Loading...
1979/07/0379-736 City Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - July 3~ 1979~ 1:30 P.M. The City Council of the City of Anaheim met in regular session. PRESENT: ABSENT: PRESENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Kaywood, Bay, Roth and Seymour COUNCIL MEMBERS: Overholt CITY MANAGER: William O. Talley CITY ATTORNEY: William P. Hopkins CITY CLERK: Linda D. Roberts EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, REDEVELOPMENT: Norman J. Priest HUMAN RESOURCES DIRECTOR: Garry McRae RISK MANAGER: Jack Love FIRE CHIEF: James W. Riley DEPUTY CITY ATTORNEY: Jack White INTERGOVERNMENTAL RELATIONS MANAGER: Nancy Johnson ASSISTANT DIRECTOR FOR ZONING: Annika Santalahti Mayor Seymour called the meeting to order and welcomed those in attendance to the Council meeting. INVOCATION: A moment of silence of was observed in lieu of an Invocation. FLAG SALUTE: Councilwoman Miriam Kaywood led the assembly in the Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag. 119: RESOLUTION OF COMMENDATION: A resolution of commendation was adopted by the City Council commending the Anaheim Senior Citizens Club and the North Orange County RSVP Volunteers for their outstanding efforts on behalf of the community's older citizens, to be presented by Councilwoman Kaywood at a later date. 119: RESOLUTION OF COMMENDATION: A resolution commemorating the signing of the Declaration of Independence by the traditional ringing of bells from churches and other buildings at 10:00 A.M. on July 4, 1979, was adopted by the City Council. 119: PROCLAMATION: The following proclamation was issued by Mayor Seymour and approved by the City Council: "Captive Nations Week in Anaheim" - July 15-21, 1979 MINUTES: Councilwoman Kaywood moved to approve the minutes of the regular meeting of February 6, 1979, subject to typographical corrections. Councilman Bay abstained. Councilman Overholt was absent. MOTION CARRIED. VISIT OF WEBELOS DEN NO. 1: The Mayor acknowledged the arrival of Mrs. Dorothy Ramirez, Den Leader for Anaheim Mormon Church Cub Scout Webelos Den No. 1, who was present with the Cub Scout members. The Mayor welcomed them and asked the City Clerk to distribute, "Know Your City" booklets to Mrs. Ramirez and the Webelos. 79-737 City...~a. ll~ Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - July 3~ 1979~ 1:30 P.M. 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. Councilman Overholt was absent. MOTION CARRIED. FINANCIAL DEMANDS AGAINST THE CITY in the amount of $2,053,450.45, in accordance with the 1978-79 Budget, were approved. 164: HIDDEN CANYON PUMPING STATION - SUBSTI~UTION OF LISTED CONTRACTOR: On motion by Councilman Bay, seconded by Councilwoman Kaywood, the substitution of Bethlehem Steel Corporation for listed reinforcing steel subcontractor Judson Steel Corporation on the Hidden Canyon Pumping Station, as requested by Peter Kiewit Sons' Company, was approved as recommended in memorandum dated June 25, 1979 from the City Engineer William Devitt. Councilman Overholt was absent. MOTION CARRIED. 169: AWARD OF CONTRACT - VAN BUREN STREET STREET IMPROVEMENT: (Account No. 12-793-6325-3240) Councilwoman Kaywood offered Resolution No. 79R-382 for adoption, awarding a contract as recommended by the City Engineer in his memorandum dated June 25, 1979. Refer to Resolution Book. RESOLUTION NO. 79R-382: 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: VAN BUREN STREET STREET IMPROVEMENT, 1120' N/O CORONADO STREET TO 32' S/O CORONADO STREET, IN THE CITY OF ANAHEIM, ACCOUNT NO. 12-793- 6325-3240. (Sully-Miller Contracting Company, $67,737.20) Roll Call Vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: COUNCIL MEMBERS: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Kaywood, Bay, Roth and Seymour None Overholt The Mayor declared Resolution No. 79R-382 duly passed and adopted. 173: LICENSE AGREEMENT WITH ATCHISON, TOPEKA AND SANTA FE RAILROAD: Council- woman Kaywood offered Resolution No. 79R-383 for adoption, as recommended in memorandum dated June 26, 1979 from the General Manager of Public Utilities Departmen~ approving the subject agreement No. BM-72043-22 and payment of a $150 license fee, to permit the Electric Utility to install a 12 kV overhead three-phase, four-wire circuit at Alec Street and Ball Road. Refer to Resolu- tion Book. RESOLUTION NO. 79R-383: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM APPROVING THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF A LICENSE AGREEMENT WITH THE ATCHISON, TOPEKA AND SANTA FE RAILWAY COMPANY AND AUTHORIZING AND DIRECTING THE MAYOR AND CITY CLERK TO EXECUTE SAID AGREEMENT. (License No. BM-72043-22) 79-738 City Hall, Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - July 3~ 1979~ 1:30 P.M. Roll Call Vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: COUNCIL MEMBERS: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Kaywood, Bay, Roth and Seymour None Overholt The Mayor declared Resolution No. 79R-383 duly passed and adopted. 150: CONCERN REGARDING THE INCLUSION OF THE PICKWICK HOTEL AND MALONEY GARAGE ON THE NATIONAL REGISTER: Councilman Bay offered Resolution No. 79R-384 for adoption, as recommended in memorandum dated June 27, 1979 from the Executive Director of Community Development Norm Priest, expressing the Council's concern regarding the inclusion of the subject structures within Project Alpha on the National Register of Historic Places. Refer to Resolution Book. RESOLUTION NO. 79R-384: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM EXPRESSING THE COUNCIL'S CONCERN REGARDING INCLUSION OF CERTAIN STRUCTURES WITHIN REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT ALPHA ON THE NATIONAL REGISTER OF HISTORIC PLACES. Roll Call Vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: COUNCIL MEMBERS: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Kaywood, Bay, Roth and Seymour None Overholt The Mayor declared Resolution No. 79R-384 duly passed and adopted. 123/174: PREPARATION OF THE REVISED HOUSING ELEMENT: An agreement with Castaneda-Berg and Associates in an amount not to exceed $50,000 for the pre- paration of the Housing Element for the General Plan, was submitted. Councilwoman Kaywood questioned Exhibit "A", Page 21 - Scope of Work, City of Anaheim Housing Element, wherein it indicated SCAG had to prepare the revised Housing Element. She wanted to know, since the City was not a member of SCAG, were they going to have input into that aspect. Planning Director Ron Thompson stated the City was still under their jurisdiction even though not a member. City Manager Talley stated the City also still submitted grants to the A95 Clearinghouse, and they would continue to cooperate with SCAG. Councilwoman Kaywood offered Resolution No. 79R-385 for adoption, as recommended in joint memorandum dated June 26, 1979 from the Community Development Department and Planning Department. Refer to Resolution Book. RESOLUTION NO. 79R-385: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM APPROVING THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF AN AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AND CASTANEDA-BERG & ASSOCIATES AND AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR AND CITY CLERK TO EXECUTE SAID AGREEMENT. 79-739 City Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - July 3~ 1979, 1:30 P.M. Roll Call Vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: COUNCIL b~MBERS: COUNCIL MEMBERS: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Kaywood, Bay, Roth and Seymour None Overholt The Mayor declared Resolution No. 79R-385 duly passed and adopted. 134/174: MOTION: On motion by Councilwoman Kaywood, seconded by Councilman Roth, the Community Development Department and the Planning Department were authorized to organize a Citizen Advisory Committee consisting of representa- tives from various citizen organizations and groups, for input into the prepar- ation of the Housing Element of the General Plan, as recommended in memorandum dated June 26, 1979 from the Community Development Department and Planning Department. Councilman Overholt was absent. MOTION CARRIED. 174/116: WORK SITES FOR CETA PARTICIPANTS: Councilwoman Kaywood offered Resolution No. 79R-386 for adoption, as recommended in memorandum dated June 21, 1979 from Human Resources Director Garry McRae, approving an agreement with various Outstation agencies providing work sites for CETA participants. Refer to Resolution Book. RESOLUTION NO. 79R-386: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM APPROVING AN AGREEMENT TO BE ENTERED INTO WITH VARIOUS AGENCIES IN CONNECTION WITH OUT-STATIONED CETA PARTICIPANTS AND AUTHORIZING AND DIRECTING THE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE SAID AGREEMENTS WITH APPROPRIATE AGENCIES. Roll Call Vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: COUNCIL MEMBERS: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Kaywood, Bay, Roth and Seymour None Overholt The Mayor declared Resolution No. 79R-386 duly passed and adopted. 123: EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY SOFTWARE SYSTEM FOR AFFIRMATIVE ACTION PROGRAM: On motion by Councilwoman Kaywood, seconded by Councilman Bay, the City Attorney was directed to draft an agreement with Biddle and Associates for the leasing of an Equal Employment Opportunity Software System for Affirmative Action Program record keeping purposes. Councilman Overholt was absent. MOTION CARRIED. 153: AFFIRMATIVE ACTION PLAN SUMMARY: Councilman Bay stated he noticed in the data that the overall minority percentage in June of 1977 was 12%, rising in December of 1978 to 14.6%; Mr. McRae noted the latter was 14.4%. Councilman Bay asked staff to explain the base used for the quota requirements, radius wise, and what the future goals were. Mr. McRae stated they did not have a quota requirement, but had established goals, and they were different for each job classification or EEO category, depending on the availability of statistics which the Council would consider when considering the proposed revision of the Affirmative Action Plan. 79-740 City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - July 3~ 1979~ 1:30 P.M. Population wise, the City was approximately 11.3 or .4% minority. The statistics would vary from classification to classification, depending on availability and the ability to assist those classifications. Councilman Bay stated he understood that, but using that same overall base, was that comparable against 11.3% in the City or against a 30-mile radius, or 15-mile, etc. Mr. McRae answered it was comparable in a sense against the City's statistics, but they were proposing to the Council in the Affirmative Action Plan that consideration be made classification by classification based on a number of criteria like population, distance, trained people in that category, etc. It would not be a fixed number. It was a very complicated issue. Councilman Bay stated he assumed all that data was going to be put into the software system, and they were going to get computer readouts that would track what they were doing and what their goals were in each area. Mr. McRae confirmed that was correct. MOTION: On moiton by Councilman Roth, seconded by Councilwoman Kaywood, the 1977-78 and calendar year 1978 Affirmative Action Plan summary and overview was received and filed. Councilman Overholt was absent. MOTION CARRIED. 153: ADOPTION AND IMPLEMENTATION OF THE CITY'S AFFIRMATIVE ACTION PLAN: City Manager Talley briefed the Council on memorandum dated June 27, 1979 from Human Resources Director, recommending that the City Council schedule July 31, 1979, at 3:00 P.M., as the date and time for a public hearing to solicit public input on a revised Affirmative Action Plan for the City. He continued that while such a public hearing was not required, the Plan was so substantial and significant they believed it appropriate to receive input from employee organ- izations and other segments of the community. To insure that he could be present, as well as a full Council, they were suggesting the date of July 31. On motion by Councilwoman Kaywood, seconded by Councilman Bay, the date and time for a public hearing on a revised Affirmative Action Plan for the City was set for July 31, 1979 at 3:00 P.M. Councilman Overholt was absent. MOTION CARRIED. Mayor Seymour asked if the Affirmative Action Plan would be available to the public in the City Clerk's office. Mr. Talley confirmed that it would be available and major elements of the public, if desired, probably could have a plan of their own for perusal. 153: DISPOSITION OF DISABILITY RETIREMENT APPLICATION OF COLE E. BAIN~ FIREMAN: City Manager Talley stated he had reviewed all of the documentation on the subject and concurred in the recommendation from the Safety Retirement Committee that the disability retirement of Cole E. Bain be allowed. 79-741 City Hall~ Aq.ah~i~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - July 3, 1979~ 1:30 P.M. Councilman Roth offered Resolution No. 79R-387 for adoption, granting a service disability retirement to Cole E. Bain, Fireman, as recommended. Refer to Resolution Book. RESOLUTION NO. 79R-387: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM FINDING AND DETERMINING THAT COLE E. BAIN IS DISABLED WITHIN THE MEANING OF THE PUBLIC EMPLOYEES' RETIREMENT LAW FOR THE PERFORMANCE OF HIS DUTIES IN THE POSITION OF FIREFIGHTER - PARAMEDIC I. Before a vote was taken, the Mayor asked to have certain findings included in the Resolution as follows: (1)that Cole E. Bain is incapacitated within the meaning of the Public Employees' Retirement law for performance of his duties in the position of firefighter; (2)that Cole E. Bain's disability is a result of injury or disease arising out of and in the course of employ- ment and that neither Cole E. Bain, nor the City of Anaheim has applied to the Workers' Compensation Appeals Board for a determination as to whether such disability is industrial; and (3)that Cole E. Bain will be separated from his employment as a firefighter after payment of his leave rights under the City Personnel rules, effective July 6, 1979. The Mayor continued that he supported the Resolution, but in his review of the present case, as well as the one to follow, he had some questions and concerns relative to potential rehabilitation of the subject employees. People who were disabled, especially in the safety areas, both Police and Fire, although they wanted them held financially whole, he had to question what efforts had been made to date to attempt rehabilitation and, therefore, placement somewhere else in the City. City Manager Talley stated the action, in effect, would provide a 50% disability pension retirement to the individual concerned. It could be increased annually by no more than 2% a year maximum based on the CPI. Also, the City could re- evaluate his status at any time up to the age of 55 in order to determine whether or not rehabilitation or other job assignments could be made. The City would first contact either the Chief of Police or Fire Chief to see if there were any assignments that could be made to prevent disability retirement. If the answer was negative and the retirement is processed, a rehabilitation program could begin. However, there were some limitations, the chief one being the attitude of the individual. It was possible to take any applicant and send either him or her to school and train them in another area, or possibly they had skills at the present time that could be used in another job situation. If the City could place an indi- vidual in a job within the City that was a non-safety position, the difference between full pay of the old position and the present salary being earned, up to the one-half would be paid by the City. If they refused that position, the City would be obligated to pay the entire retirement amount. If they took a similar position outside the City making any amount, the City could not mitigate those payments. In the present use, they had indications that re- habilitation might succeed, and they were recommending and attempting to place the individual in a category of occupation that would enable him to possibly be employed by the City or some other agency in the drafting-engineering line. At the present time, they had not done anything because a finding had not yet been made. 79-742 City Hall~ Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - July 3~ 1979~ 1:30 P.M. Mr. Jack Love, Risk Manager, explained that when they learned in February that Mr. Bain was presently incapacitated from continuing employment as a fireman, they commenced rehabilitation evaluation and talked to him about rehabilitation first within the Department. The Fire Chief advised him (Love) he could not find a position in which Mr. Bain could fit principally because most of the work involved substantial walking and climbing. They then pursued the possibility of rehabilitation within a City position, but learned that too was restricted because of the physical limitations. They learned that Mr. Bain had some skills in the drafting area and the medical sciences, the two principal fieldm of interest, which they learned of in later extensive evaluation by a rehabilitation specialist they retained. They finally realized Mr. Bain would have to be sent to school for at least a year before they could place him. They had no present positions in which to place him and the conclusion they arrived at was that they had to grant the disability retirement, and it was the only feasible approach and action that they could take at present. Mr. Bain had registered interest in returning to the City should a job be opened in the drafting area, but that would be after he com- pleted a period of schooling, and they were proceeding in that direction. Mayor Seymour asked how many people were presently on disability retirement in the City. Mr. Love stated 34 had been granted with the exception of two under consider- ation today over the last five years, not all City employees, but safety members. He did not know the total of all City employees because they did not have juris- iction over the granting of disability under PERS except for safety members. Mr. Talley stated he had asked for that information, but had not received it as yet. Mayor Seymour then asked the cost of disability retirements to taxpayers on an annual basis. Mr. Love stated that too was unknown although he had written to PERS for that information last September or October and followed it up with~additional communications. He wanted the actuarial equivalent of the cost of the disability retirement for those 34 safety members but had not received that information to date. After a brief discussion between the Mayor, Mr. Talley and Mr. Love, it was determined that the cost of granting a disability retirement was estimated to be approximatley $150,000 present value over the individual's lifetime if retirement occurred at age 33 or 34, and the cost for 34 employees at $150,000 would be approximatley $5,100,000. Councilman Bay asked if he understood correctly that the rehabilitation choice was strictly up to the employee. Mr. Talley emphasized that was correct. If a position in another classification was offered that an employee deemed inappropriate for any reason, that individual could refuse it. 79-743 City. Hall~ An.aheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - July 3, 1979~ 1:30 P.M. Mayor Seymour stated he fully supported Councilman Roth's Resolution. The Retirement Committee did a complete and thorough job, and he had no problem with the present case or the next one. He had to question, however, when talking about such a large sum how many City employees who had been retired and were on disability, were now gainfully employed somewhere else and receiving disability retirement income of approximately $10,000 a year and perhaps on another job as a full-time employee being paid another $15,000 or so. They should make every possible attempt to have those people gainfully employed by the City, thereby saving the taxpayer dollar. He asked for a full and complete report as to how many City employees were on disability retirement, whether through PERS or otherwise, not just safety employees, the cost involved, and some estimate as to how many were now gainfully employed. Mr. Love reported that Mr. Talley had requested him to survey past disability retirements in the fall of last year. He (Love) selected 10 candidates and initiated an investigation on seven. Two of those were required to report to an examining physician for evaluation. Although they were working in arduous fields of employment, the examining physician indicated that, in his opinion, they could not be returned to patrol activities or activities of that nature. Consequently, he advised the Assistant City Manager and the Chief of Police to return the two individuals to the Department, which they could do, to a limited duty position. The Department was presently having a problem with a great number of limited duty positions they were absorbing. They had also pursued other means of mitigating their losses by establishing more stringent medical standards and the new Safety Administrator was chairing a Task Force to develop those standards. They had little doubt that those standards would screen out a number of candidates. Mayor Seymour emphasized that he had no problem in supporting the disabled as far as insuring the individual a source of income, especially in the safety areas. However, if those people could be gainfully employed and were employed somewhere else, then he questioned why the City had not been able to employ them. Mr. Love stated he shared the Mayor's concern but the problem was with the law. The employee had to voluntarily accept that rehabilitation, and they were working with the legislature in attempting to revise the retirement laws so that if a position was offered to an individual, he would be compelled to accept that position, as long as he would not incur any loss of salary. At present, they could not compel the individual to take another position within the City work force. Councilman Bay noted that was the essence of the problem. There was no motiva- tion for the individual to work for the City when he could receive more money somewhere else. Councilman Roth asked to hear from the Fire Chief relative to Mr. Bain and his ability to go back to work in the Fire Department. Fire Chief James Riley first stated that the law was explicit. It stated that an individual in public safety employ who was disabled out of the line of duty for his job classification, "he shall be retired" given the fact he may not be 79- 744 City Hall~ Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - July 3~ 1979, 1:30 P.M. disabled for a dozen other Jobs. The option was not theirs to automatically move him over, but was totally the individual's option. Insofar as Mr. Bain and all other retirees that had gone before the Board since its inception, they had spent a great deal of time trying to convince those public safety people that they should transfer over into another job, particularly if they were young. They worked at a department level and also at the final hearing in meeting their responsibility, which stated they should make every effort to place them in public employ within their own organization. They had spent a lot of time with Mr. Bain and he had come closer than anyone in taking another position in the City and it was conceivable that he would come back. They could hire him back when he was trained to take a job that was available. He could waive his disability retirement and come back to the City as an employee, and the same situation would prevail in terms of his wages. Mayor Seymour then posed questions to Chief Riley, in the case of Mr. Bain, why he could not work in dispatch, and the Chief again emphasized that he (Bain) would have to agree to do that. He could not be made to do it. The Mayor asked what would occur if Mr. Bain were not disabled in the legs and rather than retirement, the Chief were to say he was fit as a fireman. Chief Riley stated in Mr. Bain's case it was "breaking his heart" to leave the Fire Service as a firefighter-paramedic and if that were the situation, he would come back. Mayor Seymour then asked what would occur if they turned down the Resolution. Would Mr. Bain then be eligible to work as a dispatcher? Chief Riley suspected that Mr. Bain would file an action in Civil Court against the City to get his disability retirement. Chief Riley then clarified additional questions posed by Councilman Roth and Councilwoman Kaywood relative to the rehabilitation process,~ at the conclusion of which, Mayor Seymour asked the City Manager how many employees had been rehabilitated and put back on the job. Mr. Talley stated that although he could not answer specifically, just from the testimony today, he would probably say none that were rehabilitated outside of the safety services. The Mayor stated his question simply was, since the City was incorporated, how many municipal employees had been rehabilitated and put back on the payroll? Both Mr. Love and Mr. Talley knew of none. Mr. Talley continued, however, that there had been a number within the safety services who were returned to light duty jobs, and a number in miscellaneous services returned to other non-related jobs, but as far as a crossover of safety into the miscellaneous service, he knew of none. 79-745 City Hall~. Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - July 3, 1979~ 1:30 P.M. Without choosing sides, it was not financially attractive to do that. Another fact that they had not talked about today, after a finding was made, the indi- vidual would then go to the Worker's Compensation Appeals Board hearing and at that time, disability would be determined, and they would be granted an award by the Appeals Board. It was his understanding a 1% disability was worth about three weeks at $70 a week and a 100% was worth $154 week for life, plus medical care. Thus, the award could range from $210 to $7,500 or $7,800 a year for life, plus medical. Mayor Seymour reiterated he had no fault with that unless a person could be rehabilitated and gainfully employed, and it was the Council's responsibility to see that occurred if possible. A vote was then taken on the foregoing Resolution, including the findings as articulated. Roll Call Vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: COUNCIL MEMBERS: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Kaywood, Bay, Roth and Seymour None Overholt The Mayor declared Resolution No. 79R-387 duly passed and adopted. MOTION: Councilman Seymour moved that the City Manager be directed to develop some statistics as to the number of all City employees who had been retired medically and who were on disability retirement and the current cost of that, as well as project future costs. Councilman Roth seconded the motion. Council- man Overholt was absent. MOTION CARRIED. 153: DISPOSITION OF DISABILITY RETIREMENT OF ALVARO DEL ROSARIO~ POLICE OFFICER: Councilman Roth offered Resolution No. 79R-388 for adoption, granting a service disability retirement to Alvaro Del Rosario, Police Officer, as recommended including the following findings: (1)that Alvaro Del Rosario is incapacitated within the meaning of the Public Employees' Retirement Law for performance of his duties in the position of Police Officer; (2)that Alvaro Del Rosario's disability is a result of injury or disease arising out of and in the course of employment and that neither Alvaro Del Rosario, nor the City of Anaheim has applied to the Workers' Compensation Appeals Board for a determination as to whether such disability is industrial; and (3)that Alvaro Del Rosario will be separated from his employment as a Police Officer after payment of his leave rights under the City Personnel Rules, effective July 6, 1979. Refer to Resolution Book. RESOLUTION NO. 79R-388: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM FINDING AND DETERMINING THAT ALVARO DEL ROSARIO IS DISABLED WITHIN THE MEANING OF THE PUBLIC EMPLOYEES' RETIREMENT LAW FOR THE PERFORMANCE OF HIS DUTIES IN THE POSITION OF POLICE OFFICER. 79-746 qi_~ty Hall~ .Anah~im~ California - CO.UNCIL MINUTES, - July 3~ 1979, 1:30 P.M. Roll Call Vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: COUNCIL MEMBERS: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Kaywood, Bay, Roth and Seymour None Overholt The Mayor declared Resolution No. 79R-388 duly passed and adopted. 123: GENERAL MOTORS ENERGY ASSESSMENT PROGRAM: Councilman Bay offered Resolution No. 79R-389 for adoption, as recommended in memorandum dated June 28, 1979 from the City Manager, approving an agreement with the General Motors Transportation Systems Division in an amount not to exceed $25,000 for an Urban Energy Assess- ment Project. Refer to Resolution Book. RESOLUTION NO. 79R-389: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM APPROVING THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF AN AGREEMENT WITH GM TRANSPORTATION SYSTEMS DIVISION, GENERAL MOTORS CORPORATION, AND AUTHORIZING AND DIRECTING THE MAYOR AND CITY CLERK TO EXECUTE SAID AGREEMENT. Roll Call Vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: COUNCIL MEMBERS: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Kaywood, Bay, Roth and Seymour None Overholt The Mayor declared Resolution No. 79R, 389 duly passed and adopted. On motion by Councilman Bay, seconded by Councilwoman Kaywood, the City Manager was authorized to execute letter agreements with the County of Orange and the cities of La Habra, Garden Grove, Costa Mesa, Fullerton and Orange to formalize their participation in the subject project. Councilman Overholt was absent. MOTION CARRIED. 158/123: SALE OF CITY-OWNED CITRON PARK PROPERTY (C&K SKATEPARK, INC.): City Attorney William Hopkins first clarified for the Mayor that he was satisfied with the indemnification aspect of the agreement (see minutes June 26, 1979). Councilwoman Kaywood offered Resolution No. 79R-390 for adoption approving an agreement with John J. Kogler and Michael T. Collins for the purchase of certain City-owned Citron Park property. Refer to Resolution Book. RESOLUTION NO. 79R-390: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM APPROVING THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF A PURCHASE AND SALE AGREEMENT FOR THE SALE OF CERTAIN CITY-OWNED PROPERTY AND AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR AND CITY CLERK TO EXECUTE SAID AGREEMENT. Roll Call Vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: COUNCIL MEMBERS: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Kaywood, Bay, Roth and Seymour None Overholt The Mayor declared Resolution No. 79R-390 duly passed and adopted. 79-747 City Hall, Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - July 3, 1979~ 1:30 P.M. 139: OPPOSITION TO THE PASSAGE OF SB462 REGARDING OUTDOOR ADVERTISING: (Continued from June 26, 1979) Councilwoman Kaywood reiterated her concern over the fact that the proposed bill was a further erosion of local control with the State telling the City what to do. The bill itself was confusing and there was no way of knowing whether they were specifically addressing billboards along interstate roads or whether they were talking about all signs. There would have to be further clarification of SB462. The State League staff stated the general intent was to protect billboards from being removed even after the amortization period expired, and that the cost of removal would be prohibitive to the cities. As well, there was no funding included in the bill by the State. Councilwoman Kaywood thereupon offered Resolution No. 79R-391 for adoption opposing the passage of SB462 regarding outdoor advertising. Refer to Resolution Book. RESOLUTION NO. 79R-391: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM OPPOSING THE PASSAGE OF SB462 RELATING TO OUTDOOR ADVERTISING. Before a vote was taken, Councilwoman Kaywood stated there was an agreement they had involving two billboards that were permitted temporarily to go into the Redevelopment area until the City needed the space. Under the law, it looked as though the City would have to turn around and pay them when the area was needed. Mayor Seymour questioned whether SB462 was a retroactive bill, because Council- woman Kaywood was talking about billboards on which they took action approximately two years prior. He did not believe the bill was retroactive. Councilwoman Kaywood emphasized that it was retroactive and when the owners removed the billboards or the City asked them to do so, under the bill they were to be paid. Ms. Nancy Johnson, Intergovernmental Relations Manager, stated the case Council- woman Kaywood was referring to were the two billboards in the Redevelopment area. If the bill passed after the billboards were constructed, it would relate to all billboards currently in place within the City even though agree- ments had been reached prior. The bill would supercede those agreements. Ms. Johnson then submitted a copy of the bill for the Mayor's perusal after which, the Mayor stated he did not see where it would cover agreements already made. He did not know how a law could invalidate an agreement already made. Ms. Johnson referred to the statement, "whether or not such advertising display is removed pursuant to or because of this chapter or any other statute, ordinance or regulation of any governmental entity" and suggested that the City Attorney review the matter. City Attorney Hopkins stated he would be glad to analyze it. The basic provision was that it prohibited any governmental entity from causing removal of any billboard or advertising display which was lawfully erected unless government condemned the properties through the use of eminent domain and provided compensation to the owner of the billboard or other sign. If there was a previous agreement that had been made between the parties, 79-748 City Hall~ Anaheim, .Califprnia - COUNCIL MINUTES - July 3~ 1979, 1:30 P.M. he doubted if it would then be covered by the proposed law. However, the law was not final yet, so they were speculating as to what it might be. It might end up in court and if they were trying to invalidate agreements, the court would say it was not proper to invalidate such agreements. Thus, after the law was passed, they would be able to pinpoint the matter more directly. It would be a cost to the cities if they had to go through an eminent domain proceeding and legal proceedings in order to take down billboards. Therefore, it was a bill he believed should be opposed. Councilman Bay stated as he understood the bill, they had amortization agreements set up in San Diego, for example, five years or ten years, and SB462 was in opposition to all those agreements and plans, so that they could not do it that way any longer. There would be a question in his mind that it might possibly overrule any of those agreements. Further discussion followed relative to the City's sign amortization ordinance, wherein the Mayor questioned whether the City was presently amortizing any signs. Ms. Johnson she had discussed the matter with the Planning Department and cur- rently there were none under the amortization program. They had managed not to use that ordinance for some time due to the fact that they had made agreements for certain billboards, wherein if they were relocated in another agreeable area of the City, that would be acceptable, rather than having to amortize to cover the investment costs. The Mayor asked if there were any further questions or discussion relative to the matter. Councilwoman Kaywood stated the move was to save the taxpayers money; Mayor Seymour stated it was to destroy the rights of private property and that he did not believe in stealing. Councilwoman Kaywood took issue with the Mayor's statement, because under the bill, the property owner would be getting double the amount. Mayor Seymour did not agree and stated it would permit the City Council to draw an amortization ordinance and structure it such a way that if the owner of the property were unable to regain his investment over the time of the agreement, the sign would be done away with. The bill stated that they would pay fair market value. Councilwoman Kaywood stated the taxpayers would pay; Mayor Seymour countered that was correct, they would pay private property owners fair market value, rather than legislating in a unilateral fashion, that they were to lose money. A vote was then taken on the foregoing Resolution. 79-749 City Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - July 3~ 1979~ 1:30 P.M. Roll Call Vote: AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Kaywood, Bay and Roth NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Seymour ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Overholt The Mayor declared Resolution No. 79R-391 duly passed and adopted. 156: INVITATION TO THE COALITION AGAINST POLICE ABUSE (CAPA) RALLY JULY 4~ 1979: Amin David, Jr., 538 East Central Park Avenue, referred to the packet submitted concerning the July 4 family picnic rally to be held at La Palma Park between 10:00 A.M. and 4:00 P.M. He invited the Mayor particularly to be with them to offer the invocation, opening the rally, between 10:30 and 11:00 A.M. They had received City permits and checked their monitoring system with the Police Department and were complimented on that system. He wanted to know if the Council would accept his invitation. Councilwoman Kaywood questioned the monitoring system. Mr. David explained that the monitoring system rather than using security would be people who (1) would be guiding attendees to the parking lot, and (2) walking around in the areas designated for the rally, wearing armbands for assistance. That was intended to address any disruption, although they did not expect any, because it was a family affair. The Mayor stated that since Mr. David asked him specifically to attend and offer the invocation, he was going to have to decline the invitation. Not that he had any pressing commitments elsewhere, but he did not believe that the proper utilization of meetings and discussions had been fully taken advan- tage of, and he was at a loss to see what positive good could come out of the rally. He was not opposed to it, and they had constitutional rights to hold a rally. He applauded that and would uphold it as long as it was peaceful and law and order was maintained. As far as his participation in it, he did not know what value that was going to be. Mr. David stated they would be honored with his presence. Relative to the other question, he believed a lot of good would be derived from the rally, especially from an informational aspect. Approximatley 35 to 40 County agencies had joined hands to inform the public that they were mindful and sensitive to Police abuses that not only had been shown in Anaheim, but throughout the County. The Chicano community did not have a patent on Police abuse, but it affected all sectors of life. It would inform people as to what could be done collectively about Police abuse, and it was an expression of those agencies saying that they cared and it would get more refined as time would permit. He was sorry that the Mayor could not see fit to attend. The rest of the Council Members were also invited. There would be no alcohol or drugs permitted in the park. Councilwoman Kaywood stated she was disappointed in that where there was a choice of a peaceful solution or creating destruction, that they choose the latter, and that disturbed her. 79-750 City Hall~ Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - July 3, 1979, 1:30 P.M. Mr. David answered that the disappointment was the people's, Councilwoman Kaywood asked in all the time that they had known each other, had he (David) ever known her to be anything but fair or honest? Mr. David stated he did not know whether he had that much contact with her. He was talking about the fact that the people came, the poor people, to ask the Council's help and had received nothing. Mayor Seymour stated he was sorry Mr. David felt that way and that perhaps summed it up. It was because of that attitude that he did not know what value he could contribute by attending the rally. The record would show that the Council and he personally had done all that could reasonably be expected, (1) to investigate an unfortunate incident in the community, and (2) to develop full recommendations, ideas and thoughts from the Hispanic community through the Community Services Board to the City Council as to what changes might take place, or might be considered to take place, in the way the City operated its Police Department. If Mr. David could sum up all that activity and say it was nothing, he reiterated he did not know what value it would be for him to attend the rally. Mr. David stated that the Mayor had been aware of the contact with the Police Chief and with the City Manager and of their trials and tribulations in small things, such as the Police Complaint Form, proper identification of officers and of Police cars. An order from the City Council putting those into effect would have done a great d~al. He was not saying that the Mayor had not responded in an outward fashion, but he believed the omission or his silence on those matters were gonspicuous in not ordering the bureaucracy to' put forth into immediate perspective those small items. Mayor Seymour referred to two of the items, the identification of personnel and vehicles. He asked the City Manager what the Council had instructed him to have done in the Police Department relative to those two matters. City Manager Talley explained that the Police Department carried identification cards and all officers in uniform were identified when they were in the field, and Mr. David was aware of that. The Police cars were well identified now and they had taken steps to make the numbers larger, and Mr. David was also aware of that. Mr. David asked how many cars were available now with large identification numbers. Mr. Talley stated the size of the numbers had not been proven to have any effect. The Mayor stated the question was a fair one and he asked how many vehicles they had today or when they would have vehicles with larger numbers. He knew for a fact that the Council had voted to have new vehicles, as they were purchased, marked with larger numbers. City Manager Talley stated that the Council had done that, and he could have answered the question if Mr. David picked up the telephone or asked him in the hallway, instead of trying to provoke the confrontation on the question. He would be very happy to give him that information as soon as the meeting was over. 79-751 City Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - July 3, 1979, 1:30 P.M. Mr. David stated to the Mayor that the City Manager chose to say it was as simple as picking up the phone, bringing to mind the kind of attitude that pervaded in the bureaucracy. For some months, he had been trying to obtain information about the Affirmative Action Program of the Police Department. The Mayor interjected and reminded Mr. David that he was present earlier when they set July 31 as the public hearing date on the Affirmative Action Plan, and he wanted to know if Mr. David would be there. Mr. David explained he was merely trying to give identification to the feeling that prevailed, and he then referred to an article in the Anaheim Bulletin relative to the picketing of the Police Department. He was present to invite the Council to share with them and to learn from their plight. Mayor Seymour did not know how at one time he could extend an invitation and on the other hand, indicate that they had done nothing. Mr. David stated he had heard the people and their plights and requests. Out of that had come no direct orders to the bureaucracy to institute immediately action that could place validity on the people's perspective of help. They could have ordered the expenditure of a few dollars to Police cars and, relative to flack jackets, he wanted to know if those had yet been identified. City Manager Talley stated that Mr. David knew that they did not have flack jackets for every officer and if they put anybody's name on the jacket, the next person who picked it up would not have the same name. The only time they used flack jackets was where they had a special enforcement team out on a severe stress type situation. Mr. David also knew he asked for information that was not available to the average citizen on very private records about Affirmative Action. The information was available to agencies who had a right to that information, but not to the casual citizen who dropped in. Mayor Seymour stated he for one would be happy to sit down with Mr. David and go over whatever lists he (David) had, on items which he felt the City Council had not acted. He believed they acted in good faith and had been very sensitive. Mr. David, speaking to Councilwoman Kaywood, stated she told him the last time, that the City Council was the only one who sets policy, and he wanted to know the reasoning behind the policy that prevented an ordinary citizen to find out quantitative information about Affirmative Action, particularly in the Police Department. Councilwoman Kaywood stated first she had seen some of the manners in which Mr. David had asked or demanded certain things. If they were of a confidential nature or if they were not something released to the public, then she was not certain he had any right to it. However, not once in the past year had he called her personally on anything, and yet he said he had known her for five or six years. Thus she read such situations to be confrontations. She also referred to the $~5 million law suit against the City that precluded them from discussing many things, and Mr. David knew that, because he was part of instituting it. 79-752 City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - July 3, 1979, 1:30 P.M. Mr. David stated he had nothing to do with it and resisted Councilwoman Kaywood's attempt to involve him with that. He was responding to some poor citizens who were asking for help. Councilwoman Kaywood noted that they held a special meeting in the park in response to that request and a number of other things as well. If the answer was not to their liking, it did not mean that nothing had been done. Mr. David then asked if Councilwoman Kaywood had responded to the investigation of the recent incident on May 20, 1979, (to which she responded) where they asked for help in the early morning hours. Councilwoman Kaywood stated when she was phoned on May 20, and said she would get a report, she did call ~e gentleman back who called her. She did not leave him hanging in the air. Before concluding, Mr. David asked Councilwoman Kaywood if it was unreasonable to ask (1) the number of police officers employed, (2) how many Hispanics were employed, and (3) out of that quantity, how many were captains, lieutenants, sergeants and regular duty officers? Councilwoman Kaywood answered on the first two, that was public knowledge, but on the latter, did not know if that was unreasonable; Mr. David said he had been denied that information. The Mayor stated those would be appropriate questions to ask on July 31. (A verbatim transcript of the foregoing is on file in tae City Clerk's office.) RECESS: By general consent, the Council recessed for 10 minutes. (3:00 P.M.) AFTER RECESS: Mayor Seymour called the meeting to order, all Council Members being present, with the exception of Councilman Overholt, and as Chairman, he reconvened the Anaheim Redevelopment Agency. (3:10 P.M.) 161.123: PUBLIC HEARING SALE OF PROPERTY, HEIL AND STOOKEY: A joint public hearing was scheduled with the Anaheim Redevelopment Agency to consider a proposed participation agreement with Dan W. Heil and William C. Stookey for sale of certain real property located on the northeast corner of Anaheim Boulevard and Broadway Street. Mr. Priest briefed the contents of his report dated June 22, 1979, and reported that the Redevelopment staff has been in negotiation with Messrs. Stookey and Hell for development of property at the northeast corner of Broadway and Anaheim Boulevard, and the proposal is for a 45,000-square foot office building. Al- though the elevation drawings posted on the Council Chamber wall depicted a four-story structure, the present proposed agreement provided for only three floors at the present time. A portion of the City Hall parking structure would be leased to provide sufficient parking, and the City would sell approximately 35,881 square feet of land to the developers. 79-753 City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - July 3~ 1979~ 1:30 P.M. Mr./Councilman Bay stated he would like to be sure that in every agreement for development the wording to insure that the provision of free parking for employees and customers of a facility be carried down to tenants, to avoid parking problems created by parking charges. Mr. Priest read the language of the proposed agreement. Chairman/Mayor Seymour asked if anyone wished to address the Anaheim Redevelopment Agency/City Council regarding the proposed participation agreement. Mr. William C. Stookey, 3624 Greenmeadow Drive, Fullerton, addressed the Agency/ Council advising that he and Mr. Heil were principals in Willdan Associates, an engineering firm established in 1963, located on the west side of Claudina Street near City Hall. One-third of the building proposed would be devoted to a headquarters facility for the firm. In response to question by Mrs./Councilwoman Kaywood, Mr. Stookey advised that a minimum of three stories would be required, and in the future, a fourth might be added, which would require additional parking provisions. Mr. Priest pointed out that the City parking facility had the capacity to lease additional spaces to meet requirements of a fourth floor. Chairman/Mayor Seymour asked whether anyone else wished to address the Redevelopment Agency/City Council; there being no response, he declared the joint public hearing closed. Responding to question by Mr./Councilman Roth, Mr. Stookey reported that ground- breaking should take place in three to four months. In accordance with recommendations by the Executive Director, Mr. Bay offered Resolution Nos. ARA79-66 and ARA79-67 for adoption. Refer to Resolution Book. RESOLUTION NO. ARA79-66: A RESOLUTION OF THE ANAHEIM REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY APPROVING AN INITIAL STUDY AND FINDING AND DETERMINING THAT A SUBSEQUENT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT NEED NOT BE PREPARED FOR THE PROPOSED SALE OF CERTAIN REAL PROPERTY AND THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT OF SUCH REAL PROPERTY IN THE REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT ALPHA PROJECT AREA. RESOLUTION NO. ARA79-67: A RESOLUTION OF THE ANAHEIM REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY APPROVING THE PROPOSED SALE OF REAL PROPERTY IN REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT ALPHA: APPROVING THE PROPOSED PARTICIPATION AGREEMENT PERTAINING THERETO; AND AUTHORIZING THE EXECUTION OF SAID PARTICIPATION AGREEMENT. Roll Call Vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: AGENCY MEMBERS: AGENCY MEMBERS: AGENCY MEMBERS: Kaywood, Bay, Roth and Seymour None Overholt Chairman Seymour declared Resolution Nos. ARA79-66 and ARA79-67 duly passed and adopted. 79- 754 City Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - July 3~ 1979, 1:30 P.M. Councilman Bay offered Resolution Nos. 79R-392 and 79R-393 for adoption. Refer to Resolution Book. RESOLUTION NO. 79R-392: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM CERTIFYING THE INITIAL STUDY WITH RESPECT TO THE PROPOSED PARTICIPATION AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE ANAHEIM REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY AND DAN W. HEIL AND WILLIAM C. STOOKEY; FINDING THAT THE CONSIDERATION FOR THE SALE OF THE PROPERTY THEREUNDER IS NOT LESS THAN FAIR MARKET VALUE IN ACCORDANCE WITH COVENANTS AND CONDITIONS GOVERNING SUCH SALE; AND APPROVING THE SALE OF SUCH PROPERTY AND SAID PARTICIPATION AGREE- MENT; APPROVING THE PARKING LEASE BETWEEN THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AND DAN W. HEIL AND WILLIAM C. STOOKEY; AND AUTHORIZING THE EXECUTION OF SAID LEASE. RESOLUTION NO. 79R-393: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM APPROVING A PROPOSED PARKING AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE ANAHEIM REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY AND THE CITY OF ANAHEIM. Roll Call Vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: COUNCIL MEMBERS: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Kaywood, Bay, Roth and Seymour None Overholt The Mayor declared Resolution Nos. 79R-392 and 79R-393 duly passed and adopted. Mr. Bay offered Resolution No. ARA79-68 for adoption. Refer to Resolution Book. RESOLUTION NO. ARA79-6~: A RESOLUTION OF THE ANAHEIM REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY APPROVING A PROPOSED PARKING AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE ANAHEIM REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY AND THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AND DESIGNATING LESSEE OF AGENCY PARKING SPACES. Roll Call Vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: AGENCY M~MBERS: AGENCY MEMBERS: AGENCY MEMBERS: Kaywood, Bay, Roth and Seymour None Overho 1 t Chairman Seymour declared Resolution No. ARA79-68 duly passed and adopted. Mrs./Councilwoman Kaywood moved that concept drawings for the proposed develop- ment be approved. Mr./Councilman Roth seconded the motion. Mr./Councilman Overholt was absent. MOTION CARRIED. ADJOURNMENT: There being no further business to come before the Anaheim Redevelopment Agency, Mr. Roth moved to adjourn. Mr. Bay seconded the motion. Mr. Overholt was absent. MOTION CARRIED. (Adjourned: 3:35 P.M.) CONSENT CALENDAR ITEMS: On motion by Councilman Roth, seconded by Councilman Seymour, the following actions were authorized in accordance with the reports and recommendations furnished each Council Member and as listed on the Consent Calendar Agenda: 79-755 City Hall; Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - July 3, 1979~ 1:30 P.M. 1. 118: CLAIMS AGAINST THE CITY: The following claims were denied and referred to the City's claims administrator: a. Claim submitted by Paris Henighan for personal injury damages purportedly sustained as a result of a slip-and-fall accident at Anaheim Stadium on or about May 1, 1979. b. Claim submitted by Dale F. Smith for damages purportedly sustained as a result of actions by the Anaheim Police, resulting in an arrest by the Burbank Police, on or about June 10, 1979. c. Claim submitted by Laurie C. Smith for damages purportedly sustained as a result of a problem power pole at the rear of 1115 Acacia Street, on or about May 10, 1979. d. Claim submitted by Walter F. Ehrich for personal injury damages purportedly sustained as a result of a slip-and-fall accident at Anaheim Stadium on or about April 27, 1979. e. Claim submitted by Mrs. Michael E. Rodger for damages purportedly sustained as a result of problems with drains caused by work done in alley behind 824 North Sabina, on or about June 6, 1979. f. Claim submitted by Andrew M. Miller for damages purportedly sustained as a result of an accident caused by hazardous conditions on Tustin Avenue north of La Palma Avenue at the railroad crossing, on or about March 8, 1979. g. Claim submitted by Robert Steven Moore for personal injury damages purportedly sustained as a result of an accident involving a City-owned vehicle in front of 1559 Benmore Lane, on or about March 15, 1979. 2. CORRESPONDENCE: %he following correspondence was ordered received and filed: a. 105: HACMAC - Minutes of June 5, 1979. b. 140: Library Board - Monthly Report for May 1979. c. 105: Library Board - Minutes of May 16, 1979. d. 173: Before the Public Utilities Commission, OII No. 48, investigation on the Commission's own motion, relating to California's interest in Essential Air Service pursuant to the Airline Deregulation Act of 1978 (?.L. 95-504, 92 Stat. 1705) e. 114: City of Fountain Valley, Resolution No. 7616, declaring its support of the Second Orange County Youth Exposition, to be co-sponsored by the Fountain Valley and Garden Grove Youth Commissions. Councilman Overholt was absent. MOTION CARRIED. 79-756 City Hall~ Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - July 3~ 1979~ 1:30 P.M. CONSENT CALENDAR ITEMS: Councilman Roth offered Resolution Nos. 79R-394 and 79R-395, 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-394: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM ACCEPTING CERTAIN DEEDS AND ORDERING THEIR RECORDATION. (Magnolia School District of Orange County; Pralle and Case No. 2) 129: RESOLUTION NO. 79R-395: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM FINALLY ACCEPTING THE COMPLETION AND THE FURNISHING OF ALL LABOR AND EQUIPMENT TO CUT AND REMOVE RUBBISH, REFUSE AND DIRT UPON ANY PARCEL OR PARCELS OF REAL PROPERTY OR ANY PUBLIC STREET IN THE CITY OF ANAHEIM, AS DIRECTED BY THE CHIEF OF THE FIRE DEPARTMENT, ACCOUNT NO. 01-202-6320 (1978-79). Roll Call Vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: COUNCIL MEMBERS: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Kaywood, Bay, Roth and Seymour None Overholt The Mayor declared Resolution Nos. 79R-394 and 79R-395, duly passed and adopted. 142: ORDINANCE NO. 4023: Councilwoman Kaywood offered Ordinance No. 4023 for adoption. Refer to Ordinance Book. ORDINANCE NO. 4023: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM REPEALING SECTION 7.12.030 OF THE ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE. (leaving children under twelve unattended) Roll Call Vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: COUNCIL MEMBERS: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Kaywood, Bay, Roth and Seymour None Overholt The Mayor declared Ordinance No. 4023 duly passed and adopted. ORDINANCE NO. 4024: Councilman Roth offered Ordinance No. 4024 for adoption. Refer to Ordinance Book. ORDINANCE NO. 4024: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AMENDING TITLE 18 OF THE ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO ZONING. (78-79-29, RM-1200) Roll Call Vote: AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Kaywood, Roth and Seymour NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: None ABSTAINED: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Bay ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Overholt The Mayor declared Ordinance No. 4024 duly passed and adopted. 79-757 City Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - July 3, 1979~ 1:30 P.M. ORDINANCE NO. 4025 AND 4026: Councilman Roth offered Ordinance No. 4025 and 4026 for first reading. ORDINANCE NO. 4025: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AMENDING TITLE 18 OF THE ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO ZONING. (78-79-36, CL) ORDINANCE NO. 4026: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AMENDING TITLE 18 OF THE ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO ZONING. (78-79-2, CL) 105: APPOINTMENT TO PARKS & RECREATION COMMISSION: Councilwoman Kaywood referred to the letter received from the Anaheim City School District asking that the term of Mr. Jerry Wood, Parks & Recreation Commission be extended to November 30, 1979 to coincide with the District's election and annual organization. She thereupon moved to confirm that request. Before any action was taken, Mayor Seymour recalled that the Council was,going to hold all appointments and reappointments to boards and commissions until the return of Councilman Overholt. Councilwoman Kaywood was agreeable to awaiting his return before taking any action. 146: SANTA ANA RIVER FLOOD PROTECTION AGENCY: Councilman Roth reported that last Wednesday, June 27, 1979, he attended the Santa Ana River Flood Protection Agency meeting. There were some minor increases in costs which were normally passed on to the respective cities who were members. They were going to increase the membership fees to $1,100 per year, but due to the fact that Tustin was interested in joining the group, there would be no increase cost to the City of Anaheim. 108: ENFORCEMENT OF NEWSRACK ORDINANCE: Councilman Roth again stated he was still interested in having the City's Newsrack Ordinance enforced. Later in the meeting, Assistant Director of Zoning, Annika Santalahti, explained that they approved the final copy of a form to be attached to the newsracks and within the next two weeks copies of the Ordinance would be distributed to all newspapers. 154: ANAHEIM ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION: Councilman Bay reported that he attended the first Anaheim Economic Development Corporation (AEDC) Board meeting on Thursday, June 28, 1979 and became well acquainted with that operation. He was very impressed with the great deal of work they had done up to now. He was hoping that the General Motors Energy Assessment Program, which the Council approved today, with the General Motors people due back in the City the week of July 9, could help tie those things together. There was a great deal of common ground with the AEDC, energy assessment and Redevelopment. 173: ENFORCEMENT OF GAS PRICE POSTING ORDINANCE: Councilman Bay stated he noticed that gas station signs all over the City, other than Mobil, were showing regular gasoline prices only, and some were not showing any prices. If they were going to enforce that Ordinance on a complaint basis, he was going to start making a list. 79-758 City Hall~ Anaheim~' California - COUNCIL MINUTES - July 3, 1979~ 1:30 P.M. Ms. Santalahti reported that they started actually enforcing the Ordinance yesterday by giving out copies of the Ordinance to station owners who did not comply, even though they had received a copy previously. Stations would be given two weeks to comply with the Ordinance without written notification. If they did not comply in two weeks, they would receive a notice of violation and within one week thereafter, they would receive a citation if they did not comply, ADJOURNMENT: Councilwoman Kaywood moved to adjourn. Councilman Roth seconded the motion. Councilman Overholt was absent. MOTION CARRIED. Adjourned: 3:43 P.M.