Loading...
1982/07/13City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - July 13, 1982, 11:30 A.M. The City Council of the City of Anaheim met in adjourned regular session. PRESENT: AB SE NT: PRESENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Kaywood, Pickler, Overholt, Bay and Roth COUNCIL MEMBERS: None CITY MANAGER: William O. Talley CITY ATTORNEY: William P. Hopkins CITY CLERK: Linda D. Roberts Mayor Roth called the adjourned regular meeting to order at 11:30 A.M. RECESS - CLOSED SESSION: The Council recessed into closed session to discuss personnel matters with no action anticipated. (11:30 a.m.) AFTER RECESS: The Mayor called the meeting to order, all Council Members being present. (1:40 p.m.) ADJOURNMES~: Councilwoman Kaywood moved to adjourn. Councilman Bay seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. (1:41 p.m.) LINDA D. ROBERTS, CITY CLERK 603 City Hail, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - July 13, 1982, 1:30 P.M. The City Council of the City of Anaheim met in regular session. PRESENT: ABSENT: PRESENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Kaywood, Pickler, Overholt, Bay and Roth COUNCIL MEMBERS: None CITY MANAGER: William O. Tailey CITY ATTORNEY: William P. Hopkins CITY CLERK: Linda D. Roberts FIRE CHIEF: Bob D. Simpson HUMAN RESOURCES DIRECTOR: Garry McRae CITY LIBRARIAN: William Griffith ASSISTANT PLANNING DIRECTOR--ZONING: Annika Santalahti FACILITY MAINTENANCE SUPERINTENDENT: John H. Roche PARKWAY MAINTENANCE SUPERINTENDENT: Sam Morita CIVIL ENGINEERING ASSISTANT: Robert G. Herr ELECTRICAL ESTIMATOR: Billie R. Layton Mayor Roth called the meeting to order and welcomed those in attendance to the Council meeting. INVOCATION: A Moment of Silence was observed in lieu of the Invocation. FLAG SALUTE: Councilman Irv Pickler led the assembly in the Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag. 119: RESOLUTION OF COMMENDATION: A resolution of commendation was unanimously adopted by the City Council and presented to the Anaheim Hills Lions Club for surfacing of the Special Use Trail at Oak Canyon Nature Center. Mr. Mark Oden, accompanied by two other Lions Club members, accepted the resolution. 119: PROCLAMATION: The following proclamation was issued by Mayor Roth and authorized by the City Council: "Stamp Expo Days in Anaheim" - July 16 through 18, 1982. 119: RESOLUTION OF CONGRATULATIONS: A resolution of congratulations was unanimously adopted by the City Council to be presented to the Disneyland Band, commemorating their 50,000th performance on July 16, 1982. 119: RESOLUTION OF CONGRATULATIONS: A resolution of congratulations was unanimously adopted by the City Council to be presented to Miss Debbie Sue Maffett, Miss Anaheim/Miss America, on becoming the new Miss California. MINUTES: Councilwoman Kaywood moved to approve the minutes of the regular meetings held January 26, April 20, April 27 and May 4, 1982, and the adjourned regular meetings of April 30 and May 4, 1982. Councilman Roth seconded the motion. Councilman Overholt abstained on the minutes of May 4, 1982, only, since he was not present at that meeting. Councilman Pickler abstained on all minutes, since he was not a Council Member at that time. MOTION CARRIED. 604 City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - July 13, 1982, 1:30 P.M. WAIVER OF READING - ORDINANCES AND RESOLUTIONS: Councilwoman Kaywood moved to waive the reading in full of all ordinances and resolutions of the Agenda, after reading of the title thereof by the City Clerk, and that consent to waiver is hereby given by all Council Members, unless after reading of the title, specific request is made by a Council Member for the reading of such ordinances or resolutions in regular order. Councilman Bay seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. FINANCIAL DEMANDS AGAINST THE CITY in the amount of $1,798,727.46, in accordance with the 1982-83 Budget, were approved. CITY MANAGER/DEPARTMENTAL MOTION CONSENT CALENDAR: On motion by Councilman Bay, seconded by Councilwoman Kaywood, the following items were approved in accordance with the reports and recommendations furnished each Council Member and as listed on the Consent Calendar: a. 174: Authorizing the submission of an application for participation in the Rental Rehabilitation Demonstration Program (Jeffery-Lynn and Bush-Vine Target Areas) and directing the Mayor to sign the necessary cover documents and certifications for transmittal to the Department of Housing and Urban Development. b. 123: Authorizing a Second Addendum to the Lease Agreement with the Anaheim Municipal Employees Association for office space in the Civic Center for the sum of $1,315 for July 1, 1982, through June 30, 1983. c. 151: Authorizing an Encroachment License with Burnett-Ehline Company to allow the encroachment of a portion of a small sign structure consisting of two standards and a double-faced sign in the parkway located on the north side of La Palma Avenue, east of Brasher Street. d. 123: Authorizing an agreement with the Los Angeles and Salt Lake Railroad Company and its lessee, the Union Pacific Railroad Company, consenting to the City's construction and maintenance of a 42-inch storm drain across Railroad property at Cypress Street. (C.L.D. No. 19946) MOTION CARRIED. 123: RENEWAL OF AGREEMENT WITH NATIONAL COUNCIL ON ALCOHOLISM: Councilman Bay moved to authorize a Second Amendment to an agreement with the National Council on Alcoholism in the amount of $27,210 for continuation of employee assistance program counseling services by OCEAN, for the term ending June 30, 1983, as recommended in memorandum dated June 30, 1982, from the Human Resources Director, Garry McRae. Councilman Overholt seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. 123: ANAHEIM HILTON CONVENTION HOTEL, LEASE AGREEMENT, DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT AND GRANT OF EASEMENT WITH C-D III: City Manager William Talley briefed the Council on portions of his memorandum dated July 6, 1982, recommending the approval of the Lease Agreement, Development Agreement, and Grant of Easement with C-D III, a limited partnership composed of Lazben Anaheim Company and 6O5 City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - July 13, 1982, 1:30 P.M. Overland Plumbing, Inc., for the development of a 1600-room Convention Hotel on City-owned land adjacent to the Anaheim Convention Center, and authorizing the Mayor and City Clerk to execute these documents, together with a Grant of Easement contained therein, on behalf of the City. (The five-page memorandum is on file in the City Clerk's office, including a five-page attachment, a final matrix summary delineating the provisions of the two agreements between the City and C-D III.) Mr. Bruce Geib, 9911 West Pico, Suite BS1, Los Angeles, Counsel for C-D Investment Company and C-D III, the general partnership developing the Anaheim Hilton project in cooperation with the Hilton Hotels Corporation, first introduced those members of the team who would be assisting in the presentation: Mr. Doug Holm, Director of Acquisition, C-D; James Philon, Senior Vice President of Hilton Hotels Corporation, Real Estate and Development; Bill Racold, Director of Construction; A1 Coler, one of the principals of C-D, expected to be present shortly. Mr. Gelb stated it was a momentous occasion for all on the development team to appear before the Council to ask for approval of the lease and development agreement of a 1600-room Convention Hotel project, representing the culmination of all documents necessary to begin construction of the project. Today represented the beginning of a productive working relationship with the City and the Community Center Authority (CCA). Last night they appeared before the CCA and obtained their approval. They were looking forward to working with both entities and City staff to make Anaheim the foremost Convention Center capital of the United States. Mr. Doug Holm, C-D, 9911 West Pico, Los Angeles, first gave the historical background of their company, explaining that C-D investment would be the construction manager for the building and development of the project, and C-D III being the partnership established as the owner of the hotel and hotel parking structure, both California partnerships located at 9911 West Pico, Los Angeles. Mr. Holm then briefed the Council on some of the major projects C-D had built, concentrating on those large projects already built or in the process of being built in the Los Angeles area. (Mr. Holm's presentation was supplemented by slides showing the projects to which he had previously referred.) Mr. Holm then described the parking structure that would be built--a replacement parking structure of 1,520 spaces, being built at no cost to the C~ty, and a Hotel parking structure with 3,266 spaces, totaling 4,786 additional spaces to accommodate all replacement parking for the existing parking lot, hotel needs, and overflow parking from Convention Center use. Subject to the Council's approval today, their working drawings for the replacement parking had been turned into the Building Division for approval, and it was anticipated that they would be able to pull their foundation and excavation permit tomorrow. They were scheduled to move onto the project next Monday and to start actual excavation and earth moving on July 21, with a ground breaking ceremony scheduled for July 23. They were depending on 606 City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - July 13, 1982, 1:30 P.M. closing escrow Friday (July 16, 1982) on the Inn At The Park, which they had purchased from Wrather Corporation, and expected all legal matters to be cleared up by that day as well, in relation to the lawsuit that had been filed. With the exception of unusual delays, the replacement parking structure would be made available, in total, to the Convention Center by December 1, 1982. Arrangements had been made to start construction of the hotel immediately following September 22, 1982, and they were anticipating an October 1, 1982, start date of the hotel proper. Their Director of Construction had assured them that the hotel would be completed and operational by July 1 of 1984, in order to take advantage of the Olympics that would follow in August. Before concluding his presentation, Mr. Holm also showed slides of the hotel building site, where the replacement parking structure was going to be located, a site plan looking down on the hotel, site elevations of the parking structure, etc. He then introduced Mr. Philon. Mr. James Philon, Senior Vice President of Hilton Hotels Corporation, Real Estate and Development, 9880 Wilshire Boulevard, Beverly Hills, stated his role today was to brief the current plans for the hotel, which plans had been developed in cooperation with C-D Investment and Hilton Hotels Corporation, consistent with all of the criteria established at the time of the agreement for exclusive negotiations was reached in October of 1981. The current plans called for a 12-story hotel structure comprising 1,300,000 gross square feet of floor area, including 1,600 guest rooms, approximately 21,000 square feet of rental space, over 40,000 square feet of coffee shop, restaurant and bar space, 1,800 square feet of individual meeting room space, and 57,000 square feet of ballroom and multi-function space, equally divided on the same level into 28,500 square feet of ballroom and meeting facility areas. The structure had been designed compatible with their commitment that they would minimize the overall impact of the amount of construction, and the building would have a warm, blue-green glass facade. Mr. Philon's extensive presentation, which was supplemented by slides, provided a graphic description of the proposed hotel, the parking structures, the orientation of the project on the property, traffic circulation, etc. He highlighted those principal areas of concern to the traveling public and concentrated his presentation on what he termed, the excitement center of the hotel, the lobby area with its many amenities, as well as those levels dealing with the convention and ballroom facilities. Mr. Philon then thanked the Council and staff, particularly City Manager William Taliey, Jim Armstrong, Assistant to the City Manager, and Pam Lucado, Associate Planner, as well as his associates, A1 Coler and Naftali Deutsch (the capital "C" and capital "D" of C-D Investments). Further, on behalf of 607 City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - July 13, 1982, 1:30 P.M. Hilton, they were encouraged that C-D had the foresight and wherewithal to acquire the Inn At The Park, which acquisition would benefit not only the City and the CCA, but also C-D and Hilton Hotels, the citizens, and the City of Anaheim. In concluding, he stated that they were ready, willing and able to bring to the City of Anaheim one of the finest convention and meeting hotel facilities in the country. As of last Friday, Hilton Hotels opened the 225th hotel under the Hilton name, exceeding 80,000 hotel rooms operating under the Hilton name. They were earnest in soliciting Council approval. Mr. A1 Coler stated it had been a gratifying experience working with the City staff over the many months, and he thanked them for their unusual cooperation and competency in overcoming the many obstacles with which they were faced. They looked forward to the hotel's opening in the early summer of 1984. Mayor Roth asked the Chairman of the CCA to come forward. Mr. Bob Hostetter, Chairman of the CCA, also introduced Mr. Bill Currier, Vice President of the CCA. He then reported that last evening the Authority unanimously approved the lease agreement and development agreement for the C-D development. C-D was composed of a very sophisticated group of individuals with an excellent background in construction. They were about 90 percent complete on the Betterment II program and the traffic plan would be impacted only on their parking area for approximately one month. Mayor Roth, on behalf of the Council, thanked Mr. Hostetter and the CCA for all the time and effort they spent on the project. He continued that this was an historical moment as they planned to move ahead on the 1600-room hotel, where Anaheim would be the showcase of not only Orange County, but also the country. He thanked C-D, Hilton, the City Manager and staff, particularly Tom Liegler and his staff, and that of the City Attorney's office. Another consideration relative to the project was the fact that when they broke ground, the project would provide a tremendous amount of job opportunities for Orange County citizens and thus, it was important to the economy of the area. City Manager Talley recommended that Jack White, Assistant City Attorney, who had worked on the documentation relative to the project, introduce and brief the agreements before the Council for their consideration. Mr. Jack White, Assistant City Attorney, explained that the Council previously certified the Environmental Impact Report for the project, and previously approwd th~ Conditional Usa P~rmit and Varianc~ from the of£-str~et parking requirements for the project. Within the next few weeks, they hoped to bring back to the Council the financing documents .pertaining to the financing for the two parking structures. Before the Council today were three separate documents which they had received, together with certain minor modifications to one of the documents, which they received this morning--the first was the Lease Agreement between the City and C-D III, which had the effect of leasing the "footprint" of the land on which the hotel and parking facilities would be 6O8 City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - July 13, 1982, 1:30 P.M. constructed; the second was the Development Agreement between the same parties, relating to the actual construction of the hotel and parking facilities themselves; the third, a Grant of Easement, Exhibit "B" to the Lease Agreement, granting construction easements for the construction of the hotel and also, circulation or access easements for the vehicles to circulate around the property to get to the parking structure. MOTION: Councilwoman Kaywood moved to approve the Lease Agreement between the City of Anaheim and C-D III and authorizing the Mayor and City Clerk to execute such an agreement on behalf of the City. Councilman Overholt seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. MOTION: Councilman Bay moved to approve the Development Agreement between the City of Anaheim and C-D III and authorizing the Mayor and City Clerk to execute such an agreement on behalf of the City. Councilwoman Kaywood seconded the motion. MOTION CARP~ED. MOTION: Councilman Pickler moved to approve a Grant of Easement (Exhibit B of the Lease Agreement) between the City of Anaheim and C-D III and authorizing the Mayor and City Clerk to execute such an easement on behalf of the City. Councilman Overholt seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. The Council again thanked all those involved with bringing the project to fruition; Councilman Overholt added, Mr. Bill Snyder of the Visitor and Convention Bureau, who worked as a team with Mr. Liegler, Mr. Ben Schroeder and Larry Henderson, who, although they were no longer on the CCA, played a large role in the efforts that were put forth on the project, as well as the Anaheim Union High School District, who worked hand-in-hand with the City in the Community Center operation. RECESS: By general consent, the Council recessed for ten minutes. (3:15 p.m.) AFTER RECESS: The Mayor called the meeting to order, all Council Members being present. (3:32 p.m.) 129: HEARING - BAN ON FIREWORKS: To discuss setting forth an advisory proposal concerning the sale, use and discharge of "safe and sane" fireworks in the City in connection with the 4th of July, to be voted upon at the General Election to be held November 2, 1982. Submitted was a report from the Fire Chief, Bob Simpson, dated July 9, 1982, recommending that the Council pass an ordinance banning fireworks, both legal and ille§al, in the City of Anaheim. Mayor Roth first explained how the hearing would be conducted and then asked first to hear from staff. Councilman Overholt noted that a letter request was received asking for a night hearing on the subject. He asked if anyone was present who would like a night hearing. 609 City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - July 13, 1982, 1:30 P.M. From the audience there was a reply that they were asking for a continuance if there was going to be a hearing at all. By a show of hands, it was determined that there were approximately 20 people present on the subject issue; Mayor Roth stated ~t would be appropriate to take testimony today and prior to taking any action, subsequently conduct a night hearing, if the Council so desired. MOTION: Councilman Overholt suggested that the Council consider a night hearing before taking any testimony at ail today. He thereupon moved to continue the hearing to Tuesday, August 3, 1982, in a facility large enough to accommodate the crowd anticipated. Before any action was taken, City Clerk Linda Roberts confirmed that August 3, 1982, would be the last meeting at which the Council could decide on ballot measures that might be included on the November General Election ballot, and that necessary documentation would have to be at the County by August 6, 1982. Councilman Roth seconded the foregoing motion. Before a vote was taken, Councilwoman Kaywood expressed her concern that the recommendation sounded like a stalling tactic. The matter had been discussed since last year, and a hearing promised in order to put the question on the ballot. With 20 people or more in attendance today to speak to the item, she felt it would be unfair not to hold the hearing. She was not in favor of a continuance. Councilman Pickler suggested that the maker postpone his motion. If they were going to hear the testimony, there might be no need for a continuance, and they could possibly make a decision today. Council discussion followed wherein Councilman Bay spoke against the motion and Councilwoman Kaywood reiterated her concerns relative to a continuance; Councilman Pickler suggested that they table the motion on the floor until after the discussion today and if appropriate, consider it at the conclusion of the hearing. Councilman Pickier thereupon moved that the motion on the floor be tabled until after discussion of the subject and at that time, make a decision on whether or not the hearing would be continued to a later date. Councilwoman Kaywood seconded the motion. Councilman Overholt voted "no." MOTION CARRIED. Fire Chief Bob Simpson briefed the Council on his report of July 9, 1982, recommending that the Council pass an ordinance banning both legal and illegal fireworks in the City (on file in the City Clerk's office). They had always recommended against fireworks, but what "turned their heads" were the signatures gathered by Dawn Johnson of over 7,000 registered Anaheim voters. In concluding, he stated they were recommending two things, if the Council did not see fit to ban fireworks in their entirety, that the matter be placed on the ballot in November. He then confirmed for the Mayor that SB 999 (Campbell) was still waiting in the Senate for enough votes to get it passed. That bill would preempt local control relative to the sale of fireworks. 610 City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - July 13, 1982, 1:30 P.M. The following people then spoke in favor of placing the issue of whether or not the sale, use and discharge of safe and sane fireworks should be prohibited in the City of Anaheim, other than public display, for which a permit is obtained, and elaborated upon their reasons why they were in support: Dawn Johnson, 616 North Olive, Apartment C; Dale Smith, 501 East Orangethorpe; Mike Cleveland, 2882 West Rome; Edith Hasse, 730 North Lemon; David Viii, 2242 Ramona; Randall Marsh, 628 South Trident; Richard Curtiss, 419 East Sycamore. The following people spoke in opposition to placing the issue on the ballot, giving their major objections for so doing: Harry Baum, 2508 Woodland; Cal Queryal, 1012 West Park Avenue; Pat Moriarty, Red Devil Fireworks Company, 2349 West La Palma; A1 Hole, Fire and Safety Consultant, Red Devil and Wildcat Fireworks. During Mr. Moriarty's presentation, he indicated there were 60 charitable organizations who were interested in the issue, but who did not know about the hearing today, and they would be interested in a night hearing, so that they would be able to attend; Councilman Bay stated he was against an August 3 date, but asked Mr. Moriarty if the Council considered a night hearing on July 27, would that be acceptable. Mr. Moriarty was agreeable. Councilman Pickler removed his motion from the table. Councilman Overholt thereupon amended his motion to continue the hearing to Tuesday evening, July 27, 1982, at 7:30 p.m., at the Brookhurst Community Center; Councilman Roth seconded the amended motion. MOTION CARRIED. 104: CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING - STREET LIGHTING ASSESSMENT DISTRICT NO. 1981-6: To consider objections to the improvements of proposed Street Lighting Assessment District No. 1981-6 on Rome Avenue, Gaymont Street, DeVoy Drive, Elmlawn Drive, Calico Circle, Birchleaf Drive and Lynrose Drive in Tract Nos. 2228 and 2705 (continued from the meeting of June 8, 1982--see minutes that date). Mr. Bob Herr, Civil Engineering Assistant, reported that an additional letter was sent to the property owners in the proposed Street Lighting Assessment District dated June 10, 1982, advising them of the continuation of the public hearing. He reiterated that 61 percent of those who signed the petition favored the formation of the District. Mayor Roth asked to hear from anyone present in opposition to the proposed District. Mr. Lloyd Gleason, 2917 West DeVoy, stated that he was opposed, but if lights were installed, the wiring should be underground in order to avoid the unattractivness that was evident farther north in the tract. Mr. Bill Layton, City Electrical Engineer, then explained for Mr. Gleason how the lights would be installed. The only overhead installation would be on an easement in the back of approximately three or four lots, and the balance would all be underground. 611 City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - July 13, 1982, 1:30 P.M. There were no further persons who wished to speak in opposition. Mr. Warren E. Clark stated that he had documents to present in support of the proposed Street Lighting Assessment District, which were requested at the previous meeting; the Mayor stated it would not now be necessary to submit the data. Councilwoman Kaywood offered Resolution No. 82R-367 for adoption, declaring no majority protest to Street Lighting Assessment District No. 1981-6. Refer to Resolution Book. RESOLUTION NO. 82R-367: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM DECLARING THAT THERE WAS NOT A MAJORITY PROTEST AGAINST STREET LIGHTING ASSESSMENT DISTRICT 1981-6, TRACT NO. 2228 AND TRACT NO. 2705. Roll Call Vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: COUNCIL MEMBERS: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Kaywood, Pickier, Overholt, Bay and Roth None None The Mayor declared Resolution No. 82R-367 duly passed and adopted. 170: PUBLIC HEARING - WAIVER OF HILLSIDE GRADING ORDINANCE, TENTATIVE TRACT NO. 11786: Request of Mr. R. Wayne Joiley, Anacal Engineering Company, for a waiver of the requirement of the Hillside Grading Ordinance relating to location of lot lines at the top of slopes within Tract No. li786, property located on the northwest side of Anaheim Hills Road, south of Nohl Ranch Road. The Mayor asked to hear from the applicant or applicant's agent. Mr. Cal Queryel, Anacal Engineering, stated that the requested waiver was technical in nature and that the same owner was involved throughout the development. The Mayor asked to hear from those present, either in favor or in opposition; there being no response, he closed the public hearing. MOTION: Councilwoman Kayw0od moved to approve the requested waiver of the requirement of the Hillside Grading Ordinance relating to location of lot lines at the top of slopes within Tract No. 11786, property located on the northwest side of Anaheim Hills Road, south of Nohl Ranch Road, as recommended in memorandum dated June 7, 1982, from the City Engineer. Councilman Bay seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. PUBLIC HEARING - VARIANCE NO. 3268 (READVERTISED) AND NEGATIVE DECLARATION: Application by John Priem, to construct a 20-unit apartment complex on RM-1200 zoned property located at 3701 West Mungall Drive, with the following Code waivers: (a) maximum structural height, (b) minimum landscaped setback, (c) minimum structural setback, and (d) required screening of parking facilities. 612 City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - July 13, 1982, 1:30 P.M. The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC82-106, declared that the subject project will 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 medium-density residential 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, and further, granted Variance No. 3268, in part, subject to the following conditions: 1. That street lighting facilities along Mungall Drive shall be installed as required by the Office of the Utilities General Manager in accordance with specifications on file in the Office of Utilities General Manager; and that security in the form of a bond, certificate of deposit, letter of credit, or cash, in an amount and form satisfactory to the City of Anaheim, shall be posted with the City to guarantee the satisfactory completion of the above-mentioned improvements. Said security shall be posted with the City prior to approval of building permits. The above-required improvements shall be installed prior to occupancy. 2. That trash storage areas shall be provided in accordance with approved plans on file with the Office of the Executive Director of Public Works. 3. That fire hydrants shall be installed and charged as required and determined to be necessary by the Chief of the Fire Department prior to commencement of structural framing. 4. That subject property shall be served by underground utilities. 5. That drainage of subject property shall be disposed of in a manner satisfactory to the City Engineer. 6. That the owner of subject property shall pay to the City of Anaheim the appropriate park and recreation in-lieu fees as determined to be appropriate by the City Council, said fees to be paid at the time the building permit is issued. 7. That the owner(s) of subject property shall pay the traffic signal assessment ~ee (Ordinance No. 3896) in an amount as determined by the City Council, for each new dwelling unit prior to the issuance of a building permit. 8. That a 6-foot high masonry wall shall be constructed along the north and west property lines. 9. That security gates shall not be permitted without expressed approval of the City Traffic Engineer. 613 City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - July 13, 1982, 1:30 P.M. 10. That subject property shall be developed substantially in accordance with plans and specifications on file with the City of Anaheim marked Revision No. 1 of Exhibit Nos. 1 through 3. Ii. That Condition Nos. 2, 4, 5, 8, 9 and 10, above-mentioned, shall be complied with prior to final building and zoning inspections. The decision of the Planning Commission was appealed by the applicant, and public hearing scheduled this date. The Mayor asked to hear from the applicant or applicant's agent. Mr. John Priem, 832 South Knott, explained that he was asking for a variance to construct a 20-unit apartment house and the Planning Commission approved the project except for the setback of 2 1/2 feet where two parking spaces encroached into the green area (15 feet required from a local street; 12 feet, 6 inches to 15 feet proposed). There were a number of cases in the area where similar setbacks had been approved. Mr. Priem thereupon submitted photographs depicting variances that were allowed (made a part of the record). The Council then posed questions to Mr. Priem relative to his request for purposes of clarification. He also explained for Councilwoman Kaywood that if he were to change two of the two-bedroom units to one-bedroom units, thus eliminating the need for the requested waiver, since the parking requirement would be lowered, it would cause a major change in their plans; from the audience, a gentleman (believed to be the architect on the project) stated it would change the plans completely and negate the whole concept of the units. Councilman Overholt asked if they were still talking about 2 1/2 feet or two car lengths, one at each end; Mr. Priem answered, "yes," one at the very end of the alley and the other at the west end, off the driveway, both well screened and landscaped. The Mayor asked to hear from anyone who wished to speak, either in favor or in opposition. Mr. H. Warren, Administrative Board Chairman of St. Mark's Church, adjacent to the subject property, stated that they sold the property to Mr. Priem. They were in favor of the development, not only because they had sold the property to Mr. Prlem, but also because of the need for housing. There being no further persons who wished to speak, the Mayor closed the public hearing. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT - NEGATIVE DECLARATION: On motion by Councilman Bay, seconded by Councilman Overholt, the City Council finds that subject project will have no significant individual or cumulative adverse environmental impact since the Anaheim General Plan designates the subject 614 City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - July 13, 1982, 1:30 P.M. property for medium-density residential land uses commensurate with the proposal; that no sensitive environmental impacts are involved in the proposal; 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 Bay offered Resolution No. 82R-368 for adoption, granting Variance No. 3268 and reversing the findings of the City Planning Commission on requested waiver "b." Refer to Resolution Book. RESOLUTION NO. 82R-368: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM GRANTING VARIANCE NO. 3268. Roll Call Vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: COUNCIL MEMBERS: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Kaywood, Pickler, Overholt, Bay and Roth None None The Mayor declared Resolution No. 82R-368 duly passed and adopted. 108: HEARING - AMUSEMENT ARCADE APPLICATION NO. 82-18, 2001 ODYSSEY ARCADE: To consider an appeal filed by Perry Sheidayi of the decision of the Planning Director denying an Amusement Arcade Application for 2001 Odyssey Arcade, 634 South Brookhurst Street, for 48 amusement devices (continued from the meeting of June 8, 1982). Mr. Perry Sheidayi, 5929 Clark Avenue, Lakewood, first submitted a petition signed by seven tenants in the Albertson-Brookhurst shopping center, as well as the owner and manager, indicating that they would welcome a supervised family arcade in the 634 South Brookhurst space, and a letter dated June 25, 1982, from Jesse Davis, former Mayor of Buena Park, recommending Mr. Sheidayi's arcade operation in Anaheim, since their experience with his amusement business in Buena Park had been favorable. He then elaborated on the reasons why he felt the Planning Director's denial of the application should be reversed. The closest school to the center was approximately one mile away. The business operation they intended to establish was a family game arcade consisting of some electronic games and two billiard tables, to be supervised by two adults at all times during business operations. At the present time, they were operating the same type of business at 8575 Knott Avenue in Buena Park. Several people were present to speak in favor, including Mr. Ralph Neilson, Shopping Center Manager, who was initially opposed. He and Mr. Neilson talked to several of the tenants and neighbors and most expressed that they did not care if a game arcade was established or not. The petition just submitted contained signatures of some of the people who had already signed in opposition and were now signing in favor. The Mayor asked to hear from those in support of the amusement arcade. 615 City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - July 13, 1982, 1:30 P.M. The following people spoke in favor of approving the Amusement Arcade Application: Mr. Ralph Neilson, Shopping Center Manager. He also confirmed for Councilwoman Kaywood that there were 13 tenants in the center, and the petition in favor was signed by seven of those tenants; Gary Peterson, 400 South Archer. He and his wife owned the flower store next to Mr. Sheidayi's arcade in Buena Park. They had experienced no problems with the operation being next door and it was run very professionally; Mr. Marvin Simon, 6792 Eucalyptus Drive. His printing business in Santa Ana was located next door to an arcade and there were no problems. Youngsters should be able to enjoy what an arcade had to offer. The following people then spoke in opposition to the Amusement Arcade Application: Mr. Frank Nathan, President, F-R Financial Corporation, located next door to the proposed arcade, stated that they submitted petitions signed by members of the community living around the shopping center, and those people renting within the shopping center. The area did not need another arcade, since two were presently in close proximity. The arcades had been a source of disruption, drugs, noise and disorderly conduct; Dallas Kraemer, 626 South Brookhurst, tenant in the center, stated they were concerned about litter, drug abuse, kids using their lunch money to play the games, petty theft and shoplifting; Bob Baker, store manager, Albertsons, stated they were suffering substantial losses every quarter due to shoplifting and pilferage. They did not feel an arcade would be beneficial to the center, and members of the center he had spoken with felt the same way; Mrs. John France, 631 South Archer, directly behind the proposed arcade, stated she was a member of the PTA at Clara Barton School and the entire PTA Board was in opposition. Of the 21 home owners who were approached to sign the petition, 18 signed in opposition. Mr. Sheidayi then spoke in rebuttal of some of the objections raised. Annika Santalahti, Assistant Planning Director--Zoning, then clarified for the Council that originally 38 occupants within 300 feet were notified, and 28 signed in opposition. Mr. Sheidayi had now submitted an additional seven signatures and of that seven, only one who had signed the original petition in opposition had changed his mind. Councilwoman Kaywood moved to deny Amusement Arcade Application No. 82-18, 2001 Odyssey Arcade, finding and determining that pursuant to the Anaheim Municipal Code No. 3.24.045 that approval of the Arcade Permit would be contrary to the public interest, health, safety, morals or general welfare. Councilman Bay seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. RECESS: By general consent, the Council recessed for a dinner break. (5:58 p.m.) AFTER RECESS: The Mayor called the meeting to order, all Council Members being present. (7:40 p.m.) 616 City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - July 13, 1982, 1:30 P.M. CONSENT CALENDAR ITEMS: Councilwoman Kaywood offered Resolution Nos. 82R-369 through 82R-372, 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. 150: RESOLUTION NO. 82R-369: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AWARDING A CONTRACT FOR THE BOYSEN PARK IRRIGATION SYSTEM RENOVATIONS, PHASE I, IN THE CITY OF ANAHEIM, ACCOUNT NO. 16-814-7103-1402C. (Arrowhead Landscape Corporation, $17,701) 123: RESOLUTION NO. 82R-370: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM FINALLY ACCEPTING THE COMPLETION AND THE FURNISHING OF ALL LABOR AND EQUIPMENT TO CUT AND REMOVE RUBBISH, REFUSE AND DIRT UPON ANY PARCEL OR PARCELS OF REAL PROPERTY OR ANY PUBLIC STREET IN THE CITY OF ANAHEIM, AS DIRECTED BY THE CHIEF OF THE FIRE DEPARTMENT, ACCOUNT NO. 01-202-6320 (1981-82). (1981-82 Weed Abatement Contract, Edwin Weber, Inc., contractor) 175: RESOLUTION NO. 82R-371: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AMENDING THE RATES, RULES AND REGULATIONS FOR THE SALE AND DISTRIBUTION OF ELECTRIC ENERGY AS ADOPTED BY CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION NO. 71R-478 AND MOST RECENTLY AMENDED BY CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION NO. 82R-295. (to revise Rules 10 and 17, providing that adjustments for utility error specify the type of service involved and authorizing the Utility to refund a credit balance on an account as appropriate) 175: RESOLUTION NO. 82R-372: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AMENDING RATES, RULES AND REGULATIONS FOR THE SALE AND DISTRIBUTION OF WATER AS ADOPTED BY RESOLUTION NO. 72R-600 AND MOST RECENTLY AMENDED BY CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION NO. 81R-402. (to revise Rules l0 and 17, providing that adjustments for utility error specify the type of service involved and authorizing the Utility to refund a credit balance on an account as appropriate) Roll Call Vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: COUNCIL MEMBERS: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Kaywood, Pickler, Overholt, Bay and Roth None None Th~ Mayor daclar~d Ras01uti0n Nos. 82R-369 thr0u~h 82R-372, both inclusiva, duly passed and adopted. 112/123: RELEASE OF CLAIMS - STORM DRAIN DAMAGE - MARK LANE AND NORTHFIELD STREET: Councilman Bay moved to approve the Release of Claims between the City, the City of Yorba Linda, Woodcrest Development, Inc., and Mark III Homes, Inc., in connection with storm drain damage at Mark Lane and Northfield Street (Tract Nos. 10141, 10140, 10139, 10314, 9989, 10470, and 10130), as recommended in memorandum dated July 7, 1982, from the City Attorney's office. Councilman Pickler seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. 617 City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - July 13, 1982, 1:30 P.M. 106: BOOKMOBILE PROGRAM - 1982-83 RESOURCE ALLOCATION PLAN FUNDING DISCUSSION: City Manager Talley briefed the Council on memorandum dated July 6, 1982, from Program Development & Audit, recommending that the Council determine its policy concerning the continuation of the Bookmobile Program for Fiscal Year 1982-83. The total annual cost of the program was estimated at ~71,065, including personnel and other operating expenses; however, if the program were only continued through September 15, 1982, and permanently discontinued at that time, it was estimated that the bookmobile would cost $25,699 for the 1982-83 fiscal year. As requested by the Council, the cost estimate for only extended summer service for five months would be approximately $37,589. He also pointed out that the Library Director did not concur in any of the service level reductions or changes as proposed in the memorandum. Mr. William Griffith, City Librarian, stated that the Bookmobile Program should stand on its own merits, and he did not think it was wise to reduce other aspects of the Library functions to sustain the program. Mayor Roth stated, after reviewing the options contained in the staff report, he would recommend support of continuing the Bookmobile Program for the extended summer service of five months and subsequently, to evaluate the program again at that time. MOTION: After Council discussion relative to the Bookmobile Program, Councilman Roth moved that the Bookmobile Program be funded for a five-month period at ~37,589 from the Council Contingency Fund, and the program to again be analyzed at that time, December 1, 1982. Councilman Overholt seconded the motion. Before a vote was taken, Councilwoman Kaywood again broached the subject of obtaining more volunteer help for the main Library and branches, an area that was very successful in the Parks and Recreation Department; Mr. Griffith explained the present status of the volunteer program in the Library Department. A vote was then taken on the foregoing motion. MOTION CARRIED. Mayor Roth suggested that staff and the Library Board consider the possibility of looking to outside private sources for supplemental revenue to fund such programs as the Bookmobile and perhaps, it would be an appropriate project for service groups, such as the Kiwanis. He recommended that they formulate a presentation to present to such groups. 132/145: PROPOSED GATE FEES AT ORANGE COUNTY TRANSFER STATIONS AND LANDFILLS: City Manager Tailey briefed the Council on memorandum dated July 9, 1982, relative to the subject fees, which would have the effect on Anaheim of raising rates for solid waste collection in residential categories approximately 40 percent, and commercial and industrial accounts from 27 to over 100 percent. (Also, see memorandum dated July 9, 1982, from the Street 618 City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - July 13, 1982, 1:30 P.M. Maintenance Superintendent, reviewing the cost impact of the imposition of gate fees.) Mr. Talley emphasized that County staff recommended that the report submitted by the County's consultant entitled, "Solid Waste Management System for the County of Orange" be ignored, and that the County imposed, virtually without hearing or notice, a $7 per ton fee to all people, agencies and private contractors other than cities using County landfills. Because City staff had only two working days to analyze and respond to the proposal, the cities of Orange County collectively went to the Board of Supervisors and asked that the Board not act on their staff's recommendations today for several reasons--first, because there was no notice to the cities; secondly, there was no provision for City participation in the organization of how the rates were going to be charged or the agency that would oversee that function; and thirdly, the inability of many cities to pass the rates immediately on to their citizenry. Some cities would have to collect through taxation. However, after the meeting today, the Board of Supervisors unanimously moved to endorse the staff recommendation, even though all the testimony presented, except by County staff, was in opposition, with rate increases to go into effect October 1, 1982. Those fees, based upon Council policies, would be passed on to the citizens and businesses of Anaheim without their being able to say one word in opposition. Mayor Roth stated he was at today's meeting at the County, pleading for the Board not to adopt the fee schedule, but to give an opportunity for cities to give their input; however, the pleas fell on deaf ears. The Council, by general consent, after expressing their strong dissatisfaction and concern over the action of the Board, directed that a letter be sent under the Mayor's signature to Supervisor Ralph Clark, Anaheim's representative, with a copy to each Supervisor, expressing vehement opposition and disdain to their action, with a letter also to be sent to the Orange County League of Cities, indicating Anaheim's willingness to join with other Orange County Cities to prevent recurrence of such action by the Board. 114: PROPOSED AMENDMENT OF COUNCIL POLICY NO. 701 - DAMAGED SIDEWALK REPAIRS: Mayor Roth referred to staff report dated June 25, 1982, from John Roche, Facility Maintenance Superintendent (on file in the City Clerk's office), containing recommended Alternatives 1 and 2, as proposed by staff, should Council Policy No. 701 be amended. He stated he was not supportive of either alternative~ the first~ wherein the property owner would share 50 percent of repair costs for damaged sidewalks from parkway trees~ and the second, wherein the property owner would be responsible for 100 percent of the cost. At present, parkway trees causing sidewalk damage were removed at no cost to the property owner. Mr. John Roche, Facility Maintenance Superintendent, then briefed the Council on the City's current practice and further answered questions posed relative to a revision of the Policy, emphasizing that staff was looking for direction from the Council as to what that Policy might be. 619 City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - July 13, 1982, 1:30 P.M. At the conclusion of Council discussion and suggestions for possible alternatives, Jim Armstrong, Assistant to the City Manager, suggested that the matter be continued for two weeks, at which time staff would submit another alternative coinciding with Council direction as a result of the discussion today. MOTION: Councilman Bay moved to continue consideration of a proposed amendment of Council Policy No. 701 for two weeks. Councilman Pickler seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. 123/154: ANAHEIM ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION (AEDC) - TERMINATION OF AGREEMENT: Councilman Overholt moved to terminate the contract the City had with the Anaheim Economic Development Corporation under Resolution No. 79R-170 dated March 27, 1979, and approve the waiver of the 180-day waiting period to terminate, as requested in letter dated June 22, 1982, from the Law Offices of Floyd L. Farano, legal counsel for the AEDC. Councilman Roth seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. 107/179: RIVIERA MOBILEHOME PARK - REQUEST FOR PERMISSION TO PROCEED WITH ZONING AND CONVERSION APPLICATION: Floyd L. Farano, Attorney at Law, requesting permission to proceed with zoning and conversion applications for the property known as the Riviera Mobilehome Park, 300 West Katella Avenue, prior to completion of the Mobilehome Park Task Force study. Mr. Floyd Farano, 2555 East Chapman, Fullerton, representing Riviera Mobilehome Park, briefed the Council on his letter request of June 14, 1982 (on file in the City Clerk's office). He also submitted a tentative schedule for adoption of the Mobilehome Park Overlay Zone ordinance which they had received, and which was as a result of the Task Force deliberations. He estimated it would take anywhere from 120 days to nine months before the overlay zone, if acted upon, would become effective. As a representative of the Riviera Mobilehome Park, they were not in complete agreement with the ordinance, as he had expressed to the proposers. The reasons they wanted to proceed at this time were many. They were not in disagreement with the ordinance because it gave too much, because he felt the general plan they were about to divulge could possibly exceed what the mobilehome ordinance would give. He then elaborated upon the reasons why he felt they should be allowed to proceed, the most important being at this time after months of work and be£ore the Task ~orce came ~nto being (see minutes o£ March 9, 1982), ~t was a concept they began working on which they felt was now available to them, but might not be available on a perpetual and continuing basis. Mr. Farano then briefed the Council on their tentative plans, specifically with regard to the 87 coaches in the park considered as move-outs. They were 16 years of age or older and thus, would not be acceptable in another park. They would arrange for the acquisition of a new 12' by 56' coach, place it in a park within a radius specified in the ordinance or outside that radius, and place skirtings and awnings on it. That package would cost approximately $15,000 on the market. The resident's part would be to purchase the coach under financing arrangements that they would undertake to make, do all the 620 City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - July 13, 1982, 1:30 P.M. paperwork, and payments would not exceed $150 per month for five years and then the coach would be theirs (the resident's). They were underwriting the purchase of a new coach for the tenant and the tenant could dispose of the old coach in any manner he wished. The remainder of the tenants would also be compensated by a plan which would follow the spirit of the ordinance. He did not want the Council to believe they were going to follow the ordinance, but the spirit relative to compensation other than the 87 coaches. What they were trying to do might be better than what the ordinance would provide. In answer to Councilman Pickler, Mr. Farano stated that he did not feel that the "moratorium" was proper or legal, and subject to challenge. In his opinion, if someone wanted to file an application and have the City refuse that right, there would be good grounds for an argument. City Attorney Hopkins clarified that there was no formal moratorium, but merely an expression by the Council, which Mr. Farano expressed as a "stay." If someone demanded that an application be processed, it would be difficult to take the position that they could not do so. The Mayor asked to hear from those who wished to speak to the issue. The following people spoke in opposition to the request of Riviera Mobilehome Park: Vincent Jantz, Attorney, 2700 North Main, Santa Aha; Carl Shorey, 300 West Katella, Space 51 (spokesman for Riviera Mobilehome Park); Dale Smith, 501 East Orangethorpe, Rancho La Paz Mobilehome Park; and John Daley, Director of Golden State Mobilehome League of Orange County. Mr. Jantz emphasized his concern that the entire procedure was premature, since the Task Force had spent a great deal of time surveying the complex situation and an unfortunate precedent would be set should Riviera be allowed to proceed. The ordinance under consideration should first be presented so that the Council would be aware of its contents before deciding whether or not a particular park should be closed. He represented the tenants of Orangewood Acres Mobilehome Park and should Riviera be granted an exception, the owners of Orangewood Acres would undoubtedly try to do likewise. Extensive discussion and questioning followed between Council Members and staff, especially with regard to the meeting held March 9, 1982, at the Brookhurst Community Center, where the Mobilehome Task Force was formed and assigned the task of considering zoning for mobilehome parks and related issues (see minutes that date). At the time, the consensus of the Council was to take no action and await the outcome of the Task Force proceedings. MOTION: Councilman Pickler moved to deny the request to lift the "moratorium." Councilwoman Kaywood seconded the motion. Before action was taken, Mayor Roth stated he was in complete agreement with the Council in their consensus that no action be taken, but not that the owner be denied the opportunity to proceed. If the motion was to reaffirm taking no action on mobilehome park conversions, that would be one thing, but to deny the right of the owner to process his paperwork through the Planning Commission was another. 621 City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - July 13, 1982, 1:30 P.M. City Attorney Hopkins explained at this point, unless Council Policy were changed, the applicant could file, but the Planning Department would not process the application until the Council changed its position. Mr. Farano stipulated that he was not going to proceed. MOTION: Councilman Overholt offered an amended motion that they deny the request to lift the "moratorium" with respect to Riviera Mobilehome Park. Councilman Roth seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. 108: HEARING - AMUSEMENT ARCADE APPLICATION NO. 82-19, ANAHEIM BOWL: To consider an appeal filed by Terry J. Brutocao, Anaheim Bowl, and Thomas Greaney, Fairchild Amusement, Inc., of the decision of the Planning Director denying an Amusement Arcade Application for Anaheim Bowl, 1925 West Lincoln Avenue, for 15 amusement devices (continued from the meeting of June 15, 1982, see minutes that date). Mr. Terry Brutocao, Anaheim Bowl, stated that after the meeting of June 15, 1982, he was able to contact all but three property owners who had filed written objections within the 300-foot radius and, in addition, received written approvals from five other addresses, those being people who did not sign the petition in Opposition previously filed with the City. Everyone he had spoken with was under the impression that some change was being sought. When he explained that it was simply a matter of complying with a new ordinance relative to arcades, and their's had already been in existence, 100 percent of those he spoke with saw no reason to object. He presented the petition to the City Clerk on Friday morning, which included a letter and three attachments. Miss Santalahti confirmed that after checking the signatures, there were at least 51 percent in support of the application. The Mayor asked to hear from those present, either in favor or in opposition; there was no response. MOTION: Councilwoman Kaywood moved to approve an Amusement Arcade Application for Anaheim Bowl, 1925 West Lincoln Avenue, for 15 amusement devices. Councilman Overholt seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. 123: DATA PROCESSING CONTRACT PROGRAMMING SERVICES, GENERAL SYSTEMS EFFORT, JULY 1, 1982 THROUGH JUNE 30, 1983: (1) Authorizing an agreement with John Cappelletti Associates in an amount not to exceed ~330,000 for data processing contracting services for the City's General Systems Effort, commencing July 1, 1982, and ending June 30, 1983; and (2) authorizing an agreement with DPCS in an amount not to exceed ~50,000 for data processing contracting services for the City's General Systems Effort, commencing July 1, 1982, and ending June 30, 1983 (both continued from the meeting of July 6, 1982, see minutes that date). 622 City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - July 13, 1982, 1:30 P.M. City Clerk Linda Roberts announced that a letter'had been received from Computer-Tek, dated July 1, 1982, advising that they were withdrawing their proposal bid on the subject effort. MOTION: Councilman Overholt moved to authorize an agreement with John Cappelletti Associates in an amount not to exceed $330,000 for data processing contracting services for the City's General Systems Effort, commencing July 1, 1982, and ending June 30, 1983, as recommended in memorandum dated June 29, 1982, from the Data Processing Director. Councilman Pickler seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. MOTION: Councilman Overholt moved to authorize an agreement with DPCS in an amount not to exceed $50,000 for data processing contracting services for the City's General Systems Effort, commencing July 1, 1982, and ending June 30, 1983. Councilman Bay seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. It was then confirmed upon questioning by Councilman Bay that both agreements combined were not to exceed $330,000, as explained by the City Manager at the meeting of June 29, 1982. Mayor Roth emphasized that in the future there be consistency in the bidding process, so that the procedure would be impeccable; Councilman Bay stated that when people came in to question bids in the future, the Council wanted to be certain they were in a strong position to substantiate and defend the process. 173: PLAZA TRANSPORTATION COMPANY: Monica E. Keppel, requesting to add Vacationland Campground, 1343 South West Street, and Howard Johnsons, 1380 South Harbor Boulevard, and to drop the Conestoga Motor Inn, 1240 South Walnut Avenue, from their present jitney service permit; and further, requesting approval of the transfer of ownership. Submitted was a report from the City Attorney dated July 2, 1982, recommending approval of the request, provided that the applicant complied with the four provisions listed therein. MOTION: Councilman Roth moved to approve the subject request. Councilwoman Kaywood seconded the motion. Before a vote was taken, Councilman Bay expressed his concern relative to the second provision listed in the City Attorney's report, that the bond issued to the Plaza Transportation Company would no longer be valid. To his knowledge on jitn~yg, thara wa~ no raqu~r~m~nt for a bond. Monica Keppel, 1142 Lotus, explained that Plaza Transportation currently did not have a bond, since it was not required originally. City Attorney Hopkins stated that the present ordinance required a bond and, therefore, they would have to research the matter. If there was some reason why Plaza Transportation should not have a bond, he would render his opinion. 623 City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - July 13, 1982, 1:30 P.M. Miss Keppel noted that she had insurance in the amount of ~500,000 and questioned if that was not the same as a bond; Mr. Hopkins answered, "no". The Anaheim Municipal Code required both insurance and a bond for faithful performance. MOTION: Councilman Bay thereupon amended the foregoing motion to continue consideration of the subject request for one week, to give an opportunity for the City Attorney to research the matter further. Councilman Pickler seconded the motion. Councilman Overholt voted "no." MOTION CARRIED. Councilman Overholt voted "no", because he felt they could approve the request with the technicality to be worked out between the applicant and the City Attorney. 181: PATRONS OF THE ARTS, FULLERTON COLLEGE, APPOINTMENT TO THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES: Councilman Bay nominated Vicki Thompson to fill the vacancy on the Board of Trustees. MOTION: Councilman Pickler moved to appoint Vicki Thompson as the City's representative on the Board of Trustees for the Patrons of the Arts, Fullerton College, filling the vacancy created by the resignation of Jane Wolfe, as requested in a letter dated June 28, 1982, from Ted Spriggs, Jr., Associate Dean for Community Relations of Fullerton College. Councilman Overholt seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. 176: ABANDONMENT NO. 79-8A - EXTENSION OF TIME: Councilman Overholt moved to approve the request of Kaufman and Broad, Inc., for an extension of time for fulfillment of certain conditions imposed by Resolution No. 8OR-10, relating to Abandonment No. 79-8A, property composed of certain portions along Santa Ana Canyon Road in the vicinity of Weir Canyon Road, to expire July 1, 1983, as recommended in memorandum dated July 6, 1982, from the City Engineer. Councilwoman Kaywood seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. 123: LLOYD HAMROL AND ANAHEIM ARTS COUNCIL: Evelyn Foucher, President, requesting a 60-day extension of time to a provision in the contract with Lloyd Hamrol to present a model for the Civic Center sculpture was submitted, together with a report from the Deputy City Manager, dated July 6, 1982, recommending that the agreement be amended to allow the requested extension of time. MOTION: Councilwoman Kaywood moved to approve the request for a 60-day extension of time to a provision in the subject contract. Councilman Roth seconded the motion. Before a vote was taken, Councilman Bay stated he did not see any reason given for the requested extension. Evelyn Foucher, 514 North Clementine, stated that they underestimated the time it would take for the Arts Council to meet with the sculptor, and that the sculptor also had several other assignments which did not allow him to proceed with the work immediately. He had presented today one of his models that may be one of the final ones. They felt they would need those 60 additional days. 624 City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - July 13, 1982, 1:30 P.M. A vote was then taken on the foregoing motion. Councilman Bay voted "no." MOTION CARRIED. 127: PROPOSED CHARTER AMENDMENTS AND MEASURES FOR THE NOVEMBER 2, 1982, GENERAL ELECTION BALLOT: Continued from the meetings of June 29 and July 6, 1982--see minutes those dates. MOTION--PUBLIC UTILITIES MEASURES: Councilwoman Kaywood moved to direct Bond Counsel to prepare final ballot wording for approval on the four proposed Utility Charter Amendments as listed on pages two and three of memorandum dated June 30, 1982, from the Public Utilities General Manager, to be placed on the November 2, 1982, General Election ballot: (1) Authority to issue Revenue Anticipation Notes (RANS); (2) authority to issue Bond Anticipation Notes (BANS); (3) elimination of 8 percent maximum interest rate from Electric Revenue Bonds approved in 1975 and (4) elimination of 8 percent maximum interest rates from Water Revenue Bonds approved in 1978. Councilman Overholt seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. MOTION--CHANGE OF GENERAL MUNICIPAL ELECTION DATE: Councilwoman Kaywood referred to the proposed ballot wording relative to the change of Election date, noting that it contained only one choice, changing the date to November of each even numbered year. She thought they agreed to giving more than one choice and felt that the people should have an opportunity to indicate if they wanted to go back to an April election date as well. During Council discussion on the issue, Council Members Overholt, Pickler and Roth indicated their preference for placing only the November date on the ballot and subsequently, Councilman Bay agreed. MOTION: Councilman Pickler moved to direct the City Attorney to prepare final ballot wording for approval, amending the City Charter to change the date of the General Municipal Elections to the first Tuesday after the first Monday in November of each even numbered year, with November being the only choice. MOTION CARRIED. MOTION--REDUCTION OF TIME FRAME FOR BUDGET SUBMISSION TO THE CITY COUNCIL: City Manager William Talley briefed the Council on the present procedure for budget submittal, which requires that at least 60 days prior to the beginning of each fiscal year, the City Manager shall prepare and submit to the City Council the proposed budget. After Council discussion and further questions posed to the City Manager, Councilwoman Kaywood moved to direct the City Attorney to prepare final ballot wording for approval, changing the time frame for budget submittal from 60 days to 30 days. Councilman Pickler seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. 625 City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - July 13, 1982, 1:30 P.M. Before concluding, Mayor Roth asked that his colleagues consider, at some time in the future, the appointment of a Charter Review Committee and subsequently, the Council and staff could then make recommendations of the areas they would like reviewed. He reiterated the areas he would like reviewed, specifically how the Mayor was elected with the confusion of having to vote twice for the same candidate eliminated. 118: CLAIMS AGAINST THE CITY: Councilman Bay moved that action be taken as recommended on the following claims: Claims denied and referred to Risk Management: a. Claim submitted by Ester De LaRiva for personal injuries purportedly sustained due to a slip-and-fall accident at Anaheim Stadium, on or about June 6, 1982. b. Claim submitted by John and Patricia Nepp for personal property damages purportedly sustained due to golf ball from Anaheim Hills Golf Course breaking window at 6401 East Nohl Ranch Road #81, on or about May 12, 1982. c. Claim submitted by Richard Dupre for personal injuries purportedly sustained on parking lot at the Anaheim Convention Center, on or about April 16, 1982. d. Claim submitted by Pacific Telephone Company for property damages purportedly sustained to buried cable at the northeast corner of Fairmont and Santa Ana Canyon Roads, due to actions of City contractor, on or about May 25, 1982. Claim denied and referred to Bayly, Martin and Fay/San Antonio: e. Claim submitted by Edward King Fisher for personal injuries, emotional distress and personal and public humiliation purportedly sustained due to actions of Anaheim Police Officers in the vicinity of 1721 South Manchester, on or about March 13, 1982. Councilman Pickler seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. CONSENT CALENDAR ITEMS: Councilwoman Kaywood offered Resolution Nos. 82R-373 and 82R-374 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-373: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM ACCEPTING CERTAIN DEEDS AND ORDERING THEIR RECORDATION. (Severn Lennert, et ux.; Frank Reyes, Jr., et ux; Chang Development Group) 164: RESOLUTION NO. 82R-374: 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: CYPRESS STreET STORM DRAIN, IN THE CITY OF ANAHEIM, ACCOUNT NO. 46-791-6325-Ei260; 626 City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - July 13, 1982, 1:30 P.M. 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 August 12, 1982, 2:00 p.m.) Roll Call Vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: COUNCIL MEMBERS: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Kaywood, Pickler, Overholt, Bay and Roth None None The Mayor declared Resolution Nos. 82R-373'and 82R-374 duly passed and adopted. 142/183: PROPOSED ORDINANCE ESTABLISHING AN INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT BOARD: Councilman Bay offered Ordinance No. 4349 for first reading, add Section 1.04.995 to the Anaheim Municipal Code, establishing an Industrial Development Board. ORDINANCE NO. 4349: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM ADDING SECTION 1.04.995 TO CHAPTER 1.04 OF TITLE 1 OF THE ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO OFFICERS AND DEPARTMENTS. Councilman Overholt asked that by the next meeting, that staff provide a report on the estimate of cost of servicing the proposed ordinance. He also added that he was not entirely sold on the proposed ordinance as written and posed questions which were answered by Councilman Bay, who also elaborated on the intent of the formation of the subject board. Councilman Overholt again expressed his concern over creating another board. 114: DISCUSSION OF LIAISON ASSIGNMENTS: Councilman Bay suggested that they adjourn to a workshop session, if necessary, that would be open to the public in order to act on liaison assignments which, in his opinion, could not wait any longer, since some situations were becoming urgent. Mayor Roth stated he had voted against the concept when it was suggested and since, had not participated. He felt there was too much steering and decision making, and he had not changed his philosophy. However, because he was a dedicated "team" player, he would be willing to dialogue the matter and suggested adjourning to an earlier meeting time next week to do so. By general consent, the Council agreed to meet at 10:30 a.m. on July 20, 1982, in order to discuss liaison assignments. Before closing, Mayor Roth also suggested that the Council consider a change in the starting time of Council meetings, that is, to start the Council meetings at 9:30 a.m. on Tuesday in order to consider staff items, with public hearings to be held at 1:30 p.m. He was looking for a way to avoid meetings extending late into the night. 627 City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - July 13, 1982, 1:30 P.M. Mayor Roth also announced to the newspaper reporters that if they wished to join the Council at those times when they recessed for dinner, before considering the balance of the agenda, they were invited to do so. (He added that it would be at their own expense.) RECESS - CLOSED SESSION: The City Manager requested a Closed Session to discuss a personnel matter with no action anticipated, and the City Attorney requested a Closed Session to discuss litigation and potential litigation with action anticipated. By general consent, the Council recessed into Closed Session. (11:09 p.m.) AFTER RECESS: The Mayor called the meeting to order, ail Council Members being present. (11:42 p.m.) 112: CAROL CARLOS VS. CITY OF ANAHEIM: Councilman Roth moved to authorize the City Attorney to settle Orange County Superior Court Case No. 27-33-23, Carol Carlos vs. City of Anaheim, for a sum not to exceed $12,000. Councilman Pickler seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. 112: TONY NOSOW VS. HERBERT STRANDT, CITY OF ANAHEIM, ET AL: Councilman Roth moved to authorize the City Attorney and Ruston & Nance to settle Municipal Court of North Orange County Judicial District Case No. A-2-44-77, Tony Nosow vs. Herbert Strandt, City of Anaheim, et al, for a sum not to exceed ~12,000. Councilman Overholt seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. ADJOURNMENT: Councilwoman Kaywood moved to adjourn to Tuesday, July 20, 1982, at 10:30 a.m., for the purpose of discussing liaison assignments. Councilman Roth seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. (11:43 p.m.) LINDA D. ROBERTS, CITY CLERK 628