Loading...
1980/06/1780-785 City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - June 17, 1980, 1:30 P.M. PRESENT: ABSENT: PRESENT: The City Council of the City of Anaheim met in regular session. COUNCIL MEMBERS: Overholt, Kaywood, Bay and Roth COUNCIL MEMBERS: Seymour CITY MANAGER: William O. Talley CITY ATTORNEY: William P. Hopkins CITY CLERK: Linda D. Roberts DEPUTY CITY MANAGER: James Ruth WATER CIVIL ENGINEERING ESTIMATOR: Larry Sears TRAFFIC ENGINEER: Paul Singer ASSOCIATE PLANNER: Robert Kelly Mayor Pro Tem Overholt called the meeting to order and welcomed those in attendance to the Council meeting. INVOCATION: Reverend Tom Favreau, Melodyland Hotline Center, gave the Invocation. FLAG SALUTE: Councilman E. Llewellyn Overholt, Jr., led the assembly in the Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag. 119: PROCLAMATION: The following proclamation was ismued by Mayor Pro Tem Overholt and authorized by the City Council: "Orange County North-South Ail Star Football Day" - June 30, 1980 The proclamation was accepted by the Orange County North-South Team Coach, Mike Zeller. 119: RESOLUTION OF CONGRATULATIONS: A resolution of congratulations was unan- imously adopted by the City Council co~ending Mr. James McNamara on two decades of service to education in Anaheim and congratulating him upon the occasion of his retirement from the Anaheim Union High School. 119/150: PRESENTATION "NATIONAL OUTDOOR RECREATION ACHIEVEMENT AWARD": The National Outdoor Recreation Achievement Award from the United States Department of the Interior was accepted by Mr. Jim Ruth on behalf of the Parks, Recreation and Community Services staff. Mr. Ray Murray of the Department of Interior noted during the presentation that Anaheim was the first City to receive this award and that it has only been awarded to three other public agencies in a four-state region. MINUTES: Approval of minutes was deferred to the next regular meeting. WAIVER OF READING - ORDINANCES AND RESOLUTIONS: Councilman Bay 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 ordinance or resolution in regular order. Councilwoman Kaywood seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. FINANCIAL DEMANDS AGAINST THE CITY in the amount of $3,784,867.16, in accordance with the 1980-81 Budget, were approved. 80-786 Ci. tl Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - June 17, 1980~ 1:30 P.M. 140/123: LIBRARY COM CATALOGS: On motion by Councilwoman Kaywood, seconded by Councilman Bay, the City Council accepted a proposal from Baker and Taylor Company for production of computer-output-microform catalogs (COM) for library holdings and further, directed the City Attorney to prepare an agreement there- for, in accordance with the recommendation submitted by City Librarian William Griffith in memorandum dated June 13, 1980. Councilman Seymour was absent. MOTION CARRIED. 140/123: COM CATALOG SERVICES - PLACENTIA LIBRARY DISTRICT: On motion by Councilman Bay, seconded by Councilman Roth, the City Council approved the request from the Placentia Library District to provide said District with COM catalog services and further, directed the City Attorney to prepare an agree- ment therefor in accordance with the recommendation submitted by City Librarian William J. Griffith in memorandum dated June 17, 1980. Councilman Seymour was absent. MOTION CARRIED. 160: PURCHASE OF TWO THREE PHASE PADMOUNT TRANSFORMERS - BID NO. 3653: In accordance with the recommendation dated June 6, 1980 submitted by Richard Jefferis, Purchasing Agent, on motion by Councilman Roth, seconded by Council- woman Kaywood, the City Council accepted the bid of Westinghouse Electric Corp- oration in the amount of $10,290.48, and authorized the purchase of two 300 KVA, 20 amp fused~ Three Pase Padmount Transformers from Westinghouse Electric Corp- oration. Councilman Seymour was absent. MOTION CARRIED. 123/153: AUTHORIZATION FOR ACTUARIAL STUDY - SAFETY MEMBERS RETIREMENT PLAN: A recommendation was submitted by Human Resources Director Garry McRae that the City Council direct him to obtain an Actuarial Study of the cost of modifying the Safety Members' retirement plan to provide the annual cost of living adjust- ment at 3.00%, 4.00% or 5.00%, as requested by the Anaheim Fire Fighters and Anaheim Police Associations. It was noted also in Mr. McRae's memorandum that the full cost of the study will be shared by the two Associations, with no cost absorbed by the City for such a study. On motion by Councilwoman Kaywood, seconded by Councilman Bay, the City Council directed the Human Resources Director to obtain an Actuarial Study of optional cost-of-living benefits for the Safety Members' retirement plan. Councilman Seymour was absent. MOTION CARRIED. 123/124: CONVENTION CENTER NORTH EXHIBIT HALL ELECTRICAL SYSTEM UPGRADE - EXTENSION OF BID DATE: In accordance with a recommendation dated June 11, 1980, submitted by the City Engineer, Councilman Roth offered Resolution No. 80R-264 for adoption. Refer to Resolution Book. RESOLUTION NO. 80R-264: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AMENDING RESOLUTION NO. 80R-198 TO EXTEND THE BID DATE FOR THE CONVENTION CENTER NORTH EXHIBIT HALL ELECTRICAL SYSTEM UPGRADING, ACCOUNT NO. 01-262-6325-9510. (July 10, 1980, 2:00 P.M.) Roll Call Vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: COUNCIL MEMBERS: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Kaywood, Bay, Roth and Overholt None Seymour The Mayor Pro Tem declared Resolution No. 80R-264 duly passed and adopted. 80-787 City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - June 17, 1980, 1:30 P.M. 169: AWARD OF INCANDESCENT STREET LIGHT REPLACEMENT CONTRACT: In accordance with the recommendation of the City Engineer and Public Works Executive Director, Councilwoman Kaywood offered Resolution No. 80R-265 for adoption. Refer to Resolution Book. RESOLUTION NO. 80R-265: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM ACCEPTING A SEALED PROPOSAL AND AWARDING A CONTRACT TO THE LOWEST RESPONSIBLE BIDDER FOR THE FURNISHING OF ALL PLANT, LABOR, SERVICES, MATERIALS AND EQUIPMENT AND ALL UTILITIES AND TRANSPORTATION INCLUDING POWER, FUEL AND WATER, AND PERFORMING ALL WORK NECESSARY TO CONSTRUCT AND COMPLETE THE FOLLOWING PUBLIC IMPROVEMENT: REPLACEMENT OF INCANDESCENT STREET LIGHTS WITH HIGH PRESSURE SODIUM LUMINAIRES, IN THE CITY OF ANAHEIM, ACCOUNT NO. 01-677-6328-11090-37300. (L- G. Ogg, Inc., $8,727.60) Roll Call Vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: COUNCIL MEMBERS: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Kaywood, Bay, Roth and Overholt None Seymour The Mayor Pro Tem declared Resolution No. 80R-265 duly passed and adopted. 175/174: CONSORTIUM CITIES OF ORANGE COUNTY APPLICATION - ENERGY CONSERVATION FUNDING: A recommendation dated June 11, 1980 submitted by the City Manager's office that the Council authorize participation in a Consortium Cities of Orange County application and grant program for energy conservation funding and further, authorizing the City Manager to submit pre-application to HUD on behalf of the Consortium, was submitted. Mr. Talley, in response to Councilman Bay, assured City Council Members that this grant application had nothing to do with fulfilling of mandatory edicts but rather, deals with voluntary attempts at reduction of energy consumption. Councilman Roth voiced the opinion that he takes a dim view of this proposal as he doubts the City will ever save enough money through conservation efforts to even pay for the grant. Councilwoman Kaywood offered Resolution No. 80R-266 for adoption. Refer to Resolution Book. RESOLUTION NO. 80R-266: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AUTHORIZING CITY PARTICIPATION IN THE CONSORTIUM CITIES OF ORANGE COUNTY APPLI- CATION FOR THE HUD INNOVATIVE GRANT PROGRAM ON ENERGY CONSERVATION AND AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO FILE SAID APPLICATION AND RELATED DOCUMENTS. Roll Call Vote: AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Kaywood, Bay and Overholt NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Roth ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Seymour The Mayor Pro Tem declared Resolution No. 80R-266 duly passed and adopted. 150: ANAHEIM DAY CARE CENTER: In accordance with the recommendation and report dated June 4, 1980, from Jim Ruth, Deputy City Manager, the City Council, on motion by Councilman Roth, seconded by Councilwoman Kaywood: 80-788 City Ha.l~.,. Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - June 17, 1980, 1:30 P.M. (a) Accepted a donation from the Anaheim Senior Citizens Club in the amount of $7,800 to expand the Anaheim Senior Day Care Center Program. (b) Appropriated $5,379 of the $7,800 donation into the Community Services Division Program No. 01-344 and $2,421 in the Senior Citizens Program No. 01-278. (c) Accepted and appropriated $2,534 projected client fees and community donations in Program No. 01-344-6340. Councilman Seymour was absent. MOTION CARRIED. Councilwoman Kaywood further requested a letter of appreciation be forwarded to the Senior Citizens Club. 155: PLANNING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT ON LAND USES FOR SHORB WELLS PROPERTY: A staff report regarding said property generally described as 51.5 gross acres located south of Esperanza Road and the A.T. and S.F. Railroad right of way, north and west of the Santa Ana River and east of Yorba Regional Park, was submitted for Council consideration, together with recommendation that said report be received and filed and further recommending that staff be directed to confer with the County to insure access and flood plain protection for the Shorb Wells property and further to investigate opportunities for obtaining fill dirt. Councilwoman Kaywood was assured that prior to any potential use of this pro- perty, the City Council would have an opportunity to review proposals for the same as they would be forwarded through Planning Commission. MOTION: On motion by Councilman Bay, seconded by Councilwoman Kaywood, the City Council ordered the staff report dated June 11, 1980 discussing potential land uses for the Shorb Wells property, received and filed and further, directed that staff confer with the County to insure that access and flood plain protec- tion for the Shorb Wells Property be secured in the best manner possible and further to investigate opportunities for obtaining fill dirt for subject to accommodate anticipated urban uses. Councilman Seymour was absent. MOTION CARRIED. 180: RENEWAL - HELICOPTER AND HELIPORT INSURANCE COVERAGE: On motion by Council- woman Kaywood, seconded by Councilman Bay, the City Council accepted the offer of renewal with National Union Company in the amount of $9,046.88, as contained in Marsh & McLennan's letter dated June 12, 1980 for helicopter and heliport insurance coverage, pursuant to the recommendation of the Risk Manager. Councilman Seymour was absent. MOTION CARRIED. 175: INTERCONNECTION AGREEMENT AND SERVICE SCHEDULES - NEVADA POWER COMPANY: Recommendation from the Public Utilities Board was submitted by Board Secretary Gordon Hoyt, that the City Council approve the Interconnection Agreement with Nevada Power Company with Service Schedules A, B, and C and that the Public Utilities General Manager be authorized to execute said Agreement and Service Schedule on behalf of the City. The Public Utilities Board further recommended that the Public Utilities General Manager be designated as Anaheim's Operating Representative with authority to appoint an additional Operating Representative. 8O-789 City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - June 17, 1980, 1:30 P.M. On motion by Councilman Bay, seconded by Councilwoman Kaywood, the Anaheim City Council authorized the Interconnection Agreement and Service Schedules with the Nevada Power Company to provide for exchange of energy, capacity and emergency assistance for one year, and authorizing the Public Utilties General Manager to execute same. Councilman Seymour was absent. MOTION CARRIED. MOTION: On motion by Councilman Bay, seconded by Councilwoman Kaywood, the City Council designated the Public Utilities General Manager as Anaheim's Operating Representative with authority to appoint an additional Operating Representative as required by the Agreement. Councilman Seymour was absent. MOTION CARRIED. 175: CHANGE ORDER - RELOCATION OF THE DIEMER INTERTIE FLOW CONTROL FACILITY: Recommendation from the Public Utilities General Manager that the City Council approve the proposed Change Order to relocate Anaheim's Flow Control Facility · for the Diemer Intertie Project in the amount of $179,245, was submitted. Council Members Roth and Bay questioned why it appears the Diemer Intertie Project has completely stopped and what has caused it to be delayed. Mr. Ray Auerbach, Water Manager, reported that there has been difficulty in obtaining the necessary easements on Mrs. Maag's property. Councilman Roth requested that the Council be provided a report on the progress of the Diemer Intertie Project, as well as the condition of surrounding streets. On motion by Councilman Bay, seconded by Councilman Roth, the City Council authorized the Public Utilities General Manager to notify the Municipal Water District of Orange County that the City of Anaheim approves a Change Order in the amount of $179,245 for relocation of the Diemer Intertie Flow Control Facility. Councilman Seymour was absent. MOTION CARRIED. 123/180: AGREEMENT WITH CARL WARREN & COMPANY - CLAIMS ADMINISTRATION: City Attorney Hopkins submitted his recommendation that the City Council approve an agreement with Carl Warren & Company in an amount not to exceed $75,000 for administration of claims against the City for a one-year period terminating June 30, 1981. Councilman Bay inquired how the City Attorney arrived at the comparison which revealed Carl Warren & Company to be the low bid for this contract. Mr. Hopkins responded that when the items are analyzed, the cost of opening existing files which would be a cost increment for the other firms, Carl Warren & Company becomes low bid as they already have the files open, and they would not have to charge the City for copying and transfer. Councilman Bay further remarked then that from his understanding of the agree- ment, the only item which could run over the $75,000 limit would be as indicated in Section 2b (?age 2-3 of the contract) wherein the City agrees to pay for the cost of reasonable and supportable extraordinary investigative services, such as professional photography, medical examinations, engineering and laboratory ser- vices. He called attention to the charges listed in Mr. Hopkins' memo, photo- copies at 15¢ per page, automobile transportation at 35¢ per mile, as he thought these rates were relatively high. He advised that he hoped the City would 80-790 City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - June 17, 1980~ 1:30 P.M. experience an annual expenditure somewhere under the maximum of $75,000. Mr. Hopkins assured. Council Members that the services described are used in- frequently and only with prior written requests from the City Attorney's office for extraordinary cases. The 35¢ per mile charge anticipates that the cost of automotive travel will escalate in the coming year. At the conclusion of discussion, Councilman Bay stated that although he would not argue that the Carl Warren proposal is not the best bid received, he still was not satisfied with the contract. Councilman Roth offered Resolution No. 80R-267 for adoption. RESOLUTION NO. 80R-267: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM APPROVING THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF AN AGREEMENT WITH CARL WARREN& CO. AND AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR AND CITY CLERK TO EXECUTE SAID AGREEMENT. Roll Call Vote: AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Kaywood, Roth and Overholt NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Bay ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Seymour The Mayor Pro Tem declared Resolution No. 80R-267 duly passed and adopted. 126: DISNEYLAND EMPLOYEE ENTRANCE MODIFICATION: Request of Bill Gair, Chief Engineer for Disneyland, for modification to the median island on Harbor Boule- vard at the employee entrance, was submitted, together with a report from the Public Works Department recommending closure of the subject median island opening. Councilman Roth moved that the Council approve the modification as recommended. Because of the desire of several Council Members to discuss this subject, he withdrew his motion. Mr. Gair was recognized by the Mayor Pro Tem and described the traffic and pedestrian situation adjacent to the employees entrance. He noted that their suggestion would be to close the median strip so that the southbound traffic would have to travel further south to make a "U" turn, and this would eliminate the cross, traffic problem. In addition, he suggested a fence be placed across the east side of the median to prevent people from crossing, as this would also direct them to the south. Mr. Gair concluded that Disneyland feels what he has described would be a rea- sonable interim plan. However, the Disneyland officials do not feel this to be their responsibility; they view this as a public access way. He advised that Disneyland is concerned about the situation and would like some action to be taken to correct it. It was noted that the suggested modification would change the access for two motels, the Tropicana and Mecca, and Mr. Singer advised the managers of the motels were invited by telephone to attend this meeting, as they did object to the proposed modification. 80-791 City Hal~, Anahe'.un, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - June 17, 1980, 1:30 P.M. In response to Council questions, Mr. Gair advised that there would still be sufficient space on the island with the modification between the fence and curb for a pedestrian safety zone, and that Disneyland did not feel a fence of this nature for the short span involved would be offensive. He also advised Councilman Overholt that initially there was discussion about Disneyland picking up the cost, but discussions with their higher management revealed that this responsibility was seen as the City's. Mr. Singer reported that he had not prepared a cost estimate for the modification project; that his preference to correct the situation would be to close the existing employee entrance and relocte it on West Street, as this would be a much safer route. Councilman Bay voiced concern that the City had not looked at any alternatives to the modification proposed by Disneyland. Councilwoman Kaywood stated that since the budget was revised and more cuts were requested last week from all departments, it is not known if there is money within the Engineering budget to accomplish this modification. Furthermore, she did not like to discuss a situation in a vacuum. Councilman Roth stated that he feels the City has a responsibility to do some- thing to correct the existing situation and commended Disneyland for bringing what they believed to be a hazardous condition to the Council's attention. MOTION: On motion by Councilman Roth, seconded by Councilman Overholt, the City Council approved the traffic median modification as suggested by Disneyland, in concept, with City staff to return with cost advancements and financing plans in two weeks. Councilman Seymour was abwent. MOTION CARRIED. 173: BENCH AD COMPANY: Request of Mr. Kenneth Kossoff, Licensing Director, Bench Ad Company, for Council reconsideration of the removal of advertising benches from certain locations having bus shelters, was submitted, together with report from the City Engineer recommending that the City Council uphold the decision previously made for removal of advertising bus benches. The Mayor Pro Tem recognized Mr. Martin Barab, 9720 Wilshire Boulevard, Beverly Hills, Attorney representing Bench Ad Company, who advised that he was present to speak to the destruction of Bench Ad Company's business within the City of Anaheim and the construction by the bus shelter company. He referred to an article in the Daily Pilot indicating that bus shelters are a threat to pedestrian traffic at some intersections. He contended that the shelters create a situation wherein 3 to 4 people can squeeze into the unit and then the remainder are forced to sit at the curb, creating a hazard for others, as well as themselves. Mr. Barab recalled that the Bench Ad Company has serviced the entire Orange County area for the past 20 years and that approximately seven years ago, he personally had the opportunity of representing Bench Ad Company before various cities in Orange County when they were attempting to abolish advertising on the benches on the basis of visual pollution. He advised that this Company had 2,000 bus benches throughout the entire County and that because of an agreement reached four to six years ago when benches were to be removed, an additional 1,000 benches were provided to the area which are unadvertisable. These are placed at the bus stops for the convenience of the riders and at no benefit to the Bench Ad Company. 80-792 City Hall, Anaheim, California.- COUNCIL MINUTES - June 17, 1980, 1:30 P.M. Mr. Barab advised that the Company pays $16 per year, $10 per installation and $6 for removal fee for each unit to obtain permits to retain the benches. One-half of the four to five hundred bus benches located within Anaheim do not contain advertising and are placed there directly for the convenience of passengers and pedestrians. These benches will always remain blank as they are located in areas which are not attractive for advertising. He advised that his client had received notice to remove 50 to 60 benches from what they considered prime advertising areas. If this is required of Bench Ad Company, Mr. Barab stated they may have to remove all of the benches from all areas, since they cannot support the exis- tence of an unadvertised bench unless they receive corresponding income from revenue producing benches. He reiterated that it cost $6 per year to maintain the non-advertised benches, and Bench Ad has had to remove and relocate benches many times in accordance with changing Orange County Transit District bus routes. Since their services do not result in an exhorbitant income, Mr. Barab advised that the Bench Ad Company cannot compete with th~ price paid by Convenience & Safety Corporation, but he inquired how many free shelters have they given the City. He contended that the City is driving one company out of business which provides many indirect benefits, such as free placement of the bus bench and maintenance, in exchange for a few key locations with bus shelters chosen by the Shelter Company. Further his client caters to the advertising needs of the small businessman in the community who cannot afford to use the Shelter Company ad services. He concluded that his statement to the Council is a request for reconsideration of the Council resolution adopted December 18, 1979, in which is contained a two-page list of addresses and requests for removal therefrom of the bus benches, under threat of seizure. Mr. Barab proposed to the Council that these bus benches can co-exist along with bus shelters, and that there is no reason to eliminate a company which has been servicing the community for 20 years for the purpose of some key locations which are given to the new venture. He referred to the Anaheim Municipal Code Section 4.05 dealing with the bus benches and stated that 16 out of 20 sections regulate the activities of bus bench companies; whereas, Section 4.07, added some 20 years later to provide regulations for bus shelter companies contains only one small paragraph. Furthermore Bench Ad Company operates from year to year on a permit basis and the Shelter Company has received a ten-year contract. The Bench Ad Company must pay a renewal fee and be subject to revocation if not doing their job. Mr. Barab stated that he did not feel anyone is contending that the Bench Ad Company had not done their job or that the sidewalks are a hazard. He felt the most reasonable thing would be to allow both firms to survive. He referred to his client who has been in business in the City for some 20 years never receiving notice of the proposed contract with the Shelter Company. Further- more, he contended that this contract permits the Council by its terms to allow the Bus Bench Company to remain as a viable entity. He referred to a clause granting a license to the Bus Shelter Company, subject to whatever right, interest or privilege others may have in the use or occupation of the sidewalks. He additionally referred to a clause on Page 14 of the Convenience & Safety Cor- poration contract regarding the indemnification of the City should the licensee wish the bus benches removed, as indicative that there was a suspicion there would 80-793 City Hall~ Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - June 17, 1980~ 1:30 P.M. be litigation. He stated that the section in the Anaheim Municipal Code (4.05.030) relating to revocation of permits for bus benches indicates a permit may be revoked for cause only, such as failure to live up to the Code Section or creating a hazardous situation. Mr. Barab stated the ouster of one particular company is unfair and is subject to serious reconsideration. He explained that his firm has removed a few benches and has received complaints from the citizens. He reiterated that the Company's scope of business is broad, and the removal of benches in Anaheim will affect the advertising contract in Santa Ana. He then requested that the Council reconsider their previous action and take the best of two courses of action, by allowing the Bench Ad Company to co-exist with Bus Shelters, rather than be eliminated. Councilman Roth inquired whether it was true that Mr. Barab had also threatened the City of Santa Ana that if required to remove any of the benches, they would remove all. Mr. Barab replied this is a matter of business reality; the Bench Ad Company derives its income from sales of advertising, and the City of Anaheim has been the first to attempt to have them remove advertising benches. The City of Santa Ana has not yet approached that. If they had, however, he explained it would be a matter of business practicality that they would have to remove the benches. Councilwoman Kaywood questioned the remark made by Mr. Barab to the effect that the City of Anaheim has attempted to revoke the permit, to which Mr. Barab responded that his client received a notice on May 15, 1980, indicating the Council's action of December 18, 1979. Councilwoman Kaywood indicated that the last time the Council acted to deny the request of Bench Ad Company, Mr. Kossoff was present at the meeting and reported that his firm had sold advertising which ran beyond the date of the bench permits. She also observed that their request was denied at the December 18, 1979 meeting, and questioned why had the Bench Ad Company waited five months to request this rehearing. Mr. Barab advised that his client came to him seeking legal advice and he told him they should request that the Council re-examine their position and allow the company to co-exist. He also stated that no notice of denial of the request was received by his client, only the order for removal of the bus benches. Councilwoman Kaywood stated that she thought this was an absolutely clear notice that the request had been denied. She also took exception to the statement made by Mr. Barab that there is no need in Southern California for overhead protection in the bus shelter and thus suggested he seek the opinion of the public riding buses should be sought. Councilman Roth then suggested that the issue is not what type of appurtenances are best suited for bus stops, but a request from Bench Ad that the City Council reconsider their directive that the bus benches be removed. Mr. Barab advised that he has been authorized by his client to seek an injunction against the City's attempts to take Bench Ad's property without due process of law, and discriminatorily applying the ordinance. The victims of this situation, according to Mr. Barab, will be the bus riders. 80-794 City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - June 17, 1980, 1:30 P.M. Councilman Overholt spoke to the remark made by Mr. Barab that his client did not receive notice of the intended contract, and Mr. Barab stated that he absolutely was not aware of the situation. Councilman Overholt recalled that the Anaheim City Council deliberated the matter of bus shelters publicly for many, many months. This was one of the most controversial issues ever before the City Council for many months. There was a great deal of publicity in the papers and the Council even had a trial shelter program. Although no one on the Council wishes to deny Mr. Kossoff his legal remedies, on the other hand, Councilman Overholt felt that the Council had made its decision, and the applicant has had plenty of time to be heard and give arguments prior to this date. Mr. Williams of Convenience & Safety Corporation advised that of his own volition, when he first entered the Southern California area in 1977, he sought out the President of Bench Ad Company. He introduced himself and described the shelters which were then sweeping the East Coast as they had in Europe. At that time, he offered the Bench Ad President an opportunity to join in this venture as a partner, mince that firm would be most logically the one to be most directly affected if the shelter business became successful. Mr. Williams addressed comments on the capacity of the shelter, noting that there is one bench located within the shelter, but that Convenience & Safety Corporation has on file with the City of Anaheim a letter of credit and should they wish to add another bench or another shelter, his firm would accommodate that need. He acknowledged that his firm is occupying the position between the Bench Ad Company and the City of Anaheim, and they accept that responsibility. Some comments he has heard regarding actions to be taken by the Bench Ad Company will inconvenience this City, and his Company is ready to respond to that need, as they have to all of the other requests made by the Traffic Engineer. In response to Councilwoman Kaywood, Mr. Williams clarified his comments to indicate that the bus shelter program, as it rounds out within the next six to twelve months, will most likely have locations that will require a bench without a shelter or without advertising, and his firm feels it is incumbent upon them to respond to that even though these locations have not been formalized in an agreement. They will probably put a bench at each location and maintain them without advertising. He further assured Councilwoman Kaywood that the City has a standing offer anytime there is a need .for more benches, Convenience & Safety Corporation will install and maintain them as part of the program. He further explained that the second bus shelter to be installed without advertising is located in front of the new Civic Center building. MOTION: Councilman Roth moved that the City Council uphold its previous decision for removal ~f certain bus benches, as shown in the list dated December 18, 1979. Councilwoman Kaywood seconded the motion. During further Council discussion of the above motion, Councilman Bay inquired whether any benches had been removed and upon learning that all of the benches were still in place, amended the motion to indicate that the Council will uphold its previous decision and allow the Bench Ad Company seven days within which to remove the benches before the City takes action to impound and remove same. 80-795 City Hall, Anaheim,, Californi. a - c0u. NCI.L .MINUTES - .J. une 17, 1980, 1:30 P.M. Following further discussion as to how much time should be allowed the Bench Ad firm to remove 50 to 60 benches, Councilman Roth indicated 21 days would be reasonable in his opinion. From the audience Mr. Barab responded that Bench Ad would remove the benches in question in ten days. Following input from the City Manager, Traffic Engineer and City Attorney, Council- man Roth restated the motion to deny the request of Bench Ad Company for reconsi- deration of removal of advertising benches and to allow them 21 days within which subject benches as designated in the December 18, 1979 action are to be removed. Councilwoman Kaywood seconded the motion. Councilman Seymour was absent. MOTION CARRIED. 176: PUBLIC HEARING - ABANDONMENT NO. 79-16A: In accordance with application filed by Carl A. Anderson, public hearing was held on proposed abandonment of an existing 10-foot public alley, beginning at the north line of Sycamore Street, extending north approximately 294 feet to the south line of Alberta Street, pur- suant to Resolution No. 80R-240, duly published in the Anaheim Bulletin and notices thereof posted in accordance with law. Report of the City Engineer dated May 28, 1980 and recommendation by the Plan- ning Commission were submitted recommending, approval of said abandonment sub- ject to the following conditions: 1. That a public utility easement be reserved for existing overhead electrical lines. 2. That an easement for sanitary sewer purposes be reserved. There is an existing sewer line running the length of the alley along the centerline. 3. That an easement for ingress and egress be reserved for sanitary sewer maintenance purposes, including roadway improvement for vehicular ingress and egress not less than 10 feet in width for the entire length of the alley. 4. That a public utility easement be reserved unto the Pacific Telephone & Telegraph Company to accommodate existing facilities, together with all rea- sonable rights of ingress and egress. Said reservation to said Telephone & Telegraph Company to be subject to prior rights of the City of Anaheim reser- vation as stated above. The Mayor Pro Tem asked if anyone wished to address the Council. Mr. Carl Anderson, property owner at 502 North Lemon, advised that this alley serves no useful purpose for the residents, as it is not wide enough, and the City does not maintain it. He explained that he wishes to block it off at both ends. Mr. Devitt stated that the City has public utility easements for electrical and sanitary sewer purposes located within this alley and it would be necessary to maintain ingress and egress to same. However, he suggested this might be managed with a chain and padlock arrangement. Councilman Roth stated that this arrangement would not serve to keep undesirable elements from entering the alley on foot and further reported his concerns that Mr. Anderson might be receiving something which he really doesn't want by virtue of this abandonment, i.e., a situation wherein vandals would have access to an 80-796 City Hall, Anaheim,. Calif.ornia - COUNCIL MINUTES - June 17, 1980~ 1:30 P.M, abandoned alley area behind his home. He voiced the opinion that both vehicles and people should be prevented from going behind Mr. Anderson's property. Mr. Devitt suggested this could be accomplished by fencing and installing a gate, the City being provided keys to same for maintenance of its easements. Mr. Anderson stated that he would be willing to pay for the fence and gate but could not speak for the other eight property owners. Another of the owners to be affected by the proposed alley abandonment, Mr. Viljak of 511 North Zeyn Street, also spoke in favor of a fence with gate to keep individuals out of the alley when it was abandoned. There being no one else who wished to speak, the public hearing was closed. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT - CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION: On motion by Councilman Bay, seconded by Councilman Roth, the City Council ratified the determination of the Planning Director that the proposed activity falls within the definition of Section 3.01, Class 5, of the City of Anaheim guidelines to the requirements for an Epwirop~nental Impact Report and is, therefore, categorically exempt from the requirement to file an EIR. Councilman Seymour was absent. MOTION CARRIED. CounCilman Bay offered Resolution No. 80R-268 for adoption, approving Abandonment No. 79-16A, subject to the conditions set forth in the City Engineer's report dated May 28, 1980 as recommended by the Planning Commission and further, sub- ject to gates being constructed at both ends of the alley with keys provided the City for access to easements, said arrangement to be satisfactory to the City Engineer. Refer to Resolution Book. RESOLUTION NO. 80R-268: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM DETERMINING THAT A CERTAIN PUBLIC ALLEY SHOULD BE ABANDONED AND ESTABLISHING CONDITONS PRECEDENT TO SAID ABANDONMENT. Roll Call Vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: COUNCIL MEMBERS: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Kaywood., Bay, Roth and Overholt None Seymour The Mayor Pro Tem declared Resolution No. 80R-268 duly passed and adopted. 170: TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP NO. 80-243-'APPEAL: Request of Timothy J. Miller, Incorporated, to appeal and set for public hearing before the City Council Tentative Parcel Map No. 80-243, concerning property located north of Peralta Hills Drive and east of Cerro Vista Way, was submitted for Council consideration, together with report from the Engineering Division of Public Works recommending that the Council deny said request for an additional public hearing. City Engineer William Devitt reported that two public hearings were held in the Engineering Division prior to approval of the Tentative Parcel Map, as required, on May 5 and May 19, 1980. Mr. Miller attended neither of these hearings. Further, Mr. Devitt advised that the Tentative Parcel Map is in concurrence with all applicable Codes and Ordinances. 80-797 City Hall,. Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - June 17, 1980, 1:30 P.M. In response to Councilman Bay, Mr. Devitt explained that essentially the concerns of the surrounding property owners who have engaged Mr. Miller on their behalf, relates to drainage and this also was the concern stated by all those who attended the public hearing. For this reason the first public hearing on the map was continued to allow for further investigation. The drainage matter was reviewed by staff and the developer. As a result of this investigation, it was the judgment of the Anaheim City Engineer's office that there is not a drainage problem. Mr. Devitt further emphasized that the action under discussion is approval of a Parce~Map for a lot split into three one-acre parcels. At whatever point in time additional plans for' building on the property are drawn, the owner would then be required to come Jn with a grading plan and an additional environmental impact assessment would be necessary at that time. He noted that at this time the City's engineers were not aware as to just how the property might be de- veloped. Mr. Timothy J. Miller, 160 Valley View Place, Anaheim, stated that his clients' concerns were more than a question of drainage, they are requesting a public hearing at which time they would be prepared to place a statement on file as to why they think the Tentative Parcel Map should not be approved, i.e., why they fee~ that the Tentative Parcel Map was approved by the City based on erroneous information received on the negative declaration. He recalled that there is a requirement that the applicant fill out a questionnaire in which he must state "yes", "no" or "maybe" to specfic environmental questions. Mr. Miller stated that as his letter indicates, he believes the questionnaire which was signed and submitted in conjunction with this Tentative Parcel Map was incorrect in reflecting all "no" answers. Mr~ Miller elaborated that the property in question is located immediately adjacent to a barranca which lies between Peralta Hills Drive and Cerro Vista Drive, which contains a significant amount of foliage. This foliage would fall into the category of specimen trees which the City is protecting in the Hill and Canyon area. Mr. Miller wished Council to take cognizance of the fact that although the immediate action of approval of the Parcel Map to realign lot lines alone does not require any grading, that by creating these parcels, there is an inference that there will be bu±ldable lots to develop. Mr. Miller stated it is his and his clients' contention that in order to build on the lots so created, significant grading would be required. He therefore, felt the problem should be addressed at this time before the legal parcels are set up. In particular, he felt the full environmental impact of grading or changes to the barranca should be considered and restrictions or conditions be imposed on same. He reported that the barranca is 20 to 25 feet deep, very wide and cuts across the proposed third parcel and because of it, there may not be a buildable pad. Mr. Miller summarized his position that because there is more than a question of drainage and that rather, to create a buildable lot, the question may be one of potential grading and tree removal, these matters should be considered at . this time. Mr. Devitt responded that he had no reason to believe the property would present any severe grading problems in the future. He advised Council Members that three out of four adjacent property owners represented by Mr. Miller were present at the earlier public hearing, but are still protesting approval of the Parcel Map. 80-798 City Hall~ Anaheim~ C~lifornia - COUNCIL MINUTES - June 17~ 1980~ 1:30 P.M. Mr. Miller interjected there is also a question here of the routing of drainage and his clients would objecti to routing via a 54- or 48-inch concrete drain line because of the aesthetics. The barranca is now a lush green area and is signi- ficant to the surrounding property owners. The barranca is a natural water course and his clients did not think it should be disturbed. He stated that they wish a public hearing so they might engage an engineer to do a topographical overlay. Mr. Miller mentioned that in discussing these concerns, it came to his attention that Mr. Kelly of the Planning Department, who is responsible for signing off the EIR negative declaration requirements, stated that if he had been apprised of the fact, he would not have recommended the negative declaration for EIR for subject Tentative Parcel Map. Mr. Kelly was summoned to the Council Chambers and explained that at this point the Council has to consider that this particular application is for a Parcel Map only and not for a grading plan. If the owner subsequently comes in with a proposal to do some grading, he would be required to submit an additional EIR assessment in connection with that application. On the other hand, Mr. Kelly advised that the owner could be asked whether he intends to do any grading prior to approval of the Parcel Map. Mr. Doug Foster, Willdan Associates, land surveyor, advised that the property owner is in escrow and has a buyer for one of the parcels. He required Willdan to do a boundary survey on the lot. He also explained that any future appeals or hearings would be very costly to the property owner, Mr. Johnson, as he had already returned from out of state to attend the other hearings. Councilwoman Kaywood moved that the City Council set Tentative Parcel Map 80-243 for public hearing. The motion died for lack of a second. Councilman Bay ascertained from Mr. Miller that his reasoning in requesting the public hearing is based on (1) the aesthetics of the area and (2) the fact that he questions the responses written on the negative declaration from EIR questions. Mr. Miller stated further that he is not only concerned about grading, but also about change in the natural water course which would create a slight threat for his clients, as their properties are located on the same or higher elevation as subject parcel and that this is not hillside property. Mr. Talley reminded the Council Members that there is a 30-day period allowed within which objections to an EIR negative declaration can be made. This particular EIR negative declaration was signed on April 24, 1980. Mr. Robert Andri, 4610 Cerro Vista Drive, was recognized by the Mayor Pro Tem and advised that his home and several of the others in question are on a higher elevation than the property to be developed. He described the barranca as being 2Q to ~30 feet to the bottom and explained that when water rushes through it, it is in a 10-foot wide stream. The water overflows to a level three feet deep over Cerro Vista Drive causing a problem for cars with mud and debris. He emphasized that he is not concerned about the owner build- ing on his prqperty but wants assurances that there will be no problem with the water. 80-799 City Hall, .Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - June 17, 1980, 1:30 P.M. In response to Mr. Andri, Mr. Devitt concurred that a substantial amount of water does come down to the barranca and advised that the City Engineer's office in making their recommendations on drainage generally would never permit grading to occur on lots or parcels which would impose an additonal drainage burden on downstream properties. Council discussion ensued during which Councilwoman Kaywood voiced very strong concerns about the future possibility of altering the natural water course by doing mass grading on the barranca. Councilwoman Kaywood noted that at the time the Peralta Hills area was annexed into the City, the property owners were given certain assurances, one of which was that there would be minimum one-acre size lots. If this proposed lot split into three parcels means one lot will be unbuildable unless grading is done to the barranca, she was of the opinion that the buyer should be somehow made aware of this situation. She asked the City Attorney if this would be possible. Mr. Hopkins advised that this is not an area which would be within the City's purview, that the matter would be between the parties involved, the buyer and seller. Councilman Roth stated that he could see no reason to conduct an additional hearing at this time, since there are no building or grading plans submitted for the pro- perty. Until the City receives a definitive plan for development of the property in question, there is no substance for discussion at a public hearing. After being apprised by Mr. Kelly that a separate environmental impact evaluation would be required at ~h~ time the grading plan was submitted, Councilman Bay concurred that there could be nothing gained by conducting an additional public hearing at this time. Councilman Overholt was also of the opinion that the time for discussion of these matters is when there are specifics to discuss. Councilwoman Kaywood stated that she would go along with a motion for no hearing at this point, however, she wanted her concerns clearly delineated in the minutes. MOTION: On motion by Councilman Roth, seconded by Councilman Overholt, the City Council denied appeal of approval of Tentative Parcel Map No. 80-243 and declined to set a public hearing on same, and further determined there would be no additional EIR required for the action taken at this time by the City Engineer to 'approve Parcel Map No. 80-243. Councilman Seymour was absent. MOTION CARRIED. CONSENT CALENDAR ITEMS: On motion by Councilman Roth, seconded by Councilman Bay, the following actions were authorized in accordance with the reports and recommendations furnished each Council Member and as listed on the Consent Calendar Agenda: 1. 118: CLAIMS AGAINST THE CITY: The following claims were denied and referred to the City's Claims Administrator: 80-800 City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - June 17, 1980, 1:30 P.M. a. Claim submitted by Allstate Insurance Company (Robert Hutton, insured) for vehicular damages purportedly sustained as a result of accident involving City employee and vehicle, at 1509 N. Kraemer Avenue, on or about May 12, 1980. b. Claim submitted by Jeanne Blackwell, mother of deceased Richard Blackwell, for damages purportedly sustained as a result of accident at the flood control channel west of Kraemer/Glassell, south of Frontera Street, resulting in a fatality, on or about February 28, 1980. c. Claim submitted by Shirely N. Dzula for vehicular damages purportedly sus- tained as a result of traffic signal malfunction at the intersection of Katella Avenue and Haster Street, on or about May 25, 1980. d. Claim submitted by Irving C. Falk for personal injuries and damgaes pur- portedly sustained as a result of being beaten by persons attending a baseball game at the Stadium, on or about April 22, 1980. (The City Clerk reported that letter had been received from Mr. Falk's attorney advising that the initial claim had a typographical error and that the actual claim was $15,000 rather than $5,000) e. Claim submitted by Mrs. Sophie Nichols for damages purportedly sustained as a result of food spoilage due to power failure, at 2041N. June Place, on or about the third weekend in April. f. Claim submitted by Anthony S. Spracale for personal injury damages purportedly sustained as a result of temporary partition falling at the Convention Center Senior Citizens Day Entertainment Area, on or about March 11, 1980. g. Claim submitted by Woodcrest Homes Association, for damages purportedly sustained as a result of the City Council's failure to enforce terms of a bond for landscape and irrigation work filed by Westfield Development Co., Inc. for Woodcrest Homes, Tract No. 8455, as requested on or about April 22, 1980. 2. CORRESPONDENCE: The following correspondence was ordered received and filed: a. 107: Planning Department, Building Division--Monthly Report for May 1980. b. 156: Police Department--Monthly Report for May 1980. c. 105: Anaheim Housing Commission Joint Meeting with Redevelopment Commission-- Minutes of May 7, 1980. d. 105: Community Center Authority--Minutes of June 9, 1980. Councilman Seymour was absent. MOTION CARRIED. CONSENT CALENDAR ITEMS: Councilwoman Kaywood offered Resolution Nos. 80R-269 through 80R-272, both inclusive, for adoption in accordance with the reports, recommendations and certifications furnished each Council Member and as listed on the Consent Calendar Agenda. Refer to Resolution Book. 80-801 City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - June 17, 1980, 1:30 P.M. 158: RESOLUTION NO. 80R-269: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM ACCEPTING CERTAIN DEEDS AND ORDERING THEIR RECORDATION. (Richard Hyde, et al.) 174(CDBG): RESOLUTION NO. 80R-270: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM FINDING AND DETERMINING THAT PUBLIC CONVENIENCE AND NECESSITY REQUIRE THE CONSTRUCTION AND COMPLETION OF A PUBLIC IMPROVEMENT, TO WIT: DEMO- LITION AND SITE CLEARANCE OF VARIOUS CITY PROPERTY, IN THE CITY OF ANAHEIM, CON- TRACT BG80-1, ACCOUNT NO. 25-214-6640; APPROVING THE DESIGNS, PLANS, PROFILES, DRAWINGS, AND SPECIFICATIONS FOR THE CONSTRUCTION THEREOF; AUTHORIZING THE CON- STRUCTION OF SAID PUBLIC IMPROVF2WtENT IN ACCORDANCE WITH SAID PLANS, SPECIFICA- TIONS, ETC.; AND AUTHORIZING AND DIRECTING THE CITY CLERK TO PUBLISH A NOTICE INVITING SEALED PROPOSALS FOR THE CONSTRUCTION THEREOF. (Bids to be opened July 3, 1980, at 2:00 P.M.) 149: RESOLUTION NO. 80R-271: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM FINDING AND DETERMINING THAT PUBLIC CONVENIENCE AND'NECESSITY REQUIRE THE CONSTRUCTION AND COMPLETION OF A PUBLIC IMPROVEMENT, TO WIT: EDISON PARK PARKING LOT, IN THE CITY OF ANAHEIM, ACCOUNT NO. 16-816-7107; APPROVING THE DESIGNS, PLANS, PROFILES, DRAWINGS, AND SPECIFICATIONS FOR THE CONSTRUCTION THEREOF; AUTHORIZING THE CONSTRUCTION OF SAID PUBLIC IMPROVEMENT IN ACCORDANCE WITH SAID PLANS, SPECIFICATIONS, ETC.; AND AUTHORIZING AND DIRECTING THE CITY CLERK TO PUBLISH A NOTICE INVITING SEALED PROPOSALS FOR THE CONSTRUCTION THEREOF. (Bids to be opened July 10, 1980, at 2:00 P.M.) 113/153: RESOLUTION NO. 80R-272: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AUTHORIZING THE DESTRUCTION OF CITY RECORDS MORE THAN TWO YEARS OLD. (personnel records, Human Resources Department) Roll Call Vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: COUNCIL MEMBERS: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Kaywood, Bay, Roth and Overholt None Seymour The Mayor Pro Tem declared Resolution Nos. 80R-269 through 80R-272, both inclusive, duly passed and adopted. ORDINANCE NO. 4140: Councilman Roth offered Ordinance No. 4140 for adoption. Refer to Ordinance Book. ORDINANCE NO. 4140: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AMENDING TITLE 18 OF THE ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO ZONING. (64-65-14(2), CG) Roll Call Vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: COUNCIL MEMBERS: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Kaywood, Bay, Roth and Overholt None Seymour The Mayor Pro Tem declared Ordinance No. 4140 duly passed and adopted. 80-802 City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - June 17, 1980, 1:30 P.M. ORDINANCE NO. 4141: Councilwoman Kaywood offered Ordinance No. 4141 for first reading. ORDINANCE NO. 4141: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AMENDING TITLE 18 OF THE ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO ZONING. (79-80-33, ML) RECESS - EXECUTIVE SESSION: On motion by Councilman Bay, seconded by Councilwoman Kaywood, the City Council recessed into Executive Session. (4:50 P.M.) AFTER RECESS: Mayor Pro Tam Overholt called the meeting to order, all Council Members being present, with the exception of Councilman Seymour. (5:06 P.M.) 112: ORANGE COUNTY SUPERIOR COURT CASE NO. 96-92-6: On motion by Councilman Roth, seconded by Councilman Bay, the City Council approved the settlement of Orange County Superior Court Case No. 96-92-6 (Kimball) in the amount of $2,400, as recommended by the City Attorney. Councilman Seymour was absent.. MOTION CARRIED. ADJOURNMENT: Councilwoman Kaywood moved to adjourn. Councilman Roth seconded the motion. Councilman Seymour was abgent. MOTION CARRIED. Adjourned: 5:07 P.M. LINDA D. ROBERTS, CITY CLERK