Loading...
1982/01/26City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - January 26, 1982, 1:30 P.M. The City Council of the City of Anaheim met in regular session. PRESENT: ABSENT: PRESENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Overholt, Kaywood, Bay, Roth and Seymour COUNCIL MEMBERS: None CITY MANAGER: William O. Talley CITY ATTORNEY: William P. Hopkins CITY CLERK: Linda D. Roberts EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT: Norman J. Priest DEPUTY CITY CLERK: Leonora N. Sohl TRAFFIC ENGINEER: Paul Singer ASSISTANT PLANNING DIRECTOR--ZONING: Annika Santalahti ASSISTANT PLANNING DIRECTOR--PLANNING: Joel Fick CITY ENGINEER: William Devitt HOUSING MANAGER: Lisa Stipkovich ASSOCIATE PLANNER: Jay Tashiro Mayor Seymour called the meeting to order and welcomed those in attendance to the Council meeting. INVOCATION: The Reverend Ron Winckler, Melodyland Hotline Cente~ gave the Invocation. FLAG SALUTE: Councilman Ben Bay led the assembly in the Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag. 119/140: PRESENTATION: Library Board Member Mrs. Elizabeth Schultz introduced Librarian Opel Kissinger, who in turn presented Heritage Booklets to the Council and staff, commemorating the City's 125th Anniversary. 119: PRESENTATION: Shirley Baxter, President, and Lucy Smeltzer, Community Services Chairman of the Soroptimist Club, presented a check to the Mayor in the amount of $1,000, to be applied toward the cost of a reader board to be located at Pearson Park. Mayor Seymour thanked the Soroptimist Club for their continuing kindness and generosity. 119: RESOLUTION OF COMMENDATION: A Resolution of Commendation was unanimously adopted by the City Council and presented to Officer Joe Engelhardt for his professional handling and capture of two wanted felons, and his exemplary per- formance in the face of extreme personal danger. Officer Engelhardt was also honored by the presentation of the esteemed Medal of Valor, presented for only the second time in the City's history. 119: RESOLUTION OF COMMENDATION: A Resolution of Commendation was unanimously adopted by the City Council and sincere appreciation extended to the Patrol Officers, Sargents, Field Commanders, Police Explorers, the 12-member Crisis Intervention Unit and the 15-member Tactical Approach and Control Team for their professional and successful conclusion to what could have become a deadly and violent occurrence in the community relating to an incident which occurred in the early morning hours of Sunday, January 17, 1982. 93 City Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - January 26~ 1982~ 1:30 P.M. MINUTES: Approval of the minutes was deferred to the next regular meeting. WAIVER OF READING - ORDINANCES AND RESOLUTIONS: Councilman Bay moved to waive the reading in full of all ordinances and resolutions of the Agenda, after reading of the title thereof by the City Clerk, and that consent to waiver is hereby given by all Council Members, unless after reading of the title, specific request is made by a Council Member for the reading of such ordinance or resolution in regular order. Councilwoman Kaywood seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. FINANCIAL DEMANDS AGAINST THE CITY in the amount of $2,165,751.95, in accordance with the 1981-82 Budget, were approved. 167: OPPOSITION TO REMOVAL OF PEDESTRIAN TRAFFIC SIGNAL - KNOTT AVENUE AT HANSEN SCHOOL: City Manager William Talley briefed the Council on memorandum dated January 26, 19'82, from the City Engineer (on file in the City Clerk's office), revolving around the subject, a matter which surfaced that morning. The signal was in the process of being removed but he ordered that work be stopped so that if the Council wanted to take a different course of action, they would have an opportunity to do so today. A representative from the Savanna School District was present to speak to the matter. Dr. Thomas Garnella, Assistant Superintendent of the Savanna School District, stated he was present on behalf of the District and its patrons, and also, at the request of the Traffic Engineer, relative to their concern over the existing crosswalk and light at 1330 South Knott Avenue between Apollo Junior High School, now closed, and the Hansen School. He then presented his case as to why they felt the light should not be removed. Discussion and questioning between the Council and Dr. Garnella followed, after which the Mayor asked if there were other members of the public who wished to speak to the issue. The following people spoke in opposition to the removal of the pedestrian signal and crosswalk as a matter of safety for their children and adults in the area, as well as for the future residents of potential development on the Apollo School site: Helen Nahera, resident on the west side of Knott Avenue; Linda McGoldrick and Joan Hayes, members of the Board of Trustees of the Savanna School District. Mayor Seymour, speaking to Dr. Garnella, stated it was unfortunate that a repre- sentative of the Savanna School District was not present at the School Traffic Safety Committee meeting of February 19, 1981, when removal of the signal was recommended, and that School District representatives had attended only one such meeting in 1981. Discussion and questioning followed between the Council, Traffic Engineer and Dr. Garnella, at the conclusion of which, Councilman Seymour moved: (1) That the signal be reactivated; (2) That they proceed immediately with the installa- tion of the signal on Magnolia at-Greenfield; (3) That the subject signal and its warrants be referred back to the School Traffic Safety Committee, providing the Savanna School District an opportunity to give their input. Councilwoman Kaywood seconded the motion. 94 City Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - January 26, 1982~ 1:30 P.M. Before a vote was taken, Councilwoman Kaywood asked the Traffic Engineer, if the signal were left in place, but making it clear it was an existing signal, whether that would cause a problem with the School Traffic Safety Committee. Traffic Engineer Paul Singer stated they were going to ask the Committee their opinion and findings regarding retention of the signal. Relative to a precedent, he felt there would be some impact. Mayor Seymour commented, if the final recommendation was to keep the signal in place, subsequently the Council and the School Traffic Safety Committee should be prepared to address similar circumstances that would undoubtedly occur. Once they started to compromise the process at the Safety Committee level, they were going to have a rash of requests, and properly justified; Mr. Singer added that he could foresee well over two hundred such requests at $25,000 each or better. A vote was then taken on the foregoing motion. MOTION CARRIED. 127: GENERAL MUNICIPAL ELECTION - JUNE 8~ 1982: City Clerk Linda Roberts briefed the Council on her memorandum dated January 21, 1982~ relative to the subject, and also adopting regulations for candidates pertaining to material submitted to the electorate and costs thereof, i.e., candidates' statements. Councilwoman Kaywood offered Resolution No. 82R-35 for adoption, as recommended in memorandum dated January 21, 1982, from the City Clerk. Refer to Resolution Book. RESOLUTION NO. 82R-35: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM, CALIFORNIA, CALLING AND GIVING NOTICE OF THE HOLDING OF A GENERAL MUNICIPAL ELECTION TO BE HELD IN SAID CITY ON TUESDAY, JUNE 8, 1982, FOR THE ELECTION OF CERTAIN OFFICERS OF SAID CITY AS REQUIRED BY THE PROVISIONS OF THE CHARTER, AND REQUESTING THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS TO CONSOLIDATE SAID GENERAL MUNICIPAL ELECTION WITH THE STATEWIDE PRIMARY ELECTION TO BE HELD ON JUNE 8, 1982. Roll Call Vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: COUNCIL MEM]BERS: COUNCIL MEMBERS: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Overholt, Kaywood, Bay, Roth and Seymour None None The Mayor declared Resolution No. 82R-35 duly passed and adopted. Councilman Roth then referred to the Anaheim Chamber of Commerce recommendation of January 22, 1982, that the Council establish a 400-word limit for City Council candidates' statements, instead of 200 words, attached to which was a background paper explaining the reason for their recommendation (on file in the City Clerk's office). He had attended the Chamber luncheon wherein the Resolution to 95 City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - January 26~ 1982~ 1:30 P.M. recommend same was unanimously passed and he felt the idea had merit. Although it would cost the candidate $1600 instead of $800, it would be the most economical way of providing campaigning material with which to reach the public. However, concern was expressed with regard to potential cost to the taxpayers for the Spanish translation. City Clerk Roberts explained that should the statements be set at 400 words, in the final analysis, the cost to the City for the Spanish translation would be approximately $5400 overall. Councilman Bay offered Resolution No. 82R-36 for adoption, adopting regulations for candidates for elective office pertaining to materials submitted to the electorate and the costs thereof for said election, in accordance with the .recommendation of the City Clerk in memorandum dated January 21, 1982, with candidate statements being limited to 200 words. Refer to Resolution Book. 127: RESOLUTION NO. 82R-36: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM, CALIFORNIA, ADOPTING REGULATIONS FOR CANDIDATES FOR ELECTIVE OFFICE, PERTAINING TO MATERIALS SUBMITTED TO THE ELECTORATE AND THE COSTS THEREOF FOR THE GENERAL MUNICIPAL ELECTION TO BE HELD IN SAID CITY ON TUESDAY, THE 8TH DAY OF JUNE, 1982. Roll Call Vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: COUNCIL MEMBERS: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Overholt, Kaywood, Bay, Roth and Seymour None None The Mayor declared Resolution No. 82R-36 duly passed and adopted. CITY MANAGER/DEPARTMENTAL MOTION CONSENT CALENDAR: On motion by Councilman Roth, seconded by Councilman Overholt, the following items were approved as recommended: a. 160: Bid No. 3833: Fifty-three Items of Miscellaneous Hardware. Award to Anixter Pruzan, $11,764.56. b. 160: Bid No. 3834: Two 1500KVA, 12000-480y/277 Volt Three-Phase Padmount Transformers. Award to General Electric Company, $32,836.68. c. 114/166: Adopting the following Council Policy: "NEIGHBORHOOD WATCH SIGN PLACEMENT: It-is the policy o£ the City Council that uniform signs designating NEIGHBORHOOD WATCH be approved for installation within the public right-of-way. The signs and their maintenance shall be the responsibility of adjacent home- owners. No cost will be accrued to the City for this program. d. 129: Accepting the low bid of. M & M Carriage Company in the amount of $18,085.86, to repair Fire Truck No. 6614. 96 City Hall, Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - January 26, 1982, 1:30 P.M. e. 153: Authorizing the 1982 renewal documents with California Psychological Health Plan, Supplemental Dental Plans, Inc., California Vision Service Plan, INA Healthplan of California, Equitable Life Assurance Society of the United States, and Dental Health Services, and authorizing the Human Resources Director to execute same or issue a letter of acceptance. MOTION CARRIED. 123/177: REQUEST FOR AMENDMENTS TO AFFORDABLE HOUSING AGREEMENT - PADILLA DEVELOPMENT COMPANY, 125 WEST SOUTH STREET: Executive Director of Community Development, Norman Priest, briefed the Council on his detailed memorandum dated January 18, 1982, relative to the subject request, attached to which was a copy of the proposed amended.agreement (on file in the City Clerk's office). They had been notified by Padilla Development and various lenders that take-out financing for the Affordable Housing Development could not be acquired because the Federal Home Mortgage Loan Corporation would not approve projects that did not meet their policy requirements. Since lenders would be unable to sell their loans on the secondary market because of the regulations, Padilla Development had been unable to secure a lender for the take-out financing. Councilwoman Kaywood expressed her concern, as she had in the past, on this and similar projects, that they were given a density bonus to begin with and by removing the controls altogether, one person could receive a windfall and the affordable housing would be gone. She was reasonably certain that their original decision could have been different if the facts were known at the time, and she was going to have to oppose the request. Councilman Overholt asked if it were correct to state that the requested amendment would remove ali restrictions or any with respect to foreclosures; Mr. Priest answered, with respect to foreclosures and all in excess of 30 percent, it removed a resale restriction. It was a requirement that had been opposed which had not been foreseen by them, the lender or the developer at the time of the agreement. It did not remove all restrictions. Mro Padilla then answered questions posed by b~yor Seymour in which he (Padilla) explained some of the difficulties he was experiencing relative to financing and the adverse impact it would have on his project should his request not be granted. MOTION: Councilman Roth moved to authorize an amendment to the Affordable Housing Agreement with Padilla Development Company, to exempt any lender and any subsequent buyers receiving title through the procedure of foreclosure from resale controls and to include all Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation requirements, as recommended in memorandum dated January 18, 1982, from the Executive Director of Community Development. Councilman Overholt seconded the motion. 97 City Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - January 26~ 1982~ 1:30 P.M. Before a vote was taken, Councilman Bay stated he intended to vote for the motion on this specific case; however, he was concerned about future cases involving the 100 percent affordables and 100 percent density bonuses given and the effect of such a change on those. As they considered future projects with density bonuses related to affordable, the change should be fully under- stood at the time they made their decision. Mr. Priest stated, had anyone known at the outset, it would have been brought to the attention of the Council, but the change had just come to light very recently through the lenders~ Councilman Bay presumed then that they would be reviewing every project where there were high density bonuses given, already built or in the process of being built. Mr. Priest stated there would be at least one he would be discussing with the Council later today where that would be the case. A vote was then taken on the foregoing motion. Councilwoman Kaywood voted "no." MOTION CARRIED. CITY MANAGER/DEPARTMENTAL RESOLUTION CONSENT CALENDAR: Councilwoman Kaywood offered Resolution Nos. 82R-37 through 82R-46, both inclusive, for adoption. Refer to Resolution Book. 159: RESOLUTION NO. 82R-37: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM DIRECTING THE FILING AND POSTING OF PREVAILING RATES OF PER DIEM PERTAINING TO PUBLIC WORKS. 169: RESOLUTION NO. 82R-38: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AWARDING A CONTRACT FOR THE CHANTICLEER ROAD CUL-DE-SAC E/O HACIENDA STREET, IN THE CITY'OF ANAHEIM, ACCOUNT NO. 01-792-6325-E2810. (Josip Kovac, $13,453) 158: RESOLUTION NO. 82R-39: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM APPROVING THE DISPOSITION OF CERTAIN CITY-OWNED PROPERTY AND DIRECTING THE PUBLISHING OF NOTICE OF SAID SALE. (630 North Anaheim Boulevard) 131/152: RESOLUTION NO. 82R-40: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM APPROVING TWO APPLICATIONS TO THE FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION (Fl[WA) REQUESTING GRANT FUNDS FOR SAFETY ORIENTED PROJECTS ON BALL ROAD FROM ANAHEIM BOULEVARD TO AND INCLUDING HARBOR BOULEVARD; AND AUTHORIZING THE CITY ~t42NAGER OR HIS DESIGNATED REPRESENTATIVE TO EXECUTE AND FILE SAID APPLICATION. 158: RESOLUTION NO. 82R-41: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AUTHORIZING AND DIRECTING THE EXECUTION OF AN AGREEMENT TO PURCHASE FROM THE COUNTY OF ORANGE CERTAIN TAX-DEEDED PROPERTY AND DIRECTING PAYMENT THEREFOR. (AP 359-131-32) (Tax Collector Sale No. 1279, known as Beauty Drive lying within Tract No. 7940, west of Lakeview Avenue, north of the Riverside Freeway, south of Riverdale, $25.00) 98 City Hall, Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - January 26, i982~ 1:30 P.M. 153: RESOLUTION NO. 82R-42: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM FINDING AND DETERMINING THAT NELSON RODRIQUEZ IS DISABLED WITHIN THE MEANING OF THE PUBLIC EMPLOYEES' RETIREMENT LAW FOR TttE PERFORMANCE OF HIS DUTIES IN THE POSITION OF FIREMAN-PARAMEDIC. (Effective January 19, 1982) 153: RESOLUTION NO. 82R-43: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM FINDING AND DETERMINING THAT GREGORY SCHLICK IS DISABLED WITHIN THE MEANING OF THE PUBLIC EMPLOYEES' RETIREMENT LAW FOR THE PERFORMANCE OF HIS DUTIES IN THE POSITION OF POLICE OFFICER, MASTER INTERMEDIATE. (Effective September 29, 1981) 153: RESOLUTION NO. 82R-44: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM FINDING AND DETERMINING THAT PAUL LEE IS DISABLED WITHIN THE MEANING OF THE PUBLIC EMPLOYEES' RETIREMENT LAW FOR THE PERFORMANCE OF HIS DUTIES IN THE POSITION OF POLICE OFFICER. (Effective August 25, 1981) 167: RESOLUTION NO. 82R-45: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM FINDING AND DETERMINING THAT CERTAIN WORK IS OF URGENT NECESSITY AND APPROVING AN AWARD OF CONTRACT TO STEINY AND COMPANY, INC., WITHOUT ADVERTISING FOR BIDS. (ANAHEIM BOULEVARD AND OLD LINCOLN AVENUE TRAFFIC SIGNAL INSTALLATION, ACCOUNT NO. 46-794-6325-E4230.) ($49,888) MOTION: Councilman Bay moved to authorize the Purchasing Agent to purchase a traffic signal controller from Computer Service Corporation for $10,600. Councilman Roth seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. 103: RESOLUTION NO. 82R-46: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM APPROVING AN AGREEMENT FOR THE ANNEXATION AND MUTUAL RELEASE WITH THE VISTA DEL RIO RANCHO WATER COMPANY. Roll Call Vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: COUNCIL MEMBERS: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Overholt, Kaywood, Bay, Roth and Seymour None None The Mayor declared Resolution Nos. 82R-37 through 82R-46, both inclusive, duly passed and adopted. RECESS: By general consent, the Council recessed for ten minutes. (3:17 p.m.) A~TER RECESS: The Mayor called the meeting to order, all Council Members being present. (3:30 p.m.) 99 City Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - January 26~ 1982, 1:30 P.M. 134: CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING - GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 171 AND NEGATIVE DECLARATION: Application by Sunset of California Homes, Inc., for amendment to the Land Use Element to consider an alternate proposal of land use from the current General Commercial designation to Low-Medium Density Residential for approximately 5.8 gross acres of land located on the northeast corner of La Palma Avenue and Romneya Drive. (Continued from the meetings of January 5, 1982, and January 12, 1982--see minutes those dates.) The City Planning Commission, in their Resolution No. PC81-263, recommended approval of Exhibit "A" (which was posted on the Chamber wall), changing the current General Commercial designation to Low-Medium Density Residential with the property owner proposing to develop a condominium complex consisting of sixty to seventy dwelling units. Councilman Bay requested staff to clarify the specific amount of acreage involved and the differences in gross and net. At the conclusion of this discussion, Councilman Bay stated his main point was that from 1974 to 1976, he did not recall when they talked about densities that public streets were ever a portion of the acreage in calculating those densities. Now he was being told that public streets, to the center line, were a part of the gross acreage for doing so. He was concerned that when they talked about ~M-3000, it was now a total surprise to him in the last few weeks that they were including public street area in calculat- ing gross density for an RM-3000 zone. He wanted to know specifically when calculating RM-3000 in the Low and Medium General Plan, if they were including public street acreage; Associate Planner Jay Tashiro confirmed that was correct. Councilman Bay concluded that was a big change from what they did a few years ago. Assistant Planning Director for Zoning, Annika Santalahti, explained that when RM-3000 was specifically addressed under the current standard, public streets had never been included. She was not aware that any zoning action had ever occurred where public streets were allowed to be counted. In the 1974 and 1976 discussions, the Exhibits and Texts of the Plans did go back and forth. Councilman Bay surmised then that the RM-3000 on a gross density calculation did not include public streets, but they were talking about 4.4 acres for dwelling unit calculations; Miss Santalahti clarified that the RM-3000 did exclude the public streets and, thus, the 4.4 acres excluded the public streets. The Mayor asked to hear from the applicant or applicant's agent. Mr. Frank Hughes, representing The Wellington Group, agents for the applicant, 14771 Plaza Drive, Tustin, stated that they hoped the action today would be two-fold--(1) That there be a change in designation on the General Plan from Commercial to Residential and, (2) Since it was important to minimize any mis- understandings, that he be able to preview for the Council tbeir plan for the 100 City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - January 26, 1982~ 1:30 P.M. proposed development, number of units, and etc., and that the action be concurrent so that when they returned to the City in a couple or three weeks, there would be no misunderstanding existing. Mr. Hughes then described the proposed project, supplementing his verbal presentation with exhibits which were posted on the Chamber wall. He pointed out that the plan was now for 64 dwelling units, whereas their former plan indicated 70 units. He then explained how they arrived at the 64-unit figure. They felt that their present plan responded to ,.t~e concerns they heard from staff, the Council, the Planning Commission and the homeowners. In concluding, Mr. Hughes asked that favorable consideration be given to the General Plan Amendment and that the property be designated for Residential use for not less than 64 units. Miss Santalahti then clarified for Councilwoman Kaywood that the proposed project with 64 units would comply with RM-3000 zoning, at somewhere equal to or under 14.52 units per acre. Mr. Hughes then clarified for Councilman Bay that relative to the Anaheim Shores Owners Association (ASOA), it was his understanding after having had meetings and continuing conversations with the group, that their official position was that they had no opposition to the development in accordance'with the documents submitted on January 5, 1982 (see Statement of the Applicant--The Wellington Group, dated January 5, 1982--and Memorandum of Agreement, submitted under the same date--previously made a part of the record). The plan at that time was for 70 units and it was now reduced to 64. The Mayor asked to hear from those in opposition to the General Plan Amendment proposed; there being no response, he closed the public hearing. Councilman Bay asked to hear from a representative of the ASOA, if present; Mr. Clifford Harper, 1975 Bayshore, was present and stated that relative to the Memorandum of Agreement in the development, their organization had taken no position with regard to it. They would prefer single-family homes but they were not supporting or opposing the applicant. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT - NEGATIVE DECLARATION: On motion by Councilman Roth, seconded by Councilman Bay, the City Council finds that this project would have no significant individual or cumulative adverse environmental impact due to the approval of this Negative Declaration since the Anaheim General Plan designates the subject property for General Commercial Land Uses commensurate with the proposal; that no sensitive environmental impacts are involved in the proposal, and that the initial study submitted by the petitioner indicates no significant individual or cumulative adverse environmental impacts, and is, therefore, exempt from the requirement to prepare an EIR. MOTION CARRIED. Councilman Roth offered Resolution No. 82R-47, approving General Plan Amendment No. 171, Exhibit "A", as recommended by the City Planning Commission. Refer to Resolution Book. 101 City Hall, Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - January 26~ 1982~ 1:30 P.M. RESOLUTION NO. 82R-47: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM APPROVING AN AMENDMENT TO THE LAND USE ELEMENT OF THE GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATED AS AMENDMENT NO. 171, EXHIBIT "A." (General Plan Amendment No. 171) Roll Call Vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: COUNCIL MEMBERS: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Overholt, Kaywood, Bay, Roth and Seymour None None The Mayor declared Resolution No. 82R-47 duly passed and adopted. 104: PUBLIC HEARING - STREET LIGHTING ASSESSMENT DISTRICT NO. 1981-5: To consider objections to the improvements of proposed Street Lighting Assessment District No. 1981-5 for ~rgate Drive and Hill Avenue in Tract No. 2090. The Mayor asked if anyone was present who wished to be heard relative to the subject Street Lighting Assessment District proposal; there being no response he closed the public hearing. Councilman Roth offered Resolution No. 82R-48 for adoption, declaring no majority protest to Street Lighting Assessment District No. 1981-5, as outlined in letter to the affected property owners dated January 11, 1982, from the Deputy City Manager, James Ruth. Refer to Resolution Book. RESOLUTION NO. 82R-48: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM DECLARING THAT THERE WAS NOT A MAJORITY PROTEST AGAINST STREET LIGHTING ASSESSMENT DISTRICT 1981-5, TRACT NO. 2090. (Margate Drive and Hill Avenue) Roll Call Vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: COUNCIL MEMBERS: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Overholt, Kaywood, Bay, Roth and Seymour None None The Mayor declared Resolution No. 82R-48 duly passed and adopted. 134: PUBLIC HEAKING - GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 174: To consider an amendment to the Circulation Element of the General Plan to delete a portion of Convention Way which is currently designated as a major arterial highway in connection with the implementation of the Convention Center Betterment II Program. The City Planning Commission, in their Resolution No. PC81-265, recommended approval of Exhibit "A", deleting a portion of Convention Way from the Circulation Element currently designated as a major arterial highway. Environ- mental Impact Report No. 226 was.previously certified by the City Council in conjunction with the Betterment II Program. 102 City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - January 26, 1982~ 1:30 P.M. The Mayor asked if anyone wished to speak, either in favor or in opposition; there being no response he closed the public hearing. Councilman Roth offered Resolution No. 82R-49 for adoption, approving General Plan Amendment No. 174, Exhibit "A", as recommended by the City Planning Commission. Refer to Resolution Book. RESOLUTION NO. 82R-49: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM APPROVING AN AMENDMENT TO THE CIRCULATION ELEMENT OF THE GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATED AS AMENDMENT NO. 174, EXHIBIT "A." Roll Call Vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: COUNCIL MEMBERS: COUNCIL b~MBERS: Overholt, Kaywood, Bay, Roth and Seymour None None The Mayor declared Resolution No. 82R-49 duly passed and adopted. PUBLIC HEARING - VARIANCE NO. 3246, TENTATIVE TRACT NO. 10674~ REQUEST FOR SPECIMEN TREE REMOVAL AND NEGATIVE DECLARATION: Application by Fred L. Stevens, et al, to establish a 13-lot, RS-HS-22,000(SC) zoned subdivision and to remove two specimen trees on property located on the north side of Martella Lane, east of Martin Road, with a Code waiver of minimum lot area. The Deputy City Clerk announced that the applicant, in his letter dated January 14, 1981, requested that the public hearing be continued to February 2, 1982, since his attorney would be out of town on January 26, 1982. Mayor Seymour also reported that he received a telephone call from one of the neighbors adjoining the proposed project, asking that the matter be continued to February 2, 1982, to ensure that he might have proper representation of that neighborhood at the meeting. He then asked if there was any member of the public present today to hear the matter, and if so, did they have an objection to the continuance. From the audience, Patti Barksdale answered she had no objection to the r~qu~ted c0ntinuanca. MOTION: Councilman Seymour moved to continue the subject public hearing to February 2, 1982, at 3:00 p.m. Councilwoman Kaywood seconded the motion. Before a vote was taken, Councilman Bay referred to a letter dated January 25, 1982, from Fulop & Hardee, attorneys in Newport Beach, specifically Page 6, Item 5, disputing the fact that the Council had any jurisdiction to hear the matter since it was set for a public hearing after 12:00 midnight, thus the 22-day appeal period had lapsed. 103 City Hall, Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - January 26~ 1982~ 1:30 P.M. City Attorney William Hopkins stated that he did not agree with the opinion expressed. With respect to the Tentative Tract, it was true that the 15-day period had expired and the appeal period passed by the time the matter was set for hearing. The technicality in that case, however, was that the Tentative Tract would be subject to the Variance approval. Relative to the 22-day period of appeal on the Variance, Counsel (Fulop & Hardee) was of the opinion that the time expired at 12:01 a.m. on January 6, 1982, whereas his (Hopkins) interpretation was that the Council meeting started on the 22nd day, the last day to appeal, and the fact that the meeting continued past midnight did not invalidate that appeal. A vote was then taken on the foregoing motion of continuance. MOTION CARRIED. 123: AMENDMENT OF AFFORDABLE HOUSING AGREEMENT - MOH-TAL~ INC.~ 715 SOUTH WEBSTER STREET: City Manager Talley briefed the Council on memorandum dated January 18, 1982, from the Executive Director of Community Development, Norman Priest, recommending the subject Amendment to exempt any lender and any sub- sequent buyers receiving title through the procedure of foreclosure from resale controls, and that the Agreement be amended to include all of the Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporations'~requirements and, further, that an Agreement be approved between Moh-Tal and the City to provide for the sale of those units exempt from resale controls to low and moderate income persons (on file in the City Clerk's office). }~. Norman Priest, Executive Director of Community Development, and Lisa Stipkovich, Housing Manager, then answered questions posed by the Council, at the conclusion of which Councilwoman Kaywood stated she could not imagine that the subject project would have been approved with a 144 percent density bonus knowing there would be no control on 21 of the 30 units. It only gave high density to Anaheim with no benefits to other than the first person, and that was not the intent when they discussed affordable housing. Councilman Bay stated he agreed with Councilwoman Kaywood's statements on what they might not have done, but they were discussing something that was already done with subsequent rulings that affected financing and the success of the whole project, which were beyond their control. They were now into something, whether or not intended, and the choices were nil. If the choice was to bankrupt the builder and still not solve the problem versus a degree of solution and not bankrupting the builder, he did not see that there was any choice to be made. Councilwoman Kaywood felt that they did not now have to be in that position and she wanted everybody's eyes wide open on what was going to be happening downstream, and when the next developer requested a density bonus, it should be well known that it was nothing much more than a gimmick because it would be affordable only one time. 104 City Hall, Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - January 26~ 1982, 1:30 P.M. Pk. Priest stated that they would consider that in their analysis of future similar developments. Councilwoman Kaywood stated she was going to have to oppose the requested Amendment on the basis of the entire philosophy of this situation. MOTION: Councilman Roth moved to approve an Amendment to the Affordable Housing Agreement between the City and Moh-Tal, Inc., and to exempt any lender and any subsequent buyers receiving title through the procedure of foreclosure from resale control; Agreement to be amended to include all Federal Home Loan Mor%gage Corporation requirements and approving an Agreement between Moh-Tal and the City to provide for the sale of those units exempt from resale controls to low and moderate income persons, as recommended in memorandum dated January 18, 1982, from the Executive Director of Community Development. Councilman Overholt seconded the motion. Councilwoman Kaywood voted "no." MOTION CARRIED. 107: HOUSING TASK FORCE - REQUEST FOR AN EVENING MEETING ON FEBRUARY 9, 1982: Request from Sheri Pignone, Chairperson, Housing Task Force.Committee, for an evening meeting on February 9, 1982, to submit their final report to the Council. Councilman Overholt referred to the previous meeting on the proposed Home Occupancy Inspection Program (see minutes October 27, 1981) and the meeting prior to that (see minutes October 13, 1981) wherein possible conflict of interest of three Council Members was discussed relative to a Home Occupancy Inspection Ordinance. He wanted to know, with respect to further deliberations of the Task Force, if it was appropriate that the same three Council Members who considered the matter on October 27, 1981 (Council Members Kaywood, Bay and Roth, Councilman Roth having drawn the lot to be able to participate according to the FPPC ruling at that time), or if it were now a matter to be considered by all five members. City Attorney Hopkins stated since the Council was now being asked to consider other issues not tied to any vote on an Ordinance of Inspection, the previous drawing of lots was no longer relevant. If they again considered an Ordinance and there were three Council Members who again felt they had a legal requirement to abstain, they would then revert again to the FPPC ruling of having lots drawn amongst the three abstaining in order to determine who could participate since it was necessary to have three Council Members decide the matter. As of right now, there was no Ordinance before the Council and thus, the previous ruling did not apply. Mayor Seymour did not agree with the City Attorney's opinion. It was his understanding that a report was going to be submitted by the Task Force with a majority opinion that the Council adopt an Occupancy Inspection Ordinance, and perhaps a minority report stating something different. Understanding that was going to happen, there was going to be a room full of people present to hear the Council finally decide what to do based on the report. At that time, he saw a tremendous potential conflict of interest which had been previously addressed. 105 City Hall, Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - January 26~ 1982~ 1:30 P.M. After further discussion and debate, the City Attorney recommended that the matter be sent back to the FPPC for an opinion in writing. Councilman Bay assumed that the request for the opinion would include the possibility of a five-person Council having the power to kill any further action, regardless of how it was recommended by the Task Force. His opinion was that the matter should be handled by the same three Members (Kaywood, Bay, Roth) so there would be no doubt or any suspicion of any conflict. Councilman Bay then requested copies of the minutes of all the meetings of the Housing Task Force be submitted to the Council as soon as possible. Mayor Seymour stated he was going to abstain on setting the meeting until an opinion was received; the City Attorney suggested that they continue the matter until the FPPC opinion was received, which should be within the week. MOTION: Councilman Bay moved to continue setting a meeting of the Housing Task Force 'for one week. Councilwoman Kaywood seconded the motion. Council Members Overholt, Roth and Seymour abstained. MOTION CARRIED. Councilman Overholt asked that the abstentions reflect that they were made on the potential conflict of interest and for no other reason. 105: APPOINTMENT TO THE GOLF COURSE ADVISORY COMMISSION: Appointing a member to fill the vacancy on the Golf Course Advisory Commission left by Dan Wise-- continued from the meetings of December 22, 1981, and January 19, 1982 (see minutes those dates). The Deputy City Clerk announced that Mr. Tom Hoag was present and wished to address the Council. Mr. Tom Hoag, 817 West Sycamore, referred to his letter of December 21, 1981, requesting that he be considered for appointment to the Golf Course Advisory Commission. He had also been present when the matter was previously discussed. He then gave his qualifications and background and in concluding, stated he would like to be appointed to the Commission. He then clarified for Council- man Roth that no one had tried to reach him to discuss the possibility of his appointment. biayor Seymour opened nominations for an appointment to the Golf Course Advisory Commission. Councilwoman Kaywood nominated Michael Jacobs; Councilman Roth nominated Tom Hoag. Councilman Bay moved that nominations be closed. Councilman Overholt seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. 106 City Hall, Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - January 26, 1982, 1:30 P.M. Mayor Seymour then asked for a roll call vote on the two nominees in the order in which they were nominated, the first, Michael Jacobs. Councilwoman Kaywood referred to the letter dated January 22, 1982, submitted by the Chairman of the Golf Course Advisory Commission, Bob Messe, stating that two names were brought before the Commission and the unanimous decision was that Michael Jacobs be considered. Councilman Roth, speaking against, stated that he could support the Chairman if he had done one thing, paid the courtesy and invited Mr. Hoag to present his qualifications before the Commission. He was going to support Mr. Hoag. Councilman Overholt stated he was going to oppose the first nominee for the same reason. He did not know if Mr. Hoag was one of the two candidates, but, in any case, Mr. Hoag should have been contacted. He would like to delay the matter and have the Commission contact Mr. Hoag. Mayor Seymour felt that the Council had trapped themselves in a system that was not the best--that of asking an existing Commission appointed by the Council to name successors, thereby abrogating their right as a Council to make appoint- ments. He was opposed to the process created. He was supportive of Mr. Hoag's candidacy because of his qualifications and that was the reason. Councilman Bay moved to continue the subject appointment for one week and that Mr. Jacobs be notified and asked to be present at the meeting. Before action was taken, Councilman Roth asked that it be continued two weeks for full Council action; Councilman Bay amended the motion to two weeks. Councilman Overholt seconded the motion. Before a vote was taken, the Mayor stated he would support the continuance but asked that the Council, at that time, also be prepared to discuss a policy relative to Commission appointments, one wherein the Council would maintain its authority. A vote was then taken on the foregoing motion. MOTION CARRIED. RECLASSIFICATION NO. 61-62-64 - CANCELLATION OF DEED RESTRICTIONS: Request by Gulab and Lajwanti ~Kanal, Kanals Gifts and Fashions, for removal of C-1 Deed Restrictions imposed on property located at 625 South Harbor Boulevard, Restriction No. 3 as amended and recorded at Orange County, in Book 6066, at Page 419. Councilman Roth moved to approve the subject request as recommended in memorandum dated January 20, 1982, from the Assistant Planning Director for Zoning, Annika Santalahti. Councilman Overholt seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. 107 City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - January 26, 1982~ 1:30 P.M. HEARING - M. S. AMUSEMENT CENTER - APPEAL OF DENIAL OF AN AMUSEMENT ARCADE APPLICATION: To consider an appeal of the decision of the Planning Director denying an Amusement Arcade Application for 30 machines to be located in the M. S. Amusement Center, 2840-A East Lincoln Avenue. Miss Santalahti clarified for Council Members Kaywood and Bay that an entirely new business was being established and opposition from the neighborhood was registered by 40 people, amounting to 75 percent of the residents and the tenants in the area. The Mayor asked if the applicant or applicant's agent was present. Mr. Jayanti Solanki, applicant, explained that he owned a similar business in Buena Park. The subject business was to be a joint venture between his wife and himself and they would operate and run the business with either one of them being physically present during operating hours. He voiced the opinion that this should solve the juvenile problem, plus the fact that they had house rules which would be posted and strictly adhered to, such as, No Loitering, No Food or Drinks, No Smoking, etc. The business would be well-decorated and nicely lit and they intended to control the sound level on the machines and would install soundproofing if required. They were also going to issue a student membership card showing the name of the student and the school so that they would know if students were in the business during school hours. Relative to the 75 percent opposition, he did not believe the people or community were aware of how they were going to control their business. He was concerned with regard to the neighborhood concerns. If the Council had any other recommendations or suggestions, they would be happy to look into them. The Mayor then asked to hear from those who wished to speak to the matter. Carol Shows, resident.on Jeanine, stated she was one of the 75 percent who voiced opposition. They lived directly behind the proposed business site, just over the fence. Some of the reasons the homeowners did not want the arcade were as follows: Inadequate parking facilities forcing use of the adjacent vacant lot, creating excessive noise and dust; the alley between the arcade and homes, currently used as a motorcycle dragstmip by the motorcycle shop in the vicinity, would be turned into a motorcycle and car dragstrip, also causin§ a rise in the noise level and a safety hazard for their children; neighborhood crime and vandalism could possibly increase because money would be needed to play the machina~ and their home~ would be the ideal target; sale and consumption of both alcoholic and non-alcoholic beverages would increase; the 7-11 Market and the Liquor Store across the street both had video machines on their premises and the liquor store had been cited for selling alcoholic beverages to minors; backyards would become a dumping site; they would be exposed to foul language by customers of the arcade as had been evidenced in the vicinity of other arcades; since their homes backed up to the site, they would not be able to enjoy their homes and backyards for fear of a number of the foregoing concerns. 108 City Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - January 26~ 1982~ 1:30 P.M. Betty Miller, 2857 Gerald Circle, stated she had previously called the hotline with regard to the motorcycles. The empty lot abutted her fence. She already experienced obscene remarks from youngsters when she was trying to enjoy her backyard; otherwise, Mrs. Shows covered everything else she had to say. Mr. Solanki then explained that the motorcycle shop was going to be moving, which would take care of the noise and dust. As well, construction was going to take place on the empty lot which would further eliminate the dust. The 7-11 market did not have any video machines, but the liquor store did, and their alcohol sales are controlled by the ABC. Mayor Seymour stated that this was a case of a new operation with 30 machines and a neighborhood that had expressed strong opposition. The Council had gone on record that there were appropriate locations for the type of activity proposed; however, this was an inappropriate location, in his opinion. MOTION: Councilman Seymour moved to uphold the recommendation of the Planning Director, denying the Amusement Arcade Application for 30 machines, to be located in the M. S. Amusement Center and, further, that approval of the permit would be contrary to the public interest, health, safety and general welfare of the neighborhood. Councilman Bay seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. 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: 1. li8: CLAIMS AGAINST THE CITY: The following claims were filed against the City and action recommended as noted: Claims denied and referred to Risk Management: a. Claim submitted by Victor Hellquist for personal property damages purportedly sustained due to transformer being hit by lightning, at 735 South Verona, on or about November 27, 1981. b. Claim submitted by Shirley Carlson for personal property loss purportedly sustained when electricity was turned off from 1:30 a.m. until after 7:30 a.m. at 1774 Sallie Lane, on or about December 4, 1981. c. Claim submitted by Paul L. Williams for personal injuries purportedly sustained due to a trip-and-fall accident at Anaheim Municipal Golf Course on the 15th hole, on or about October 22, 1981. 109 City Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - January 26~ 1982, 1:30 P.M. Claims denied and referred to Bayly, Martin and Fay/San Antonio: d. Claim submitted by George Kane for personal property loss purportedly sustained when the police department lost claimant's jacket while he was under arrest at the Anaheim jail, on or about December 30, 1981. e. Claim submitted by Steve Lawson for personal injuries and damages purportedly sustained due to actions by members of the Anaheim Police Department at 425 South Harbor, on or about September 30, 1981. Claim denied and referred to Carl Warren and Company: f. Claim submitted by Jack Love for personal damages and injuries purportedly sustained due to demotion at the City of Anaheim offices, on or about September 22, 1981. Claim allowed: g. Claim submitted by Robert Alan Roth for property damages purportedly sustained due to action of City employees who were repairing the sidewalk in front of 1777 West Cris Avenue, on or about December 4, 1981. 2. CORRESPONDENCE: The following correspondence was ordered received and filed: a. 105: Public Utilities Board--Minutes of October 15, 1981. b. 105: Anaheim Housing Commission--Minutes of December 5, 1981. c. 114: City of Garden Grove, Resolution No. 6172-81, supporting Congressional Resolution Nos. 265 and 231 relating to the sale of surplus and unneeded Federally-owned pubiic property. d. 105: Community Center Authority--Minutes of January 11, 1982. 3. 108: PRIVATE PATROL APPLICATIONS: The following Private Patrol Applications were approved in accordance with the recommendations of the Chief of Police. a. Application by William Joseph Ligon, Bond International Security, 1665 Brookhurst Street, to provide private uniformed guard and patrol services in the City. b. Application by Andrew Thomas Williams, Hub City Security, 500 East Compton Boulevard, Compton, to provide guard and patrol services in the City. MOTION CARRIED. 110 City Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - January 26, 1982, 1:30 P.M. 170: TENTATIVE TRACT NO. 11707: Application submitted by Calok, A Limited Partnership, to establish a one-lot, 10-building, RM-1200 zoned subdivision on property located at 2619 Felicidad Circle. The City Planning Commission approved Tentative Tract No. 11707 and granted a Negative Declaration status. Assistant Planning Director for Zoning, Annika Santalahti, clarified the status of the project for Councilwoman Kaywood, at the conclusion of which, Councilman Roth moved to approve Tentative Tract No. 11707 subject to the conditions of the City Planning Commission. Councilwoman Kaywood seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. CONSENT CALENDAR ITEMS: Councilwoman Kaywood offered Resolution Nos. 82R-50 through 82R-54, 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. 82R-50: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM ACCEPTING A CERTAIN DEED AND ORDERING ITS RECORDATION. (West Anaheim Medical Professional Building) 164: RESOLUTION NO. 82R-51: 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 IMPROVE~fENT, TO WIT: BURRUEL CANYON STORM DRAIN, IN THE CITY OF ANAHEIM, ACCOUNT NO. 01-791-6325-E1250, 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 on February 25, 1982, at 2:00 p.m.) 167: RESOLUTION NO. 82R-52: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF A~NAHEIM FINDING AND DETERMINING THAT PUBLIC CONVENIENCE AND NECESSITY REQUIRE THE CONSTRUCTION AND COMPLETION OF A PUBLIC IMPROVE~iENT, TO WIT: INSTALLATION OF TRAFFIC SIGNAL AND SAFETY LIGHTING AT NOHL RANCH ROAI) AIqD SCOUT TRAIL, IN THE CITY OF ANAHEIM, ACCOUNT NO. 24-794-6325-E4180, 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 on February 25, 1982, at 2:00 p.m.) 111 City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - January 26~ 1982, 1:30 P.M. 169: RESOLUTION NO. 82R-53: 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: OERTLEY DRIVE STREET IMPROVEMENT FROM ORANGEWOOD AVENUE TO SOUTH CITY LIMITS AND TILLER AVENUE STREET IMPROVEMENT FROM HASTER STREET TO OERTLEY DRIVE, IN THE CITY OF ANAHEIM, ACCOUNT NO. 25-792-6325-E2760, APPROVING THE DESIGNS, PLANS, PROFILES, DRAWINGS AND SPECIFICATIONS FOR THE CONSTRUCTION THEREOF; AUTHORIZING THE CONSTRUCTION OF SAID PUBLIC IMPROVEMENT IN ACCORDANCE WITH SAID PLANS, SEPCIFICATIONS, ETC.; AND AUTHORIZING AND DIRECTING THE CITY CLERK TO PUBLISH A NOTICE INVITING SEALED PROPOSALS FOR THE CONSTRUCTION THEREOF. (Bids to be opened on February 25, 1982, at 2:00 p.m.) 169: RESOLUTION NO. 82R-54: 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: PAVEMENT MARKING DEMONSTRATION PROGRAM, IN THE CITY OF ANAHEIM, ACCOUNT NO. 17-796- 6325-E6020, 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 on February 25, 1982, at 2:00 p.m.) Roll Call Vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: COUNCIL MEMBERS: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Overholt, Kaywood, Bay, Roth and Seymour None None The Mayor declared Resolution Nos. 82R-50 through 82R-54, both inclusive, duly passed and adopted. Councilman Seymour left the Council Chambers. (5:25 p.m.) 143/142: ORDINANCE NO. 4303: Councilwoman Kaywood offered Ordinance No. 4303 for adoption. Refer to Ordinance Book. ORDINANCE NO. 4303: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AMENDING CHAPTER 17.20 OF TITLE 17 OF THE ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO EXCAVATION AND RECOVERY OF NONFUEL MINERALS AND RECLAMATION OF MINED LANDS. Roll Call Vota: AYES: NOES: TEMPORARILY ABSENT: ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: COUNCIL MEMBERS: COUNCIL MEMBERS: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Overholt, Kaywood, Bay and Roth None Seymour None The Mayor Pro Tem declared Ordinance No. 4303 duly passed and adopted. 112 City Hail, Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - January 26, 1982~ 1:30 P.M. ORDINANCE NO. 4304: Councilman Overholt offered Ordinance No. 4304 for adoption. Refer to Ordinance Book. ORDINANCE NO. 4304: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AMENDING TITLE 18 OF THE ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO ZONING. (81-82-2, CO, 1501 East Orange- wood Avenue) Roll Call Vote: AYES: NOES: TEMPORARILY ABSENT: ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: COUNCIL MEMBERS: COUNCIL MEMBERS: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Overholt, Kaywood, Bay and Roth None Seymour None The Mayor Pro Tem declared Ordinance No. 4304 duly passed and adopted. Councilman Seymour entered the Council Chambers. (5:27 p.m.) 149/142: PROPOSED ORDINANCE NO. 4305 - NO PARKING AT ANY TIME - PORTION OF BROOKHURST STREET: Amending Subsection 14.32.190.410 of the 'Code, No Parking At Any Time--Streets Designated, to include Brookhurst Street on the east side, from the North City Limits to Crescent Avenue and from Lincoln Avenue to Broadway; and on the west side, from the North City Limits to Crescent Avenue and from Lincoln Avenue to Broadway (continued from the meetings of January 12, 1982, and January 19, 1982--see minutes those dates). The Mayor asked if anyone wished to be heard. Mr. Dennis Mills, 1252 North Brookhurst, stated that the residents had again discussed the matter at great length and were present for the third time to point out certain facts to convince the Council why the proposal should not be passed as written. They were convinced that the Traffic Engineer made little or no study as to how the proposal would affect traffic if passed in its present form. They believed that traffic on Brookhurst would be more menacing than at present, it would not be relieved, but it would be even more hazardous. He then elaborated on the reasons why they felt as they did. He also reemphasized that the speed factor was a real factor which caused the accidents experienced, and that there was no law enforcement in the area relative to speed. As an alternative, they would favor red curbing approximately 120 feet from each intersection, or whatever the Traffic Engineer would suggest to relieve the problem of left turns off of Brookhurst. They felt that the proposal was well- written from La Palma to Crescent (on Brookhurst), but not for a residential area such as theirs. They could give up some of their parking while at least maintaining some guest parking. They were asking for help; they needed street parking and wanted the Council to reconsider the matter. 113 City Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - January 26~ 1982~ 1:30 P.M. Peggy Brown, 1236 North Brookhurst, first stated that they did not have many accidents. They were in business and received a lot of company and there was no place for guests to park except on the side streets and the neighbors complained. On trash days, there was no parking at all from 12:00 noon to 4:00 p.m. so they had to park in the alleys. Mayor Seymour explained that he did walk the alleys since the last meeting and having done so, he maintained if the City wanted to provide more latitude for parking in the alleys, and although it would necessitate serpentining of vehicles through those alleys, the opportunity was there. Discussion then followed between the Council and staff revolving around creating additional parking in the alleys, also considering the trash pickup problem which was presently accomplished off the alleys. Mr. Jerry Thomas, 1204 North Brookhurst, stated that the houses on both sides of the street could put their trash out onto Brookhurst for pickup. Further discussion and questioning of the Traffic Engineer followed wherein Mr. Singer explained that designated parking spaces in the alleys would be marked as such and also confirmed for Councilwoman Kaywood that even increasing the amount of parking in the alleys, there would be two days during specified times when they could not park there, Mondays and Wednesdays for trash pickup and street cleaning. ORDINANCE NO. 4305: Councilman Seymour offered Ordinance No. 4305 for first reading; however, before it was final or before he would vote to approve it for adoption, he directed staff to rework the parking in the alleys to provide additional parking spaces. ORDINANCE NO. 4305: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AMENDING TITLE 14, CHAPTER 14.32, SECTION 14.32.190, SUBSECTION .410 OF THE ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO PARKING. The Mayor then confirmed for Mr. Mills that there would be No Parking on Brookhurst Street although the Ordinance would not become final until it was adopted. He asked that Mr. Mills get in touch with Mr. Singer so that he (Mills) and anybody else who wished to have the opportunity to review the revised parking plan before the Ordinance became final. He also stated that they were going to get the police to increase patrol on Brookhurst Street in their area. 149/142: ORDINANCE NO.-4306: Councilman Roth offered Ordinance No. 4306 for first reading, repealing Subsection 14.32.190.2010 relating to no parking on Avenida de Santiago, both sides, from its westerly terminus to Hidden Canyon Road. ORDINANCE NO. 4306: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AMENDING TITLE 14, CHAPTER 14.32, SECTION 14.32.190 OF THE ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE BY REPEALING SUBSECTION .2010. 114 City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - January 26, 1982~ 1:30 P.M. 156: DETROIT TRIP - POSSIBILITY OF SUPER BOWL BEING PLAYED IN ANAHEIM: Both Mayor Seymour and Councilman Overholt briefed the Council on their trip to Detroit/ Pontiac, Michigan, the site of the XVIth Super Bowl at the Silver Dome in Pontiac, Sunday, January 24, 1982, the purpose of which was to investigate some of the challenges Anaheim and surrounding Cities would have to meet in order to host a Super Bowl. Unless there was some opposition to the idea, the Mayor stated the next step would be to bring together a meeting of people who might be able to offer some resolution to some of those challenges, as well as the City Council, in order to pursue that possibility. Councilwoman Kaywood felt they should outline the benefits that would accrue not only to Anaheim, but also surrounding neighborhoods and Cities. REQUEST PERMISSION TO LEAVE THE STATE - COUNCIL~LkN ROTH: On motion by Council- woman Kaywood, seconded by Councilman Overholt, Councilman Roth was granted permission to leave the State for 30 days. MOTION CARRIED. 167: STATUS OF TRAFFIC SIGNAL - FALMOUTH ON BROOKHURST STREET: Councilman Bay requested staff to provide a status report of the traffic signal to be installed at Falmouth on Brookhurst Street. 120: HOTLINE COMPLAINT - RUBY KULAK: Mayor Seymour referred to a hotline complaint received from Mr. Ruby Kulak on January 7, 1982, advising that the burglar alarm in the house next door had been ringing for some time. The Mayor then gave Mr. Kulak an opportunity to address the Council due to his (Kulak's) dissatisfaction with the handling of the matter. Mr. Ruby Kulak, 247 South Brentwood Place, thereupon enumerated upon the events and the lapse of time in being able to speak to a Council Member which culminated in his appearance before the Council today. Mayor Seymour then read, for Mr. Kulak, report dated January 12, 1982, from the Chief of Police, George Tielsch, which documented the response given to Mr. Kulak's complaint, the same report he tried to read to Mr. Kulak over the telephone in an attempt to inform him what had transpired as a result of his complaint. REQUEST FOR CLOSED SESSION: The City Manager requested a Closed Session to discuss Personnel matters with no action anticipated; the City Attorney requested a Closed Session to discuss litigation and potential litigation with no action anticipated. Councilman Bay moved to recess into Closed Session. Councilwoman Kaywood seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. (6:45 p.m.) AFTER RECESS: The Mayor called the meeting to order, all Council Members being present. (7:30 p.m.) 115 City Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - January 26~ 1982, 1:30 P.M. ADJOURNMENT: Councilman Roth moved to adjourn. Councilwoman Kaywood seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. (7:30 p.m.) LINDA D. ROBERTS, CITY CLERK LEONORA N. SOHL, DEPUTY CITY CLERK 116