED.
80-1239
City Hall, Anaheim, California- COUNCIL MINUTES - September 30, 1980, 1:30 P.M.
123/174(CETA): ANAHEIM EDUCATIONAL OPPORTUNITY CENTER LEASE AGREEMENT: On
motion by Councilwoman Kaywood, seconded by Councilman Roth, a lease agreement
was authorized with Gary Triano, dba Trifill Enterprises, at a monthly cost of
$2,448,80 for the Anaheim Educational Opportunities Center program located at
1360 South Anaheim Boulevard, as recommended in memorandum dated September 23,
1980 from the Executive Director of Community Development. Councilman Seymour
was absent. MOTION CARRIED.
123/174(CETA): PERSONAL AND CAREER DEVELOPMENT WORKSHOPS FOR ANAHEIM PUBLIC
SERVICE EMPLOYMENT PARTICIPANTS: On motion by Councilwoman Kaywood, seconded
by Councilman Bay, an agreement was authorized with Tomkinson and Associates,
Inc., in an amount not to exceed $28,750 to provide Personal and Career
Development Workshops for Anaheim Public Service Employment participants,
term ending September 30, 1981, as recommended in memorandum dated September 23,
1980 from Human Resources Director Garry McRae. Councilman Seymour was absent.
MOTION CARRIED.
123/174: JOINT EXERCISE OF POWERS AGREEMENT FOR ORANGE COUNTY MANPOWER COMMIS-
SION: Assistant City Manager Hopkins explained that since the amendment to the
agreement was prepared, the City Council of Huntington Beach decided not to par-
ticipate in the agreement. Santa Ana, Garden Grove and the County had already
signed as signatories. Anaheim should also sign the agreement as an interim
measure until staff could come back with another agreement. With five signatories
now down to four, the only effect might be that the liability factor would be
enhanced.
Councilman Roth asked when it was brought back, that information be furnished
as to what effect there might be with Huntington Beach pulling out relative to
cost or anything else.
Mayor Pro Tem Overholt stated they would therefore be executing the agreement
in its present form and if one of the signatories did not sign it, it was going
to have to come back. They were committing to a joint powers agreement with
the cities other than Huntington Beach. The Assistant City Manager stated that
was correct.
On motion by Councilman Bay, seconded by Councilwoman Kaywood, an amendment
was authorized to the Joint Exercise of Powers Agreement to the Orange County
Manpower Commission between the Cities of Anaheim, Santa Ana, Garden Grove and
the County, extending the term of the Agreement to September 30, 1981, as
recommended in memorandum dated September 22, 1980 from the Human Resources
Director. Councilman Seymour was absent. MOTION CARRIED.
174: CETA GRANT AGREEMENTS AND SUBAGREEMENTS FOR PROGRAM YEAR 1980-1981 WITH
THE ORANGE COUNTY MANPOWER COMMISSION: Councilwoman Kaywood moved to authorize
the following agreements with the Orange County Manpower Commission, for the
period of October 1, 1980, September 30, 1981, with the exception of the last
agreement with a termination date ending June 30, 1981, and, authorizing the
City to incur costs and the City Manager to execute the subject agreements as
recommended in' memorandum dated September 23, 1980 from Human Resources Director
Garry McRae: (1)$627,600 to provide funds for services, classroom training, and
work experience under Title II-B of C.E.T.A.; (2) $971,860 to provide funds for
the Public Service Employment Program under Title II-D of C.E.T.A.: (3) $773,614
80-1240
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - September 30, 1980, 1:30 P.M.
to provide funds for the Public Service Employment Program under Title VI of
C.E.T.A.; (4) $81,481 to provide funds for classroom training under Title IV-YETP
of C.E.T.A.; (5) $85,788 to provide funds for a work experience program under
Title IV-YCCIP of C.E.T.A.; (6) $39,800 to provide funds for economic develop-
ment under Title VII of C.E.T.A.: (7) $765,887 for the period of October i, 1980
to June 30, 1981, to provide funds for the administrative cost pool under Title
I of C.E.T.A. Councilman Bay seconded the motion. Councilman Seymour was
absent. MOTION CARRIED.
174: CETA GRANT AGREEMENTS AND SUBAGREEMENTS FOR PROGRAM YEAR 1980-1981 WITH
VARIOUS CONTRACTING AGENCIES: Councilwoman Kaywood moved to authorize the
following agreements with various contracting agencies for the period of
October 1, 1980 to September 30, 1981 and authorizing the Mayor to execute same,
as recommended in memorandum dated September 23, 1980 from the Human Resources
Director Garry McRae: (1) North Orange County Community College District (NOCCCD)
in the amount of $340,820 to provide funds for recruitment services under Title
II-B of C.E.T.A.; (2) NOCCCD in an amount of $125,400 to provide funds for
assessment services for C.E.T.A. eligible Anaheim residents; (3) NOCCCD in the
amount of $55,498 to provide funds for a community based individualized instruc-
tion program under Title II-B and Title IV-YETP of C.E.T.A.; (4) NOCCCD in the
amount of $170,223 to provide funds for the Anaheim Housing Repair Program under
Title II-D of C.E.T.A.; (5) North Orange County Regional Occupational Program
(NOCROP) in the amount of $77,654 to provide funds for the Pre-school Program
under Title II-D of C.E.T.A.; (6) NOCROP and the Orange County Manpower Commis-
sion to provide for various classroom training programs under Title II-B of
C.E.T.A. Councilman Bay seconded the motion.
Before a vote was taken, Councilwoman Kaywood asked relative to the agreement
pertaining to the Housing Repair program (4) and Pre-school Program (5), if a
breakdown in numbers could be provided, i.e., how many houses benefitted from
the repair program and how many children in the Pre-school program.
Mr. Bill Hepburn, CETA Services Manager, stated there were 100 houses involved
in the former. In terms of the number of children in the Pre-school Program,
they anticipated 130 this year due to the scheduled expansion into the George
Washington School, and there were about 65 last year. He did not know if there
was a waiting list, but there were people requesting the service on an on-going
basis. There was also a turnover in the program so that they were able to
accommodate additional families. At this point, they were not ready to open
a third center.
A vote was then taken on the foregoing motion. Councilman Seymour was absent.
MOTION CARRIED.
123: SERVICE CONTRACT FOR LIBRARY'S CIRCULATION CONTROL SYSTEM: Councilman
Roth moved to authorize a service contract with Digital Equipment Corporation
at a monthly cost of $1,638 for maintenance of computer hardware for the Library's
Circulation Control System and authorizing the City Librarian to execute same,
as recommended in memorandum dated September 22, 1980 from the City Librarian.
Councilwoman Kaywood seconded the motion.
Before a vote was taken, Councilman Bay stated he assumed the service contract
was relative to computer equipment purchased where the warranty had expired.
80-1241
City Hall, ~na~eim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - September 30, 1980, 1:30 P.M.
City Librarian William Griffith explained that it was a continuation of a main-
tenance agreement. The staff report was misleading. Last year the maintenance
was handled through the initial vendor, Systems Control Inc., and they were now
transferring that maintenance agreement from that Vendor directly to the man-
ufacturer of the hardware. He confirmed it was purchased equipment and those
maintenance costs were included in this year's budget. After a few years of
experience with the equipment and in the maintenance area, they might be able
to back-off, but this was the best maintenance package they could obtain.
Councilman Bay stated that he hoped on data systems or computers in the future
that they look very closely at leasing equipment which would include on-going
maintenance rather than putting out capital expenditures to buy electronic
equipment where maintenance and recurring costs were going to go up on a curve
in relation to the age of the equipment.
A vote was then taken on the foregoing motion. Councilman Seymour was absent.
MOTION CARRIED.
167: TRAFFIC SIGNALS AND INTERCONNECT, CANYON INDUSTRIAL AREA - FAU PROJECT
M-3041(74): Account No. 01-795-6325-E5070--The staff recommendation contained
in a report dated September 22, 1980 was that the contract be awarded to Ste±ny
and Company, the lowest and best bidder, in the amount of $596,400.
City Clerk Linda Roberts announced that a Mr. Arthur Cook, Attorney for Electrend,
Inc., and Mr. Lee Geyer, Attorney for Steiny and Company, were both present and
wished to address the Council relating to the matter.
Councilman Roth first asked the City Attorney that just prior to the meeting,
he was handed a petition for Writ of Mandate with regard to the subject and
he wanted to know what effect that might have on their discussion. City
Attorney William P. Hopkins answered that the Writ was filed with Superior
Court, but there had been no hearing as yet by the Court on the matter. The
gentlemen wished to present their facts to the Council at this time so that
their action, if Council decided to proceed one way or the other, could be
with full information from the parties involved. There were no restraints at
all on them by the Court at this time.
Mayor Pro Tem Overholt, speaking to Mr. Cook who was approaching the podium,
stated he assumed that he (Cook) anticipated having a hearing in a Court of
law at some future date on the subject. Therefore, he would hope that he would
feel they would not be unduly restrictive if they limited his remarks to five
minutes and his opponent's remarks to five minutes. If that was not agreeable,
he asked him to speak now; Mr. Cook answered that he felt five minutes would be
quite adequate.
Mr. Arthur Cook, Attorney representing Electrend, Inc., stated he was present in
connection with the proposed contract now before the Council, a contract award to
Steiny and Company. His purpose was to ask the Council to require the job to be
rebid. In asking that, Electrend was not seeking a windfall or the contract to be
awarded to them instead of Steiny, but they wanted an opportunity to bid the job on
specifications equally favorable to any person bidding on the job. They were confi-
dent a rebid would result in the City saving money. What was wrong with the speci-
fications that ought to require them to be revised and that the job be rebid was
80-1242
Qity Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - September 30, 1980, 1:30 P.M.
that there were at least three items of equipment which had to be supplied by
the bidders which were available only through Steiny or its subsidiaries. He
was mindful of the Traffic Engineer of the City of Anaheim's counter that there
was nothing proprietary in the sense of a bid which prevented someone else from
supplying the equipment. The fact remained, that the equipment was not being
supplied by any other source. Therefore, somebody bidding on the job must go
to Steiny and Company and get bids from Steiny on that equipment, incorporate
those bids into their overall bid, and then submit that to the City. The three
pieces of equipment were signal heads containing the lights themselves, junction
boxes in which electrical connections were made, and controller modifications
which were designed to allow the controls of different intersections to be inter-
connected and interrelated. Each of the specifications in the job specs required
equipment which at the present time was only supplied by Steiny and Company or
its subsidiaries constituting a violation of State law under California Govern-
ment Code Section 4380 which he read. In the case of the signal heads and the
junction boxes in particular, there were no alternates or equal. In this case,
Steiny and Company was both a bidder as an electrical contractor and the only
supplier of certain of the components which must be incorporated into the bids
of every bidder. They felt that gave a competitive edge not only unfair to the
other bidders, but also which may well result in the City of Anaheim paying for
more than they needed to. If the job had revised specifications or open speci-
fications and were rebid, the City would receive a lower successful bid than
it had now before it. He encouraged the City to require that the specifications
be revised and that the project be rebid.
Mayor Pro Tem Overholt then asked Mr. Geyer if he were willing to agree to the
same time limitation; Mr. Geyer agreed.
Mr. Lee Geyer, Law Firm of Gill & Baldwin, representing Steiny and Company, the
low bidder on the project, stated that prior to the hearing they received, and
also Electrend's attorney received, a memorandum dated September 16, 1980 from the
City Engineer to the Traffic Engineer which specifically addressed itself to
the issues raised by Mr. Cook. Basically it was the position of his client
that there were specifications on the project w~ich required brand name products
manufactured by a company controlled by Steiny. That was a matter with which
he was not familiar; he was an attorney not an engineer. He was informed by
his ~lient, and backed up by the memorandum from the Traffic Engineer, that this
was, in fact, not the case. They were talking about mounting hardware for
signal heads which, as he understood, could be supplied or manufactured by
several sources. Relative to the junction boxes, it was also his understanding
that standard junction boxes could be obtained from several sources. There
were no provisions set forth in the specifications that required that those
be purchased from any company that was controlled by his client. They had a
situation here where there was a disgruntled bidder who, looking at the speci-
fications, was saying to the City, if you would rewrite the specifications and
perhaps lower your requirements in an area here and change these, there was a
possibility if the City rebid maybe they might get a lower price and we (Electrend)
would like to have that chance. However, they did not talk about what would
occur if the specifications were changed. He believed the change they were
talking about would be a change in design. What would then happen if the City
received a higher price and in today's economy that was a distinct possibility.
80-1243
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - September 30, 1980, 1:30 P.M.
They did not believe that the facts presented in light of the presentation of the
Traffic Engineer showed that there had been any violation whatsoever of any
applicable statute, that all of the bidders had an opportunity to do their
homework, seek out alternate manufacturers or suppliers, put together their
best bid and submit it. That was the purpose of competitive bidding--that you
get "one shot". Certainly people who were second or third would like to have
all the bids disclosed and have a second "bite of the apple", that was not the
competitive bidding system that the City had in its Charter.
Assistant City Manager Hopkins stated, in view of the fact that the foregoing
issue had been raised quite recently in terms of the recommendation presented
to the Council, staff would recommend that the matter be continued for one week
and the staff report to be provided to the Council after a review of the infor-
mation presented to staff.
MOTION: On motion by Councilman Bay, seconded by Councilman Roth, consideration
of the subject award of contract was continued one week, Councilman Seymour was
absent. MOTION CARRIED.
169: AWARD OF CONTRACT - EAST STREET STREET IMPROVEMENT~ NORTH STREET TO WIL-
HELMINA STREET: Account No. 13-792-6325-E2570. Councilman Bay offered Resolution
No. 80R-435 for adoption, awarding a contract, as recommended by the City Engineer
in his memorandum dated September 22, 1980. Refer to Resolution Book.
RESOLUTION NO. 80R-435: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM
ACCEPTING A SEALED PROPOSAL AND AWARDING A CONTRACT TO THE LOWEST RESPONSIBLE
~ DDER FOR THE FURNISHING OF ALL PLANT, LABOR, SERVICES, MATERIALS AND EQUIP-
MENT AND ALL UTILITIES AND TRANSPORTATION INCLUDING POWER, FUEL AND WATER, AND
PERFORMING ALL WORK NECESSARY TO CONSTRUCT AND COMPLETE THE FOLLOWING PUBLIC
IMPROVEMENT: EAST STREET STREET IMPROVEMENT, NORTH STREET TO WILHELMINA STREET,
IN THE CITY OF ANAHEIM, ACCOUNT NO. 13-792-6325-E2570. (Wayne Stevens Company,
$13,117.75)
Roll Call Vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
Kaywood, Bay, Roth and Overholt
None
Seymour
The Mayor Pro Tem declared Resolution No. 80R-436 duly passed and adopted.
169: BICYCLE TRAIL FUNDING PROPOSAL UNDER SB 821; Councilwoman Kaywood offered
Resolution No. 80R-436 for adoption, authorizing the City Manager to submit a
bicycle trail funding proposal under SB 821 to the Orange County Transportation
Commission, in an amount not to exceed $48,336, as recommended in memorandum
dated September 24, 1980 from the City Engineer. Refer to Resolution Book.
RESOLUTION NO. 80R-436: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM
AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO LXECUTE AND FILE A BICYCLE/PEDESTRIAN FACILITIES
CLAIM APPLICATION FOR THE FISCAL YEAR 1980-8i WITH THE ORANGE COUNTY TRANSPORTA-
TION COMMISSION PURSUANT TO SENATE BILL NO. 821.
80-1244
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - September 30, 1980, 1:30 P.M.
Before a vote was taken, Councilman Roth noted that the map submitted with the
staff report showed the bicycle trail traversing the Municipal Golf Courme. He
presumed that would not be the came.
Traffic Engineer Paul Singer stated the intent was not to go through the course
but around it. The map wam a schematic showing alternatives. Bicyclers would
also be protected by a very high fence precluding any potential hazard from golf
balls.
A vote was then taken on the foregoing resolution.
Roll Call Vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
Kaywood, Bay, Roth and Overholt
None
Seymour
The Mayor Pro Tem declared Resolution No. 80R-436 duly passed and adopted.
173: LOS ANGELES AND SALT LAKE RAILROAD COMPANY - UNION PACIFIC RAILROAD COMPANY
EXTENSION RIDER C.L.D. NO. 10833-11: Councilman Bay offered Resolution No. 80R-437
for adoption, authorizing the execution of an Extension Rider, designated C.L.D.
No. 10833-11, extending the term of that certain agreement made and entered into
with the Los Angeles and Salt Lake Railroad Company - Union Pacific Railroad
Company dated November 30, 1951, to December 2, 1990, and authorizing the
annual payment of a $50 license fee therefor, as recommended in memorandum
dated September 17, 1980 from Public Utilities General Manager Gordon Hoyt.
Refer to Resolution Book.
RESOLUTION NO. 80R-437: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM
APPROVING AND AUTHORIZING THE EXECUTION OF AN EXTENSION RIDER, DESIGNATED C.L.D.
NO. 10833-11, EXTENDING THE TERM OF THAT CERTAIN AGREEMENT MADE AND ENTERED INTO
WITH THE LOS ANGELES AND SALT LAKE RAILROAD COMPANY - UNION PACIFIC RAILROAD COM-
PANY DATED NOVEMBER 30, 1951 AND AUTHORIZING 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:
Kaywood, Bay, Roth and Overholt
None
Seymour
The Mayor Pro Tem declared Resolution No. 80R-437 duly passed and adopted.
123: YMCA INDIAN GUIDE USE OF CITY FLOAT BODY FOR HALLOWEEN PARADE: Councilwoman
Kaywood offered Resolution No. 80R-438 for adoption, authorizing an agreement with
the YMCA for use of the City float body by the Indian Guides and Maidens for the
Halloween Parade, as recommended in memorandum dated September 24, 1980 from
Facility Maintenace Superintendent John Roche. Refer to Resolution Book.
RESOLUTION NO. 80R-438: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM
APPROVING AN AGREEMENT WITH THE YOUNG MEN'S CHRISTIAN ASSOCIATION CONCERNING THE
USE OF A SELF-PROPELLED VEHICLE IN THE ANAHEIM HALLOWEEN PARADE AND AUTHORIZING
THE MAYOR AND CITY CLERK TO EXECUTE SAID AGREEMENT.
80-1245
City. H~ll, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - September 30, 1980, 1:30 P.M.
Roll Call Vote:
AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Kaywood, Bay, Roth and Overholt
NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: None
ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Seymour
The Mayor Pro Tem declared Resolution No. 80R-438 duly passed and adopted.
130: REQUEST FOR TIME EXTENSION - STORER CABLE TV: Councilwoman Kaywood offered
Resolution No. 80R-439 for adoption, granting an extension of 18 days to Storer
Cable T.V. Inc., to provide first subscriber service with cable television on or
before October 14, 1980, pursuant to Ordinance No. 4087, as recommended in memo-
randum dated September 24, 1980 from James Armstrong, Assistant to the City
Manager. Refer to Resolution Book.
RESOLUTION NO. 80R-439: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM
GRANTING AN ADDITIONAL 18 DAYS TO STORER CABLE TV, INC. TO PROVIDE FIRST SUBSCRI-
BER SERVICE WITH CABLE TELEVISION IN THE CITY OF ANAHEIM.
Before a vote was taken, Councilman Roth stated it was his understanding from
staff this would be the only extension they were going to recommend; Mr. Armstrong
confirmed his understanding.
Councilman Bay stated that Storer Cable TV had saved the City a great deal of
money on some of the City's traffic light cable that was going underground, and
therefore, he did not feel too badly about an 18-day extension when he considered
the amount of money saved in that area.
A vote was then taken on the foregoing resolution.
Roll Call Vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
Kaywood, Bay, Roth and Overholt
None
Seymour
The Mayor Pro Tem declared Resolution No. 80R-439 duly passed and adopted.
159: RETIREMENT OF EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC WORKS THORNTON PIERSALL: Assis-
tant City Manager Hopkins stated he had an item to present to the Council on
behalf of the City Manager's office, but it was being presented with mixed emo-
tions. The City Manager received a statement from Executive Director of Public
Works Thornton Piersall that he was intending to retire from City service,
effective December 31 of this year. It was presented with mixed emotions because
it involved a gentleman and a public servant who had given outstanding service
to the community since he started with the City in the 1950's. He had experi-
enced not only the growth that brought Anaheim to the forefront in California
cities, but also he was instrumental in seeing that City development took place
during that period in a very high and professional quality and manner. The
City grew from 20,000 to 210,000 citizens during his span of service. Being a
senior member of the City's top management team, they would certainly miss his
excellent services upon his retirement. The Council should be aware of that
intent. The administration honored that intent and highly commended Mr. Piersall
for his service.
80-1246
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - September 30~ 1980, 1:30 P.M.
Mayor Pro Tem Overholt stated that they would have the opportunity to present
accolades to Mr. Piersall, but it was true that he had been the builder of the
City since the early 1950's up to the present time. In looking at the Conven-
tion Center, Stadium and public buildings, in addition to public works, the
"Piersall mark" was on everything that had been built in the City in the last
30 years. It was going to be a great loss, but a well-deserved retirement. It
was also going to be a different game without "Thorny".
175: MIRA LOMA - SERRANO - VILLA PARK TRANSMISSION PROJECT: Councilman Roth
offered Resolution No. 80R-440 for adoption, supporting Southern California
Edison Company's proposed Mira Loma-Serrano-Villa Park Transmission Line Pro-
ject, as recommended in memorandum dated September 22, 1980 from the Public
Utilities Board. Refer to Resolution Book.
RESOLUTION NO. 80R-440: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANANEIM
SUPPORTING SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON COMPANY'S PROPOSED MIRA LOMA-SERRANO-VILLA
PARK TRANSMISSION LINE PROJECT.
Roll Call Vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
Kaywood, Bay, Roth and Overholt
None
Seymour
The Mayor Pro Tem declared Resolution No. 80R-440 duly passed and adopted.
175: SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA PUBLIC POWER AUTHORITY, JOINT POWERS AGREEMENT: Pro-
posed resolution authorizing a Joint Powers Agreement dated as of November 1,
1980, creating the Southern California Public Power Authority, and motion in-
structing the Public Utilities General Manager to seek an amendment to Section
12 of said agreement to limit liability for contributions, payments, advances,
etc., to $2,000 per member annually without prior approval of the governing
body of such member, as recommended in memorandum dated September 22, 1980
from the Public Utilities Board (PUB), was submitted.
MOTION: Councilman Roth stated he felt it would be wise to hold consideration
of the subject matter over for a decision by a full Council, the earliest date
being October 14, 1980. Councilman 0verholt seconded the motion for the pur-
pose of discussion.
Councilman Bay asked to hear from Mr. Hoyt relative to time constraints invol-
ved.
Public Utilities General Manager Gordon Hoyt explained if they took action to-
day, Anaheim would be one of the original members of the organization as formed.
If not, they would then need to apply for membership in the organization after
it was formed, and they would not be one of the original members. It would
also take unanimous approval of the other members to add AnAheim to the authority.
Councilman Bay stated the way he read the minutes of the PUB, the manner in
which the matter was being presented to the Council by staff with a resolution
and motion did not seem to correspond with his understanding of those minutes.
He then quoted from the PUB minutes of September 18, 1980, Page 4--"Mr. Anderson
moved that the Public Utilities Board recommend to the City Council that Anaheim
80-1247
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - September 30, 1980, 1:30 P.M.
participate in the Southern California Public Power Authority with the amendment
to Section 12 of the Agreement which says contributions, payments, advancements
shall not exceed the sum of $2,000 per member annually without the approval of
the governing body of such member. Mr. Stanton seconded the motion. Messrs.
Haynie and White opposed. MOTION CARRIED." He wanted to bring out those points
before taking a vote on the continuation. If they were going to approve the
matter, they should vote on it today and, therefore, he would vote against the
continuance. At the same time, he could not vote for it the way it was set up
with a separate resolution and motion because the implication was that they were
going to pass a resolution saying that they were going to join the Authority
with a subsequent motion saying after joining, they were going to make every
attempt to get the agreement changed. He would only vote for the resolution
to join, contingent upon the change to Section 12 of the agreement.
Mr. Hoyt stated his understanding of the intention of the Board was that they
first join and become a member of the Joint Powers Authority and then seek to
amend Section 12 to limit the amount of contributions for which the City could
be liable. However, it would mean that the agreement which now had been approved
by all the other potential participants, save Anaheim, would have to go back to
the participants' governing body again to make the change which he was not certain
they would do. If they went into the Joint Powers Agency initially on the same
terms and conditions set forth in the agreement and asked the agency to amend the
agreement in accordance with the language, as recommended by legal counsel and
submitted to the Board, they could change the wording of the agreement. If
the remaining members did not want to accept that or wanted to accept something
different and set some other limitations, that might be a possibility. The
$2,000 was an arbitrary number Anaheim put in. The City Council on any given
Tuesday by resolution could withdraw from the Joint Powers Agency with no pen-
alty and no obligation whatsoever if they did not like the way it went. If in
the meantime the Directors decided to levy some sort of contribution on hhe
members and Anaheim, by protesting, could avoid payment of that, all they would
have to do was to go back to the Council and present their story and the Council
could then withdraw or accept. By going in now, they did not have any liability
that he could see for expenditures that would not be first approved by the
Council. If they did not go in at this time, then they would need to make
application for membership at a later date.
Mr. Hoyt further explained that he felt the organization was going to be formed
under the terms of the existing agreement with or without Anaheim. He also
believed that the other participants would be receptive to their effort to im-
pose that limitation, but that the organization would be formed now. If Anaheim
did not join, eventually, they would then have to ask one of the existing members
in the organization to submit Anaheim's proposal. Anaheim would not be a member
and the proposal would be accepted or rejected without the City's participation.
If accepted, they could then petition for membership if it was Council's desire
to proceed, which he strongly recommended. He believed they could limit their
liability by going in at this time.
Councilman Roth explained that the reason for his suggesting a continuance
was due to the fact that in reading the back-up documentation, there was con-
siderable discussion on the PUB about the matter. He referred specifically to
the PUB minutes of September 4, 1980, Page 3, last paragraph--"
80-1248
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - September 30, 1980, 1:30 P.M.
"Mr. Keesee expressed his opinion that he believes the entire Board should be in
attendance before the Board votes again." He felt that since Chairman Keesee
was very close to the agreement and very knowledgeable with regard to Board
matters, if he felt that way and because the matter was so controversial, he
(Roth) also felt that the same concept should be applied to the Council and
require the vote of a full Council. He was certain that if they decided to
hold a decision off until October 14, the other participants would not be upset.
Mr. Hoyt confirmed as documented in the PUB minutes, that at its initial meeting
when they first discussed the agreement, the vote was 3-3. At its next meeting,
the Board asked that they be given additional time for a study and review before
a recommendation was presented to the Council. It was then discussed for several
meetings, and Mr. Stanton moved that the full Board be present before the matter
was given final consideration. Mr. Anderson was absent that day and at the last
meeting, another Board member was absent. He (Hoyt) indicated to the Board if
they were going to come in on the original schedule, the matter needed to go to
the Council by today in order to meet the requirements of the participants. Mr.
Stanton then moved that the matter be considered that day, understanding that
Mr. Townsend was unavoidably absent from that meeting, and the motion passed.
The matter was considered again and he indicated to the Board before they voted
that however the vote came out, he would tell the Council that the absent member,
Mr. Townsend, had expressed himself several times being opposed to it. The vote
turned out to be 4-2 as explained in the memorandum (September 22, 1980 from the
PUB) but had Mr. Townsend been present, in all probability, it would have been
4-3. Mr. Keesee did, in fact, vote to reconsider the matter at the last meeting.
Councilwoman Kaywood stated that she was concerned that the matter had been
"battered" around for a couple of months now and the Mayor chose not to be
present today. If the matter was delayed, Councilman Roth would be gone next
week. There was a October 1 deadline that had been known for months. To risk
Anaheim losing out on initial membership would be a bad move at this time.
Mayor Pro Tem Overholt stated he was concerned with the October ! deadline and
he asked Mr. Hoyt if, in his professional opinion and the opinion of counsel,
there was any way to be assured that the October deadline would not be enforced
against the City if they were to delay a decision. If they could not be assured
that the October 1 deadline could be put over so they could consider the matter
as a full Council, it would affect his vote on the motion to continue.
Mr. Hoyt referred to Mr. Alan Watts, Legal Counsel, Rourke & Woodruff.
Mr. Watts explained that the resolution which had been adopted by each of the
other cities in approving the agreement contained a provision that the original
members would be all of those legislative bodies who approved the agreement on
or before October 1. If they did not take action today, Mr. Hoyt accurately
stated the consequences. The City of Anaheim would then be required to make
application to the other members of the Authority because the agency would have
been formed as of tomorrow. The only difference which they would then impose
would be to require each of the other members to consent to Anaheim joining the
Authority. They could not predict that somebody would not say no, but he felt
it was highly unlikely that would occur. That would be their best judgment on
the knowledge of the other participants.
80-1249
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - September 30, 1980, 1:30 P.M.
Mayor Pro Tem Overholt stated his reading of the proposed resolution indicated
that the agreement would become effective November 1, 1980, but October 1, 1980
was the cut-off date for Charter members. He asked what the likelihood of the
other proposed charter members passing an amended resolution giving the Council
tbe opportunity to deliberate. His problem with the situation was that the PUB
had the item since August 7 with considerable controversy and it took a reading
of the minutes to see that controversy (see PUB minutes August 7, August 21,
August 28, September 4 and September 18, 1980). It was fine for Board Member
Keesee to say, put the matter off until they had a full Board, but the body
making the final decision, the Council, did not have that opportunity. He asked
again if there was a likelihood they could have an option for additional deliber-
ation.
Mr. Watts reiterated his previous explanation and expressed his concern about
trying to go in under the circumstances as explained. In two weeks or whatever
time the Council needed, they still might find themselves faced with the position
of going into the agreement and then trying to get it changed, or not going in
at all. He believed if they delayed, the only consequence that he could see or
change of circumstance, was the fact that all of the members would then have to
consent to Anaheim becoming a member.
Mayor Pro Tem Overholt stated whether or not they had a full Council, the business
of the City, as well as the PUB, was carried on at meetings and if people did not
attend those meetings, it did not mean that the Board should not assume responsi-
bility, and he felt the same with regard to the Council. It was his judgment, and
he was going to vote against the motion to continue, that they had to "bite the
bullet", but it did put the Council in an awkward position. The final documenta-
tion was put in their agenda packet on last Friday and he did not know who was
responsible for not getting the material to them sooner. He was going to vote
reluctantly because he was not happy with the timing that put them in such a
spot and with one Council Member absent.
Mr. Hoyt stated he supposed he must share in the responsibility. When they had
a time constraint and the Board wanted to take a lot of time to deliberate before
making a recommendation to the Council, he was faced with making a recommendation
without concurrence of the Board or waiting until they acted at the last possible
minute. They were unpleasant choices, and in this case he opted to wait until
the PUB reached a determination.
After further discussion between the Council and Mr. Hoyt, a vote was taken
on the foregoing motion to continue the matter until October 14, 1980 for full
Council action. Council Members Kaywood, Bay and Overholt voted "no".
Councilman Seymour was absent. MOTION FAILED TO CARRY.
Councilman Bay again referred to the way the matter was presented with the
resolution and motion. However after listening to the logic that they could
pull out, going on that basis, if the group did not choose to change its rules
on Section 12 as stated, he would be the first one to move to pull out. He
wanted that clear so they knew what his vote on the resolution would mean.
Councilman Overholt offered Resolution No. 80R-441 for adoption, authorizing
a Joint Powers Agreement, dated as of November 1, 1980, creating the Southern
California Public Power Authority, as recommended in memorandum dated September 22,
1980 from the PUB. Refer to Resolution Book.
80-1250
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - September 30, 1980, 1:30 P.M.
RESOLUTION NO. 80R-441: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM
APPROVING THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF A JOINT POWERS AGREEMENT, DATED AS OF
NOVEMBER 1, 1980, CREATING THE SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA PUBLIC POWER AUTHORITY AND
AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR AND CITY CLERK TO EXECUTE SAID AGREEMENT ON BEHALF OF THE
CITY.
Before a vote was taken on the resolution, Councilman Overholt also moved to
instruct the Public Utilities General Manager to seek an amendment to Section
12 of said agreement to limit liability for contributions, payments, advances,
etc., to $2,000 per member annually without prior approval of the governing
body of such member, as recommended in memorandum dated September 22, 1980
from the PUB. Councilwoman Kaywood seconded the motion.
Before action was taken on the resolution and motion, Councilman Bay then
referred to the PUB minutes of August 7, 1980, Page 1 under Southern California
Public Power Authority Joint Powers Agreement, which talked about eminent domain,
"...during the course of the legislation, the proponents agreed that this act
would not be used to condemn any property--eminent domain--of any private
utility operating in the State of California. The bill subsequently passed and
became law January 1, 1980." In the agreement on Page 7 (see Southern California
Public Authority--Joint Powers Agreement--Dated as of November 1, 1980),
"...for the purposes of a project for the generation or transmission of electrical
energy shall not include the power of condemnation of property owned or other-
wise subject to use or control by any public utility..." On the one hand it
indicated private utility, while on the other a public utility. He wantRd to
know what the law read in that regard.
Mr. Watts answered that the law was as indicated in the agreement. The exception
was for the existing property of any utility, be it privately or publicly owned.
He did not think there would be any question in anyone's mind that that was the
intent of that legislation on both public and private.
After further clarification of some points in the agreement by both Mr. Watts
and Mr. Hoyt, Councilman Bay stated another concern he had was the same as that
of the PUB, that they would not get into a bureau building type of organization
pouring fee money into building a staff. He was hoping the benefits would derive
from the fact that they would not duplicate members throughout the municipalities
involved and would cut down the costs of some of the studies, rather than increase
them. He reiterated he was concerned that they cleared up Section 12 rules.
He was hung up on the $2,000 fee par year.
Relative to participation, Councilman Bay stated he understood that with San
Onofre and the Intermountain Power Project and some of the others, that they
were now sitting close to 7% of their projected energy needs; Mr. Hoyt stated,
during the early years, that was correct.
Councilman Bay then explained the only thing he was concerned about when talking
about participation was that they did not completely fulfill their needs shortly,
so as to preclude them from taking advantage of any technological breakthroughs
which could occur within a period. He wanted that kept in mind, and he did not
know what percentage Mr. Hoyt was thinking about holding back.
80-1251
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - September 30, 1980, 1:30 P.M.
Mr. Hoyt answered that they were not looking toward being locked into any per-
centages. He emphasized' that anything Anaheim would do in terms of power supply
would have to be specifically approved by the City Council.
Councilman Roth felt that Mr. Hoyt had not responded to the fears expressed in
the minutes that some group of people could turn around and bypass the vote of
the people on selling bonds. He wanted to know if he was saying that each
Council in the consortium was also involved in the selling of the bonds.
Mr. Hoyt answered that they were not involved in approving the sale of bonds,
but the final word would rest with the City Council.
Mr. Watts then explained the procedure followed as outlined in letter dated
September 3, 1980 from his office to Mr. Hoyt (on file in the City Clerk's
office).
Mayor Pro Tem Overholt acknowledged Public Utilities Board Member, Jim Townsend,
who wished to address the Council.
Mr. Jim Townsend, 808 North Pine, stated he was present either as Chairman of
the Telephone Taxpayers Committee, a private citizen, or Member of the PUB,
whichever one fit the hat the Council wanted him to wear. For anybody to believe
that they had to be a member of the original group sounded as though they should
be "issued stamps". The name of the game was finance and by voting on the pro-
posal, they would have made their first move in approving future transmission
lines for Anaheim. He contended the group was banding together for the purpose
of the taxing power they had for bonds, or finance, or whatever. Joint Powers
was something dreamed up and approved by a court that two government agencies
getting together could issue bonds, having the power and authority to issue them
with or without the approval of anybody. A Joint Powers Agreement in the
opinion of taxpayer organizations ail over the country was that it was a "sneaky"
way to get around the taxpayers. Anaheim had committed itself to a lot of money
as far as the Utilities Department was concerned. No doubt that they had one
of the finest utility directors in the State, and he did not doubt his honesty
even though he disagreed with him on many of his concepts on public power. How-
ever, he (Hoyt) might well be retired by the time they were responsible for repaying
some of the projects.
Relative to Councilman Bay's point on technological breakthroughs, they were
having to approve the expenditure of millions of dollars, and they had to look
ten years or more down ~he line, but they did not know what was going to happen.
If there was any kind of breakthrough or the environmental groups that were
against everything from sunshine to coal succeeded with another administration,
on the State or National level, it was possible they would get the vote neces-
sary to stop funding for all kinds of things. He believed that power was an
absolute must as far as the country, state and Anaheim was concerned, but he
did not believe it was necessary for Anaheim to involve itself and put the tax-
payers on the line for those things when they had an agency capable of carrying
forth and doing that, namely, Southern California Edison.
Councilman Roth stated that Mr. Townsend's presentation did not influence his
original statement. The item was a highly controversial one as evidenced by
the long deliberations of the Public Utilities Board. Mr. Watts had stated
repeatedly it would be a very rare situation if the other cities did not accept
80-1252
C~ty Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - September 30, 1980, 1:30 P.M.
Anaheim as part of the group. Anaheim worked with them and they were aware of
the City's ability and influence° He felt the other cities needed Anaheim more
than Anaheim needed them. He was going to oppose the resolution, not because
he was opposed to the concept, but because as had occurred in the past, they
were stampeded into making decisions which obligated the taxpayers of the City
for years to come. They usually had to make an immediate decision or suffer
the consequences. It was wrong and more time should be taken. The only good
suggestion he heard from Mr. Townsend in the course of his presentation was that
perhaps they ought to ask the public to participate when they obligated the
taxpayers.
Councilman Bay stated he would beg Councilman Roth to reconsider his position
on the basis that what they were voting on today did not commit them to $1 of
tax money at this time. Ail it did was commit them to joining the group. Any-
time there was a project within the rules that had been presented and they were
going to commit to support that project involving tax dollar liability, it
would come back to the Council. In effect, what they were doing today was
saying that they were going to agree to join the group, but the first time
they entered a project where there was any money involved it would come right
back to the Council. He assumed when they talked about the issuance of bonds
by the Joint Authority, they could choose to keep it within bounds of what al-
ready had been voted on by the people. He felt that was the intent of Mr.
Hoyt's operation. The only thing would be the administrative costs which
could occur in trying to get the rule changed. Any Tuesday, however, three
votes on the Council could pull them right out. They were up against a time
constraint to become what was equal to a charter member without going through
what must cost some money to reapply.
Councilwoman Kaywood commented on the fact that she kept hearing they had not
seen or heard anything about the agreement. A couple of months ago, they
received a huge volume of material and they consistently received copies of
the unapproved PUB minutes as soon as they were available. They could also
have asked questions of anyone. Mr. Townsend objected from the beginning, his
objections were noted, and the PUB outvoted him. Yet, he chose to come to the
meeting today and approach the Council to overrule the PUB in his favor. The
consistent votes of the taxpayers would be completely the opposite. The voters
had approved generation and overwhelmingly approved participation in the Inter-
mountain Power Project by 3-1. The situation was clear and they did not guess
how the people of Anaheim felt. If there was a savings involved, they wanted to
take advantage of it. As Councilman Bay stated, he had no obligation to pay
any funds and she felt ±t would be a backward step not to be a part of the
original group.
Councilman Overholt stated he respected Mr. Townsend's position, but felt his
comments were an expression of his basic philosophy often expressed regarding
the City operating its own utility. He did not consider joining the Southern
California Public Power Authority as changing the course of the City in terms
of operating its own utility one way or the other. He agreed that they
could back out at any given Council meeting, but also recognized the fact
that there was a certain inertia in doing so. It was his judgment that the
combined resources and thinking in a Joint Powers Authority, the sort under
consideration, would be a benefit to the City-owned utility and if they found
80-1253
C~ty Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - September 30, 1980, 1:30 P.M.
it was not of benefit, they could terminate the relationship. He did regret
that they did not have a full Council, but he did not attempt to vote for
Mayor Seymour, nor did he know how he would vote. He would guess that the
Mayor's long time support of the Public Utility would weigh on his vote and
encourage him to vote in favor of the resolution and motion. However, they
had to move today if they were going to preserve their preferential position.
He was prepared to vote and would vote to support the proposed resolution and
motion.
A vote was first taken on the foregoing resolution.
Roll Call Vote:
AYES: COUNCIL M~4BERS: Kaywood, Bay and Overholt
NOES: COUNCIL MMMBERS: Roth
ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Seymour
The Mayor Pro Tern declared Resolution No. 80R-441 duly passed and adopted.
A vote was then taken on the foregoing motion. Councilman Roth voted "no".
Councilman Seymour was absent. MOTION CARRIED.
RECESS: By general consent, the Council recessed for 10 minutes. (3:30 P.M.)
AFTER RECESS: Mayor Pro Tem Overholt called the meeting to order, all Council
Members being present, with the exception of Councilman Seymour. (3:40 P.M.))
103: PUBLIC HEARING - RED GUM-CORONADO NO. 8 ANNEXATION: Submitted by the
City of Anaheim, to consider the annexation of approximately 19.67 acres of
land located north and south of Coronado Street, east and west of Red Gum Street.
Mr. Joel Fick, Assistant Director for Planning, briefed the Council on the staff
report from the Planning Department, Planning Division, received September 24,
1980, recommending that the Council adopt a resolution approving the proposed
Red Gum-Coronado No. 8 Annexation to the City. He also reported that on May 28,
1980, LAFCO approved the annexation, but added an additional non-consenting
parcel of slightly less than one acre to the annexation in order to avoid
creating a second County island. With the addition of that non-consenting
parcel, under the provisions of the Municipal Organization Act, the City Council
was requested to consider the value of any written protest to the annexation.
To date, no letters protesting the annexation had been filed with the City.
Councilwoman Kaywood asked if the protestor as reported in the staff report gave
any reason for so doing; Mr. Fick answered, "no". He had informed them that he
contacted his attorney and chose not to annex at this time. They subsequently
contacted the property owner and explained the ramifications of annexing to
Anaheim and what the cost would be to the property owner.
Councilwoman Kaywood then asked if he still objected or if he had any comment.
Mr. Fick stated his only comment was that he was going to additionally consider
the annexation.
80-1254
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - September 30, 1980, 1:30 P.M.
The Mayor Pro Tem asked if anyone wished to be heard in favor of Annexation
No. 8, or in opposition; there being no response, he closed the public hearing.
Councilman Roth offered Resolution No. 80R-442 for adoption, approving Red Gum-
Coronado No. 8 Annexation to the City of Anaheim. Refer to Resolution Book.
RESOLUTION NO. 80R-442: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM
MAKING A FINDING REGARDING THE VALUE OF WRITTEN PROTESTS FILED AND NOT WITHDRAWN
IN ANNEXATION PROCEEDINGS FOR RED GUM-CORONADO NO. 8 ANNEXATION AND ORDERING THE
TERRITORY ANNEXED PURSUANT TO SECTION 35229 OF THE GOVERNMENT CODE OF THE STATE
OF CALIFORNIA.
Roll Call Vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL M~MBERS:
Kaywood, Bay, Roth and Overholt
None
Seymour
The Mayor Pro Tem declared Resolution No. 80R-442 duly passed and adopted.
PUBLIC HEARING - VARIANCE NO. 3144: Application by James D. Baker III, Jon
Marie Baker, to construct a single family dwelling on RS-7200(SC) zoned property
located at 563 Paseo Ganado, with a Code waiver of permitted location and
orientation of structure.
The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC80-121 declared that
the subject project be exempt from the requirement to prepare an environmental
impact report, pursuant to the provisions of the California Environmental Quality
Act, since there would be no significant individual or cumulative adverse environ-
mental impact due to this project and further, denied Variance No. 3144.
The decision of the Planning Commission was appealed by the applicant, and
public hearing scheduled this date.
In letter dated September 24, 1980, Mr. Baker requested a continuance of the
public hearing to October 28, 1980.
The Mayor Pro Te~ asked if anyone was present to be heard on the matter; no one
was present.
On motion by Councilwoman Kaywood, seconded by Councilman Bay, public hearing
on Variance No. 3144 was continued to Tuesday, October 28, 1980, at 3:00 p.m.,
as requested. Councilman Seymour was absent. MOTION CARRIED.
PUBLIC HEARING - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 1872: Submitted by Elizabeth Schafer,
to consider an extension of time to Conditional Use Permit No. 1872, permitting
the keeping of 9 beehives on RS-A-43,000 and RS-5000 zoned property located at
1500 West Broadway.
Miss Santalahti, Assistant Director for Zoning, stated that they had not received
any complaints during the last year concerning the bees.
Mayor Pro Tem Overholt asked if anyone wished to be heard in favor of the exten-
sion; several people in the Chamber audience indicated that they were present
in favor.
80-1255
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - September 30, 1980, 1:30 P.M.
The Mayor Pro Tem then asked if anyone was present in opposition; no one was
present.
Mayor Pro Tem Overholt then stated he could hardly believe it had been approxi-
mately 10 months (November 27, 1979, see minutes that date) since they had the
last hearing on the matter which lasted three and one-half hours. It was nice
to see Mrs. Schafer and others in the audience and to note that they were all
happy. He asked if perhaps they would like to make a comment in view of the
fact that there was no opposition.
Reverend Robert Edwards, 943 South David, stated he was standing in today for
Mrs. Schafer. She had done all she could to satisfy the neighbors and to make
sure she cooperated in every way. He was glad to see there was no opposition.
Councilman Roth stated he had just spoken with Mrs. Schafer who was in the
Chamber audience, but who was not feeling too well today. She was going to
be 94 years old in January. She asked him to assure his colleagues that her
bees were as happy as could be and she was caring for them on a daily basis.
He felt she should be commended for keeping her bees happy for the past ten
months.
Mayor Pro Tem Overholt stated he was certain that Councilman Roth expressed the
view of the entire Council. There being no further persons who wished to speak,
he closed the public hearing.
Councilwoman Kaywood stated that she was doubly glad that they made the decision
that they did on November 27, 1979, when they opted not to have Mrs. Schafer
deprived of her income, hobby and profession. It was almost unbelievable there
had been no opposition and the Council had heard nothing.
Councilman Roth offered Resolution No. 80R-443 for adoption, granting the requested
extension of time on Conditional Use Permit No. 1872. Refer to Resolution Book.
RESOLUTION NO. 80R-443: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM
APPROVING AN AMENDMENT OF CONDITIONS IN CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 1872 AND
AMENDING RESOLUTION NO. 79R-694 ACCORDINGLY.
Before a vote was taken, Mayor Pro Tem Overholt stated that they should all be
commended for being good neighbors in dealing with their neighbors. In talking
with Reverend Edwards before the hearing, he indicated that everyone in the area
seemed to be happy.
Councilman Bay asked if an expiration date was needed for the resolution.
Miss Santalahti stated the last time it was granted, it was granted for a specific
one year. If they indicated an expiration date, it would come for another hearing
in a year or whenever. They might wish to do that or let the Conditional Use
Permit ride unless there was opposition, and then set it for a hearing at some
time if there was a problem.
Mayor Pro Tem Overholt announced that it was then an open extension of time and
the petitioner would not have to come back a year from now unless somebody wanted
them back.
80-1256
City Hall, Anaheim,.. California - COUNCIL MINUTES - September 30, 1980, 1:30 P.M.
A vote wam then taken on the foregoing resolution, granting an open extension of
time to Conditional Use Permit No. 1872.
Roll Call Vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
Kaywood, Bay, Roth and Overholt
None
Seymour
The Mayor Pro Tem declared Resolution No. 80R-443 duly passed and adopted.
105: SENIOR CITIZEN COMMISSION BYLAWS: Councilman Roth moved to approve the
Senior Citizen Commission Bylaws am submitted. Councilman Bay seconded the
motion.
Before a vote was taken, Mayor Pro Tem Overholt noted that Mr. John Shanahan,
Chairman of the Commission, was present and he asked if he would like to embellish
his request.
Mr. John Shanahan, Chairman, stated it was his pleasure to represent the Commission
today and recommended that the Council approve their Bylaws. They had quite a
bit of discussion on them and felt that they would allow the Commission to
function in an efficient and effective manner.
Councilman Bay commented that he was impressed by how simple and direct the
Bylaws were and that they managed to get them all on one page; Mayor Pro Tem
Overholt agreed relative to the conciseness of the Bylaws and on one page
which was quite an accomplishment.
A vote was then taken on the foregoing motion. Councilman Seymour was absent.
MOTION CARRIED.
108: DANCE CENTER WEST - REQUEST FOR AMENDMENT TO ADULT ENTERTAINMENT BUSINESSES
ORDINANCE: Request of Ken Bouam, broker, on behalf of J. Kelvin and Mary Ann
Rogierm, for waiver of the distance requirements of the Adult Entertainment
Ordinance (AMC 18.89.030) relating to Dance Center West, 1925 West Lincoln
Avenue.
Mayor Pro Tem Overholt asked if anyone was present representing Dance Center
West who wished to be heard.
Mr. J. Kelvin Rogier$, owner of Dance Cen~er West, 389 South Harbor Boulevard
(Harbor Center), stated that they had been established in Anaheim since 1971 in
the downtown Redevelopment area at 135~ West Lincoln Avenue. Because of
Redevelopment, they had to move into temporary quarters in the Harbor Center
and presently were looking for permanent quarters in Anaheim. The requirement
of the Code that they be 500 feet from a residential area presented somewhat
of a problem in trying to locate Dance Center West, an instructional facility
for teaching various forms of dance. They found a place in the bowling alley
complex at 1925 West Lincoln Avenue that they felt would fill their needs quite
well. However, it did not meet the 500-foot requirement from residential and
they were asking that provision be waived. He understood the reason for the
ordinance in which they found themselves and approved of it, but they did not
80-1257
City Hall, Anaheim,. California - COUNCIL MINUTES - September 30, 1980, 1:30 P.M.
like being lumped with anything enumerated in that ordinance. He reiterated,
theirs was a teaching facility for dances such as ballet, jazz, ballroom and
tap--both to children and adults. They wanted to stay in Anaheim at a place
that would meet the requirements of the City Council.
Councilman Roth then posed a line of questioning which Mr. Rogiers answered as
follows: Their hours of operation were primarily in the late afternoon and
early evening until 10:00 p.m. They were seeking to lease property in a loca-
tion that was a 24-hour facility. They would be able to stay in their existing
temporary facility which they had occupied since July of 1977 until February of
1981.
Mayor Pro Tem Overholt asked the basis of the termination date on the lease,
since he was not on the Council when the Center was opened. He wanted to know
if the term of occupancy in the Center could be extended beyond February of 1981.
Mr. Norm Priest, Executive Director of Community Development, explained that it
could be extended if the Council so approved, since they were the landlord for
the Agency. It was not anticipated that the Center would exist beyond February
of 1981 unless someone were actually in the process of relocating and had found
a place. The current lease would expire in February of 1981, and they were working
with the current business as much as they could to find another location by
that time.
Mayor Pro Tem Overholt stated he assumed they were working with Mr. and Mrs.
Rogiers and that with the Adult Entertainment Ordinance, it probably limited
the places that were available.
Mr. Priest answered "yes" on both counts. They did find themselves in an awk-
ward position on occasion because another obvious location for such a business
was in the industrial area which presented other problems.
Councilman Roth recalled that a week ago they had a discussion in the meeting
with the Library Board that the particular area on which the Harbor Center
was located would be turned over to the Library for an additional amount of
parking because of the need for overflow parking. He felt therefore that they
should look at the situation in a broader sense. He then asked in the move-
ment of Mr. Rogiers' business from the downtown Redevelopment area, did he
voluntarily move or was action taken telling him lhat he had to move?
Mr. Priest answered that he did not recall specifically, but he was certain in
terms of acquiring property, they asked him to move.
Councilman Roth then asked under the law, did the City have a responsibility
in relocating the business; Mr. Priest answered that the Redevelopment Agency
did have that responsibility.
Councilman Roth asked what would happen if because of the ordinance he was
denied the right to go into the Center where he wished to relocate, what would
be the Agency's plans for the business?
Mr. Priest stated that they would continue to look for another location if, in
fact, there was another location in Anaheim. They would then help him to relo-
cate and if not in Anaheim, then they would proceed to look outside of Anaheim.
80-1258
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - September 30, 1980, 1:30 P.M.
If they were not able to do so, they would come back and indicate they regarded
it as an emergency situation and would like to look at a limited extension. How-
ever, it was not their intent to start thinking of extensions at this point but
rather to concentrate their focus on relocating merchants. They had a difficult
situation in this case in doing so.
Councilwoman Kaywood asked if there was any space in the Town Center that would
be appropriate for the business; Mr. Priest stated he would suspect there was
not because he did not know of any space that offered the kind of open space
the Dance Center would need and also the rent structure was perhaps different
than what the Rogiers could handle.
Councilman Roth stated he understood that approximately 50% of the Dance Center's
patrons were children and he could not go into a new complex such as the Town
Center because of the cost of the square footage. That was his (Roth's) concern.
He also realized that he was part and parcel in first term on the Council in
causing the Dance Center to have to relocate because of Redevelopment. The
next move was to spend a million dollars of taxpayers money to build a temporary
shopping center on Harbor. Now they were telling the Rogiers they had to
relocate again, along with an ordinance restricting their livelihood, at a cost
more prohibitive than what they would care to spend.
Mr. Priest stated that in their relationship with Mr. Rogiers, he had been an
excellent tenant not only in terms of the traditional sense, but also as a good
neighbor to the surrounding businesses.
Councilman Bay asked when they set up the temporary shopping center in their
original plans, how long did they intend to keep it in existence?
Mr. Priest answered, two years, but it was two years and three months.
Councilman Bay noted that, in effect, during that period they subsidized the
rents of the merchants temporarily relocated in that Center by charging less
for the rent than the Agency was leasing the buildings from Pepsico, the property,
etc; Mr. Priest confirmed that was correct.
After further discussion between Councilman Bay and Mr. Priest regarding the
Harbor Center, Mr. Priest, ~n concluding, stated that the purpose of the Harbor
Center was not to submidize a merchant or offer a benefit over someone else.
The main purpose was for the benefit of the Redevelopment project in order to
move ahead and not for a~ny merchant. That was the motivation for the tempor-
ary Center.
Councilwoman Kaywood noted if they were talking about extending the lease on
the Center, it would be a very expensive thing for the City to do; Mr. Priest
clarified that it would not be a massive jump and it could even be at a reduced
rate, given the fact that there had been depreciation on the structures. How-
ever, it would certainly involve additional problems.
Mr. Ken Bouas, Real Estate Broker representing Mr. and Mrs. Rogiers, stated that
the space in which the business would be relocated was on the southeast corner
of the building approximately 200 feet'from the residential area. The Code
stated 500 feet. Also, the business would be inside of the existing building,
and there was no way residents could hear any noise emanating from it or know
80-1259
City Hall, Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - September 30 1980, 1:30 P.M.
that anyone was going to or from the establishment. They would not be disturbed
at all. He felt it would be a good correlation with the bowling alley as well.
Dance Center West was a clean operation and there had to be some place to go for
dance lessons.
Councilwoman Kaywood asked Mr. Rogiers if he had been actively seeking a place to
relocate for the past two years.
Mr. Rogiers answered "yes". It would have been to their advantage, based on the
physical configurations of a temporary facility, to have located into something
permanent two years ago. It was not his desire to be moving every two years.
Further they would like very much to relocate back into the Town Center, but
it was not feasible because they needed too much space and the rent they would
have to pay exceeded their limit.
Mr. Rogiers then explained, upon Council questioning, that their patrons came from
a wide area but he did not have a breakdown as to whether they were mostly
residents or non-residents of Anaheim. Moving outside of the area, however,
could have a great impact on his business. His clientele were mostly adults.
Mayor Pro Tem Overholt stated that the request was to waive the distance require-
ment of the City's Adult Entertainment Ordinance and they had been advised by
the City Attorney that they did not have that power. If they were to accommodate
the request, it would have to be couched in terms of amending the Adult Entertain-
ment Ordinance so that the Rogiers' business in the proposed new location would not
be in violation of that Ordinance. He, for one, was not of a mind at this time to
encourage the amendment of the Ordinance. The real impact of that Ordinance was
just now being felt where they had four or five other businesses that had come
in that fell under the ordinance requesting an extension of time to move. That
was not the case at present, but one where they were responsible as the Redevelop-
ment Agency to relocate the business. They were caught in the dilemma as the
City Council attempting to accomplish in the City what they felt the Adult
Entertair~ent Ordinance was going to accomplish. As the Redevelopment Agency,
they had the responsibility of seeing to it that displaced businesses were
relocated favorably to their ultimate goals. He reiterated he would not
encourage an amendment of the existing Ordinance at this time or respond to a
request that it be amended. It put the pressure on Mr. Priest to find a suit-
able building in a legal location for the type of business being conducted.
Everything they heard about the business was exemplary but unfortunately it fell
under the legal definition of an Adult Entertainment business as defined by
the Ordinance. As Councilman Roth had stated repeatedly sometimes the good guys
were swept up in their (the Council) trying to control the bad guys, and in
this case, it was a red flag of a case of a good guy being involved in the
Ordinance. He could not support the request for amendment and encouraged Mr.
Priest to work even more diligently with Mr. Rogiers in trying to find a
location that would fulfill his needs.
Councilwoman Kaywood asked the City Attorney whether there was any possibility
in this case to grant the request for two reasons: (1) the business was estab-
lished in the City in 1971 prior to the Ordinance, and (2) they did move the
business because of Redevelopment. She wanted to know if there was some way
of granting a special privilege that would not be waiving or changing the
Ordinance, but because of the special circumstances, that the request be allowed.
80-1260
City Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - September 30, 1980, 1:30 P.M.
City Attorney Hopkins stated that the only way they could make such a change
would be to amend the ordinance to provide for a waiver. At the present time,
they did not have such a provision. The fact that the business was in the City
prior to the Ordinance or that it was required to move was not relevant to the
ordinance.
Councilman Roth stated his deep concern lay in the fact that if they denied
Mr. Rogiers from taking the option he now had available to him and tell him
that he had to wait until the last minute, February 1981, every month he had
to wait in trying to locate another facility would mean an increase in the
amount of dollars per month for rent. He felt it was taking unfair advantage
of the individual and in all good conscience, he could not deny the request.
Government was responsible for him being in the position he was in and thus,
government had the responsibility of relocating him. He felt they should amend
the Ordinance immediately in order to include the provisions for waiver when
people were forced to relocate because of government Redevelopment. Of the
cases that had become before the Council, there were the "good guys" who
pleaded their cases and he could not find it in his heart to turn them down
week after week. He blamed himself in the first place in approving the
Ordinance. While he was vehemently opposed to prostitution and wanted to
eliminate it from the City, he could not hurt the legitimate honest business-
men in the process.
Councilman Bay stated that the key issue on the vote would be whether they would
consider reducing the requirements of an ordinance that he did not think anyone
on the Council felt was going to be easy--to do what they were going to have to
do with it, what they had already done, and what they intended to do with it in
the future. It was clear to him if they amended the Ordinance for the present
case, they would open it up to many of the other businesses falling under the
same Ordinance. They would then be reducing their ordinance requirements to
200 feet. He did not like enforcing it anymore than Councilman Roth, but when
they made the decision to do something about cleaning up the City, he repeated
they knew it was not going to be easy. He had not voted for a single one of
the requests that had come before the Council thus far. But it was just as hard
for him. He was going to stay with the position he had adopted since the begin-
ning. In this case the intent of the temporary commercial center set up for
Redevelopment situations and the tax money to support it was to provide time to
10ok for a new location for the merchants. He conceded that the first cases
before them had been tough, but he felt that when some of the other cases came
in, it was not going to be tough at all.
MOTION: Councilman Bay moved to deny the request for waiver of the distance
requirements of the Adult Entertainment Ordinance (AMC 18.89.030) relating to
Dance Center West, 1925 West Lincoln Avenue. Councilman Overholt seconded
the motion.
Before a vote was taken, Mayor Pro Tem Overholt stated in this case, the burden
was on them and it was different from previous cases. The prior cases were those
who had asked for an extension of time on the grounds that they would suffer undue
hardship if forced to shut down on December 20, 1980. In ail but one situation,
they were able to show undue hardship and they granted an extension in all but
80-1261
City Hal!, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - September 30, 1980, 1:30 P.M.
one, however, not always for two years. The present case was one where they were
responsible to relocate the business, and he reiterated it was an entirely differ-
ent situation. If he had relocated and made a substantial investment prior to
the passing of the ordinance, he would be asking for an extension as well. He
was not of a mind to encourage amendment of the ordinance at this time. They
should help the business to relocate but not bend the Ordinance enforced for
another reason. He was going to vote for the motion.
A vote was the taken on the foregoing motion. Councilman Roth voted "no"
Councilman Seymour was absent. MOTION CARRIED.
MOTION: Councilman Roth moved to allow the Rogiers up to a two-year extension
in the temporary shopping center or until they found a place to relocate.
Before any action was taken, Councilwoman Kaywood expressed concern over what
such a move would cost the City. The business had two years to look for
another location and if they had seriously looked, she doubted if they could
not have found anything. She asked Mr. Priest how long he had spent in attempting
to find another location for the business.
Mr. Priest answered that he could not give the exact amount of time they had
worked on the subject case, as well as a number of others, but would continue to
do so. They had talked with the merchant for over a period of two years, but
he could not say that they had concentrated on it every month.
Mayor Pro Tem Overholt asked what Mr. Priest's recommendation would be if in
February 1981 the business still had not been relocated; Mr. Priest answered at
that point in time and from this day forward, they were working mostly with
the merchants to determine their plans. In February of 1981, they would expect
to come back with a plan indicating an "X" amount of time would be required, if
necessary, and seek an extension.
Mayor Pro Tem Overholt asked if there was a second to Councilman Roth's motion.
The motion died for lack of a second.
Councilwoman Kaywood explained that even though she voted to deny the request,
she wanted to be certain that in no way was she objecting to the dance studio.
She realized it was a perfectly fine and legitimate operation. She also noted
that they had received a letter from one of the other tenants in the shopping
center attesting to the fact that Dance Center West was a good neighbor. She
emphasized it was the Ordinance that she did not want to amend.
Before closing, Mr. Bouas stated that he did not know if they were familiar
with the market for space, but in the downtown area they were quoting 85¢ a
square foot. If they were allowed to relocate in the bowling alley facility,
the cost would be 35¢ triple net. It was not possible to find anything for
35C, and it would be a beneficial deal for the business.
CONSENT CALENDAR ITEMS: On motion by Councilman Roth, seconded by Councilman
Bay, the following actions were authorized in accordance with the report~ and
recommendations furnished each Council Member and as listed on the Consent
Calendar Agenda:
80-1262
City Hall,. Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - September 30, 1980, 1:30 P.M.
1. 118: CLAIMS AGAINST THE CITY: The following claims were denied and referred
to the City's Claims Administrator:
a. Claim submitted by Frank E. Marquez for damages purportedly sustained as
a result of broken main sewer line in front of 1756 North Oxford Street on or
about July 22, 1980.
b. Claim submitted by Kurt Joseph Greenway for vehicular damages purportedly
sustained as a result of parkway tree branch falling onto parked car on the
south side of Cypress Street between Anaheim Boulevard and Harbor Boulevard,
on or about July 31, 1980.
c. Claim submitted by James Lawrence Boyd for personal injury damages purportedly
sustained as a result of fall at Anaheim Stadium on or about August 1, 1980.
d. Claim submitted by Kay Irvin for personal injuries purportedly sustained as
a result of traffic signal malfunction at the intersection of Brookhurst and
Lincoln Streets on or about June 8, 1980.
e. Claim submitted by Lloyd Michael Thurlow for personal injuries purportedly
sustained as a result of' defective conditions and design of alley near Bellevue
Drive causing claimant to be struck by a vehicle on or about June 10, 1980.
f. Claim submitted by Sally F. Smith for personal injuries purportedly sustained
as a result of a trip and fall accident caused by hole in Mountainview Avenue
near Katella which had not been properly filled, on or about August 31, 1980.
2. CORRESPONDENCE: The following correspondence was ordered received and filed:
a. 140: Anaheim Public Library--Monthly Statistical Report for August 1980.
b. 105: Anaheim Public Library--Minutes of May 21, July 30 and August 20, 1980.
c. 156: Police Department--Monthly Report for August 1980.
d. 114: City of Buena Park, Ordinance No. 1090, amending Section 29-13 of
Article III of Chapter 29, pertaining to exemptions from their Transient
Occupancy Tax.
e. 175: Before the Public Utilities Commission, Application No. 59933, in the
matter of the applicatio~ of Southern California Edison Company for authority
to extend its Tax Change Adjustment Clause.
f. 105: Public Utilities Board--Minutes of September 18, 1980. (Unapproved)
g. 105: Community Redevelopment Commission--Minutes of September 3, 1980.
3. 108: PRIVATE PATROL APPLICATION: In accordance with the recommendations
of the Chief of Police, a Private Patrol Application was approved for Elite One
Emergency, 1958 Placentia #F, Costa Mesa, to supply private security patrol
service in the City of Anaheim. (Daniel Eugene Trail, applicant)
80-1263
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - September 30, 1980, 1:30 P.M.
4. 161: DOWNTOWN PROJECT ALPHA - PHASE I, CONTRACT CHANGE ORDER NO. 6: In
accordance with the recommendation of the City Engineer, Change Order No. 6
was authorized in the amount of $17,518.80, bringing the original contract
price to $8,149,546.06; Steiny and Company, Inc., contractor.
Councilman Seymour was absent. MOTION CARRIED.
CONSENT CALENDAR ITEMS: Councilwoman Kaywood offer9d Resolution Nos. 80R-444
through 80R-447, both inclusive, for adoption in accordance with the reports,
recommendations and certifications furnished each Council Member and as listed
on the Consent Calendar Agenda. Refer to Resolution Book.
158: RESOLUTION NO. 80R-444: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ANAHEIM ACCEPTING CERTAIN DEEDS AND ORDERING THEIR RECORDATION. (Orange County
Flood Control District; Rovi Pacific Realty Corporation)
164: RESOLUTION NO. 80R-445: 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: MAGNOLIA
AVENUE STORM DRAIN IMPROVEMENT, IN THE CITY OF ANAHEIM, ACCOUNT NO. 13-791-
6325-El120; APPROVING THE DESIGNS, PLANS, PROFILES, DRAWINGS, AND SPECIFICATIONS
FOR THE CONSTRUCTION THEREOF; AUTHORIZING THE CONSTRUCTION OF SAID PUBLIC IMPROVE-
MENT 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 November 6, 1980, at 2:00 P.M.)
169: RESOLUTION NO. 80R-446: 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: CERRITOS AVENUE STREET
IMPROVEMENT - EUCLID STREET TO NUTWOOD STREET, IN THE CITY OF ANAHEIM, ACCOUNT
NO. 12-793-6325-3300. (R. J. Noble Company)
175: RESOLUTION NO. 80R-447: 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: UTILITIES SERVICE CENTER
OFFICE ADDITIONS, 901 EAST VERMONT AVENUE, IN THE CITY OF ANAHEIM, ACCOUNT NOS.
51-699-6945-0915M-3710A AND 55-699-6945-0951M-3900A. (Seale and Seale General
Building Contractors)
Roll Call Vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
Kaywood, Bay, Roth and Overholt
None
Seymour
The Mayor Pro Tem declared Resolution No. 80R-444 through 80R-447, both inclusive,
duly passed and adopted.
80-1264
City .Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - September 30, 1980, 1:30 P.M.
CITY PLANNING COMMISSION ITEMS: The following actions taken by the City Planning
Commission at their meeting held September 8, 1980, pertaining to the following
applications, as listed on the Consent Calendar, were submitted for City Council
information.
1. REQUEST FOR REMOVAL OF SPECIMEN TREES (TENTATIVE TRACT NO. 11158): Submitted
by Castille Builders, Ltd., to establish a 9-lot, RS-HS-22,000(SC) zoned subdivi-
sion on approximately 4.6 acres of land located on the south side of Martella
Lane, southeast of Santa Ana Canyon Road, and to remove 33 specimen trees from
the land.
The City Planning Commission granted the request for removal of specimen trees
(Tentative Tract No. 11158) and granted a negative declaration status.
2. AREA DEVELOPMENT PLAN NO. 118: Submitted by Anaheim Planning Commission,
to consider vehicular circulation and access for three portions of land on CL
and RS-7200 zoned property generally bounded by Lincoln Avenue on the south,
Polk Avenue on the north, Grand Avenue on the east, and Western Avenue on the
west.
The City Planning Commission, pursuant to PC80-144, adopted Exhibit "C", and
granted a negative declaration status.
3. RECLASSIFICATION NO. 79-80-37: Submitted by the Anaheim Planning Commission,
for a change in zone from RS-7200 to CL for property located at 3101-3165 West
Lincoln Avenue.
The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC80-145, denied with-
out prejudice Reclassification No. 79-80-37, and granted a negative declaration
status.
4. RECLASSIFICATION NO. 80-81-7: Submitted by William Kugel, for a change in
zone from CL and CG to CO, to construct an office complex on property located
at 600-650 North Euclid Street.
The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC80-146, granted
Reclassification No. 80-81-7, and granted a negative declaration status.
5. RECLASSIFICATION NO. 80-81-8 AND VARIANCE NO. 3168: Submitted by Michael
D. and Kathleen L. Beckner, for a change in zone from RS-A-43,000 to RM-1200,
to construct an 8-unit apartment building on property located at 2755 West
Ball Road, with a Code waiver of maximum structural height.
The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC80-147 and 148, granted
Reclassification No. 80-81-8 and Variance No. 3168, and granted a negative decla-
ration status.
6. RECLASSIFICATION NO. 80-81-10 AND VARIANCE NO. 3171: Submitted by Anaheim
Redevelopment Agency, for a change in zone from CG and PD-C to CL, to construct
a Masonic Temple and commercial retail facility on property located on the north
side of Lincoln Avenue, south side of Chartres Street and east of Harbor Boule-
vard, with a Code waiver of minimum number of parking spaces.
80-1265
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - September 30, 1980, 1:30 P.M.
The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC80-149 and 150, granted
Reclassification No. 80-81-10 and Variance No. 3171, and granted a negative
declaration status.
7. VARIANCE NO. 3165: Submitted by Larkin D. Minor, to permit a free-standing
sign on CL zoned property located at 2210 West Lincoln Avenue, with certain
Code waivers.
The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC80-151, granted
Variance No. 3165, and ratified the Planning Director's categorical exemption.
8. VARIANCE NO. 3172: Submitted by John Pete and Kathleen B. Gonos, to estab-
lish a 2-lot subdivision on RS-10,O00 zoned property located at 928 North West
Street, with certain Code waivers.
The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC80-152, granted Variance
No. 3172, and granted a negative declaration status.
9. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2107: Submitted by Bank of America National
Trust & Savings Association, to permit a drive-through restaurant on CL zoned
property located at 1900 West Lincoln Avenue, with a Code waiver of minimum
number of parking spaces.
The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC80-153, granted
Conditional Use Permit No. 2107, and granted a negative declaration status.
10. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2109: Submitted by Hemphill Spring Company,
to permit a 58-1ot, 57-unit industrial condominium complex on ML zoned property
located on the northeast corner of Coronado and Jefferson Streets, with a Code
waiver of required lot frontage.
The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC80-154, granted
Conditional Use Permit No. 2109, and granted a negative declaration status.
11. RECLASSIFICATION NO. 78-79-15 AND VARIANCE NO. 3051 - EXTENSION OF TIME:
Submitted by Don Swiers/c/o Linburg Dahl, requesting an extension of time to
Reclassification No. 78-79-15 and Variance No. 3051 to construct a 70-unit
apartment complex on proposed RM-1200 property located at 125 South Westchester
Drive.
The City Planning Commission approved an extension of time to Reclassification
No. 78-79-15 and Variance No. 3051, to expire September 25, 1981.
12. VARIANCE NO. 1892 AND 2282 - REQUEST FOR TERMINATION: Submitted by Howard
R. Polzin, requesting to terminate Variance Nos. 1892 and 2282, to permit
a 2-story apartment on property located at 896 South Lemon Street, as a
condition of approval under Variance No. 3106.
The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC80-156, terminated
Variance Nos. 1892 and 2282.
13. 179: PROPOSED CODE AMENDMENT - VETERINARY CLINICS IN THE CL-HS AND CO
ZONES: Submitted by Nestor M. Budy, DVM, requesting preparation of a draft
amendment to permit veterinary clinics in the CL-HS and CO zones.
80-1266
City Hall, Anah~im~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - September 30, 1980, 1:30 P.M.
The City Planning Commission directed staff to prepare Code Amendments.
No action was taken on the foregoing items therefore the actions of the City
Planning Comanission became final.
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2110: Submitted by M. Conway Morris, to permit a
convenience market with gasoline facilities on RM-1200 zoned property located
at 1200 West Cerritos Avenue.
The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC80-155, and granted
Conditional Use Permit No. 2110, and granted a negative declaration status.
Councilwoman Kaywood removed the subject request from the Planning Commission
Consent Calendar and requested a review of the Planning Commission's action on
Conditional Use Permit No. 2110.
123: ORDINANCE NO. 4162: Councilman Overholt offered Ordinance No. 4162 for
adoption. Refer to Ordinance Book.
ORDINANCE NO. 4162: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM
(A) APPROVING A FOURTH AMENDMENT TO COMMUNITY CENTER FACILITY LEASE DATED FOR
CONVENIENCE AS OF OCTOBER 1, 1980, BETWEEN THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AND THE COMMUNITY
CENTER AUTHORITY, (B) APPROVING A FOURTH AMENDMENT TO SITE LEASE DATED FOR
CONVENIENCE AS OF OCTOBER 1, 1980, BETWEEN THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AND THE COMMUNITY
CENTER AUTHORITY, AND (C) AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR AND CITY CLERK TO EXECUTE AND
DELIVER SAID FOURTH AMENDMENT TO COMMUNITY CENTER FACILITY LEASE AND SAID FOURTH
AMENDMENT TO SITE LEASE.
Roll Call Vote:
AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Kaywood, Bay, Roth and Overholt
NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: None
ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Seymour
The Mayor Pro Tem declared Ordinance No. 4162 duly passed and adopted.
142/149: ORDINANCE NO. 4164: Councilman Bay offered Ordinance No. 4164 for
adoption. Refer to Ordinance Book.
ORDINANCE NO. 4164: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AMENDING TI%LE 14,
CHAPTER 14.32, SECTION ~4.~2.145 OF THE ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE BY ADDING
THERETO SUBSECTION .030 RELATING TO TWO-HOUR PARKING. (imposing two-hour
parking between 8:00 A.M. and 4:00 P.M., Saturdays, Sundays and Holidays
excepted, Lemon Street, on the e/s from Adele Street to Cypress Street)
Roll Call Vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
COUNC IL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
Kaywood, Bay, Roth and Overholt
None
Seymour
The Mayor Pro Tem declared Ordinance No. 4164 duly passed and adopted.
80-1267
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - September 30, 1980, 1:30 P.M.
ORDINANCE NO. 4165 AND 4166: Councilman Overholt offered Ordinance Nos. 4165
and 4166 for adoption. Refer to Ordinance Book.
142/149: ORDINANCE NO. 4165: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AMENDING
TITLE 14, CHAPTER 14.32, SECTION 14.32.190, SUBSECTIONS 14.32.190, SUBSECTIONS
14.32.190.300 AND 14.32.190.410 AND ADDING A NEW SUBSECTION 14.32.190.2000
RELATING TO NO PARKING AT ANY TIME. (along Lincoln Avenue, Brookhurst Street,
and Olive Street, at certain designated locations)
ORDINANCE NO. 4166: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AMENDING TITLE 18 OF
THE ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO ZONING. (79-80-7, RM-3000, Tract No. 10794)
Roll Call Vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
Kaywood, Bay, Roth and Overholt
None
Seymour
The Mayor declared Ordinance No. 4165 and 4166 duly passed and adopted.
ORDINANCE NOS. 4167 THROUGH 4169: Councilman Roth offered Ordinance Nos. 4167
through Ordinance No. 4169 for first reading.
ORDINANCE NO. 4167: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AMENDING ORDINANCE
NO. 4053, NUNC PRO TUNC, RELATING TO ZONING. (to correct the legal description
relating to 77-78-63, CL zoning, s/w corner of Nohl Ranch Road and Anaheim Hills
Road)
ORDINANCE NO. 4168: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AMENDING TITLE 18 OF
THE ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO ZONING. (79-80-12, RM-1200)
ORDINANCE NO. 4169: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AMENDING TITLE 18 OF
THE ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO ZONING. (79-80-35, ML)
114: SPECIAL COUNCIL MEETING - ELECTRIC REVENUE BOND ISSUE OF 1980: Mayor Pro
Tern Overholt recalled the discussion they had relative to the subject bond sale
and the possible necessity for an adjourned regular Council meeting with regard
to the sale (see minutes September 16, 1980). He asked the status in order
to set a date for that meeting. He recalled that Councilman Roth was going
to be out of town on October 9, 1980 which was one of the tentative dates for
the meeting, along with the possibility that he (Overholt) was going to be out
of town on the 10th, although he did not know that to be a certainty at this
time.
City Attorney Hopkins then clarified ~hat although at the time of the September 16,
1980 meeting it was expressed that there be a vote by at least four Council
Members on the issue, he did not think it was mandatory; Assistant City Manager
Hopkins confirmed that the Utilities Director stated that three votes, or a
majority, would be adequate.
Later in the meeting, the Public Utilities General Manager Gordon Hoyt returned
to the Chamber and reported that his original intent was to set the date for
sale of the bonds on Friday, October 10, 1980. If they met on Friday, they
could also sell on Friday. If he could now tell the underwriters that October 10
was preferable, the sale would be set for that day.
80-1268
City Hall, Anaheim,. California - COUNCIL MINUTES - September 30, 1980, 1:30 P.M.
Mayor Pro Tem Overholt stated on that day everyone would be available, except
him, and perhaps it would make more sense to set the meeting for October 10,
1980.
Further discussion followed between the Council and Mr. Hoyt relative to the
ramifications of selling on either October 9 or October 10. At the conclusion
Mayor Pro Tem Overholt suggested that they set the meeting for October 10.
MOTION: Councilman Overholt moved that the date for the special Council meeting
relative to the Electric Revenue Bond Issue of 1980 be set for Thursday, October
10, 1980 at 8:00 A.M. Councilman Bay seconded the motion. Councilman Seymour
was absent. MOTION CARRIED.
114: COMMITTEE ON STORM DRAINS: Councilwoman Kaywood reported that the committee
on storm drains had held two meetings thus far and were looking to a positive
vote on November 4, 1980 on the Storm Drain Bond Issue.
Mayor Pro Tem Overholt asked that they be kept informed as to what the committee
was doing.
Councilman Roth commented it was interesting to note that the local issue on
storm drain bonds received great support from the Chamber of Commerce Board of
Directors, but in the next breath, they came out in opposition to permit cities
to float general obligation bonds. He found it unusual that they should be
supporting a local measure, while opposing the state-wide measure.
Councilwoman Kaywood stated they did check into that and two different committees
of the Chamber came up with the recommendations.
Councilman Roth stated that to him that inconsistency was an alarming situation.
If they were going to support the issue on a local basis, he felt they should have
the vehicle to produce it, that being the state-wide change to the Constitution.
Councilwoman Kaywood stated she understood they approved the issue because if
Proposition 4 passed, they wanted to be sure Anaheim got the storm drains.
173: COMPLAINTS ON RAILROAD CROSSING AT KATELLA AVENUE AND LEWIS STREET: Coun-
cilman Roth stated that he had been receiving many calls regarding the railroad
crossing on Katella west of Lewis Street. During the lunch hour period, traffic
was being held up an unreasonable length of time with railroad cars switching in
the middle of the intersection. He suggested that the City Attorney investi-
gate the possibility of doing something about the situation, particularly in
an area like Katella Avenue where there was a tremendous amount of traffic
affecting part of the City's industrial base. He wanted a report back as soon
as he returned from vacation.
City Attorney Hopkins stated they could discuss the matter with the Railroad
and possibly the Public Utilities Commission. They had on occasion cited
the engineers and conductors for violating applicable ordinances which got
"sticky" in court and involved a great deal of legal time. He would, however,
make every effort to correct the situation.
105: VACANCY ON GOLF COURSE ADVISORY COMMISSION: Councilman Bay noted that
there was a vacancy on the subject Commission and a replacement was needed for
Marry Herling. He asked about setting a date for filling that vacancy.
80-1269
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - September 30, 1980, 1:30 P.M.
City Clerk Roberts stated that they did not have to advertise that particular
vacancy because there was no set term.
Council discussion then followed relative to obtaining a recommendation from
the Commission whose monthly meeting took place on the third Thursday.
Mayor Pro Tem Overholt suggested that they consider filling that vacancy at the
Council meeting of October 28, 1980 and that a recommendation be requested from
the Commission. Also, the vacancy should be publicized through PlO, along with
the fact that they were going to fill it at that meeting.
181: FREMONT SCHOOL SITE: Councilman Bay recalled that some time ago they dis-
cussed the Fremont School Site and the activity of the EIR, etc., which was coming
down to deadlines (see minutes August 12 and 19, 1980). If he was not mistaken,
he requested that the Arts Foundation come back to the Council with a financial
status and projection of their fund raising to support the estimated recurring
costs associated with the possibility of the Foundation using the Fremont School
Property (see mintues August 12 and 19). He was not so sure at this time whether
that was clear or remembered, because all he was hearing about now were the
petitions that the Arts Council, Foundation and Chamber were busily circulating
to tell the Council that the people involved in arts wanted the Fremont School
Site. He had no doubt of that and he did not need a petition to inform him of
that fact although he had nothing against the petition. If it was the will
of the Council to see some financial status and projections for the Arts
Foundation proposing that the school be leased to them, he would be in favor
of sending a letter to the Foundation asking more formally for the report. He
would be glad to make a motion to that effect, but he wanted to hear if the
Council would agree that it was time they had that information. He thereupon
moved that the information be provided if that was what it would take.
Before action was taken, Mayor Pro Tem Overholt noted that the deadline for sub-
mittal of proposal by developers was tomorrow morning at 11:00 a.m. He asked
Councilman Bay if he would feel that his request would have to be answered before
the 60 days expired.
Councilman Bay stated that since the other activity was in progress, he was of
the opinion that somebody forgot the request, and he did not know whether they
were ~oin~ to get anythin8. Therefore, when the petitions were submitted~ they
were not going to have anything along the lines he was looking for--the financial
status of the Arts Foundation and their projections for fund raising through
private sector support and to what degree it would support the estimated recur-
rin8 costs. They should send a letter requesting that information.
Mr. Priest stated he saw a report recently which the Council may have already
seen from the Arts people relative to much of that kind of information. An
information copy came across his desk and he did not do anything with it beyond
reading.
Councilman Bay stated he had seen it, but it was some time ago, and it was their
financial status at that time. He was interested in not only an updated financial
status, but also since the group seemed to be jumping to the conclusion that the
issue might be settled before getting to the Council, he was very concerned with
80-1270
City Hall,. Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - September 30, 1980, 1:30 P.M.
the economics of that issue. He reiterated he would like to see some projection
from the Foundation on how and how much they planned to raise for recurring costs
associated with it.
Mr. Priest stated that the report he saw did speak to that kind of thing, and he
believed that the report was possibly in the Parks, Recreation and Community
Services Department.
Assistant City Manager Hopkins stated they could check on the matter and if
there was such a report, he would provide a copy to the Council.
Councilman Roth suggested that perhaps they ought to put the matter on the
agenda next Tuesday and invite the people involved to respond to Councilman
Bay' s remarks.
Councilman Bay stated the only problem with that was the fact that last time
they had a dialogue regarding estimates of recurring costs and where the money
was going to come from, no one had those figures.
Mayor Pro Tem Overholt stated the other problem was that they had not seen mny
petitions as yet. His concern was that the Foundation might feel they had
supplied the requested information, but that the Council had not seen it. To-
morrow morning was a crucial time and if they did not have any developers, he
would say that acquisition of the Fremont Site did not look too favorable. He
did not want to do something that would be misinterpreted as a.reprimand by. the
Council for not furnishing information if they-had, in fact, furnished it.
Perhaps Councilman Bay's request could be conditioned on whether they had
furnished the data.
Assistant City Manager Hopkins again suggested that they look to see if they
did have such a report which met the concerns raised by Councilman Bay. If
not, perhaps they could then take further action at a later date on the issue.
Mayor Pro Tem Overholt thought that Mr. Ray Campbell promised to furnish the
information when he was last present (August 19, 1980). Perhaps they could
couch Councilman Bay's direction by indicating if they did not have the infor-
mation, that they needed it and a letter be sent to Mr Campbell accordingly.
Councilman Bay stated he would be glad to amend his motion that if they did not
have that information within the City function, they would send a letter out
immediately requesting same.
Councilwoman Kaywood asked, if no proposal were received by 11:00 a.m. tomorrow,
did that mean the City was out of it, and they would not have Fremont?
Mr. Priest answered "no", but that it would mean the 60-day time period would
have run, and they would no longer be able to have a special position. One
thought that had been posed and which he had discussed with the School Board
staff, if the time did run and also if they went out to public bid and still
received nothing, the suggestion was then offered that they would perhaps look
at a different and possibly lower price. At that point, he (Priest) said he
would immediately come back to the Council and scream foul, because if a lower
price resulted, it should be discussed with the groups who had the priority
position to see if they wanted to take action. They had an indication that
four or five developers wanted to come in, but whether they would do so, he
did not know.
80-1271
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - September 30, 1980, 1:30 P.M.
Councilwoman Kaywood seconded Councilman Bay's motion. She also clarified, how-
ever, that if there was no possibility of getting Fremont, she did not think
the letter was in order. If there was an existing report that they had not
seen as yet, it was also not in order.
Mayor Pro Tem Overholt stated he would disagree with the second statement. As
Mr. Priest stated, perhaps there was another way to go and if $o, they would
still want that information.
A vote was then taken on the foregoing motion. Councilman Seymour was absent.
MOTION CARRIED.
RECESS - EXECUTIVE SESSION: Councilwoman Kaywood moved to recess into Executive
Session. Councilman Bay seconded the motion. Councilman Seymour was absent.
MOTION CARRIED. (5:20 P.M.)
AFTER RECESS: Mayor Pro Tem Overholt called the meeting to order, all Council
Members being present, with the exception of Councilman Seymour. (5:47 P.M.)
ADJOURNMENT: Councilman Bay moved to adjourn. Councilwoman Kaywood seconded
the motion. Councilman Seymour was absent. MOTION CARRIED.
Adjourned: 5:48 P.M.