Loading...
1980/11/1880- 147~ City Hall, Anaheim, Ca%ifornia - COUNCIL MINUTES - November 18: 1980~ 1:30 P.M. The City Council of the City of Anaheim met in regular session. PRESENT: ABSENT: PRESENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Overholt (entered at 3:09 P.M.), Kaywood, Bay, Roth and Seymour COUNCIL MEMBERS: None CITY MANAGER: William O. Talley CITY ATTORNEY: William P. Hopkins CITY CLERK: Linda D. Roberts PURCHASING AGENT: Richard Jefferis FACILITIES MAINTENANCE STAFF ASSISTANT: Sharon Hepburn CITY ENGINEER: William Devitt Mayor Seymour called the meeting to order and welcomed those in attendance to the Council meeting. INVOCATION: Reverend Gerry Schiller, Melodyland Hotline Center, gave the Invocation. FLAG SALUTE: Councilman Ben Bay led the assembly in the Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag. 108: REQUEST FOR EXTENSION OF ABATEMENT PERIOD - ROMAN SPA: Request by Roger Diamond, Attorney, on behalf of the Roman Spa, 130 North Brookhurst Avenue, for an extension of the abatement period pursuant to Code Section 18.89.040 relating to Adult Entertainment, was submitted. The matter was continued from the meet- ing of November 4, 1980 (see minutes that date) to allow the applicant to submit additional financial information. Mr. Roger Diamond, Attorney, 15415 Sunset Boulevard, Pacific Palisades, was present with his client, Mrs. Marie Cooper. The Mayor asked Mr. Diamond if he would have any objection to having Mrs. Cooper sworn in; Mr. Diamond answered "no". City Clerk Linda Roberts thereupon administered the oath to the petitioner, Mrs. Cooper, that the testimony she was about to give was true and correct to the best of her belief and knowledge; Mrs. Cooper answered affirmatively. Mayor Seymour then referred to letter dated November 6, 1980 from Shirley White Bookkeeping Service, Mrs. Cooper's bookkeeper, 2340 West Carol Drive, Fullerton, listing seven items representing the monetary obligations and responsibilities of Mrs. Marie Cooper, owner of the Roman Spa. He thereupon read the financial obligations contained therein (see letter on file in the City Clerk's office) and asked if those were true and correct. Mrs. Cooper answered "yes". Councilman Roth then asked Mrs. Cooper if she had reviewed the report submitted from Shirley White and would attest that it was true and factual. Mrs. Cooper answered that it was true and correct. Councilman Bay noted that in the past on some of the extensions previously granted relating to hardship cases, they had stipulations from the owners that if there were any violations of the AMC during that period, it would result in immediate 80- l~S~ City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - November 18, 1980~ 1:30 P.M. termination of the extension. He asked if they would so stipulate. Mr. Diamond answered "yes", as long as they were given advance notice and an opportunity to be heard; Councilman Bay stated it would include due process. MOTION: Councilman Seymour moved to approve the request submitted on behalf of Roman Spa, 130 North Brookhurst Avenue, for an extension of the abatement period, pursuant to Code Section 18.89.040 relating to Adult Entertainment for a period of two years, from December 20, 1980 to December 20, 1982, to prevent undue hardship and also, should the Roman Spa violate any ordinance and/or law, the extension of abatement granted will terminate upon notice and hearing. Councilman Roth seconded the motion. Councilman Bay voted "no". Councilman Overholt was absent. MOTION CARRIED. 119: PRESENTATION: Mr. Richard Le$iak, President of the Anaheim Chess Club, presented the Chess Piece Trophy to Mayor Seymour in appreciation for his support of the Chess Club Tournament. 119: PROCLAMATION: The following proclamation was issued by Mayor Seymour and authorized by the City Council: "National Children's Book Week in Anaheim" - November 17 to 22, 1980 Mrs. Jane Wolfe accepted the proclamation accompanied by two youngsters, Christen Bowers and Michael Bender. 119: RESOLUTION OF COMMENDATION: A resolution of commendation was unanimously adopted by the City Council and presented to Roe McFarland, President, and Cheryl Buffington, Project Chairwoman, on behalf of the Anaheim Hills Lioness Club, for their smoke alarm program for Senior Citizens. MINUTES: Councilman Bay moved to approve the minutes of the =egular meeting held June 17 and November 4, 1980, subject to typographical corrections. Councilwoman Kaywood seconded the motion. Councilman Seymour abstained on the minutes of June 17, 1980. Councilman Overholt was absent. MOTION CARRIED. WAIVER OF READING - ORDINANCES AND RESOLUTIONS: Councilwoman Kaywood moved to waive the reading in full of all ordinances and resolutions of the Agenda, after reading of the title thereof by the City Clerk, and that consent to waiver is hereby given by all Council Members, unless after reading of the title, specific request is made by a Council Member for the reading of such ordinance or resolution in regular order. Councilman Bay seconded the motion. Councilman Overholt was absent. MOTION CARRIED. FINANCIAL DEMANDS AGAINST THE CITY in the amount of $1,390,447.81, in accordance with the 1980-81 Budget, were approved. 123/174(.CDBG): CONTRACT AWARD FOR DEMOLITION AND SITE CLEARANCE - CONTRACT NO. BG 80-2: Councilwoman Kaywood offered Resolution No. 80R-509 for adoption, accepting bid of Hintz Wrecking Company, Inc., in the amount of $3,350, for demolition and site clearance of land located at 225~, 1022 and 1022½ North Patt Street, and directing the City Attorney to prepare a contract therefor (Contract No. BG80-2), as recommended in memorandum dated November 12, 1980 from the Executive Director of Community Development, Norm Priest. Refer to Resolution Book. 80.-t476 City Hall., Anaheim,. California - COUNCIL MINUTES - November 18, 1980, 1:30 P.M. RESOLUTION NO. 80R-509: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM ACCEPTING A SEALED PROPOSAL AND AWARDING A CONTRACT TO THE LOWEST RESPONSIBLE BIDDER FOR THE FURNISHING OF ALL PLANT, LABOR, SERVICES, MATERIALS AND EQUIPMENT AND ALL UTILITIES AND TRANSPORTATION INCLUDING POWER, FUEL AND WATER, AND PERFORMING ALL WORK NECESSARY TO CONSTRUCT AND COMPLETE THE FOLLOWING PUBLIC IMPROVEMENT: DEMOLITION AND SITE CLEARANCE LOCATED AT 225½, 1022 AND 1022½ NORTH PATT STREET, IN THE CITY OF ANAHEIM, CONTRACT NO. BG80-2, ACCOUNT NO. 25-214-6640. (Hintz Wrecking Company, $3,350) Roll Call Vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: COUNCIL MEMBERS: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Kaywood, Bay, Roth and Seymour None Overholt The Mayor declared Resolution No. 80R-509 duly passed and adopted. 142/182: AMENDMENT OF ORDINANCE RELATING TO CONTROL OF CITY-OWNED PROPERTY TO BE DEMOLISHED - ORDINANCE NO. 4192: Councilman Seymour offered Ordinance No. 4192 for first reading, approving control of demolition and site clearance of City-owned property purchased with Community Development Block Grant funds by the Executive Director of the Community Development Department. ORDINANCE NO. 4192: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AMENDING SECTION 1.04.560 OF CHAPTER 1.04 OF TITLE 1 OF THE ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE PERTAINING TO THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT. 160/124: RECOVERING THE BALANCE OF CONVENTION CENTER ARENA SEATING: Councilman Roth moved to waive the need for public advertising and to authorize the Purchasing Agent to issue a purchase order, without competitive bidding, in the amount of $92,014.16 to Commercial Interior Services, Inc., to recover 2,418 arena seats at the Anaheim Convention Center, Phase III and IV, and 200 spare seat covers in accordance with Bid Specification No. 3441, as recommended in memorandum dated November 12, 1980 from Purchasing Agent Richard Jefferis. Councilman Seymour seconded the motion. Councilman Overholt was absent. MOTION CARRIED. 160: PURCHASE OF THREE LIFEPAK 5 SYSTEMS: On motion by Councilman Roth, seconded by Councilman Bay, the Purchasing Agent was authorized to issue a purchase order without competitive bidding, to Physio-Control Corporation in the amount of $21,920, for three Lifepak 5 Systems with applicable accessories, for use by Paramedics, as recommended in memorandum dated November 12, 1980 from the Purchasing Agent. Councilman 0verholt was absent. MOTION CARRIED. 160/115: AWARD OF PURCHASE ORDER FOR CIVIC CENTER FURNITURE: Request to waive the need for advertised bidding and to authorize the Purchasing Agent to issue a purchase order in the amount of $55,618.79 to McMahan Desk, Inc., for Harper- manufactured furniture and miscellaneous items for the Civic Center, was submitted. City Manager William Talley briefed the Council on memorandum dated November 6, 1980 from the Purchasing Agent. He pointed out that approximately $2,713 had been removed from the purchase order, representing the items over which Council expressed concern at the meeting of October 28, 1980 (see minutes that date). MOTION: Councilman Roth moved to waive the need for advertised bidding and to authorize the Purchasing Agent to issue a purchase order in the amount of 80-1~7.7 City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - November 18, 1980, 1:30 P.M. $55,618.79 to McMahan Desk, Inc., for Harper-manufactured furniture and mis- cellaneous items for the Civic Center, as recommended in the subject memoran- dum. Councilwoman Kaywood seconded the motion. Before a vote was taken, Councilman Bay stated he was interested in the report and also the reductions, but he did have a report from the Purchasing Agent that there had been quite a bit of research trying to check the prices being paid for furniture against private sector orders. It had been his experience that a great many private sector companies were buying directly from the factory. In the case of the two furniture companies involved in the subject order, they both stated very clearly they did not and would not sell direct. He also found it was near impossible for the City administrative staff, by questioning some of the private sector companies in the City, to find out what they bid for their furniture and thus, there was no way to compare other than going back to com- petitive bidding. He for one was going to have to take the word of the Purchasing Agent who stated he considered the McMahan deductions on the furni- ture to be fair and reasonable and the best obtainable in the marketplace. He had thought of asking for a complete audit investigation of the prices for the furniture, but after finding out the internal information, he saw no reason to pursue that if there was no way to find out the prices to the public sector. In the future, however, he would like staff to take a look at the agreement the City has with Orange County for purchasing furniture and also that they go out to bid on furniture. The Mayor stated he was not satisfied with the reductions that had been made and still saw items on the list that he considered above and beyond what was neces- sary. They might be nice items to have, but he could not support some of the items and, therefore, he was going to oppose the motion. Councilman Bay stated that since Councilman Overholt was absent, if he felt that some additional specific items should be eliminated, they could be faced with a two-two vote until he (Overholt) arrived. He asked that the Mayor indicate the items. Councilman Roth interjected and suggested that since Councilman Overholt was expected to be at the meeting later, that they hold the matter over for a full Council, and he would in the meantime withdraw his motion of approval. It was agreed that the matter would be tabled until the arrival of Councilman Overholt. Later in the meeting after the arrival of Councilman Overholt, the Mayor explained what had transpired earlier on the matter and that it was decided to hold the decision pending his arrival. City Manager Talley then further elaborated upon the staff report of November 6, 1980 and in concluding stated that in his opinion, they were giving the Council their best recommendation on equipping the Civic Center for a multi-decade occupancy with furniture that at County, City and Purchasing Agent standards were appro- priate. Councilman Seymour explained that there was some items that seemed to him to be unreasonable. Items that concerned him specifically were (see page 4 and 5 of the subject memorandum): chairs--four Leopold TC/llO80/B at $550.56 each, 80-~ 11~78 City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - November 19, 1980, 1:30 P.M. files--two LF-425-A (42" wide 5 drawer lateral file equivalent to 2 std. file cabinets) at $392.66 each, five LF-425-AL at $286.52 each, three LF-425-BL at $363.66 each, one coffee table at $358.00 each, one end table at $350.00 each. He commented that prices already took into consideration the discount and although the prices were not high in relationship to the value, they were high in relation- ship to the purpose, the bottom line being, he felt they could do with less. Councilman Roth asked for any response from staff. City Manager Talley stated he would withdraw all of the items the Mayor outlined. Building appearance was entirely up to the Council. Councilwoman Kaywood stated this was not something brand new. A committee was formed in 1977, and there was a great deal of opportunity to look into the matter and to question each item at that time if anybody wanted to do so. It was not secret; it was open. They were going to get something that would last for 25 years, or instead something that would last five years, thus having to replace it five times. They would be ahead with the better constructed furni- ture at the outset. Mayor Seymour stated he expressed his concern after Councilman Bay expressed his the last time the matter was before the Council (see minutes October 28, 1980). He suggested to the Council at that time, that had he been provided with an itemized list as they were this time, he would have challenged those items at the beginning. Councilman Bay stated as he recalled, during the first $400,000 purchase, when the Mayor was not at the meeting, he (Bay) questioned the cost of some chairs at the time, and it was delayed a week or so. A chair was then brought to the Council meeting prior to moving on that $400,000 order. As far as going into all the details into what he referred to as more luxurious furniture, it was not researched at that time and he could not offer any excuses as to why not. He did feel, however, if they had the whole itemized order in front of them and took the time to go through it, they would have found numerous articles which he was not certain he or the Mayor would have voted for. He was not talking about going to low quality or cheap furniture in the Civic Center because there was no such furniture that he knew of, but moderate furniture versus that in the Leopold line which he considered to be luxurious. Councilman Roth asked if it was possible to deny the purchase order and go out for open bid on the items. Mr. Talley answered it would be possible, but in order to do so, the Council would have to cancel the cooperative purchasing agreement with the County and secondly, unless the same furniture was specified, end up with mismatched furniture. He did not have a problem with doing either. The Mayor stated he did not see the necessity to go through another process. He had no qualms about the process, but suspected that the quality of the items being ordered were such that the prices escalated. It would seem to him that those prices could be adjusted by taking a look at different brand names other than Leopold and come in with a medium line. He would be supportive of that. 80-t479 City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - November 18, 1980, 1:30 P.M. Councilman Bay stated he also was not proposing another process in this case after receiving the additional reports. He was doubtful of the process in the first place, but he was no longer doubtful of it, nor was he in doubt that they could obtain private sector information which he thought might be available. Apparently from the discounts quoted in the Orange County agreement, they were as good as could be obtained. He had the word of the buyer on that. However, he was also concerned, as was the Mayor, on certain items that he felt could be bought for less and still be adequate for the City's purposes. He would agree with a motion which included the removal of the items that had been so indicated and to proceed with the process am stated and then later, if they wanted to come in with a more moderate price to replace the pieces still needed, that would be acceptable. Mr. Talley emphasized this was not an issue that he believed the Administration felt strongly about. Whatever items they did not like, he suggested that they be eliminated. MOTION: Councilman Roth thereupon moved to approve waiving the need for adver- tised bidding and to authorize the Purchasing Agent to issue a purchase order in the amount of $55,618.79 to McMahan Desk, Inc. for Harper-manufactured furniture and miscellaneous items for the Civic Center for approval, less the five items indicated by the Mayor, in addition to the items suggested to be deleted by the City Manager in his report dated November 6, 1980, page 2 of 5. Councilman Bay seconded the motion. Before a vote was taken, Councilman Overholt first asked for clarification as to the items being deleted from the purchase order and subsequently stated he was going to make a substitute motion to send the order back to management for an evaluation of all items and that they come back with a new recommendation. He then stated if he obtained a second to the motion, he would explain why he felt that way. Councilwoman Kaywood thereupon seconded the motion. Councilman Overholt then explained that he was not part of the Council in 1977 and according to the report, the committee was established to evaluate and set up standards for the purchase of furniture and furnishings in the $14.5 million Civic Center. According to the report they had before them today, they decided they were going to have a select brand for certain types of furniture based upon function, appearance, durability and price range and within that policy, the Purchasing Agent had made purchases during the period since 1977, and this was the tail end of that order. He personally did not feel that they could pull those items specified and approve the rest of them. In that way, they might be pulling the high price stock and there may be a lot of low price items that could better be pulled and thus, better serve their needs. He considered the report of November 6, 1980 to be a report to placate the Council to get the whole order approved. They should take a look at the entire list and if the City Manager felt they should approve it, and he had the feeling that Mr. Talley felt it should be approved, then he should stand on that. The whole list should be reviewed and if there was exorbitant furniture contained therein, then he felt it should be reduced. After a brief discussion between the Mayor and Councilman Overholt on the matter, Mr. Jefferis, the Purchasing Agent, was asked if he felt any of the items recom- mended to be purchased were exorbitmnt. 80-1479 City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - November 18, 1980, 1:30 P.M. Mr. Richard Jefferis answered that he did not think the prices were exorbitant for what they were purchasing. Mayor Seymour stated that he did not hear anybody say the price was exorbitant but that the price was fair. The question was whether or not a lessor quality chair, for instance, would suffice or would it fall apart after five years. Mr. Jefferis answered as far as durability, it would suffice, but they were also talking about the area where the furniture would be used. Further discussion, debate, questioning and clarification of the items proposed to be deleted followed between the Council, Mr. Jefferis and Sharon Hepburn, Facilities Maintenance Staff Assistant, at the conclusion of which, City Manager Talley noted that there were hundreds of items that were being presented today representing a wrap-up of thousands of items. When the building was commissioned by Dan Rowland, he set a furniture allocation, and they had lived with that. He recommended a committee which they established and he concurred in two lines of furniture which they adopted. They now had thousands of items involved. He was merely saying if Council policy wished not to allow some of the items, he still believed the vast majority of them, the hundreds that were left, should be purchased and placed into service. They would take the others up on their merit rather than put 200 to 300 items off for another time. They had reviewed the matter, everything was consistent with previous policy, and they were well within the budget. Councilman Roth suggested that they support his motion deleting the six items but requesting justification from staff showing some alternatives rather than having to come back with the whole list again. Councilman Overholt stated as he understood the motion, it was that the entire purchase order be approved with the exception of the six items, plus the items mentioned by the Mayor. He wanted to be especially certain that those items would be brought back for individual deliberation. Councilman Roth stated he did not think that staff needed that type of direction but he would not object to it being included in the motion. Councilman Overholt thereupon stated he would then withdraw his substitute motion if the second would accept the addition; Councilman Bay was agreeable to accepting the addition to the motion. The motion was clarified as follows: That the purchase order be approved with the exception of the six items on page 2 of the November 6, 1980 report from the Purchasing Agent and the four chairs, three files (42" wide lateral ~ile), coffee and end table designated by the Mayor, wihh those items to be brought back to the Council for further deliberation and justification by staff. Councilwoman Kaywood asked Mr. Jefferis in his opinion and the committee's opinion, how many years would he expect the particular brand and the items that had been ordered would give service. Mr. Jefferis answered at least 25 years. 80-1~0 City Hall,..Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - November 18, 1980, 1:30 P.M. Councilwoman Kaywood then asked if there were to be a lesser, cheaper product substituted, the number of years of service he would project. Mr. Jefferis stated that they could purchase furniture that would last two to ten years. There were other brands that would last 25 years, and they looked at those and determined the one selected was the best for their needs. Councilwoman Kaywood then asked if there were no other compmrable product that would be less that would last as long, was the brand selected the cheapest in the long run? Mr. Jefferis answered "yes". Mayor Seymour, speaking to Mr. Jefferis, stated it was his understanding earlier that he made the statement it was possible they could have selected another brand that would have been just as durable as the brand selected at a lesser price. Mr. Jefferis stated that it might be possible to select a product just as durable at a lesser price. Mayor Seymour presumed, however, that it may not be as aesthetically acceptable or have as fine a fabric, but it would be as durable at a lesser price. Mr. Jefferis commented that was very possible, but he did not know of any such brand. Councilman Overholt left the Council Chambers. (5:01 P.M.) The Mayor announced that since Councilman Overholt had to leave for a few moments that they proceed with the balance of the agenda items and then return for a final decision on the subject item. Councilman Overholt returned to the Council Chambers. (5:04 P.M.) Councilwoman Kaywood wanted clarification on the wording of the motion. She also reiterated that they had the word of the expert and the professional when the committee looked into all of the furniture, they looked at durability, appearance, etc., and durability was given a very high priority, and this was the best price for the most durable. Councilman Overholt stated the most important part of the motion was the fact that staff was directed to bring the items noted back for discussion. To pick off some of the items after the process had been completed, because of the price, without knowing more, was a dangerous way to run the City. He would like to have the items come back so that they could discuss every one of them and that was the reason he was supportive of the motion. The Mayor stated he would support the motion with the idea that the items be brought back; however, if they did come back with a $1000 chair to sit in, he would be opposed. Councilman Bay felt that what the whole issue pointed up, was that perhaps the Council was not fully informed on the plan even though the professional committee City. Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - November 18, 1980~ 1:30 P.M. made it up. Perhaps not enough detail was given to the Council over a period of time prior to the original order so that they could be totally aware as to just how far they were going with furniture. If it told anything for the future, it was that when they were making purchases, the details should come to them so that their attention was called to the differences they were paying, because it was the Council's responsibility to look out for what they were paying for chings that would be utilized in the City. A vote was then taken on the foregoing motion. MOTION CARRIED. 164: AWARD oF CONTRACT - MAGNOLIA AVENUE STORM DRAIN IMPROVEMENT: Account No. 13-791-6325-El120. Councilwoman Kaywood offered Resolution No. 80R-5t0 for adoption, awarding a contract as recommended by the City Engineer in his memorandum dated November 12, 1980. Refer to Resolution Book. RESOLUTION NO..80R-510: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM ACCEPTING A SEALED PROPOSAL AND AWARDING A CONTRACT TO THE LOWEST RESPONSIBLE BIDDER FOR THE. FURNISHING OF ALL PLANT, LABOR, SERVICES, MATERIALS AND EQUIPMENT AND ALL UTILITIES AND TRANSPORTATION INCLUDING POWER, FUEL AND WATER, AND PERFORMING ALL WORK NECESSARY TO CONSTRUCT AND COMPLETE THE FOLLOWING PUBLIC IMPROVEMENT: MAGNOLIA AVENUE STORM DRAIN IMPROVEMENT, IN THE CITY OF ANAHEIM, ACCOUNT NO. 13-791-6325-El120. (Nick Didovic Construction Co., $1,024,074) Roll Call Vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: COUNCIL MEMBERS: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Kaywood, Bay, Roth and Seymour None Overholt The Mayor declared Resolution No. 80R-5t0 duly passed and adopted. 123/174: SUPPLEMENT NO. 9 TO LOCAL AGENCY--STATE AGREEMENT NO. 07-5055--LA PALMA AVENUE FAU PROJECT: Councilwoman Kaywood offered Resolution No. 80R-511 for adoption, approving Supplement No. 9 to the Local Agency-State Agreement No. 07-5055, La Palma Avenue FAU Project, from Sequoia Avenue to Magnolia Avenue, as recommended in memorandum dated November 10, 1980 from the City Engineer. Refer to Resolution Book. RESOLUTION NO. 80R-511: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM APPROVING SUPPLEMENT NO. 9 TO LOCAL AGENCY-STATE AGREEMENT NO. 07-5055 AND AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR AND CITY CLERK TO EXECUTE SAID SUPPLEMENT. Roll Call Vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: COUNCIL MEMBERS: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Kaywood, Bay, Roth and Seymour None Overholt The Mayor declared Resolution No. 80R-511 duly passed and adopted. CitZ Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL ~INUTES - November 18~ 1980, 1:30 P,~, 164: SLOPE STORM DAMAGE REPAIR - TUSTIN~VE.NUE~ FAIRMONT BOULEVARD AND SANTA ANA CANYON ROAD: Councilwoman-Kaywood offered Resolutiom No. 80R-512 and 80R-513 for adoption, as recommended by the City Engineer in his memorandum dated November 10, 1980 rejecting all bids on the subject slope repair and readvertising and rebidding that project. Refer to Resolution Book. RESOLUTION NO. 80R-512: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM REJECTING ALL BIDS RECEIVED UP TO THE HOUR OF 2:00 P.M. ON THE 6TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 1980, FOR THE SLOPE STORM DAMAGE REPAIR, TUSTIN AVENUE, FAIRMONT BOULEVARD, AND SANTA ANA CANYON ROAD, ACCOUNT NO. 01-792-6325-E2650. RESOLUTION NO. 80R-513: 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: SLOPE STORM DAMAGE REPAIR, TUSTIN AVENUE, FAIRMONT BOULEVARD AND SANTA ANA CANYON ROAD, IN THE CITY OF ANAHEIM, ACCOUNT NO. 01-792-6325-E2650; APPROVING THE DESIGNS, PLANS, PROFILES, DRAWINGS, AND SPECIFICATIONS FOR THE CONSTRUCTION THEREOF; AUTHORIZING THE CONSTRUCTION OF SAID PUBLIC IMPROVEMENT IN ACCORDANCE WITH SAID PLANS, SPECI- FICATIONS, ETC.; AND AUTHORIZING AND DIRECTING THE CITY CLERK TO PUBLISH A NOTICE INVITING SEALED PROPOSALS FOR THE CONSTRUCTION THEREOF. (Bids to be opened December 4, 1980 at 2:00 P.M.) Roll Call Vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: COUNCIL MEMBERS: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Kaywood, Bay, Roth and Seymour None Overholt The Mayor declared Resolution Nos. 80R-512 and 80R-513 duly passed and adopted. 155: CERTIFICATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT NO. 238 - ANAHEIM HILTON HOTEL - 50-YEAR LEASE AND HOTEL DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT WITH ANAHEIM HILTON JOINT VENTURE: City Manager William Talley first briefed the Council on his report dated November 13, 1980 recommending that the Council approve a 50-year lease agreement and a hotel development agreement with the Anaheim Hilton Joint Venture, a partnership consisting of Wrather Inns, Inc. and Hilton Hotels Corporation, and approving the grant of easement for the hotel construction. There were only four changes from the May 6, 1980 communication to the City Council (180-day Exclusive Right to Negotiate Agreement) which he pointed out as follows: 1. Under the previous agreement, it was hoped that a transportation center could be incorporated into the design of the hotel. However, because of the space requirements felt necessary by the Joint Venture, it was necessary to relocate the transportation center from the southerly side of the hotel to the northerly side. By such relocation, in effect, it transgressed so far into the City's parking area and came so close to the intersection of Katella and Harbor, it was the City's recommendation that the transporation center, per se, not be located in that area. They had included 14 of the 31 bus bays originally contemplated for the transportation center and the approximate 13,000 square feet required for transportation connection services. The only thing not included was the physical facilities, 17 bus bays and sufficient parking for major trans- portation oriented uses. Those would have to be worked out with OCTD at another location in the general Disneyland-Convention Center Hotel area. City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - November 18, 1980, 1:30 P.M. 2. Under the time schedule proposed, they recommended that the Council adopt a 14-month schedule before construction began, rather than the ll-month schedule previously proposed. Because of the vast swi. ngs in interest rates for construction and long-term financing, Hilton Hotels requested additional time to get all of its financial arrangements in order. Thus, he was recommending under the submission of development design documents formerly scheduled for 90 days, that they be extended to 180 days in order that the financial arrangements could be firmly in place at the start of the project and Hilton would not have to come back later and request any extensions. 3. Hilton mentioned that in providing the City with a $1 million deposit, there was some concern regarding the financing of the project due to the lenders ob- jecting to the title and leasehold of the underlying property. They requested that if they were not able to get financing because of that problem, one that they did not cause, they should have the return of the $1 million. The City took the position that they would want to make sure that no one could finance the hotel rather than return the $1 million only on the basis of Hilton's in- ability to do so. They were recommending, therefore, if Hilton Hotel became unfinancable for that one reason only, the City would retain the $1 million for an additional year and if they could find any other hotel that could finance under the same terms and conditions, that $1 million would then revert to the City. 4. The final change and one that perhaps none of them would ever have to face, at the conclusion of the 50- or 75-year term of the project, no mention was made of the improvements. The City requested that Hilton restore the premises to its current condition. They would have to clear the land and demolish the improve- ment only if the City requested them to do so. Hilton did not want the City to be able to use that for future leverage in negotiations and, therefore, felt it was an additional requirement imposed by the City. It had been resolved by saying that the City should have the ability to order the land cleared, but if so, both sides would pay 50% of the demolition costs and that would then take any economic incentive away from either party. In concluding, he noted the following people who were present in the Council Chamber--Mr. James Philon, Senior Vice President with Hilton; Mr. Richard Stevens, a senior official with the Wrather Corporation; Mr. Robert Hostetter, Vice Chairman of the Community Center Authority; Mr. Arons representing the architect for the site; Mr. Philip Schwartze, formerly with the City of Anaheim, prepared to discuss the EIR presented today, as well as City staff. A new model of the facility was also before the Council. He thereupon introduced the two proposed resolUtions and motion to be acted upon at the conclusion of any discussions. Mayor Seymour announced that the first action was relative to certification of EIR No. 238 (see draft EIR No. 238 for the Anaheim Hilton Hotel prepared Phillips, Brandt, Reddick, Inc.) and although this was not a public hearing the Council was interested in any input there might be. He asked if there was any member of the public who would care to speak to the EIR; no one was present who wished to speak to the EIR. Councilwoman Kaywood thereupon offered Resolution No. 80R-514 for adoption, certifying Environmental Impact Report No. 238 for the Anaheim Hilton Hotel as being in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act and making certain findings in connection therewith and adopting a statement of overriding considerations. Refer to Resolution Book. 80- City Hall,. Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - November 18, 1980, 1:30 P.M. RESOLUTION NO. 80R-514: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM (A) CERTIFYING FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT NO. 238, (B) MAKING CERTAIN FINDINGS IN CONNECTION THEREWITH AND (C) ADOPTING A STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS. Roll Call Vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: COUNCIL MEMBERS: COUNCIL M~MBERS: Kaywood, Bay, Roth and Seymour None Overholt The Mayor declared Resolution No. 80R-514 duly passed and adopted. The Mayor then asked if either Mr. Stevens or Mr. Philon would care to address the Council. Mr. Richard P. Stevens, a senior official with the Wrather Corporation, stated it had all been said and they were exhausted after six months of working with City staff on the project. Staff was to be commended for an outstanding job in protecting the City's interest. They had a fine project and looked forward to breaking ground. The Mayor noted that initially it was intended to place a monorail extension through the lobby of the hotel. He asked if he would share with them what changes had been made, if any, to accommodate the monorail. Mr. Stevens explained that the original concept showed a monorail going through the lobby but subsequently two things happened. Environmentally, after studying the Disney World Contemporary Hotel, they found both from a noise and pollution standpoint and operationally, it was not advisable to incorporate the monorail inside the building. They did have a plan which abutted the northern end of the parking structure where a monorail station was planned for construction. It would loop a monorail tie between the Park and the parking structure, and indi- viduals could go directly into the Convention Center or the Hotel property. That was contingent upon the successful conclusion of negotiations with the Disney people who owned the land and monorail rights, but they had already indicated their willingness to cooperate and thus it was very much a part of their future planning. Mr. James Philon, Senior Vice President with Hilton, working from posted site plans of the project, expanded upon the monorail system concept and in concluding stated that they had preserved the integrity of future potential to link into any fixed rail system however it may move in the area. Mayor Seymour then thanked Mr. Stevens and Mr. Philon in the Wrather Corporation- Hilton Hotels for laboring through the negotiation process. The project had been a dream long on the drawing boards and he knew it had not been an easy task to negotiate. He also thanked the City Manager and his staff, as well as Mr. Hostetter and the Convention Center Authority, on the fine job they had done in staying with the project. On behalf of the Council, he thanked him for his commitment to what appeared to be a project of excellence, as well as great economic benefit to the community, and one the City could be proud of. 80- .1.4,85 Cit~ Hall., Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - November 18, 1980, 1:30 P.M. Councilman Seymour thereupon offered Resolution No. 80R-515 for adoption authorizing a 50-year lease agreement and hotel development agreement with the Anaheim Hilton Joint Venture, a partnership consisting of Wrather Inns, Inc., and Hilton Hotels Corporation, to build a hotel on City-owned property located adjacent to the Anaheim Convention Center, as recommended in memorandum dated November 13, 1980 from the City Manager. Refer to Resolution Book. RESOLUTION NO. 80R-515: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM APPROVING THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF A LEASE AGREEMENT AND A DEVELOPMENT AGREE- MENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AND A JOINT VENTURE CONSISTING OF WRATHER INNS, INC. AND HILTON HOTELS CORPORATION, AND AUTHORIZING AND DIRECTING THE MAYOR AND CITY CLERK TO EXECUTE EACH OF SAID AGREEMENTS ON BEHALF OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM. Roll Call Vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: COUNCIL MEMBERS: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Kaywood, Bay, Roth and Seymour None Overholt The Mayor declared Resolution No. 80R-515 duly passed and adopted. 123: On motion by Councilman Seymour, seconded by Councilwoman Kaywood, execution of an easement deed for said property was authorized. Councilman Overholt was absent. MOTION CARRIED. 112: XEROX CORPORATION, DIABLO SYSTEMS, INC. VS. COUNTY OF ORANGE AND CITY OF ANAHEIM, ET AL.: On motion by Councilman Bay, seconded by Councilwoman Kaywood, Orange County Counsel was authorized to defend the City in Xerox Corporation, Diablo Systems, Inc. and Versatec, Inc. vs. County of Orange and City of Anaheim, et al., relating to property taxes, as recommended in memorandum dated November 12, 1980 from the City Attorney's office. Councilman Overholt was absent. MOTION CARRIED. 114: PROPOSED BUDGET - SISTER CITIES COMMITTEE - VISIT OF MITO, JAPAN DELEGATION: Mrs. Charlotte Brady, Sister Cities Committee Member, submitted a proposed budget for the visit of the delegation from Mito, Japan, December 2-4, 1980. Mayor Seymour first asked that Mrs. Brady elaborate on the calendar of activities planned during the visit of the Mito delegation. Mrs. Charlotte Brady, 810 Swallow Way, then reviewed the itinerary to be followed while Mayor Wada and the Vice Mayor of Mito and their delegation would be visit- ing Anaheim and also answered other questions posed by the Mayor. Mayor Seymour then referred to one item listed in their proposed budget, that item being $200 for a photographer. He asked if it would be possible to eliminate that expense by asking Mr. Dean Grose, Public Information Officer to cover that aspect. Mrs. Brady answered that they had requested Mr. Grose's services, but his avail- ability would be dependent upon the itinerary and his (Grose's) activities during that period of time. If he were available, they would be happy to have him cover the program. / ? 80-1~6 C~t~ Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - November 18, 1980, 1:30 P.M. Mayor Seymour stated his understanding was that the delegation to be visiting Anaheim would be the largest and made up of some of the more significant citizens and elected officials of Mito since the inception of the program. He was, therefore, supportive of the request and thanked Mrs. Brady and the Sister Cities Committee for all the work they had done. MOTION: Councilman Seymour thereupon moved to approve the proposed budget for the forthcoming visit of the Mito delegation to Anaheim in an amount not to exceed $3,500, to be expended from the Council Contingency Fund. Councilman Bay seconded the motion. Before a vote was taken, City Manager Talley noted that in 1980-81 Resource Allocation Plan, $1,500 was already allocated for the Sister Cities Program and thus only the balance of $2,000 would be necessary from the Council Contingency Fund. Councilman Seymour thereupon amended his motion that the $1,500 already allocated in the Budget for the Sister Cities Program be expended for the December visit of the Mito delegation, along with $2,000 from the Council Contingency Fund; Councilman Bay was agreeable to the amendment to his second. A vote was then taken on the foregoing motion. Councilman Overholt was absent. MOTION CARRIED. 173: APPLICATION FOR TAXICAB PERMIT - ORANGE COUNTY CAB COMPA/qY ~ WI{ITE CAB OF ANAHEIM: Mashar Fuad Said, Orange County Cab Company, submitted a request for a permit to operate a taxicab service. Arthur Aquirre Florez and Patrick J. Upton-Rowley, White Cab of Anaheim, sub- mitted a request for a permit to operate a taxicab service. Mr. Wayne Hanley, Law Firm of Bahrens and Hanley, Santa Ana, stated he was present with his client, Mr. Said, today to request that his permit be granted. He then presented petitions to the Council signed by over 100 hotels and motels in Anaheim. The petition expressed the need that the members of the public in the City of Anaheim believed existed for additional and competent taxicab service. In addition to the petition itself, there was attached a number of letters sent by individual hotel representatives, each of which expressed a concern over the existing service in the City and expressing that additional service should be provided for the tourist traffic in the City. In addition to those items, there were present today a number of individuals of various hotels and other establishments who wished to address the Council on the issue. Mr. Mashar Fuad Said first explained that he drove a cab in the City for over two years. He saw a lot of people waiting for a taxi, especially when there were conventions and in the summertime which ted him to apply for a permit. He was ready to have a good company to serve the people and to give them what they needed. He was also willing to pay for more public stands in the City especially downtown, by Disneyland, the Convention Center and the big hotels in the City, thereby making it convenient for the tourists and citizens to hire a cab as fast as possible and to get to their destination. They were ready to operate and to start the business as soon as the Council approved the appli- cation. 80-1487 City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - November 18, 1980, 1:30 P.M. Councilwoman Kaywood asked for clarification relative to his statement he would be willing to pay for more stands in the Disneyland area. Mr. Hanley stated he believed there was a requirement that an additional fee be paid for a public stand for various positions in the City on the street. Mr. Said was indicating that the other cab companies were not providing such stands or were providing little of that service where stands were actually situated strategically around the City, where cabs would be waiting and available for the tourists to use. Mr. Said was indicating he would be willing to do that and provide that type of service in addition to normal cab service. Councilwoman Kaywood asked if he was talking about having his cabs service the Disneyland-Convention Center area exclusively. Mr. Said answered that he was going to serve the whole City. His company was going to be ready to give residents fast service. He also explained that he had three cabs at present and he ordered ten which would be available within the next 30 days. Mr. Hanley then explained for Councilwoman Kaywood that since Mr. Said did not have a permit, he was not operating in the City at present. He had been working for another company and now he was organizing his own company. He had three cabs available now and there was also a letter available in the package presented that ten other cabs would be available upon his request from the company he was going to purchase them from. Mr. Said had clarified that he was working with another taxicab company in Anaheim as a driver for Lozano Taxicab. Councilman Bay noted on the petition it clearly stated a case for people wanting more and better taxi service, but nowhere did he read anything about the people signing it in favor of the applicant's request to start a taxi service in the City. He asked, when the petition was signed by all the hotels and motels, why there was no statement included that they favored Mr. Said starting a cab business in the City. Mr. Hanley stated the intention of the petition was to indicate that there was such a need in the City. Councilwoman Kaywood noted that on the petition there was no signature for the Disneyland Hotel or the Jolly Roger. She wanted to know if there was a specific reason for that Qmission. Mr. Said answered that they went to the Disneyland Hotel management,about three or four times and they were not available. They, therefore, approached the man who called the taxicabs when needed. Mr. Hanley stated that there was no signature, but the man was personally present to address the Council to indicate the problems he encountered. He was the individual who made all the requests and calls for taxicab service. 80- 14{:8 City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - November 18, 1980, 1:30 P.M. Mr. John Zaby, Zaby Motor Lodge, in charge of transportation at the Lodge, stated he was tired of getting verbal abuse from his guests and taxi people. When they called for a taxi, they had to wait a very long time and sometime the cabs did not come at all. Regardless of who provided the service, there was a great need for more taxis or more companies in the City. People were waiting too long and needed to have more prompt service. The problem was one experienced year round. Mr. Frank Howard, Rip Van Winkle Inn, 301 West Katella, stated he had been in business at that location for 13 years and had dealt with all the cab com- panies, and the service did not get any better but worse. There was a need for more taxicabs. Mr. Dave Watson, Shuttle Driver employed by Disneyland Hotel, stated he was the first to come in contact with the guests and usually the last one to come in contact with them. He called taxis for people who wanted them and to his knowledge, the taxi service was very "messed up". He explained when people asked for taxis and the trip was only a short distance away, from his asso- ciation with friends in the taxi business, he knew that many taxis would not take that fare. He would go to the number one taxi in line, whether Yellow or Lozano, and explain the person would like to go half a mile or two miles away and those drivers would refuse and turn and tell him to take them to another taxi. They were waiting for the long distance fares and this happened constantly. Upon Council questioning, Mr. Watson revealed the following: He was speaking for himself and not the management of Disneyland Hotel. He had talked to the manager of the Disneyland Hotel who was aware of the problem which was a year- round occurrence. Mr. John DeLacy, 1821 South Manchester, stated he had been in Orange County for seven years now and he drove a cab in Santa Ana and at the present time drove for Saddleback Yellow Cab. An average night did not go by when they did not get 20 or 25 calls from the people at the hotels in Anaheim requesting their service. Most of the time they did not go to pick them up. They also had Yellow Limousine of Anaheim. There was need for another cab service in Anaheim. In Los Angeles, it was wide open and there were cabs waiting for people instead of the other way around. He reiterated the City did not have enough cab service to serve the people, the residents or whoever. Mr. Larry Slagle, Vice President of Yellow Cab of North Orange County, asked if the next request could also be heard at this time and then subsequently allow him time to rebut to both presentations; there was no objection from the Council. Mr. Dominic Colletta, attorney representing Arthur Aqui~re Florez and Patrick J. Upton-Rowley, White Cab of Anaheim, 22691 Lambert Street, E1 Toro, stated based upon the previous presentation, it should be obvious to the Mayor and Council that there was an extreme need for additional taxicab service in the City. His clients were in a unique position to offer high quality and immediate additional taxicab service to Anaheim consisting of five radio controlled taxi- cabs. The cabs had recently been inspected by the City of Santa Ana where a license had been given for operation and the cabs would be operating in that 80- 1489 City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - November 18, 1980, 1:30 P.M. area in the immediate future. He then elaborated upon the amenities offered in the proposed service. His client offered a far flung operation, far less likely to' create problems by overcrowding of existing stands and facilities and could provide greater service to outlying areas for visitors to and from the City of Anaheim. Mr. Flores, one of the applicants, was present to answer any questions. Councilwoman Kaywood asked when the license was granted from the City of Santa Ana. Mr. Arthur Florez answered approximately three or four days ago although he did not have the license with him. Mr. John DeLacy, 1821 Manchester, again spoke in behalf of the present appli- cant. He had been working with Mr. Florez going on seven years. When people called his company and asked for a cab, he would tell them how long it would be before they were going to be picked up. The present companies in the area did not even service the Stadium. When people were going to leave the Stadium, they were told they could not be picked up. Mayor Seymour asked, relative to his comment regarding the Stadium, was he speaking from direct experience. Mr. DeLacy stated any time there was a football game at the Stadium, they received at least fifteen calls from the Stadium from people asking to be picked up, and they had to tell them they were not licensed to do so, only their limousine which cost more than the taxicab, was licensed. Mayor Seymour asked if there was anyone else who would like to speak on behalf of Mr. Said's request or the request of Mr. Florez and Upton-Rowley. Mr. Fred McCuistion, Manager at E1 Toro Yellow Cab Company, owned by Mr. Upton- Rowley and Florez. They were presently asking for a permit in Anaheim because of poor taxicab service in the City. They could bring in 15 cabs immediately to give the people, and especially the tourist, a chance of feeling that Anaheim was a friendship town. A taxicab should take anyone any place at anytime. If a driver in Los Angeles turned down a fare, he was put back to the end of the line or was requested to leave the Los Angeles Airport. Radio service which they offered was very important for the community for quick notification to pick people up. Calling any cab company in the City of Anaheim, the calls were screened and the person asked where they were going. Between the dispatcher and the drivers, there could possibly be a gratuity in getting the better calls. He did not think that was fair and it should not be permitted. If this was done at E1 Toro Yellow Cab, the dispatcher was fired and if the driver was caught trying to pay a dispatcher, he was terminated. They worked on a percentage basis in E1 Toro. They did not have line fees unless it would be in their Limousine service which they had in Anaheim. The taxicab business was considerably different than limousine service. With a cab, you must pick up and you cannot deny anybody the right to a taxi ride whether one mile or 20 miles. In concluding, Mr. McCuistion stated the applicant's company had proven itself in the areas where they were operating, and they did not have black marks against them. 80-I490 City Ha~.l, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - November 18, 1980, 1:30 P.M. In the course of questions posed by the Council to Mr. McCuistion following his presentation, Councilman Bay asked if he was speaking for only Yellow Cab Company of E1 Toro or also White Cab Company. Mr. McCuistion stated he was speaking for both. Mr. Larry Slagle, Vice President of Yellow Cab Company of North Orange County, then made his presentation, the highlights of which were as follows: He stated it was surprising that none of the complaints mentioned got to the City or the Chamber of Commerce and many never were received by his company. They took their own survey involving many of the properties, specifically 50 of the smaller properties that tended to get the worst service. Three properties indicated they were not getting adequate service--Sandman Motel, the Rip Van Winkle Inn and Zaby's Motor Lodge. He contacted the Manager at Zaby's, Laura Wrath who indicated on a couple of occasions she had some long waits and generally, without exception, those problems occurred when there were major conventionm in town. In order to illustrate, he pointed to one much convention, the National Computer Conference. At that time, if they had 500 cabs in the City, they could not.have provided adequate service because they physically could not have moved. The same was true when a party broke at Disneyland. Also, they put as many cabs into the Stadium as possible prior to an event breaking, but once it did break, it was not possible to get into the Stadium for at least 15 to 20 minutes under the best conditions and with a full house it took longer. Someone from the Disneyland property talked about poor taxi mervice and somebody else talked about'the dimtinction between a taxicab and limousine service which were authorized to operate in the City. There was much a limousine parked in the lot of the Civic Center complex now that looked exactly like their vehicle marked Anaheim Yellow Cab, and "Limousine" was indicated on the back of it. ~hat they were told here today was that they were allowed t~ refuse a trip and conmequently the general public thought that was Yellow Cab. There had been some problem with taxicab service at the Disneyland Hotel which made the newspapers. 'Part of the problem that originated there was the fact that those people had no other business, but depended entirely upon conventions and tourist traffic. Consequently they would back up on the stands. Yellow Cab could not afford to have.their people stand by for 15 to 30 minutes at a time because they could be given other trips. Councilman Overholt entered the Council Chamber. (3:09 P.M.) Another problem they ran into was the fact that they were being compared simul- taneously withanother company. They also operated on the commission basis and one of the causes for immediate termination was to refuse a trip. He could not say that it never happened, but it never got to him with a cab number. He felt that the major problem was the big conventions. Those conventions and Disneyland made it possible for Yellow Cab and possibly Lozano Taxicab and the jitney service to do a business that allowed them to operate from 2:00 a.m. to 5:00 a.m. when there was not enough buminess to justify picking someone up. Therefore, they used those Disneyland trips to provide a good portion of their revenue. 80- City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - November 18, 1980, 1:30 P.M. He believed that the Yellow Limousine of Anaheim, in many cases, wam mimrepre- sented to be the Yello~ Cab Company of North Orange County. They were very much oppomed to that operation. They also had a higher rate and many times they took guests to the hotels and they had in the past referred the matter to the Police Department. When hotels received a h~gher bill, they called Yellow Cab the next day. They had only two letterm of complaint from the Chamber in the pamt year. He referred to letters written and submitted by other companies and businesmes in opposition to allowing another franchise such as Airport Service, Fun Bus, Karcher Company, the Grand Hotel, Mr. Stox, Bill Snyder of Visitor and Con- vention Bureau, etc.--their only concern being that they wish they had more mervice during the major conventions. He personally wished they had the hotel rooms to put the people in. When the Marriott and Hilton-Wrather Cor- poration finished their facilities, they would not have to take somebody during a heavy period from Anaheim to Newport Beach. He also explained that they had worked very diligently with the Visitor and Convention Bureau. He wam on the Board and thus subject to any comments firsthand. They had a relationship with the Orange Coamt Yellow Cab and if there wam a convention in town, they did not oppose that service picking a person up pro- vided that none of their unitm (Yellow Cab of North Orange County) were avail- able. In concluding, Mr. Slagle stated that Mr. Lozano indicated to him that he was going to attend the meeting to address the Council last week and the matter was then continued. It wam his understanding that Mr. Lozano was ill and could not make the meeting today, but was opposed to the granting of either one of the requested applications. Mr. Art Gray was present to speak on some of the technical questions. Councilwoman Kaywood then asked Mr. Slagle how. many taxis they had at present and if they now had the vans they were authorized to get. Mr. Slagle firmt answered that they had approximately 70 units. They had some additional units that they could put in service. He emphasized that if the problems were as severe as they were led to believe today, the Council would have more complaints on file. Relative to the vans, they did have those although they were not in daily use but had been used for major conventions and on other occasions which he explained. They had two at present with another on order, to be delivered shortly. Councilwoman Kaywood asked if it would be possible for him to have more than 70 taxis now in service if he felt he was not serving everyone who was calling. Mr. Slagle answered "yes". They currently had more permits than that, but due to the fact that Dial-a-Ride had been instituted in Anaheim, OCTD recently de- creased their headways, along with the Anaheim Plaza Express, and the Town Tour Fun Bus,they frankly could not justify an expansion. Councilwoman Kaywood asked if he was active at the receiving end where the dispatch was taking place. 80- 1~492 City Hall, Anaheim~ C~lifornia - COUNCIL MINUTES - November 18, 1980, 1:30 P.M. Mr. Slagle answered that he was about 20 feet away. They also made another change in the past year where a person was put in charge of scheduling dis- patchers and the basic operation was right next to the dispatcher so that he could not only hear what they were dispatching, but also calls could easily be referred to him (Slagle) if there was a problem. Councilwoman Kaywood then asked if he was aware of any calls coming through where the answer was, "it's a short haul, I'm not coming out." Mr. Slagle answered absolutely "no". In fact, their drivers had come to him and indicated they were upset because other vehicles were doing that. After additional questions posed by both Councilman Roth and Councilman Bay to Mr. Slagle for clarification, Mr. Art Gray spoke to the matter. Mr. Art Gray, attorney, 914 West Lincoln, representing Yellow Cab Company of North Orange County, stated that he would direct his remarks to what the Code required particularly to the need and necessity portion. At present in Anaheim the taxi business had been impacted by a number of things--the fixed route bus system, Dial-a-Ride Service, jitney service and the other cab company. Putting on more cabs was a question of economics, pure and simple. They had to earn their way. Only so many cabs could be run economically. Yellow Cab of North Orange County ran a quality operation and the Slagle family was almost directly involved in every step of the operation. It was the only company in the City that was rendering service to the entire City. The Council should look carefully at the financial reports filed with the submitted applications and also whatever reports the Police Department had filed. Relative to the White Cab Company, that company had gone through numerous owner- ships in the last five or six years. Both applications, in his opinion, failed to meet the requirement of the Code in furnishing the required information such as the descriptions of the cabs, the manufacturers, engine numbers, license numbers, rate schedule and the schedule of stops. Some of this was provided in a sketchy manner in Mr. Said's application. It indicated,, however, that they intended to operate only one cab. That cab would have about four stops and all would be in the high income convention center area putting them in an unfair competitive position with regard to his client who felt a responsibility to serve the whole City. The other operator did not furnish that information as required by the Code. Anaheim was a very fortunate City in that it had a good cab service, a clean cab service and to the best of his knowledge, there was no public uproar over the service and the whole purpose of the Anaheim Municipal Code was to keep the control of the cab business in such a manner that the operator could make a profit and service could be rendered in the best manner economically feasible to the transportation industry. If they allowed a number of small companies to come in with independent cabs with very little supervision from above, they were going to end up with the kind of cab warfare which had almost destroyed the industry in many of the major cities of the country. In rebuttal, Mr. Colletta stated that Mr. Florez and his co-applicant were currently operating in other cities and unincoporated areas throughout Orange County. As such, they had a clean record at this time. The cabs were high quality, radio controlled and they were not independently owned and operated. 80- ~ 149:5 City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - November 18~ 1980, 1:30 P.M. Nothing had been said that would overcome the comments previously made to the Council and the petition signed and presented indicating there was a need for additional cab service. If Mr. Florez could provide that and if the Council saw fit in the interest of the public to permit fair competition properly regulated and controlled, it could do nothing but enhance the public welfare. Mr. Colletta indicated that Mr. Slagle also made numerous unsubstantiated allega- tions of conduct by Anaheim Limousine Company licensed and operating in Anaheim for two years. He felt without being substantiated, those should be disregarded. He hoped that the Council would consider the application on its merits and if additional information was necessary, they would be happy to provide it. Councilwoman Kaywood then posed a line of questioning to Mr. Florez wherein he revealed the following: Some of his taxis were white and some yellow. The yellow cabs were those of Saddleback Yellow Cab and also E1 Toro Yellow Cab. They used the common insignia used by most Yellow Cab Companies throughout the country. They did not use the triangle type. Mr. Colletta interjected and stated only the cabs white in color would be used in Anaheim. Councilwoman Kaywood stated she noted on their letter of intent they were using the name of Yellow Limousine of Anaheim; Mr. Florez stated they did do business as Yellow Limousine of Anaheim, and they had station wagons and four-door sedans. Councilwoman Kaywood stated they would then look identical to a taxicab; Mr. Florez conceded some of them did. Councilwoman Kaywood then asked if it were not misleading to use Yellow Limousine of Anaheim when they already had Yellow Cab Company; Mr. Florez said it could be. Mr. Florez also added that the one cab company Councilman Bay referred to was White Cab Company of five or six years ago, better known as Tustin Blue and White Cab Company. Those people were dismissed by the City of Santa Ana quite a few years ago. The White Cab Company they were starting was brand new and the only place it had been licensed was in the City of Irvine, Tustin and presently in the City of Santa Ana. He also confirmed for Councilwoman Kaywood that he was the owner of the White Cab Company, having 60% control of the company for the past two years. Mayor Seymour then stated they had received a great deal of testimony and infor- mation on the two applications from both sides. As Councilman Roth pointed out, as local government or any level began to affect controls, it was always a difficult decision. The easiest course of action would be to have a process in which any cab company providing the proper legal documentation and financial security could operate in the City. As much as he detested government control, he did not think that was an accurate way to insure that the citizens were served. If they were to leave it totally open, the Disneyland/Convention Center area would get served very well, but he doubted there would be much service to the calls less profitable, those in the far west or far eastern reaches of the City. They had some complaints over the years that would support that conten- tion. However, the citizens of Anaheim would suffer if they were to throw away what guidelines they had attempted to use, in order to insure quality transpor- tation to the citizens. They heard a number of reasonable arguments as to control of cab drivers and insuring a higher quality of service was delivered. City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - November 18, 1980, 1:30 P.M. They also heard a number of arguments that when there was a full house out at Anaheim Stadium, they did not have the service they would like and when a very large convention was in town, they might not be able to handle it. If somebody had a way other than the jitney or limousine service to begin to approach that specific problem, the City would be most interested in hearing it. They were faced with a dilemma, but he, for one, did not find justification for granting either one of the applications for permits. He did not think it was going to enhance transportation service in the City. He felt it would only cause an "alligator" fight over the best of the business in the City, the high profit business. The City Council had a responsibility that was much broader than that--they must be constantly mindful of the needs of the rest of the citizens in the City. He heard numerous complaints from biased parties today, parties who may have something to gain as a result of the decision one way or another, but he had not received any number of complaints that had concerned him over the last couple of years, nor had the Chamber. Ail he could conclude was that the Lozano Cab Company and the Yellow Cab Company under Slagle's management were providing a very reasonable service to the community. The Visitor and Convention Bureau, the organization representing all the hotel/motel owners in the City, also did not have any complaints. MOTION: Councilman Seymour thereupon moved to deny both applications for taxi- cab permits submitted by Mr. Mashar Fuad Said, Orange County Cab Company and Mr. Arthur Aquirre Florez and Patrick J. Upton-Rowley, White Cab of Anaheim. Councilwoman Kaywood seconded the motion. Before a vote was taken, Councilwoman Kaywood stated that she too had great con- cern and if visitors and citizens were not being served properly, she wanted to see that changed. She also had been caught in traffic herself at large conven- tions, and she saw no way of solving that problem. Knowing that the business would all go to the "cream" area, all she could see was adding greater conges- tion. She had also seen a long line of taxis waiting at the Disneyland Hotel creating a traffic clog at that point where they would be better off with- out it. At this time, they knew where complaints should be directed. If wide open, they would not know and, therefore, could not correct the situation and thus would not be serving the people in the best way possible. She felt that all they would do was to create problems by opening it up. Councilman Overholt stated that he was late in arriving at the meeting because he was in Superior Court in Santa Ana, not as a party, but as an attorney. He would, therefore, abstain on the issue because he was not present for the entire hearing. A vote was then taken on the foregoing motion of denial for both permits. Councilman Overholt abstained. MOTION CARRIED. RECESS: By general consent, the Council recessed for 15 minutes. (3:55 P.M.) AFTER RECESS: Mayor Seymour called the meeting to order, all Council Members being present. (.4:05 P.M.) 176: PUBLIC HEARING - ABANDONMENT NO. 79-6A: In accordance with application filed by B. H. Miller, public hearing was held on proposed abandonment of a portion of Winston Road from 175 feet, more or less, west of to Sunkist Street, pursuant to Resolution No. 80R-489 duly published in the Anaheim Bulletin and notices thereof posted in accordance with law. 8O- 14~$ City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - November 18, 1980, 1:30 P.M. Report of the City Engineer dated October 10, 1980 and a recommendation by the Planning Commission were submitted, recommending approval of said abandonment subject to the reservation of a public utilities easement to accommodate exist- ing electrical and Gas Company facilities. Mayor Seymour asked if anyone wished to address the Council; there being no response, he closed the public hearing. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT - CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION: On motion by Councilman Bay, seconded by Councilwoman Kaywood, the City Council ratified the determination of the Planning Director that the proposed activitY falls within the definition of Section 3.01, Class 5, of the City of Anaheim guidelines to the requirements for an Environmental Impact Report and is, therefore, categorically exempt from the requirement to file an EIR. MOTION CARRIED. Councilwoman Kaywood offered Resolution No. 80R-516 for adoption, approving Abandonment No. 79-6A. Refer to Resolution Book. RESOLUTION NO. 80R-516: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM ORDERING THE VACATION AND ABANDONMENT OF A PORTION OF WINSTON ROAD, W/O SUNKIST STREET. Roll Call Vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: COUNCIL MEMBERS: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Overholt, Kaywood, Bay, Roth and Seymour None None The Mayor declared Resolution No. 80R-516 duly passed and adopted. 176: PUBLIC HEARING - ABANDONMENT NO. 79-22A: In accordance with application filed by Pat Walla, Pacific Coast Builders, Inc., public hearing was held on proposed abandonment of three-foot portions of an existing eight-foot wide public utility easement as shown on Lot Nos. 4 and 6 of Tract No. 9749, 27 feet east of the centerline of River Valley Trail, pursuant to Resolution No. 80R-490 duly published in the Anaheim Bulletin and notices thereof posted in accordance with law. Report of the City Engineer dated October 10, 1980 and a recommendation by the Planning Commission were submitted, recommending approval of said abandonment. Mayor Seymour asked if anyone wished to address the Council; there being no response, he closed the public hearing. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT - CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION: On motion by Councilwoman Kaywood, seconded by Councilman. Overholt, the City Council ratified the deter- minatio of the Planning Director that the proposed activity falls within the definition of Section 3.01, Class 5, of the City of Anaheim guidelines to the requirements for an Environmental Impact Report and is, therefore, categorically exempt from the requirement to file an EIR. MOTION CARRIED. Councilman Seymour offered Resolution No. 80R-517 for adoption, approving Abandonment No. 79-22A. Refer to Resolution Book. City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - November 18~ 1980, 1:30 P.M. RESOLUTION NO. 80R-517: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM ORDERING THE VACATION AND ABANDONMENT OF PORTIONS OF AN EXISTING PUBLIC UTILITY EASEMENT. (79-22A) Roll Call Vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: COUNCIL MEMBERS: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Overholt, Kaywood, Bay, Roth and Seymour None None The Mayor declared Resolution No. 80R-517 duly passed and adopted. 169: PETITION BY AREA RESIDENTS REQUESTING THE CLOSURE OF MINERVA AVENUE: City Clerk Linda Roberts noted that the Engineering Division was recommending that the matter be set for a public hearing and that property owners be notified. Mayor Seymour asked to hear from those who would like to speak on the matter. Mr. William Kamusme, 923 West Chateau Avenue, property owner of a triplex on the corner of JUno Avenue and Coventry Drive, stated the problem revolved around the fact that there used to be an alley in the area and the citizens gave the City permission to widen it. After it was widened, it was paved and after paving, it became a raceway. He owned his property since 1973 and he had a wooden fence at the location which had been knocked down five times. He had pictures to substantiate his claims which he submitted to the Council for review. One of his tenants living there since 1973 used to have a garden, but since the fence had been knocked down so many times, he refused to have one any longer. Also, he (Kamusme) had been painting the fence an hour before it was knocked down and in the event he had been there an hour later, he could have been killed or injured. Before something like that happened the situation should be corrected and doing so would not create a hardship to anyone. Every fence on the west side of Coventry Drive had been damaged at one time or another. Coventry Drive was also used by many elderly people from the apartments on Juno, Valley and Minerva for walking to the shopping areas, but they were actually afraid to walk there at present. Water was always in the street and cars would lose control. Four of the people who were present in the Chamber audience owned property on the corner. One lady was afraid to let her children play in their yard. He then relayed other accidents that had occurred. It was a serious situation and something should be done. He felt it could be corrected rather easily. Maxine Pickle, corner of Minerva Avenue and Coventry Drive, stated she was cer- tain the engineers would have an idea of what could be done and she hoped it was not just a stop sign because it would only be ignored. More than the fact that it was a raceway, the young children played in the water in the middle of the alley and that was dangerous for them. She was standing just inside her kitchen when her fence was knocked down. Her bedroom was right by the fence that was knocked down and she moved her bedroom. She was afraid of the situation. She had lived in her house for 21 years. They were all very concerned. Mr. Kamusme stated that the Council already had a petition signed by approximately 100 people in the area. 80-1'497 City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - November 18~ 1980~ 1:30 P.M. Mr. Arthur Peck, 913 South Valley, stated there were a number of school children who played in the street and his concern was for their safety. Mayor Seymour stated that before making a decision to close Minerva, they were required to hold a public hearing. The purpose today was to hear the residents concerns and then to determine whether or not the City Council would set a public hearing. Councilman Bay stated if the Council decided to set a public hearing, thought should be given to the wording as to how the public hearing would be set. It could be set by a recon~nendation for a road closure. If they used the term barricade, they might be asking for more trouble at the hearing over the barricade than closure of the street. There was some opposition to a barricade type closure from the City Engineer and the Police Department as well. Person- ally if he were asking for a public hearing, he would limit it to a closure, rather than trying to define how it was to be closed. Councilman Roth stated for Mr. Kamusme's information that the Police Department did not recommend that the street be closed but the Fire Department had no objection. MOTION: Councilman Roth moved that a public hearing be set in accordance with the request of the area residents that Minerva Avenue be closed. Councilman Overholt seconded the motion. Councilman Bay stated that the wording on the motion should be that the request for a road closure be set for a public hearing and that the owners of the property bounded by Brookhurst, Nutwood, Orange and Ball Road be notified and given an opportunity to appear. The City Clerk then clarified for the Mayor that the people would be notified by notice from the Engineering Division using the Assessor's Parcel Map to obtain the names of owners and not to those just within 300 feet but the whole area bounded by the staff recommendation. Mayor Seymour explained their experience during such a public hearing was that the people who were impacted the greatest obviously were for a closure, but the people who utilized the street were particularly opposed. He was suggesting that they prepare themselves accordingly and they were going to need quite a bit of support for such a road closure. A vote was then taken on the foregoing motion. MOTION CARRIED. Councilman 0verholt left the Council Chamber. (5:01 P.M.) CONSENT CALENDAR ITEMS: On motion by Councilman Roth, seconded by Councilwoman Kaywood, the following actions were authorized in accordance with the reports and recommendations furnished each Council Member and as listed on the Consent Calendar Agenda: 1. 118: CLAIMS AGAINST THE CITY: The following claims were denied and referred to the City's Claims Administrator: a. Claim submitted by Kathleen Mary Broersma, Frank Ronald Broersma II, Bradley Paul Broersma, and Michelle Lynn Broersma for damages purportedly sustained as a result of the death of Frank Ronald Broersma in an automobile accident caused by improperly functioning traffic controls at the intersection of Lincoln Avenue and City H~l%, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - November 18, 1980, 1:30 P.M. Sunkist Street, on or about June 24, 1980, Mr. Broersma having expired September 26, 1980. b. Claim submitted by Sandor Spera for personal injury damages purportedly sustained as a result of slip-and-fall accident near concession stand in Anaheim Stadium, on or about August 9, 1980. c. Claim submitted by Jessie Freeman for personal injury damages purportedly sustained as a result of slip-and-fall accident at Anaheim Stadium on or about August 30, 1980. 2. CORRESPONDENCE: The following correspondence was ordered received and filed: a. 107: Planning Department, Building Division--Monthly Report for October 1980. · b. 105: Community Center Authority--Minutes of November 3, 1980. c. 175: Before the Public Utilities Commission, Application No. 39869, in the matter of the application of Southern California Gas Company for authorization to implement a Conservation Cost Adjustment (CCA) procedure for adjusting its Tariffs covering Commission approved Conservation programs and for authorization to implement a financing program for solar water heaters to be included in the proposed CCA procedure in its tariffs. d. 156: Police Department--Monthly Report for October 1980. 3. 108: APPLICATIONS: In accordance with the recommandations of the Chief of Police, "a" was denied, and "b", "c", "d" and "e" were approved. a. Amusement Devices Permit: Frank Shigeru Kamimura, dba as Kinokami Co., for the Pizza Machine, 2801 West Ball Road #15, for one video space game. b. Amusement Devices Permit: Howard D. Keeling and Daniel P. O'Rourke, dba K-O Enterprises, for Kit's Korner, 2618 West La Palma Avenue, for various video games. c. Entertainment Permit: Woodstock Night Club, 951 South Knott Street, for live bands, Tuesday through Saturday, 8:00 p.m. to 1:30 a.m. (John T. Schultz, applicant) d. Amusement Devices Permit: Woodstock Night Club, 951 South Knott Avenue, pool tables and various electronic devices. (John T. Schultz, applicant) e. Public Dance Permit: Vietnamese Dance Club, for a dance to be held November 22, 1980, 8:00 p.m. to 1:00 a.m., at the Ana~heim Convention Center. (Chu Ba Le, applicant) Councilman Overholt was temporarily absent. ~©TION CARRIED. CONSENT CALENDAR ITEMS: Councilman Roth offered Resolution No. 80R-518 for adoption in accordance with the reports, recommendations and certifications furnished each Council Member and as listed on the Consent Calendar Agenda. Refer to Resolution Book. 80-I499 City Hall, Anaheim,. California - COUNCIL MINUTES - November 18, 1980, 1:30 P.M. 150: RESOLUTION NO. 80R-518: 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: PERALTA CANYON PARK AREA DEVELOPMENT, IN THE CITY OF ANAHEIM, ACCOUNT NO. 16-805-7103; APPROVING THE DESIGNS, PLANS, PROFILES, DRAWINGS, AND SPECIFICATIONS FOR THE CONSTRUCTION THEREOF; AUTHORIZING THE CONSTRUCTION OF SAID PUBLIC IMPROVEMENT IN ACCORDANCE WITH SAID PLANS, SPECIFICATIONS, ETC.; AND AUTHORIZING AND DIRECTING THE CITY CLERK TO PUBLISH A NOTICE INVITING SEALED PROPOSALS FOR THE CONSTRUCTION THEREOF. (Bids to be opened December 11, 1980 at 2:00 p.m.) Roll Call Vote: AYES: NOES: TEMPORARILY ABSENT: ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: COUNCIL MEMBERS: COUNCIL MEMBERS: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Kaywood, Bay, Roth and Seymour None Overholt None The Mayor declared Resolution No. 80R-518 duly passed and adopted. 142/108: ORDINANCE NO. 4191: Councilman Bay offered Ordinance No. 4191 for adoption. Refer to Resolution Book. ORDINANCE NO. 4191: AN ORDIANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM ADDING NEW CHAPTER 3.78 TO TITLE 3 OF THE ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO SWAP MEETS. Roll Call Vote: AYES: NOES: TEMPORARILY ABSENT: ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: COUNCIL MEMBERS: COUNCIL MEMBERSf COUNCIL MEMBERS: Kaywood, Bay, Roth and Seymour None Overholt None The Mayor declared Ordinance No. 4191 duly passed and adopted. 142/114: ORDINANCE NO. 4193: Councilwoman Kaywood offered Ordinance No. 4193 for first reading. ORDINANCE NO. 4193: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AMENDING SECTION 1.12.010 OF THE ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE CONCERNING MEETINGS OF THE CITY COUNCIL. (relating to time and place of City Council meetings) Councilman Overholt entered the Council Chamber. (5:04 P.M.) ORDINANCE NO. 4194 AND 4195: Councilman Seymour offered Ordinance No. 4194 and 4195 for first reading. ORDINANCE NO. 4194: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AMENDING TITLE 18 OF THE ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO ZONING. (63-64-62(18), RM-1200) ORDINANCE NO. 4195: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AMENDING TITLE 18 OF THE ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO ZONING. (79-80-29, RM-1200) 80-1500 City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - November 18, 1980, 1:30 P.M. 114: ALLEE PRODUCTION - "SINCERELY YOURS": Councilwoman Kaywood stated that Mr. Chuck Allee did a fine job on the production, "Sincerely Yours", which premiered Friday night, November 14, 1980, and was attended by all Council Mem- bers. She hoped that the production would be used whether in schools or in some other way and not relegate it to obscurity. Mr. Allee mentioned in its present configuration with the number of projectors and computers, it was rather forbidding. The only way it would be used was if they made a motion picture from it, and she was hoping they would do that. Councilman Overholt then expressed the Council's appreciation to some of the people who had a great deal to do with the event in addition to Chuck and Joan Allee; Elizabeth Schultz, Library Board, Sarah Pearson, Mother Colony Household and Mr. Bill Griffith, City Librarian. It was a nice evening and the comments that evolved from the presentation were that it brought the history of the City right into focus. He hoped that the City could utilize the production in some way. 159: TEMPORARY TRANSITION ROAD - NEW LINCOLN INTO OLD LINCOLN: Councilman Roth commended Mr. Devitt, the City Engineer on the expeditious completion of the subject road and a job well done, easing the traffic situation from New Lincoln across Olive Street. 115: COUNCIL CHAMBER SOUND SYSTEM: Councilman Roth asked if the Council Chambers sound system had been accepted from the contractor. City Engineer William Devitt stated that they were still working on the system. Councilman Roth then stated that before acceptance, he would appreciate being invited to give his input relative to what he had seen in other Chambers, both City Council and Board of Supervisors. The meetings of the Air Quality Board were held in many different locations and therefore he had some ideas that might be worth instituting. 165: ALLEYS IN THE JANSS AND PINE STREET AREA: Mayor Seymour asked that staff work up a brief report regarding the alleys of the 800 block of Janss Street north of North Street and south of the Cultural Arts Center, approximately three blocks of alley on Janss Street and approximately one block of alley on Pine Street. For some reason, that strip on Pine and the areas in the 800 and perhaps 900 block of Janss had not been paved in 39 years, as he was told by some of the residents living there. He wanted to know the priority status for paving those alleys and what could be done to move them up in priority. RECESS - EXECUTIVE SESSION: Councilwoman Kaywood moved to recess into Executive Session. Councilman Bay seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. (5:16 P.M.) AFTER RECESS: Mayor Seymour called the meeting to order, all Council Members being present. (6:35 P.M.) 118: RELEASE AND SETTLEMENT OF CLAIM - DAN'S AUTOMOTIVE SERVICE: On motion by Councilman Seymour, seconded by Councilman Bay, the City Attorney was authorized to execute and sign on behalf of the City of Anaheim a Release and Settlement of Claim releasing Dan's Automotive Service or his agents or servants in settlement for damages to City property for the sum of $2,870. MOTION CARRIED. 80-150i City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - November 18, 1980~ 1:30 P.M. ADJOURNMENT: Councilman Roth moved to adjourn. Councilman Bay seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. Adjourned: 6:36 P.M. ~RTS, ~