The URL can be used to link to this page

1976/09/1476-648 City llall~ Anaheim~ Californi.a.- COUMCIL Mi:.~UTES _ September ]4~ 1~76; !:3~ .P.M. The City Council of the City of Anaheim met in regular session. P~SE:~'"?: COU:,~CIL ~E~BEqS: Ka~ood~ ~e~our, Kott, ~oth and AY,~EUT: COID~CIL ~YYERS: None P'~TEEUT: CITY }~>~ACER: l'illiam O, Talley ACS!STA~IT CITT; ATTqPCIEY: ~7illiam P. Hopkins CITY CLEP~: Linde D, Roberts ')EPUTY CITY ATTO~IEY: Frank A. Lo~y, Jr. PLAI~I~G DIRECTOR: Ronald L. Thompson PURCIIAEIT~C AC~]~TT: ~tchael }~tchelle ELECTRICAL CUPEPI~!TE~IDE~IT: George Edwards. CD~9.~IITb' DEW]L~P~E~T DIRECTOR: Knowlton Fe~ald ASSISTA~iT CITY E~IG!III]ER: I~llltam ~evitt TRAFFIC E~CI,..:EI]R: Paul Singer DT]PUTY CITY ATTCRIIEY: ~alcom $1auFhtar ASEIETAP!T CITY ~AGER: '"illtam T, Itopkins PARKS, REqREATIO~..I & ARTS DIRECTOR: James D. Ruth ASSIETAr~T PLAID!ER: TIilliam Cunnin~ham Mayor Thom called the meetinE to order and welcomed those in attendance to the Council meeting. IT;VOCATIOt~: Reverend Ed Arr~endariz of the :~ulodvland !iotline Center gave t~,~c '"rrVOC "ion. FLAG SALUTE: Councilr.~an John Seymour led the Assembly in the Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag.. ~(n~{!]:~T OF SILENCE AND RESOLUTION OF COndOLENCE IM t.~MORY OF AL KOHLER: Mayor Thom requested that a moment of silence b'e observed on the untimely passing and in memory of A1 Kohler who had served the City in the Public l~orks Department from 1031 to his retirement in lq67, and further requested that a Resolution of Condolence be prepared for the Kohler family. RESOLUTION OF CONGRATULATIONS - RADIO STATION I'.%~Z - 5~ YEARS OF SERVICE: A R~.solution of Congratulations unanimously adopted by the City Council was pre- sented to Mr. Guy Heston of ,Radio Station KT7IZ by Mayor Thom in recognition of their ~0 years of quality broadcasting and community servic~ in Oranze County. REo .,LTIO}, OF HOPE TO ORJd~GE COUNTY CITIZENS OF THE YEAR 2~76: As part of a "Time Capsule" project, a Resolution of Hope to all Orange County citizens of the year 2,076, who will then be observing the Nation's Tricentennial, was unanimously approved by the City Council. MI}~TES: On motion by Councilwoman Kavwood, seconded by Councilman Roth, the minutes of the regular meeting held AugUst 10, 1076 were approved MOTIO~ CARRIED. ' ' WAIVER OF READINg - ORDI~ANCES 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 5y a Council Member for the reading of such ordinance or resolution. Councilman Thom seconded the motion. MOTION U:IANIMOUSLY CARRIED. FINA~CIAL DEMANDS AGAINST THE CITY in the amount of $3,946,514.45, in accordance with the 1076-77 Budget, were approved. ~LLS FARCe gUARD SEP~ICES - LIBRARY FACILITIES: Councilman Kott offered Resolution No. 76R-544 for adoption. · ~ f ~-~e..er to Resolution Book. RESOLUTIO~ NO. 76R-544: A P~SOLUTI~N OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM APPROVI?~C THE TERMS AND CO~DITIONS OF A~ AGREEmeNT FOR GUARD SERVICES AT THE CITY LIBP~RY FACILITIES A.~D AUTHORIZINg A~D DIRECTIL'C T~E MAYOR A~'~ CITY CLFPTi TO · ..... , ..... T~ ~AID AGPgE,'.~.~T Or-; BEHALF OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM (~fells Fargo Guard S · . erv1ceM) 76-649 City Hall~ Anaheira~ California- COUNCIL ~I:,qJTES1 · ' -September 16~ 1076~ 1:30 P.?~. Roll Call Vote: The Y. ayor declared Resolution ~o. 76R-SAA duly passed and adopted. ~'~.qR~fPOP~' SERVICES ~ I~'P,,. .... ~ CALIFOR:IIA. I?L'IOVATIO~'I (:!?.OUP ~P. OC, RA'~*: Assistant City Yanager, Bill ltopkins, explained that pursuant to an nffreament with ¢~orthrop Services, Inc., the resident professional services are provided under the California Innovation Croup Pro,ram which is partly funded by the .~lational. Science Foundation (:!CF). *fr. llopkins indicated that the program's present cost is approximately .q6,OO0 per r;onth and is supported not only By :?SF, but also the Redevelopment Agency and the City General Fund. It was pointed out that current Energy Conservation project, which involves takin~ an inventory of all potential energy using devices in the City, would be completed by October and a pro~ram recommended for conservation throughout the entire community. At that time, an assessment will he made of the entire program to ascertain the impact of innovative activities on savings, not only to Anaheim, but also to the other eleven cities involved in this project. Councilman Kart asked Y..r. ?topkins for a Brief explanation of the program including the duties of the City's Resident Professional, Dr. Owen. Griffith, specifically addressing its cost effectiveness. .Mr. !!opkins indicated that through innovative concepts and applications the intent of the entire program is to achieve savings in terms of direct costs as well as savings, n. ow and for the future. The consortium of the cities involved hope to come up with ideas that are applicable throughout the entire country from wahl_ch Anaheim will reap its proportionate share. After assessment, if these pro- jects are found not to be totally self-servin~ in terms of savings and conservat~.on, the project will be terminated. %~ayor Thom introduced Dr. ~wen Griffith, resident professional for the City for the past four years. Dr. Criffith briefly discu.qsed some of the areas in which he has been involved, He has assisted in development and has assessed some of the Data Processing Depart- ment programs; in conjunction with other cities, developed and wrote fire hose specifications x&ich have helped to reduce costs on an annual basis; in the Public Works Department initisted the use of an electric distance meter resulting in savings of gP, O,~OO to $100,O90 a year; developed the Probeye now being used by Police, Fire, Public Utilities and Euilding Departments. Dr. Criffith explained that he would be happy to meet with any Council ~ember to further elaborate on his department's activities. Mayor Thom commented on ~he merits of the program and indicated that it is the application of space age technology to municipal governments, specifically assisting Anaheim so that departments do not over-buy or under-buy, City .',~anager Talley, in answer to Councilman gott's concern about the economic aspects of the program, explained that the City was under an obli?ation to complete the present energy conservation portion but, as I*.r. Hopkins pointed out, an assessment ~,mu].d be made at the end of Octobp_r to determine lts ultiraate value and that Ly ?:ovember 1, 1.076, Dr. Criffith would review the program with Councilman Kart. Councilwoman Kasn~ood offered P, esolution 'Tn. 7gE-SA5 for adoption. ?.efer to }'.esolution gaol:. nVon~r~,,,rn,,~,,. ,, ,~o ~ &, ,., .'.TO. 76..-545'. ~ P. ESOLUTIO'I OF TIlE CITY COL~IC!L OF *~,v,~,,. CITY OF A~IAI!EIM ,' .....~,.~, ....... ,,~.,~ AI~ CONDITIO¢~S OF Ail AGRE~.'~JT ~'~T}I NORTI!ROP eWnUTePS INC. A'D AUTUORIZI}IC TItE ~YOR A~ CITY CLERK TO EXECUTE SAID AGP~EHL~..~. (September 13~ 1076 through September 12, 1077) 76-650 City Hall, Anaheima California, CQUNCI~ M..INUTE$ - Sep.tember 14a 1076, 1~:30 P.M. ~oll Call Vote: AYEC: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Kaywood, Seymour, Kott, Roth and Thom ~ ....... COUNCIL MEMBERS: None ABS!i~T: CO~CIL MEMBERS: None The Mayor declared Resolution No. 76R-b&5 duly passed and adoPted. MA, TION ,AL SPACE !NSTITUTE/A~mRIC~,.SP.AC.E._.INSTI. TUTE ~USEU~ IN ANAHEIM: Mr. Knowlton Fernald, Community Development D~reetor, ~xPlained the Joint program of the Redevelopment A~ency with ~he National Space Institute (NSI) and its affiliate the American Space Institute (ASI) to locate a California Space Information Center facility in the City of Anaheim. Mr. Fernald said that ~rith the change in policy and redirection concerning downtown redevelopment, there has been a de-emphasis on tourist-related commercial activities. As a result, nu~_.erous meetings have taken place with the ~tadium---Convention Center people to determine an alternate location for the proposed Space Institute on a temporary basis, as well as to reaffirm that NSI is still interested in locating their project in Anaheim, and that Anaheim is still interested in them. Mr. Fernald felt there was a great interest generally in this type of project confirmed by his personal observations at such facilities around the country. He discussed transferring the project in an orderly fashion to the Stadium- Convention Center-Disneyland area indicating that artifacts were presently being obtained for exhibits at the proposed museum. In order to keep the initial program going, it was concluded that the City Council be approached to determine that there is an ongoin~ interest and to give staff some direction in negotiating a rental agreement for space at the Convention Center for an interim period to brinF~ back for Council consideration at a later date.. Mr. Fernald also proposed the adoption of a resolution expressing the Council's support for continuance of this project. Mr. Fernald introduced Mr. Lou Villegas, Deputy Director of NSI and Executive Director of ASI, who narrated a slide presentation explaining that the purpose of a space information center facility was to acguaint the general public with the advantages of space technology and the space program and the ultimate benefits derived for all mankind. George Shabalu, Director of ASI, warn also introduced to Council. Ur. Villages, in answer to Councilman Kott, explained that the ,':~I was involved with almost every phase of an individual's life because of the far-reaching benefits derived from the space program. Councilman Roth confirmed that the resolution was supporting a concept in general and, as ~.{r. Fernald explained, no financial commitment was involved at. this time. Mayor Thom expressed his interest in pursuing the location of a National Space Institute museum-type facility in Anaheim not only because the City has been closely identified with the aerospace industry but also with the tourist industry. Councilman Thom offered Resolution No. 76R-568 for adoption. Refer to Resolution Book. EESOLUTION MO. 76R-568: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAl{gIN ~XPRESSING ITS SUPPORT FOR TP~ NATIONAL SPACE INSTITUTE/AMERICA/,~ SPACE iNSTITUTE ITS EFFORTS TO ~S.ABLISII ~ I~'~TERIM A~ PEP~/,IA2~E'~T FACILITY IN TIIE CITY OF A~;AI~IM. Roll Call Vote: AYES: COUNCIL ME~BERS: Kaywood, Seymour, Roth and Thom NOES: COUNCIL ~MBERS: Kott ABSENT: CO~,~CIL ,MEMBERS: ,~Ione The Mayor declared Resolution No. 76R-56~ duly passed and adopted. DE.~IS MALEK AND RICI~RD RUDE - TENNIS INSTRUCTORS: Councilman Roth offered Resolution Nos. 76R-546 and 76R-547 for adoption. Refer to Resolution Book. 76-651 City ItallI Anaheim; California - COUNCIL MINUTES - September 14t 1~761 1;30 P.M. RESOLUTION NO. 76?,-546: A }IESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF TIW, CITY OF ANAHEIM AUT~,ORI~.INC TI'= ?~YOR AND THE CITY CLERK TO EXECUTE AN AGREF?.~E'TT FOR THE ~?LOY~ENT OF DECO, IS ;~ALEK AS A TENNIS INSTRUCTOR. RESOLUTION NO. 76R-547: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF TUE CITY OF ANAI'EIM AUTHORIZING THE M~YOR AND CITY CLERK TO EXECUTE AN AGREE,'~I~T FOR THE E~OPLOY~NT OF RICHARD RUDE, AN I~!DIVIDUAL, AS TE}~,IIE IN~qT~UCTOP.. qoll Call Vote: AYES: COL~JCIL ,~'~E~'~ERS: Kaywood, Seymour, Kott, Roth and Thom NOES: CO~CIL MEMBERS: ~one ABSENT: COUNCIL ,x{E~.{BF, RS: .~';one The ,X~.ayor declared Resolution Nos. 76R-bf~6 and 76R-547 duly passed and adopted. APPI,ICATION FOR LfC;.~ A',~D WATER CO.~ISERVATION FUNDS - MODJESKA; PELANCO.'~I; O. AK CA'WON PARK PROJECTS: James Ruth, Parks, Recreation and the Arts Director, reported on his department's request for authorization to apply for land and water conservation funding under a federal program administered through the Department of Interior, Bureau of Outdoor Recreation, wherein matching funds for three City park projects will be requested subject to Council approval. Mr. Ruth further stated that funds were allocated in the current year's budget for these projects. Councilwoman Radwood offered Resolution No. 76R-548 through 76R-550, both inclusive, for adoption. Refer to Resolution Book. RESOLUTIO?] ;~0. 76R-548: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANA}~IM APPROVI~G T][E APPLICATIO.~ FOR LAND A~ ~ATER CONSEn. VATION ~/~',~D~ FOR THE MODJE~KA PARK COM~%]ITY CEI,~TER PROJECT A.'tD AUT!{ORIZING T~ CITY ?~%3]A.GER TO EXECUTE SAID APPLICATIO~; ON BEP~ALF OF THE CITY OF A.~;JIEIM. RESOLUTIO~J I~O. 76R-549: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF T]!E CITY OF A~At~IM ' ' ' TH'E - " A, PROVI:,~G APPLICATION FOR L~'~ A~ ~'~ATER CONSERVATION ~S FOR TIlE PEL~.~CONI PAI~I D px~, T ~ EVELO ..... I_ PROJECT A}~ AUTtlORIZI~G THE CITY >~'~AGER TO EXECUTE SAID APP!,ICATIO~! 0~ BEItALF OF ~IE CITY OF ANAFEIM. 2EEOLUTIO:T ~.!O. 76R-550: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COL~ICIL OF TUE CITY OF ANAIUZIM APPPOVI:~G ~',E APPLICATION FOR !,~'~D A~ I~ATER CO~SERVATIO~ ~S FOR TI~E CA~JO~ ~IA~RE CRITTER IMPROVE}.~E~T PROJECT ~.~ AUTI.~RIZI~IC T~E CITY ~.~IAGER T9 ~ ..... CLTE fiAID APPLICATI~"~.~. O~] ~,E~LF OF Tile CITY ~F ANAHEI~I. Roi1 Call Vote; AYES; COUNCIL ME'.~-IBERS: }%aywood, Seymour, Kott, Roth and Thom ~S~''~ · CO~'ICIL ~,~'-m'"~- The ~-~ayor declared 2esolution ;:os. 76R-548 through 76~-550 duly passed and a~opt ed. TTAGE P~TE ADJUST}':E~':T - PUBLIC SERVICE E',IPLOYEES: City Manger Talley requested wage rate adjustment approval for the public service employment program in three out-stationed classes effective July 1, 1976 as recommended in the Personnel Director ~IcRae's memorandum of September 8, 1076. ~!r. Talley explained that regular AUI~D employees received a 3% increase effective July 1, 1.976 and this recommendation would implement that increase for the Public Service Employees assigned to the District in accordance with Federal regulations. In answer to questions by Councilmen Seymour and Roth, Mr. Talley explained that the purpose of the resolution was to keep Job rates exactly the same so that no disparity would occur between comparable positions at the School District level. Mr. Talley further explained with regard'lo CETA employees that 275 were presently involved in the program, 170 of which are employed by the City and approximately 100 are employed in out-station positions throuFhout the community. %~en requests are received, all eligible agencies are considered and the City can 76-652 City ~!a!..l; Anaheim; California - COUI]CIL MINUTES - September. 1.4; 1976; 1:.3.0 P.~.. chan~e the allocation any time it wishes. It was confirmed that no CETA employees are working in private industry. Mayor Thom stated that some cities have abused the CETA program by terminating regular employees and replacing them with CETA employees but such was not the case in Anaheim and, as Councilman Seymour commented, Anaheimts approach is an exemplary one wherein the City recognizes the needs of other agencies and ha~ blended CETA jobs into these other agencies. Councilwoman Kaywood offered ~.esolution !~o. 76R-551 for adoption. ~.efer to ?.esolution Book. RESOLUTIO~'~ NO. 76R-551: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM A~EMDI:'TG RESOLUTION ~O. 76R-372 AND AD3USTIMG CERTAI~ ~ALAR¥ SCHF~DULES. (PGE) Roll Call Vote: AYE~S: COUNCIL ME}~BERS: Kaywood, Seymour, Roth and Thom NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Kott ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: None The Mayor declared Resolution Mo. 76R-55! duly passed and adopted. CI{A~.~ZR OF CO,','5~ERCE - CO~TRACT CANCELLATION: City ~anager Talley referred to the Eeptember 10, 1076 report requested and presented to Council by Public Information Officer, Ken Clements, analyzing publications of the Anaheim Chamber of Commerce and the Anaheim Area Visitors and Convention Bureau assessing the City's position regarding the promotional services contracted with the Anaheim Chamber of Commerce which report is on file in the City Clerks office. Mr. Talley stated that subsequent to the report the City received a letter dated September 13, 1976 from the Chamber advising that they were exercising the right to cancel their contract, effective in 30 days, or October 13, 1976. A bill for $2,115.63 was also received covering charges which were incurred in the first two ~.onths of the contract. .~r. Talley recommended that in view of the situation, staff be directed to transition the program back to the City as rapidly as possible and accounts settled for any expenses incurred through the transition date, but in no case no later than October 13, 1976. .~.. Councilman Seymour explained that since he was on vacation he was not aWare of the activities being conducted relative to the Chamber of Commerce and only yesterday learned of the quick response by the Chamber in cancelling the contract. He expressed a great deal of concern beyond the desires, attitudes or personal feelings of the City Council; that concern being %~[th the citizens of the local community and the county who may be affected by a hasty and rash judg~zent on both si~tes, especially the rather hasty decision on the part of the Board of Directors of the Chamber of Commerce. Councilman Seymour felt that adequate consideration had not been given as to wha: would t~e place once the contract was terminated and did not see anything in the report indicating that services were going to be conducted in the same high degree as before. He was of the opinion, however, that a certain amount of "fat" in the contract could be eliminated. Another basic concern of Councilman Seymour's was the City's relationship with the business community through the Chamber of Commerce especially with regard to the economic development program planned for discussion at today's meeting. He stressed that a rash move on either part could build a barrier that would hinder the great potential lying in this economic development pragram. For those reasons Councilman Seymour preferred that the Board of Directors of the Chamber be asked to Join a group which he would be happy to head on behalf of the City and invite participation of any other Council Member to take a further look at the whole situation and hopefully find areas of improvement in the contract relationship and further to discuss the Chamber's involvement in a Joint effor~ with the City pertinent to the economic development program. He tnerefore requested a continuation of the existing contract for a 90 day period. 76-653 Cit Hall Anaheim California - COUNCIL MINUTES - Se~ 1:30 P,M, ~!ayor Thom expressed his opinion that a personality conflict had developed between a small Froup of the Directors of the Chamber and members of the City Council; however, he felt this should not result in anything that would be of a deleterious nature to either group. Councilman Seymour wanted it understood in the motion that the Council would be asking the Chamber to continue their exi.~ttng contract for a period of ~0 days until a new contract could be drafted. Councilman Roth expressed his surprise at some of the statements made by Public Information Officer Ken Cler~ents in the strong support given to bo~h the Chamber of Commerce and the Visitor and Convention Bureau. He aEread with the concept of not using proprietary organizations to provide pamphlets, maps~ etc., even though merrY,ers of the Chamber of Commerce, but was firm in his belief that competitive biddinc on any type of publication or service was absolutely necessary. Council~.~an ~oth concurred with the motion made by Councilman Seymour subject to the Chamber's Board of ~irectors approval since they ~my not want to continue the contract. On motion by Councilman gey~our, seconded by Councilwoman K, aywood, the City Council proposed that a meeting be held between representative of the City Council an,~, the Eoard of Directors of the Chamber of Commerce to develop a new contr:~ctual relationship with the Chamber of Commerce and to continue the existing contract for a period of nO days until a new contract could be drafted. To this motion, Councilman Kott voted "Ua". ?,~OT!9U CAPRI!iD. :iECES7i: By g. eneral consent t!~e Council recessed for ten r~inutes. (2:4~ P.L~.) ,' ...... ~ ...... : The "rayor called the meeting to order all Council ¢*embers being present. (2:5fi P.}f.) - Cq:~TI?iUED PUBLIC I!EARI'IC.-. - COP?FLICT OF I,~':TEZEST CODES: Deputy City Attorney Frank Lowry explained that since discussing the matter of Conflict of Interest Codes at the meeting of Au~st 31, 1°,76, he had met with representatives of the ~%nahei:~ ~funicipal Employees Association (A~EA). Also during the interim the Fair Political Practices Commission (FPPC) issued an amended ruling ~f~ich allowed the City, in ,~?r. Lowry's opinion, to delete approximately 50 employees primarily clerical from the Code because the FPPC redefined for the fourth time the definition of the words "foreseeable" and "material". X~r. Lowry indicated that }.~r, O'Malley of the A~A expressed his appreciation for the meeting but felt that the City was overly broad in their coverage of employees and further expressed that the act should be approached in a very cautious way with only a limited number of employees being required to submit disclosure statements. Mr. Lowry stated that the FPPC intent was to make the law as broad as possible and should be interpreted accordingly and the only complaint received thus far was from the A}.~,]A regarding the scope of coverage. However, Mr. Lowry recommended that the City not eliminate any more employees from schedule A as furnished to the City. Mayor Thom asked Mr. Lowry if he had an opportunity to compare Anaheim's Code with that of other cities of the same size. ~r. Lowry explained that Anaheim was using the model code recommended by the League of California Cities in effect in over 38~ cities, although Anaheim eliminated some employees that other cities included. He then indicated that the proposed resolution was necessary to ratify the Conflict of Interest Codes of the City's 14 Departments and 7 Boards and Commissions putting into effect a 30-day period in which all designated employees must file disclosure statements with the City Clerk. The Mayor asked if anyone ~ished to address the Council either in favor or opposition; there being no response, he declared the hearing closed. As recommended by the City Attorney's Office, Councilman Seymour offered Resolution No. 76-552 for adoption. Refer to Resolution Book. 76-654 City tlall~ Anaheim~ California - CO~CIL MINUTES - September !z,~ 197.6; !:30 P.M. RESOLUTION NO. 76R-552: A RESOLUTION OF T~!E CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM APPROVING CONFLICT OF INTEFLEST CODES OF ALL CITY DEPARTMENTS AND CERTAIN BOARDS /~';D CO~iMISSIONS OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIH. Roll Call Vote: AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Kaywood, Seymour, Kott, ~oth and Thom NOES: COUNCIL ME>[BERS: None ABSENT: COUNCIL ~_xfl~ER~q: None The Mayor declared Resolution No. 76R-552 duly passed and adopted. CONTINUED PU.BLIC }~ARE~G - ABANDON}lENT NO. 75-16A: A letter dated September 8, 1976 from Dan L. Rowland and Associates was received stating that Anaheim '~emorial ~'[ospital wished to withdraw a portion of Hermosa Drive from the proposed abandonment described as Parcel ! in Pesolution ~'7o. 76p-z~57 indicating that their request would nullify Conditions 1 and , of the resolution. However, the Hospital still wanted the abandonment of the public utility easemen~ described as Parcel 2 in Resolution .~7o. 767~-457. The Mayor asked if anyone wished to address the Council in favor or opposition. ~!r. Randy Bosch of Dan L. Rowland and Associates, Arcbit:.cts for Anaheim Memorial ilospital, stated that a portion of Eermosa Drive was removed from the request for abandonment because it was proven to be too difficult to reconfigure the cul-de- sac to meet the approval of the City F. nEineer but the Hospital still desired to abandon the public utility easement in the area of the property currently owned by them to facilitate expansion of their existing parking area. There being no other persons wishing to address the Council, the ~ayor closed the public hearing. ~VIRO~IM}.~TAL IMPACT P. EPORT - CATEGORICAL EXE}TTION: On motion by Councilman Kott, seconded by Councilwoman Kavwood, the City Council ratified the determination of the Planning Dirgctor that the proposed activity falls within the definition of Section 3.01, Class 5, of the City of Anaheim guidelines to the requirements for an environmental impact report and is, therefore, categorically exempt from the requirement to file an environmental impact report. MOTION CARRIED. As recommended by the City Engineer, Councilman Kott offered Resolution No. 76R- 553 for adoption. Refer to Resolution Book. RESOLUTION NO. 76R-553: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF T}IE CITY OF ANAU~EIM ORDERING ~tE VACATION A~rD ABANDON}lENT OF AN EXISTING STREET ;CID PUBLIC UTILITY EASE,,,EJ, (NO. 75-16A, HERMOSA DRIVE, NORTH OF LA PALmyrA AVE}~E, l,;~.qT OF t~gT STREET). Roll Call Vote: AYES: COUNCIL ME~fBERS: Kaywood, Seymour, Kott, Roth and Thom NOES: COUNCIL ME~fBERS: None ABSE.~: COUNCIL .MEMBERS: None The Mayor declared Resolution No. 76R-553 duly passed and adopted. PUBLIC HEARING - GENERAL PLAN TRAILS ELE~NT~ E0.UESTRIAN AND HIKING TRAILS AMD EIR NO. 180: Mr. Bill Cunningham, Planning Department, provided background data on the request for the approval of Environmental Impact Report 'Jo. 180 and request for authorization to add a Trails Element, Equestrian and Hiking Trails Component to the Anaheim General Plan. Mr. Cunningham explained that the project was a Joint effort between the Task Force Trails Commiggee, Parks, Recreation and the Arts Department and the Planning Department, initiated July 29, 1975. Since that time a conceptual plan was approved by the City Council at their meeting of Mmrch 23, 1976 and staff was directed to prepare a General Plan Amendment. The City Planning Commission recommended certification of EIR No. 180 and that a committee be formed to study the implementation and financing techniques and to make recommendations thereon. 76-655 City Hall; Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - September _1.4, .1.976; 1:30 P.M. ,, The City Clerk reported that several communications in favor of the General Plan Trails Element }tad been received and copied for each Council ~ember. Mr. Cunningham presented a map which depicted the three classifications of trails involved as specifcally outlined in the Joint report dated .July 1~76 prepared by the Task Force Trails Committee, Planning Department and ParD. s, Recreation and tile Arts Depart[~ent on file in the City Clerk's ~ffice. ~ince maintenance costs were of concern, Mr. Cunningham referred to page 10 of the report wherein such costs were stated in ter~ of today's dollars and, therefore, were unduly high. Ue indicated that since the report was published, ot~er jurisdictions in the trail business were contacted and suggested that a ~ore realistic figure for maintenance would be zero to S150 per mile per year. lie further co~mented, Yorba Linde did not even ~other tO budget for maintenance because they used volunteer labor for trail maintenance. ~n July 28, 1976 the Parks, Recreation and the Arts Department met and recommended approval of the proposed plan as did the Planning Commission on August 2, 1976 with the exception that the implementation section, page 19-28, be for informational purposes only and not part of the plan. Mr. Horst Schor, speaking on behalf of the Trails Committee, first emphasized the universal appeal of the trails system indicating that it was not just for horseback riders but for hiking purposes and a portion for bike riders. Canyon High School also indicated they wish to utilize the trails for biological and environmental studies. ~r. Schor further explained the development and dedication of the trails system stating that since his initial presentation a comprehensive trails system has been developed as outlined in the report submitted and as depicted on the map presented with 40% of the regional trails system existing and functioning. Mr. Schor's main concern was to obtain approval for adoption of the Master Plan as proposed, as well as approval of the Environmental Impact Report; the urgency being, if the plan should not be approved at this time, some developers indicated they may withdraw dedication for trails. Mr. Schor explained that the Committee did not succeed in coming up with a comprehensive financing proposal for the cost of trail maintenance and recommended, if Council approved, that this matter be returned to the Parks, Recreation and the Arts Department and the Trails Committee to formulate a detailed report on how the system could be financed. Mr. Schor also indicated that a precise plan should be prepared by Planning and Engineering for the Four-Corners Pipeline easement trail so that developers could dedicate the proper right-of-way. The Mayor asked how many in the Chamber were in support of the proposed Trails Element Plan. Approximately 25 people indica:ed their support; no one appeared in opposition. He then declared the hearing closed. EP.;VIRONMENTAL IMPACT P~EPORT NO. 180: Having been reviewed by the City staff and recommended by the City Planning Commission to be in compliance with City and State Guidelines and the State of California Environmental Quality Act, the City Council acting upon such information and belief does hereby certify, on motion by Councilwoman Kaywood, seconded by Councilman Thom~ that E,I,R, No, 180 is i~ compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act and City and State Guidelines. MOTION CARRIED. Councilwoman Kaywood offered Resolution No. 76R-554 for adoption. Refer to Resolution Book. RESOLUTION NO. 76R-554: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANA]tEIM AM]P~DING THE ANAHEIM GE~ERAL PLAN BY ADOPTING ~/qD INCORPORATING THEREIN A RIDIN~ ~D HIKINC TRAILS ELEMENT. 76-656 City Hall; Anaheim; California - COUNCIL }fI~,~TES - ~eptember 14I 1976! 1:3~ Roll Call Vote: AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Kaywood, Seymour, I[ott, Roth and Thom 'T'~7~:: CO~CIL ~?'~BI~RS: ~one ABfq?L';T: CODICIL >~MBI;ES: ~;one The ~'[ayor declared Resolution ~o. 76R-554 duly passed and adopted. On motion by Councilwoman Kaywood, seconded by Councilman Thom, the City Council authorized that the financing feasibility study for trail raintenance costs reverted to t]~e Pmrks, ?.ecreation and the Arts Department, the Task Force Trails Committee and the Planning Department. Y'~OTIO?I CARRIED. PUBLIC !EiARI:~C - VARIA~NCE ?~O. 2515; Application by ??innie ?~. Dierberger for waiver of maximum fence h~ight to establish an illegally constructed fence at lZ~39 ~Test Damon Avenue. The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution ?To. PC76-1A1, reported that the Planning Director has determined that the proposed activity falls within the definition of Section 3.01, Class 3, of the City of Anaheim Cuidellnes to the requirements for an Environmental Impact Report and is therefore categorically exempt from the requirement to file an EIR; and further, denied Variance ~'~o. 2815. 5k'. James L. Barisic, Agent, appealed the action of the Planning Commission, and public hearing scheduled this date. Mr. Ron Thompson described the subject property and surrounding zoning and land uses. He outlined the findings given in the staff report which were submitted to and considered by the Planning Cotmr. ission. The .qayor asked if anyone wished to address the Council. l.~r. John ~. Kent, Attorney, 560 California Federal Building at Euclid and Crescent, representing ~rs. Dierberger, stated that the fence was not erected in defiance of the City Ordinance but ~rs. Dierberger was incorrectly advised by a builder that no permit or variance was necessary to do so. Mr. Kent explained that Mrs. Dierberger felt compelled in putting up the fence in order to protect her trees and other plants from continued trespassing by neighborhood youths and she did not like to be put in the position of having to barricade herself from this onslaught. Mr. Kent said that some of the neighbors who expressed opposition to the fence were those who forced ~rs. Dierberger to construct the fence in the first place. }!r. Kent recognized that it would be possible to set the fence back and/or reduce the height as an alternative, but to set it back 24 feet and drop it to 42 inches, which the Ordinance requires, would be self defeating and of no use to Mrs. Dierberger since her need is to protect herself against trespassers. Since the fence is in the City right-of-way, ~!r. Kent indicated where right-of- way is blocked off, there can be a prescriptive right or right of adverse possession which develops preventing the City later on from exercising their inherent right. Mrs. Dierberger, however, would be perfectly willing to give in writing to the City whatever would be required to protect the City during the time the fence remains, should the Council approve the Variance. Mr. Kent connnented that the Council sits not only as a body Which enforces the law, but also a body which gives equity. It was therefore his recommendation that the fence remain as is and that ~_rs. Dierberger be ordered that the right be nontransferable and only available to her personally. ?'~r. Kent explained that l'~'rs. Dierberger would be 8~ years old on her next birthday perhaps, not having many more years to live, and at such time when the fence would no longer be necessary, it would be taken down. He felt that very special circumstances presented themselves here in that an elderly lady was involved ~o did not want to put up the fence but felt compelled to do so because of the continuing onslaught. In order for the City not to lose jurisdiction, ~'~r. Kent suggested that the matter be reviewed again in a few years and if a problem existed to face the issue at that time. }~. Loyd Simmons, 1447 Damon, submitted a petition containing 1~ signatures, representing 8 homeowners in the neighborhood, who were opposed to the proposed Variance along with photographs of the fence for reference. Hr. simmons stated 76-657 Cityi~{all, Anaheim; California - CO~CIL MINUTES - September 14! 19761 they were not opposed to the fence as such, but wanted it set bacP~ and up to Code explaining that ~t was unsightly, spoiled the view from his front window and generally devalued the properties in the neighborhood. (Photographs were returned t o Mr. Simmons. ) Mayor Thom asked if ~{r. Si.~m~ons had any comments regarding the vandalizing, pillaging and destruction of property alledged to have occurred. ~r. Simmons stated that these allegations were not true. Mr. Hubert T. Clark, 1455 Dnmon, explained that he had lived in the neighborhood for 22 years and purchased additional lots in the area for investment purposes which proved to be very lucrative. ~e voiced his opposition to the fence because it was constructed completely out of Code and asked that the recor~nendation of the Planning Commission denying the Variance be upheld. Councilman ?.oth asked ~.~rs. Clark in the interest of compromise how she would feel if the fence was moved back but left to the existing height. Mrs. Clark stated that she did not feel this would do too much good. There being no other persons who wished to address the Council, the :~ayor closed the public hearing. Councilman Seymour and Mayor Thom agreed that it appears a neighborhood disagreement exists; however, Councilman Seymour stressed that while he shared the concern of Mr. Clark regarding the value of his property and with Mr. Simmons on the unsightliness of the fence, his heart goes out to someone who is 80 years old and perhaps does not have much longer than 2 or 3. years to live. Councilman Seymour offered a resolution approving the Variance subject to Interdepartmental reco~nendatlons and the additional conditions and stipulations made by :~rs. Dierberger's Attorney as follows: 1. That a contractual writing be given relative to the question of adverse possession to insure that the City could never be challenged on this matter. 2. That the right to have the fence be limited entirely to Mrs. Dierberger for as long as she may live on the property. 3. If the foregoing conditions have not occurred in three years at that time Council is to review the matter and take another look at it. Mayor Thom expressed that he understood the concern of those who had spoken and also understood the concern of an 80 year old lady desirous of maintaining peace of mind and tranquility. And it was on the lat~er that he would approve the Variance otherwise he would not do so. Councilman ~qey~our clarified for }{rs. Clark that the fence would remain as existing. X{rs. Clark was under the impression, however, that the fence was to be moved back 9 fe~t plus an additional 15 feet as required by the Ordinance, As a compromise, Councilman Seymour offered to amend his resolution to include that the fence be moved back 9 feet, but remain at the same height. Mr. ~errt interjected that there were trees on the property that would be affected by this change leaving them outside of the fenced area. Upon consultation it was confirmed that only one tree would be involved and as an additional stipulation, approval was given to have the fence bow around the tree so as to preclude it from being outside the fence. As suggested by the City Attorney, a 60-day time li~.~it was ~mposed for completion of the fence movement. E~IVIEO~ITAL I~[PACT REPORT - CATEGORICAL EXECraTION: On motion by Councilman Thom, seconded by Councilman Roth, the City Council ratified the determination of the Planning Director that the proposed activity falls within the definition of Section 3.01, Class 3 of the City of Anaheim guidelines to the requirements for an Environmental Impact Report and is, therefore, categorically exempt from the requirement to file an EIR. MOTION CARRIED. 76-658 City Halll, Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MI::UTES - September 14~ 1976~ 1:30 P.~'.~. Councilman Seymour clarified his resolution to reflect approval of Variance 2,q15 subject to Interdepartmental recommendations, deleting Condition ~Io. 1, and further subject to the conditions and mt ipulat ions set forth above by ~rs. Dierber§er Ts Attorney. Refer to Resolution Book. RESOLUTIO~ NO. 76R-555: A RESOLUTIOU OF THE CITY CO~CIL OF THE CITY OF ANAl!RIM GRkMTINC VARIANCE MO. 28 ! 5. Roll Call Vote: AYES: COI~.,~CIL MEMBERS: Kaywood, Seymour, Kott, Roth and Thom NO.ES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: !~one ABSE~'T: COU~CIL ~'~I.{BERS: ?!one The >.{ayor declared Resolution No. 76E-555 duly passed and adopted. t~JnLIC HEARING - CONDITIONAL USE PER,.fiT .~0. 1636: Applicaton by I.!illiam P. and Emma S. Bregder to permit an 80-unit motel on the property located on the northeast corner of Katella Avenue and Easy Way. The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution ~o. PC76-139, recommended that the subject project be declared exempt from the requirement to prepare an Environmental Impact Report pursuant to the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act and, further, recommended that Conditional Use Permit No. 1636 be granted, subject to the following conditions: 1. That the owner(s) of subject property shall pay to the City of Anaheim the sum of sixty cents (60¢) per front foot along Katella Avenue for tree planting purposes. 2. That the owner of subject property shall install street trees in the public parkway along Easy Way in accordance with City specifications and subject to the approval of the Superintendent of Parkway ~{aintenance. 3. That the owner(s) of subject property shall pay to the City of Anaheim the sum of two dollars ($2.00) per front foot along Katella Avenue and Easy 57ay for street lighting purposes. 4. That trash storage areas shall be provided in accordance x,ith approved plans on file ~th the Office of the Director of Public ~orks, as stipulated to by the petitioner. 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. g. That any parking area lighting proposed si~all be down-lighted and directed away from the northerly property line to protect the adjacent residential uses. 7. That subject property shall be developed substantially in accordance with plans and specifications on file with the City of Anaheim harked ~xhibit ~Ios. 1 (Revision 1), and 2 through 4; provided, l~owever, that kitchen efficiency units ~ith a maxirmam of S-cubic foot refrigerators, two burner drop-in type stoves with warming ovens, and single compartnent sinks may be installed, except that the manager's unit will be allowed to have full kitchen facilities. q. That Condition ::os. 1 and 3, above-mentioned, shall be complied with prior to the commencement of the activity authorized under this resolution, or prior to the time that the building permit is issued, or within a period of one year from date hereof, whichever occurs first, or such further time 'as the Planning Commission and/or City Council may grant. 9. That Condition Nos. 2, 4, 6, and 7, above-mentioned, shall ~e complied with prior to final building and zoning inspections. 10. That the maximum length of tenancy in the motel units shall not exceed two (2) weeks, as stipulated to by the petitioner. 76-659 ~ .... ~ali~ornia - COU>~CIL ~'~INUTES - ~eptem}~er 14, 1076~ 1...3~ p.~. rity ]iall, An. ahei~~ .... _~ _ ............ . ..... ,.. ~evie,~ of' the action taken l~y tl~e Planning Commission x~,zas req~ested by Councilman ~eyr-~our and public hearin~ sc~'~edu].ed this date. :.'~r. Thompson described the subject property and surroundin, g zoning and land uses. ~e outlined the findings 2iven in the staff report which were submitted to and con:~i.dered by tt~e City P].anniny,; Commission. t.~r. Thompson added that the pri;~ary issue before the City Council was the concern of tt~e petitioner re~ardin, g l~.itchenette facilities as well as the number of burners allowed. The Planning Comm~1ssion approved the mote], stipulating the 2-burner efficiency size kitchen facilities rather than the four burner unit and larger stove requested ky tl~e ~7!eveloper. The developer indicated if they were required to ink, tall a two-burners'~.~ve, such units would be difficult to acquire_ since their research indicateJ ~.'~crican made units were no longer readily available. The developer subsequently came back and requested the Planning Commission to clarify or modify this condition prior to coming to Council. In ans~,~er to Council?.an !~.ott's question, 1,Ir. Thompson e::plained that the Planning Commission was quite concerned because in the past some motel units which had b~,en approved in the. City turne,~] into substandard apartments occupied by families Yecause builders circum~zented the ~.'~otel ordinance. Although this still could be done with efficiency size kitchen facilities, it was not quite as desirable. Yayor 'iThom asked if anyone wished to address the Council either in favor or in opposition. "ir J!arry t,ra~iseiy, 174 .... ,outh Euclid, spoke on behalf of >'?r. and ~r . ~.~ s I.~7illiam ~recder and expressed that tT~e issue today was not so much the two burner or four bu~er units, but solely an issue of credibility as to ~ether the project proposed x~zas a motel or a substandard apartment. !~r. '~In~? iselv~ ..rave background infcr~ation on the developers, explainin~ that 6 out of their 17 motel locations were locate~ in Orange County, one of ~ich was located in ~.nahei~. (E:;ecutive Suite Apartments) and t~at tbci-~ ~-~.r. !h~isely then referre~ to the pac!,:et of ~naterial subr.~itted to Council which include¢! an. analysis of ~.,hat ~.zou!~] be a fair rate of return on the ~1.5 million planned investment in the motel concluding that it would take 2257 per month, per unit at 100% occupancy-~o maintain the investment ~rithout considering profit 'or salaries. Councilman Seyr~our in~]icated that after reviewing the whole matter he was not convinced that the project precluded tl~e possibility of it turning into a ~_~stan,=ar~ apartment, ilis concern was not over the t~,~o-burner, four-burner question, but ~ninly x,rith tl~e violation of the previously established policy :.~t~crein efficiency un±ts ~ any motel developr.:ent were not to exceed 25% ~"~.:en ~.~itl~ the ^257 a .~-::.cnth e:<a~-:~ple presented by ~'!r. Knisely, Councilman Seymour 'felt it x..~ould still be possible to m.aintain a substandard apartment on this bas±s. Council~nan Sey~-'aour explained that the concept as outlined a few years ago ~,~en he served on the Planning Commission ~as that Anaheim was a recreational and visitor and convention city with a need to provide for families ~zl~o wish to stay one, two or three ~.~eelcs. It ~zas necessary therefore to provide a unit compatible to that need in the efficiency unit but with the 25% maximum stipulation on any motel project. Council~.an Sey~..our expressed that the project under consideration, in his opinion, was desi~ed more to r.~,eet the needs of the transient traveler rather than for those it was intended and, further, that the property in question was in an area more residential in nature than commercial/recreational. Councilwoman Kaywood comented on the proposed plans which suggested to her that the units were apartments rather than motel units. She also cited examples of three conplexes on Lincoln Avenue ~here assurances were given, in fact, that they would be motels but later, x,~en many rooms remained vacant, they were being advertised outside the building and other places with a monthly rate, creating first of all, a stupendous parking problem as well as a substandard apartment situation. Councilwoman Kaywood stressed that having been "burned" already, she could not vote for anythino more than a 25% allocation to kitchen units ~rhere being no other persons wishing to address the Council, =h~ }fayor cloa~ =}~% public hearing. 76-660 City Hall, Anahei.m, Ca!if_o.rnia-~C?U!~C..II,~ ~.I,~,q1T,F.,S~ -September 14_, ]~9.76, !:30L P.."I~. _ _ Councilman I.Z, ott asked Y.r. Thompson the frequency of r~.otels becoming substandard apartments. Mr. .Thompson reported the same cases given by Counci]wo,~.an Kaywood. !Ie commented however that a zoning complaint had never }~ee~ received on the Executive Suites. Councilman Seymour explained that he was familiar with the ~xec~tive Suites operation and believed it to be a fine one and to that degree he was empathetic; however, he could not violate the 252 efficiency unit maximum. Councilwoman Kaywood said she favored the 25~', .~.a:.rJ.?~.~'~ stipu!stion with two-burner or four-burner units. Ei~VIRO>DI]']?':T^,-,I, I~fPACT REPORT - ',.';EGATIV.E DECLAPJITIO~;: On motion by Councilwor:an l'"a~°°d, seconded by Counci'lm'an' 'Seym..,°'u'r, '~'be' City Council finds that this project ~,.,~].1 have no significant effect on the environment and is, t~.erefore, exempt from the requirement to prepare an. EIR. ~?OTIO'.',~ CAP, RIED. ~ouncilwonan Kaywood of~are~~, Pesolution ','o. 76~ ~5~ for a¢~..option granting Conditional Use Permit :'.'!o. 1636 with the conditt, on that t!~e hitchen units be li:'~ited to 25~'' of the total su]~ject to ?lannin? Oor;miss.ion recom~nen~lations ?,efer to Resolution ~ook. 2oll Call Vote' The l','.ayor declared ~,esolution 'lo. 76q-556 c!uly l~,?.s',~ ~ and adopted. ?.._,,C~,..,S :.. By general consent, the Council. recessed, ..... 'For ~'~.ve, z':inutes. (4',-~0.. ~,_ .".) AFTER, R~' · " ,',,CE°° ,': . all ~ouncil embers b. eing .... ,'~ The ~'.~ayor called the meetin~ to or~'~er, .... present. (A:~5 P.I.~.) ' 73 and 74 of Tract ,'..,~o. 7569) Councilman Thom of{ere'~' 'T. esolution ~o. 76P.-557 for adoption. P~efer to P, esolution Book. RESOI,U~zlO,~' '~.,0. 76R-557: ^ P~cOLUTIO:I OF ~'~. ~~-',,.~, .... ~OU'~.,CIL~'~. OF vl2~: ~ITY ~F ~d~,D C ITIO?~S OF ..., TO EXCI'~GE REAL p~n~o~v ............ ~J~D DIP, ECTI~C Ev~C'~~..,~IO~', OF A~=~,,.~,,. (Calvin ' ...... and ~.'ildred. G. Kenney) Roll Call Vote: The Mayor declared Resolution !!o. 76R-557 duly passed and adopted. AC CELERATED_ . ....... DEPRECIATION BEFO?~ PUC - PACIFIC IELE~.,I,.LE~ ~O~ COMPAI. IY: Assistant City Attorney Bill II°pkins submitted a"reqUes'ted '~eport '~d~ate'd SePtemb~er 10, 1976, relative to the status of a law suit against the Pacific Telephone Company by the Cities of Los Angeles, San Francisco, San Diego and Long Beach concernin~ accelerated depreciation which was presently before the PUblic 'Utilities Commission. lie explained that hearings were held and all parties had filed their final briefs for a decision by the Comnission and that the City of Anaheim could not now become a party to the matter at this stage of the proceedings. However, Mr. Hopkins recommended that Anaheim submit a letter to the City Attorney's Office of Los Angeles ~ith copies to the other cities offering the City's support in future proceeding in connection with this case. '~r. Hopkins suggested that the City review the Commission's decision when it is announced to decide whether or not to intervene as a party in any appeal made to the California Supreme 76-661 City Hall; Anaheim; California - COL~CIL MIN .UTES - September 1.4, 1--976; 1:30 P,M, Court, as well as other future proceedings, or to join the four Cities in their appellate efforts. Councilwoman Kaywood stated that if the matter were to go on to a higher Court she was not in favor of Anaheim's involvement since it costs several thousands of dollars and a great deal of staff time as indicated by ~r. Hopkins; if the final decision is favorable, it will be favorable to the same people whether Anaheim joins in the litigation or not. On motion by Councilman Roth, seconded by Councilman Kott, a letter was authorized to be sent to the City Attorney's Office of Los ;~geles with copies to San Francisco, San Diego and Long Beach, offering Anaheim's support in future proceedings ~ith the decision to be made whether or not the City would intervene further at the outcome of the PUC's decision. MOTION CARRIED. ~ P STATE PROP~.~T~ T]Lv. STRUCTURe: .As requested by Councilwoman KaywOod. at the September 7, 1976 meeting, Councilman Thom offered Resolution No. 76R-558 for adoption. Refer to Resolution Book. PE~OLUTION NO. 76R-558; A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF URGING /]{E CALIFOrnIA STATE LEGISLATURE TO REVIEW TI~ STATE PROPERTY TAX STRUCTURE AND TO ~^~ ~.~ SUCII APPROPRIATE LEGISLATION AS 'JAY BE DEE~D ~ ~-,EC~SARY TO PROVIDE PROPERTY TAX RELIEF TO Roll oa]_l Vote: COUNCIL ~'~?~BERS: Kaywood, Seymour, Roth and Thora CO~CIL ~RS: Kott COUNCIL }~fBERS: ~one The ~!ayor declared Resolution ~'~o. 76R-558 duly passed and adopted· ABAiDON~O~L~T 75-15A: As requested by ?.,~r. Nilliam Devitt of the City Engineer's Office, action setting the proposed Abandonment for Public Ilearing was continued for one week since a letter was received ~from Mr. Art Shipkey, owner of the property on the west side of Palm Street, requesting that his name be withdrawn from the application for abandonment. On motion by Councilman Roth, seconded by Councilman Thom, action setting proposed Abandonment ~?o. 75-15A for Public Hearing was continued for one week· ........ ~ CA~IED. PEDESTRIAN SAFETY IN THE VICI~ITY OF %lie EUCLID BRANCH LIBRARY: City }{anager Talley spoke on behalf of ?{rs. Elizabeth Schultz of the Library Board expressing her concern for pedestrian crossing protection on Euclid Street in the vicinity of the newly opened Euclid Branch Library as outlined in her letter of August 25, 1976. ~. Talley, however, concurred with the report of the City Engineer dated September 10, 1976, that unprotected crosswalks instill a false sense of security in the pedestrian. Councilman Roth agreed with Mr. Talley explaining that once unprotected crosswalks, such as the one formerly at Bush and Lincoln, were removed, he observed that less problems occurred. Mayor Thom asked if the present flashing yellow light already installed overhead on Euclid near the Fire Station adjacent to the Library could not be utilized either by itself, as it would enhance any crosswalk placed there, or could not a push button be installed which could be used by pedestrians and.would cause the light to flash red when in use. Mr. Paul ginger, Traffic Engineer, indicated that if the City were to go to the expense of installing such a push button signal that it may Just as well install regular signal lights. Councilwoman Kaywood expressed ~oncern that no one should be in that crosswalk when the light is red because the fire trucks would be moving quickly, 76-662 City .Hall~ Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES -~ept.erl~,er 14~ !076~ j..:.3~ P.~. Councilman Seymour suggested that advantage be taken o~. the existing yellow caution light, but with the further installation of sirens that signify crosswalk and caution or perhaps even the utilization of flashing lights within the signs themselves. >!r. Singer voiced his opinion that such a move would last for approximately two months after which time the "halo" effect diminishes~losing its effectiveness and sometimes having a tendency to cause rear end collisions because of the indecision on the driver's part. Mayor Thom stated that within 30 to 60 days the Chamber would be filled with people r~questing resolution of the crosswalk situation, and at that time it would be ~andated. !~e suggested to avoid future prohlars that it be solve~! or dealt ~,rith now. Y,r. ~?illiam Devitt, ~ssistant City .'qn~ineer, agreed with ~ayor Thorn's statement an~! indicated that the Traffic Department would prefer that Council '..~an~ate the If ~ qU C:S t n 0~'7. ~'r. ringer clarifie? that t]~ere were two cxistin% flas]~ing li[~.hts - for northbound traffic at Palais and for southbound traffic at Chalet. Pursuant to this clarification on motion by Councilman Tho~., seconded Joy Council's-mn Sey?our, the City Council requested that a pedestrian crosswal]._ he installe(~ across ]]uclid ?treet at the Euclid Branch Library and between the two existing yellow caution li.q. hts with the addition of si~s "Pedestrian Crosswalk." Vo this :',~.otion, Councilwoman Kaywood voted "~7o" and Councilman }loth abstained. OVi]RCROSSI::G OF SAPITA ;~IA FP. XIT;AY AT CPuESCE~-!T .,tVE~];E: Councilrcan D. oth offered Resolution L~o. 76R-559 for adoption. P.efer to Resolution Fook. RESOLUTIO!,~ }:0. 76R-559: ~ RES~LUTIOU. OF T'JE CITY COlE'~CIL ~F T~ CITY QF ;CI;J'EI?I P~EQUESTING ~iE COU~i~ OF OP~{GE TO I~!CLUDE ~T~II?I TI~E FEDERAL AID URB~.~ 1976 ~DE~L HIG~TAY ACT PROGP=~f TIlE DE~LOP:~:iT ~F CRESCEIIT AVK~iUE. Roll Call Vote: AYES: COUL'CIL ~EEP. S: Kaba~ood, Sey~.~our~ ~iott, P. oth and Thom ABSE~T: COI~CIL ~',~BEEC: ~'7one The .~yor declared %esolution ~Io. 76R-559 duly passed and adopted. PUBLIC UTILITIES BOA?~O - ~%PPOINT?~NTS: On motion by Councilman Thom, seconded by Councilman Seymour, appointr, mnts to the Public Utilities Board were continued one week. MOTIOi~ CARRIED. ABBOTT PO~R COPdPORATION - BID PROCESS - P~BID 3099: City ?!anager Talley submitted to Council four reports covering questions asked at the September 7, 1976, Council meeting regarding the City's purchase/bid policy as posed in the Abbott Power Corporation's letter of September 1, 1976. The reports, on file in the City Clerk's office, consisted of (1) City Manager's office report dated September 9, 1976, in response to letter from !~r. Abbott dated February 26, 1~76, (2) Report from purchasing agent dated September 10, 1976, regarding bidding procedures, (3) Report from City Attorney's office dated September 1D, 1076, regarding Abbott Power Corporation's letter dated September 1, 1076, and, (4) Reports from Electrical Superintendent dated September 7, 1976. ~.~r. Abbott, in turn, delivered a report to the staff reports submitted with letter dated September 14, 1976, also on file in the City Clerk's office. In sum~nary Mr. Talley stated that he was prepared to recommend a purchase as it was determined that the City's practices were in conformance ~ith both the City's legal requirements and accepted purchasing practices. Before doing so, however, Mr. Talley indicated that the Purchasing Agent, Electrical Superintendent, Utilities Director and City Attorney's office were available to answer any questions. Mr. Roger Abbott, 745 Peralta Itills Drive, addressed the Council and referred to the report submitted by the Electrical Superintendent recommending that Allis 76-663 City ~!~a. ll, AnM.h..e.,.i~, .California., CO.~..~.CIL ~,~I~,JTES i S..epte.m. be.r Ii4 ~ 1976, Chalmers be awarded the contract under Rebi~. !To. BD09 for tl~e ~etal clad m?itchgear an~! asked on what date, ~.~at time and ~M~ere was the bid delivered. '~r. ~'!ichae! '~ichelle, Purchasing Agent, stated that the };id was delivered just prior to th,~-~ bid opcni~'~.~". ,~.t ].~.'qO A.'~. on Septer~ber !, !.976. ~fr. Abbott then referred to the City's P, FQ form on ~ich A!lis Chalmers submitted t]~,~J.r quotation which states "unless othez~.~ise specified, to receive consi~eration, your b~d must be received in this office complete in all detail on or be{ore the date indicated -?~.~gust 31, 1976 - 5:~0 P.I~I." and wanted to know t~.~ purpose of the statement although ~e felt J.t spoke for itself. Ue contended t!,a+ si?~cc Allis Chalmers bid was not received l.~y the ti;'~e specified, it si~ou!d not have been considered. .~'? 'ichel!e ~nn~,zered that the statement is ~:~a.de so ~.~.~at it is possible to know ~;e'~'~rehand ~o anq how many bids there are so that if an inadequate number is rec~ive~i, ~. ~u]~sc:iuent l..i...], opening can take 'plac~. !~ g~,'~.~: to Councilman i~iott's question wit}~ ref..~ard to Charter legality, Assistant City ~torney ~!opkins referred to his report ?~ere he referenced Section 1211 of the City Charter dealing with contracts on Public ~7orks. It stated that thc kind of contract in question may be excepted from the requ~.r~ments of~=ection 1211 by the affirmative vote of t~.~"e majority of the total ~enbe~'~s of the City Council. Up to the tine of award, it is left to the ~iscrction of the City Council as to ~ether they ~sh to accept bidding under the specified biddin~ ~ . however if the ....... process or not. ~r ~,opt~zns indicated, , Purc]~asing Departm~]t definitely specified an August 31, 1976 date and the bid, in fact, was not received within that time he did not see where the City could justJ_.fy this and as~ced ~:~r. ~]dwards for some explanati, on with regard to the time e 1 ene n t. l~.r..Edwards reiterated Mr..~{ichelle's statement that for ten years it has been the procedure to have bids in the day preceding the bid opening to be sure a bid opening can take place at the ti~e specified. Since bidders many times have problems %~zith the mail, they do, on occasion, hand deliver their bids personally. ~r. Talley indicated that if insufficient bids are received, frequently a Purchasing Agent ~v~!l extend the bidding process but if a sufficient number is received a bid opening would be conducted the following day. Mr. Talley contended that since no bids are opened until they are all opened together, the sanctity of the bid process is not violated just as with Abbott Power. This longstanding City practice assured that there were an adequate number of bids in or~]er to secure the best price for the City of ~-~a~aheim. .~r. Talley explained t!~at a number of goverment agencies follow this same procedure; after the first bid is opened, no new additional bids are accepted. >~r. Abbott then indicated that Graybar delivered their bid on the same equipment at ]1'02 A.>[. on September 1, 1976, and the City Clerk indicated it could not be accepte~. Subsequently the Purchasing Agent, after consulting with the City Attorney, gave instructions to accept the bid. '~r. Talley pointed to the fact that this was a technicality and that he could not see anything x.zrong with it since no bids t~ad yet been opened. ~<r. Abbott then addressed the question of fomal and informal bid openings assertin~ ~t was stated at the September 7, 1976 meeting by Mr. Watts that the only difference was that a for~nal bid was advertised. :'~r. ~Iopkins indicated that the requirements for formal bidS were as specified in his ~emo under Section 1.12.050 of the Anaheim ~uniciPal Code and this matter was handled as an ~mformal biddin~ dure ere e ~ proce ~,~ mor liberal rules could be a?plied. ~r. Abbott, referring to the City Attorney's report x~erein it stated that , Utility Departr:~ent purchases could be reade on an informal basis provided there ~ity Council, wanted to know if this was done. was a concurr,ance of the ~.~, ~.r. ~'opkins cxplai~.ed that when the Council is presented ~[th the information and bids and prepared to r~ake an award, it is then they make their decision ]~y an 76-664 City l!all; Anaheim! California af£ir:-~ative vote, but not prior. Ye also clarified t',mt only tl,e Lest Ei,~ls (~.,ost responsible bidder) are accepted and not necessarily Abbott wanted to lmow ~.j~y everything was not consi-~ered, ;~or,-:al~ ~ on such lar~ie pu rcha se s. ';ayor Thom felt that the question was covered sufficientlv at tl~e prior r':eetin$ but explained that since Purchasing knew who tbeir bidderh were, the et:pease of advertising ~M~ich did not generate additional response ;-,as unnecessary; however, the )~'ayor indicated that >,~r..^.bbott as a citizen and taxpayer of .inaheir~ ,.zitb a business adjacent to the City should be given all consi'~eration possible and that he x~muld be willing at any point in time to pass an additional policy assuring that Abbott Power is given t~.,is consideration. ~r. Abbott then referred to the Electrical guperintendent's report indicating that ?Tr. Edwards did not include anywhere in the report that ?..].lis ~'halmers took two pages of exceptions to the bid and that, in his opinion,, dollar signs were attached to those exceptions, lie ,~tated he took no e:~ceptions. ,'~r. Edwards responded that the procedures and practices followe,] in lFO~s were ethical procedures followed for ten years. He stated that the equipment Abbott was bidding on was Allis Chalmers equipment and also sold by Allis Chalmers so that koth were bidding on basically the same equipment. ~?r. ~], ' sa ,.c~.,ar(,s ,~ ,id that all exceptions taken by Allis Chalmers were evaluated. !!e further explained that exceptions taken to Part 2 were standard exceptions ~?~ich bidders take because they are a legal part of specifications that the City of Anaheim requires he included and often tines not applicable to the equipr~ent in question which was the case here. In Part 3 minor exceptions were involve~; one bein~ an exception regarding the City's paint specifications to ~.~ich most bidder's did take exception, but no real dollars were involved in the paint spec ifcat ions Allis Chalmer s proposed. >~r. Edwards stated that they were unsure of what some of the equipment was as outlined in Abbott's specifications, and it was concluded that they did not bid on the required equipment. Mr. Abbott then alleged that Allis Chalmers took exception to %~[tness testing ~ich he indicated involved money as well as the submission of elevation drawings. )~r. Edwards stated that when the purchase was rebid A!lis Chalmers included elevation drawings. City ~anager Talley interjected the matter was strictly an administrative act and the City had answered to the best of its ability the questions posed by Mr. Abbott even though he did not accept the ans~ers. Mr. Talley objected to the way in which ~r. Abbott challenged those taho spoke, specifically Mr. Edwards, with whatever objection he wished to present and suggested that the objections could be put in writing or services of an attorney secured. ~£ the system was in doubt, )fr. Talley stressed that the discussion should revolve around the specific~ of the ~y~tem. Councilman Roth agreed with ~r~ . Talley~s assessment. Counciln~an Seymour et:pressed his opposition to the suggestion that ?~r. Abbott as a tab, payer of the community obtain the services of an attorney to challenge a system that he (Abbott) supports. He stated he had some serious reservations regarding the bidding process and that it appeared to him to be "sloppy" especially considering an expenditure of one quarter of a million dollars. Y~ayor Thom expressed that when a bidder, such as Abbott, goes by a specification word for word and submits a bid accordingly, and the City accepts a bidder that takes exceptions ~rithout giving the fomera chance for rebid under the same exclusions, this presented difficulty for him. Mr. Bob Kinney, representative for Allis Chalmers, V~tilities Sales Division, a.~dressed the Council and explained that he had been calling on the City of ;maheim for ten years and that the purchasing practices of the City did not differ with the practices of other utilities. IIe also stated that he had called Mr. ~ichelle advising that he was delivering the Allis Chalmers bid personally. 76-665 City llall~ Anaheim~ C~lifornia - COIL'~CIL ~I~.'HITES - September 14~ 1976~ 1:30 P.M. Concernin?~ the exceptions, which he preferred to call clarifications, ~{r. Kinney felt that Abbott was not sufficiently informed about the equip~nent or they too would have taken exceptions especially since Abbott was also quoting Allis Chalmers equipment. :layer Thom reiterated that if ~M~at ~'~r. Abbott contended regarding Abbott's not having been given the opportunity to bid on the same set of specifications, he believed the chance should be given. A discussion ensued regarding under which state laws Allis Chalmers operated since ~.~r. Abbott stated they were governed by the la%~s of the State of I~;isconsin. ~'r. ~inney said that they were incorporated in the ~tate of Delaware but complied x~ith the California Electric Codes. Councilman loth confirmed with ?gr. Edwards that the accepted Allis Chalmers bid, %~it]~ the exceptions, was satisfactory in every way, as well as being the lowest and best bid for the City of Anaheim. ~ayor Thom contended, however, that if different specifications were accepted, this was an unfair practice. Mr. Edwards explained that many times bids are receive~ categorically taking no exceptions just as Abbott did, but when the time came to perform the contract, the s~tuation changed ~ecause of problems involved that were not anticipated, Councilp. an Roth indicated his concern was with the question of the bidding procedure rather than the technical aspects of the matter, and further expressed that he ~ras satisfied with the reports he had received and could see no ir re £ul ar it ie s that would affect the bidding procedure. Pr. Abbott reported that at the time of the first bid in June, Abbott Power was the only Bidder to give the City a firm price, but that ~'*.r. Edwards did not evaluate the firm price ~i~ich would have been low at that time. 'ir. Kinney said that ~estinghouse had also quoted a firm price. Councilr',~an Seymour questioned iff. Kinney as to the reason why on the rebid a quotation was not submitted before the stipulated time. Thereupon :-'Ir, Kinney cited sene of the probler~s involved in doing so, but felt that it was Basically a matter of work load. Councilman Se)~:~our then asked if ~r. !".inney agreed that there were either exceptions or clarifications included in the Allis Chalmers bid. '.~r. !linney considered them to be clarifications included for the purpose of being certain there was no misunderstanding before evaluation rather than after the fact. ~r. ~'~inney also confirmed for Councilman Se~our that the allegation ~'~r. ?bbott made regardin~ the witness test were not so and that the figuro_s '..~e read were quoted from a 57estinghouse quotation and suggested ?.'.r. Abbott reread the .\llir: Chalmers statement. Council-an ~eynour asked the City Attorney's office to define legally whether or not the clarificatons stated ~y *'~r. !%inney were, in fact, clarifications or lnstead exceptions and to further confirm,.,, as asked by '~_ayor Thom, if any of the clarifications could change the cost. ~'r..)loplcins stated, in looking through the Allis Chalmers bid, that he could not find an exception which changed the cost hut would have to l~ave a specific item to refer to. ?~?r. Patrick Gallagher, President of Abbott Power Corporation, stated that as Councilraan Poth had indicated, the presentation made to Conncil was supposed to consider the matter of bidding procedure, however, when the final reports were received he found that it went much deeper than that. Mr. Gallagher said that he frankly did not know how to bid one quarter of a million dollars to a municipality on an informal basis although he knew how to negotiate a contract. His belief was that if a time was stipulated in which bids could be accepted and bids were not received within that time, they would not be considered. 76-666 git Hall Anaheim California- CDU'~[CIi ,~I,.[ITTFe °, ~t-er'b~ r "r. Callagher felt th,'~t it ~:as precisely for the r~n~onn F'i~rm t~at bidn nre requested on the day befor~ ~i~ openin,,s; first to assess ~..,J~et!~.er th~.re reasonable number of bids in order to have a bid npenin~ and collusion so bids could not be opened and prices disclosed, ~}].! bi~}:'; ";ust be in by a, certain time and if they are not, they cannot be consi~.~ered. ':.~r. Gallagher again pointed to t~'~e areas of except~iens prev~.c~s.]v ,~iscusse~l v~}erein it was d -~ ' ~.~.d ee,,,e~,~ t~ey h~.~ no bearing on the price. ~"~:' re'forte ~"lmers bid Part 2 throujh ~nrt ~, listing thc exceptions; ta]:en, specifically regarding v~tness tests, en~"in,.aerin~., info~atton, an~ a]~.so tl}e e::ception taken v.i~ regard to oaint, all o'= ,.-~ic*, '~r CallaKher stressed, :~.~volved a~lditional charges ~?r. Callagher then ~ointed out that AM)ott Po~,,er had been t]~e low bidder on a fi:rr~ price and at the time of the ,lune bid opening, their price ~as then knovm to al~ b~,~ders follo~d.n; ~-,'hicl~ ,~ _ - "!~ia Cbal:~ers came in ~.~tb a ~i-~,~ price and it vms accepted. '- '-*r. Callagher concluded that, in his opinion., the qIty :,~as faced not only :,~ith a poor and sloppily run p~.:rchasip,< procedure, but ~.lso a coverup as vzel], of a whole pa:Be of exceptions and since there were a number of irregularities, including the info,,al bidding procedure on one quarter of a million dollars, ti~at no faith . coulc! }~e placed in any reco~:r.~en~',att, on . · ..... ~',~','~tecl all t}~at need be do~'.a ~as to go back to a for::~.al bidding procedure. Kinney thereupon re= ' ~.utee. the statements made. Councilman Seymour expresse<:~ the opinion that ther,a ~.'as ~'~ si"mificant c].oud involved in the matter v~icl~ would preclude the Council ~rc.:-;~ acceptinc, the info,,al bi~ fro~ ~.~].lis Chh.liners and h,, favored · - . ..... ~_.o c- t!-::::'ouf a .~.o~al bidding process on t}~';,- va,-,, ~izaable e:zpenditure of fund. s. ':n stated adamantly, ho~.~ever, that he di! n.ot feel that staff had dope anythi-~,~- r;l~;'~dy, ~nderl'~anded., · clia~o~est, or tri. e~ to cover "p'~t~',i. ng u but ad~-~.tto-' ~" ~ : .... P ~ ...... "'- ~'~ "~ ' ' ~ y . '3.',rt:l ~! eft sor"e "sloppiness" to tl~e operation. It was also au?sested hy ~o',~nci ......... n ~e~':.our that ~:.nc!.! co~.~i."~er ha. vip..7 Arthur Young and Cor:pany, un. der the City's existing contrac- ~,d~th ~!~n-- evaluate ,the situation and raake reco~andations as to what changes, if any, si~ould be made to insure that the City of :~nahei:n ]~ad a clear and clean bid,.ling: l:rOCe~lure so tl'~at it could not be subject to any alle2ation ~.~hatsoe~.~r t!~s case be .' . , ....... . e a.].so asked that bids in .... :enied an~i a for?::a]. ~id procedure i~.i~.~:i.,nted.. City l':'anager Talley indicated that tt~e original 'b, bott bid :..:'as "':isi~er tl~an tl',e second one and the second one was clouded because of the unfortunate allegations and unfounded state:nents :',:a~]e ~,~-~ favore,: = ....... ~ornali::in~ tlic .... :~..2 in t1~i:~ case ratl~,~,~ titan al!o~:.~-::~ ~o:.'.e. one to cor:~e in and i:':pugn tt:~ integrity of '"ity employees and, ~ fact, steal" a lid that couldn't, in his opinion, be won by fair competition. ','r. Talley also reco~,ende~l that before securing tl~e services of Arthur Young to review the bidding process that .; or 6a days be allowed for staff to review the ~:~atter and make reco~endations, a.n:'i at the end of that tine have Arthur Young review the analysis. Council,.,.-~nn SeyT~our offered Resolution ~;o. 76R.-56a for adoption ::ejecting all bids received for metal-clad s~itch, l..~ear for the l'orba Substation and forr:alization of the bidding process be initiated on. this bid. ~efer to Reso].ution D. ook. ,,T~ ..... ' -.,':'.,, CITer COT"~CIL nF m~,~.- ~ITY nF ~.'~At~.~,IIi ~: .... '~CTIiIG ~L BID~ ;~ .... ' ,: ,'~CEIVE!) Ol,.l P~ID 30~0 FOR }IETgZ-CL~ "'~'" ~ ~"~'~' ~. ~-~' -.,~,- R}TAL BIDS 1211 0F ~{E CIIA,, .... P, ........ CITY OF Roll Call Vote: AYES: COU~,tCIL ~'~"~EP, S- Y-aywood, ,, , , O, ey~:our Kott qoth and Thom NOES · COUiICIL '~.~Bi]T~S: l~one ~o~ .... :,' COUNCIL ~'~~oc. The '.layor declared Resolution ':;o. 76R-560 duly passed and adopted. 76-667 1976~ 1:30, P.;~. an motion by Counci]nm~ Seymour, seconded by Councilman Thom, tt~e City Council in,~tructed staff to review the City's bidding procedure, request AYC to evaluate the findinKs and make recommendations, and present the ~atter to Council within 6~ days. ~OTIO~'! CARRIEI.). T~'.FFIC SIC,UAL ?.~A I'.:',~TE.~ iA:' .: CE CO~TO~ICT' Councilman Thom offered Resolution ;Io. 76R- ' ......... '2afar to Ilesolution Book. :~'~"~~IO~i '~O 76R-561' .'~ ~, .... LU_ION OF TN~ CITY COU~'~CIL ~F ........ CITY OF AN~IEIH A~],.,~T!NC A S'~A~ED'' P~,~POSAL AND AwAkING A. CO~,TP.AC cwRVICES "L~TERIAL S r° FO.R TI~ ~R"~T~:'YTI ~ a~ ALL PLA~]T, LABOR, .....~ , A,.,D ~'FAm~ A}'~ ALL UTIL~TIEC '~'.~, T~A'~nDRTATION, ........ , ........ , 'or"FnP'T'C ALL tIDE'.' '~m~*-,, To ~ONSTP2ICT N.!D CO ............ ~..~t ..:., .... ~.LL ...'~,-.~G PUBLIC U'~CVE"N:'TT· T-~AI~.TTE,:.,'2.IC~ ~aT~P~C~ FOR TP~FFIC 'TCTTALS, ......... ~-a,m~ ,,n 1~0-455-°4 5 '"ol! ~a].l Vote' ..... O oth and Thom AYE~ COrE'!aIL l~. U.':,.i']n.S ].:aywood, Seym. our, l,:ott, ........... ~..- .,, ...... ~ ., one T]~e 'ayor declared ~-,:~solution .o 76P.-56]. duly pas eJ a ...... adopted. ~. pER.~.:!?? ,,n. ... :. °~annii~g Director, referred .,.g.' ..... 1306 'Ir. 'on ,~hompson, ..... _ ,.,,, ~. - ......... submitted to Council dated ~eptenber !.3, !~7~.. ,, which was a joint re- }ooth the City Attorney's ~ffice and the P]...anning Department including a i ~ ~' o .: ~.e.~olution s 72~-204 and an cer~t om ounctl ]!inutes both ~;./ These-: doa:~r:':ents, on file x,it':z t~e ~ity nlerk's nffice, . ~.nc~ ...... ro:.m' on '~on~liti. ona! [Ts~ Paruit '"o. ~..qng.' TI~e report was the result of ar: interpretation of t]~e applicant and the Plann' ~a7~ Council '!satin~ ~'~erein it ,ma understood ti'~.2, c el', t e:-:]: a r 7, ~ _, , ~-",~anc~ ~ . -.,ara,,. approved ~or a r~otel within five. .,.~eet of tl~e wes+erly :o~mcil contested t!tia interpretation iud ic at in [~ that approval ',:ms only given relocation of the traon storage area. wt~.:icb resolvec an irterdepartmental It was concluded lo}' *"--c-~ ~ .,^..t ' ' ,_,.~: .... ity torney s nffice ir. researching tile supporting docu~:',entation t!~at tl'~e confusion as to whether or not the five-foot setback was npproved arose because of inconsistent provisions in the same Resolution adopted by the City Council "{ay 3q, !972, as explained on page 3, item 11, of the subject r e po r t. '~ayor Thom su:'.:'marized that, in fact, the inconsistent provisions in the same O. esolution had t0rought about the present situation causing the project to be halted until the matter was resolved, indicating that the Council could either proceed by amending Condition No. 7, granting the 5-foot setback as outlined by the City Attorney's ~ffice, or set the matter for another public hearing. Councilwoman I,',ayx~ood indicated that she could not conceive of a motel being built only five feet away from., a single-family residence and that a 45-foot setback was a foregone conclusion to her. Councilman Sey~our asked if any of the affected o~mers (those on the northeast corner of Berry and Palm) were in the Chamber, '_~r. Vill Blaine, 1202 South Palm Street, stated he was at the }lay 30,. 1972 ~aeting, and it was his understanding that the City Council approved the 45-foot setback and not the 5-foot setback as the developer contended. ~avor,..~ Thom recalled that at the meeting in 1~72, ...... "ir. Blaine was concerned about tt~e setback but when he found out it was 65 feet, he had no further objection; however, he. could not explain how waiver "b" was granted ~.zhich caused the inconsistency in the Resolution. 76-668 City Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MI~UTES .......... - ~eptember ]4; 1976; l:qO~.. .~r~'"'.. ~?r. Lee Webb, owner, 130 Centennial ~.Tay, Tustin, stated that this was a hards]~ip situation since the property was in the process of develop~ent for over tan months with the assurance, as far as ~r. ~ebb was concerned~ from the Plannin? Staff when he approached them in October of 1~75 that the 5-foot sethac~, had been approved. ?r. l~ebb indicated that at that time a building could easily have been designed to conform to a 45-foot setback on the westerly property line, hut that such a change would be impossible to initiate at this time. ~.~r. Blaine refuted Mr. ~'ebb's contention that a 5-foot setback was granted and explained that the approved plan which he had with him were the plans that Nr. ~..Tebb brought to him in 1972 and asked that he go to the City Council and have the~] approve at their meeting. He displayed the plans to the ~ouncil and it was confirmed after further discussion that these were, Jn fact, the gam~ plans that were approved in 1077. }.~r. ?ebb stated that he did not recall giving any plans to him, Councilman geymour said that he could not act on the matter unless another public he ar in g wa s he id. Joe Nicosia, owner, 13~ Centennial ~.~Yay, Tustin, addressed the Council an? e:~f,!aine~! that thc history revealed on Conditional ~se Permit ~o. 13~6 was all new to him and he had no prior knowledge of the revised plan until three weeks a~o. !lc believed they were designing for the past tep months in substantial conformance with approved plans; however, as confirmed by ?~r. Ti~or, pson, the plans witi~, x~fnich :~r. Y, icosia was working were the first plans, before Revision i;o. 1 n~ich required the z~.5-foot setback. Councilman Seymour concluded that ?'r. ~Zebb ]~new there was a Revision ;7o. 1 ]~ut forgot there were revised plans and submitted the old ones to someone at the Planniug I'epartt~ent counter who also did not hnow t]~ere were revised plans. Council:oran Seymour, although e?:pathetic ~,~ith the situation, stated t;~at ]~:c coulJ on!v support another public l~.e~ ~ ~' ~. .... r~.;_, and asked ~'r. '~icosia if he wanted a puS] ic hearing or meet the 45-foot setbach. Since l'.r. '~icosia indicated be could not live with the 45-foot setback, he would prefer the public hearing. ~ motion by Councilman Sey~,~.our, seconded by Councilman Thom, public hearing on revised plans for Conditional Use Permit ::o. 1306 was set for Eepte~ber 2'30 P. :~.. CO.~E~,T .ALE:~DAR ITEi~_S: ~ motion by Councilman P. oth, seconded by Councilman Thom, the following actions were authorized in accordance with the reports and recommendations furnished each Council ~{ember and as listed on the Consent Calendar Agenda: 1. CLAI~.IS AGAINST %~hE CITY; The following claims were denied and referred to the insurance carrier or the self-insurance administrator: a. Claim submitted by Robert L. Horn for damages purportedly sustained resulting from being struck by a Utilities Service truck on or about July, 1976. b. Claim submitted by G. C. Properties, %nc., for damages to property purportedly sustained as a result of rock concerts held at Anaheim Stadium on or about August 7 and 20, 1976. c. Claim submitted by Jack L. Craven for damages purportedly sustained to his car by an object thro~ by an Anaheim Police Officer on or about August 6, 1976. 2,,., CORRESPONDENCE: The following correspondence was ordered received and filed: a. Community Redevelopment Commission Minutes - August 18, 1976 b. Anaheim Arts Council ~!inutes - August 10, 1976 c. Cultural Arts Commission Minutes - August 18, 1976 d. City of Orange Resolution No. 4378 - Urging that the ~tate Legislature review the State Property Tax Structure to reform and eliminate inequities. , ~_OTIO~ ~ CARRIED. P~SOLUTION NOS. 76R-562 A~ID 76R-563: Councilman Roth offered Resolution 76R-562 and 76R-563 for adoption in accordance with the reports, recommendations 76-669 ,n,u,~ certifications furnis!~cd each Council "..~ember and as listed on the Consent Calendar Agenda. ...~efer to ]les o lut ion ~ook. ............... . ~.~.- ...... ~IO,'I OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF T~'E CITY OF e.~"+:';~T,,(~"oV'~,~',~"i,, ~'~v::,~e AYD OEB]:]RT~'~ T'I~'IR ogCOPDATYO..~.~ (Philip Druiff; James .. ,~den; gregory 2. rygidcr; r~ar~::ington bevelopnent, Inc.) '~' IL 'm'~':"':'"" ee,~n":our Vott "ot]t and Thom POTT'T C!L" ............ , ' ("OTT'"' I!, ' ....... c,. ,, ,' ..... : ........ ,'.,. !c, n e -'re "a,,or..? doclared... 2esolu~-ion.. ~ '.'.os. 7 r'..~-56",._ . ,~.~ and 7e~-56..~,.:.. . .duly passed.,., and adopted. . . -: ....., -,, , ,, ::,~',, ,: .... , ,.',,,, ,,..: '-.<'.: "-'.'.r. ~,~or..~pson a::plain, ed_. . ~'u.'zt~ the property in ?~,~stio':t ~;as an agricultural praserve and staff ha4 just received a request from +-'~c: nttorr~,?~,: ~apresentin~? ,'~- d ...... . .= ~ ..... e ].an ovmers to ret.rove the property from the '~2- J..cultural preserve. Co~znc.i!wortan Kas~.zood offered T: asolut ion :.~o. 76P,-564 for adoption. ?.efar to !lesolution P, ook. ~'oll Call Vote: .,",,V':S' CObC;CIL "'~"m~.RS' ........ Ka3~¢ood, Seymour, Kott, ~,oth and Thom ..... ~'' ~I""CIL -, · · -., '.'. .. ~::~;,~, : ~7one The :..'.ayor declared P, esolution ::.'o. 76R-564 duly passed and adopted. PACIFIC. .............. STAT'"°~:,o BA..',,D" P~VIF.~T'~. .......... , - 3ULIUS DALLM~T: On motion by Councilman Thom, seconded by Council:'~an Se.'~.,our, the cits; C'ounctl approved the City's co- sponsorship of the Pacific States Band Review and the allocation of 81,500 from the Council Contingency Fund. ~{OTION CARRIED. TThi. CT :lOC. o. 143 Jh!D 9].44 -t'z,.AIIL,,,~?o FRO,-~" HILLSIDE u.~J~,.,~n'"G OP~IN~ICE M{D FINAL ;,tiP..:," o: (~eVel~er, Criterion DeVel~0Pment.. i~.c. ) T'~act' ~o. a. 143 cont'~ins 1'7 RS-HS- 1~}000 (SC) zoned lots and Tract I~o. 914~ contains 27 ,.qS-ItS-10,000 (SC) zonod lots. Property located south of ~anta Ana Canyon Road, west of Fairmont Eoulevard, on %io Grande Drive ~d south of Rio Grande Drive. (EIB No. 167) Submitted also was a request from J. Thomas Baine, Erowp~, Gonzalez and Baine, Inc., for waiver of Chapter 17.06 requirement that the top of slope between adjacent lots be set either 2 or 3 feet beyond the common property line relative to Lot Uos. 7 and 10 of Tract No. 9143 and Lot No. 18 of Tract No. 9144. Also considered was a verbal report given by the Planning Director, stating that the Planning Commission recommended approval of the requested waiver of the I!illside Gradin~q Ordinance requirement. The City Engineer in his memorandum dated September 1 and o lq76 recommended approval of the final r~.aps of Tract Uos. 9143 and. 0]./,..4, respectively, with a 76-670 City Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COU~CIL MINUTES - September 14~ 1976~ 1:30 P.~,~. further recommendation that the Mayor and City Clerk sign the map as owners of vested interest in Tract I'to. 9144. ~n motion by Councilman Seymour, seconded by Councilman Roth, the proposed subdivisions, toF, ether with their design and improvement, were found to be consistent with the City's General Plan, and the Council approved final maps, Tract ~'!os. 9143 and 9144, alonc with waiver of Chapter 17.~6, of the A}.~C, as reco~:umended by the City Enzineer in his memorandums dated September 1 and ?, Trnct ~?o. 9312.- REVE.~P. SIn~? TO &CP~qAO~: ~ motion by Councilman P.oth, seconded by Councilwoman Kaywood, the City Council, on report and reco~endatton from the City Ensineer, dated August 30, 1976, directed him to obtain the necessary information to initiate and conduct proceedings as required in Section 17.0~.510 of the ;3{C, Subdivision Ordinance, in connection with Tract :lo 9312, . property located on the south side of Serrano, east of Nohl Ranch Road. MOTION CARRIED. ~LCLASSIFICATOH ~I0. 72-73-42 ;CID VARI32~CE ~!O. 2494 - EXTE?ISI0:? OF TI/¥~: Request of Betty Pagel for an extension Of time to' %e¢lasSi'~i6ati0'n' ?~o. 72-73242 (proposed CL ~oning) and Variance ~'lo. 2494, property located on the south side of Lincoln Avenue, west of i~agnolia Avenue was submitted. Also submitted were reports }~y the City Engineer and the Planning Department recommending that an ~[tension of tirae be granted, retroactive to ,~!ay 22, 1974 to expire }-~ay 22, 1977, su~hject to the posting of a performance bond ~*ithin 30 days, :~rs. Pagel addressed the Council and requested that staff inquire of Robert k'ayer the status concerning the one-foot holding strip which was to be turned over to ~.~r. ];otaro on the subject property, as well as the possibility of holding him to a statement he made indicating he would erect a fence, on the side of ~r. }!otaro's property. ~-'Irs. Pagel indicated they would be very much in favor of this' fence. ~ motion by Councilman Thom, seconded by Councilman Seymour, the City Council granted' an extension of time to Reclassification :!o. 72-7.3-42 and Variance t'~o. 2494 to expire }~y 22, 1977, subject to the City Engineer's recommendations. MOTIOn? CARRIED. AUA?d]S OF WOR/.~ ORDER :lOS. 790-A ,~ID 794: In accordance with recommendations of the City Engineer, Councilman Seymour offered Resolution ~'Ios. 76R-565 and 76R-566 for adoption. Refer to Resolution Book. RESOLUTI01I NO. 76R-565: A P~SOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF ~LE CITY OF ACCEPT~G A SEALED PROPOSAL Al'ID AWARDI~G A CO~FfRACT TO T}~ LORqZST RESPONSIBLE ~IDDER FOR THE FUPJ~ISHI?~G OF ALL PLANT, LABOR, SERVICES, ~%TERIALS AND EQUIPmeNT ALL UTILITIES AND TRANSPORTATION, I~CLUDING POWER, FUEL ~2'{D %lATER, A~.~D PEP. FOR}~E.IG ALL I, DRK NECESSARY TO CONSTRUCT A~D CO~PLETE ~ FOLLO%rI~G PUBLIC IMPROVE}XEI;T; INSTALLATIO'~{ OF TRAFFIC SI~'~ALS ;~D SAFETY LIGIITI~G AT T}~ I'JTEP. SECTION OF LA PAL~'J% AVEI~UE A}~D RO}~EYA DRIVE, IN T~IE CITY OF ANA/'~I}{, ~.70RK ORDEP. NO. 790-A. (Galland Electric Corp., $29,872.00) ?~SOLUTIOI,~ NO. 76R-566: A Fd~SOLUTIO,M OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF T~{E CITY OF A~.~A~IM ACCEPTINC A SEALED PROPOSAL AI~D AWARD I~,{ C, A CO}~TP~kCT TO T~-LE LO~.~ZST RESPOi~;SIBLE BIDDER FOR THE FURNISHING OF ALL PLANT, LABOR, SERVICES, MATERIALS A~rD EQUIPP~I~ ;CID ALL UTILITIES AND TRA~SPORTATION, INCLUDING PO%~R, FUEL AND WATER, A~D PER- FOP~ING ALL WORK !.FECESSARY TO CO~]STRUCT A2~ID COMPLETE TItE FOLLOI~bNG PUBLIC ~.~PROVE~I'~T: M~NZ;~MITA PAE/~ FLOODLIGHTING IMPROVEME!~TS~ IN Tt~ CITY OF ~;AHEIM, !*D~". ORDER NO. 794. 0Ield Electric, Inc., $10,575.00) Roll Call Vote: AYES: CO~CIL ~-~BERS: Kaywood, Seymour, F~tt, Ro~h and Thom '*~'~,,~- ..,,-, · CO~CIL ~'~fBE~S: ~lone A~o~-,.,m. CO~CIL 3~MBERS' ~lono The ~.{ayor declared Resolution ~os. 76R-565 and 76R-566 duly passed and adopted. l~O~i ORDER NO. 868 - 3UAREZ PARK PROPERTY LINE ~ALL IMPROVE}~.!TS- Assistant City Engineer Bill Devitt reported that no bids were received on the subject %lork Order and requested authorization for staff to negotiate %rith local contractors. 76-671 ~.~,ity !:allI AnaheimI California- COUNCIL ~,T',,~re,. ~,,j~.,,,~ _ September ]41 19761 1.:30 P..,:." Tn accordance ~,n[th thc reco~-~:~endations of the City 7']ngineer, Councilman Sayr~our offered ?~emolution 'io. 7g._q-567 for adoption. Refer to Resolution Book. ?_ZBO, LUTIO'.: UO 76:!-567: A P.E~,~LUTION OF TIIE CITY COlF.'.ICIL ~F TIIE CITY FETDE~C~'~.;:~ DETi~INI~;C ~L~T ~"~ ~*~ NO BIDS ~EC~IVED fin T~ ~A,.E,.' ~ ~ , ~ ~,--T ,~T- ORDER NO, 86~, ~oll Call Vote: AYE? ' COI~ICIL :~'~.=~e · ,-r.~,,~,~.,,.,: Kaywood, Se~our, Kott, ?.oth and Thom · '~c: CO~C~ ~ E~~ ........ .~,:tB, .'.c.: }Tone ;~B~'"~',,,,-,. · CO~'~CIL T~ERS'. ,Tone The ~;ayor declared Resolution No. 76R-567 duly passed and adopted. ~ motion by Councilman Seymour, seconded by Councilman Thom, the City Council authorized staff to renegotiate the :*7ork Order with local contractors. ?!OTION CARRIED. PURCIIASE OF EQUIPMENT - 15 REFURBISHED 4-1~q{EEL GOLF CARTS A~.~ ONE P~GER CART: The City Manager reported on the recommended 'purchase of 15 refurbished 4-wheel golf carts and one ranger cart and advised that Taylor-Dunn has submitted a quotation for said equipment in the amount of $20,567.55, including tax. He explained that the sole source was due to the fact that the other 75 carts in the fleet were purchased from the same manufacturer, and the City wanted all carts to match. He thereupon recommended the purchase be authorized. On motion by Councilwoman Kaywood, seconded by Councilman Seymour, purchase from Taylor-Dunn was authorized in the amount of $20,567.55, including tax, as recommended by the City Manager. MOTION CARRIED. PURCI-~SE OF EQUIP.'~NT - ONE ~..~TER TEST BENCH FOR 1-1/2" ~JrD 2" WATER ~flZTERS: The City Manager reported on the recorrnended purchase of one mete'~ test bench for 1- 1/2" and 2" water meters, and advised that the *.,Testern Water Works Supply Company has submitted a quotation for said equipment in the amount of $3,893.70, including tax. He explained that the sole source was due to the fact that the Ford _Meter Company was the only known manugfacturer of meter test benches and %Testern T~ater Works Supply Company was the local distributor, tie thereupon recommended the purchase be authorized. On motion by Councilman Roth, seconded by Councilman Thom, purchase from Western !'Tater Works Supply Company was authorized in the amount of $3,893.70, inaluding tax, as recommended by the City Manager. To this motion, Councilman Kott voted "No," ~'~OTION CARRIED. ORDINANCE NO. 3590; Councilwoman Kaywood offered Ordinance No. 3590 for adoption. Refer to Ordinance Book. ORDTT']ANCE NO. 3590: AN ORDINANCE OF T~ CITY OF ANA}~IM REPEALING SECTION 1.01.400 OF THE ~IEIM .xRD~ICIPAL CODE PERTAi~ING TO CODE OF ETHICS FOR PUBLIC OFFICERS AND EMPLOYEES. Roll Call Vote: A.:~S: COUNCIL }fl~MBERS: Kaywood, Seymour, Kott, Roth and Thom NOES: COIDJCIL MEMBERS: None AB~W-*. COIDNCIL ~ffi:!BERS: .~Tone The Mayor declared Ordinance No. 3590 duly passed and adopted. OPJ3INA3~CE NO. 3593: Councilman Seymour offered Ordinance No. 3593 for first reading. ORDINANCE }TO. 3593: AN ORDINANCE OF ~ CITY OF ~A~I.~! AME.~DI'JG TITLE 18 OF .A,.:IA~! MU}~ICIPAL CODE RELATING TO ZONING. (75-76-33, RS-5000) MZ.,~TE~G I,,rITH ~tAMBER OF CO~,~ZRCE: Councilman Seymour advised he would be requesting a meeting with the Board of Directors of the Chamber of Commerce on Monday, September 20, 1976, 1:30 p.m. at the Chamber Office concerning a new contractual arrangement between the City and the Chamber. 76-672 City. l~all!· Anaheim. s! Cnltfornia - COUI~CIL ]*,IMUTES - Se~;ember. 14! 1.9761 1;30 P.". Councilwo~an ;%a)a,~ood offered to accompany Councilman .-.:Ceymour as a representative of the Council. At Councilman Kott's insistance, Assistant City Attorney Hopkins confirmed that since there would be a confIict of interest because Councilman Seymour is a member of the Chamber of Commerce and Councilwoman Kaywood of the Women's Division, both would have to temporarily resign their membership in order to negotiate with that body. Both agreed to do so. ZLZCTRIC~J~ I~3~TE: After citing an excerpt from Proposition "A" regarding '~unicipal Utility costs, Councilman Kot~ moved that the City's Electrical rate be reduced to 95% of Edison's rate. ~'~otion died for lack of second. ~'~TIO}~IC. ~,~ n~l,w,nn~m,jm~,,~ ,. ~,~,~,. PROCRAH: Councilman Kott asked City 'fanager~ Talley to elaborate on the concept of an Economic Development Program that might be developed by the City. ~r. Talley was of the impression that Council had acted to delay this matter for 90 days pendinE the outcome of the proposed meeting with the Chamber of Commerce. Council discussion confirmed that the Economic Development Program was also intended to be held in abeyance for 90 days. ~.ECYCLI]~;G CI~'~%RGES FROM ..... JAYCOX' In answer to Councilman ''ott, ~r. Talley explained that a report was in process regarding charges for recycling from Jaycox. ~,~,~]ATION OF JACK E. gRO~,,~I FROM TI~ CULTU?~L ARTS COM}~ISSION: On motion by Councilman Thom, seconded by Councilwoman Kaywood, the resignation of ~{r. Jack E. Brown from the Cultural Arts Commission %ms accepted with regret. I.{OTION CARRI~/D. ;J)JOUPC'P~MT: Councilman Roth moved to adjourn to !?ednesday, September 15, 1976, at 1:30 P.I.~.. Councilwoman Kaywood seconded the motion. ~.~OTION CARRIED. Adjourned; 7; 00 P. ~. LI.~-,rDA D. ROBERTS, CITY CLE~I