1983/03/29City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - March 29, 1983, 10:00 A.M.
The City Council of the City of Anaheim met in regular session.
PRESENT:
ABSENT:
PRESENT:
COUNCIL MEMBERS: Kaywood, Pickier, Overholt, Bay and Roth
COUNCIL MEMBERS: None
ASSISTANT CITY MANAGER: James D. Ruth
CITY ATTORNEY: William P. Hopkins
CITY CLERK: Linda D. Roberts
PUBLIC UTILITIES GENERAL MANAGER: Gordon W. Hoyt
UTILITIES MANAGEMENT SERVICES MANAGER: Darrell Ament
CUSTOMER SERVICES MANAGER: Donald R. Metzger
CITY ENGINEER: William Devitt
ASSISTANT PLANNING DIRECTOR--ZONING: Annika Santalahti
ASSOCIATE PLANNER: Jay Tashiro
Mayor Roth called the meeting to order and welcomed those in
attendance to the Council meeting.
INVOCATION: The Reverend David Beadles, Anaheim United Methodist Church, gave
the Invocation.
FLAG SALUTE: Councilman Irv Pickler led the assembly in the Pledge of
Allegiance to the Flag.
119: PROCLAMATIONS: The following proclamations were issued by Mayor Roth
and authorized by the City Council:
1. Angel Day in Anaheim, April 4, 1983.
2. Neighborhood Watch Month in Anaheim, April 1983.
3. Cancer Awareness Week in Anaheim, April 4-10, 1983.
4. Volunteer Recognition Month in Anaheim, April 1983.
5. National Medic Alert Week in Anaheim, April 3-9, 1983.
6. Days of Remembrance of the Victims of the Holocaust, April 10-17, 1983.
Tho following people accepted tho fir,t five proelamation~ respectively: Ray
Vercher, Police Captain Jimmie Kennedy, Director of Parks, Recreation and
Community Services Chris Jarvi, Mickey Campbell, Fire Marshal Garthe Menges.
The last proclamation was to be mailed.
li9: RESOLUTION OF SUPPORT: A resolution of support was unanimously adopted
by the City Council for the organizers, committee members, players, coaches
and all supporters of the 1983 Fuzz Bowl to be held on Saturday, April 23,
1983, for the benefit of Anaheim Police Officers Widows and Orphans Fund. The
resolution was accepted by Detective Terry Inns and Ken Grover.
237
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - March 29, 1983~ 10:00 A.M.
MINUTES: Councilwoman Kaywood moved to approve the minutes of the regular
meetings held February 15 and 22, 1983. Councilman Pickler seconded the
motion. MOTION CARRIED.
WAIVER OF READING - ORDINANCES AND RESOLUTIONS: Councilwoman Kaywood moved to
waive the reading in full of all ordinances and resolutions 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. Councilman Roth seconded the
motion. MOTION CARRIED.
FINANCIAL DEMANDS AGAINST THE CITY in the amount of $1,588,214.92, in
accordance with the 1982-83 Budget, were approved.
CITY MANAGER/DEPARTMENTAL CONSENT CALENDAR: On motion by Councilwoman
Kaywood, seconded by Councilman Bay, the following items were approved in
accordance with the reports, certifications and recommendations furnished each
Council Member and as listed on the Consent Calendar; Councilwoman Kaywood
offered Resolution Nos. 83R-118 through 83R-124, both inclusive, for
adoption. Refer to Resolution Book.
1. 118: The following claims were filed against the City and action taken as
recommended:
A. Claims denied and referred to Risk Management:
1. Claim submitted by Francis A. DiGerolamo for personal property damages
purportedly sustained due to City street light breaking and failing on
claimant's parked car at 1660 West Palm Lane, on or about December 1, 1982.
2. Claim submitted by Bettie Y. Gray for personal property damages to
tree purportedly sustained due to actions of a City crew at 922 Chippewa,
on or about November 30, 1982.
3. Claim submitted by Linda F. Supancic for personal property damages to
car purportedly sustained due to improper maintenance of City light pole
at 2322 Ramm Drive, on or about November 30, 1982.
4. Claim submitted by Audrie A. Royer for personal property damages
purportedly sustained due to parkway tree falling on claimant's house at
617 South Dickel Street, in or about April 1982.
5. Claim submitted by Thurman Warren Jessup for personal property damages
to heater transformer and digital clock purportedly sustained due to
improper power voltage to claimant's house at 130 Jeanine Way, on or about
December 11, 1982.
238
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - March 29, 1983, 10:00 A.M.
6. Claim submitted by Betty Hinderstein for personal injuries purportedly
sustained due to a trip-and-fail accident at the Anaheim Senior Citizens
Center, 280 East Lincoln Avenue, on or about January 20, 1983.
7. Claim submitted by Mimi's Cafe for loss of business purportedly
sustained due to a power failure at 1240 North Euclid Avenue, on or about
November 30, 1982.
B. Application for Leave to Present a Late Claim denied:
8. Application for Leave to Present a Late Claim submitted by Beverly J.
Baker for personal injuries purportedly sustained due to a slip-and-fall
accident at Anaheim Stadium, on or about September 6, 1982.
2. The following correspondence was ordered received and filed:
a. 140: Public Library--Monthly Statistical Summary for February 1983.
b. 105: Youth Commission--Minutes of February 12, 1983.
c. 105: Public Utilities Board--Minutes of March 3, 1983.
3. 108: The following application was approved in accordance with the
recommendation of the Acting Chief of Police:
a. Public Dance Permit, Felipe Jesus Guerena, Anaheim Dance Promotions,
to hold a dance at the Anaheim Convention Center on April 2, 1983, from
6:00 p.m. to 1:30 a.m.
4. 123: Approving a reimbursement agreement with Boulevard Development,
Inc., for fees advanced toward the cost of special water facilities to serve
Tract Nos. 9601, 9744 and 9745 in the Anaheim Hills area.
5. 123: Authorizing an agreement with the City of Placentia in an amount not
to exceed $20,000 for the rehabilitation of Orangethorpe Avenue, west of
Kraemer Boulevard and west of Chapman Avenue.
6. 160: Authorizing the Purchasin§ Agent to issue a purchase order in the
amount of $33,758.90 to the State for the purchase of five methanol powered
Ford Escorts as part of the State's Methanol Vehicle Program.
153: RESOLUTION NO. 83R-118: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ANAHEIM AMENDING RESOLUTION NO. 82R-557. (establishing rates of compensation
for classes represented by the Anaheim Police Assoaiation, to correctly
reflect pay rate levels for Police Report Writer "A", Police Communications
Dispatcher "A", and Police Communications Clerk "A")
153: RESOLUTION NO. 83R-119: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ANAHEIM AMENDING RESOLUTION NO. 82R-499 WHICH ESTABLISHED RATES OF
COMPENSATION FOR CLASSES REPRESENTED BY THE ANAHEIM POLICE ASSOCIATION. (to
create the job classifications of Police Communications Clerk B and Police
Property Clerk A, Schedules P 1741 and 1418, respectively, effective March 25,
1983)
239
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - March 29, 1983, 10:00 A.M.
153: RESOLUTION NO. 83R-120: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ANAHEIM AMENDING RESOLUTION NO. 82R-501 WHICH ESTABLISHED RATES OF
COMPENSATION FOR CLASSES REPRESENTED BY THE ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL EMPLOYEES
ASSOCIATION, GENERAL CITY EMPLOYEES UNIT. (to create the job classification
of Traffic Engineering Investigator, Schedule 1383, effective April 8, 1983)
153: RESOLUTION NO. 83R-121: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ANAHEIM AMENDING RESOLUTION NO. 82R-577 WHICH ESTABLISHED RATES OF
COMPENSATION FOR CLASSES REPRESENTED BY THE INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF
ELECTRICAL WORKERS, LOCAL UNION NO. 47, UTILITY EMPLOYEES UNIT. (to create
the job classification of Senior Utilities Service Worker, Schedule 1221,
effective March 25, 1983)
158: RESOLUTION NO. 83R-122: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ANAHEIM DEDICATING CERTAIN CITY-OWNED PROPERTY IN THE CITY OF ANAHEIM FOR
PUBLIC PURPOSES.
124: RESOLUTION NO. 83R-123: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ANAHEIM FINALLY ACCEPTING THE COMPLETION AND THE FURNISHING OF ALL PLANT,
LABOR, SERVICES, MATERIALS AND EQUIPMENT AND ALL UTILITIES AND TRANSPORTATION
INCLUDING POWER, FUEL AND WATER, AND THE PERFORMANCE OF ALL WORK NECESSARY TO
CONSTRUCT AND COMPLETE THE FOLLOWING PUBLIC IMPROVEMENT, TO WIT: CONVENTION
CENTER ARENA LIGHTING IMPROVEMENTS, IN THE CITY OF ANAHEIM, ACCOUNT NO.
64-960-7115. (Tomar Company, contractor)
158: RESOLUTION NO. 83R-124: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ANAHEIM ACCEPTING CERTAIN DEEDS AND ORDERING THEIR RECORDATION. (The
Equitable Life Assurance Society of the United States; Parkview Medical
Center; Raymond G. Spehar, et al.; Pyong I1 Cha, et ux.; Properties Limited;
Properties Limited; Tustin Avenue Partners, Ltd.; Dunn Properties Corporation;
Athanasios Nick Foskaris, et ux.; Athanasios Nick Foskaris, et ux.; Paul L.
Raum, Jr., et al.)
Roll Call Vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL PIEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
Kaywood, Pickler, Overholt, Bay and Roth
None
None
MOTION CARRIED. The Mayor declared Resolution Nos. 83R-118 through 83R-124,
both inclusive, duly passed and adopted.
108: ENTERTAINMENT PERMIT - CASANOVA: An application for an Entertainment
Permit to permit dancers seven days a week from il:O0 a.m. to 2:00 a.m., at
the Casanova, 821-823 South Beach Boulevard, was submitted by William A.
McGaffey, Jr., together with a recommendation for approval by the Acting Chief
of Police.
240
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - March 29, 1983, 10:00 A.M.
Councilwoman Kaywood stated the establishment was a beer and wine bar
requesting dancers from 11:00 a.m. to 2:00 a.m. She presumed they would also
have music and thus, there would be a problem with noise. She did not know
why they needed to start at 11:00 a.m. and noted on the application that the
applicant had crossed out 11:00 a.m. originally and said, preferably. She
asked the applicant if he would be willing to start at 5:00 or 6:00 p.m.
Mr. William McGaffey, Jr., answered "yes." They were only using a juke box
and the music could barely be heard outside the building. There was a 70-unit
motel behind them and, therefore, he did not believe the housing development
behind that would be upset by their music.
Councilwoman Kaywood moved to approve the subject application for an
Entertainment Permit to permit dancers seven days a week, but from 5:00 p.m.
to 2:00 a.m. Councilman Pickler seconded the motion.
Before action was taken, Councilman Overholt questioned Mr. McGaffey if he
felt the proposed change in hours would impede his opportunity to make a
success of his business; Mr. McGaffey answered that he felt it would, but
stated that the majority of their business would not commence until 3:00 p.m.
It would be preferable if they could start at 11:00 a.m., but if they had to
change their hours of entertainment, that would be fine with them.
Further discussion followed between Councilman Overholt and Councilman Pickler
relative to the restriction on hours, at the conclusion of which Councilman
Pickler amended the foregoing motion to 3:00 p.m., instead of 5:00 p.m. until
2:00 a.m. Councilman Roth seconded the motion.
Councilman Overholt moved to amend the motion from 11:00 a.m. to 2:00 a.m.
The motion died for lack of a second.
A vote was then taken by the motion as amended by Councilman Pickier that the
subject Entertainment Permit application be approved to permit dancers seven
days a week from 3:00 p.m. to 2:00 a.m. MOTION CARRIED.
175: EMERGENCY ASSISTANCE FUND TO HELP PAY FOR UTILITY BILLS: Establishing
an Emergency Assistance Fund to help pay the utility bills of qualifying needy
citizens of Anaheim. (Continued from the meeting of March 22, 1983--see
m~nutes that date.)
Mayor Roth asked to hear from a representative of the Chamber of Commerce; Mr.
Les Riddell, Executive Vice President, Anaheim Chamber of Commerce, was
present on behalf of Walt Smith and in response specifically to the Chamber's
willingness to assist in a promotional effort to generate the funds necessary
to meet the needs of the lifeline program. The Chamber was more than
receptive to offering such assistance. They believed that business cared and
that between the employee associations of the City, service clubs, other
organizations, the 1500-member businesses of the Chamber and the 11,400
business customers of the utility and individuals in those groups, the program
241
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - March 29, 1983, 10:00 A.M.
could work. Their efforts would reach a significant number of non-residents
as well. It was their understanding they would be working through a
recognized charity who would administer the funds.
Mrs. Helen McConnell, Emergency Aid Chairman, Assistance League of Anaheim,
then related their past year's figures to the Council, representing funds
generated from their philanthropic projects, amounting to $39,000, which funds
were used to assist Anaheim residents. They needed the help of the City
Council and the City and, speaking for the other organizations as well, she
reiterated that they would like to see the Council provide matching funds and
they needed that help immediately. The Chamber could be helpful if they
produced money, rather than public relations. Their organizations could do
the PR work. If the Chamber would give them money, they could administer
those funds. She confirmed for Councilman Overholt that the Assistance League
could work with the Chamber in accomplishing what they both wanted to do.
Councilman Bay then questioned Mrs. McConnell relative to the criteria to be
established to determine those who would be eligible for assistance. He
maintained if the money went to the wrong people, the problem would not be
solved.
Mrs. McConnell stated if they went to the business community rather than using
public money or general funds, they could set up their own criteria, and it
would be easier for them to administer the funds. As she had stated
previously, they would administer the program at no cost.
Mrs. Shirley Tripp, Office Coordinator, Episcopal Services Alliance, stated
her agency, the Assistance League and others would be happy to cooperate in
order to get the money where it needed to go. She confirmed for Councilman
Overholt that if the Assistance League were to be the lead agency, her
organization could work with them in carrying out the program.
Mr. Darrell Ament, Utilities Management Services Manager, then answered
questions posed by Council Members relative to programs in other cities
established to provide assistance (see memorandum dated March 28, 1983, from
the Public Utilities General Manager, summarizing a survey of other cities who
had emergency bill assistance programs). In concluding~ he stated if
customers were facing turn-off, they would work with the various agencies to
work with those customers, and if funds were ~oin~ to be available in the
future, they would consider that.
Gordon Hoyt, Public Utilities General Manager, stated that they could do what
Mr. Ament described as long as one of two things occurred: (1) That there was
assurance funds were actually going to be produced, and (2) that there be
specific direction from the Council. Otherwise, they would not automatically
extend credit past their normal practices.
Mr. Don Metzger, Customer Services Manager, then explained the processing
schedule on utility bills and the time period involved to turn-off on
delinquent bills. When a customer called at any point, they were lenient with
242
City Hall, Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - March 29, 1983, 10:00 A.M.
extensions up until the 45-day period previously explained. If the customer
could give a date, or some idea when the bill would be paid, they would more
than likely, and had always, extended their customers. However, if the
customer could not give any idea of when the bill would be paid, he questioned
how far their authority could go. They also did try to refer those who could
not pay to some agency.
MOTION: Councilman Bay moved to establish a volunteer fund-raising program to
assist with utility bills of qualified, needy Anaheim citizens with the
Assistance League as the lead agency, advertising from the Chamber of
Commerce, and utility bill inserts urging contributions to the cost.
Councilman Overholt stated he would second the motion if Councilman Bay would
couch it in terms of giving direction to the Utilities Department to cooperate
with the Assistance League, Chamber of Commerce and other agencies to set up
such a program.
A vote was then taken on the foregoing motion, including the addition by
Councilman Overholt, which was acceptable to Councilman Bay. MOTION CARRIED.
Councilman Overholt asked that the Council be kept informed, not be an
elaborate report, but something to keep them apprised of what was taking place.
i75.105: RESIGNATION FROM THE AD HOC LIFELINE COMMITTEE: Councilman Bay
moved to accept the resignation of Herb Eggett from the Utilities ad hoc
Lifeline Committee, with regret, as submitted to the Council at the meeting of
March 22, 1983. Councilman Overholt seconded the motion with an expression of
thanks to Mr. Eggett. MOTION CARRIED.
144: ORANGE COUNTY HEALTH PLANNING COUNCIL: Councilwoman Kaywood moved to
appoint Janet Parry to fill the vacancy created by the resignation of William
S. Postma, on the Orange County Health Planning Council. Councilman Bay
seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED.
CITY PLANNING COMMISSION ITEMS: The following actions taken by the City
Planning Commission at their meeting held March 7, 1983, pertaining to the
following applications were submitted for City Council information.
1. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2380: Submitted by Leo Freedman, to permit a
semi-enclosed £ast-£ood restaurant on R§-A-4~,000 zoned property located on
the southeast corner of Freedman Way and Harbor Boulevard with the following
Code waivers: (a) minimum number and type of parking spaces, and (b) minimum
landscaped setback.
The City Planning Commission granted a negative declaration status, and
Conditional Use Permit No. 2380 was withdrawn at the request of the applicant.
2. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2207 (READVERTISED): Submitted by Orange
County Water District, to amend Condition No. 4, pertaining to permitted truck
types and loads per day, of Conditional Use Permit No. 2207, to permit a
portable concrete batch plant on RS-A-43,000(SC) zoned property located on the
west side of Richfield Road, south of La Palma Avenue.
243
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - March 29, 1983, 10:00 A.M.
The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC83-51, amended
Condition No. 4 and deleted Condition No. 6 to Conditional Use Permit No.
2207; a negative declaration status was granted June 1, 1981.
3. RECLASSIFICATION NO. 82-83-24: Submitted by The City of Anaheim, for a
change in zone from County of Orange A1 to City RS-A-43,000 on approximately
10 acres of land located east of the Orange (57) Freeway and north of, and
including, the Southern Pacific Railroad right-of-way. (Ball-Freeway No. 3
Annexation)
The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC83-52, granted
Reclassification No. 82-83-24, and granted a negative declaration status.
4. RECLASSIFICATION NO. 82-83-25: Submitted by The City of Anaheim, for a
change in zone from County of Orange A1 to City ML on approximately 10 acres
of land located east of the Orange (57) Freeway and north of, and including,
the Southern Pacific Railroad right-of-way. (Ball-Freeway No. 3 Annexation)
The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC83-53, granted
Reclassification No. 82-83-25, and granted a negative declaration status.
5. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2420: Submitted by Norman and Irma M. Switzer,
(Tire's Warehouse, Inc.), to retain retail tire sales on ML zoned property
located at 1281 North Kraemer Boulevard.
The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC83-54, granted
Conditional Use Permit No. 2420, and granted a negative declaration status.
6. VARIANCE NO. 3324: Submitted by Kenneth J. and Sharon E. Thiesmeyer, to
construct a room addition on RS-7200 zoned property located at 412 South
Nutwood Street, with a Code waiver of minimum front yard setback.
The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC83-57, granted
Variance No. 3324, and ratified the Planning Director's categorical exemption
determination.
7. VARIANCE NO. 3323: Submitted by Margaret Jouglard, to retain a garage
conversion on RS-5000 zoned property located at 2500 West Mall Place, with
Code waiver o£ minimum number and type o~ parking spaces.
The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC83-58, granted
Variance No. 3323, and granted a negative declaration status.
8. RECLASSIFICATION NO. 79-80-32 - EXTENSION OF TIME: Submitted by Richard
E. Huston, requesting an extension of time to Reclassification No. 79-80-32,
proposed C-O zoned property located on the west side of Harbor Boulevard,
north of Romneya Drive.
The City Planning Commission approved an extension of time to Reclassification
No. 79-80-32, to expire March 24, 1984.
244
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - March 29, 1983, 10:00 A.M.
9. VARIANCE NO. 3134 - EXTENSION OF TIME: Submitted by Duane Hlavnicka,
requesting an extension of time to Variance No. 3134, to permit a room
addition on RS-7200 zoned property located at 2648 Russell Avenue, with a Code
waiver of minimum required side yard.
The City Planning Commission approved an extension of time to Variance No.
3134, to expire February 25, 1984.
10. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2287 - CLARIFICATION: Submitted by Jeffrey L.
Thompson, (Camping World), requesting clarification of permitted uses for
Conditional Use Permit No. 2287, to permit a recreational vehicle accessories
sales and service facility on ML property located at 866 South West Street.
The City Planning Commission determined a public hearing would be required for
clarification of permitted uses for Conditional Use Permit No. 2287.
11. TENTATIVE TRACT NO. 10674, REV. 1: Submitted by Verde Properties, to
establish an ii-lot, RS-HS-22,000(SC) zoned subdivision and request for
removal of specimen trees on property located at the westerly terminus of
Eucalyptus Drive, southeasterly of Santa Ana Canyon Road and north of Martella
Lane.
The City Planning Commission, at their meeting of March 21, 1983, approved
Tentative Tract No. 10674, Rev. 1, with specimen tree removal request deleted;
a negative declaration status was granted February 2, 1982.
12. TENTATIVE TRACT NO. 10474: Submitted by The Presbytery of Los Angeles,
to establish a 26-1ot, 25-unit RM-3000(SC) zoned subdivision on property
located on the west side of Villa Real Drive, south of Nohl Ranch Road.
The City Planning Commission, at their meeting of March 21, 1983, approved
Tentative Tract No. 10474; a negative declaration status was granted by the
City Council on March 15, 1983.
No action was taken by the City Council on the foregoing items; therefore, the
actions of the City Planning Commission became final.
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2422: Submitted by Marie B. Pelletier, to permit
medical office use of a residential structure on RS-A-43,000 zoned property
located at 126 North Brookhurst Street.
The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC83-55, granted
Conditional Use Permit No. 2422, and granted a negative declaration status.
Councilwoman Kaywood requested a review of the Planning Commission's decision
on Conditional Use Permit No. 2422, and therefore, a public hearing would be
scheduled at a later date.
245
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - March 29, 1983, 10:00 A.M.
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2421: Submitted by Far West Savings & Loan
Association (Nautilus Plus Health Spa), to permit a health spa on }~(SC) zoned
property located at 5417 East La Palma Avenue, with a Code waiver of minimum
number of parking spaces.
The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC83-56, granted
Conditional Use Permit No. 2421, and granted a negative declaration status.
The Planning Commission's decision was appealed by Attorneys for
Burnett-Ehline Properties and, therefore, a public hearing would be scheduled
at a later date.
129: CONTRACT FOR FIRE STATION NO. 8 STORAGE BUILDING - ALPHA OMEGA
CONSTRUCTION: Resolution No. 83R-110 was adopted by the Council on March 22,
1983 (see minutes that date), which awarded a contract to Alpha Omega
Construction Company in the amount of $57,062 for Fire Station No. 8 Storage
Building, denying the request of Alpha Omega that they not be awarded that
contract due to a clerical error.
Mayor Roth referred to a letter dated March 23, 1983, from Alpha Omega
Construction, Mr. Jay Hagelis (on file in the City Clerk's office), making a
final appeal to the Council not to hold their company to the bid made, because
the clerical error of computation amounting to ~11,632 would cause detrimental
financial harm and they could not build the project at the unreasonable price
of ~57,062. He asked the City Attorney's interpretation with regard to error
of omission versus error of judgment relative to the error discovered by Alpha
Omega after the bid opening, which was reported to the City on February 25,
1983, the day after bids were opened.
City Attorney William Hopkins explained the error of omission would be where
the bidder left something out of his bid, and the error of judgment would be
where they did not realize the extent of the work to be done or error in
judgment as to their requirements for manpower. There was a difference
between the two. It was a practice for the City to look at both factors. The
City Engineer reviewed the bids and took into consideration any type of error
that may be involved. Relative to the bid bond, it would be payable to the
City, the premium for the bid bond was a cost to the company. The bonding
company would make the payment, which would then have some impact on premiums,
and he confirmed for the Mayor that it was possible the bonding company would
ask for their money.
Councilman Overholt asked where the point had been raised relative to error of
omission versus error of judgment; Mayor Roth answered that the testimony they
received last week hinged on that concept, and that was why he was asking for
reconsideration of the 3 to 2 vote.
Councilman Overholt stated anybody in business had a certain procedure they
had to follow, and they were always exposed to problems as a result of human
error. He questioned what basis they had as a Council to relieve a bidder
from a bid which would result in an increased cost to the taxpayer. He had
heard nothing different today than last week.
246
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - March 29, 1983, 10:00 A.M.
Councilman Bay stated that he did not concede a policy taking an error of
omission such as the concrete of the total job and imposing that as a policy
on the bidder. He did not agree with the Council decision from a policy
standpoint and he urged another look at the position the City took on the
matter.
Councilman Bay thereupon moved to rescind Council motion of March 22, 1983,
that the contract be awarded to the lowest and best responsible bidder, Alpha
Omega Construction Company. Councilman Roth seconded the motion. It was
pointed out that a resolution would be in order.
Before a vote was taken, questions were posed to the City Engineer, William
Devitt, who explained that over the past 20 years, different Councils had
taken varying positions in similar matters and the policy had not been a rigid
one relative to letting bidders "off the hook."
Councilwoman Kaywood asked the City Engineer if after previous Councils were
lenient, did he notice a proliferation of mistakes; Mr. Devitt stated there
had been an increasing number of mistakes in the last several years.
Councilman Bay stated in the move to rescind, it should be clarified whether
they were also changing to the second bid or rejecting all bids and rebidding;
Councilman Overholt suggested it be taken in two steps.
Councilman Bay thereupon offered Resolution No. 83R-125 for adoption,
rescinding Resolution No. 83R-110 adopted by the Council on March 22, 1983,
which awarded a contract to Alpha Omega Construction Company in the amount of
$57,062 for Fire Station No. 8 Storage Building, Account No. 24-914-6325.
Refer to Resolution Book.
RESOLUTION NO. 83R-125: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ANAHEIM RESCINDING RESOLUTION NO. 83R-110 AWARDING A CONTRACT FOR THE FIRE
STATION NO. 8 STORAGE BUILDING, ACCOUNT NO. 24-914-6325.
Roll Call Vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ARGENT
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEM~ERS~
Pickler, Bay and Roth
Kaywood and Overholt
Nona
The Mayor declared Resolution No. 83R-125 duly passed and adopted.
After a further discussion of the issue between Council Members and
clarification by the City Attorney, Councilman Bay offered Resolution No.
83R-126 for adoption, rejecting all bids received up to February 24, 1983, at
2:00 p.m., for the construction of Fire Station No. 8 Storage Building and
readvertising the request for bids thereon; Account No. 24-914-6325. Refer to
Resolution Book.
247
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - March 29, 1983, 10:00 A.M.
RESOLUTION NO. 83R-126: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ANAHEIM REJECTING ALL BIDS RECEIVED UP TO THE HOUR OF 2:00 P.M. ON THE 24th
DAY OF FEBRUARY, 1983 FOR THE FIRE STATION NO. 8 STORAGE BUILDING, AND
READVERTISING THE REQUEST FOR BIDS THEREON, ACCOUNT NO. 24-914-6325.
Before a vote was taken, Councilwoman Kaywood expressed her concern over
setting a precedent should other bidders request to be relieved of a contract.
A vote was then taken on the foregoing resolution.
Roll Call Vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
Pickler, Overholt, Bay and Roth
Kaywood
None
The Mayor declared Resolution No. 83R-126 duly passed and adopted.
Councilman Overholt stated he would like to have some guidelines from the City
Attorney as to the legal ramifications with regard to their actions, so they
would be better informed in the future.
101: HEARING - SUBSTITUTION OF A NEW ELECTRICAL SUBCONTRACTOR - MULTIMODAL
TRANSPORTATION TERMINAL: Consideration of the objection by Allied Electric
Company, subcontractor, to the decision of Martin J. Jaska, Inc., prime
contractor, to substitute a new electrical subcontractor on the Multimodal
Transportation Terminal to be constructed at Anaheim Stadium, was submitted,
together with a report from the City Attorney's office dated March 17, 1983.
Mr. James T. Winkler, Attorney, Atkinson, Andelson, Loya, Ruud and Romo, 911
Studebaker Road, Suite 250, Long Beach, representing Allied Electric Company,
explained that pursuant to a bid on the Anaheim Amtrak Station, his client was
awarded a contract on October 29, 1982, from Martin J. Jaska for a total
contract price of $75,000. Before proceeding, he gave background of the
relationship between Jaska and Allied Electric. He also reviewed some labor
laws governing contracts as to what could and could not be done, etc. By
letter of October 29, 1982, Martin Jaska informed Allied of their intention to
enter into a contract with Allied on the Amtrak Passenger Station. On
January 6, 1983, a certified letter was sent to Allied requesting that a
performance and a labor and material bond be submitted by no later than
January 14, 1983, covering all work to be performed under the subcontract,
whereas before that time, there was never any mention by Jaska that such a
bond was required.
Mayor Roth interjected and asked Mr. Winkler, due to the late hour (12:25
p.m.), how much longer his presentation was going to be, since they had to
consider public hearings at 1:30 p.m. He wanted to know if Mr. Winkler would
object to a continuance until after 1:30, allowing the Council an opportunity
for a lunch break before their afternoon session; Mr. Winkler had no
objection, and it would give him an opportunity to submit some of the
documentation mentioned in his presentation.
248
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - March 29, 1983, 10:00 A.M.
The Mayor asked if anyone was present from Martin Jaska, Inc.; Jette R.
Anderson, Attorney, Covington & Crowe, representing Martin Jaska, Inc., was
present and had no objection to the matter being trailed°
RECESS: Councilman Roth moved to recess. Councilman Bay seconded the
motion. MOTION CARRIED. (12:25 p.m.)
AFTER RECESS: The Mayor cailed the meeting to order, all Council Members
being present. (1:55 p.m.)
Later in the meeting (approximately 2:05 p.m., after a public hearing), Mr.
Winkler continued his presentation and submitted copies of letters between his
company and Martin Jaska regarding the subject contract, a copy of the
subcontract agreement and the general conditions of that agreement, Exhibit
"A" entitled Union Subcontractors which was a part of a prior contract between
Jaska and his client, and letter dated February 22, 1983, from the City
Attorney to Mr. A1 Andes of Allied Electric which was the formal notice
advising them of the prime contractor's request for authority to substitute
another subcontractor and advising that Allied had five working days within
which to submit written objections (on file in the City Clerk's office).
Mr. Winkler then gave extensive input relative to what occurred on other
contracts between Jaska and their company. In the final analysis, there were
two main points of contention. Jaska was requiring them to submit a bond,
whereas there was no mention of bonding in the original contract and, further,
even if they had a valid right under the contract to require a bond, they were
coupling that with another requirement that could not be met by asking them to
be a union signator. They could perhaps provide a bond, but could not satisfy
the requirement to sign a union contract (see copy of Exhibit "A" from a prior
contract which Allied requested be reworded--see letter dated January
1983, from Mr. Andes of Allied to Jaska with suggested revised wording to
Exhibit "A"). His client did not want to be pushed around and under the
Government Code, it was clear that Jaska was in violation of the law. It was
a question of whether Anaheim was going to let Jaska get away with what they
were doing, and he did not believe the City should do so.
Councilman Bay asked if it was his contention that Paragraph 12, Subcontract
Agreement General Agreements~ with regard to bonding was not a part of the
contract signed by the subcontractor; Mr. Winkler answered that it was a part
of the general contract if it was signed. It was not a public works
requirement.
Ms. Jette Anderson, Attorney, Covington & Crowe, 1131 West 6th Street,
Ontario, stated that Mr. Winkler had spent a great deal of time discussing a
union issue which she did not believe was relevant, as well as other contracts
and jobs. Under the Government Code, provisions which pertained to public
works jobs, any subcontractor submitting a bid to a prime contractor shall be
prepared to submit a bond. If a subcontractor did not either submit a bond
after it was requested, or refused to sign a contract, those were provisions
allowing the prime contractor to request a substitution. Those were the basic
issues.
249
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - March 29, 1983, 10:00 A.M.
She continued that in December, Jaska became aware there were some problems
with regard to Allied Electric on other jobs, and there was a ~51,000
Mechanics Lien involved in another job. At that point, Jaska made a
determination that they wanted a performance bond on the subject project for
their protection and the City's as well. On January 6, 1983, Jaska requested
a bond from Allied and the letter was sent certified because it was
important. Following that letter, there were discussions with Allied
regarding the rewording of the union provision in the contract. On
January 19, 1983, Allied wrote a letter back stating they were not bondable.
She then relayed the sequence of events which took place thereafter, leading
to today, which included discussions with David Nelson, Field Engineer for the
City, informing him of the status of the situation with Allied, and Mr.
Nelson's request that they get another electrician, since the job was in
progress.
In concluding, Ms. Anderson stated that Jaska had a right, both by statute and
provision appearing in all contracts signed by Allied with Jaska, to ask for a
performance bond. They were concerned specifically over the $51,000 Mechanics
Lien and that there might be problems on the job. The letter written by Mr.
Andes to Ray Traylor of Jaska dated January 19, 1983, stated that they could
not get a bond. That was the problem. The union provision was in the process
of being rewritten and negotiated at the time it became obvious Allied was not
bondable. She also pointed out that there were other non-union contractors on
the job.
Mr. Winkler countered that the lien on prior jobs was due to the fact that
Jaska had not paid Allied. Signing of the contract was the real issue in that
Allied should be a signatory of the union, the bond was another. Allied would
not try to get a bond if they had to sign a contract stating they had to be
part of the union; Ms. Anderson stated she had a copy of the lien and it was
not filed by Allied, but against Allied.
Mayor Roth interjected and stated this was not a court of law and he was
certain they both knew of their remedies.
MOTION: Councilman Rot.h moved to authorize the prime contractor, Martin J.
Jaska, Inc., to substitute another electrical subcontractor in place of the
subcontractor, Allied Electric Company, because Allied Electric failed to
execute a contract with Jaska and failed to meet the bond requirements.
Councilman Overholt seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED.
134: PUBLIC HEARING - GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 183 AND NEGATIVE
DECLARATION: City of Anaheim, to consider an amendment to the Land Use
Element of the General Plan, incorporating the Solid Waste Facility
designation (including transfer station and disposal facility) on the Land Use
Element of the General Plan, and designating the 2.6-acre parcel located at
the westerly terminus of White Star Avenue and bounded on the southwest by the
Riverside (91) Freeway as a recycling/resources recovery transfer facility.
25O
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - March 29, 1983, 10:00 A.M.
Mr. Jay Tashiro, Associate Planner, briefed the staff report to the Planning
Commission dated March 7, 1983, relative to the subject property, a
City-initiated General Plan Amendment to amend the Land Use Element of the
General Plan, the purpose being two-fold: (1) To consider the incorporation
of the Solid Waste Facility designation (including transfer station and
disposal facility) on the Land Use Element, and (2) to consider designating
the 2.6 acre parcel located at the westerly terminus of White Star Avenue and
bounded on the southwest by the Riverside (91) Freeway as a
recycling/resources recovery transfer facility.
The City Planning Commission, in their Resolution No. PC83-50, recommended
approval of Exhibit A, that the Solid Waste Facility designation (including
transfer station and disposal facility) shall be included on the Land Use
Element and designating the site for Recycling/Resources Recover Transfer
Facility. The Planning Commission further declared that the subject project
be exempt from the requirement to prepare an environmental impact report
pursuant to the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act, since
there would be no significant individual or cumulative adverse environmental
impact due to the approval of this negative declaration, since the Anaheim
General Plan designates the subject property for general industrial land uses
commensurate with the proposal; that no sensitive environmental impacts are
involved in the proposal; that the initial study submitted by the petitioner
indicates no significant individual or cumulative adverse environmental
impacts and is, therefore, exempt from the requirement to prepare an EIR.
The Mayor asked if anyone wished to speak.
Mr. Bill Taormina, President, Anaheim Disposal Company, stated the
recommendation was very satisfactory and they were present to answer questions.
There being no questions and no one who wished to speak, either in favor or in
opposition, the Mayor closed the public hearing.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT - NEGATIVE DECLARATION: On motion by Councilwoman
Kaywood, seconded by Councilman Bay, the City Council finds that subject
project will have no significant individual or cumulative adverse
environmental impact due to the approval of this negative declaration since
the Anaheim General Plan designates the subject property for general
indu~trlal land u~ commen~urata with th~ proposal: that no ~n~it~w
environmental impacts are involved in the proposal; that the Initial Study
submitted by the petitioner indicates no significant individual or cumulative
adverse environmental impacts; and is, therefore, exempt from the requirement
to prepare an EIR. }~TION CARRIED.
Councilwoman Kaywood offered Resolution No. 83R-127 for adoption, approving
General Plan Amendment No. 183, Land Use Element, Exhibit A, as recommended by
the City Planning Commission. Refer to Resolution Book.
251
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - March 29, 1983, 10:00 A.M.
RESOLUTION NO. 83R-127: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ANAHEIM APPROVING AN AMENDMENT TO THE LAND USE ELEMENT OF THE ANAHEIM GENERAL
PLAN DESIGNATED AS AMENDMENT NO. 183, EXHIBIT "A."
Roll Call Vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
Kaywood, Pickler, Overholt, Bay and Roth
None
None
The Mayor declared Resolution No. 83R-i27 duly passed and adopted.
Before concluding, Mr. Taormina, on behalf of his brother Vince and himself,
commended all those in the City administration and staff for their support and
assistance in bringing the matter to fruition today, as well as the Council.
142/108: ORDINANCE NO. 4406: Councilwoman Kaywood offered Ordinance No. 4406
for adoption. Refer to Ordinance Book.
ORDINANCE NO. 4406: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AMENDING SECTIONS
4.18.015 AND 4.18.060 OF CHAPTER 4.18 OF TITLE 4 OF THE ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE
RELATING TO AMUSEMENT AND ENTERTAINMENT PREMISES--RESTAURANTS. (required
attire for entertainers and persons serving food or beverages)
Roll Call Vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
COUNCIL b~MBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
Kaywood, Pickler, Overholt, Bay and Roth
None
None
The Mayor declared Ordinance No. 4406 duly passed and adopted.
ORDINANCE NO. 4407: Councilman Bay offered Ordinance No. 4407 for adoption.
Refer to Ordinance Book.
ORDINANCE NO. 4407: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AMENDING TITLE 18 OF
THE ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO ZONING. (70-71-47(30), ML, southeast
corner of Orangethorpe and Tustin Avenues, Tustin-Atwood Annexation)
Roll Call Vote~
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
Kaywood, Pickler, Overholt, Bay and Roth
None
None
The Mayor declared Ordinance No. 4407 duly passed and adopted.
ORDINANCE NO. 4408: Councilwoman Kaywood offered Ordinance No. 4408 for
adoption. Refer to Ordinance Book.
252
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - March 29, 1983, 10:00 A.M.
ORDINANCE NO. 4408: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AMENDING TITLE 18 OF
THE ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO ZONING. (74-75-20(2), RS-A-43,000,
south of Ball Road between the 57 Freeway and Santa Ana River, Ball-Freeway
No. 3 Annexation, northern portion)
Roll Call Vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
Kaywood, Pickier, Overholt, Bay and Roth
None
None
The Mayor declared Ordinance No. 4408 duly passed and adopted.
142/108: ORDINANCE NO. 4409 - RELATING TO MASSAGE ESTABLISHMENTS: Councilman
Bay offered Ordinance No. 4409 for adoption. Refer to Ordinance ~ook.
ORDINANCE NO. 4409: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AMENDING SECTION
4.29.030 OF CHAPTER 4.29 OF TITLE 4 OF THE ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO
BUSINESS REGULATION. (massage establishments, eliminating the provision that
persons working under the supervision or written orders of a chiropractor or
osteopath are exempt from licensing and permit requirements)
Mayor Roth asked if anyone was present who wished to speak to the proposed
ordinance.
Dr. Norman Fay, 130 North Brookhurst Street, stated in reviewing the
ordinance, he wanted to know if it was going to be confined to the section
relating to massage establishments, eliminating the provisions that persons
working under the supervision or written orders of a chiropractor or osteopath
were exempt from licensing and permit requirements. He asked if it was going
to be confined to that one area only.
City Attorney William Hopkins explained that for some time, the City had a
massage establishment ordinance regulating the activities of such businesses.
The subject proposed ordinance dealt with the exemptions from the requirements
of the massage establishment and Item A referred to the exemptions that were
in line with State requirements, "Any physician, surgeon, chiropractor or
osteopath duly licensed to practice such profession in the State of
California;..." is exempt because of the professional activity which, in the
course of their professional practice begin to give massages for therapeutic
reasons, were exempt. The previous ordinance which went into effect in
November 1982 exempted anyone who was working under the direct on-premise
supervision pursuant to a written order of a physician, surgeon, chiropractor
or osteopath. The proposed ordinance would change that to any person working
under the on-premise supervision of or pursuant to a written order or
prescription issued by a physician duly licensed to practice medicine in the
State of California. They were eliminating the sections that dealt with
chiropractors and osteopaths and limiting it to a physician. Therefore, only
those massage establishments that were beyond the limits set forth in the
adult entertainment ordinance, or those who had on-premise a licensed
253
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - March 29, 1983, 10:00 A.M.
physician or operated on the prescription of a licensed physician may continue
to operate. That was basically the change. In order to comply with due
process, that change provided that anyone affected by the ordinance would have
90 days from the effective date of the ordinance to be required to comply,
unless there was some authorization due to hardship by the City Council.
Dr. Fay answered then that it was not limited to what was spelled out in the
change. The way he understood, the City Attorney was specifying that the
ordinance only referred to an M.D.
Mayor Roth clarified that was correct, the ordinance was amended to specify an
M.D. only.
Dr. Fay stated, however, that an osteopath and a Doctor of Chiropractic were
all licensed physicians, but the ordinance was restricting it to only an M.D.
He then clarified for Councilman Overholt that the common accepted term of a
licensed physician was anybody who could diagnose and treat the sick. There
were three main healing branches, osteopathy, medicine and chiropractic. They
could all diagnose and treat the sick, and they were licensed by the State
under that clause. He reiterated, however, that in the ordinance, they were
restricting it only to an M.D.
City Attorney Hopkins stated they checked with the Board of Medical Quality
Control and the term physician duly licensed to practice in medicine in
accordance with State rules was a person classed as a physician. It was true
that certain osteopaths were now authorized by State law to use the term M.D.,
even though not trained in a medical college in a strict sense of the word.
If they were a licensed physician pursuant to the definition of the Board of
Medical Quality Control, they would be considered to be M.D.s and to be a
licensed physician. Chiropractors did not come under that category.
Dr. Fay then confirmed for the Mayor that he was a Doctor of Chiropractic. He
then asked why they were restricting the ordinance to only medical doctors.
City Attorney Hopkins answered, from information they had, there had been some
cases where authorizations had been signed by chiropractors and there were
some problems in connection with statements made that certain chiropractors
had authorized a treatment of massage without examining the people. The
Police Department might be able to give more specific examples. It was an
area where they felt there had been some abuse of the previously worded
ordinance. Sgt. Brantley of the Police Department was present and might be
able to give some additional information.
The Mayor then asked if anyone else wished to speak.
Marie Cooper, 130 North Brookhurst, Roman Spa, stated she had been in business
in Anaheim for approximately 11 years. They were a very honest business.
They had done everything that the City asked and were required to do under
previous ordinances. They were a legitimate business, it was their living and
provided the money on which they had to live. They were trying their best and
254
City Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - March 29, 1983, 10:00 A.M.
had already made arrangements to have a chiropractor on the premises as
required under the present ordinance. He would be available 24 hours a day,
since he would live on the premises and have his offices there. Now they were
trying to kill the business by this new requirement. Her business was not
dishonest and'she did not want to go out of business.
Roll Call Vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
Kaywood, Pickier, Overholt, Bay and Roth
None
None
The Mayor declared Ordinance No. 4409 duly passed and adopted.
ORDINANCE NOS. 4410 THROUGH 4413: Councilman Roth offered Ordinance Nos. 4410
through 4413, both inclusive, for first reading.
ORDINANCE NO. 4410: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AMENDING TITLE 18 OF
THE ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO ZONING. (80-81-24, CL, 406 West
Vermont Avenue)
ORDINANCE NO. 44i1: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AMENDING TITLE 18 OF
THE ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO ZONING. (65-66-59(7), CO, 554 and 558
South Harbor Boulevard)
ORDINANCE NO. 4412: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AMENDING TITLE 18 OF
THE ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO ZONING. (65-66-24(30), ML, north side
of La Palma Avenue, east of Van Buren)
ORDINANCE NO. 4413: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AMENDING TITLE 18 OF
THE ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO ZONING. (82-83-1, RM-3000, 721 South
Beach Boulevard)
139: OPPOSITION TO FORCED ARBITRATION - SB 778 AND AB 187: Councilman
Pickler referred to a memorandum received from the Intergovernmental Relations
Officer pertaining to SB 778 and AB 187 referring to forced arbitration. He
noted that the Mayor was sending a letter to Assemblyman John Lewis and
Senator John Seymour. He felt that ail Council Members should send a letter
informing ~he City's lesislators in Sacramento of their opposition, and five
letters would be better than one.
Mayor Roth clarified his letters were sent in opposition to pending
legislation which would put the City in a position of forced arbitration and a
great disadvantage. It would also cost untold thoUsands of dollars to the
taxpayers if it ever came to pass.
174: GENERAL REVENUE SHARING FUNDS: Councilman Pickler stated an area of
concern that he had was relative to General Revenue Sharing Funds. He urged a
letter from each Council Member to the City's Federal Representatives in order
to ensure proper distribution of General Revenue Sharing Funds due the City.
255
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - March 29, 1983, 10:00 A.M.
Councilwoman Kaywood suggested that one letter be sent with each Council
Member signing that letter.
175: STATUS OF REPORT - ELECTRIC RATES FOR SMALL BUSINESSES: Mayor Roth
asked the status of the report he previously requested on why electric rates
for small businesses were 4 percent above Southern California Edison's rates,
while larger businesses and industrial rates were 20 percent less.
Assistant City Manager James Ruth explained that the report was in progress
and would be forthcoming to the Council shortly.
153: EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR OF ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES - EXPLANATION OF "NO"
VOTE: Councilman Bay explained that late last Tuesday, after a long Closed
Session, action was taken by the Council on which he was the only "no" vote
creating the job classification of Executive Director of Administrative
Services. He delayed his comments until today, although some months ago when
they discussed the reorganization of the City structure, he made it clear that
he was opposed to the steps to what he considered were leading to the peak of
those changes which occurred last Tuesday. He was still opposed from the
standpoint that the base salary involved in that one position was $61,505 per
year. In addition, there was a 7 percent package amounting to another $4,305,
an auto allowance of $250 a month times 12, or $3,000 a year. The normal
burden ratio was 22.6 percent and adding that ratio, amounting to $15,551, the
total yearly cost amounted to $84,361. It had been his position that this was
an unprecedented action from the standpoint that it actually established a new
level of management structure in the City. The Assistant City Manager, being
on that level, helped divide the span of control for the City Manager, adding
a second level actually above certain division heads, department heads and
between those department heads and the City Manager. To him, the action was a
new level that he had not agreed with and he wanted to make it public
knowledge why he voted "no".
Councilman Overholt asked that a verbatim transcript of Councilman Bay's
remarks be made and a copy submitted to City Manager Talley, who was not
present tod~y, to give him an opportunity to respond if he wished to do so.
REQUEST FOR CLOSED SESSION: The Assistant City Manager requested a Closed
Session to discuss labor relations with action anticipated and a personnel
matter 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. Councilman Pickler
seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. (3:15 p.m.)
AFTER RECESS: The Mayor called the meeting to order, ali Council Members
being present. (4:25 p.m.)
153: PART-TIME JOB CLASSIFICATIONS: Councilman Roth offered Resolution No.
83R-128 and 83R-129 for adoption, the first establishing terms and conditions
of employment for part-time job classifications represented by the General
256
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - March 29, 1983, 10:00 A.M.
Truck Drivers Union Local No. 952 and repealing Resolution No. 80R-109, and
the second establishing terms and conditions of employment for part-time job
classifications represented by the Hospital and Service Employees Union, Local
No. 399 and repealing Resolution No. 80R-108. Refer to Resolution Book.
RESOLUTION NO. 83R-128: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ANAHEIM ESTABLISHING TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF EMPLOYMENT FOR PART-TIME JOB
CLASSIFICATIONS REPRESENTED BY THE GENERAL TRUCK DRIVERS UNION LOCAL NO. 952
AND REPEALING RESOLUTION NO. 80R-109. (effective February 4, 1983)
RESOLUTION NO. 83R-129: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ANAHEIM ESTABLISHING TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF EMPLOYMENT FOR PART-TIME JOB
CLASSIFICATIONS REPRESENTED BY THE HOSPITAL AND SERVICE EMPLOYEES' UNION,
LOCAL NO. 399 AND REPEALING RESOLUTION NO. 80R-108. (effective February 4,
1983)
Roll Call Vote:
AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Kaywood, Pickler, Overholt and Roth
NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: None
ABSTAINED: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Bay
ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: None
The Mayor declared Resolution Nos. 83R-128 and 83R-129 duly passed and adopted.
112: HAGADORN VS. CITY OF ANAHEIM: Councilman Roth moved to authorize the
City Attorney to settle Orange County Superior Court Case No. 35-44-49,
Hagadorn vs. City of Anaheim, for a sum not to exceed ~14,757.80. Councilman
Pickler seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED.
ADJOURNMENT: Councilman Roth moved to adjourn. Councilwoman Kaywood seconded
the motion. MOTION CARRIED. (4:30 p.m.)
LINDA D. ROBERTS, CITY CLERK
257