Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
1992/04/07
City Hallt Anaheimt California - COUNCIL MINUTES - APRIL 7~ 1992, 5=00 P.M. The City Council of the City of Anaheim met in regular session. PRESENT: ABSENT: PRESENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Ehrle, Pickler, Daly and Hunter COUNCIL MEMBERS: Simpson CITY MANAGER: James Ruth CITY ATTORNEY = Jack White CITY CLERK= Leonora N. Sohl ASSISTANT CITY CLERK: Ann M. Sauvageau DIRECTOR PARKS, RECREATION AND COMMUNITY SERVICES= Chris Jarvi UTILITIES GENERAL MANAGER = Edward Aghj ayan PLANNING DIRECTOR= Joel Fick ZONING ADMINISTRATOR= Annika Santalahti ZONING DIVISION MANAGER= Greg Hastings -~ A complete copy of the agenda for the meeting of the Anaheim City Council was posted at 3..40 p.m. on April 3, 1992 at the Civic Center kiosk, containing all items as shown herein. Mayor Hunter called the workshop portion of the meeting of April 7, 1992 to order at 3.'11 p.m. Council Member Simpson was absent. City Manager James Ruth. He introduced the first workshop presentation noting that Chris Jarvi, Director of Parks, Recreation and Community Services has headed up a Citizen Advisory Committee for the last several months that was formed under direction of the City Council to prepare the Anaheim Arena Art Plan. 101: ARENA ART PLAN: Mr. Chris Jarvi, Director, Parks Recreation and Community Services. The Anaheim Arena Art Plan is the conclusion of six months work. In June, 1991, the Council approved an enhancement program for the Arena which included $600,000 for the Art program. Over the last six months, there have been fourteen Citizen Advisory Committee meetings to put together the Arena Art Plan. Today's presentation is to familiarize the Council with the Citizen Advisory Committee, the Technical Advisory Committee, the Artist Selection Panel and to give a summation of the Art Plan which has been submitted to the Council along with a plan schedule. (See - Anaheim Arena Art Plan - made a part of the record which document lists the Citizen Advisory Committee Members, the Technical Advisory Con~nittee and the Artist Selection Panel. A summary Anaheim Arena Art Plan fact sheet included the goals, objectives, and milk,tone data o£ the Art Plan). ~r. J~r¥£ br£e£ed the m~k~-up of the committees and the Artist Selection Panel. He then introduced Julie Mayer, Chairperson, Citizen Advisory Committee. Julie Mayer. She introduced the Committee members who were present and subsequently briefed the Council on what the Committee had done to this point and what they are going to be doing in the future. She, in turn, introduced Mr. Marc Pally, Art Consultant. Mr. Marc Pally briefed the Council on the plan. It is a good representation of the thoughts about the Community and the aspiratiOns for where it can go. The plan sets out goals and objectives that have to do with putting Anaheim on the map distinguishing it through its artwork in addition to the things that 232 City Hallt Anaheimt California - COUNCIL MINUTES - APRIL 7~ 1992, 5=00 P.M. already distinguish it. It is a two-tiered approach. The first tier treats construction of the Arena itself and the second phase will be a more Community based program. He then explained the art proposed for the interior and exterior of the Arena including the development of an "ICON", a symbol for the Arena, that will have international stature and will be immediately identifiable with the Anaheim Arena. The Art Plan will be used as a guide by the artists who will work on the project. Chris Jarvi then reported on the next steps in formalizing the plan. The Art Plan will be presented to the Arts Council next week at their monthly meeting and if no adverse reaction, it will be submitted to the Council on April 21, 1992 for formal approval on the Consent Calendar. By September they hope to have schematics completed and by December construction drawings. He is very pleased with the progress and with the high degree of concurrence between the Technical Advisory Committee and the Citizen Advisory Committee. At the conclusion of the presentation, Council Members posed questions which were answered by Mr. Jarvi. Mr. Ruth then introduced the second workshop to be given by the Utilities Department, Mr. Ed Aghjayan. 175: ELECTRIC CONSERVATION AND DEMAND SIDE MANAGEMENT PROGRAMS= Mr. Ed Aghjayan, Public Utilities General Manager. He referred to a term - Integrated Resource Planning - because it is becoming more and more important in the planning for the electric utility. It is not just supply-side options but also what they call demand-side options. His presentation explained why the programs are in the best interest of their customers and save customers money and why rates will in the long run be less because of the programs. (Mr. Aghjayan's presentation was supplemented by slides, hard copies of most of which were submitted entitled, Integrated Resource Planning - City of Anaheim - Public Utilities Department - made a part of the record). The presentation covered how to meet increasing demand reliably and economically, the goals of Integrated Resource Planning, how Integrated Resource Planning can lower rates in three ways, an explanation of how energy costs vary by time of day, how "peak shaving" works (graphs depicted the process), how load shifting works, that off-peak load sharing has the greatest potential of all programs, sale of excess energy, savings from reduced transmission requirements, the benefits of DSM (Design-side Management) programs and presently approved and proposed peak shaving programs and load sharing programs. At the conclusion of the presentation, Mr. Aghjayan answered questions relative to the DSM program posed by the Council Members. REOUEST FOR CLOSED SESSION: City Attorney Jack White requested a Closed Session to consider the following items: a. To confer with its attorney regarding pending litigation pursuant to Government Code Section 54956.9 (a), to wit= 233 City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - APRIL 7, 1992, 5:00 P.M. Golden West Baseball Co. vs. City of Anaheim, Orange County Superior Court Case No. 40-92-46; Anaheim Stadium Associates vs. City of Anaheim, et al., Orange County Superior Court Case No. 44-81-74. In re Southern California Edison Company. FERC Docket No. ER84-75-000 b. To meet with and give directions to its authorized representative regarding labor relations matters - Government Code Section 54957.6. c. To consider and take possible action upon personnel matters pursuant to Government Code Section 54957. d. To confer with its attorney regarding potential litigation pursuant to Government Code Section 54956.9 (b) (1). e. To consider and take possible action upon such other matters as are orally announced by the City Attorney, City Manager or City Council prior to such recess unless the motion to recess indicates any of the matters will not be considered in closed session. Council Member Hunter moved to recess into Closed Session, Council Member Ehrle seconded the motion. Council Member Simpson was absent. MOTION CARRIED. (3:45 p.m.) AFTER RECESS: The Mayor called the meeting to order, all Council Members being present with the exception of Council Member Simpson, and welcomed those in attendance to the Council meeting. (5:30 p.m. ) INVOCATION: Bruce J. Cramer, Pastor, Anaheim First Christian Church, gave the invocation. FLAG SALUTE: Council Member Irv Pickler led the assembly in the Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag. 119: PRESENTATION - RECOGNIZING MURIEL NELSON FOR HER YEARS OF SERVICE ON THE SENIOR CITIZEN COMMISSION: The inscription on the plaque recognizing Muriel Nelson for her many years of service on the Senior Citizen Commission was read by Mayor Hunter. The plaque will be presented to Mrs. Nelson at a later date. The Council commended her for her dedication to the Anaheim Community. 119: PRESENTATION - FRANK FELDHAUS - RECOGNITION FOR YEARS OF SERVICE ON THE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION: A plaque recognizing and commending Mr. Frank Feldhaus on his years of service on the City Planning Commission was presented to Frank by Mayor Hunter and Council Members who personally congratulated him for his years of dedication to that important post. 119: PRESENTATION - GRAFFITI REWARD CHECK: A graffiti reward check in the amount of $500 was awarded to Sherry Halley who was instrumental in the apprehension and conviction of a person who was caught defacing the City with graffiti. 234 City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - APRIL 7, 1992, 5:00 P.M. 119: DECLARATION OF RECOGNITION: A Declaration of Recognition and Congratulations was unanimously adopted by the City Council and presented to Scott Stevens of the Patrick Henry Neighborhood Council commemorating their one year as an Adopt-A-Block Group. 119: PROCLAMATIONS: The following proclamations were issued by Mayor Hunter and authorized by the City Council: Telecommunicator' s week in Anaheim, April 12-18, 1992 Boys & Girls Club week in Anaheim, April 12-18, 1992 Anaheim Family YMCA week, the week of April 13, 1992 Days of Remembrance in Anaheim, April 26 - May 3, 1992 Federation month in Anaheim, April, 1992 Altrusa International week in Anaheim, April 5-11, 1992 The Telecommunicator's week proclamation was accepted by dispatchers in the Police Department; the Boys & Girls Club proclamation was accepted by John Larson and Michael Sofia; the Anaheim Family YMCA proclamation was accepted by Todd Ament and four representatives; Federation month in Anaheim was accepted by Jessica Hahn and the Altrusa International proclamation was accepted by Cappy Brown and accompanied by another representative of Altrusa. FINANCIAL DEMANDS AGAINST THE CITY in the amount of $2,255,513.49 for the period ending March 27, 1992 and $3,546,812.54 for the period ending April 3, 1992, in accordance with the 1990-91 Budget, were approved. Mayor Hunter recessed the City Council meeting until after the Redevelopment Agency and Housing Authority meetings. (5: 56 p.m. ) Mayor Hunter reconvened the City Council meeting. (5=58 p.m. ) PUBLIC COMMENTS - AGENDA ITEMS: Mr. Bob Jordan spoke on Item Al8 and Mr. Jeff Kirsch spoke on Items A20 and A26 (see discussion under those items). ITEMS OF PUBLIC INTEREST: No items of public interest were addressed. CITY MANAGER/DEPARTMeNTAL CONSENT CAL~NDAR~ On motion by Council M~mb~ Hunter, seconded by Council Member Daly, the following items were approved in accordance with the reports, certifications and recommendations furnished each Council Member and as listed on the Consent Calendar; Council Member Hunter offered Resolution Nos. 92R-62 through 92R-65, both inclusive, for adoption. Refer to Resolution Book. Council Member Hunter offered Ordinance No. 5293 for introduction. WAIVER OF READING - RESOLUTIONS/ORDINANCE: The titles of the following resolutions and ordinance were read by the City Manager. (Resolution Nos. 92R-62 through 92R-65, both inclusive, for adoption and Ordinance No. 5293 for introduct ion. ) 235 City Hallt Anaheimt California - COUNCIL MINUTES - APRIL 7, 1992~ 5:00 P.M. Council Member Hunter moved to waive the reading in full of the resolutions and ordinance. Council Member Daly seconded the motion. Council Member Simpson was absent. MOTION CARRIED. Al. 118= The following claims were filed against the City and action taken as recommended.' Claims rejected and referred to Risk Management: a. Claim submitted by William Lanham for property damage sustained purportedly due to actions of the City on or about January 29, 1992. b. Claim submitted by Donna L. Nelson for bodily injury sustained purportedly due to actions of the City on or about December 16, 1991. c. Claim submitted by Gerard Abraham for property damage sustained purportedly due to actions of the City on or about February 12, 1992. d. Claim submitted by Herb Allen dba Penn Pacific Company for property damage sustained purportedly due to actions of the City on or about August 7, 1991. e. Claim submitted by Edward Edrosolano for property damage sustained purportedly due to actions of the City on or about October 26, 1991. f. Claim submitted by Marie T. Morgan for bodily injury sustained purportedly due to actions of the City on or about December 8, 1991. g. Claim submitted by Masahiro Masuda for property damage sustained purportedly due to actions of the City on or about February 2, 1992. h. Claim submitted by Christina Frazelle for property damage sustained purportedly due to actions of the City on or about October 10, 1991. i. Claim submitted by Daniel H. Johnnie for property damage sustained purportedly due to actions of the City on or about February 26, 1992. j. Claim submitted by Joseph Messina for property damage sustained purportedly due to actions of the City on or about November 28, 1991. k. Claim submitted by Doreen Larsen for bodily injury sustained 1. Claim submitted by Isabel and Wallace L. Cullen for property damage sustained purportedly due to actions of the City on or about August 7, 1991 through February 8, 1992. m. Claim submitted by Albert Schmulbach for property damage sustained purportedly due to actions of the City on or about February 12, 1992. n. Claim submitted by Nancy Peralta for property damage sustained purportedly due to actions of the City on or about February 12, 1992. 236 City Hallm Anaheimm California - COUNCIL MINUTES - APRIL 7, 1992~ 5:00 P.M. o. Claim submitted by Leo Shillong for property damage sustained purportedly due to actions of the City on or about January 25, 1992. p. Claim submitted by National General Ins. Company (Larry Moffitt) for property damage sustained purportedly due to actions of the City on or about October 26, 1991. q. Claim submitted by David McBreen for bodily injury sustained purportedly due to actions of the City on or about October 12, 1991. r. Claim submitted by Earl F. Wittenberg for bodily injury and property damage sustained purportedly due to actions of the City on or about August 10, 1991. s. Claim submitted by Tina Bakakos for property damage sustained purportedly due to actions of the City on or about February 19, 1992. t. Claim submitted by Yvonne M. Homan for property damage sustained purportedly due to actions of the City on or about January 9, 1992. u. Claim submitted by Mohamad Maher Alkhatib for property damage sustained purportedly due to actions of the City on or about February 14, 1992. v. Claim submitted by Ralph C. Paisley for property damage sustained purportedly due to actions of the City on or about February 13, 1992. w. Claim submitted by Bruce E. Pfluger for property damage sustained purportedly due to actions of the City on or about January 29, 1992. x. Claim submitted by Janice Elaine Blackburn for bodily injury sustained purportedly due to actions of the City on or about November 22, 1991. y. Claim submitted by Ricardo & Louise Alavarez-Malo & minors and Aldege and Cecile Lussier for bodily injuries and property damage sustained purportedly due to actions of the City on or about August 24, 1991. z. Claim submitted by Denyse Christine Shires for bodily injury sustained purportedly due to actions of the City on or about Noven~er 7, 1991. aa. Claim submitted by Carla M. Visnic for property damage sustained purportedly due to actions of the City on or about February 13, 1992. bb. Claim submitted by Ronald J. Thackrah and Erma Thackrah for property damage and bodily injuries sustained purportedly due to actions of the City on or about August 24, 1991. A2. 107= Receiving and filing the Statistical Report Summary ending February 29, 1992, as submitted by the Building Division. 237 City Hallt Anaheimt California - COUNCIL MINUTES - APRIL 7, 1992~ 5:00 P.M. 105= Receiving and filing minutes of the Public Utilities Board meeting held February 20, 1992. 105: Receiving and filing minutes of the Anaheim Public Library Board meeting held February 26, 1992. 114: Receiving and filing Resolution No. 92-248 from the City of Blythe, opposing the requirement that local agencies perform the policing duties of the State Department of Industrial Relations. 105: Receiving and filing minutes of the Anaheim Park and Recreation Commission meetings held January 22, 1992, and February 26, 1992. A3. 135: Rejecting all bids submitted for the Anaheim Hills Golf Course Irrigation Project. A4. 170= Approving the Final Map of Tract No. 14363, and the Subdivision Agreement with West Terrace, and authorizing the Mayor and City Clerk to execute said Subdivision Agreement. Tract 14363 is located at 1001 through 1011 North West Street, and is filed in conjunction with Reclassification No. 89-90-03. AS. 173.- Authorizing the receipt of $93,750 in funds from Assembly Bill 2766, and the South Coast Air Quality Management District for new ridesharing programs as designated in the Mobile Source Air Pollution Reduction Ordinance adopted by City Council in May, 1991. 106= Amending the 1991/1992 Resource Allocation Plan by increasing Fund 18 revenues and expenditures by $93,750. A6. 123: Approving a First Amendment to Second Extension Agreement with Orange County Striping Service, Inc., to extend the term of agreement for one additional year, for striping maintenance services. A7. 123= Authorizing the Mayor and City Clerk to execute an Agreement with the City of Garden Grove to share maintenance costs for the Convention Way/West Street Traffic Signal. A8. 173: RESOLUTION NO. 92R-62: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM APPROVING THE APPLICATION FOR BICYCLE AND/OR PEDESTRIAN FUNDS UNDER SB-821 AND REAFFIRMING THE ADOPTION OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM BICYCLE AND/OR P~D~.~TRIAN PLAN. A9. 169: Authorizing the Mayor to execute a Memorandum of Understanding regarding receipt and use of Measure M funds; and adopting a seven-year Capital Improvement Program; and authorizing the Director of Public Works to submit the City of Anaheim's Measure M Program to the Orange County Transportation Authority. AIO. 160: Accepting the low bid of Sierra Pumping Systems, Inc., in the amount of $54,975.63 for a variable frequency drive pump station at Dad Miller Golf Course, in accordance with Bid $5025. 238 City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - APRIL 7, 1992, 5:00 P.M. All. 160: Waiving Council Policy 306, and authorizing the Purchasing Agent to issue a purchase order to George Chevrolet, in the amount of $502,909.60 for forty police cars. A12. 175.- Approving an air-conditioner replacement program "Cooling Down Your Utility Bill" for the Public Utilities Department, as recommended by the Public Utilities Board at their meeting of March 19, 1992. A13. 114: Receiving and filing Resolution No. 92-21 from the City of Lake Elsinore opposing water company standby charges. A14. 175: Approving the responses by Arnold Technologies, Rockwell International, and the Ohio Casualty Group to the Public Utilities Department's RFP for Demand-Side Management Projects from customers of the Anaheim Public Utilities Department, and authorizing the Public Utilities General Manager to provide joint funding in the amount of $75 per on-peak kilowatt of savings to each customer, not to exceed $25,000 per project. 123= Authorizing the Public Utilities General Manager to extend the RFP and sign agreements for joint funding with qualifying customers, up to $75 per on-peak kilowatt reduced. Such funding shall not exceed the lesser of $25,000 per project or 30% of the customer's investment in energy-saving equipment. A15. 175: Approving the replacement of the existing Lenain Filtration Plant with a conventional water treatment plant, at an estimated cost of $12,435,000 and appropriating funds, in the amount of $12,435,000 in Fund 53, Program 620, in the FY 1991/92 RAP. A16. 126= Approving the rental agreement designed for rental of Car Park 8, located at the southwest corner of Freedman Way and Clementine Street, and authorizing the Convention Center General Manager to execute said agreement and set rental rates. A17. 123= Approving a First Amendment to the Agreement with OMNI/Lynton Enterprises, Inc., dba OMNI Telecommunications Company, in an amount not to exceed $113,708.23 for cabling network Change Orders on the Police 2000 Project. A18. 108: ORDINANCE NO. 5293 - {INTRODUCTION): AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AMENDING SECTION 2.12.010 OF CHAPTER 2.12 OF TITLE 2 OF THE ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO THE TRANSIENT OCCUPANCY TAX. (13% of the rent charg~ by =h~ 0~ra=0r, effective July 1, 1992.) Robert Jordan, Manager, Holiday Inn Main Gate Hotel, Harbor Boulevard. He is not so much against the tax increase, but wants the Council to be aware of his concerns. If visitors are being asked to pay 13% Transient Occupancy Tax (TOT), it will be the fourth highest City in the United States. He thereupon submitted a list of Orange County Cities and major U.S. Cities showing the tax assessed by each of those cities. Thirteen percent (13%) would be 35% higher than any other city in Orange County. Anaheim will lose market share to Fullerton and Buena Park who are at 10%. He then reported on issues in the CR area that are detrimental to guests coming to Anaheim - sign pollution, poor landscaping, no sidewalks on major pedestrian travel areas (he submitted 239 City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - APRIL 7r 1992, 5:00 P.M. photographs showing some of these problems), pornographic newspapers being sold in newsstands right across from Disneyland, etc. It is necessary to underground utilities, widen streets, improve landscaping and signage now and not wait for the Disney project. The .4% is to go to the Police Department but as a reminder, the City already receives 7.2 million dollars from hotels and now will have another $920,000 to contribute. Hotels will then contribute over 8.1 million dollars to the Police Department. Another $3,000,000 already goes to the Fire Department. The CR area needs more Police support for the 8.1 million. He asked that they realign priorities and give hotels support in the CR area. Do not continue to tax and borrow on their future, but instead pay as they go. Council Member Daly. He noted that the Visitor & Convention Bureau supports the proposed increase; Mr. Jordan answered it is difficult not to, considering the subject matter. Twenty percent (20%) of his business, occupancy-wise, comes from convention business. It is totally 28% of his business. After additional discussion between Council Members and Mr. Jordan, Mayor Hunter stated the City is doing a major job in the CR area and has spent literally years on planning as to what is going to occur there. It is a major effort on behalf of many people - the signage, landscaping - all of the things Mr. Jordan spoke about. The City wants this area cleaned up and approved for its many visitors especially in that vital area. City Manager Ruth. Planning staff has worked very closely with the visitor and convention industry in evaluating the entire CR area and have come up with a very comprehensive plan. The only reason it has slowed down, as the Disney project evolved, the City wanted to be sure they are coordinating with that major improvement possibility rather than redoing improvements later on. Mr. Jordan's point is well taken that there is a tendency to look at the major projects, but there is a need to take a look at some of the housekeeping things that can also make a major improvement. A very comprehensive plan has been developed, and the projects itemized and reviewed with the Visitor & Convention Bureau. There has been a great deal of input from the start. The City will be happy to address any other concerns that may be expressed. A19. 123: Approving the License Agreement for Audre Plaza and the License Agreement for Ponderosa Park Community Center with the County of Orange for the Women, Infant, and Children Supplemental Food Program's non-fee use of the Ponderosa and Audre Plaza neighborhood centers. A20. 153: RESOLUTION NO. 92R-63: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM ADOPTING A RESOLUTION OF INTENTION TO APPROVE AN AMENDMENT TO CONTRACT BETWEEN THE BOARD 'OF ADMINISTRATION OF THE PUBLIC EMPLOYEES' RETIREMENT SYSTEM AND THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM. Jeff Kirsch. This appears to be another increase in the benefit package. He asked how the cost would be covered. City Manager Ruth. It is covered in the budget. It will not require additional taxes, it is a commitment made by the Council in 1989 to implement the benefit package in 1992. 240 City Hallt Anaheimt California - COUNCIL MINUTES - APRIL 7~ 1992~ 5:00 P.M. A21. 123= Approving an Agreement with Liebert, Cassidy and Frierson for labor negotiations consultant/counsel services, and appropriating $15,600 from Council' s future appropriations fund, Account No. 01-103-6787, to expenditure Account No. 01-145-6340. A22. 123: Waiving Council Policy 401 and approving an Agreement with David M. Griffith and Associates, Ltd., as a consultant to provide assistance in the preparation and filing for reimbursement of State-mandated cost claims. A23. 116= Approving the 1992-94 Service Delivery Area Job Training Plan, and authorizing the Mayor to execute the Plan in conjunction with the Anaheim Private Industry Council (PIC). A24. 158: RESOLUTION NO. 92R-64: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM ACCEPTING CERTAIN DEEDS CONVEYING TO THE CITY OF ANAHEIM CERTAIN REAL PROPERTIES OR INTERESTS THEREIN. A25. 114: Approving the minutes of the Adjourned Regular Council meeting of January 11, 1992. A26. 175: RESOLUTION NO. 92R-65: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM DISCONTINUING WATER SHORTAGE PLAN II, ORDERING THE IMPLEMENTATION OF WATER SHORTAGE PLAN I, AND REDUCING ANAHEIM'S WATER CONSERVATION TARGET. (Recommended by the Public Utilities Board at their meeting of March 19, 1992. ) Jeff Kirsch. He is speaking against relating the Water Conservation requirements for the City. He also again referred to the Metropolitan Water District (MWD) proposal to assess a parcel tax in addition to the 6% rate hike on 'City water. He attended the meeting held by MWD. The City should continue to encourage and promote conservation practices with the idea of either reducing or eliminating independence on the MWD. A27. 114= Approving minutes of Anaheim City Council meetings held February 25, 1992, and March 3, 1992. Roll Call Vote on Resolution Nos. 92R-62 throuqh 92R-65~ both inclusive, for adoption .* NOES ~ COUNCIL MEMBERS ~ None ABSENT = COUNCIL MEMBERS: Simpson The Mayor declared Resolution Nos. 92R-62 through 92R-65, both inclusive, duly passed and adopted. End of Consent Calendar. MOTIONS CARRIED. 241 City Hallt Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - APRIL 7t 1992~ 5:00 P.M. A28. 123= SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT - SAN ONOFRE NUCLEAR GENERATING STATION (SONGS} FERC Docket ER84-75: Submitted was report dated April 2, 1992 from the Public Utilities General Manager recommending approval of a settlement agreement with the cities and agencies as noted and authorizing the firm of Spiegel and McDiarmid to execute the agreement on behalf of the City of Anaheim. Council Member Hunter moved to approve a settlement agreement with the cities of Azusa, Banning, Colton and Riverside and the Arizona Public Service Company, the Southern California Water Company, and Southern California Edison Company relating to the San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station (SONGS), and authorizing the firm of Spiegel and McDiarmid to execute said agreement on behalf of the City of Anaheim as recommended in report dated April 2, 1992 from the Public Utilities General Manager. Council Member Ehrle seconded the motion. Council Member Simpson was absent. MOTION CARRIED. ITEMS B1 - B4 FROM THE ZONING ADMINISTRATOR MEETING OF MARCH 19, 1992 - DECISION DATE: MARCH 26t 1992~ INFORMATION ONLY - APPEAL PERIOD ENDS APRIL 10~ 1992: B1. 179: CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 3502 AND NEGATIVE DECLARATION: OWNER: George Gade, 30001 Crown Valley Parkway, Laguna Niguel, CA 92677. AGENT: Michael Johnson, 22305 Rolling Hills Lane, Yorba Linda, CA 92687. LOCATION: 601 East Orangethorpe Avenue. Property is approximately 1.3 acres, having a frontage of approximately 316 feet on the north side of Orangethorpe Avenue, having a maximum depth of approximately 174 feet, and being located approximately 1,435 feet west of the centerline of Raymond Avenue. To permit on-sale consumption of beer and wine in an existing 7,400 square foot restaurant. ACTION TAKEN BY THE ZONING ADMINISTRATOR= Conditional Use Permit No. 3502 APPROVED (Decision No. ZA92-15). Approved Negative Declaration. B2. 179: CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 3503 AND NEGATIVE DECLARATION: OWNER: Scott T. Burnham, 3636 Birch Street, Suite 100, Newport Beach, CA 92660. ACENTS~ MANUEL A. PERES, 1402 Eag~ 19~ ~ee~, San~a Aha, CA 92701. ALEJANDRO P. PEREZ, 23822 Palmer Circle, E1 Toro, CA 92630. LOCATION: 470 South Anaheim Hills Road. Property is approximately 0.73 acre, approximately 201 feet on the north side of Canyon Rim Road and approximately 300 feet east of the centerline of Nohl Ranch Road. To permit on-sale consumption of beer and wine in an existing restaurant. ACTION TAKEN BY THE ZONING ADMINISTRATOR: Conditional Use Permit No. 3503 APPROVED (Decision No. ZA92-16). Approved Negative Declaration. 242 City Hallm Anaheimm California - COUNCIL MINUTES - APRIL 7, 1992, 5:00 P.M. B3. 179: ADMINISTRATIVE ADJUSTMENT NO. 0068 AND CATEGORICALLY EXEMPT, CLASS REQUESTED BY: Raul F. Miranda and Luz S. Miranda, 1757 West Rutherford Street, Anaheim, CA 92806. LOCATION: 1757 North Rutherford Street. To construct a 374 square-foot bedroom addition to an existing single-family residence, with waiver of minimum site area, 5,850 square-feet permitted; 5,000 square-feet proposed. ACTION TAKEN BY THE ZONING ADMINISTRATOR: Administrative Adjustment No. 0068 GRANTED (Decision No. ZA92-17). B4. 179: VARIANCE NO. 4117 - EXTENSION OF TIME: REQUESTED BY: Myrle J. Holloway LOCATION: 919-959 South Knott Street Petitioner requests a one year extension of time to comply with conditions of approval. Variance was for waiver of required lot frontage to subdivide the property. ACTION TAKEN BY THE ZONING ADMINISTRATOR: Extension of time GRANTED, retroactive to March 21, 1992, and to expire on March 21, 1993. END OF THE ZONING ADMXNXS~TOR ITEMS. ITEMS B5 - B9 FROM THE PLANNING COMMISSION M~ETING OF MARCH 23, 1992t INFORMATION ONLY - APPEAL PERIOD ENDS APRIL 14, 1992: B5. 179: WAIVER OF CODE REQUIREMENT, CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 3465 AND NEGATIVE DECLARATION: OWNER: Timothy J. and Cathleen A. O'Neill, 3100 E. Birch, Brea, CA 92621. LOCATION: 1420 N. Lemon Street. Property is approximately 1.13 acre located at the northeast corner of Lemon Street and the Riverside (91) Freeway. To permit an automobile repair center with waiver of minimum structural setback. ACTION TAKEN BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION: CUP NO. 3465 DENIED (PC92-35) due to traffic visibility constraints (6 yes votes, i absent). Waiver of code requirement DENIED Denied Negative Declaration. B6. 179: WAIVER OF CODE REQUIREMENT, CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 3507 AND NEGATIVE DECLARATION: OWNERS: EDGA Enterprises, A General Partnership, Attn: Les Lederer, 1990 West Wood Boulevard, Los Angeles, CA 90025. 243 City Hallt Anaheimt California - COUNCIL MINUTES - APRIL 7~ 1992~ 5:00 P.M. AGENT= Mark Bailey, 23642 Rockfield Boulevard, E1 Toro, CA 92630 LOCATION: 1490 South Anaheim Boulevard. Property is approximately .95 acre located on the northeast corner of Cerritos Avenue and Anaheim Boulevard. To permit on-premise sale and consumption of alcoholic beverages in conjunction with a cocktail lounge with limited food service and live entertainment (bikini dancers) with waiver of required number and size of truck loading spaces. ACTION TAKEN BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION: CUP NO. 3507 DENIED (PC92-36) (6 yes votes, i absent) Waiver of code requirement DENIED. Denied Negative Declaration. B7. 179: WAIVER OF CODE REQUIREMENT, CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 3504 AND NEGATIVE DECLARATION: OWNER: Church of Christ, 1655 Southgate Avenue, Daly City, CA 94015. AGENT: Robert Pellien, 406 S. Harbor Blvd., Anaheim, CA 92805. LOCATION: 420 South Harbor Boulevard (WELLS FARGO BANK). Property is approximately 1.44 acres located on the northeast corner of Santa Ana Street and Harbor Boulevard. To permit a church within an existing 27,100 square foot office building with waiver of minimum number of parking spaces. ACTION TAKEN BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION: CUP NO. 3504 GRANTED (PC92-37) (6 yes votes, 1 absent). Waiver of code requirement APPROVED. Approved Negative Declaration. Council Member Pickler posed questions to staff relative to the proposal which were answered by Planning staff members, Annika Santalahti, Zoning Administrator and Greg Hastings, Zoning Division Manager. June McIntyre, Owner of the Melmac Center, 515 S. Harbor Blvd. She has been trying to rent units in her center for two years without success. She does not oppose the use of a church on the subject site. She does have questions - i.e., why a church would have need for 27,300 square feet if they are only going to use 8,300 sq~aare feet. They will not be able to support such a building with a congregation that meets only two days a week. Economics ~Ic~ate that they will use the thlr~ ~loor ~or o~her purposes than stIpulate~ storage. Parking is already tight and traffic on Harbor is fast and it is heavily traveled. The proposed use will make it harder for them to lease their property at 515 S. Harbor Boulevard. She then gave her recommendations relative to the proposal. At the conclusion of further discussion and questions between Council Members, staff and Mrs. McIntyre, the item was set for a public hearing by Council Member Pickler and concurred in by Council Member Daly with a public hearing to be scheduled at a later date. 244 City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - APRIL 7, 1992, 5:00 P.M. B8. 179: CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 3505 AND NEGATIVE DECLARATION: OWNER: Childtime Childcare Inc. (Gerber Children's Centers), Attn: James W. Geisz, Asst. Secretary, 12100 Wilshire Blvd., Ste. 945, Los Angeles, CA 90025. AGENT: LIVING STREAM MINISTRY, Attn: Francis Ball, 1853 W. Ball Road, Anaheim, CA 92804. LOCATION: 1900 West Ball Road. Property is approximately 0.75 acres located at the southwest corner of Ball Road and Nutwood Street. To permit a sunday school in conjunction with an existing child day care facility. ACTION TAKEN BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION: CUP NO. 3505 GRANTED (PC92-38) (6 yes votes, i absent) Approved Negative Declaration. B9. 179: WAIVER OF CODE REQUIREMENT, CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 3509 AND MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION: OWNERS: Koll-Equitec Partnership, Attn: Ron Keith, 4343 Von Karman, Newport Beach, CA 92660. AGENT: RONALD R. WHITE, 2639 N. Grand Ave., Ste. 119, Santa Ana, CA 92701; ERROL M. FOREMASTER, 282 S. Anita Drive, Orange, CA 92668. LOCATION: 1000 E. Cerritos Avenue Property is approximately 6.8 acres located at the southeast corner of Cerritos Avenue and Lewis Street. To permit an ice skating rink within an existing 43,000 square foot industrial condominium unit with waiver of minimum number of parking spaces. ACTION TAKEN BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION: CUP NO. 3509 GRANTED (PC92-39) (6 yes votes, i absent). Waiver of code requirement APPROVED. Approved Mitigated Negative Declaration. END OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION ITEMS. B10. 179: REQUEST FOR EXTENSION OF TIME - RECLASSIFICATION NO. 86-87-22: The request was submitted by Mark Chen, President of U.S. Southeast Corporation, 1818 South State College Boulevard, $200, Anaheim, CA 92806. The property is located south and east of the southeast corner of Katella Avenue and State College Boulevard. The petitioner requests an extension of time retroactive to September 22, 1991 to expire on June 22, 1992 to comply with conditions o£ approval. Reclass£££cat£on No. ~6-~-22 is £or a change in zone from ML to CO. Submitted was report dated March 30, 1992 from the Zoning Administrator, Annika Santalahti recommending that the time extension be approved retroactive to September 22, 1991 to expire June 22, 1992. MOTION: Council Member Hunter moved to approve the requested extension of time retroactive to September 22, 1991 to expire June 22, 1992 for Reclassification No. 86-87-22 as recommended in report dated March 3©, 1992 from the Zoning Administrator. Council Member Ehrle seconded the motion, Council Member Simpson was absent. MOTION CARRIED. 245 City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - APRIL 7, 1992, 5:00 P.M. Bll. 179: ORDINANCE NO. 5292 FOR ADOPTION: Adding Subsection .045 to Section 18.34.050 of Chapter 18.34 of Title 18 of the Anaheim Municipal Code Relating to Zoning. (Attached or semi-attached one-family dwellings being permitted in the RM-1200 zone subject to RM-2400 code requirements. ) WAIVER OF READING - ORDINANCE: The titles of the following ordinance was read by the City Clerk. (Ordinance No. 5292) Council Member Hunter moved to waive the reading in full of the ordinance. Council Member Daly seconded the motion. Council Member Hunter offered Ordinance No. 5292 for adoption. Refer to Ordinance Book. ORDINANCE NO. 5292 : AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM ADDING SUBSECTION .045 TO SECTION 18.34.050 OF CHAPTER 18.34 OF TITLE 18 OF THE ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO ZONING. (Attached or semi-attached one-family dwellings being permitted in the RM-1200 zone subject to RM-2400 code requirements. ) Roll Call Vote on Ordinance No. 5292 for adoption: AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Ehrle, Pickler, Daly and Hunter NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: None ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Simpson The Mayor declared Ordinance No. 5292 duly passed and adopted. B12/B13. 179: ORDINANCE NOS. 5294 AND 5295 FOR INTRODUCTION: Council Member Ehrle offered Ordinance Nos. 5294 and 5295 for first reading. ORDINANCE NO. 5294: AMENDING TITLE 18 OF THE ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE AS IT RELATES TO ZONING (TO REZONE PROPERTY UNDER RECLASSIFICATION NO. 69-70-31(8), LOCATED AT 2815 E. CORONADO STREET, FROM THE RS-A-43,000 ZONE INTO THE ML ZONE ). ORDINANCE NO. 5295: AMENDING TITLE 18 OF THE ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE AS IT RELATES TO ZONING (TO REZONE PROPERTY UNDER RECLASSIFICATION NO. 89-90-22, LOCATED AT 1001 TO 1100 PULLMAN STREET, FROM THE ML(SC) ZONE -PORTION A AND RS-A-43,000(SC) ZONE - PORTION B, INTO THE CL(SC) ZONE). DZ4, 155{ g~'l:'l:~~ gANYON ~PECIFIC PLAN NO, 90-3 - ORDINANCE~ FOR INTRODUCTION= Cypress Canyon Specific Plan No. 90-3 ordinances for introduction continued from the meeting of March 3, 1992, public hearing Item D3. Submitted was report dated March 31, 1992 recommending that the Council by resolution and ordinance adopt the Cypress Canyon Specific Plan No. 90-3 including public facilities plan, zoning and development standards and conditions of approval with the incorporation of the revised wording for Condition No. 130 with the findings set forth in Attachment C of the February 24, 1992 staff report attached to the subject report. 246 City Ha11~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - APRIL 7, 1992t 5:00 P.M. Council Member Pickler stated he was going to offer the resolutions and ordinances~ City Attorney White. He stated that both resolutions and ordinances could be offered together. For the record, he reported that correspondence was received on the matter including a letter from the State Attorney General's Office which will be included in the record of tonight's hearing even though the public hearing on the subject was closed on March 3, 1992 (see letters all dated April 7, 1992 from Friends of the Tecate Cypress, Constance Spenger, President~ Brunick Alvarez & Battersby, Amy Greyson and State of California, Department of Justice, Los Angeles, Daniel E. Lungren, Attorney General). WAIVER OF READING - RESOLUTIONS: The titles of the following resolutions were read by the City Clerk. (Resolution Nos. 92R-66 and 92R-67) Council Member Pickler moved to waive the reading in full of the resolutions. Council Member Ehrle seconded the motion. Council Member Simpson was absent. Council Member Pickler offered Resolution No. 92R-66 for adoption, adopting Specific Plan 90-03 including a public facilities plan for Cypress Canyon~ and Resolution No. 92R-67 for adoption, approving Zoning and Development Standards for Cypress Canyon Specific Plan No. 90-3. Refer to Resolution Book. RESOLUTION NO. 92R-66: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM ADOPTING SPECIFIC PLAN 90-03 INCLUDING A PUBLIC FACILITIES PLAN FOR CYPRESS CANYON. RESOLUTION NO. 92R-67: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM APPROVING ZONING AND DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS FOR CYPRESS CANYON SPECIFIC PLAN NO. 90-3. Roll Call Vote on Resolution Nos. 92R-66 and 92R-67 for adoption: AYES= COUNCIL MEMBERS: Ehrle, Pickler, Daly and Hunter NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: None ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Simpson The Mayor declared Resolution Nos. 92R-66 and 92R-67 duly passed and adopted. ORDINANCE NOS. 5296 AND 5297 FOR INTRODUCTION: Council Member Pickler offered Ordinance Nos. 5296 and 5297 for first read£ng. ORDINANCE NO. 5296: AMENDING TITLE 18 OF THE ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE BY ADDING THERETO CHAPTER 18.77 RELATING TO ZONING AND DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS FOR SPECIFIC PLAN NO. 90-3 (SP 90-3) (Cypress Canyon). ORDINANCE NO. 5297: AMENDING THE ZONING MAP REFERRED TO IN TITLE 18 OF THE ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO ZONING (Specific Plan No. 90-3, Cypress Canyon). 247 City Hallm Anaheimt California - COUNCIL MINUTES - APRIL 7t 1992~ 5:00 P.M. ITEM B15 FROM THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING OF APRIL 6m 1992, INFORMATION ONLY - APPEAL PERIOD ENDS APRIL 16~ 1992= B15. 179= WAIVER OF CODE REQUIREMENT~ CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 3492~ SITE PLAN REVIEW AND NEGATIVE DECLARATION: OWNER= Woodcrest Development Inc., 23046 Avenita Carlotta, Ste. 250, Laguna Hills, CA 92653. AGENT= MCG Architects, 18201 Von Karmen Ave., Ste 250, Irvine, CA 92715. LOCATION= Property is approximately 3.9 acres located at the northeast corner of Weir Canyon Road and Canyon Vista Drive To permit a commercial retail center consisting of a 1,825 square foot car wash with gasoline sales, 14,232 square feet of automobile repair uses and 11,665 square feet of retail shops with waiver of minimum setback adjacent to a Scenic Highway and permitted roof mounted equipment. ACTION TAKEN BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION= Site Plan review DENIED (6 yes votes, I abstained). Denied Negative Declaration. NOTEs Conditional Use Permit No. 3492 has a 22-day appeal period which expires April 28, 1992, and will appear on the agenda at that time. Cl. 108= ROGER MORRIS INN AT THE PARK - (RAMADA MAINGATE HOTEL} - AUDIT NO. 91110= Requested by Thomas G. Kieviet, Farano and Kieviet, 100 South Anaheim Boulevard, Suite 340, Anaheim, CA 92805. The request is to appeal the determination of the Administrative Hearing Officer pertaining to Transient Occupancy Tax Audit No. 91110 - Roger Morris Inn at the Park (Ramada Maingate Hotel). Submitted was report dated March 19, 1992 from the City Treasurer, Mary Turner recommending that the Council either (i) refer this matter to an outside Hearing Officer and authorize the City Attorney to contract for said services, or (ii) set a public hearing before the City Council and establish a date and time for said hearing. MOTION: Council Member Hunter moved that the matter be referred to a Hearing Officer authorizing the City Attorney to contract for said services. Council Member Ehrle seconded the motion. Before a vote was taken, City Attorney White asked where the cost to hold the hearing would come from. City Manager Ruth indicated there was some money in the Council Contingency Fund~ Mayor Hunter suggested that it be split between the Council Contingency Fund and Ramada. City Attorney White. The appellant has indicated they do not wish to pay or share in the cost of a Hearing Officer unless Mr. Kieviet is present tonight and is agreeable to that course of action~ otherwise, the cost will be borne entirely by the City. In the past when the City has gone to a Hearing Officer, it was because the cost was being paid for by the hotel. 248 City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - APRIL 7, 1992, 5:00 P.M. MOTION: Council Member Daly offered a substitute motion that the matter be set for a public hearing before the City Council and that a date and time be established for the hearing. Council Member Ehrle seconded the motion. Council Member Simpson was absent. MOTION CARRIED. Council Member Pickler. He asked that when they receive such request from hotel/motel operators, in the future, to have it referred to a Hearing Officer at the hotel/motel operator's cost. City Attorney White. There is a new ordinance that will be coming to the Council within the next two to three meetings that will totally revise Chapter 2.12 of the Anaheim Municipal Code relating to Transient Occupancy Tax (TOT). One of the revisions that will be recommended is that the City Council level of the appeal be eliminated and that the appeal from the auditor's decision would go to a Hearing Officer. That Hearing Officer will either be appointed by the City Manager and would normally be a member of City staff, or if the appellant, the hotel operator, wished to pay the cost and agreed to do so, it would automatically go to an outside Hearing Officer at the cost of the hotel/motel operator. The ordinance is not in place at present and thus the subject hearing will have to be heard in accordance with current procedures. C2. 108: HAMPTON INN - AUDIT NO. 91090: Requested by W.R. Traylor, Director, Property and Sales Tax Department, Promus Companies Incorporated, 1023 Cherry Road, Memphis, Tennessee 38117. The petitioner requests that the penalty imposed by Audit No. 91090 be waived. Submitted was report dated March 19, 1992 from the City Treasurer, Mary Turner recommending that the City Council set a date and time for a hearing to hear the appeal of the penalties findings for the Hampton Inn, Audit No. 91090. City Attorney White explained that this relates only to the penalty portion and should not be a lengthy hearing process as recently experienced. He recommends that Council hear this appeal. MOTION: Council Member Pickler moved that the appeal of the penalties findings from the Hampton Inn - Audit No. 91090 be heard before the City Council and that the City Clerk set a date and time for the subject hearing. Council Member Ehrle seconded the motion. Council Member Simpson was absent. MOTION CARRIED. C3/C4/C5. 114/127: DISCUSSION OF CAMPAIGN REFORMS - CAMPAIGN CONTRIBUTION LIMITATION~ AND T~RM LIMIT~ AND DI~U~ION R~LATIN~ TO DISTRICT This discussion was requested by the City Council at their meeting of January 28, 1992 (Item C2) regarding campaign contribution limitations, and regarding Council term limits these matters were continued from the meeting of February 25, 1992 to this date. ALTERNATIVE A ~ Limiting campaign contributions in City elections to $1,000 per source per election. (Long form. ) ORDINANCE NO. - INTRODUCTION: Adding new Chapter 1.03 to Title 1 of the Anaheim Municipal Code relating to Campaign Reform. 249 City Hallt Anaheimt California - COUNCIL MINUTES - APRIL 7~ 1992, 5:00 P.M. ALTERNATIVE B ~ Limiting campaign contributions in City elections to $1,000 per source per election. (Short form. ) ORDINANCE NO. - INTRODUCTION: Adding new Chapter 1.03 to Title 1 of the Anaheim Municipal Code relating to Campaign Reform. TERM LIMITS: ALTERNATIVE A: Two term, combined limit. ALTERNATIVE B: Two term, separate limits. ALTERNATIVE C: Two term, no maximum limit. DISTRICT ELECTIONS: Discussion requested by the City Council at their meeting of March 17, 1992. Council Member Daly. He suggested that the Council allow members of the public present to speak on any of the items before any Council discussion. Secondly, because Mr. Simpson did not anticipate not being present this evening due to a death in his family, he would suggest that no final decisions be made without Council Member Simpson having an opportunity to participate in the discussion. Mayor Hunter. The Council will go forth with public comments on the three issues, but will not be voting on any this evening. He asked to hear from anybody who wished to speak on any or all three of the issues. Ben Bay, 32 year Anaheim resident. He has served the City in the capacity of Chairman of the Charter Review Committee, Redevelopment Commissioner, City Council Member and Mayor. He is speaking to District Elections which he considers as two issues - the first whether or not District Elections should be placed on the November Ballot and the second to be at-large vs. district elections in Anaheim. Mr. Bay then gave an extensive presentation revolving around his strong opinion opposing district elections and the placement of the question on the ballot summarized as follows: The Anaheim City Charter is Anaheim's constitution which can only be changed by a vote of the people. The proposed district election change is the most serious change requested in the history of the City's Charter. His purpose is to try to impress on the Council the importance of the issue - at-large vs. district elections - which is an extremely complex issue requiring a great amount of study along with additional time to relate the congequences and un-intended consequences to the citizens. Both sides of the issue should have ample time to be studied and debated. To understand the issues and consequences, it is necessary to know the history of at-large and district elections not only in California but throughout the nation as well as the one man, one vote rule, the Federal Voting Rights Act and the Supreme Court's Constitutional Law definitions of what causes it to be mandated by the courts. There are moral, legal, racial and political issues involved. Issue No. I - in his opinion district elections should not be placed on the ballot. At this time, there is a highly emotional political environment in the State and Country and it could not be a worse time to place the highly complicated issue of at-large vs. district elections on the ballot. 250 City Hallt Anaheimt California - COUNCIL MINUTES - APRIL 7~ 1992~ 5:00 P.M. It could be passed or defeated for all the wrong reasons. He urged the Council to initiate the necessary action of their own choosing so that the issue is thoroughly studied. Perhaps assistance from a committee will help to provide a way for public input, pro and con, to be fully debated without the pressure of time. It is also necessary to do whatever they can do to get the publicity necessary so that the populace becomes thoroughly educated or as much as possible. He cannot over stress how important it is and how the consequences to every voter of the City will be seriously effected. Haste makes waste. Bob Zemel, 7330 Stone Creek Lane, Anaheim (12 years). He has closely followed the system for governing the City and is a current member of the City's Planning Commission. The districting proposal to change the current system is being advanced in the name of reform and although he applauds that effort, he does not feel the public at-large has had an opportunity to fully comprehend or comment on the various proposals. A thorough public airing of this topic is in the best interests of the citizens of the community to allow voters an informed choice, should this matter be put to the electorate as a referendum. He proposes a task force of concerned and knowledgeable citizens be assembled for the purpose of an organized public review of the districting process. He does not feel this matter has been sufficiently dealt with in the Charter Review Process or the current public debate. The task force could conduct its meetings in the evening to allow for maximum public input and that a process be set up to take letters or written communications from those who cannot attend. The issue of redistricting and reform is far too important to handle hap-hazardly or incompletely. He proposes the Council move quickly to set the task force in motion to bring in the people for an honest discussion of their future. Mr. Zemel then clarified for Council Member Daly that he is calling for a task force solely on district elections since it is such a major issue and that it should consist of community members with knowledge of the concept of districting and that homeowner's groups and various City leaders be involved in the committee, that the committee come back with a report and recommendations as to what input has been received from the entire community throughout the City. Mayor Hunter questioned how the Council would be able to choose people who are unbiased on the issue. Council would then pick the task force but also take the recommendations or not take the recommendations based upon what they thought the biases were. He further clarified that he did not want to be misunderstood that this task force would have some sort of voting power or final say so, but to get the input that is not being obtained now. Steve White, 856 N. Clementine. He is the spokesman and Secretary of Anaheim HOME. They have long been advocating the district election concept in Anaheim. He referred to the poll conducted by the Los Angeles Times on all three of the subject issues. (He submitted a copy of the summary page - Power and Change at City Hall - City Hall Reforms - attached to which was a list of 74 cities of 200,000 population or more showing those that do and do not have district elections nationwide and then California cities.) Having read the City Attorney's report relative to district elections, he (White) would like to see the issue placed on the ballot. HOME would be advocating "by-district elections" (see page I of the City Attorney's March 18, 1992 report). They 251 City Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - APRIL 7~ 1992, 5:00 P.M. are happy with the rest of the items in the report. One final question is relative to residency. It is irrelevant to them where the Council Member lives. He confirmed for Council Member Ehrle that, for instance, the Council person representing District III could live outside of that district as far as they are concerned so long as that person is elected by the voters in that district. They want to increase the accountability and reduce election costs. They are not taking a change in the Charter lightly. It is an important and significant step. When the last Charter Review Committee looked at the issue in 1990, they did not recommend it as a Charter change. It was never totally discussed. They do not want to see it put off seven months. He urged the Council to place the issue on the November Ballot in the way proposed by the City Attorney. George Abess, Attorney and property owner in Anaheim. District elections are a matter of democracy. Putting it on the ballot is not making the final decision. There is plenty of time for meetings and debate. To attempt to delay this would be contrary to the democratic principal of letting the people decide. He disagrees with Steve White with respect to Council Members can live anywhere. They should live in their district. To say people are not informed is to not give them enough credit. He requested that the issue be placed on the ballot. Rodolpho Escalante, 710 S. Philadelphia, a long time Anaheim resident. He is representing the American G.I. Forum which is an Hispanic National Veterans Organization. The subject of districts is very old with the G.I. Forum. It goes back to when World War II ended and Hispanic Veterans were not allowed to run for office or any commissions. Even Veteran's Administration Hospitals discriminated against them. He strongly supports district voting. Put the issue on the ballot. When there are studies, all that happens is a delay of time. Esther Poole, 324 N. Citron. She recently purchased a home in Anaheim and hopes to be an active member in the community. Her biggest concern is taxation without representation. The way things are set up now, she does not know her Council person. She does not feel she is being represented. In her section of the City (downtown area) they need services, equality and representation. She wants her representative to live in her community, not Anaheim Hills when she lives in Central City. Phil Knypstra, 2520 Gelid, Anaheim. For those people who assume they are going to get better representation with district elections, that is not totally correct. When he deals with other cities who have districts, he is always referred to that particular council person. If he/she is not available or does not want to see him, that is the end. In the Anaheim system, he can access either of the five Council Members and thus has five representatives. Th~ D~£ma~¥ £ggu~ ig not d£gtr£0t ~l~ot£0n~, but onm~a£~n ~o~m. It eliminates career politicians, campaign reforms and term limits are what he wants and then there would be no worry about districts. He wants five people representing him and not one. Jeff Kirsch, 2661 W. Palais, Anaheim. He echos Mr. Knypstra's sentiments. There was talk about an informed electorate and he feels that is the area they need to focus on. Campaign funding limitations, districts and term limits are an attempt by the individual to ignore their responsibility to become informed and participate. Responsibility has to be borne by the people. The City can help by making information more accessible and available. He agrees with Mr. Bay that relative to district elections, timing is extremely bad. There will be a budget hearing in two months and the Council is currently wrestling 252 City Hallt Anaheimt California - COUNCIL MINUTES - APRIL 7~ 1992~ 5:00 P.M. with the problems of spending priorities. He would like their attention on the budget issues and not be distracted with the subject issues. Get the people to take back the responsibility they have been abdicating. Marilyn Hauk, 6071Camino Correr, Anaheim. She attended some of the meetings of HOME where they discussed districting. Every time she asked the question - what is the plan, the answer was, there is no plan, just put it on the ballot. When she asked if people voted it down because there is no plan then what will happen, the answer was it opens the door to a lawsuit and will then go to litigation. She has a feeling with Mr. Abess that there is more going on than what people are seeing. She sees no problem with having a plan or with the group having to go out and obtain signatures and put the issue on the ballot themselves. If it is going to be considered, there needs to be some type of hearings to take a look at all issues. The people now have access to all five members. She does not want access to only one Council Member. She does not believe it is in Anaheim's best interest to go to districts. Council Member Ehrle. With reference to a specific plan regarding districting, he assumes that is dictated by State law. City Attorney Jack White. There are a series of State laws that apply to general law cities who choose to have district elections. It is not simply a Charter City prerogative. The State Legislature has set up a series of statutes that deal with how general law cities are allowed to have district elections as well. Anaheim has an advantage because the City can adopt its own plan which differs from statutes that have been established by the State Legislature for General Law Cities. If this were to be on the ballot either by initiative or by the City Council, it will have to be more than just an abstract question. There would have to be a detailed plan in the form of a Charter Amendment voted on by the voters. He gave the Council an initial draft of one possible plan. The purpose was not to suggest that it is the best or only alternative, but only to give some insight into the various issues that need to be considered with regard to district elections. Keith Olesen, 321N. Philadelphia. He is very much opposed to districting whether it is on a ballot or not. If it does go to a vote, it is necessary that it be a very Specific Plan. The people that speak out for districts do so for a lot of different motives and reasons, some of which are the very things they say they are trying to eliminate. It goes along with term limits - voters already have the right to limit a politician's time - placing an arbitrary limit of one, two, or three terms is nonsense. People already have that right and power. People who profess to be strong supporters of districts do not even agree amongst themselves what that means. What that does, it limit8 the voters choice and right to vote for whoever they please. It ie the individuals' responsibility to know who their Council representatives are. He live~ in Centr~l City ~nd for m~ny ye~r~ the be~t representation anybody in central City had were Council Members who lived in Anaheim Hills. Districts and term limits restrict who he can vote for and that is not right. He should have the widest range of choices possible no matter where he lives. The speaker who said he would rather have five representatives than one, had hit the nail on the head. It is not true just because someone is living next door to you that you will get better representation. If there is only one person who cares and five others who do not care, then their vote becomes a very dangerous thing because they are less accessible and accountable. There is much at stake. It should not be done lightly or without a great deal of information. These issues make great campaign speeches, but do not solve the problems. 253 City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - APRIL 7, 1992~ 5:00 P.M. George Abess. With respect to the issue of a Specific Plan, there is structure for creation of districts in State Law and Federal Law which supersedes State Law. The Council may delay if it chooses, but one way or the other the issue will have to be dealt with and cannot be put off indefinitely. It is already being litigated successfully and unsuccessfully throughout the Country. Betty Ronconi, 1241 S. Walnut Street, Anaheim. There are many pros and cons. Districts are not going to solve all the problems of the City. It will create some problems. However the way the City is laid out from West Anaheim to Anaheim Hills, geographics alone make it difficult to know what is going on in each part of the City. The people she has been talking to and who have been talking to her realize this is not going to solve all of the problems. They feel it is necessary to take a step forward to put the issue on the ballot and let the people decide. She has lived in Anaheim all her life. The City is now very diverse. She feels they need to take a step in another direction. People she has talked to feel they are not getting the representation they want and need. Discussion then followed between Council Member Daly and Mrs. Ronconi wherein Council Member Daly posed questions relative to different scenarios that may occur with districting. Sharon Ericson, 6401E. Nohl Ranch Road. She first asked questions for purposes of clarification relative to campaign contributions which were answered by the City Attorney. She then explained that she attended the meeting held by the HOME group and feels they are desperately searching for something. Once the group that was present that was pushing districts left the HOME meeting, the rest of the group started talking about the fact that they were going to come to the City Council and try to get the issue on the ballot. They appeared not to understand what they were doing. Her husband works for Los Angeles County and the supervisorial districts are a disaster with each supervisor only wanting something for their own area. She does not know enough about districting to say if it is good or bad. At the HOME meeting she and Marilyn Hauk asked where the districts would be. Ail they got, not from the HOME group, was it does not matter. It matters to her to be able to understand the issue. They then posed all kinds of questions and concerns that bothered them and HOME seemed to agree after the other group left. The other group was very intimidating and became hostile when they brought up issues of concern. As Mr. Bay said, it is something everyone has to think about. As an example, if the Council Member representing her district did not want to talk to her for whatever reason, he/she will not do so. At this time, it takes a Council majority (3) votes to decide an issue. If her representative agreed with her, but a majority was lacking, where would she be. If the Council is not doing a good job, she wants to be able to act in removing ~11 members Instead of one. If ~ task £orce is formed, 8he hope8 they will not leave out City employees. People do not know what is going on. They do not realize that local government effects their daily lives more than what is happening with the United States Presidency. Miriam Kaywood. She is a 36 year resident of Anaheim, a former Planning Commissioner and was a Council Member for over 16 years. More and more mandates are coming to the cities without funding to implement them. They must be dealt with without new revenue sources, and services must be provided citywide. Anaheim needs a large dose of "togetherness" - elected officials, candidates and residents who understand and care about the entire City all working together for the one City. Dividing Anaheim into districts would be divisive and counter productive to the entire City, as evidenced by the 254 City Hallt Anaheimt California - COUNCIL MINUTES - APRIL 7~ 1992~ 5:00 P.M. situation in the County where the Board of Supervisors are elected by district. The rivalry between districts caused the jail issue to last for years and cost millions. District officials tend to make deals with each other for votes. Their main concern is to get re-elected to their district at the expense of the entire City/County. Relative to term limits if they should be adopted, a Council Member becomes a "lame duck" in their second term and they do not have to be responsible to their constituents. Residents and districts lose their representation as they can only vote for one instead of five. If that Council Member is absent, who will represent that district Residents will do better with five votes than one vote. Groups could only speak to one representative. It becomes a parochial view - neighborhoods vs. the City and everyone will suffer. Anyone in Anaheim can run for election. Ail it takes is a 30-day residency. She urged that all residents get involved and do all they can to help the City let Anaheim be one City and not districts. Julie Mayer, 1531E. Harriet Lane, Anaheim. She attended the meetings sponsored by the HOME group. She is opposed to a flat yes or no on districting. She also questions the urgency. She serves on the Budget Advisory Commission and there are major issues facing them at this time. She agrees with an earlier speaker that they do not need to be distracted with these issues during this critical period. She does not appreciate being threatened by litigation. The meeting she attended, there were people who were for and against districting and there was a good dialogue. The group proposing districting came into the HOME meeting with an attorney and did not stay for any dialogue. She is opposed to that. If they have a valid offer, they should bring it to the public forum. She is also not in favor of term limits. The Council is already limited by her vote. On districting, the hybrid idea that she has that Mrs. Ronconi was referring to, if by law, and she is still not convinced that the law applies to Anaheim, they have to have districts, her idea is to have two at-large Council Members and an at-large Mayor. That would give her a voting majority of people to reach. It would give a balance. Lew Overholt, 651N. Dryer (30 years). He is a long-time member of the community, served on the Anaheim City School Board for nine years as an at- large elected official and served for 8~ years as an at-large City Council Member. He is in support of Mr. Bay's admonition to the Council. What he has heard, the Council appreciates even more than former Mayor Bay appreciated the complexities of a districting type election process. When he was a school board member, they were as concerned about Sunkist School on the east as Gauer School on the west. When he was a Council Member, they were as concerned about the Hills Golf Course as they were about Anaheim Plaza. He fully supports former Mayor Bay's suggestion that the Council Members are the ones to decide how to handle the problem. It is a complex problem and requires a great deal more study than it has been given which could have a lasting impact on the City. To him there are two choices, either leave it to the proponents of districting to go through the initiative process, or set up a committee or task force to give an opportunity for study like the Charter Review Committee. Mayor Hunter and Council Member Pickler both agreed that the three issues should be continued for Council discussion/decision when Council Member Simpson was present; Council Member Ehrle also agreed. He (Ehrle) has talked to the representatives of HOME, Los Amigos, Bob Zemel and the Anaheim Hills people on the issue of districts. He and Ben Bay will debate the issue for discussion purposes at the Chamber of Commerce as well. Ail the dialogue is healthy. He supports campaign contribution limitations. Relative to 255 City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - APRIL 7, 1992, 5:00 P.M. districting, he has heard some alternatives that have merit. Tonight's discussion alone was a very fruitful one. MOTION= Council Member Ehrle moved that discussion/decision on the three foregoing issues be continued for at least 30 days. Before further action on the motion, Mayor Hunter stated that the Council needs to have more discussion amongst themselves. He recounted some of the suggestions made tonight relative to a task force. He does not know how the task force could come back with a recommendation. He asked for comments by Mr. Bay. Ben Bay. If the Council decides to set up a task force, he feels that is what should be done because there are good arguments on both sides and some legal mandatory things that may come into play and may not. It is important for the Council/City to know whether it is in a position to be taken into court and forced into districts and they would not know that until they do the applicable studies. He feels they are not in that position. What he is asking that they not do is to stampede on the threat of lawsuits. Some cities have done so and have regretted it. As to the task force, if they ask for volunteers, they will get both sides but he recommends that there be an application form including the question where do they stand on districting - for, against or neither. The debates and arguments and coming together will happen. He does not know whether the Council would want them to have their own public hearings and get public input - that way they are bound to get both sides. What he is most interested in is in both sides having a "fair shake" to give their arguments and for those arguments to be fully publicized with the pros and cons on both sides of the issue before it is ever put before the voting public. He does not want to see either the majority or the minority vote getting diluted in any way. Phil Knypstra. As far as he is concerned, the Council is the task force and there is no need for any committee. Either they believe in it or not. The Council should make their own statement. Council Member Pickler seconded Council Member Ehrle's motion to continue the matter but to Tuesday, May 19, 1992. Council Member Simpson was absent. MOTION CARRIED. RECESS: By general Consent the Council recessed for ten minutes. (8:15 p.m. ) AFTER RECESS: The Mayor called the meeting to order, all Council Members being present with the exception of Council Member Simpson. (8:35 p.m. ) SWEAR-IN OF THOSE TESTIFYING AT PUBLIC HEARINGS: The City Attorney announced that it is aDDroDriate at this time for all those intending to testify at any or all of the public hearings including staff be sworn in at this time. Those testifying were requested to stand by the City Clerk and asked to raise their right hand. The oath was then given. D1. 179: CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING - RECLASSIFICATION NO. 66-67-31: REQUESTED BY: David L. Tsoong, M.D., Anaheim Harbor Medical Group, Inc., 230 S. Euclid, Anaheim, CA 92802. LOCATION/REQUEST: The property is located at 710 North Euclid Street. The petitioner requests amendment to conditions of approval adopted in connection with Resolution No. 66R-741 and Ordinance No. 2340. 256 City Hallr Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - APRIL 7, 1992t 5:00 P.M. Reclassification No. 66-67-31 is for a change in zone from RS-A-43,000 to CL. PUBLIC NOTICE REQUIREMENTS MET BY: Publication in Anaheim Bulletin - March 12, 1992 Mailing to property owners within 30 feet - March 11, 1992 Posting of property - March 13, 1992 Continued from the meeting of March 24, 1992 to this date (see minutes that date ). Annika Santalahti, Zoning Administrator first explained for Council Member Daly that the item was continued at the request of staff because an environmental assessment had not been prepared an appropriate number of days before the hearing. That has now been done and it was the only reason for the continuance. Staff is recommending approval of the request. Jeff Farano, Farano and Kieviet, Attorney representing the petitioner, Dr. Tsoong. In 1966, when the property was reclassified, for some reason, a 20 foot easement was required from the apartments to the east of the project over to Euclid along the flood zone. That easement was never recorded and he believes it was forgotten. When Dr. Tsoong recently bought the property, he wanted to make some renovations and as he proceeded found out about the easement. For as long as anybody can remember, nobody has ever seen the easement used. It is gated off. He has a letter from the adjoining apartment owners, D & D Develo~ent indicating there is no opposition which he submitted for the record. There is also no opposition from Traffic or the Planning Department. The property owner and a representative are present if there are any questions of the Council. Mayor Hunter opened the public hearing and asked to hear from anyone who wished to speak either in favor or in opposition; since there was no response, he closed the public hearing. City Attorney White. Before any action was taken he noted that the agenda indicates that only a resolution is to be acted upon. There would also be an ordinance that would memorialize the change if the Council acts favorably. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT - CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION: On motion by Council Member Pickler, seconded by Council Member Ehrle, the City Council determined 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 requirements to file an EIR. MOTION CARRIED. WAIVER OF KEADING - RESOLUTION/ORDINANCE: The titles of the following resolution and ordinance were read by the City Manager. (Resolution No. 92R- 68 and Ordinance No. 5298 for introduction. ) Council Member Hunter moved to waive the reading in full of the resolution. Council Member Daly seconded the motion. Council Member Simpson was absent. MOTION CARRIED. Council Member Hunter offered Resolution No. 92R-68 for adoption, approving an amendment to certain conditions of approval in Reclassification No. 66-67-31 and amending Resolution No. 66R-741; and offered Ordinance No. 5298 for first reading. Refer to Resolution Book. 257 City Hallt Anaheimt California - COUNCIL MINUTES - APRIL 7t 1992t 5:00 P.M. RESOLUTION NO. 92R-68: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM APPROVING AN AME~~NT TO CERTAIN CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL IN RECLASSIFICATIONS NO. 66-67-31 AND AMENDING RESOLUTION NO. 67R-741. Roll Call Vote on Resolution No. 92R-68 for adopt£on~ AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Ehrle, Pickler, Daly and Hunter NOES.- COUNCIL MEMBERS: None ABSENT .- COUNCIL MEMBERS: Simpson The Mayor declared Resolution No. 92R-68 duly passed and adopted. ORDINANCE NO. 5298 - INTRODUCTION: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM APPROVING AN AMENDMENT TO CERTAIN CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL IN RECLASSIFICATION NO. 66-67-31 AND AMENDING ORDINANCE NO. 2340. D2. 179: PUBLIC HEARING - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 3392 AND NEGATIVE DECLARATION: OWNER: David Chavez, 4420 E. La Palina Ave., Anaheim, CA 92807. LOCATION/REQUEST: The property is located at 4420 E. La Palma Avenue and is approximately 1.8 acres located at the south side of La Palma Avenue and approximately 300 feet west of the centerline of Lakeview Avenue. The request is to permit a cellular telephone facility and 85-foot high tower (previously 60-foot high) with waiver of maximum structural height, minimum side yard setback and minimum rear yard setback. ACTION TAKEN BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION: Recommended approval of the proposed amendments to CUP NO. 3392 (7 yes votes). Negative Declaration previously approved. HEARING SET ON: The matter is scheduled for a public hearing before the Council since the Council granted final approval of the original CUP. This was an informational item at the Council meeting of March 17, 1992. PUBLIC NOTICE REQUIREMENTS MET BY: Publication in Anaheim Bulletin - March 26, 1992 Mailing to property owners within 300 feet - March 25, 1992 Posting of property - March 27, 1992 PLANNING STAFF INPUT: See Staff Report to the Planning Commission dated February 24, 1992. Joel Fick, Planning Director. The only reason this requires a hearing, is that the zoning is agricultural rather than industrial. The waivers being requested are technical in nature. The request is to add about 18 feet to the existing tower. Staff did take it to the Planning Commission to get their opinion and they unanimously recommended approval. Dale Brown, Planning Consortium, 1111 Town & Country, land use agents for PacTel Cellular. Mr. Chavez is also in the audience. He is present to answer questions. Mayor Hunter opened the public hearing and asked to hear from anyone who wished to speak either in favor or in opposition. Since there was no response the public hearing was closed. 258 City Ha11~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - APRIL 7~ 1992~ 5:00 P.M. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT - NEGATIVE DECLARATION: On motion by Council Member Pickler, seconded by Council Member Ehrle, the City Council approved the negative declaration upon finding that it has considered the negative declaration together with any comments received during the public review process, and further finding on the basis of the initial study and any comments received that there is no substantial evidence that the project will have a significant effect on the environment. Council Member Simpson was absent. MOTION CARRIED. WAIVER OF READING - RESOLUTION: The title of the following resolution was read by the City Clerk. (Resolution No. 92R-69) Council Member Pickler moved to waive the reading in full of the resolution. Council Member Ehrle seconded the motion. Council Member Simpson was absent. MOTION CARRIED. Council Member Pickler offered Resolution No. 92R-69 for adoption, approving modifications to Conditional Use Permit No. 3392 and amending conditions of approval set forth in Resolution No. 91R-134. Refer to Resolution Book. RESOLUTION NO. 92R-69: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM APPROVING MODIFICATIONS TO CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 3392 AND AMENDING THE CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL AS SET FORTH IN RESOLUTION NO. 91R-134. Roll Call Vote on Resolution No. 92R-69 for adoption: AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Ehrle, Pickler, Daly and Hunter NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: None ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Simpson The Mayor declared Resolution No. 92R-69 duly passed and adopted. 108: CONTRACTOR LICENSING: Council Member Daly stated that some time ago the Council received a suggestion that all contractors working in Anaheim be licensed. A staff report was received at the time. The request referred to similar ordinances that exist in Santa Ana and Irvine. He asked that staff revive the request, send the Council copies of the staff report and asked the Council to consider placing the issue on the next available agenda. MOTION: Council Member Daly moved that the Council consider the issue of requiring contractors working in Anaheim be licensed at the meeting of May 12, 1992. Council Member Hunter seconded the motion. Council ~ember Simpson absent. MOTION CARRIED. City Attorney White. He asked prior to adjourning that the Council consider meeting at 2:00 p.m. instead of 3:00 p.m. at their next meeting, April 21, 1992. At that time, two workshops are scheduled to be held and he needs sufficient time for Closed Session Items which will not be possible if the Council starts the meeting at the regular 3:00 p.m. time. City Manager Ruth reported that the two workshop presentations scheduled are the master plan for the Convention Center and the second the Stadium new building being proposed after the expansion building. The Council determined that in lieu of the two workshop presentations, that staff prepare a written presentation for submittal to the Council and the Council will then meet at their regular 3:00 p.m. time on April 21, 1992 and go straight into Closed Session. 259 City Hallt Anaheimt California - COUNCIL MINUTES - APRIL 7~ 1992~ 5:00 P.M. ADJOURNMENT: Council Member Hunter moved to adjourn, Council Member Ehrle seconded the motion. Council Member Simpson was absent. MOTION CARRIED. (8=45 p.m.) No meeting is scheduled for Tuesday, April 14, 1992 since no Council quorum is anticipated. LEONORA N. SOHL, CITY CLERK 26O