1979/04/2479-432
City Hall~ Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - April 24~ 1979~ 1:30 P.M.
The City Council of the City of Anaheim met in regular session.
PRESENT:
ABSENT:
PRESENT:
COUNCIL MEMBERS: Overholt, Kaywood, Kott, Roth and Seymour
COUNCIL MEMBERS: None
CITY MANAGER: William O. Talley
CITY ATTORNEY: Willaim P. Hopkins
CITY CLERK: Linda D. Roberts
UTILITIES EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR: Gordon W. Hoyt
PURCHASING AGENT: Richard Jefferis
HOUSING MANAGER: Lisa Stipkovich
PROGRAM BUDGET MANAGER: Ron Rothschild
Mayor Seymour called the meeting to order and welcomed those in
attendance to the Council meeting.
INVOCATION: In lieu of an invocation, a moment of silence was observed.
FLAG SALUTE: Councilman William I. Kott led the assembly in the Pledge of Allegiance
to the Flag.
119: PROCLAMATIONS: The following proclamations were issued by Mayor Seymour
and approved by the City Council:
"Anaheim Conservation and Wildlife Week" - April 23-29, 1979
"Meals on Wheels Week" - May 6-12, 1979
"Municipal Clerk's Week" - May 13-19, 1979
Mr. Bill Griffithm accepted the Conservation and Wildlife'Week proclamation and
City Clerk Linda Roberts accepted the Municipal Clerk's Week proclamation.
MINUTES: Councilwoman Kaywood moved to approve the minutes of the regular
meeting of March 20, 1979. Councilman Roth seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED.
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 Roth seconded the motion. MOTION
CARRIED.
FINANCIAL DEMANDS AGAINST THE CITY in the amount of $5,233,787.64, in accordance
with the 1978-79 Budget, were approved.
160: PROCUREMENT OF TOTAL COPY SYSTEM: (Continued from April 17, 1979) City
Manager William Talley first explained that the recommendation did not go to
the theoretical low bid in this instance. Staff had a number of discussions
with users of both products and the Council also received communication from
one of the vendors regarding the matter. He then asked staff to make a presen-
tation as to why they were recommending Addressograph-Multigraph on the 4250 MR
automated Total Copy System and Graphic Arts Supplies, Inc. for one EMF System
600 Sorter.
79-433
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - April 24, 1979, 1:30 P.M.
Purchasing Agent Mr. Richard Jefferis then gave the background leading up to
the recommended purchase and briefed the Council on his memorandum dated
April 10, 1979 recommending the purchase and further discussing the justification
for same (on file in the City Clerk's office). Mr. Jefferis also explained
that since only two companies were covered by GSA pricing, they requested each
to present a written proposal resulting in a price quotation from AB Dick of
$29,913 and from Addressograph-Multigraph of $27,800. They saw the Addressograph-
Multigraph (A-M) demonstrated and also checked references resulting in no
negative comments. The A-M had approximately 180 installations in the area
of the type they desired, and AB Dick approximatley 20. When AB Dick was
advised of the City's intentions to recommend the A-M System, they contacted
the City Manager's Office requesting that the item be put out to bid. They did
so because he was informed that if they went to bid they would not have to
adhere to GSA pricing plans, and thus AB Dick dropped their price by $8,300 and
A-M by $4,200. At this point, AB Dick was the low bidder by $1,900 on the price
alone and not the sorter. In order to satisfy themselves that AB Dick was the
low bidder and could meet City specifications, staff asked to see an on-line
system, meaning the automatic document feeder. When they did so, they found
that the document feeder was, in fact, off-line. Staff thereupon expressed
their concern, the system was adjusted accordingly, and the balance of the
demonstration ran smoothly. However, after a research of organizations who had
used the automatic document feeder, (see listing-AB Dick references on file in
the City Clerk's office), they found only one user who recommended the unit.
Mr. Jefferis then explained what transpired after notifying AB Dick that they
were going to go with the A-M System, as well as the favorable operational
features of the EMF System 600 Sorter to be used in conjunction with the A-M.
He concluded that from a total dollar cost basis, the City would be far ahead
in buying equipment that they knew through actual demonstration would work.
They had talked to many agents, and they were all happy with the System.
Mayor Seymour asked if a representative was present from AB Dick Company and
desirous of being heard; a gentleman from the audience acknowledged the Mayor,
but stated he did not wish to speak. No other member of the public wished to
speak.
MOITON: Councilman Roth moved to approve the $21,050 received from the sale of
the Heidelberg Press for purchase of a total system. Councilman Kott seconded
the motion. MOTION CARRIED.
Councilman Roth moved to accept the offer of Addressograph-Multigraph in the
amount of $23,559.27 for a 4250 MR automated Total Copy System and to accept
the offer of Graphic Arts Supplies, Inc., in the amount of $13,758.27 for one
EMF System 600 Sorter (180). Councilman Kott seconded the motion. MOTION
CARRIED.
164: AWARD OF CONTRACT - HIDDEN CANYON RESERVOIR AND PUMPING STATION: Account
No. 51-619-7105-02180-31200 (Reservoir) Account no. 51-619-7105-92180-32420
(Pumping Station). City Manager Talley explained that under the bidding arrange-
ments, the successful low bidder on the subject project, Peter Kiewit Sons,
reduced their bid $100,000, if successful in receiving both contracts, on each
bid. Discussion from the bidders indicated that only one $100,000
79-434
City Hall,.. Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - April 24, 1979~ 1:30 P.M.
reduction should be taken, but staff took the position that would result in
a $200,000 reduction and was recommending the low bid based upon a $100,000
reduction on each item, the reservoir and the pumping station. Accordingly,
the award would go to Peter Kiewit Sons who would then have three choices.
City Attorney William Hopkins explained that there had been an allegation by
Peter Kiewit Sons that their bid was $100,000 too much because of the mis-
understanding with respect to the specifications that were included in the
bid documents. Thus there were three alternatives: (1) reject all bids and
readvertise (2) allow Peter Kiewit Sons to withdraw their bid and award to
the second low bidder and (3) award to Peter Kiewit Sons on the basis of the City's
interpretation which was believed to be reasonable, that being staff's recommen-
dation that the award be made.
Mr. Paul Fine, representing Equinox-Malibu, the second low bidder on the project
stated their sentiments echoed that of the City Attorney. Since the project
was let to bid under the competitive bidding statutes, to allow a change as
suggested by Peter Kiewit Sons would subvert the intent of those bidding
statutes and that the award should either go to Equinox or to Peter Kiewit
Sons if they would accept the $200,000 reduction. He then confirmed for
Councilman Kott he did not have any problem understanding the bid. It
was clear to him and the language was unequivocal.
Mr. Talley stated that every other bidder saw it that way, except the apparent
low bidder.
City Attorney Hopkins clarified that the recommendation of the Water Engineering
Manager, Mr. Ray Auerbach, was that the award be made to Peter Kiewit Sons on the
basis submitted, which would be the adjusted low bid of $1,091,730.00 for the
reservoir and $556,270.00 for the pumping station. He then reiterated the
three alternatives that were available.
The Mayor asked if a representative was present from Peter Kiewit Sons. No
one was present.
Councilman Kott asked if the Peter Kiewit Sons' proposal was accepted and they
refused to do the work for the bid amount, what would then happen.
Mr. Hopkins stated if the contract was awarded and Peter Kiewit Sons did not
agree to sign the contract, the City could forfeit the bid bond submitted and
possibly litigation could result.
The City Clerk advised the amount of the bid bond was 10%.
Mayor Seymour asked if they were to take that action, which he was inclined to
do, while the matter was under litigation would they be able to protect them-
selves against inflation by moving on to the next low bid or rebidding. Mr.
Hopkins stated the award would undoubtedly then be made to the second low bidder.
If the case ended up in court, the contractor would have to seek relief in Superior
Court on the basis that a mistake had been made.
79-435
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - April 24, 1979, 1:30 P.M.
Mayor Seymour stated he did not believe that the Council was of a mind to delay
the reservoir, and he thereupon offered Resolution No. 79R-221 and 79R-222 for
adoption as recommended by the City Engineer in his memorandum dated April 23,
1979. Refer to Resolution Book.
164: RESOLUTION NO. 79R-221: 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: HIDDEN CANYON RESERVOIR, IN THg CITY OF ANAHEIM, ACCOUNT
NO. 51-619-7105-92180-31200. (Peter Kiewit Sons, $1,091,730)
164: RESOLUTION NO. 79R-222: 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: HIDDEN CANYON PUMPING STATION, IN THE CITY OF ANAHEIM,
ACCOUNT NO. 51-619-7105-92180-32420. (Peter Kiewit Sons, $556~270)
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. 79R-221 and 79R-222 duly passed and adopted.
164: AWARD OF CONTRACT - ALPHA OFF-SITE WATER MAIN: Account No. 51-606-6340-
25070-34350. Councilman Kott offered Resolution No. 79R-223 awarding a contract
as recommended by the City Engineer in memorandum dated April 17, 1979. Refer
to Resolution Book.
164: RESOLUTION NO. 79R-223: 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: PROJECT ALPHA OFF-SITE MAIN, IN THE CITY OF ANAHEIM, ACCOUNT
NO. 51-606-6340-25070-34350. (McGuire Construction Company, $261,302.80)
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-223 duly passed and adopted.
79-436
City Ha!l, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - April 24~ 1979~ 1:30 P.M.
128: MONTHLY FINANCIAL STATEMENT - NINE-MONTHS ENDING MARCH 31, 1979: On motion
by Councilman Kott, seconded by Councilman Overholt, the Financial Statement for
the nine-month period ending March 31, 1979, as submitted by the Director of
Finance was received and filed. MOTION CARRIED.
174/155: ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW FOR THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT PROGRAM:
Councilman Kott moved to approve Negative Declarations for the Fifth Year
Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) 1979 Program and three-year plan
for each of the four Neighborhood Strategy Areas and a Categorical Exemp-
tion for the CDBG City wide Rehabilitation Program. Councilwoman Kaywood
seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED.
109: PARTICIPATION IN THE STATE SB 966 DEFERRED PAYMENT LOAN PROGRAM: Mayor
Seymour stated he had a question relative to the administration of the program.
It revolved around the area of speculation and the ability of an individual to
capitalize on the program outlined in memorandum dated April 17, 1979, from the
Executive Director of Community Development. He wanted to know what safeguards
were built into the administration of that program to insure that someone would
not immediately turn around and sell the property at a profit.
Lisa Stipkovich, Housing and Neighborhood Preservation Manager, explained that
any time the property transferred title, they would receive the original loan
amount plus 3% annually. The program was basically for owner-occupants and
while it would be technically possible for a real estate speculator to profit
by the program as explained by the Mayor, there were safeguards identifying
those who they wanted the program targeted for and it was for those in the
target area who did not qualify for home improvement loans.
Mayor Seymour asked if it would be possible to include in the regulations of the
program one that would require, in the event the recipient of a low interest
rate loan were to sell his property for any reason within a time period of two
or three years, that, in fact, they would not only repay the loan and the 3%,
but also a penalty of an additional 10% interest.
Ms. Stipkovich stated she did not know because it was a State regulation. They
could place those restrictions in their own program when submitted to the Council,
but the subject plan was tied to State regulations. However, she would check
into the mattter and report on it.
Mayor Seymour wanted to know if they were to delay taking action for a week
or two to give Ms. Stipkovich an opportunity to obtain an answer, if that
would cause problems.
Ms. Stipkovich was of the opinion that it would cause problems since hearings
were taking place the following Monday, and their application would not be
complete without a resolution.
The Mayor then recommended that no loans be made until the Council could be
assured there were safeguards.
Ms. Stipkovich was agreeable and stated further that implementation of the
program would take at least a month.
79-437
City Hall~ Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - April 24, 1979, 1:30 P.M.
Councilman Seymour offered Resolution No. 79R-224 for adoption as recommended
in memorandum dated April 17, 1979 from the Executive Director of Community
Development authorizing the filing of an application for participation in the
Deferred Payment Loan Program with the Department of Housing and Community
Development of the State of California (SB 966). Refer to Resolution Book.
RESOLUTION NO. 79R-224: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM
AUTHORIZING FILING OF AN APPLICATION FOR PARTICIPATION IN THE DEFERRED PAYMENT
LOAN PROGRAM WITH THE DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT OF THE
STATE OF CALIFORNIA.
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-224 duly passed and adopted.
MOTION: Councilwoman Kaywood moved that staff inform the State at the forthcoming
hearing of the loopholes presently existing in the legislation and request
that the State attempt to close them. Councilman Seymour seconded the motion.
MOTION CARRIED.
150: NATURE CENTER - DISNEYLAND AWARD: Councilwoman Kaywood moved to establish
special accounts to deposit and expend $1000 received for the Nature Center from
the Disneyland Community Service Award Program, as r~¢ommended in memorandum dated
April 16, 1979 from Deputy City Manager James Ruth. Councilman Overholt
seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED.
Councilwoman Kaywood also stated that a special commendation was in order for
Bill Griffiths for the excellent job he had done at the Nature Center.
158: OFFER TO PURCHASE AN EXCESS PARCEL OF CITY-OWNED LAND: (Lot 44, Tract 1931)
City Manager Talley briefed the Council on memorandum dated April 16, 1979 from
the City Engineer and Public Works Executive Director relative to the subject,
consisting of a buildable, single-family residential lot, recommending that the
Council accept the offer to purchase in the amount of $30,000, as stipulated to
in correspondence dated April 12, 1979.
MOTION: Councilman Roth moved to accept the offer of Mr. David K. Ehl and
Augustin V. Lopez, Century 21, and E1 Camino Realty to purchase an excess parcel
of City-owned land located at the south side of Forest Lane, north of K~tella
Avenue, east of Brookhurst Street (Lot 44, Tract 1931), and to authorize the
City Attorney to prepare the necessary escrow instructions and open an escrow
at the First American Title Insurance and Trust Company, down payment in the
amount of $5,500 to be deposited therein; with buyer and seller to pay normal
escrow closing costs applicable to both buyer and seller. Councilman Overholt
seconded the motion.
79-438
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - April 24, 1979~ 1:30 P.M.
Before a vote was taken, Mayor Seymour stated he had no problem with the motion,
but he did have a question relative to the appraisal cost. It appeared that
four different parcels were appraised at a total cost of $2,400 and the cost of
appraising the subject single lot was $600. He considered that to be high. Both
he and Councilman Roth agreed that the appraisal cost should not be more than
$150.
Mr. Talley explained that the City paid $2,400 for the appraisal of the four
parcels and they merely divided that cost. In order to alleviate the Mayor's
concern, he modified the cost of the appraisal on the subject lot to $149.00.
A vote was then taken on the foregoing motion. MOTION CARRIED.
153: SALARY ADJUSTMENT FOR OUTSTATIONED PUBLIC SERVICE EMPLOYMENT PROGRAM
CLASSIFICATION: Councilman Roth offered Resolution No. 79R-225 for adoption
as recommeded in memorandum dated April 18, 1979 from the Human Resources
Director, Garry McRae. Refer to Resolution Book.
RESOLUTION NO. 79R-225: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM
AMENDING RESOLUTION NO. 76R-677 WHICH ESTABLISHED RATES OF COMPENSATION FOR
OUTSTATIONED PUBLIC SERVICE EMPLOYMENT CLASSIFICATIONS AND ADJUSTING RATES OF
COMPENSATION FOR THE EDD EMPLOYMENT AND COMPENSATION ASSISTANT. (effective
April 1, 1979)
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-225 duly passed and adopted.
123/153: BENEFIT PLAN MODIFICATIONS RESULTING FROM PUBLIC LAW 95-555: Council-
man Roth offered Resolution No. 79R-226 through 79R-230, both inclusive, for
adoption as recommended in memorandum dated April 11, 1979 from the Human Resources
Director with attachments recommending amending and modifying the employee
group health plans and a temporary Disability Income Policy to comply with
requirements of Local Law 95-555 in regards to pregnancy benefits. Refer to
Resolution Book.
RESOLUTION NO. 79R-226: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM
APPROVING AMENDMENTS TO THE PLAN DOCUMENT FOR THE CITY SELF-FUNDED MEDICAL PLAN
IN CONNECTION WITH BENEFITS FOR MATERNITY CARE AND AUTHORIZING THE HUMAN RESOURCES
DIRECTOR TO SIGN SAID AMENDMENTS. (effective April 29, 1979)
RESOLUTION NO. 79R-227: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM
APPROVING THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF AN AMENDMENT TO AN AGREEMENT WITH KAISER
FOUNDATION HEALTH PLAN, INC., AND AUTHORIZING AND DIRECTING THE HUMAN RESOURCES
DIRECTOR TO EXECUTE SAID AMENDMENT. (effective April 29, 1979)
79-439
City Hall~ Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - April 24~ 1979~ 1:30 P.M.
RESOLUTION NO. 79R-228: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM
APPROVING THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF AN AMENDMENT TO AN AGREEMENT WITH CALIFORNIA
MEDICAL GROUP HEALTH PLAN, INC., AND AUTHORIZING AND DIRECTING THE HUMAN RESOURCES
DIRECTOR TO EXECUTE SAID AMENDMENT. (effective April 29, 1979)
RESOLUTION NO. 79R-229: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM
APPROVING THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF AN AMENDMENT TO AN AGREEMENT WITH GENERAL
MEDICAL CENTERS HEALTH PLAN, AND AUTHORIZING AND DIRECTING THE HUMAN RESOURCES
DIRECTOR TO EXECUTE SAID AMENDMENT. (effective April 29, 1979)
RESOLUTION NO. 79R-230: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM
APPROVING AN ~ENDMENT TO THE AETNA TEMPORARY DISABILITY INCOME POLICY (POLICY
3778) RELATING TO BENEFITS FOR MATERNITY CARE AND AUTHORIZING THE HUMAN RESOURCES
DIRECTOR TO SIGN SAID AMENDMENTS. (effective April 29, 1979)
Roll Call Vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
Overholt, Kaywood, Kott, Roth and Seymour
None
None
Kott (on Resolution No. 79R-227 only)
The Mayor declared Resolution Nos. 79R-226 through 79R-230, both inclusive duly
passed and adopted. '
164: REPLACEMENT OF RESIDENTIAL LINES IN HILLVIEW ROAD: Councilwoman Kaywood
offered Resolution No. 79R-231 for adoption as recommended in memorandum dated
April 23, 1979 from the Water Engineering Manager finding and determining the
need to replace residential service lines in Hillview Road, Account No.
51-605-6329-20980-34520, with bids to opened May 24, 1979 at 2:00 P.M. Refer
to Resolution Book.
RESOLUTION NO. 79R-231: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ANAHEIM FINDING AND DETERMINING THAT PUBLIC CONVENIENCE AND NECESSITY REQUIRE
THE CONSTRUCTION AND COMPLETION OF A PUBLIC IMPROVEMENT, TO WIT: HILLVIEW SER-
VICE REPLACEMENT, IN THE CITY OF ANAHEIM, ACCOUNT NO. 51-605-6329-20980-34520;
APPROVING THE DESIGNS, PLANS, PROFILES, DRAWINGS, AND SPECIFICATIONS FOR THE
CONSTRUCTION THEREOF; AUTHORIZING THE CONSTRUCTION OF SAID PUBLIC IMPROVEMENT
IN ACCORDANCE WITH SAID PLANS, SPECIFICATIONS, ETC.; AND AUTHORIZING AND DIREC-
TING THE CITY CLERK TO PUBLISH A NOTICE INVITING SEALED PROPOSALS FOR THE
CONSTRUCTION THEREOF. (Bids to be opened May 24, 1979 at 2:00 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-231 duly passed and adopted.
79-440
City Hail, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - April 247 1979, 1:30 P.M.
123: R. J. FRASCO INSURANCE INVESTIGATION: On motion by Councilwoman Kaywood,
seconded by Councilman Seymour, payment of the billing from R. J. Frasco for
insurance investigation in the amount of $1,908.60 was authorized, to be
allocated from the Council Contingency Fund. MOTION CARRIED.
107: DANGEROUS BUILDING LOCATED AT 114 EAST LINCOLN AVENUE: City Attorney
Hopkins stated that the subject matter had been before the Council on April 3,
1979 (see minutes that date) and acting as a Board of Appeals, the Council
granted a 60-day extension of the Building Official's order to abate the above
referenced structure. As of yesterday, nothing had been done to correct the
condition or to comply with the extension condition, and the Chief Building Inspector
recommended legal action to abate the dangerous condition. He agreed with the
recommendation because of the hazard involved. In view of the fact that there
was an agreement to make corrections, that action should be taken without delay.
The agreement was to make corrections by upgrading City installed barricades and
to tie back the metal facade on the building before April 15, 1979, and the 60-day
extension applied to other aspects.
On motion by Councilman Seymour, seconded by Councilman Overholt, the City
Attorney was directed to file a complaint relative to the dangerous building
located at 114 East Lincoln as recommended in memdorandum dated April 24, 1979
from the City Attorney. MOTION CARRIED.
108: APPLICATION FOR A PUBLIC DANCE PERMIT: Application for a public dance permit
submitted by Anaheim Soccer Club for a public dance to be held April 29, 1979, from
6:00 P.M. to 1:00 A.M., at the Anaheim Convention Center, was approved, on motion
by Councilman Roth, seconded by Councilwoman Kaywood. MOTION CARRIED.
175: EXPENSES INCURRED BY BOND COUNSEL FOR ELECTRIC REVENUE BONDS: (continued
from February 20, 1979) Approving a Letter Agreement dated February 9, 1979,
with O'Melveny and Myers, Bond Counsel, relating to expenses incurred with
issuing Electric Revenue Bonds for the San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station,
Units 2 and 3 (SONGS).
General Manager of the Public Utilities Department Gordon Hoyt briefed the
Council on his memorandum dated February 13, 1979 recommending the subject
agreement, which proposed Letter Agreement interprets a Section of the existing
Letter Agreement between the parties dated November 8, 1974. The memorandum
included the background data justification for approval of the proposed Letter
Agreement (on file in the City Clerk's office). This was the third attempt in
trying to market the Electric Revenue Bonds, the first two attempts resulting
in the possiblity of an unfavorable ruling from the IRS on Southern California
Edison's investment tax credits. That ruling had now been confirmed and
Southern California Edison's lawyers informed him that they believed it was
acceptable, and they were going to recommend that Edison's management accept
it and execute the Participation Agreement, except that they found two other
problems, one dealing with nuclear insurance and also whether or not Anaheim
was on the license for the project. It seemed now that those were no longer
problems and Edison might be willing to go forth, but they were looking for
79-441
City Hall.~ Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - April 24~ 1979, 1:30 P.M.
concrete assurances from one of their management people. It was therefore
possible that they might want to issue bonds some time in mid-June. They were
now contemplating the sale of approximately $55 million in bonds. If so,
O'Melveny and Myers' fee for that amount would be $43,000, plus out of pocket
costs. Their fee was on a sliding scale which he explained. They were asking
for $10,000 now because they had put so much effort into the project thus far.
While the agreement stated that if the bond sale was abandoned they were to
be paid a reasonable fee, O'Melveny and Myers were saying they had made
several good starts and would like to be paid something on their fee at the
present time. Mr. Hoyt stated he was asking for a contract interpretation
that would permit them to pay O'Melveny and Myers $10,617.86. An undetermined
portion of that would be deductable from the final payment of $43,000, but
some would not.
Mayor Seymour asked if for some reason the project did not go through, would
they still owe attorney's fees separate from the bond sale for the work they
had done. He wanted to know if they knew what that would be.
Mr. Hoyt answered "no". If Anaheim decided not to go forward with the project
and not to sell the bonds, they would owe O'Melveny and Myers some measurable
settlement.
The Mayor then asked if the agreement also provided that the portion of $10,000
to be applied to the $43,000 was subject to the City's approval.
After reading from a letter from Mr. Kramer of O'Melveny and Myers, Mr. Hoyt
concluded that the answer was yes and any fees paid in excess of $43,000 would
be approved by the Council, but presumably they would be paying something more
up to $43,000, but not more unless the Council agreed.
Councilman Overholt clarified that what he believed they were saying was that
they had done $20,000 worth of work thus far and they wanted $10,000 of that
amount at this time. The City was going to receive full credit for that either
against the contract price or the contract price, plus additional fees for addi-
tional services. In any event, they would be paying more attorney fees whether
on the successful issuance of bonds or charges for services rendered in the event
the project was abandoned.
Mr. Hoyt agreed.
MOTION: On motion by Councilman Roth, seconded by Councilman Overholt, the
Letter Agreement dated February 9, 1979 with O'Melveny and Myers, Bond
Counsel, relating to expenses incurred with issuing Electric Revenue Bonds for
the San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station Units 2 and 3 (SONGS) was approved.
MOTION CARRIED.
123: PROPOSED AMENDMENT TO AN AGREEMENT WITH ALAN R. WATTS: (continued from
April 17, 1979 - see minutes that date) Gordon Hoyt, General Manager, Public
Utilities Department, referred to his detailed memorandum dated April 20, 1979,
reporting the volume of business done with Mr. Watts and information as to how
the recommended increase was negotiated.
79-442
City Hall~ Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - April 24, 1979~ 1:30 P.M.
Mayor Seymour stated even with the explanation provided, he still found great
disagreement in what he computed to be an 18% proposed increase in hourly fees,
which was inconsistent with the President's guideline of 7%. Ail business in
the area of purchased power was done with Mr. Watts and although recognizing
that he was doing an excellent job, he did not think the request was appropriate
at this time, while citizens were complaining of ever-increasing utility rates.
He was thus going to oppose the recommendation.
Mr. Hoyt explained he proposed to Mr. Watts using the services of an Associate
so that some of the work Mr. Watts had done in the past could capably and
competently be done by an Associate at a lesser fee, thus the total cost to
Anaheim would not necessarily rise the entire amount. Some work would be done
at $50 an hour and some at $65 a hour, but the preponderance would be at $65 a hour.
The Mayor suggested that Mr. Hoyt approach Mr. Watts and indicate that the
Council was unwilling to grant an 18% increase, but instead a 7% increase
with the understanding that some of the work might more cost effectively be
done by an Associate, as long as they would receive competent, high quality
legal service as in the past.
Councilman Overholt stated he was in favor of the proposal as recommended by
Mr. Hoyt. He maintained that Mr. Watts had been functioning at his former
rate for two years and seven months with no adjustment. According to his
figures, the gross income to Mr. Watts would increase approximately 15%
and divided by 2 would be close to the President's guidelines. As well, he
was not certain that the President's proposal was a good measure of the
value of services of an attorney to the City. From the memorandum submitted,
Mr. Watts' rates were competitive, if not substantially lower than other attorneys
used by the City. If they wanted good legal services, then they should pay
a fair, just and equitable fee based upon experience, expertise and availability
to the City.
Councilman Overholt thereupon offered a resolution to approve the First Amendment
to an agreement with Alan R. Watts, Special Counsel, for legal services provided
to the City concerning Power Supply.
Before any action was taken, Councilwoman Kaywood asked if there was anybody
else with comparable expertise who could do the job for the City.
Mr. Hoyt stated there might be, but he did not know of anyone in the practice of
law in Southern California that he could recommend that could step in and assume
where Alan Watts might leave off. Mr. Watts had unique knowledge of the City's
municipal utilities and the status of all the projects in which they were
involved. Someone else would have to learn all of that information.
Councilman Overholt then asked, when speaking of Associates, were they to be
lawyers, clerks or secretaries, and also if it was anticipated that Mr. Watts
would immediately adjust his organization so that the City could have the
benefit of the increased personnel.
79-443
City Hall~ Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - April 24, 1979~ 1:30 P.M.
Mr. Hoyt answered that the Associates would be lawyers and they could have the
benefit of the increased personnel immediately.
Mr. Watts who was present in the Chamber audience stated that the attorneys
were already on staff. They had three Associates at present, as opposed to
November of last year when they had only one.
Councilman Roth stated he was going to oppose the increase at this time because
he did not feel a proper job had been done in preparing information as to why
an additional increase was necessary. He agreed with the Mayor that an 18%
increase was excessive, and he had not seen documentation justifying such an
increase.
Councilman Kott suggested that since a great deal of expense was involved, an
in-house attorney would be the answer, not just on the present issue, but also
in the future and he felt that should be given consideration; City Attorney
Hopkins acknowledged that could be considered.
Mayor Seymour stated that in view of Mr. Hoyt's survey showing proposed increases
from other professionals who provided the City with services (see memo April 20,
1979), he was going to take a hard look at Price Waterhouse, R. W. Beck and
others that would be requesting increases. They might have to have competitive
bidding among those professionals, including appraisers.
Further discussion then followed between the Mayor and Councilman Overholt
relative to the proposed increase, wherein Councilman Overholt disputed the
18% figure and argued that it was instead 6% over the two-year, seven-month
period.
At the conclusion of discussion, Councilwoman Kaywood asked Mr. Hoyt in the
event they did not have Mr. Watts' services, what the cost would be to the
taxpayers, considering the expertise he provided the City.
The Mayor answered instead that the way to find out was to start bidding out
professional services.
Councilman Overholt asked under the Mayor's proposed disapproval of the action,
was it his thought that Mr. Watts continue to bill at $55 a hour and, as well,
how hQ would bill for work parformad by Associat~.
The Mayor answered "no", but that he would favor a 7% increase. Relative to the
latter, they should refer the matter back to the General Manager and have him
submit a recommendation, rather than trying to negotiate at a Council meeting.
Councilman Overholt stated he would so move; the Mayor asked if he was going
to withdraw his resolution and recommend that the General Manager come forth
with another recommendation.
.~OTION: Councilman Overholt thereupon moved for a continuance of the vote on
the resolution and recommended that the General Manager submit further recommen-
dations in one week. Councilwoman Kaywood seconded the motion.
79-444
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - April 24, 1979, 1:30 P.M.
Before a vote was taken, Mayor Seymour stated he would vote against the motion
because they had already given that opportunity and were no further ahead than
they were last week.
A vote was then taken on the foregoing motion and failed to carry by the following
vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
Overholt and Kaywood
Kott, Roth and Seymour
None
A vote was then taken on the resolution offered by Councilman Overholt to approve
the recommedation and failed to carry by the following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
Overholt and Kaywood
Kott, Roth and Seymour
None
123: INSTALLATION OF WATER DISTRIBUTION SYSTEM - REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT ALPHA:
Councilman Kott offered Resolution No. 79R-232 for adoption as recommeded by
the Public Utilities Board in memorandum dated April 9, 1979 approving Cooper-
ation Agreement No. 10. Refer to Resolution Book.
RESOLUTION NO. 79R-232: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM
APPROVING THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF COOPERATION AGREEMENT NO. 10 FOR THE INSTAL-
LATION OF WATER DISTRIBUTION SYSTEM WITH THE ANAHEIM REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY.
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-232 duly passed and adopted.
RECESS: By general consent the Council recessed for 10 minutes. (3:05 P.M.)
AFTER RECESS: Mayor Seymour called the meeting to order, all Council Members being
present. (3:15 P.M.)
169: CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING - CLOSURE OF PATT STREET: Public hearing was
continued from March 27, 1979 to this date to consider the closure to through
vehicular traffic of Patt Street, at a point 655 feet north of La Palma, as
proposed by the Public Works Department.
Councilman Roth moved to withdraw the proposal, as requested by the City
Engineer in memorandum dated April 16, 1979. Councilman Overholt seconded
the motion.
Before a vote was taken the Mayor asked if anyone wished to speak on the matter;
there was no response. He thereupon closed the public hearing.
79-445
City Hall~ Ana~eim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - April 24, 1979~ 1:30 P.M.
A vote was then taken on the foregoing motion. MOTION CARRIED.
174: PUBLIC HEARING - FEDERAL GENERAL REVENUE SHARING: Proposed administrative
uses of Federal General Revenue Sharing funds for Fiscal Year 1979-80, was sub-
mitted.
City Manager William Talley explained that when the Federal Government reenacted
Federal General Revenue Sharing effective January 1, 1977, one of the requirements
was that the administrative branch of the agency receiving the funds conduct a
public hearing. As in the past, the hearing was being combined with the regularly
scheduled Council meeting for the convenience of the public. Also in accordance
with Federal requirements, the Anaheim Senior Citizens Club was advised of
today's meeting. The purpose of the hearing was to solicit input from the public
prior to submitting a proposed use of Revenue Sharing funds to the City Council;
therefore, no action was required today. The Assistant Finance Director, Ron
Rothschild was present to describe the proposed use of Revenue Sharing funds.
Mr. Ron Rothschild briefed the Council on report dated April 24, 1979.titled,
"Federal General Revenue Sharing - Administrative Proposed Use Hearing" (on
file in the City Clerk's office). He pointed out that Federal Revenue Sharing
viable uses included capital expenditures permissible by State and Local law, as
well as operating and maintenance expenses for environmental protection, financial
adminstration, health, libraries, public safety, transportation, recreation and
social services for the poor or aged. Anaheim had taken the posture of using
Federal General Revenue Sharing monies chiefly for capital improvements, the
intent being that the City should not become dependent upon a source of funds
that would not have a long term commitment, as well as to become reliant upon
levels of service that it could not normally afford. Federal General Revenue
Sharing receipts for Anaheim for the 1979-80 fiscal year were estimated to be
$2,366,500.00 and were intended to be totally dedicated toward the construction
of Anaheim's new Civic Center complex, which he thereupon described.
After Mr. Rothschild's presentation, the Mayor asked if any member of the public
wished to speak on the use of Federal General Revenue Sharing funds for the
coming fiscal year; there being no response, he closed the public hearing.
City Manager Talley stated they would recognize that an administrative hearing
was conducted when the budget was submitted to the Council.
139: SUPPORT OF AB 1163 - TAX CREDIT IN DISTRESSED AREAS: Councilwoman Kaywood
offered Resolution No. 79R-233 for adoption supporting AB 1163 which would grant
a 5% tax credit for qualified investments in distressed areas as requested by
Assemblywoman Leona Egeland. Refer to Resolution Book.
RESOLUTION NO. 79R-233: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM
SUPPORTING ASSEMBLY BILL 1163 AND URGING ALL CITIES IN THE COUNTY OF ORANGE TO
SUPPORT THIS LEGISLATION.
79-446
City .Hal.!.~ Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - April 24, 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-233 duly passed and adopted.
139: SCHOOL FINANCING - McCARTHY/PRIOLO PROPOSAL: Mayor Seymour referred to
the pending legislation in Sacramento and the communication received from
Assemblyman Leo McCarthy, as well as from the City's elected Assemblyman, relative
to the proposal of the elimination of the 1% sales tax and utilization of that
by the State of California in exchange for the City picking up that portion of
the property tax heretofore allocated to schools. The City Manager had been
asked to research the matter (see minutes April 17, 1979) and to prepare a
recommended positon. Council had received the recommendation and then asked
that the City Manager report on the matter.
City Manager Talley reported that they had no solid information because the bill
was still being drafted, but yet was to be enacted in the next two weeks, if amend-
ments were not made. The basic proposal was the elimination of the local 1% sales
tax currently distributed to cities and counties and a substitution of property
taxes for those revenues. Their main concern was that property taxes were very
closely growth-controlled, while sales tax on the other hand was generated through
aggressive pursuit of certain commercial and related activities, areas in which
Anaheim has long been a leader. Thus, they would be giving up an extremely advan-
tageous revenue and an inflation tracking revenue source for one Where their efforts
would not be rewarded. Therefore, the substitution of one revenue source for
another as prescribed should be opposed.
Councilwoman Kaywood stated that was why she expressed her concern the prior week.
When that type of proposal was broached originally, it was a sharing on a popula-
tion basis, as proposed in the Governor's Urban Strategy Program, and he subse-
quently backed off because there was so much opposition from the cities. What
disturbed her was that hearings were taking place before the bill was actually
written, precluding the opportunity for any input or argument. Whatever the
City's action was going to be, it should be very aggressive.
Mayor Seymour concurred and stated that Anaheim had been a leader in the State
relative to planning orderly development and willing to take the risk of commercial
ventures, in exchange for potential profits in the form of payroll, jobs and
tax receipts. That was being flaunted with the type of proposal before them,
and it was nothing more than a dressed up version of Governor Brown's Urban
Strategy proposal of "share the wealth" on sales tax. They should not only
oppose it, but also do so as aggressively as possible from a standpoint of dollars
and cents and also from a philosophical standpoint. If it was going to pay in
the future to be a total bedroom community and not be interested in the risk
and the potential benefits of inviting industry and commerce into the City,
then the future economic growth of the State was in trouble.
79-446
City Hall, Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - April 24~ 1979, 1:30 P.M.
Councilman Seymour offered Resolution No. 79R-234 for adoption opposing the
McCarthy/Priolo plan, proposing the elimination of the 1% sales tax, in
exchange for the City picking up property tax. Refer to Resolution Book.
RESOLUTION NO. 79R-234: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM
ENDORSING THE LEAGUE OF CALIFORNIA CITIES' POLICY STATEMENT ON REVENUE AND TAXA-
TIONA AND THE LEAGUE RESOLUTION REQUESTING THE ALLOCATION OF EXISTING TAX REVENUE
TO CITIES AND COUNTIES AND OPPOSING THE MC CARTHY/PRIOLO PROPOSAL TO ELIMINATE
LOCAL SALES TAX AND URGING ALL CITIES IN ORANGE COUNTY TO OPPOSE SAID PROPOSAL.
Before a vote was taken, Mayor Seymour asked that the Resolution also be sent
to all of the City's legislators with a covering letter that he would be
happy to sign, not only reinforcing the Resolution, but also explaining how
strongly Anaheim felt in its opposition.
Councilwoman Kaywood questioned whether or not a personal appearance was going
to be helpful or necessary.
The Mayor stated he would include that in his letter, if any of the legislators
felt it appropriate, he would be happy to personally appear on behalf of the City.
Councilman Roth recommeded that a copy of the letter be sent to other Orange
County cities asking for their support and endorsement; the Mayor indicated
that would be included as well.
A vote was then taken on the foregoing Resolution.
Roll Call Vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
Overholt, Kmywood, Kott, Roth and Seymour
None
None
The Mayor declared Resolution No. 79R-234 duly passed and adopted.
105/156: POLICE/COMMUNITY RELATIONS REPORT BY THE COMMUNITY SERVICES BOARD
SUBCOMMITTEE: Mrs. Jan Billings, Chairman of the Community Services Board (CSB)
stated she was happy to present the report of the CSB's Subcommittee on Police
Community relations to the Council. It was their belief that the report was
both responsible to the needs of citizens and responsible in the concepts set
forth. She commended and thanked the committee for their work done over the
past eight months. She then introduced Mr. James West, spokesman for the CSB
Subcommittee.
Mr. West stated he was proud to present the structure embodied in the report
dated April 18, 1979 from the Community Services Board, along with the
attachment entitled, "Rationale For Proposal For Police/Community Relations
Subcommittee" (on file in the City Clerk's office), representing a modification
of the present structure in the City.
79-44 7
City Hall~ ~naheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - April 24~ 1979, 1:30 P.M.
In answer to questions posed by Councilman Kott, Mr. West stated: the report
recommended that the present Police/Community Relations Committee be modified
and sanctioned by the Chief of Police and the City Manager, that the Committee
recognized all segments of the City and that a representative from those
segments form that Board.
There were 15 people at the initial meeting of the Subcommittee, including repre-
sentatives from the People For Community Development (PFCD), Los Amigos de Anaheim
and the Community Services Board. However, the attrition rate was rapid and
extensive and the final vote on the Subcommittee was a unanimous vote of 5 people
who had gone through the eight-month process. As they grew, received input and
started formulating conclusions, there were some people who felt that the
Committee's conclusions did not coincide with their desires and thus went by
the wayside. They also had difficulty in getting people to attend the meetings.
Everything that transpired in the Subcommittee was reported in open meetings
of the CSB the second and fourth Tuesday of every month. He made a suggestion
that because of low turn-out at the Subcommittee level, that they make a presentation
to the Chamber of Commerce because many people in the Chamber also represented
other groups such as religious, women and voter groups. The proceedings
were also discussed at every meeting of Los Amigos de Anaheim and he (West) had
become a member of that group in the meantime.
They were recommending appointees to the Police/Community Relations Committee
by delegate of different recognized segments of the City, with each segment
choosing their own representative. It was the feeling that if anyone was
appointed by an elected official or bureaucrat, that person sometimes represented
them. They worked on the premise of establishing genuine communication. If
a group sent a delegate to represent their views, that delegate would be res-
ponsible to that group. Thus there was no appointment involved by an elected
official or a bureaucratic official.
Mr. West also explained that while they felt the City Council had the ultimate
control of the whole City and every City department, by the time the problem
reached the Council, it was a crisis. They wanted a structure not to handle
crisis problems, but one that would head-off such crisis problems. As he viewed
it, the Chief was not going to be in charge of the Committee, but the Committee
would work with the Department.
After further discussion, Councilman Kott stated that although he commended Mr.
West and the Subcommittee for their efforts, he did not agree with their conclusion.
Further in answer to Councilman Kott, Mr. West stated that they contacted all
Council Members and relayed information to them on the work of the Subcommittee.
Councilman Kott stated that was not true unless they did not count him as a
Councilman.
Councilman Roth clarified for the record that, as explained to him by Mr. West,
members of the Subcommittee would be contacting all five Council Members to
obtain their views. Mr. West was going to contact him (Roth) and Councilman
Overholt and Shirley Moss was to contact the Mayor, Councilwoman Kaywood and
Councilman Kott. He wanted it clear it was his understanding that the Sub-
committee was going to contact all five Council Members.
79-448
City Hall~. ~nahei~, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - April 24, 1979~ 1:30 P.M.
Councilwoman Kmywood also stated for the record that Shirley Moss phoned her
to say that she would be sending her a copy of the preliminary copy of the
draft and if she had any questions or comments, to call her. That was the
extent of the full conversation.
Pursuant to a line of questioning by the Mayor, Mr. West gave the following
information: He believed the CSB, as well as any board limited to 14 members,
represented the views of the City as currently structured; however, a segment
it did not represent, was the youth. The fear was expressed a number of times that
members of the committee not be appointed by elected officials for fear that
those officials might appoint someone who carried out their will as suggested
by the Mayor. However, he had not experienced that fear. Although he would
like to say that the CSB could carry out the job of a Police/Community Relations
Committee, time was the limiting factor relative to the duties of the Board.
He personally would not have a problem, but others had schedules to follow. The
simpler system to get the job done was the best and what they were recommending
was much simpler than creating another board.
Mayor Seymour stated his problem with the concept being recommended was somewhat
parallel to Councilman Kott's. If the Council was going to be responsible for
the success or failure of the Community Relations Committee, then they should
have responsibility and the right to appoint such a committee. If it was to be
an informal committee, there was no need for the CSB, the City Manager or the
City Council to have reviewed it, but it should continue in the current vein as
created by former Chief Bastrup and without the necessity of the Council's approval.
He appreciated that the objective was to head-off a crisis and if he was going
to be responsible as an elected official for heading-off such a crisis, then he
wanted to have a say as to how that would be done. He had great difficulty seeing
a citizen's panel being created by the direction and supervision of the bureauracy.
Elected officials had the choice to delegate responsibility and that was done
through commissions and boards. He did not know of one commission or board in
the City at any time that had experienced the fear of being politicized, and he
did not have the fear that some raised. He was therefore willing to have the
CSB carry out the function as long as it was properly structured and as long
as all segments of the community were represented.
The Mayor then referred to the procedure proposed to be followed and delegating
representatives and asked what would happen if the individual delegated from
a segment of the community was not satisfactory to either the Chief or City
Manager.
Mr. West answered in their opinion the City Manager and the Police Chief would
be co-equal with the committee. The committee would have delegates elected from
various groups throughout the City and those delegates would then be on the
committee. They would not be voted on or discriminated against by either the
City Manager or the Chief. The reason why they wanted a delegate system
was, for example, if the Council appointed someone from the PFCD and if that
person no longer represented that group or they perceived that that person
no longer represented them, they might feel their input was not present. The
ultimate responsibility was that of the Council, but they were trying to approach
it from a different angle, one of communication.
79-449
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - April 24, 1979, 1:30 P.M.
The Mmyor reiterated if he was going to be responsible for the success or failure
of the Police/Community Relations Committee, then he would like to have a say in
it. He then asked Mr. West if the subcommittee identified all of the segments
of the community.
Mr. West explained that they were working on developing that aspect. They would
supply a list to the Chief of those groups they felt were representative segments
of the City. A representative would also be sent from the CSB. If the City
Council supported the concept of all groups being represented, then ultimately
if anyone was unhappy with the system, they could go to Council.
Councilman Overholt stated he did not share the philosophies or fears that had
been expressed by Councilman Kott and the Mayor to the effect that every committee
in the City should be Council-appointed. He believed that the CSB was trying to
establish a group which the Police Chief and the City Manager could use to be
sensitive to what the community was feeling relative to what was happening in
the Police Department; Mr. West confirmed Councilman Overholt's understanding.
Councilman Overholt then asked questions of Mr. West revolving around when the
committee would meet, what the next step would be if the concept were approved,
and who would make the decision as to what segment of the City would be represen-
ted on the committee.
Mr. West explained the reason they suggested the committee meet regularly was to
discuss matters before they developed into a crisis. They hoped that the commun-
ication would increase sensitivity and the feeling of openness and workability
between the Department and the committee, and all meetings would be open meetings.
The next step, if the concept were approved, would be for the CSB to compile a list
of segments or groups within the City and compare them along with the list of the
Police Department. As a member of Los Amigos de Anaheim, he asked that group
to prepare a list, as well as the Chamber of Commerce. Even though some of the
lists might be redundant, it would be a way of capturing all segments. The
decision as to what segments would eventually be represented would be made
jointly by the Community Services Board, the City Manager and Chief of Police.
Councilman Overholt pointed out that the report stated that the committee shall
be established jointly by the City Manager and Chief of Police, and not the
Community Services Board.
Discussion then followed between Councilman Overholt and Mr. West revolving
around the final selection of the delegates who would be placed on the
committee, at the conclusion of which Councilman Overholt asked what was wrong
with the Police Chief and City Manager submitting the list of the groups
representing different segments of the City to the Council.
Mr. West answered he felt the list would be reviewed after it was completed
and at that point judged to see if it represented all segments. He wanted the
final configuration of that committee to be scrutinized, but he did not know how
it could be set up any other way. They were recommending Council support of
the concept. Items ! through 5 (page 3) listed in the report were merely an
outline to be followed, they were not by-laws.
79-450
.City Hal~ Anahei~, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - April 24, 1979, 1:30 P.M.
City Mmnager Talley asked to reply to the question regarding who would
appoint the committee. He explained that was the purpose of the only meeting
he had with Mr. West, and he believed it would be helpful to dialogue relative
to his expression. He asked what they were trying to achieve, and it seemed
if there was any confrontation, it would be reasonable to say at some point in
time there might be a disagreement between possibly the Chief of Police and
one or more members of the committee. At that time, there would have to be
recourse. Thus, he questioned whether they were trying to achieve an advisory
committee to the Chief or to the City Council and depending on the answer,
would determine how that committe should be constituted. If the Council selected
the committee, obviously they would advise the Council. If informally the Chief
created the group to advise him, he must have the ability to constitute the
informal group. It was not appointing anybody. What he believed happened was,
the Community Services Board said they were trying to achieve a communication
process between the Police Department and citizens, and they wanted to know how
that could be accomplished. They did not want a formal board or a rigid process
and came to the conclusion that the original concept of a Police/Community
Relations Committee, wherein the Chief of Police and members of the Anaheim Police
Department interrelated, worked well. However, under the present rules, that
committee was capable of being captured by a small element of the community
because there were no requirements for membership, other than attending three
meetings, after which that person would be voted in as a member.
Mr. Talley continued it was there strong recommendation that the membership
base be broadened and that there be assurance that all could be represented.
They were asking his (Talley) support of a concept, as well as the Council's
support. No one was going to appoint people to the committee. They were
looking for a way to achieve a communication device, as opposed to a formalized
procedure of an advisory body. What they had thus far was an agreement by the
Chief he would work with them to determine who would represent the community,
and he (Talley) was agreeing to work with the CSB on devising a list of groups
to invite, but it was not a formal committee.
Further discussion followed between Mr. West, Councilman Kott and Mr. Talley
regarding the appointment of delegates. The Mayor interjected, recognizing
that there were others in the Chamber who wished to speak.
Mr. Fernando Galaviz stated he was speaking as an individual, by special arrange-
ments as a representative of the People for Community Development, and as a
member of the Community Services Board. The subject matter came to them
first when the PFCD approached the CSB and stated they were ready to give up
and did not know which way to turn. At the time the problem was relative to
the issuance of the Police complaint form and the Police Chief had to be
pushed to institute the complaint form. There was also a discussion in the
Council Chamber regarding the establishment of the complaint form, when in
reality the system was not in practice.
He stated at this point he would relay the views of the consensus of the
People for Community Development. He prefaced his remark by explaining
also by special arrangement they were asked not to be present in the Chamber
in droves, and thus it was agreed that no one would be present, and he would
give the consensus.
79-451
City Hall,. Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - April 24, 1979, 1:30 P.M.
For clarification, Mayor Seymour asked if Mr. Galaviz was speaking for the
People For Community Development which group was aware of the meeting today,
but declined to show, and rather wanted him (Galaviz) to speak on their behalf.
Mr. Galaviz clarified that for this portion of the presentation, he was speaking
for the PFCD and that they did not want to develop a show for the press.
Mayor Seymour reemphasized he wanted to know two things: (1) that the PFCD were
aware of the meeting today, and (2) they agreed that Mr. Galaviz should be their
spokesman, rather than appearing themselves.
Mr. Galaviz answered that the Mayor was correct on both counts. He continued
that they felt that during the process of the work of the CSB, even though they
were involved in committee work, as a whole the community did not give genuine
input in the process. They felt in order to participate, special arrangements
should have been made before coming to the City Council. Relative to the concept
proposed, it was acceptable as long as there was a good representation of the
City such as Anaheim Hills, the Chamber of Commerce and others besides the
minority community. In reality what they were trying to establish was a committee
where if there was conflict with the City Manager or Police, would they have to
appeal to the Council? He gave as an example the issue of psychological testing
for police officers and another the size of identifying numbers of police cars.
The Police Chief agreed that police car numbers should be larger, but should
not be done until cars were replaced. Some of the community felt that the
4-inch size numbers should be implemented immediately instead of waiting for
replacements.
The question was what kind of mechanism would there be on the committee if a
conflict arose between the committee and the Police Chief and the City Manager.
Some recommendations were also made: (1) to accept the concept as proposed by
the Community Services Board with the following modifications: in the event
that such a conflict arose, it would be referred to the CSB who could act as a
buffer for the City Council. At that point, the mechanism for the CSB to
report to the City Council would already be available, and (2) That one-half of
the members of the committee should be appointed by the City Council, with the
other half selected by the City Manager and Police Chief relative to the
organizations who would participate, assuring good cross-representation.
The Mayor stated that Mr. Galaviz had cited two recommendations, and he wanted
to know if there were more. As he understood, (1) if there was a conflict with
the committee, the matter should be referred to the CSB for proper channeling
up through the Council, and (2) one-half of the committee be appointed by the
Council and the other half by the process defined by Mr. West.
Mr. Galaviz agreed.
The Mayor also asked for clarification that those were not Mr. Galaviz's personal
expressions, but the expressions of the PFCD.
Mr. Galaviz stated the recommendations represented a compromise.
79-452
City. Hall.~ Ana~.im.~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - April 24~ 1979, 1:30 P.M.
The Mayor emphasized what he was trying to elicit was an understanding if
the Chambers were filled with the Mexican-American community representing
PFCD, would they in a majority view agree with the two recommendations that
Mr. Galaviz made.
Mr. Galaviz stated that the item on the agenda today was not known to them
until they read it in the Anaheim Bulletin yesterday. There were several
who were going to appear and calls were made to people active in the community.
He said he would not participate in any more so-called confrontation type
situations that happened in the meeting with Mr. Talley. They wanted to high-
light the fact that they were trying to show good faith in taking a moderate
position.
Mayor Seymour asked if the Council were to agree to the recommendations, would
they then face the next week or the week after, the PFCD saying they did not
agree with Mr. Galaviz? Either he was empowered to speak for them or he was
not empowered to do so.
Mr. Galaviz stated it was a consensus of opinion of the people most active in
the PFCD, and he was reporting a consensus of the opinion. However, he could
not give the assurance that if the recommendation were followed that the Council
would satisfy the PFCD. There were concerns by that segment of the community
that there were a number of loose ends that needed to be worked out by both
parties concerned. Working with Mr. Talley, the Police Chief and that segment
to develop what they considered to be a final document and subsequently hold
community hearings would be the best way to get assurance that an individual
was not talking, but that there was full participation.
Mayor Seymour suggested that it might be more beneficial to continue the matter
for two weeks and invite all of the PFCD to participate in a public hearing
before the Council. That would allow Mr. Galaviz two weeks to gather the group
together to tell them he was before the Council, recommended the changes, and
asked if there was now a consensus of opinion.
Mr. Galaviz suggested that the CSB, the Subcomitte, Mr. Talley and the Police
Chief meet to develop the final draft.
Mayor Seymour interjected that he did not see why that was necessary when they
as a Council were ready to deal with the loose ends about which Mr. Galaviz
spoke.
Mr. Galaviz then stated that personally he felt that the proposal submitted
was a well balanced approach, and he would be more than glad to do whatever
was necessary to give a good representation to the community with the body
as a whole. He preferred not to deal as an individual.
Councilwoman Kaywood stated that Mr. Galaviz was on the Community Services
Board and he was also a member of the PFCD. There were many months of meetings
and hearings and she wanted to know where the PFCD were when all those meetings
were held.
79-453
City .Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - April 24, 1979~ 1:30 P.M.
Mr. Galaviz stated he supported the PFCD and worked with them from time to time.
Further it was necessary to define the difference between community work and
public hearing. At no time did the Subcommittee make any announcement or effort
indicating they had a final proposal and were going to go into the community
to solicit input from that community. There was no official public hearing
type setting and although their meetings were open, when going to the community
for input, it was necessary to release a notice.
Councilwoman Kmywood noted that if a workable arrangement was to be devised, input
should not be solicited after all the work was done, but instead it should be
done at the beginning stages.
Mr. Galaviz stated he was only a member of the committee and only represented
himself in that committee. Because of his involvement in the recall movement,
he was informally asked not to go to the Subcommittee meetings when they met
with the Chamber of Commerce or the City Manager in order to make sure he did
not get anyone angry at him. Two friends of his on the Subcommittee asked him,
and he did so in the spirit of cooperation. He did not want to be asked to
identify those people in order not to embarass them.
Councilman Overholt stated that since he was the target of recall, he felt he
could ask questions. The concern Councilwoman Kaywood expressed was also his
concern. Mr. Galaviz was a member of the CSB primarily because of his interest
in the PFCD; Mr. Galaviz stated that was not true.
Councilman Overholt continued that was one of the reasons Mr. Galaviz had
sensitivity for what that group was feeling and the hope was that he could bring
that to the Community Services Board in their deliberations which was also
true for his position on the Subcom~nittee, by reason of his involvement in
PFCD and Los Amigos de Anaheim so that he could bring to that subcommittee
the feelings of the people with whom he was involved. He suggested if they
were not expressing themselves through Mr. Galaviz, an appointed member of
the Board and selected to be on the Subcommittee, he wished they would do so
and more aggressively because that was the advantage of having him in that
position.
Mr. Galaviz stated that one thing that was important to do somewhere along the
line was to form a Task Force to look into the Mexican culture and how they
operated. The temperament of the people today was such that they did not like
to see one individual speaking for them. He was placed in a "boxed in" situation
in trying to moderate and develop a bridge. The best thing to do when soliciting
input from that segment was for the CSB Subcommittee to announce that there was
going to be a public hearing of the community. In this situation, if they
expected just because he was Mexican-American that he spoke for them, they were
mistaken.
Mayor Seymour agreed. He had learned that and that was the reason for asking
the questions he did. While he felt Mr. Galaviz could provide leadership to the
PFCD, he was not confident that Mr. Galaviz could speak for the Mexican-American
community. An additional reason for his suggesting two weeks was for Mr. Galaviz
to meet with them to gain input and then to appear before the Council.
79-454
City Hall~ Anaheim~LCalifornia - COUNCIL MINUTES - April 2.4~ 1979, 1:30 P.M.
Mr. Galaviz stated that the only person he knew that had been drafted by the
Community to articulate on issues had been Amin David and even then, they gave
him the script. He explained that United Way had just completed a study on
the Mexican culture and a great deal of input was obtained concerning Hispanic
behavior. He suggested that a copy be obtained from Mr. Merritt Johnson of
United Way, as it would undoubtedly be very helpful; the Mayor asked the City
Clerk to obtain a copy.
Councilwoman Kaywood asked who gave Amin David the script to speak for them;
Mr. Galaviz answered, "a committee."
Councilwoman Kaywood asked then if that committee could not have given input
since meetings had been taking place for seven months. After everybody
else had done all the work, produced a draft and then a second draft, they
wanted to walk in and say they did not like it, and that it should be discarded.
Mr. Galaviz stated he believed they should have had public hearings at the
beginning and in looking back, he should have pushed more to indicate that
they had better formalize some organized public hearings. Before concluding,
Mr. Galaviz stated that in his experiences in Anaheim that at no time in his
discussions with the Mayor or anybody in the room had he indicated that he
represented anyone.
RECESS: By general consent the Council recessed for 10 minutes. (5:00 P.M.)
AFTER RECESS: Mayor Seymour called the meeting to order, all Council Members bein~
present. (5:10 P.M.)
Mr. West emphasized that primarily throughout the whole process Mr. Galaviz
was a member of the Subcommittee and in their search for input, they barnstormed
in groups on the Subcommittee as to how they could get better input. They went
to groups that they thought represented other groups. He was upset at what was
revealed, especially after the unanimous vote of the Subcommittee to support the
concept. The City had a new Chief and all of the problems started long before
he came to Anaheim. Chief Tielsch expressed strong commitment on his part to
get community input. If their proposal lacked a mechanism, as Councilman Overholt
pointed out, it was due to the fact that it was built on a concept of cooperation.
The concept of lack of participation was disconcerting to him because he personally
talked to former Mayor Thom, Amin David, Fernando Galaviz, and A1 (Peraza). He
had been to the home of Richard Vargas; he talked to Joey Vargas, a member of the
Subcommittee and PFCD, and Shirley Moss went to his home to hand deliver a
copy of what they were doing, and they mailed the second draft to him because
he could not find the time to attend meetings. They tried every means to get
citizen input. He reiterated that the CSB would send a delegate to the new
committee and that delegate would report back to the CSB. It was his opinion
that the CSB would be very involved in the modified committee. Mr. Galaviz' con-
cept that one-half be appointed by the City Council would destroy the spirit and
workability of the group; the spirit being, equals to sit down and try to solve
the problems. In light of the lack of mechanism, the CSB could submit the finali:
list of groups within the City for approval by the City Council. He believed
that the City Council approving the groups and the concept of all groups was very
important, but with those groups having their own power to delegate, they would
79-455
City Hall.~ Anahe~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - April 24~ 1979~ 1:30 P.M.
speak for themselves. He then elaborated upon and emphasized all that was done
to obtain input that would be representative of the main feelings of Anaheim and
that they could do no more. It was very important to get the committee started
in order to build positive communication in Anaheim between all sectors of the
entire community.
Councilwoman Kaywood questioned Mr. West as to whether Mr. Galaviz was at the
first meeting of the Subcommittee where time, places and procedures were set up.
Mr. West answered "yes". At the first meeting there were 15 or 20 people with at
least 5 representatives from the PFCD. As they received input, it became obvious
that some people had preconceived ideas of what they wanted. Mr. Galaviz stated
that he (West) asked him not to go to the Chamber of Commerce, but that was not
exactly what he said. He told Mr. Galaviz that they needed more balanced input
and that they should go to the Chamber. Mr. Galaviz stated that he would go
along and he (West) indicated that would be fine, but they were not going to go
to argue with them on any preconceived idea, but basically to get input. In
that light, Mr. Galaviz decided on his own not to go. He did not think that
anyone, least of all himself, could bar Mr. Galaviz from doing what he wanted
to do.
Mayor Seymour stated that he felt all the Council would agree that the Subcommittee
had done a superb job, but during the course of today's hearing, they had uncovered
different information than that included in the report. To be specific, the
concept, whereby a list of segments of the community would be solicited, put
together, submitted to the Chief for his approval, recommendation or comment, as
well as the City Manager and the City Council. Subsequently from that list as
refined or amended, a delegate would be sent from each of the segments and
those delegates appointed by their own segment or peer group would then serve.
Those concepts were different from what was in the report or at least not
articulated. Therefore, he wanted an opportunity for the CSB to review those
concepts and bring them back to the Council and at that time conduct a public
hearing in which they would finally insure that the PFCD and the entire Mexican-
American community would be provided a final opportunity to have their say.
Having concluded that process, the Council would be in a position to make a
final decision. To proceed today based upon the specific recommendations of
CSB would probably not work unless there was some consensus provided to assure
they had the proper vehicle. That might be unfair to the Subcommittee but he
did not intend it to be so. He was sensitive to approving a structure that
would be "shot down" 30 days hence.
Councilwoman Kaywood stated Fernando Galaviz was appointed to the Community
Services Board, one of the reasons being that he was a member of the PFCD, which
he denied, and he was a member of Los Amigos de Anaheim. If he could not speak
for anyone, she wanted to know who could do so. He was at the Subcommittee,
voted unanimously in favor of the recommendation and now the charge was that
there was no input and that the Mexican-American community did not want anyone
to speak for them. That was true for everyone - if they did not like what was
done, they did not want anybody to speak for them. He also stated that Amin
David spoke for them, but they gave him the script. She felt that the report
was a very thorough one and could not say enough good things about it.
79-456
.~ity. Hall, Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - April 2~, 1979~ 1:50 P.M.
The Mayor stated if the Council wanted to make a specific recommendation and
approve the proposal, he would not support it today without assurance that every
step had been taken to assure maximum input and consensus of opinion.
MOTION: Further discussion followed between the Mayor and Councilwoman Kaywood
revolving around the issue, at the conclusion of which Councilwoman Kaywood stated
that they could either regress or go forward today by declaring that they were
going to take positive steps to move in a direction where they could get some-
thing done and with the complete cooperation of the community. She maintained
the time was now and thereupon moved to approve in concept the CSB Subcommittee
report and for the Board subsequently to submit the names of various organizations
that should be represented to the Chief and City Manager to review and sub-
sequently for the Council to approve the list and have the delegates chosen by
those groups. The motion died for lack of a second.
Mayor Seymour explained that he was sensitive to what Councilwoman Kaywood was
saying and now from what he further understood, he was totally supportive of
what the community was saying. If done unilaterally, however, without being
able to say that they had the consensus of the Hispanic co~unity, that would
be a mistake.
MOTION: Councilman Overholt moved that the report be referred back to the CSB
for the purpose of being more specific in the procedure whereby the segments of
the community were to be selected and if they chose to submit a proposed list along
with the revised report that they should feel free to do so. When the report was
resubmitted, the Council would be in a position to determine whether they should have
a public hearing.
Before any action was taken, Councilman Overholt stated the crux of the credibility
problem was in the area of how the committee would be selected.
Mayor Seymour stated he would be happy to second the motion if Councilman Overholt
would include that the decision of holding a public hearing be embodied im it
and that when the report was again submitted to the Council, that a public
hearing be held.
Councilman Overholt stated he would include that in his motion.
Seymour thereupon seconded the motion.
Councilman
After a brief discussion and an expression from Jan Billings, it was agreed that
the public hearing would take place in two weeks.
Councilman Roth stated he would support the motion, but it was his opinion that
the Council had to work together and support the recommendations of the CSB, but
not on a 3 to 2 vote, because it would be ineffective and would only inflame
those people they were trying to protect. He would not be part of a 3 to 2 vote.
First there should be justification for having such a committee with the alternative
that there would be no committee. A citizen could approach the City Clerk's
office and be placed on the Council agenda if they had a concern if there was a
problem within the Mexican-American community, the hotline was available, and
Council Members were available as well. He reiterated there were many avenues
available at the present time, and he did not understand why they had to have so
many subcommittees to put out fires before they occurred.
79-457
~ity Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - April 24, 1979, 1:30 P.M.
The Mayor expressed his disagreement with Councilman Roth. The Council should
not oversimplify a very complex, deep seated and dangerous situation in the
community. The easiest thing was for them to say they did not need anything;
Councilman Roth reiterated he was suggesting that there were many avenues open
at the present time.
Councilwoman Kaywood maintained that there was no question that when there was
open communication and it worked as a two-way street, problems could be prevented.
When the Police/Community Relations Committee was set up four years prior, there
was a big change and it was working very well. The Subcommittee devised a way
to strengthen that original committee. It was her opinion that they needed some
kind of positive Police/Community Committee. If they were going to bend and
break to one segment of the community, when obviously there was tremendous input,
it would discourage the others who participated, and very good people would drop
out. She did not want to see that happen.
A vote was taken on the foregoing motion, including the embodiment of a public
hearing in two weeks. MOTION CARRIED.
Councilwoman Kaywood stated that although she was not in favor of a public
hearing, her support was in the spirit of unanimity.
CONSENT CALENDAR ITEMS: On motion by Councilman Roth, seconded by Councilwoman
Kaywood, the following actions were authorized in accordance with the reports and
recommendations furnished each Council Member and as listed on the Consent
Calendar Agenda:
1. 118: CLAIMS AGAINST THE CITY: The following claim was denied and referred
to the City's insurance carrier or the self-insurance administrator:
Claim submitted by Darlene Hidalgo for personal injuries purportedly sustained
as a result of accident involving City-owned vehicle on or about February 23, 1979.
The following claims were recommended to be allowed:
a. Claim submitted by James Co Burris for damage to vehicle purportedly sustained
as a result of paint overspray "fallout" in parking area adjacent of H.G. "Dad"
Miller Municipal Golf Course, on or about July 28, 1978.
b. Claim submitted by Robert Michael Byers for damages to vehicle purportedly
sustained as a result of accident in the Convention Center employee parking lot
on or about July 30. 1978.
2. CORRESPONDENCE: The following correspondence was ordered received and filed:
a. 105: Public Utilities Board - Minutes of February 15, 1979.
b. 175: Utilities Department, Electrical Engineering Division - Monthly Report
for January 1979.
79-458
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - April 24, 1979, !:30 P.M.
c. 105: Housing Commission - Minutes of January 3, 1979.
3. 170: TENTATIVE TRACT NO. 10669: Submitted by Richard Hyde and Roberta
Hyde Bottemiller, to establish a 10-lot, 40-unit apartment subdivision on
RM-1200 zoned property, with a waiver of minimum lot width, and a 3-lot sub-
division on CL zoned property located at the N/E corner of Lincoln Avenue and
Wilshire Avenue.
The City Planning Commission approved Tentative Tract No. 10669 and granted
negative declaration.
4. APPLICATIONS: The following applications were approved in accordance with
the recommendations of the Chief of Police:
a. 108: Public Dance Permit submitted by Empresa Frias, for a dance to be held
May 12, 1979, from 7:00 P.M. to 1:00 A.M., at the Anaheim Convention Center.
(Applicant, Cruz Frias Munoz)
b. 108: Public Dance Permit submitted by Santa Ana and Tustin Police Association,
for a dance to be held April 25, 1979, from 8:00 P.M. to 12:00 Midnight, at the
Anaheim Convention Center. (Applicant, Jack D. George)
MOTION CARRIED.
CONSENT CALENDAR ITEMS: Councilwoman Kaywood offered Resolution Nos. 79R-235
through 79R-237, 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-235: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ANAHEIM ACCEPTING CERTAIN DEEDS AND ORDERING THEIR RECORDATION. (William J.
Sommerville, et al.; Laurence Mills; Northwest Motor Welding, Inc.)
175: RESOLUTION NO. 79R-236: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ANAHEIM FINDING AND DETERMINING THAT PUBLIC CONVENIENCE AND NECESSITY REQUIRE
THE CONSTRUCTION AND COMPLETION OF A PUBLIC IMPROVEMENT, TO WIT: CONVERSION OF
4 KV LINE TO 12 KV DISTRIBUTION LINE, COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT AREA II AND III,
ACCOUNT NO. 25-671-6328-74410-36500 (AREA II) AND ACCOUNT NO. 25-671-6328-74420-
36500 (AREA III); APPROVING THE DESIGNS, PLANS, PROFILES, DRAWINGS, AND SPECIFI-
CATIONS FOR THE CONSTRUCTION THEREOF; AUTHORIZING THE CONSTRUCTION OF SAID
PUBLIC IMPROVEMENT IN ACCORDANCE WITH SAID PLANS, SPECIFICATIONS, ETC.; AND
AUTHORIZING AND DIRECTING THE CITY CLERK TO PUBLISH A NOTICE INVITING SEALED
PROPOSALS FOR THE CONSTRUCTION THEREOF. (Bids to be opened May 24, 1979 at
2:00 P.M.)
144: RESOLUTION NO. 79R-237: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ANAHEIM APPROVING THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF AN AGREEMENT FOR A CONSTRUCTION
PROJECT WITH THE COUNTY OF ORANGE AND AUTHORIZING AND DIRECTING THE MAYOR AND
CITY CLERK TO EXECUTE SAID AGREEMENT. (Arterial Highway Financing Program -
No. 979 Anaheim Boulevard/Haster Street Overcrossing of the Santa Aha Freeway)
79-459
City Hall~ A~aheim~. California - COUNCIL MINUTES - April 24~ 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 Nos. 79R-235 through 79R-237, both inclusive, duly
passed and adopted.
ORDINANCE NO. 3997: Councilman Seymour offered Ordinance No. 3997 for adoption.
Refer to Ordinance Book.
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)
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. 3997 duly passed and adopted.
ORDINANCE NO. 3998 THROUGH 4000: Councilwoman Kaywood offered Ordinance No. 3998
through 4000, both inclusive for first reading.
ORDINANCE NO. 3998: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AMENDING TITLE 18 OF
THE ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO ZONING. (66-67-61(90) CR)
ORDINANCE NO. 3999: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AMENDING TITLE 18 OF
THE ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO ZONING. (66-67-61(91) CR)
ORDINANCE NO. 4000: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AMENDING TITLE 18 OF
THE ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO ZONING. (73-74-6 CL)
148: COUNCILMAN ROTH ELECTED TO SCAqMD: Councilwoman Kaywood congratulated
Councilman Roth on his election to the South Coast Air Quality Management
District at the League of Cities meeting held Thursday, April 19, 1979.
108: ANAHEIM BINGO OPERATORS RECOMMENDATIONS: Councilman Roth referred to the
document received from Mr. Larry Anderson containing recommendations from the
Anaheim bingo operators. He asked that the City Attorney comment as to how
those recommendations would protect the plundering of the City's citizens relative
to the skimming of patrons.
City Attorney Hopkins stated he had received the document and would prepare a
report on it for subsequent submittal to the Council.
156: NEWS RACK ORDINANCE: Councilman Roth asked the status of a proposed news
rack ordinance fashioned after that of the City of Glendale.
79-460
Ci. ty Hall, Anaheim., California - COUNCIL MINUTES - April 24~ .1979, 1:30 P.M.
City Attorney Hopkins reported that a draft ordinance had been prepared and
it was currently being circulated among staff, the Police Department and various
City Departments and would be submitted within three weeks.
114: COMPLAINT - CONTINUOUS BURNING OF LIGHTS IN NEW PARKING STRUCTURE: Councilman
Kott referred to a complaint received regarding the continuous burning of lights in
the new parking structure behind City Hall.
Mr. Talley explained that the contractor was testing the lighting system to be
certain that it was functioning properly before the structure was turned over
to the City on May 4 or 5, 1979.
114: COMPLAINT - W & W TOWING: Councilman Kott referred to another complaint
received relative to W & W Towing. As he understood, they did not have a license
to operate in Anaheim. If that were true, he wanted to know why they were contin-
uing to do so.
City Attorney Hopkins stated that he had not seen the letter, but if they were
operating illegally, it would be a matter of the Police taking enforcement action
and he would check into the matter. The Police Department had been looking into
their status, and he believed something had been changed in the way of ownership
although he had not received the report back from them.
114: RESIGNATION OF COUNCILMAN KOTT FROM THE ANAHEIM CITY COUNCIL: Councilman
Kott read the following prepared statement dated April 24, 1979:
"Dear Fellow Councilmen:
I hereby tender my resignation as City Councilman effective April 30, 1979.
The field of dentistry and oral surgery is my profession, and I have devoted
most of my adult working life to it. I have reached a point in my career where
additional professional preparation is desirable. I now have the opportunity to
further my individual growth in the medical profession.
This opportunity has now come to fruition, and I must accept it or pass it by.
I am leaving with no regrets or ill feelings. I wish all of you well. I
hope the future is good to Anaheim and that the City will one day acquire the
responsible competent government its citizens rightfully deserve.
Sincerely,
William I. Kott
City Councilman
Mayor Seymour stated he was certain that Councilman Kott's resignation would
come as a surprise to most and that it was not an easy decision for him to reach.
79-461
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - ~pril 24, 1979, 1:30 P.M.
He could appreciate and understand when an opportunity and a changing career
presented itself that ~_t would motivate him to make such a serious decision.
Speaking for himself personally, although he and Councilman Kott had not agreed
on everything, he (Kott) offered him as an individual a different thought on
different issues - an approach that he had to admit without such input he would
have made decisions or offered his voice in making decisions differently than
he had. Eventually Councilman Kott's views and philosophies, although he did
not concur with them at all times, caused him to think and many times change his
views and opinions. To that degree, he offered balance and commitment to
the citizens of Anaheim. He personally wished Councilman Kott well in his
new career and success in pursuit of it.
MOTION: Councilman Seymour moved to accept the resignation of Councilman
William I. Kott, effective April 30, 1979. Councilman Roth seconded the motion.
Before a vote was taken, Councilman Roth stated the resignation came as a
surprise to him due to the fact that he and Councilman Kott were elected
on the same day in 1976. Although he and Councilman Kott had "crossed swords"
many times in their tenure on the Council, he had great respect for him and
wished him success, and the best also to his family.
Councilman Overholt stated that he and Councilman Kott had been friends for a
long time, but he did not believe they knew each other until their service
together on the Council for almost a year. As the Mayor had stated, he (Kott)
expressed a point of view that was perhaps different from his own on many
occasions. On the other hand, Councilman Kott had perception and intuitiveness
that had brought to the Council wisdom at times when they needed that wisdom.
He, too, wished Councilman Kott well and admired his courage in changing careers
at, "our stage of life".
A vote was then taken on the foregoing motion. MOTION CARRIED.
Before concluding, the Mayor asked in relationship to the vacancy being created
effective April 30, 1979, what the City Charter stated regarding the filling of
that vacancy.
City Attorney Hopkins referred to Charter Section 503, "a vacancy in the City
Council from whatever cause arising, shall be filled by appointment by the City
Council, subject appointee to hold office until the first Tuesday following
the general municipal election and until his successor qualifies." There was
also another provision under Section 503 stating, "in the event it shall fail
to fill a vacancy by appointment within 60 days after such office shall become
vacant, the City Council shall cause an election to be held forthwith to fill
such vacancies for the remainder of the unexpired term."
Mayor Seymour suggested that they had important work ahead of them with the
budget to be considered which document would be received next week. Although
he did not see a rush for judgment, he encouraged the Council to be thinking
of a replacement to fill the vacancy, and personally encouraged that rather than
79-462
City Hall~ ..Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - April 24, 1979~ 1:30 P.M.
a special election. Since there was approximately 11 months left in Councilman
Kott's term, he believed an election would be expensive and irresponsible. The
voters would have their choice on that seat in April of 1980. He reiterated
that they begin thinking in terms of a replacement to fill the vacancy as soon
as possible.
ADJOURNMENT: Councilman Seymour moved to adjourn. Councilman Overholt seconded
the motion. MOTION CARRIED.
Adjourned: 6: 07 P.M.
-'LINDA D. ROBER~S~CI~ CLERK