Loading...
1980/11/258 O- City Hall, Anaheim,. Calif.ornia- COUNCIL MINUTES- November 25~ 1980~ 1:30 P.M. The City Council of the City of Anaheim met in regular session. PRESENT: ABSENT: PRESENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Overholt, Kaywood, Bay, Roth and Seymour COUNCIL MEMBERS: None CITY MANAGER: William O. Talley CITY ATTORNEY: William P. Hopkins CITY CLERK: Linda D. koberts PUBLIC WORKS EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR: Thornton E. Piersall DATA PROCESSING DIRECTOR: Phil Grammatica EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT: Norman J. Priest TRAFFIC ENGINEER: Paul Singer ASSISTANT DIRECTOR FOR ZONING: Annika Santalahti Mayor Seymour called the meeting to order and welcomed those in attepdance to the Council meeting. INVOCATION: Reverend G. Paul Keller, Retired, gave the Invocation. FLAG SALUTE: Councilman Don R. Roth led the assembly in the Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag. 119: PROCLAMATIONS: The following proclamations were issued by Mayor Seymour and authorized by the City Council: "Turkey Time Tournament Week in Anaheim" - November 24 to 30, 1980 "Polish National Alliance Centennial Day" - November 30, 1980 Andrea Brown and Shirley Mendez accepted the Turkey Time proclamation and Carl Kobzi accepted the Polish National Alliance Centennial Day proclamation. 119: RESOLUTION OF COMMENDATION: A resolution of commendation was unanimously adopted by the Council and presented to Ross Moore, Assistant Director of Marketing, on behalf of the management and staff of Radio Station KEZY for participating in the "Kids for Cambodia" school supply campaign. MINUTES: Councilwoman Kaywood moved to approve the minutes of the regular meeting held October 28 and the adjourned regular meeting held October 29, 1980, subject to typographical corrections on the meeting of October 28th. Council- man Bay seconded the motion. Councilman Seymour abstained on the meeting of October 29, 1980. 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, unless after reading of the title, specific request is made by a Council Member for the reading of such ordinance or resolution in regular order. Councilman Overholt seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. FINANCIAL DEMANDS AGAINST THE CITY in the amount of $3,563,677.95, in accordance with the 1980-81 Budget, were approved. 80-.15~5 City Hallp Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - November 25, 1980, 1:30 P.M. 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 in his memorandum dated November 19, 1980: a. 160: Bid No. 3713--Three-Phase Padmount Transformers. Award to RTE Cor- poration, $6,868,80 for one 500KVA, 12000-240-volt transformer, Item No. 1; and award to Westinghouse Electric Corporation, $17,278 for one 750KVA, 12000- 240-volt and one 1000KVA, 12000-240-volt transformer, Item Nos. 2 and 3. b. 160: Authorizing the Purchasing Agent to issue a change order for Purchase Order KO4205M to Truck Hydraulic Equipment Company, Inc., in the amount of $9,041.45 for additional required replacement parts, increasing the purchase order total to $30,495.25. MOTION CARRIED. 160/167: PURCHASE OF EQUIPMENT - ELEVEN TRAFFIC SIGNAL CONTROLLERS FOR THE CANYON INDUSTRIAL AREA - BID NO. 3697: Traffic Engineer Paul Singer first clarified questions posed by the Mayor and Council Members Bay and Kaywood relative to the difference between the Type 100 and Type 90 Lane Occupancy Controllers System (LOC) as outlined in memorandum dated November 12, 1980 from the Purchasing Agent. He explained that the Type 100 was a simplified version of the controller and the cost was about equal to the 90. Although both performed the same function, the 100 system did so in a slightly differ- ent way and, in his opinion, it was more efficient and faster with the only difference being the interconnect capability. After additional discussion, the Mayor stated he would be happy to support the request, but asked that the Council be provided with brochures or a price list on both the 90 and 100 system to confirm that they were getting a slightly superior traffic controller at about the same price. City Manager William Talley stated that considering the company involved, he had an independent staff report prepared which he would provide to the Council. On motion by Councilman Seymour, seconded by Councilman Bay, the low bid of Compter Service Co., was accepted and purchase authorized in the amount of $125,080, including tax, as recommended by the Purchasing Agent in his memo- randum dated November 12, 1980. MOTION CARRIED. 181: ACCEPTANCE OF TWO LEADED GLASS WINDOWS FOR USE IN REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT ALPHA: Councilman Roth offered Resolution No. 80R-519 for adoption, accepting two leaded glass windows from the Agency for use in a historic museum in the Redevelopment Project Alpha area, as recommended in memorandum dated November 19, 1980 from Executive Director of Community Development Norm Priest. Refer to Resolution Book. RESOLUTION NO. 80R-519: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHIEM ACCEPTING TWO ANTIQUE LEADED GLASS WINDOWS FOR USE IN AN APPROPRIATE CITY MUSEUM FROM THE ANAHEIM REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY. 80-'1S0~ City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - November 25, 1980, 1:30 P.M. Roll Call Vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: COUNCIL MEMBERS: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Overholt, Kaywood, Bay, Roth and Seymour None None The Mayor declared Resolution No. 80R-519 duly passed and adopted. 164: SUBSTITUTION OF SUBCONTRACTOR - LENAIN 2-MILLION GALLON RESERVOIR: On motion by Councilman Overholt, seconded by Councilwoman Kaywood, the substi- tution of Allen Electric for the listed subcontractor, Randall & West Electrical Contractors, as required by Peter Kiewit Sons' Co., prime contractor for the Lenain 2-Million Gallon Reservoir project, was approved as recommended in memorandum dated November 19, 1980 from City Engineer William Devitt. MOTION CARRIED. 115: ANAHEIM CIVIC CENTER CONTRACT - CHANGE ORDER NO. 8 AND REDUCTION OF RETEN- TION: Account No, 48-984-6325. Councilman Overholt moved to authorize Change Order No. 8 in the amount of $36,151 to the contract with Del E. Webb Corporation and authorizing a reduction of the retention held by the City to five percent of the total retention, or $62,385, as recommended in memorandum dated November 19, 1980 from the City Engineer. Councilman Bay seconded the motion. Before a vote was taken, Mayor Seymour expressed his concern specifically over the sound system in the Council Chambers and the Civic Center elevators which did not always respond properly. If all they were going to retain from the $1,247,697 owed was $62,385, he would be concerned should the cost to correct or replace the sound system and elevators be more than that amount. Mr. Thornton Piersall, Executive Director of Public Works, stated that staff was also concerned about the finalization of the sound system, as well as the proper operation of the elevators. However, they felt that Del Webb and Dover (elevator) had been responding to those concerns. A great deal of manpower and time had been expended in providing technological and maintenance people who had been on call since difficulties had been experienced with the elevators. He felt it was appropriate at this time that they disburse the money to Del Webb and that his subcontractors would respond and resolve the problem. In doing so, they would still have adequate protection under the contract and specifications to make certain that the items were satisfactorily completed. Mayor Seymour first stated he felt Del Webb Corporation was one of the finest in the country and had done a fine job on the Civic Center, but reiterated his concern that if they had to install a new elevator or sound system, it would be a great deal more than $62,385. He wanted to know if it would be an unreasonable approach to continue the matter for two weeks in order to clarify the status relative to the sound system, elevators, and whatever else still remained on the punch list, but mainly on those two large items. Mr. Piersall answered that they could submit a comprehensive report from the architect and his staff indicating to the Council what steps had been taken. Regarding the sound system, it may not be to the satisfaction of everyone and aspects of it may be as a design criteria rather than in the contractor's respon- sibility. They would also cover that in the report if it was the Council's desire. 8o-~Sos City Hall., Anaheim,, C.alifornia - COUNCIL MINUTES - November 25~ 1980~ 1:30 P.M. Councilman Bay asked relative to the sound system, if in the design, who would be responsible in that case. Mr. Piersall stated it would be the architect. He also confirmed that the design was reviewed by staff. Councilman Bay thereupon suggested that they retain $200,000 and release $1,000,000. Councilman Roth then expressed his concern relative to the sound system as he did at the meeting of November 18, 1980 (see minutes that date). He also felt that they should hold a sufficient amount of dollars and determine whose area of re- sponsibility it was to find a solution to some of the problems involved. A good sound system was important from the citizens standpoint and having an opportunity to hear and be heard. Mayor Seymour asked if staff could provide numbers as to the cost of the sound system. Mr. Randy Bosch, Dan L. Rowland & Associates, stated that he had no idea offhand of the separate cost of the sound system. The general contractor had some difficulty with their original subcontractor and had to replace them with a subsequent subcontractor. Taking into consideration all of the Council's concerns, particularly the elevators as well as the sound system, retention of $200,000 as suggested by Councilman Bay would be more than adequate to cover any eventuality. MOTION: Councilman Overholt thereupon moved to amend the previous motion that the retention be increased to $200,000. Councilman Bay seconded the motion. Before a vote was taken, Councilman Overholt asked the City Attorney what legal justification under the contract would they have for refusing to release reten- tion. City Attorney William Hopkins stated if there were certain items that had to be completed they could, as a matter of assuring that the City had sufficient funds to cover the items, retain whatever the Council felt appropriate. In concluding, the Mayor stated in order to be as clear as possible, the motion did not deter in any way his faith in Del Webb as a contractor. He was proud of what they had done. However, it was a sound business judgment to hold the money until the job was done. A vote was then taken on amended motion. MOTION CARRIED. 153: SALARY ADJUSTMENTS FOR CERTAIN DATA PROCESSING CLASSIFICATIONS: Mr. Phil Grammatica, Data Processing Director, first clarified questions posed by Council- man Roth relative to the proposed adjustments as outlined in memorandum dated November 19, 1980 from Human Resources Director Garry McRae. Councilman Overholt offered Resolution No. 80R-520 and 80R-521 for adoption, the first establishing rates of compensation for classes designated as staff and supervisory management, to adjust salary schedules for certain Data Pro- cessing classifications, effective October 10, 1980 and the second establishing rates of compensation for classes represented by the Anaheim Municipal Employees 80- 1~6 City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - November 25, 1980, 1:30 P.M. Association, General Employees Unit, to adjust salary schedules for certain Data Processing classifications, effective dates, October 10 and December 5, 1980. Refer to Resolution Book. RESOLUTION NO. 80R-520: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AMENDING RESOLUTION NO. 79R-591 WHICH ESTABLISHED RATES OF COMPENSATION FOR CLASSES DESIGNATED AS STAFF AND SUPERVISORY MANAGEMENT. RESOLUTION NO. 80R-52t: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AMENDING RESOLUTION NO. 77R-703 WHICH ESTABLISHED RATES OF COMPENSATION FOR CLASSES REPRESENTED BY THE ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL EMPLOYEES ASSOCIATION, GENERAL EMPLOYEES UNIT. Roll Call Vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: COUNCIL MEMBERS: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Overholt, Kaywood, Bay, Roth and Seymour None None The Mayor declared Resolution No. 80R-520 and 80R-521 duly passed and adopted. 175: APPROPRIATION OF ADDITIONAL FUNDS FOR THE INTERMOUNTAIN POWER PROJECT (IPP): Mr. Gordon Hoyt, Public Utilities General Manager, clarified questions posed by Council Members Kaywood and Bay and Mayor Seymour relative to the Public Utilities Board's recommendation in memorandum dated November 19, 1980 that the Council approve an additional appropriation of $500,000 from the Electric Revenue Bond funds for the continuation of study and design work for the Intermountain Power Project. He also provided a verbal update on the status of the project for the Mayor. MOTION: Councilwoman Kaywood moved to authorize an additional appropriation of $500,000 from Electric Revenue Bond funds for continuation of study an design work for the Intermountain Power Project (IPP). Councilman Overholt seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. CONSENT CALENDAR ITEMS: On motion by Councilwoman Kaywood, seconded by Councilman Roth, the following actions were authorized in accordance with the reports and recommendations furnished each Council Member and as listed on the Consent Calendar Agenda: 1. 118: CLAIMS AGAINST THE CITY: The following claims were denied and referred to the City's Claims Administrator: a. Claim submitted by Edward Albert Smialowski for personal injury and vehicular damages purportedly sustained as a result of traffic accident at State College Boulevard and Lincoln Avenue caused by City employee driving an on-duty emergency vehicle, on or about October 25, 1980. b. Claim submitted by Mrs. Harry Dent for damages to sewer pipe at 1862 Chanticleer Road purportedly sustained as a result of roots from parkway tree, on or about October 27, 1980. c. Claim submitted by John and Alana Pritchett for damages purportedly sus- tained as a result of power being shut off in error at 412 "D" Alice Way and failure to restore as promised, on or about October 24, 1980. 80-:t-$07 CityLHall, ~Anahe. im., California - COUNCIL MINUTES - November 25, 1980, 1:30 P.M. d. Claim submitted by Beatrice Corapci for personal injury and vehicular damages purportedly sustained as a result of accident near the corner of Mt. Loop Trail and Indian Trail caused by City employee driving vehicle Unit No. 238, on or about August 7, 1980. e. Claim submitted by Philip L. Vega for damages purportedly sustained as a result of claimant's employment with the City of Anaheim being terminated on or about July 30, 1980. f. Claim submitted by Alane Bonnie Carstensen for personal injury damages purportedly sustained as a result of slip-and-fall accident at Anaheim Stadium on or about October 26, 1980. g. Claim submitted by Jesse L. & Rhoda Sparks for damages purportedly sustained as a result of utility wires falling into rear yard at 1647 Brande and setting fire to shed, on or about October 27, 1980. h. Claim submitted by William Caronna for personal injury damages purportedly sustained as a result of slip-and-fall accident in Anaheim Stadium parking lot, on or about August 30, 1980. The following claims were denied and referred to Bayly, Martin & Fay/San Antonio: i. Claim submitted by Gena Haskins for personal injury damages purportedly sustained as a result of arrest of claimant on or about October 8, 1980. j. Claim submitted by Mark Haskins for personal injury damages purportedly sustained as a result of arrest of Gena Haskins and detention of claimant at Juvenile Hall, on or about October 8, 1980. 2. CORRESPONDENCE: The following correspondence was ordered received and filed: a. 150: Public Utilities Board--Minutes of October 16, 1980. b. 150: Community Redevelopment Co~nission--Minutes of October 29 and November 5, 1980. c. 150: Senior Citizen Commission--Minutes of October 13, 1980. d. 150: Public Utilities Board--Minutes of November 6, 1980. (Unapproved) 3. 108: APPLICATIONS: In accordance with the recommendations of the Chief of Police, the following applications were approved: a. Public Dance Permit: Anaheim Soccer Club, for a dance to be held November 27, 1980, 6:00 p.m. to 1:00 a.m., at~ the Anaheim Convention Center. (Mary Patricia Guerena, applicant) b. Public Dance Permit: Anaheim Soccer Club, for a dance to be held December 31, 1980, 6:00 p.m. to 1:00 a.m., in a building located at 1414 South A~heim Boulevard. (Mary Patricia Guerena, applicant) c. Dinner Dancing Place Permit: Maverick's Restaurant & Saloon, 3030 West Lincoln Avenue, for dancing Thursday through Saturday, 9:00 p.m. to 2:00 a.m. (Robert James Fisher, applicant) MOTION CARRIED. 80-15~8 City Hall, Anaheim, Californ±a - COUNCIL HINUTES - November 25, 1980, 1:30 ?.M. CONSENT CALENDAR ITEMS: Councilman Roth offered Resolution Nos. 80R-522 and 80R-523 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-522: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM APPROVING A GRANT DEED WITH GLORIA ROWE FOR CERTAIN SURPLUS CITY PRO- PERTY AT FAIRMONT SUBSTATION SITE. 176: RESOLUTION NO. 80R-523: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM DECLARING ITS INTENTION TO VACATE AND ABANDON CERTAIN PUBLIC ALLEY AND FIXING A DATE FOR A HEARING THEREON. (80-2A, December 16, 1980, 3:00 p.m., public alley beginning at.the east line of Atchison Street, 60 feet wide and extending east approximately 128.5 feet to the west line of The Atchison, Topeka and Santa Fe Rmilway, south of Broadway) Roll Call Vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: COUNCIL MEMBERS: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Overholt, Kaywood, Bay, Roth and Seymour None None The Mayor declared Resolution Nos. 80R-522 and 80R-523, duly passed and adopted. CITY PLANNING COMMISSION ITEMS: The following actions taken by the City Planning Commission at their meeting held November 3, 1980, pertaining to the following applications, as listed on the Consent Calendar, were submitted for City Council information. 1. VARIANCE NO. 3167: Submitted by Don M. Fletcher, to retain two free-standing signs on ML zoned property located at 1601 South Anaheim Boulevard, with various Code waivers. The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC80-192, granted in part, Variance No. 3167, and ratified the Planning Director's categorical exemption determination. 2. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2128: Submitted by the Home of the Ministering Angel, to expand an existing boarding and lodging home from 15 to 18 residents on RS-HS-22,000 zoned property located at 233 Quintana Drive. The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC80-191, granted Conditional Use Permit No. 2128, and ratified the Planning Director's categorical exemption determination. 3. RECLASSIFICATION NO. 80-81-16, CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2129 (GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 163): Submitted by Crown Development Company, for a change in zone from RS-A-43,000 to RM-3000, to permit a l-lot, 60-unit condominium complex (48% affordable) on property located north and east of the northeast corner of Simmons Avenue and Haster Street, with certain Code waivers. The City Planning Con~nission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC80-188 and 189, denied Reclassification No. 80-81-16 and Conditional Use Permit No. 2129 and further, denied a negative declaration status. 80-i$D9 Cit% Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - November 25, 1980, 1:30 P.M. 4. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 1532: Submitted by Patricia Scanlon, requesting permission to increase the number of residents at a board and care facility from 10 to 15, plus one couple for housekeeping duties, on RM-1200 zoned pro- perty located at 328 North Vine Street. The City Planning Commission determined a public hearing was necessary. 5. RECLASSIFICATION NO. 73-74-4 AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 1410 - EXTENSION OF TIME AND APPROVAL OF SPECIFIC USE: Submitted by Richard Acker,. Real Property Agent, Orange County General Services Agency, to expand an existing hospital on proposed CO zoned property located at 950 South Gilbert Street, with a waiver of permitted CO signing. The City Planning Commission determined a public hearing was necessary. 6. 163/134: APOLLO AND FREMONT JUNIOR HIGH SCHOOLS: Submitted by Anaheim Union High School District, requesting determination that the disposition of Apollo and Fremont Junior High Schools is in conformance with the General Plan as junior high school sites. The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC80-193, determined that the disposition of Apollo and Fremont Junior High Schools to be in conformance; use of sites for other than school sites would not be in con- formance, thereby necessitating approval of a General Plan Amendment. No action was taken on the foregoing items, therefore the actions of the City Planning Commission became final. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2123: Submitted by Matthew T. and Cheri D. Nugent, to permit a preschool on RS-A-43,000 zoned property located at 856 South Walnut Street, with a Code waiver of maximum fence height. The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC80-186, granted in part Conditional Use Permit No. 2123, and granted a negative declaration status. Councilman Bay requested a review of the Planning Commission's action on the subject conditional use permit. CONDITIONAL USE PEP. MIT NO. 2127: Submitted by Atlantic Richfield Company, to permit a convenience market with gasoline sales on RS-A-43,000 zoned property located at 1037 West Ball Road. The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC80-190, granted Conditional Use Permit No. 2127, and granted a negative declaration status. Councilwoman Kaywood requested a review of the Planning Commission's action on the subject conditional use permit. 134: GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 163 AND NEGATIVE DECLARATION: Setting December 16, 1980, at 3:00 p.m., as the date and time for public hearing to consider alternate proposal of ultimate land use from Low Density Residential, to Low-Medium Density residential for approximately 4.2 acres of land located generally northeast of the intersection of Simmons Avenue and Haster Street. 80- lS 10. City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - November 25, 1980, 1:30 P.M. City Clerk Linda Roberts announced that staff had just submitted a memorandum indicating that the architect for the project had verbally indicated that he would be withdrawing the request and staff, therefore, requested that the item be continued for two weeks. On motion by Councilman Overholt, seconded by Councilman Seymour, consideration of setting General Plan Amendment No. 163 for a public hearing was continued for two weeks. MOTION CARRIED. 142/182: ORDINANCE NO. 4192: Councilman Bay offered Ordinance No. 4192 for adoption. Refer to Ordinance Book. ORDINANCE NO. 4192: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AMENDING SECTION 1.04.560 OF CHAPTER 1.04 OF TITLE 1 OF THE ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE PERTAINING TO THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT. (pertaining to the Community Development Executive Director) Roll Call Vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: COUNCIL MEMBERS: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Overholt, Kaywood, Bay, Roth and Seymour None None The Mayor declared Ordinance No. 4192 duly passed and adopted. 142/114: ORDINANCE NO. 4193: Councilwoman Kaywood offered Ordinance No. 4193 for adoption. Refer to Ordinance Book. ORDINANCE NO. 4193: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AMENDING SECTION 1.12.010 OF THE ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE CONCERNING MEETINGS OF THE CITY COUNCIL. (relating to time and place of City Council meetings) Roll Call Vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: COUNCIL MEMBERS: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Overholt, Kaywood, Bay, Roth and Seymour None None The Mayor declared Ordinance No. 4193 duly passed and adopted. ORDINANCE NO. 4194: Concerning the proposed RM-1200 zoning on the southwest corner of Orange Avenue and Webster Avenue, Councilwoman Kaywood asked if this was the project where they gave a 144% density bonus. Annika Santalahti, Assistant Director for Zoning, explained that this was a proposal the Council had seen a couple of months ago, and it was not an afford- able housing project, but an apartment project. Councilman Seymour offered Ordinance No. 4194 for adoption. Refer to Ordinance Book. ORDINANCE NO. 4194: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AMENDING TITLE 18 OF THE ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO ZONING. (63-64-62(18), RM-1200) 80- t:~ ! t City Hall,..Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - November 25, 19.80, 1:30 P.M. Roll Call Vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: COUNCIL MEMBERS: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Overholt, Bay, Roth and Seymour Kaywood None The Mayor declared Ordinance No. 4194 duly passed and adopted. ORDINANCE NO. 4195: Concerning the proposed RM-1200 at 1222 East Belmont Avenue. Councilwoman Kaywood questioned staff as to the specific project involved. Since the information was not readily available, she indicated she would abstain from voting. Councilman Overholt offered Ordinance No. 4195 for adoption. Refer to Ordinance Book. ORDINANCE NO. 4195: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AMENDING TITLE 18 OF THE ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO ZONING. (79,80-29, RM-1200) Roll Call Vote: AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Overholt, Bay, Roth and Seymour NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: None ABSTAINED: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Kaywood ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: None The Mayor declared Ordinance No. 4195 duly passed and adopted. 142/156: ORDINANCE NO. 4196: Councilwoman Kaywood offered Ordinance No. 4196 for first reading. ORDINANCE NO. 4196: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AMENDING SECTION 1.13.040 OF CHAPTER 1.13, TITLE 1, OF THE ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO THE POLICE RESERVE CORPS. 114: ABSENCE FROM THE SCHEDULED EVENING COUNCIL MEETING: Councilman Roth announced that due to his do~tor's orders as a result of his recent case of walking pneumonia, he would not be attending the evening session of the Council meet- ing scheduled to discuss the 1981-82 Program and Budget for the Community Development Block Grant, Seventh Year Funding application. 114: ANAHEIM ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION (AEDC) MEETING: Counciman Bay stated that yesterday afternoon, Monday, November 24, 1980, aC the monthly AEDC meeting, they received a study report on the Housing Element for the City. There was a great deal of discussion within the AEDC, the general con- sensus being that a housing strategy at this time for the City should be part of an overall economic strategy. He explained that six other reports would be coming in on various phases of the economic situation in Anaheim, including transportation, industrial development, rehabilitation, etc. It was the opinion of the AEDC that at that time, the housing strategy should be worked into the overall pattern. The Council should be receiving a one-page report on that meeting since he had asked the AEDC to provide such a report. RECESS - EXECUTIVE SESSION: Councilwoman Kaywood moved to recess into Executive Session. Councilman Overholt seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. (2:45 P.M.) 80- ~1512 City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - November 25, 1980, 1:30 P.M. AFTER RECESS: Mayor Seymour called the meeting to order, all Council Members being present. (3:12 P.M.) 153: MEDICAL INSURANCE FOR SURVIVORS OF RETIRED EMPLOYEES: Councilman Bay moved to modify the retired employee medical program effective November 1, 1980 to provide that when a retired employee enrolled in a City sponsored medical plan dies, the surviving spouse who'was-an enrolled dependent in the medical plan may elect to continue coverage under the same terms and conditions, as recommended in the Human Resources Director's memorandum dated November 17, 1980. Councilman Roth seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. Mr. Talley advised that the Anaheim Police Association had brought the matter to the attention of the City, and the City determined to make the recommendation to the Council. RECESS: Councilman Bay moved to recess to 7:00 P.M. to consider the 1981-82 Community Development Block Grant Program and Budget. Councilwoman Kaywood seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED (3:14 P.M.) AFTER RECESS: Mayor Seymour called the meeting to order, all Council Members being present, with the exception of Councilman Roth. (7:00 P.M.) PRESENT: ABSENT: PRESENT: COUNCIL M~MBERS: Overholt, Kaywood, Bay and Seymour COUNCIL MEMBERS: Roth CITY MANAGER: William O. Talley CITY ATTORNEY: William P. Hopkins CITY CLERK: Linda D. Roberts EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT: Norman J. Priest HOUSING MANAGER: Lisa Stipkovich DEPUTY CITY MANAGER: James Ruth PLANNING DIRECTOR: Ron Thompson 174(CDBG): PUBLIC HEARING - COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT PROGRAM: To con- sider The proposed 1981-82 Program and Budget for the Community Development Block Grant (CDBG), Seventh Year Funding application, was submitted. Mr. Norm Priest, Executive Director of Community Development, brimfed the Council on staff report received November 19, 1980 recommending that the Council adopt the Seventh Year 1981-82 CDBG Program and Budget as recommended by the Community-wide CDBG Citizen Participation Committee for a total allo- cation of approximately two (2) million dollars. In addition to the staff re- port, he reviewed briefly~the attachments which were a part of the report (report and attachments on file in the City Clerk's office). Relative to Attachment lA, he noted that in terms of the expenditure for the Washington Community Center of $22,000, they would be in a position to take that amount from this year's Budget and thus it would not reflect as an expenditure for next year. They were presently at a 3% contingency level on the recommended Budget which was perilously low. If they had any substantial increases in cost, they would have to return to the Neighborhood Councils and point out projects that could not be accomplished. The Department of Health and Urban Development (HUD) normally recommended no less than a 5% contingency and would allow up to 10%. The $22,000 would add to that and bring it up to approximately 4%. Attachment Nos. 2 through 6 were simply a breakdown of the costs as they pertained to the Neighborhood Councils and the target neighborhood under the program. The 80-~513 City Hall, Anaheim,...C.a!ifornia - COUNCIL MINUTES - November 25, 1980, 1:30 P.M. numbers would allow the Council to look in depth and reflect upon the presen- tations which they would be receiving from the neighborhood groups tonight as to how the funds had been allocated by staff and the Committee from each neigh- borhood. In concluding, Mr. Priest returned to the staff report and pointed out two things in particular. This was the first of three meetings to be held on the Program. The meeting tonight was to give staff a feeling from the Council as to Budget preparation. On December 16, 1980 at 7:00 p.m., there would be an additional hearing to review the Budget as prepared based upon tonight's hearing and, in turn, authorization given for it to be circulated for A95 Review and subsequent submission. After review by the appropriate A95 agencies at the local, state and federal level, it would be returned to them and they would return to the Council on March 17, 1981 at 1:30 with the application for presentation to HUD all on the assumption of approval by the Council. In the budget, $30,000 was allocated for an Environmental Specialist to implement a Rental Certificate Program. That funding was recognized to be contingent upon Council approval of that program. In the event that it were not to be implemented, the $30,000 would revert to the Contingency Fund. He noted that $20,000 was allocated for removal of architectural barriers for the handicapped in the proposed Anaheim Historic Museum, that being contingent upon the Historical Society's securing of other needed matching funds for structure rehabilitation. At this point in time, some $50,000 had been allocated and the major portion of $42,000 still remained. He believed that the cost of making the building structurally sound was slightly in excess of $100,000. As he previously noted, the $22,000 allocated to complete rehabilitation of the Washington Community Center could revert to contingency, since they believed they could get the necessary funds out of this year's budget. Mr. Priest stated he would be happy to go through the budget in detail if the Council wished or respond to any questions. Otherwise, it would be his reco- mmendation that they hear next from the Neighborhood Councils. Mayor Seymour first asked if there were questions from the Council. Councilman Bay asked if there were any specifics on the storm drain projected in the budget, i.e., the $50,000 for the Part Street area and the $150,000 for the Patrick Henry area. Miss Lisa Stipkovich, Housing Manager, explained that for the Patrick Henry area, it was the storm drain at Arlington and Minteer which tied into the main storm drain system. For Part Street, there were two storm drains requested, both tying into the storm drains on La Palma Avenue. Patt Street and Olive would tie back into La Palma Avenue. Mayor Seymour asked if he understood Mr. Priest to say that under the Anaheim Historic Museum, the $20,000 figure would be subject to a match of $100,000. Mr. Priest answered "no." The match would be subject to approximately $20,000 to $25,000, $100,000 was the total. This would provide $20,000 and there was approximately $42,000 left from the original $50,000. Thus, they were looking at approximately $30,000 to $40,000 total remaining. 80-15t~ City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - November 25, 1980, 1:30 P.M. Mayor Seymour then opened the public hearing, asking first to hear from the various Neighborhood Councils, the first being Central City. From the audience, it was indicated that the Central City Council was satisfied with staff recommendations as presented (see Attachment 2 listing the budget allocation for the Central City area, Revised Option B, totalling $639,725). The Mayor then asked to hear from the Patrick Henry Neighborhood Council (PHNC). Mr. Dominic Daddario, 1180 North Crown Street, Co-Chairman of the Patrick Henry Neighborhood Council, then gave a comprehensive presentation, highlighting the purpose and goals of their Council, which presentation included an overview of the strategy area, the problems radiating from the area, three main reasons attributing to the total problem, and their plan for a solution to those problems in order to maintain the quality of life that Anaheim had to offer, especially as it related to their area. His verbal presentation consisted of a briefing of report dated November 25, 1980 previously submitted to the Council (on file in the City Clerk's office) with an elaboration of the data contained therein, supplemented by a series of slides graphically depicting the areas of concern and also showing diversity of uses in their target area, which also reflected community pride as evidenced by the many well-cared for homes and businesses. He emphasized that they were present to ask the Council to work with them in their endeavors. Councilwoman Kaywood asked, relative to the request for a close-in fire station (Page 3 of the report), what the present response time was to the area from the fire station at Brookhurst and Crescent. Mrs. Stipkovich answered that the matter had been discussed at other task force meetings and the response time was anywhere from three to five minutes. Mr. Daddario noted, however, that was true for 50% of the area west of West Street, but for 'that portion of the neighborhood east of West Street, first in was Fire apparatus from the City of Fullerton. Councilman Overholt noted that Mr. Daddario mentioned Manzanita Park, but he also noted that there was no funding allocated to ease the problem there. He asked if the Neighborhood Council had some suggestions regarding the situation. Mr. Daddario answered that one of the recommendations was that perhaps police patrol of the park might alleviate some of the problems, but he frankly did not have a solution. There was a swap meet of drug traffic going on in the park, as well as other types of activity that were not safe, so that he and his children could not enjoy the park and he felt hhat was a sentiment expressed by everybody. They would like to meet with the various City Departments and also the Police to see if they could offer some help. They did have meetings with the Parks and Recreation Department, but they were not in the business of pro- viding Police patrol or other types of patrol. As well, their funding had been cut and thus they could not afford to have someone stationed in the park. Councilwoman Kaywood asked Mr. Ruth if Manzanita was one of the parks that had the Park Ranger program and was it successful. Mr. James Ruth, Deputy City Manager, answered "yes", and to a degree, the program was successful. They received many favorable comments in the communities and 80-.tS 1S city H.all, .A. na. heim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - November 25, 1980, 1:30 P.M. schools where the program was instituted, but it was a limited program on an eight- week trial basis. They would be taking a look at implementing the program on a year-round basis. They did install security lighting at the park to illuminate the area, but the problem was in suppression. Councilman Bay reported that a couple of years ago, the Planning Department under- took a study of the Robin-Bluejay high density areas, which study was perhaps still in the files. The study revolved around health, safety, Code enforce- ment and other problems in the area caused by the original design of the apart- ment complexes in that particular area. He suggested that the Planning staff pull that study and perhaps take another look at it and then take a second look at the area, if possible, to ascertain the present conditions compared to what they were in approximately 1976. In concluding, Mr. Daddario stated that they were asking that the Council adopt the three following motions as outlined in letter dated November 25, 1980 which was the covering letter for the aforementioned report from the Neighborhood Council: 1. A motion instructing the City Manager to form an Interdepartmental Task Force within 30 days to work with the Patrick Henry Neighborhood Council Task Force to implement a plan to revitalize the Patrick Henry neighborhood. 2. A motion requiring monthly progress reports from the Interdepartmental Task Force submitted to City Council. 3. A motion agreeing to schedule an evening City Council meeting every two months with the Patrick Henry Neighborhood Council Task Force and the Inter- departmental Task Force to discuss matters concerning revitalization of the Patrick Henry Neighborhood. Mayor Seymour was looking for a more definitive intent of the motions. He could understand number one clearly, as well as the progress reports outlined in number two. Number three would provide dialogue between the City Council and the Neighborhood Council. Although he was supportive of all three motions, in reviewing Page One of their goals, A) through G) under Item 1), he was wondering if the motions were made and carried, whether they would run out of steam rather quickly. He did not know that monthly progress reports or a meeting with the Council every two months would be necessary from this day forward. Mr. Daddario explained that the spirit behind their request for a monthly progress report back to the Council would be, in many respects, a dual report. They were more than willing and anxious to work with the City and wherever possible to meet the City 50% of the way or more. There were many things they could do, but additionally they would like to tap the resources of the City. The goals A) through G), for example, may change in complexity, but there was no way to project that at this point until they had the opportunity to sit down with the best brains Anaheim had to offer. The purpose of a monthly meeting was to let them know how they were doing. Mayor Seymour stated he felt the three motions set the tone, but he did not want to lead Mr. Daddario or the Neighborhood to believe that if those types of things were not necessary on that repetitive a basis, that they were going to do them just to do them. 8o-15'i6 City ~Hai1, Anaheim, Ca!ifor.nia - COUNCIL MINUTES - November 25~ 1980, 1:30 P.M. Mr. Daddario emphasized that they wanted to keep the Patrick Henry area very much alive and in the forefront of the Council's mind. They wanted to be able to co~unicate with the Council as to where they were and where they were going and also let them know who was not carrying the ball. They did not want the ball to drop. Councilwoman Kaywood asked if he (Daddario) would explain in more detail what was meant by an Environmental Specialist and Rental Certificate Program. Mr. Daddario answered the latter first, stating it meant certification that rental property was decent, safe and sanitary in the Patrick Henry neighborhood area. They did not expect, nor were they proposing, that income property owners be re- quired to bring 18- and 26-year old buildings up to Codes, but they were requesting City support to insure that income property was decent, safe and sanitary. It was a plan in effect in the City of Pasadena and it was working. Such a program should be investigated and considered. The Environmental Specialist would enforce the Rental Certificate Program if it were so adopted, and it was important that that person be bilingual. Councilman Overholt asked what $12,000 would buy in the type of program proposed which was the amount allocated in the budget. Mr. Priest answered if would cover a one-half time individual; Mrs. Stipkovich stated that they would split that person between Patrick Henry and Central City. Mayor Seymour stated he could understand and agreed with the importance of the goal of Code enforcement. It was the only way he kmew to achieve the rehabili- tation necessary to provide a safe and healthful living environment. He asked Mr. Daddario, however, if he could speak for his group in relationship to the following hypothetical eventuality: First, that if the Council were to adopt such a Rental Certificate Program and enforce it. The first time they did so, the Council Chambers were filled with not only the owner of the property vocal- izing the opinion that government was forcing him to do something he did not want to do, but also the tenants complaining that the landlord was going to raise their rent which they could not afford and thus wanted to be left alone. He could see the possibility of that occurring. Although he was totally emphathetic with the goal they were trying to achieve, he wanted to know how Mr. Daddario and his Council would respond to this scenario, because he and his Council would still be representing the whole neighborhood. Mr. Daddario explained that they had an opportunity to speak with several apart- ment owners where they briefly touched upon the program. He felt that they too were looking for a way to protect their investment. At present, they were power- less because they could not even evict. It was a double-edged sword and they did not have all the answers, but were asking for help in developing those answers. The Mayor stated he felt confident they were going to receive help, but as the Council would make certain commitments, there was a very real possibility of the foregoing situation occurring. It was going to be a very important time for the neighborhood, and the whole success of the program was neighborhood involvement. They could not afford to have the neighborhood lose the commit- ment to its objectives and goals. When things got tough, he was hoping that the neighborhood would be hanging tough with them. 80- ~ 1517 City Ha.!_l,' .An.a.h. eim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - November 25, 1980, 1:30 P.M. After a further brief'discussion between the Mayor and Mr. Daddario relative to the motions, Councilman Overholt stated he intended to make the three motions, but later in the meeting. However, they should apply equally to all areas. Councilman Bay stated that he had been involved with a great many neighborhood organizations and in talking about a task force and using the brains on City staff and getting help for an Interdepartmenal Task Force, they were talking about dollars that would have to come from the budget. It was necessary to keep that in mind. Councilwoman Kaywood stated she was very impressed with the job the Patrick Henry Neighborhood Council had done. The report, slide show and presentation were excellent. If they had that kind of enthusiasm throughout the City, they could go forward and solve every problem. It was that kind of caring and sharing that was necessary. Councilwoman Kaywood then asked if there was some minimum space that could be ascribed within a living quarter per person, family or unit. In other words, was there such a thing as a minimum or a maximum. Mr. Ron Thompson, Planning Director, stated that the Building Code prescribed occupancy factors for certain square footage based on the type of occupancy involved. They could, by investgation, determine if there was overcrowding in some of the multiple-family residential areas, but the main problem staff had encountered to date was that many people would not let them in, and it would require a warrant. There were no further persons who wished to speak from the Patrick Henry target area, Mr. Daddario having acted as spokesman for that Neighborhood Council. The Mayor then asked to hear from a spokesman from the South Anaheim area. Mrs. Carol Ernst, South Anaheim Neighborhood Council (SANC), Chairman, stated that theirs was a very large and very divided territory. It almost should be split because they were literally split by Disneyland and the Convention Center and all the hotels and businesses through the area. They were an island here and there, i.e., the Santa Ana Freeway to Walnut to the Garden Grove City Limits and the Orange City Limits. They had a big problem in the area off of Orangewood Avenue and Haeter Street where there were high density apartments and no school buildings. Ail the children had to be bussed to school. They have been asking for an activity center at Ponderosa Park and this was one of their highest priorities. There was another park adjacent to their territory, Stoddard Park, but one of the biggest complaints was the lack of patrolling and the crime in their parks. Even adults were getting abused in the parks. They were hoping that the requested activity center would give them more protection. They were also asking for sidewalks in the Tiller and Oertly areas. One of the things they had previously asked for was a cul-de-sac on Wilken Way and they understood that the Council approved that cul-de-sac, but a problem had been en- countered relative to dedication. There should be another way to accomplish the closure perhaps at the other end at Oertly instead of Haster. Mayor Seymour interjected and stated that staff was presently studying the ul- timate closure at the other end. 80-~15L~ Ci.t.y ,Hall.,..Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - November 25, 1980, 1:30 P.M. In concluding, Mrs. Ernst stated that their main concern was the park and the activity center and the sidewalks. They needed help, and Code enforcement wou%d also help in their area. Mayor Seymour noted that Mr. Ernst was also present, and he and his wife were the owners of an~aPartment house in the area with which he was familiar. The last time he observed those apartments, they were in good condition and the best maintained in the neighborhood. Relative to the Rental Certificate Program previously discussed, he asked Mr. Ernst, as an apartment owner, how he would feel about the program for instance if the property owner stated that he would make all the improvements because he was forced into doing so but subsequently he was going to raise rents. Following chat, undoubtedly the tenants would complain and ask that rent control be instituted. He wanted Mr. Ernst's reaction. Mr. Ernst answered that it would not help him, but it would not hurt too much. Those owners who were not taking care of their buildings at present were charging rents that were already too high. Councilman Bay then stated that apartments in many areas were now owned by partnerships involving many people who were new in the business and absentee owners. He then explained how those partnerships were set up and the great amount of money involved in individual investments. In finality, he stated that realistic economic facts were what they would have to deal with if they set up a Code enforcement program. The minute those owners had to put out any money at all for fix up, painting, etc., it would put them out of business because they were running so close to the line on their investment and thus, would force them to raise their rents and create the exact scenario the Mayor was talking about. The Mayor then asked if there was a spokesman to speak from the Citron (Thomas Jefferson) target areas; no one wished to speak. A Mr. John Ybarra, Part Street area, part of the Central City target area, stated that the same people were present who were present in 1974 asking for the same things, but their needs still had not been met. They had gone through all committees and they did not want further rhetoric but action. He then gave a slide presentation which he narrated and which covered the entire Part Street area. The presentation emphasized the need for sidewalks, curbs and gutters, storm drains, clearance of vacant City-owned lots littered with trash, or lots with vacant and boarded houses owned by the City, etc. The slides also re- flected the encroachment of the surrounding industrial area by means of heavily loaded large trucks traveling through their residential area. Mr. Ybarra also emphasized the need for enlargement of Julianna Park and lights for that park. They needed cooperation of the Council and a large amount of funds from CDEV. The Mayor then posed questions to Mr. Priest relative to the property acquired in the Patt Street area by the City. Mr. Priest explained that there were nine lots involved, the bulk of which were acquired during the past fiscal year. As pointed out in some of the slides, they were an attractive nuisance. They had sought to obtain designation as a 235 area for the neighborhood and had been successful to date. Unfortunately in the current political changeover, all commitments had been pulled back 80- City...Ha.il.,. Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - November 25, 1980, 1:30 P.M. briefly, but they did expect to be in good shape again very shortly. It was their intention to place housing on the vacant lots and to 'work with the residents as soon as possible. Their initial purpose was to clear away blight and attractive nuisances. In answer to Councilman Bay, Mr. Priest explained they were looking at a far broader issue than clearing a few lots and placing a few houses in there. It was his feeling and the policy of his Department and their recommendation to the Council that the Patt Street area was a viable residential area, and they were seeking to work with the residents in any way possible to maintain it as such. All acquisition to date had been on a voluntary basis. In concluding, he then explained for the Mayor how the housing would be brought about. The Mayor stated he specifically wanted clarified that what staff did not have in mind was a public housing project; Mr. Priest confirmed that was correct, they did not have that thought in mind. RECESS: By general consent, the Council recessed for 15 minutes. (9:00 P.M.) AFTER RECESS: Mayor Seymour called the meeting to order, all Council Members being present, with the exception of Councilman Roth. (9:15 P.M.) Mrs. Mary Salazar (Central City--Part Street area), stated she had been involved in the situation since the City hired consultants back in 1974 to report on the area, but nothing was done. Many of the residents of the area had been there for three and four generations. They never had sidewalks and the streets were paved only twice. They had many problems which included noise and traffic from the freeway, no street sweeping, no signs, etc. It was a shame that they lived so close to downtown Anaheim with all the progress going on, as well as the progress at Anaheim Stadium with the coming of the Rams, and they were living in a neigh- borhood such as that evident in the Part Street area. It was time for the City to help them and they deserved something. They were demanding what rightfully should have been done a long time ago. If the City did something for the area, it would give them an incentive to also further improve their neighborhood. Mayor Seymour stated as he reviewed the budget allocations proposed, their little neighborhood had the biggest piece of the $2 million which he felt was appropriate in relation to Mrs. Salazar's and Mr. Ybarra's presentation. Now was the time to do something and they were going to see action with no more rhetoric. Mr. Priest then reported in answer to the Mayor that the Planning Consultant study recently approved (see minutes November 12, 1980) would be completed within the next two months, January of 1981. Subsequently, relative to making some decisions,, they would do their best to start moving in 1981. They were going to be working constantly in an effort with the funding authorities, par- ticularly FHA, and also, they would be underway with the public improvements in this year. After further discussion, the Mayor stated with regard to the Part Street area, that as was reported, the housing study would be completed in January, construc- tion of new homes or putting a deal together with a private developer for new housing woBld begin in 1981 as well as vacant lot activity. As well, as further reported by Mr. Priest, the houses that were boarded up were scheduled for demo- lition anticipated within the next month. More importantly, the budget of 80- 15~ City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - November 25, 1980, 1:30 P.M. $639,725 allocated for the Part Street area in the 1981-82 CDBG proposed funding, if the Council approved, they would have completed that first long governmental process. He reiterated (1) for too long that neighborhood had been neglected (2) it was time to stop the rhetoric and to start acting and, (3) the plan as outlined was an action plan. The long wait was over and in 1981, the residents of the area would begin to see things happening in their neighborhood. The Mayor then asked to hear from anyone relative to the City-wide program. Mrs. Patricia Clancy, 303 North Bush, stated most of the problems normally involved rental units. People today did not take care of their properties. The owners of the rentals were the problem. She then gave an example of what had occurred in her neighborhood to illustrate the problem. Whatever was done had to be done City-wide to make the owners want to do something. Whmt she was suggesting, instead of the Rental Certificate Program, was a certificate program on change of ownership. In other words, the present owner would have to bring his property up to Code before escrow could close, i.e., the person who had made the money from the investment. Mrs. Carol Rouillard, Executive Director of the Fair Housing Council, stated that although they were located in Santa Ana, they were an organization that also served the City of Anaheim. She had listened with great interest to the comments of the residents in the target area and their Councils, and there were no easy answers to the problems. Dialogue was much preferred to antagonism and frustration. The Housing Council would like to cooperate with the Neigh- borhood Councils possibly as a mediator between landlords and tenants. What they were asking for in terms of 'Block Grant Funds was a continuation for another year of their agreement with the City im the amount of $15,000. They provided information, counseling, community education and outreach for problems related to discrimination and landlord-tenant relations. They received approx- imately 360 to 380 calls a month from people in Anaheim who called with a variety of questions. Those calls came both from landlords as well as tenants. It was an important resource for the City and they could provide a recourse in method of resolution for landlord-tenant conflicts before legal action became necessary. That was their goal just as fair housing, i.e., assuring residents that their legal right to adequate housing of their choice was protected. She hoped that people from the neighborhood councils would call their office. They would be happy to meet with them and answer their questions. Mr. Bill Ernst stated with respect to the foregoing presentation, the word he objected to was "fair". The Housing Council had recommended to a tenant of his to start a lawsuit against his particular complex. He had seen it happen twice and all the activities started from the Fair Housing Council. He then explained what occurred. They went to three different meetings and there was nothing fair about them. He would be very much against anything for Fair Housing. Mrs. Rouillard stated that although she did not know anything about the particular situation Mr. Ernst referred to, they did not urge people to sue other people. Their purpose was not to be a litigating agency but an interceptor. They did explain to people their options and the consequences of their actions, but any decision was up to the individual. 80--~521 City..Hall,._Anaheim, California- COUNCIL MINUTES- November 25, 1980~ 1:30 P.M. The Mayor then closed the public hearing on the 1981-82 Program and Budget for the Community Development Block Grant Seventh Year Funding application. Mr. Priest then clarified for the Mayor that the next meeting was scheduled for December 16, 1980 and the one following, March 17, 1981 would be separate hearings and not continued meetings from this time. For all intents and purposes, decision time was this evening so that they could go forward and prepare an application, which application would virtually reflect the guidance of the Council given to- night. The Mayor then noted that relative to the South Anaheim target area, they had appropriated $20,000 for sidewalks for Tiller and Oertly Streets. On Tiller alone there were 32 houses and there was a half mile area on Oertly. He wanted to know how they could lay all that sidewalk for $20,000. Mr. Bob Jones, Civil Engineering Associate, City Engineering Department, stated that their normal sidewalk policy provided for a safe route to school for children with sidewalks on both sides of the street. The $20,000 would not put sidewalks on both sides of the street. Mr. Priest explained that between now and the time they came back to the Council on December 16th, they could seek to obtain better data and reflect that back to the Council relative to the situation on the sidewalks. MOTION: Councilwoman Kaywood moved to adopt the 1981-82 Program and Budget for the Community Development Block Grant Seventh Year Funding application, Revised Option B, approved by the CDBG Committee, (see Attachment IA) subject to clarification or modification at the meeting on December 16, 1980 when more concrete figures would be available. Before action was taken, Mr. Priest noted that on the Washington Community Center, they could take the $22,000 out of this year's funding and as he mentioned at the outset, that amount could be moved to the Contingency Fund. Councilwoman Kaywood made that a part of her motion. Councilman Seymour thereupon seconded the motion. Before a vote was taken, Councilman Bay expressed concern over the $5,250 al- located for the Villa, a rehabilitation center for women in Santa Aha. Doris Lamagna, Administrator of the Villa (recovery home and information/referral center for alcholic women), 910 North French Street, Santa Ana, stated they had been based in Santa Ana for 18 years. Recently ~hey purchased a larger home to accommodate the need. They serviced all ladies in Orange County and never asked the cities in the County for any kind of support for anything through those 18 years. They determined how many ladies they had from each city in the County and Anaheim represented 10% of that number. At present, they had three ladies from Anaheim at their home. They went before the Santa Ana City Council last week and asked if they would allocate to them 25% of their (the Villa's) budget. The Council approved the amount from their Contingency Fund. Costa Mesa approved the same amount, Anaheim was being asked to contribute. They needed the City's help. She also explained for Councilwoman Kaywood that they were a unique facility, being the only one of its nature in Orange County. They had also received many awards and at least eight awards from Disneyland. They were a United Way Agency Member. 80- Ci, t~' Ha'Il, Anahe:L~ Califor~±a- COUNCZL ~ZNUT~,S -November 25~ 1980~ 1:30 ~,~, Mayor Seymour stated that he felt the Villa offered excellent service and they did an outstanding job. He was personally happy to see that the proposed application had been approved by the various neighborhood councils. Councilman Bay, noting there was some contingencies mentioned by Mr. Priest, was especially concerned relative to the Rental Certificate Program. He assumed the motion would include a great deal more information on just what that program would be all about. Mr. Priest stated that the Committee did provide, in the event the program were not to be adopted, funds which would be moved over into Contingency. They realized it was a totally separate action and a different program they would be undertaking, but that the Environmental Specialist would be crucial to their program if they chose to adopt it. Councilman Bay stated he assumed they would get more information and detail on the plan between now and the next public hearing; Mr. Priest explained that the program as such, in his mind, was not required at the time of submittal of the budget as long as it was provided that it was under consideration. He did not sense that there was panic or pressure that it had to be done in two or three weeks, but that it could be done as part of the Council's regular business. A vote was then taken on the foregoing motion, clarified as follows: Adopting the 1981-82 Program and Budget for the Community Development Block Grant Seventh Year Funding Application Revised Option B approved by the CDBG Committee as follows: Housing, $1,097,000; Public Works, $320,000; Parks & Recreation, $219,500; Other Programs, $75,250; Administration, $145,000; Citizen Partici~ pation, $70,000; Contingency, $73,150; Total, $2,000,000 with the $22,000 amount out of this year's funding for the Washington Community Center being moved into the Contingency Fund, such approval subject to clarification or modification at the meeting on December 16, 1980. Councilman Roth was absent. MOTION CARRIED. Councilman Overholt stated that relative to the item brought to their attention by the Patrick Henry Council, he asked Mr. Priest to comment on the proposal that an Interdepartmental Task Force be formed to work as a task force from the City Council. Further, Mr. Talley would like to comment, subsequently he would be prepared to make a motion. Mr. Priest stated he had discussed the matter with Mr. Talley because the pro- posal was something he (Talley) had been thinking about and it was something that did fit in line with the kind of program he had in mind. He (Priest) would be happy to undertake and coordinate that effort. As far as the reporting mechanism, they were obligated as part of their work with HUD to monitor the program and thus it was in line with work they would be undertaking. They would have no problem in continuing dialogue with the Councils, but all of them and not just one. Insofar as their working and meeting with the City Council, he sug- gested that they meet with the Council on more of a workshop basis, rather than a formal Council meeting. It would be a matter of Council decision in terms of their own schedules as to when they felt it would be appropriate to meet. Mayor Seymour first stated that he supported the attitude and spirit in which the motions were offered by the Patrick Henry Council, but prior to getting locked in, he felt the goals and the plan for implementation needed to be defined and once done, it would be appropriate to set a time frame for reporting. 80-1523 City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - November 25, 1980, 1:30 P.M. The motions should be worded in such a fashion so that nobody would be hemmed in until specifics were provided. He thereupon suggested the following changes on the first proposed motion contained in letter dated November 25, 1980 from the Co-chairman of the Patrick Henry Neighborhood Council: Proposed motion as now worded--"l. A motion instructing the City Manager to form an Interdepartmental Task Force within 30 days to work with the Patrick Henry Neighborhood Council Task Force to implement a plan to revitalize the Patrick Henry neighborhood." Suggestion reworded: Instructing the City Manager to form an Interdepartmental Task Force within 30 days to work with each Neighborhood Council to implement a plan to revitalize the appropriate neighborhood. MOTION: Councilman Seymour thereupon offered the foregoing motion amended as articulated. Before action was taken, Councilman Overholt first asked to hear from the City Manager. City Manager William Talley stated that Mr. Priest expressed the staff's feeling on the matter. They had discussed the appropriateness of using task force approaches where they assigned one person from the staff and based upon the needs they saw, request participation from other department heads on an ad hoc basis. With the Patrick Henry Council, it might be that they would need a slightly different task force than the others and also with regard to the frequency that meetings might be called. He normally left that to the depart- ment head heading the task force or whoever he assigned as to who the partici-. pants would be and how often they would meet. He felt the motion as presented by the Mayor or the one prior was appropriate, as long as it was understood they would be doing the same thing with each Council. Councilman Overholt stated it seemed to him that the concept proposed was that there would be a task force from the Neighborhood Council so that that Council would come with its task force to meet with the Interdepartmental Task Force not only to implement the plans, but also to form plans. It seemed to him that Motion No. 1 should give the opportunity to both form and implement plans. It should provide for the interrelationship between the Interdepartmental Task Force and the Neighborhood Council Task Force to form and implement specific plans revitalizing that respective neighborhood. That was different from the thrust of the Mayor's concept. He viewed the process as developing the plans. He felt that the Councils wanted to know at least in a certain period of time there was going to be a report and an opportunity to have dialogue with the City Council. A workshop was the term used by Mr. Priest. He felt that two months was too short a time span, but they should at least give assurance that within a certain period of time there would be a report and an opportunity to have dialogue. He was of the opinion that the people did want the Council locked in. Mr. Daddario stated that they wanted to work with the Council. Councilman Overholt was correct in his observation. They were looking for the help coming from the Council and at their direction to the various departments in the City to help them formulate positive, orderly, intelligent plans. What they pre- sented in written form was what a group of citizens spending a great deal of 80- 1S24 City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - November 25, 1980, 1:30 P.M. time put together. They did want to be able to have dialogue with the Council. He also had no objection to including all the neighborhoods in that concept. MOTION: Councilman Overholt moved that the City Manager form an Interdepart- mental Task Force to work with the Neighborhood Council Task Forces to formulate and implement specific plans to revitalize the respective neighborhoods. Council- man Seymour seconded the motion. Before a vote was taken, discussion ensued between Councilman Overholt and the Mayor relative to the elimination of the 30-day time frame as suggested in proposed motion by the Neighborhood Council. At the conclusion, Mr. Priest asked for a point of clarification, in his own mind, he did not envision most of the neighborhoods as needing a plan as a document. He was not certain if that was what he was hearing--that they were not seeking some document which might be called a plan. With Patrick Henry, for instance, they were talking about certain things which he was p~epared to report that they had already accomplished and there were a number of things they were a long way from accomplishing. Mayor Seymour stated the way he would interpret the motion was to take what the Patrick Henry Neighborhood Council shows starting on Page 1 to be their goals and having the Interdepartmental Task Force meet with their Task Force and have them either buy off on the goals, amend the goals, etc., and secondly, to set potential deadlines for completion so that there was agreement. MOTION: Councilman Overholt then offered a second and third motion as follows: That progress reports from the Interdepartmental Task Force and Neighborhood Council Task Force be submitted to the City Council at least every six months. That an evening City Council workshop meeting with the Interdepartmental and Neighborhood Council Task Forces be scheduled to discuss matters concerning matters of revitalization of the respective neighborhoods at least every six months. Before action was taken, Mayor Seymour stated it was his opinion that six months was not soon enough, but perhaps to meet 90 days from now at a similar meeting as that taking place tonight to talk about the plan that would be developed over that time frame. If the plan was being carried out smoothly, they might not have to meet for another year. It was important that they keep the faith, but yet not make promises they could not keep. Mr. Daddario suggested rather than a monthly progress report recommended in the second proposed motion that it be on a three month basis vs. a six month basis. They did want the MBO performance report as mentioned by the Mayor. Councilman Overholt then repeated his first motion as previously articulated; Councilman Bay thereupon stated that he would like a clearer definition as to the meaning of an Interdepartmental Task Force. He heard that Mrs. Stipkovich and Mr. Priest were already working on that action and when they needed depart- ment heads or whoever they might need, they called them in on an ad hoc basis. He wanted to know if that was what they meant. Both the Mayor and Councilman Overholt indicated that his understanding was correct. 80-152~ City Hail, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - November 25, 1980, 1:30 P.M. Mr. Priest stated he would like it to be something where they recognized the departments involved, and those department heads would designate either them- selves or a responsibile member of their management as a member of the Task Force. Then the ad hoc nature would take over so that everybody did not have to come together for every problem. They would then know going in that there was a responsible management contact person from the respective departments. City Manager Talley stated that was the administrative direction Mr. Priest had. Mayor Seymour then stated what was intended was a written plan. Mr. Priest stated he had no problem with that with one exception, the amount of time that would be occupied with the plan. He wanted to get on with the program because they were actually in the middle of it. He would not be comfortable if formulating a plan caused them to hesitate and come to a stop on anything. If it expedited the program, then he was very much in favor. A vote was then taken on the first motion offered by Councilman Overholt. Councilman Roth was absent. MOTION CARRIED. Councilman Overholt then repeated his second motion as previously articulated. Before action was taken, Mayor Seymour stated he would prefer to see it in a 90-day form or add a sentence, "the timeliness of the reports to be set upon plan adoption." Councilwoman Kaywood felt that it should be flexible enough so that they would not be mired down in more paperwork. She suggested 90 days with flexibility. Councilman Overholt suggested at least every three months and they could move to ask for a report in 90 days as to the progress, but not go beyond that. Mr. Priest stated that from a department head standpoint, he expected to monitor that on a 90-day basis and that would be part of their departmental operation. Councilman Overholt thereupon amended his motion to stipulate every 90 days instead of every six months. Councilwoman Kaywood seconded the motion. Councilman Roth was absent. MOTION CARRIED. Councilman Overholt thereupon repeated his third motion as previously articulated. Councilman Bay seconded the motion. Councilman Roth was absent. MOTION CARRIED. Mayor Seymour stated that the evening had been an extremely productive one. He thanked each of the Neighborhood Councils on behalf of the City Council. AJDOURNMENT: Councilwoman Kaywood moved to adjourn. Councilman Overholt seconded the motion. Councilman Roth was absent. MOTION CARRIED. Adjourned; 11:09 P.M. LINDA D. ROBERTS, CITY CLERK