Loading...
1978/05/23 78-632 City Hall, Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - May 23~ 1978~ 1:30 P.M. The City Council of the City of Anaheim met in regular session. PRESENT: ABSENT: PRESENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Overholt, Kaywood, Kott and Roth COUNCIL MEMBERS: Seymour CITY MANAGER: William O. Talley CITY ATTORNEY: William P. Hopkins CITY CLERK: Linda D. Roberts PERSONNEL DIRECTOR: Garry McRae CITY ENGINEER: James Maddox WATER SUPERINTENDENT: Ray Auerbach ELECTRICAL SUPERINTENDENT: George Edwards PLANNING DIRECTOR: Ron Thompson ASSISTANT DIRECTOR FOR PLANNING: Phil Schwartze ASSISTANT DIRECTOR FOR ZONING: Annika Santalahti Mayor Pro Tem Kaywood called the meeting to order and welcomed those in attendance to the Council meeting. FLAG SALUTE: Councilman William Kott led the assembly in the Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag. DECLARATION: A declaration was issued by Mayor Pro Tem Miriam Kaywood and approved by the City Council paying tribute to the Country's honorable war dead, extending appreciation to their families and saluting the American Legion for their observance services on Memorial Day. MINUTES: On motion by Mayor Pro Tem Kaywood, seconded by Councilman Roth, the minutes of the regular meeting held April 4, 1978 meeting were approved subject to typographical corrections. Councilman Seymour was absent and Councilman Overholt abstained. MOTION CARRIED. WAI-VER 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. Councilman Overholt seconded the motion. Councilman Seymour was absent. MOTION CARRIED. FINANCIAL DEMANDS AGAINST THE CITY in the amount of $797,114.31, in accordance with the 1977-78 Budget, were approved. 103: ANAHEIM HILLS ANNEXATION NO. 25: Authorizing the commencement of proceedings for the annexation of certain uninhabited territory (Anaheim Hills and Nohl Ranch Roads). Councilman Kott first questioned the status of the two most recent annexations, Santa Ana Canyon Nos. 5 and 6. Mr. Talley explained that both were approved by LAFCO, but subsequently, some property owners served by a water company alleging to have an interest in Annexa- tion No. 5 appealed to a County Supervisor who went to LAFCO requesting that they rescind their action. The City had taken the position that the contentions were without merit, and there was no ownership that had not been recognized. LAFCO was to meet the next day to consider the matter, but all that was being asked was that a public hearing be held. Even if the contentions of the people were correct, the 78-613 City..Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - May 23~ 1978~ 1:30 P.M. majority of the property owners were still in favor of the annexation. As a result, both Annexation Nos. 5 and 6 were rescinded because if No. 6 was processed without No. 5, an island would be created. Even though Annexation No. 6 contained the weigh station, it had not been contested by anyone. Councilman Kott then asked if the City had to purchase the property involved in Annexation No. 25 in order to construct a proposed reservoir on that property. Specifically, he wanted to know the basis for the annexation. Mr. Phil Schwartze, Assistant Director for Planning, stated that the annexation request to be submitted to LAFCO was for property that the City may acquire in the following annexation to construct a water reservoir which would be part of the City's water supply system. That was the basic intent, however, there could be an ultimate purchase involved in the water reservoir site. Mr. Ray Auerbach, Water Superintendent, explained for Councilman Kott that the City was not buying the property for the reservoir and no commitment had been made to do so at present. It could be used for special facilities, either a reservoir or pumping stations, to be built in high elevation areas of the Canyon and paid for by the developer (Anaheim Hills) just as with similar'sites. Cost of the land would eventually be reimbursed to them through fees charged to subse- quent developers, and ultimately the water users through the 22 percent surcharge. The City did not purchase the site from the developer. Mr. Auerbach continued that from his Department's standpoint, whether or no~ the land was annexed at this time would have no effect on them. There was enough water presently for proposed developments and the grading units currently being graded and eventually built upon. Within the next year or two, however, they would have to build another reservoir and it would be a necessity for future development in that area because of the elevation and in order to provide adequate fire storage and pressure to the grading units now graded. RESOLUTION: Councilman Kott stated if there was going to be any cost to the City, he would oppose the annexation because he believed that the people utilizing the land and the water should pay for such facilities and not everyone else in the City. He thereupon offered Resolution No. 78R-319 for adoption, as recommended in memo- randum dated May 16, 1978, from the Planning Department, providing that there be no cost to the City for acquisition of the property. Refer to Resolution Book. RESOLUTION NO. 78R-319: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM, CALIFORNIA, REQUESTING THE COMMENCEMENT OF PROCEEDINGS FOR THE ANNEXATION OF CERTAIN UNINHABITED TERRITORY DESIGNATED AS ANAHEIM HILLS ANNEXATION NO. 25. Roll Call Vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: COUNCIL MEMBERS: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Overholt, Kaywood, Kott and Roth None Seymour The Mayor Pro Tem declared Resolution No. 78R-319 duly passed and adopted. 78-614 City Hall, Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - May 23~ 1978~ 1:30 P.M. 144: A.H.F.P. PROJECT NOS. 908 AND 909: Authorizing agreements with the County of Orange, right-of-way acquisition and construction along Nohl Ranch Road between Anaheim Hills Road and Nohl Canyon Road. Councilman Kott offered Resolution Nos. 78R-320 and 78R-321 for adoption as recommended in memorandum dated May 15, 1978, from the City Engineer. Refer to Resolution Book. RESOLUTION NO. 78R-320: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM APPROVING THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF AN AGREEMENT WITH THE COUNTY OF ORANGE AND AUTHORIZING AND DIRECTING THE MAYOR AND CITY CLERK TO EXECUTE SAID AGREEMENT. (Arterial Highway Financing Program - No. 908, Nohl Ranch Road right-of-way acquisition) RESOLUTION NO. 78R-321: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM APPROVING THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF AN AGREEMENT WITH THE COUNTY OF ORANGE AND AUTHORIZING AND DIRECTING THE MAYOR AND CITY CLERK TO EXECUTE SAID AGREEMENT. (Arterial Highway Financing Program - No. 909, Nohl Ranch Road construction) Roll Call Vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: COUNCIL MEMBERS: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Overholt, Kaywood, Kott and Roth None Seymour The Mayor Pro Tem declared Resolution Nos. 78R-320 and 78R-321 duly passed and adopted. 169: REFORMATION OF STREET LIGHTING ASSESSMENT DISTRICT 1972-1 AS STREET LIGHTING ASSESSMENT DISTRICT 1972'1-B (TRACT NO. 1959): Councilman Kott asked if the informa- tion contained in staff report dated May 8, 1978, included input from the people in the subject district. He recalled a few weeks prior a similar item was discussed, and testimony revealed that the residents did not want the street lighting location. Mrl Robert Herr, Civil Engineering Assistant, explained that the residents were not contacted because the subject street lighting assessment was originally initiated in 1972 for a 5-year period. This request represented a reformation of that same assessment district. In order for the City to recoup money for the original construc- tion of the lights which were presently in place, it would require an additional 5 years of the initial 5-year period to complete the assessment for construction. By the Act of 1931, the same procedure still had to be followed as done originally. Councilman Roth offered Resolution Nos. 78R-322 and 78R-323 for adoption, as recommended in memorandum dated May 8, 1978, from the Public Works Department/ Street Superintendent. Refer to Resolution Book. RESOLUTION NO. 78R-322: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM APPROVING THE REPORT OF THE SUPERINTENDENT OF STREETS FOR CERTAIN IMPROVEMENTS TO BE MADE BY THE CITY UNDER THE STREET LIGHTING ACT OF 1931. RESOLUTION NO. 78R-323: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM DECLARING ITS INTENTION TO MAKE CERTAIN IMPROVEMENTS UNDER THE AUTHORITY OF THE STREET LIGHTING ACT OF 1931, DESCRIBING THE IMPROVEMENTS TO BE MADE, NAMING THE STREETS UPON WHICH THE IMPROVEMENTS ARE TO BE MADE, REFERRING TO THE REPORT OF THE SUPERINTENDENT OF STREETS ON FILE IN THE OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK, FIXING THE PERIOD OF TIME FOR WHICH THE IMPROVEMENTS ARE TO BE MADE, AND SETTING A TIME AND PLACE FOR HEARING PROTESTS. (June 27, 1978, 3:00 P.M.) 78-615 Cit~ Hall, Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - May .23~ 1978~ 1:30 P.M. Roll Call Vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: COUNCIL MEMBERS: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Overholt, Kaywood, Kott and Roth None Seymour The Mayor Pro Tem declared Resolution Nos. 78R-322 and 78R-323 duly passed and adopted. 156/161: FUNDING FOR POLICE HELIPORT: With reference to his memorandum dated May 22, 1978, City Manager Talley explained that relative to the cost of relQca- tion of the Police Heliport necessitated because of the Harbor Center Project, staff originally contemplated taking the money from the amount the Redevelopment Agency paid the City for the Civic Center construction. However, when that amount was deposited in the Civic Center Construction Fund, they found it was a restricted fund under the Special Fund Doctrine. The City Attorney advised that no monies could be taken out until there was a sufficient amount to pay all costs which would be the entire Civic Center Project. Thus, they were recommending authorization for the transfer of money needed to construct the Police heliport in the amount of $80,873 from the Council Contingency Fund. The fund would then be ~reimbursed before June 30, 1978, when the property south of Anaheim Stadium would be sold to Sunset Construction since the money from that sale was also to be deposited in the Civic Center Fund. Mr. Talley then explained for Councilman Kott that although the cost of relocating the heliport was thought to be $60,000 originally, when bids were received, the lowest was the $80,000 figure because it was an unusual type of improvement. Councilman Roth thereupon expressed his concern relative to the cost of the Harbor Center itself which had escalated from approximately $250,000 at the outset to a projected cost presently of approximately $700,000. He wanted the community to be aware of the cost of the Harbor Center and requested that staff provide him with complete cost figures on the project. Councilman Roth continued that although he would support the cost of relocation of the heliport, it was his feeling if the Harbor Center was not built, the money to be spent for the heliport would not be necessary. In addition, he expressed his concern over the possibility of increasing flight hazard in the use of a roof-mounted landing pad, noting that the first few minutes of take-off were very critical in any type of helicopter. He contended that a green area such as that previously existing between the Library and the Police Station was needed to make it safer for a helicopter to take off. On motion by Councilman Roth, seconded by Councilman Overholt, transfer of funds in the amount of $80,873 from the Council Contingency Fund to t~e General Fund to complete funding allocation on the Police Heliport Relocation, with funds to be re- imbursed by June 30, 1978 from the sale of city-owned land, was approved as recom- mended in memorandum dated May 22, 1978, from the City Manager. Councilman Seymour was absent. MOTION CARRIED. 78-6]6 .City Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - May 23~ 1978~ 1:30 P.M. 123: AMENDING MISCELLANEOUS EMPLOYEES RETIREMENT CONTRACT: City Manager Talley briefed the Council on his memorandum dated May 18, 1978, indicating that $21,726 would be needed the first year to include the additional benefit (1959 Survivor Benefit) for miscellaneous employees. This was pursuant to a Council request on February 7, 1978, for actuarial evaluation costs for other than safety members (see Minutes of February 7, 28, and March 7, 1978). The cost each year thereafter would depend on actuarial ages and composition of the group so that the cost might be minimized in future actuarial studies. The item was broached during 1977 negotiations by a number of employee groups, but taken out of negotiations in the miscellaneous employees category as a result of compromises which took place. During negotiations, a number of issues on each side were dropped, and this was one that was eliminated. Mr. Talley expressed that an area of concern from his standpoint revolved around the philosophy of the matter, and what the philosophy should be if, after having entered into bargaining agreements wherein one side chose to remove an isse, but at a later time tried to negotiate that issue. Generally, the goal was to achieve one thing in return for another in all labor negotiations. He was, therefore, reluctant to endorse such requests after negotia- tions had taken place when they were part of the negotiations at the outset and then removed. It would give employee unions an incentive to bring in such issues all during contract periods. After a brief discussion relative to the matter between Councilman Kott and the City Manager, Personnel Director McRae explained that the 1959 Benefit was one that was available to present employees, but actuated only when an employee died before reaching retirement age or before the employee retired. Thus, it was a benefit that would accrue to survivors of existing employees as well. Mr. Jake Petrosino, Chairman of the Retirment Committee of the Anaheim Municipal Employees' Association (AMEA), speaking on behalf of the AMEA and Local 47 of IBEW, stated that the benefit being discussed would cover approximately 1,400 miscellaneous members. He then referred to and briefed the Council on data cor~tained in memorandum dated May 22, 1978, outlining his presentation which had been submitted to the Council the day before. Proposal I requested removal of the present mandatory retirement age at 67 for miscellaneous members which was an item scheduled to be discussed at today's meeting under unfinished business. Proposal II discussed the Survivors Benefit which would increase monthly benefits by 25 percent. This would apply to the members dying prior to age 50. After age 50, if they died prior to retirement, their survivor would be paid out of another fund which was presently fully funded, had surplus money, and with no contributions made by the City or any other public agency in PERS, originally known as the 1959 Survivors Benefit. At this point, all that was being dealt with were miscellaneous members only dying prior to age 50, because safety members were already afforded the benefit. He then elaborated on some of the points con- tained in the data presented. Mr. Petrosino thereupon requested that both of the foregoing items be considered concurrently; Proposal I being a small cost saving item, and Proposal II a cost item. Relative to the cost on the second proposal, he pointed out that although $21,700 had to be paid up front, their fund was a very solvent one, and because of the very favorable experience they had with the benefit, they foresaw the cost decreasing to where there eventually would be no cost to the City. 78-617 City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - May 23~ 1978~ 1:30 P.M. Mr. Petrosino further stated that relative to the City Manager alluding to amending the contract outside of negotiations, two years ago they did the same thing and saved the City $211,000. In this case, the Council asked for the valuation, and that was the reason it was before the Council today. He reiter- ated they would appreciate consideration of amending the Survivors Benefit along with the change of age so that both could be adopted simultaneously. Discussion followed between the Council, Mr. Petrosino and Personnel Director McRae basically revolving around why the Survivors Benefit issue for miscellan- eous members was now so important, whereas that was not the case at the time of negotiations. In the final analysis, Councilman Kott believed the issue to be one of allowing employees additional benefits at the present time, whereas Mayor Pro Tem Kaywood contended the issue was one of deciding what negotiations were for. Councilman Kott thereupon recommended that the item be continued for one week for a full Council action so that input could be received from all concerned. Council- man Roth seconded the motion. Before a vote was taken, it was suggested that the matter be continued for two weeks. Mr. McRae explained that they were working against a time deadline relative to the mandatory retirement age issue. Those items could not be pro- cessed simultaneously, and if they were not on the same time schedule, one would have to follow the other next fall. Mr. Talley stated when item 2a on the agenda was reached (mandatory age issue), he would be encouraging the Council to process that matter because it had no relation to the Survivors Benefit issue. A vote was then taken on the foregoing motion for a one-week continuance. Councilwoman Kaywood voted "No". Councilman Seymour was absent. MOTION CARRIED. 107: ORDINANCE NO. 3864 - UNIFORM CODE FOR THE ABATEMENT OF DANGEROUS BUILDINGS~ 1976 EDITION: After clarification of some points relative to main features of a dangerous building by Planning Director Ron Thompson, Councilman Kott offered Ordinance No. 3864 for first reading. ORDINANCE NO. 3864: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM ADDING NEW CHAPTER 15.06 TO TITLE 15 OF THE ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE AND ADOPTING BY REFERENCE THE UNIFORM CODE FOR THE ABATEMENT OF DANGEROUS BUILDINGS, 1976 EDITION, AS PROMULGATED BY THE INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE OF BUILDING OFFICIALS, WITH CERTAIN AMENDMENTS THERETO. On motion by Councilman Roth, seconded by Councilman Kott, June.13, 1978, 3:00 p.m., was the date and time set for public hearing on the Uniform Code for the Abatement of Dangerous Buildings, 1976 Edition. Councilman Seymour was absent. MOTION CARRIED. 108: ABATEMENT OF MORAL PUBLIC NUISANCES, INITIATIVE MEASURE: City Attorney Hopkins stated that a resolution had been prepared by his office at the request of the Council, the model for which was obtained through the City of Santa Ana, which City supported the subject initiative. It would provide a better control 78-618 City Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - May 23, 1978~ 1:30 P.M. mechanism for strengthening of local control for abatement of various nuisances listed on the initiative itself, which items were considered to be morally ob- jectionable. Local determination would be through the juries in municipal court, and it would give control to the Police Department and local areas, as opposed to being preempted by the State. Councilman Roth stated that the initiative would do two things: (1) provide more local control as stated by the City Attorney, and (2) restore home rule powers to Charter cities. He then recounted the events leading up to his request for considering such an initiative (see minutes of May 2, 1978) which revolved around the presence of pornographic news racks in various locations in the City. As a result of his request directing the City Attorney to look into the City's ordinance covering news racks and his subsequent meeting with the Police Department, he was amazed to learn that there were only three basic requirements for the placement of news racks: (1) that they be 18 inches or 24 inches from the curb, (2) that they contain the name of the vendor on the side of the box, and (3) that the display of explicit sex acts only required "stars" at one spot or another. He believed it to be ludicrous as a Council person that there was nothing that could be done to stop the proliferation of such news racks. Councilman Roth continued that another matter to be explored was the attempt made by the City of Los Angeles to institute a permit arrangement for pornographic news racks to make it more difficult for that type vendor. He referred to the recent request for an increase in bus bench fees, and noted that the pornographic dealer need only pay fees on gross receipts with a $25 fee maximum. Thus, it was more lucrative to have pornographic news racks than bus benches. He maintained if the City could charge $10 a year for a bus bench, why not $100 for pornographic news racks? Councilman Overholt offered Resolution No. 78R-324 for adoption. Refer to Resolu- tion Book. RESOLUTION NO. 78R-324: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM SUPPORTING INITIATIVE LEGISLATION KNOWN AS "ABATEMENT OF MORAL PUBLIC NUISANCES LAW." Roll Call Vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: COUNCIL MEMBERS: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Overholt, Kaywood, Kott and Roth None S eymo u r The Mayor Pro Tem declared Resolution No. 78R-324 duly passed and adopted. Councilman Roth thereupon moved to direct the City Attorney to monitor the permit arrangement of the City of Los Angeles for control of pornographic news racks as well as other such programs in other cities. Councilman Kott seconded the motion. Councilman Seymour was absent. MOTION CARRIED. 78-619 City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - May 23, 1978~ 1:30 P.M. 123: REQUEST TO AMEND MISCELLANEOUS EMPLOYEES RETIREMENT CONTRACT WITH PERS: (to eliminate mandatory retirement at age 67; effective August 18, 1978-- continued from meeting of May 16, 1978) Mr. Petrosino stated that the subject request was made by the City of Anaheim. It would affect one employee and it had to implemented by October t, 1978. Thus, if it was continued along with the Survivors Benefit issue previously discussed, it would not affect the individ- ual adversely. For purposes of clarification, Mr. Petrosino reiterated the City made the subject proposal on which they concurred, but on the last item (Survivors Benefit), it was their understanding that the City was neutral on the matter, and he wanted the Council to be aware of that fact. Councilman Roth thereupon moved to continue the matter for one week. Councilman Kott seconded the motion. Before a vote was taken, Mayor Pro Tem Kaywood questioned the reason for requesting the continuance. Mr. Petrosino explained that if one amendment was in the process of being filed, another could not be started. Therefore, another amendment would have to wait until the first was completely processed. This was AMEA's understanding, as well as the Personnel Department, and that was the reason they were requesting both amendments be made simultaneously. Continuance of the item would not'create a hardship to the one individual who wanted to extend his employment beyond age 67. City Manager Talley stated that although the time schedule was tight, the only interrelation that both items had was that one could not start without the other. The fact of the matter was that the mandatory retirement aspect was discussed and he thought resolved last November, but then it reappeared in February of 1978. There was no question in his mind that it could not wait until after August 18, 1978. However, he emphasized it would be in the best interest of the City to process the amendment eliminating the mandatory retirement age whether or not the proposed Survivors Benefit went into effect. He would be concerned if the matter was held much longer than 2 weeks because there could be a tendency to wait to evaluate the implications of Proposition 13 if passed. As well, there was a 10-week time schedule for processing amendments. If the one employee involved was not taken care of by October 1, 1978, he would be off the payroll forever. Further discussion followed wherein Mr. McRae explained for Councilman Kott that in order for the amendment to be implemented by August 18, 1978, today was the last day the Council could take action. Personnel selected that date so that they would be certain to have all their work done by September. He conceded, however, that it would not matter if consideration was continued for one week unless there was a slip along the way. Mr. Petrosino noted that there was no problem in terms of scheduling, and that an additional 6 weeks was provided to insure the matter would be handled within the time frame necessary. They believed their request for a one-week continuance on both matters for full Council action to be a reasonable one. Councilman Kott withdrew his second to Councilman Roth's motion. Councilman Overholt thereupon moved that the subject matter be continued for one week. Councilman Roth seconded the motion. Councilwoman Kaywood voted "No". Council- man Seymour was absent. MOTION CARRIED. 78-620 City Hall, Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - May 23~ 1978~ 1:30 P.M. 156: AWARD OF CONTRACT - ANAHEIM POLICE HELIPORT ADDITION: (Account No. 10-4804-987-09-0000) Councilman Roth offered Resolution No. 78R-325 for adoption, awarding a contract to the only bidder in accordance with the recommendations of the City Engineer in his memorandum dated May 17, 1978. Refer to Resolution Book. RESOLUTION NO. 78R-325: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM ACCEPTING A SEALED PROPOSAL AND AWARDING A CONTRACT TO THE LOWEST RESPONSIBLE BIDDER FOR THE FURNISHING OF ALL PLANT, LABOR, SERVICES, MATERIALS AND EQUIP- MENT AND ALL UTILITIES AND TRANSPORTATION INCLUDING POWER, FUEL AND WATER, AND PERFORMING ALL WORK NECESSARY TO CONSTRUCT AND COMPLETE THE FOLLOWING PUBLIC IMPROVEMENT: ANAHEIM POLICE HELIPORT ADDITION, IN THE CITY OF ANAHEIM, ACCOUNT NO. 10-4804-987-09-0000. (Bayside Builders, $80,873) Roll Call Vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: COUNCIL MEMBERS: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Overholt, Kaywood, Kott and Roth None Seymour The Mayor Pro Tem declared Resolution No. 78R-325 duly passed and adopted. 164: AWARD OF CONTRACT - LEMON STREET SEWER IMPROVEMENT: (Account No. 11-4309- 720-16-0000) Councilman Roth offered Resolution No. 78R-326 for adoption, awarding a contract to the low bidder in accordance with the recommendations of the City Engineer in his memorandum dated May 12, 1978. Refer to Resolution Book. RESOLUTION NO. 78R-326: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM ACCEPTING A SEALED PROPOSAL AND AWARDING A CONTRACT TO THE LOWEST RESPONSIBLE BIDDER FOR THE FURNISHING OF ALL PLANT, LABOR, SERVICES, MATERIALS AND EQUIP- MENT AND ALL UTILITIES AND TRANSPORTATION INCLUDING POWER, FUEL AND WATER, AND PERFORMING ALL WORK NECESSARY TO CONSTRUCT AND COMPLETE THE FOLLOWING PUBLIC IMPROVEMENT: LEMON STREET SEWER IMPROVEMENT, S/O LIBERTY AVENUE, IN THE CITY OF ANAHEIM, ACCOUNT NO. 11-4309-720-16-0000. (Matt J. Zaich, Jr., $10,530) Roll Call Vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: COUNCIL MEMBERS: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Overholt, Kaywood, Kott and Roth None Seymour The Mayor Pro Tem declared Resolution No. 78R-326 duly passed and adopted. 124: CONVENTION CENTER EAST PARKING LOT MODIFICATIONS: (Account No. 38-4855- 985-20-0893) On motion by Councilman Roth, seconded by Councilman Kott, award of contract on the Convention Center East Parking Lot Modifications was continued to June 13, 1978. Councilman Seymour was absent. MOTION CARRIED. 170: REQUEST TO CHANGE STREET NAMES IN TRACT NO. 9524: (N/o Via Arboles, E/o Anaheim Hills Road) On motion by Councilman Roth, seconded by Councilman Overholt, the subject request to change public street names and name two private streets in Tract No. 9524 was approved, as set forth in letter dated April 19, 1978 from Dale K. Price and Associates and as recommended in memorandum dated May 16, 1978 78-621 City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - May 23~ ..1.978, 1:30 P.M. from the Planning Director as follows: "Ramsgate Drive" in lieu of Sunset Ranch Road; "White Stone Drive" in lieu of Coachman Drive; "Hillsgate Lane", a private street to extend northeasterly from Sunset Ranch Road; and "Royal Ridge Drive", a private street which will split the interior of the tract in a generally north/south alignment. Councilman Seymour was absent. MOTION CARRIED. 108: APPLICATION FOR SOLICITATION OF CHARITY FUNDS: On motion by Councilman Roth, seconded by Councilman Overholt, Application for Solicitation of Charity Funds by the Purple Heart Veterans Rehabilitation Services, for house-to-house solicitation of Charity Funds of useable household items and clothing for a period of 60 days was approved. (Amount to be raised $4,800; total expenditures projected, $420) Councilman Seymour was absent. MOTION CARRIED. 108: APPLICATION FOR SOLICITATION OF CHARITY FUNDS: On motion by Councilman Kott, seconded by Councilman Roth, Application for Solicitation of Charity Funds by Double Check Retreat, for telephone solicitation of useable household items for a period of 60 days was approved. Councilman Seymour was absent. MOTION CARRIED. 173: REQUEST - PLAZA TRANSPORTATION COMPANY - JITNEY SERVICE: Mr. Michael E. Parish, Plaza Transportation Company, stated that as a result of a market analysis after their permit was granted, they surmised the need for bus service to the Anaheim Plaza was greater at the Disneyland Hotel and the Grand Hotel instead of Howard Johnson's Motor Lodge and the Quality Inn. People staying at Howard Johnson's had their own individual cars for transportation and the Quality Inn indicated they wanted to handle their own transportation with their shuttle buses. Relative to the request for a stop at the Disneyland Hotel, they had been contacted by the Assistant Manager asking that Plaza Transportation place the Hotel on their route. Mr. Larry Slagle, Yellow Cab Company, stated he had nothing different to say other than what was expressed at the last meeting (see mi. nutes of February 7, 1978). Obviously, however, any revenues that Plaza Transportation would draw would detract from Yellow Cab. It was obvious to himlwhy the change was made, and he would have included the two stops in the first place. He was disappointed to see the change, if granted, and the only positive result was that people would be going exclusively to the Broadway Shopping Center (Anaheim Plaza) instead of some place else. Councilman Overholt moved to grant the request of Plaza Transportation Company for a revision of intended stops of the approved jitney service route to include the Disneyland Hotel and the Grand Hotel, with the deletion of two previously approved stops. Councilman Kott seconded the motion for the pur.pose of discussion. Councilman Kott explained that he was concerned over the fact that approval of the permit originally was given on the basis of need, and now Howard Johnson's and the Quality Inn were indicating they did not want the service. Councilman Overholt answered that the need was with Anaheim Plaza and they would support Mr. Parish. A vote was then taken on the foregoing motion. Councilman Roth voted "No". Councilman Seymour was absent. MOTION CARRIED. 78-622 City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - May 23~ 1978, 1:30 P.M. 144: REQUEST - REPRESENTATION ON THE TRANSPORTATION COMMITTEE OF THE ORANGE COUNTY SENIOR CITIZENS COUNCIL: Mr. Herb Eggett, Chairman of the Orange County Senior Citizens Council and Chairman of the Transportation Committee, briefed the Council on his letter dated May 11, 1978, requesting the City of Anaheim to officially designate a representative to participate as a member of the Transportation Committee. Mr. Eggett elaborated on some of the points contained in his letter and emphasized the need for representation on the Committee by someone who would be speaking for the City. Councilman Roth moved that Mayor Seymour be the designated representative on the Transportation Committee. Mayor Pro Tem Kaywood recommended that the matter be continued for one week to see if the Mayor would be interested in serving on that Committee. RECESS: On motion by Councilman Roth, seconded by Councilman Kott, the Council recessed for 10 minutes. (3:00 P.M.) AFTER RECESS: Mayor Pro Tem Kaywood called the meeting to order, all Council Members being present with the exception of Mayor Seymour. (3:10 P.M.) PUBLIC HEARING - TRACT NO. 9425: Request by Butler Housing Company, to consider amendment to Conditional No. 3 of conditions of approval of Tract No. 9425 relating to construction of a 6-foot masonry wall on property located on the south side of Ball Road, east of Sunkist Street. Miss Santalahti referred to her report dated May 23, 1978, just submitted, recom- mending that the Council amend Condition No. 14 of Tract No. 9425 and Condition No. 3 of Resolution No. 77R-5, adopted in connection with Reclassification No. 76-77-2, to permit construction of a 6-foot high access gate across the 30-foot wide ingress and egress easement. She then elaborated upon the points outlined in the report, specifically Nos. 1, 3, 4 and 7. She continued that the applicant requested the amendment to the two conditions as articulated and further explained that the Planning Commission in approving the Tract originally required a 30-foot wide access easement because it was debatable if there would ever be any access to Ball Road or Sunkist to the property. Her concern was that if sometime in the future the property were developed and access taken from Carl Street, she would anticipate objections from the property owners immediately affected, as well as everybody in the tract in that area if the developer tried to remove the 6-foot block wall. Her recommendation, rather than allowing the wall to remain, would be that the developer construct a fence across the 30-foot wide easement to buffer the residential area from the vacant corner lot. This would still make it clear to the property owners that access was being provided in that portion of the fence. Miss Santalahti explained for Councilman Kott that the matter had previously been considered by both the Commission and the Council at a public h~aring. At that time, no surrounding property owners appeared at any of the public hearings, but the concern was purely at staff and Commission level relative to the remnant parcel. Although it appeared to be commercial, the master plan at the present time desig- nated it as low-medium density residential. It was also pending annexation, but they had gone to the extent of approving a resolution of intent to single-family residential RS-5000 after annexation. Discussion then followed between Councilman Roth and Miss Santalahti wherein she reiterated iher concern that in the future after people moved in and installed landscaping, if access needed to be used and the wall removed, they would be upset. 78-623 _C. ity Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES -May 23~ 1978~ 1:30 P.M. Physically, the wall in the area of the easement did not look any different from the rest of the wall and that was the reason she recommended a gate be installed. Councilman Roth stated that he was not too concerned if the wall remained if it was properly stipulated by an action of Council that, at a given time, or when a request was made by adjoining property owners, that the wall be removed. There was also the possibility that the remnant parcel would not be utilized. At this time, he was more concerned about the noise pollution that the tract would experience and if the fence was removed, nothing would replace it as a buffer. Mr. Steve Tate, Butler Housing, stated that relative to the concern regarding the homeowners on the lots that would be affected by the easement, they would be willing to make a condition of sale so that the buyers would be aware that there was a possibility that the existing wall would be relocated at such time as the City approved the plan for the corner parcel. As well, as part of that approval, that a wall would be constructed around the perimeter of the lot. Potential purchasers within the development could also be apprised of the situ- ation through some type of literature. Mayor Pro Tem Kaywood asked who would be responsible for relocating or changing the wall? Mr. Tate suggested that the removal should be a part of the development of who- ever purchased the parcel. However, if Council wished to bond for a period of time to be assured that the wall would be relocated, they would be amenable to that action. As suggested by Mayor Pro Tem Kmywood, if they were permitted to leave the wall in place until development occurred on the remnant parcel, they would be willing to stipulate to removing the wall at their expense, ms opposed to moving the wall at this point in time. They also would be willing to post a bond insuring it would be done, but with the possibility of a time limitation. City Attorney Hopkins clarified that action could be taken by a motion and then a resolution amending the original resolution to permit the wall to remain, along with the additional condition relative to bonding. Mayor Pro Tem Kaywood asked if anyone wished to speak either in favor or in opposition. Mr. Norbert Waters, property owner across the street, explained that there was an extensive file on the subject matter. He understood there was no access from either Sunkist or Ball Road, and the reason for providing a 30-foot easement was due to the fact that the property could not be landlocked. Thug, if the wall was allowed to remain, the developer would sell the property, homeowners would move in and subsequently would be up in arms if and when the corner parcel was developed because the wall would have to be removed and access acquired through the 30-foot easement. He explained further that the corner parcel was now for sale and the sign indicated commercial property. He thereupon submitted pictures to the Council showing the site. Mr. Waters stated that he would still object if a bond were posted because more than one Planning Commissioner had stated they would not support any access onto Sunkist or Ball Road for the property in question. He then read aloud excerpts from the Planning Commission minutes of January 4, 1977, wherein such a statement was made. 78-624 City Hall, Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - May 23~ 1978~ 1:30 P.M. Councilman Kott left the Council Chamber. (3:37 P.M.) A brief discussion followed wherein Councilman Roth again expressed his concern relative to noise in the area; Mr. Tate stated that they had already constructed a sound wall and berm along the freeway portion as mentioned by Mr. Waters. They had kept the integrity of the wall completely surrounding the property as far as the homeowners would be concerned. Since no development was planned for the remnant parcel at this time, there would be no problem, and he thus recommended approval of their request. He further explained for Mayor Pro Tem Kaywood that the existing wall was located on their property, but built across the easement due to an oversight on their behalf. Councilwoman Kaywood stated she had a problem concerning the matter, and she had voted against the project in the first place. She considered the property to be prime industrial land which should not go to residential use. As well, there would be problems of noise from the freeway, the railroad tracks, etc. There being no further persons who wished to speak, the Mayor Pro Tem closed the public hearing. Councilman Roth thereupon moved that the subject wall be allowed to remain, along with the posting of a 5-year bond to insure its removal if necessary. Councilman Overholt seconded the motion for the purpose of discussion. Councilman Kott entered the Council Chamber. (3:52 P.M.) Discussion followed wherein Mayor Pro Tem Kaywood asked if the placement of a gate in the fence was to be included in the motion. Miss Santalahti reiterated that staff's concern was simply that anyone moving into the project would not recognize the fact that any easement existed and the gate would be notification that there was such an easement; however, a bond would also serve the purpose. Councilman Roth stated if a bond was not required, then he would include the requirement for a gate. It was only a temporary arrangement, and as long as the wall was in place, there was protection. It was the responsibility of Butler Housing to be prudent enough to advise future property owners that the wall would possibly be removed. If his motion was not approved, then the alter- native would be the addition of a gate. Councilman Overholt stated that he did not like walls built on easements, and he was concerned about the impression it would give to surrounding residents. The mere fact that financing of the removal would be available in a 5-year period would not soften the impact on residents if and when the wall were removed. He did not believe that mistakes in construction particularly of the type involved were necessarily to be condoned. Thus, he would not support the present motion, but would favor the installation of a gate in the wall along with a bond so that there would be a visible indication of the temporary nature of the structure. A vote was then taken on the foregoing motion and failed to carry by the following vote: AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Roth NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Overholt, Kaywood and Kott ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Seymour 78-625 ..C_ity Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - May 23~ 1978~ 1:30 P.M. Councilman Roth thereupon moved that the subject 6-foot wall remain subject to a 5-year bond and the installation of a gate in the wall. Councilman Overholt seconded the motion. Councilman Seymour was absent. MOTION CARRIED. Councilman Roth offered Resolution No. 78R-327 for adoption amending Resolution No. 77R-5, adopted in connection with Reclassification No. 76-77-2 (Condition No. 3) as recommended in memorandum dated May 23, 1978, from the Assistant Director for Zoning. Refer to Resolution Book. RESOLUTION NO. 78R-327: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AMENDING CONDITION NO. 3 OF RESOLUTION NO. 77R-5 APPROVING RECLASSIFICATION NO. 76-77-2. Roll Call Vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: COUNCIL MEMBERS: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Overholt, Kaywood, Kott and Roth None Seymour The Mayor Pro Tem declared Resolution No. 78R-327 duly passed and adopted. PUBLIC HEARING - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 1793 - REQUEST FOR WAIVER OF SIDEWALK CONDITION: Request by Carol S. Wilson, The Dominion Christian School, to consider amendment to Resolution No. 78R-125, Condition No. 1, relative to installation of sidewalks for Conditional Use Permit No. 1793, to permit a private school on RS-7200 zoned property located at 925 and 1001 East North Street. The City Engineer, in memorandum dated May 17, 1978, recommended denial of the waiver, thus requiring the sidewalks as part of the off-site improvements (Condition No. 1) for Conditional Use Permit No. 1793. Mrs. Carol Wilson, 6200 Palo Alto Drive, gave the following reasons as to why they considered the request for waiver to be justified: a substantial grade difference existed between the curb level and their frontage area. Therefore, either a retain- ing wall or drastic grading of the front yard would be required. Much of the existing landscaping would be destroyed including possibly a couple of large old palm trees. They were committed in the conditions imposed on them to provide a 220-foot drive down the length of the front of the property to permit all loading and unloading for the school within the property. They believed if a sidewalk were installed, it would encourage parents to drop children off in the street. At the initial hearing, there was concern that traffic problems would be created on the street, and they maintained that sidewalks would encourage such problems. There were no sidewalks on either side of their 237-foot property to which their sidewalks would attach. There were no sidewalks along North Street except at either extreme end. They had spoken to their neighbors who were not in favor of installations of side- walks in that area which would destroy much of the existing landscaping. She emphasized that it would totally destroy their fence, and thereupon submitted a picture showing what would have to be eliminated if the sidewalks had to be installed. In concluding, Mrs. Wilson stated they were asking for consideration to be at least temporarily released from the condition to install a sidewalk until such time as the rest of the street had sidewalks installed. There was no problem with respect 78-626 City Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - May 23~ 1978~ 1:30 P.M. to the curb and gutter, but the sidewalks would be a considerable problem for them at this time. Mrs. Wilson then clarified for Councilman Roth that they were asking for a temporary waiver until sidewalks were built on either the east or west side of the property and they would not be asking for the waiver at this time if those were installed. She then pointed out from a display diagram of the property the circular driveway on the property which provided for a long internal traffic pattern eliminating the problems which might be caused relative to traffic in the street. City Engineer Maddox then explained that only a 4-foot wide sidewalk was required, whereas the plan posted on the wall prepared by Anacal Engineering showed a 5-foot walk. There would be no problem in placing the sidewalk adjacent to the curb in front of the existing fence. Thus, the installation would not disturb the pilasters, fence, hedge, etc. The palm trees were shown back approximately 11 or 12 feet, therefore, he did not believe they would be disturbed and no retaining wall would be required. The plan also indicated a 1.4 foot maximum cut at a 2:1 slope. Thus, they would have to go back about 2.8 feet maximum, and if a sidewalk was placed adjacent to the curb, all of that slope would be within the right-of-way. Councilman Roth asked if such a situation had occurred in the past where a provision was made that sidewalks would not be installed until they were also installed by adjacent property owners. Mr. Maddox stated the problem he saw was that all property owners would then elect to wait until their adjacent neighbors installed sidewalks which would result in no sidewalks ever being installed. He also pointed out that a sidewalk existed at the west end of North Street, and also at the east end and around the corner and the installation of a sidewalk in front of the school would partially complete the sidewalk requirements in that area. Councilman Roth then stated the reason he questioned the situation was with regard to a document from the City of Fullerton wherein in April of 1978, they approved such an agreement. He thereupon read an excerpt from the document which he main- tained had some merit if it was legally enforcmable, stipulating that when either one or both adjoining property owners installed sidewalks, the next property owner would also be required to do so. He also reiterated that the front driveway on the property was an ideal situation for the loading and unloading of students pre- cluding attendant traffic problems if done in the street. City Attorney Hopkins stated that the Fullerton document appeared to be legally enforceable. Councilman Overholt stated that he was very sympathetic with the City Engineer's concern that the sidewalk was not only for the benefit of the subject property, but the public in general. Having served on the School Board for nlne years, they strived as hard as possible to have sidewalks installed so that children would not have to walk on the street. His concern was also relative to thinking of the public good as opposed to private good. 78-62 7 City Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - May 23, 1978, 1:90 P.M. Mayor Pro Tem Kaywood asked Mrs. Wilson if the sidewalk was permitted to be on the outside right next to what would be the curb and gutter, would she have an objection to installing it at this time. The plan would now preclude the necessity of having to remove the fence, hedge and probably the trees. Mrs. Wilson stated that financially it would be a burden, but less of a burden than if the improvements had to be removed. They would prefer time to become established from a financial standpoint since school operation was not scheduled to commence until the fall. Councilman Kott suggested a 2-year time limit with the understanding that it be installed within that period or when the adjacent sidewalks developed. Mayor Pro Tem Kaywood pointed out that Council Policy mandated the installation of sidewalks. Councilman Kott offered Resolution No. 78R-328 for adoption amending Resolution No. 78R-125, subject to the stipulation that sidewalks be installed within 24 months or when the property owners on either adjoining side installed sidewalks, whichever occurred first. Refer to Resolution Book. RESOLUTION NO. 78R-328: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AMENDING CONDITION NO. 1 OF RESOLUTION NO. 78R-125 APPROVING CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 1973. Roll Call Vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: COUNCIL MEMBERS: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Overholt, Kaywood, Kott and Roth None Seymour The Mayor Pro Tem declared Resolution No. 78R-328 duly passed and adopted. 106/174: PUBLIC HEARING - ADMINISTRATIVE - FEDERAL GENERAL REVENUE SHARING: Mr. Ron Rothschild, Budget Manager, explained that the public hearing was re- quired to be conducted in each administrative branch of each recipient government under the reenactment of Federal General Revenue Sharing on January 1, 1977. He then briefed the Council on report dated May 23, 1978, Federal General Revenue Sharing Administrative Proposed Use Hearing, and specifically pointed out the following: under Revenue, Page 2, and Proposed Use, Page 3--Federal General Revenue Sharing receipts for Anaheim for the 1978/79 Fiscal Year were estimated to be $2,250,000 with an additional $24,000 in interest earnings or a total of $2,274,000. It was the administration's intent to totally dedicate these monies toward the construction of Anaheim's new Civic Center complex. The City entered into an agreement with a private development firm for the construction of the com- plex for approximately $12 million with an additional $2 million estimated for site improvements, architectural fees, inspection fees, and furniture. A capital improvement fund was created as a result of the Special Fund clause of the afore- mentioned agreement. The City initially deposited in excess of $8 million into the fund with additional deposits to come from the sale of surplus city-owned property, Federal General Revenue Sharing receipts, revenue from the sale of utility bonds and other incomes as may be lawfully pledged to the fund by the Council. 78-628 .~ity Hall, Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - May 23~ 1978~ 1:30 P.M. City Manager Talley stated under the requirements of the law he was supposed to have a hearing on his proposed use of Revenue Sharing Funds which would then be incorporated in the Resource Allocation Plan (Budget) which would then be submitted to the Council and considered as part of the Budget. He scheduled a hearing in conjunction with the City Council in order to enable any members of the public to come forward if they wished to give him their views, while affording the Council the opportunity to also hear the input received. Thus, on behalf of the administration, Mr. Talley asked if any citizen wished to come forward to express their thoughts on the use of Federal General Revenue Sharing Funds. Mr. A1 Hutson, 922 Park Circle, Apartment 6, speaking on behalf of the Senior Citizens Club, expressed his concern that with the proposed realignment of Lincoln Avenue, the entrance to the Senior Citizens Center would be cut off and he wanted to know what would happen in that event. Mayor Pro Tem Kaywood stated that she had seen a report from the Parks Department showing the new entrance which would be directly onto the parking lot and thus very convenient. She then directed staff to give Mr. Hutson an answer in writing as to where the new entrance would be located. There being no further persons who wished to speak, Mr. Talley stated that from his standpoint, the public hearing for administrative purposes was closed, and the comments received would be taken into consideration in presenting the Budget to the Council. CONSENT CALENDAR ITEMS: On motion by Councilman Roth, seconded by Councilman Overholt, the following actions were authorized in accordance with the reports and recommendations furnished each Council Member and as listed on the Consent Calendar Agenda: i. CORRESPONDENCE: The following correspondence was ordered received and filed: a. 102: Orange County Vector Control District - Minutes of April 20, 1978. b. 102: Orange County Vector Control District - Annual Report for 1977. c. 105: Community Redevelopment Commission - Minutes of May 3, 1978. d. 156: Monthly report for April 1978 - Police Department. e. 105: Project Area Committee - Minutes of April 25, 1978. f. 105: Public Library Board - Minutes of April 17, 1978. g. 140: Monthly report for April 1978 - Public Library. h. 117: Monthly report for March 1978 - City Treasurer. i. 105: Project Area Committee - Minutes of May 9, 1978. 78-629 .C_ity Hall~ Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - May 23, 1978~ 1:30 P.M. 2. 170: TENTATIVE TRACT NO. 10387: MEB Investments #28, to establish a 2-lot subdivision consisting of Portion A, l-lot, CL zone, and Portion B, l-lot, 30-unit condominium subdivision, RM-4000 zoned property located on the east side of Euclid Street, south of Romneya Drive. Tentative Tract No. 10387 was approved by the City Planning Commission. Councilman Seymour was absent. MOTION CARRIED. CONSENT CALENDAR ITEMS: Councilman Kott offered Resolution Nos. 78R-329 through 78R-333, 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. 78R-329: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM ACCEPTING CERTAIN DEEDS AND ORDERING THEIR RECORDATION. (Family Health Program, Inc.; Matreyek Homes, Inc.; Lana Corporation; Don V. Edmunds, et ux.; Beverly A. Brennan, et al.; Beatrice Regan; William Donaldson, et ux.; Louis Paulson, et ux.; Harold R. Jones, et ux.) 167: RESOLUTION NO. 78R-330: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM FINDING AND DETERMINING THAT PUBLIC CONVENIENCE AND NECESSITY REQUIRE THE CONSTRUCTION AND COMPLETION OF A PUBLIC IMPROVEMENT, TO WIT: TRAFFIC SIGNAL AND SAFETY LIGHTING AT THE INTERSECTION OF ELM STREET AND HARBOR BOULEVARD, IN THE CITY OF ANAHEIM, ACCOUNT NO. 10-4309-263-16-0075; APPROVING THE DESIGNS, PLANS, PROFILES, DRAWINGS, AND SPECIFICATIONS FOR THE CONSTRUCTION THEREOF; AUTHORIZING THE CONSTRUCTION OF SAID PUBLIC IMPROVEMENT IN ACCORDANCE WITH SAID PLANS, SPECIFICATIONS, ETC.; AND AUTHORIZING AND DIRECTING THE CITY CLERK TO PUBLISH A NOTICE INVITING SEALED PROPOSALS FOR THE CONSTRUCTION THEREOF. (Bids to be opened June 15, 1978, 2:00 P.M.) 164: RESOLUTION NO. 78R-331: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM FINDING AND DETERMINING THAT PUBLIC CONVENIENCE AND NECESSITY REQUIRE THE CONSTRUCTION AND COMPLETION OF A PUBLIC IMPROVEMENT, TO WIT: ORANGEWOOD AVENUE SEWER IMPROVEMENT, HARBOR BOULEVARD TO WEST STREET, IN THE CITY OF ANAHEIM, ACCOUNT NO. 11-4309-720-16-0000; APPROVING THE DESIGNS, PLANS, PROFILES, DRAWINGS, AND SPECIFICATIONS FOR THE CONSTRUCTION THEREOF; AUTHORIZING THE CONSTRUCTION OF SAID PUBLIC IMPROVEMENT IN ACCORDANCE WITH SAID PLANS, SPECIFICATIONS, ETC.; AND AUTHORIZING AND DIRECTING THE CITY CLERK TO PUBLISH A NOTICE INVITING SEALED PROPOSALS FOR THE CONSTRUCTION THEREOF. (Bids to be opened June 22, 1978, 2:00 P.M.) 167: RESOLUTION NO. 78R-332: 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: CONTROLLER REPLACEMENT AT THE INTERSECTION OF NORTRONICS AND ORANGETHORPE AVENUE, IN THE CITY OF ANAHEIM, ACCOUNT NO. 10-4309-263-16-2263. (Grissom & Johnson, Inc.) 78-630 City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - May 23~ 1978~ 1:30 P.M. 151: RESOLUTION NO. 78R-333: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM APPROVING THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF AN ENCROACHMENT PERMIT AND AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR AND CITY CLERK TO EXECUTE SAID ENCROACHMENT PERMIT WITH THE EUCLID ROMNEYA COMPANY (77-10E). Roll Call Vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: COUNCIL MEMBERS: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Overholt, Kaywood, Kott and Roth None Seymour The Mayor Pro Tem declared Resolution Nos. 78R-329 through 78R-333, both inclusive, duly passed and adopted. 170: FINAL MAP - TRACT NO. 9857: Developer, TA Development Company; Tract located south of Imperial Highway, east of Kellogg Drive, north of Cresthill Drive, con- taining 6 RS-5000 proposed zoned lots. On motion by Councilman Roth, seconded by Councilman Overholt, the proposed sub- division, together with its design and improvement, was found to be consistent with the City's General Plan, and the City Council approved Final Map, Tract No. 9857, as recommended by the City Engineer in his memorandum dated May 16, 1978. Councilman Seymour was absent. MOTION CARRIED. 123/161: RECOMMENDATION FROM THE PUBLIC UTILITIES BOARD - AGREEMENT WITH VTN CONSOLIDATED, INC.: That the City Council authorize an agreement with VTN Consolidated, Inc., for engineering services required for the underground electrical utilities system within Project Alpha, Phase I, in an amount not to exceed $135,387. At the request of Councilman Kott, Mr. George Edwards, Electrical Superintendent, explained the bid process that took place on the subject proposed agreement as outlined on page 2 of memorandum dated May 19, 1978, from the PUB. In the final analysis, VTN's proposal was 25 percent lower than proposals received from other consultants. Councilman Kott then asked for further clarification by staff on several aspects of the proposed agreement. Thereafter, discussion followed between CouncJ~lman Kott, the City Attorney and the City Manager, at the conclusion of which Council- man Kott stated he believed the agreement to be a blank check since it did not set a reasonable limit even though it was not to exceed $135,387 because it might be worth only one-half that amount. Therefore, he could not support authorization of this agreement. City Attorney Hopkins expressed his opinion that he did not believe the agreement represented a blank check, but one negotiated under the best arrangements that could be made from an economic aspect. Councilman Kott then referred to Section 16 of the agreement and suggested to the City Attorney that in the future he would like to see in contracts rather than a non-meaningful phrase, something that stated in the event of litigation, that the prevailing party would be reimbursed for all legal fees connected with litigation. 78-631 City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - May 23, 1978~ 1:30 P.M. Councilman Overholt offered Resolution No. 78R-334 for adoption, as recommended in memorandum dated May 19, 1978, from the Public Utilities Board. Refer to Resolution Book. RESOLUTION NO. 78R-334: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM APPROVING THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF AN AGREEMENT WITH VTN CONSOLIDATED, INC., AS CONSULTING ENGINEER, TO PROVIDE SERVICES REQUIRED FOR UNDERGROUND ELECTRICAL UTILITIES WITHIN THE PROJECT ALPHA AREA AND AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR AND CITY CLERK TO EXECUTE SAID AGREEMENT ON BEHALF OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM. (not to exceed $135,387) Roll Call Vote: AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Overholt, Kaywood and Roth NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Kott ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Seymour The Mayor Pro Tem declared Resolution No. 78R-334 duly passed and adopted. ORDINANCE NOS. 3862 AND 3863: Councilman Kott offered Ordinance Nos. 3862 and 3863 for adoption. Refer to Ordinance Book. ORDINANCE NO. 3862: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AMENDING TITLE 18 OF THE ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO ZONING. (74-75-21(1), ML) ORDINANCE NO. 3863: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AMENDING TITLE 18 OF THE ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO ZONING. (76-77-46, RM-1200) Roll Call Vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: COUNCIL MEMBERS: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Overholt, Kaywood, Kott and Roth None Seymour The Mayor Pro Tem declared Ordinance Nos. 3862 and 3863 duly passed and adopted. 105: REPORT ON COUNCIL LIAISON MEETING WITH HACMAC: Mayor Pro Tem Kaywood reported that the first Council liaison meeting with HACMAC was held on Wednesday, May 17, 1978, wherein both she and Mayor Seymour met with the Chairman, Vice-Chairman and Secretary of HACMAC. They (HACMAC) requested a reorganization down to 11 members with one and two year terms. Also, a clarification of the committee's role was discussed. Other points of discussion were that there be a specific vote relative to actions taken reflected in the minutes, clarification that the committee was answerable to the Council, and that no communications be sent to any jurisdictions outside the City without Council approval. The Committee believed their job to be very important and they wanted to continue. They also discussed improving communica- tion with the Planning Commission. ..~73: REQUEST TO CAL TRANS THAT $61.5 MILLION REMAIN IN CAL TRANS DISTRICT 7: Mayor Pro Tem Kaywood referred to a resolution received from the League of Cities regarding Cal Trans District 7 relative to funds that were designated for 4-year periods, the first ending June 30, 1979. The ~ounties involved in District 7 were Orange, Los Angeles and Ventura, with an expenditure short fall of $61.5 million for the 4-year period because a particular freeway was not now going to be built. The League wanted to be certain that the money would be spent in 78-632 ~it¥ Hall~ Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - May 23~ .1978~ 1:30 P.M. District 7 rather than going to Northern California. District 7 was a donor area which gave more money than it received back, and it was time to correct that inequity. Mayor Pro Tem Kaywood thereupon moved that Anaheim request that $61.5 million designated for a 4-year period remain in Cal Trans District 7 covering Orange, Los Angeles and Ventura counties. Councilman Kott seconded the motion. Council- man Seymour was absent. MOTION CARRIED. 114: SUPPORT FOR RIGHTS OF THE UNBORN AND OPPOSING ELECTIVE ABORTIONS: Council- man Kott referred to the resolution submitted to the Council from the City of South E1 Monte, that he also wished to offer for Anaheim; that being a resolution supporting the rights of the unborn and opposing elective abortions and he so moved. Councilman Roth seconded the motion. Before a vote was taken, Mayor Pro Tem Kaywood stated she believed the matter to be outside the realm of the City Council and not proper, in that resolutions should be based on matters related to City business. Both Councilmen Roth and Kott did not agree, and saw nothing improper in letting the citizenry know how they felt as a Council relative to the matter. A vote was taken on the foregoing resolution and failed to carry by the following vote: AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Kott and Roth NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Overholt and Kaywood ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Seymour Councilman Overholt stated that his vote did not mean he was for or against the issue. ADJOURNMENT: Councilman Roth moved to adjourn. Councilman Overholt seconded the motion. Councilman Seymour was absent. MOTION CARRIED. Adjourned: 4:45 P.M. LINDA~D. ROBERTS, CITY CLERK