Loading...
1974/09/2474-955 City.~ll, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - Sep¢_~._ber 24, 1974, 10:00 A.M, 9. Payment of Local Matching Funds for Federal Grants 10. Payment of Cost of Completing Existing Urban Renewal Projects 11. Relocation Payments 12. Finance Activities Necessary to Develop a Comprehensive Plan and a Policy- Plalming-Management Capacity for Community Development Activities. 13. Payment of Reasonable Administrative Costs Related to Community Development and Housing Activities, including Costs for Citizen Input. III. APPLICATION AND REVIEW REQUIREMENTS: 1. There is an annual application requirement. 2. The application must set forth a s~ry of a 3=year Community Development Plan which determines the needs and demOnstrates a comprehensive strategy for meet- ing these needs and specifies objectives which are in accordance with area-wide development planning and national urban growth policies. 3. The application must formulate a one-year program which includes:. A) Activities to be undertaken B) Estimated cost C) General location of activities E) Indication of other resources to help meet the needs and objectives 4. The one-year program must be designed to: A) Eliminate or prevent blight B) Provide improved co~nunity facilities and public improvements, including necessary social services, 5. Each application must include a Housing Assistance Plan which: A) Accurately surveys the condition of the cou~uunity's housing stock and assesses the housing assistance needs of lower income persons B) Specifies a realistic annual goal for units or persons to be assisted, including the relative proportion of new, rehabilitated and existing units, sizes and types of housing projects best suited to the needs of the co~i~unity's lower-income persons C) Indicates the general location of proposed housing for lower-income persons to meet the following objectives: (1) furthering revitalization of the co...unity (l) promoting greater choice of housing opportunities (3) avoiding undue concentrations of assisted persons (4) assuring public facilities and services for the housing projects 6. Applicant Must Provide SatisfactoryAssurances that the Program will be Conducted in Conformity withApplicable Civil Rights Laws and meet the followin~ criteria for Citizen Participation: A) Provi/e affected citizens adequate information about the Program. B) Bold public hearings to obtain citizens' views on the co,unity development and housing needs C) Provide affected citizens an adequate ofportunity to participate in the development of the application 7. Applications and Programs must further conform to: A) Regulations issued to further the concerns of the National Enviromnental Policy Act of 1969 B) Lo~-income Employment Opportunities C) UniformRelocation Act D) Reviewby Regional Agency (A-95 review) 8. Applicant must Certify Chat its Co..-uunity Development Program has been developed so as to give '%taximum Feasible Priority" to activities which will benefit low or moderate-income families or aid in the prevention or elimination of slums or blight. 74-9.56 City H~llI Anaheim, California ? COUNCIl. MINUTgS - September 24, 1974, 10:00 A,M, 9. Applications are Subject to 75-Day H.U.D. Review Period for Entitlement Amounts and shall be approved unless: A) The description of needs and objectives is plainly inconsistent with available facts and data pertaining to co~,unity and housing needs B) The proposed activities are plainly inappropriate to meet the stated needs and objectives C) The application does not comply with applicable law or proposes tn- eligible activities DISCUSSION: Mr. Davis noted that H.U.D. has virtually no discretionary powers as far as the- Co~aunity Development Act applications are concerned, and these may be deemed approved at the end of the 75-day period if no specific disappxoval has been issued. Only applications which are far afield may be disapproved in this process. Hr. Davis advised that he wished to further review with Council more specifically the certifications required from the City in order to apply for the City's entitlement. He reported that there are seven m~Jor areas in- volved in the certification process which include: 1) Citizen Participation-- The City must demonstrate it has given adequate information; held public hearings; must provide low and moderate income residents an opportunity to participate in development of the plan; must adopt a citizen's participation plan and establish a complaint procedure for the citizens. 2) Equal Opportunity and Conformity with Equal Rights Statutes-- Requires that the City, as well as all contractors with whom it deals, must have an Affirmative Action Plan; and further that the City have an Open Housing Policy demoustr~a~ed...by _ordinance or by a Human Relations Commission. 3) Compliance with Section 31968 of the Housing Act-- Businesses and residents in affected development areas must be given an oppor- tunity to participate in contracts or work done in the project area. This includes training and employment opportunities. 4) Post-Audit Certification--The City must have the necessary fiscal and accounting procedures for receipt and audit of funds. There is no difficulty anticipated since the City has received federal funds and met the requirements for federal audit in the past. 5) Enviromnental Impact Certification-- This should cause the City no difficulty due to the stringent California Environmental Quality Act with which the City must comply. 6) Relocation Assistance-- Again Mr. Davis noted that State laws con- form closely with federal and do require that the City provide re- location assistance when acquiring a property. 7) Meeting National Growth Policy Goals-- The Plan must certify that to the maximum extent feasible it will give priority to aid low or moderate income persons or meets the requirement to reduce urban blight. Mr. Hurdoch pointed out that the requirements under item No. 2 above ~would encumber the City with a rather large administrative responsibility. In answer to Councilwoman Kaywood, Mr. Davis advised that the Communi- ty Development Act would not affect Redevelopment Project '~lpha" unless that is incorporated as a portion of the Community Development Plan. The tax increment dollars would not be affected, but conversely these funds could be stipulated in 7~9~ f~ll. Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES = September ~.,,a, 1974.!0:00A.M. the C~unity Development Act application as local resources to be used to meet the goals and objectives of the plan. Councilwoman Kay~ood stated that it would appear to her from the require- meats as listed that a great deal more staff would be involved and inquired vhether this program will also finance these extra administrative costs. Mr. Davis replied that certain portions of the entitlement may be used for administrative costs. Mr. Nurdoch qualified this statement by advising that the administrative costs whichvould be eligible under the entitlement must be part of the Plan of formu- lation which declares the purposes for which the funds are to be used;-that funds exclusive of 10% can be used for operational activities. Funds are available from the entitlement for operational costs, particularly for planning, and some also for administrative costs. Mr. Murdoch cautioned however chat that if the City became deeply involved in this program in several major aspects, the first year's entitle= meat of $524,000 ~ould not go too far. Council ~as further interested that the certification of '~4aximum Feasibili- ty Priority" must indicate that the activities will benefit 'low o.~rmoderate incOme families and Mr. Murdoch pointed out that this is a rather critical difference since obviously development in Anaheim has not encouraged low or moderate income fm~ilies particularly. He noted that the wording quoted by Hr. Davis in his sm,mary implied that the Act would require the City to provide for low or moderate income families which are anticipated to be moving into the City as well as those who are already residents. Mr. Davis advised that throughout the preamble of'this particular legis- lation it was evident that Congressional intent was specifically the aiding of low and moderate income families and the wording perhaps should have been "and" however it was expressed in the urritten le§islation as "or." .. Mr. Davis advised that applications may be submitted beginning December 1, 1974 and will be acted upon after January 1, 1975, that the funds would be distributed in the same manner as Revenue Sharing Funds. Mr. Davis concluded that there are some rather far reaching policy decisions which have to be made and that if Council does decide to proceed there are some criti- cal time requirements. He noted that it is felt H.U.D. will be somewhat lenient in the first year's application review procesH recognizing these time constraints and the fact that much of this information is just not available. He cited as an example the required housing survey which ~ould be a considerable undertaking and that the only information available currently is from the census. Councilwoman Kayvood related that the Redevelopment Commission Just re- cently requested an individual from the Planning Department to perform such a housing survey for the 'Project Alpha" area. Councilman Thom inquired ho~ staff feels this new legislation ~ould tie in with the City's Redevelopment ProjeCt. Hr. Murdoch replied that certainly the formulation of any Community Develop- ment Plan would have to take strongly into consideration the Redevelopment Project Area, as these t~eo projects could not be in conflict, but rather the Redevelopment Project Area would most likely be the location of a substantial portion of the Co~munity Development activity. Councilwoman Kayvood inquired whether there is a straight dollar amount given in the requirements to determine lo, and moderate income levels, and Nr. Davis replied that there are formulae to be used which do depend upon such factors as income levels in the connunity and the cost of housing. The income levels of potential.re- cipients of assistance would be compared and these individuals may be eligible for assistance up to 1107. of that economic level as it has been established. 74-958 City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - Sept-~mber 24, 1974, 10:00 A,:'. In addition Mr. Davis notified Council that the Community Development Act will enable them to have stronger control than previously in federally assisted private development, in that they could require such developer to pro- vide social and Public services such as day care and transportation. Mr. Davis stated that his own personal feeling is that the Redevelopment Project and Community Development Program could not be separate, that meeting objectives of the Redevelopment activity will be an integral part. Mr. Murdoch pointed out the possibilities presented under the Code En- forcement segment of the Community Development Act, which would allow the City to conduct a program whereby the individual property owner would assume the responsibility for his property but receive a good deal of assistance for his rehabilitation project. Mr. Davis stated that another possible application of the Program might be to utilize manpower and funds available through C.E.T.A. to employ senior citizens or unemployed individuals in a housing upgrading program. The problem in this area previously was that there was no way to pay for the necessary materials. Mr. Murdoch stated that considering the amount of work and careful con- siderationwhich should be given to the scope and physical location of the Community Development Plan, it is evident that the City does not have the man- power to accomplish this. Although he indicated he might modify this statement when some staff members return from the briefing in Phoenix, at this time it would appear the best approach would be to employ a consultant who is familiar with this type of activity. Mayor Thom advised that he would like this same presentation to be made for the Community Redevelopment Commission, and Mr. Davis agreed to present the information to them. Councilman Seymour co~Lented that the presentation suggests that the Conlnunity Development Act as passed by Congress has much greater scope than housing, yet it would appear that a great deal of local interest lies in that area. He indicated that he would be interested in pursuing what the alterna- tives might be; that he would prefer to look at this 9 million dollars which is available to the City and to ascertain where the City will receive the maxi- mum benefits from these funds, and what programs would contribute to that. He advised that he ism or opposed to using the funds for housing, but wonders if there might not be a better direction. He noted that tax increment financing is suffi- cient to encourage redevelopment, and suggested that this entitlement could be used for the City's portion of matching funds for another federal grant, or per- haps a portion of these monies may be used to finance Paramedics, or the bicycle paths, or some other service which is now provided from the General Fund. Mr. Davis remarked that in order to be eligible for funding under the Cou,aunity Development Act, certain software programs must specifically have been submitted on an application for federal funding and been denied; further that any project undertaken with these funds must be delineated as a part of the Community Development Plan, and must further the objectives of this Plan. In this connection he noted that perhaps the City could provide additional fire services to a particular area, or install larger water mains, but he did not think it would be as easy to Justify such things as bicycle paths. Mr. Murdoch stated that it is not intended to give the impression that the Co~,unity Development Act necessarily requires the funds to be spent on pub- lic housing; that there are several other federal programs which address this problem. He noted that there are a tremendous number of elements involved in this Act which necessitate detailed attention to overall requirements and this means some overall planning, which to date, has not been accomplished by the City. Mr. Davis further cautioned against over optimism in setting objectives and cc,,~ented that the criteria used in the federal audits will be how effective- ly the City has achieved its goals as set forth in the Plan. 74-959 City Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - September 24, 1974~ 10:00 A.M. Mayor Thom stated that the presentation left the Council with much to think about prior to taking any action, and Mr. Murdoch assured Council that no action is necessary at this time unless the Council felt that the requirements set forth are so onerous that they would prefer not to proceed with application for funds under the Community Development Act.. If this was the case, the Staff would prefer to be aware of it at this time. By general Council consent, the City Council indicated interest in proceeding with the application for Anaheim's entitlement under the Community Develop- ment Act. Mr. Davis advised that should the City desire to utilize the permitted 107, of this entitlement for planning and operational expenses, this could be accomplished by submitting a letter to H.U.D. advising of the City's wish to do so, and authoriza- tionwould be forwarded to the City by letter as well. He noted that it may be neces- sary to utilize City funds to initiate the planning of the project, but these would be reimbursed during the same fiscal year, up to 10% of the entitlement. Councilwoman Kaywood co~ented that the Communi~y Development Act appears to be a ray of sunshine in an otherwise gloomy economic picture. There was no further Council discussion, and no action was taken. RECESSr EXECUTIVE SESSION: Councilman Seymour moved to recess to Executive Session. Councilwoman Kaywood seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED (11:04 a.m.) AFTER RRCESS: Mayor Thom called the meeting to order, all Council Members being present with the exception of Councilmen Pebley and Sneegas. (1:20 p.m.) ADJOUR~NT: Councilman Seymour moved to adjourn. motion. MOTION CARRIED. Adjourned: 1:20 p.m. Councilwoman Kaywood seconded the City Clerk 74-96(} City Hall~ Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - September 24~ 1974~ 1:30 P.M. The City Council of the City of Anaheim met in regular session. PRESENT: ABSENT: PRESENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Kaywood, Seymour, Pebley and Thom COUNCIL MEMBERS: Sneegas CITY MANAGER: Keith A. Murdoch CITY ATTORNEY: Alan R. Watts CITY CLERK: Aloha M. Hougard PUBLIC WORKS DIRECTOR: Thornton Piersall ASSISTANT CITY ENGINEER: William G. Devitt ZONING SUPERVISOR: Charles Roberts PLANNING SUPERVISOR: Don McDaniel Mayor Thom called the meeting to order. INVOCATION: Reverend Steven Basham of the Anaheim Seventh Day Adventist Church gave the Invocation. FLAG SALUTE: Councilman Calvin L. Pebley led the Assembly in the Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag. PROCLAMATION: The following proclamation was issued by Mayor Thom and unani- mously approved by the City Council: "Anaheim Chamber of Commerce Month" ' October, 1974. MINUTES: Minutes of the Anaheim City Council Regular Meeting held AuguSt 20, 1974, were approved on motion by Councilman Thom, seconded by Councilman Seymour. MOTION CARRIED. WAIVER OF READING - ORDINANCES AND RESOLUTIONS: Councilman Pebley moved to waive the reading in full of all ordinances and resolutions, and that consent to the waiver of reading is hereby given by all Council Members unless, after reading of the title, specific request is made by a Council Member for the reading of such ordinance or resolution. Councilwoman Kaywood seconded the motion. MOTION UNANIMOUSLY CARRIED. REPORT - FINANCIAL DEMANDS AGAINST THE CITY: Demands against the City in the amount of $372,478.09, in accordance with the 1974-75 Budget, were approved. CONTINUED DECISION - PROPOSED AMENDMENT TO TITLE 17 OF THE ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE - LAND DEVELOPMENT AND RESOURCES: To consider an amendment to Title 17 of the Anaheim Municipal Code, Land Development and Resources, Chapter 17.06, Grading, Excava- tions and Fills in Hillside Areas. Public hearing was held August 27, 1974 and decision continued to this date to allow Council time to review the material presented at said public hearing. Mayor Thom inquired whether any Council Members wished to reopen the public hearing and accept additional testimony at this time or whether they wished to comment on tmstimony already received. Councilman Seymour remarked that he would favor referring the proposed ordinance back to the City Planning Commission because he is not convinced that the recommendations provided therein would solve the problem the City Council is facing in the development of the Santa Ana Canyon area, i.e., how to regulate hillside development so that less grading and cut and fill operations are neces- sary. He stated that there are some positive aspects in the proposed ordinance but the negative aspect which remains is that its adoption Would cause the move- ment of additional earth. He further advised that he has discussed the matter informally with members of the Planning Commission who have indicated that they are hopeful they can arrive at a better solution to this problem. Mayor Thom advised that he concurred with Councilman Seymour's remarks that the general aim in revision of Title 17 was to provide for less grading and a retention of more of the natural terrain of the canyon. The public hearing on August 27, 1974, indicated a dilemma in that the 2:1 ratio slope required in the 74-961 City Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - September 24, 1974~ 1:30 P.M. proposed amendment would result in more dirt being shifted and further,it was evident that some relief from the 2:1 slope would be appropriate based on good engineering principles. He concurred that the matter should be referred to the Planning Commission. On motion by Councilman Seymour, seconded by Councilwoman Kaywood, the proposed amendment to Title 17 of the Anaheim Municipal Code, Chapter 17.06, Grading, Excavations and Fills in Hillside Areas was referred back to the Planning Commission for further study and recommendation. MOTION CARRIED. In answer to Mr. McDaniel's question, Councilman Seymour advised that he would prefer to see the new recommendations within five weeks and if the Planning Commission feels a joint meeting with the Council relative to this matter would be beneficial, he would encourage this and Would suggest it be held at the earliest possible date. CONTINUED REQUEST - EXTENSION OF TIME~ RECLASSIFICATION NO. 70-71-24~ VARIANCE NO. 2228: Request of Scott Child for an extension of time to Reclassification No. 70-71-24 and Variance No. 2228 was submitted for Council consideration at the meetings of August 13 and August 27, 1974, and continued to this date to allow the Applicant time to submit revised plans for review and to allow for the 30-day posting period for the Environmental Impact Negative Declaration Status. Property is located at 134-142 South Stinson Street and was approved for R-3 zoning to permit an 18-unit apartment complex. Report from the City Engineer was submitted recommending that should subject extension of time be granted, it be subject to the requirement that bond for alley improvements and street lighting facilities be posted and street tree fees paid within sixty days. Mr. Elmer S. Child, submitted preliminary revised plans for the project, which plans were reviewed at the Council table. Mr. Roberts advised that a Negative Declaration has been filed and the 30-day posting period has expired and staff now recommends that a Negative Declar- ation status from the requirement to prepare an Environmental Impact Report be granted. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT - NEGATIVE DECLARATION: On motion by coUncilman Pebley seconded by Councilman Thom, the City Council finds that this project will have no significant effect on the environment and is, therefore, exempt from the requirement to prepare an Environmental Impact Report. MOTION CARIED. On motion by Councilman Pebley, seconded by Councilwoman Kaywood, the City Council approved the revised plans, as submitted, and granted a three-year extension of time retroactive to March 2, 1972, and expiring March 2, 1975, subject to the recommendations of the City Engineer that bond for alley improve- ments and street lighting facilities be posted and street tree fees paid within sixty days. MOTION CARRIED. PERMITS - ENTERTAINMENT AND AMUSEMENT DEVICES: On motion by Councilman Pebley seconded by Councilwoman Kaywood, the following application for permits were approved as recommended by the Chief of Police: a. Application filed by Mona D. McKeever for Entertainment Permit to allow 3 to 4 soul/blues/folk players at Mona's Inn, 3456 Orange Avenue, Friday and Saturday from 9:00 p.m. to 1:30 a.m., subject to provisions of Chapter 4.18 of the Anaheim Municipal Code for a period of one year. b. Application submitted by Wayne R. Haug, for Amusement Devices Permit to allow 3 valley pool tables at The Woods, 1287 East Lincoln Avenue, subject to provisions of Chapter 3.24 and 4.20 of the Anaheim Municipal Code. MOTION CARRIED. 74-962 City Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - September 24~ 1974~ 1:30 P.M. ANAHEIM ART ASSOCIATION - WAIVER OF BUSINESS LICENSE FEE - llTH ANNUAL FALL ART FESTIVAL: Request of Mrs. Celia Sova, Anaheim Art Association, Fall Festival Chairman, for permission to conduct the llth Annual Fall Art Festival in Pearson Park on September 28 and 29, 1974, from 9:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. and further requesting permission to sell works of art during the event, was submitted for Council consideration, together with reports from the License Collector and the City Attorney's Office. On motion by Councilman Pebley, seconded by Councilwoman Kaywood, the City Council authorized co-sponsorship of the llth Annual Fall Art Festival and granted permission for the Anaheim Art Association to sell works of art in Pearson Park in conjunction with this event, with waiver of the business license fee, provided that cons,,mmmtion of the sale or delivery is not made while the art work is displayed in the park. MOTION CARRIED. REQUEST - ENFORCEMENT OR STRENGTHENING - HOTEL AND MOTEL PRICE SIGN ORDINANCE: Letter from Mr. Bill O'Connell, General Manager, Stovall Properties, dated September 7, 1974, urging that the Council either require removal of all price signs, adopt a new revised sign ordinance to govern the existing signs, or enforce the existing ordinance regulating the posting of same, was submitted for Council consideration. Mr. O'Connell was recognized by the Mayor and advised that the hotel- motel operators would prefer an ordinance which would eliminate price signs in their industry. He cited his reasons for this request, his opinion that display of these signs cheapens the appearance of the area and that display of the signs also requires City personnel to enforce regulations. He reported that he had circulated a petition in favor of elimination of the display, of price signs and obtained signatures from all of the hotel-motel owners but three. He noted that in the past, at the request of the City Council, the industry has attempted to solve this problem on their own, but they cannot any longer and need assistance in enforcement of the price sign ordinance. City Attorney Watts counseled that in approximately 1971-72 the Court of Appeals for this Appellate District ruled that an ordinance in Palm Springs prohibiting price signs was unconstitutional and an invalid exercise of police power, and, therefore, he would advise that this. type of discrimination between rate signs and other types of signs is not a valid distinction which the Court would uphold. The current ordinance in the City of Anaheim which regulates rate signs is a follow-up of State legislation and is not a prohibition, but it is a regulation in the sense that if a motel operator does post rate signs, he must advertise the rate and number of rooms on which that rate is valid. The City of Anaheim, several years ago, did go further and require that in the event rate signs were posted by the operator of a motel, he must file this rate with the City and not change the rate more often than at'60-day intervals. Mayor Thom noted that obviously the City is not enforcing the ordinance and inquired whether there are constitutional problems in enforcement of same. Mr. Watts explained that enforcement of the ordinance is performed by the one Zoning Enforcement Officer and he also has many other duties besides the policing of hotel-motels signs. The only method which the City has of enforcement is to file a prosecution against the offender; three or four of these were filed during the past month, all of which were dismissed once compliance was obtained. Basically, the philosophy of the City Attorney's Office regarding these prosecu- tions has been that the City's objective is to obtain compliance with the law and once this is accomplished, the prosecutions are generally dismissed. Councilman Seymour stated that if the type of law prohibiting signs which Mr. O'Connell requested is unconstitutional, then the other alternative is to strengthen the existing ordinance and he inquired whether a stiff fine could be attached to that ordinance. Mr. Watts reported that for the nature of the offense involved the minimum fine would be $100 and the maximum six months in Jail or $500 or both, but these penalties are set by the Court and not by the City. 74-963 City Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - September 24~ 1974~ 1:30 P.M. Mr. O'Connell emphasized that the displaying of rates has become a major problem in the motel-hotel industry in Anaheim and related circumstances during the summer months in which certain motel operators would change prices depending on the availability of rooms and other facilities, adjusting rates so as to take maximum advantage of whatever price individuals will pay for a room. He stated that he feels very strongly that this is not a moral way to operate a business. Mr. O'Connell indicated that it is further a difficult situation to explain to individuals booking convention rooms when they personally see the range of prices displayed. He reported that there are 25 hotel-motel operators who post signs and of these, approximately 20 are not in compliance with the ordinance in some manner. Councilwoman Kaywood stated that perhaps it would be a good idea to find out what the City of Las Vegas and Phoenix have done in connection with this problem and if there is no better approach, then perhaps the City will have to follow through on prosecutions in order to enforce the present ordinance. Mr. O'Connell replied that he believes the City of Las Vegas made it so difficult to post price signs that as a result, they were eliminated. He further suggested that the City of Anaheim ordinance include the provision that once a sign is taken down it must be left down for sixty days before it may again be posted. (who was presen% for part of the hearing) A member of the audience, Dr. Kott,!was recognized by the Mayor, and he advised that he could see nothing wrong with an individual businessman changing his prices in accordance with the law of supply and demand. Mr. O'Connell replied that he does not disagree with the individual hotel-motel operator's right to change the rates, nor to have special seasonal rates, so long as this is done in an ethical manner and not so they fluctuate daily, as this, he feels, is unfair to the public in general. Mayor Thom reminded the audience that the City Council is not discuss- ing the setting of rates for hotel-motel rooms but the regulations for the posting and display of same. Other members of the hotel-motel industry who addressed the Council relative to this problem were: Mr. Dorsy, representing the Viking Travelodge, who indicated agreement with the comments made by Mr. O'Connell and also pointed out that many hotels and motels maintain membership in organizations such as the AAA and Best Western, and must post rates in these trade papers and then cannot vary from those rates; Jeanette Bea, representing the Modernaire Motel, indicated that she did not believe in this industry that rates should be permitted to fluctuate according to supply and demand and noted that the hotel-motel industry is attempting to set a moral standard for itself in much the same manner as other trade organizations have established; Mr. De Lasi, representing the Jolly Roger Inn, indicated that his motel, as well as many others, are included in a number of air line packages which are advertised throughout the United States and they also accept many pre-convention bookings, and when rates are set for the packages or conventions, the operators have to live with them for 12 months or more. Councilwoman Kaywood i~qui~whether there is a requirement as to how many rooms an operator must have/~a~D~w ra~e advertised,~-~h~-~-he ~ have Just one or two rooms at that rate ~~~ tell the individua~are rented but that more expensive rooms are available. Mr. De Lasi advised that the latter situation, as explained by Councilwoman Kaywood, is many times the case. Mr. De Lasi further was of the opinion that the present 60-day period for posting of prices is not sufficient; that this should be changed to six months as this would create a more equitable situation for all involved. Councilman Pebley expressed the opinion that he would not want govern- ment to meddle with his business and restrict in any way the rates which he may charge his industrial tenants. See Minutes of October 29, 1974, 1:30 p.m., Page 74-1038 "Minutes". See Minutes of October 29, 1974, 1:30 p.m., Page 74-1038 "Minutes". 74-964 City Hall~ Anmheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - September 24~ 1.974~ 1:30 P.M. Councilman Seymour did not think that industrial building and motels and hotels were directly comparable, and further added that there is nothing which will discourage convention trade faster than price gouging by hotels and motels within the community. Mayor Thom reiterated that the matter under discussion is the regulation of the method in which the prices are posted and not the rates themselves and to that end, and in order to achieve some kind of monitoring system for posting of these price signs, he assured those present that the City would review the exist- ing ordinance to see whether this could be strengthened or stringently enforced, and also review what steps the cities of Phoenix and Las Vegas have taken to resolve the problem. Following this review, some specific action would probably be taken by the Council in the next four to five weeks. COMMENTS ON TRASH COLLECTION CONTRACT: Dr. William I. Kott, 1720 Medical Center Drive, Anaheim, was recognized by the Mayor pursuant to his request dated September 10, 1974, to appear before the Council to discuss trash pick-up and related subjects. Dr. Kott explained that he has been having difficulty with trash pick- up at his residence as a result of the limitations imposed of 4 barrels, 65 pounds per barrel. He noted that some weeks he has less than the limit, some weeks no trash at all, and at other times more, but feels that the trash service should pick-up whatever amount of trash he has to dispose of since over the long run, it averages out to be within the limit. He requested Council to discuss the matter with Jaycox, Inc., the residential sanitation service contractor, so that they will pick-up a reasonable number of trash barrels from a residence without the ridiculous requirements imposed. Councilman Seymour pointed out that an unlimited pick-up contract could be negotiated but undoubtedly the cost of such would be higher. Dr. Kott replied that he feels sanitation charges are already too high and that with open negotiations and bidding, an adequate contract could be drawn up without adding additional cost. Mr. Murdoch interjected that the current sanitation charge is $1.75 per month and that the bulk of this is used to pay for the contracting of trash pick- up services, however, a portion of it does also Cover sewer maintenance. Dr. Kott further felt that the commercial rate of $3.00 per month, plus $.50 for the first toilet and $.25 for each additional toilet, is unfair. He felt that the rate should inversely decrease with the number of toilets and, further, that since the utility bill is mailed every 28 days, this amounts to 13 payments within a year's time for sanitation services rather than 12. Councilwoman Kaywood pointed out that one of the major problems in modern day civilization is solid waste disposal and that approximately 7½ pounds of solid waste per person per day are generated and consequently some effort should be directed to creating less solid waste and more reusable items. She noted that no ~atter which sanitation service contractor is used or what contract is negotiated, there will still have to be some ground rules as to maximum amounts. Public Works Director Thornton Piersall, in reply to Dr. Kott, advised that the contract for trash collection services is at a negotiated price and not just an extension, however, there have been time extensions to the contract without increase in prices. This year the contract was extended for a five-year period since the contractor intends to purchase new equipment. He reported that the contractor's union agreement for his employees will expire next year and undoubtedly sometime in early 1975 there will be a negotiation process which, if it results in salary increases, will also initiate contract negotiations with the City. In answer to Councilman Seymour, Mr. Piersall reported that the contract with Jaycox, Inc., is a normal service type contract with a fixed time limit which was extended, wherein the contractor is paid a fixed amount per unit. The commercial and industrial trash contractor is paid at a barrel rate, and the amount which the City charges and that which is paid to the contractor is not necessarily the same. He further noted that the 4 barrel, 65 pounds per barrel 74 -965 City Hall; Anaheim; California - COUNCIL MINUTES - September 24;. 1974; 1:30 P.M. limitation was a negotiated item in the contract, and that while it is possible to arrange for unlimited trash pick-up, cities which have done so have experienced an increase in sanitation charges. Mayor Thom questioned the 13 charges made for sanitation services on commercial and industrial bills in one calendar year, to which Mr. Piersall replied that the contractor is paid on a calendar basis and any amount over the contractor's charges is applied by the City towards the cost of other sanitation services. In answer to a question posed by Mr. Larry Sierk of the Anaheim Chamber of Commerce relative to the County proposal to charge for dumping and how this might affect the sanitation charges in the City of Anaheim, Mr. Piersall reported that a hearing is scheduled for October 16 through 18, 1974, and that information on this proposal will be forwarded to the Council shortly. He advised that if full recovery charge of transfer and dumping costs is transferred to individual residential property owners, it will have a significant effect as these will be entirely new costs to the residential property owner which the County previously absorbed. At the conclusion of discussion, Councilman Seymour assured Dr. Kott that the Council would keep his comments in mind when the trash collection con- tract is renegotiated. No further action was taken by the City Council. ENCROACHMENT PERMIT NO. 74-3E: Submitted by Mr. D. Michael Lamiar, Cardoza and D. Lams and Associates, proposing to encroach into a portion of dedicated streets located within Tract No. 8153, north of Nohl Ranch Road, east of the Newport Freeway for the installation of sleeves, three feet deep by three feet wide, to provide for Community Association (Homeowners) to maintain irrigation system for adjacent slopes. Also submitted was a report from the City Engineer recommending approval of subject encroachment permit, subject to: 1. Applicant will take all necessary steps to protect and avoid inter- ference with the existing high voltage underground electrical facilities located approximately 48 inches, more or less, underground. 2. Applicant will take all necessary steps to protect existing under- ground facilities of the Pacific Telephone Company located approximately 36 inches underground. 3. The proposed conduit installation is to be extended from property line to property line, and said installation is to be inspected by the Engineering Division. RESOLUTION NO. 74R-467: Councilman Seymour offered Resolution No. 74R-467 for adoption, approving Encroachment Permit No. 74-3E, subject to the conditions as set forth above and recommended by the City Engineer. Refer to Resolution Book. A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM APPROVING THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF AN ENCROACHMENT PERMIT AND AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR AND CITY CLERK TO EXECUTE SAID ENCROACHMENT PERMIT WITH LUSK CORPORATION. (74-3E) AYES: NOES: ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: COUNCIL MEMBERS: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Kaywood, Seymour, Pebley and Thom None Sneegas The Mayor declared Resolution No. 74R-467 duly passed and adopted. CITY PLANNING COMMISSION ITEMS: Actions taken by the City Planning Commission at their meeting held September 4, 1974, pertaining Co the following applications were submitted for City Council information and consideration: 74-966 City Nall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - September 24~ 1974~ 1:30 P.M. 1. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT - CATEGORICAL EXEMPTIONS: On motion by Councilman Pebley, seconded by Councilwoman Kaywood, the City Council ratified the determina- tion of the Director of Development Services that the activities proposed in the following actions fall within the definition of Section 3.01, Class 1 or 5 of the City of Anaheim Guidelines to the requirements for an environmental impact report and are, therefore, categorically exempt from the requirement to file said report: Variance No. 2631 Variance No. 2634 Conditional Use Permit No. 1489 Conditional Use Permit No. 1491 MOTION CARRIED. 2. VARIANCE NO. 2631: Submitted by Obie T. Moore to establish a law school in an existing building on C-2 zoned property at the corners of Oak Street, Lemon Street and Chestnut Street, with Code waiver of: a. Minimum number of parking spaces. The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC74-187, denied said variance. 3. VARIANCE NO. 2634: Submitted by Sterling Development Company to establish a sandwich shop in an existing industrial complex on M-1 zoned property located southeast of La Palma Avenue, the Carbon Creek Channel and Kraemer Boulevard, with Code waiver of: a. Permitted uses. The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC74-188, granted said variance, subject to conditions. 4. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 1489: Submitted by Toro Development Company, Inc., to permit outdoor storage of automobiles on M-1 zoned property northeast of the intersection of La Jolla Street and the future extension of Red Gum Street, with Code waiver of: a. Minimum number of parking spaces. The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC74-185, granted said conditional use permit, subject to conditions. 5. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 1491: Submitted by Haagen Development Company to permit on-sale beer and wine in conjunction with a restaurant in an existing com- mercial shopping center on C-1 (SC) zoned property located at the southwest cor- ner of Santa Aha Canyon Road and Imperial Highway (Rancho Yorba Shopping Center). The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC74-186, granted said conditional use permit subject to conditions. COUNCIL ACTION: The foregoing applications (Item Nos. 1 through 5) were reviewed by the City Council and no further action was taken. 6. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 1461 - TERMINATION: Submitted by William R. Whitla, to permit on-sale beer and wine in an existing restaurant on C-1 zoned property located at 1527 East La Palma Avenue (Mamma Cozza's No. 2). Termination request by Frank Cozza on the grounds that he no longer intends to operate the restaurant and further that the beer and wine license has been returned to the ABC Board for cancellation. The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC74-189, terminated Conditional Use Permit 1461. RESOLUTION NO. 74R-468: Councilman Seymour offered Resolution No. 74R-468 for adoption, terminating all proceedings in connection with Conditional Use Permit No. 1461. 74-967 City Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - Sep_t_~e.m_be__r__24,, !974~ ..]:30 P.M. Refer to Resolution Book. A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM TERMINATING ALL PROCEED- INGS IN CONNECTION WITH CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 1461. Roll Call Vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Kaywood, Seymour, Pebley and Thom COUNCIL MEMBERS: None COUNCIL MEMBERS: Sneegas The Mayor declared Resolution No. 74R-468 duly passed and adopted. 7. TENTATIVE MAP~ TRACT NO. 8758 (ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT NO. 133, RECLASS- IFICATION NO. 74-75-9~: Anaheim High School District, owners; property located at the southeast corner of East Street and Vermont Avenue; containing 157 proposed RM-4000 zoned lots. On motion by Councilman Seymour, seconded by Councilwoman Kaywood, ac- tion on Tentative Map, Tract No. 8758 was continued to be considered in conjunc- tion with Environmental Impact Report No. 133 and Reclassification No. 74-75-9. MOTION CARRIED. 8. TENTATIVE MAPm TRACT NO. 8560m REVISION NO. 2 (ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT NO. 120~ CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 1490 AND VARIANCE NO. 2630): Henry F. and Ethel C. Del Giorgio, owmers; property located southerly of Santa Ana Canyon Road, east of Imperial Highway, containing 85 proposed R-H-22,000 zoned lots. On motion by Councilman Seymour, seconded by Councilwoman Kaywood, ac- tion on Tentative Map, Tract No. 8560, Revision No. 2, was continued to be con- sidered in conjunction with E.I.R. No. 120, Conditional Use Permit No. 1490 and Variance No. 2630. MOTION CARRIED. EXTENSION OF TIME - RECLASSIFICATION NO. 72-73-10~ VARIANCE NO. 2426~ TENTATIVE MAP~ TRACT NOS. 7946~ 7947 AND 7948: Developer, Anaheim Condos, Ltd.; property located at the northwest corner of Walnut Street and Cerritos Avenue. City Attorney Watts advised that it would be in order at this time for Council to grant extensions of time to.Reclassification No. 72-73-10, Variance No. 2426 and Tentative Tract Nos. 7946, 7947 and 7948, for a one-year period, ex- piring September 19, 1975, for a total number of units in said tracts not to ex- ceed 290. Councilwoman Kaywood inquired whether this extension of time would be subject to the stipulation that these 290 units be "Smoke Tree" units and not "Pepperwood" as originally planned, to which Mr. Watts advised that this is in- cluded in the stipulated judgment which has already been signed by both parties and filed with Superior Court. On motion by Councilman Seymour, seconded by Councilwoman Kaywood, a one-year extension of time was granted to Reclassification No. 72-73-10, Variance No. 2426, Tentative Map, Tract Nos. 7946, 7947 and 7948, for a period of one year, expiring September 19, 1975, for a total number of units in said tentative tracts not to exceed 290. MOTION CARRIED. R~qUEST TO ERECT A 40- BY 60-FOOT CANVAS TENT - ST. JOHN THE BAPTIST GREEK ORTHODOX CHURCH: Mr. Murdoch submitted application from St. John The Baptist Greek Orthodox Church, 405 North Dale Street, Anaheim, to erect a 40- by 60-foot canvas tent to be used for Sunday worship, during the course of construction of.a permanent facility. The construction time is estimated to be 8 months, and the tent would be used for that duration. The occupancy would be between 150 and 200 people. Councilman Seymour inquired as to what area the Church proposed for parking, and Mr. Murdoch replied that they intend to continue to use the same parking lot; that the building they are currently using has to be removed in order to construct the new facility. 74-968 City Hall~ Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - September 24~ 1.974~ 1:30 P.M. On motion by Councilman Pebley, seconded by Councilman Thom, the City Council approved the temporary use of a 40- by 60-foot canvas tent at 405 North Dale Street, Anaheim, to be used for Sunday worship services at the St. John The Baptist Greek Orthodox Church site for a period of 8 months, subject to compliance with all Building and Fire Department regulations. MOTION CARRIED. RESOLUTION NO. 74R-469 - AWARD OF CONTRACT - ACCOUNT NOS. 280-462-922-01 AND 100-425-241: In accordance with recommendations of the City Engineer, Councilman Pebley offered Resolution No. 74R-469 for adoption. Refer to Resolution Book. A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM ACCEPTING A SEALED PRO- POSAL AND AWARDING A CONTRACT TO THE LOWEST RESPONSIBLE BIDDER FOR THE FURNISHING OF ALL PLANT, LABOR, SERVICES, MATERIALS AND EQUIPMENT AND ALL UTILITIES AND TRANSPORTATION, INCLUDING POWER, FUEL AND WATER, AND PERFORMING ALL WORK NECES- SARY TO CONSTRUCT AND COMPLETE THE FOLLOWING PUBLIC IMPROVEMENT: THE APPLICATION OF TRAFFIC STRIPE PAINT, PAVEMENT MARKINGS AND DEVICES ON VARIOUS STREETS IN THE CITY OF ANAHEIM, ACCOUNT NOS. 280-462-922-01 AND 100-425-241. (Safety Striping Service - $103,220.50) R~ll Call Vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Kaywood, Seymour, Pebley and Thom COUNCIL MEMBERS: None COUNCIL MEMBERS: Sneegas The Mayor declared Resolution No. 74R-469 duly passed and adopted. RESOLUTION NO. 74R-470 - WORK ORDER NO. 719-B: Councilman Thom offered Resolution No. 74R-470 for adoption. Refer to Resolution Book. A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM FINDING AND DETERMINING THAT PUBLIC CONVENIENCE AND NECESSITY REQUIRE THE CONSTRUCTION AND COMPLETION OF A PUBLIC IMPROVEMENT, TO WIT: THE TUSTIN AVENUE-JEFFERSON STREET STREET IMPROVE- MENT, IN THE CITY OF ANAHEIM, WORK ORDER NO. 719-B; APPROVING THE DESIGNS, PLANS, PROFILES, DRAWINGS AND SPECIFICATIONS FOR THE CONSTRUCTION THEREOF; AUTHO- RIZING THE CONSTRUCTION OF SAID PUBLIC IMPROVEMENT IN ACCORDANCE WITH SAID PLANS, SPECIFICATIONS, ETC.; AND AUTHORIZING AND DIRECTING THE CITY CLERK TO PUBLISH A NOTICE INVITING SEALED PROPOSALS FOR THE CONSTRUCTION THEREOF. (Bids to be Opened - October 17, 1974, 2:00 P.M.) Roll Call Vote: AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Kaywood, Seymour, Pebley and Thom None Sneegas The Mayor declared Resolution No. 74R-470 duly passed and adopted. RIGHT OF WAY CERTIFICATION - A.H.F.P. NO. 658 - LA PALMAAVENUE: On motion by Councilman Thom, seconded by Councilman Pebley,.the Mayor and City Clerk were authorized to execute on behalf of the City of Anaheim a right of way certifica- tion in connection with the right-of-way for La Palma Avenue from 6475 feet east of Fairmont to 2925 feet east of Imperial Highway, A.H.F.P. No. 658. MOTION CARRIED. TRUNK SEWE~ FACILITY FEE - MOHLER DRIVE AREA: Report from the City Engineer dated September 10, 1974, was submitted recommending that the Trunk Sewer Facility Fee for the Mohler Drive area be set at $1,210 per acre, with a minimum charge of $350 for parcels of less than three-tenths acre. On motion by Councilman Pebley, seconded by Councilwoman Kaywood, the City Council adopted the Trunk Sewer Facility Fee for the Mohler Drive area as recomended by the City Engineer. MOTION CARRIED. RESOLUTION NO. 74R-471 - DEEDS OF EASEMENT: Councilman Thom offered Resolution No. 74R-471 for adoption. 74-969 City Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - September 24~ 1974~ .1:30 P.M. Refer to Resolution Book. A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM ACCEPTING CERTAIN DEEDS AND ORDERING THEIR RECORDATION. (Leslie E. Grimes, et ux.; Canyon Rim Investment Company; Texaco Ventures, Inc. and Anaheim Hills, Inc.; Reynold W. Wood, et ux.; Jerry R. Hodges, et ux.; Brian Nell Chuchua, et ux.; Kathryn H. Wing; Kathryn H. Wing; William A. McNames, et ux.; Wilfred W. Harned, ex ux.; Jose S. Martinez, et ux.; James Lynn Olsen, et ux.; C. Palmer, et ux.; Edward 'R. Wadleigh, et ux.; Warren W. Williams, et ux.; First Nat'l Bank of Orange County; Miles E. Brakke, et ux.; Donald A. Wallace, Sr., et ux.; Jeanne L. Belknap; Robert J. Forrester, et ux.; Douglas C. Elliott, et ux.; Harold J. Thomas, et ux.; Frederick H. Woodard, et ux.; Frank D. Miser; Jean R. Paquette, et ux.; LeRoy E. Ostrander, et ux.; Home of the Ministering Angel; Lawrence W. Patterson, et ux.; Robert J. Stewart, et ux.; Charles H. Arnold, et ux.; R. Merrill Gregory, et ux.; Vernon L. Dunham, et ux.; Arthur Henning, et ux.) Roll Call Vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: COUNCIL MEMBERS: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Kaywood, Seymour, Pebley and Thom None Sneegas The Mayor declared Resolution No. 74R-471 duly passed and adopted. PROPOSED ABANDONMENT - RESOLUTION NO. 74R-472: Councilman Thom offered Resolution No. 74R-472 for adoption. Refer to Resolution Book. A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM DECLARING ITS INTENTION TO VACATE CERTAIN REAL PROPERTY AND FIXING A DATE FOR HEARING THEREON. (No. 74- 4A, October 15, 1974, 1:30 P.M., portion of a former Anaheim Union Water Company easement located east of West Street, south of Romneya Drive.) Roll Call Vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: COUNCIL MEMBERS: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Kaywood, Seymour, Pebley and Thom None Sneegas The Mayor declared Resolution No. 74R-472 duly passed and adopted. PURCHASE OF EQUIPMENT - INDUSTRIAL TRACTOR WITH SCRAPER: The City Manager reported on informal bids received for the purchase of one industrial tractor with scraper for the Parks Division and recommended acceptance of the low bid: VENDOR TOTAL AMOUNT~ INCLUDING TAX McCoy Ford Tractor, Garden Grove $11,448.00 Artesia Implement, Artesia 12,243.00 Milo Equipment Co., Santa Aha 12,445.00 On motion by Councilman Thom, seconded by Councilman Seymour, the low bid of McCoy Ford Tractor was accepted and purchase authorized in the amount of $11,448.00, including tax. MOTION CARRIED. APPRAISAL OF LAND TO BE ACQUIRED FOR CIVIC CENTER PROJECT - CEDRIC WHITE: The City Manager presented recommendation that Cedric A. White, Jr., M.A.I., 292 Wilshire, Anaheim, be employed, in accordance with the terms set forth in Mr. White's letter dated August 22, 1974, at a fee not to exceed $8,500, for the purpose of performing appraisal of parcels of land which must be acquired as part of the Civic Center Project Area. Mr. Murdoch outlined other proposals received and named the appraisers who were requested to submit proposals but indicated they could not handle this additional work at this time. On motion by Councilman Thom, seconded by Councilwoman Kaywood, the City Council authorized the preparation of a contract employing Cedric A. White Jr., for appraisal of property in connection with the Civic Center Project at a fee not to exceed $8,500. MOTION CARRIED. 74-970 City Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - September 24~ 1974~ 1:30 P.M. APPRAISAL - RIVERDALE PARK SITE CONDEMNATION ACTION: The City Attorney reported on proposal received from Lawrence O'Toole, M.A.I., 11110 Los Alamitos Boulevard, Los Alamitos, to conduct appraisal of property located north of Riverdale Avenue, west of Lakeview Street; said property being a portion of the proposed Riverdale Park Site. The estimated fee proposed by Mr. O'Toole is $535, however, this would not include fees for testimony in court. On motion by Councilman Thom, seconded by Councilwoman Kaywood, the City Attorney was authorized to prepare a contract employing Mr. Lawrence O'Toole, M.A.I., to appraise property in connection with the Riverdale Park Site Condemna- tion action in accordance with terms set forth in Mr. O'Toole's letter dated September 24, 1974, at a fee of $535, plus any additional consultant time. MOTION CARRIED. BICYCLE FACILITIES CONSULTANT: Mr. Murdoch presented the recommendation made by the Staff Committee appointed to review proposals and interview potential consultants on the City's Bicycle Trails System. He reported that following review of several proposals received, the one submitted by Urban Futures, Inc., of Santa Aha seemed to be the most complete and accountable proposal, and the recommendation of the Committee is that Council authorize negotiation of a specific contract with Urban Futures, Inc., in an amount not to exceed $10,000. He advised that the other firms most seriously considered were Governmental Professional Services of Santa Aha and Recreational Land Planners of Placentia. Councilman Thom inquired as to the makeup of the Committee which con- ducted the interview and review of proposals and was informed by Mr. Murdoch that this Committee consisted of representatives from the Police Department, Develop- ment Services Department, Parks, Recreation and the Arts, Traffic Engineer, Director of Public Works and City Manager's Office. Councilman Thom indicated that he personally felt one of the other firms mentioned had more experience in Orange County than the recommended firm and advised that he would like to investigate the background and review the pro- posals of the three top firms prior to any Council action. By general consent, the City Council continued their decision regarding negotiations for a specific contract with a consultant firm for bicycle facilities to the meeting of October 1, 1974. RESOLUTION NO. 74R-473 - CANYON RIM ROAD WATER MAIN REIMBURSEMENT AGREEMENT: Councilman Seymour offered Resolution No. 74R-473 for adoption, approving the terms and conditions of a reimbursement agreement between the City and Anaheim Hills, Inc., as recommended by the Utilities Director in Memorandum dated September 19, 1974, and in accordance with Rule No. 15, for reimbursement of installation costs for the primary distribution main in Canyon Rim Road. Refer to Resolution Book. A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM APPROVING THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF A REIMBURSEMENT AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AND ANAHEIM HILLS, INCORPORATED, PERTAINING TO THE INSTALLATION OF A WATER SYSTEM FOR TRACT 8220 AND AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR AND CITY CLERK TO EXECUTE SAID AGREEMENT FOR AND ON BEHALF OF THE CITY OFANAHEIM. Roll Call Vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Kaywood, Seymour, Pebley and Thom COUNCIL MEMBERS: None COUNCIL MEMBERS: Sneegas The Mayor declared Resolution No. 74R-473 duly passed and adopted. RESOLUTION NO. 74R-474 - AUTHORIZING EXECUTION OF GRANT DEED TO ORANGE UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT: The City Attorney reported that in accordance with terms and conditions of the settlement agreement involving the City, Anaheim Hills, Inc., and Orange Unified School District, it would be in order for the Council to authorize execu- tion of a grant deed in favor of the Orange Unified School District conveying a parcel of land of approximately 10 acres located near the intersection of Nohl Ranch Road and Imperial Highway for public educational facilities and such other purposes as are feasible and practical. 74-971 City Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - September 24.~ 1974~ 1:30 P.M. Councilman Seymour inquired whether the City has received a written agreement or letter of intent to replace the subject 10 acres as was agreed to by Anaheim Hills, Inc. Mr. Watts replied that there is one particular site under discussion for replacement of this property which has been viewed by Mr. Murdoch, John Collier and Jack Sickler of Anaheim Hills, Inc.; however, no survey has been per- formed for this property, and, consequently, a legal description of same is not available to be placed into an agreement although staff is in the process of obtaining same. Councilman Seymour inquired whether there is a Memorandum of Understand- ing or letter agreement on file which indicates the intent of Anaheim Hills, Inc. to replace these 10 acres, to which Mr. Watts replied that he was relatively cer- tain that he did have a letter from the Anaheim Hills, Inc. attorneys to the effect that the 10 acres would be replaced. Further Mr. Watts advised that currently they are amending the park agreement executed between the City and Anaheim Hills, Inc., two years ago which specifies that Anaheim Hills, Inc. will transfer to the City a certain number of acres; they are proposing to amend that agreement to show that these 10 acres will be replaced at another location. Councilman Seymour stated that he was under the impression that this intent was embodied in the exchange agreement itself. Mr. Watts advised that it was not written into that agreement although it certainly was a part of the negotiations and discussions. Mayor Thom agreed that prior to executing the grant deed, the City should have some written clarification at least of this intent from Anaheim Hills, Inc. Mr. Murdoch also indicated that he would prefer to have on file in written form an expression from the Orange Unified School District regarding the Joint participation discussed for this property, particularly since the parcel under discussion was originally six acres in size, whereas the parcel to be con- veyed is 10 acres. Mr. Murdoch further noted that there has not been disagreement or pro- crastination on the part of Anaheim Hills, Inc. relative to the alternate 10 acres of property; the transaction merely has not proceeded to the point of formal agreement because of the time spent in selecting the site. He advised that the property under consideration for replacement at the present time is located adjacent to the Golf Course and although it may change the emphasis on the type of recreational facility to be provided, as compared with what would have been designed adjacent to the school, the site will still fit well into the overall Parks and Recreation program. RESOLUTION NO. 74R-474: Councilman Seymour offered Resolution No. 74R-474 for adoption, authorizing the Mayor and City Clerk to execute a corporation grant deed in favor of the Orange Unified School District conveying a 10-acre parcel of land located near the intersection of Nohl Ranch Road and Imperial Highway to said District, provided, however, that prior to the execution of this document by the Mayor~ the City Attorney have on file in his office a written expression from Anaheim Hills, Inc. of their intent to replace said 10 acres at another location. Refer to Resolution Book. A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AUTHORIZING AND DIRECTING THE MAYOR AND CITY CLERK TO EXECUTE A CORPORATION GRANT DEED IN FAVOR OF THE ORANGE UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT. Roll Call Vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Kaywood, Seymour, Pebley and Thom COUNCIL MEMBERS: None COI~CIL MEMBERS: Sneegas The Mayor declared Resolution No. 74R-474 duly passed and adopted. 74-972 City Nallm Anaheimm California - COUNCIL MINUTES - September 24m 1974~ 1:30 P.M. CLAIM AGAINST THE CITY: Claim submitted by Phil Anderson for damages sustained to vehicle purportedly as a result of its being hit with golf balls while at Anaheim Municipal Golf Course, on or about July 6, 1974, was denied as recommended by the City Attorney and ordered to the insurance carrier, on motion by Councilman Thom, seconded by Councilman Pebley. MOTION CARRIED. RESOLUTION NO. 74R-475 - AMENDMENT TO ESTABLISHED RATES; MAGNOLIA AND PEARSON PARKS SWIMMING POOLS (FREE SWIMMING JULY 4 AND LABOR DAY): Councilwoman Kaywood offered Resolution No. 74R-475 for adoption. ~- Refer to Resolution Book. A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AMENDING RESOLUTION NO. 74R-279 ESTABLISHING RATES AT MAGNOLIAAND PEARSON PARK POOLS. AYES: NOES: ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMNERS: Kaywood, Seymour, Pebley and Thom COUNCIL MEMBERS: None COUNCIL MEMBERS: Sneegas The Mayor declared Resolution No. 74R-475 duly passed and adopted. CORRESPONDENCE: The following correspondence was ordered received and filed, on motion by Councilman Pebley and seconded by Councilman Seymour: a. City of Riverbank - Resolution No. 74-52 - Urging opposition to Proposition No. 17 on the November 1974 ballot which would stop the construction of the New Melones Dam. b. City of Garden Grove - Resolution No. 4636-74 - Endorsing the Assessment Treatment Services Center and encouraging the county of Orange to provide the necessary funding. c. Community Center Authority - Minutes - September 9, 1974. d. Cultural Arts Commission - Minutes - August 12, 1974. e. Anaheim Parks and Recreation Commission - Minutes - August 15 1974. f. Financial and Operating Reports for the Month of August, 1974: Police Department Customer Service Division MOTION CARRIED. Relative to item "c" in above correspondence, Councilwoman Kaywood suggested that the Community Center Authority include the time of adjournment in their minutes. ORDINANCE NO. 3355: Councilman Thom offered Ordinance No.'3355 for adoption. Refer to Ordinance Book. AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AMENDING TITLE 18 OF THE ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO ZONING. (71-72-44(10) R-3) Roll Call Vote: AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Kaywood, Pebley and Thom NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: None ABSTAINED: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Seymour ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Sneegas The Mayor declared Ordinance No. 3355 duly passed and adopted. ORDINANCE NO. 3356: Councilman Pebley offered Ordinance No. 3356 for adoption. Refer to Ordinance Book. AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AMENDING TITLE 18 OF THE ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO ZONING. (65-66-24 (19) - M-l) Roll Call Vote: 74-973 City Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - September 24~ 1974~ 1:30 P.M. AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Kaywood, Seymour, Pebley and Thom NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: None ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Sneegas The Mayor declared Ordinance No. 3356 duly passed and adopted. ORDINANCE NO. 3357: Councilman Seymour offered Ordinance No. 3357 for adoption. Refer to Ordinance Book. AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AMENDING TITLE 18 OF THE ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO ZONING. (73-74-9 (2) - C-l) Roll Call Vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: COUNCIL MEMBERS: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Kaywood, Seymour, Pebley and Thom None Sneegas The Mayor declared Ordinance No. 3357 duly passed and adopted. ORDINANCE NO. 3358: Councilwoman Kaywood offered Ordinance No. 3358 for first reading. AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AMENDING TITLE 14, CHAPTER 14.32, SECTION 14.32.190 PERTAINING TO PARKING. (No parking anytime - Dale Avenue, east side 375 feet north of centerline of Ball Road to 1325 feet north of centerline of Ball Road, distance of 950 feet) RECOMMENDATION RE ELECTRIC POWER GENERATION - ANAHEIM CHAMBER OF COMMERCE: Mr. William S. Woods, 4225 East La Palma, Anaheim, representing the Electric Power Generation Task Force of the Anaheim Chamber of Commerce, advised that this group was convened to evaluate the possibilities and ramifications of Anaheim's entry into a program to generate its own power. He reported that to this end a number of industrialists made their technical staffs available, and the City of Anaheim Utilities Department was of considerable assistance to the Task Force and demon- strated themselves to be quite competent. Mr. Woods reported that the Task Force has concluded that Anaheim's entry into power generation will provide a considerable benefit inasmuch as it is expected this would produce a dependable supply of electrical energy at the lowest possible cost. He stated that the Task Force, following the study, did recommend to the Chamber that they endorse the City of Anaheim's participation in power generation projects, and, consequently, a resolution to this effect was adopted by the Anaheim Chamber of Commerce, dated September 19, 1974, which Mr. Woods read in full for the City Council. The report and resolution from the Anaheim Chamber of Commerce endorsing Anaheim's participation in power generation projects was ordered received and filed, on motion by Councilman Seymour, seconded by Councilman Pebley. MOTION CARRIED. DISCUSSION - EXERCISE OF CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS UNDER THE FIRST AMENDMENT BY INDIVIDUAL CITIZENS ON PUBLIC PROPERTY: Mayor Thom recalled that at the meeting of August 20, 1974, Dr. Atherton addressed the Council with the complaint that his request to use Anaheim Convention Center property for the purposes of circulating a petition was denied, and, therefore, his Civil Rights under the First Amendment of the Constitution were abridged. Subsequent to this, the City Attorney prepared a report on the subject and meetings between himself (Mayor Thom), the City Attorney and Mr. Herb Licker (Attorney for Dr. Atherton) were held. Mr. Licker wished to address the Council to discuss this situation in the hope that the Council might see fit to establish some type of policy for use of the Convention Center prop- erty by individual citizens to exercise Constitutional Rights under the First Amendment; thereby alleviating his need to instigate legal action to obtain these rights. Mr. Herbert Licker, 1571 West Katella Avenue, related that his Client, Dr. Atherton, desired to circulate certain petitions on the grounds at the Anaheim Convention Center, which he felt he was entitled to do under the First Amendment. He indicated that he would address the subject on two issues, legal and moral. 74-974 City Hall~ Anahe.im~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - September 24~ 1974~ 1:30 P.M. Mr. Licker cited two cases in which this subject was thoroughly explored, that of Lloyd Corporation versus Tanner which was a United States Supreme Court decision and a recent case from the California State Supreme Court, Diamond versus Bland. Further, pursuant to Supreme Court decision regarding the exercise of First Amendment Rights in a privately-owned shopping center, the Court ruled that where property rights are privately owned and a reasonable alternative method to exercise an individual's rights presents itself, the individual may not enter upon the private property but must use the reasonable alternative method. He noted that as a result of this decision, the California State Supreme Court, on its own motion, reversed its decision in the Diamond versus Bland Case. He further related the litigation which ensued when in 1970, some individuals entered a fairgrounds for the purpose of distributing literature and were arrested for trespassing. When this case was appealed, the Attorney General conceded that the people had a right to present themselves on these public premises to distribute literature and carry placards so long as they did not obstruct the public from its use of these premises. Mr. Licker stated that in this particular situation, there is publicly- owned property (the Anaheim Convention Center) upon which a person wishes to enter to make use of his Constitutional Rights. There is no empirical evidence that he would act in any but a reasonable manner; and further the City would have the right to impose reasonable restrictions upon this activity. He cited an opinion rendered by the City Attorney in Laguna Beach (copies distributed to Council) which held that persons may not be prohibited from circulating petitions upon publicly-owned property normally open to all members of the general public. Mr. Licker stated that the legal precedent is such that in his opinion there is no doubt about an individual's right to enter on public property in a reasonable manner and exercise these First Amendment Rights in reasonable fashion. On a moral plane, Mr. Licker remarked that especially in view. of the trauma'tic experiences relative to morality in government of late, it would seem to him that governmental bodies would seek to the best of their respective abili- ties to allow the Constitutional Rights of the citizens to be exercised as liber- ally as reason would permit, rather than taking the position of forcing the individual to employ litigation in order to determine his rights. He felt that the direction in a democracy should be to allow people their fullest rights, and if these are abused, then to take action to curb the abuse, rather than preclude these rights on the hypothetical basis that someone will abuse them. Councilman Pebley inquired what Dr. Atherton had been denied and upon being informed of the situation, he stated that he took exception to Mr. Licker's point of view, and that he feels rather the party who is leasing the Convention Center has the right to determine whether or not they wish to allow individuals on the premises to circulate petitions. Mr. Licker indicated that his answer to Councilman Pebley would be categorically "no". In the first instance he stated that the Convention Center is not leased to the tenants but rather they are granted a license which gives them a temporary grant of use, and as a licensee, they would have different rights than a lessee. Furthermore, if the City does not have the right under the Constitution to deny a citizen the right to enter upon a premise to petition, it cannot grant its licensee the right to deny that privilege to an individual citi- zen, i.e., the City cannot circumvent what it cannot do directly. Mr. Licker stated that if the property is public, the individual's right to enter upon it is absolute. Certainly the party who is the licensee wants this entrance upon the property to be in a manner consistent with his desired use of said property and he is also guaranteed that right. It is for this reason that the law provides that the manner in which the right to exercise individual rights under the First Amendment is subject to reasonable control by the City. In other words, these individuals may not create a public disturbance or nuisance, or obstruct passage ways or doorways; they must conduct themselves in a reasonable manner. Councilwoman Kaywood voiced the opinion that the Convention Center situation is not analogous with the cases Mr. Licker has cited since there are performances which begin at specific times. She noted from personal experience that immediately following or Just prior to a performance, there is not the physical space for picketing or petitioning without creating some kind of 74-975 City Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - September 24~ 1974.~ .1:30 P.M. obstruction. She added that she could see how these rights might apply to shop- ping centers but not to the Convention Center. She further noted that there is a reasonable alternative method for an individual to exercise his rights at the Convention Center, as was pointed out in the City Attorney's memorandum, and that is on the public sidewalks in front of and behind the Convention Center. Mr. Licker stated that the "reasonable alternative method" provision applies only to private property; that the right to enter upon public property is absolute. He further suggested that in accordance with its right to set reason- able restrictions, the City may require that an individual petitioning vacate the premises 15 minutes before show time or remain some distance from the box office at a particular time, etc. He reiterated that the key to the problem is the word "reasonable". He stated that he could not conceive that a method appropriate to the circumstances which protects the rights of all parties involved could not be worked out. Mayor Thom, in attempting to indicate the object of discussion, pointed out that Mr. Watts' position, as reported in the memorandum, reflects the stated position of the City since the time the Convention Center was built. The Council may at its discretion establish a policy for reasonable use of the Convention Center property for these purposes, or they may take the position that this is not permissible and have litigation initiated to prove the matter. Mr. Licker stressed that if the City Council believes in democracy and in the Constitution as a viable document, they must assume that the citizens are honest and would not abuse their rights until it is proven otherwise; that it would be commensurate and consistent with the belief in the democratic practices to allow private parties their Constitutional Rights and if they prove unworthy, then to take appropriate action, rather than deny the right to him in the first place. Mayor Thom related that this particular issue strikes a sensitive chord within him because of an incident which occurred during the petition initiative drive, when a gathering of approximately 40 persons was told to vacate a public park although they did have the proper permit and were legally entitled to convene there for political purposes. City Attorney Watts presented his opinion on the matter as follows: To put the issue into prospective he noted first that when Dr. Atherton originally made his request to circulate the petition at the Anaheim Convention Center, he asserted an absolute right to do so in whatever manner he deemed appropriate, and it was to this that the memorandum was addressed. Mr. Watts noted that the situ- ation Mr. Licker is presenting today is something different, as he is conceding that while there may be an absolute right in his opinion to enter upon the Conven- tion Center property, the City has the right to reasonable regulation, and this puts the request in a different light. Mr. Watts felt it important to advise Council that since the opening of the Convention Center, the policy, basically as practiced by staff, has been that the reasonable alternative for picketing, gathering of signatures and similar kinds of activities was that the sidewalks on both sides of the Convention Center are available for this exercise of rights, and the staff has attempted to persuade the public to abide by that. He noted, however, that to his knowledge the City Council has never voted upon the issue. Mr. Watts further reported that there is no city ordinance and few penal statutes which speak to the matter. He stated that if a person abuses his right and, therefore, meeds to be removed from the premises, this amounts basically to an arrest for a criminal violation, and the penal code section which was utilized in the past requires a trespass with the intent to interfere with lawful business activity being conducted on the premises, and it is a question of faith whether there is such unlawful interference. Mr. Watts further suggested that if Mr. Licker is correct, that there is an absolute constitutional right to enter upon the Convention Center property; action taken by the Council either for or against has no validity. He noted that since the Council can take no action to deny an individual his constitu- tional right, procedurally, Dr. Atherton did not need to seek permission. 74-976 City Rall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - September 24~ 1.974~ 1:30 P.M. Councilman Pebley left the Council Chambers. (4:05 P.M.) Mr. Licker inquired what he might convey to his client as a result of this discussion, to which Mayor Thom replied that' Mr. Licker and his client may assume that the City in no way intends to abridge anyone's constitutional rights as long as they behave in a law abiding and peaceful manner. Further, he noted that he personally did not think that the Council should make any ruling which would tend to impinge upon or abridge a citizen's consitutional rights so long as that citizen deports himself in a peaceful and law-abiding manner. Councilman Pebley returned to Council Chambers. (4:08 P.M.) Mr. Licker inquired whether he might convey to his client that the City Council and City Attorney have indicated that there is no specific ordinance or law prohibiting what he desires to do, and the City does not desire in any way to impinge on anyone's right. Councilwoman Kaywood left the Council Chambers. (4:10 P.M.) Mr. Watts stated that he would not advise Council to establish any specific guidelines or rules relative to this situation; that if Dr. Atherton or any other individual goes onto the Convention Center property and interferes with a lawful business activity being conducted, then he would be subject to prosecu- tion under Section 602J of the Penal Code. No further discussion ensued and no action was taken by the City Council. Councilwoman Kaywood returned to Council Chambers. (4:12 P.M.) METROPOLITAN TRANSPORTATION ENGINEERING BOARD RECOMMENDATION RE FHWA/UMTA GUIDELINES FOR TRANSPORTATION DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM: Mr. Thornton Piersall reported on the Metropol- itan Transportation Engineering Board (MTEB) letter and resolution (continued from the correspondence section of the September 17, 1974 agenda) expressing their concern for developing workable procedures for transportation programs. Mr. Piersall explained that this concern stems from the fact that the guidelines called for local agencies to submit an inordinate amount of detail to the Regional Planning Agency and this would cause undue hardship for the local agencies in any attempt to change the program. He explained that MTEB does not oppose the concept of regional planning but rather the complexity and detail which are called for, not only for federal projects, but those which are locallY funded as well, and would support guidelines which do not handicap the local agencies. He stated that if the Council concurs with this position, the MTEB requests that they draft a letter to be forwarded to the appropriate Congressional Representatives. Councilwoman Kaywood pointed out that according to the MTEB letter, the California League of Cities is in support of these guidelines, and this is not in concert with their usual position which favors strong local control. She inquired whether it was made clear in the MTEB resolution that there was no objection to the regional planning concept. Mr. Piersall replied that the California League of Cities may recon- sider adopting the guidelines in their entirety, and most certainly this will be an item of discussion at the forthcoming League meeting. He reiterated that MTEB does endorse regional planning and that any letter drafted would so indicate. On motion by Councilman Seymour, seconded by Councilman Thom, the City Council authorized a letter to be drafted for the Mayor's signature in concurrence with the MTEB position regarding the proposed FHWA/UMTA Guidelines for the Trans- portation Development Program and forwarded to appropriate Congressional Represen- tatives. MOTION CARRIED. FEDE__~AL DISASTER RELIEF pROGRAMS - LOCAL STREET AND HIGHWAY SYSTEMS: Mr. Thornton Piersall reported on the Metropolitan Transportation Engineering Board (MTEB) reco~nendation and resolution relative to Federal Disaster Relief Programs for 74-977 City Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - September 24~ 1974~ 1:30 P.M. local street and highway systems, namely that since complete enrollment of all arterial highways under the Federal system, these become eligible for Federal assistance in the event of disaster or emergency, and that a streamlined applica- tion procedure be adopted for local jurisdictions to obtain early approval for permanent repairs of these streets. He requested that if Council concurs with this position, a letter be forwarded to the appropriate Congressional Representstives. On motion by Councilman Seymour, seconded by Councilwoman Kaywood, the City Council authorized a letter be drafted for the Mayor's signature and for- warded to appropriate Congressional Representatives indicating the City of Anaheim's support for the MTEB position urging the Congress to amend the Disaster Relief Act to include assistance for local street and highway systems in the manner and procedures set forth in Public Law 93-288 for Federal aid routes. MOTION CARRIED. ANAHEIM CHAMBER OF COMMERCE - SUPPORT OF PROPOSITION "H"~ NOVEMBER BALLOT: On motion by Councilman Pebley, seconded by Councilman Seymour, the City Council received the following letter from the Anaheim Chamber of Commerce and ordered same be spread in full and made a part of the Minutes of the Anaheim City Council meeting of September 24, 1974: "September 20, 1974 The Honorable Mayor and City Council City of Anaheim P.O. Box 3222 Anaheim, Calif. 92803 Gentlemen: The Anaheim Chamber of Commerce, by action of its Board of Directors on Thursday, September 19th, voted to support Proposition H on the November ballot. The Chamber has long been concerned with the need for up-to-date, more efficient city offices and we feel this to be a most important issue which needs total community support. Further comments which were acted upon and support recommended are as follows: 1. That the Chamber of Commerce support this proposition fully to assure its success in November. 2. That the Board of Directors develop details for this support, including a program of "Business For,." Proposition H. 3. That we provide financial support for advertising and flyers; money to be raised on a volunteer basis. 4. That the Board of Directors select a committee to finance and develop the Chamber role in this support. It is the desire of the Board of Directors that we succeed in November and that we move ahead in the planning and development of these facilities. Very truly yours, /s/ Joseph A. Wade Joseph A. Wade President /s/ James L. Webb, James L. Webb, Chairman City/County Government Committee" MOTION CARRIED. ESTABLISHMENT OF COUNCIL POLICY - ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGE LICENSE APPLICATIONS: On motion by Councilman Pebley, seconded by Councilman Thom, the City Council adopted the following Council Policy No. 119, effective immediately: 74-978 City Hall~ Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - September 24, 1974, 1:30 P.M. "It is the policy of the City Council that all Alcoholic Beverage License Applications, including those on which protest or conditional pro- test may be appropriate, on the basis of zoning or otherwise, be handled Administratively." MOTION CARRIED. RESOLUTION NO~ 74R-476 - EMPIDYEE HOUSING ACT - FAI~4 IABOR CAMPS: Councilman Thom offered Resolution No. 74R-476 for adoption. Refer to Resolution Book. A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM RESCINDING RESOLUTION 74R-388 AND ASSUMING THE RESPONSIBILITY FOR ENFORCEMENT OF THE EMPLOYEE }lOUSING ACT OF THE S~TE OF CALIFORNIA RELATING TO FARM LABOR CAMPS, AND DESIGNATING THE BUILDING DIVISION AND THE COUNTY OF ORANGE HEALTH DEPARTMENT AS THE ENFORCEMENT AGENCY FOR THE CITY PURSUANT TO SECTION 2640 OF THE .LABOR CODE. Roll Call Vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: COUNCIL MEMBERS: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Kaywood, Seymour, Pebley and Thom None Sneegas The Mayor declared Resolution No. 74R-476 duly passed and adopted. RE.$O..~.TIO~NO, 74R-477 - AGREEMENT WITHARTHURYOUNG & COMPANY TO CONDUCT FINANCIAL AND .MANA~NT PRACTICES AuDITS: City Attorney Watts reported that the agreement to employ Arthur Young & Company to conduct financial and management practices audits is near finalization and could be executed at this time if Council desires. Mr. Watts reported that the following changes have been made to the pro- posed agreement, some of which have been discussed with Arthur Young & Company: 1. The agreement will provide that Council shall establish a Financial and Management Practices Audit Committee. (The Council indicated that they were satisfied with the Audit Committee as currently established to interview prospec- tive auditing fims, and that this Committee, consisting of Mayor Thom, Councilman Seymour and Mr. Murdoch be retained°) 2. The scope of the work - it provides that the Arthur Young & Company will work with the Audit Committee to develop priorities, work plans and budgets. Mr. Watts advised that the original proposal required these work plans, priorities and budgets to become attachments to the contract,and he has amended this to require that when these work plans, priorities and budgets have been approved by the Audit Cohm%ittee and Arthur Young & Company, they would then be submitted to the City Council, and if approved, they would become attachments or amendments to the contract. Relative to this item, Mr. Murdoch stated that he recalls a discussion with Arthur Young that these documents would be handled in the manner described by the City Attorney. 3. The contract provides that Arthur Young & Company will meet on a regular basis with the Audit Committee and report monthly to the City Council on the status of the project; that upon completion' of review of each department the Accountants will submit a written report to the City Council discussing their findings and recounnendations. 4. The Arthur Young & Company will identify deficiencies in current accounting records and/or systems that prevent the City from obtaining an unquali- fied opinion on its financial status from a Certified Public Accountant in confor- mitywith generally accepted accounting principles; and that upon completion of the identification of these deficiencies, the Accountants will submit written report to the City discussing these findings and reco~endations. 5. Arthur Young & Company will also perform examination of the finan- cial statements of various funds and account groups for the Fiscal Year ending June 30, 1975. Mr. Watts advised that the Finance Director has already requested cer- tain specific items be reviewed,and it was suggested that he present these to the Council and Audit Co~ittee so that these may be incorporated into the work plan and schedule. 74-979 City Hall~ Anaheim~ C~lifornia - COUNCIL MINUTES - September 24~ 1974~ 1:30 P.M. 6. The proposed amendment indicated the work would be performed in conformity with generally accepted auditing standards and to this Mr. Watts has added "as defined by the American Institute of Certified Public Accountants." Mr. Murdoch related that throughout the discussions with Arthur Young & Company, it was indicated that these audits would be performed in greater depth and presented in more than accounting language so that a lay person who may be reviewing the reports would have a better understanding of same. He questioned whether the added terminology would preclude this type of in depth activity and was assured by Mr. Watts this would not be the case; that this would provide for a minimum standard. 7. In accordance with past practice, the audit is required to be sub- mitted by September 30, 1975. 8. The work to be undertaken will commence on October 1, 1974, and be completed on or before March 31, 1976, a period of 18 months, with the exception of the financial opinion. Mr. Murdoch noted that many of the segments will be completed long before the 18-month period has expired. Mr. Watts outlined that the City, pursuant to the agreement, is required to provide certain assistance and accounts for inspection. The City is also required to pay on hourly billing rates as set forth in the schedule included in the agreement and to pay actual out-of-pocket expenses, for a total amount not to exceed a maximum of $292,000. He advised that the hourly billing schedules are different, but have been discussed with Arthur Young & Company representatives. Councilman Thom interjected that this was part of the requirements indicated necessary during the interview procedure, that a rate schedule be pro- vided and applied to the work performance. Following discussion of the above points, the City Attorney, City Manager and Council Members who were present during interview and negotiations with Arthur Young & Company all concurred that the changes in the proposed agree- ment as outlined by the City Attorney were in accord with the discussions held with Arthur Young & Company, and were not of the nature that would lead them to believe that the Arthur Young & Company would be in disagreement. RESOLUTION NO. 74R-477: Councilman Seymour thereupon offered Resolution No. 74R-477 for adoption, authorizing the execution of the agreement with Arthur Young & Company with amendments as outlined by the City Attorney. Refer to Resolution Book. A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM APPROVING THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF AN AGREEMENT WITH ARTHUR YOUNG AND COMPANY TO PERFORM A FINANCIAL AND MANAGEMENT PRACTICES AUDIT AND AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR AND CITY CLERK TO EXECUTE SAID AGREEMENT ON BEHALF OF THE CITY. Roll Call Vote: AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Kaywood, Seymour, Pebley and Thom None Sneegas The Mayor declared Resolution No. 74R-477 duly passed and adopted. CLARIFICATION - AGREEMENT WITH ROBERT KILLION - SCHEDULING OF TOURNAMENTS~ WEEKENDS AND HOLIDAY STARTING TIMES - ANA}I~IM HILLS GOLF COURSE: The City Attorney apologized for having misreported the terms of the contract entered into between the City and Mr. Robert Killion, pursuant to Resolution No. 74R-434 adopted September 3, 1974, employing him to perform certain duties at the Anaheim Hills Golf Course (scheduling of tournaments, holidays and weekends starting times) for a temporary period expiring December 31, 1974; that he had inadvertently read from the agree- ment that the compensation paid Mr. Killion for these additional services would be $80.50 per month, or a total amount of $320, whereas the actual amount was to be $80.50 per week, the total amount to be $1,320. He advised that the contract which was adopted stated these terms correctly, and if Council is still in agree- ment, no further action would be necessary. 74-980 City Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - September 24~ 1.974~ 1:30 P.M. By gemeral consent, the Council indicated no objection to the agreement entered into between the City and Robert Killion, pursuant to Resolution No. 74R-434, with compensation of $80.50 perweek,a total amount of $1,320. PUBLIC DANCE PERMIT: On motion by Councilman Thom, seconded by Councilman Pebley, the City Council ratified the dance permit issued to Mr. Gerald Foisy, on behalf of the Orange County League DeMolay Association to conduct a public dance on September 21, 1974, from 8:00 P.M. to midnight at the Anaheim Plaza, 500 North Euclid, which was granted administratively as recommended by the Chief of Police, subject to provisions of Chapter 4.16 of the Anaheim Municipal Code. MOTION CARRIED. URBAN OBSERVATORY PROGRAM: Mr. Murdoch advised that the City was approached recently by officials of the Public Policy Research Office, University of California, Irvine, to participate with them in a three-year Urban Observatory Program funded by H.U.D. through the National League of Cities, the objective of which would be to meet research needs of city governments using research resources of universi- ties; total funding for the Program will be in the amount of $300,000, $100,000 per annum. The City's matching fund portion would total $70,900 over the three- year period, and the University would contribute $12,500 per year for a total of $37,500 in the three-year period. Mr. Bill Butcher, Administrative Assistant, gave a brief background of the Urban Observatory Program and its objectives. He outlined some of the types of information which has been put together under this Program and advised that since Anaheim has initiated the Financial and Management Practices Audit Project, the University of California, Irvine, felt that a key point of the City of Anaheim's participation in the Urban Observatory Program might be the research development and testing of methods of measuring effective- ness of local governments' programs and services. He reported that this proposal would permit the Arthur Young & Company to avail itself of the resources of the University to investigate what has been done in other areas, i.e., this body of knowledge will be available for comparative analysis. In order to participate in the program, the City of Anaheim would have to make application jointly with the University of California, Irvine to H.U.D. and would be in competition with various other cities for the ten Urban Observatory Grants which will be issued. The application must be postmarked on or before September 30, 1974. Mr. Butcher further noted that the City and the University would receive, pursuant to this Grant, $191,000 from H.U.D. and felt sure that the City's share could be attributed towards some of the $292,.000 budgeted for the Arthur Young & Company Auditing Program. Mr. Murdoch pointed out that this proposal would permit Arthur Young & Company, when they identify areas that require work measurement standards, to utilize the U.C.I. research information to analyze what has been done in this field in other jurisdictions. Councilman Seymour was of the opinion that if the City of Anaheim were to be used as an observatory city, then they should receive some form of remuner- ation for this; and, further, that if this study is to produce findings similar to what Arthur Young & Company has been commissioned to do, then their fees should be reduced commensurately as it would appear to him that the City would be paying twice to obtain the same information. Further, he remarked that this type of program, being Federally funded, might have a slightly different orientation; that the purpose of the Arthur Young & Company audits is very simple and clear, to attempt to conduct local government in the most businesslike and efficient manner possible, and he would not want to lose this thrust or direction. Mayor Thom indicated that he too would have strong qualms relative to bringing another factor into the auditing picture. Mr. Butcher replied that Mr. Jim LeSeuer of Arthur Young & Company, when approached on subject proposal, indicated that this would not restrict the consultants' activities and that if Arthur Young & Company have an opportunity to get into productivity management, the Federal funding would off-set these costs. Councilman Seymour advised that he would not mind sharing information, nor would he mind the observation of the City's activities taking place, but that this appears to be an exercise in research, whereas he is interested in results, and he would be concerned that the Council's intent may be diverted. 74-981 City Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - September 24~ 1974~ 1:30 P.M. Mayor Thom indicated he was in complete agreement with Councilman Seymour's comments. Mr. Don Appleton of the University of California, Irvine, was introduced by Mr. Butcher and advised that the objective of the Urban Observatory Program, using Anaheim as an observatory city, would be to gather the work which has been done around the Country in order to learn how to measure outputs of public services and their effectiveness. They would gather the results of this technol- ogy into one body of information. The City could then select the types of public services for which promising methods of measurement have been devised elsewhere and these measurement techniques would then be installed in the City of Anaheim and tested. Mayor Thom advised that in this entire process he would be most con- cerned that nothing get in the way of what the Council has already decided to do via a fairly simple approach. Mr. Appleton did not view the University's role in this proposed study as being imterferiug in any way. He noted that they are also very interested in improving the productivity of public services. Mr. Murdoch stated, as he views the proposal, it would be substantially supplementary to what Arthur Young & Company is providing. Arthur Young & Company would identify what needs to be done, but the actual measurement would be per- formed by City forces with techniques recommended by the consultant. This pro- posed inventory of knowledge would provide Arthur Young & Company with a library of information from which to recommend the most effective measurement tools. Councilman Seymour inquired if Mr. Appleton would be agreeable to meeting with the Audit Committee and Arthur Young & Company on Wednesday, September 25, 1974, at 4:30 P.M. for the purpose of further discussion on the Urban Observatory Program and its ramifications on the Arthur Young & Company audit, to which Mr. Appleton agreed. Following further discussion, on motion by Councilman Pebley, seconded by Councilwoman Kaywood, the City Council authorized the Financial and Management Practices Audit Committee, pending further discussion with Mr. Appleton and Arthur Young & Company, to determine whether or not the City should proceed with application for participation in the Federal Urban Observatory Program, and in the event the Audit Committee approves of participation in the Program, authorized the City Manager to sign the pertinent application. MOTION CARRIED. VOTING DELEGATE AND ALTERNATE - LEAGUE OF CALIFORNIA CITIES~ .MEETING OCTOBER 20-23.~ 1974: On motion by Councilman Seymour, seconded by Councilman Pebley, the City Council designated Mayor Thom as voting delegate and Councilwoman Kaywood alternate for the League of California Cities Meeting, October 20 through 23, 1974. MOTION CARRIED. RESOLUTION NOS. 74R-478~ 74R-479 AND 74R-480 - ANAHEIM HILLS ANNEXATION NOS. lip 12 AND 13 (UNI.NHABITED}: Pursuant to authority granted by the Local Agency Formation Commission Resolution Nos. 74-108, 74-107 and 74-109, with reference to Anaheim Hills Annexation Nos. 11, 12 and 13, respectively, Councilman Seymour offered Resolution Nos. 74R-478, 74R-479 and 74R-480 for adoption. RESOLUTION NO. 74R-478 - ANAHEIM HILLS NO. 11 ANNEXATION: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM APPROVING THE ANNEXATION TO THE CITY OF ANAHEIM OF THE TERRITORY KNOWN AND DESIGNATED ANAHEIM HILLS NO. 11 ANNEXATION. RESOLUTION NO. 74R-479 - ANAHEIM HILLS NO. 12 ANNEXATION: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM APPROVING THE ANNEXATION TO THE CITY OF ANAHEIM OF THE TERRITORY KNOWN AND DESIGNATED ANAHEIM HILLS NO. 12 ANNEXATION. RESOLUTION NO. 74R-480 - ANAHEIM HILLS NO. 13 ANNEXATION: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM APPROVING THE ANNEXATION TO THE CITY OF ANAHEIM OF THE TERRITORY KNOWN AND DESIGNATED ANAHEIM HILLS NO. 13 ANNEXATION. Roll Call Vote: 74-982 City Mm!l~ A,aheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - September 24~ 1974~ 1:30 P.M. AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Kaywood, Seymour, Pebley and Thom NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: None ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Sneegas The Mayor declared Resolution Nos. 74R-478 through 74R-480, inclusive, duly passed and adopted. RESOLUTION NO. 74R-481 - RED GUM-CORONADO ANNEXATION NO. 4 (UNINHABITED): Pursuant to authority granted by the Local Agency Formation Commission Resolution No. 74-105, Councilman Thom offered Resolution No. 74R-481 for adoption. Refer to Resolution Book. A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM APPROVING THE ANNEXATION TO THE CITY OF ANAHEIM OF THE TERRITORY KNOWN AND DESIGNATED RED GUM CORONADO NO. 4 ANNEXATION. Roll Call Vote: AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Kaywood, Seymour, Pebley and Thom None Sneegas The Mayor declared Resolution No. 74R-481 duly passed and adopted. LIBRARY BOARD - CITY COUNCIL JOINT MEETING - OCTOBER 9~ 1974: In answer to Councilwoman Kaywood, Mayor Thom reported that the Library Board has concurred that their Joint meeting with the City Council be changed to Wednesday, October 9, 1974, at 9:30 a.m. in the Library multipurpose room, and the Council, by general consent, agreed upon the designated date. ANAHEIM PARKS AND RECREATION RECOMMENDATION RE "SCOOP" LAW: Councilwoman Kaywood introduced the recommendation made by the Parks and Recreation Commission that the City of Anaheim adopt a "Scoop" law similar to that adopted by other cities which would require that pet owners be responsible for cleaning up droppings left by their animals on public property. Followin$ brief discussion, the remainder of the Council indicated they felt that such a law would be difficult to enforce and no further action was taken. ADJOURNMENT: Councilman Pebley moved to'adjourn. Councilman Seymour seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. Adjourned: 5:29 P.M. City Cla~k