Loading...
1978/10/17 78-1360 City Hall.~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - October 17~ 1978~ 1:30 P.M. The City Council of the City of Anaheim met in regular session. PRESENT: ABSENT: PRESENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Overholt, Kaywood, Kott, Roth and Seymour COUNCIL MEMBERS: None CITY MANAGER: William O. Talley CITY ATTORNEY: William P. Hopkins CITY CLERK: Linda D. Roberts PERSONNEL DIRECTOR: Garry McRae CITY ENGINEER: James Maddox TRAFFIC ENGINEER: Paul Singer PLANNING DIRECTOR: Ron Thompson ASSISTANT DIRECTOR FOR ZONING: Annika Santalahti POLICE CAPTAIN: J. D. Kennedy ASSISTANT PLANNER: Pam Lucado COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT SPECIALIST: Kate Kocher Mayor Seymour called the meeting to order and welcomed those in attendance to the Council meeting. MOMENT OF SILENCE: In lieu of an Invocation, a Moment of Silence was observed. FLAG SALUTE: Councilwoman Miriam Kaywood led the assembly in the Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag. 119: PROCLAMATIONS: The following proclamations were issued by ~yor Seymour and approved by the City Council: "United Nations Day in Anaheim" - October 24, 1978 "Escrow Month in Anaheim" - October, 1978 The proclamation on "United Nations Day in Anaheim" was accepted by Betty Thomas. 119: PRESENTATION - "EL DIA DE ANAHEIM": Mr. Ben Bay reported on the City trip to Tijuana on Saturday, October 14, 1978, by 118 Anaheim citizens who were shown the finest hospitality he had ever experienced. He then explained the schedule of events which took place during the day and elaborated upon the luncheon meeting attended by the Vice Mayor of TiJuana, present President of the Tijuana Chamber of Commerce and the Attorney General of the Stat~pf Baja, California. He reported on a recently changed law within the State of BaJa wherein any tourist who had any legal problem whatsoever while visiting Tijuana or the northern part of Baja, there were now numbers to call to obtain free legal aid from the State Attorney's Office. The present Governor of Baja was Past Secretary of Tourism, and thus they were taking a new interest in that area. Mr. Bay then presented to the Council a beautiful Aztec calendar plaque which was presented to him as a representative of the City, along with a commemorative medal designating Tijuana's 50th year in the National Chamber of Commerce. The Mayor accepted the gifts on behalf of the Council and asked the City Clerk to place the plaque in the Library where it would be held until the completion of the new City Hall when it could be appropriately displayed. 78-1361 City Hall, ~naheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - October 17~ 1978~ 1:30 P.M. MINUTES: Approval of minutes was deferred for one week. WAIVER OF READING - ORDINANCES AND RESOLUTIONS: Councilman Roth moved to waive the reading, in full, of all ordinances and resolutions and that consent to the waiver of reading is hereby given by all Council Members unless, after reading of the title, specific request is made by a Council Member for the read- ing of such ordinance or resolution. Councilwoman Kaywood seconded the motion. MOTION UNANIMOUSLY CARRIED. FINANCIAL DEMANDS AGAINST THE CITY in the amount of $675,890.33, in accordance with the 1978-79 Budget, were approved. 119/150: NATIONAL GOLD MEDAL AWARD WON BY PARKS, RECREATION AND ARTS DEPARTMENT: Councilwoman Kaywood announced that just that morning, it was reported to her that Anaheim had won the National Gold Medal Award for the Parks, Recreation and Arts Department, an award for which the City should be extremely proud. Anaheim was one of the four finalists in cities with a population of 100,000 to 250,000. The final competition was held in Miami that morning and subsequently the announcement made. She thereupon congratulated Mr. James Ruth, Director of Parks, Recreation and the Arts, and his staff on the award and noted that $1,000 was also included to be used toward a new project. 149: PHILADELPHIA STREET PARKING LOT IMPROVEMENT: (Account No. 46-792-6325-2170) On motion by Councilwoman Kaywood, seconded by Councilman Roth, award of the sub- Ject contract was continued to October 31, 1978, as requested by staff. MOTION CARRIED. 160: PURCHA3E OF EQUIPMENT - 350 POLYPHASE METERS - BID NO. 3464: On motion by Councilman Roth, seconded by Councilman Overholt, the lowest responsible bid of Westinghouse Electric Supply Company was accepted, and purchase authorized in the amount of $42,015.75, including tax, as recommended by the Purchasing Agent in his memorandum dated October 10, 1978. MOTION CARRIED. 123: ORANGE COUNTY COM}FUNITY DEVELOP~IENT COUNCIL: Councilwoman Kaywood offered Resolution No. 78R-672 for adoption, as recommended in memorandum dated October 3, 1978, from the Executive Director of Community Development, Norm Priest, authorizing an agreement with the Orange County Community Development Council to implement the City's Youth Community Conservation and Improvement Project, expiring September 30, 1979. Refer to Resolution Book. RESOLUTION NO. 78R-672: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM APPROVING THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF AN AGREEMENT WITH THE ORANGE COUNTY COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COUNCIL AND AUTHORIZING AND DIRECTING THE MAYOR AND CITY CLERK TO EXECUTE SAID AGREEMENT. Roll Call Vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: COUNCIL M~BERS: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Overholt, Kaywood, Kott, Roth and Seymour None None The Mayor declared Resolution No. 78R-672 duly passed and adopted. 78-1362 City Hall,. Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - October 17, 19.78~ 1:30 P.M. 153: AMENDMENT TO RULE 6 - PREMIUM PAY: Councilwoman Kaywood offered Resolu- tion No. 78R-673 for adoption, as recommended in memorandum dated October 11, 1978 from the Personnel Director, amending Rule 6, Premium Pay, to provide that overtime work authorized in accordance with the Fire Department situational manning concept be paid at straight rate of pay. Refer to Resolution Book. RESOLUTION NO. 78R-673: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AMENDING RESOLUTION NO. 77R-801, PERSONNEL RULE 6, PREMIUM PAY. Roll Call Vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: COUNCIL MEMBERS: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Overholt, Kaywood, Kott, Roth and Seymour None None The Mayor declared Resolution No. 78R-673 duly passed and adopted. 123: RIGHTS TO AN INVENTION OF UTILITIES DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEES: Councilwoman Kaywood offered Resolution No. 78R-674 for adoption, as reco~nended in memorandum dated October 6, 1978, from the Utilities Director, authorizing an agreement with Gayle Herbel, Eldon Bollom and Jim Rawson, in connection with shop rights relating to an electric grounding device invented by said employees. Refer to Resolution Book. RESOLUTION NO. 78R-674: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM APPROVING AN AGREEMENT WITH GAYLE A. HERBEL, ELDON W. BOLLOM, AND JIM W. RAWSON IN CONNECTION WITH SHOP RIGHTS TO AN INVENTION AND AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR AND CITY CLERK T9 EXECUTE SAID AGREEMENT ON BEHALF OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM. Roll Call Vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: COUNCIL MEMBERS: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Overholt, Kaywood, Kott, Roth and Seymour None None The Mayor declared Resolution No. 78R-674 duly passed and adopted. Councilwoman KaYwood added that she hoped the foregoing would further encourage other employees to come forward with good ideas. 158: DEDICATED TRAIL EASEMENT WITHIN LOT NO. 13~ TRACT NO. 9333: The City Clerk announced that communications had been received from Mr. Daniel DeBusschere and Mr. Farrell Weber on the subject, as well as a petition requesting abandonment of a portion of the trails, which was copied for the Council. A communication from HACMAC had also been received recommending that the easement be obtained. The Mayor asked how many in the Chamber audience were present relative to the subject item; approximately 20 people were present. The Mayor then further asked to hear from staff. 78-1363 City Hall~ .Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - October 17, 1978, 1:30 P.M. Annika Santalahti, Assistant Director for Zoning, explained that the aerial photograph displayed on the Chamber wall had been taken before construction of Tract No. 9333, the upper left-hand corner of which showed the approximate location of the trail, but it did not show where the houses were located. She also pointed out the area of contention which showed the revised horse trail and the modification that was discussed in the staff report, which modification was made after the tract map was recorded. She also submitted a board on which several photographs were mounted for Council perusal which were taken that morn- ing showing the location of the fence that was installed on the horse trail. The Mayor then asked to hear from those who favored the staff recommendation that Real Property be directed to negotiate the acquisition of an additional 10 feet of dedicated trail easement within Lot No. 13, Tract No. 9333, with the purchase of same to be determined by the City Council. Mr. Farrell Weber, 480 Via Vista, Mohler Drive region, stated it would be well to first look at the trails system in general and the fact that the City Council, Planning Commission, HACMAC and the Trails Committee had worked very hard to establish such a system within the City. Major regional trails, backbone trails and a number of feeder trails, called "TICK" trails were now in existence. The subject of discussion was a "TICK" trail which he pointed to from the photograph. When the Country Knolls Tract was developed, it was deemed that it would be well to have a trail encircle the boundary of the development and at the request of the Trails Committee, the Grant Warmington Corporation granted a trail which was dedicated to the City and duly recorded as a trail within the City of Anaheim Trails System. When people moved into the new homes within the Country Knolls section, some were displeased with the fact that a trail existed, not withstand- ing the fact that they were aware they were equestrian estates on one-half acre parcels and advertised as such. However, it was determined by one of the home- owners that an attempt would be made to eliminate people from using the "TICK" trail and one point, a fence was installed across the trail. After some pressure was brought to bear on a certain individual, the fence was suddenly removed, but a secondary problem was then encountered. In the location where the trail terminated at the southeast corner, it was deter- mined that perhaps a portion of the exit or entrance to the trail actually emptied out onto some private property owned by the adjacent homeowner. That piece of property however did have a road easement across it so there was never a question in anyone's mind that it could not be used as an exit and entrance to the trail. He then submitted photographs of the location which he described and further ex- plained that the property owner whose home was on the other side of Timken Road saw fit to place a barbed wire fence right at the very edge of his property coming up to Timken Road thereby eliminating the possibility of persons using the entire trail. Attempts were made by numerous people in the neighborhood and Anaheim in general to have the gentleman remove the fence installed. The fence did not serve any purpose such as keeping animals in a general area or keeping children on the property. He could not see any reason for having the fence other than to thwart people from using the trail, and he supposed it could be considered a "spite" fence. Mr. Weber continued there was a real question in his mind relative to the peoPle who wished to use the trail as to whether the City, through the City Council, was willing to support the trails system to the extent that perhaps an additional 78-1364 City Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - October 17~ 1978~ 1:30 P.M. easement could be purchased either along the west side of the system so that they could exit out onto Timken or Coyote, or negotiate with the gentleman who put up the fence to allow them to cross that section of his property across which there was already a road easement. Their request to the City Council was that one of three things be done: (1) ask property owners on either the west side or the east side to dedicate an additional 10 feet of easement for the purpose of the trail, (2) ask the gentleman on the right to dedicate additional land; ask the people on the left to dedicate additional land, and (3) if there was no coopera- tion in either case, the City could condemn some land, perhaps 10 feet, to facil- itate the fine trails system in the City used not only by people riding horses, but also hikers, children going to school, etc. The trail was an integral part of and a fine asset to their community. They wanted to be able to use it and asked that the City Council support them in their attempt to do so. In answer to Councilwoman Kaywood, Mr. Weber confirmed that the fence was installed in the easement. He then submitted photographs and also a map which he had drawn of the Timken-Coyote area where the fence was located. Mr. Hank Rivera, 451 Country Hill Road, stated that although he was a member of HACMAC, he was not present on their behalf, but as a resident of the Mohler Drive area. He maintained that the presentation should also include consideration of additional safety to the riders and hikers in the area. There was only a two-lane road in the area and it did not allow for any foot or equestrian traffic. When he was on the Board of Directors of the Homeowners' Association, they met many times with the Taylor-Grant Corporation who explicitly gave them their verbal promise and sometimes written, that the trail would remain in existence and pro- moted as such. As Mr. Weber mentioned, the advertisement of the tract did change. At the beginning, it was promoted with a large billboard as equestrian estates and after some time, it was changed to Country Knoll and one time as executive estates. His concern revolved around the fact that they were having problems all over and even at HACMAC where developers promised they would or would not do something--for example, if a variance was granted to them, they, in turn, would dedicate a trail. They were losing more and more trails after the said develop- ment was in. The question that they had been asking for some time was what direction and what enforcement was the City itself going to impose upon developers so that they would keep their promises. He fully supported the maintenance of the trail. It was something that had been there for many years and it should be kept as it was. Councilman Roth asked why HACMAC could not make a recommendation to insure that the easements were received at the time the tract was recorded. Mr. Rivera reiterated he was not present on behalf of HACMAC, but to answer, they had addressed staff relative to the issue as well as others such as removal of specimen trees without a permit. Councilwoman Kaywood asked if that was the situation in the subject case relative to the promises of developers. Mr. Rivera stated, in his estimation from what he had heard, promises were made not so much in a legal document, but in a verbal mode. However, when the time came to expect what they promised such as a trail, it was gone and he had seen 78-1365 City Hall~ Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - October 17~ 1978~ 1:30 P.M. such instances occur many times. As Councilman Roth mentioned, something more in the order of a legal document would be appropriate along with Police enforce- ment or something to fall back on. Mr. Vince Califano, 331 South Yorkshire Circle in the Country Knoll development, stated they were one of the first to move in last November after they had looked for some time for property in a country setting. When they were shown the prop- erty by the agent, they walked the grounds and the horse trails. They felt that the trails were an integral portion of the country and a reason to move to the area, and they had children who hiked on the trails. They were given a map and were told trails would go through and they had since acquired horses. In order to get to the back trails, the only access now, because of construction and the narrow road, was through the feeder trails. He was most interested in keeping the trails and adding to them. There being no further persons who wished to speak in favor, the Mayor then asked to hear from those in opposition. Mr. Daniel DeBusschere, 380 Yorkshire Circle, stated he was a homeowner whose property was being crossed by the horse trails, his lot being number 14. He explained that he presented copies of a petition signed by 100 percent of the homeowners on the side of the street where the horse trail was located asking for abandonment of that trail. He also asked that the barbed wire fence referred to by Mr. Weber was placed there by Mr. McNames who did not have a dedicated horse trail easement across his property and he maintained he had the right to leave the fence in place. He noted the point of the proposed resolution was to obtain an easement from those who signed the petition, but they did not want the horse trail and they also included a letter to the City Council stating they had no intention of granting additional easements across the property. Mr. DeBusschere then read from a letter dated October 11, 1978 (on file in the City Clerk's Office), listing 10 reasons why they wanted the City to abandon the horse trail--criminals, fire hazard, deadend, danger, liability, damage to aesthetic beauty, health hazard, public nuisance, privacy and loss of land use. Councilwoman Kaywood asked Mr. DeBusschere if he was aware that the area was a place where people could keep horses with one-half acre lots. Mr. DeBusschere answered "yes" it was pointed out that some of the houses quali- fied for horse property, but not all of them. They were told that only two houses qualified. Councilwoman Kaywood asked for clarification from Dione Hesketh, member of the Trails Committee, as to whether she was aware if any houses in that particular tract were not permitted to keep horses. Mrs. Hesketh answered that to her knowledge, there were two houses with all manufactured slopes and those were the only two where horses could not be kept, but the rest of the property was horse property and advertised as such. A trail did run along the area, but she believed it was in the Mohler Drive easement. She then explained for the Mayor the route the trail took after it reached Timken Road. It went up Timken with the permission of the residents who lived there, and they City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - October 17~ 1978~ 1:30 P.M. checked that aspect out with their attorney. Even though Mr. McNames felt that he had the say so, they could allow people to traverse their roads. The trail then continued up to another trail which would be developed when the property was developed and then continue off of Mohler into the area called Deer Canyon proceeding up into the Anaheim Trails System. It was the only way they had to get their horses out and into the regional trails system where they all wanted to ride. They did not want to ride back and forth on the property, but wanted a safe way of getting to the regional trails system and that was the reason for the feeder trail. People used the trail as part of their transportation system, especially the youngsters who rode over to their friends homes on horses or ponies. Relative to the possible hazards concerning a berm and sprinkler system on one portion of the trail, Mrs. Hesketh explained for Councilman Roth that when Grant Warmington granted the trail, the landscape people put a sprinkler system in the trail easement where it should not be. They assured them that it would be taken out, but they had not pursued the matter since they were awaiting the outcome of the present problem. They were not using the trail at the present time until the situation was settled and at that time they would make the trail safe and the residents in the area would donate their time and talents to make it so. MOTION: The Mayor stated the subject was not a new one to the Council although it was the first time they had any citizens approach them indicating that they did not want the trails. There was a long history relative to trails and the effort put forth by citizens to acquire a system. This was a precedent setting matter and if they were to decide to abandon the trail, he suspected every other property owner abutting the trail and every other developer who had been or would be before th~: Council, would have the right to ask for abandonment of the trails or easement that would affect their property. Such a precedent would nullify a trails system in the Santa Ana Canyon. He personally was not into horses, but on the other hand, there was a certain environmental flavor and quality that the Council had to try to keep and not lose sight of as development took place in the Canyon. They had the responsibility to maintain the trails system although some people, as with anything, would not be in total agreement. He maintained that the decision the Council made when they agreed to the implementation of the Trails System was the right decision and at this time they had to remain stead- fast in upholding that system. He thereupon moved to direct the Real Property staff to negotiate the acquisition of an additional 10 feet of dedicated trail easement within Lot No. 13, Tract No. 9333, with purchase of same to be determined by the City Council in order to continue the trails system. Councilwoman Kaywood seconded the motion. Before a vote was taken, Councilman Roth asked the City Attorney to clarify a point with regard to'the statement made that homeowners associations would have some type of liability in the event the easement was granted. City Attorney Hopkins stated, if an easement was granted and it was in some way negligently maintained, there could be some liability. If there was an agreement between the City and the various property owners or developer that they would maintain it and it would be maintained in a safe manner, that would solve the problem. He reiterated, if there was some negligence, there could be some liability, and it would be a City responsibility, rather than the homeowners who granted the easement. 78-1367 City Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - October 17~ 1978~ 1:30 P.M. Councilman Roth also asked if the homeowners would have the right to fence the rear of their property in the even the easement was granted and also if certain property owners did not grant the easement, if the City could take the property through eminent domain. Mr. Hopkins stated he saw no reason why they could not put up a fence around their own property. As well, the equestrian trail would be considered a public purpose and thus would enable the City to exercise the eminent domain process should it become necessary to do so. He also confirmed for Councilwoman Kaywood that if there was no easement and the homeowners private property was involved, the homeowner would have a right to erect a fence. If an easement was granted, however, that would not be the case. He understood in this instance no easement was granted and the people were merely protecting their own property. Councilman Kott agreed with the Mayor's motion. However, it was stated that Grant Warmington perhaps did not follow through, or the developer or builder did not follow through with their part of the deal and therefore created a sit- uation wherein such an obstruction could occur. It seemed to him that the developer or builder always got off easy and all the Council did was give lip service and spend money to try and correct the problems caused either unintention- ally or even intentionally. Thus, he wanted to see included in the motion on the floor or a separate motion offered which he would be happy to make, that the City Attorney investigate alternatives so that future similar problems would not arise at least from the builder/developer point of view. He maintained there must be some legal means wherein bonds would have to be posted until it was evident that the trails were in within a given period of time or somehow assure the people who purchased homes in the area with that specific intent in mind, that the trails would be dedicated. He asked the City Attorney if what he re- quested was possible. The Mayor interjected that under Council Comments, he intended to report the action of the Council Liaison Committee meeting that Councilwoman Kaywood and he had with members of HACMAC and the Planning Commission that spoke to the very issue and to the much broader problem raised by Councilman Kott. He asked that action first be taken on the proposed motion and he would then be happy to report on the meeting and offer a motion that would include the resolution of the problem. Councilman Overholt also agreed with the Mayor relative to his motion. The problem was, in order to have some of the benefits available in the Hill and Canyon area, one of which was an equestrian environment, meant that certain homeowners would have some inconveniences particularly if they were near the end of one of the feeder trails. If those signing the petition had horses and used the trail, they would not be so concerned. It was an environment if not preserved would soon disappear and the advantages of living where they were living would not be there any longer. It was a plan that was to be carried out and if it was tremendously irritating to some homeowners, he presumed that eventually they would move elsewhere where there were no horses. 78-1368 City }~11~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - October 17~ 1978~ 1:30 P.M. Councilwoman Kaywood addressing Mr. Weber referred to the photograph that was passed around wherein the fence appeared to her to be right next to the curb on the road. She therefore wanted to know if the trail was bisecting the property. Mr. Weber answered that the trail went across the road easement portion of the McNames property and it had been indicated that was no easement there for a horse trail. The fact was, all of the area that was fenced had a road easement across it and should not have been fenced because of that. His understanding was that the fence was doing nothing other than to obstruct the end of the trail. Councilwoman Kaywood noted that Mr. McNames fence could be set back within his own property. To her knowledge, an easement was never permitted to have a fence in it. Mr. DeBusschere acknowledged that it had been brought up that as homeowners, they knew about the trail prior to buying their homes. That was true in one sense, but not in another. When they purchased their homes, they received a map showing where the horse trails were going to be located which he pointed to from the posted map. He was never informed during the escrow period that an additional easement was granted by the builder for the easement to be realigned and they found that out only after moving into their homes. The map was attached to the title policy then and given to them during the escrow period by the sales people. The trail easement was on the CC&Rs map as it was aligned originally, and they were never notified that it was realigned. They had seen abandonment signs on the trail and it was abandoned in July or August of last year, but they assumed it was abandoned because it was not going to be used and not because it was going to be realigned. Miss Santalahti explained that the bottom map was the tract map that they normally received and it showed the trail with the turn-off that she previously commented on. It was recorded in 1976 and approximately six months later, June 1977, por- tions of the trail easement were abandoned and some new realignments were adopted as shown in the shadowed areas including the section that continued off directly to the south. However, they were recorded documents and she would have expected that both were available to the purchasers of the property. Councilman Kott asked (1) if the fence that was installed was legal or illegal and (2) if the easement was changed since the man purchased the property, would the matter be a civil one or something that the City could enter into. City Attorney Hopkins stated that he had not visited the property and therefore could not give a positive statement. However, if the fence was on private property and no easement granted by the homeowner or no other easement, he saw no reason why the fence could not be maintained if it was on private property. The situa- tion sounded like a civil matter and possibly the Real Estate Commissioner might be involved although he would have to check the file. The Commission had certain requirements that realtors must follow and if not followed, might involve the Commissioner. A vote was then taken on the foregoing motion. MOTION CARRIED. 78-1369 City Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - October 17~ 1978~ 1:30 P.M. RECESS: By general consent, the City Council recessed for 5 minutes. (3:10 P.M.) AFTER RECESS: The Mayor called the meeting to order, all Council Members being present. (3:15 P.M.) 105: NEW CANYON TASK FORCE: Mayor Seymour reported there was a Council Liaison meeting last Thursday attended by Councilwoman Kaywood and himself along with the Chairman and Vice Chairman of HACMAC and the Chairman and Vice Chairman of the Planning Commission and appropriate staff. The purpose was to discuss a number of problems that individuals involved in the meeting felt the City was facing in the future development of the Hill and Canyon area. The conclusion of that meeting was to make a recommendation to the City Council that another Canyon Task Force be reappointed as there was some significant problems to be addressed, specifically: (1) grading ordinance, (2) riding and hiking trails, (3) homeowners associations, their composition, insurance they were able or not able to obtain, as well as the initial purpose of most of the homeowners associations in the Canyon, which was to maintain slope areas that were difficult for individual property owners to maintain. He reiterated the conclusion of the Liaison Committee meeting was to recommend that a new Task Force be appointed to consider the three aforementioned problem areas and that that Task Force be made up of representatives as follows: A representative of Bauer Ranch, Wallace Ranch and Anaheim Hills, Inc., three members of HACMAC, three members of the Planning Commission, and one Council person to Chair the Task Force. Historically the City did have a Task Force going back to 1974 which met for some two and one-half years, but they did not feel anything of that magnitude would be necessary again. The three problems they were addressing would not take any significant time to resolve, but could be done within five or six meetings at the most. MOTION: Councilman Seymour thereupon moved to appoint a Task Force composed of representation of Bauer Ranch and Wallace Ranch, Anaheim Hills, Inc., three members of HACMAC, three members of the Planning Commission and one Council person as Chairman to specifically address, (1) grading ordinance, (2) hiking and riding trails, (3) homeowners associations with Councilwoman Kaywood to serve on the Task Force if she was willing to do so. Councilwoman Kaywood seconded the motion. Before a vote was taken, Councilman Kott stated that apparently he and the Mayor recognized the problem, but came up with different solutions. He viewed the Mayor's as just another layer of government that in the long run and final analysis would be ineffective. Before he was cut off, his main thrust had nothing to do with the Bauer or Wallace Ranches, Coal Canyon or Riverside County, but only with developers and builders who created the problems with which they were faced. He maintained it wa~ a legal problem and one to which the City Attorney should address himself and propose alternate measures that would bind and insure that the builder/developer did what he was suppose to do. Mayor Seymour first apologized if Councilman Kott believed he was cut off and secondly, he stated that he (Kott) was offering an oversimplistic solution to what he perceived to be the problem. From his remarks, it did not appear that Councilman Kott had spent any time investigating the matter and if he belieVed it could be solved by the City Attorney merely laying down some law, it was not 78-1370 C.ity Hall, Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - October 17~ 1978~ 1:30 P.M. the entire solution to the problem. There were problems such as a general overlay map of the entire Canyon area relative to where the riding and hiking trails would go. Some areas were impassable and it was physically and inhumanly impossible to mount a horse to ride it up and down, much less its use as a walking trail. Thus, there were some practical problems beyond the legal problems. It could be said that the Task Force would be another layer of government; however, it would have no decision-making authority whatsoever, but it would be a recommend- ing body and the Council would have the responsibility of making the decisions. The last Task Force could be held up as a unique approach in solving numerous problems. He reiterated the proposed Task Force would not require the time the other did because the problems to be addressed were not nearly as significant. It was necessary to take the time, research the problems and come up with well thought out resolutions to those problems rather than "shooting from the hip" and hoping that everything would turn out right. Councilman Kott repeated that he was interested in addressing one issue only, keeping the builders and developers to the point where they would perform and do what they said they were going to do at the time they said they were going to do it. Mr. Hopkins stated that he could make some suggestions as to how to enforce the various commitments a developer made either by bonds or other conditions and he would be glad to make a study and report the alternatives. Councilman Kott stated he would not support the Mayor's motion because it did not provide a solution to the problem. The problem did not lie in impassable or bad trails, but with the Planning and/or Building Department in cooperation with HACMAC to see that the builders/developers were made to perform. A vote was then taken on the foregoing motion. Councilman Kott voted "No". MOTION CARRIED. Councilman Roth suggested to Councilwoman Kaywood as Chairman of the new Task Force and to staff that easements be obtained and recorded before the homes could be sold which would solve problems initially. 176: PUBLIC HEARING - ABANDONMENT NO. 78-7A: In accordance with application filed by Charles E. Stine, public hearing was held on proposed abandonment of an existing public utility easement to correct a recorded easement on property located 553 feet north of La Palma Avenue, approximately 535.67 feet west of Tustin Avenue, pursuant to Resolution No. 78R-654, duly published in the Anaheim Bulletin and notices thereof posted in accordance with law. Report of the City Engineer dated August 31, 1978, and a recommendation by the Planning Commission were submitted recommending unconditional approval of said abandonment. The ~yor asked if anyone wished to address the Council; there being no response, he closed the public hearing. 78-1371 City Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - October 17~ 1978~ 1:30 P.M. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT - CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION: On motion by Councilwoman Kaywood, 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 requirement for an environmental impact report and is, therefore, categorically exempt from the require- ment to file an EIR. MOTION CARRIED. Councilman Roth offered Resolution No. 78R-675 for adoption, approving Abandonment No. 78-7A. Refer to Resolution Book. RESOLUTION NO. 78R-675: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM ORDERING THE VACATION AND ABANDONMENT OF A CERTAIN PUBLIC SERVICE EASEMENT. (78-7A) Roll Call Vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: COUNCIL MEMBERS: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Overholt, Kaywood, Kott, Roth and Seymour None None The Mayor declared Resolution No. 78R-675 duly passed and adopted. 152: RECRUITMENT OF PROFESSIONAL PERSONNEL OR TRAINING CONSULTANTS AND CLASSIFIED ADVERTISING FOR SAME: City Manager Talley briefed the Council on memorandum dated October 11, 1978, from the Personnel Director, recommending that the City Council, by resolution, delegate to the City Manager authority to execute agreements where the value does not exceed $2,500 for professional personnel or training consultants and to execute agreements for classified advertising for recruiting prospective employees. Councilman Overholt offered a resolution authorizing the recommended action. Before any action was taken, Councilman Kott stated he was not going to support the proposed resolution because he viewed it as an abdication of responsibility. The elected official, not appointees, were responsible for watching over public funds and making contracts with people and other entities, along with terms and conditions of those contracts. The Mayor stated that he and Councilman Kott were going to agree on the matter. He had no problem with the contract for classified advertising, but relative to the employment of consultants, management training and that type of activity, it was the responsibility of the elected officials to review those outside agreements. He did not see the offsetting savings that would justify the abdica- tion of that responsibility. Because both issues were included in one resolution, he would have to oppose the resolution in its entirety. Councilwoman Kaywood suggested that the matters be separated into two resolutions; the Mayor was agreeable. City Manager Talley interjected that he was not agreeable because they were both part and parcel of conducting a Personnel operation in an effort to insure they were conforming to what he believed to be Council policy. He recommended exceptions 78-1372 City Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - October 17~ 1978~ 1:30 P.M. in this case because if they were to come in with every affirmative action or supervisory or management training effort exceeding $500, and nearly every one did so, they would be bombarding the Council, as well as delaying the matter. As far as he was concerned, it was strictly an administrative operation. Currently there was an authorization of up to $10,000 for purchases and he did not believe that $2,500 maximum for the types of contracts under discussion was unreasonable. The Mayor wanted to know approximately how many times in the past year the Council had been bombarded with consultants in excess of $500, but not more than $2,500. Mr. Talley answered that he did not know how many times under the present policy he should have done so, but he did not believe that he did. In order to be very clear relative to the policy which stated, not to exceed $500, the Council should adopt the proposed resolution because there was no doubt in his mind that the City budget provided for such expenditures. However, there was the conflicting Council Policy No. 401 which stated, "if over $500 relative to consultants, that those would have to be brought before the Council". The fact was, for well over a decade, they had been going out and securing advertising and assistance on affirmative action, management recruiting and supervisor training. He had discussed the matter with the Purchasing Agent as to whether or not those properly fell under Council Policy. His recommendation therefore was that the resolution be adopted to clarify the matter, otherwise, he would be before the Council on a weekly basis with such matters because he did not want to have those procedures used for well over 10 years to conflict with Council Policy stating that any professional person be approved by the Council. The Mayor stated the intent of Council Policy No. 401 was clear, "It is the policy of the City Council that employment of architects or professional persons be approved by the City Council except as permitted pursuant to City Council Resolution No. 75R-485." He did not include in that placement of advertising. He asked if the City Manager was suggesting that in the past year he had not followed the policy. Mr. Talley answered "yes" the current policy to the best of his research was also impacted by Resolution No. 75R-485 which stated, "...it does hereby authorize the City Manager to bind the City, with a written contract, for the acquisition of professional or employment services included within the budget approved by the City Council provided said agreements do not exceed the sum of $500." With particular reference to advertising, there was a strong possibility that over the course of a year, they would have exceeded the $500 amount and that would be an area that should be further clarified. He was asking that he be authorized to enter into an agreement for advertising up to the amount of the budget. Relative to other professional personnel, it was his opinion that they had executed agree- ments exceeding $2,500. Thus, the policy was violated on a number of occasions in the last year, but over a number of years the policy had been in conflict with the resolution. The Mayor again stated that he did not have any problem relative to classified advertising and his interpretation of Council Policy No. 401, as well as Resolu- tion No. 75R-485 of September 9, 1975, was that what they were referring to were professional consultants. Therefore, he did not know how classified advertising became professional consultants. 78-1373 Ci.ty Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - October 17~ 1978~ 1:30 P.M. Mr. Talley emphasized the professional consultants they were talking about were the acquisition of labor and service in connection with supervisory and management training, affirmative action, employment or professional examinations and special recruiting efforts for problems for which they had need on a fairly consistent basis. As a point of clarification for Councilman Kott, City Attorney Hopkins explained that the resolution passed in 1975 referred to professional or employment services with a limit of $500. He assumed they were talking about those services used by the Personnel Department in employment or the professional people used for testing and the like. The other policy was quite clear--it referred to the employment of architects or professional persons. The new proposed resolution was also quite clear in that it put a lid of $2,500 on those various categories of persons. As far as classified advertising, there was no maximum dollar and the budget was the approving authority. The classified advertising could be considered to be an employment service and would fall under Resolution No. 75R-485 which did have a lid of $500. The Mayor stated that was not the intent he had in mind when he voted for the resolution in 1975 and nobody even discussed the possibility. The intent was to insure that outside professional services or consultants, trainers, etc., be approved by the Council. Mr. Talley stated he was not with the City when the resolution was passed and he maintained that the proposed resolution was needed to conduct a modern re- sponsive employment acquisition, training and development and affirmative action program. In answer to the Mayor, Personnel Director Garry McRae stated that the Council would probably be confronted with 15 to 20 such actions during the course of the year relative to professional consultants upon which he elaborated. In the final analysis, he stated that they viewed it as a routine activity that they should be engaged in, and they were working within the budgetary constraints the Council had given them. The Mayor stated that Mr. McRae must have been aware of the Council Policy going back to 1959 and amended in 1975, as well as the resolution. He asked Mr. McRae if he was saying that he did not understand the policy or the resolution and that was the reason for taking all the action which he had explained in violation of the policy. Mr. McRae answered that what he was saying was that they had hired training con- sultants in excess of $500 and that he did not know about the policy. Mr. Talley noted that if the matters were channeled through the Purchasing Agent, he could handle them because he had authorization to purchase up to $10,000. The Mayor countered that purchasing items in accordance with the budget approved by the City Council was one thing and also purchasing of advertising. The hiring of professionals as consultants was an entirely different matter and that was the very reason they had such a policy and the reason in 1975 when they passed the resolution. There was no doubt in his mind what he was voting for in 1975. 78-1374 City Hall~ Anaheim~ California - GOUNCIL MINUTES - October 17~ 1978~ 1:30 P.M. Mr. Talley explained that once the conflict between actual practice and Council policy came to his attention, a staff report was written recommending the proposed resolution so as to conform to current practices. The Mayor again stated his opposition to the consultant portion of the resolution. At the request of the Mayor, Councilman Overholt split his proposed resolution and offered Resolution No. 78R-676 for adoption, authorizing the City Manager to execute certain agreements for professional personnel or training consultants in an amount not to exceed $2,500 and Resolution No. 78R-677 for adoption, to execute certain agreements for classified advertising for recruiting prospective employees. Refer to Resolution Book. RESOLUTION NO. 78R-676: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE CERTAIN AGREEMENTS FOR LABOR AND SERVICES FOR AND ON BEHALF OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM. (not to exceed $2,500) RESOLUTION NO. 78R-677: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AUTHORIZING THE CITY ~i~NAGER TO EXECUTE CERTAIN AGREEMENTS FOR LABOR AND SERVICES FOR AND ON BEHALF OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM. (classified advertising) Before a vote was taken, Councilman Overholt stated that he did not have any problem with the situation whatsoever, and they were losing sight of the fact that the proposal was merely that the ceiling be raised with respect to routine service having to do with training, assessment centers, etc. His feeling was that if the Council routinely became involved in routine matters, they would become so bogged down that they would not be able to accomplish the major matters that came b~.fore them. He was cognizant of where Councilmen Kott and Seymour were coming from, but there had to be a point at which they were willing to grant authority to the staff on routine matters and any time they wanted to check on the situation, they could do so and also through the budget process. If not routine, he presumed such matters would be brought before the Council even if under $2,500. The Mayor stated he found no agreement with Councilman Overholt in the fact that the Council would be bogged down because the Personnel Director had stated there would be 15 to 20 such cases a year. Secondly, he suggested that one day there would be some type of investigation performed as to why consultants were hired for some ridiculous project or something of insignificant value, and he believed the proposed resolution was opening the door to such occurrences. A vote was then taken on Resolution No. 78R-676 and carried by the following vote: Roll Call Vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: COUNCIL MEMBERS: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Overholt, Kaywood and Roth Kott and Seymour None The Mayor declared Resolution No. 78R-676 duly passed and adopted. 78-1375 City Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - October 1,7~ 1978~ 1:30 P.M. A vote was then taken on Resolution No. 78R-677 and carriedby the following vote: Roll Call Vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: COUNCIL MEMBERS: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Overholt, Kaywood, Kott, Roth and Seymour None None The Mayor declared Resolution No. 78R-677 duly passed and adopted. 121: CONDEMNATION OF STATE-OWNED PROPERTY ADJACENT TO ANAHEIM STADIUM: Council- woman Kaywood offered Resolution No. 78R-678 for adoption, as recommended in memo- randum dated October 9, 1978, from the City Attorney's Office amending Resolution No. 77R-793, nunc pro tunc, relating to the condemnation of certain State-owned property located adjacent to Anaheim Stadium. Refer to Resolution Book. RESOLUTION NO. 78R-678: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AMENDING RESOLUTION NO. 77R-793, NUNC PRO TUNC, RELATING TO THE CONDEMNATION OF CERTAIN REAL PROPERTY. Roll Call Vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: COUNCIL MEMBERS: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Overholt, Kaywood, Kott, Roth and Seymour None None The Mayor declared Resolution No. 78R-678 duly passed and adopted. 150: STATE HISTORIC RESOURCES COMMISSION: Councilwoman Kaywood stated she had asked the City Attorney to draw up for the Council a resolution regarding the guidelines for the State Historic Resources Commission and the fact that they must notify the local jurisdiction. She had attempted to call all Council Members to let them know the resolution would be forthcoming. Councilwoman Kaywood offered Resolution No. 78R-679 for adoption, urging that the State Historic Resources Commission be required to give adequate notice of Commis- sion proceedings to local governmental agencies and to formulate specific guidelines for structures to be recommended for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places. Refer to Resolution Book. RESOLUTION NO. 78R-679: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM URGING THAT THE STATE HISTORIC RESOURCES COMMISSION BE REQUIRED TO GIVE ADEQUATE NOTICE OF COMMISSION PROCEEDINGS TO LOCAL GOVERNMENTAL AGENCIES AND TO FORMULATE SPECIFIC GUIDELINES FOR STRUCTURES TO BE RECOMMENDED FOR INCLUSION ON THE NATIONAL REGISTER OF HISTORIC PLACES. Before a vote was taken, Councilwoman Kaywood explained that the resolution would go to the Legislature, the Governor, the Commission and the Officer and the Depart- ment of Parks under whom the Officer was responsible. It was based on the experience the Council had at the September 1, 1978 hearing and was a portion of the rehearing. 78-1376 City Hall, Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - October 17~ 1978~ 1:30 P.M. In answer to Councilman Roth, Councilwoman Kaywood clarified that it was to urge that whenever the Commission received an application they notify the local agency and that did not happen previously. She further clarified for Councilman Overholt that it was the same resolution as that passed by the League of Cities, but it contained a couple of additional paragraphs. Roll Call Vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: COUNCIL MEMBERS: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Overholt, Kaywood, Kott, Roth and Seymour None None The Mayor declared Resolution No. 78R-679 duly passed and adopted. 173: BUS SHELTERS: The City Clerk announced that a communication had been re- ceived from Mr. Harold Kron of Transtop, Inc., dated October 16, 1978, requesting a continuance of the matter. Also, Messers. MonteJano, Williams, Le Royer and Roeback were present and wished to address the Council, and a petition from senior citizens had been received in support of the bus shelters. The Mayor stated they first had to deal with the request for continuance and he asked the Council if they wanted to consider such action; no Council Member indi- cated favoring a continuance. Miss Pam Lucado, Assistant Planner, relayed the background information relative to the bus shelter program. On September 19, 1978, staff was directed to admin- ister a survey of other bus shelter companies interested in serving Anaheim's bus shelter market. A total of 15 companies were contacted with six responding favorably within the alloted time. TSA submitted a response as of 2:00 p.m. which she distributed to the Council. The survey responses received from the six com- panies were displayed in matrix form which sheet was attached to memorandum of October 9, 1978 (on file in the City Clerk's Office) with corresponding shelter designs attached. City Attorney Hopkins stated that relative to staff recommendations, reference was made to the revocation of the bench permits with the intent to revoke the bench and then award a permit to the owners of the various shelters. If there was a reason to clear the sidewalk or if there was some public service, there would be no problem. However, the revocation of such bench permits in order to award permits to another organization, could involve some legal action. Councilman Roth asked when the bench permits expired. Miss Lucado stated to her knowledge, they were renewed every April. Councilman Roth remarked that appeared to be the answer, rather than getting involved in litigation--as terms expired in April, that no permits be renewed. City Attorney Hopkins agreed the situation could be handled in that manner. Councilman Overholt noted that another alternative was to let the shelter companies negotiate with the bench people and buy them out. Mr. Hopkins confirmed that was another viable alternative. 78-1377 City Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - October 17)!978) 1:30 P.M. Miss Lucado continued with respect to site development criteria, staff was recom- mending that Council adopt all of the criteria listed in the staff report. The six companies who responded had representatives from each present in the Chamber with the exception of TSA located in Chicago, the seventh company who responded today. Councilman Roth noted that on September 6, 1978, the Council directed staff to send a communication to four of the shelter companies who submitted proposals. He wanted to know of those four, how many performed relative to building pilot shelters. Miss Lucado answered that two did so--Bustop and Sheltertop. Councilman Roth then asked and received clarification relative to extensions of time and cutoff dates for companies to respond as well as the fact that on May 16, 1978, the Council denied shelter ads by EKO to be included in the demonstration program because the trial period had ended. Miss Lucado clarified that was correct and it was also at that time they included all other companies interested in participating (see minutes of May 16, 1978) in the bus shelter process. The Mayor asked if the City Attorney knew of any legal commitment they had to do business with any of the companies. City Attorney Hopkins answered, "no"--the City agreed to consider various proposals, but he had no knowledge of any agreements. Mr. Herb Eggett, 904 South Bruce, stated his main concern was to get the shelters up. He served as Chairman of the Transportation Committee of Orange County for four years and he tried repeatedly to get shelters and benches. He was now dis- turbed to hear that the benches might be cancelled in favor of shelters and he found that completely unacceptable. Secondly, he participated along with Council- woman Kaywood and Councilman Overholt in the dedication of the shelter on Katella Avenue which received press coverage. He like the concept and hoped the program would be initiated and the shelters built. He did not care who received the con- tract, he just wanted it approved so that the shelters would be built as soon as possible. He also urged the Council not to take the benches. The Mayor stated he did not believe there was any intent to remove the benches. Mr. Rudy MonteJano, Convenience and Safety Corporation of Orange County, 1600 North Broadway, Santa Aha, stated that he served as general counsel to the Regional Center of Orange County, but he had to leave for a meeting. Thus, Mr. Bruce Williams of Convenience and Safety (C&S) would make the presentation for the company. Mr. Rudy Perez was also present earlier, but was unable to stay at the meeting. Their com- pany came into the process late, but in the last few weeks they had spent extensive time, money and effort to establish a shelter. They had also worked extensively with the Orange County Transit District (OCTD) where they obtained all of their route maps and other details. He believed that those who had seen the shelter acknowledged the fact that they had incorporated all of the desires, designs and requirements necessary. He felt that eventually there would be a County-wide system and thus it was wise to begin incorporating the designs and the desires of the OCTD. 78-1378 City Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - October 17, !978, 1:30 P.M. The following persons representing their respective companies then made presenta- tions to the Council: Mr. Bruce Williams, Vice President, Convenience and Safety Corporation of Orange County, Suite 303, 1600 North Broadway, Santa Ana, stated that they had analyzed the shelters that had been displayed by Bustop and Sheltertop of California and they felt that both of the units lacked a certain design integrity and that the public service level of both shelters needed some improvements. They decided (1) they would commit themselves to the design and erection of a shelter so that Council would have plenty of time to review it and make a decision, (2) they decided the shelter design had to be an improvement in the form of a data panel exhibiting both system route information, as well as route information for the activity at the shelter. Mr. Williams then briefed the Council relative to the amenities of their shelter design which was contained in the data previously sub- mitted to the Council entitled Anaheim Transit Shelter Proposal dated September 29, 1978 (on file in the City Clerk's Office) upon which he elaborated and which in- cluded illustrations of the C&S shelters, as well as other shelters for purposes of comparison. They also reviewed the financial aspects of the operation and s,mmary sheets were provided in a report. He noted that an item of concern was the minimum number of shelters to be built as indicated by various companies. In analyzing the number of shelters that were a possible in Anaheim, they went to the OCTD and ascertained that 100 shelters in the commercial areas in the City were quite probable and realistic and possibly 150, not 3, 10, 25, etc. The assumption was that it would cost $5,000 to put up a shelter and the risk that a company would take was relative to what revenue they would receive from the shelter erected. Mr. Williams then briefed the Council and elaborated upon the chart contained in the data package entitled Proforma Profit and Loss Statement predicated on the basis of 100 shelters and 200 shelters and the average monthly revenues per shelter for the first year, second year and sixth year (on file in the City Clerk's Office). They were also concerned regarding the $1,500 performance bond that was required. Each of their shelters would have a construction performance bond in the amount of $3,000 whether they erected 1,000 shelters or 35 shelters. Fifteen-hundred dollars was not enough and in their proposal, they offered to bond construction of and maintenance of each shelter. As well, they were offering a guarantee of rebate of not less than $450 per shelter unit per annum to the City, regardless of the company's actual income. Mr. Williams then made his closing comments and emphasized that what he was trying to point out was that a certain financial strength was required to do the job proper- ly and a shelter had to be built that provided convenience and safety to the people using it. He also explained that he and Sandy Williams were responsible for the people in Anaheim and thus, they were a local operation offering the best product and the best corporate financial strength. Councilwoman Kaywood asked how many existing shelters they had installed anywhere. Mr. Williams answered that there were very few already in existence. They had one contract with Newark, New Jersey with approximately 12 shelters erected. They were awarded New York City with a total of 3,600 shelters and had another agreement in the suburbs of Chicago and were also negotiating in North Miami Beach. The company was started in May of 1977 as a Delaware Corporation and they were incorporated in 20 different states. 78-1379 C~ty gall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - October 17~ 1978, 1:30 P.M. Mr. Jean Claude LeRoyer, President of American Shelter Company, 17121 Sparkleberry, Fountain Valley, explained that his company requested a four weeks' extension to comply with the pilot project. However, their request was denied and six months later their company obtained a contract with Fullerton, Brea, Norwalk, Stanton, Carson and many other cities in Orange County and Los Angeles County. They had started to build shelters in those cities and would be able to build three shel- ters a day, 60 per month. He emphasized that they were a local company and could provide local maintenance. Mr. LeRoyer then described the configuration and makeup of the shelter (additional documentation and photos on file in the City Clerk's Office). They would pay to the City 10 percent of the gross advertising revenue received for the rental of space in the shelters with a minimum of $40 per month per shelter. He also met with the OCTD who suggested no more than 45 shelters; however, if the City wanted to make an advertising campaign and see shelters on every corner, 150 would be appropriate. Mr. LeRoyer concluded that only a few companies were in the shelter business to- day because of (1) lack of experience and (2) lack of capital--their company had both. They were concerned over what background other companies had in the business and those companies came to be more concerned in having a monopoly. He emphasized they were a local company where others were not and they wanted to work with and solve the City's problems and as such, they only wanted to work with and serve the people of Southern California and Anaheim. Before closing, he explained that their shelter only utilized one side for an advertising panel with the other side open. The other side should not have a panel installed because of (1) obstruction--people could not see the bus coming, (2) wheelchairs could not come into the shelters, (3) with two sides enclosed, it would make the shelter an unsafe place to be in and the police would be against it. Mr. Ed Roeback, Engineer and President of General Production Service, 883 South East Street, explained that American Shelter Company contracted with their engi- neering development company earlier in the year to manufacture shelters. Further, it was their experience that American Shelter was a good and reliable company con- cerned with their work and service. However, they were denied the right to partici- pate in the project in March. He was certain the Council was concerned about the growth of the business community located in the City and theirs was the only com- pany manufacturing shelters for one of the participants in the shelter program. Their company was presently building shelters for Brea, Norwalk, Stanton, Carson and Fullerton and they wanted to see American Shelter units considered in Anaheim and not one manufactured by an out-of-state company. Every order would give addi- tional income for their company, their employees and the City of Anaheim. He urged the Council to place some emphasis on local businesses when they voted on the source for shelters. Mr. Fred Droz, Bustop Shelters of California, Inc., 5967 West Third Street #310, Los Angeles, first commended the Planning staff for their work since they had been dealing with Anaheim for over a year and had a bus shelter program installed for approximately seven months. They had complied with every criteria Anaheim requested and all of the materials, construction and maintenance had been supplied and performed by local Orange County companies and that would continue to be so in the future. He then commented on what he called some excessive and irresponsible statements made by 78-1380 C. ity Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - October 17~ 1978~ 1:30 P.M. Convenience and Safety. They only had two shelters installed in New Jersey; they did not have the city of New York, but had been asked to negotiate on the contract, and Bus~op had North Miami Beach, Louisville and St. Louis. They could afford to put in ~hree, five or ten shelters as indicated because they had the other cities, as well as a national advertising campaign which gave them the flexibility to put up ten or fifteen. The City might not want to install up to 100 shelters at the start, but only five or ten. They would be happy to serve the City with as little or as many shelters desired. They would bond any part of their promises or the contract. They were also ready and willing to make their designs compatible with mall ar~eas. Auother selling point would be the ability to put up shelters on schedule. He then commented on the report by the controller of the City of New York as to why there was a delay in Bustop installing 900 additional shelters which, in essence, blamed the City for the delay. The second report issued by the controller, the one referred to by C&S, had since been discredited politically. Council'man Overholt, in evaluating the material staff had prepared, asked if Mr. Droz was indicating his company would put in as few as five shelters. Mr. Droz answered that they initially looked at 10 to 15, but they were now capable of putting in as little as five to ten with expansion and they could go up to 125, but he did not believe that Anaheim was going to be able to take 100 or 125, at least not for a couple of years. Councilman Overholt noted they would be willing to build a percentage of shelters without advertising and he wanted to know if they had a rule of thumb relative to the matter. Mr. Droz stated if the City wanted 10 shelters, they would be willing to put in approximately one to ten without advertising. They were the only company in the country that had more than 10 shelters established in any one city and he reiterated they attracted national advertising such as xerox. He referred to the newspaper clippi~gs that were submitted showing their advertisers and the two architectural awards in design which they received. That was why they were capable of putting in only five to ten shelters in Anaheim. They had 500 shelters installed in New York a~ well as signed contracts with other cities previously mentioned. Since concer~ was expressed about a local company, that is why they made a commitment to use local maintenance, construction and material. In answer to a line of questioning by Councilwoman Kaywood and Councilman Kott, Mr. Droz related the following: The contract with New York City was initiated in 1975 and it required the installation of 900 shelters in two years and the report he submitted explained why the delay occurred in the installation of the balance of 300. Relative to what the average was being paid for a shelter, he explained that as companies came in and offered large returns back to the City in order to get con- tracts, the cost of advertising was escalating. In New York, they were averaging $340 net per month per shelter or approximately $170 a side per panel. They could guarantee Anaheim, by bond, a minimum of $300, but it could be $450 or as much as $600. Instead of a fixed cost, the City could do better by getting a percentage because, considering inflation with long-term contracts, the City would receive more of a return later as advertising costs rose. 78-1381 City ....Hall, Anaheim., California - COUNCIL MINUTES - October 17, 1978, 1:30 P.M. Relative to telephone installation, they could install a phone, but the question was where. He agreed with American Shelter Company regarding wheelchairs, and he believed it would be best to have the telephone on the back panel on the outside. Relative to the numbers, they would install whatever the City wished. He confirmed they could install 100 and they would bond each one. The Planning staff would have to be asked what they felt about the number of installations to be made. Mr. Floyd Farano, an Attorney representing Sheltertop, Inc., 10708 Westminster Boulevard, Garden Grove, explained that they were one of the demonstration companies and had erected the shelter at Harbor and Katella. Although there was some crit- icism of that design at the last meeting, they made it clear in the survey ques- tionnaire that they were working on the design of a two- or three-sided shelter as well as the open design, the latter being the preference of the Police Department. However, the entirely open shelter did not offer the protection that Anaheim wanted to provide. The drawing submitted to the Council was the unit that Sheltertop was going to make available and a pilot model had been installed in the parking lot next door to lhe Anaheim Chamber of Commerce. He then elaborated upon a survey made by the University of Wisconsin in 1977 designed to analyze the material, methods of construction and other attributes of bus shelters. They had evaluated the conclusions of the study, but he noted that Sheltertop was not known to the University of Wisconsin and therefore not a party to the survey. However, they made their own independent survey to see how it would lay over the matrix of other companies. In looking at the survey which was carried out in terms of service to the residents of Milwaukee County, Wisconsin, they scored significantly relative to versatility, adaptability and ingenuity in being able to respond to certain weather needs. Mr. Farano continued that there was no question that anyone in the room appearing before the Council today for the purpose of being awarded a contract could do any- thing the Council wanted them to do. If the City set bonding requirements and the companies were able to meet those requirements, they could be assured of their responsibility because otherwise they could not obtain the bonds. Mr. Farano then pointed out that Convenience and Safety Corp. of Orange County, as of today, was Convenience and Safety Corp. of Los Angeles. Of the three officers named, two were from New York and one from Chicago, and there was no corporate officer of C&S in California. Likewise with Bustop, there was only one person who was the Director and Finance Officer and his address was Canoga Park. He was not sure, but that a game was being played where a large shelter company was establishing a local subsidiary to give a native appearance. Mr. Farano emphasized the matter under discussion was basically what the City wanted for the residents. With the various aspects and features they were planning, they were going to be able to not only provide a little more, but also could secure it because all of their people management, stockholders, principals and anyone involved with the operation, financing and maintenance were located in Orange County, Mr. Farano then described the amenities contained in their shelter which would also feature digital time and weather in selected units (see documentation on file in the City Clerk's Office). He also stated that the telephone company had obligated itself to put a telephone on every corner or in a bus shelter that did not have a telephone, along with the 911 emergency 78-1382 CitM Hall~ .Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - October 17, 1978, 1:30 P.bi. number when it became available. As well, street names were going to be placed on the side of the shelter. The return to the City would be $75 a month for each shelter or $900 a year. Sheltertop would also maintain a continuing R&D Program and agreed by contract (1) a new design would be available to the City for its selection as to future shelters. The number was going to depend upon the physical capability of people in the City to be able to process the appli- cations and installations. The number and pace in which they would be installed would be consistent with need with the most needy locations to be installed first. He believed that between 15 and 20 the first year would be a good number. If 100 were built, such action would increase City staff tremendously. If the City wanted to put up 50, they could do so in the course of a year's time. Councilman Overholt asked who the officers were in the company. Mr. Farano then gave the names of the officers as follows: James Dunlap, President; Don Lacivoli, Vice President; Andrew Weyhanger, Secretary; Albert Clancy, Finance Officer. As well, they had retained as their Sales Agent, Transit Ads, which company had recently been signed by BART in San Francisco. They were a young, agressive firm with a great deal of experience and integrity. Mr. Louis Mmngnone, 2700 East Coast Highway, Corona Del Mar, representing Shelter Ads by EKO, stated the advantages their shelter had was the fact that it was made of materials prohibiting graffiti and could be adjusted to various size locations according to the size of the sidewalk. He further described the amenities con- tained in the shelter (on file in the City Clerk's Office). The roof consisted of a bubble-top and thus offered protection from sun and cold and it could be either dark or lighted. Also, their intent was to install advertising on the right side of the shelter. The shelter would contain a bench and their shelters had previously been installed in a large number of cities in the United States, including Costa Mesa. The shelters would be cleaned periodically and if a telephone was desired, they could make arrangements to provide one. Basically the shelter was more for the protection of people and not so much for purposes of display and advertising. Instead of setting a percentage for return to the City, they would pay $50 per month per unit containing advertising display. There were no further persons who wished to speak. MOTION: Councilwoman Kaywood stated that she had seen the shelter built by Sheltertop that was installed on the parking lot by the Chamber of Commerce whch was mainly for advertising and secondarily for the convenience of passengers. Also, having seen the unit on Harbor, she got the feeling of a billboard because the adver- tising was on the roof and to her, it was offensive. She was more pleased each time she saw the unit by Bustop on Katella because it offered a shelter and convenience for the people using it. The part that was lit at night was not a glaring light, but safe for the area and the patrons. The fact that Bustop had shelters up since 1975 and had 500 in existence was evidence of a good track record. Although Convenience and Safety had two or twelve units in existence, it was not the same as 500. Of concern was the fact that with the second panel as described, the passengers would not be able to see the oncoming bus. She personally wanted to see the City go with Bustop. They complied with all regulations and installed a pilot shelter. She thereupon moved to approve Recommendation No. 2 in staff report dated October i1, 1978. 78-1383 City Hal.l; Ana.h..eim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - October 17, 1978, 1:30 P.M. Before any action was taken, Councilwoman Kaywood stated that she had no inten- tions of wiping out all of the benches in the City. Mr. Hopkins asked if the Recommendation No. 2 was "construct the bus shelter around the existing bench;" if so, that would be a possibility, but amendments would have to be made to the existing ordinances. Councilwoman Kaywood stated she would offer that for approval, Recommendation No. 2, Page 1 of the staff report dated October 11, 1978. However, upon reading the recommendation, she stated that was not what she had in mind. She wanted to have a complete bus shelter without having to use an ad company bench. Councilman Overholt stated he would withhold a second to the motion because they first should decide if they wanted Bustop as the company to proceed. MOTION: Councilman Roth stated he had to go back to September 6, 1977, when they started getting inquiries on the program. The Council directed staff to act on four companies interested in participating. The program was first discussed in July of 1975, but no activity took place until the middle of 1977 in which staff was directed to contact those interested in providing shelters to Anaheim. Response was received from two companies, Sheltertop and Bustop who operated in good faith. In looking at the minutes, there was an indication after the pilot models were in- stalled, the Council would act on the best of the two. He personally viewed the two shelters and, in his opinion, Bustop did a good job and had a good record of past performance. He would support a pilot program for five or ten shelters for a few months' evaluation before getting into a massive number of shelters. He thereupon moved that the Council indicate that they were, in fact, interested in having bus shelters installed in the City of Anaheim. Councilwoman Kaywood seconded the motion. Before a vote was taken, Councilman Overholt stated he believed that to be the primary issue. However, as the program had developed, he had become less con- vinced with the need for a tremendous amount of bus shelters in Anaheim although that was no criticism of any company. He was trying to be responsive to the seniors, the handicapped and non-drivers who had expressed themselves to the Council. Anaheim was not Manhattan or New Jersey or a community that needed a lot of covered shelters. He wanted to see the City move into such a program slowly and not have to have a proliferation of shelters. A vote was then taken on the foregoing motion by Councilman Roth. MOTION CARRIED. MOTION: Councilman Roth moved to direct the City Attorney to draft a contract agreement with Bustop to build a maximum of ten shelters within a six-month period and after the ten shelters were built, that they be evaluated for subse- quent action. Councilwoman Kaywood seconded the motion. Before a vote was taken, she asked staff if any sites had been chosen for shelter installation. Miss Lucado answered "no" they had developed the criteria and left it to the companies to select the sites. Councilwoman Kaywood stated that she felt the City should have a say as to location. 78-1384 City Hall, Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - October 17~ 1978~ 1:30 P.M. Councilman Overholt asked if the motion incorporated the staff recommendations to include all requirements for site location. Councilman Roth stated it was directing the City Attorney to draw up the necessary contract incorporating staff requirements. The Mayor then confirmed that the one motion before the Council was to direct the City Attorney to draw an agreement to construct ten shelters within six months with locations to be identified and approved by staff, as well as choosing Bustop to provide the program with locations to be ratified by the City Council. Paul Singer, Traffic Engineer, stated that one of the criteria was that adjacent property owners give specific written approval of the bus stop. He wanted to know if that would be done by polling property owners. It was normally the duty of the shelter company to obtain such approval as it would be difficult to supply the ten locations without having the approval of adjacent property owners. Councilwoman Kaywood stated she just realized that she had placed an additional workload on staff and thus withdrew the recommendation for Council approval of the locations. Mayor Seymour stated he was going to vote against the motion. Up to a month ago, he was totally opposed to the concept because it was a prostitution of the City's sign ordinance and the City Attorney was now recommending changes to the sign ordinance to permit the program. Due to the concern expressed in the community for bus shelters, a month ago he indicated his willingness to go ahead with the program, but during that time, he studied the matter and what he found amazed him relative to the amount of money involved in the concept. As elected officials, they had received a great deal of pressure from many providers because Anaheim was the "plum". Whatever direction Anaheim took, the other leading cities in Orange County, Los Angeles and San Francisco would follow--it was the key to the entire State of California. Although he was not opposed to Bustop, he was not certain that the City was using its best intelligence in understanding the market. They had learned enough to this point so that the City could design its own shelter rather than having trial shelters installed. He recommended that the City design the criteria for shelter and put it out to bid to ascertain which company was going to build the shelter they desired with the greatest return of revenues to the City. In that way, the shelter would be properly structured to meet every demand of safety precautions. The shelter companies would build anything the City desired and therefore, it was his opinion they would be making a big mistake to enter into an agreement with a specific company at this time. The City should look to staff relative to safety, aesthetics and even to the type of advertising that would be incorporated. His eyes had been opened up to the profitability of the concept and he felt that shelters would replace billboards across America and thus involved a multi-million, if not a billion, dollar business. He reiterated, at this point they could draw up their own restrictions on a shelter to insure that the City received exactly what it wanted. MOTION: He thereupon offered a substitute motion to direct staff, including the Traffic Engineer and Police Department, to work up and submit a specific design 78-1385 City Hall, Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - October 17~ 1978~ 1:30 P.M. proposal for a shelter top including the amenities requested by the Council also providing safety and security and that the specific proposal subsequently be put out to bid assuring that the City obtained the shelter desired with the greatest return in revenues. Councilman Kott seconded the motion for the purpose of discussion. Councilman Kott stated he felt much the same way relative to the design and con- trol aspects. He was not too much concerned with the financial aspects in terms of Anaheim being the model city. If that were true, he looked at it as complimen- tary, rather than being a minus. He did agree with the Mayor that it should be approached Just as with everything else with specifications laid out and subse- quently those specifications put out to bid. Mayor Seymour added that he had one other thing in mind relative to the motion, although it might be premature, and that was for the Council to consider that all revenues that would be earned as a result of the program would be directly and totally spent on a street sweeping program that was badly lacking in the City. Consequently, even though some might not like the advertising on the shelters including citizens, they would at least know what they would be getting in turn from the program. However, he would not encumber the motion with that aspect at the present time. Councilwoman Kaywood expressed her concern that it would probably be necessary to hire additional staff to design the shelter and secondly, when it was ready to go to bid, the same companies would again be approaching the City. Earlier she was going to ask the question, if what the companies were looking at was the right and privilege to lose huge sums of money, ~ghy was everybody fighting over it. Convenience and Safety indicated they would be losing one-quarter million the first year and also would be losing money the second. They had two to twelve shelters up throughout the country, whereas Bustop had 500, and thus she wanted the City to go with that track record. The Mayor noted that all were capable of being bonded and as long as that could be done, the City could be assured that the work would be completed and that there would be a source of revenue. His objectives were simple, (1) make certain they got the shelter they wanted and one which was the best for the citizens of the City, and (2) a shelter program that would derive the highest revenue possible to the City. The way to get to number two was to go to the bidding process. It would not take additional personnel to design the shelter and he maintained that staff was capable of producing what they wanted in a very short time. Councilwoman Kaywood reiterated her concern that if they were going to wait a couple of months, there would be ten new companies on the scene and they too would not have any experience behind them and thus she objected to the substitute motion. Councilman Overholt stated he expressed himself on the motion they approved to go with bus shelters because he had doubts as to whether the program was going to work. Secondly, he agreed that any one of the companies could build whatever they wished. And thirdly, anyone was capable of doing so financially. He believed they had only scene the tip of the iceberg in terms of what the project really meant and he did not mean to criticize or be derogatory to those companies competing for the business. He was also appreciative of the two companies who may have felt that 78-1386 City .Hall~_ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - October 17~ 1978~ 1:30 P.M. the rules had been violated because they did everything the City wanted them to do. If they were to make a selection today, it would essentially be between two com- panies, but they owed a greater obligation to the citizens of the City. Therefore, he would support the Mayor's motion. A vote was then taken on the foregoing substitute motion. Councilman Roth and Councilwoman Kaywood voted "No". MOTION CARRIED Mr. Eggett expressed his concern over the fact that the Council was starting all over again, as did Mr. Droz, who commented further that the Council should be prepared that they would all be back again with the sam~ kind of lobbying as had taken place in the past. The Mayor wanted all of them to come back and even in greater numbers since as he stated previously, Anaheim was the "plum" in the market and he was not going to have it sold cheap. On motion by Councilman Seymour, seconded by Councilwoman Kmywood, the City Attorney was directed to amend the conflicts created by the implementation of an advertising oriented bus shelter program to the Bench Ordinance (Chapter 4.05) and Outdoor Advertising Signs and Structures Ordinance (Chapter 4.04). MOTION CARRIED. 174: H.E.R.E. - PROGRESS OF RAPE CRISIS CLINIC: The City Clerk announced that the representative who was to speak had left the Council Chamber. The Mayor also stated that the lady who was going to make the presentation was a professor at the California State University at Fullerton and was unable to stay at the meeting, but indicated that staff would present the contract. Mr. Bill Vasquez, Community Services Manager, explained that the program was a hotline crisis intervention and crisis counseling program for rape victims which had been operating since March of 1978. In order to dispurse funds for the grant the City had received, they needed to enter into a formal contract because at the time of the award on May 16, 1978, no formal contract was established. They re- ceived the funds from the Office of Criminal Justice and Planning which would be dispersed to the H.E.R.E. Program or Inner-Lock, Inc. The grant was approximately $9,000 and the City, the sub-grantee, had contributed a hard match of $500. The $9,000 was for a one-year program. Councilwoman Kaywood offered Resolution No. 78R-680 for adoption, as recommended in memorandum dated October 11, 1978, from the Community Services Manager. Refer to Resolution Book. RESOLUTION NO. 78R-680: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM APPROVING THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF AN AGREEMENT WITH INNER-LOCK, INC. AND AUTHORIZING AND DIRECTING THE MAYOR AND CITY CLERK TO EXECUTE SAID AGREEMENT. 78-1387 City. Hal. l, Anaheim~ ..California - COUNCIL MINUTES - October 17~ 1978, 1:30 P.M. Roll Call Vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: COUNCIL MEMBERS: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Overholt, Kaywood, Kott, Roth and Seymour None None The Mayor declared Resolution No. 78R-680 duly passed and adopted. 123/152: ELECTRIC CONTRACT CREWS DURING EMERGENCY SITUATIONs: Councilwoman Kaywood offered Resolution No. 78R-681 for adoption, as recou~ended in memo- randum dated October 10, 1978, from the Public Utilities Board, approving the employment of L. J. Ogg, Inc., electrical contractor, for restoring electrical services during an emergency situation, and authorizing the Utilities Director to execute an agreement for same. Refer to Resolution Book. RESOLUTION NO. 78R-681: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM APPROVING THE EMPLOYMENT OF ELECTRICAL CONTRACTORS TO RESTORE ELECTRICAL SERVICES DURING AN EMERGENCY SITUATION; AND AUTHORIZING THE UTILITIES DIRECTOR TO EXECUTE AGREEMENTS PERTAINING TO SAID SERVICES. (L. J. Ogg, Inc.) Roll Call Vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: COUNCIL MEMBERS: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Overholt, Kaywood, Kott, Roth and Seymour None None The Mayor declared Resolution No. 78R-681 duly passed and adopted. 176: ABANDONMENT NO. 77-26A: Councilman Roth offered Resolution No. 78R-682 for adoption, setting a public hearing on Abandonment No. 77-26A for October 31, 1978, at 7:30 p.m., in conjunction with a reclassification for RM-1200 zoning on property located on the north side of Lincoln Avenue, east of Brookhurst Street. Refer to Resolution Book. RESOLUTION NO. 78R-682: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM DECLARING ITS INTENTION TO VACATE AND ABANDON CERTAIN PUBLIC SERVICE EASEMENTS. Roll Call Vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: COUNCIL MEMBERS: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Overholt, Kaywood, Kott, Roth and Seymour None None The Mayor declared Resolution No. 78R-682 duly passed and adopted. CONSENT CALENDAR ITEMS: On motion by Councilwoman Kaywood, seconded by Councilman Roth, 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 insurance carrier or the self-insurance administrator: 78-1388 City Hall, Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - October 17~ 1978~ 1:30 P.M. a. Claim submitted by Bruce Wayne Davis for damages purportedly sustained as a result of false arrest on or about August 28, 1978. b. Claim submitted by George Albert Johnson for property damages purportedly sustained as a result of a transformer blowing up and causing extensive fire and smoke damage to house and garage roof, plumbing fixtures, and barbecue at 1320 Kenwood Avenue on or about July 14, 1978. c. Claim submitted by Lulu Dockery for personal injuries purportedly sustained as a result of a slip and fall at Anaheim Stadium on or about September 25, 1978. d. Claim submitted by Mrs. Judy Mancini for loss of food purportedly sustained as a result of a power failure on or about September 24 and 25, 1978. e. Claim submitted by Mr. William R. Peer for personal injuries purportedly sustained as a result of a fall at the Anaheim Convention Center on or about July 5, 1978. f. Claim submitted by Mrs. Irene Manni for damages purportedly sustained as a result of a power failure on or about September 24 and 25, 1978. g. Claim submitted by Ms. Frances Long for property damages purportedly sustained as a result of a power failure on or about September 24, 1978. h. Claim submitted by Mr. Richard C. Delperdang for damages purportedly sustained as a result of a vehicle being driven into an unmarked trench filled with water on or about September 7, 1978. i. Claim submitted by the Automobile Club of Southern California on behalf of George Johnson and Barrie L. Johnson, insured, for damages purportedly sustained as a result of a transformer catching fire and flying debris landing on a boat parked on insured's property on or about August 2, 1978. J. Claim submitted by State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company on behalf of Walter S. Golicki, insured, for vehicle damages purportedly sustained as a result of an accident involving a City-owned vehicle on or about June 14, 1978. 2. CORRESPONDENCE: The following correspondence was ordered received and filed: a. 105: Golf Course Advisory Commission - Minutes of September 21, 1978. b. 105: Park and Recreation Commission - Minutes of July 26 and August 9, 1978. c. 107: Planning Department, Building Division - Monthly report for September 1978. d. 156: Police Department - Monthly report for September 1978. e. 105: Youth Commission - Minutes of September 27, 1978. f. 175: Public Utilities Commission, Application No. 58393, notice of proposed Rmte Change by Southern California Edison. g. 105: Project Area Committee - Minutes of September 26, 1978. 78-1389 City Hall, Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - October 17, 1978, 1:30 P.M. h. 105: Community Service Board - Minutes of August 24, and September 14, 1978. i. 105: HACMAC - Minutes of September 26, 1978. J. 105: Co--,unity Redevelopment Commission - Minutes of September 27, 1978. k. 105: Community Center Authority - Minutes of October 2, ~1978. 3. 108: PUBLIC DANCE HALL AND PRIVATE PATROL PERMITS: The following permits were approved in accordance with the recommendations of the Chief of Police: a. Application for a Public Dance Hall for dancing seven days a week, 7:00 P.M. to 2:00 A.M., at Jezebel's, 125 North State College Boulevard. (Karl Robert Nielsen, applicant) b. Application for a Private Patrol Permit for Last Chance Security, to provide security patrol for apartment complexes and commercial properties. (Louis Francis Robbins, Sr., applicant) 4. 169: CLOSURE OF STREET: Request by the Community Development Department and Public Works Department for the closure of public streets and alleys between Olive Street and Harbor Boulevard for construction of the realignment of Lincoln Avenue and setting Tuesday, November 7, 1978, at 3:00 p.m., as the date and time for public hearing thereon. MOTION CARRIED. CONSENT CALENDAR ITEMS: Councilwoman Kaywood offered Resolution Nos. 78R-683 through 78R-688, both inclusive, for adoption in accordance with the reports, recommendations and certifications furnished each Council Member and as listed on the Consent Calendar Agenda. Refer to Resolution Book. 158: RESOLUTION NO. 78R-683: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM ACCEPTING CERTAIN DEEDS AND ORDERING THEIR RECORDATION. (Triple Link Temple Association; Roy A. Peterson, et ux.; Lavonne A. Knox; Robert E. Duffy, et ux.; Albert J. Etchandy, et al.; George E. Olsen, et al.; Texaco Anaheim Hills Inc.; Robert Bentley, et al.; Ferdinand Ferino, et ux.) 165: RESOLUTION NO. 78R-684: 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: COMMUNITY BLOCK GRANT PROGRAM AREA 3 - STREET AND ALLEY IMPROVEMENTS, IN THE CITY OF ANAHEIM, ACCOUNT NOS. 25-793-6325-3070; -3140; -3150 AND -3160; 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 November 16, 1978 at 2:00 p.m.) 78-1390 City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - October 17~ 1978~ 1:30 P.M. 164: RESOLUTION NO. 78R-685: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAMEIM FINDING AND DETERMINING THAT PUBLIC CONVENIENCE AND NECESSITY REQUIRE THE CONSTRUCTION AND COMPLETION OF A PUBLIC IMPROVEMENT, TO WIT: MARTELLA LANE - OWENS DRIVE SEWER IMPROVEMENT, IN THE CITY OF ANAHEIM, ACCOUNT NO. 11-790-6325-0080; 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 November 9, 1978 at 2:00 p.m.) 167: RESOLUTION NO. 78R-686: 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: TRAFFIC SIGNAL AND SAFETY LIGHTING MODIFICATION AT THE INTERSECTION OF BROADWAY AND EUCLID STREET, IN THE CITY OF ANAHEIM, ACCOUNT NO. 13-795-6325-5020. (Steiny and Company) 135: RESOLUTION NO. 78R-687: 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: GOLF DRIVING RANGE AT H.G. "DAD" MILLER-ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL GOLF COURSE, IN THE CITY OF ANAHEIM, ACCOUNT NO. 68-312-7103-09001. (Skyline Construction Company, Inc.) 167: RESOLI'TION NO. 78R-688: 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: TRAFFIC SIGNAL AND SAFETY LIGHTING AT THE INTERSECTION OF ELM STREET AND HARBOR BOULEVARD, IN THE CITY OF ANAHEIM, ACCOUNT NO. 10-4309-263-16-0075. (46-794-6325-4020) (Steiny and Company) Roll Call Vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: COUNCIL MEMBERS: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Overholt, Kaywood, Kott, Roth and Seymour None None The Mayor declared Resolution Nos. 78R-683 through 78R-688, both inclusive, duly passed and adopted. CITY PLANNING COMMISSION ITEMS: The following actions taken by the City Planning Commission at their meeting held September 25, 1978, pertaining to the following applications, as listed on the Consent Calendar, were submitted for City Council information. 1. RECLASSIFICATION NO. 78-79-15 - VARIANCE NO. 3051: Submitted by Henry L. Foucher, for a change in zone from RS-A-43,000 to RM-1200, to construct a 70-unit apartment complex on property located at 125 South Westchester Drive with certain code waivers. 78-1391 City Itall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - October 17~ 1978~ 1:30 P.M. The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution Nos. PC78-222 and PC78-223, granted Reclassification No. 78-79-15 and Variance No. 3051, respectively, and granted negative declaration status. 2. VARIANCE NO. 3042: Submitted by David S. and Marion Graff Collins, to con- struct a 102-unit motel on RS-A-43,000 zoned property located at 915 South West Street with waiver of minimum number of parking spaces. The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC78-218, granted Variance No. 3042 and granted negative declaration status. 3. VARIANCE NO. 3047: Submitted by Lee O. Webb, to construct a motel on C-R zoned property located at 2050 South Harbor Boulevard with certain code waivers. The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC78-221, granted Variance No. 3047, in part, and ratified the Planning Director's categorical exemption determination. 4. VARIANCE NO. 3048: Submitted by Charles W. and Glenda J. Vowels, to con- struct a multi-purpose game court on RS-HS-43,000 zoned property located at 140 E1 Dorado Lane with code waiver of minimum structural setback. The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC78-224, granted Variance No. 3048 and ratified the Planning Director's categorical exemption determination. 5. VARIANCE NO. 3049: Submitted by Marie Roybark White, to construct a used car sales boilding on ML zoned property located at 866 South West Street with waiver of minimum structural setback. The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC78-225, granted Variance No. 3049 and ratified the Planning Director's categorical exemption determination. 6. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 1890: Submitted by Frank and Loretta Krogman, to permit on-sale beer and wine in an existing restaurant on CL zoned property located at 2610 West La Palma Avenue. The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC78-227, granted C~nditional Use Permit No. 1890 for two years, subject to review by the City Planning Commission, and ratified the Planning Director's categorical exemption determination. 7. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 1891: Submitted by Stanley &Ione Krell, to permit on-sale wine in an existing beer bar on CG zoned property located at 628 West Orangewood. The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC78-228, granted Conditional Use Permit No. 1891 and ratified the Planning Director's categorical exemption determination. 78-1392 qity ,Hall, Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - October 17~ 1978~ 1:30 P.M. 8. CONDITIONAL USE PEMIT NO. 1892: Submitted by Euclid Shopping Center, to permit racquetball courts in a health club on CL zoned property located south of Katella Avenue, east of Euclid Street. The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC78-229, granted Conditional Use Permit No. 1892 and granted negative declaration status. 9. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 1635: Request of Ray Spehar for an extension of time to Conditional Use Permit No. 1635, to construct a motel on CL zoned prop- erty located southeast of La Palm- Avenue and Imperial Highway. The City Planning Commission approved an extension of time to Conditional Use Permit No. 1635, retroactive to August 16, 1976, to expire August 17, 1979. 10. 134: GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 148: Land Use and Circulation Element of the General Plan. The City Planning Commission set November 20, 1978, at 1:30 p.m., as the date and time for the public hearing on General Plan Amendment No. 148. No action was taken on the foregoing items, thus the actions of the City Planning Commission became final. RECLASSIFICATION NO. 78-79-12 - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 1886: Application by Kalyanji K. Mota, for a change in zone from RS-A-43,000 to CL, to expand an existing motel on property located at 2912 West Lincoln with code waiver of maximum structural setback. The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution Nos. PC78-219 and PC78-220, granted Reclassification No. 78-79-12 and Conditional Use Permit No. 1886, respec- tively, and granted negative declaration status. Councilwoman Kaywood removed the subject item from the Consent Calendar and noted the way the Planning Commission resolution was written gave the impression the project could have all kitchen units and the staff report indicated five units or 15 percent of all the units. She was concerned that Resolution No. PC78-220 itself be clarified, Condition No. 3. Miss Santalahti explained that revised plans had to be submitted to the Planning Commission. The condition noted was a standard one, but in addition they were also tied to the maximum number of units for kitchen-type facilities. In some instances, it did become an issue, but such was not the case in this instance. Councilwoman Kaywood stated she was making it an issue. The Mayor noted that Councilwoman Kaywood's concern was that they not exceed the percentage allowed for kitchen units, and he asked staff to make note of same. Miss Santalahti stated that aspect would be verified when the revised plans came back to the Planning Commission. No action was taken by the Council on the foregoing application; thus the action of the Planning Commission became final. 78-1393 Cit~ Hall~. Anaheim, California -.COUNCIL MINUTES - October 17~ 1978~ 1:30 P.M. Councilman Kott left the Council Chamber. (5:55 P.M.) 149/179: ORDINANCE NO. 3931 - PARKING STANDARDS FOR DRIVE-THROUGH RESTAURANTS: Councilman Seymour offered Ordinance No. 3931 for first reading, as recommended by the City Planning Commission. ORDINANCE NO. 3931: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AMENDING SUBSECTION 18.01.190 OF CHAPTER 18.01 AND SUBSECTION 18.06.060.0233 OF CHAPTER 18.06, AND ADDING NEW SECTION 18.06.090 TO CHAPTER 18.06, TITLE 18, OF THE ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO ZONING. 108/156: ORDINANCE NO. 3926, ESCORT BUREAUS, INTRODUCTORY SERVICES AND SIMILAR BUSINESSES: Councilwoman Kaywood asked the City Attorney if the proposed ordinance could be broadened to cover other unsavory businesses in the City. She had received calls over the weekend complaining that so-called photography studios were slipping in, which seemed to be undesirable. She wanted to know if photography could be added or some overall title included to cover photography studios. City Attorney Hopkins explained that two ordinances were involved, proposed Ordinance No. 3926, the subject ordinance, and Ordinance No. 3927, the next proposed ordinance to be considered. The escort ordinance was designed to cover specifically named organizations--Escort Bureaus and Introductory Services. They could not make it a "shot gun" coverage, but it had to be specific because they became involved in legal battles over minute details. Thus, it had to be precisely set forth in the ordinance. The following ordinance, 3927, related to Figure Model Studios which had been broadened to cover additional types of activity. Councilwoman Kaywood asked if it covered photography studios. Mr. Hopkins stated the definition added was quite specific and he then elaborated upon those additions. In order to broaden it, they would have to add additional items to it so that it would be covered if challenged in court. Councilman Seymour offered Ordinance No. 3926 for adoption. Refer to Ordinance Book. ORDINANCE NO. 3926: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AMENDING TITLE 4 OF THE ANAHEIM MlYNICIPAL CODE BY ADDING CHAPTER 4.90 RELATING TO ESCORT BUREAUS, INTRO- DUCTORY SERVICES AND SIMILAR BUSINESSES. Roll Call Vote: AYES: NOES: TEMPORARILY ABSENT: ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: COUNCIL MEMBERS: COUNCIL MEMBERS: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Overholt, Kaywood, Roth and Seymour None Kott None The Mayor declared Ordinance No. 3926 duly passed and adopted. Councilman Kott entered the Council Chamber. (5:58 P.M.) 78-1394 City Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - October 17~ 1978~ 1:30 P.M. 108/156: ORDINANCE NO. 3927~ FIGURE MODEL STUDIOS: The City Clerk announced that Mrs. Nancy Butler was present to speak on the matter and several letters had also been received relative to the issue. Mrs. Nancy Butler, 709 Aurora, explained that she was present to speak with regard to a new business which opened in their neighborhood called The Kaleidoscope Studio (located in the neighborhood shopping center on the southeast corner of Crescent and Magnolia) directly across the street from the Dr. Peter Marshall Elementary School. She stressed that there must be an ordinance or an amendment to an ordinance or something that could be done to keep such businesses from slipping into and run- ning that type of operation in their neighborhood. Not only was the Marshall School across the street, but also there were many other schools located in the immediate vicinity. She continued that the Magnolia-Crescent liquor store was imediately adjacent to the Kaleidoscope Studio. It was a liquor/deli and catered to children in that they frequented the store before school, during lunch, after school and on weekends where they purchased candy and soda and parents sent their children to that store for bread and milk. The girls from the Kaleidoscope Studio were not staying within the Studio, but they were hanging around the liquor store and she had personally witnessed them doing so. They were striking up conversations with men who patronized the store and then they let it drop that they were on their breaks from the studio next door. She had personally talked to two of the girls while she was getting her petition signed. The people who had businesses in the complex signed the petition in opposition, and they did not want the studio in that center. There were also people waiting to sign the petitions and the one submitted represented only a small amount of signatures collected in two and one-half days. People were calling her home to be certain that they would have the opportunity to sign the petition. She again reiterated concern over the fact that the studio had slipped in ~o close to a school and that there ought to be some kind of law to pre- vent such an occurrence. People in the area did not want the studio in their neigh- borhood. The Mayor stated a serious problem existed. First, in response to the specific problem, the Council received a letter dated October 14, 1978, and that was the first knowledge he had of the problem. He had just received the letter as he walked into the meeting and wrote a note on it that a response should be obtained from the Police Department and City Attorney immediately, and the neighborhood informed that they were conducting an investigation. What they were attempting to do was determine the activity taking place at the business. He suspected if what Mrs. Butler was saying was true, the business should be shut down immediately. However, speaking to the broader problem, prostitution, since that was the issue, it could be couched in a large variety of ways. There were escort bureaus, figure model studios, and massage parlor ordinances. As soon as they came up with a new ordinance~ prostitution would take a different form and it would just keep moving under different guises. He did not know how the new studios slip in, but it was perhaps under the guise of a photography studio; Mrs. Butler interjected and stated that they obtained their licenses under modeling studio and rap sessions. The Mayor continued that the Council was not only sympathetic, but also energetic in trying to insure that prostitution wherever it existed was driven out of the City. It should be understood however that it was not a simple situation and the 78-1395 Cit~ Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - October 17, 1978~ 1:30 P.M. people involved in such businesses had expertise in the applicable laws and regu- lations. He asked Mrs. Butler to report to her neighborhood that the Council was concerned and would move aggressively and quickly to stop the situation before it proliferated and that they should be considerate in the fact that it was not an easy thing to accomplish. Mrs. Butler repeated that due to the fact that the business was so close to a school, the Gouncil should do something relative to amending the ordinance so as to preclude that from happening. The Mayor stated not only did they not want such businesses close to schools, but also they did not want them in the City. They would get a response to the neigh- borhood as quickly as possible. Councilman Roth explained that the City Council previously endorsed an initiative process which would give local City Councils authority in abating simple things such as news racks. He did what he could and the Council, as well, to inform the public that initiative petitions were available. He put a great deal of effort into it through his business office, but the people did not seem to care and thus not enough signatures were obtained to get the measure on the ballot in November as they ran out of time. The apathy of the people was the problem and the State preempted local authority in such matters. The people should now try to contact their State Senator and Assemblymen since they could get a measure on the ballot without'the initiative process. Further discussion followed relative to the problems involved in trying to enforce laws regarding prostitution, pornography and the like at the conclusion of which, Councilman i~ott asked if it would be unconstitutional to attach a certain distance from schools where such businesses could be located. Mr. Hopkins stated he believed something could be worked out in that general area. Relative to the particular problem Mrs. Butler addressed, it had been investigated by the Police Department and also the Zoning Division. It was not a problem of the law, but the problem of obtaining evidence that could be used in court and that was what they were working on at the present time. The Mayor suggested that the City Attorney be directed to review applicable ordi- nances and give recommendations as to an amendment that would not permit such establishments to be located near schools under any circumstances. Mr. Hopkins stated he could come up with something relative to that aspect. The particular location they were discussing, presently claimed it was a not a nude. modeling studio, and they had to prove otherwise. Mayor Seymour reiterated the Council was sympathetic and empathetic with the problem and would do everything possible to help. What the City Attorney needed was evidence and as the neighborhood developed additional information, anything and everything that could be called evidence would assist the City Attorney and help the City to move much faster in the matter. Councilwoman Kaywood offered Ordinance No. 3927 for adoption. Refer to Ordinance Book. 78-1396 City H~.ll.~ Anaheim.~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - October 17~ 1978~ 1:30 P.M. ORDINANCE NO. 3927: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AMENDING TITLE 4, CHAPTER 4.31, SECTIONS 4.31.010, 4.31.080, 4.31.110, 4.31.190, 4.31.210 AND REPEALING SECTION 4.31.220 OF THE ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO FIGURE MODEL STUDIOS. Roll Call Vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: COUNCIL MEMBERS: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Overholt, Kaywood, Kott, Roth and Seymour None None The Mayor declared Ordinance No. 3927 duly passed and adopted. ORDINANCE NO. 3928: Councilwoman Kaywood offered Ordinance 3928 for adoption. Refer to Ordinance Book. ORDINANCE NO. 3928: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AMENDING TITLE 18 OF THE ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO ZONING. (66-67-61(87), CR) Roll Call Vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: Overholt, Kaywood, Kott, Roth and Seymour None None COUNCIL MEMBERS: COUNCIL MBMBERS: COUNCIL MEMBERS: The Mayor declared Ordinance No. 3928 duly passed and adopted. ORDINANCE NC. 3929: Councilman Roth offered Ordinance No. 3929 for adoption. Refer to Ordinance Book. ORDINANCE NO. 3929: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AMENDING TITLE 18 OF THE ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO ZONING. (72-73-46(1), CO) Roll Call Vote: COUNCIL MEMBERS: COUNCIL M~MBERS: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Overholt, Kaywood, Kott, Roth and Seymour None None AYES: NOES: ABSENT: The Mayor declared Ordinance No. 3929 duly passed and adopted. ORDINANCE NO. 3930: Councilwoman Kaywood offered Ordinance No. 3930 for adoption. Refer to Ordinance Book. ORDINANCE NO. 3930: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AMENDING TITLE 18 OF THE ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO ZONING. (78-79-13, RM-1200) Roll Call Vote: COUNCIL MgMBERS: COUNCIL MEMBERS: COUNCIL M~MBERS: Overholt, Kaywood, Kott, Roth and Seymour None None AYES: NOES: ABSENT: The Mayor declared Ordinance No. 3930 duly passed and adopted. 78-1397 City H.al.!, Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - October 17~ 1978~ 1:30 P.M. 126: GRAND OPENING OF SAMBO'S RESTAURANT: Councilwoman Kaywood reported that two weeks prior there was a grand opening of a second Sambo's Restaurant in the West Street/Harbor Boulevard area, at which time the City was presented with ten historical photos. She asked that the Council decide where to display the photos which were framed under glass, whether in the Library, City Hall, the Cultural Arts Center, Brookhurst Community Center or elsewhere. The photos were presently stored in the City Clerk's Office. 127: CHARTER AMENDMENT - PROPOSITION "C" - REBUTTAL TO ARGUMENT IN FAVOR: Councilwoman Kaywood noted that the sample ballots for the November election had been mailed out containing the proposed Charter Amendments. Under Propo- sition "C", the Mayor's rebuttal to argument in favor of Proposition "C" made charges and smears against three Council Members being investigated by the District Attorney's Office and the Grand Jury. Since the charges were fully cleared, she wanted the record set straight that there was nothing to investi- gate in the first place. Mayor Seymour questioned how that would be done. Councilwoman Kaywood stated she guessed that the Mayor should do so. Since he made the charge, he should set the record. The District Attorney found nothing and she wanted it clarified. Councilman Roth stated he found himself almost on the same wave length and noted that in the voter's pamphlet under Rebuttal to Proposition "B" relative to an increase in the Council from five to seven members, there was an untrue statement that could well mislead some of the voters. As background, Section 502 of the City Charter set a sum of $400 per month as remuneration for Council Members. In addition, Ordinance 1.04.380 set a meeting allowance for Council Members of ~25 for each official meeting attended, but not to exceed one meeting per week. ~hus, the rebuttal argument was in error when it stated, "Recently, the proponent of this measure publicly stated that the City Council should meet twice a week instead of once. If passed this would mean doubling the meeting stipend cost." Since the statement was in error, he asked the City Attorney what the recourse would be relative to the untrue statement that had been mailed to every registered voter. City Attorney Hopkins stated they had checked with the Secretary of State's Office concerning the various comments and arguments posed, and they felt it was not some- thing that they had to retract. The recourse would be a civil law suit in the event that it was a libelous or slanderous statement. Perhaps the only thing that could be done would be to submit something in writing to the City Clerk and request that it be entered into the record that it was an error. At this late date, he did not believe anything could be done about changing the ballot pamphlet. The City Clerk stated that it was a County election and all materials had been mailed. Councilman Roth expressed his concern that anything could be said, right or wrong, and it did not make any difference. 78-1398 City Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - October 17~ 1978~ 1:30 P.M. 127: CHARGES AGAINST THREE COUNCIL MEMBERS AND PROPOSED CHARTER AMENDMENTS: Mayor Seymour stated he would respond to both of the questions raised by Council- woman Kaywood and Councilman Roth. First, relative to the ballot argument on Proposition "C" noting that three Council Members were currently under investiga- tion by the District Attorney and the Grand Jury, that was an accurate statement when it was written. Secondly, if, in Councilwoman Kaywood's opinion, her con- science had been cleansed as a result of the technical and legally strict opinion of the District Attorney's Office, then so be it. As far as his allegations that, in fact, three Council Members agreed to vote "yes" on a contract for the City Manager, he had no doubts whatsoever that was true, and they knew it was true and that the City Manager was part of it and he had never heard any of them deny that allegation. When Councilwoman Kaywood spoke of that situation, he wished that she would speak to the issue and the issue was--did she feel that it was moral and right that three Council Members, along with the City Manager, agree to go ahead with a contract without notifying the other two Council Members. Councilwoman Kaywood responded since her conscience was never clouded, it was not cleansed. Because the Mayor found that everybody else was not doing every- thing his way, he had to lash out. The District Attorney found nothing and if the Mayor wanted to create something out of nothing, he stood alone in so doing. She had done nothing wrong and the fact that the Mayor talked about her integrity by putting her in his candidate's brochure, although he did so without her permis- sion, pointed out that he knew her integrity was of a very high caliber. Further discussion followed between the Mayor and Councilwoman Kaywood revolving around the issue wherein Councilwoman Kaywood expressed her resentment over being smeared by the Mayor. She never did anything wrong and had nothing to apologize for. The MaTor countered and reiterated his opinion that Councilwoman Kaywood did wrong when she decided to give the City Manager a contract without sharing what she was going to do with the full Council. Councilwoman Kaywood stated the fact that the Mayor was on a "rampage" and a "witch hunt", along with one other Council Member, was the reason why she felt the way to settle things down in the City was to have the two-year stipulation set into the City Manager's contract. The Mayor then continued that relative to Councilman Roth's allegation of untruth in the ballot argument, he believed it to be ridiculous. Councilman Roth had only to look at the statement he made which led the public to believe all it would cost for another two Council Members was another salary when, in fact, there were admin- istrative expenses as well as fringe benefit expenses which were much higher than Council salaries. Thus, if he wanted to talk about untruths in the ballot argument, he should look to his own statement. Councilman Roth stated he could not believe that the Mayor could stand there bold faced and refuse to state the facts, to look at the ordinance and tell the truth. In the argument, he stated that a Council Member's salary was $100 a week and the Mayor was a great twister of the facts. 78-1399 City Hall~. Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - October 17~ 1978~ 1:30 P.M. The Mayor asked him to speak to the City Manager's contract. Councilman Roth stated he did not have a problem with that contract and if the Mayor had been involved with it instead, everything would have been fine. He emphasized that he did not work with other Council people, but acted as an independent individual. Councilman Overholt then spoke to the matter since he stated the Mayor was also attacking his integrity as he had done several times in the press. In the~Mayor's rebuttal to the argument in favor of Proposition "C", he stated, "who placed this measure on the ballot. Who wants to take your legal right away to elect your Mayor?" There was a Charter Review Committee and they came back with recommenda- tions of issues that should be placed on the ballot and two had to do with the size of the Council which they recommended be placed on the ballot. The Mayor disagreed and stated they recommended against the question of expansion being placed on the ballot. Councilman Roth clarified that the Council did not want the Charter Review Committee to become involved with the question because the Council was going to decide the issue. However, the Committee became involved in a discussion against the advice of Chairman Ben Bay. A poll was taken amongst the Committee opposing the placement on the ballot, but they did not get involved in a great deal of discussion and debate. Councilwoman Kaywood explained that relative to Proposition "C", election of the Mayor, the Charter Review Committee recommended unanimously that it be placed on the ballot. Councilman Overholt then stated that the answer to the question of who placed the question on the ballot was that the Charter Review Committee recommended it and the Council went along with the recommendation and the Mayor, in his rebuttal, was placing everything on the three so-called Council people. Councilman Overholt then asked the City Attorney whether, in his opinion, the Grand Jury investigation on the question of an alleged conspiracy by a few members of the Council had been completed officially. City Attorney Hopkins answered that he had never seen any documentation that there was a question submitted to the Grand Jury other than the article appearing in the Anaheim Bulletin indicating that some citizens' group had submitted some- thing to the Grand Jury. At the request of Councilman Roth, he had checked with the District Attorney two weeks earlier to see if he had any information on the matter. He was told "no" and that they had no information as to what the Grand Jury was doing and that their letter (District Attorney's letter dated September 6, 197§) only referred to the Council Member~ request concerning the Brown Act viola- tion. The District Attorney's letter concluded that legally and factually, there was no violation of Government Code Section 54950 (Ralph M. Brown Act). The news- paper reported the Mayor to have said, "maybe not a violation of the Brown Act, but he should have said conspiracy." Councilman Overholt asked the Mayor if that was correct; the Mayor confirmed that was what he had said. Councilman Overholt then asked, a conspiracy to do what. 78-1400 City Nall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - October 17~ 1978~ 1:30 P.M. The Mayor answered, a conspiracy to make a decision without including and making known what that decision was going to be with the entire Council. Three Council Members met with the City Manager to put a deal together. Both Council Members Kaywood and Roth stated that they did not do so. Councilman Overholt stated umcategorically that did not occur and not indirectly as well. He told the Mayor in a private conversation that he would not discuss the facts until the matter was cleared by the Grand Jury and he absolutely resented the Mayor making or giving releases to the paper in which he accused him (Overholt) of commiting a crime since he accused him of commiting a conspiracy, and a con- spiracy was a conspiracy to commit a crime, whereas the District Attorney, in his investigation, found that no crime was commuted. The District Attorney had spoken with him at length as well as the Mayor and everybody involved in the City and found no violation of the Brown Act. He wanted to know how the Mayor could find a conpiracy to commit a crime when the District Attorney found, at the completion of his investigation, there was no crime. He reiterated, he absolutely resented the statement made in the Mayor's rebuttal in favor of Proposition "C" and when the Grand Jury finally made its decision, he would answer the Mayor word for word as to exactly what happend. Until that time, he would not contaminate their investigation. Councilwoman Kaywood read the following article published in the Anaheim Bulletin on September 29, 1978: No Conspiracy by Council Trio--'~hen three members were cleared of a stated secret meeting violation, they were also cleared of a con- spiracy charge, a District Attorney spokesman said. According to the spokesman, both charges were part and parcel of the same investigation of the three. The conspiracy charge was brought by a group of Anaheim residents who requested the Grand Jury investigate the allegation. The Grand Jury turned the investigation request over to the District Attorney's Office which was already investigating all alleged Brown Act violations." Mayor Seymour stated he could understand how Councilman Overholt would resent an allegation from anybody and the fact that he (Seymour) said it was a conspiracy. As an attorney, he knew better the technical legal meaning of the word conspiracy. He then explained how he defined a conspiracy and what he believed happened in the matter of the City Manager's contract. In his absence and without Councilman Kott's knowledge, he (Overholt) and Councilwoman Kaywood met with the City Manager and agreed to have a contract drafted. Then, one or the other subsequently called Councilman Roth, still without his knowledge or Councilman Kott's and he (Roth) agreed to go with that contract. At one time or another, the City Manager directed the Deputy City Attorney to draw such a contract and perhaps Councilman Overholt did the same and that contract was dumped before Councilman Kott and he in a public meeting without giving any time for consideration. When he (Seymour) asked for a motion to continue the matter for two weeks, it was denied. In his opinion, that was a conspiracy the way he understood it, and he maintained it was wrong. Councilman Overholt stated that the Mayor's understanding was absolutely erroneous and secondly, even based on the facts as he stated them, that was not a conspiracy. In any case, the facts were wrong. 78-1401 City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - October 17~ .1978~ 1:30 P.M. The Mayor stated that it was an immoral act. The Mayor continued that relative to the question of who put the mayoral question on the ballot, there were only two ways that could be done. The first was through the initiative process and the second by a majority vote of the elected officials. In his opinion, what three Council Members did (Council Members Kaywood, Overholt and Roth) when they placed that one question on the ballot was to create a sham under the process and they stacked the deck against the constituency. If they were really concerned with the people being able to express their will, he knew of no reason that they would not have agreed to place both questions on the ballot--return the method of selecting the Mayor to the old system, which they did agree to place on the ballot; and equally as important, allowing the other question to go on the ballot which would have opened up the process of electing the Mayor and not restricting it to the qualification of a Council person and keeping it muttled and confused when an individual ran for both Mayor and Council, thereby cleaning up the process. Councilman OVerholt noted that the Charter Review Committee was made up of appointees of all five Council Members and he thereupon asked if the Mayor felt that the Committee was stacked. The Mayor answered "no", but the Committee expressed their own individual view- points. His contention from the beginning was to give the people a choice, but that never happened and he repeated that they expressed their own viewpoints, rather than presenting alternatives to the people to let them decide. Thus, the Committee was stacked as far as it refused to provide alternatives to the electorate in its recommendation. Councilman Overholt asked if it was not a fact that the Charter Review Committee recommended that the Council give the citizens of Anaheim a choice between the two alternatives now on the ballot under Proposition "C"--the alternatives being, keep the present system or go back to the old system. Councilman Seymour did not agree that was a choice--to continue the present con- fusing system or go back to the old one. He would have voted to place on the ballot the choice of whether to elect the Mayor without any strings attached or whether to leave that power with the Council which was the old method. Further discussion, debate, questioning and clarification followed between the Mayor, Councilwoman Kaywood, Councilman Overholt and Councilman Roth revolving around the aforementioned issues. RECESS: By general consent, the Council rece8sed until 7:30 p.m. (6:47 P.M.) AFTER RECESS: The Mayor called the meeting to order, all Council Members being present. (7:30 P.M.) 78-1402 City Hall, .Anaheim; Ca..lifornia - COUNCIL MINUTES - October 17, 1978~ 1:30 P.M. PRESENT: ABSENT: PRESENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Overholt, Kaywood, Kott, Roth and Seymour COUNCIL MEMBERS: None CITY MANAGER: William O. Talley CITY ATTORNEY: William P. Hopkins CITY CLERK: Linda D. Roberts POLICE CAPTAIN: J. D. Kennedy COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT SPECIALIST: Kate Kocher 156: HEARING - PEOPLE FOR COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT: Request to address the Council. Mr. Richard Ornelas, representing the People for Community Development, stated that they were present again to ask about the District Attorney's report relative to the Little People's Park incident and to clarify who had the report, whether they would get it, and when, since they wanted a copy of it as soon as possible. City Attorney Hopkins stated the only report the District Attorney's Office in- tended to make public was the letter dated September 27, 1978, to the City Council signed by Ronald P. Kreber, Deputy District Attorney (on file in the City Clerk's Office). He had discussed the letter with Mr. Kreber who indicated that investi- gatory sheets, the notes taken by the investigators, would not be released to the public unless there was a court order. Also, they answered the question that had previously been posed to them, "upon a review of all reports, statements, physical evidence and, having in mind the need to prove any criminal act beyond reasonable doubt, we have concluded that no criminal charges will be filed against any police officer." It was also noted that a copy of the letter was sent to the Orange County Grand Jury. He reiterated this was the only document that the District Attorney intended to release without a court order. Mr. Ornelas asked if there was any way the report could be obtained from the City Council since they were promised such a report on August 8, 1978. Mayor Seymour answered that he would be happy, as one Council Member, to give the report to Mr. Ornelas, but he did not have it to give. The next question would be, how they could go about getting a court order requiring the District Attorney to release the report. Mr. Hopkins answered that as he understood, the Orange County Grand Jury had been requested to make a further investigation although he had not seen anything in the form of a written document. The Grand Jury would have access to the District Attorney's notes and if a citizen were to file action in Superior Court to compel the District Attorney to release any documents, it might be that the Court would order same, but there was no way the City could force the District Attorney to do so. He confirmed for the Mayor that they could direct a letter to the Orange County Grand Jury expressing their desires. Councilman ~mtt noted that the crux of the problem lay in the fact that when Mr. Ornelas previously approached the Council, the City Attorney was to have carried out the investigation. Subsequently, he felt there was a conflict and turned the investigation over to the District Attorney. He concurred with the thought that perhaps the City Attorney could address a letter to the Grand Jury explaining the dilemma with which the Council was faced since they promised a report of the investigation and expressed the desire to get the report so that they could keep faith with their promise. 78-1403 City Hall,, Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - October 17~ 1978~ 1:30 P.M. The Mayor clarified that the promise made was that they would be happy to turn over to the People for Community Development and to all citizens of Anaheim whatever they received, but again, it was difficult to give what they did not have, but they would follow whatever course necessary to obtain the report. Mr. Ornelas stated he would like to have the Council request the report one way or another so they could have a copy of it, possibly within 48 hours, in order to review it themselves. The Mayor stated they would do whatever possible to obtain a copy, but beyond that they could only start their own investigation and he recalled that the community was not happy with the City performing its own investigation. He had to believe that the District Attorney had a very complete report and did a thorough job and he, too, was dissatisfied with the one and a quarter page re- port submitted in letter form. Mr. Ornelas stated they did not feel the District Attorney had done a good and thorough job and that was the reason why they wanted the report. Councilman Overholt believed there was some confusion relative to the matter since the only report that had ever been issued by the District Attorney was the letter dated September 27, 1978. He assumed that the District Attorney took sworn statements from people, notes and the like, which was the background documentation for the report and that was what Mr. Ornelas was after. The Council did not have any of that information and it would be up to the District Attorney as to whether or not it would be released. The community had seen everything the Council had seen and that everyone else had seen. As unsatisfactory as it might seem, that was the complete report issued. He did not know if the Council could deliver the total file. Mr. Hopkins stated what he believed was being referred to were the transcripts of the interviews and notes that were taken during the investigation and that data was the back-up for the District Attorney's report. He confirmed that the September 27, 1978 was the report and the other documentation being requested consisted of the back-up data and investigation notes. Councilwoman Kaywood stated she was under the impression that a week ago Wednesday, the Grand Jury was going to act on the matter. Mr. Hopkins stated he was told by the Deputy District Attorney that the Grand Jury was going to review the investigation, but he had heard nothing further as to the outcome. They did not publish any kind of report and it could be that they were still looking at the matter. He could write to the Foreman of the Grand 3ury requesting any action they desired. MOTION: Councilman Seymour thereupon moved to direct the City Attorney to send a letter to the Orange County Grand Jury asking them to make available the full findings, file and transcripts of the District Attorney's report relative to the incident at Little People's Park. Councilman Kott seconded the motion. 7~-1404 city Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - October 17~ 1975~ 1:30 P.M. Before a vote was taken, Councilwoman Kaywood stated that was not what she was asking. Her question was whether the Grand Jury was going to be looking at the matter. Councilman Overholt did not feel that the motion met the question. What they should do was inform the Grand Jury of the dilemma they were in with the citizens who wanted something more than a one and one-half page report and asked if they could assist in making the more extensive documentation available. That was different from what the Mayor was suggesting because the Grand Jury might suggest another tack, for instance, an investigation of the whole incident which would be fine. The Mayor stated the intent of the motion was not to discourage the Grand Jury from investigating the whole matter, but it asked that the public be able to see the same things that they were seeing--the District Attorney's file, facts and transcripts. Councilman Kott stated what Councilman Overholt was suggesting was merely to preface the request with the idea that the Council was in a dilemma with citizens who requested something more than the brief report submitted and because of that they were asking their assistance in making the material available. That would be the intent in his second. Councilman Roth stated the question should be posed, was the investigation being carried on by the Grand Jury or had it ceased. The Mayor stated he would embody both ideas in his motion. Councilman Overholt asked Mr. Ornelas if his Committee had requested an investi- tation by the Grand Jury. A gentleman from the audience answered, "yes". Councilman Roth then asked if either the City Attorney or Councilman Overholt could imagine the Grand Jury releasing confidential documents while the inves- tigation was underway. Mr. Hopkins stated his impression was that they would not release that documen- tation if they were currently investigating the matter, but he would ask. Councilman Roth stated he asked was that they might have to wait until the inves- tigation was complete and if they said "no", Mr. Ornelas would still not be satisfied. Mr. Ornelas suggested going straight to the District Attorney to ask him for the report. City Attorney Hopkins stated he did request additional documentation, and he reiterated he was told the only public release would be the two pages which the Council received and anything further would not be released without a court order. It would not be in their providence to bring such an action, but a citizen could do so. 78-1405 City Hall~ Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - October 17~ 1978~ 1:30 P.M. Mr. Mike Valenti, 201 East Adele Street, stated that two weeks prior, they specifically asked the City Attorney if he would ask the District Attorney if criminal violations were committed by any police officers. He wanted to know if that question had been asked. Mr. Hopkins stated, two weeks ago he contacted the District Attorney and asked the question and Mr. Kreber, the Attorney handling the case answered "yes", there were criminal violations committed by police officers; however, no identification was able to be made as explained in the letter. Mr. Valenti then asked if there were criminal violations committed, wouldn't the City Council, City Manager, Chief of Police and the whole City be concerned enough to obtain whatever documentation there was to follow up on those violations. Other- wise, how would they take any disciplinary action. It appeared that they would have to go another step. Although the Mayor indicated that was the intent of his motion, it seemed it was being done to satisfy their request only. The Mayor stated he was sorry that was Mr. Valenti's perception, but he was inter- ested in satisfying not only their request and all citizens of Anaheim, but also he was equally interested in satisfying his own concerns. Further discussion followed wherein Mr. Valenti expressed the opinion that the Council did not have a clear notion about what they were doing in terms of the particular action relative to the Grand Jury, and he wanted clarification as to whether or not they were prompting the Grand 3ury, as they had done. The Mayor construed the motion on the floor, if passed, as prompting the Grand Jury, indicating that they were concerned, they had concerned citizens, they wanted to know the facts, they wanted to see all documentation and wanted to know a time when the investigation would be complete. Mr. Valenti asked to receive a copy of the letter posing those questions when written. A vote was then taken on the foregoing motion incorporating both Councilman Overholt's and Councilman Roth's recommendations. MOTION CARRIED. Mr. Joe Vargas then spoke on police identification since it was an issue that had not yet been settled. Five incidents had occurred since Little People's Park and three over the weekend involving the police stopping some of their members. Ail the police did was ask questions and none were given citations, but were stopped for nothing. When they checked for the policeman's indentifi- cation in order to get names and numbers, they were not wearing any. Further, when they started asking for names and a card, the policeman threw their licenses back to them and took off. Last Saturday there were kids coming back from the movies and they were in the park when a policeman drove by, started cussing at them and when he left, he made an obscene gesture. The point was, if the kids did the same to the officer, he would have returned with reinforcements and an incident would have started. Although there was an attempt tomake identification from the police car, a light was put on them and the car left which he considered using hit and run tactics. Although they did not think that the police would give them a business card, they were hoping that would happen. In another inci- dent, a friend of his called and she stated she was at a party and maced and the police officer said, "remember Little People's Park." He tried to reach the girl to get her to come to the meeting tonight, but without success. 78-1406 City Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - October 17~ 1978~ 1:30 P.M. Mayor Seymour clarified that the Council said there was to be an identification process for policemen including a calling card, but in effect, Mr. Vargas was alleging that had not happened. Mr. Vargas stated that a few officers had given their card, but not in the instances he mentioned. In his opinion, there were some bad cops who would not comply and now they were just taking off their name tags. That was the whole problem relative to the criminal violations previously mentioned as they were unable to make any identification. The Mayor asked Acting Police Chief Jim Kennedy to respond. Captain Kennedy, Acting Police Chief, stated if the incidents did occur, they were a little late in hearing about them. As early as January, they did supply officers with business cards, but no particular order was issued until after the meeting with the Council where they were directed to issue the cards (see minutes of August 23, 1978). The order which was given on August 28, 1978, required that police officers issue business cards any time they were asked as long as it did not interfere with the task they were performing. He could not answer relative to compliance, but a second order was issued on October 6, 1978 reminding everyone of the requirement. If there was non-compliance, they would have to know the specifics to find out who was not complying. They would have to know as soon as possible after an incident occurred, the time of day, day of week, location and vehicle identification. Their cars were all numbered individ- ually with five numbers, the last three being the important numbers since the first two were always "26". Mrs. Josephine Montoya explained that two weeks prior she was involved in an incident where she was coming home from work traveling on Anaheim Boulevard and Broadway at approximately 10:30 p.m There was a police car going west on Broadway which recognized her car, changed lanes and went after her. The officer turned his light on, came up to the window and she gave him her license. He shined his flashlight inside her car for several minutes and also asked if she was sure she lived at the address indicated on the license and where she was coming from. She then asked for his name and did so three times, but the officer did not respond. The third time he flashed his light and left. She looked through her rear view mirror to see if she could see a number on the car, but could not do so because he had his lights on. She emphasized that she was particularly concerned because such incidents were continuing to happen even since the Council meetings held at Little People's Park. She believed that the only thing that kept the officer from giving her a citation was the fact that he would have had to sign it. She then relayed the incident Mr. Vargas had previously explained regarding the young people who were coming home from the movies and had stopped in the park. The situation was something that needed to be looked at. The Mayor strongly urged that upon the occurrence of any of those types of inci- dents, that a complaint be filed or the Police Department notified immediately. In the event that they did so and they did not get any satisfaction or response, the Council would want to know about it. In order to put an end to such occur- rences, someone in authority had to know of them. Thus, they needed the community's help as well. '78-1407 City Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - October 1.7~ 1978~ 1:30 P.M. Mr. Ornelas stated there was to be no police retalliation and that was one of the demands after the Little People's Park incident. However, there were still people in the community complaining about police harassment. There were families where police cars would drive by in the evenings often and each time they would shine the spotlights on those houses where there were young people living in the neighborhood, on their own properties and homes. The police would go by and use foul language against the youngsters, call them names, and say different things to harass them. Some of the fathers and mothers had complained to them about such incidents, and he wanted the Council to be aware of them. Some of the people were reluctant to come forward. City Manager Talley suggested that since the Acting Police Chief was present, he had a broad-based community group in the Police Committee for Community Affairs, Community Relations, and therefore asked if there would be a possibility of getting people together with members of that Committee which met at the Police Department. The community could meet with the Committee and convey their thoughts and could discuss the situation with people working with the Police Department on their Community Relations Committee. Mr. Ornelas stated he would talk with the people to see if they would come forward, the problem being they did not even want to go to the Police Department. Mr. Talley stated they would not have to go to the Police Department, but repre- sentatives could go to their homes and talk about the problem. It was a Committee that met regularly with the Police Department, and they could discuss the matter with Acting Chief Kennedy and other members of the Department thereby acting as spokesman of some of those who did not want to come directly, and thus they would not have to be identified. Mr. Valenti then broached the subject of the Crime Prevention Community Relations Block Grant Officer. Their understanding of that particular position was because it was Federally funded, there was to be community input in the selection process. Last Wednesday, he was invited as a representative of the People for Community Development to attend a meeting at the Police Department where the Police made an announcement of the selection of the Crime Prevention Officer. The Officer, from all description, sounded like a capable and able person, however with the short- coming that he was not bilingual, and there was concern about that fact. There was even greater concern over the selection process because the community did not participate. They now felt, unless the Council took action, that once again they were going to have to go through the process of petitioning the funding agency to investigate their plea. Thus, he was asking the Council to again open up the selection process, even though Officer Paul Grugel might be the most capable, and permit the community to fully participate in the process in the way the Federal Government stipulated. Mayor Seymour stated relative to that process, the Council did not have the power to state how that officer would be selected, but that process was under the juris- diction of the City Manager Just as with the selection process of the Chief of Police. The City Manager could respond relative to the selection process, but the City Charter provided no power for the City Council to mandate the selection process and he was certain Mr. Valenti was aware of that fact. 78-1408 City Hall~ Anahelm~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - October 17~ 1978~ 1:30 P.M. Mr. Valenti answered he was well aware that it took three votes of the Council to instruct the City Manager to do whatever the Council deemed. The Mayor stated, not in the subject selection process. The Mayor asked the City Attorney if the Council had the power to direct the City Manager as to a specific selection process or not. City Attorney Hopkins answered that the City Charter provided that the City ~nager would have control of the appointment and other facets of the selection process involving the people under his jurisdiction. If the City Council made a motion directing the City Manager to take a certain action, on that motion, he would have to comply. However, there would be a question as to whether they would be interfering with his duties as City Manager, and it might get to be a court problem. The Mayor stated that as the City Attorney was aware, they Just went through a difficult selection process for the Chief of Police and Mr. Hopkins stated that the Council could not direct that selection process, but only veto or ratify the City Manager's recommendation. If that was true, he did not want the City Attorney to lead them to believe they had any more power as they moved down from the Chief because they did not. Mr. Hopkins confirmed that was correct--the City Manager had the selection power and the Council should not interfere. Kate Kocher, Community Development Specialist, stated that the Community Develop- ment Block Grant (CDBG) Program required that they have citizen input for develop- ing programs. However, it did state that nothing in those requirements shall be construed to restrict the responsibility and authority of the applicant for the development of the application and execution of its Community Development Program. In other words, the City administration and the City Council were responsible for the execution of the program. The CDBG funded Crime Prevention Program was estab- lished two years prior through a citizen request in the participation process. Since that time, the Police Department had made the selection of the police officer with some assistance and input from both citizens and the Community Development Department. They had never made the final selection, but any recommendations made or concerns they received from both the citizens and the Community Department had been considered by the Police Department relative to the position. They did recom- mend that the candidate be bilingual; however, it was a difficult situation. The Police Department had a policy by which officers requested certain types of posi- tions whether patrol, detective or community relations. The officers for the Crime Prevention Program were those persons who requested that specific duty. Councilman Kott asked if she was in disagreement with what Mr. Valenti stated regarding citizen participation. Ms. Kocher stated that funding would not be in jeopardy, because the City administration and management had a responsibility for the execution of the Community Development Block Grant Program. They had contacted HUD on the matter, and they did not have to go through the citizens to hire for the position. When the funding was allocated, she believed citizen parti- cipation to be adequate and hopefully there would be more. They would be asking for more through the new requirements from HUD as well as their own desires. There 78-1409 City Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - October 17~ 1978, 1:30 P.M. was no public input relative to the selection of the Crime Prevention Officer, but it was discussed extensively with the Community Services Board and they made their wishes known to the Police Department. They did recommend that the officer be bilingual and probably other criteria as well. Captain Kennedy then explained the process that was used and although he was not personally involved, he had been told how it occurred. Within the Police Depart- ment every six months after an officer had met a certain criteria of two years in service, he was able to request assignments of his choice. It did not neces- sarily mean they would be assigned, but they would be considered when there were openings. The Block Grant Officer fell under the administration of the Community Services Office in the Police Department. At the time the opening occurred, they had eight applications from officers, but he did not recall if any were bilingual. He knew that several people from the community felt it was important that the officer be bilingual and if they had one that was bilingual, it would have been a very important consideration. The last Block Grant Officer, Mike Gray, who he believed did a fantastic job was not bilingual. He continued that thereafter, the field of age was narrowed down to three and of the three, Officer Paul Grugel was the officer selected. He had nine years of service in the Department and never had a personnel complaint filed against him. He also had never requested any other assignment other than for the Crime Prevention Officer. He indicated he was extremely interested in entering into the Block Grant position because he felt there were problems that needed to be worked on, and he looked at it as a challenge. Frankly, some of the officers would have looked on it not as a challenge, but as a threat. They believed the officer who worked the assignment must want it and based on these criteria, Officer Grugel was selected. They did state when they met with the Community Services Board, if at any time he or any other officer was not doing the Job expected of them, there was nothing to say that he could not be transferred and someone else reassigned to the position. Mr. Valenti stated they had no quarrel with the police officer and understood the process the Police Department went through, but they were concerned about community input. Mr. Tony Avila, 1746 Sumac, People for Community Development, stated they set a committee aside to work with the Police Department and to get together with the Community Development Department to see if they could get community parti- cipation in selecting an officer for the downtown area. They approached the department and were basically backed up in their request for support and the next step was to set up a meeting with the Police Department. He tried to do so, but the Chief was out of town and Captain Mang was in charge. On that same day, he talked to Captain Mang and was told that the officer was already selected and basically they could do nothing about the situation. Mr. Valenti stated at the meeting where the announcement of the police officer was made, there were people in attendance from the Community Services Board. He admitted that he was in total ignorance about the selection process when he went to the meeting, but he found out that those people were also in ignorance relative to the process, as was evidenced by their questions. 78-1410 City Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - October 17, 1978, 1:30 P.M. The Mayor asked for confirmation that Mr. Valenti's question was whether the City Manager would change the process. Mr. Valenti answered "yes", if the City Manager was the cognizant official in this instance. Councilwoman Kaywood stated she had a letter dated September 5, 1978, from Chief Bastrup regarding the appointment of the CDBG Crime Prevention Officer and as she recalled when it came before the Council for a decision and vote, the Chief's recommendation was that the procedure remain as it had been with the Chief having the final selection. The two previous officers appointed were very popular in the area and were well liked by the community. Mr. Talley confirmed when the matter came before the Council, there was a vote and it did pass. The Mayor noted that he voted against the motion. Mr. Valenti stated that part of the problem was the fact that the Chief seemed to be very closed and resistant to the notion of community input and his letter reflected that. They were not trying to run the Police Department, but merely wanted to participate in the program, and the Federal Government welcomed such participation. In the true spirit of the program, they should participate and the Council ought to invite their participation. Councilwoman KaywoOd asked what they could do if there was no bJT~ngual officer and if they wanted instead someone who was not a willing candid~ for the pro- gram. Mr. Valenti Etated that assignments were ordered when the occosi~ ~manded and that was an alternative; however, he was not suggesting that. One ~f the possi- bilities was to meet face to face with candidate officers ant for citizens to get a feel as to who the individuals were who would be pound'.ng the 5eat in the neighborhood. It was not unreasonable, but a simple step. Councilwoman Kaywood stated that is not what the Council vo~e directad and Mr. Valenti was requesting a procedure that was not passed when che Chief came in with his recommendation. Mr. Valenti stated what they were saying in the spirit of what the Block Grant was intended to do, the Council ought to reconsider its vote. Mr. Talley stated he would be willing to discuss with the new Chief after he came on board whether or not he would wish to change the procedures on either the appoin~mem~ of the next officer or in the event Officer Grugel did not work out. In view of the fact that they did have a procedure and an agreement with the officers, the normal procedure followed had resu~[ed in what apparently had been a good selection in the past. He saw no reason not to continue it pend- ing discussion with the new Chief. He had every confidence the next time around he might be more mindful of community input, but he believed he would still go to either the Police Department or Council authorized committees and would probably secure his input either through the Community Developmen~ Oepartment, public hear- ings, the Community Services Board or the Police Community Relations Committee. He saw no reason to overturn the Chief's decision in the subject situation, and he would not be willing to say that the officer was unfit to serve. 78-1411 City Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - October 17, 1978~ 1:30 P.M. Mr. Valenti stated he did not say that. There was nothing prohibiting the possibility in the grant for the Police Department to hire an officer. The funding was there, but it did not necessarily mean they had to stay within the Department, but could go outside if no one was bilingual, and it was an important consideration. Mr. Talley stated that the past holder of the position was not bilingual and none were this time. If that was a requirement, he would question the value of going outside the Department because of all the interaction that would be involved. He did not see how much use a non-member of the Police Department would be in such a role and the fact that he was not a member of the Anaheim Police Department could be a greater burden than not being bilingual. Mr. Amin David, 419 Cole Street, directing his remark to Kate Kocher, stated he did not understand where there was such a good opportunity to have citizen input in an important process, why it was welcomed. The basic rudiment of the Community Development Block Grant Program was citizen participation as to where the money was going to be spent, particularly regarding an officer serving a particular segment--the Mexican-American community. Not long before when the first police officer was assigned, they did, at the pleasure of the Police Chief, have two people who talked to the candidates. The point relative to the citizen participation aspect was that it would be better for Officer "X" to come into the neighborhood having the blessing of the community group, and because he was the best of the candidates, they would work with him to see that he did not fail. He did not place too much emphasis on the bilingual aspect since the officer who just finished his tour of duty and who had done a marvelous job did not speak Spanish, but did have something that communicated with everyone. However, the element of the monolingual population in Anaheim was more important now than it was then. Perhaps the suggestion made by Mr. Valenti to go outside the City for recruiting was a good one. Mr. David then spoke on the Police Community Relations Committee (PCRC) which was established four years prior and was a joint effort that was backed up by the Human Relations Commission to try to attempt to address some concerns in Anaheim. When Chief Bastrup became Chief, he was very amenable to the program and the PCRC served at the pleasure of the Chief. They were presently winding up their tour of duty. The Council had nothing to do with the Committee and they never asked for the Council's sanction. They had not become an official-type body, but merely worked because they wanted to. He reiterated they did so at the pleasure of the Police Chief and without his cooperation, they could do nothing. Certain instances had arisen where they questioned whether or not they had been very successful. Although they had accomplished measureable goals, he did not know whether it was to the point of favorable contact with Officer "X", "Y" or "Z". The Community Services Board had instructed a committee to start studying and looking for models for a police commission in the City of Anaheim. In his opinion, the departments who had a lay body were doing an excellent job. He emphasized he did not mean a police review committee, but a commission that had input to a hallowed police de- partment as it related to policy. They were aspiring to have a cross-section of citizens joining them to formulate a plan that would be presented to the Council. It would provide an advocacy group in those instances where such was needed for the Police Department, just as with the Library Board. That Board spoke to the 78-1412 City Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - October 17~ 1978~ 1:30 P.M. items in the budget and met with the Council to discuss certain elements--he questioned why was the Police Department immune to that citizen input. Those were the kinds of questions they wanted to answer. The last meeting of the Police Community Relations Committee in November would be a social affair to give a send-off to the Chief. In the iterim, the proper body for citizens to approach in that vein would be the Community Services Board. Not knowing what the policies of the new Police Chief might be, they could not say if the PCRC would continue to exist thereafter. Councilwoman Kaywood remarked that she did not realize the Committee was winding up its work and asked from the point of view of the Committee members themselves, did they wish to continue in that capacity. Reverend Tom Favaro, President of the PCRC, answered it would be his hope that the new Chief would endorse the Committee and give them the input Mr. David discussed. Feedback from the present Committee was that they would like to continue. However, because of the "lame duck" situation relative to the Chief and what was happening at present, they did not know what was going to happen in the future. He would like to continue to have that input not only with the Chief, but also the captains and lieutenants and other officers, but as liaison with the community and the Police Department. Thus, they would hope to continue. One other item of importance to the Committee related to what type of weight their input had on the decisions of the Police Department in terms of policy or crisis situations, such as had been experienced of late. There had been some problems at times, but they hoped to discuss those with the new administration, and as well, they could perhaps receive an endorsement of the Council. City Manager Talley stated the Committee had his wholehearted endorsement and he would be hopeful that the new Chief would look upon the Committee's service with as much pride and interest as he and the present Chief did. Reverend Favaro could assure his members that he would look forward to a continuing dialogue and probably an even more prominent role. He also pointed out for the Council that the Committee had accomplished a great deal. It had been aggressive when necessary and provided a bridge. The only thing that concerned him was the fact that it was not his understanding that the Community Services Board was moving into the general area of studying police problems. He thought that was the PCRC area and he would hope there would be no conflicts relative to the situation because the Committee had done an outstanding Job. Mr. Valenti then continued that the People for Community Development were about to offer positive input by way of a proposal concerning the present Chief of Police who was slated for retirement in December. As everyone was aware, recent controversial situations had occurred where the Police Department was prominently in the news amongst which was the vote of no confidence for the Chief from the Anaheim Police Association. They therefore proposed that Chief Bastrup be relieved of his duty immediately. This would set up a situation where the City Manager and City Council could designate an Acting Chief of Police who would serve in the interim until the new Chief was hired. The Acting Chief, on order from the City Manager and direction from the City Council, would be asked to implement the number of the reforms they had discussed and were dealing with over the past several weeks, i.e., police complaint procedures, police identification, better discipline in the ranks. He had spoken to a couple of high ranking police officers 78-1413 City Hall~.. Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - October 17~ 1978~ 1:30 P.M. in the Community Services Division and heard express feelings such as the APA had grown into a very powerful union that was now running the Police Department. The Acting Chief of Police could, therefore, be asked to come to grips with that particular problem and again take control of the Department. The virtue of the proposal was that it would effect the reform that was needed. For instance, City Attorney Hopkins indicated that the District Attorney did find criminal violations. Consequently, there might have to be some house cleaning, and the Acting Chief could take on that task and institute some reforms in policy and procedures. In this way, the new Chief would not be burdened with a shopping list of things to do or saddling him with herculean tasks and items that had been accumulating over a number of years. He would not have to start on a negative footing, and thus he could start from the word "go". That was the real virtue of the proposal and he respectfully submitted same to the Council for adoption. Mayor Seymour stated it was not the Council's position, nor did they have the authority, to relieve the Chief of Police of his duties or to hire or fire him, but it was the City Manager's authority to do so. Mr. Valenti recommended they could, on a motion, suggest that kind of proposal to the City Manager. Mr. Talley explained if there was any malice in his heart at all, he would encourage such a vote. However, in the last ten weeks of Chief Bastrup's distinguished City career, the strength of one incident that was not fully investigated, nor all the facts before the Council, would not, in any way, justify even a basis for suspension, much less termination of the Chief's services. He would have no intention of suspending the Chief from duty unless someone could point out substantial ground to do so. Mr. Valenti stated that Mr. Talley missed the point and that they were not advo- cating that the Chief retire early because of any failure to perform, but there were a number of situations that were going to be a problem for the new Chief which would be better settled before he came on board. Mr. Talley stated he believed the new Chief was going to have different policies, procedures and ways of attacking problems which he was not willing to admit would be better or worse. One challenge would be to accomplish better relations in cases such as they discussed, but he was also not willing to say that a house cleaning was in order, that there were a lot of bad officers, or anything resembling that. He did not see the good of the community or the Police Department to, in theory, take an Acting Chief and ask him to do a housecleaning, but instead the new Chief should be allowed to assess the situation and make what changes he deemed necessary. To date, except for some minor policy changes, he had not heard of any major actions that needed to take place that would jusitfy suspending a Chief from using his rightful authority in his last 10 weeks of service. Mr. Valenti pointed out that Chief Bastrup was presently on an extended vacation in New York. At a recent meeting of the Community Services Board where a proposal was put forward that the police complaint procedure be modified, Lieutenant Gray declared that he could not do anything relative to the matter until the Chief re- turned. 78-1414 City Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - October 17~ 1978~ 1:30 P.M. Mr. Talley first pointed out that the Chief was on an extended working vacation in New York and would be back in the City on Monday. Relative to the complaint procedure, it was his understanding that the method in which complaint actions were handled had been a subject of discussion not only with the command structure in the community, but also with the APA. Because none of the agreements or dis- cussions were written down, he asked that formal procedures not be changed until he had an opportunity to meet with the Chief to be certain he knew all of the obligations, if any, he had made with the APA before the procedure was changed. He did not want to create problems in the interim and he felt constrained knowing he was not part of the discussion. The only substantive issue was how the complaint form would be redesigned and how it would be handed out, not how they would treat complaints which he considered a minor matter with respect to the major issues that might result if they did a lot of changing without giving the Chief an opportunity to give his input. Mr. Valenti concluded that relative to their proposal on the Chief, they brought it forward as a positive recommendation for the Council's disposition. Councilman Overholt stated that he had thought about the situation at great length and his attitude was the same as expressed by the City Manager. Unless something drastic occurred, he did not want to short-cut a man in his last four months of service. Although the Mayor explained that the Council did not have any authority in the matter, they did have feelings and his was that Chief Bastrup had served a distinguished service for the City and there was no reason to defrock him in the last weeks of his career. He was also certain that the Department was func- tioning well while the chief was in the East. Councilwoman Kaywood stated she felt the same. The situation might be different if it were one or two years earlier, but not in the last few weeks of a man's career. Councilman Roth stated he had mixed emotions because he could see the merits on both sides. He did not want to put the Chief down and would not even consider such a suggestion in the Chief's absence. On the other hand, it might be easier on the new Police Chief, but he was not prepared to make a decision. One of the matters he brought up at the very first meeting he and the Mayor had with the community group was relative to complaint forms which forms could not be obtained unless the person went to the Police Department and filled out the form in front of someone. He suggested as with other cities, the possibility of being able to obtain the forms in the City Clerk's Office in order to avoid having to discuss the complaint with a police officer. Perhaps that could be instituted before the first of the year and before the arrival of the new Chief, but he did not want to initiate the procedure until Chief Bastrup returned. The concept should first be evaluated to see if it could be modified because if anybody felt they were im- properly treated, it was awkward to go to the Police Department and be harassed in trying to make a complaint. He emphasized as had previously been discussed that complaints be filed immediately giving all the necessary information able to be given and if forms could be obtained easily without answering questions, that might be a solution to some of the problems enumerated. Councilman Kott stated he felt much the same relative to the Chief and viewed the situation as the end of a career, and he personally would find it very difficult in his twilight days to ask the Chief to leave. However, it would appear that 78-1415 City Ha. ll~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - October 17~ 1978~ 1:30 P.M. when the Chief returned he might want to put in his time whenever he wanted and under the leadership of the City Manager, some of the things suggested could be implemented. The Chief might perhaps like to put Captain Kennedy or someone else in charge until the end of the year to work out some of the complaints, and that should be discussed with the Chief. The City Manager stated he already initiated some action from his office and it was not a matter of telling the Chief to physically move out as it was to let him go about his business and have the changes begin in a subtle way and when the new Chief arrived, fill him in on the details. He believed it to be a leadership-management problem and not a physical removal problem. Mayor Seymour stated relative to relieving the existing Chief of his responsi- bilities, he had discussed that with Mr. Valenti on the telephone, and tonight nothing different was presented to convince him otherwise that, in fact, he had a great deal of confidence in the Chief. The Council unanimously expressed a vote of confidence in the Chief immediately after the APA expressed no confi- dence, and he had served the department well for 25 years. He maintained that whatever reason one might find to relieve him of his duties to be a total and utter disgrace for a man that had served the City well and, without any reserve, had a distinguished career. It would be inappropriate to take a career such as that and throw it in the gutter. So from that standpoint alone, he could not support the concept. He was not at all unhappy with the Chief, but he had on occasion spoken out loud and clear as to some of the things wrong in the Depart- ment. Further, if the Chief became incapacitated and was unable to fill his duties and responsibilities in the closing days, he would still be opposed to an Acting Chief for a short period of a couple of months creating, establishing and mandating policies knowing full well a new Chief would be on board a few weeks later, only to be saddled with those policies and procedures. The new Chief had to take direct control of the situation and it would be his responsi- bility to straighten out whatever problems there were in the Department. It was not appropriate to set rules of the game and then hire a man and indicate that they did not care what his procedures would be. The bottom line was to wait. Mr. Fernando Galaviz, member of the Community Services Board, stated he fully supported the Mayor's comments and those were the sentiments he was going to express. He believed it was possible in the interim, however, with Mr. Talley working with the management of the Police Department, for there to be a period of true cooperation in dealing with the community. Mr. Galaviz then explained that Officer Gray attended the Community Services Board meeting where the police complaint form was discussed, but his attitude was--these are the rules and nothing could be done until the Chief was back in town. He questioned if the whole Police Department had to stop because the Police Chief was gone for a month. He maintained that the people dealing with the community had to develop a softer approach. He further explained that a Community Services Board Subcommittee was formed to look at the whole police question because the public had approached the Board and put pressure on them to do so. They also requested members of the Police Department to participate in the Subcommittee deliberations which would also help the police, since they would start getting input as well. He emphasized the softer approach and was hopeful that the police would meet with them and participate and not state that they would not discuss anything until the Chief's return. If City Manager Talley could moderate them, then whatever the Community Services Board could do to cooperate, they would be happy to do so. 78-1416 City Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - October 17~ 1978~ 1:30 P.M. Mayor Seymour interjected that Mr. Galaviz had painted what the entire policy should be for the Council in relationship to the entire environment, i.e., direct the City Manager to open up all lines of communication and get all the dialogue and input from the community and the Committee that was possible directly with the Police Department. That would be a very positive step. Mr. Galaviz explained that a concern of the community was the time factor that would be involved by the time a new Police Chief was selected and became ac- quainted with the Department and the community. Without replacing the Chief, the question was how they could work together and he also questioned why have the community become so "uptight" over a single issue like a form. Mr. David then explained that the present system for lodging a police complaint involved going to the front desk at the Police Department and asking for a form. Then, it was necessary to tell the cadet or whoever was there what the complaint was about. Subsequently, that person had to pass judgment on the complaint before the person lodging the complaint was able to talk to the Watch Commander when the same story had to be told again. If in trying to obtain a form that person did not want to speak to either the cadet or the Watch Commander, a form could not be obtained. The Mayor stated, relative to the complaint procedure, the Council at the meeting held in Little People's Park encouraged that the procedure be cleaned up as soon as possible, and they had not changed their minds at this point. Mr. David stated that the City Manager was talking about altering the format and not the procedure or the availability of forms and that was the key. Mayor Seymour recommended that the City Manager be directed to submit a report to the Council in two weeks as to his recommendations, along with those of the Chief's, relative to changes in the complaint procedure process. Captain Kennedy stated they had been working on the Police Complaint Form for some time and had put together what they believed was a procedure that would be very acceptable to the community. At present, approval of the particular pro- cedure was pending return of the Chief. Before he left however they did agree verbally after some discussion with the APA if a person came to the front counter and wanted to complain, they would be asked if they wished to talk to the Watch Commander. If they said "no", then they were to be given a complaint form with the date and time placed on the bottom by the person issuing the form with no questions asked as to identity, what the complaint was about or anything else. That procedure went into effect approximately four weeks prior and before the Chief left; from the audience, Mr. Valenti indicated the procedure was not in effect last Wednesday. Captain Kennedy stated he had not discussed the matter with Mr. Valenti, but that he (Valenti) had spoken with Captain Mang. He confirmed the procedure itself had not been finalized, but it was verbally put into effect before the Chief left and they had discussed the matter with the APA for their input. 78-1417 City Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - Oc.tober 17; 1978~ 1:30 P.M. ~yor Seymour stated if the procedure was as Captain Kennedy explained, then it was not opened up enough. He felt that the form should be bilingual and that it should be able to be mailed out. If they were concerned about their image, they should encourage an open and easier process to develop input from the community. City Manager Talley stated they had been working on the procedure and felt they had something that would fit everybody's needs. It was not so at present that a person would be interrogated by a cadet or have to tell his story again. That was stopped before the Chief left and while the Chief was gone, they had been working out a procedure that would meet the expressed needs. As soon as the Chief returned, it was his intention to meet with him and bring back to the Council very rapidly a report on the change in the procedure. He repeated, that no person was now subject to interrogation by a number of people in order to lodge a complaint or to get a form. That had been changed and the report to be provided within two to three weeks would show that the indicated needs had been met. If it required meeting and conferring with the APA, they would want to do that first in order to give the Council a full report on the signi- ficance. Councilman Kott asked if any thought had been given to not having cadets at the front line. Captain Kennedy answered "no", but an officer was assigned during peak hours to supervise the cadets, and he was supervising them now. Mr. Galaviz asked for confirmation if what was being stated was that the present procedure no~ permitted a citizen to walk into the Police Department, ask for a complaint form, and walk out. Captain Kennedy answered "yes", right now, and that procedure started four weeks ago. Mr. Galaviz noted that the Community Services Board meeting he previously dis- cussed was held two and one-half weeks prior and at that point, the officer in question representing the Chief stated the following--"if a citizen has a com- plaint, that citizen must come to the desk and must have a police officer help him fill out the form. We cannot give the forms to any citizen." Some of the people in the audience were at the meeting who could verify what he was saying was correct. Thus, if the procedure was changed four weeks ago, he wanted to know why Lieutenant Gray, who came as a representative of the Chief, to a body that represented the Council in an advisory capacity, did not know his own procedure. Captain Kennedy stated he could not answer that question specifically, but assured Mr. Galaviz that he was at a meeting with the Chief when the matter was discussed with the APA to ascertain what their feelings would be as to changing the procedure. It was agreed verbally at that time the procedure would be put into effect even while it was being drafted and prepared for the Chief's final approval. Mr. Talley stated they would check with Lieutenant Gray the next day and if he did make the statement as indicated, he would straighten the situation out. 78-1418 City Hall~ Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - October 17~ 1978, 1:30 P.M. Mr. Galaviz emphasized that Lieutenant Gray was so direct about the matter, that the Community Services Board proposed a motion recommending that the City Council take action to make the form available even if they (the Board) had to pay for the printing, out-of-pocket. Mr. Galaviz expressed his dis- pleasure at not having been told the truth by someone who had expertise, along with displaying an unyielding attitude. Mr. Valenti wanted to corroborate what Mr. Galaviz had said, however, he had talked to Captain Mang the previous week and he did say that the procedure was in the process of change which agreed with what Mr. Talley stated. He then questioned why they were going to the APA to get their blessing on something so basically fundamental. This was an instance where they were giving away power where it need not be given and he rejected the notion that the APA ought to have input in the matter. It should be the kind of policy dictated to them because it was in the best interest of the citizens. Speaking to the Mayor, Mr. Valenti continued that relative to Chief Bastrup, when the incident occurred in Little People's Park, the Chief came out with a "knee- jerk" press release almost immediately stating it was only a little piece of the community, a bunch of troublemakers, just a few officers were involved, it was nothing serious, the Police Department had all kinds of things done to them and they were thoroughly provoked. Also, his in-house investigation found no criminal violation. One and one-half months later when the District Attorney's report was submitted, he issued a modified press release to the effect that he would look into the matter in greater depth. They wanted to know what the Police Department was doing. It was important to the community and it was germane. They wanted to know if the present Police Chief could do the job they wanted him to do in the matter. Perhaps it was too much of a burden physically to search the matter out and come up with answers. Thus, when the Mayor was giving his total blessing, he was doing so ill-advisedly in the matter. Mayor Seymour reiterated that relative to the complaint procedure, the City Manager would be reporting to the Council within two weeks with his and the Chief's recommendation, and he encouraged all to be present at that time to provide input. Relative to Mr. Valenti's comment about Chief Bastrup, that was his opinion and viewpoint to which he was entitled. He had seen Mr. Valenti's letter to the editor and thus he understood where he was coming from, but he (Seymour) came from a broader perspective, from the entire community. At the time the Chief was being challenged by his own troops, there was, in his opinion, a public outcry, the likes of which he had never seen, in total support of Chief Bastrup. He reiterated therefore that although Mr. Valenti and others had a particular view, it was not in any way, shape or form a measure of the broad perspective of the community. Mr. Valenti explained that on the night the Council gave the Chief a vote of confidence, he congratulated him because the Chief had his support in the partic- ular matter involved. That was not to say that he gave atotal blessing to all his actions. The Mayor stated that he did not either. Mr. Valenti continued however that it seemed to imply that the Mayor was giving his blessing to the press release and the kind of statements made on the Little People's Park incident. That concerned the community and the broad community because it concerned all policemen and the integrity of the Police Department. He hoped that the Mayor would seriously consider getting something done about changing the approach to 78-1419 Cit~ Ha!l~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - October 17~ 1978~ 1:30 P.M. investigating police incidents of criminal behavior. Expecting the new Chief to do so six momths hence was too much to ask and too much time to take. Joe Vargas stated that relative to complaints, if the cadet had the same attitude as the police officer in the street, it would not be possible to obtain a form because it could be just that one officer who would not comply. Councilman Roth stated that was why he suggested the City Clerk's Office. Councilman Kott stated it was depressing to have to ask the APA relative to formulating policy on dealing with the community. He hoped the City Manager had a different concept so that when the matter did get straightened out, the Police Department, as well as other departments, would be responsive to the needs of the people and not to the wishes of a working group within that department. He did not believe they should be in a policy making decision position because it was a leadership position that should be assumed by the department head. Mr. Talley stated that he agreed, but the problem was that he did not want co create a greater harm by not following the procedures and then losing some management right. Until he found out from the Chief how extensive discussions had been, he did not want to go and abrogate something that would give cause for the APA to come back on them. He was very strong for management rights, and he did not believe in conferring with them, but the problem was they had already been conferred with and therefore it was not possible to do something that the APA was told they would not do. ADJOURNMENT: Councilman Roth moved to adjourn to Wednesday, October 18, 1978, at 3:30 p.m., at the Euclid Branch Library, 1340 South Euclid Street. Councilman Overholt seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. Adjourned: 9:40 P.M. '~BERTS~