The URL can be used to link to this page

1981/04/1481-584 City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - April 14, 1981~ 1:30 P.M. PRESENT: ABSENT: PRESENT: The City Council of the City of Anaheim met in regular session. 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 PLANNING DIRECTOR: Ron Thompson PUBLIC UTILITIES GENERAL MANAGER: Gordon Hoyt TRAFFIC ENGINEER: Paul Singer WATER ENGINEER MANAGER: Ray Auerbach REAL PROPERTY AGENT: Matthew Boscia STREET MAINTENANCE SUPERINTENDENT: Bill Lewis CRIMES PERSONS BUREAU COMMANDER: Lt. Randall Gaston Mayor Seymour called the meeting to order and welcomed those in attendance to the Council meeting. I, NVOCATION: Reverend Ray Niederer, Bethel Baptist Church, gave the-Invocation. FLAG SALUTE: Councilwoman M~riam Kaywood led the assembly in the Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag. 11~: PROCLAMATIONS: The following proclamations were issued by Mayor Seymour and authorized by the_City Council: "Day Of Reverence--~ood Friday" - April 7, 1981 "I Love America Day" in Anaheim - April 20, 1981 "Angel Town" -April 13, 1981 (Ratified) Mr. Jim Springer and Tommy Thomason accepted the Day of Reverence proclamation; Mr. Jack Warde accepted the t Love America Day proclamation. llR: RESOLUTION: The Council unanimously adopted a resolution endorsing the Great California Resource Rally, April 20 to 26, 1981, and encouraging citizen awareness and participation in litter control, recycling, and waste reduction. 11~: RESOLUTION. OF CONDOLENCE: A resolution of condolence was unanimously adopted by the City Council to be presented to the family of Clair Leroy Stout, DJ. rector and Secretary of the Golden West Baseball Company, on his recent passing. 119.: RESOLUTION OF COMMENDATION: A resolution of commendation was unanimously adopted by the City Council and presented to James D. Ruth, Deputy City Manager, on his recent award of a "Distinguished Fellow" honor from the Pacific Southwest Regional Council of the National Recreation and Parks Association for outstanding leadership, distinctive professional leadership and personal contributions. MLNUTES: Councilwoman Kaywood moved to approve the minutes of February 17, 1981. Councilman Bay seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. B1-Sq5 City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - April 14, 1981, 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 ordinance or resolution in regular order. Councilman Bay seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. FINANCIAL DEMANDS AGAINST THE CITY in the amount of $9,153,038.16, in accordance with the 1980-81 Budget, were approved. CITY MANAGER/DEPARTMENTAL CONSENT CALENDAR: On motion by Councilman Bay, seconded by Councilwoman Kaywood, the following items were approved as recommended: a. 115: Civic Center Handicapped Access Improvement--Account No. 48A 84-6325. Continue award of contract to April 21, 1981. b. 150/106: Accepting a grant of $2,000 from Wells Fargo Bank to assist in the purchase of a Senior Citizen par cours apparatus for installation at Pearson Park. c. 150: Accepting a State grant from the Roberti-Z'berg Urban Open Space and Recreation Program (~B 174) in the amount of $52,164 and additional 1976 State Park Bond Act funds in the amount of $39,273, for the development of Eucalyptus Park. d. 106: Appropriating the funds into Program Account No. 16-802, Santa Ana Canyon Site II (_Eucalyptus Park), as identified in the Resource Allocation Plan for this project. MOTION CARRIED. CITY MANAGER/DEPARTMENT RESOLUTION CONSENT CALENDAR: Councilwoman Kaywood offered Resolution Nos, 81R-169 through 81R-173, both inclusive, for adoption. 12~: RESOLUTION NO. 81R-169: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM ACCEPTING A SEALED PROPOSAL AND AWARDING A CONTRACT TO THE LOWEST RESPONSIBLE BIDDER FOR THE FURNISHING OF ALL PLANT, LABOR, SERVICES, MATERIALS AND EQUIPMENT AND ALL UTI'LITIES AND TRANSPORTATION INCLUDING POWER, FUEL AND WATER, AND PERFORMING ALL WORK NECESSARY TO CONSTRUCT AND COMPLETE THE FOLLOWING PUBLIC IMPROVEMENT: STRUCTURE MODIFICATION AND REMODEL AT FIRE STATION NO. 6, 133Q SOUTH EUCLID STREET, IN THE CITY OF ANAHEIM, ACCOUNT NO. 24a 15-7107. (~esnick Construction Company, $28,720~ 159: RESOLUTION NO. 81R-170: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM ESTABLISHING FEES TO BE CHARGED BY THE PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT OF THE CITY OF ANAHEI~M. 103: RESOLUTION NO. 81R-171: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM, CALIFORNIA, REQUESTING THE COMMENCEMENT OF PROCEEDINGS FOR THE ANNEX- ATION OF CERTAIN UNINHABITED TERRITORY DESIGNATED AS TUSTIN-ATWOOD ANNEXATION. (~ acres, E/S Tustin, S/o Orangethorpe Avenue) 156/160: RESOLUTION NO. 81R-172: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM DECLARING CERTAIN UNCLAIMED PROPERTY IS NEEDED FOR PUBLIC USE AND TRANSFERRING THE SAME TO THE CITY PURCHASING DEPARTMENT. 81-586 City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - April 14~ 1981, 1:30 P.M. 153: RESOLUTION NO. 81R-173: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AMENDING RESOLUTION NO. 81R-151. (to include first page of Rule 23 of the Personnel Rules) Roll Call Vote: AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Overholt, Kaywood, Bay, Roth and Seymour NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: None ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: None Th~ Mayor declared Resolution Nos. 81R-169 through 81R-173, both inclusive, duly passed and adopted. 163/150: TRIDENT JUNIOR HIGH SCHOOL - POSSIBLE LEASE FOR SENIOR CITIZENS CENTER: Councilwoman Kaywood moved to authorize staff to enter into exploratory nego- tiations with the Anaheim Union High School District for a possible lease of a portion of Trident Junior High School for a Senior Citizens Center, as recommended in memorandum dated April 6, 1981 from Deputy City Manager James Ruth. Council- man Overholt seconded the motion. Before a vote was taken, Mayor Seymour stated there was no doubt that the activity for Senior Citizens was justified in the western part of the community. But on the other hand, relative to th~ use of Trident Junior High School, he felt that the use and the open space around it as existing should not change. He had expressed himself on that at the last meeting held regarding the project proposed at Euclid and Cerritos. His concern and question would be if they took part of the school, would that preclude the opportunity for a private school who may want it to take over all of it. It was also his understanding that the Francis Scott Key School was also being considered for closure and, if so, since it was a smaller facility, perhaps what they would be doing on Key School, which would be for the School Board to decide, would be less disturbing. He merely wanted to express himself on those points. Mr. James Ruth, Deputy City Manager, explained that they did not want to do any- thing in talking to the School District in preliminary negotiations without the approval of the Council. They were very open and ready to explore all possibili- ties at this stage. There were two or three groups interested in Trident, and there might be some possibility of trade-offs in working with other groups. He reiterated, they did not want to do anything until they received some direction from the Council and they would be glad to consider what the Mayor had articulated with a report to be submitted to the Council accordingly. Councilwoman Kaywood noted that Cynthia Grennen, School Superintendent, Anaheim Union High School District, was in the audience who may wish to add to the discussion. From what she (Kaywood) understood, the possible lease of a portion of Trident Junior High School for a Senior Citizens Center would not jeopardize the use of Trident in any way. Cynthia Grennen, School Superintendent, stated at this time they had two or three groups who had expressed an interest in Trident. None were able to handle the entire area, i.e., the open space and the buildings. She had direction from her Board of Trustees to explore leasing possibilities for Trident with the City. They were looking for compatibility of people if they were to share that campus. In terms, of the Board, they were committed to the open space as it existed. They · puooas s~g u~ q~o~ u~mi~o~noo o~ alq~aaa~ osie s~ ~! fuo!~om s~q o~ ~uampuam~ aq~ ~daD~ pino~ ag pa~s ~IOqaaaO u~mi~ounoo · ~!adoadd~ ~q pino~ ~q~ '~M~ o~ ~u!sodoad ~a~m K~q~ uo!~D~ ~q~ ~o uoI~Idmo~ aq~ o~ ~a~qns aaam ~! ~I 'paaamsu~ sutMdoH m~!ii!M Aauao~v ~!O · ssaooad P!q aq~ q~!m ~ua~sisuoo 'a~e!adoadd~ aq plnom ~wq~ g! '~!pso~ 'aM Xq paqtaosap ~sn[ sw ~uamsea pa~sn[p~ aq~ ~o I~Aoaddw s,K~!O aq~ o~ ~oa[qns ~! aM~u o~ papuamw aaaa P!q ~u!poM aq~ o~ aA!~eIaa uo!~om aq~ ~o uo!~aod aq~ ~! Xauao~v X~!D aq~ p~Ms~ aoKeR aq£ · ~u~muopu~q~ ao~ uo!~!idd~ u~ ~uiM~m ~o K~!I!q!ssod ~ ~q X~m ~q~ ~q~ u~.q p~mao~uI ~sn~ ~Toso~ 'aM '~u!i X~a~doad ~q~ ~o ~ ~q~ uo ~u~m~s~ u~ s~m ~a~q~ ~no puno~ ~q~ 'a~a~aoH '~ Z~ ~q~ ~u!Mt~n '~pIs qD~ uo sMD~q~s ~OO~-~A!~ ~q~ pu~ ~D~ds ~Iq~pI!nq ~o ~ g£ p~p~u ~q~ '~moq q~q-ma~ 'mooap~q-~aq~ ~ ao~ sMD~q~s pu~ s~u~m~a!nb~a ~u!pIIn~ ~q~ ~o Ii~ ~aam pinoD X~qi 'ap!a ~aa~ g~ s~m (~aaa~$ ~sanqMooa~ ~o ~sam 'anuaaV ~mi~d ~q ~o q~nos '~aaa~S ~utpi~A) uo!~sanb u! ia~a~d aq~ ~q~ pau!~idxa sii~uI uqo£ ~au!poM 9u!~uasaadaa u! anss! aq~ ssaapp~ o~ aaPD pinoa silk,ut 'aM ~! pa~s~ aH 'aSh o~ ia~aPd IPO!~padm!. uP ~! ~p~m ~p~sn[p~ ao p~Aom~a ssaiun '~q~ dn p~ddoaD Mu!~u~saadaa 'sii~MuI uqo£ 'a~ ~q~ pa~ou anomXaS aoA~ 'uaM~ s~.m ~OA ~ 'G~IMM'V9 NOI£0N '~u!~uN i~!3 ~q~ moa~ I96I 'Z I!adv p~3~p mnpu~aomam u! p~pu~urmoo~a s~ p~p ~u~mas~ u~ ~o uo!~no~x~ ~q~ ~u!z!aoq~n~ pu~ ~ii~m MooIq ~ ~o uo!~aod ~ pu~ ~u!d~ospu~I ~MI~m~p!s ~o ~ou~u~u!~m pu~ uo!~ii~su! ~q~ ao~ ~!s ~!A!D ~au aq~ ~o 3aa~ ~0'I Xlaaq3nos aq~ ~uoI~ 3u~u~s~a u~ ao~ s~3~!~ossv -X3aU!N ~u0 q~!m paz!aoq~ne s~m 3uauraaa~ u~ 'poom/e~ u~tuomiiDunoD Kq papuo3as 'q3o~ u~rmI!3unoo Xq uo!~om u0 :MIIS 77¥H X~ID M.gN MHI M0 IMM~ ~0'I XT~M~I~0S - MTVMMGIS V MO NOIZMOJ V M0 MDNVNMINIV~ GN~ NOIIV'ITVISNI MO~ ZNMRMSVM 'M'd 0[:I 'I86I '~I I!adv - SMIflNIM 7IDN~OD - e!uao~!I~D 'm!aq~uv 'II~H A~!D · po~dop~ pu~ passed Xinp ~LI-MI8 'oN uo!2nIosaM p~a~Isap aoX~M oql auoN :SMM~4MM %IDN-QOD :iNMSEV OUON :SMM~t]4 7IDNflOO :S3ON ~nou~as puw q~oM 'kw~ 'poomX~N '~ioqaoao :S~E~J4~M 7IDN_QOD :S~AV · uo!~nIosoa ~u!o~aao$ ~q2 uo uoMw2 uaq2-s~a a~om V · aIqwuos~oa papunos 2wq2 pa~aBw q2oM uwmI!ounoD ~omt2 2wq2 ~u!anp X3!I!OW~ ~q~ ua aa~ iw3uaa w K~d pinom oqm sdnoa~ aa) puwur~p faeaq ~ s~m aaaq2 pu~ sdnoa~ ~u!X~d-uou paAIOAU! sXwpan~S uo oBwsn aq~ 2o 2uaoaad Om3-X2UaAa,S 'sKwpan2~S ua amT.~ am!ad aq2 ~u!anp aq pinom pas~aaou! aq plnoqs saa~ aq2 ~uIX~s aaam Kaq~ a~2 ~Iuo oRS '~Md o2 oA~q 2au pu~ XmpunS ~o Xwp!a~ ua X~iiiow~ aq2 o,sn plnoo ~suo!2~z!u~ao paswq-X2!unmmoo aq2 'I dnoaD u! aIdoad aq~ 3wq2 pau!wIdxa q~nM 'aN · X2!D ag2 ~o apIs2no saasn Kq sa!~ia!~ow o~ iwnba ~ou sa~ asoq~ ~q~ pu~ uo!2!u~ooaa Iw!oods uoA!~ aq pInoqs sa!~!a!3ow mtaqwuv 3~q2 ~Ia~ oq~ pue sas~azou! amos aq o2 ~uIo~ s~m ~aaq2 aa~m~ aaam oqm aldoad moa~ siiwo om~ paA!aOaa pwq aq pa2w~s q~oM u~mI!oUnOD 'uaMw2 swm ~3OA W '7~ID EH% NI SEDIAEES GNV SR-fMDOMJ NOI~VMEDEM GNV MMVJ MGIM-X%ID MOM SEMM OI ONIiVI~d ~8I-M08 GNV g-M~l 'SON NOI%fllOS3M DNIGNM]4V MIMHVNV MO %IDNROD XZID EHi ~0 NOI%fll0SMM V :~I-MI8 'ON · Moo~ uo!~nIosoM o2 ma~aM 'aa~wu~M X~!3 X~ndaG aq2 moa~ I86I 'gE q~awN pa2wp mnpuwaom-am u! papuammooaa sw 'uoI2dop~ ao~ P~I-MI$ 'ON uo!~nIosaM pa=a~o poo~u{wN uwmomi!ounoo 'sXwpan~e$ ua ~3U~D ~2Iunmmoo 3s~nuMooI~ ~q3 3~ ~sn X3IIIO~ ~o~ ~u!~a~q0 ~o poq3~m oR3 a~3I~ o2 ~uam~a~daG saoTaaas X~TunmmoD pu~ uo!3~aaoa~ 's~a~d ~q~ ao~ ~InpaqoS pu~ oaM aq2 ~u!s!AaM :MM%NMD X~I~0D %SMRIOI00M~ - NOISIA~M XDIq0~ ~M~ 'GEIEIIVD NOI%0M 'uo!2om ~u!o~aao~ aq3 ua uaMw3 uaq3 swm a2On V · suo!~!~o~au ~u!lpu~q ~q pinom pamnssw ag oqm 3uasoad osi~ swm 'aomI. 32wq 'aN 'ssau!snq ~o aSa~qo u! ~uapua2u!aadns 2u~s!ssv aq~ 3wq~ po3ou 3IoqaoA0 u~I!ounoD · Iooqos XoM ssnos!p 3ou pInoo Xoq~ q~noq3Iw ~2s K3!D qJ!m 2uop!ai o2 aA!~Iaa suo!2do ~uoaa~!p aq~ IIw ssnos!p o3 Xddwq aq pInom 'N'J 0[:I '196I 'PI I!adv - SM%flNIN 7IDNi10D - w!uao~!IWD 'm!aq~uv 'II~H A3!D LSg-I8 81-589 City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MI .NUTES - April 14~ 1981, 1:30 P.M. Councilman Bay stated he understood that portion of the motion relative to Rodine was also subject to obtaining a permit to build the house on the property. He assumed then that they were also making it subject to the negotiated change in the easement. Mr, Boscia explained, however, that Mr. Ingalls did withdraw that request in writing and he had a letter from him in the file; the Mayor surmised that with the easement change, they felt they could meet all City Codes. Councilman Roth stated he felt there should be a deadline on the escrow; Mr. Boscia confirmed that it would be 60 days or less. Councilman Roth felt that they should stipulate the maximum time of escrow in the agreements or else they could go on forever; Mr. Boscia stated they would do so. Councilwoman Kaywood noted the documentation showed the property to be a sub- standard lot size of 5,848 square feet in an RS-7200 zone. She was wondering if it would be necessary to notify the neighborhood and if they were aware that a home would be built there. She read that it was not suitable for'residential. City Manager William Talley stated prior to completing the escrow, the neighbors within 30~ feet could be notified that it was the City's intent to sell the property and allow construction of a single-family home on it if the Council w~shed. Mr. Boscia reported that the area was posted, the property was advertised, public notice was given and the adjoining owner was contacted and given an opportunity to purchase the prope=ty. He believed that adequate notice had been given. Mr. Ingalls had a unique type of proposed development for the property. The area in question was not in one of the best areas in Anaheim, and he believed that the development would be quite an enhancement to the area. Councilwoman Kaywood reiterated she was wondering if the neighborhood was aware that a residence was going to be placed on that property. Somewhere she read it was not suitable for residential. Mayor Seymour stated obviously if that was stated, it must have been in error or at least in error to the degree that it did not consider what Rodine was suggesting, because Rodine stated they could do it without any variances. Mr. Ron Thompson, Planning Director, clarified it was a recorded lot of a sub- division and would be a buildable s~te for residential land use. A vote was then taken on the foregoing motion amended to include the proviso that the sale of the property was subject to the City abandoning the westerly two and one-half feet of the permanent 10-foot easement. MOTION CARRIED. 123: DEFLECTION STUDY - SPRING 1~81 STREET PROJECTS: Mr. Bill Lewis, Street Maintenance Superintendent, first answered questions posed by the Mayor on the subject study for purposes of clarification. 81-590 City Mall, Anaheim~ Califprnia - COUNCIL MINUTES - April 14~ 1981~ 1:30 P.M. On motion by Councilman Bay, seconded by Councilwoman Kaywood, alternative IV--A of the La Belle Consultants' quotation dated April 6, 1981 was approved at a cost not to exceed $4,850 as recommended in memorandum dated April 8, 1981 from the Street Maintenance Superintendent. MOTION CARRIED. 112: LETTER AGREEMENT - EL TORO WATER DISTRICT LITIGATION SETTLEMENT: On motion by Councilman Roth, seconded by Councilman Bay, a letter agreement was authorized relating to the E1 Toro Water District litigation settlement in connection with the Diemer Intertie project, and authorizing the Public Utilities General Manager and City Clerk to execute same, as recommended in memorandum dated April 8, 1981 from Public Utilities General Manager Gordon Hoyt. MOTION CARRIED. 175/180: CONTINUATION OF MEMBERSHIP IN NUCLEAR MUTUAL LIMITED - SAN ONOFRE NUCLEAR GENERATING STATION (SONGS): Public Utilities General Manager Gordon Hoyt first explained for Councilman Bay that relative to the renewal of the insurance policies to provide insurance coverage for the City's interest in San Onofre, he did not have the dollar figures relative to Anaheim's cost for the premiums at the present time. Councilman Roth offered Resolution No. 81R-175 for adoption, authorizing the City to continue its membership in Nuclear Mutual Limited and to enter into or renew such insurance policies as are appropriate to provide insurance coverage for the City's interest in the San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station, Units 2 and 3; and authorizing the City Clerk to execute a Power of Attorney in connec- tion therewith, as recommended in memorandum dated April 7, 1981 from the Public Utilities General Manager. Refer to Resolution Book. RESOLUTION NO. 81R-175: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AUTHORIZING THE CITY TO CONTINUE ITS MEMBERSHIP IN NUCLEAR MUTUAL LIMITED AND TO ENTER INTO OR RENEW SUCH INSURANCE POLICIES AS ARE APPROPRIATE TO PROVIDE INSURANCE COVERAGE FOR THE CITY'S I~NTERESTS IN THE SAN ONOFRE NUCLEAR GENERATING STATION UNITS 2 AND 3 AND TO AUTHORIZE THE CITY CLERK TO EXECUTE A POWER OF ATTORNEY IN CONNECTION THEREWITH. 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. 81R-175 duly passed and adopted. 123: CONSULTANT SERVICES AGREEMENT FOR MANAGING CRIMINAL INVESTIGATIONS PROGRAM: Lt. Randall Gaston first explained for the Mayor the function of the consultant, Public Administration Service, in the Police Department operations. Councilman Bay offered Resolution No. 81R-176 for adoption, authorizing an agree- ment with Public A~m~n~stration Service in an amount not to exceed $14,750, for consultant services to perform certain duties in connection with the City's Managing Crimi~nal Investigations Program, term ending June 1, 1981, as recom- mended in memorandum dated April 8, 1981 from Chief of Police George Tielsch. Refer to Resolution Book. 81-591 City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - April 14~ 1981~ 1:30 P.M. RESOLUTION NO. 81R-176: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE-CITY OF ANAHEIM APPROVING THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF AN AGREEMENT WITH PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION SERVICE AND AUTHORIZING AND DIRECTING THE MAYOR AND CITY CLERK TO EXECUTE SAID AGREEMENT. Roll Call Vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: COUNCIL MEMBERS: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Overholt, Kaywood, Bay, Roth and Seymour None None The Mayor declared Resolution No. 81R-176 duly passed and adopted. 123: INCREASED RATES FOR LEGAL SERVICES OF THE LAW FIRM, ROURKE & WOODRUFF (.ALAN R. WATTS): Councilman Overholt offered Resolution No. 81R-177 for adoption, authorizing a second amendment to the agreement with Alan R. Watts, increasing fees for legal services provided to the City concerning power supply, effective May 1, 1981, as recommended in memorandum dated April 7, 1981 from the Public Utilities Board. Refer to Resolution Book. RESOLUTION NO. 81R-177: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM APPROVING THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF A SECOND AMENDMENT TO AGREEMENT WITH ALAN R. WATTS FOR LEGAL SERVICES PROVIDED TO CITY CONCERNING POWER SUPPLY, AND AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR AND CITY CLERK TO EXECUTE SAID AMENDMENT. Roll Call Vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: COUNCIL MEMBERS: COUNCIL MEMBER~: Overholt, Kaywood, Bay, Roth and Seymour None None The Mayor declared Resolution No. 81R-177 duly passed and adopted. 175: FOURTH AMENDMENT TO THE DIEMER INTERTIE AGREEMENT: Mr. Rmy Auerbach, Water Engineering Manager, clarified questions posed by the Mayor relative to the lengthy delay in the Irvine Ranch Water District making a decision regarding the purchase of additional capacity in the Intertie. On motion by Councilwoman Kaywood, seconded by Councilman Overholt, a fourth amendment to the agreement with the Municipal Water District of Orange County and various other entities was authorized for the construction, operation and maintenance ~f the Diemer tntertie, defining more specifically an option to purchase date as of June i, 1~81, and authorizing the Public Utilities General Manager and City Clerk to execute same as recommended in memorandum dated April 7, 1~81 from the Public Utilities Board. MOTION CARRIED. 123: MEMBERSHIP IN WESTERN SYSTEMS COORDINATING COUNCIL: On motion by Coun- cilman Bay, seconded by Councilwoman Kaywood, the sixteenth addendum to the Western Systems Coordinating Council agreement was authorized providing Member System status for City, effective April 1, 1981, and authorizing the Public Utilities General Manager to execute said agreement and to pay the 1981 annual dues of $5,584, as recommended in memorandum dated April 7, 1981 from the Public Utilities Board. MOTION CARRIED. 81-592 City Hall~ Anaheim~ California- COUNCIL MINUTES- April 14, 1981, 1:30 P.M. 139: AMENDMENT TO STATE CONSTITUTION RELATING TO TAXATION: Councilwommn Kaywood stated that a resolution was prepared for the League of Cities to request the State to place on the ballot at the earliest possible time a return to local control for cities and counties to have the voters choose their own needs °with a two-thirds vote of the people, such as Anaheim experi- enced with regard to the Storm Drain Bond Issue where 68% of those voting voted approval, but ~Heir will could not be implemented. If the Council wished, they could take an additional week to evaluate the proposed resolution. Mayor Seymour stated he-had no problem with it. It was totally within the spirit of local control and self-determination. Councilwoman Kaywood felt that the crux of the matter was to have the State Legislature place the matter on the ballot, but this time with a clear wording so that it would not be misinterpreted. Councilwoman Kaywood offered Resolution No. 81R-178 for adoption. Refer to Resolution Book. RESOLUTION NO. 81R~178: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CItY OF ANAHEIM, CALIFORNIA, REQUESTING THE LEGISLATURE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA TO PROPOSE TO THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA AN AMENDMENT TO THE CONSTITUTION OF THE STATE BY AMENDING SECTION 1 OF ARTICLE XIII A, RELATING TO TAXATION. Before a vote was taken, Councilman Overholt stated he was supportive of the resolution, but if the Council wished to take another week before acting, that would be satisfactory. Councilman Bay stated he was in full agreement with what he read. He questioned, however, how they would go about telling Sacramento that when they put the issue on the ballot-the next time, that it be more objectively worded. Councilwoman Kaywood stated it was her intent to bring the resolution to the Orange County Division of the League who would bring it to the State League of Cities and with the momentum that would be generated just through the educational process, she believed that to be the way to go. Councilman Bay agreed and stated that he could vote in support of that; that was also the consensus of the Council. A vote was then taken on the foregoing resolution. Roll Call ~Vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: COUNCIL MEMBERS: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Overholt, Kaywood, Bay, Roth and Seymour None None The Mayor declared Resolution No. 81R-178 duly passed and adopted. 165: STATUS REPORT - POSTED STREET CLEANING PROGRAM: (continued from the meet- ings of February 17 and March 24, 1981) On motion by Councilman Roth, seconded by Councilman Overholt, the subject status report was continued to April 21, 1481, as requested by staff, MOTION CARRIED. 81-593 City Hall~ Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - April 14, 1981, 1:30 P.M. 114/123/128: SELECTION OF DEPOSITORY BANK: On motion by Councilwoman Kaywood, seconded by Councilman Overholt, the selection of Bank of America, N.T. & S.A., was approved to be the primary depository bank for the City for the term of July 1, 1981 through June 30, 1984, as recommended in memorandum dated April 8, 1981 from the Audit Committee. MOTION CARRIED. 108: REQUEST FOR EXTENSION OF ABATEMENT PERIOD - NIPPON SHIATSU SPA, INC.: Request by Katsu Tsuda, Vice President and General Manager for Nippon Shiatsu Spa, Inc., 3024 West Ball Road, for an extension of the abatement period pur- suant to Code Section 18.89.040 relating to Adult Entertainment, was submitted. A Mrs. Kovac, friend and customer, reprsenting Mr. Tsuda, stated that she would be glad to answer any questions since Mr. Tsuda's use of the English language was limited. He understood it well, but perhaps could not answer very well. Councilman Overholt then asked Mrs. Kovac if Mr. Tsuda would have any objection to being s~orn to give his testimony under oath; Mrs. Kovac answered she did not think so and also confirmed that she could interpret his expressions if necessary. City Clerk Linda Roberts administered the oath to the petitioner, Mr. Tsuda, that the testimony he was about to give was true and correct to the best of his belief and knowledge; Mr. Tsuda answered affirmatively. Councilman Overholt then asked the following questions to which Mr. Tsuda answered "yes" in each case: Was he the sole owner and also Vice President and General Manager of the corporation operating the Nippon Shiatsu Spa, Inc.; was the capital investment made in the business in the middle of 1979 by him or his corporation of approximately $100,000 true and correct as listed in the documentation submitted; did the itemization of the expenditures listed reflect an accurate statement of actual expenses by him or his corporation; did he borrow any of the $100,000 to purchase the business and, if so, was it still outstanding, Mr. Tsuda also explained that before opening the company in September of 1979, he spent $80,QQQ and after nine months, spent an additional $20,000, totalling the $1QO,000. They borrowed the money from the Bank of Sumitomo and at the present t~me owed a balance of approximately $30,000. Councilman Overholt then asked the hours of operation of the business; Mr. Tsuda answered they were open seven days a week. Mrs. Kovac confirmed their hours were 10:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m., Monday through Saturday, and 10:00 a.m. to 7:0Q p.m, on Sunday. Councilman Overholt then asked, if the Council were of a mind to waive the impact of the ordinance for the business for the period allowed, to December 20, 1~82, would Mr, Tsuda stipulate that the hours of business would remain the same as now; the same hours were stipulated to. Councilman Ove=holt also asked if he would also stipulate that in the event there was a conviction for any prostitution related offense connected with the bus~ness that the permit to operate would thereupon terminate; Mrs. Kovac answered, definitely. 81-594 City Hall~ Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - April 14, 1981, 1:30 P.M. Councilman Overholt then explained that their lease was for a five-year period from the middle of 1979 and the maximum abatement period the Council could approve would be to December 20, 1982. That was the longest period and there was no reapplication and the permit would be terminated on that date at that location. Mrs. Kovac was not under the impression that the business would have to ter- minate on that date; the Mayor thereupon asked Councilman Overholt or the City Attorney to explain why that was so. City Attorney William Hopkins explained that the Adult Entertainment Ordinance provided that businesses in that category were required to discontinue operations if within 500 feet of a residential property unless the City Council granted up to a two-year extension. In that case, if an extension were granted, the bus- iness could continue until December 20, 1982. At the present time, the business was operating contrary to the ordinance, since it was originally set up that they would have approval granted by December 20, 1980. However, they were apparently not aware of the requirements of the ordinance. A conditional use permit could not be granted at that location and it would be necessary to find a location that complied with the Adult Entertainment ordinance. Mrs. Kovac asked if they could have a written explanation so as to study it and understand the reason why. Councilman Overholt stated by way of explanation, the Council considered an Adult Entertainment Ordinance and had public hearing on that ordinance for a considerable period of time and subsequently passed the ordinance in the latter part of 19_7~ with the deadline for compliance being December 20, 1980. Any business that came under the definition of an adult entertainment business, and Mr. Tsuda's business did so, was subject to that ordinance which was in writing and available for study and review. The one feature of the ordinance, for which they were present today was, in the event the Council should find there was undue hardship involved by imposing the ordinance so that the business must close on December 20, 1R80, they were empowered to grant an extension up to a period of two years but there was no further power than that. Thus, the business, even %f they were to grant the maximum extension, would have to close at that location on December 20, 1982. Mrs. Kovac stated this was not an Adult Entertainment business. Mr. Tsuda worked strictly with acupressure. It was not a massage parlor or an enter- tainment center. It had open tables that anybody could view and see what was transpiring. It was strictly for health purposes. The Mayor then further clarified the Adult Entertainment ordinance and how it came about. MOTION: Councilman Overholt thereupon moved to approve the request submitted by Mr. Katsu Tsuda for Nippon Shiatsu Spa, Inc., 3024 West Ball Road, for an extension to the abatement period pursuant to Code Section 18.89.040 relating to Adult Entertainment, fora period of two years, from December 20, 1980 to December 20, 1982 on the conditions as stipulated: (1) that hours of operation would continue as at present--10:00 a.m. tp 10:00 p.m. Monday through Saturday, and 10:00 a,m. to 7:00 p.m. on Sunday; (2) in the event of a conviction for any prostitution or prostitution-related offense connected with the business, the 81-595 City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - April 14, 1981~ 1:30 P.M. extension would terminate. The motion was made on the basis of a reasonable showing that if the Council were not to grant an extension, undue hardship would result. Councilman Roth seconded the motion. Councilman Bay voted "no". MOTION CARRIED. 173: YELLOW CAB COMPANY OF NORTHERN ORANGE COUNTY - REQUEST FOR JITNEY SERVICE BETWEEN ANAHEIM AND THE CITY OF ORANGE: Larry Slagle, Vice President of Yellow Cab, requesting to present a proposal for a jitney service to operate between Anaheim and the City of Orange on certain designated routes. Mr. Larry Slagle, Vice President, Yellow Cab Company, stated he had been before the Council previously on the issue (see minutes November 12, 1980) involving a proposal to the Public Utilities Commission (PUC). They had subsequently can- celled that hearing process and brought the proposal back for City Council approval with the understanding from Mr. Floyd Farano, their PUC attorney, that under the proper format, they could operate under Council approval without going to PUC and that was their intent. Mr. Slagle then briefed the proposal dated March 3Q, 1981 (pn file in the City Clerk's office) during which he emphasized the need to provide transportation to the Crystal Cathedral in Garden Grove, as well as to the City Shopping Center and the office complex adjacent thereto which housed major industry headquarters (see Exhibit B of the March 30, 1981 proposed route sheet). Currently there was no direct transportation to any of those destinations. The OCTD did provide a transfer service, but they had signed a waiver with the Transit District and they were not opposed to Yellow Cab's proposed operation. Existing transit options were taxicabs, people driving their own cars, rental cars, or the use of motel-hotel shuttle vans. Their proposed shuttle would eliminate some of that traffic and provide a direct service since there was a demand for such service. That type of service would benefit Anaheim, the rea- sons bei~ng, they felt more people were going to locate around the Anaheim complex ~f transportation was available, they were going to eat and stay in Anaheim facilities, the City would collect room tax and it would help its employment base, as opposed to people staying outside of Anaheim. The service would hope- fully reduce congestion and pollutants because they had been operating on natural gas/propane for some time and would convert those vehicles to natural gas or propane. A jitney service generally tended to reduce traffic going to and from various points by consolidating groups. They did not propose to drive onto hotel and motel property, but planned to use the existing bus stops and red curb access, whenever possible, so as to avoid driving onto private property. Mr. Slagle then submitted written correspondence in support of the request from the Garden Grove Community Church, Marriott Hotels, Industrial Indemnity Company, Jolly Roger Inn, Baker Oil Tools, The Grand Hotel and the Visitor and Convention Bureau. The latter did not directly address the shuttle, but indicated that several conversations had taken place over the past year on all types of trans- portation (~etters on file in the City Clerk's office). Mr. Slagle then called upon a representative from the Crystal Cathedral to comment on the proposed service. Councilman Roth interjected and asked if taxicabs could now provide the service being requested; Mr. Slagle confirmed that they could do so. Councilman Roth then referred to letter dated April 9, 19_81 from Mr. Michael Valen, President of the Town Tour Fun Bus Company, i-ndicating that the State PUC made the judgments of the subject type jitney routes because they crossed city boundaries and that city councils had no jurisdiction. He asked if that were true. 81-596 City Hall~ Anaheim, California - COUNCIL ~INUTES - April 14, 1981, 1:30 P.M. Mr. Slagle answered that was generally true. The majority of the business, however, was in one City. There were situations where they could be approved through the City Councils of Anaheim and Orange. Councilman Roth stated that they received a notice from the City Attorney prior to the meeting stating the matter was going to be heard before the PUC on Thursday, May 21, 1981. If they could get approval without going to the Council or get Council approval without going to the Commission, he wanted to know why they were having a hearing today. Mr. Slagle answered the original process was to go to the PUC, the same process used by Town Tour Fun Bus, Orange County sight-seeing, Greyhound, etc. However, their routes generally traveled out of the City limits in a greater proportion than the routes they were talking about in their request. If the majority of the business was done in one City, they could get the approval of those two cities as reported by Mr. Farano. Relative to their original application to the PUC, it was merely postponed rather than losing the filing fees and date on the calendar until Mr. Farano could figure out the terms concerning the application. He reiterated, it was Mr. Farano's contention that they could get approval from Anaheim and Orange and not have to go to the PUC. Councilman Bay asked the City Attorney if what had just been stipulated was correct. City Attorney Hopkins explained that the City's ordinance provided for jitney service within the City of Anaheim and procedure whereby Anaheim could grant a permit for Anaheim, but not for Orange or any other City. The notice of hearing before the PUC and the application of Yellow Cab Company was changed to Thursday, May 21, 19.81. Apparently Mr. Farano had represented if the City Councils of Anaheim and Orange granted permission, perhaps that was all that was required and then the matter of the PUC permission would be dropped. However, he would have to verify that by calling the PUC. The following people then spoke in favor of the request by Yellow Cab Company for the below listed reasons: Elfie Warmeth, Program Management Office, Crystal Cathedral. The service would give many people who visited their facilities more flexibility and mobility. They had a minimum of approximately 700 tourists per day and anticipated an increase to 2,500 per day during the summer. A minimum of 7,0_QO attended Sunday services. Those figures did not include the numerous people they hoped to bring to their campus for seminars, conferences and special events. ~f the proposed shuttle were in existence, it would create flexibility ~n working with the hotels in the Anaheim area. About 60% of those coming to their eampus were senior citizens who did not have the accessibility or mobility that the young had. On behalf of the Crystal Cathedral, she recommended approval of the proposal. Before concluding, Ms. Warmeth stated their facilities would not be in competition with the Anaheim Convention Center. Also in answer to a question posed earlier, the Town Tour Fun Bus d~d not go to their facility. Mr. Frank Ryan, Director of Office Buildings at The City, Tishman West Manage- ment Company. They had approximately one million square feet of office space tn The City, with many national tenants headquartered in that space, and there 81-597 City Hall, Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - April 14, 1981, 1:30 P.M. were many visitors to those offices. Presently, many stayed at the South Coast Plaza and other facilities. If the shuttle were approved, those visitors would possibly use the facilities in Anaheim, and Anaheim could benefit accord- ingly. Mr. John Phelps, in charge of Retail Operations at The City Shopping Center, first explained that visitors frequently stayed at the South Coast Plaza because it was a more businessmen's oriented hotel, as opposed to the family orientation around Disneyland. However, many had indicated it would be much more convenient to stay in the area and take the shuttle since businessmen were looking for con- venience. With regard to the retail aspects, their concern was to do a better job of taking care of three basic customers: (1) they were trying to make it more convenient for the person already disposed to shopping in The City; (2) the person who did not have very much time and, (3) the person oriented toward the unique stores ~n their center. They had a unique merchandise mix and were n~t a typical center. Mr. Mario Dalessi, General Manager, Jolly Roger Inn, stated he was basically interested in transportation from him facility to the Crystal Cathedral and back. Inquiries from his patrons were increasing as to how to go a~out getting there. At present, the only means were taxi or renting a car which were expen- sive. The jitney service being proposed would be inexpensive for family utili- zat£on. Mr. Ken Baxter, representing Stovall's, 800 Best Western Rooms in Anaheim, noted that there was an increase in foreign visitors coming to the Southern California market and one of the top priorities was to spend their money at shopping malls. The Crystal Cathedral was a main point of interest to several of the groups coming from Canada and other parts of the United States. The Anaheim area was the central hub of the Southern California experience and they wanted to keep v~sitors in their hotels as long as possible. Their main thrust was to have the visitor make their entire stay in Anaheim. Mr. Slagle then explained with regard to the PUC, if it developed that the application before TheCity also required PUC approval, they could do that as well. Their intent was to get City approval not wanting to do anything with- out the City Council's "blessing" and that was the implication of the filing with PUC. Councilman Bay asked if he was saying that if the Council disapproved, he would not go to the PUC. Mr. Slagle answered, possibly, but it would be something they would have to assess. He felt there was a market and someone else could go to the PUC with a 9_9_% chance they would receive approval, since there was no other transportation going to those destinations. Yellow Cab was an Anaheim company, now in its 35th year. They were not trying to do anything chat would take away from the community. They were proposing to serve an existing market and felt that the type of service proposed was no different from the Town Tour Fun Bus. They wanted to operate on a temporary basis for a 9-month period. They could keep statistics and provide those to the Council. They would rather be in the operating position instead of someone else they knew nothing about. They felt it was a positive action. 81-598 City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - April 14, 1981, 1:30 P.M. The Mayor, now speaking to Mr. Baxter, stated he had nq problem at all in providing improved transportation to the Crystal Cathedral or providing limited services to the nationally corporately housed companies in the one million square feet of rentable space in The City. Where he had difficulty was in losing customers in the Anaheim Plaza, which was the City's shopping mall, to a competing mall. All taxpayers suffered because they did not see the benefit of that sales tax. If it was so that numbers of people from other countries spent sizable amounts of money on shopping sprees, how could he re- concile a decision on the part of elected officials representing the business people and taxpayers of the community to send those visitors to another shop- ping mall. Mr. Baxter answered, in their case, their number one priority was to fill their own motel rooms and the revenue generated from their doing so and with visitors utilizing the many attendent services, he was certain a large majority of that overflow went to Anaheim. He also commented that the Anaheim Plaza was an excellent place to send people and he did so all the time. Southern California was such an incredible shopPing experience unique in the world that the majority of people coming in were anxious to get to as many places as they could and, therefore, he did not see the situation as competing. He would hope if nothing else, that the Anaheim Plaza Express would try to promote more heavily. Councilman Seymour left the Council Chamber. (3:24 P.M.) Mayor Pro Tem Overholt assumed chairmanship of the meeting. He asked if anyone wished to be heard in opposition to the requested jitney service. Mr. Chuck Cooper, President of the Merchant's Association of Anaheim Plaza, stated he felt they would be remiss if they did not make a presentation at the meeting. He believed they had all received their comments in writing from manager of the Plaza, Mr. Topper Smith. (The Council indicated they had not received those comments although Councilman Bay noted there was a comment by Mr, Smith in the staff report.) Mr. Cooper believed the comments were made previously, not for this meeting. Mr. Cooper continued that they had no concern over anybody going to the Crystal Cathedral. He did have one comment to make on h~s own without having consulted the Anaheim Plaza Express. That being, since they already had a jitney, perhaps it would be advisable to let the Anaheim Plaza Express expand in order to increase their business by letting them go to the Crystal Cathedral. Relative to Anaheim Plaza, the tax dollars should remain in Anaheim and they worked hard to get as many people into the Plaza as poss-ibte. They had convenience, variety and unique stores to offer any tourist or v~sitor. The Plaza advertised the Anaheim Plaza Express extensively in all of thei~ brochures and distributed them to all the hotels in the area, as well as advertising in the paper. They also had a direct line from the Convention Center advising ways that v~sitors could get to the Anaheim Plaza. He felt that the tourist buminess was an intricate part of their retail business in the Anaheim Plaza. They needed that business and hoped that the Council would not d~vest that bus~ness and send it elsewhere because they needed it for the Plaza and the merchants. Councilman Seymour reentered the Council Chamber. (3:35 P.M.) Miss Monica Keppel, Plaza Transportation Company (Anaheim Plaza), took issue with the fact Mr. Slagle stated theirs was not direct competition. She then presented a copy of a brochure that was available in the hotels called the City Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - April 14, 1981, 1:30 P.M. City .Shopper and.-in small letters it said, "... and the Crystal Cathedral." Further, the Yellow Cab proposed times were within a minute ahead of Plaza Transportation pick-up times. Of the people they served, 90% were going shopping only once because they were on a limited time schedule and were visiting Anaheim Plaza on the last day. If people were standing and waiting to go shopping and saw a bus approaching, they were going to get on that bus Mr. Slagle's buses were already painted and indicated The City Shopper. If he was within a minute of the Plaza Transportation schedule, they were going to see "City Shopper" and go. His cabs could go to the Crystal Cathedral and The City Shopping Center now and it was not as though he would not be permitted to go to those destinations if he did not get permission from the City Council. She felt Plaza Transportation had done a good job and felt that they should keep the business in Anaheim. They had a mini-bus and two vans now and were in the process of trying to buy another mini-bus to expand to more motels. Questions were then posed to Miss Keppel by Council Members Overholt, Kaywood, Bay and Roth at the conclusion of which, the Mayor asked if she would be inter- ested in expanding her service to include the Crystal Cathedral. Miss Keppel answered she was sure they could handle it, whereas a f~w months ago that perhaps they could not have done so. Councilwoman Kaywood asked if she would then be stopping at The City Shopping Center as well; Miss Keppel answered, "no". Councilman Overholt asked if that permission were granted, would she still object to the request before them; Miss Keppel answered "yes", the point being that Yellow Cab could .go to the destinations proposed anyway in their taxi cabs. She did not object to anything if it was fair. Councilwoman Kaywood then questioned Mr. Phelps relative to the brochure that was submitted with which he was familiar. She asked if it was deliberate that the name of the City of Orange was left out. Mr. Phelps answered that he did not think they even thought about it. They did not think of themselves in terms of a geographical City boundary. Councilwoman Kaywood found it to be a gross misrepresentation, particularly the back which indicated in large letters, "The City Shopping Center--Member, Anaheim Area Visitor and Convention Bureau..." nowhere giving an address and even more remarkable, the map that showed the City Shopping Center, the Crystal Cathedral, Disneyland, Anaheim Convention Center, Anaheim Stadium, Garden Grove freeway did not even mention Orange, Mr, Phelps stated that quite frankly he did not think visitors really cared. Most people coming to Southern California did not know where the geograpic boundaries were between Anaheim, Garden Grove, etc. After discussion relative to the matter between Councilwoman Kaywood and Mr. Phelps, Councilwoman Kaywood emphasized that she felt the brochure and the wording on the buses were so misleading, she could not have any part of the situation, 81-600 City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - April 14, 1981, 1:30 P.M. Councilwoman Kaywood then asked Mr. Slagle if in the event the Council were to grant him a temporary trial period, would he be willing to work with Miss Keppel or whoever would be representin~ that Company to have the time of pick-ups half way in between and to change the name of the buses to say Crystal Cathedral, rather than the Shopper. Mr. Slagle answered he was not sure that they could agree to any specific times given the comments that they heard today, but they had tried in their scheduling to make it far enough apart so that there would be no problem. They firmly believed, however, that people were going to read what was on the side of the bus. They had heard no comments or complaints of anybody just getting on a bus that pulled up. They originally broached the name question and the Crystal Cathedral was the name of an on-going entity and to put their name as a primary name on that vehicle, their insurance company assumed that people would then assume Yellow Cab was their agent or had some interest in their service, and, therefore, would be a named insured. The City Shopping Center was also an entity, but City Shopper was not. They had to de-emphasize the Cathedral. Councilwoman Kaywood stated that the City Shopper, in spite of the f~ct that the name of the shopping center was The City, was extremly confusing and mis- leading. Councilman Overholt asked Mr. Slagle if they were to grant the request with a proviso that it would not be exclusive to his Company to shuttle to the Crystal Cathedral, would that interfere with the viability of his proposal. He asked in the event they wished to give Anaheim Plaza the opportunity to swing by the Crystal Cathedral without going to the shopping center, would that interfere w~th the viability of his project. Mr. Slagle answered to a degree, but not substantially. If they both had a common destination, both groups could be split up into the two competing ser- vices, They would be going in entirely different directions than Plaza Transportati~n, Anytime there were two routes going side-by-side they would be losing money, ~e would have an objection but not a substantial one. Councilman Bay then asked in the staff report he had before him from the City Attorney's office (~ee memorandum dated April 8, 1981, on file in the City Clerk's office) delineating the options they had discussed the last time re- garding the PUC hearing, the second page added some information from the City's Traffic Engineer and also from the Traffic Bureau Commander of the Anaheim Police Department. He wanted to make sure that was all part of the information pro- vided to Council at the time of making a decision. He then read Paragraph No. 1 and No, 3 on Page 2 of that report. ~is specific question, since staff speci- fically stated they wanted the restriction that vehicles not pick up or dis- charge passengers at curbside, he wanted to know staff's opinion on the projected jitney service that was going to be a curbside pick-up and drop-off. Traffic Engineer Paul Singer explained that along Harbor Boulevard presently, all lanes curb to curb provided no parking zones. Thus any stop of a jitney or bus service would have to stop in the travel lane, thereby reducing capacity 81-6~)1 City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - April 14, 1981, 1:30 P.M. on the street. On Katella Avenue, they were in the process of a project pro- viding dual left turns, east and west, which would require, in turn, that they remove parking and move the lanes closer to the curb, thus eliminating all parking along Katella Avenue in the recreation area. It would also require that all bus services, jitneys, cabs, etc., if they stopped on the curbside, would be stopping in a travel lane, thereby reducing capacity. Councilman Bay then asked if at present the Plaza Transportation Company had any curbside stops or if they were all basically made on the properties where they stopped; Mr. Singer answered that he did not know. Councilman Bay then stated that relative to Item 6 on the agenda (Plaza Trans- portation request for additional stops), he assumed that Mr. Singer made the recommendation that they pull off onto private properties; Mr. Singer answered that was correct. Mayor Seymour stated, in his opinion, the problem was that they had two com- peting transportation services. The question before the Council was relative to providing transportation out of the City to another destination(s) the pro side being, people wanted to go to those destinations and, therefore, they had a responsibility to insure the best delivery service possible which they were lead to believe was jitney. On the con side, they were faced with the merchants of the Anaheim Plaza and their concerns for loss of business, as well as the concerns of the operating jitney service having struggled to the point of beginning to operate at a profit that they might slip back or be adversely ~mpacted. Relative to fulfilling their responsibility of moving people from Anaheim to the Crystal Cathedral, that could be accomplished without disturbing the compet£ti.ve balance ~f, ~n fact, Plaza Transportation would be willing to commit to an expansion of the jitney service to the Crystal Cathedral. To him, that would solve the problem. That w~uld not solve moving more people to The C~ty Shopping Center and the office complex. He, for one, in an admittedly parochial and narrow attitude, did not want to move people to The City Shopping Center, He felt as strongly about that as he and the Council did when Supervisor Clark and ~lm Reichert from OCTD told them they were not going to be able to include in their plan an extension of the Transportation Corridor to Anaheim's Redevelopment project area. They should feel as strongly about the present ma~ter to insure the viability of the City's one regional shopping center at th~s juncture. Further, looking dow~ the road in a matter of only three years or less, Anaheim would have developed another major regional shop- ping center in the east end of the City. If at this point they put in motion a transportation system moving large numbers of people to The City Shopping Center, not only would they face the risk of the adverse impact on Anaheim's merchants, but also they would be precluding the opportunity of moving people to the new regional mall at Weir Canyon. They wanted to offer an opportunity for Plaza Transportation to come back and indicate what they might be able to do to move people: (%~ to expand their stops--they ought to be stopping at the Jolly Roger and, (~) expanding their service to the Crystal Cathedral. That woulR be the best o~ both worlds rather than entering another competitor on the scene which might risk the loss of the originator, Plaza Transportation. 81-602 City Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - April 14, 1981; 1:30 P.M. Councilman Overholt stated he respected the Mayor's views but he was concerned about the tourist industry the City had chosen to develop, as well as the sports industry, and what would make that tourist industry serve the people of Anaheim most abundantly. People who came to the Jolly Roger, the Marriott, Disneyland Hotel, etc., wanted to see everything there was to see, one attraction being the Crystal Cathedral which was a draw. Yellow Cab came up with the idea and the Mayor was saying, why not have Anaheim Plaza Transportation provide that. People also wanted to stop at The City. Although they took dollars out of Anaheim, if the City provided the service to go to those various areas, it would seem they were making the tourist in Anaheim all the more attractive. Yellow Cab was asking for an opportunity to try the proposed jitney service and if after nine months it was found that there was a tremendous impact on business in Anaheim or if there seemed to be an unfair situation, the Council would have the right to reject their approval. He suggested if Anaheim Plaza Transportation wanted to make stops at the Crystal Cathedral that they should be receptive to that. Anaheim Plaza would have the opportunity to shuttle by the Crystal Cathedral and Yellow Cab could shuttle by ~he Crystal Cathedral and then to The City. If they became too provincial, they might be reducing the benefits of the industry they had developed in Anaheim. In concluding, Councilman Ov, erholt stated he was supportive of the proposal by Yellow Cab with the express.proviso that in the event somebody else wanted to come in and drop people off at the Crystal Cathedral eh-route to Anaheim Plaza, he would be supportive of that as well and also for the nine-month period. He commented, however, that he was not too pleased with the aforementioned brochure because he believed there was an attempt to make it appear it was an Anaheim Center. MOTION: Councilman Owerholt thereupon moved that the request of Yellow Cab Company to run a jitney mervice to operate between Anaheim and the City of Orange on certain designated routes as outlined in the proposal of March 30, 19_81 be granted for a period of nine months on a trial basis expressly pro- riding that in the event another shuttle service should request the privilege of mtopplng at the Crystal Cathedral, consideration would be given to that even during the nine-month period; that approval be subject to the furnishing of the bond or ~nsurance policy required by Anaheim Municipal Code Chapter 4.80. Councilman Roth seconded the motion. Before a vote was taken, Councilwoman Kaywood asked if the bus were to say, visit Crystal Cathedral, would that in anyway be an insurance problem. Mr. Slagle answered they would have to check with the legal department of the Church. Councilwoman Kaywood then continued that she too was very concerned with delib- erately removing the tax dollars from the City of Anaheim. If somebody was not heading for the Crystal Cathedral and just wanted to shop, she would rather that they went to the Anaheim Plaza. If on the other hand the buses were, to say, visit the Crystal Cathedral and passengers could shop across the street at The City as well, that was part of that route. If Miss Keppel were to have the Plaza bus. go to the Crystal Cathedral, that still would not stop people from walking across the street and doing their shopping at The City. Thus, if the buses were to remove the words, The City Shopper and emphasize the Crystal Cathedral ~nstead, she would be in favor of a trial period. 81-603 City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - April 14, 1981, 1:30 P.M. Councilman Overholt stated he was not too concerned about the wording on the buses; Councilwoman Kaywood reiterated she would favor the request, but for the name on the bus. Mr. Slagle stated he did not know what to say without speaking with the legal department at the Church. They intended originally to have that very promin- ently on the side of the van; however, they would look into the matter. If there was a possibility that they could change the size, etc., they would make every effort to do so. Councilman Roth stated he had two reasons for supporting the motion. First, the point was made that all taxicabs and tax-supported OCTD could make the run without coming to the Council or going to anybody else for approval to do so. Secondly, if Mr. Slagle did not provide the service, someone else from the outside was going to do it, since there was a market for such service. The Council had an excellent working relationship with Mr. Slagle, his father, and Yellow Cab for 35 years in Anaheim. He (Roth) would rather work out any prob- lems with Mr. Slagle than with companies from other cities. Further, the service was going to be on a trial basis for nine months as stipulated. If it was offensive, the Council could withdraw that permission. Councilman Bay stated he would speak against the motion from the standpoint that the Council was elected by Anaheim voters, was supported by Anaheim business concerns and its first concern should be Anaheim business concerns. He then reviewed the answer they received from Mr. Slagle when they attempted to modify or talk about some negotiations or concessions by him. He had asked Mr. Slagle ~f the Council refused his application, would he cancel his PUC hearing--he could not commit to that. He was asked if he would only run his jitney service to the Crystal Cathedral and not run it to The City Shopping Center, he said, "no", he could not commit to that. He was also asked if he would change the names on the buses, to read, Crystal Cathedral instead of The City Shopper--he said "no"~ he could not commit to that. He also said he could not commit to a specfic time schedule at th~s time, Re (~ay) did not consider that to be a great deal of cooperatio~ and he felt strongly that with the new shopping center--two new regi~nals--one at Weir Canyon and one that would be near the Stadium, that there would be more room for more jitney service to those shopping centers. He felt that sales tax was probably one of the most important incomes coming into the City and critical to the operation of the City with all of the other cutbacks and subventions that they received in the past years and which they did not seen to have a chance of looking at for future years. It was a very important factor i.n the economic n~keup of the City and particularly the retail shopping trade from the tour~s,t which was critical to the whole business center. He was amazed that the Chamber of Commerce was not present to voice an opinion one way or the other on the subject. He personally did not have any confidence that the PUC would grant the particular route with specific time stops within the City if the City took a mtrog protest down to the hearing. He was also not convinced that anybody else could come in from another City and establish the same service and get an okey from the PUC with Anaheim standing in solid opposition to that. He felt a way to solve the matter to take tourist to the Crystal Cathedral had already been mentioned. Another way would have been if the proposed jitney service only went to the Crystal Cathedral, since that seemed to be one of the stronger salling points., He had no argument with that, but specifically with 81-604 City Hall, Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - April 14, 1981, 1:30 P.M. taking sales tax money out of the City when the tourists that would come here were serviced by all of the other services of the City and paid for by the tax- payers and businesses in the City. Mayor Seymour stated he would oppose the motion for the reasons briefed previously stated--he thought the problem that alledgedly was trying to be addressed was very solvable either with the expansion of Plaza Transportation Company's route, or a separate route to the Crystal Cathedral by Yellow Cab. He had the greatest respect for the Yellow Cab Company and they were the premiere transportation service in the City. On the other hand, he felt it was incumbent upon the Council to insure that there was a fair competitiveness but he was concerned over what the action would do, since it seemed the motion would carry, it would weaken an already struggling jitney service and hurt the merchants at the Anaheim Plaza, as well as the future merchants at the regional shopping cen- ter at Weir Canyon, and whatever type of retail commercial development that would take place ~n the S, tadium property. He felt there was some long range negative impacts, on a quick decision bein$ made today. Unfortunately, it was being made under the guise of trying to move people to the Crystal Cathedral and there were alternate methods of achieving that without paying what he considered too high a price on the other parties involved. Councilman Overholt stated as the maker of the motion, he disagreed with all three of the Mayor's observations. If on the other hand at the end of the trial period it could be shown that anyone of those three things had happened, he would join in a vote to revoke any further shuttle service to The City. A vote was then taken on the foregoing motion. Councilmen Bay and Seymour voted "no". MOTION CARRIED. RECESS: By general consent the Council recessed for 10 minutes. (4:50 P.M.) AFTER RECESS: Mayor Seymour called the meeting to order, all Council Members being present. (~:00 P.M.) 173: PLAZA TRANSPORTATION COMPANY - REQUEST FOR THREE ADDITIONAL STOPS: Ms. Monica Keppel,.P!aza Transportation Company, requesting the expansion of the Company's route by adding three additional stops at certain designated locations within the City. On motion by Councilman Seymour, seconded by Councilman Bay, the request of Plaza Transportation Company was approved adding three additional stops to their route--the Marriott Hotel, Tropicana Motel and Hamburger House Restau- rant with the restrictions that the vehicles will not pick up or discharge passengers at curbside, as ~ecommended in memorandum dated April 6, 1981 from the City Engineer. MOTION CARRIED. RECLA~SI.FICATION NO. 76-77-40 AND VARIANCE NO. 2918 - EXTENSION OF TIME: Request by Kaz Katayama, Boulevard Development, requesting an extension of time to Reclassification No. 76-77-40 and Variance No. 2918, proposed RS-HS-22,000(SC) zoned property located at the northwest corner of Canyon Rim Road and Fairmont Boulevard, was submitted. On motion by Councilwoman Kaywood, seconded by Councilman Overholt, the subject request for extension of time on Reclassification No. 76-77-40 and Variance No. 2218 was approved, to expire April 19, 1982 as recommended by the Zoning Division. MOTION CARRIED. 81-605 City Hall, Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - April 14, 1981, 1:30 P.M. 139: OPPOSITION TO AB 112: Request from W. R. Holcomb, Mayor City of San Bernardino, for support to oppose and defeat AB 112 (Lockyer) which would require Charter Cities to submit their projects and financing plans for the issuance of Industrial Revenue Bonds to a State Advisory Commission, was sub- mitted. Councilman Roth moved to approve the subject request supporting the opposition to AB 112. Councilwoman Kaywood seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. CONSENT CALENDAR ITEMS: On motion by Councilman Roth, seconded by Councilman Seymour, the following actions were authorized in accordance with the reports and recommendations furnished each Council Member and as listed on the Consent Calendar Agenda: 1. 118: CLAIMS AGAINST THE CITY: The following claims were denied and referred to the City's Claims Administrator: a. Claim submitted by Pacific Telephone for damages to property purportedly sustained as a result of a City storm drain construction project at Acacia and La Palma Avenues, on or about December 12, 1980. b. Claim submitted by John Nastasi for damages purportedly sustained as a result of inadequate sewer facilities provided for residence at 444 South Cooks Corner, Anaheim, on or about February I, 1981. c. Claim submitted by Rmncho Yorba Townhomes Association for damages to water line purportedly sustained as a result of City meter connecting gasket leaking, causing leak in water line, on or about February 26, 1981. d. Claim submitted by William Louis Larson for vehicular damages purportedly sustained as a result of hole in pavement on Orangethorpe Avenue westbound lane, at Orangethorpe Park i, ntersection, on or about March 7, 1981. e. Clai~ submitted ~y William T. and Linda A. Mayes for damages purportedly sustained as a result of power surge of 817 South Ira Court, on or about February 26, 1981. f. Claim submitted by Debra Smith for vehicular damages purportedly sustained as a result of parkway tree falling on parked car in the 300 block on Elm Street, on ar about March 26, 19_81. 2. CORRESPONDENCE: The following correspondence was ordered received and filed: a. 105: Anaheim Youth Commission--Minutes of February 11 and March 11, 1981. b. 107: Planning Department, Building Division--Monthly Report for March 1981. c. 114: City of Commerce, Resolution No. 81-14, supporting ratification of SB No, 200, ratification of the Peripheral Canal referendum. d. 105: Anaheim Housing Commission--Minutes of March 18, 1981. 3. 108: APPLICATIONS: The following applications were approved in accordance with the recommendations of the Chief of Police: 81-606 City Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - April 14, 1981, 1:30 P.M. a. Amusement Devices Permit: Brunswick Corporation, Brunswick Wonder Bowl, 1177 West Katella Avenue, for various amusement devices. b. Amusement Devices Permit: Big Daddy's Pizza, 2222 West Orange Avenue, for one pinball machine. (Cynthia Jean Bogan and John Kennedy Jones, applicants) c. Amusement Devices Permit: Tiffy's Restaurant, 1060 West Katella Avenue, for various amusement devices. (Raymond Edward Chips, applicant) d. Amusement and Entertainment Premises Permit--Pool Rooms: The Alamo, 815 South Brookhurst Street, for two pool tables. (Robert Richard Campbell, appli- cant) e. Amusement Devices Permit: U Tote M Market, 500 West Orange Avenue, for various amusement devices. (Melvin J. Wyman, applicant) f. Amusement Devices Permit: U Tote M Market, 944 South Nutwood Street, for various amusement devices. (Melvin J. Wyman, applicant) g. Amusement Devices Permit: U Tote M Market, 1080 West La Palma Avenue, for various amusement devices. (Melvin J. Wyman, applicant) h. Amusement Devices Permit: Linbrook Family Billiards, 2220 West Lincoln Avenue, for various amusement devices. (Vincent Lancisero, applicant) i. Amusement Devices Permit: Bob's Family Billiards, 3015 West Ball Road, for various amusement devices. (Vincent Lancisero, applicant) j. Entertainment Permit: E1 Maguey, 300 East Lincoln Avenue, for a four-piece mariachi band on Fridays, Saturdays and Sundays, 10:00 p.m. to 1:30 a.m. (William A. Tomp, applicant) k. Public Dance Permit: E1 Torito's Who-Song and Larry's Cantina, 2020 East Ball Road, for a dance to be held April 18, 1~81, 9:00 p.m. to 2:00 a.m. (~la~ne Ann Amana, applicant) MOTION CARRIED. CONSENT CALENDAR ITEMS: Councilwoman Kaywood offered Resolution Nos. 81R-179 through 81R-182, 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. 81R-179: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM ACCEPTING AN EASEMENT DEED CONVEYING TO THE CITY OF ANAHEIM CERTAIN REAL PROPERTY FOR AN EASEMENT FOR ROAD AND PUBLIC UTILITY PURPOSES. (R/W #280.0~6~ (_Anaheim Boulevard widening] 158: RESOLUTION NO. 81R-180: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM ACCEPTING AN EASEMENT DEED CONVEYING TO THE CITY OF ANAHEIM CERTAIN REAL PROPERTY FOR AN EASEMENT FOR ROAD AND PUBLIC UTILITY PURPOSES. (R/W #2800-63) (Anaheim Boulevard widening) 81-607 City Hall~ Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - April 14, 1981, 1:30 P.M. 150: RESOLUTION NO. 81R-181: 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: PONDEROSA PARK SECURITY LIGHTING IMPROVEMENTS, IN THE CITY OF ANAHEIM, ACCOUNT NO. 25-818-7107; 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 May 14, 1981, at 2:00 p.m.) RESOLUTION NO. 81R-182: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM TERMDNATING ALL PROCEEDINGS IN CONNECTION WITH CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 423 AND DECLARING RESOLUTION NO. 64R-447 NULL AND VOID. Roll Call Vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: COUNCIL M~M~ERS: COUNCIL MEMBERS: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Overholt, Kaywood, Bay, Roth and Seymour None None The Mayor declared Resolution No. 81R-179 through 81R-182, both inclusive,duly passed and adopted. CITY' PLANNING COMMISSION ITEMS: The following actions taken by the City Planning Commission at their meeting held March 23, 1981, pertaining to the following applications, as listed on the Consent Calendar, were submitted for City Council information. 1. VARIANCE NO. 3195 (TENTATIVE TRACT NOS. 10983 AND 10984): Submitted by Kent Land Company, to establish a 164-1ot, 162-unit, RM-3000 (SC) zoned con- dominium subdivision on property located at the southeast corner of Santa Aha Canyon Road and Weir Canyon Road, with Code waivers of maximum structural height and minimum landscaped setback (pORTION A); and to establish a 151-lot, 15Q-unit RS-5QQO(~C) zoned single-family subdivision on property located east side of Weir Canyon Road, south of Santa Ana Canyon Road (PORTION B). The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC81-59, granted Variance No. 319~5 (%entative Tract Nos. 10983 and 10984) and certified EIR No, 241. 2. VARIANCE NO. 3204: Submitted by Richard B. and Neva E. McLemore, to con- st=uct a room addition on RS-5000 zoned property located at 1725 North Holbrook Street, w~th a Code waiver of maxlmum lot coverage. The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC81-64, granted Variance No. 320~4, and ratified the Planning Director's categorical exemption determ±nat~on. 3. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2158 (%ENTATIVE TRACT NO. 11313): Submitted by Ztaket, Jensen and Quist, to establish a l-lot, 63-unit condominium sub- division (25% affordablel on RM-1200 zoned property located at 201 North East Street, w~th various Code waivers. 81-608 City Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - April 14, 1981, 1:30 P.M. Conditional Use Permit No. 2158 was withdrawn by the petitioner. The City Planning Commission ratified the Planning Director's categorical exemption. 4. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2185: Submitted by Anaheim Motel, Ltd., Atten- tion Edward Carl Andres, to permit a restaurant with on-sale alcoholic beverages on ML zoned property located at 1331 East Katella Avenue, with a Code waiver of minimum number of parking spaces. The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC81-60, granted Con- ditiona Use Permit No. 2185, and granted a negative declaration status. 5. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2186: Submitted by Charles L. and Carol M. Pancheri, to permit an auto and truck wholesaling and reconditioning facility on ML zoned property located at 3601 East Miraloma Avenue. The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC81-61, granted Conditional Use Permit No. 2186, and granted a negative declaration status. 6. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2187: Submitted by R. H. and TheodoKa R. Siegele, to permit a recycling center and recreational vehicle storage facility on ML zoned property located at 919 East South Street, with various Code waivers. The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC81-62, granted Conditional Use Permit No. 2187, and granted a negative declaration status. 7. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2067 - EXTENSION OF TIME: Submitted by Dr. Henry Sanemtasu, requesting an extension of time to Conditional Use Permit No. 2067, to permit expansion of an existing church on RS-A-43,000 zoned property located at ~Q~ South Dale Avenue. The City Council approved an extension of time to Conditional Use Permit No. 2067, to expire April 7, 1~82. 8. CONDI, TIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 196~ - EXTENSION OF TIME: Submitted by Earl Miller, Nemax Incorporated, requesting an extension of time to Conditional Use Permit No. 19_6~, to permit a van conversion facility on ML zoned property located at 1832 East Ball Road. The C~ty Planning Commission approved an extension of time to Conditional Use Permit No. 1~ ~ to ~xpir~ April ~, 1~82. ~_. VARI~ANCE NO. 30.40 - REQUEST FOR TERMINATION: Submitted by Ruth Feuerstein Trust, requesting termination of Variance Mo. 3040, to permit outdoor display of plant materials on CL zoned property located at 949 South Brookhurst Street. The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC81-65, terminated Variance No. 304~.. 10. VARIANCE NO. 629 - REQUEST FOR TERMINATION: Submitted by Ruth Feuerstein Trust, requesting termination of Parlance No. 629, to permit a service station on CL zoned property located at ~4~ South Brookhurst Street. The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC81-66, terminated Variance No..62~. City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - April 14, 1981, 1:30 P.M. No action was taken by the City Council on the foregoing items; therefore the actions of the City Planning Commission became final. ORDINANCE NO. 4218: Councilwoman Mmywood offered Ordinance No. 4218 for adop- tion. Refer to Resolution Book. ORDINANCE NO. 4218: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AMENDING TITLE 18 OF THE ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO ZONING. (69-70-43(5), ML) Roll Call Vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: COUNCIL MEMBERS: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Overholt, Kaywood, Bay, Roth and Seymour None None The Mayor declared Ordinance No. 4218 duly passed and adopted. ORDINANCE NO. 4219: Councilman Roth offered Ordinance No. 4219 for adoption. Refer to Ordinance Book. ORDINANCE NO. 4219: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AMENDING TITLE 18 OF THE ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO ZONING. (75-76-22(2), RS-5000, Tract Nos. 9215 and 10940) Roll Call Vote: AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Overholt, Kaywood, Bay, Roth and Seymour NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: None ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: None The Mayor declared Ordinance No. 4219 duly passed and adopted. 142/108: ORDINANCE NO. 4220: Councilman Bay offered Ordinance No. 4220 for first reading. ORDINANCE NO. 4220: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM REPEALING SECTION 3.04.210, CHAPTER 3.04, OF TITLE 3 OF THE ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE AND ADDING A NEW SECTION 3.0.4.210. IN ITS PLACE AND STEAD RELATING TO BUSINESS LICENSES. (~elinquent payments~ STATUS REPORT - WESTWINDS MOBILE HOME PARK (.RECLASSIFICATION NO. 80-81-14, CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2121~ TENTATIVE TRACT NO. 11305 AND NEGATIVE DEC- LARA. TION: Councilman Bay stated that after last Tuesday's lengthy meeting on the subject, they were supposed to receive a status report from the attorneys ~nvolved relative to the negotiations between the mobilehome owners and West- winds Development. He had not seen any report regarding those negotiations. The idea behind asking for the report was to see if anything was happening so that there would be something different at the next public hearing scheduled for Tuesday evening, April 21, 1981. Since the Council had not received a report, it would have no idea how the negotiations were going. He was, there- fore, wondering if they should continue to plan for another evening hearing next Tuesday. He felt that they should have the City Clerk contact the attorneys involved and request that status report. 81-610 City Hall, Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - April 14, 1981~ 1:30 P.M. 106: 1981-82 BUDGET: Mayor Seymour asked that the City Manager bring to their attention the upcoming budget and a work session at which time the budget would be presented to the City Council. City Manager Talley stated it would appear that the most appropriate time before May 1, 1981 when the budget was officially to be submitted would be to present it to the Council in the morning of its April 28, 1981 meeting. If Council had no objection, he would like to suggest that they take the time between 9:30 a.m. and 1:00 p.m. to present the 1981-82 Resource Allo- cation Plan to the Council in the Human Resources Training Room; Mayor Seymour indicated that all Council Members would be available and that date would be appropriate. Mr. Talley stated then that he would recommend to Council that they schedule two hearing dates--one on May 19, 1981 and the other June 9, 1981, two days when the entire Council would be present and not too large a day schedule for the Council meeting. He recommended that they consider scheduling hearings, approximately 9:30 a.m. to 12:30 p.m.; there was no objection to those dates from the Council. Mr. Talley then stated theoretically they could adopt the budget on JUne 9, 19_81 or, if not, it could come back on June 30, 1981. REQUEST FOR CLOSED SESSION: City Attorney Hopkins requested a Closed Session to discuss litigation with action anticipated and also to discuss several potential litigation items with no action anticipated; Mayor Seymour also requested a Closed Session to discuss potential litigation with no action anticipated. Councilman Bay moved to recess into Closed Session. Councilman Seymour seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. (~:14 P.M.) AFTER RECESS: Mayor Seymour called the meeting to order, all Council Members being present. (5:40 P.M.) 112: MARY LOU SALISBURY VS. CITY OF ANAHEIM: On motion by Councilman Seymour, seconded by Councilman Overholt, the City Attorney and Ruston & Nance were authorized to settle Orange County Superior Court Case No. 30-56-76, Mary Lou Salisbury Vs. City of Anaheim, for a sum not to exceed $11,000. MOTION CARRIED. ADJOURNMENT: Councilwoman Kaywood moved to adjourn. Councilman Bay seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. (~:43 P.M.)