1979/05/29 79-592
Cit7 Hal.l~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - Ma7 29~ 1979~ 1:30 P.M.
The City Council of the City of Anaheim met in regular session.
PRESENT:
ABSENT:
PRESENT:
COUNCIL MEMBERS: Overholt, Kaywood, Bay, Roth and Seymour
COUNCIL MEMBERS: None
CITY MANAGER: William O. Talley
CITY ATTORNEY: William P. Hopkins
CITY CLERK: Linda D. Roberts
DEPUTY CITY MANAGER: James D. Ruth
PUBLIC UTILITIES GENERAL MANAGER: Gordon W. Hoyt
CITY ENGINEER: William Devitt
WATER ENGINEERING MANAGER: Ray Auerbach
ASSISTANT DIRECTOR FOR PLANNING: Joel Fick
ASSISTANT DIRECTOR FOR ZONING: Annika Santalahti
ASSISTANT PLANNER: Robert Kelley
Mayor Seymour called the meeting to order and welcomed those in
attendance to the Council meeting.
INVOCATION: Reverend David Beadlea, Anaheim United Methodist Church, gave the
Invocation.
FLAG SALUTE: Councilman Don Roth led the assembly in the Pledge of Allegiance
to the Flag.
119: PROCLAMATIONS: The following proclamations were issued by Mayor Seymour
and approved by the City Council:
"Management Week In Anaheim, "June 3-9, 1979
"A Day of Christian Rededication in Anaheim," Monday, June 4, 1979
"Parks & Recreation Month in Anaheim," June 1979
"Doll & Toy Museum Day in Anaheim," June 2, 1979
The proclamations were accepted by Mr. Jack Wilson, Mr. Kermit Southerland, Mr.
James Ruth, Deputy City Manager, and Mr. Douglas Farley, respectively.
119: RESOLUTION OF SUPPORT: A resolution supporting the "Steering is Not
Enough" campaign was adopted by the City Council. The campaign involved the
safety awareness and drive safely program.
119: RESOLUTION OF CONGRATULATIONS: A resolution of congratulations was adopted
by the City Council to be mailed to Dr. Osborne R. Wheeler, Vice President of
Student Personnel, on his retirement from Fullerton College after 22 years of
dedicated service.
MINUTES: Approval of the minutes was deferred one week.
79-593
City Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - May 29~ 1979~. 1:30 P.M.
WAIVER OF READING - ORDINANCES AND RESOLUTIONS: Councilman Roth moved to
waive the reading, in full, of all ordinances and resolutions and that consent
to the waiver of reading is hereby given by all Council Members unless, after
reading of the title, specific request is made by a Council Member for the read-
ing of such ordinance or resolution. Councilwoman Kaywood seconded the motion.
MOTION CARRIED.
FINANCIAL DEMANDS AGAINST THE CITY in the amount of $736,955.68, in accordance
with the 1978-79 Budget, were approved.
125: ANALYSIS OF DATA PROCESSING CONTRACT WITH MDS CITIES: City Manager William
Talley explained for Councilman Roth that the proposed analysis would make
an evaluation of whether or not and to what extent it would be beneficial for
the City to provide its own Data Processing services. It did not encompass
whether or not the City should provide its own services or contract them out
because that would be a substantially larger study.
Mayor Seymour advised the reason the latter was excluded was due to the fact
that it was the opinion of the Blue Ribbon Committee and also Arthur Young &
Company that until the software programs were in place, it was extremely
diffcult to go to the outside and ask them to provide a bid on what it would
cost to run those programs. Thus, such an all-encompassing study would be
premature.
The Mayor then questioned Page one, Paragraph one, "Duties of the Consultant";
of the proposed agreement stating, "...to determine the financial advantages
and disadvantages including the projected expenses and revenues of personnel,
equipment, hardware and software between the fiscal year 1979-80 to fiscal year
1981-82..." He considered that to be a very short time span and suggested that
a five-year projection might be more appropriate. He also asked if projected
expenses included the cost of marketing. Mr. Talley stated it included all
costs.
Councilwoman Kaywood referred to Page two, Paragraph D, of the agreement,
"CONSULTANT agrees to safeguard all data related to City's business that it
submitted to CONSULTANTS to the same extent that CONSULTANTS safeguard data
relating to his own business." She noted there was no penalty in the event
that was breached.
City Attorney William Hopkins stated that would be a term of the agreement and
if they failed to provide the necessary safeguards, it would be a breach of
contract, and the City would have a remedy on that basis.
MOTION: On motion by Councilman Roth, seconded by Councilman Overholt, the
issuance of request for proposals to qualified financial consultants to evaluate
the Data Processing Department's contract with Municipal Data Systems (MDS) was
authorized, as recommended in memorandum dated May 24, 1979 from the City Manager's
office, subject to a five-year projection. MOTION CARRIED.
79-594
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - May 29, 1979~ 1:30 P.M.
150: DESIGN OF CANYON SITE II AND JOHN MARSHALL PARKS: On motion by Councilman
Roth, seconded by Councilman Bay, the Department of Parks, Recreation and Com-
munity Services was authorized to solicit proposals from architectural firms for
the design of Canyon Site II and John Marshall Parks, as recommended in memoran-
dum dated May 27, 1979 from James Ruth, Deputy City Manager, Parks, Recreation
and Community Services. MOTION CARRIED.
161: AWARD OF CONTRACT - DOWNTOWN PROJECT ALPHA; PMASE I: (Account No. 46-792-
6325-2190 and 82-366-6327-00957) Mr. Edward Fitch, attorney for Colich-Falcon
Construction Company, the second low bidder on the subject project, of Montelone
and McCrory, 5900 Wilshire Boulevard, Los Angeles stated he wished to bring to
the Council's attention the fact that Anaheim had not received competitive bids
on the subject project. Although three bids were received, the contention of
Colich and Falcon was that only one competitive bid was received and that was
from Steiny and Company, who submitted a bid not only as a prime contractor,
but also as a subcontractor for the electrical work. which represented approxi-
mately 40 to 45% of the contract price.
Paragraph Sixteen of the Instructions to Bidders, as they read it, directly pro-
hibited a bidder from submitting a bid or having an interest in the same work on
this project. They contended that Steiny and Company, by bidding both as sub-
contractor and prime contractor, violated the provision by havingmore than one
interest in the same work. They believed that Paragraph Sixteen was not a tech-
nicality, but a material clause of the Instruction to Bidders and as such, could
not be waived. Those provisions were ones that gave certain bidders advantages
over other bidders and therefore could not be waived by the City Council at this
time. He therefore proposed that the City Council reject all bids and readvertise
the contract so that all bidders could submit competitive bids on the project.
In the alternative, Mr. Fitch also informed the Council that legal action had
been instituted and a full hearing would be held on the matter on June 7, 1979,
to decide the interpretation of Paragraph Sixteen and, at the least, he urged
the Council to postpone acting on the proposed Resolution for award of contract
so that the matter could be adjudicated by a court of law and, therefore, an
improper award avoided.
Mr. John M. Carmac, Gill and Baldwin, 900 Wilshire Blvd, Los Angeles representing
Steiny and Company, the apparent low bidder, stated that in his fifteen years of
practicing law in representing contractors in public works projects, it was common
to see the type of provision that was present in the City's Instructions to
Bidders. It was also common for contractors in Jobs that involved specialty work
representing a large part of the prime bid, to bid the Jobs both as prime contrac-
tors and subcontractors. In his opinion, the complaint made by Colich and Falcon
was frivolous in this case.
City Attorney William Hopkins stated that the City Engineer submitted a memorandum
giving in detail the various arguments which led them to believe that the claims
that had been made were without merit and the City's position was correct. Mr.
Devitt had certain documents from Berryman and Stephenson Inc. and various other
firms, including Willdan Associates, that refuted the allegations that had been
made.
79-595
~ity Hall, Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - May 29, 1979~ 1:30 P.M.
City Engineer William Devitt stated they were greatly concerned when they receive
the formal protest. He emphasized that the office of the City Engineer had
always been dedicated to competitive bidding. Six days prior to the opening of
the bid, Grissom and Johnson Inc. visited his office and indicated their concern
with certain items, namely the controllers for a proprietary item, and he
immediately issued an addendum to remove those controllers from that particular
item. At that point in time, there was no mention that the monitor or computer
was a sole source item. Grissom and Johnson left his office elated that they
were now able to bid the project competitively. In the documents that he sub-
mitted to the Council with his report of May 23, 1979, there was a mailgram
from Multisonics which indicated they had withdrawn their bid to the other prime
contractors. Deputy City Attorney Malcolm Slaughter and he (Devitt) called
Multisonics, and they indicated that one day prt~or to the bid, they had, in
fact, submitted bids to prime contractors.
Relative to the item in contention being a sole proprietorship, it was their
view that there was no shelf-model of it as it had not yet been constructed.
However, the state of the art was such that any one of a half dozen contractors
could construct that item. Relative to the particular items that had been bid
in the electrical items, the City estimate was $2,710,000 and Steiny's low bid
was $2,158,000. Colich and Falcon, the second low bidder, who interestingly
enough received the sub-bid from Steiny, was $2,150,000, which was actually
$7,900 under the Steiny bid. In the electrical sub-items where Steiny had sub-
mitted a sub, LS Ogg, the City's estimate was $745,000 and Steiny's was $990,000.
Colich and Falcon was also $990,000.
Mr. Devitt then explained that their concern revolved around the fact that they
were now entering the bidding season, and they had made a great effort to get the
job bid out early prior to other major street projects coming down the line.
Most jobs were generally bid out in June in Orange County and they felt strongly
that getting the job out early, they were able to get a much more competitive bid,
than later in the year. Relative to the street aspect of the bid, their
estimate was $1,894,000 and the low bid by Steiny was $2,670,000. The City's
estimate of approximately $8,000,000 was basically within $2,000 of the low bid.
Regarding the various items within the project, such as street improvements,
storm drains, and electrical work, there were substantial variances in those
elements of the work. He reiterated his concern that if the project was not
awarded, that there would be a delay of some 6 to 8 weeks. It was his own
personal view that in all probability the bids would then be substantially
higher, particularly inasmuch as the steet work would now become competitive
with all 6ther projects in Orange County.
Councilman Bay stated he would like to separate the two items they were
discussing, the first being the motion as to whether the Council wished to
interpret the bidding instruction as being one bid as a prime contractor, and
the second, a proposed resolution to award the contract to steiny and Company on
staff advice if they were ready to do so. He had no problem with the first
portion because considering the prime contractor precedence throughout all the
business bidding he had ever seen, there had been many subcontractors who bid
on many prime contracts. It was common in aerospace and in federal bidding.
Therefore, he had no problem with that section at all. His concern was to
make sure that there was no problem relative to the award of contract on
79-596
City Hall~ Anaheim~ ,California - COUNCIL MINUTES r May 29~ 1979~ 1:30 P.M.
whether there was a sole source item involved or not and whether Steiny had
control of the only source of that particular piece of equipment. After the
explanation he had just heard, he had to assume that the piece of equipment in
question was actually a bid not only to supply the equipment, but also to design
or change the design to some existing commercial piece of gear and possibly
involved research and development or some design change. If not totally designed
yet, he did not know how it could be a sole source item because whoever bid to
supply it was going to have to do some degree of design to produce what was
being asked for in the specifications. That would open it up to any electrical
firm in the country that chose to bid to design and supply it. Thus the question
he had relative to a sole source item was now clear, and he had no problem
with either the motion or the resolution upon which they had to make a decision.
Councilman Overholt also indicated that he had no problem regarding the matter.
Councilman Roth asked if the City Attorney had any recommendations at this time.
Mr. Hopkins stated that the allegations that had been made were without merit
and that the Council was free to take whatever action they deemed appropriate, as
recommended by the City Engineer.
The Mayor asked what the possible alternative outcome might be of the SuperiOr
Court case filing.
Mr. Hopkins answered it was it was an Order to Show Cause and it would not in
any way restrain the City from taking action. It would be a matter of the
court hearing the various items that had been mentioned in the petition on
June 7th. However, it was something that would not affect the Council's
judgment today.
MOTION: The Mayor stated he would have to agree with his colleagues, Councilman
Bay and Overholt, who expressed themselves that there was nothing unusual,
incorrect or misappropriated in solicitation of the bids, nor in the process in
which the bids made. The project was extremely important to the community and
there were deadlines to be met. The low bid from Steiny and Company was better
than $300,000 under the next bidder. With all those conditions existing and with
the advice of the City Attorney~ he thereupon offered a motion that relative to
Redevelopment Project Alpha, Phase I, Paragraph Sixteen of the Instruction to
Bidders was interpreted to mean that no Person, firm or corporation may be
interested in more than one bid as a prime contractor and any other interpretation
was considered to be a technical error or discrepency and waived by the City
of Anaheim. Councilman Overholt seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED.
Councilman Seymour offered Resolution No. 79R-300 for adoption awarding a
contract as recommended by the City Engineer. (Refer to Resolution Book)
79-597
City Hal~ Anaheim, California - O0UNCIL MINUTES - May. 29~ 1979~ 1:30 P.M.
161: RESOLUTION NO. 79R-300: 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: DOWNTOWN PROJECT ALPHA (PHASE I) STREET, SEWER, WATER, STORM
DRAIN AND ELECTRICAL IMPROVEMENTS, IN THE CITY OF ANAHEIM, ACCOUNT NOS. 46-792-
6325-2180, 46-792-6325-2190, 46-792-6325-2210, 46-792-6325-2230, 46-792-6325-2240,
46-792-6325-2270, 46-792-6325-2290 and 46-795-6325-5130, (F.Y. 1979-80)
Before a vote was taken, Councilman Bay stated that he would like some back-up
information from staff as to why they had to go to such a sophisticated piece
of equipment; Mr. Devitt stated he would provide that information.
A vote was then taken on the foregoing Resolution.
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. 79R-300 duly passed and adopted.
139/178: PERIPHERAL CANAL LEGISLATION, SB 200: Councilman Bay offered Resolution
No. 79R-301 for adoption as recommended in memorandum dated May 23, 1979 from
the Public Utilities General Manager Gordon Hoyt, supporting Peripheral Canal
Legislation SB 200 as amended May 7, 1979. Refer to Resolution Book.
RESOLUTION NO. 79R-301: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM
SUPPORTING SENATE BILL 200, AS AMENDED MAY 7, 1979, REQUIRING PROMPT CONSTRUCTION
OF THE PERIPHERAL CANAL AND RELATED DELTA FACILITIES.
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. 79R-301 duly passed and adopted.
~23:. ACQUISITION OF A PAYROLL/PERSONNEL SYSTEM: Councilman Overholt offered
Resolution No. 79R-302 for adoption, as recommmnded in memorandum dated May 23,
1979 from Assistant City Manager William Hopkins, approving an agreement with
Wang Laboratories, Inc., for acquisition of a payroll accounting/personnel
management system. Refer to Resolution Book.
RESOLUTION NO. 79R-302: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM
APPROVING THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF AN AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF ANAHEIM
AND WANG LABORATORIES, INC. RELATING TO THE USE OF CERTAIN COMPUTER SYSTEMS AND
AUTHORIZING AND DIRECTING THE ASSISTANT CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE SAID AGREEMENT.
79-598
.City Hall~ Anahaim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - May 29~ 1979~ 1:30 P.M.
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. 79R-302 duly passed and adopted.
139: AB 787 - PROFESSIONAL SPORTS TEAM SITING: Councilwoman Kaywood offered
Resolution No. 79R-303, opposing the passage of AB 787 relating to Professional
Sports Team siting. Refer to Resolution Book.
RESOLUTION NO. 79R-303: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL FO THE CITY OF ANAHEIM
OPPOSING THE PASSAGE OF ASSEMBLY BILL 787 RELATING TO PROFESSIONAL SPORTS TEAM
SITING.
Before a vote was taken, Mayor Seymour stated it was appropriate to note the
following in Mr. Ruth's report, page two. "The passage of AB 787 would commit
this City to a perpetually guaranteed contract, whereby neither the Rams nor
the City would be able to renegotiate, without the consent of the State."
In his opinion, the bill was particularly written to favor some sections of
California at the expense of others, specifically at the expense of the City
of Anaheim.
A vote was then taken on the foregoing Resolution.
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. 79R-303 duly passed and adopted.
130: CABLE TELEVISION: City Manager Talley briefed the Council on the memo-
randum from his office received May 23, 1979, recommending three actions by
the Council relative to the subject (on file in the City Clerk's office).
Councilwoman Kaywood offered Ordinance No. 4015 for first reading.
ORDINANCE NO. 4015: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM GRANTING THE NONEX-
CLUSIVE RIGHT, PRIVILEGE AND FRANCHISE TO LAY AND USE LINES, WIRES, COAXIAL
CABLE AND APPURTENANCES FOR TRANSMITTING, RECEIVING, DISTRIBUTING AND SUPPLY-
ING RADIO, TELEVISION AND OTHER CABLE COMMUNICATION SERVICES ALONG, ACROSS
AND UPON THE PUBLIC STREETS, WAYS, ALLEYS, AND PLACES WITHIN SAID CITY OF ANAHEIM.
Councilwoman Kaywood moved to direct the City Attorney to prepare an ordinance
requiring new developments and subdivisions for residential, multi-family and
mobile homes to provide underground conduit for CATV service, in accordance
with specifications issued by the Public Utilities Department. Councilman
Roth seconded the motion.
79-599
City Hall~ Anaheim~ California - OOUNCIL MINUTES - May 29~ 1979~ 1:30 P.M.
Before a vote was taken, Councilwoman Kaywood also moved to authorize the ~mauance
of a Request for Proposal to qualified CATV operators, to provide CATV service
to the City of Anaheim. Councilman Roth seconded the motion.
Before action was taken on either motion, Councilwoman Kaywood recognized Dr.
Ron Dyas in the Chamber audience.
Dr. Dyas stated that Jim Armstrong, Administrative Aide, Sy Humphries of ALTA,
and the staff of the Utilities Department spent a great deal of time on the
ordinance. They looked at the development of CATV twenty years in the future
to try to provide something in the City, not merely to correct the poor
reception in the Canyon, but also to develop a communication system of the
future. The FCC was now being pressured by Congress to eliminate all regulations
on CATV. Thus the ordinance specified conditions which would keep the system
operating at the state-of-the-art, even if that legislation did occur. The
matter was also presented to HACMAC and a copy of their motion recommending
adoption of the fees under discussion had been submitted to the Council.
Mayor Seymour asked Dr. Dyas, having expertise in the field, if he was totally
satisfied and had no further recommendations; Dr. Dyas answered that they would
have one of the best CATV ordinances in the State of California.
Councilman Roth stated since they were talking about developers being required
to install the conduit for CATV, he wanted to know what the additional cost per
house would be.
Mr. Sy Humphries, Vice President of Engineering for ALTA California Services,
Inc., Menlo Park, stated when installing utilities in a new area, particularly
underground utilities, a trench was dug for the installation of electrical
utilities, telephone etc. called a "common trench". The additional or incremen-
tal cost to add one more conduit for use by CATV was quite low and on a per
house basis would be approximately $100 to $200 in additional costs. The idea
was to install it when the trench was open instead of later when it would be
very expensive, perhaps several hundred times the cost. Councilman Roth asked
if he was suggesting there was going to be a cost to existing property owners
in the area.
Mr. Humphries answered "no"; the installation of all facilities for cable television
would be part of the initial capital costs by the cable operator and that would
be reflected in his rates to the television user. The charge for basic service
would be a $10 to $14 "ballpark" figure per month, depending on the package sub-
mitted by the particular cable operators.
Councilman Roth recommended that staff publish a news release regarding the
status of cable TV for the City, particularly for those people between the
Freeway and Santa Aha Canyon Road who had no television reception and were
still wondering whether it was going to be accomplished this year.
Mayor Seymour suggested that they use the vehicle of the Utilities billing
system to enclose a notice informing the people in the hill and canyon area
of the ~imetable involved.
79-600'
Ci~7.Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - Ma7 29~ 1979~ 1:30 P.M.
Dr. Dyas then explained when they started out, the intent was to serve the
Santa Aha Canyon area which they still wanted to do with great haste. However,
they also wanted to look to the future because they would be limited in the
number of signals they could §et relative to over the air broadcasting and
were trying to provide a communication system. In line with that, he elaborated
developing proposals so that all public buildings in Anaheim would be served
with a two-way system with signals going to and coming from the home,
which he elaborated further. Because of the added features which they were
building into the system, it had taken longer and required more deliberations.
A vote was then taken on the two foregoing motions. MOTION CARRIED.
Mr. Humphries also confirmed for the Mayor such an installation would preclude
any roof mounted antennas to improve reception.
Councilman Overholt noted it appeared they were talking about a Spring start-
up on the project with an approximate six-month implementation period for
completion, or the Fall of 1980.
Mr. HUmphries stated he would expect that the first subscribers would be served
approximately six months after the beginning of construction.
129: PUBLIC FIREWORKS DISPLAY PERMIT: On motion by Councilman Bay, seconded
by Councilman Roth, the application submitted by Walt Disney Productions,
Disneyland Division, to discharge fireworks on June 7, 1979, during the evening,
at the Disneyland Hotel Marina, was approved, as recommended by the Fire Depart-
ment. MOTION CARRIED.
123: ANAHEIM FOUNDATION FOR CULTURE AND THE ARTS - RENEWAL OF LFASE FOR THR
HORACE MANN SCHOOL: Request by Bernard L. Smith, President of the Board of
Directors, Anaheim Foundation for Culture and the Arts, requesting the term
of the lease for the Horace Mann School for use as a Cultural Arts Center be
extended for another ten-year period, was submitted. (continued fromM ay 8 and
15, 1979)
Councilman Overholt stated he understood that Bernard Smith and Steve Natoli
Director of the Cultural Arts Center, made a fine presentation to the Anaheim
City School District Board and it was mutually received with great enthusiasm.
As a former member of the Board, he felt much more positive in voting, knomrlng
that they had total agreement for the extension of the lease for another
ten years.
On motion by Councilman Roth, seconded by Councilman Seymour a vote was
then taken on the motion offered on May 15, 1979 (see minutes that date),
approving the extension of the lease of Horace Mann School for use as a
Cultural Arts Center for another ten-year period. MOTION CARRIED.
150: CANYON SITE TO PROPOSED PARK: Mr. Murray Zoota, President of Canyon
Hills Soccer Association, stated he was present to point out a dire need of
the community in the way of park facilities. He then presented a map of
the Anaheim Hills area showing the areas of concentration of children who
were participants in the soccer program. He noted they had one facility
79-601
City Hall, Anaheimm California - COUN.QI~ MINUTES - May 29m 1979, 1:30 P.M.
where sports-type activities could be held, and that was Peralta Park. At
present, they were experiencing difficulty in having to share that facility
with football and other sports. He emphasized there was not enough park
space in the area and therefore it was important to have the proposed park
on Canyon Site II developed. It would be a large plus because many of the partic-
ipants could walk to the field as substantiated by the map. He maintained
that they could not find a more ideal location for a park than the proposed
site and thus he urged the Council to appropriate funds and develop the park
as soon as possible at least by the following year. He had a good rapport with
all other community sports groups in the area and could show the Council ~heir
total support if need be, since they expressed total agreement relative to the
development of that site. He noted earlier in the meeting that the Council
approved the solicitation of proposals from architectural firms for the
design of Canyon Site II and John Marshall Parks and asked that they be a part
of at least the input in getting the parks designed relative to their needs.
Mayor Seymour asked if Mr. Zoota had discussed the matter with Mr. Ruth, Deputy
City Manager, and with the Parks and Recreation Commission or the Sports Council.
Mr. Zoota explained that he had spoken with Mr. Ruth who had been totally co-
operative, but not with the Sports Council. He wanted to get involved before
approval of budgeting for the coming year. He did meet with HACMAC and a copy
of a resolution from them should have been submitted to the Council. Mr. Ruth
explained to him (Zoota) that the Council had to appropriate $110,000 towards
the park site in order to start receiving some matching funds. Other questions
were also discussed such as the disposition of in-lieu fees in the canyon.
Councilwoman Kaywood pointed out that in Anaheim Hills, developers were donating
land rather than paying the in-lieu fees. The total fees received were $50,000
and the amount expended $2.3 million. Even though they had to wait their turn
to use Peralta Canyon Park, she was not certain whether they would have had
it, if Mr. Ruth did not acquire the necessary grants, and the park not taken
ahead of priority and built.
Mayor Seymour stated that the Council had received Mr. Zoota's message, that
being the need for soccer fields, ideally at Canyon Site II, and even though
not this year, possibly next year, and that it was necessary to have $110,000
appropriated in order to obtain matching grants.
Mr. Zoota then submitted to the Council signatures on petitions supporting the
request.
Mr. James Ruth, Deputy City Manager, stated one of the things requested from
the Council Contingency budget was $110,000 to initiate some development at
the site. Representatives from the State Department of Parks and Recreation
had toured the site and they had some funding remaining from Proposition 2
and he would be recommending to the Council, allocation of approximately $150,000
of those funds toward development. They were also working with Supervisor
Clark's office asking for $100,000 in County Revenue Shartng moneywhich would
be matched should the Council allocate money out of the Council Contingency
Fund. Design could be initiated this year if the Council in their final budget
deliberations came forward with the funding, with possible start of construc-
tion depending upon the availability of funds. Thus it was a three-point
program with the County, the State and the City.
79-602
City Hall~ Anah~im~ California -. COUNCIL MINUTES.- May 29~ 1979, 1:30 P.M.
Councilman Overholt asked if the matter had been presented to the Park and
Recreation Commission.
Mr. Ruth stated the problem was reviewed with the Commission at the last meeting,
indicating that staff would be recommending to the City Council the employment
of architectural firms to begin design of the two projects and that funding was
being pursued on both John Marshall and Canyon Site II. Mr. Zoota had not had
an opportunity to appear before the Commission to make known his wishes. One
of the representatives on the Commission was also a member of HACMAC, and she
was in attendance when Mr. Zoota made the presentation to HACMAC.
Councilman Overholt stated that the Park and Recreation Commission was the
proper body before which citizen expression should be taken first. Having
been a member of the Commission, they had a number of groups who made the
same complaint. He maintained it was important to appear before the Commission,
because while Mr. Zoota was concerned with his end of the City, there were
all other areas to be considered, and the Commission geographically represented
the entire City of Anaheim. He requested that Mr. Zoota present his thoughts
to that Commission.
Mr. Zoota stated he was scheduled to speak before the Commission on the third
Wednesday in June, but was trying to get the wheels in motion as the budget was
being considered. The Mayor then returned Mr. Zoota's petition to him for
presentation to the Commission.
City Manager Talley noted that the budget would possibly be adopted before the
June 27th Commission meeting, but there was a major amount that the Council
would be prioritizing for capital improvements, and an adjustment could be made
accordingly.
Councilman Overholt stated Mr. Talley was suggesting there was a fund that could
be a source of capital expenditures if they chose to use it for that purpose. It
might be that they would not act on that fund by June 30, 1979.
Mr. Talley explained further that by the end of the month, they would have
received the $1.5 million of this year's bail-out money. He did not believe
that would be available by the time the budget was adopted. Thus the Council
on a contingency basis might allocate that for some purpose such as capital
projects and then prioritize as funds became available.
Councilwoman Kaywood stated that the Park and Recreation Commission met last
Wednesda~ Earlier in the meeting, the Council authorized the Department
to solicit proposals for design of Canyon Site II and John Marshall Parks. The
question of fairness for the entire City was raised and the consensus was that
Mr. Ruth had done a fine Job of balancing the needs both in the east, west and
central portions of the City.
In closing, the Mayor encouraged Mr. Zoota to present his request to the Park
and Recreation Commission meeting on June 27, 1979 for a positive recommendation
and that the Council would subsequently discuss allocation of capital improvement
funding for the project.
79-603
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - May 29~ 1979~ 1:30 P.M.
REQUEST FOR REHEARING - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 1923: Mr. Floyd Farano,
attorney representing the applicant of the subject CUP, stated he assumed the
Council had received the affidavit dated May 17, 1979, requesting reconsideration.
His understanding was that the Planning Department was in the process of making
recommendations concerning commercial-retail in the industrial zone.
It was their intent to participate in the proceedings by the Planning Commission
and if the Council granted the rehearing, they would direct their participation
toward treating the overall problem which they did not devote time to at the
last hearing (see minutes of May 15, 1979).
Miss Santalahti explained for the Mayor the earliest those recommendations
were going to be presented to the Planning Commission was in four weeks and
that 90 days would be a reasonable period within which to rehear the subject
CUP, as further suggested by the Mayor.
MOTION: Councilman Roth moved to approve the request for a rehearing in 90
days. Councilman Overholt seconded the motion.
Before a vote was taken, Councilman Bay stated that in reading Mr. Farano's
affidavit, he had a few concerns relative to some of the assumptions in the
letter. To his recollection, the situation was not only limited to CUP No. 1923,
Curtis Furniture, but also included Mooney Carpets, Crystal Ceramic's, Orange
County Furniture Gallery and Ron's Bars and Stools as stipulated at the May 15,
1979 hearing. He contended that the letter should have shown that they were in
fact talking about five businesses and not one. An additional concern was that
Mr. Farano stressed the point he was not aware of the Chamber's position because
of a letter that was not read into the record at the hearing. Councilman Bay
then relayed some of the history of the problems in that area for purposes of
clarification, starting with his letter to the Council in June 1978 describing
what he foresaw as a problem developing in the industrial area. The problem of
commercial encroachment in the industrial zone was also subsequently discussed
by the Chamber's Industrial Committee, with a position letter being issued by
the Chamber September 14, 1978, and at the November 5, 1978 work session with
the Planning Commission and the Chamber's Industrial Committee, which Mr. Farano
attended, the joint meeting of the City Council, Planning Commission, Housing'
and Redevelopment Commissions, December 19, 1978, the January 25, 1979 letter
from the Redevelopment Commission to the Chamber stating they could spend
Redevelopment money to do a study on the problem, but could not do so relative
to enforcement of the zoning ordinances in the Industrial area, the March 5,
1979 Redevelopment and Planning Commissions' joint workshop, which Mr. Farano
also attended, and the May 15, 1979 hearing on CUP No. 1923.
He was not going to oppose a rehearing, but he believed Mr. Fara~o's letter
using no knowledge of the Chamber's position was not very credible, considering
the history on the discussion of the problem. He was interested in the problem
being approached and resolved as much as Mr. Farano. If 90 days was adequate
time, he wanted to see the problem again approached at the Planning Commission,
Planning Department, Redevelopment Commission and perhaps the Anaheim Economic
Development Corporation, along with any help they could get to resolve the
problem of commercial uses within Industrial areas which supported industrial
and did not cause any problems for it. As well, there were a number of stip-
ulations made during the May 15, 1979 hearing that he wanted to see stipulated
to from the five businesses during the period of time they were going to defer
79-604
City Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - May 29~ 1979,~ 1:30 P.M.
the hearing. The stipulations included outside sales, paper window sale signs,
flags, etc.
Mr. Farano first apologized for any misleading statements in his affidavit due
perhaps to the lack of a clear explanation. However, his statement was that
he had no idea of the position of the Chamber opposing the application, but
his intention was that he did not have any idea of the Chamber's position on
the specific application. He was openly and overwhelmingly aware of the
Chamber's position as far as commercial intrusion into the Industrial zone.
It was not true that he did not know of it, but he emphasized he was speaking
of the particular application involved. He also clarified they would be hearing
information on all five businesses, and he had discussed the matter with staff
and the City Attorney's office to determine if a separate CUP would not only
be appropriate, but also necessary. His presentation would be for the benefit
of all five businesses because they were all included in the property, rather
than five separate hearings.
Relative to the stipulations made, those would continue and perhaps in the
meantime they could think of things that would make the project more acceptable.
Whatever further presentation they would make, would be subject to the same
stipulations as in the past.
Mayor Seymour stated that incumbent in the foregoing motion should be a joint
meeting with the City Council, Planning Commission and Redevelopment Commission
when the Planning staff and the Planning Commission were prepared to make
those recommendations to try and solve the problem of commercial uses within
Industrial areas; Councilman Roth was agreeable to the stipulation.
A vote was then taken on the foregoing motion, including the setting of a joint
meeting as articulated, and reaffirming that the 15 stipulations made by the
applicant at the meeting of May 15, 1979 be adhered to in the interim period.
MOTION CARRIED.
RECESS: By general consent, the Council recessed for 10 minutes. (2:55 P.M.)
AFTER RECESS: Mayor Seymour called the meeting to order, all Council Members being
present. (3:05 P.M.)
161.123: JOINT PUBLIC HEARING WITH THE REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY - PROPOSED PARTICI
PATION AGREEMT~ SANTA FE LAND IMPROVEMENT COMPANY: A proposed participation
agreement with the Santa Fe Land Improvement Company for sale and development
of certain real property located on the northeasterly corner of Hancock Place
and La Palma Avenue within Redevelopment Project Alpha, was submitted.
The Community Redevelopment Commission, at their regular meeting held May 23,
1979, approved the Owner Participation Agreement by and between Santa Fe Land
Improvement Company and the Anaheim Redevelopment Agency, and recommended that
the City Council and the Redevelopment Agency approve environmental impact
findings necessary for the proposed Participation Agreement, determining that
the development does not require the preparation of an Environmental Impact
Report, approve the sale and development of subject property, make certain
findings with respect to the consideration to be received by the Redevelopment
Agency pursuant to the Participation Agreement, and approve said agreement and
authorize the execution and implementation thereof.
79-605
City Hall~ AD. aheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - May 29.~ 1979~ 1:30 P.M.
Executive Director Norman J. Priest briefed the contents of his report dated
May 23, 1979, describing negotiations between Redevelopment Agency staff and
Santa Fe Land Improvement Company staff, and the resulting Participation
Agreement as proposed, which would allow dedication of necessary land by Santa
Fe Land Improvement Company, certain transfers to square out existing Santa
Fe property,, and a procedure to be established by which the Agency would assist
Santa Fe Land Improvement Company to obtain certain land from the Santa Fe
Railroad.
Chairman/Mayor Seymour asked if any member of the public wished to address
the Redevelopment Agency/City Council; there being no response, he declared
the Joint public hearing closed.
Councilman Roth offered Resolution No. 79R-305 for adoption. Refer to
Resolution Book.
RESOLUTION NO. 79R-305: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM
CERTIFYING THE INITIAL STUDY WITH RESPECT TO THE PROPOSED PARTICIPATION AGREEMENT
BETWEEN THE ANAHEIM REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY AND SANTA FE LAND IMPROVEMENT COMPANY;
FINDING THAT THE CONSIDERATION FOR THE SALE OF THE PROPERTY THEREUNDER IS NOT
LESS THAN FAIR MARKET VALUE IN ACCORDANCE WITH COVENANTS AND CONDITIONS GOVERN-
ING SUCH SALE; AND APPROVING THE SALE OF SUCH PROPERTY AND SAID PARTICIPATION
AGREEMENT.
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. 79R-305 duly passed and adopted.
Agency Member Roth offered Resolution Nos. ARA79-47 and ARA79-48 for adoption.
Refer to Resolution Book.
RESOLUTION NO. ARA79-47: A RESOLUTION OF THE ANAHEIM REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY
APPROVING AN INITIAL STUDY AND FINDING AND DETERMINING THAT A SUBSEQUENT
ENVIRDNMENTAL IMPACT REPORT NEED NOT BE PREPARED FOR THE PROPOSED SALE OF
CERTAIN REAL PROPERTY AND THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT OF SUCH REAL PROPERTY IN
THE REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT ALPHA PROJECT AREA.
RESOLUTION NO. ARA79-48: A RESOLUTION OF TEE ANAHEIM REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY
APPROVING THE PROPOSED SALE OF REAL PROPERTY IN REDEVELOPMENT PRDJECT ALPHA;
APPROVING THE PROPOSED PARTICIPATION AGREEMENT PERTAINING THERETO; AND AUTHOR-
IZING THE EXECUTION OF SAID PARTICIPATION AGREEMENT.
Roll Call Vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
AGENCY MEMBERS:
AGENCY MEMBERS:
AGENCY MEMBERS:
Overholt, Kaywood, Bay, Roth and SeymoUr
None
None
Chairman Seymour declared Resolution Nos. ARA79-47 and ARA79-48 duly passed
and adopted.
79-606
City Hall, Anahelm~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - May 29~ 1979~ 1:30 P.M.
107: CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING - HOUSE MOVING PERMIT: Application by Jess O.
Ybarra, requesting to move a 5-unit apartment building from its present location
at 206 North Claudina Street to 328 South Vine Street, was submitted. (continued
from May 15, 1979).
City Clerk Linda Roberts reported that a request for withdrawal of the House
Moving Permit application had been submitted by the applicant dated May 22, 1979.
On motion by Councilman Roth, seconded by Councilwoman Kaywood, the withdrawal
of the subject request was approved. MOTION CARRIED.
Before concluding, Councilman Roth acknowledged a woman in the Chamber audience
who wanted to address the Council relative to being kept advised as to what
would happen with the property.
A woman in the Chamber audience asked if Mr. Ybarra changed his mind, would they
be notified.
The Mayor confirmed that they would be notified and that the action today would
end the consideration of the request to move a 5-unit apart~nent building to
328 South Vine Street.
Councilwoman Kaywood noted that she had requested a staff report at last week's
meeting relative to investigating the condition of the building that was now
existing on the property, and she wanted that to continue.
106: CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING - BUDGET: To consider the proposed 1979-80
Resource Allocation Plan (continued from May 22, 1979).
Mayor Seymour asked if any member of the public wished to speak to the proposed
1979-80 budget; there being no response, he closed the public hearing.
On motion by Councilwoman Kaywood, seconded by Councilman Overholt, public
hearing on the 1979-80 proposed Resource Allocation Plan was continued one
week. MOTION CARRIED.
176: PUBLIC HEARING - ABANDONMENT NO. 78-28A: In accordance with application
filed by the Anaheim Redevelopment Agency, public hearing was held on proposed
abandonment of a portion of Lincoln Avenue, Lemon Street, Clementine Street
and all of those certain public alleys lying between Anaheim Boulevard and
the proposed realignment of Clementine Street and between Oak Street and the
new alignment of Lincoln Avenue, pursuant to Resolution No. 79R-264, duly
published in the Anaheim Bulletin and notices thereof posted in accordance
with law.
Report of the City Engineer dated April 19, 1979, and a recommendation by the
Planning Commission were submitted, recommending approval of said abandonment,
subject to the following conditions:
I. Reserving unto the City of Anaheim public utility easements, including but
not limited to, sanitary sewer and storm drain purposes together with all rea-
sonable rights of ingress and egress.
79-607
City Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - May 29.~. 1979~ 1:30 P.M.
2. Reserving unto the Pacific Telephone Co. a public utility easement to con-
struct, place, operate, inspect, maintain, repair, replace and remove such
aerial and underground telephone, telegraph and communication structures as
the Company may from time to time require, consisting of poles, anchors, wires,
cables, conduits, manholes, markers and necessary fixtures and appurtenances.
The reservation to said Pacific Telephone Co. is subject to the prior right of
the easement reserved unto the City of Anaheim.
3. Reserving therefrom a public utility easement unto the Southern California
Gas Company.
The reservation to said Gas Company is subject to the prior rights of the
easement reserved unto the City of Anaheim.
The Mayor asked if anyone wished to address the Council; there being no reponse,
he closed the public hearing.
ENVIBDNMENTAL IMPACT REPORT - CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION: On motion by Councilman
Overholt, seconded by Councilwoman Kaywood, the City Council ratified the det-
ermination 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 and EIR. Councilman Roth abstained. MOTION
CARRIED.
Councilman Seymour offered Resolution No. 79R-306 for adoption, approving
Abandonment No. 78-28A, subject to the recommendations of the Planning Commission.
Refer to Resolution Book.
RESOLUTION NO. 79R-306: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM
ORDERING THE VACATION AND ABANDONMENT OF PORTIONS OF LINCOLN AVENUE, LEMON STREET,
CLEMENTINE STREET AND CERTAIN PUBLIC ALLEYS. (78-28A)
Roll Call Vote:
AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Overholt, Kaywood, Bay and Seymour
NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: None
ABSTAINED: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Roth
ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: None
The Mayor declared Resolution No. 79R-306 duly passed and adopted.
PUBLIC HEARING - YELLOW CAB COMPANY RATE INCREASE: Application by Larry Slagle,
Yellow Cab Company, for proposed rate changes for taxicabs as follows: (a) $1.00
for the first 1/5 mile, (b) $.20 for each additional 1/5 mile, (c) $9.00 per hour
waiting time and traffic delay.
The Mayor asked if anyone wished to speak either in favor or in opposition;
there being no response he closed the public hearing.
79-608
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - May. 29,. 1979~ 1:30 P.M.
Councilman Bay questioned what he calculated to be a 36% increase from the
present proposed rates for one-quarter of a mile or 18% a year and a 20% increase
for each additional one-quarter mile or 10% a year. He was concerned over the
fact that even though the last rate increase took place in March 1977, the
requested increase in rates was considerably higher than the inflation factors
for those two years.
Mr. Larry Slagle, Vice President of Yellow Cab Company of Northern Orange County,
stated Councilman Bay was correct; however, they were as much discouraged by the
increase in gasoline costs and insurance costs which were considerably over the
normal inflation factor as well. Although they did have the rate increase in
1977, it was also true that prior to that they went for 10 years without an
increase because they were able to bank on volume. Having to raise their
rates at this point would have an impact on them in that they would be losing
a certain amount of ridership. They would rather increase their volume than
rates, but at this point, it was impossible to do so.
Councilman Bay stated that there were a number of people working in Anaheim who
were being held to the President's guideline of 7% on wage increases particularly
in the area of government contracts, and he was trying to resolve how he could
go along with an 18% increase. He then referred to the data submitted, wherein
there was a discussion of increases that had taken place in other cities, but
Mr. Slagle did not show the percentage of business volume done in Anaheim vs.
the volume in those other cities. He questioned Mr. Slagle relative to that
percentage.
Mr. Slagle answered that in terms of the other 14 cities approximately 35% of
the taxicab operation was in the City of Anaheim.
Councilman Bay then asked with that kind of volume, why the same rate increase
was proposed for all cities, suggesting that there should be a better price rate
in Anaheim because of the larger volume.
Mr. Slagle answered that ideally that would be favorable, except they had to
operate with a meter and, in effect, they would be subsidizing those areas with
lesser demand.
The Mayor stated he shared Councilman Bay's concerns, but the business of offering
taxicab services had unique expenditures and under unique conditions required
different action, and thus he would support the proposed rate increase.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT - NEGATIVE DECLARATION: On motion by Councilman
Roth, seconded by Councilman Overholt, it was determined that the proposed
rate increases appear to be in line with other price increases and consequently
any effect on the volume or distribution of various modes of transportation
would be minimal; therefore the environmental impact would not be significant
and the project would be exempt from the requirement to file an EIR. MOTION
CARRIED.
Councilman Roth offered Resolution No. 79R-307 for adoption. Refer to Resolution
Book.
79-609
City Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - May 29~ 1979~ 1:30 P.M.
RESOLUTION NO. 79R-307: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM
GRANTING A RATE INCREASE TO YELLOW CAB COMPANY OF NORTHERN ORANGE COUNTY, INCOR-
PORATED, FOR TAXI SERVICE IN THE CITY OF ANAHEIM.
Roll Call Vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
COUNCIL MEMBERS: Overholt, Kaywood, Bay, Roth and Seymour
COUNCIL MEMBERS: None
COUNCIL MEMBERS:~ None
The Mayor declared Resolution No. 79R-307 duly passed and adopted.
173: PUBLIC HEARING - LOZANO TAXI CAB SERIVCE RATE INCREASE: Application by
Manuel Lozano, Lozano Taxi Cab Service, for proposed rate changes for taxicabs
as follows: (a) $1.00 for the first 1/5 mile, (b) $.20 for each additional
1/5 mile, (c) $10.00 per hour waiting time and traffic delay.
The Mayor asked if anyone wished to speak on the matter in favor or in oppostion;
there being no response he closed the public hearing.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT - NEGATIVE DECLARATION: On motion by Councilman
Roth, seconded by Councilman Overholt, it was determined that the proposed
rate increases appear to be in line with other price increases and consequently
any effect on the volume or distribution of various modes of transportation
would be minimal; therefore the environmental impact would not be significant
and the project would be exempt for the requirement to file an EIR. MOTION
CARRIED.
Councilman Roth offered a resolution for adoption increasing the rates for
Lozano Taxi Cab Service as requested.
Before action was taken, Councilwoman Kaywood stated if their concern before
had been and was now for the residents and visitors to the City, they were
faced with a serious situation with regard to the rate structure requested.
Originally Mr. Lozano asked to be able to provide a taxi cab service because
there was a need, and ever since he started business, they had been deluged with
complaints by him relative to competition. Now his request for a surcharge
was very disconcerting. In addition to the proposed increase in regular
rates, a surcharge was being requested for calls more than five miles from
the operational center of $1.00 for five to ten miles; $2.00 for ten to fifteen
miles and $3.00 for more than fifteen miles as well as $10.00 per hour for
waiting time and traffic delay, as opposed to Yellow Cab Company's request
of $9.00 per hour. She wanted to know how the customer would be informed of
the surcharge proposed.
Mr. Manual Lozano, Jr., Lozano Taxi Cab Service, stated they would tell the
customer over the telephone of the surcharge and they would put a circle over
the areas that would be covered by that charge.
After further questioning by Councilwoman Kaywood, the Mayor stated a material
question was why Lozano Taxi Cab Company would expect the City Council to grant
a rate different than that of Yellow Cab and what special conditions would they
operate under that justified their requested traffic delay rate.
79-610
City Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - May 29~ 1979~ 1:30 P.M.
Mr. Lozano stated it would help offset the loss they had the previous year, but
otherwise, there was no reason that would Justify the higher rate.
Councilman Seymour thereupon offered Resolution No. 79R-308 for adoption, approving
the requested rate increase of Lozano Taxi Cab Service consistent with the Yellow
Cab Company rate increases reducing the $10.00 per hour waiting time and traffic
delay to $9.00; Councilman Roth withdrew his resolution. Refer to Resolution
Book.
RESOLUTION NO. 79R-308: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM
GRANTING A RATE INCREASE TO LOZANO TAXICAB SERVICE, FOR TAXI SERVICE IN THE CITY
OF ANAHEIM.
Before a vote was taken, both Councilman Bay and Councilwoman Kaywood asked
for clarification that the resolution also included the elimination of the
proposed surcharge of $1.00, $2.00 and $3.00 for calls more than five miles
from their operational center.
Mayor Seymour answered "yes" and reiterated he wanted rates to apply to Lozano
Cab Company equally as to Yellow Cab Company.
Councilwoman Kaywood wanted to be certain that Mr. Lozano understood that no
surcharge would be allowed.
Councilman Overholt stated he would support the substitute resolution, but
questioned staff that since two different sets of rates were proposed, how
could they have stated in their staff report that the proposed rate increases
appeared to be in line with other price increases?
Mr. Joel Fick, Assistant Director of Planning, explained in the staff report
they were looking at the individual percentage increases and they did not
appear to be a significant difference.
Mr. Bob Kelley, Assistant Planner, stated that the cumulative increase was
approximately 11% to 12%. The surcharge was entirely separate, and they did
not take that into consideration.
Councilwoman Kaywood asked Mr. Lozano if they were going to be able to operate
under the proposed rate with no surcharge and $9.00 an hour waiting time and
traffic delay charge.
Mr. Lozano answered that they should Just abodt break even.
Councilman Overholt stated if a particular cab company was rendering a special
service other cab companies did not render, that would be a basis for consider-
ation. However, both companies were rendering identical service and therefore
there was no reason for either to operate under a different rate structure. If
Lozano Taxi Cab Company felt they should have special treatment, they should
develop a.special service.
A vote was then taken on the foregoing resolution.
79-61]
City Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - May 29, 1979~ 1:30 P.M.
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. 79R-308 duly passed and adopted.
121: HEARING - CONDEMNATION - ELECTRIC UTILITY SUBSTATION SITE: To consider
the finding and determination of public interest and necessity for acquiring and
authorizing condemnation of certain real property located at the east side of
Fairmont Boulevard, 660 feet, more or less, south of Santa Aha Canyon Road,
as required for an electrical utility substation site.
Mr. Matt Boscia, Senior Real Property Representative, stated that in the
afternoon mail, he received an offer of acceptance from the attorney of
the property owners, and thus was requesting that the subject item be withdrawn
since it was no longer necessary.
On motion by Councilman Roth, seconded by Councilman Bay, the subject condem-
nation hearing was withdrawn. MOTION CARRIED.
175: REVISION OF RATES~ RULES AND REGULATIONS - SWIMMING POOL OFF-PRAK FILTRATION:
Councilwoman Kaywood offered Resolution No. 79R-309 for adoption as recommended
in memorandum dated May 18, 1979 from the Public Utilities Board, approving a
revision to the rates, rules and regulations pertaining to swimming pool off-peak
filtration. Refer to Resolution Book.
RESOLUTION NO. 79R-309: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM
AMENDING THE RATES, RULES AND REGULATIONS FOR THE SALE AND DISTRIBUTION OF
ELECTRIC ENERGY AS ADOPTED BY CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION NO. 71R-478 AND AMENDED
BY CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION NOS. 73R-25, 73R-373, 73R-531, 74R-75, 74R-630, 75R-243,
75R-344, 75R-345, 76R-41, 76R-377, 76R-528 76R-817 77R-464 77R-628, 78R-458
AND 78R-655. ' ' '
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. 79R-309 duly passed and adopted.
123: AMENDMENT TO AGREEMENT WITH LAW FIRM OF SPIEGEL AND MCDIARMID: Councilman
Overholt offered Resolution No. 79R-310 for adoption, approving an amendment to
the agreement, revising their fee schedule as recommended by the Public Utilities
Board. Refer to Resolution Book.
RESOLUTION NO. 79R-310: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM
APPROVING THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF A SECOND AMENDMENT TO AGP~EHENT BETWEEN THE
CITY OF ANAHEIM AND SPIEGEL & MCDIARMID, AND AUTHORIZING THE PUBLIC UTILITIES
GENERAL MANAGER TO EXECUTE SAID AMENDMENT ON BEH~F OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM.
79-612
City Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - May 29~ 1979~ 1:30 P.M.
Councilman Roth asked how the proposed fees compared with those requested by
Alan Watts, Special Counsel.
Mr. Gordon Hoyt, Public Utilities General Manager, answered that they were generally
higher than Mr. Watts' proposal by approximately $5.00 per hour.
Councilman Roth noted that Spiegel and McDiarmid (S&M) had been increasing their
fees over time and although he was part of turning down Mr. Watts' request for
an increase in fees, he had second thoughts about penalizing him for not asking
for increases on a timely basis. When he finally requested the increase, it
was a large percentage.
Mayor Seymour stated he was going to vote against the proposed resolution because
he did not think the City should have to pay rates and increases of the type
requested when they were doing a volume business with a firm. If they were work-
ing on a one-time basis he would expect to pay the going rate, but they had
ongoing relationships with S&M. With due respect to the legal industry, he
maintained there had to be a volume discount and he would oppose the increase
under that type of relationship.
Mr. Hoyt explained that Mr. George Spiegel of S&M considered that the services
rendered to the City were such if rendered by a different law firm, would be
at a considerably higher price. He was mindful that he was dealing with public
agencies, thus kept his rates on the low side and if a comparison of fees were
made of similar law firms operating in the same arena, that the fees would be
considerably higher.
Mayor Seymour stated perhaps making a comparison was what they had to do and
since they had never gone out to bid on legal fees as confirmed by Mr. Hoyt,
he suggested that they might do so. He then asked Mr. Hoyt how much money
they had paid to S&M over the last two or three years.
Mr. Hoyt estimated approximatley $200,000 as they had gone through a number
of rate cases. He pointed out however that in the anti-trust case, S&M was
handling that at a reduced fee with a contingency provision. If successful,
it would be an increased benefit to them; if not, there would be none.
Mayor Seymour stated he would support a 7% increase but was going to oppose
anything above that. If that was not satisfactory to S&M, he suggested that
they send out a request for proposal to solicit fees from other legal firms
and in that process, might find that S&M was deserving of everything they
were asking for.
Councilman Overholt stated the Mayor's philosophy was similar to one he might
have in putting out to bid what surgeon he would hire to operate on his wife.
In the retention of legal services, someone had to be in a position to Judge
as to what attorney or firm of attorneys were best qualified to do the particular
Job at hand. As he stated before, he felt that the Council treated Mr. Watts'
firm shabbily when it took negative action on his request for a fee increase
after three years. If they were going to go out to bid on hiring of attorneys
or experts that, to him, represented a substantial change in philosophy from
what he understood the philosophy of the City to be particularly in the area
of legal services. To make a play over a $5.00 an hour increase was not in
the best interest of the City, and he would support his own resolution.
79-613
City Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - May 29~ 1979~ 1:30 P.M.
Mayor Seymour stated he was not changing a policy stating that an award would
go to the low bidder, but that a request for proposal would insure the City and
the taxpayer of the lowest posssible legal fees, consistent with quality repre-
sentation. Since the City and taxpayers were paying hundreds of thousands of
dollars for legal fees, it seemed reasonable to now shop for those services if
S&M was not willing to accept the limit of a 7% increase.
Councilman Overhoit was of the opinion that the fees requested were reasonable.
The General Manager of Public Utilities had worked with them since 1971, and the
PUB recommended that they grant the $5.00 per hour increase. He repeated they
were making a big play over something that could ultimately be injurious to the
City. In prior selections of attorneys during his tenure, the Council had attempted
to get the law firm that could best do the job at that particular time. Other
law firms had come in with rates substantially in excess of S&M.
The Mayor stated he felt equally as strong about other professional services
and, therefore, he was suggesting that they be equally concerned with the
taxpayer dollar when attorneys fees were involved Just as with engineers,
architects, etc. It did not necessarily mean that the lowest bid be accepted,
but the lowest qualified bidder, someone with expertise who could do the job.
Councilwoman Kaywood was of the opinion that after having worked with a firm
for eight years, to bid the work out in order to find someone cheaper, that
firm would have to start at the ground floor and work more hours in background
research. Thus the City would have to pay them for many hours, thus increasing
the cost for more than the added $5.00 an hour.
The Mayor asked Mr. Hoyt if he attempted to negotiate the fee downward.
Mr. Hoyt answered that he reviewed with them the status of all litigation and
what efforts they needed to make in order to be successful in all of the
arenas they were presently working in. He made it plain that they needed a
low budget figure and that was one of the reasons S&M indicated the increase
for their other clients was effective April 1979, but would not take effect
in Anaheim until July 1979 in view of the current budget arrangements. He
did not specifically indicate that, instead of the proposed rate, it should
be something less. A vote was then taken on the foregoing Resolution.
Roll Call Vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
Overholt, Kaywood and Roth
Bay and Seymour
None
The Mayor declared Resolution No. 79R-310 duly passed and adopted.
123: JAMES M. MONTGOMERY CONSULTING ENGINeeRS; INC.: Recommendation by the
Public Utilities Board that the Council approve an agreement with James M.
Montgomery Consulting Engineers, Inc., for services in connection with the
design of a two-million gallon reservoir at the Lenain Filtration Plant, was
submitted.
79-614
City Hall~ Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - May 29, 1979, 1:30 P.M.
Councilman Roth offered Resolution No. 79R-311 for adoption as recommended in
memorandum dated May 22, 1979 from the Public Utilities Board. Refer to Resolu-
tion Book.
RESOLUTION NO. 79R-311: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM
APPROVING THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF AN AGREEMENT FOR ENGINEERING SERVICES WITH
JAMES M. MONTGOMERY CONSULTING ENGINEERS, INC., AND AUTHORIZING AND DIRECTING
THE MAYOR AND CITY CLERK TO EXECUTE SAID AGREEMENT.
Before a vote was taken, Mayor Seymour asked that since a $49,000 fee was
involved, why the job was not put out to bid.
Mr. Ray Auerbach, Water Engineering Manager, explained that in November and
December 1978 they requested proposals from three engineering firms regarding
the site study and ultimately the design of the facility. At that time, they
decided that Montgomery was best qualified to do the work and awarded them
the site study project. Montgomery's quotation was the highest and the Council
subsequently approved the hiring of that firm for the site study. They still
felt Montgomery was the best qualified, and they did not solicit additional
proposals. They reviewed the proposed fee with them and determined if it was
a reasonable one based upon the percentage of construction costs. They also
reviewed the amount of hours proposed to be spent on the project, as well as
other questions The facility was one of the most urgent needs to provide water
in the canyon area. Because Montgomery was so familiar with the project, having
done the site study, they felt it was in the best interest of the City to maintain
continuity from the study project into the design aspect.
Mayor Seymour wanted to know if there was something unusual about the filtra-
tion plant so that it required special engineering.
Mr. Auerbach answered there was nothing unusual, but he reiterated M~ntgomery
had the knowledge and could do the Job quicker than anyone else that would have
to get up to speed on the project. The project manager who was working with
Montgomery resigned approximately two months ago and essentially Montgomery
knew more about the project than some of the staff. When they chose the firm
the main reason for doing so was because they were much more qualified.
Mayor Seymour stated the point that was most disconcerting to him was the fact
that he voted for the high bid in the site stage and now that high bid decision
had dominoed into the proposal now before them.
Mr. Auerbach stated it did not matter because whoever they picked if they
did a good Job, that firm would have been recommended. He reiterated it was
beneficial to have the continuity with one engineer proceeding from the
site study into the design phase.
Mayor Seymour questioned why they did not inform the Council initially that they
were going to be looking down the road at a $49,000 or $50,000 contract and the
firm chosen at the outset would be recommended if they did a good Job on the
site study.
79-615
City Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES ~ May .29~ 1979; 1:.~0 P.M.
Mr. Auerbach said they had done so in the past, but they had no idea of the type
of reservoir that they would be building and on what site, and thus it could have
made a great difference in design costs.
Mayor Seymour emphasized that if Mr. Auerbach could tell him that it was a very
unusual project and the only firm who could handle the job and do it right was
Montgomery, he would consider the recommendation favorably, but Mr. Auerbach
had not done so.
Mr. Auerbach stated that he did not believe they would gain anything by requesting
other proposals, and they would lose time and the knowledge gained by the people
now working for them.
The Mayor stated the job should be publicly bid and thus he would vote against
the present recommendation.
Further discussion and questioning followed between the Council and Mr. Auerbach,
at the conclusion of which Councilman Overholt asked, going back to December of
1978 when Montgomery was originally approved for the site study, how could they
have handled the matters differently to avoid the problem they were now faced
with.
Mayor Seymour stated they should have been told they were not merely voting on
a $15,000 item (site study), but that inherent in their decision would follow a
$54,200 decision. Everything should be up front at the outset to preclude a
domino effect at a later date. If he had known what was to occur, he probably
would have voted "no" initially.
Mr. Auerbach then explained for Councilman Overholt if the proposed action were
not approved today, it would cause a four- to six-week delay in the RFP going to
the Public Utilities Board and ultimately to the Council, which would then delay
construction of the facility four to six weeks. Although it did not sound
like an extensive delay, it was the facility they hoped to have in service in
just over a year to meet the peak demands of s,,mmer. They actually wanted to
have it this summer. As well, escalation in construction costs had to be
considered. Additional staff time would also be involved with the engineer,
while Montgomery could go to work tomorrow on the project. As of today, they
did not have a project manager and the new manager would not be on board for
two weeks. It would take a great deal of additional staff time merely to get
him involved with a new engineer in order to start the project, and he did not
believe it was a monetary savings to offset that.
Councilman 0verholt stated he was philosophically in agreement with the Mayor,
but on the other hand was reticent to spend taxpayers money to criticize
staff for nondisclosure, or the Council for not asking the right questions.
If he approved, it would be with the understanding that every time a similar
situation arose, he would probably ask what the implications of any decision
would be further downstream. He was presently inclined to support the Resolu-
tion, but he was not happy, Just as the Mayor, that by approving a smaller item
they were now put in a position of approving a larger one without giving the
market a chance to be tested.
79-616
~t.y Hall~ Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - May 29~ 1979~ 1:30 P.M.
Councilman Bay questioned if the suggestions coming from the discussion were
leading toward a review of policy relative to where money was spent in areas
normally not required to go to bid such as for architectural fees, legal fees,
consulting fees, etc. What he was hearing was a request to City management to
take a closer look at the time they approached staff to see if there was a way
to shop more on those items in order to save money.
A vote was then taken on the foregoing Resolution.
Roll Call Vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
Overholt, Kaywood, Bay and Roth
Seymour
None
The Mayor declared Resolution No. 79R-311 duly passed and adopted.
113/114: AGENDA FORMAT: City Manager Talley noted that the two foregoing items
were submitted from the Council appointed Public Utilities Board and therefore
appeared routinely at this point on the agenda. However, every time a Public
Utilites Board item was presented to the Council, it was only presented by
City staff. If the Council had no objection, he suggested that the PUB matters
follow the City Manager staff reports in the future, so that City staff could
all come and go at the same time. In that way, Utilities staff would not
have to wait until after the hearings.
The consensus of the Council was very favorable to the suggestion; thereupon
Mr. Talley stated that beginning next week, Public Utilities Board recommendations
would follow the City Manager/Departmental staff reports.
CONSENT CALENDAR ITEMS: On motion by Councilman Bay, seconded by CoUncilman
Roth, the following actions were authorized in accordance with the reports and
recommendations furnished each Council Member and as listed on the Consent
Calendar Agenda:
1. 118: CLAIMS AGAINST THE CITY: The following claims were denied and referred
to the City's insurance administrator or allowed:
a. Claim submitted by Howard Richard Hayes for damages purportedly sustained as
a result of incarceration in the Orange County Jail on or about March 15, 1979.
The following claim was recommended to be allowed:
b. Claim submitted by Southern California Gas Company f~r damages to equipment
purportedly sustained as a result of excavation operations on or about March 5,
1979.
2. CORRESPONDENCE: The following correspondence was ordered received and filed:
a. 105: Golf Course Advisory Commission - Minutes of May 17, 1979.
b. 105: Library Board - Minutes of April 18, 1979.
c. 105: Library Board - Monthly Report for April 30, 1979.
79-617
City Hall, Anaheim.~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - May 29, 1979~ 1:30 P.M.
d. 105: Public Utilities Board - Minutes of May 3 and 10, 1979.
e. 175: Public Utilities Department, Utilities Field Division - Monthly
Report for April 1979.
3. EAST STREET; NORTH STREET AND STATE COLLEGE BOULEVARD STREET IMPROVEMENTS,
CHANGE ORDER NO. I: Said Change Order I in the amount of $2,314.40, was approved
as recommended by the City Engineer, bringing the original contract price to
$24,874.15; T.J. Crosby Company, contractor.
4. 108: APPLICATION: The Amusement Device Permit application submitted by
Rolando Humberto Garza and Mostaffa Shahres~ani for Mobi's Amusement Center,
3156 1/2 West Lincoln Avenue for four (4) pool tables, was approved in accor-
dance with the recommendations of the Chief of Police.
MOTION CARRIED.
CONSENT CALENDAR ITEMS: Councilwoman Kaywood offered Resolution Nos. 79R-312
through 79R-316, both inclusive, for adoption in accordance with the reports,
recommendations and certifications furnished each Council Member and as listed
on the Consent Calendar Agenda. Refer to Resolution Book.
158: RESOLUTION NO. 79R-312: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ANAHEIM ACCEPTING CERTAIN DEEDS AND ORDERING THEIR RECORDATION. (Charles B.
Caldwell; Jacob Logar, et al.)
169: RESOLUTION NO. 79R-313: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ANAHEIM FINALLY ACCEPTING THE COMPLETION AND THE FURNISHING OF ALL PLANT, LABOR,
SERVICES, MATERIALS AND EQUIPMENT AND ALL UTILITIES AND TRANSPORTATION INCLUDING
POWER, FUEL AND WATER, AND THE PERFORMANCE OF ALL WORK NECESSARY TO CONSTRUCT AND
COMPLETE THE FOLLOWING PUBLIC IMPROVEMENT, TO WIT: CYPRESS STREET STREET
IMPROVEMENT, W/O VINE STREET, IN THE CITY OF ANAHEIM, ACCOUNT NO. 46-792-6325-2300.
(T.J. Crosby, Inc.)
169: RESOLUTION NO. 79R-314: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ANAHEIM FINALLY ACCEPTING THE COMPLETION AND THE FURNISHING OF ALL PLANT, LABOR,
SERVICES, MATERIALS AND EQUIPMENT AND ALL UTILITIES AND TRANSPORTATION INCLUDING
POWER, FUEL AND WATER, AND THE PERFORMANCE OF ALL WORK NECESSARY TO CONSTRUCT AND
COMPLETE THE FOLLOWING PUBLIC IMPROVEMENT, TO WIT: THE EAST STREET, NORTH STREET
& STATE COLLEGE BOULEVARD STREET IMPROVEMENTS, IN THE CITY OF ANAHEIM, ACCOUNT
NOS. 13-792-6325-2340, 13-792-6325-2400 & 13-792-6325-2410. (T.J. Crosby, Inc.)
174: RESOLUTION NO. 79R-315: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ANAHEIM FINALLY ACCEPTING THE COMPLETION AND THE FURNISHING OF ALL PLANT, LABOR,
SERVICES, MATERIALS AND EQUIPMENT AND ALL UTILITIES AND TRANSPORTATION INCLUDING
POWER, FUEL AND WATER, AND THE PERFORMANCE OF ALL WORK NECESSARY TO CONSTRUCT AND
COMPLETE THE FOLLOWING PUBLIC IMPROVEMENT, TO WIT: COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM -
AREA 1 & 2 STREET & ALLEY IMPROVEMENTS: AREA 1, 2 & 4 BARRIER REMOVAL: Area .-.
bound by La Palms Avenue, Union Pacific Railroad, Cypress Street and Anaheim
Boulevard, in the City of Anaheim. (Blystone Company)
g9-618
City Hall~ Aq, aheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - May 29, 1979~ 1:30 P.M.
124: RESOLUTION NO. 79R-316: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ANAHEIM FINDING A~D DETERMINING THAT PUBLIC CONVENIENCE AND NECESSITY P, EQUIRE
THE CONSTRUCTION AND COMPLETION OF A PUBLIC IMPROVEMENT, TO WIT: ANAHEIM CON-
VENTION CENTER RE-ROOFING OF ARENA GUTTER AND ARCHES, 800 W. KATELLA AVE., IN
THE CITY OF ANAHEIM, ACCOUNT NOS. 64-308-7107-C9005 AND 64-308-7107-C9009;
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 DIRECT-
ING THE CITY CLERK TO PUBLISH A NOTICE INVITING SEALED PROPOSALS FOR THE CONSTR-
UCTION THEREOF. (Bids to be opened on June 28, 1979, at 2:00 P.M.)
Roll Call Vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
Overholt, Kaywood, Bay, Roth and Seymour
None
None
The Mayor declared Resolution Nos. 79R-312 through 79R-316, both inclusive, duly
passed and adopted.
CITY PLANNING COMMISSION ITEMS: The following actions taken by the City Planning
Commission at their meeting held May 7, 1979, pertaining to the following
applications, as listed on the Consent Calendar, were submitted for City Council
information.
1. RECLASSIFICATION NO. 78-79-37: Submitted by Anaheim Redevelopment Agency,
for a change in zone from CG and PD-C to CL, to construct a commercial center
consisting of nine buildings on a 10.8 acre parcel located at the southwest
corner of the proposed realignment of Lincoln Avenue and Anaheim Boulevard.
The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC79-86, granted
Reclassification No. 78-79-37, and granted a negative declaration status.
Councilmen Bay stated he wanted to be certain after all the discussion on
the subject Reclassification if they were covered by the verbal stipulations
made during the Redevelopment Commission hearings and also when it was brought
to the Council regarding the roof-mounted screening stipulations. He did not
see them anywhere in the written stipulations and wanted to know if they were
a part of the Reclassification and legal stipulations at this time.
Miss Santalahti explained that the roof-mounted'equipment was part of the
Planning Commission action. Action at the Redevelopment Commission meeting
was a separate item, and the applicant would have to satisfy both sets of
requirements from both Commissions.
Mr. Bay emphasized he was concerned that the item did not show up as a written
stipulation anywhere, that the roof-mounted equipment be screened from all
directions as stipulated not only before the Redevelopment Commisssion and
Planning Commission, but also before the Council._ He asked the City Attorney
if he felt it necessary to write that stipulation in.
79-619
City Hall, Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - May 29, 1979, 1:30 P.M.
Mayor Seymour interjected and explained r.hat they could not do so at this time.
The matter could only be set for a public hearing or no action taken.
City Attorney Hopkins stated if the record reflected that a stipulation was
made, and it was in the minutes or in the record, it would be valid as far
as holding them to it. He would have to check the record.
Councilman Bay stated he was certain it was in the record and if Mr. Hopkins
was saying =hey would be held to that verbal stipulation, he had no problem
with the Reclassification.
2. RECLASSIFICATION NO. 78-79-41 AND VARIANCE NO. 3083: Submitted by Ronald D.
and Audrey E. Vasey, for a change in zone from RS-A-43,000 to RM-2400 to construct
an 18-unit apartment complex on property located at 3630 West Savanna Street
with Code waivers of minimum building site area per dwelling unit and maximum
structural height.
Reclassification No. 78-79-41 and Variance No. 3083 were withdrawn by the petitioner.
3. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 1966: Requested by General American Life
Insurance Company, to permit a sandwich shop on ML zoned property located
at 1500 South Sunkist Street.
The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC79-88, granted
Conditional Use Permit No. 1966, and granted a negative declaration status.
4. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 1968: Requested by Dunn Properties, Inc., to
permit an automobile repair facility on ML zoned property located on the north
side of Pacifico Avenue east of Lewis Street.
The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC79-89, granted
Conditional Use Permit No. 1968, and granted a negative declaration status.
5. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 1971: Requested by Shinichi Ito and Chiyeko Ito,
to permit a motel and restaurant complex on ML zoned property located at 1201
East Katella Avenue.
The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC79-90, granted
Conditional Use Permit No. 1971, and granted a negative declaration status.
6. VARIANCE NO. 3085: Requested by William S. and Sandra L. Gala, to retaina
room addition in an existing garage on RS-7200 zoned property located at 2461
West Valdina Avenue, with a Code waiver of minimum number and type of parking spaces.
The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC79-87, granted
Variance No. 3085, and ratified the Planning Director's categorical exemption
determination.
7. VARIANCE NO. 3090: Requested by Imperial Associates, to retain existing
illegal signs on CL(SC) zoned property located at 5640 East La Palma Avenue
with Code waivers of prohibited signs and maximum number of wall signs.
79-620
City Hall~ Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - May 29~ 1979~ 1:30 P.M.
The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC79-91, granted
Variance No. 3090 in part, and ratified the Planning Director's categorical
exemption determination.
8. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 1618 - EXTENSION OF TIME: Requested by Mary
Dove, for an extension of time to Conditional Use Permit No. 1618, to permit
a day nursery for 24 children in an existing residence on RS-7200 zoned property
located at 733 South State College Boulevard.
The City Planning Commission granted an extension of time to Conditional Use
Permit No. 1618, to expire May 10, 1982.
9. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 1930 - EXTENSION OF TIME: Requested by Robert
Fordyce, for an extension of time to Conditional Use Permit No. 1930, to permit
the outdoor storage of new vehicle chassis on ML zoned property located at 2530
Miraloma Way, with Code waivers of minimum number of parking spaces, minimum
landscaped set back and required enclosure of outdoor uses.
The City Planning Commission granted an extension of time to Conditional Use
Permit No. 1930, to expire May 15, 1979.
No action was taken on the foregoing items, therefore the actions of the
Planning Commission became final.
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 1646 - REQUEST FOR TERMINATION: Submitted by William
R. Gilson, Foodmaker, Inc., requesting termination of Conditional Use Permit
No. 1646, to expand a drive-through restaurant on CL zoned property located at
2793 West Ball Road, with Code waivers of minimum number of parking spaces and
maximum driveway width.
Councilwoman Kaywood offered Resolution No. 79R-317 for adoption, as recommended
by the Planning Commission. Refer to Resolution Book.
RESOLUTION NO. 79R-317: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM
TERMINATING ALL PROCEEDINGS IN CONNECTION WITH CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 1646
AND DECLARING RESOLUTION NO. 76R-607 NULL AND VOID.
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. 79R-317 duly passed and adopted.
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 1825 - EXTENSION OF TIME: Submitted by Sam Patane'
Robert Schuller Ministries, requesting an extension of time to Conditional Use
Permit No. 1825, to permit a cemetery on RS-A-43,000 zoned property located on
the south side of Orangewood Avenue, east side of Lewis Street and on the south-
west side of Manchester Avenue, with Code waivers of maximum fence height,
maximum structural height, minimum front yard setback and minimum side yard
setback.
79-621
City Hall~ Anaheim; California - COUNCIL MINUTES - May 29~ 1979; 1:30 P.M.
Councilman Overholt moved to grant the requested extension of time, to expire
June 6, 1980, as recommended by the Planning Commission. Councilman Roth
seconded the motion.
Before a vote was taken, Councilwoman Kaywood noted that in the staff report to
the Planning Commission, May 7, 1979, Page 13-b, the recommendation indicated
CUP No. 1825 was set to expire June 6, 1979; Miss Santalahti confirmed that
was a typographical error.
Councilwoman Kaywood continued that the subject item was the one where the
Planning Commission required the easement and the Council overturned that
decision. It was the Orangewood Overcrossing of the Santa Aha Freeway, and it
would be costing the taxpayers more money to grant the extension of time~ and
thus she would vote "no".
Mayor Seymour stated he was abstaining because he was a member of the Garden
Grove Community Church.
A vote was then taken on the foregoing motion.
AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Overholt and Roth
NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Kaywood and Bay
ABSTAINED: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Seymour
ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: None
Mayor Seymour asked the City Attorney's opinion on the two-two vote.
City Attorney Hopkins stated in view of the fact that there was one abstention,
he would rule that the abstention would apply to the majority of the proposal
approving the action, and thus it would sustain the action of the Planning
Commission. He further clarified that the abstention would apply to approval
of the action because there was no possibility of the two-two vote being
changed because of the one abstention. He referred to the Ballinger case
which had been applied in such situations. MOTION CARRIED.
134: GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 151: (Planning Commission Item from the
meeting of May 21, 1979 for information only--no Council action necessary)
To consider: a) Change in designation from General Industrial to Commercial/
Professional on property located at the southwest corner of Orangethorpe
Avenue and Raymond Avenue, b) Changes in designation from local to secondary
arterial highways in the Circulation Element for the following: Via Cortez
Street between Santa Ana Canyon Road and the Riverside Freeway; Freedman Way
between Manchester Avenue and Harbor Boulevard; and Clementine Street Between
Freedman Way and Katella Avenue.
June 18, 1979, 1:30 P.M., was the date and time set for Public Hearing by the
Planning Commission.
149: ORDINANCE NO. 4011: Councilwoman Kaywood offered Ordinance No. 4011 for
adoption. Refer to Ordinance Book.
79-622
City Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - May 29~ 1979~ 1:30 P.M.
ORDINANCE NO. 4011: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AMENDING TITLE 14,
CHAPTER 14.32, SECTION 14.32.190, SUBSECTION .1050 OF THE ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL
CODE RELATING TO PARKING RESTRICTIONS. (No parking, both sides of Hancock Street,
Industrial Drive to La Palma Avenue)
Roll Call Vote:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
Overholt, Kaywood, Bay, Roth and Seymour
None
None
The Mayor declared Ordinance No. 4011 duly passed and adopted.
ORDINANCE NO. 4012: Councilman Seymour offered Ordinance No. 4012 for adoption.
Refer to Ordinance Book.
ORDINANCE NO. 4012: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AMENDING TITLE 18 OF
THE ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO ZONING. (66-67-61(92), CR)
Roll Call Vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
Overholt, Kaywood, Bay, Roth and Seymour
None
None
TheMayor declared Ordinance No. 4012 duly passed and adopted.
ORDINANCE NO. 4013: Councilwoman Kaywood offered Ordinance No. 4013 for
adoption. Refer to Ordinance Book.
ORDINANCE NO. 4013: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AMENDING TITLE 18 OF
THE ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO ZONING. (78-79-33, RS-HS-22,000)
Roll Call Vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
COUNCIL M~W_BERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
Overholt, Kaywood, Bay, Roth and Seymour
None
None
The Mayor declared Ordinance No. 4013 duly passed and adopted.
ORDINANCE NO. 4014: Councilman Roth offered Ordinance No. 4014 for adoption.
Refer to Ordinance Book.
ORDINANCE NO. 4014: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AMENDING TITLE 18 OF
THE ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO ZONING. (78-79-42, BM-1200)
Roll Call Vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
Overholt, Kaywood, Bay, Roth and Seymour
None
None
The Mayor declared Ordinance No. 4014 duly passed and adopted.
79-623
City Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - May 29~ 1979~ 1:30 P.M.
ORDINANCE NO. 4016 THROUGH 4018: Councilwoman Kaywood offered Ordinance No. 4016
through 4018, both inclusive, for first reading.
116: ORDINANCE NO. 4016: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM REPEALING SECTIONS
10.16.010, 10.16.020, 10.16.030, 10.16.040, 10.16.045, 10.16.050, 10.16.060,
10.16.070, 10.16.080, 10.16.090, 10.16.100, 10.16.110, 10.16.120, 10.16.121,
10.16.130, 10.16.140, 10.16.150, 10.16.160, 10.16.170, 10.16.180, 10.16.200,
10.16.210, 10.16.220, 10.16.230, 10.16.240, 10.16.250, 10.16.260, 10.16.270,
10.16.280, 10.16.290, 10.16.300, 10.16.310, 10.16.320, 10.16.330, 10.16.340,
10.16.360, 10.16.370, 10.16.380, 10.16.390, 10.16.400, 10.16.410, 10.16.420,
10.16.430, 10.16.440, 10.16.450, 10.16.460, 10.16.470 OF CHAPTER 10.16; SECTIONS
10.20.020, 10.20.030, 10.20.040, 10.20.050, 10.20.060, 10.20.070, 10.20.080,
10.20.090, 10.20.100 OF CHAPTER 10.20; CHAPTER 10.24; OF TITLE 10; SECTIONS
11.04.020, 11.04.040 OF CHAPTER 11.04; TITLE 11; SECTIONS 15.12.040, 15.12.050,
15.12.060, 15.12.070, 15.12.080, 15.12.100, 15.12.110, 15.12.120, 15.12.130,
15.12.150, 15.12.170, 15.12.180 OF CHAPTER 15.12, TITLE 15; SUBSECTIONS
17.08.600.010, 17.08.600.020, 17.08.600.030, 17.08.600.050 OF SECTION 17.08.600,
CHAPTER 17.08, TITLE 17; SUBSECTIONS 17.20.030.1603, 17.20.030.1604 AND
17.20.030.1606 OF SECTION 17.20.030, CHAPTER 17.20; SECTION 17.24.060 OF CHAPTER
17.24; TITLE 17, OF THE ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO THE DEPARTMENTAL
ORGANIZATION OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM.
116: ORDINANCE NO. 4017: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AMENDING TITLE
10, CHAPTERS 10.16 AND 10.20; TITLE 15, CHAPTER 15.12; TITLE 17, CHAPTERS 17.08,
17.20, 17.24; AND CHAPTER 18.04 BY ADDING NEW SECTIONS 10.16.010, 10.16.020,
10.16.030, 10.16.050, 10.16.060, 10.16.070, 10.16.080, 10.16.100, 10.16.200,
10.16.210, 10.16.260, 10.16.290, 10.16.300, 10.16.310, 10.16.340, 10.16.370,
10.16.380, 10.16.390, 10.16.400, 10.16.410, 10.16.420, 10.16.470, 10.20.020,
10.20.030, 10.20.040, 10.20.050, 10.20.060, 10.20.070, 10.20.080, 10.20.090,
10.20.100, 15.12.070, 15.12.080, 15.12.150, 15.12.170, 17.24.060 AND SUB-
SECTIONS 17.08.600.010, 17.08.600.020, 17.08.600.03Q, 17.08.600.050, 17.20.030.1603,
17.20.030.1604, 17.20.030.1606 AND 18.04.080.030 TO THE ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL
CODE RELATING TO THE DEPARTMENTAL ORGANIZATION OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM.
167: ORDINANCE NO. 4018: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM ADDING TO TITLE 14,
CHAPTER 14.58, SECTION 14.58.050 RELATING TO TRAFFIC SIGNAL FEES. (waiver provision)
116: STUDY RELATING TO THE HIRING OF PROFESSIONALS: Councilman Overholt stated
that he did not want to offer Councilman Bay's suggestions, but did want to support
him in asking the City Manager to develop a study relating to the hiring of
consultants, professionals and those in similar categories in order to establish
a reasonable policy that would be fair and in the best interest to the taxpayer.
City Manager Talley stated that he would take that direction.
173: CONGRESSIONAL INQUIRY ON THE GAS CRUNCH: Councilman Overholt explained
that the Mayor asked him to testify at the Congressional inquiry that Congressman
Patterson was conducting next Thursday. A press release was made indicating
that he would appear and they had responses from Disneyland, the Chamber and
some citizens. He invited anyone to submit their input as to how the recent
gas crunch impacted them, which information would be incorporated into the five-
minute presentation he was going to give.
79-624
City Hall~ Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - May 29~ 1979~ 1:30 P.M.
105: RESIGNATION FROM GOLF COURSE ADVISORY COMMISSION: Councilwoman Kaywood
referred to the letter received from Nora Davis resigning from the Golf Course
Advisory Commission. She thereupon moved that they accept the resignation
with regret and declare the seat vacant. Councilman Seymour seconded the motion.
MOTION CARRIED.
105: SPECIAL POSTAL RATES FOR CITY MAILINGS: Councilwoman Kaywood reported
that at the Parks and Recreation Commission meeting they were brought up to
date on the nonprofit corporation status requiring federal and state approval.
The difference in the postage would be 2.7¢ when approved.
178: RESIGNATION FROM METROPOLITAN WATER DISTRICT BOARD: Councilman Roth
referred to the letter received from Mr. Keith Murdoch resigning from the
Metropolitan Water District Board (MWD). He thereupon moved that the resig-
nation be accepted with regret and that a letter be sent to him thanking him
for all the work he had done while a member of the Board. Councilman Bay
seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED.
Councilman Roth continued that it was important to start looking for a replace-
ment for Mr. Murdoch, not only a person familiar with the PR aspect, but also
with the political aspect, especially with the City's representatives in Sacramento.
Councilwoman Kaywood added that a good knowledge of the water situation, besides
PR and political knowledge, was important.
178: AIR 9UALITY MANAGEMENT BOARD MEETING: Councilman Roth reported on the
Thursday, May 24, 1979 meeting of the Air Quality Management District Board (AQMD) whit[
was their first budget session. After he questioned a budget procedure which
was similar to what Anaheim had 20 years prior, it ended up that they did not
accept the budget; however, they did not have a requirement to adopt it by July 1,
1979. They asked if they could send a representative to Anaheim to work with
the City's budget people and to obtain formats to putting a budget together.
Staff from AQMD visited the City to review budget procedures which would be
beneficial in formulating the Board's budget. He was most appreciative of
the cooperation given by the City Manager and staff.
RECESS - EXECUTIVE SESSION: ~y general consent, the Council recessed into
Executive Session, (4:30 P.M,)
A~TER XECESSl Mayor Seymour called the meeting to order, all Council Member. bela8
pre.eat, (4~36 P,M.)
1,181 CLAIM ~AZNST THE CZTYI On motion by Councilman Seymour, .econded by
Councilman ~th, th~ City Attorney and Carl Warren and Company were authorized
to .earle the claim o£ Sharon Lynn Maha7 against ~he Ci~7 of ~ahe~ for a
~um no~ Co exceed ~5,000, ~TZON
A~.JO~itNMI~NTI Councilman Bey moved to edJourn. Councilwoman Kaywood .eeonded
ch. motion, MOTION CA~tg%ED.
A~Journed~ 4~37 ?eM.