1984/05/01.City Hall~ Anah.e.im~ California - COUNCI.L..MINUTES - ~a.y..1.,. !984~ 10:00 A.M.
The City Council of the City of Anaheim met in regular session.
PRESENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Kaywood, Bay, Overholt, Pickler and Roth
ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: None
PRESENT: CITY NANAGER: William O. Talley
CITY ATTORNEY: William P. Hopkins
CITY CLERK: Leonora N. Sohl
CIVIL ENGINEERING-DESIGN: Arthur Daw
TRAFFIC ENGINEER: Paul Singer
Mayor Roth called the meeting to order and welcomed those in
attendance to the Council meeting.
INVOCATION: Reverend Gordon St. Ceorge, Anaheim Friends Church gave the
Invocation.
FLAG SALUTE: Council Member Irv Pickler led the assembly in the Pledge of
Allegiance to the Flag.
PROCLAMATIONS: 'The following proclamations were issued by Mayor Roth and
authorized by the City Council:
NMeals on Wheels Week' in Anaheim, May ?, 1984.
NLaw Day U.S.A." in Anaheim, May 1, 1984.
"Occupational Therapy Week" in Anaheim, May 5-11, 1984.
'Respect for Law Week# in Anaheim, May 1-2, 1984.
'Parliamentary Law Month" in Anaheim, May 1984.
"Cultural Arts Month~ in Anaheim, May 1984.
'Benihana Day" in Anaheim, May 4, 1984.
"National Day of Prayer" ln Anaheim, May 3, 1984.
"Senior Citizen's Month", May 1984.
"Scholarship Month" in Anaheim, May 1984.
"Nurses Day" in Anaheim, May 6, 1984
Mr. Bill Bush accepted the Law Day U.S.A. proclamation; Joyce Furuya accepted
the Occupational Therapy Week proclamation; Sally White accepted the Cultural
Arts Month proclamation, and Glna Bletso and Nancy Gilmore accepted the Nurses
Day proclamation.
MINUTES: Approval of the minutes was deferred to the next regular meeting.
465
94
Ci.t~ Hall~ Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - .Ma.y .~.. 1984~ 10:00 A..M.
WAIVER OF READING - ORDINANCES AND RESOLUTIONS: Councilman Pickler moved to
waive the reading in full of all ordinances and resolutions of the Agenda,
after reading of the title thereof by the City Clerk, and that consent to
waiver is hereby given by all Council Members, unless after reading of the
title, specific request is made by a Council Member for the reading of such
ordinances or resolutions in regular order. Councilwoman Kaywood seconded the
motion. MOTION CARRIED.
FINANCIAL DEMANDS AGAINST THE CITY in the amount of ~2,298,357.28, in
accordance with the 1983-84 Budget, were approved.
CITY MANAGER/DEPARTMENTAL CONSENT CALENDAR: On motion by Councilman Pickler,
seconded by Councilwoman Kaywood, the following items were approved in
accordance with the reports, certifications and recommendations furnished each
Council Member and as listed on the Consent Calendar; Councilman Pickler
offered Resolution Nos. 84R-163 through 84R-166, both inclusive, for
adoption. Refer to Resolution Book.
1Al. 118: The following claims were filed against the City and action taken
as recommended:-
Claims rejected and referred to Risk Management:
a. Claim submitted by Allstate Insurance Company on behalf of Richard Barrera
for property damages sustained purportedly due to an accident in which a
City-owned vehicle and City driver were involved in the Anaheim Stadium
Parking Lot, on or about February 6, 1984.
b. Claim submitted by Jeannette Wilt for personal injury damages sustained
purportedly due to a trip-and-fall accident at the Convention Center, on or
about January 26, 1984.
c. Claim submitted by McDonnell Douglas Corp. c/o Robert F. Scoular, Esquire
Bryan, Cave, McPheeters and McRoberts for indemru[ty sustained purportedly as a
result of Superior Court Case No. 41 46 02, Norio and H. Rose Uyematsu vs.
McDonnell Douglas Corporation, et al.
d. Claim submitted by John M. Homer, Jr. for personal property damages
sustained purportedly due to an accident in which a City-owned vehicle and
City driver were involved at the corner of Hampshire and Pepper Streets, on or
about February 23, 1984.
e. Claim submitted by Edward C. Campbell personal property damages sustained
purportedly due to an electrical power surge at 707 South Claudina, on or
about March 5, 1984.
f. Claim submitted by Cathy Jo and Jessica L. Konier for personal injury
damages sustained purportedly due to malfunctioning traffic signal in the
vicinity of Santa Aha Canyon Road and Margarita Avenue, on or about
December 19, 1983.
466
91
City Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MI.NUy~S - Hay 1, ~.98..4, 10:00 A.M.
2. 139: Opposing AB 2240 (Johnson) which would change existing law
addressing certain traffic control devices and authorizing the Hayor to
communicate said opposition to City's legislative representatives.
3. 139: Opposing SB 1783 (Robbins) which would provide City business license
tax exemptions for tow truck operators and authorizing the Mayor to
communicate said opposition to City's legislative representatives.
4. 123: Authorizing a letter agreement with ASL Consulting Engineers in an
amount not to exceed ~21,300, to perform engineering services for the
development of the Anaheim Auto Center.
5. 123: Authorizing an agreement with Anaheim IBIS, Limited, in an amount
not to exceed $18,000, for the modification of the traffic signal at Haster
Street and Katella Avenue concurrent with the developer's modification of the
raised median on Katella Avenue, as required under Variance No. 3342.
6. 131: Authorizing the Traffic Engineer to obtain an engineering consultant
to prepare the plans, specifications and estimates for the proposed
Federal-Aid Urban Program West Anaheim Traffic Control Improvement Project.
7. 160: Accepting the bid of General Electric Company in the amount of
$20,670 for 60 each 7200 volt, 150 KVAR Line Capacitors, in accordance with
Bid No. 4091.
8. 160: Accepting the low bid of Valew Welding in the amount of ~20,695.30
for one 2,000-gallon combination Flusher/Water Truck, in accordance with Bid
No. 4094.
9. 160: Accepting the low bid of Mission GMC Truck, Inc., in the amount of
~29,273.34, for two 1984 GMC Suburban vehicles, in accordance with Bid No.
4098.
10. 179: Authorizing extensions of time to Reclassification No. 82-83-2 and
Variance No. 3283, proposed CL zoning, to permit two canopy signs on property
located at 1200 South State College Boulevard, with Code waivers of maximum
number of freestanding signs and minimum distance between freestanding signs,
to expire November 2, 1985.
11. 175: Authorizing Change Order No. 1 to the contract with DeB
Enterprises, Inc., in the amount of 328,800, for additional work in connection
with Roof Rehabilitation of La Palma 3 MG Reservoir, Account No.
51-479-6329-17260-70810.
12. 150: Authorizing an extension of time to the contract with Sierra South
Construction, to April 25, 1983, and assessing liquidated damages in the
amount of ~16,700 for a delay of 167 calendar days in the completion of the
Pioneer Park Improvements, Account Nos. 16-830-7103-30020, 16-830-7103-30120
and 24-830-7103-30110.
467
9Z
City Hall, Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - May 1, 1984., 10:00 A.M.
13. 150: RESOLUTION NO. 84R-163: A RESOLUTION OF TRE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF ANAHEIH FINALLY ACCEPTING THE CO~PETITION AND THE FURNISHING OF ALL
PLANT, LABOR, SERVICES, HATERIALS AND EQUIPHENT AND ALL UTILITIES AND
TRANSPORTATION INCLUDING POWER, FUEL AND WATER, AND THE PERFORHANCE OF ALL
WORK NECESSARY TO CONSTRUCT AND COHPLETE THE FOLLOWING PUBLIC IHPROVEHENT, TO
WIT: PIONEER PARK IHPROVEHENTS, IN THE CITY OF ANA~EIH, ACCOUNT NOS.
16-830-7103-30020, 16-830-7103-30120 and 24-830-7103-30110. (Sierra South
Construction, contractor)
14. 123: RESOLUTION NO. 84R-164: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF ANAHEIM APPROVING A LOAN AGREEMENT WITH THE UNITED STATES ARMY AND
AUTHORIZING THE CHIEF OF POLICE TO EXECUTE SAID AGREEMENT FOR AND ON BEHALF OF
THE CITY.
15. 153: RESOLUTION NO. 84R-165: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF ANAHEIM AMENDING RESOLUTION NO. 83R-387 WHICH ESTABLISHED RATES OF
COMPENSATION FOR CLASSES DESIGNATED AS SUPPORT AND SUPERVISORY MANAGEMENT.
(effective May 4, 1984) (Office Coordinator - Public Utilities Field)
16. 158: RESOLUTION NO. 84R-166: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF ANAHEIM ACCEPTING CERTAIN DEEDS AND ORDERING THEIR RECORDATION.
Roll Call Vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
COUNCIL MEMEERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
Kaywood, Bay, Overholt, Pickler and Roth
None
None
The Mayor declared Resolution No. 84R-163 through 84R-166 duly passed and
adopted.
123: AMENDMENT TO MANAGEMENT PAY PLAN - MAINTENANCE AGREEMENT SIBSON &
COMPANY: City Manager William Talley briefed the Council on memorandum dated
April 24, 1984, from the Human Resources Director, Garry McRae, recommending
approval of an amendment to the original maintenance agreement between the
City of Anaheim and Sibson and Company for consulting assistance for
implementation and on-going administration of the Management Pay Plan,
extending the term through June 30, 1985 and increasing the cost limit to
$65,000.
Councilman Bay stated he asked that the item be removed from the Consent
Calendar primarily to record his "no# vote as one member of the Council who
had not been satisfied with the services of Sibson and Company mostly over the
question of who was Sibson's client. It was the intent of the Blue Ribbon
Committee that the consultant would be reporting to the City Council. He did
not feel that had been the primary function of Sibson and, further, the
extension of the contract involved another approximate 550,000 from the
original 515,000.
Mayor Roth stated he felt the Council was Just now gaining an understanding of
the entire Sibson Plan. He did not want to engage in any lengthy contract
until they had an opportunity of a full year to year and a half experience to
determine whether or not they wanted to continue it.
468
89
City Hall~ Anaheim~ Calif~rnia - COUNCIL MINUTES - May 1~ 1984,~ 10:00 A.M.
City Manager, William Talley, explained the current agreement anticipated a
level of service through the current fiscal year ending in 60 days. The
consultant had been called back on a number of occasions to meet with Council
and staff on implementing the plan and had incurred expenses substantially
beyond what was originally contemplated. He further explained it was a
limited contract and Council could at any time stop using the consultant.
Also, it was not his impression that the Blue Ribbon Committee in any way
anticipated contravening the Anaheim City Charter, under which all employees
below executive management, are responsibility of the City Manager,
consequently the divided reporting relationship.
Human Resources Director, Garry McRae, explained that they were on an hourly
contract with Sibson and that included the research they were going to do in
making structure adjustments both this and next year. The hourly rates range
from ~55 to ~125.
Councilman Overholt stated that this maintenance agreement was the
continuation of the pay-for-performance plan launched some time ago by the
Council and somewhere along the line Councilman Bay became disenchanted and
that was his privilege. However, the requested action would put a limit on
total compensation to be paid to Sibson which in no way affected their ability
or right to stop or modify anything that was being done at any time. He
wanted to register his strong "yes" vote for what Sibson had done thus far.
MOTION: Councilman Overholt moved to authorize a first amendment to the
agreement with Sibson and Company for implementation and on-going
administration of the Management Pay Plan Program, extending the term through
June 30, 1985 and increasing the cost limit to ~65,000. Councilman Pickler
seconded the motion. Councilman Bay voted "no". MOTION CARRIED.
172/149: PARKING RESTRICTIONS ON LA PALMA AVENUE BETWEEN BROOKHURST STREET
AND LEMON STREET TO ACCOMODATE CONTINUOUS LEFT TURN LANE: City Manager
William Talley briefed the Council on report dated April 23, 1984, from the
Acting City Engineer recommending that the Council approve the posting of no
parking signs on La Palma Avenue between Brookhurst Street and Lemon Street.
Traffic Engineer, Paul Singer, explained that the purpose of the continuous
left turn lane was to reduce collisions. Over the past three years, there had
been 219 collisions on the subject stretch of road, 72 of which were rear end
collisions. The proposed action, is intended to drastically reduce the
frequency of rear end collisions. In order to do so, some parking
restrictions were required thereby removing parking for some residents. Every
business and all residents in the entire stretch of roadway had been
contacted. They had received several negative comments and, based on those
comments, had adjusted the parking restrictions and lane lines in such a way
as to minimize the taking of parking. He then explained the plan in greater
detail working from a posted plan covering the entire stretch of roadway along
with a corresponding aerial map for better identification.
Councilman Bay asked if there was another alternative such as the acquisition
of the right-of-way where it did not exist; Mr. Singer answered that was a
469
9O
City H~ll,} Ana~eim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES. ~Ma~ 1~ 1984~ 10:00 A.M.
capital intensive alternative and would have to fall into a ranking of
priorities to compete with other widening projects in the City. -The proposed
plan was intended to accomplish a low-cost safety project.
The Mayor asked if anyone wished to speak in opposition to the proposed
parking restrictions.
Eva Heytng, 1403 West La Palma, explained that her block on West La Palma
collected water from Anaheim Memorial Hospital and the roots of the tree at
that location were out in the street. The water always collected there for
many years and it had seeped into the ground. There was a large high pressure
gas line in that location. She questioned if anyone had analyzed the soil to
see if it was secure since the traffic traveled over that area of the street.
Art Daw, Acting City Engineer, stated that relative to any danger to the gas
line, he would seriously doubt there was any problem at all. The gas company
always monitored their gas lines. Regarding the tree roots, he was not
personally aware of any that were coming up in the street but he would have it
checked.
Mr. Roy Eversz, 1423 West La Palma Avenue, stated that if they removed the
parking, it was his contention that the speed was going to increase and the
road would become a race track as mentioned in his letter (see letter dated
April 16, 1984 previously submitted by Mr. Eversz-on file in the City Clerk's
office). Further, he could not see how the City could take away parking from
the people involved Just because in that area there were supposed to be a
number of accidents. In looking at the map, however, most of the accidents
occurred in no parking areas. He lived on a corner but the people living next
to him would not have any parking. They had two car garages but they were
filled with two cars. He questioned where guests and service people would
park. He was very concerned about what they were doing to the residents.
Mayor Roth reiterated that the solution to the problem was not going to please
everyone but they were striving to accomplish a compromise.
Mr. Singer explained further details of the plan for Mr. Eversz.
MOTION: Councilman Pickler moved to approve the posting of no parking signs
on La Palma Avenue between Brookhurst Street and Lemon Street to accommodate a
continuous left-turn lane as recommended in memorandum dated April 23, 1984,
from the Acting City Engineer. Councilman Roth seconded the motion. MOTION
CARRIED.
.E~.qUEST FOR CLOSED SESSION: The City Attorney requested a Closed Session to
discuss litigation and potential litigation with possible action anticipated.
Councilman Bay moved to recess into Closed Session. Councilwoman Kaywood
seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. (11:03 a.m.)
AFTER RECESS: The Mayor called the meeting to order, all Council Members
being present. (11:33 a.m.)
470
City Hal.l.~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - May., .,1~ 1984~ 10:.00 A.M.
179: ORDINANCE NO. 4495 - LIMITING ACCESSORY USES OF PROPERTY TO A SPECIFIC
PERCENTAGE OF THE PRIMARY USE PERMITTED: Amending Section 18.01.10'0 of the
Code, limiting any accessory uses of property to a specific percentage of the
primary use permitted on the property.
Councilwoman Kaywood offered Ordinance No. 4495 for first reading.
ORDINANCE NO. 4495: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AMENDING SECTION
~'8'.0'1.100 OF CHAPTER 18.01 OF TITLE 18 OF THE ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING
TO ZONING.
Mayor Roth stated he had some concerns relative to the proposed Ordinance and
would like to hear some Justification for locking the Council into any
particular number where right now anything less than 50 percent was
appropriate. He would like the advantages and disadvantages explained next
week because as of right now, he was not supportive of locking future Councils
into such a narrowly structured percentage.
Councilman Overholt stated if there was some basis for the 15 percent other
than somebody's opinion that was the definition of incidental, or if there was
some statutory basis, he might be supportive. Otherwise, he shared the
Mayor's view: Councilwoman Kaywood stated the reason it came up was a
discussion that "half" was not "incidental". She believed the numbers they
talked about were a maximum of 25 percent, up to 25 percent being an
incidental use and if the use was 45 percent, it was not incidental.
Councilman Overholt stated that they deliberated those questions in the
Chambers and he would hate to be locked into something as absolute as a
percentage figure; Councilman Bay added that those opinions paralleled his own
and he also would need some Justification prior to enactment of the ordinance.
Mayor Roth asked that some response be prepared so that they could discuss the
matter next week.
Councilwoman Kaywood stated they were talking about what was a maximum and not
a minimum-a maximum that could be called incidental use and she was surprised
to see the 15 percent because they had talked about 25 percent.
165: HEARING - SUBSTITUTION OF SUBCONTRACTOR: Ray Wilson Company, prime
contractor for construction of the Center Street Parking Structure, requesting
substitution of Overland Plumbing Company for Cisco Fire Protection, Inc., as
subcontractor for the fire sprinkler system.
City Attorney, William Hopkins, briefed his memorandum dated April 17, 1984,
wherein it explained that the City had received a formal request by Ray Wilson
Company (RWC) to substitute a subcontractor that was listed in the prime bid
for the Center Street Parking Structure project. The notification was given
by RWC to the City of Anaheim and pursuant to the Government Code, the City
notified the subcontractor, Cisco Company, that the request had been submitted
to the City. A letter was subsequently received from Mr. Alan A. Carrico,
Attorney with Neben and Starrett Inc., indicating that Cisco Company objected
to the removal and requested a hearing required by law. This was the date and
time for the hearing to listen to both sides.
471
City Hal~ Anaheim~ California -.~.OUNCIL MINUTES -May 1~ 198~.~ 10:00 A.M.
Mayor Roth asked if a representative was present from Ray Wilson Company who
wanted to add anything further.
Mr. Paul S. Leevan, Klinger, Leevan and Glassman, 3345 Wilshire Boulevard,
Suite 1107, Los Angeles, representing the Ray Wilson. Company explained that
they had signed a subcontract agreement with Cisco Fire Protection dated
September 12, 1983. Cisco agreed to certain key provisions which he
s,,mmarized as follows: (1) The subcontract agreement contained a standard
provision that time was of the essence and that should a subcontractor file
bankruptcy, (which they did approximately six weeks ago under a Chapter 11
procedure) RWC would have the right to terminate the contract. (2) After
filing of bankruptcy, the subcontractor terminated its agreement with the
union. RWC was a union contractor and under its collective bargaining
agreements, all of its subcontractors must also be union contractors and the
termination of the union agreement by the subcontractor would in effect cause
RWC to be in violation of all its collective bargaining agreements and they
could be picketed. (3) The subcontractor must submit shop drawings in
accordance with the terms of the contract, all of which the subcontractor
violated. (4) Work was begun without having secured the necessary permit
placing all of that subcontractor's work in Jeopardy.
In concluding, Mr. Leevan stated that the Ray Wilson Company was a highly
reputable, solvent, financially successful company and should not be placed in
a position of having a subcontractor perform work concerning which it would be
at risk without having secured a permit in the first instance. Everything
that the contractor had done led them to the inevitable but negative position
of notifying the subcontractor of its violations by notices sent out in
February and then again in March and April. Finally, they had no choice but
to terminate the subcontractor and they hired a new and different
subcontractor in order to be able to proceed with the work without delaying
the project. The substitute subcontractor was performing in a diligent
manner. They were asking that the Council permit them to adhere to their
principles and substitute a new and different contractor for Cisco. If Cisco
had any complaint whatsoever and felt that RWC was in breach of their contract
and not Cisco, then it had its remedies, it could file a lawsuit and they
could litigate who was right and who was wrong with respect to the complicated
issues of the subcontract.
After questions posed to Mr. Leevan by the Council, the Mayor asked to hear
from the subcontractor, Ctsco Fire Protection.
Mr. Alan Carrico, Neben and Starret Inc., Attorneys, 180 Newport Center Drive,
Newport Beach, first stated that the initial remedy was in front of the
authorizing authority, the City Council, and not in the Courts at this time.
Also any actions by subcontractor other than Cisco at this time was clearly in
violation of the Government Code (4107) and it was plainly against the law for
another subcontractor to be brought in while Cisco was still pending. The
reason Cisco had been off the job for four weeks was that they had been locked
out. He then addressed the points broached by Mr. Leevan and countered as
follows; relative to the shop drawings, all of the delays were of no
consequence because Cisco could not start working on the job until
472
85
.City Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - Ma~ ~.~ 1984, lO:00 A.M.
approximately six or seven weeks ago. When they did start the Job, they had
approved drawings, sufficient manpower and materials, and there was no
material breach caused by any delay of submission of shop drawings. Relative
to bankruptcy, Cisco filed a Chapter 11 proceeding on August 22, 1983 and were
already under a reorganization proceeding when they entered the contract with
RWC. Consequently, RWC waived any provision of that contract regarding
bankruptcy. It was an executory and any ipso facto bankruptcy clause was null
and void as a matter of Federal Law.
Councilman Overholt interjected and asked if the prime contractor had specific
notice of the Chapter 11 proceeding.
Mr. Herman Ctsco, President of Cisco Fire Protection stated he did not
specifically advise RWC they were in a Chapter 11 proceeding and then relayed
the sequence of events that took place. He reported, however, that any
problem that a subcontractor might have was widely publicized by the
Association of General Contractors of which he was sure RWC was a member. The
information was published widely on a weekly basis.
After Mr. Cisco's explanation, Mr. Carrico reiterated that they could not
enforce an ipso facto bankruptcy clause. As outlined in Mr. Carrico's letter
dated April 4, 1984, to the Ray Wilson Company (letter on file in the City
Clerk's office)~ "...1. 2. 3. under the recent United States Supreme Court
decision of N.L.R.B.v. Btldisco, an employer under Chapter 11, such as Cisco,
has the legal right to reject its collective bargaining agreement with the
union. Thus, Cisco's rejection of the union is proper at this time, and any
possible breach of paragraph 21, based upon Cisco's rejection of the union,
would be legally excused."
Mr. Cisco then confirmed that he did not think RWC, through his mouth was
aware of his Chapter 11 bankruptcy until approximately one week before they
gave him notice of termination of his contract. He told them verbally at that
time.
Mr. Carrico then continued that relative to the issue of the permit, Mr. Cisco
showed him his permit dated December 14, 1983, which he had with him. They
were consequently at a loss as to Mr. Leevan's statement that Cisco never had
a permit when he had them in his hand. There was an application for a
buildin~ permit dated December 14, 1983, for automatic fire sprinklers.
Mr. Cisco then explained for Councilwoman Kaywood that there was no time limit
on obtaining the permit and he did not believe that was the issue. The issue
in reality was the fact that he was no longer a union contractor. They were
on the job nine or ten days. He had pipe in his shop waiting to be put on the
job. The subcontractor now on the job was installing pipe that was fabricated
in his (Cisco's) shop and he had the balance already fabricated and waiting.
He was not aware that someone took his place. Cisco was actively on the job,
on time, with sufficient manpower and with sufficient material, with a permit
and with approved drawings at the time they were on the Job. He reiterated,
he thought the only issue was union vs. non-union.
473
86
Cit7 Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINDTES - May ,1~ 1984~ 10:00 A.M.
After additional discussion and questioning of Mr. Cisco, Councilman Overholt
asked Mr. Carrico if he was told that RWC had agreed to allow Mr. Ctsco to
proceed without union personnel at any time; Mr. Carrico answered "yes", and
Mr. Cisco confirmed that was true.
Councilman Overholt noted that RWC had denied that today; Mr. Carrico
reiterated that did not make any difference because they were entitled under
Federal Law to terminate the union contract and RWC could not complain about
that. They were not in breach of any subcontract based upon that issue.
Councilman Overholt asked who at RWC agreed to allow Mr. Cisco to proceed
without union personnel; Mr. Cisco answered, George Noonan.
Mr. Carrico then continued relative to the reason they were unable to start
the Job on time was due to the fact that there was debris and other material
on the project which did not allow them to do so (see letter dated February
23, 1984, from Mr. Cisco to RWC explaining same).
Mr. Cisco then explained that had he not been removed from the project
approximately five weeks ago, the Job would have almost been finished by now.
Councilman Bay then asked the City Engineer to confirm the permit issued for
the Job; Art Daw, Acting City Engineer examined the document and stated that
it was a permit dated December 14, 1983.
MOTION: Councilman Roth moved to recess into Closed Session for a further
discussion on the matter.
Before a vote was taken, Councilman Overholt asked first to hear from Mr.
teevmn.
Mr. Leevan stated with regard to the provision concerning bankruptcy and the
union agreement, apparently this was the first they had heard of it, that
Cisco had already filed a petition in bankruptcy before it executed an
agreement with RWC. No express representation was made that it had filed
bankruptcy. He believed that Cisco had a direct and immediate responsibility
to inform RWC that it had filed a Chapter 11 proceeding and that it had
misrepresented its position. With regard to its ability to terminate the
agreement with the union, if it had any ability to do so, it may be true as
far as Cisco and the union were concerned. At the time the contract with RWC
was executed, Cisco committed itself to have a union perform the work. That
was required on the part of RWC so that they could discharge their obligation
under the collective bargaining agreements. Under the Supreme Court decision,
Cisco was not relieved of that direct responsibility to RWC to have a union
perform the responsibilities that it had agreed to perform. Mr. Leevan then
clarified that George Noonan was the project manager but he was not an officer
of RWC and he was not authorized by any means to waive conditions of the
contract. He was present and was prepared to deny a statement that he had
agreed on behalf of RWC to permit the work to be performed by non-union
personnel.
474
83
City Hall,. Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - May 1, !98.4.,.. ,1.0:00. ,A,.~.
Councilman Overholt asked about the per~tt which had been issued; Mr. Leevan
stated they were led to believe the permit had not been secured. The shop
drawings which had to be approved by the City were not approved prior to the
dismissal of Cisco. He did not know how the permit happened to be issued
before the shop drawings had been reviewed and approved by the City and by the
architect.
Councilman Pickler seconded the motion to recess into Closed Session. MOTION
CARRIED. (12:25 p.m.)
AFTER RECESS: The Mayor called the meeting to order, all Council Members
being present. (12:33 p.m)
Mayor Roth announced the following findings relative to the subject issue:
(1) That the subcontractor, Cisco Fire Protection Inc., failed to perform its
subcontract on the Center Street Parking Structure. (2) That the work
performed by the listed subcontractor (Cisco Fire Protection Inc.) is
substantially delaying or disrupting the progress of the work on the Center ~
Street Parking Structure project.
MOTION: Councilman Roth moved to approve the request of the prime contractor
Ray Wilson Company for substitution of Overland Plumbing Company for Cisco
Fire Protection Inc. as subcontractor for the fire sprinkler system on the
Center Street Parking Structure due to the two foregoing findings. Councilman
Pickler seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED.
REQUEST FOR C~O.p~? SESSION: The City Manager requested a Closed Session to
discuss labor relations, personnel and current litigation with no action
anticipated; The City Attorney requested a Closed Session to discuss
litigation and potential litigation with action anticipated. Councilman Roth
moved to recess into Closed Session and a lunch break. Councilman Pickler
seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. (12:36 p.m.)
AFTER RECESS: The Mayor called the meeting to order, all Council Members
being present. (2:20 p.m.)
170: PUBLIC HEARING - WAIVER OF HILLSIDE GRADING ORDINANCE~ TENTATIVE TRACT
NOS. 10980 AND 10981: Kaufman and Broad, requesting waiver of the requirement
of the Hillside Grading Ordinance in relation to lot line adjustment within
Tract Nos. 10980 and 10981 and location of a tract boundary within Tract No.
10980, said tracts being located south of Santa Ana Canyon Road, west of Weir
Canyon Road, within the Bauer Ranch area. Approval of the requests was
recommended by the City Planning Commission and in reports of the Acting City
Engineer dated March 13, 1984 and April 12, 1984.
The Mayor asked if anyone wished to speak either in favor or in opposition;
there being no response, he closed the public hearing.
MOTION: Councilwoman Kaywood moved to approve the request of Kaufman and
Broad for waiver of the requirement of the Hillside Grading Ordinance in
relation to a lot line adjustment within Tract Nos. 10980 and 10981 and
location of a tract boundary within Tract No. 10980. Councilman Roth seconded
the motion. MOTION CARRIED.
475
84
City Hall,..Anaheim.; California - COUNCIL MINUTES - May 1~ 1984~ .10:00 A.M.
105: APPOINTMENT TO THE COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT COMMISSION: Appointment to
the Community Redevelopment Commission for the term ending June 30,. 1986 (Mr.
Herb Leo). This matter was continued from the meetings of ApriI 17 and 24,
1984.
The Mayor asked if there were any nominations.
Councilman Bay nominated Mr. Herb Leo.
Councilman Overholt stated he spoke to Mr. Leo a week ago yesterday and was
informed by him that he was going to withdraw his name and he would so inform
the Mayor. He asked the Mayor if he was so informed.
Mayor Roth reported that he saw Mr. Leo as recently as last night and he said
he was not inclined to formally withdraw from anything after giving the matter
due consideration, but would accept whatever the Council's vote would be.
Councilman Pickler moved to continue the subject appointment for one week.
Councilman Overholt seconded the motion since he felt the matter should be
clarified.
Councilman Bay, speaking against a motion to continue as he did the previous
week, stated that he did not understand thoroughly what was going on. The
Council had received a complete report from the City Attorney and requests
from various candidates interested in the opening. He felt it was time they
filled the vacancy and saw no reason for the delay.
Councilman Overholt stated he too had a copy of the legal opinion rendered by
Special Counsel Weiser, Kane, Ballmer and Berkman and his interpretation of
the opinion was that it did not clear the air on the question of the propriety
of reappointing Mr. Leo, although it did on the question of their power to
appoint. The propriety to appoint him to fill the vacancy created by his
running into health and safety code provisions concerned him. That was what
he had discussed with Mr. Leo and after doing so, he (Leo) indicated he was
going to withdraw but subsequently he told the Mayor something different and
that was the reason for the continuance.
Councilman Overholt stated he would go even further and say that he could not
support Mr. Leo for reappointment to the Commission at this time because of
the legal problems and nothing having to do with Mr. Leo noting that they were
the best of friends.
Councilman Bay stated he suspected that, but what he could not understand, if
there were questions involved by the people who seemed to want to keep
delaying the appointment, they should take it upon themselves to get those
answers because until he saw something come in to the City Clerk stating that
Mr. Leo had taken away his submittal to be on that Commission or the City
Attorney told him that legally the Council could not do it, he saw no reason
to continue postponing the action.
Councilman Overholt stated he was not only concerned about the protection of
the Council, but also everyone on the Council.
476
81
City Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - Ma~ .!.~ 1984, 10:00 A.M.
Councilman Bay then asked, assum/ng that the motion to continue passed, would
his nomination of Mr. Leo still stand when they discussed the matter again; it
was determined it would start unless Mr. Leo widthrew.
A vote was then taken on the foregoing motion but continuing the appointment
for two weeks to May 15, 1984 since Councilman Overholt would not be present
at the meeting of May 8, 1984. MOTION CARRIED.
Roll Call Vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
Kaywood, Overholt, Pickler and Roth
Bay
None
Mayor Roth also confirmed for Councilman Overholt that additional nominations
would be called for on May 15, 1984 since no action was taken to close
nominations.
123: AUDIT COMMITTEE - INDEPENDENT FINANCIAL AUDIT: Audit Committee,
requesting the employment of Price Waterhouse, to conduct an independent
financial audit for the City for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1984, and
approving a five percent increase in the contract over the June 30, 1983 fee.
Mayor Roth referred to report dated April 13, 1984, submitted by both he and
Councilman Bay as members of the Audit Committee recommending the appointment
of Price Waterhouse to continue to conduct the subject audit (report on file
in the City Clerk's office).
MOTION: Councilman Roth moved to approve the employment of Price Waterhouse
to conduct an independent financial audit for the fiscal year ending June 30,
1984 and approving a five percent increase in the contract over the June 30,
1983 fee. Councilman Bay seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED.
Councilman Overholt referred to the summ~ry annual reportmatter and he was
interested in knowing what th~ issue was. He noted that the liaison committee
recommended that it not be considered and he wanted to know the reason.
Mayor Roth explained that brochures were presented to the Audit Committee in
the meeting, one from Santa Aha and one from Long Beach, which were
beautifully done. However, for the information contained therein, which he
felt could be provided by City personnel on a request basis, he did not feel
the brochures were cost effective.
Councilman Bay stated at the time the subject was broached, they clarified
they were only two members of the Council, and if staff would like they should
provide copies of the brochures or the information to the rest of the
Council. Their opinions were based on return on investment, cost vs. return
to the City. He felt that perhaps the brochures should be provided to the
whole Council.
Mayor Roth pointed out that he encouraged staff to provide that information;
City Manager Talley agreed and stated he would have copies of those documents
brought down to the Council.
477
82
~lt7 Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - Ma7 1~, 1984~ 10:00 A.M.
Councilman Overholt also noted that the document stated that, "...This
document should more appropriately be published and distributed by the Anaheim
Chamber of Commerce." If it was not appropriate for the City to do it, he
asked what efforts could be taken to determine if the Chamber would be
interested in, capable of, and inclined to do something like that.
Councilman Bay stated they were trying to relate it to economic
development--how and whether it would aid in promoting economic development in
the City. There was no argument during the meeting that that might be part of
the information put out to encourage economic development.
Councilman Overholt asked what efforts were being made to solicit the
Chamber's interest or to even tell them that this had been considered as
something they might wish to do.
Hayor Roth stated it had not gone that far but that the City Hanager should be
encouraged to discuss the brochure concept vith the balance of the Council.
If not, he would try to encourage getting the data into a brochure and asking
the Chamber to insert it in one of their publications periodically or even in
a single publication.
Mr. Talley explained for Councilwoman Kaywood that approximately 5,000 copies
were contemplated. The members of the Audit Committee firmly believed that
the City should not engage in economic development and that the statement was
made that this was properly the Chamber's role.
Mayor Roth stated his position as one member of the Council who was very pro
business and development. Anything they could do to enhance development he
would support. However, he felt the publication as presented had a limited
value when talking about a cost of several dollars apiece, and if it were to
be put out by the taxpayers, to him he was not convinced of the return value
when the information could be provided to anybody that had an interest in
establishing their business in the community. He also did not say he felt it
was the responsibility of the Chamber entirely.
City Manager Talley stated what he was trying to say was that ever since he
had been with the City, Council's policy seemed to be to keep the City
government out of economic development per se. His view of the discussion
that day was that economic development was more properly a Chamber function
than a City function.
Councilman Bay stated it was not his intent to say the City should not be
involved in economic development.
After further discussion on the issue Councilman Bay concluded by clarifying
that he felt it would be a good Joint function between the City and the
Chamber and any other private interest who wanted to explore the possibility
of economic development and certainly for the industrial areas of the City.
He still felt that the Industrial Development Board, with all its expertise,
should be directed and their actions broadened by the Council.
478
79
Cit7 Hall~ Anaheim~ Californ. ia ,- COU.NCIL. MINUTES - Max 1~ 1984~ 10:00 A..M.
STREET SWEEPING SCHEDULE: Mayor Roth stated he received a letter from a
citizen relative to street sweeping inferring that the City changed and
staggered the hours of street sweeping to catch _people off guard and that the
schedule of sweeping had been changed four or five times in the last year. He
asked the City Manager to respond, but before doing so, explained that the
City did not intentionally change the schedule of sweeping in order to collect
fines.
City Manager Talley confirmed and emphasized that the City did not do so and
if anyone knew of an instance where the hours were changed more than once, he
would appreciate them calling or writing his office. They counted on the
sweepers going by at certain times and the object of the program was to sweep
streets and not write tickets.
RECESS - CLOSED SESSION: Councilman Roth moved to recess into Closed
Session. Councilman Pickler seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. (3:00 p.m.)
AFTER RECESS: The Mayor called the meeting to order, all Council Members
being present. (4:08 p.m)
112: STATE FARM FIRE AND CASUALTY vs. CITY OF ANAHEIM: Councilman Roth moved
to authorize the City Attorney and Ruston & Nance to settle Orange County
Superior Court Case No. 39 53 81, State Farm Fire and Casualty Company vs.
City of Anaheim, for a sum not to exceed 550,000. Councilman Overholt
seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED.
112: PACIFIC TELEPHONE AND TELEGRAPH vs. CITY OF ANAHEIM: Councilman Roth
moved to authorize the City Attorney to settle Orange County Superior Court
Case No. 40 26 82, Pacific Telephone and Telegraph Company vs. City of
Anaheim, for a sum not to exceed 512,500. Councilman Pickler seconded the
motion. MOTION CARRIED.
113/153: APPOINTING LEONORA N. SOHL CITY CLERK (PROVISIONAL): Councilman
Roth moved to appoint Leonora N. Sohl City Clerk on a provisional basis.
Councilwoman Kaywood seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED.
ADJOURNMENT: Councilman Bay moved to adjourn. Councilman Roth seconded the
motion. MOTION CARRIED. (4:10 p.m)
LEONORA N. SOHL, CITY CLERK
479