Loading...
1979/04/1779-402 City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - April 17, 1979, 1:30 P.M. PRESENT: ABSENT: PRESENT: INVOCATION: Invocation. FLAG SALUTE: The City Council of the City of Anaheim met in regular session. COUNCIL MEMBERS: Overholt, Kaywood, Kott, Roth and Seymour COUNCIL MEMBERS: None CITY MANAGER: William O. Talley CITY ATTORNEY: William P. Hopkins CITY CLERK: Linda D. Roberts RISK MANAGER: Jack Love UTILITIES EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR: Gordon W. Hoyt ASSISTANT DIRECTOR FOR ZONING: Annika Santalahti ASSISTANT PLANNER: Robert Kelley Mayor Seymour called the meeting to order and welcomed those in attendance to the Council meeting. Reverend Warren Pittman, St. Michael's Episcopal Church, gave the Councilwoman Miriam Kaywood led the assembly in the Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag. 114: COUNCIL REORGANIZATION: The City Clerk reported this was the appropriate day to designate a member of the City Council as Mayor Pro Tem, in accordance with the City Charter and Council Policy No. 111. Councilman Seymour nominated Councilman B.LlewellynOverholt, Jr., as Mayor Pro Tem Councilwoman Kaywood seconded the nomination. On motion by Councilwoman Kaywood, seconded by Councilman Seymour, nominations for Mayor Pro Tem were closed. MOTION CARRIED. On motion by Councilman Seymour, seconded by Councilwoman Kaywood, Councilman E.L!ewellynOverholt, Jr., was designated Mayor Pro Tem. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 119: PROCLAMATIONS: The following proclamations were issued by biayor Seymour and approved by the City Council: "Cancer Control Month" - April 1979 "Parliamentary Law Month" - May 1979 "Volunteer Recognition Week" - April 20-26, 1979 "Clean Air Week" - April 30-May 6, 1979 Ruth Vanderloh accepted the proclamation on Cancer Control Month, and Faye Mauceri accepted the proclamation on Parliamentary Law Month. MINUTES: Councilwoman Kaywood moved to approve the minutes of the regular meet- ing of October 17, 1978 and January 30, 1979 subject to corrections on the January 30, 1979 meeting, and to add to the minutes of December 5, 1978 (approved 79-403 City Hall~ Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - April 17, 1979, 1:30 P.M. April 10, 1979), Page 78- , Paragraph 3, Line 2: "as an example, he had left his engine running in the garage for 15 minutes while he answered the phone, and the car caught fire." Before any action was taken, Mayor Seymour stated he assumed the reason there was no second to the motion was because Councilman Kott was involved in the motion. He asked Councilman Kott if he had read the addition. Councilman Kott stated the point that was trying to be made was to make him look irresponsible. It was petty, of no consequence, and costly and all of the non- meaningful corrections that were being made by Councilwoman Kaywood were costing the taxpayers a lot of money, and they accomplished nothing. They did not produce better government or better Council meetings, and he would vote against the addi- tion. MOTION: Councilman Seymour therefore offered a motion approving the minutes of the regular meeting held October 17, 1978 and January 30, 1979, subject to corrections, but excluding the addition to the minutes of December 5, 1978 as proposed by Councilwoman Kaywood. Councilman Overholt seconded the motion. Before a vote was taken, Councilwoman Kaywood stated that the statement was made and if it was omitted from the minutes, that portion would instead reflect a matter of opinion without the addition. Councilman Kott emphasized that the minutes were filled with opinions and he saw nothing wrong with that. Councilwoman Kaywood countered that when she wanted to add something that was her opinion, Councilman Kott objected to her so doing. Further, there was no cost to change and correct the minutes. Mayor Seymour stated that the minutes were put together by the City Clerk and they were a synopsis of the activity and discussions that took place. The spirit in which they last dealt with additions to the minutes was that in the event an individual Council Member believed the minutes did not properly reflect what they had said and, in fact, the tape recording of the minutes supported that belief, then they could be and would be corrected. There was nothing wrong with Councilwoman Kaywood correcting the minutes as she had done earlier to more properly reflect what she had said. Relative to the present problem, he felt there was a sensitivity in Councilwoman Kaywood taking the responsibility upon herself to amend minutes to, in her opinion, properly reflect what another Council Member had said, and that was the difference. Councilwoman Kaywood stated that the statement was made, and it appeared in a newspaper article on December 14, 1978. Mayor Seymour explained that as Councilman Kott stated, the minutes were a synopsis and there was much verbalizing that was not included. Being sensitive to Council- man Kott's position, right, wrong or indifferent, he was saying that he did not intend what she was trying to amend and objected to it, as he would do similarly. 79-404 City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - April 17, 1979, 1:30 P.M. He did not need one of his colleagues putting words in his mouth and if they wanted to work together, she must refrain from doing so unless the matter was of great magnitude, seriously affecting the future conduct of the meeting or the business of the City. Councilwoman Kaywood stated that she did not put words in Councilman Kott's mouth and his statement was exactly as she presented it. If it was not to be included then she requested that the second sentence of that paragraph as follows be removed: "he gave as an example the catalytic converter which was a federal regulation for use on cars to reduce pollution, in reality, had other detrimental affects." Mayor Seymour stated he would first call for the question on the motion and subsequently if Councilman Kott cared to amend his comments in any way to more properly clarify the matter, he would rule that motion to be in order. Councilwoman Kaywood stated she was then going to ask that the biayor separate his motion approving the minutes of October 17, 1978 and January 30, 1979 and excluding the addition to the minutes of December 5, 1978 because she wanted to vote "no" on that portion since she was opposed to the exclusion. The Mayor stated that could properly be reflected on the record. A vote was then taken on the foregoing motion by Councilman Seymour. MOTION C~dtRIED. Mayor Seymour stated that although the motion carried it should be noted that Councilwoman Kaywood had opposed the exclusion of the addition to the minutes of December 5, 1978. He then asked Councilman Kott if he wanted to offer a motion amending the minutes or clarifying what he said about his car, the catalytic converter or the federal government. Councilman Kott explained basically what he said was that at the time his car was burning, the Fire Department responded and also stated that was a common occurrence with cars equipped with catalytic converters. They cited examples on the freeway and at parks where fires had occurred because of the catalytic converters becoming excessively hot. They stated it was scourge for the Fire Department and automobile owners. He saw nothing wrong with the minutes the way they were written and they reflected exactly his intention. It was not a verbatim trans- cript. WAIVER OF READING - ORDINANCES AND RESOLUTIONS: Councilwoman Kaywood moved to waive the reading, in full, of all ordinances and resolutions and that consent to the waiver of reading is hereby given by all Council Members unless, after reading of the title, specific request is made by a Council Member for the read- ing of such ordinance or resolution. Councilman Overholt seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. FINANCIAL DEMANDS AGAINST THE CITY in the amount of $6,849,308.13, in accordance with the 1978-79 Budget, were approved. 79-405 City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - April 17, 1979, 1:30 P.M. 160: PURCHASE OF EQUIPMENT - CRAWLER TYPE TRACTOR - BID NO. 3515: On motion by Councilman Seymour, seconded by Councilman Roth, the low bid of Shepherd biachinery was accepted and purchase authorized in the amount of $63,025.48, including tax, as recommended by the Purchasing Agent in his memorandum dated April 11, 1979. MOTION CARRIED. 160: PROCUREMENT OF TOTAL COPY SYSTEM: City Manager William Talley stated that they had received a request from one of the bidders that certain statements made by members of City staff be reevaluated. He therefore recommended a one-week continuance for considering the procurement of a total copy system. On motion by Councilman Roth, seconded by Councilwoman Kaywood, consideration of procurment of a total copy system was continued one week. MOTION CARRIED. 123: SOIL TESTING SERVICES FOR PEARSON PARK POOL COMPLEX CONSTRUCTION: On motion by Councilman Roth, seconded by Councilwoman Kaywood, the Letter Agreement with Converse Ward Davis Dixon for a consulting engineer to provide soil testing services for the Pearson Park Pool Complex construction in an amount not to exceed $850, was approved, as recommended in memorandum dated April 11, 1979 from the City Engineer. MOTION CARRIED. 106: SCHEDULE OF PUBLIC HEARINGS FOR FEDERAL GENERAL SHARING AND FISCAL YEAR 1979/80 RESOURCE ALLOCATION PLAN: On motion by Councilman Kott, seconded by Councilman Roth, the schedule of public hearings for Federal General Revenue Sharing pur- poses and for the Fiscal Year 1979/80 proposed Resource Allocation Plan was adopted, as presented in memorandum dated April 9, 1979 from Ron Rothschild, Assistant Finance Director--Resources. MOTION CARRIED. 155: ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT NO. 221 RELATING TO THE ELECTRICAL TRANSMISSION LINE FOR SANTA ANA CA~NYON: City Mmnager Talley reported that the Planning Department had determined that the action requested in memorandum dated April 11, 1979 regarding the subject was not now necessary. On motion by Councilman Kott, seconded by Councilman Roth, the motion was removed from the agenda. MOTION CARRIED. 169: AWARD OF CONTRACT - A.H.F.P. PROJECT NOS. 908, 909, AND 846: Councilman Roth offered Resolution No. 79R-220 for adoption awarding a contract as recom- mended by the City Engineer. Refer to Resolution Book. 169: RESOLUTION NO. 79R-220: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM ACCEPTING A SEALED PROPOSAL AND AWARDING A CONTRACT TO THE LOWEST RESPONSIBLE BIDDER FOR THE FURNISHING OF ALL PLANT, LABOR, SERVICES, MATERIALS AND EQUIPMENT AND ALL UTILITIES AND TRANSPORTATION INCLUDING POWER, FUEL AND WATER, AND PERFORMING ALL WORK NECESSARY TO CONSTRUCT AND COMPLETE THE FOLLOWING PUBLIC IMPROVEMENT: NOHL RANCH ROAD STREET IMPROVEMENTS - PHASE II, IMPERIAL HIGHWAY TO NOHL CANYON ROAD, ACCOUNT NOS. 13-792-6325-2130, 13-794-6325-4090, 01-794-6325-4090, A.H.F.P. NOS. 908 AND 909; MEATS AVENUE STREET IMPROVEMENT, S/O NOHL RANCH ROAD, ACCOUNT NO. 13-792-6325-2150, A.H.F.P. NO. 846, IN THE CITY OF ANAHEIM. (Griffith Company, $743,832.71) 79-406 City Hall, Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - April 17, 1979, 1:30 P.M. Roll Call Vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: COUNCIL MEMBERS: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Overholt, Kaywood, Kott, Roth and Seymour None None The Mayor declared Resolution No. 79R-220 duly passed and adopted. 123: TEMPORARY TRANSFER OF GUSTAVO A. DURAN TO THE CALIFORNIA CONSERVATION CORPS: Councilman Kott offered Resolution No. 79R-207 for adoption, as recommended in joint memorandum dated April 10, 1979 from the Human Resources and Community Development Directors, rescinding Resolution No. 79R-25, and authorizing a Third Amendment to an agreement with the State of California for the temporary transfer of Gustavo A. Duran, Neighborhood Development Coordinator, to the California Conservation Corps, extending said agreement to January 17, 1980. Refer to Resolution Book. RESOLUTION NO. 79R-207: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM APPROVING THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF A THIRD AMENDMENT TO AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AND THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA AND AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR AND CITY CLERK TO EXECUTE SAID AGREEMENT. Roll Call Vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: COUNCIL MEMBERS: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Overholt, Kaywood, Kott, Roth and Seymour None None The Mayor declared Resolution No. 79R-207 duly passed and adopted. 123/161: PARKS DIVISION OFFICES - NON-RESIDENTIAL RENTAL AGREEMENT WITH THE REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY: Councilman Kott offered Resolution No. 79R-208 for adoption, as recommended in memorandum dated April 5, 1979 from the Public Works Executive Director Thorton Piersall, approving the Non-Residential Agreement with the Redevelopment Agency for the Parks Division Offices, 113 West Chartres Street, in the amount of $435 per month, commencing June 1, 1978, until the City Hall is constructed. Refer to Resolution Book. RESOLUTION NO. 79R-208: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM APPROVING A NONRESIDENTIAL RENTAL AGREEMENT WITH THE ANAHEIM REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY FOR THE PARK DIVISION OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM. Roll Call Vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: COUNCIL MEMBERS: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Overholt, Kaywood, Kott, Roth and Seymour None None The Mayor declared Resolution No. 79R-208 duly passed and adopted. 79-407 City Hall~ Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - April 17~ 1979~ 1:30 P.M. 123: TELEPHONE SYSTEM FOR CITY FACILITIES: Councilwoman Kaywood offered Resolution No. 79R-209 for adoption as recommended in memorandum dated April 2, 1979 from the Public Works Executive Director, extending the agreement with Donald J. Bushor, dba COM Consultants, for an additional 60 days, to furnish services relating to a telephone system for City facilities. Refer to Resolution Book. RESOLUTION NO. 79R-209: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM APPROVING THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF A FIRST AMENDMENT TO AGREEMENT WITH DONALD J. BUSHOR, DOING BUSINESS AS COM CONSULTANTS, TO FURNISH SERVICES RE A TELEPHONE SYSTEM FOR CITY FACILITIES, 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: Overholt, Kaywood, Kott, Roth and Seymour None None The Mayor declared Resolution No. 79R-209 duly passed and adopted. 180: SELECTION OF CONTRACT BROKER FOR MARKETING CITY'S INSURANCE NEEDS: A verbatim transcript of the following proceedings is on file in the City Clerk's office, as requested by Councilwoman Kaywood. City Manager Talley announced that Dr. Nestor Roos, the City's consultant for selecting a contract broker for marketing the City's insurance needs was present today to make a presentation. Mayor Seymour stated that the Council just received a report dated April 17, 1979 from the City Attorney on the investigation into City insurance matters, and he would not vote for any recommendation until he had an opportunity to review the voluminous report which the Council had authorized regarding the whole area of Risk Management. Therefore, a one or two week continuance would be in order so that the Council might have an opportunity to review the report before taking action on the subject. MOTION: Councilman Kott moved to continue for two weeks the selection of a contract broker for a two-year minimum for marketing the City's insurance needs. Councilman Seymour seconded the motion. Before a vote was taken, Councilman Roth asked if it was possible to at least hear Dr. Roos' presentation without taking any action, since he had traveled from Arizona to meet with the Council. The Mayor was agreeable to having Dr. Roos make his presentation today. He then had clarified that Dr. Roos was working directly for and with the Council without staff assistance, since the Council had never met him. Councilman Kott stated he had no objections to hearing the presentation, but since he did not have an opportunity to read the City Attorney's report, he could not take action on something he had not read. 79-408 City Hall~. An.aheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - April 17, 1979, 1:30 P.M. Mayor Seymour stated since the Council had ordered the investigation on insurance and Risk Management, the Council ought to read and study the report before making a decision. Mr. Talley noted that the City Attorney's investigation report had nothing to do with the matter at hand today, and all the material presented regarding the subject was sent to the Council last Friday with all other agenda material. He, too, had just received the City Attorney's investigative report. A vote was then taken on the foregoing motion for a two-week continuance. MOTION CARRIED. Dr. Nestor Roos, Professor of Insurance at the University of Arizona in Tucson first stated that he was honored to have been asked to serve as the City's consultant in the selection of an agent or broker for the City of Anaheim. He had been teaching insurance and risk management for 30 years and complimented the City in the fact that the few times he had been a consultant for other governmental agencies, he had never seen eight of the top ten national brokerage firms in the country interested in writing insurance for a municipality. Of the 15 agents or brokers solicited for proposals, a response was received from 11. Eight were national firms with offices in the area and three were local agents and brokers. He stated his report outlined the techniques used in the selection process and at the request of the Mayor, Dr. Roos then briefed the Council on his detailed 4-page report dated March 28, 1979 addressed to Mr. Jack Love, Risk Manager, the subject of which was selection of agent/broker for the City of Anaheim (see report on file in the City Clerk's office). Councilman Roth and Councilwoman Kaywood then commended Dr. Roos on his compre- hensive report. Dr. Roos then confirmed for Councilwoman Kaywood that Continental General Insurance was not included as one of the companies in the top six. Mayor Seymour commented that having eight of the ten top firms in the United States interested in Anaheim's insurance business was totally contrary to what they had been told by staff; that being, because of the great debate that had been going on as to whether or not the City should be doing business with a local insurance broker or with others, that nobody would want to bid on the City's business. Dr. Roos stated that although he did not know the details of the debate, from what he gathered, it was a political factor. He felt part of the reason for the favorable response was because of the way the City went about the selection process. As a Council, they were going to choose the best people who were interested in writing the City's business. Dr. Roos also clarified for Mayor Seymour that the main advantage of the two top firms, local or otherwise, was relative to their marketing approach. It would be possible that the City could save $50,000 annually in broker fees alone under the broker contract arrangements proposed, as indicated in the Risk Manager's memorandum dated April 11, 1979. 79-409 C~ty Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - April 17, 1979, 1:30 P.M. In answer to a line of questions posed by Councilwoman Kaywood, Dr. Roos reported the following: Continental General Insurance was one of the eleven companies who responded, but they did not rate in the top six; Risk Manager, Jack Love, did not have anything to do with the ratings of the various firms; if the City were to again insure with Continental General first, he did not know if the City would be receiving the best service or the best price and secondly, if the City did not go with the two firms that were recommended by the committee, it would lose all credibility in the insurance marketplace to go against their own consultant's recommendations. He emphasized that was why the national brokerage firms were interested, because of the approach that was taken. Mayor Seymour interjected and asked for clarification that, in fact, Dr. Roos was telling the Council that if they were to select one of the other top firms, other than the two recommended, they would be damaging their ability to do business with national firms. Dr. Roos was of the opinion that it might ruin their reputation in the marketplace. Councilman Overholt asked Dr. Roos who it was that asked him to include a local firm in the top six. Dr. Roos explained that a call came to him from Mr. Love indicating he had been asked to contact him (Roos) in that regard. He then spoke with Assistant City Manager Hopkins who stated it would be a courtesy to a local man. He (Roos) stated he preferred not to do so, because that broker did not meet the criteria established by his contract. City Manager Talley clarified when the Risk Manager told him that they had selected six firms, none of them local, it was always his policy that whenever there was an incumbent or local vendor supplying services, that they at least be given the courtesy of being interviewed with the other candidates, even though normally they would be excluded by any ranking. It was a guarantee that every consideration had been given to the firm that had a number of problems with the local admin- istration so that it would be an extremely clear-cut recommendation if it was against Continental General. Dr. Roos answered that he was handling the selection process and preferred not to do that. That was the extent of the conversation. Councilman Overholt asked for clarification that the request was that he interview Continental General, but not that they be placed in the top six; Dr. Roos answered that was correct. He also clarified that the committee did not discuss the economics of the proposals submitted. When the two firms were selected, they suggested that Mr. Love talk to both of them and negotiate what their fee would be. Councilman Overholt noted in recommending the two firms, it was indicated that one had an edge over the other. He wanted to know what that might be since they were going to have to equate services and the value of those services into dollars. Dr. Roos stated that the committee selected the firm of Marsh & McLennan first and Alexander & Alexander second. They were both excellent firms. However, the proposal of Alexander & Alexander, as he recalled, was hard to beat in that they 79-410 Cit.y Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - April 17, 1979, 1:30 P.M. said they had an exclusive market for Southern California municipalities with one company which they felt was the lowest cost company. As he remembered Mr. Love's memo, it stated that if Marsh & McLennan could beat their price (Alexander & Alexander), they could have the City of Anaheim. Councilman Overholt asked for clarification from Dr. Roos that if he were sitting in the Council's spot, would he favor Alexander & Alexander. Dr. Roos stated it would be very difficult not to because they were saying, we think we are the best and if they (Marsh & McLennan) can beat us, they would be welcome to it. Council discussion with Dr. Roos then followed relative to the possibility of his returning to the City to answer any questions the Council might have after they had an opportunity to read the City Attorney's report. Councilman Roth was of the opinion that both Marsh & McLennan and Alexander & Alexander be given an opportunity to make a presentation to the Council and following that if the Council was in need of additional input, that they could ask Dr. Roos to come back at a later time. Dr. Roos stated the earliest he could return would be May 15. He also commented that the only problem with the Council interviewing two firms would be to know what kind of questions to ask and then to be able to understand what they were saying. Dr. Roos then answered a line of questioning by Councilman Kott which included an overview on risk management functions, the questionnaire that was involved and the selection process, how the answers to questions were scored for rating purposes, and other aspects, such as fees, services and the like. Mayor Seymour suggested, in the interest of time, if Dr. Roos would be willing to provide the entire study, questions, answers, ratings, in essence the work papers supporting the recommendations, to the Council. Dr. Roos stated he had his own documentation and one set from his committee which he could submit. Before concluding that aspect, Councilwoman Kaywood asked where Continental General was rated in the standings. Dr. Roos answered they were last. Their total points on his score were 15½ out of a possible 33, with the top firm receiving 27 points. The other members of the committee rated the firm from 9 points to 24~ with Continental General receiving 11~ points. Mayor Seymour then questioned Dr. Roos relative to how the determination was made inviting the 10 top brokerage firms to participate in the process, as well as the other 5 firms involved, firms who corresponded with or contacted Mr. Love although not limited to 5. Mr. Love merely submitted the letters to Dr. Roos without any recommendations and indicated they were interested and should be sent a questionnaire. 79-411 City Hall~. Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - April 17, 1979, 1:30 P.M. Mr. Jack Love, Risk Manager explained that he went through the Yellow Pages and looked for insurance brokerage firms that had commercial insurance experience. He could not find any outside of Continental General of any size in the City of Anaheim. Three other firms professed interest and he asked that they submit letters, and they would be included in the invitation. Also, one other gentleman from Anaheim contacted him, submitted a letter and subsequently withdrew conceding that he did not believe he could handle the situation. Discussion then followed between the Mayor and Mr. Love further clarifying the situation surrounding the identification of an insurance brokerage firm that might be able to compete in the market, including questioning by Councilman Kott, at the conclusion of which Dr. Roos reassured the Council that at no time were there any recommendations from Mr. Love as to whom they should contact. Councilman Roth noted, however, that somewhere along the line Continental General was included, the reason being the Assistant City Manager felt that since they had been the broker of record, it was a courtesy that should be extended. He was glad that they had an opportunity to participate and subsequently for the committee to make recommendations accordingly. Councilwoman Kaywood asked for confirmation that Dr. Roos (1) indicated the feeling he had was that 8 of the top 10 firms had applied because the patronage system or political donnybrook was out of it, since the Council had chosen an independent consultant to make the selections; further, (2) if the Council were not to choose one of the two firms recommended, that the City would lose all credibility. In answer to the first question, Dr. Roos stated that was his feeling and secondly, he felt the City would lose respect in the insurance community if the recommendation were not followed. Mayor Seymour and Councilwoman Kaywood expressed their appreciation for the work that Dr. Roos and the committee had done. The Mayor continued that relative to the whole question of patronage, the City Council should be doing business with an insurance broker who was best qualified at the lowest possible price. His personal feeling had always been that those standards should be maintained. On the other hand, if those standards could be met, that is less qualified at the best price, with a local firm, we should always be doing business with that firm, because local firms provided jobs, payroll, community services, and over a wide spectrum of capabilities, kept the community alive. If that definition met with political patronage, then he would be the first to be accused guilty, because he would not change that philosopy for Dr. Roos or anybody else. Dr. Roos stated that on the qualifications used by the Mayor, he did not call that patronage. Councilwoman Kaywood asked Dr. Roos from his evaluation of the 11 firms, if the local firm came in last, was it his feeling they could provide the best service to Anaheim. 79-412 City ~all~ A~.~heim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - April 17~ 1979~ 1:30 P.M. Dr. Roos answered "no," but he stated with the qualifications that the Mayor raised, he would agree that was not patronage. In concluding, Mayor Seymour stated that he was going to give very serious consideration to the committee's work and the recommendations. He could not say that he would vote for one of the top two, but suspected that after he read the results, it was going to be one of the firms with which they had a personal interview. RECESS: By general consent the Council recessed for 10 minutes. (3:00 P.M.) AFTER RECESS: Mayor Seymour called the meeting to order, all Council Members being present. (3:10 P.M.) 176: PUBLIC HEARING - ABANDONMENT NO. 78-8A: In accordance with an application filed by Mr. Bill Asawa, public hearing was held on proposed abandonment of a portion of unused roadway commonly known as Old Santa Ana Canyon Road located along the south side of Santa Ana Canyon Road, from 475 feet to approximately 280 feet west of Fairmont Boulevard, pursuant to Resolution No. 79R-184, duly published in the Anaheim Bulletin and notices thereof posted in accordance with law. Report of the City Engineer dated March 12, 1979 and the recommendation by the Planning Commission were submitted recommending approval of the abandonment, subject to reserving unto the City all vehicular access rights to Santa Aha Canyon Road, except at approved designated access points, if any, along Santa Ana Canyon Road. Mayor Seymour asked if anyone wished to address the Council; there being no response, he closed the public hearing. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT - CATEGORICAL EXEM]PTION: On motion by Councilman Kott, seconded by Councilman Roth, the City Council ratified the determination of the Planning Director that the proposed activity falls within the definition of Section 3.01, Class 5, of the City of Anaheim guidelines to the requirements for an Environmental Impact Report and is, therefore, categorically exempt from the requirement to file and EIR. MOTION CARRIED. Councilman Kott offered Resolution No. 79R-210 for adoption approving Abandonment No. 78-8A. Refer to Resolution Book. RESOLUTION NO. 79R-210: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM ORDERING THE VACATION AND ABANDONMENT OF A PORTION OF SANTA ANA CANYON ROAD. (78-8A) Roll Call Vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: COUNCIL MEMBERS: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Overholt, Kaywood, Kott, Roth and Seymour None None The Mayor declared Resolution No. 79R-210 duly passed and adopted. 79-413 City Hall~ Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - April 17~ 1979, 1:30 P.M. 181: PERALTA ADOBE HOUSE: Councilman Roth again broached the subject of the historical building adjacent to the subject site at Fairmont and Santa Ana Canyon Road which the County was allowing to continually deteriorate as a result of vandalism. He recalled that the Council asked HACMAC to do something about the situation, and he now recommended that they go directly to the Board of Supervisors and ask them to remove the one building that was not a histor- ical monument and to board up the historical site to prevent further damage. Councilwoman Kaywood seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. PUBLIC HEARING - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 1952: Application by Henry J. Leason, to permit a cocktail lounge with dancing on ML zoned property located at 1116 North Fountain Way with a waiver of minimum number of parking spaces. On motion by Councilwoman Kaywood, seconded by Councilman Overholt, the application for the subject CUP was withdrawn at the request of the applicant's agent. MOTION CARRIED. 150: CONSTRUCTION OF PEARSON PARK POOL: Councilwoman Kaywood offered Resolution No. 79R-211 for adoption as recommended in memorandum dated April 5, 1979, approving an amendment to the agreement with Nadar, Inc., to include Federally- mandated assurances in connection with the construction of Pearson Park Pool. Refer to Resolution Book. RESOLUTION NO. 79R-211: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM APPROVING THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF AN AMENDMENT TO AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AND NADAR, INC., AND AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR AND CITY CLERK TO EXECUTE SAID AMENDMENT TO AGREEMENT. Roll Call Vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: COUNCIL MEMBERS: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Overholt, Kaywood, Kott, Roth and Seymour None None The Mayor declared Resolution No. 79R-211 duly passed and adopted. 112: CALIFORNIA COMPUTER PRODUCTS, INC. VS. COUNTY OF ORANGE AND CITY OF ANAHEIM: On motion by Councilwoman Kaywood, seconded by Councilman Overholt, the Orange County Counsel was authorized to defend the City in California Computer Products vs. County of Orange and the City of Anaheim, as recommended in memorandum dated April 15, 1979 from the City Attorney's office. MOTION CARRIED. 158: SALE OF CITRON PARK PROPERTY (C & K SKATEPARK, INC.): City Attorney William Hopkins briefed the Council on his report dated April 11, 1979, recommending that any disposition of the Citron Park property (C & K Skatepark, Inc.) be put out to public bid, subject to specified terms. Councilwoman Kaywood asked in the event a bid was received and the property went to other than C & K Skatepark, would the property continue to be run as a skatepark. 79-414 City Hall., Anaheim, Calif__o_rnia__-._C_O~U_NCIL MINUTES - April 17~ 1979, 1:30 P.M. City Attorney Hopkins stated that that was correct; Deputy City Manager James Ruth stated they had to maintain the skatepark through 1981. MOTION: On motion by Councilman l(ott, seconded by Councilman Overholt, it was recommended that any disposition of the Citron Park property (C & K Skatepark) be put out to public bid subject to specified terms. MOTION CARRIED. Mr. Talley then referred to staff report of the Deputy City Manager prepared today, suggesting that the City Council consider allocating the funds from the sale of the subject property for park improvements at various elementary schools and also for the improvement of John Marshall Park. He wanted to know if the Council preferred to have that matter brought back at the next Council meeting or to give Mr. Ruth preliminary instructions on it. They had looked at the neighborhood, and they could find no one who was willing to sell a parcel of land in that vicinity for development as a park. However, they had identified three elementary schools that could be upgraded and at some point staff would appreciate receiving direction. The Mayor was of the opinion that it would be fitting to make an allocation at the time the property was sold. Mr. Talley interpreted that to mean they could then proceed to have preliminary discussions with the school districts, and they would be trying to achieve as much agreement as possible as to where improvements might be made, as well as the Parks and Recreation Commission, as suggested by Councilman Roth. In answer to Councilman Overholt, Deputy City Manager Ruth reported that the proceeds would be devoted to recreational type facilities that would be available to the general public for use. He discussed the matter with the Superintendent of Schools, Mr. Brier and he was very receptive to his working a program out where they could improve some of the open space areas for soccer, handball and those kinds of services that would be conducive to that neighborhood. Councilman Overholt noted picnic facilities were mentioned, and he wanted to know if picnic facilities were possible on school grounds. Mr. Ruth stated it would be an attraction. The problems they were faced with at present involved unsolicited, unorganized groups using school grounds on the weekends and leaving a mess. They felt if it could be better organized by providing picnic facilities, trash receptacles and the like, it would reduce the maintenance problems. He toured the facilities within the subject general service area (Ross, Franklin and Revere Schools), and Mr. Brier was receptive to that idea. Councilman Overholt stated that he felt the concept was a good one, and he would like to see it developed. 181: ANAHEIM HISTORIC MUSEUM COMMITTEE: On motion by Councilwoman Kaywood, seconded by Councilman Roth, the request of Midge Taggart, Chairman of the Anaheim Historic Museum Committee to use the names of the Mayor and Council Members on the Committee's personalized stationery was approved. MOTION CARRIED. 79-415 City Ha.ll, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - April 17, 1979, 1:30 P.M. Councilman Overholt requested that his name include, "Jr." CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 1898 - EXTENSION OF TIME: Request by Thomas C. Cochran, requesting an extension of time to Conditional Use Permit No. 1898, to permit an outdoor construction storage yard on CL zoned property located at 2325 Sequoia Avenue, was submitted together with a recommendation from the Zoning Division. Councilwoman Kaywood noted that a communication had been received from Mrs. Bertha Payan, owner of the adjoining property, opposing the requested extension of time. She considered what Mrs. Payan had to say was germane relative to promises made and not yet complied with regarding zoning, and thus she would be opposed to any further time extension. Mayor Seymour noted that the requested extension would expire on May 3, 16 days from today, and he did not see anything unreasonable in granting that 16 days. On motion by Councilman Seymour, seconded by Councilman Kott, the request of Thomas C. Cochran for an extension of time to Conditional Use Permit No. 1898 was approved, to expire May 3, 1979, as recommended. MOTION CARRIED. Councilman Roth asked that Mrs. Payan be notified that the extension was granted, noting that it would expire in 16 days. 123/175: R.W. BECK AND ASSOCIATES - INCREASE IN CONTRACT AMOUNT: Councilwoman Kaywood offered Resolution No. 79R-212 for adoption as recommended by the Public Utilities Board in memorandum dated April 9, 1979, approving an increase in the contract amount of the agreement with R.W. Beck and Associates in the amount of $46,000. Refer to Resolution Book. RESOLUTION NO. 79R-212: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM APPROVING AN INCREASE OF $46,000.00 IN THE MAXIMUM COMPENSATION TO BE PAID TO R. W. BECK & ASSOCIATES PURSUANT TO THAT CERTAIN AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AND R. W. BECK & ASSOCIATES DATED APRIL 15, 1975. Roll Call Vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: COUNCIL MEMBERS: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Overholt, Kaywood, Roth and Seymour Kott None The Mayor declared Resolution No. 79R-212 duly passed and adopted. 123: PROPOSED FIRST AMENDMENT TO AN AGREEMENT WITH ALAN R. WATTS FOR LEGAL SERVICES: Mayor Seymour stated he had a question and some concern over the recommendation, and it was his understanding that it was subject to a long discussion at the Public Utilities Board meeting. The recommended increase from $55 an hour to $65 an hour represented an 18% increase which, in his opinion_~_ was substantial. He questioned why the Board and Mr. Hoyt were not recommending something consistent with President Carter's guidelines. 79-416 City Hall~ Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - April 17, 1979~ 1:30 P.M. Public Utilities General bianager Gordon Hoyt explained that they did go to the Board, and it was a tie vote the first time 2-2, and the second time it carried, 3-1 amongst the four members present. The reason the increase seemed substantial was due to the fact that the $55 a hour rate had been in effect for almost 32 months, the time when the City entered into an agreement with Mr. Watts almost immediately after he left City employment. Since that time, their law offices and facilities had expanded, and they also now had a library from which the City secured benefit. Mr. Watts indicated to him that the cost of operation of his office had risen 61%. A great deal of the increase was covered by cost for employees, and thus it was not all for personal salary. Further, costs were divided with the City of Riverside and a number of agreements were split 50-50 and some 60-40. Councilman Kott was of the opinion if a person's business costs skyrocketed, that was not his problem and if the City had to compensate for the 61% increase, it would seem that they should put the matter out to bid. If the law firm was doing business for two cities, the work would not be twice as much, but perhaps only 10% more. As he viewed it in working for the two cities, the pay scale would almost double, and he considered that excessive. Mr. Hoyt explained 40% of Mr. Watts' hourly rate went to Riverside and 60% to Anaheim, and he did not double the time. After further discussion regarding the fee formula, Councilman Seymour offered a Resolution approving a 7% increase in the cost of Mr. Watts' services to the City. Before any action was taken, Councilwoman Kaywood noted that under the President's regulations, increases could be up to 7% per year; thus she asked if no increase had been given in almost three years, should it still be at 7%. The Mayor answered in his opinion it should be 7%. Councilman Overholt stated he would vote against the Resolution. They were dealing with a lawyer and a lawyer's compensation was dependent upon what a lawyer of equivalent expertise was getting in the community. It was his feeling that for an attorney of Mr. Watts' experience and expertise, particularly in the specialty of power supply, that $65 was a median rate after having been compensated at $55 an hour for the past 32 months. To apply a standard base passed down by the President for the country as a whole or the Governor for the State in dealing with an attorney of Mr. Watts' capabilities and familiarity with the City's problems was not appropriate. He reiterated he would vote against the Resolution and thereupon offered a Resolution to approve the rec- ommended increase and First Amendment to the Agreement with Alan R. Watts. Before any action was taken, Councilman Overholt asked the City Attorney if he wanted to give an opinion relative to the increase. Both had seen judges, as well as arbitration committees, set attorney fees. City Attorney Hopkins stated that he believed that Councilman Overholt's statement that $65 was a median figure to be correct. He had seen rates range from $55 an hour to $85 a hour, depending upon experience and capabilities. 79-417 City. Ha~l~ Anaheim, .Califo. rnia- COUNCIL MINUTES - April 17, 1979, 1:30 P.M. Mayor Seymour maintained that attorney fees, just as all other professionals, were a matter of negotiation. The last time they discussed attorney fees relative to the utilities, he made a point that when anybody did business in such a volume, it was worth substantially more because of the size of the involve- ment rather than some hourly fee. The scope of the contract had to be taken into consideration and what it was worth over a year's time. He would then suspect that that fee would be negotiable downward because of the volume. In answer to Councilman Kott, Mr. Hoyt stated that he had not looked at the total volume of business done with Mr. Watts over the period of his agreement with the City. He was very actively involved with Anaheim and he was the only attorney, to his knowledge, in Orange County or Southern California who had the ability and expertise to deal with power supply and electric rate matters. Mayor Seymour stated that he did not find fault with the work of Mr. Watts and considered him to be a competent attorney who was doing a fine job. However, when dealing in contracts of the magnitude involved, he did not feel that they had to follow some fee schedule. He was certain that the Council was sensitive to the calls they received relative to utility rates and to do anything that would impact those rates was not proper, philosophically. Councilman Overholt stated that the Mayor's comments raised two questions, (1) what was the volume of business and, (2) had a fee been negotiated. Mr. Hoyt stated that he could not give the dollar volume today, but would do so. Relative to the second question, Mr. Watts informed him that his costs of business were such that he felt he had to raise his fees. He was reluctant to do so and suggested that the effective date be July 1, 1979, rather than immediately. Councilman Overholt asked if the $50 an hour Associate fee was part of the existing contract. Mr. Hoyt answered that was something new. He had become concerned in recent months with the volume of activity taking place to a point where either he or Mr. Watts had to cover all bases. It was difficult to have either of them attend some of the affairs necessary and do the contractual work as well. He suggested to Mr. Watts that he consider bringing Associates into the firm so that there would be backup. Otherwise if something happened to Mr. Watts, it would leave a large void. Councilman Roth moved to continue the matter one week wherein answers could be supplied to the two questions posed by the Mayor. Councilman Kott seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. CONSENT CALENDAR ITEMS: On motion by Councilman Roth, seconded by Councilman Kott, the following actions were authorized in accordance with the reports and recommendations furnished each Council Member and as listed on the Consent Calendar Agenda: 79-418 City Hall~ Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - April 17~ 1979, 1:30 P.M. 1. 118: CLAIMS AGAINST THE CITY: The following claims were denied and referred to the City's insurance carrier or the self-insurance administrator: a. Claim submitted by Sonia Gomberg for personal injuries purportedly sustained as a result of obstacle on public sidewalk, on or about January 19, 1979. b. Claim submitted by John and Eva Tordai for damages purportedly sustained as a result of failure to remove illegally parked truck, which resulted in accident causing death of claimants' son, John "Bud" Tordai, on or about January 3, 1979. c. Claim submitted by Dennis Gene Erickson for personal injuries purportedly sustained as a result of incorrectly marked barricades to road construction on or about January 17, 1979. d. Claim submitted by Eva Dame for vehicle damages purportedly sustained as a result of unmarked hole in street, on or about March 21, 1979. The following Application For Permission To File Late Claim was denied: e. Claim submitted by Jean Stasik for Karen Jean and John Geraghty (minors) for damages purportedly sustained as a result of the death of Terrence Stasik on or about April 21, 1978. 2. CORRESPONDENCE: The following correspondence was ordered received and filed: a. 105: Con~nunity Services Board - M~nutes of February 8 and 22, 1979. b. 105: Project Area Committee - Minutes of March 27, 1979. c. 156: Police Department - Monthly Report for March 1979. d. 105: Community Redevelopment Commission - Minutes of April 4, 1979. e. 175: Before the Public Utilities Commission Application No. 57763, in the matter of Mexcursions, Inc., for a certificate to operate tour service between points in San Diego and Anaheim. 3. 108: APPLICATIONS: Application "a" was approved and application "b" was denied, in accordance with the recommendations of the Chief of Police: a. Public Dance Permit submitted by Anaheim Soccer Club, for a dance to be held April 14, 1979, at 6:00 P.M. to 1:30 A.M., at the Anaheim Convention Center. (Felipe Jesus Guerena, applicant) b. Amusement Device Permit submitted by Anaheim Fun Center, 884 West Lincoln Avenue for pinball and video machines. (Ronald Dale, applicant) MOTION CARRIED. 79-419 City Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - April 17, 1979, 1:30 P.M. CONSENT CALENDAR ITEMS: Councilman Kott offered Resolution Nos. 79R-213 through 79R-219, 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. 79R-213: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM ACCEPTING CERTAIN DEEDS AND ORDERING THEIR RECORDATION. (Bernard George; W. Earl Garr Jr., et ux.) 144: RESOLUTION NO. 79R-214: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM APPROVING THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF AN AGREEMENT FOR RIGHT-OF-WAY ACQUISITION WITH THE COUNTY OF ORANGE AND AUTHORIZING AND DIRECTING THE b~YOR AND CITY CLERK TO EXECUTE SAID AGREEMENT. (Arterial Highway Financing Program - No. 941 and No. 942 - Cerritos Avenue westerly of State College Boulevard and State College Boulevard southerly of Cerritos Avenue) 173: RESOLUTION NO. 79R-215: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM APPROVING THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF A LICENSE AGREEMENT WITH THE ATCHISON, TOPEKA AND SANTA FE RAILWAY COMPANY ("SANTA FE"), AND THE SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON COMPANY ("EDISON") AND AUTHORIZING AND DIRECTING THE MAYOR AND CITY CLERK TO EXECUTE SAID AGREEMENT. (License No. BM-70083) 149: RESOLUTION NO. 79R-216: 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: PHILADELPHIA STREET PARKING LOT IMPROVEMENT, ACCOUNT NO. 46-792-6325-2170, AND PHILADELPHIA STREET AND CLAUDINA STREET, ACCOUNT NO. 46-792-6325-2220, IN THE CITY OF ANAHIEM. (Ruiz Engineering Company) 164: RESOLUTION NO. 79R-217: 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: STATE COLLEGE BOULEVARD SEWER LATERAL, S/O SYCAMORE STREET, IN THE CITY OF ANAHEIM, ACCOUNT NO. 11-790-6325-0140. (Fleming Engineering, Inc.) 167: RESOLUTION NO. 79R-218: 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: TRAFFIC SIGNAL AND SAFETY LIGHTING INSTALLATION AT THE INTERSECTION OF PACIFICO AVENUE AND STATE COLLEGE BOULEVARD, IN THE CITY OF ANAHEIM, ACCOUNT NO. 12-4309-712-16-0812, 1977-78, AND ACCOUNT NO. 12-795-6325-5010, 1978-79. (Steiny and Company) 79-420 ~ity Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - April 17~ 1979, 1:30 P.M. 169: RESOLUTION NO. 79R-219: 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 TRAlqSPORTATION INCLUDING POWER, FUEL AND WATER, AND THE PERFORMANCE OF ALL WORK NECESSARY TO CONSTRUCT AND COMPLETE THE FOLLOWING PUBLIC IMPROVEMENT, TO WIT: HELENA STREET STREET IMPROVE- MENT AND SECURITY PACIFIC BANK STORM DRAIN, LINCOLN AVENUE TO N/O CHESTNUT STREET, IN THE CITY OF ANAHEIM, ACCOUNT NO. 46-792-6325-2270. (J.E.G. Construction Comapany) Roll Call Vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: COUNCIL MEMBERS: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Overholt, Kaywood, Kott, Roth and Seymour None None The Mayor declared Resolution Nos. passed and adopted. 79R-213 through 79R-219, both inclusive, duly CITY PLANNING COMMISSION ITEMS: The following actions taken by the City Planning Commission at their meeting held March 26, 1979, pertaining to the following applications, as listed on the Consent Calendar, were submitted for City Council information. 1. RECLASSIFICATION NO. 78-79-36: Submitted by Kenneth Kallman, for a change in zone from ML to CL to construct a two-story commercial office building on property located at 1530 West Lincoln Avenue. The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC79-57, granted Reclas- sification No. 78-79-36 and granted negative declaration status. 2. RECLASSIFICATION NO. 78-79-39 AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 1959: Submitted by City of Anaheim, for a change in zone from PR to RS-A-43,000(SC) to permit a commercial equestrian center on property located at 6352 Nohl Ranch Road. The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution Nos. PC79-58 and PC79-59, granted Reclassification No. 78-79-39 and Conditional Use Permit No. 1959 and granted negative declaration status. 3. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 1939: Submitted by Roman Catholic Bishop of Orange, to permit a church with accessory school facilities on RS-A-43,000(SC) zoned property located at the southwest corner of Santa Ana Canyon Road and Solomon Drive with a waiver of maximum structural height. The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC79-60, granted Conditional Use Permit No. 1939 and granted negative declaration status. 4. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 1954: Submitted by Ernest and Elisa Stephens, to retain a child day care center in an existing residence on RS-iO,O00 zoned property located at 605 North Harbor Boulevard with code waivers of minimum side yard and permitted type and size of sign. 79-421 City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - April 17, 1979~ 1:30 P.M. The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC79-64, denied Conditional Use Permit No. 1954 and granted negative declaration status. 5. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 1963: Submitted by Frank and Marion Malavarsic, to permit office uses in an existing residential structure on RS-7200 zoned property located at 102 North Evergreen Street with code waivers of minimum landscaped front setback and maximum fence height. The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC79-56, granted Conditional Use Permit No. 1963 and granted negative declaration status. 6. VARIANCE NO. 3077: Submitted by Ardell A. Whitwer, to retain a room addition in an existing garage on RM-1200 zoned property located at 419 North Jeanine Drive, Unit B, with a waiver of minimum number and type of parking spaces. Withdrawn by petitioner. 7. VARIANCE NO. 3084: Submitted by George A. Gade, to construct an addition to an existing restaurant on ML zoned property located at 601 East Orangethorpe Avenue with a waiver of minimum structural setback. The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC79-65, granted Variance No. 3084 and ratified the Planning Director's categorical exemption determination. 8. 134: GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 150: To change the current General Commercia and Low and Medium Density Residential to General Commercial and Low-medium Residential. The City Planning Commission set public hearing for April 23, 1979 at 1:30 P.M. No action was taken on the foregoing items, thus the actions of the City Planning Commission became final. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 1956: Submitted by Foodmaker Commissary, Inc., to permit a drive-through restaurant on C-R zoned property located at the northeast corner of Katella Avenue and Harbor Boulevard with code waivers of minimum number of parking spaces and minimum drive-through lane length (denied). The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC79-63, granted in part Conditional Use Permit No. 1956 and granted negative declaration status. Councilwoman Kaywood removed Conditional Use Permit No. 1956 from the Planning Commission Consent Calendar and requested a review of the application. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 1957: Submitted by Foodmaker, Inc., to expand an existing drive-through restaurant on CL zoned property located at 2793 West Ball Road with code waivers of minimum number of parking spaces and minimum drive- through length. 79-422 City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - April 17, 1979, 1:30 P.M. The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC79-62, granted Conditional Use Permit No. 1957 and granted negative declaration status. Councilwoman Kaywood removed Conditional Use Permit No. 1957 from the Planning Commission Consent Calendar and requested a review of the application. 179: ORDINANCE NO. 3996 - AMENDMENT TO TITLE 18 - MOBILEHOME PARK SUBDIVISIONS: Councilman Seymour offered Ordinance No. 3996 for first reading. ORDINANCE NO. 3996: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM ADDING SUBSECTIONS .080 AND .090 TO SECTION 18.27.050 OF CHAPTER 18.27; ADDING SUBSECTIONS .040 AND .050 TO SECTION 18.31.050 OF CHAPTER 18.31; ADDING SUBSECTION .080 AND .090 TO SECTION 18.32.050 OF CHAPTER 18.32; ADDING SUBSECTION .105 TO SECTION 18.34.050 O¥ CHAPTER 18.34; ADDING SUBSECTION .125 TO SECTION 18.41.050 OF CHAPTER 18.41; ADDING SUB- SECTION .095 TO SECTION 18.42.050 OF CHAPTER 18.42; ADDING SUBSECTION .205 TO SECTION 18.44.050 OF CHAPTER 18.44; ADDING SUBSECTION .205 TO SECTION 18.45.050 OF CHAPTER 18.45; ADDING SUBSECTION .195 TO SECTION 18.46.050 OF CHAPTER 18.46; ADDING SUBSECTION .155 TO SECTION 18.48.050 OF CHAPTER 18.48, ALL OF TITLE 18 OF THE ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE, RELATING TO ZONING. 173: RAILROAD NOISE IN THE SANTA ANA STREET AREA: City Planning Commission recommendations were continued from March 6 and March 20, 1979 to this date. Mayor Seymour asked if any members of the public were present to speak on the issue. Mrs. Fredna Jackson, 431 South West Street, read from a prepared statement, the highlights of which were as follows. She prefaced her statement by a rebuttal to the inevitable argument that, "the railroad was here first." While that was true, if it operated today as it did in 1968, she would not be before the Council asking for relief from railroad noise. Railroad activities disrupted the sleep of residents in the area numerous times in the night, every night; daytime activities varied, but one train every hour was not unusual and at times it was two or three; many sources indicated that the increased activity by the railroad was due to the fact that their Long Beach switching yard had moved to Anaheim; the Planning Commission report, while appreciated, offered no practical solutions since expensive guard gates at lightly traveled streets were not justified and the suggestion that they insulate their homes would have very little effect on noise of the intensity they experienced; many engineers regarded the train whistle as a toy and used it as such. Mrs. Jackson then offered some recommendations: Southern Pacific should voluntarily repair and keep repaired loose joints and broken tracks; flat spots on wheels should be corrected and maintained; safe speed limits should be set, complied with and enforced; obstruction of intersections for more time than the City Ordinances and the Public Utilities Commission (PUC) allowed should not occur except in emergencies; engineers should use warning devices only, as State law and the laws of safety required. 79-423 Cit~ Hall~. Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - April 17, 1979~ 1:30 P.M. In concluding, Mrs. Jackson emphasized that the switching activity that occurred at 1:00 and/or 2:00 A.M. were of prime concern to the residents. Those activities continued for close to one hour involving an area from Manchester to Citron and had become a nightmare, with intervals of silence followed by the crashing of cars together. She extended an invitation to the Council to spend as much time in her home as they could endure and then to try to function effectively. She assured the Council that the residents were reasonable and realistic and did not harbor any illusion of a noise-free neighborhood, nor of Southern Pacific disappearing into the sunset. However, they did have hopes and expectations that efforts would be made on their behalf by both the City and Southern Pacific and that those efforts would result in a significantly reduced noise level. Ms. Shirley Diefenbach, Branch Coordinator for Citizens Against Noise Trespassing (CANT) for the northeast Los Angeles area indicated to her in a telephone conversation that the area she represented had problems similar in nature and that with the cooperation of the City Council and the legal deparment of the Santa Fe Railroad, that those problems were resolved in a satisfactory manner. Included in the problems was the very important aspect of liability and she hoped to have documentation relating to that soon. Sixteen years to renew a railroad franchise was excessive and in 1976, she was assured that the matter would come before the Council very soon. She was reassured in 1977 and again in 1978 and 1979 and now she wanted to know when the problem would be resolved. She emphasized that the bottom line seemed to be a question of liability. Councilman Roth stated that although the Planning Commission report probably reflected their best thinking on the situation, it was not an answer to the problems of the residents in that neighborhood. He had discussed the situation with them over the last 2 years. Since Mrs. Jackson had lived there for 11 years, he questioned her relative to the increase in the amount of switching which she felt was due to some activity being moved from Long Beach to Anaheim. Mrs. Jackson explained that she had been told from numerous sources that the switching yard was moved from Long Beach to Anaheim but she could not confirm that was correct. Activity had increased, and when she called the City in 1977, she reported the 33% increase in the two years prior and also since that time. Now there was one train every hour from 10 P.M. to 6:00 A.M. and during that time there was one train that would go through a switching procedure for an hour. Councilman Kott asked the City Attorney to contact the Los Angeles City Attorney to ascertain what they had done to alleviate the problem explained by Mrs. Jackson; City Attorney Hopkins stated he would contact Los Angeles to obtain that information. Councilman Kott also asked the City Clerk to find out if Southern Pacific had a license to do business in the City. If not, one should not be issued and subsequently their tracks removed. Mr. Meadows, Operating Officer of the Southern Pacific Railroad in Anaheim, stated he had been in the area for 1½ years. He then proceeded to answer some of the questions posed by Mrs. Jackson. Relative to the comment that they had moved their operations, he explained that Long Beach had no relationship with Orange County as far as freight cars were concerned. Cars that came into the area were from the City of Industry. There had been no movement of the yard, and the 133% increase was in the volume of business which fluctuated throughout 79-424 ~.ity H~ll.~ Anaheim, California - COUNC£L MINUTES - April 17, 1979, 1:30 P.M. various areas which they served in Orange County. Regarding the nighttime noise factor, he talked to his engineers about the use of the train whistle, more than what was required by law for the safety of the public. The layout of the corner on which Mrs. Jackson lives was such that automobiles would try to beat the train across the crossing. As far as additional noise in the switching function, this was the first time that the situation had been brought to his attention, and he would meet with his night men to find out if they were doing something that might be causing additional discomfort and noise and to see if it could be dampened down. They served the Hunt Food Plant in Fullerton and that was a job which started at 10:00 P.M. to satisfy the requirements of that industry. They only had the operating rights on the Union Pacific Railroad from 12 Midnight to 12 Noon. Regarding loose tracks and "square" wheels, he had a trackman check the track every week and there were times when he reported loose joints that needed to be fixed, such as was the case three weeks prior, and a crew was sent out to repair the joint. He would have the roadmaster personally recheck the track to see if there was something that was missed. Concerning the wheels, they never knew when they might get a flat spot on a wheel and many of the cars came all the way from Chicago. In concluding, Mr. Meadows stated that the amount of movement had not changed in the 1~ years he had been in Anaheim. There were perhaps some switching functions he was not aware of, and he would look into that matter and see if they could curtail it so that it would not affect the public. Councilman Roth asked if the switching of cars could be performed in an industrial area, instead of in the middle of a residential area. Mr. Meadows explained there was no place for them to expand as a railroad had only so much right-of-way. .Just as Anaheim, their business was growing over the years. The Anaheim yard was the only place they had to serve Santa Aha Street and Hunt Foods. Some years ago they changed operations on the Huntington Beach and Bellflower lines so that it could be done in the daytime to cut down on the nighttime noise problem, but there were some customers that had to be served at night, and there was no way to get around that procedure. They have to serve the Santa Ana and Costa Mesa district at night. Councilwoman Kaywood stated from what she understood, it was around 1:00 A.M. that residents were subjected to loud whistle blasts. She asked Mr. Meadows if he knew the engineer on duty at that time. Mrs. Jackson interjected and stated it was switching activities that occurred at l:O0 A.M., resulting in 20 to 40 minutes of clanging and banging of cars. The air whistle was not necessarily a part of that problem, but the blast of air being released from the brakes was a problem in itself. Councilwoman Kaywood then asked Mr. Meadows if it was possible to perform the switching and coupling operations more quietly. Mr. Meadows reiterated he would talk to his night man that evening and have him start a campaign on that noise problem. He had been on the train whistle problem, but the additional problem reported was something he was going to have to look into. 79-425 City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - April 17, 1979, 1:30 P.M. A discussion then followed regarding the franchise situation. City Attorney Hopkins stated the franchise problem was being worked on by Deputy City Attorney Bob Franks and the representative from the City Manager's office, and they had a number of meetings with various railroad attorneys. Later in the meeting, Mr. Hopkins reported that after checking with Mr. Franks, it was revealed that the Santa Ana Street franchise with Southern Pacific had expired in 1963 and the spur track Cerritos franchise also expired in 1963. There were two other franchises, one on Crescent Way with no expiration date and another at Broadway with no expiration date. He was also informed that the railroad attorneys had been negotiating with the City on the matter and raised a number of objections to the various conditions being requested by the City for the franchise. Thus there were active negotiations underway to have the franchise installed, but it was going to take a few additional months to get all the details finalized. Councilwoman Kaywood asked Mr. Meadows if the Anaheim yard was servicing Anaheim industry or all outside industries. Mr. Meadows answered that it serviced the Anaheim district, the lumber yards and the big businesses in south Anaheim such as General Foods, Potlatch and Monsanto. Mr. Meadows then explained for Mayor Seymour that the top speed limit on Santa Ana Street was 15 miles per hour and the length of time they could obstruct a public street was 5 to 10 minutes and no longer unless they were moving through a crossing. In that case, it would be until all the cars cleared the crossing. If a citizen reported that a crossing was obstructed more than 10 minutes, Mr. Meadows stated he would try to find out what or why it was caused. He would then discuss the matter with the conductor or engineer involved. Subsequently they were more inclined to take note of those situations. Mr. Meadows then confirmed for Councilman Roth that switching was not transferred from Corona to Anaheim or any other switching operation. They did not go to Corona and the only operations with Long Beach was to move the circus train from Anaheim to Long Beach. Mr. Vic Mmlstrom, 206 South Thalia, first stated that his problem was much the same as Mrs. Jackson described; however, he was faced with the additional problem of trains left running over the weekend and on holiday weekends for three days and the smog emitted was offensive. Mr. Meadows answered that the office and crews had instructions particularly on the weekends where if the engines were to be left over a 2-hour period to shut the engine down unless there was a tag indicating that the batteries were low and that the engine should not be shut down. Mr. Harry Keefer, corner of Ohio and Santa Ana Street, a 30-year resident in that area, explained that he had seen trains running through that area at 30 to 35 miles per hour and as high as 40 miles per hour. The whistle was blown at every corner from M~nchester to Harbor. W~en he built a home there in 1952, there were at the most two trains a day and now there were anywhere from 20 to 30 79-426 City ~all, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - April 17, 1979, 1:30 P.M. a day and sometimes as much as every five or ten minutes. They not only served Anaheim, but also Tustin, Orange, Santa Ana, etc. He wanted to know where it would all stop and what the situation would be like 20 years from now. At the conclusion of the foregoing discussion and questioning, Mayor Seymour stated that it was interesting to note that the railroad franchise agreement affecting the residents of the area expired in 1963. They had to have a railroad because it was important to the community, especially the industrial community, but on the other hand, it was clear that through no fault of Mr. Meadows, some of his employees had created living conditions that were unbearable in the subject neighborhood, a~d he did not believe that the Council was going to endure those conditions. Thus, they would renew the franchise agreement subject to some very specific terms and conditions that would insure privacy and the ability for the residents of the area to get a good night's sleep. MOTION: Councilman Seymour thereupon moved to direct the City Manager to direct the Chief of Police to provide a place for neighbors to call and have police officers go out to the area whatever time of day or night and log specific railroad violations (i.e. violation of legal speed limit, engine running for 2 or 3 days, etc.); direct the Planning staff, as well as the City Attorney's 6ffice to provide specific recommendations to be considered at a public hearing and inviting the neighbors back relative to conditions that might be attached to the railroad franchise agreement to insure the area will be a quieter and better place to live in the future. Councilman Kott seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. Mrs. Jackson commented that she doubted there would be any infringements between now and the finalization of a franchise agreement; the Mayor pointed out that if the railroad could adhere to those conditions during the interim, they could do so all of the time, and the franchise agreement would have built into it specific conditions that would have to be adhered to. Mr. Keefer also asked to have the true speed limit on that track checked since at one time he was told it was 8 miles per hour; the Mayor indicated that the City Attorney would check into the matter. Before closing, Mr. Meadows stated in a letter from the Department of Transportation, Federal Railroad Administration dated .June 21, 1977 on a complaint by Mr. Malstrom, the Public Utilities Commission sent a representative to the area along with another gentleman. The letter from E.D. Higgin stated that relative to the trains operating on Santa Aha Street and continuously blowing whistles, there were some trains equipped with a mute whistle which they would try to have assigned to the area. That whistle was on]y adopted by the PUC for the City of Beverly Hills when the Pacific Electric street cars were in operation. It also stated he would have the area monitored to insure that trains complied with the 15 miles per hour speed restrictions. That was the speed limit in the area, and he was glad the matter was brought to his attention because now he would use his radar gun to find out if the trains were exceeding that speed. 79-427 City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - April 17~ 1979~ 1:30 P.M. 170: ORDINANCE NO. 3988: Councilwoman Kaywood offered Ordinance No. 3988 for adoption. Refer to Ordinance Book. ORDINANCE NO. 3988: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM REPEALING SECTION 18. 84.038 OF TITLE 18, CHAPTER 18.84, OF THE ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE AND ADDING A NEW SECTION IN ITS PLACE AND STEAD RELATING TO TREE PRESERVATION. Roll Call Vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: COUNCIL MEMBERS: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Overholt, Kaywood, Kott and Seymour Roth None The Mayor declared Ordinance No. 3988 duly passed and adopted. 170: ORDINANCE NO. 3995: Councilman Roth offered Ordinance No. 3995 for adoption. Refer to Ordinance Book. ORDINANCE NO. 3995: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AMENDING TITLE 18 OF THE ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO ZONING. (78-79-34, RS-HS-43,000) Roll Call Vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: COUNCIL MEMBERS: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Overholt, Kaywood, Kott, Roth and Seymour None None The Mayor declared Ordinance No. 3995 duly passed and adopted. ORDINANCE NO. 3997: Councilwoman K~ywood offered Ordinance No. 3997 for first reading. ORDINANCE NO. 3997: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AMENDING TITLE 18 OF THE ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO ZONING. (70-71-33(16), RS-A-43,000) 101: RECENT ACTIONS OF LAFCO: Councilman Overholt reported on the meeting he attended of Mayors, Managers and staff held in Irvine. He also referred to the report dated April 16, 1979 submitted to the Council today by the Planning Director, Ron Thompson, dealing with recent actions of LAFCO. The thrust of the meeting was that the cities in Orange County were realizing they had a common concern relative to the actions of LAFCO, and they could not allow presentations on annexations to be presented before LAFCO without voicing either strong support or opposition. Mr. Talley, Mr. Thompson and he were pleased with the expression of concern raised not only on the recent experience of the reduction of the City's Sphere of Influence, but also with a possible threat to other cities having their Spheres of Influence adjusted. Anaheim indicated it was going to be represented at upcoming hearings, one of which was a work session of April 25 to express those views and perhaps avoid the type of things that happened in a 20-minute session, resulting in 5,300 acres being removed from Anaheim's Sphere of Influence. 79-428 ~ty Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - April 17, 1979, 1:30 P.M. 114: RECAP OF FIRST FULL YEAR AS COUNCIL MEMBER - COUNCILMAN OVERHOLT: Councilman Overholt announced that it was his 365th day as a Council Member, and it had been a very exciting year for him. He did not think that 365 days later he would succeed Councilwoman Kaywood as Mayor Pro Tem. He felt very positive about what the City was doing at present and how the Council was functioning. It was important that even though they had their differences as well as different view- points, that they were moving together in order to accomplish those things that were beneficial to the citizens of Anaheim. 114: OPEN HOUSE - DOWNTOWN RECREATION CENTER: Councilwoman Kaywood reported that she attended the open house of the Downtown Recreation Center, formerly called the Drop-In Center. She was pleased with the remodeling that had taken place. It was now very attractive with comfortable new furniture. 173: POSTING OF GASOLINE PRICES: Councilwoman Kaywood referred to a call she had received and noticed herself that now, gas stations were no longer posting prices. This was the case in the 1973-74 gas shortage and a great deal of time was wasted by people waiting in lines, only to reach the pump a~d find out that the price was to their dissatisfaciton. She asked if there was an ordinance relating to the matter. Ms. Santalahti stated the zoning ordinance only indicated how many signs the station might have, but it did not require price signs except on the gas pumps themselves. MOTION: Councilwoman Kaywood thereupon moved that gas stations be required to post the prices of all gasoline, particularly during the gas "crunch". Councilman Overholt seconded the motion for the purpose of discussion. Councilman Roth stated he was going to oppose the motion because of the enforcement involved. Mayor Seymour asked for clarification if Councilwoman Kaywood was asking for voluntary action on the part of the operators or an ordinance that would be enforced. Councilwoman Kaywood suggested that they start with a voluntary action and if that did not work, it could be followed by an ordinance. Councilman Kott questioned how station owners would be contacted regarding the posting of prices. As well, he did not agree with the increase in gasoline prices, and he believed the situation to be a fraud. Councilman Roth noted that gas stations had an association and that perhaps a communication could be sent to them. Mayor Seymour stated that he was supportive not only of the voluntary action, but also, if necessary at a later date, he would support a motion mandating the posting of gasoline prices. As a City Council, they could do little to control the petroleum problem in the country, but they could do something to insure that the consumer was being informed. 79-429 City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - April 17, 1979, 1:30 P.M. Councilman Overholt stated that he tended to agree with Councilman Kott that there might be fraud at a high level, but it did not mean that fraud at a lower level was any less sinister, and he believed that was what the motion was directed toward, and he was supportive. A vote was taken on the foregoing motion. MOTION CARRIED. 163: SCHOOL FINANCING - MCCARTHY/PRIOLO PROPOSAL: Councilwoman Kaywood stated she noted in the paper the proposal by both Speaker Leo McCarthy and Paul Priolo discussing the possibility of financing schools with sales tax and leaving the property tax to local government. She maintained such a proposal would be a disaster to Anaheim. It rewarded the mediocre and incompetent cities and penalized those who had done good advance planning and had a solid city going. She asked that staff contact whoever was necessary so that they would understand the feeling of Anaheim. City Manager Talley stated that staff had been instructed to do that. He explained further that such action would remove Anaheim's sales tax from the City. Mayor Seymour stated he wanted to know what the total dollar difference would be to the City if property tax went to the cities and sales tax went to the schools or vice versa. He wanted to know what that meant in economic terms. Mr. Talley stated that information would be supplied to the Council. 125: DATA PROCESSING STUDY: Councilman Roth first referred to the Roos report on the selection of an insurance broker of record for the City which he felt was well done. He noted another problem area and that was relative to Data Processing. He felt the time was right for the Council to consider hiring an outside consultant with no interference from staff, or the manager, etc. and have that consultant review the Data Processing Department in the same manner as did Dr. Roos. Mayor Seymour stated he would support the recommendation if he thought it was going to enrich them with facts. He pointed out that Data Processing had been studied twice by consultants, Ernst & Ernst at a substantial expense and secondly by Arthur Young and Company. Councilman Roth did not believe that Arthur Young had made a recommendation either way. Mayor Seymour stated they had indicated, (1) that hardware was available of sufficient size to run the Data Processing Department today and in the future, (2) suggested that they take the Data Processing system and shop it with private enterprise, but not until they developed software programs, and (3) that the concept of MDS cities at present was a good concept. Councilman Roth then withdrew his statement and asked staff to prepare a report relative to the Ernst & Ernst and Arthur Young reports and submit it to the Council. He was not completely sold on Data Processing in the City, but wanted to look at some of the alternatives. 79-430 City Hall~ Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - April 17, 1979, 1:30 P.M. The Mayor recalled that the Council appointed a Blue Ribbon Committee to look at the situation. City Manager Talley explained that staff could provide a report on that aspect but they were encountering substantial resistance from the Committee and they had not provided the Council with any information. The Mayor requested that the Committee be asked to provide them with the requested information. By general consent, staff was directed to provide Council with the Ernst & Ernst report and the Arthur Young report previously prepared concerning the City's Data Processing Department. 148: APPOINTEE TO ORANGE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION AND DISTRICT: Mayor Seymour stated the Thursday, April 19, 1979 meeting of the League of Cities would be followed by the City Selection Committee meeting at which he was casting a vote relative to certain appointments to be made. He had two recommen- dations to pass before the Council in seeking their input as to how he should vote at that meeting. It had been recommended for the Orange County Transportation Commission that Anaheim support the Mayor of Irvine, Bill Vardoulis. MOTION: Councilman Roth moved to support Bill Vardoulis for that posistion. Councilman Seymour seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. The Mayor then stated that the second recommendation was for the OCTD and that Anaheim support Joy Neugebauer from Newport Beach. MOTION: Councilman Seymour moved to support Joy Neugebauer for the Orange County Transi~ District. Councilman Kott seconded the motion. Before a vote was taken, Councilwoman Kaywood stated she would have to speak against the recommendation. Joy was from Westminster and the existing seat was A1 Hollinden from Fountain Valley. Robin Young had been instrumental in doing a number of things specifically for the City of ~taheim. Her vote on the sound barriers for the 57 Freeway was crucial and she was also very familiar with the Dial-a-Ride program. She had done a fine job for Anaheim and should be continued in her position. She thereupon nominated Robin Young for appointment to the Orange County Transit I)~strict and again pointed out that she believed that seat was to be voted on at the May meeting. Further Council discussion then followed relative to Joy Neugebauer's credentials and also the reasons why there was a covert effort to remove Robin Young from the Transit District, at the conc]usion of which Mayor Seymour explained that since it was not necessary to have the Council vote on the matter, he would withdraw his motion and subsequently the Council could lobby him. Before closing, both Councilmen Roth and Kott indicated their preference for Joy Neugebauer. Councilman Overholt did not commit to any person and Council- woman Kaywood indicated her preference for Robin Young. 79-431 ~ity Hal. l, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - April 17, 1979, 1:30 P.M. Councilwoman Kaywood stated they could discuss it for the next month because also in April there was the Coastal Commission alternate, Airport Land Use Commission, LAFCO, LAFCO alternate, and the Southern California Air Quality Management District seats open. RECESS - EXECUTIVE SESSION: By general consent the Council recessed into Executive Session. (5:15 P.M.) AFTER RECESS: Mayor Seymour called the meeting to order, all Council Members being present. (5:52 P.M.) 112: FIRE ENGINEER, GEORGE LA ROCqUE: On motion by Councilman Seymour, seconded by Councilman Kott, it was determined that Fire Engineer George La Rocque was acting in the scope of his employment on February 21, 1979, and that he was acting in the interests of the City of Anaheim while operating a City Fire Department vehicle on February 21, 1979, and authorizing the City Attorney to employ legal counsel for a sum not to exceed $250 to provide legal defense for Fire Engineer George La Rocque, pursuant to government Code Section 995.8. MOTION CARRIED. 112: CITY OF ANAHEIM VS. EXHIBIT AND SHOW SERVICES, INC.: Councilman Seymour moved to authorize the City Attorney to complete the settlement of Orange County Superior Court Case No. 298950 (City of Anaheim vs. Exhibit and Show Services, Inc.) by payment of the sum of $23,268.31 to the City of Anaheim by the defendant, and authorizing the General Manager of the Convention Center, Stadium, and Golf Course to execute a settlement agreement and release relating thereto. Councilman Kott seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. 108: ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE - TIKI MASSAGE: On motion by Councilman Seymour, seconded by Councilwoman Kaywood, the City Attorney was directed to order Mr. Werner John Scheer to appear before the City Council on May 8, 1979, at 3:00 P.M., to show cause why his massage establishment permit should not be revoked because of violations of Anaheim Municipal Code Chpater 4.29. MOTION CARRIED. ADJOURNMENT: Councilman Kott moved to adjourn. Councilman Overholt seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. Adjourned: 5:54 P.M. LINDA D. ROBERTS, CITY CLERK