Loading...
1977/07/26 77-848 Management Control Center, Anaheim, California~ July 26, 1977, 10:30 A.M. COUNCIL MINUTES The City Council of the City of Anaheim met in adjourned regular session. PRESENT: ABSENT: PRESENT: PRESENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Kaywood (entered at 10:40 A.M.), Kott, Roth and Thom COUNCIL MEMBERS: Seymour ORANGE COUNTY HUMAN RELATIONS COMMISSION CHAIR: Irma Rodriguez EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR: James Sanchez EMPLOYMENT SPECIALIST: Jose Sandoval COMMISSIONER: Amin David Jr. COMMISSIONER: George Carter CITY MANAGER: William O. Talley ASSISTANT CITY ATTORNEY: Frank Lowry CITY CLERK: Linda D. Roberts PERSONNEL DIRECTOR: Garry O. McRae Mayor Thom called the joint meeting with the Orange County Human Relations Commission to order at 10:30 A.M. The Mayor welcomed those in attendance and introduced the Council Members present, as well as staff, and Ms. Irma Rodriguez, Chair of the Orange County Human Relations Commission introduced those representatives present from the Commission. Ms. Rodriguez first referred back to the Council meeting of June 28, 1977 (see minutes that date) wherein the Orange County Human Relations Commission (HRC) raised issues relative to alleged deficiencies in the City's Affirmative Action Program. She stated it was not enough to merely say the City was deficient without citing specific examples. Prior to providing those specifics, however, it was important that everyone involved be educated at the same level relative to terminology and overall aspects of Equal Employment Opportunity (EEO). So that a good overview could be provided, she explained that the Commission would first give a slide presentation prepared by the United States Department of the Treasury covering the subject. Mr. Jose Sandoval, Employment Specialist, HRC, monitored the comprehensive slide presentation which gave specific examples of different types of employment discrimi- nation, a chronology of laws relative to such discrimination, personnel practices and attitudes, penalties that could be assessed for non-compliance, and all other facets involved in EEO. Mr. James Sanchez, Executive Director of HRC, then presented an overview of the laws, starting with the Civil Rights Act in 1964, and outlined and elaborated on the basic ingredients necessary for an Affirmative Action Program as follows: (1) Policy Statement, (2) accountability, (3) utilization analysis, (4) goals and timetables, (5) personnel practices consisting of, (a) recruitment, (b) classi- fication, and (c) testing. Mr. Sanchez placed heavy emphasis on personnel practices as being a most important aspect in the overall program and he further expanded on those items relating to personnel practices, especially with regard to minorities and women. Mr. Sandoval then showed a slide of the City of Anaheim's annual Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) report as of April 26, 1977, giving a utilization analysis as previously explained by Mr. Sanchez which enabled the employer to view his various departments to ascertain how they were represented with minorities and women. 77-849 Management Control Center, Anaheim, California~ July 26, 1977~ 10:30 A.M. COUNCIL MINUTES Mr. Garry McRae, Personnel Director, interjected that his report would have slightly different numbers since it was a later quarterly report. Mr. Sanchez explained that EEOC required public and private employers to submit a yearly composition report showing where minorities and women were located in their work force and the first thing they would ask to see was the EEO quarterly report. The concern that HRC had when they approached the Council one month prior was in the comparison between the 1974 figures and the most recent set of figures. Across the board, there was a very minimal increase in minorities and women. Mr. Sanchez contended that if an enforcement agency viewed those figures over a period of time, they would be able to readily discern compliance or non-compliance. He noted from the slide the only area of high concentrations of minorities and women were in the "classical" areas; service/maintenance area for minorities especially males, clerical and office areas for women. Part of their concern was relative to personnel practices. Mr. Sanchez maintained that whatever took place at the recruitment level would have a direct impact on the figures. If the figures were weak, it was an indication that personnel practices needed to be analyzed. Mr. Talley emphasized that no one, including members of HRC, should consider Anaheim's personnel practices and the examples given as resembling one another. In recruiting, it was clear that the City did not use word-of-mouth and did not restrict its re- cruiting to only the City, but instead broad minority recruitment was encouraged. In fact, the City was completing a two-year study of every classification which pre- cluded any type of discriminatory practices, and in the area of testing, every barrier was removed. Mr. Sanchez stated their concern was to indicate to the City, if he were a Compliance Officer, written documentation would be required on how and where recruitment took place, as well as efforts made regarding classification studies and testing procedures. Enforcement agencies did not accept verbal reports. If the City was working in that area, and evidence could be presented that all possible was being done, and fair and equal procedures were utilized, it would have strong ground to justify the figures. The Federal government would take that into consideration and would not hold the City to the weak figures. Mr. Talley stated the City had an annual report reflecting a more favorable picture than that presented by the HRC and the work in the past month also reflected a pro- gression. HRC's report dated June 28, 1977 (on file in the City Clerk's Office), was also analyzed and Mr. Talley commented almost uniformly, the City differed with the statistics that were used. He also stressed that, as Mr. Sanchez previously pointed out, a report such as being made to the Council today, would be totally unacceptable since verbal reports were not accepted by enforcement agencies. He reiterated the City would be pleased to discuss any concern HRC had if it was submitted in writing and, in turn, a response would be given in writing. He was adamant in the fact that the City was doing a good job. Mr. Amin David, HRC Commissioner, took issue with Mr. Talley's statement and con- tended the figures conclusively prove the disparity. The purpose of the presenta- tion was to bring the matter to Council's attention since it was their responsibility to know what the figures reflected. It was his opinion that the Council was not aware of the figures, nor were they aware of EEO laws and the Affirmative Action Pro- gram as enumerated by Mr. Sanchez. 77-850 Management Control Center, Anaheim~ California, July 26, 1977~ 10:30 A.M. COUNCIL MINUTES Councilman Roth interjected that prior to requesting the joint meeting, it would have been prudent of the HRC to first communicate with the City in order to sub- stantiate the figures they presented. Discussion followed between HRC Commissioner George Carter and Personnel Director Garry McRae relative to work force figures wherein Mr. McRae strenuously objected to those presented by HRC. Mr. Carter, noting the difference between their report and the City's most recent report showing 9 black employees as opposed to the present 12, did not feel that the addition of 3 more black employees made that much difference relative to their presentation. Mr. Talley disagreed with Mr. Carter regarding the impact since Anaheim's black work force was .5% approaching that of the County's .6%. The City had a higher level of administrative blacks than the County and if HRC had discussed the matter with his office, they would have been aware that two black division heads had been appointed within the last 40 days. In answer to Mr. David, Mr. Talley relayed additional figures comparing percentages between the City and the County relative to Mexican-Americans (9.9 percent County, 9.3 percent City) and total minorities (12.2 percent County, 12.6 percent City). In City general management, 2 people were Hispanic or 4.5 percent. In the case of minorities in the service/maintenance area, this was the City's concentration and the problem was not in recruiting, but distributing those employees through the work force; the case of women in the clerical office areas was an entirely different issue. He commented that no one else used the 48 percent figure as did HRC, but instead 36.3 percent, including the Employment Development Department (EDD). Mr. Sandoval considered the use of EDD figures to be inaccurate. Mr. McRae stressed that it was important to recognize that the Employment Development Department of the State of California was charged by law with the responsibility of developing figures upon which to base an Affirmative Action Program and those were the figures used by the Personnel Department. They (HRC) were using figures 33 percent higher as pointed out by Mr. Talley. Further discussion followed between Mr. Sandoval and Mr. Talley relative to commit- ments made by Anaheim in 1974 on the Affirmative Action Program wherein Mr. Sandoval contended that the Library had not reached parity in their projection for 1977. Mr. Talley countered, however, by comparing the commitment made with what occurred in actuality showing the Library's achievement was 50 to 100 percent better than what was projected. He again stressed that if communication had been made with his office, Mr. Sandoval and the Commission would have been made aware of the facts. Additional matters discussed between the representatives of HRC and staff were: (1) Steps that had been taken by the City in the recent past and during the past year indicating a positive movement of Affirmative Action; (2) The policy statement made by the Council in 1974 that each department would have its own Affirmative Action Plan and the contention by HRC that the Police Department, as an example, did not have such a plan but merely a policy statement; (3) A recommendation by HRC that the City's Affirmative Action Officer, when hired, be set apart from Personnel, and that consideration be given to the establishment of an Affirmative Action Advisory Board, possibly within the scope of the Community Services Board. 77-851 Man~lgement Control Center, Anaheim, California, July 26, 1977, 10:30 A.M. COUNCIL MINUTES Relative to the contention that the City's Affirmative Action Program was a policy statement and not a plan, Mr. McRae, in concluding, stated that enforcement agencies who reviewed the City's overall Affirmative Action Program did not criticize it, nor make an expression of inappropriateness, but accepted it, and included a United States Civil Service Analysis. In summarizing, Mr. Sanchez stated the basic reason for approaching the Council directly was to give an indication of the requirements of an Affirmative Action Program and how the Equal ~loyment Opportunity Law read. Accountability should start with the City Council and work down and often it was found that Council Members were not aware of the full import of either EEO or Affirmative Action. Another concern was the enforcement aspect, and if aggressive action was not taken in this important area to enforce the program, then problems could arise with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission in terms of funding. He reiterated that if the City could justify that its personnel practices were fair and equal, with no tendancy to discriminate against minorities and women to cover the figures presented indicating non-compliance, there was nothing to be concerned about. If staff was saying they were in compliance, were reaching Affirmative Action goals, were comfort- able in terms of personnel practices and that the City could protect itself in any kind of review, there was nothing the Commission could say. Mr. Talley stated that he would be comfortable with any review that might be made, and also, anything that could be offered by HRC would be very helpful. Mayor Thom considered the meeting to be a productive one and expressed his hope that the Commission would avail itself of the opportunity to meet on a frequent and regularly scheduled basis with staff to review the program and, in turn, staff would pass the information on to the Council to keep them abreast of the matter and in order to continue strengthening the City's position on an ongoing basis. Mr. David suggested that the Affirmative Action Recruitment Specialist would need to be someone who would report directly to the City Manager to be truly effective, and asked the Council to consider that aspect. Councilwoman Kaywood stated, HRC had not considered the City's hiring freeze the past year down 101 employees and, in her opinion, there was an evident lack of communication between the Commission and City staff. Although the Council had to be approached to be certain they were aware of the implications and status of the program, in order to assure that Affirmative Action would be continually implemented, it had to be accomplished through staff, since the Council was subject to change every two years. Therefore, the working relationship had to be with the staff. ADJOURNMENT: Councilman Kott moved to adjourn. Councilman Roth seconded the motion. Councilman Seymour was absent. MOTION CARRIED. Adjourned: 12:05 P.M. LINDA D. ROBERTS, CITY CLERK 77-852 City Hall, Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - July 26~ 1977~ 1:30 P.M. The City Council of the City of Anaheim met in regular session. PRESENT: ABSENT: PRESENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Kaywood, Seymour (entered Council Chamber 3:15 P.M.), Kott, Roth and Thom COUNCIL MEMBERS: None CITY MANAGER: William O. Talley ASSISTANT CITY ATTORNEY: Frank Lowry CITY CLERK: Linda D. Roberts PARKS, RECREATIONS AND ARTS DIRECTOR: James Ruth ASSISTANT PLANNING DIRECTOR - PLANNING: Phil Schwartze ASSISTANT PLANNING DIRECTOR - ZONING: Annika Santalahti AUDIT SUPERVISOR: Young Choi Mayor Thom called the meeting to order and welcomed those in attendance to the Council meeting. INVOCATION: Reverend A. Braun of the Sunkist Baptist Church gave the Invocation. FLAG SALUTE: Councilman Don Roth led the assembly in the Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag. PROCLAMATION: The following proclamation was issued by Mayor Thom and approved by the City Council: "International Real Estate Appraisal Week" - week of August 1, 1977 RESOLUTION OF COMMENDATION: A Resolution of Commendation was adopted by the City Council to be presented to Mr. Ken Clements on the occasion of his retirement for his years of service as the City's Public Information Officer. MINUTES: On motion by Councilman Thom, seconded by Councilman Kott, minutes of the Anaheim City Council regular meetings held May 24, June 14 and June 21, 1977 and adjourned regular meetings held June 8 and 20, 1977 were approved subject to corrections on the meeting of May 24 and June 21, 1977. Councilman Roth abstained from voting on the minutes of June 20, 1977 only. Councilman Seymour was absent. MOTION CARRIED. WAIVER OF READING - ORDINANCES AND RESOLUTIONS: Councilwoman Kaywood moved to waive the reading, in full, of all ordinances and resolutions and that consent to the waiver of reading is hereby given by all Council Members unless, after reading of the title, specific request is made by a Council Member for the read- ing of such ordinance or resolution. Councilman Seymour was absent. Councilman Thom seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. FINANCIAL DEMANDS AGAINST THE CITY in the amount of $8,820,491.65, in accordance with the 1977-78 Budget, were approved. 173: TRANSPORTATION CENTER - DISNEYLAND/CONVENTION CENTER AREA: Mr. Ralph Clark, Orange County Supervisor and Chairman of the Board of Directors of the Orange County Transit District (OCTD), explained that the Transit District was developing a series of transportation centers throughout the County. 77-853 City Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - July 26~ 1977~ 1:30 P.M. Subsequent to a feasibility study conducted by a joint venture consultant, numerous meetings were held between staff of the Transit District, City staff, and interested industries in the City, and he was pleased to report' there was considerable interest in the project. Most important at this time, was a readiness on the part of Disneyland to plan a branch of their monorail system to the Transportation Center itself, thus representing a significant step in the development and a catalyst in moving forward because of the evident cooperation between government and private enterprise. Supervisor Clark then introduced Mr. Bob Hartwig, Manager of Planning of the OCTD, to give details regarding site selection progress. Mr. Bob Hartwig briefed the Council on the OCTD staff report dated July 18, 1977 which provided the background, progress to date, proposed funding, and site selection (Sites A through D), as well as an Interest Survey Response, Exhibit I, basically dealing with site preference of respondents; Exhibit II, Alternative Sites, depicting the specific locations of the six proposed sites; Exhibit III, Appraisal of Site Qualities, and Exhibit IV, Anaheim/Disneyland Area Lodging Map (report on file in the City Clerk's Office). He pointed out that the Interest Survey indicated a preference for Site D-modified (D-m) from six of the eleven respondents. Supervisor Clark stated in the opinion of the OCTD staff, City staff, and interested groups who had attended meetings relative to the Transportation Center thus far, Site D-modified was considered to be the one offering the best opportunities to service the Anaheim area and a key location for transfer of people coming to the area from the outside to participate in the City's tourist facilities. With the facility programming funds already approved, the OCTD Board was ready to proceed but did not want to do so without City Council approval, and he empha- sized the Board would appreciate a decision today. He then briefly explained the chronological steps that would be taken thereafter leading to an operative transportation center in 1981. Thus, Anaheim would be in a position to realize its potential as,being the main transportation cente= of the entire County. He, therefore, recommended approval of Site D-modified. Discussion followed wherein the Mayor explained that at a work session held with staff relative to the Transportation Center, it was felt that Site F merited very serious consideration if the City was ever to consider the merger of not only bus, but also rail and possibly helicopter-type service, in one facility such as proposed in the past when consideration was given to a multi-modal center. He still felt that Site F had distinct possibilities. Supervisor Clark stated that Site F was discussed, as Councilwoman Kaywood could confirm since she attended the meetings held at the Disneyland Hotel, and, at that time, there were a number of negatives to the proposal, such as the property's agricultural preserve status, the time element involved, and it was not an area where Disneyland would extend the monorail. Site D-modified presented an ideal situation for service of the Hotel, Convention Center and Disneyland area. Super- visor Clark then broached the situation relative to a possible railway link suitable basically only for Site A, as well as other possibilities including llnk-up to the Los Angeles System. In reality, however, these possibilities were.many years downstream and by then, an express-type bus system, instead of a rail system, might be more feasible. He maintained that today's needs merited first consider- ation and reiterated that all factions favored Site D-modified. 77-854 City Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - July 26~ ~,977~ 1:30 P.M. In answer to Councilman Roth, Supervisor Clark explained that although a number of parking spaces would be lost at the Convention Center with Site D-m these would be picked up on the south side of Site D, where an appropriate amount of land would need to be purchased to exchange for the space consumed by the Transpor- tation Center. At the time the matter was discussed, Stadium-Convention Center- Golf Director, Tom Liegler, stated that consideration must be given to a relocation of Convention Way to the south edge of Site D so that parking spaces would be provided contiguous to the Convention Center. Supervisor Clark further explained that the Convention Center could expand into that area and no encroachment would thus be involved. Instead, such a plan would be an en- hancement to the Convention Center. Councilwoman Kaywood explained that if Convention Way were relocated for Site D, it would leave a triangle of space in which the Quality Inn expressed interest for utilization as additional parking. The problem with Site F is the fact that a residential area existed around the northern portion and also, it was on the other side of Harbor Boulevard which was a heavily traveled street and difficult to cross. Site D-m with Site D to offset lost parking would have all of the advantages and none of the disadvantages and would afford walking dis- tance to the Convention Center, choice hotelrooms, and provide easier access to Disneyland across the less busy street. She thereupon offered a MOTION to approve Site D-m for the Transportation Center with Site D to offset lost parking spaces. Councilman Roth seconded the motion. Before a vote was taken, the Mayor stated he was not prepared to go ahead until more serious consideration was given to Site F, but he would defer to the wishes of the Council. In answer to Councilman Kott, Assistant Planning Director, Phil Schwartze, stated that both the Transit District and City Planning staff analyzed Site F which was included in the original study, but subsequently excluded. After a further analysis as a result of direction given by the Council at the recent joint work session, it was concluded, for a number of reasons, that Site F was not as acceptable as the other site alternatives. He then briefed the Council on those reasons. After further discussion between Council and staff, Mr. Schwartze stated that the only advantage to Site F was that unencumbered land would be available if there was an elaborate expansion of the Transportation Center. He also empha- sized that although Disneyland showed a great deal of interest relative to the center, they did not indicate they would construct or build a monorail without an in-depth study to explore the possibilities. Mr. Schwartze was of the opinion that Disneyland would not bear the entire cost of such a project. Supervisor Clark then elaborated for Councilman Kott the proposed funding, as outlined on page one of the July 18, 1977 staff report wherein, of the $3.1 million programmed for the Transportation Center Project, 83 percent would be federally funded and 17 percent locally funded. Relative to the realignment of Convention Way, Supervisor Clark explained that would be part and parcel of the development of the facility, and the cost would be included in the development charges. 77-855 City. Hall~ Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - July 26, 1977, 1:30 P.M. Mr. Hartwig explained that once the site was identified, there were four phases in the process, as outlined on Page two of the subject staff report, the last of which was the financial plan. Because it would be a joint development of both public and private enterprise, all costs would be developed and allocation of funds would be made according to the various parties participating in the pro- ject. Mayor Thom reiterated his understanding of the necessity to obtain an approval immediately; however, he was not in favor of proceeding without a formal state- ment by the Community Center Authority (CCA) stating that they concurred with the plan. He explained they had always been bitterly opposed to having any- thing planned near or around their property without their concurrence. Councilwoman Kaywood stated that what the Authority was concerned about the last time was the use of CCA funds to purchase the land, but if the City funded the purchase, then they had no objection. The Mayor differed in that opinion, stating that the CCA objected to land being taken for any use other than commercial. Supervisor Clark suggested that the approval be contingent upon approval by the Authority so that a site would be definitely established without the need for further discussions and decision-making because of the time schedule involved. Any delay could set the program back one to two years. The Mayor stated he would be willing to go ahead based on the Authority's com- plete concurrence. Councilwoman Kaywood agreed to amend her motion to approve Site D-modified and Site D to offset lost parking spaces, subject to the Community Center Authority's approval of the use. Councilman Roth was agreeable to the amendment. A vote was taken on the foregoing motion. Councilman Seymour was absent. MOTION CARRIED. 160: WAIVER OF FORMAL BID PROCESS - ONE 1500 GPM FIRE PUMPER: On motion by Council- man Kott, seconded by Councilman Thom, waiver of formal bidding procedure and use of informal bid procedure to purchase one 1500 GPM Fire Pumper, with opening of bids on September 1, 1977, as recommended in memorandum dated July 19, 1977 from the Purchasing Agent, was approved. Councilman Seymour was absent. MOTION CARRIED. 123: AMENDMENT TO RECREATION AGREEMENT WITH ORANGE UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT - SUMMER SWIM LESSON PROGRAM: Councilwoman Kaywood offered Resolution No. 77R-529 for adop- tion, as recommended in memorandum dated July 19, 1977 from James Ruth, Director of Parks, Recreation and the Arts Department. Refer to Resolution Book. RESOLUTION NO. 77R-529: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM APPROVING THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF AN AMENDMENT TO AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AND THE ORANGE UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT, AND AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR AND CITY CLERK TO EXECUTE SAID AMENDMENT TO AGREEMENT. 77-856 City Hall~ Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - July 26~ 1977~ 1:30 P.M. Roll Call Vote: AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Kaywood, Kott, Roth and Thom NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: None ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Seymour The Mayor declared Resolution No. 77R-529 duly passed and adopted. 153: ADJUSTMENT OF SALARY SCHEDULE FOR ASSISTANT UTILITIES DIRECTOR: Councilman Kott inquired as to the qualifications for an Assistant Utilities Director and, as well, if the applicant fulfilled the necessary requirements. City Manager Talley explained that he did not have the bulletin on the position with him, but the selection was made by the Utilities Director, and he concurred completely in that selection. He further explained that Mr. Hoyt had carried on an extensive recruitment process over many months searching for an administrative manager as opposed to an engineering type person. Although the applicant had not worked directly in Utilities, he possessed the qualities for the managerial aspects desired. Also, as questioned by Councilman Kott, there was no one in-house, in Mr. Hoyt's opinion, who had the superior qualifications to fill the position and it was he who made the offer. Councilwoman Kaywood interjected that Arthur Young and Company recommended that there be an assistant in the Utilities Department. Councilman Kott stated that in view of the tight Budget and, in his opinion, lack of experience and qualifications of the individual proposed for the position, he would have to offer a negative vote on the resolution which would adopt the rate of compensation in order to implement the City's offer to the new Assistant Utilities Director. RESOLUTION: Councilwoman Kaywood offered the proposed resolution for adoption. Before further action was taken, Councilman Kott elaborated that the individual was first brought on board and proposed as Finance Director. Upon checking his back- ground and as was known by the City Manager, he was removed from two prior positions because of incompetence and lack of ability. Thus, he did not get the position of Finance Director and was now being proposed as Assistant Utilities Director. Mr. Talley recommended that until a full Council vote could be taken, he would withdraw the item but continued that he did not formally submit the nomination for Finance Director. The reason for not doing so was a private discussion he (Talley) had with one member of the Council, who indicated he had strong personal feelings that would make it totally uncomfortable and ineffective for the proposed person to become a department head under those circumstances. Inasmuch as the position of Assistant Utilities Director would not require direct action with the Council, the applicant did not feel that personal or subjective prejudice would affect his function. Further discussion followed relative to the matter at the conclusion of which, City Manager Talley permanently withdrew the proposed resolution which was recom- mended in memorandum dated July 18, 1977 from Personnel Director Garry McRae. 77-857 City Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - July 26~ 1977~ 1:30 P.M. 153: CREATION OF NEW CLASS - UTILITIES FIELD SUPERINTENDENT: Mr. Talley referred to memorandum dated July 20, 1977 from the Personnel Director and explained that the proposed new job class and rate of compensation for Utilities Field Superintendent, effective July 22, 1977, was another part of the reorganization previously discussed with the Council which was included in the Budget. He assumed that when the Council accepted the reorganization they concurred in the conclusion, however, he withdrew the proposed resolution at this time. Later in the meeting, following a brief explanation, Councilman Seymour offered Resolution No. 77R-538 for adoption, creating a new job class of Utilities Field Superintendent and rate of compensation therefor. RESOLUTION NO. 77R-538: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AMENDING RESOLUTION NO. 76R-736 AND ESTABLISHING RATES OF COMPENSATION FOR UTILITIES FIELD SUPERINTENDENT. Roll Call Vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: COUNCIL MEMBERS: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Kaywood, Seymour, Kott, Roth and Thom None None The Mayor declared Resolution No. 77R-538 duly passed and adopted. 153: CREATION OF NEW CLASSES - WATER QUALITY LA~ORATORY: Councilman Thom offered Resolution No. 77R-530 for adoption, as recommended in memorandum dated July 20, 1977 from the Personnel Director, effective July 22, 1977, and as concurred with in a letter dated July 18, 1977 from the Anaheim Municipal Employees Association. Refer to Resolution Book. RESOLUTION NO. 77R-530: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AMENDING RESOLUTION NO. 76R-680 AND CREATING NEW JOB CLASSES AND RATES OF PAY. Roll Call Vote: AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Kaywood, Roth and Thom NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Kott ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Seymour The Mayor declared Resolution No. 77R-530 duly passed and adopted. 115: CIVIC CENTER - FINAL CHOICE OF EXTERIOR TREATMENT: Mr. Dan L. Rowland of Dan L. Rowland and Associates, 1000 West La Palma, explained that Mr. Rose of LeRoy Rose and Associates was also present relative to the subject matter. He then presented three sketches, Exhibit "A", "B" and "C" pointing out that Exhibit "A", the vertical reflection pool design was the same plan originally designed for the City. The concept was not to absorb energy, but reflect it. The exterior of the building (Exhibit "A") was made up of 49.4 percent reflective material and 50.6 percent concrete. Of the original vision glass, 30.2 percent was vision and 19.2 percent of the reflective areas non-vision. In both designs presented as viable alternatives, the vision glass was reduced to 18.8 percent and the non-vision to 1 percent; total glass area being 19.8 percent and the bulk of a non-reflective surfaces made up of steel and concrete 80.2 percent. He commented that it was interesting to note the changes that were made relative to Title XXV of the State 77-858 .City Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - ~qly 26, 1977, 1:30 P.M. Energy Conservation Act for a building of the size indicated treating all elevations equally, it would be entitled to approximately 35 percent of the surface in vision glass. Their original design was 30.2 percent; thus, the building had anticipated by some four years the energy conservation element of the State plan. He then briefly elaborated on the three proposed designs and pointed out that costs were essentially the same for all. Further discussion followed between Mr. Rowland and the Council relative to some technical aspects at the conclusion of which, the Mayor indicated his preference for Exhibit "A", the original design concept, and the one which Mr. Rowland also preferred, as he expressed upon questioning by the Mayor. On motion by Councilman Thom, seconded by Councilman Roth, the original reflective glass concept for the exterior treatment of the civic center (Exhibit "A") was approved. Councilman Seymour was absent. MOTION CARRIED. 123 AND 170: REIMBURSEMENT COSTS FOR SPECIAL WATER FACILITIES - TRACT NO. 8465: (Robert P. Warmington Company) Councilman Kott offered Resolution No. 77R-531 for adoption as recommended in memorandum dated July 18, 1977 from the Utilities Depart- ment. (Agreement effective for 30 years - $37,860) Refer to Resolution Book. RESOLUTION NO. 77R-531: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM APPROVING THE TERMS OF AN AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AND ROBERT P. WARMINGTON COMPANY IN CONNECTION WITH REIMBURSEMENT OF COSTS FOR SPECIAL WATER FACILITIES (TRACT 8465), AND AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR AND CITY CLERK TO EXECUTE SAID AGREEMENT. Roll Call Vote: AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Kaywood, Kott, Roth and Thom NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: None ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Seymour The Mayor declared Resolution No. 77R-531 duly passed and adopted. 142, 164 & 170: ORDINANCE NO. 3743 - RELATING TO SUBDIVISIONS, CONSTRUCTION AND REIMBURSEMENT OF DRAINAGE AND SANITARY SEWER FACILITIES: Assistant City Attorney Frank Lowry explained that the proposed ordinance was an urgency ordinance and in the past the required action had always been done by resolution. However, pursuant to recent changes in the State Subdivision Map Act, the change must be accomplished by ordinance and subsequently a resolution adopted establishing fees. The ordinance would become effective immediately, and Mr. Lowry clarified for Councilwoman Kaywood that the new fees would be collected on any project submitted after 8:00 A.M. the next day. Developments already being processed through the City would be charged at the old fee schedule, thus affecting only newly initiated projects. Ordinance No. 3743, repealing and adding Sections to Title 17, Chapter 17.08, Sections 17.08.400 through 17.08.440, relating to subdivisions, construction and reimbursement of drainage and sanitary sewer facilities, and declaring urgency thereof, was read aloud in its entirety by the City Clerk. Councilman Roth offered Ordinance No. 3743 for adoption. 77-859 City Hall~ Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - July 26~ 1977~ 1:30 P.M. ORDINANCE NO. 3743: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM REPEALING SECTIONS 17.08.400, 17.08.410, 17.08.420, 17.08.425, 17.08.430, AND 17.08.440 OF TITLE 17, CHAPTER 17.08 OF THE ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE AND ADDING NEW SECTIONS 17.08.400, 17.08.410, 17.08.420, 17.08.425, 17.08.430, AND 17.08.440 IN THEIR PLACE AND STEAD RELATING TO SUBDIVISIONS AND DECLARING THE URGENCY THEREOF. Roll Call Vote: AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Kaywood, Kott, Roth and Thom NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: None ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Seymour The Mayor declared Ordinance No. 3743 duly passed and adopted. Councilman Thom offered Resolution No. 77R-532 for adoption establishing new drainage fees. Refer to Resolution Book. RESOLUTION NO. 77R-532: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM ESTABLISHING DRAINAGE FEES. Roll Call Vote: AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Kaywood, Kott, Roth and Thom NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: None ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Seymour The Mayor declared Resolution No. 77R-532 duly passed and adopted. 123 AND 163: STATUS REPORT - CONSTRUCTION OF ANAHEIM HILLS ELEMENTARY SCHOOL: In answer to a previous Council request, Mr. Lowry gave an oral status report on the settlement agreement between the City of Anaheim and the Orange Unified School District (OUSD) relative to the construction of the Anaheim Hills Elementary School. He verified that school construction had ceased~at present, but explained that the agreement provided that once construction started, completion had to be accomplished in two years. Construction began on December 11, 1976 and in his conversation with the OUSD, he was assured that the school would be completed before December 11, 1977 and not the following year. This would be well within the time frame authorized by the settlement agreement. He was also assured personally that the District wanted the school opened by February 1, 1978 for their own needs and would be completed by one means or another. In answer to Councilwoman Kaywood, Mr. Lowry clarified that construction had presently stopped, but was expected to start in approximately three weeks as they were awaiting an EDA Grant. 178: METROPOLITAN WATER DISTRICT ACTIVITIES RELATIVE TO THE CITY OF ANAHEIM: Mr. Keith Murdoch, the City's representative to the Metropolitan Water District Board (MWD) briefed the Council on detailed report dated July 11, 1977, in "Report to City Council Concerning MWD Activities", on file in the City Clerk's Office. Of particular importance and a point on which Mr. Murdoch elaborated, working from the City's General Plan Map, was Orange County Feeder No. 2 discussed in detail on Page 4 of the subject report, both its historiCal background, and its present and future role in the MWD's overall capabilities to serve their constituent agency; 77-860 City Ha_~l, Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - July 26~ 1977~ 1:30 P.M. the thrust of the presentation being the recommendation that Anaheim favorably consider selling their Orange County Feeder No. 2 capacity to MWD when terms and conditions were acceptable to both. The Mayor referred to the statement in the report indicating that the sale of the feeder would most benefit the newly developing southern portion of Orange County. It was his opinion that in the City's perceptiveness 15 to 18 years prior when it bought a capacity in the cooperative line, there was not a great deal of value attached to that capacity to the southern portion of the County. Thus, he suggested that the City and it's taxpayers should benefit from the proposal of sale and, instead of the approximate $600,000 initial purchase price, the sale price should be consider- ably higher. He maintained there must be benefit to someone to repurchase Anaheim's capacity, otherwise no such proposal would have been made. Mr. Murdoch stated if there was an opportunity to obtain some type of profit on the sale of the line, there was no reason why Anaheim or others should not take advantage of the opportunity. However, it was a situation where there were many options. Because there was unused capacity in that line, which very likely would continue for a number of years, the southerly portion of the County could most benefit because they currently did not have more capacity available to them. An option they would have in the same cost area would be to purchase capacity in the Orange County Feeder which would be run up to the Santiago Line. Anaheim would be adversely affected more by having additional connections to the Santiago Line than by relinquishing capacity in an area where it was not used currently in Feeder No. 2. The benefit to the southern portion of the County was the time frame and not actual dollar value. The difficulty presented, as Mr. Murdoch viewed the matter, was how the City could sell directly because Anaheim's reach was the first reach and those who needed the water were well down the line and would have to buy from all capacity owners. Councilman Kott contended if the City sold its ownership in Feeder No. 2 to someone who may or may not use it, it would not be in the best interest of Anaheim, and he did not feel that the recommendation to sell a commodity of vital importance to the community was justified especially at the same price the City paid for it fifteen years earlier, minus depreciation. Mr. Murdoch assured Councilman Kott that he was working in the best interest of the people of Anaheim and not the MWD. He also clarified that the MWD staff recom- mended purchasing the capacity at today's replacement cost, less depreciation. Al- though he recognized why there was such a reaction to the proposal of selling something that was of value, he maintained there was a fallacy in the assumption; the feeder was not a source and all that was being discussed was capacity ownership in a specific line and, ultimately, the water had to first get to that line. If there was a shortage of water necessitating a cutback to the minimum, it would be based upon the percentage of assessed valuation the City had in the entire system and had nothing to do with capacity ownership in any given line. The obligation was an overall system obligation. The reason it was purchased in the first place was due to the fact that at the time MWD felt the capacity of the existing lines was sufficient to provide the needs of the existing constituents, basically Santa Ana, Anaheim, Coastal Municipal District and the newly formed Orange County Municipal Water District. There was an exclusion, however, from~any requirement to serve additional lines. If the line was to be built to serve the needs of the constituent agencies, then they would have to participate to whatever extent they felt was of benefit to them. MWD refused to build the line unless the four constituents paid for a portion they felt met their line capacity requirements. 77-861 · City Hall, Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - July 26~ 1977~ 1:30 P.M. Councilman Kott stressed that he would be opposed to the sale of that line unless the price was right. Mr. Murdoch explained that the proposal was based on the same type of formula used by the Public Utilities Commission or any other agency when going through condemna- tion action on lines -- replacement costs, less depreciation. He noted that the report also suggested that no action be taken until it was known what the agreement would contain in actuality as there were some factors that involved the possibility of a new line now being discussed by various agencies, including Anaheim. Further discussion followed between Mr. Murdoch and the Council relative to the proposal's further implications, at the conclusion of which, Mr. Murdoch pointed out that the source of water was the same in all instances and the only option under the present circumstances that the south County would be barred from was Feeder No. 2; otherwise, there was the Santiago Line, the Feeder line running along the Santa Ana River or the original Orange County Feeder. He contended there would be no ultimate disadvantage in the proposal. The water was the same but spread thinner no matter what course would be chosen. The Mayor reiterated that if they were proposing to tap to another source, but it was more economically viable to tap to Anaheim's source, then the City should receive benefit accordingly. Councilman Roth stated all that was being discussed was the subject report and no action could be taken until the MWD Board submitted specific recommendations. Facts and figures could then be discussed at that time. He considered it foolish on behalf of the Council to force the Board to construct a new line when the City had more than an adequate capacity with the opportunity to get reimbursed for a capital investment made 15 years earlier. Mr. Murdoch confirmed that the obligation of the MWD was first to serve the original agencies in Orange County, which included Anaheim, so whatever occurred with Feeder No. 2 or the original Orange County Feeder, the ability to serve those agencies was first priority relative to existing lines or any subsequent lines that might be built on the basis of an agreement between the agencies. RECESS: By general consent, the City Council recessed for 5 minutes. Council- man Seymour was absent. (3:10 P.M.) Councilman Seymour entered the Council Chamber. (3:15 P.M.) AFTER RECESS: Mayor Thom called the meeting to order, all Council Members being present. (3:15 P.M.) PUBLIC HEARING - RECLASSIFICATION NO. 76-77-59 AND VARIANCE NO. 2944: Application by Robert D. and Haroldene V. Wiens, for a change in zone from RS-A-43,000 to RM-1200, to construct a 21-unit apartment complex with code waiver of maximum building height on property located on the south side of 0rangewood Avenue, west of Spinnaker Street. The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC77-137 recommended that the subject project be declared exempt from the requirement to prepare an environ- mental impact report pursuant to the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act and, further, recommended that Reclassification No. 76-77-59 be approved subject to the following conditions: 77-862 City Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - July 26, 1977~ 1:30 P.M. 1. That the owner(s) of subject property shall deed to the City of Anaheim a strip of land forty-five (45) feet in width from the certerline of the street along Orange- wood Avenue for street widening purposes. 2. That all engineering requirements of the City of Anaheim along Orangewood Avenue, including preparation of improvement plans and installation of all improvements such as curbs and gutters, sidewalks, street grading and paving, drainage facilities or other appurtenent work, shall be complied with as required by the City Engineer and in accordance with standard specifications on file in the Office of the Director of Public Utilities; and/or that a bond, certificate of deposit, letter of credit, or cash, in an amount and form satisfactory to the City of Anaheim shall be posted with the City to guarantee the installation of the above-mentioned requirements. 3. That the owner(s) of subject property shall pay to the City of Anaheim the sum of sixty cents (60¢) per front foot along Orangewood Avenue for tree planting purposes. 4. That trash storage areas shall be provided in accordance with approved plans on file with the Office of the Director of Public Works. 5. That the curb located adjacent to the trash enclosure area fronting on Orange- wood Avenue shall be painted red to prohibit on-street parking which may interfere with trash collection, subject to the review and approval of the Streets and Sanitation Division. 6. That fire hydrants shall be installed and charged as required and determined to be necessary by the Chief of the Fire Department prior to commencement of structural framing. 7. That subject property shall be served by underground utilities. 8. That a six- (6) foot masonry wall shall be constructed along the east, south and west property lines. 9. That drainage of subject property shall be disposed of in a manner satisfactory to the City Engineer. 10. That the owner(s) of subject property shall pay to the City of Anaheim the appropriate park and recreation in-lieu fees, as determined to be appropriate by the City Council, said fees to be paid at the time the building permit is issued. 11. In the event that subject property is to be divided for the purpose of sale, lease or financing, a parcel map, to record the approved division of subject property, shall be submitted to and approved by the City of Anaheim and then be recorded in the Office of the Orange County Recorder. 12. Prior to the introduction of an ordinance rezoning subject property, Condition Nos. 1, 2 and 3, above-mentioned, shall be completed. The provisions or rights granted by this resolution shall become null and void by action of the City Council unless said conditions are complied with within one year from the date hereof, or such further time as the City Council may grant. 13. That Condition Nos. 4, 5, 7, 8 and 9, above-mentioned, shall be complied with prior to final building and zoning inspections. 77-863 ~ity Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - July 26~ 1977, 1:30 P.M. The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC77-138 granted Variance No. 2944 subject to the following conditions: 1. That this Variance is granted subject to the completion of Reclassification No. 76-77-59, now pending. 2. That subject property shall be developed substantially in accordance with plans and specifications on file with the City of Anaheim marked Exhibit No. 1, 2 and 3. Miss Santalahti described the location and surrounding land uses. She outlined the findings given in the staff report which was submitted to and considered by the City Planning Commission. The Mayor asked if the Applicant or Applicant's Agent was present and desirous of being heard. Mr. Robert Wiens, applicant, 7536 Vista Del Sol, indicated he was satisfied with the recommendations of the Planning Commission. The Mayor asked if anyone wished to speak either in favor or in opposition. Mr. Gerald Ghelfi, 4542 Simmons, Orange, explained that he was speaking not only on his behalf, but also on behalf of friends in Anaheim who could not be present. He explained that he and those in his neighborhood lived in a small residential area bordering Anaheim and sandwiched in between Anaheim and Orange. The main concerns expressed relative to the proposed project were: (1) The very high density of apartments in the surrounding area. (2) The lack of park area with only one presently existing in the locale having to accommodate the saturation of population. (3) The existing park had a history of problems with the police and was an alleged drug drop-off. (4) The density of the proposed project should be reduced. There being no further persons who wished to speak, the Mayor closed the public hearing. Councilwoman Kaywood questioned Miss Santalahti relative to the 3-2 vote of the Planning Commission approving the Variance. Miss Santalahti explained that because there was previous opposition to an apart- ment complex developed to the west, when the presentation of the subject project was made at the Planning Commission meeting, some of the Commissioners recalled the problems that were revealed on the previous project and it was her opinion that situation was in the mind of the Commissioners who voted "No". The Mayor interjected that the Council was aware of the fact that another project was being proposed in the same general vicinity Presently receiving a great deal of citizen opposition. However, in light of the absence of any Anaheim citizen opposi- tion in this case, he would not have a problem in approving the project. 77-864 City Hall~ Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - July 26~ 1977~ 1:30 P.M. Further discussion followed with staff relative to Councilman Seymour's question on landscape buffering which was less than that usually required and whether or not the parking spaces abutting the buffer area were open or closed. Mr. Tom Drummond, designer of the project, further explained that the reason the Planning Commission agreed to a five-foot buffer was due to the proposed placement of trees, as well as the fact that there was a 20-foot driveway providing a buffer, as well as a carport wall. Only three spaces would be open. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT - NEGATIVE DECLARATION: On motion by Councilman Kott, seconded by Councilman Roth, the City Council finds that this project will have no significant effect ~n the environment since the Anaheim General Plan designates the subject property for low-medium density residential land use commensurate with the proposal; that similar apartments have been developed on the north side of Orangewood Avenue; that no sensitive environmental elements are involved in the proposal and the project is, therefore, exempt from the requirement to prepare an environmental impact report. MOTION CARRIED. Councilman Kott offered Resolution No. 77R-533 for adoption authorizing the prepara- tion of the necessary ordinance changing the. zone as requested, and Resolution No. 77R-534 for adoption granting Variance No. 2944, subject to the recommendations of the City Planning Commission. Refer to Resolution Book. RESOLUTION NO. 77R-533: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM FINDING AND DETERMINING THAT TITLE 18 OF THE ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO ZONING SHOULD BE AMENDED AND THAT THE BOUNDARIES OF CERTAIN ZONES SHOULD BE CHANGED. (76-77-59, RM-1200) RESOLUTION NO. 77R-534: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM GRANTING VARIANCE NO. 2944. Roll Call Vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: COUNCIL MEMBERS: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Kott, Roth and Thom Kaywood and Seymour None The Mayor declared Resolution Nos. 77R-533 and 77R-534 duly passed and adopted. Councilman Seymour explained his "No" vote stating that he did not oppose the project, but his concern was with the extremely high crime rate in the entire subject area. He contended that unless the Council was willing to answer the need for additional police enforcement in the area or effect other measures to bring the situation in hand, adding density was just going to worsen the problem. PUBLIC HEARING - RECLASSIFICATION NO. 76-77-61: Application by David R. Roberdes and Richard L. Walker, for a change in zone from CL to RM-1200 on property located at 430 North Tustin Avenue. The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC77-139 recommended that the subject project be declared exempt from the requirement to prepare an environ- mental impact report pursuant to the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act and, further, recommended that Reclassification Np. 76-77-61 be approved subject to the following conditions: 77-865 City Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - July 26~ 1977~ 1:30 P.M. 1. That the owner(s) of subject property shall deed to the City of Anaheim a strip of land fifty-three (53) feet in width from the centerline of the street along Tustin Avenue for street widening purposes; and shall provide a level surface prior to exiting into Tustin Avenue to improve visibility. 2. That all engineering requirements of the City of Anaheim along Tustin Avenue and Riverdale Avenue, including preparation of improvement plans and installation of all improvements such as curbs and gutters, sidewalks, street grading and paving, drainage facilities or other appurtenent work, shall be complied with as required by the City Engineer and in accordance with standard plans and specifications on file in the Office of the City Engineer; that street lighting facilities along Tustin Avenue and Riverdale Avenue shall be installed as required by the Director of Public Utilities; and/or that a bond, certificate of deposit, letter of credit, or cash, in an amount and form satisfactory to the City of Anaheim shall be posted with the City to guarantee the installation of the above-mentioned requirements. 3. That the owner(s) of subject property shall pay to the City of Anaheim the sum of sixty cents (60¢) per front foot along Tustin Avenue and Riverdale Avenue for tree planting purposes. 4. That trash storage areas shall be provided in accordance with approved plans on file with the Office of the Director of Public Works. 5. That fire hydrants shall be installed and charged as required and determined to be necessary by the Chief of the Fire Department prior to commencement of structural framing. 6. That subject property shall be served by underground utilities. 7. That drainage of subject property shall be disposed of in a manner satisfactory to the City Engineer. 8. That the developer shall obtain a favorable flood hazard letter, acceptable to the City of Anaheim, from the Orange County Flood Control District. 9. That the owner(s) of subject property shall pay to the City of Anaheim the appropriate park and recreation in-lieu fees, as determined to be appropriate by the City Council, said fees to be paid at the time the building permit is issued. 10. That grading, excavation, and all other construction activities shall be con- ducted in such a manner so as to minimize the possibility of any silt originating from this project being carried into the Santa Ana River by storm water originating from or flowing through this project. 11. That appropriate water assessment fees, as determined by the Director of Public Utilities, shall be paid to the City of Anaheim prior to the issuance of a building permit. 12. That the vehicular access rights, except at approved access points to Tustin Avenue and Riverdale Avenue, shall be dedicated to the City of Anaheim. 77-866 ~ity Hall~ .Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - July 26~ 1977~ 1:30 P.M. 13. That subject property shall be developed substantially in accordance with plans and specifications on file with the City of Anaheim marked Exhibit No. 1, 2 and 3. 14. That subject property shall be developed in accordance with Council Policy No. 542 pertaining to sound attenuation in residential projects. 15. That the owner(s) of subject property shall request, in written form, termina- tion of Variance No. 2747. 16. Prior to the introduction of an ordinance rezoning subject property, Condition Nos. 1, 2, 3, 8, 12 and 15, above-mentioned, shall be completed. The provisions or rights by this resolution shall become null and void by action of the City Council unless said conditions are complied with within one year from the date hereof, or such further time as the City Council may grant. 17. That Condition Nos. 4, 6, 7, 13 and 14, above-mentioned, shall be complied with prior to final building and zoning inspections. Miss Santalahti described the location and surrounding land uses. She outlined the findings given in the staff report which was submitted to and considered by the City Planning Commission. The Mayor asked if the Applicant or Applicant's Agent was present and desirous of being heard. Mr. John Cowles, 18616 Vallerta Drive, Huntington Beach, Agent for the applicant, stated he was in complete agreement with the recommendations and conditions of the Planning Commission and added that the project was a unique one in light of the configuration of the parcel. He also presented a rendering of the project and explained its many amenities which, in his opinion, made it aesthetically pleasing and an enhancement to the surrounding community. There being no further persons who wished to speak, the Mayor closed the public hearing. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT - NEGATIVE DECLARATION: On motion by Councilman Seymour, seconded by Councilwoman Kaywood, the City Council finds that this project will have no significant effect on the environment since the Anaheim General Plan designates the subject property for low-medium density residential land use commensurate with the proposal and is, therefore, exempt from the requirement to prepare an Environ- mental Impact Report. MOTION CARRIED. Councilman Seymour offered Resolution No. 77R-535 for adoption authorizing the preparation of the necessary ordinance changing the zone as requested, subject to the conditions recommended by the City Planning Commission. Refer to Resolution Book. RESOLUTION NO. 77R-535: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM FINDING AND DETERMINING THAT TITLE 18 OF THE ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO ZONING SHOULD BE AMENDED AND THAT THE BOUNDARIES OF CERTAIN ZONES SHOULD BE CHANGED. (76-77-61, RM-1200) I1 ? I ~ 77-867 City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - July 26~ 1977~ 1:30 P.M. Roll Call Vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: COUNCIL MEMBERS: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Kaywood, Seymour, Kott, Roth and Thom None None The Mayor declared Resolution No. 77R-535 duly passed and adopted. PUBLIC HEARING - RECLASSIFICATION NO. 76-77-62: Application by Texaco-Anaheim Hills, Inc., for a change in zone from RS-A-43,000(SC) to RS-HS-22,000 (SC) on property l~cated west of the terminus of Swallow Way and bounded on the south by Anaheim Hills Golf Course. The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC77-141 recommended that the subject project be declared exempt from the requirement to prepare an environmental impact report pursuant to the provisions of the California Environ- mental Quality Act and, further, recommended that Reclassification No. 76-77-62 be approved subject to the following conditions: 1. That subject property shall be served by underground utilities. 2. That drainage of subject property shall be disposed of in a manner satisfactory to the City Engineer. 3. That the owner(s) of subject property shall pay to the City of Anaheim the appropriate park and recreation in-lieu fees, as determined to be appropriate by the City Council, said fees to be paid at the time the building permit is issued. Miss Santalahti described the location and surrounding land uses. She outlined the findings given in the staff report which was submitted to and considered by the City Planning Commission. The Mayor asked if the Applicant or Applicant's 'Agent was present and desirous of being heard. Mr. Philip Bettencourt, representing Anaheim Hills, Inc., identified the subject property from a map and showed its precise location, explaining that it was a magnificent and unusual estate-lot parcel designed for only one home. There being no further persons who wished to speak, the Mayor closed the public hearing. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT - NEGATIVE DECLARATION: On motion by Councilwoman Kaywoood, seconded by Councilman Roth, the City Council finds that this project will have no significant effect on the environment since the Anaheim General Plan designates the subject property for low density residential land use commen- surate with the proposal; that no sensitive environmental elements are involved in the proposal and is, therefore, exempt from the requirement to prepare an Environmental Impact Report. MOTION CARRIED. Councilwoman Kaywood offered Resolution No. 77R-536 for adoption authorizing the preparation of the necessary ordinance changing the zone as requested, subject to the conditions recommended by the City Planning Commission. Refer to Resolution Book. 77-868 City Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - July 26~ 1977~ 1:30 P.M. RESOLUTION NO. 77R-536: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM FINDING AND DETERMINING THAT TITLE 18 OF THE ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO ZONING SHOULD BE AMENDED AND THAT THE BOUNDARIES OF CERTAIN ZONES SHOULD BE CHANGED. (76-77-62, RS-HS-22,000) Roll Call Vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: COUNCIL MEMBERS: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Kaywood, Seymour, Kott, Roth and Thom None None The Mayor declared Resolution No. 77R-536 duly passed and adopted. PUBLIC HEARING - RECLASSIFICATION NO. 76-77-65 AND TENTATIVE TRACT NO. 9960: Application by Joseph P. Gleason, for a change in zone from CL to RS-5000 for a 16-lot subdivision on property located at the south side of Ball Road and west of Oakhaven Drive. The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC77-145 recommended that the subject project be declared exempt from the requirement to prepare an environmental impact report pursuant to the provisions of the California Environ- mental Quality Act and, further, recommended that Reclassification No. 76-77-65 be approved subject to the following conditions with the waiver of Council Policy No. 542 (sound attenuation): 1. That subject property shall be served by underground utilities. 2. That drainage of subject property shall be disposed of in a manner satisfactory to the City Engineer. 3. That the owner(s) of subject property shall pay to the City of Anaheim the appropriate park and recreation in-lieu fees, as determined to be appropriate by the City Council, said fees to be paid at the time the building permit is issued. 4. That a final tract map of subject property shall be submitted to and approved by the City Council and then be recorded in the Office of the Orange County Recorder, prior to issuance of building permits. 5. That, in accordance with Council Policy No. 542, sound-attenuation measures shall be provided on Lot Nos. 7, 8 and 9 located near the railroad tracks to the south of subject property, unless otherwise approved by the City Council. 6. That Condition Nos. 4 and 5, above-mentioned, shall be complied with prior to final building and zoning inspections. Miss Santalahti described the location and surrounding land uses. She outlined the findings given in the staff report which was submitted to and considered by the City Planning Commission and also explained that a letter was received from the railway company in support of the petitioner. 77-869 City Hall~ Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - July 26~ 1977~ 1:30 P.M. Miss Santalahti further stated that subsequent to the Commission's consideration, staff discussed as an alternative the possibility that although the subject street had a 50-foot overall right-of-way, the curb-to-curb width would be similar to a 54-foot street by deleting a parkway on one side which would be the sidewalk in this case. The no-parking restriction was a solution relative to the concern over adequate room for emergency vehicles. Because of an abutting hospital on one side, there was a possibility that a sidewalk would not be fully necessary and by deleting the sidewalk on one side of the street, curb-to-curb width could be widened, thus making a 54-foot street. The Mayor asked if the Applicant or Applicant's Agent was present and desirous of being heard. Mr. Bill Rousy, 9942 Central Avenue, Garden Grove, stated that relative to the sound attenuation, what they requested in that regard was to still run an 8-foot wall between the residents and the railroad tracks; the level of the railroad track presently being approximately 18 inches over ground level. They could make a study on the noise if they could find out when the trains would be going by. In answer to Councilman Roth, Mr. Rousy indicated that no parking would be acceptable along the entrance area because it would serve no purpose on one side. There was a parking lot at the medical building on one side and a parking lot for the hospital on the other, thus one side would be ample. Further discussion followed relative to the parking wherein Miss Santalahti explained that the Commission's recommendation was no parking on either side based on the curb- to-curb width of the street. However, if the curb-to-curb was widened, there would be adequate on-site space because it would match the remainder of the street which, to the south, was 54 feet. In that case, parking would be permitted the entire length of the street because the street would be wider than discussed at the Planning Commission meeting. In essence, this would allow parking on both sides of the street and a sidewalk only on one side. Mr. Rousy felt that street parking was not needed in the area and he was amenable to going either way. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT - NEGATIVE DECLARATION: On motion by Councilman Roth, seconded by Councilman Seymour, the City Council finds that this project will have no significant effect on the environment since the Anaheim General Plan designates the subject property for general commercial uses commensurate with the proposal and since the adjacent land uses consisting of residential uses, commercial uses, a hospital and elementary school are also commensurate with the proposal; the project is, therefore, exempt from the requirement to prepare an environmental impact report. MOTION CARRIED. Councilman Roth offered Resolution No. 77R-537 for adoption authorizing the prepara- tion of the necessary ordinance changing the zone as requested, subject to the conditions recommended by the City Planning Commission, including the removal of a sidewalk on one side and permitted parking on both sides of the street. Refer to Resolution --- Book. 77-870 City Hall~ Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - July 26, 1977~ 1:30 P.M. RESOLUTION NO. 77R-537: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM FINDING AND DETERMINING THAT TITLE 18 OF THE ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO ZONING SHOULD BE AMENDED AND THAT THE BOUNDARIES OF CERTAIN ZONES SHOULD BE CHANGED. (76-77-65, RS-5000) Roll Call Vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: COUNCIL MEMBERS: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Kaywood, Seymour, Kott, Roth and Thom None None The Mayor declared Resolution No. 77R-537 duly passed and adopted. TENTATIVE MAP - TRACT NO. 9960: On motion by Councilman Roth, seconded by Council- man Seymour, the proposed subdivision, Tentative Map, Tract No. 9960, together with its design and improvement, was found to be consistent with the City's General Plan, and the City Council approved said Tentative Map subject to the following conditions recommended by the City Planning Commission with waiver of Council Policy No. 542 pertaining to Lot Nos. 7, 8 and 9 and amendment to Condi- tion No. 9 as stated below. 1. That the approval of Tentative Map of Tract No. 9960 is granted subject to the approval of Reclassification No. 76-77-65. 2. That should this subdivision be developed as more than one subdivision, each subdivision thereof shall be submitted in tentative form for approval. 3. That all lots within this tract shall be served by underground utilities. 4. That a final tract map of subject property shall be submitted to and approved by the City Council and then be recorded in the Office of the Orange County Recorder. 5. That street names shall be approved by the City Planning Department prior to approval of a final tract map. 6. That drainage of subject property shall be disposed of in a manner satisfactory to the City Engineer. 7. That the owner(s) of subject property shall pay to the City of Anaheim the appropriate park and recreation in-lieu fees, as determined to be appropriate by the City Council, said fees to be paid at the time the building permit is issued. 8. If permanent street name signs have not been installed, temporary street name signs shall be installed prior to any occupancy. 9. That the proposed Street "A" shall be a minimum 54-foot wide easement with 40-foot distance curb-to-curb, except the 210 feet adjacent to the medical build- ing located on the northwest corner of subject property which will have a 50-foot wide easement with a 40-foot curb-to-curb travelway. MOTION CARRIED. 77-871 City Hall~ Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - July 26~ 1977~ 1:30 P.M. 105: APPOINTMENT TO PROJECT AREA COMMITTEE: On motion by Councilwoman Kaywood, seconded by Councilman Seymour, the appointment to fill an unexpired term on the Project Area Committee ending June 30, 1978, was continued one week. MOTION CARRIED. 108: ROOM TAX AUDIT - HOWARD WEEKLY CORPORATION AND VILLAGE INN: Mr. Cecil Wright, 60 Plaza, Orange, Attorney representing the individuals and companies involved in the assessment, stated that he did meet with staff relative to the matter and understood that Mr. Lowry, Assistant City Attorney, was to present the resultant staff report. Mr. Lowry referred to a report directed to the City Manager .stating that Mr. Wright made a proposal to settle the matter with a payment of 6 percent tax on the basic room charge for all renters at the Village Inn, 1911 East Center Street, Casa Cordova, 3360 West Lincoln Avenue, Casa Monterey, 2748 West Lincoln Avenue, and Casa Valencia, 2630 West Lincoln Avenue, regardless of length of occupancy including application for reclassification of the subject property, a discontinuance of all advertising as a motel, and rental for periods of not less than 30 days. The report was satis- factory to the City Attorney's Office, but they were basically not in favor of the reclassification portion since such decisions were up to the Planning Commission. His office did, however, recognize certain problems in connection with the applicable ordinance and felt that Mr. Wright had some legal points relative to the way the City's ordinance was drafted. Presently amendments to the ordinance were in process to eliminate those problems. Councilman Seymour wanted clarification that, in fact, what Mr. Lowry stated, if Mr. Wright were to take the City to court to challenge the penalties assessed under the existing ordinance, that he (Wright) would probably prevail, thus it would be in the best interest of the City to settle the matter. Mr. Lowry explained that it was not his opinion that the City's ordinance was invalid, but contained similar provisions as those involved in a case in Bakersfield and sub- sequently their ordinance was invalidated. However, only slight amendments to Anaheim's ordinance were necessary to correct the deficiencies. He did not feel the City would lose a law suit on that basis, but it appeared that some type of settlement would be better than litigation. Councilwoman Kaywood expressed her concern with the situation as she recalled clearly when the proposal originally was submitted, there was no question that the develop- ment was for motels and merely because they contained kitchen units in every room, they would not be used for apartments, the units were now renting by the week or by the month. In fact, she had phoned one of them recently looking for accommoda- tions for overnight guests and was informed there were no overnight rentals, but it was a technicality that their establishment had to be listed as a motel when in actuality it was an apartment. She had no sympathy in the matter and noted too that there was insufficient parking for the sub-standard apartments. Councilman Roth stated that the kind of discussion taking place was clouding the issue because it was clear that 99 percent of the people who were in motels or hotels were well aware the ordinance succinctly stated that gross rental receipts must be paid on such operations. The issue was, did they or did they not pay on gross rentals; if not, they should be made to do so. 77-872 City Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - July 26~ 1977~ 1:30 P.M. Mr. Wright gave a brief history of the background of the units which all contained kitchens. He noted the 1961 Bakersfield case which shed light on what the Bedroom Tax was all about. It was supposed to be a tax on transients because they did not pay taxes as did local residents. In looking at the City's ordinance, it stipulated that a motel operator may or may not collect against the transient, but did not define a transient. He had not found in the State of California an ordinance similar to Anaheim's which attempted to assess bedroom tax in this fashion. State law stipulated that general law cities were covered by a transient tax requirement where transients could not be assessed if they stayed at a location longer than 30 days. If they stayed 60 days, a charge could be made for 30 days only. Thus, the City's ordinance did not really assess the transient. Because of the Bakersfield case, California legislated on the problem and stated that transients could be assessed if they stayed less than 30 days only. As far as could be determined, the auditor for the City at the time, Mr. Burns or Mr. Henry, in actuality did assess the units in the fashion in which the present owner was now paying the tax. It was not a question, as in other cases, where the transient was assessed and the owner retained some of the money. If the ordinance stated that a transient was someone who stayed for seven days, then the owner would know if he stayed ten or twenty days that the transient should be assessed the tax for the whole period, but the ordinance did not state that. It was not a matter of trying to avoid something but to ascertain if, in fact, the owner owed an amount of money. The Mayor interjected for clarification purposes it was his understanding that the owner or owners in question paid to the City the taxes they collected from the occupants according to the previously understood definition of the ordinance. Mr. Wright confirmed that was correct and this was the first audit indicating that monies were not being collected as they should be. He also confirmed that the previous auditors gave direction as to the method of reporting relative to the statement made by Mr. Talley that Mr. Choi's present audit revealed what he con- sidered a blatant disregard for any kind of accounting principles. Mr. Wright continued that he researched the ordinance to see whether the owner had some justification for not collecting the tax differently. If the matter could be clarified from this point on as proposed to the City Attorney's Office, they would pay the just tax, whatever that may be. However, at this point in time, the ordinance was extremely ambiguous and did not state when and how the owner should collect the tax from an occupant. Thereupon, Mr. Lowry reiterated it would be the recommendation of the City Attorney's Office, because of the peculiar circumstances and because of the changes in the existing ordinance that the City accept the 6 percent tax on the basic room charge from Mr. Wright's clients, and that the property not be reclassified as apartments, but continue to function in the present fashion. Subsequent to the passage of the new ordinance and upon its effective date, then Mr. Wright and his clients could assess their future actions. Otherwise, the City could run the risk of losing the ordinance completely. Further discussion followed between Councilman Roth and Mr. Lowry, at the conclusion of which, the Mayor asked for clarification that, in fact, the statement made by Mr. Wright that his clients paid to the City everything collected as tax was correct. 77-873 City Hall~ Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - July 26, 1977, 1:30 P.M. Mr. Lowry confirmed that the entire amount of the basic 6 percent tax had been paid. Mr. Wright stated that the City's auditor could confirm the fact that everything they collected was paid to the City and it was not the same as other cases that had come before the Council where the money was collected, but not paid accordingly. Mr. Young Choi, City Auditor, confirmed for both Mr. Wright and the Mayor that the parties in question paid to the City everything collected as room ocnupancy tax. The Mayor stated he was thereupon agreeable to Mr. Lowry's previously articulated recommendation as being the least costly of measures, not jeopardizing the existing ordinance, and the most prudent course of action. Councilman Seymour indicated that the recommendation was perhaps in the best interest of the taxpayer, but he was interested in the implication that the principals were running apartment houses and not motels. He stressed that the public records would show there were stipulations made when those projects were approved, at which time he and Councilwoman Kaywood were on the Planning Commission, that clearly define them as motels, and the applicant stated they had no intentions whatsoever to use them as apartments, no one would be allowed to remain more than 30 days, and other such stipulations. Thus, the matter called for a zoning enforcement action that should be initiated immediately. Councilwoman Kaywood also clearly recalled, as did Councilman Seymour, the stipula- tions made at the time, most importantly that the motels would never be utilized as apartments. Mr. Lowry interjected that if the units were going to be run as apartments, an Order to Show Cause would have to take place on the CUPs. Further discussion followed between Councilman Seymour and Mr. Wright revolving around the conditions precedent to the approval of the units. He also noted for the record, that he and Councilwoman Kaywood originally voted "No" on the project; Councilman Roth stated that in 1972 when he was on the Council and heard the plea, he voted in favor of the project on the strength of their views presented. Councilman Seymour stressed that he wanted the Zoning Enforcement Officer out to the properties in the morning to have the conditional use permits removed or Mr. Wright's clients would have to correct the situation. Mr. Wright suggested he would discuss with the owners the conversion of the units to apartments meeting all codes and requirements on garages. Other land was presently under escrow which would qualify for additional parking and building of garages. Subsequently, the matter would proceed through the Planning Commission for necessary qualification. Mr. Lowry stated that in light of Mr. Wright's proposal, his office would withdraw their objection to that portion of the settlement proposal relative to reclassifica- tion of the property. 77-874 City Hall, Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - July 26~ 1977~ 1:30 P.M. On motion by Councilman Seymour, seconded by Councilman Thom, acceptance of 6 percent tax on basic room charge for all renters regardless of length of occupancy was approved, and the property was not to be reclassified as apart- ments. Councilwoman Kaywood and Councilman Roth voted "No". MOTION CARRIED. Mr. Lowry stated that the pertinent ordinance would be amended and a revised ordinance submitted to the Council in one week. On motion by Councilman Seymour, seconded by Councilman Roth, the City Attorney was instructed to enforce any and all conditions that were precedent to the approval of conditional use permits on the subject properties. MOTION CARRIED. Councilman Seymour reiterated that the Zoning Enforcement Officer was to investi- gate the matter immediately the morning of July 27, 1977. 123: AGREEMENT WITH ECONOMIC SCIENCES CORPORATION: (continued from July 12, 1977) On motion by Councilman Thom, seconded by Councilwoman Kaywood, consideration of an agreement with Economic Sciences Corporation for preparation of long-range electric demand and energy consumption forecasts based on econometric and end-use modeling techniques was continued for one week. MOTION CARRIED. 164: AWARD OF WORK ORDER NO. 1711 - SEWER LINE INSTALLATION: (north of Lincoln Avenue between Emily and Claudina Streets) Councilman Seymour offered Resolution No. 77R-539 for adoption awarding a contract in accordance with the recommendations of the City Engineer. Refer to Resolution Book. RESOLUTION NO. 77R-539: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM ACCEPTING A SEALED PROPOSAL AND AWARDING A CONTRACT TO THE LOWEST RESPONSIBLE BIDDER FOR THE FURNISHING OF ALL PLANT, LABOR, SERVICES, MATERIALS AND EQUIP- MENT AND ALL UTILITIES AND TRANSPORTATION INCLUDING POWER, FUEL AND WATER, AND PERFORMING ALL WORK NECESSARY TO CONSTRUCT AND COMPLETE THE FOLLOWING PUBLIC IMPROVEMENT: SEWER LINE INSTALLATION, N/O LINCOLN, BETWEEN EMILY AND CLAUDINA, IN THE CITY OF ANAHEIM, WORK ORDER NO. 1711. (Valverde Construction, Inc., $11,724) Roll Call Vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: COUNCIL MEMBERS: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Kaywood, Seymour, Kott, Roth and Thom None None The Mayor declared Resolution No. 77R-539 duly passed and adopted. 160: PURCHASE OF EQUIPMENT - FOUR PAD-MOUNTED SECTIONALIZING SWITCHES WITH OPTIONS - BID NO. 3264: On motion by Councilman Thom, seconded by Councilman Roth, the low bid of S & C Electric Company was accepted, and purchase authorized in the amount of $17,705.10, including tax, as recommended by the Purchasing Agent in his memorandum dated July 14, 1977. MOTION CARRIED. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 612 - EXTENSION OF TIME: Submitted by Reverend Pedro Moreno, requesting an extension of time to comply with~ required block wall condi- tion of Conditional Use Permit No. 612, to construct a church and classrooms on property located at 1749 West Orange Avenue. 77-875 City Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - July .26~ 1977~ 1:30 P.M. On motion by Councilman Thom, seconded by Councilman Kott, an extension of time to comply with required block wall condition of Conditional Use Permit No. 612 was granted, to January 26, 1978 with posting of the bond required to guarantee installation of the five-foot block wall, as recommended in memorandum dated July 21, 1977 from the Planning Department. MOTION CARRIED. 145: REPORT OF THE AGRICULTURAL PRESERVATION TASK FORCE: Submitted by the Orange County Board of Supervisors requesting comments and recommendations re- garding the subject report. Also submitted was correspondence from the Sea and Sage Branch of National Audubon Society. On motion by Councilman Roth, seconded by Councilman Thom, forwarding of staff report dated July 14, 1977 by the Planning Department.to the Orange County Board of Supervisors relative to the Agricultural Preservation Task Force Report, was approved. MOTION CARRIED. RECLASSIFICATION NO. 73-74-36 AND TENTATIVE TRACT NOS. 8775 AND 8796: Request by Philip Velie, Matreyek Homes, Inc., requesting an extension of time to Reclassi- fication No. 73-74-36 and Tentative Tract Nos. 8775 and 8796, property located northwest of La Palma Avenue and Euclid Street. On motion by Councilman Kott, seconded by Councilman Roth, an extension of time to Reclassification No. 73-74-36 and Tentative Tract Nos. 8775 and 8796 for one year was approved, as recommended by the City Engineer in his memorandum dated July 18, 1977. MOTION CARRIED. CONSENT CALENDAR ITEMS: On motion by Councilman Roth, seconded by Councilman Thom, 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: a. Claim submitted by Robert T. Stringer for property damages purportedly sustained as a result of fire caused by broken power lines on or about July 1, 1977. b. Claim submitted by Robert F. Green for personal injuries purportedly sustained as a result of actions by Anaheim Police Officers at Anaheim Stadium on or about May 13, 1977. 2. CORRESPONDENCE: The following correspondence was ordered received and filed: a. 173: Public Utilities Commission of the State of California Application No. 57098 of William C. Howell, dba ALL-CAL TOURS, for certificate of public convenience and necessity to operate as a passenger stage corporation for sightseeing and special events between Santa Rosa and certain points in California (Anaheim destination - Disneyland). b. 105: Housing Commission - Minutes of June 1, 1977. c. 140 and 156: Monthly report, June 1977 - Library and Police. 77-876 .City Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - July 26~ 1977~ 1:30 P.M. d. 105: Community Redevelopment Commission - Minutes of July 13, 1977. e. 105: Public Utilities Board - Minutes of June 2, 1977. f. 114: City of Huntington Beach Resolution No. 4491 supporting SB 792 providing for a new program of grants and reimbursements to public libraries. g. 105: Public Library Board - Minutes of June 20, 1977. MOTION CARRIED. CONSENT CALENDAR ITEMS: Councilman Seymour offered Resolution Nos. 77R-540 and 77R-541 for adoption in accordance with the reports, recommendations and certifi- cations furnished each Council Member and as listed on the Consent Calendar Agenda. RESOLUTION NO. 77R-540: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM ACCEPTING CERTAIN DEEDS AND ORDERING THEIR RECORDATION. (Kevin Beck, et al.; Waterhorn, Inc.; Arthur W. Gray, Jr., et ux.; Samuel J. Denardo, et ux.; Gerald E. Inman, et ux.; Rafael Mota, et ux.; Mayo C. Glass; S. S. Pine; Anaheim Shores Associates; Gordon Builders, Inc.; Ganahl Lumber Co.; Anaheim National Properties; Magdy Hanna, et al.) RESOLUTION NO. 77R-541: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM FINDING AND DETERMINING THAT PUBLIC CONVENIENCE AND NECESSITY REQUIRE THE CONSTRUC- TION AND COMPLETION OF A PUBLIC IMPROVEMENT, TO WIT: SANTA FE-ANAHEIM INDUSTRIAL PARK STORM DRAIN, IN THE CITY OF ANAHEIM, ACCOUNT NOS. 10-4309-726-16-0905 & 11-4309-720-16-4004; APPROVING THE DESIGNS PLANS, PROFILES, DRAWINGS, AND SPECIFI- CATIONS 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 August 25, 1977, 2:00 P.M.) Roll Call Vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: COUNCIL MEMBERS: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Kaywood, Seymour, Kott, Roth and Thom None None The Mayor declared Resolution Nos. 77R-540 and 77R-541 duly passed and adopted. CITY PLANNING COMMISSION ITEMS: The following actions taken by the City Planning Commission at their meeting held July 6, 1977, pertaining to the following applications were submitted for City Council information and consideration. The City Clerk noted the 22-day appeal period would expire on July 28, 1977, 5:00 P.M. On motion by Councilman Kott, seconded by Councilman Roth, the City Council authorized the actions pertaining to the following environmental impact require- ments as recommended by the City Planning Commission and took no further action on the following applications (Item Nos. 1 through 6): 1. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT - CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION: The Planning Director has determined that the proposed activities in the following listed zoning appli- cations fall within the definitions of Section 3.01, Class 1 and 3 of the City 77-877 City Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - July 26~ 1977~ 1:30 P.M. of Anaheim Guidelines to the requirements for an environmental impact report and are, therefore, categorically exempt from the requirement to file and EIR: Conditional Use Permit No. 1721 Conditional Use Permit No. i1724 Conditional Use Permit No. 1722 Conditional Use Permit No. 1517 Variance No. 2952 2. VARIANCE NO. 2952: Submitted by Alfred O. and Marilyn R. Long, to construct an eight-foot high block wall on RS-7200 zoned property located at 846 South Aspen Street with code waiver of maximum wall height in rear yard. City Planning Commission Resolution No. PC77-146 granted Variance No. 2952. 3. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 1721: Submitted by Bernardo M. Yorba and Marzaret L. Yorba. to permit on-sale liauor in two proposed restaurants on RS-A-43.000(SC) zoned property located on the west side of Imperial Highway, south of La Palma Avenue. City Planning Commission Resolution No. PC77-143 granted Conditional Use Permit No. 1721. 4. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 1722: Submitted by Santa Anita Development Corpora- tion, to permit on-sale beer and wine in a proposed restaurant on RS-A-43,000(SC) zoned property located on the west side of Imperial Highway, south of La Palma Avenue. City Planning Commission Resolution No. PC77-144 granted Conditional Use Permit No. 1722. 5. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 1724: Submitted by the estate of Leo Gogerty, Ludella Gogerty, Executrix, to permit truck and trailer rentals on CG zoned property located at 624 and 626 South Anaheim Boulevard. City Planning Commission Resolution No. PC77-147 granted Conditional Use Permit No. 1724. 6. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 1517 - EXTENSION OF TIME: Submitted by Robert W. Hostetter, requesting an extension of time for Conditional Use Permit No. 1517, to permit a board and care facility for the treatment of alcoholics on CL zoned property located at 703 North Lemon Street. The City Planning Commission granted an extension of time retroactive to May 28, 1977 and to expire May 28, 1979. MOTION CARRIED. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 1727: Submitted by Imperial Properties, to permit (a) on-sale beer and wine in a proposed restaurant; and (b) on-sale liquor in a proposed restaurant on CL(SC) zoned property located at 5781 East Santa Ana Canyon Road. City Planning Commission Resolution No. PC77-142 granted Conditional Use Permit No. 1727. 77-878 City Hall, Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - July 26~ 1977~ 1:30 P.M. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT - CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION: On motion by Councilman Roth, seconded by Councilman Kott, the City Council ratified the determination of the Planning Director that the proposed activity falls within the definition of Section 3.01, Class 1 and 2, of the City of Anaheim Guidelines to the require- ments for an environmental impact report and is, therefore, categorically exempt from the requirement to file an EIR. Councilman Seymour abstained. MOTION CARRIED. Councilman Seymour explained his abstention was due to the fact he was a tenant in the subject shopping center and he wanted to eliminate the possibility of any conflict of interest. No further action was taken by the Council on Conditional Use Permit No. 1727, thus upholding the actions of the Planning Con~nission. 155: ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT - NEGATIVE DECLARATION: On motion by Council- woman Kaywood, seconded by Councilman Kott, it was determined by the City Council that the filing of Grading Plan No. 620 at 265 Chrisalta Drive is exempt from the requirement to prepare an environmental impact report, as recommended by the City Planning Commission, since the project is in conformance with City standards and policies and is compatible with surrounding land uses, and pursuant to the pro- vision of the California Environmental Quality Act. MOTION CARRIED. 155: ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT - NEGATIVE DECLARATION: On motion by Councilman Kott, seconded by Councilman Seymour, it was determined by the City Council that the filing of Parcel Map No. 655 for property located at the southwest corner of Manchester Avenue and Freedman Way is exempt from the requirement to prepare an environmental impact report, as recommended by the City Planning Commission, since the project is compatible with City plans, ordinances, surrounding land uses and no sensitive environmental elements are involved, and pursuant to the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act. MOTION CARRIED. 170: TENTATIVE MAP~ TRACT NO. 8464 - FINAL SPECIFIC PLANS: Submitted by Jerry W. Buffington, Oaktree Development Company, requesting approval of final specific plans for Tentative Tract No. 8464, Revision No. 1, consisting of 47 RS-HS-10,000 zoned lots on the south side of Canyon Rim Road, northeast of Nohl Ranch Road. On motion by Councilman Thom, seconded by Councilman Roth, specific plot plans, fence plans, floor plans, and elevations for Tentative Tract No. 8464 were approved. Councilman Seymour abstained. MOTION CARRIED. 170: FINAL MAP, TRACT NO. 8560: Developer, G. L. Lewis Company of Orange; Tract located east of Fairmont Boulevard, south of Santa Ana Canyon Road, containing 80 RS-HS-22,000 proposed zoned lots. On motion by Councilman Roth, seconded by Councilwoman Kaywood, the proposed sub- division, together with its design and improvement, was found to be consistent with the City's General Plan, and the City Council approved Final Map, Tract No. 8560, as recommended by the City Engineer in his memorandum dated July 20, 1977. MOTION CARRIED. Mr. Philip Bettencourt, representing Anaheim Hills Inc., requested to speak relative to the drainage reimbursement fees on the subject tract. He explained that his com- pany had financial involvement in the subject property since they had constructed an 77-879 City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - July 26~ 1977, 1:30 P.M. off-site, downstream drainage facility from Tract No. 8220 where the Broadmoor Northridge homes were located down through the Fairmont Boulevard area. An off-site drainage agreement approved by the City represented an additional $408,000 and upsized facilities to service this and other properties within the region. The agreement provided that the City levy pro rata acreage assessments against those benefited properties in order that Anaheim Hills Inc., would be reimbursed for the monies expended to the benefit of those properties. They attempted to identify to City staff over the past seven to eight months that the fees levied under the interim assessment agreement were not sufficient to recover the total financial liability the City had with them. The extent of the improvements was in the order of $188,000. Mr. Bettencourt explained that the action taken earlier in the meeting to correct such inequities and levy fees at the appropriate amount would apply to all future properties within the zone of benefit covering approximately 270 acres. Their con- cern was that if the G. L. Lewis property was not assessed for what its proportionate share would and should be, that is the amount of fee adopted earlier in the meeting, this would create a $90,000 deficiency which would have to be spread against other properties in the area to make up the difference. It was not that City money was directly involved, but other properties had benefited by the drain constructed by Anaheim Hills. Any fees over and above the amount necessary to reimburse them would reimburse any other property owners who benefited by the construction of the drain. G. L. Lewis Company maintained that, based on the bond and fee letter they received from the City, they in good faith proceeded with the financing of the project and posted fees accordingly. Anaheim Hills did not share the view as to what the fees should have been nor the legal validity of the bond and fee letter which was provided as a matter of professional courtesy in seeking final engineering on a tract map. If the bond and fee letter had correctly stated what the amount should have been, then that amount should have been posted. This still would not have been a guarantee of what the fees would be in any event. To allow it to be so, would allow City staff members to tie the hands of the Council in setting fees as long as a subdivider had filed a tentative tract map and not yet completed final engi- neering. He, therefore, recommended that the m~tter be continued two weeks until such time as G. L. Lewis Company entered into a reimbursement agreement to post the appropriate fees. If that was not the case, the other property owners within the district should be notified of the circumstances so that the appropriate amount of fees they would have to share because G. L. Lewis Company would not be paying their fair share was identified since there were financial implications for all. The Mayor questioned Mr. Lowry relative to Mr. Bettencourt's contention and noted that Councilwoman Kaywood specifically broached the matter by her question when the ordinance relative to reimbursement of drainage and sanitary sewer facilities was enacted earlier in the meeting. Mr. Lowry stated, as he had previously, that if a project was in process, the old fees would apply; if not in process and submitted, for instance, the next morning, the new fee would apply. Further discussion followed between Councilman Seymour and Mr. Lowry relative to the matter, at the conclusion of which and upon clarification by the City Engineer, it was established that such fees, i.e., sewer, storm drains, monuments and the like, were collected prior to final tract map approval. 77-880 City Hall~ Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - July 26~ 1977~ 1:30 P.M. Councilman Kott left the Council Chamber. (4:47 P.M.) Mr. Lowry also stated Anaheim Hills would be reimbursed for their costs as such costs would be placed further down the line. He explained that when the State law was changed in connection with subdivisions, he went through all the sections involved and missed two words; the old Business and Professional Codes stated, "ordinance or resolution," the new Code stated ordinance only and no one else had caught this change or called it to the City's attention. Mr. Bettencourt stated that in view of Mr. Lowry's ruling regarding assessment of fees, he noted for the record that he wanted the Council to be aware of what Anaheim Hills technical inequities would be because there would be other property owners within that zone of benefit who would ask how such a fee could be assessed against their project and only so much against some others. The record should be clear that they (Anaheim Hills) tried to bring the inequities to the Council's attention as they saw it at the time. 170: FINAL MAP~ TRACT NO. 9268 AND REVISION OF CONDITION NO. 6: Developer, W. R. Grace Properties, Inc. of Newport Beach; tract located on the south side of Nohl Ranch Road, west of Royal Oak Road containing 132 RS-HS-10,000 proposed zoned lots and revision of Condition No. 6 of said tract map regarding approval of CC&Rs prior to final building permits. On motion by Councilman Roth, seconded by Councilwoman Kaywood, revision of Condition No. 6 of final map, Tract No. 9268 was amended and approved as follows: "That the covenants, conditions and restrictions shall be submitted to and approved by the City Attorney's Office and the Engineering Division and subsequently recorded prior to the issuance of building permits." Councilman Kott was temporarily absent. MOTION CARRIED. On motion by Councilman Roth, seconded by Councilwoman Kaywood, the proposed sub- division, together with its design and improvement, was found to be consistent with the City's General Plan, and the City Council approved final map, Tract No. 9268 with the foregoing revision to Condition No. 6, as recommended by the City Engineer in his memorandum dated July 13, 1977. Councilman Kott was temporarily absent. MOTION CARRIED. ORDINANCE NOS. 3741 AND 3742: Councilman Roth offered Ordinance Nos. 3741 and 3742 for adoption. Refer to Ordinance Book. 153: ORDINANCE NO. 3741: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM ADDING SUBSECTION 1.06.120.080 AND AMENDING SUBSECTION 1.06.130.070 OF TITLE 1, CHAPTER 1.06 PER- TAINING TO EMPLOYER-EMPLOYEE RELATIONS. ORDINANCE NO. 3742: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AMENDING TITLE 18 OF THE ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO ZONING. (61-62-69(79), ML) 77-881 City Hall~ Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - July 26~ 1977~ 1:30 P.M. Roll Call Vote: AYES: NOES: TEMPORARILY ABSENT: ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: COUNCIL MEMBERS: COUNCIL MEMBERS: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Kaywood, Seymour, Roth and Thom None Kott None The Mayor declared Ordinance Nos. 3741 and 3742 duly passed and adopted. ORDINANCE NOS. 3744 THROUGH 3749: Councilman Roth offered Ordinance Nos. 3744 through 3749, both inclusive, for first reading. ORDINANCE NO. 3744: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AMENDING TITLE 18 OF THE ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO ZONING. (66-67-60, ML) ORDINANCE NO. 3745: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AMENDING TITLE 18 OF THE ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO ZONING. (76-77-1, RS-7200) 167 AND 172: ORDINANCE NO. 3746: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AMENDING TITLE 14, CHAPTER 14.56, SECTION 14.56%040 OF THE ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO NO RIGHT TURN AGAINST RED OR "STOP" SIGNAL. (La Palma and Miller) ORDINANCE NO. 3747: AN ORDINANCE OF T~E CITY OF ANAHEIM AMENDING TITLE 18 OF THE ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO'ZONING. (76-77-42, RM-4000) ORDINANCE NO. 3748: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AMENDING TITLE 18 OF THE ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TOZONING. (76-77-19, RM-1200) ORDINANCE NO. 3749: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AMENDING TITLE 18 OF THE ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO ZONING. (70-71-47(17 & 18), ML) Councilman Kott returned to the Council Chamber~ (5:10 P.M.) 150: APPOINTMENTS TO BOARD OF PATRONS OF THE ARTS: On motion by Councilwoman Kaywood, seconded by Councilman Seymour, Vi Wheeler was reappointed to a 2-year term on the Board of Patrons of the Arts at Fullerton College, and Nancy Jenkins was appointed to fill the unexpired term endinR September 1978, of Andy Deneau who resigned, on the same Board. MOTION CARRIED. 105: RESIGNATION OF SARAH FAY PEARSON FROM THE MOTHER COLONY HOUSE ADVISORY BOARD: On motion by Councilwoman Kaywood, seconded by Councilman Seymour, the resignation of Mrs. Sarah Fay Pearson from the Mother Colony House Advisory Board was accepted with regret, and staff directed to prepare for subsequent presentation a resolution extending thanks and gratitude for Mrs. Pearson's outstanding leadership and years of service. MOTION CARRIED. 112: ENUMERATION OF THE SUNSHINE LAW: Councilman Kott referred to a letter he had received signed by Mr. Fred Brown which, in turn, referred to the Sunshine Law. He asked Assistant City Attorney Lowry for specifics in order to ascertain a meaning of the letter. 77-882 City Hall~ Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - July 26~ 1977~ 1:30 P.M. Mr. Lowry explained that the Sunshine law was a Federal and not a State law which referred to the opening up of government so that it was run in the "sunshine", enabling the public to be present during all matters under discussion. The law did not apply in Anaheim because the City had its own version of the Brown Act requiring the City Council to conduct all of its business in the open, except for a certain five listed exceptions that could be discussed in Executive Session. He had seen the letter to which Councilman Kott referred and was at a loss as to its meaning or final disposition. 153: ALLEGED HIRING DISCRIMINATION: Councilman Kott explained that several weeks prior, he received a call from a Mr. Michael Badiu who stated he had applied for approximately ten positions within the City and in each instance was told he was not qualified or did not have the proper work experience. However, his resume was im- pressive and he had a masters degree in business administration. He (Kott) gave the resume to the City Manager and told him about Mr. Badiu's predicament. He was then told by the City Manager, in writing, that Mr. Badiu did not show up for several interviews; subsequently Mr. Badiu told Councilman Kott that was not true. Councilman Kott then asked Mr. Badiu to speak to the matter. Mr. Michael Badiu, 3402 West Olinda Lane} Apartment C, explained that he applied many times for a position with the City for which he believed he was qualified, but was rejected or told he did not qualify. He had been working under the CETA Program in an outstation position from ~he City of Anaheim for the Placentia Unified School District (PUSD) for 15 months, working on different projects under the supervision of Dr. Mollander. Since there was no permanent opening in the District, he was informed that his Job was over. The last time he applied with the City of Anaheim was for the position of Administrative Aide and although he worked as an administrative analyst in the PUSD, Personnel advised that he was not qualified for the position and he did not have an opportunity to interview for it. In the past 18 months he had applied for 10 or 11 positions and was presently working in the Property Maintenance Department at less salary and in a position less suitable for him. He was anxious to work and wanted a permanent position. In answer to Councilman Kott, Mr. Badiu explained that he had experience in admin- istration and further, that there was no interview appointment set with the City that he did not keep. Councilman Roth queried why the Council was involved in the matter and specifically what the problem was relative to Mr. Badiu. The Mayor stated 'that, as he understood the situation, they were listening to an alleged case of discrimination. Councilman Roth further questioned why the gentleman did not go to the Commission in Santa Ana with his problem and was adamant in the fact if such matters were to be brought before the Council, they should be done in a procedural manner with supporting documents in order for the Council to make an intelligent and valid judgment. Councilman Kott stated that it was an attempt to order the City Manager to come up with documentation so the Council could make a Judgment. 77-883 City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - July 26~ 1977~ 1:30 P.M. Councilwoman Kaywood was disconcerted at the manner in which the subject was brought up and considered it no way to handle a delicate situation, thus causing embarassment by a public display and without giving the City Manager an opportunity to speak to the matter. Mr. Badiu reiterated that the City Manager told Councilman Kott that he did not show up for appointments and that was not true. Councilwoman Kaywood asked to hear from Mr. Talley. Mr. Talley stated that he gave a report to Councilman Kott in which he explained that the Placentia Unified School District was an outstation agency funded through Anaheim's Manpower Program and if they wanted Mr. Badiu, they could have retained him. Apparently, there was some reason why they decided not to continue his slot. However, he had no knowledge of that and had never personally met Mr. Badiu. He had competed for City positions and was found not to be an acceptable candidate because others had been interviewed with much more experience, in the selection boards' mind, up through being interviewed and found to be qualified or not qualified. For some reason, in each instance, Mr. Bad±u was not successful. In one case where he (Talley) had direct experience relative to Administrative Aide to the City Manager, the only people that were selected to be interviewed were those who had extensive, directly related experience, and Mr. Badiu's resume did not indicate that. There were scores of applicants for every open City position and only the top candidates ascertained from screening were ultimately interviewed. Mr. Talley then read excerpts from a report relative to Mr. Badiu and emphasized that it did not indicate that he had not reported for interviews, but failed them, that is, if he was not selected for certification, he failed the interview in that sense. It was not discriminatory, but a procedural part of the process. After further discussion, Councilman Kott suggested that Mr. Badiu speak with the City Manager or the Personnel Department to clarify the differences between each other's understanding of the matter. Mr. Talley stated he would be pleased to arrange a meeting with Mr. Badiu during the week, but suggested that if he felt, after the discussion, discrimination was involved, he should confer with the Fair Employment Practices Commission. 105: RESIGNATION OF MR. RON ALLEN FROM HACMAC: On motion by Councilman Roth, seconded by Councilman Kott, the resignation of Mr. Ron Allen from the HACMAC Committee, per letter dated July 21, 1977, was accepted with regret. Even though appointments to the Committee did not fall under the Maddy Local Appointive Act, Councilman Roth asked that the vacancy be filled using the same procedure as that for official committees by posting and publicizing for the solicitation of applications from residents in the Hill and Canyon area. MOTION CARRIED. 123: REQUEST FROM ALAN WATTS TO REPRESENT KENNEDY AND SINCLAIR IN CONNECTION WITH THE PROPOSAL ON THE ORANGEWOOD-RAMPART PROPERTY: The Mayor referred to a letter received from York and Woodruff signed by Alan Watts stating his request to represent Mr. Kenfield Kennedy and Mr. Neil J. Sinclair in connection with a proposal they submitted to develop land owned by the City, south of Orangewood Avenue. 77-884 City Hall~ Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - July 26.~. 1977~ 1:30 P.M. Mr. Lowry stated that in his determination, there was no conflict of interest in Mr. Watts representing the developers due to his special role of Counsel relative to power acquisition for the City of Anaheim, nor any legal objection relative to Proposition 9. On motion by Councilman Thom, seconded by Councilman Kott, staff was directed to send a letter on behalf of the Council to Mr. Alan Watts stating they have no objection to his representation of Mr. Kenfield Kennedy and Mr. Neil J. Sinclair in connection with the proposal submitted to develop land owned by the City, south of Orangewood Avenue. MOTION CARRIED. 116: ALLEGED ADMINISTRATIVE INTERFERENCE OF THE CITY MANAGER BY MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL: The Mayor explained that a month prior, the City Attorney, Mr. Hopkins, as a courtesy contacted him and other members of the Council stating he had been invited to give a presentation to the City/County Government Committee of the Chamber of Commerce relative to the City Charter and asked his opinion. He suggested that Mr. Hopkins respond to the invitation and encouraged all City Department Heads and Officials to meet with citizen groups when they were invited to do so. Prior to Mr. Hopkins leaving on vacation, he advised the Mayor that Mr. Lowry would be attending the July 21, 1977 meeting in his place. After the meeting, it came to his attention that as the result of a phone call from the Manager of the Chamber, Mr. Larry Sierk, City Manager Talley was also invited to participate in the meeting because the members of the Committee were interested in knowing if there was any interference of the City Manager by City Council Members in his duties as they related to the non-interference clause in the City Charter. He understood that the City Manager told the Chamber Manager that, in his opinion, there was interference and he thus attended the meeting. What was of concern to him was the fact, if Mr. Talley believed this to be so, he should become very specific in those charges so the City Attorney could defend those Council Members properly. What he saw as a result of the City Manager's partaking in that meeting, if it were true and it had been corroborated, was an attempt to subsoil Council people. To that extent, he was disenchanted with Mr. Talley's approach to the matter because it was a furtive action in his opinion. If there was a problem, he preferred that it be aired in public at the Council meeting. He was also disenchanted with Mr. Sierk's inviting the City Manager to come to a meeting he thought the City Attorney was attending to discuss the Charter and then raise or infer charges against members of the City Council. He assumed that Mr. Talley was referring to him and Councilman Kott because of previous actions they had taken. He reiterated his displeasure over the manner in which the matter was broached and demanded of the City Manager speci- ficity in the charges so the City Attorney's Office could make proper representation. Mr. Talley stated he would be pleased to respond because whoever relayed the infor- mation and corroborated it must have heard it third hand or was not informed of the facts because Mr. Sierk was not even present at the meeting at all. He continued that Mr. Sierk contacted Mr. Hopkins and himself following Councilman Kott's state- ments at the June 14, 1977 meeting where, along with other matters, it was the im- pression of certain people in the audience that he (Kott) was maintaining that City Department Heads report directly to the Council. The call he received was that the City/County Government Committee wanted to meet to discuss the subject of administra- tive interference, and the invitation was to discuss that particular Charter provision. Subsequently, he asked the City Attorney how he interpreted administrative interference. 77-885 City wall~ Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - July 26, 1977~ 1:30 P.M. The opinion was, if the City Manager considered there was administrative inter- ference, generally it probably was true. At the Chamber meeting the subject was discussed and he was asked whether or not, in his opinion, administrative interference had taken place during his tenure as City Manager. Mr. Talley indicated that probably on more than one occasion it had occurred, but when they asked for specifics, he told them there was no way that type of specifi- city could serve any public purpose. No names or incidents were ever mentioned. Mr. Talley further stated that if a Council person contacted a department head, the only way charges could be raised would be to have that third party come forward, just as had been requested at a meeting, thus embarassing himself and putting himself between the Council and the Manager. The Mayor interjected that he would never encourage such action. Mr. Talley continued that was the only time administrative interference could take place. If the Council went to him, there was no interference. However, if the City Manager was circumvented and aspersions cast on the system, staff, or City Manager and remarks made to incite, that could be construed as administrative interference, the only way this could be proven would be to bring the other person forward. At the meeting, Mr. Lowry was asked what the remedies were; one was referral to the Grand Jury. However, such accusations were usually considered strictly political and they did not choose to become involved in the subject matter. The other alter- native was censure by the Council which would be non-productive if their design was to harass the administration. Mr. Talley stated that his comment was, that when such interference occurred, he could counsel with department heads or staff or con- front the offending Council person. He considered the present Council very educated in the rulings of the City Charter and they would know when they were in violation. If they had ulterior motives for so doing, they were aware of their transgressions. Thus, he chose not to make an issue of it unless it became so blatant that he would have to confront the Council person or departmeht head. He confirmed for the Mayor that the situation had not come to the point where he would be willing to risk a department head's career or bring charges forward. Frequently, inquiries or state- ments had been made to the City staff gravely concerning them and substantially adding to the job of trying to keep the administration going and serving the Council. His role was to get the job done, persist, and ignore such statements. That was part of a Manager's job. When asked at the meeting if he had any recommendations, he stated he had none. Mr. Lowry was in the meeting room at the time and could confirm that was the sum and substance of what he considered an honest and profes- sional response to an inquiry. He stressed he did not ever intend to bring out publicly any discussion he had privately with a Council person unless that person wished to do so. He also stated he did not envision bringing formal charges in the future. The Mayor accepted what Mr. Talley said and explained that he queried several people and received several answers all indicating that the City Manager inferred strongly that a couple of Council Members had interfered with him. He reiterated his con- cern was in the inference that Council Members had committed illegal acts. If that were true, he preferred such allegations be made at a Council meeting rather than at a semi-private meeting because, as Mr. Talley pointed out, word never failed to get back. 77-886 City Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - July 26~ 1977~ 1:30 P.M. Mr. Talley referred to words used by the Mayor against him such as censure or harass. He took those words literally when he used them and he could not be part of something like that personally. Under no circumstances, no matter how harmful to himself personally, he would not embarrass any member of the City Council by their conduct in the administration. The Mayor first stipulated to the removal of the word censure and apologized for it, but stated he would appreciate it more if Mr. Talley did not care who he embarrassed, but just do so publicly. Mr. Talley further clarified for Councilman Seymour, that, to the best of his knowledge, no names, the Mayor's or Councilman Kott's, were used, nor incidents at the subject meeting. Further discussion followed on the matter in which Councilman Kott concluded that if a statement was made indicating there was a problem relative to adminis- trative interference, someone was being pointed to without mentioning names, thus someone was being accused. He further encouraged participation by groups in City government but when that participation became a devisive force driving a wedge between employees and elected officials, it caused him concern. He con- tended the Chamber should not be involved in the matter as it went beyond their tax-exempt status classification. Councilman Seymour emphatically expressed his sentiment that relative to the sub- ject matter, he could take no more, but wanted the situation made clear with no more game playing, and contended everyone was aware of what was going on. Directing his remarks to Councilman Kott, Councilman Seymour stated this was the second occasion that he (Kott) suggested the City Manager somehow was creating turmoil between employees and the City Council. He maintained the allegation was a most foolish one and, as he suggested before, any turmoil was due to the negativity brought about by Councilman Kott at public meetings, besmirching the-,administration, actions which he considered ludicrous. He then recalled events over the past two years wherein allegations were made relative to Mr. Talley's involvement in the Grand Prix, the Business License Report, enmity between department heads and the City Manager, employees being mistreated and low morale, and a subsequent motion to fire the City Manager, which failed however, supported by Councilman Kott and Mayor Thom. Mr. Talley was fully vindicated in the Grand Prix allegations and, as well, the Council was aware that general allegations made relative to the causing of low morale, in the City were untrue and there was no evidence of any support. Now, the Chamber was being attacked with government deciding whether or not they were acting within their corporate Charter. He contended their concern revolved around what was going on in the City. He also took issue with the fact that a citizen was brought up in public relative to applying for, but not acquiring City positions, thus embarrassing both him and the City in a further attempt to demonstrate conflict with the City Manager. Innuendos and allegations were constantly being made without any substance and if such actions were permitted to continue, and he did not know how to stop them other than informing the citizens so they could stop it at the ballot box, the ability of the administra- tion and professional people to get the job done would be frozen by the ice of negativity. 77-887 City Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - July 26~ 1977~ 1:30 P.M. The Mayor stated that in all fairness, what Councilman Seymour was attributing to Councilman Kott were actions that he (Thom) initiated and wanted them attributed to the correct source. He also stated that he was quite proud of the things he had done in discharging what he felt an obligation to the citizens of Anaheim. Councilman Kott considered himself to have been unjustly attacked and, on the contrary, he felt he was taking positive steps and did not consider any negativity involved in anything he had done on the Council. ADJOURNMENT: Councilman Roth moved to adjourn. Councilman Thom seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. Adjourned: 5:43 P.M. LINDA D. ROBERTS, CITY CLERK