The URL can be used to link to this page

1981/07/1481-998 City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - July 14, 1981, 1:30 P.M. The City Council of the City of Anaheim met in regular session. PRESENT: ABSENT: PRESENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Overholt, Kaywood, Bay and Roth COUNCIL MEMBERS: Seymour ASSISTANT CITY MANAGER: William T. Hopkins CITY ATTORNEY: William P. Hopkins CITY CLERK: Linda D. Roberts PUBLIC UTILITIES GENERAL MANAGER: Gordon Hoyt PLANNING DIRECTOR: Ron Thompson CITY ENGINEER: William Devitt ASSISTANT PUBLIC UTILITIES GENERAL MANAGER: Ed Alari0 WATER ENGINEERING MANAGER: Ray Auerbach ASSISTANT DIRECTOR FOR ZONING: Annika Santalahti RISK MANAGER: Jack Love POLICE DEPARTMENT: Detective James Watkins Mayor Pro Tem Roth called the meeting to order and welcomed those in attendance to the Council meeting. INVOCATION: Reverend Rick Gastil, Melodyland Hotline Center, gave the Invocation. FLAG SALUTE: Councilman E. Llewellyn Overholt, Jr., led the assembly in the Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag. 119: PROCLAMATION: The following proclamation was issued by Mayor Seymour and authorized by the City Council: "Carl Karcher Day in Anaheim" - July 17, 1981 Mr. Carl Karcher, accompanied by his wife, Margaret and son Carl, Jr., were present to accept the proclamation. 156: PRESENTATION: Mr. Fred Brown explained that during the past week, the community, the City, its officials and many citizens from throughout Los Angeles County, as well as corporations, had sent checks in various denQmina- tions to the Jeffrey David Vargo Reward Fund. As of that morning, the funds showed a balance of $15,300 +. In a short time, they would be putting together formally a reward of $25,000 for the arrest and conviction of the individual or individuals who perpetrated the crime, the first type of such crimes being in Anaheim. The community, awakened by the tragedy, exhibited a strong desire to institute an on-going type of fund in the event there should be another such occurence in the future. An organization had been formed called the Anaheim Citizens Against Violent Crimes Trust Fund. There were three trustees in the organization and two attorneys were working as a group to raise the funds and if after 18 months the individual had not been arrested or convicted, the funds would revert to a general pool of monies remaining in a savings institution in the community and perhaps drawn against for future rewards. 81-999 City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - July 14, 1981, 1:30 P.M. He had also come to ask the Council if they would take a definitive action by alerting the public and asking them to become more aware of their neighbors, neighbor's children and property. He was certain they were aware that the Police Department through its Community Relations Division had a program called Neighborhood Watch on which they received many inquiries during the past week. He then explained the function of Neighborhood Watch. He hoped in the future they would be able to have a City-wide Neighborhood Watch Program. He also announced that on September 19, 1981, the Chamber of Commerce would be holding a Crime Awareness Safety and Prevention Day open to the public-at- large. Mayor Pro Tem Roth on behalf of the Council thanked Mr. Brown for his efforts with regard to the reward fund. Councilman Overholt surmised that Mr. Brown also wanted the Council to take some definitive action encouraging the citizens of Anaheim to be aware of their neighbors, in other words, to adopt the Neighborhood Watch Program on a City-wide basis. He would be interested in what specific recommendations Mr. Brown had, since he (Brown) was aware of where the Council stood in terms of funding additional police/community relations activities. Mr. Brown stated that the publicity and recommendation by the Council would be enough impetus to the community-at-large, given the crime they had just witnessed, that they would have support from the community to take up the flag of crime prevention. He did not think they needed to fund any dollars for such a program more than what the Council had already done. The Police were doing a fine job in making the community aware of what the Neighborhood Watch Program was all about, but they could not do it all. MOTION: Councilman Overholt moved to commend Mr. Brown for his efforts in heading up the reward fund raising and also to again urge each and every citizen in Anaheim to be mindful of the risk of neighborhood crime and to take advantage of programs offered by the Police Department, such as the Neighbor- hood Watch Program, to prevent such tragedies of a similar nature. Councilman Roth seconded the motion. Before a vote was taken, Mr. Brown further recommended that in whatever fashion, the Council convey their feelings to Sacramento from the standpoint of trying to close the gap that seemed to be inherent in the criminal justice system relative to the "revolving door" policy of justice, so that not only the rewards that they were trying to put together to arrest and convict such individuals would have some sort of meaning, but so that there would also be an impact on the prosecution side in putting those people away. Councilman Overholt stated that he may or may not be aware of the fact that the Council through the Mayor had an on-going dialogue with the judiciary in the County in trying to get a handle on what might be gaps in the judicial system wherever they may be. A vote was then taken on the foregoing motion. Councilman Seymour was absent. MOTION CARRIED. 81-1000 City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - July 14, 1981, 1:30 P.M. MINUTES: Approval of the minutes was deferred to the next regular meeting. 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. Councilman Seymour was absent. MOTION CARRIED. FINANCIAL DEMANDS AGAINST THE CITY in the amount of $12,134,325.48, in accord- ance with the 1981-82 Budget, were approved. 181/161: ACCEPTING CERTAIN MEMENTOS FROM THE AGENCY FOR USE IN A MUSEUM LOCATED WITHIN PROJECT ALPHA: Councilwoman Kaywood offered Resolution No. 81R-325 for adoption, accepting certain mementos from the Agency obtained from property located at 221 West Broadway, for use in a museum located within Project Alpha, as recommended in memorandum dated July 8, 1981 from Executive Director of Community Development Norm Priest. Refer to Resolution Book. RESOLUTION NO. 81R-325: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM ACCEPTING CERTAIN PERSONAL PROPERTY AND HISTORIC MEMENTOS FROM ANAHEIM REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY. Roll Call Vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: COUNCIL MEMBERS: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Overholt, Kaywood, Bay and Roth None Seymour The Mayor Pro Tem declared Resolution No. 81R-325 duly passed and adopted. 123/156: ERIC W. GRUVER, PH.D., PSYCHOLOGICAL EVALUATIONS FOR ENTRY LEVEL POLICE OFFICER APPLICANTS: Councilman Bay moved to authorize a first amend- ment to the agreement with Eric C. Gruver, Ph.D., for the purpose of conduct- ing psychological evaluations for entry-level police officer applicants.for the period of August 1, 1981 through July 31, 1982, as recommended in memoran-. dum dated July 8, 1981 from the Risk Management, Human Resources and Police Department. Councilwoman Kaywood seconded the motion. Councilman Seymour was absent. MOTION CARRIED. 164: USE OF TWILA REID PARK FOR A JUVENILE PROBATION COUNSELING CENTER: Councilman Overholt offered Resolution No. 81R-326 for adoption, authorizing an agreement with the County of Orange for use of Twila Reid Park, 720 South Western Avenue, as a drop-in juvenile probation counseling center, on Wednesdays between 2:00 and 5:00 p.m., as recommended in memorandum dated July 7, 1981 from Deputy City Manager James Ruth. Refer to Resolution Book. RESOLUTION NO. 81R-326: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM APPROVING THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF AN AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AND THE COUNTY OF ORANGE FOR A JUVENILE "DROP-IN" CENTER, AND AUTHORIZING THE b~YOR AND CITY CLERK TO EXECUTE SAID AGREEMENT. 81~-10.01 City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - July 14, 1981, 1:30 P.M. Roll Call Vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: COUNCIL ~MBERS: COUNCIL MEMBERS: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Overholt, Kaywood, Bay and Roth None Seymour The Mayor Pro Tem declared Resolution No. 81R-326 duly passed and adopted. 123: AWARD OF CONTRACT - KELLOGG DRIVE - ORANGETHORPE AVENUE STORM DRAIN IMPROVEMENT: Account No. 13-791-6325-El190. Councilwoman Kaywood offered Resolution No. 81R-327 for adoption, awarding a contract as recommended by the City Engineer in his memorandum dated July 8, 1981. Refer to Resolution Book. RESOLUTION NO. 81R-327: 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 UTILITIES AND TRANSPORTATION INCLUDING POWER, FUEL AND WATER, AND PERFORMING ALL WORK NECESSARY TO CONSTRUCT AND COMPLETE THE FOLLOW- ING PUBLIC IMPROVEMENT: KELLOGG-ORANGETHORPE STORM DRAIN, IN THE CITY OF ANAHEIM, ACCOUNT NO. 13-791-6325-El190. (Five States Plumbing, Inc., $171,749.50) Roll Call Vote: AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Overholt, Kaywood, Bay and Roth NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: None ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Seymour The Mayor Pro Tem declared Resolution No. 81R-327 duly passed and adopted. 123/170: REIMBURSEMENT OF ADVANCE TOWARDS SPECIAL FACILITIES TO SERVE TRACT NO. 10940: Councilwoman Kaywood moved to authorize a first amendment to the agreement with The Baldwin Company to reflect the correct designation of the parties involved relating to the reimbursement of an advance toward special facilities to serve Tract No. 10940, as recommended in memorandum dated June 30, 1981 from Public Utilities General Manager Gordon Hoyt. Councilman Overholt seconded the motion. Councilman Seymour was absent. MOTION CARRIED.. 169: STREET LIGHTING IN CENTRAL CITY NEIGHBORHOOD - STRATEGY AREA I: Mr. Ed Alario, Assistant Public Utilities General Manager, first answered questions posed by the Council for purposes of clarification relative to the subject lighting. Councilwoman Kaywood moved to authorize the installation of eight additional 30,000 lumen, high-pressure sodium luminaires and the relocation of three existing 30,000 lumen, HPS luminaires in the Central City Neighborhood Strategy Area I (Lemon and Zeyn Streets between La Palma Avenue and Cypress Street) for an estimated cost of $30,000 which would entail a carry-over in Program 676 to fiscal year 1981/82, as recommended in memorandum dated July 8, 1981 from the Public Utilities General Manager. Councilman Bay seconded the motion. Councilman Seymour was absent. MOTION CARRIED. 81-1002 City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - July 14, 1981, 1:30 P.M. 175: ACQUISITION OF ADDITIONAL CAPACITY IN THE ALLEN-MCCOLLOCH PIPELINE (DIEMER INTERTIE): Mr. Ray Auerbach, Water Engineer Manager, first answered questions posed by Mayor Pro Tem Roth for purposes of clarification relative to the subject acquisition. On motion by Councilwoman Kaywood, seconded by Councilman Overholt, the Public Utilities Department was authorized to acquire additional available capacity in the Allen-McColloch Pipeline (Diemer Intertie), as recommended in memoran- dum dated July 6, 1981 from the Public Utilities Board. Councilman Seymour was absent. MOTION CARRIED. 123: INCREASE IN LEGAL FEES FOR THE LAW FIRM OF SPIEGEL & MCDIARMID: Coun- cilman Overholt moved to authorize an increase in legal fees for services provided by the law firm of Spiegel & McDiarmid, to be effective July 1, 1981, as recommended in memorandum dated July 7, 1981 from the Public Utilities Board for the purpose of discussion. Councilman Roth seconded the motion for the purpose of discussion. Councilman Overholt asked Mr. Hoyt what percentage increase the proposal would result in, cost-wise. Public Utilities General Manager Gordon Hoyt answered that the percentage increase was over a two-year period and they were substantial. As he recalled, they were approximately 24 to 30% over the various ranges. In defense of his recommendation, the firm of Spiegel & McDiarmid was carrying forward their Utilities litigation and they were doing a very good job. As near as they could tell, the rates they were charging were competitive with other law firms operating in the Washington area. He briefed the Council on the work they were presently doing for the Utilities Department (see memoran- dum of July 7, 1981). Councilman Bay asked what he would do if the Council voted "no" to the fee increases because they were too high; Mr. Hoyt answered that he would then be interested in knowing what alternatives they really had. They could hire another law firm to do the work which was a very specialized practice. As he pointed out, other law firms were doing similar work at a much higher rate. He felt that their rates were competitive in the arena in which they needed to work. Councilman Overholt stated the rates were competitive and since they were, he was satisfied with Mr. Hoyt's explanation; City Attorney William Hopkins also stated, in answer to Councilwoman Kaywood, that he felt the proposed fees were competitive and not out of line. A vote was then taken on the foregoing motion. Councilman Seymour was absent. MOTION CARRIED. 81-1003 City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - July 14, 1981, 1:30 P.M. 175: TRANSFER OF AN ADDITIONAL 1.5% UNDIVIDED OWNERSHIP INTEREST IN SAN ONOFRE NUCLEAR GENERATING STATION UNITS 2 AND 3: Councilman Bay offered Resolution No. 81R-328 for adoption, authorizing and directing that an appli- cation be filed with Nuclear Regulatory Commission seeking to obtain permis- sion for Southern California Edison Company to transfer an additional 1.5% undivided ownership interest in San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station, Units 2 and 3, to the City, as recommended in memorandum dated July 7, 1981 from the Public Utilities Board. Refer to Resolution Book. RESOLUTION NO. 81R-328: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AUTHORIZING AND DIRECTING THAT AN APPLICATION BE FILED WITH THE NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION SEEKING TO OBTAIN PERMISSION FOR SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON COMPANY TO TRANSFER AN ADDITIONAL UNDIVIDED OWNERSHIP INTEREST IN SAN ONOFRE NUCLEAR GENERATING STATION UNITS 2 AND 3 TO THE CITY OF ANAHEIM. Before a vote was taken, the Mayor Pro Tem asked to be brought up to date relative to the progress of the City's participation in SONGS. The Public Utilities General Manager briefed the Council accordingly. A vote was then taken on the foregoing resolution. Roll Call Vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: COUNCIL MEMBERS: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Overholt, Kaywood, Bay and Roth None Seymour The Mayor Pro Tem declared Resolution No. 81R-328 duly passed and adopted. 112: THE ATCHISON, TOPEKA AND SANTA FE RAILWAY COMPANY, ET AL, VS. THE STATE BOARD OF EQUALIZATION, ETC., ET AL., SAN FRANCISCO SUPERIOR COURT CASE NO. 778986: Councilwoman Kaywood moved to authorize the Orange County Counsel to defend the City, acknowledge service of the Summons and Complaint on behalf of the City and arrange for the City's defense by the Santa Clara County Counsel's Office in the case of The Atchison, Topeka and Santa Fe Railway Co., et al., vs. The State Board of Equalization, Etc., et al., San Francisco Superior Court Case No. 778986, as recommended in memorandum dated July 8, 1981 from the City Attorney's office. Councilman Bay seconded the motion. Councilman Seymour was absent. MOTION CARRIED. 105: APPOINTbIENT TO THE PARK AND RECREATION COMMISSION REPRESENTING THE MAGNOLIA ELEMENTARY SCHOOL DISTRICT: Councilwoman Kaywood moved to approve the recommendation of the Magnolia Elementary School District, appointing Richard K. Shimeall to represent the District on the Park and Recreation Commission for the term ending June 30, 1985, as recommended in letter dated July 7, 1981 from A. J. Haskins, Superintendent, Magnolia School District. Councilman Overholt seconded the motion. Councilman Seymour was absent. MOTION CARRIED. 81-1004 City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - July 14, 1981, 1:30 P.M. 158: REQUEST OF C-W ASSOCIATES FOR A GRANT OF EASEMENT FOR THE EXTENSION OF LA PALMA AVENb~ EASTERLY OF ~IR CANYON ROAD: Hugo W. Prestinary, Director of Land Development for C-W Associates, requesting a grant of easement in order to extend La Palma Avenue easterly from Weir Canyon Road to connect with the proposed secondary arterial (Esperanza Road) with the Lomas de Yorba develop- ment (continued from the meeting of June 9 and June 30, 1981, see minutes those dates). Mr. Keith Murdoch, C-W Associates, working from a posted plan (preliminary plan and profile, Via Lomas de Yorba from Weir Canyon Road to 3600 feet plus or minus east of Weir Canyon Road) explained that the extension of the roadway in question now had a different alignment than that shown at the meeting of June 9, 1981 (see minutes that date). The present plan illustrated the pro- posed new alignment with which the City had agreed in concept. The roadway would take off from existing La Palma Avenue short of the present cul-de-sac street in the vicinity of Yorba Park, drop down through the undeveloped por- tion of parkland almost to the river on the south side of the City's Shorb- Wells property. It would then join Weir Canyon Road. The proposal of Mr. Prestinary and C-W Associates was to continue the roadway from Weir Canyon Road through the Shorb-Wells City property under the Edison easement, across the Metropolitan Water District property following along the City's agricul- tural property into the Lomas de Yorba development, all on the south side of The Atchison, Topeka and Santa Fe Railroad and all within the City's Sphere of Influence until it reached the Bryant Ranch, the Lomas de Yorba development. Between this and the last meeting, staff recommended that there be an apprais- al of the effect of the roadway upon the future use and land value of the City of Anaheim's parcel. The appraisal was made by Donahue & Company, a copy of which had been submitted to the Council (see letter of July 8, 1981 from Donahue & Company to Mr. Matthew Boscia, Real Property Section--on file in the City Clerk's office). The appraisal indicated that the value of Segment B, which he pointed to from the plan, was $1,218,000, four dollars a square foot; Segment E, since it could only be used for very limited purposes, $10,000 per acre for a total of $83,000. The segment sought for the utilization of the roadway, 0.65 acres, had a value of $113,000. The portion across Segment E had a value of approximately $17,000, or a total of ~130,000 for those two parcels. The appraiser indicated, because of the easement characteristics of that segment under the Edison Company right of way and definitely across the MW-D right of way, that those had no particular value. Mr. Murdoch then briefed the portion of the appraiser's report relative to storm drainage that would be required, estimated at approximately $98,000, which would be an obligation of C-W Associates or whoever who would build a roadway. C-W Associates had offered to build it entirely at their expense, i.e., cut and fill, curb, gutter and roadway pavement. At this time, they did not propose putting in sidewalks; that would be an obligation of the ultimate developer. 81-.1005 City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - July 14, 1981, 1:30 P.M. In summation, Mr. Murdoch stated the first thing that needed to be done, the City would have to determine whether, in fact, it wanted the roadway and whether the opening of that street would improve the property which would still be owned by the City. Secondly, the original request asked for an ease- ment similar to that necessary in acquiring private property. No easement was really needed, but instead a permit to construct the roadway at C-W Associates expense. The property would remain City property at all times. Once built, they would request that the roadway be dedicated for public purposes. He had prepared a list of suggested actions by the Council if they were in accord with the idea of having C-W Associates build the roadway. He thereupon sub- mitted copies of those suggested actions to the Council, City Clerk and staff (see sheet titled "Suggested Action by City Council Relative to Requested Extension of La Palma Avenue Easterly From Weir Canyon Road"--on file in the City Clerk's office). He had discussed those seven suggestions with staff that morning. Mayor Pro Tem Roth asked to hear from staff relative to anything they might wish to add. Ron Thompson, Planning Director, stated that the proposal as noted by Mr. Murdoch incorporated a road alignment that was far more favorable to the City. As the Public Works Department report indicated (see report dated July 10, 1981 from the Planning Department and Engineering Division--Public Works Department--on file in the City Clerk's office), approximately 28 acres of the 51 acres were going to be left over after the various easements impacting the property were deducted. Staff was of the opinion that the property in the future would have great commercial potential and they were pursuing a possi- bility of acquiring fill dirt to bring the property up to grade so that the City could proceed with annexation and zoning of the property at the appropri- ate time. Mayor Pro Tem Roth then asked if staff had a recommendation relative to a dollar amount to be paid to the City by C-W Associates; Mr. Thompson answered that the $80,000 originally tendered would still be appropriate especially given the fact that they were going to be involved in additional signaliza- tion, etc. Councilwoman Kaywood asked if the new alignment was the one the County had °recommended and the one that the City felt was the best; Mr. Thompson answered "yes", Exhibit "B" being the County's new alignment. Exhibit "C" showed the proposed extension of La Palma Avenue easterly from the proposed County align- ment. Staff felt that either Exhibit "B" or "C" was preferable to the County's original alignment. Councilwoman Kaywood then asked if it were to be "B," whose responsibility would it be to extend La Palma beyond Weir Canyon Road; Mr. Thompson answered that both the County and City General Plan did not require any future obliga- tion of the City to extend it. 81-1006 City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - July 14, 1981, 1:30 P.M. Councilman Bay asked Mr. Murdoch if the offer of $80,000 in the letter dated l.~ay 26, 1981 from Hugo H. Prestinary was still firm. Mr. Murdoch answered "yes", recognizing that there would undoubtedly be signalization needed and at least a portion of the money would be appropriate for the additional leg of that intersection. The offer was made in good faith by the developer, and they would stand by it. He confirmed that he was stipulating to $80,000. MOTION: councilman Bay moved to approve the request for a grant of easement in order to extend La Palma Avenue easterly from Weir Canyon Road to connect with the proposed secondary arterial (Esperanza Road) with the Lomas de Yorba Development in accordance with the following seven points which were listed in, "Suggested Action By City Council Relative to Requested Extension of La Palma Avenue Easterly From Weir Canyon Road", specifically adding--cash payment of $80,000 in Item No. 4: 1. Recognize the desireability of the requested La Palma Avenue extension. 2. Agree to permit C-W Associates to construct the extension on the alignment agreed upon by the City of Anaheim and the County of Orange. 3. C-W Associates shall construct the extension entirely without cost to the City, including all necessary drainage facilities. 4. C-W Associates will additionally compensate the City with a cash payment of $80,000. 5. City will allow immediate access to the property for preliminary informa- tion necessary for design and calculation. 6. Agree to dedicate the road for public purposes upon acceptance of the com- pleted improvements. 7. Request City staff to negotiate details and prepare an agreement to accom- plish the above, and return the agreement to the Council for approval. Councilman Roth seconded the motion. Before a vote was taken, Councilman Overholt questioned the word "addition- ally" in Item No. 4. He asked why the $80,000 was additional compensation. He questioned if that was not the only compensation to the City. Mr. Murdoch answered that they felt the value of construction of the roadway and the storm drainage were definitely compensation to the City for the use of the right of way for the road. Councilman Overholt asked staff if they agreed it was additional compensation; City Enginmer William Devitt stated that was the only compensation aside from the fact that the developer would pay for all construction costs. Councilman Overholt stated that the appraiser indicated that some benefits, if any, were immeasureable at this time and if they used the word additional, it would leave the way open as to what other compensation the City was receiving. He could see what they might have a legal reason for using additional. He would prefer to see the word cash compensation rather than additional compen- sation. In Item No. 4 the wording would then be, "...compensate the City with a cash payment of $80,000." 81-1007 City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - July 14, 1981~ 1:30 P.M. Mr. Murdoch stated there would be no problem from their perspective. Councilwoman Kaywood stated she felt they needed to find out staff's concern. As well, Mr. Murdoch indicated that the ~80,000 would still be offered recog- nizing that the signal would be needed. She wanted to know if he was implying that the City would be providing the signal. Mr. Murdoch stated he would expect that part of the cost of construction of Weir Canyon Road and the other leg of La Palma Avenue which would be done by the County would be included in the cost of construction. By putting the additional leg at that intersection, there would be an additional cost for a signal. Mr. Devitt stated that present County plans did not propose a signal at that intersection. He did not think there was any question that upon development of property in the area, that a signal would be necessary. There would come a point in time when a signal would be necessary. He had also stated in the past that if the storm drain costs were higher than anticipated, whatever the costs of those facilities might be, that the developer would pay for them. Councilman Bay felt that was covered in Item No. 7. He did not think there was any intent in the motion to set dollar figures on the cost of the roadway or the storm drainage. The intent of his motion was to state certain specific concepts which the Council were in agreement with. The details were still to be worked out with staff, the basic concept being that the City wanted the roadway, they wanted C-W Associates to build it, construct all the necessary storm drainage to go along with it and pay $80,000 in addition, with the details left to be worked out by staff. Councilwoman Kaywood asked staff, with regard to the traffic signal, at the time it was needed, whose cost would that be. Mr. Devitt answered at the time of the commercial development, normally there would be an assessment of the traffic signals against that commercial develop- ment. Prior to that development, he would assume that the City would have sold or made such arrangements with the developer as to the disposition.of the signal cost. Councilwoman Kaywood asked if C-W Associates would be responsbile for any portion of that light; Mr. Devitt answered that they had not indicated that they would be, the indication being that they considered their contribution of $80,000 to be their share of the signal cost. Mr. Murdoch stated that was C-W's understanding. If the signal was required, the City would have the money from C-W out of the $80,000 to pay for it. A vote was then taken on the foregoing motion, amending Item No. 4 to read as follows: C-W Associates will compensate the City with a cash payment of $80,000." Councilman Seymour was absent. MOTION CARRIED. 81-1008 City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - July 14, 1981, 1:30 P.M. 108: ANAHEIM RECREATION CENTER: Request of Dorothy I. Hoskins for an exten- sion to her Gaming Premises Permit to allow the continued operation of the Anaheim Recreation Center located at 621 North Euclid Street was submitted. (continued from the meeting of June 30, 1981, see minutes that date). The City Clerk announced that Mrs. Hoskins requested a one-week continuance on the consideration of the requested extension to her Gaming Premises Permit (see note dated July 14, 1981 from Mrs. Hoskins requesting same). Councilman Overholt noted that there was no reason given for the request for continuance, his inclination being that without a reason for such a request, that it be denied. Mayor Pro Tem Roth felt that Mrs. Hoskins perhaps wanted a full Council present when the matter was heard again. He would support her request for continuance. Councilman Bay suggested that they delay the matter until later in the meeting to give an opportunity for the City Clerk to contact Mrs. Hoskins to obtain a reason as to why she requested a continuance. RECESS: Councilwoman Kaywood moved to recess for 10 minutes. Councilman Roth seconded the motion. Councilman Seymour was absent. MOTION CARRIED. (2:50 P.M.) AFTER RECESS: Mayor Pro Tem Roth called the meeting to order, all Council Members being present, with the exception of Councilman Seymour. (3:00 P.M.) Before continuing with public hearings, the City Clerk announced that she had spoken with Mrs. Hoskins by telephone and was informed that her young daughter had undergone surgery that morning and that she (Mrs. Hoskins) had just returned from the hospital. That was her reason for requesting an continuance relative to her Gaming Premises Permit. On motion by Councilman Overholt, seconded by Councilwoman Kaywood, considera- tion of the request of Dorothy I. Hoskins for an extension to her Gaming Premises Permit was continued one week. Councilman Seymour was absent. MOTION CARRIED. 176: PUBLIC HEARING - ABANDONMENT NO. 80-14A: In accordance with application filed by Koby's Garden Nursery, public hearing was held on proposed abandon- ment of a portion of Old Santa Ana Canyon Road adjacent to and westerly of the Santa Ana Valley Irrigation Canal, said portion abutting and contiguous to Santa Ana Canyon Road, pursuant to Resolution No. 81R-284, duly published in the Anaheim Bulletin and notices thereof posted in accordance with law. Report of the City Engineer dated May 21, 1981 and a recommendation by the Planning Commission were submitted recommending approval of said abandonment. 81-1009 City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - July 14, 1981, 1:30 P.M. Mayor Pro Tem Roth asked staff if the subject abandonment had anything to do with the property to the east, the shopping center and the corner of Fairmont Boulevard and Santa Ana Canyon Road. City Engineer William Devitt answered, not to his knowledge. Mayor Pro Tem Roth reiterated he wanted to be certain they would not be taking any action today that would have an effect on the hearings relative to that commercial center. Miss Santalahti explained the assumption all along had been that the property on the west side of the SAVI Canal would ultimately, if not currently, be under Mr. Kobayashi's ownership and the property easterly of that channel was the commercial center that was going to be under discussion relative to the access point. The Mayor Pro Tem asked if anyone wished to address the Council; there being no response, he closed the public hearing. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT - CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION: On motion by Council- woman Kaywood, seconded by Councilman Overholt, the City Council ratified the determination of the Planning Director that the proposed activity falls within the definition of Section 3.01, Class 5, of the City of Anaheim guidelines to the requirements for an Environmental Impact Report and is, therefore, cate- gorically exempt from the requirement to file an EIR. Councilman Seymour was absent. MOTION CARRIED. Councilwoman Kaywood offered Resolution No. 81R-329 for adoption, approving Abandonment No. 80-14A. Refer to Resolution Book. RESOLUTION NO. 81R-329: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM VACATING A PORTION OF OLD SANTA ANA CANYON ROAD. Roll Call Vote: AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Overholt, Kaywood, Bay and Roth NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: None ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Seymour The Mayor Pro Tem declared Resolution No. 81R-329 duly passed and adopted. PUBLIC NEARING - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2212 AND NEGATIVE DECLARATION: Application by Larry R. and Judith I. Smith, to permit a cocktail lounge on CL zoned property at 945 South Knott Street, with a Code waiver of minimum number of parking spaces, was submitted. The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC81-10S, declared that the subject project be exempt from the requirement to prepare an environ- mental~impact report pursuant to the provisions of the California Environment- al Quality Act since there would be no significant individual or cumulative adverse environmental impact due to this project and further, granted Conditional Use Permit No. 2212, subject to the following conditions: 81~1010 City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - July 14, 1981, 1:30 P.M. 1. That subject property shall be developed substantially in accordance with plans and specifications on file with the City of Anaheim marked Exhibit Nos. 1 and 2; provided, however, that a minimum of twenty-five percent (25% of the floor area shall be used for food preparation. 2. That Condition No. 1, above-mentioned, shall be complied with prior to final building and zoning inspections, or prior to commencement of the activity herein approved, whichever occurs first. 3. That the use, as approved, is hereby granted for a period of one year, at which time, upon written request by the petitioner, additional period of time may be granted by the Planning Commission if it is determined that the use has not had a detrimental effect on nearby uses. A review of the Planning Commission's decision was requested by Councilwoman Kaywood at the meeting of June 9, 1981 and public hearing scheduled this date. Miss Santalahti described the location and surrounding land uses. She out- lined the findings given in the staff report which was submitted to and consi- dered by the City Planning Commission. She also added that the Planning Commission at their hearing was concerned with some complaints they had received about noise from the residential property to the north. As a result, they asked staff to take a look at what it might involve to have a sound study conducted. They submitted a report to the Planning Commission yesterday at their meeting and the estimate was $1,500 to have a qualified individual make further sound readings and recommendations. On that basis, the Planning Commission decided that they would rather await the Council's decision today before deciding to recommend that that expense be undertaken by the City. The objective of such a sound reading would be to have the establishment making the noise either cease and desist the operation or perhaps terminate their CUP. They decided they would need this equipment over a period of time and not just for one night, to determine whether the noise was an ongoing problem and exceeded the permissible sound levels at the property line. Councilwoman Kaywood stated she wanted it clear that such a sound study was not going to mitigate the noise but merely take a reading of the level of noise; Miss Santalahti confirmed that was correct with the objective of having somebody stop the noise. Mayor Pro Tem Roth then asked to hear from the applicant or applicant's agent. Mr. Pete Williams, 2618 "C" Tus~in Avenue, San~a Ana, Secretary for ~he Corporation, stated there was a slight inaccuracy as to what transpired at the Planning Commission meeting. It was indicated that there were two people who spoke in opposition. He felt it was unfair to bring that up in relation to their business since, when interrogated, it was discovered that they were not complaining about their business, but the business next door. There was no opposition to their application at Planning Commission. The only opposition came from the Chairman of the Planning Commission, and a gentleman on the Commission indicated he thought there was too much noise in the area and would be a lot happier with the situation if there was a requirement that 25% of the 81-1011 City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - July 14, 1981, 1:30 P.M. floor space was devoted to kitchen (see Planning Commission minutes of May 18, 1981). One of the Planning Commissioners asked him if they were agreeable to changing the floor plans with 25% being devoted to the kitchen. His (Williams') understanding was that he wanted 25% of the dining area to be devoted to kitchen. The kitchen was approximately 50 to 60% of the available dining area. They were intending to upgrade the business and had spent approximately $150,000 already just waiting to find out if they could open. The Executive Chef and the President of the Food Service were present and would indicate to the Council that there was absolutely no requirement for a bigger kitchen to serve the people and the intended menu. They had a stage, an entertainment control center, and a substantial dance floor and they were not going to be serving food in any of those areas. They had three separate small dining areas and the kitchen represented approximately between 45 and 50 and 60% of the area and thus it was more than 25% of the dining area. He also reiterated that any complaints about the neighborhood had not been about their business, but the neighboring businesses. He felt that the conditional use permit was clearly in Anaheim's best interest and they would have a calming effect on the neighborhood, as opposed to making it noisy. They spent a great deal of money soundproofing their establishment trying to protect themselves from the noise around them. If they were required to change the business significantly, they could not do business at that location. Ail they-were seeking was permission to do busi- ness in a better way for the City and themselves. They were trying to attract older clientele by extending their services from beer and wine to a cocktail lounge with Las Vegas-type entertainment. They would like an opportunity to prove that a legitimate business could be run in the area. Ail the protection in the world was available to the City Council. If they followed the Planning Commission's recommendation, there would be a review in a year and if there was any problem, their permit could be taken away. He also reported that a conditional use permit had already been approved for a racquetball facility that was going to be operating next door which would add 50 more parking spaces to the area. They had a reciprocal agreement with them since the same landlord was involved. The racquetball facility could use their parking spaces and, in turn, their proposed business could use 50 .of the spaces. Their "rush hours" would not be the same and thus, such an arrange- ment would work out well. Mr. Williams stated his request as agent for the applicant would be that the Council grant the CUP but not require that they gut the building, take the new carpets out or do whatever they would have to do to build a storage room that was not going to do anything except cut down their ability to serve the clientele they expected to serve. Several questions were then posed by Councilwoman Kaywood during which Mr. Williams explained that they had a full kitchen. The Alcoholic Beverage Commission (ABC) had licensed their establishment to be a bonafide eating establishment--they had inspected it and okeyed everything about the estab- lishment. He wanted to say if it was good enough for the ABC, he was hoping it was good enough for the City Council, because the ABC was very strict in such matters. It was a restaurant and not a bar. 81-1012 City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - July 14, 1981, 1:3© P.M. Councilwoman Kaywood then asked with the racquetball facility being approved next door, how did Mr. Williams feel that would give more parking spaces, rather than less. Mr. Williams stated they had 100 plus parking spaces at present that were paved and lined. Those spaces had to serve three businesses at present. The racquetball facility was going to be west of the location where there was a big dirt field. The entire area would be paved and parking spaces provided on the areas that their building did not occupy. Plans called for them to pave 50 additional spaces, and they had a reciprocal agreement with the facility. Councilwoman Kaywood, checking with staff, stated according to what she read, there would be 50 spaces provided, but they required 80, and thus they were already 30 under. Miss Santatahti stated she believed part of the reason that the Commission did not feel it was unreasonable, was because the hours of the racquetball facility would not be the same peak hours as the commercial activities. Councilman Bay stated, in looking at the data on the application, the only waiver he saw was for 13 parking spaces. Ail the discussion on the percentage of floor space on the kitchen had confused him. He asked if there was some waiver on the kitchen involved with the development. Miss Santalahti explained that the application was for a cocktail lounge which did not have a kitchen requirement. The Planning Commission in approving that felt it was more appropriate that they have a kitchen and to call the business a restaurant. However, the application was for a cocktail lounge and not a restaurant and that was the reason why the issue of the kitchen space did not come up in the application itself. Councilman Bay surmised then that as far as the Council was concerned, their decision on the CUP was specifically and legally on whether they would approve or disapprove the CUP on the difference of 13 parking spaces. Miss Santalahti stated that was correct. It was a CUP for a cocktail lounge which was not what was officially on the property from the previous zoning action with the waiver of parking spaces. The Commission did not approve it as requested and thus their action included the kitchen space as well. Another decision the Council would have to make was whether they agreed or disagreed with them on that. Councilman Bay asked for clarification from Mr. Williams if he was asking the Council to waive Condition No. 1 (Page 3) of Planning Commission Resolution No. PC81-108; Mr. Williams answered "yes". Miss Santalahti explained that it was not being waived in the sense of an advertised public notification, but waived in the sense that, if they approved the cuP, they would not be doing so in the way the Planning Commission approved it. 81~1Q13 City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - July 14, 1981, 1:30 P.bl. Mr. Williams stated they had no objection to the 25% floor space dining area. As he had previously mentioned, they had a stage, etc., which should not be counted in the dance floor. He suggested that the amendment be that 25% of the dining area as indicated in Exhibit 1 (Site Plan) be devoted to kitchen which they complied at present. Councilwoman Kaywood asked how they controlled people in the parking lot. Mr. Williams answered that since they had been closed, there was virtually no control. Upon opening, they made an agreement with the neighboring businesses to hire a full-time security guard during peak hours. He would be paid mostly by their business, but the two other businesses had agreed to pay their fair share as well. They might have two working full-time in the parking lot on Friday and Saturday nights. They had used two gentlemen previously who were already hired for the job. %"ney were in the Police academy, supplied their own uniforms, had weapons, etc., that made them look very official. ~r. Jack Underhill, 17272 Newhope Street, Fountain Valley, stated that for the menu proposed, the kitchen was quite sufficient. The new equipment available to them now made the present kitchen very adequate for the food they would serve. Mayor Pro Tem Roth asked, if the CUP were denied, what would the applicant be able to do with the business. Miss Santalahti answered currently the property was under CUP No. 617 granted in 1964 and the subject premises were a part of that application. It was a restaurant with on-sale beer and wine. If the current request for a CUP were denied, it would still be a restaurant with beer and wine only. The Mayor Pro Tem asked if anyone else wished to speak in favor of the grant- ing of Conditional Use Permit No. 2212; there being no response, he asked to hear from those in opposition. Mr. Dale ~[oore, 906 South Knott, stated that he opposed the whole thing because of the language and all the different chaotic things going on azound that area due to all the beer and so forth. There were actions going on that somebody should investigate, the apartment house next door included. There had been more than one fire in that same commercial complex. Last night he could not get to sleep until 2:00 a.m. when it finally quieted down. He was complaining about the whole existing area. He also did not think there was enough parking in the area. Councilwoman Kaywood stated when the establishment was operating before, she believed it was called Casa Blanca. She asked Mr. Moore if he also had problems with them. 81-1014 City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - July 14, 1981, 1:30 P.M. Mr. Moore stated it was not specifically just that club. When the Purple Lion was located there, it was acceptable. However, the area was used as a drag strip on Knott at 2:00 a.m. It was almost seven nights a week although some- times it was rowdier than others. He reiterated when the Purple Lion was there it was quiet, because they served a dinner and cocktails. They should investigate the situation because if they allowed the business to go in there, it would add to the rowdyism. Joyce Keeter, 716 South Kenmore, stated that she owned the service station on the corner. Due to a mix up at the County level, her new address was not placed on the property when the Planning Commission had their hearing and that was why she missed that meeting. She was in opposition because of an undue burden of hardship caused by lack of enough parking facilities. There were 146 spaces. The French Quarter took up 45. Since August of 1980, they had Woodstock and the French Quarter located there, Woodstock being the biggest problem. They used the whole parking area plus the unimproved portion and they also parked on her property. They were not able to get the tankers in at night for gasoline deliveries. There were many instances where they had to call the Anaheim Police Department to have cars towed away because they were either across the ingress to the property or in front of their pumps. They were unable to open for business. The operator of the station at the present time had to arrive between 6:00 and 6:30 every morning and clean out beer bottles, trash, etc. Pumps had been run into and all service hoses had been ripped and torn out of their seatings. At the time the Casa Blanca was there approximately four years ago when the situation was really bad, they had a security man or parking attendant for approximately three weeks. He was then dropped and when she asked why, was told because it was ineffective and cost too much. She was opposed because she felt it was time that she obtained some relief. It had taken her since November of 1979 to hammer out a new lease with Union Oil and the negative part of the whole situation was relative to existing conditions in the area. She then relayed incidents of vandalism relative to vehicles parked on the property. She reiterated she needed some relief from the situation, and there was simply not enough parking. The area could not handle what was existing at present and she was concerned with what would occur if the proposed business, Radio City, was allowed. There being no further persons who wished to speak, the Mayor Pro Tem closed the public hearing. Councilwoman Kaywood stated she would like to draw attention to the Police report that for some reason seemed to be only in her agenda packet; however, she did not have hers at present. Mayor Pro Tem Roth interjected realizing that he did not give the applicant an opportunity to rebut. He thereupon declared the public hearing reopened. Mr. Williams first stated that he felt Mr. Moore's complaints were more with the other businesses at the location. He also mentioned that in the past there was no problem with the Purple Lion. That was more the type of estab- lishment they would be running and thus, they would be bringing relief to the neighborhood. Mrs. Keeter's was a different problem, and there could be a 81-1015 City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - 3uly 14, 1981, 1:30 P.M. resolution to that. She had never approached them, nor had anyone else. Casa Blanca was not in operation four years ago, but instead an operation called The Sting, ~ere there were a number of problems which dovetailed into the police report mentioned by Councilwoman Kaywood. There were a number of police calls at The Sting. It was poorly run and he knew the person ~o had owned it and thus was familiar with the situation. They took over in late 1979 and had a number of visits from police officers which led him to wonder what was going on. After speaking with the Police Department and clarifying that they were not the same business as The Sting, they never saw the Police Department after that. The Police thought they were the old operation with a new name. Councilwoman Kaywood asked if he had owned the Casa Blanca; Mr. Williams answered, he and another fellow had a partnership there. He understood there were calls to the Casa Blanca about various sundry things, but when it became the Casa Blanca, they slowed down considerably. As a result of further questions posed by Council Members Kaywood and Bay, Mr. Williams reported the following: His corporation did not own and operate any other place in Southern California. The President of the corporation was Gerald Joseph Roach. The corporation was formed in March of 1981 for the purpose of opening the subject business. Mr. Roach owned shares in a corpora- tion that owned other places in Southern California. The only place he knew of was the Cuckoo's Nest in Costa Mesa and that establishment had a number of problems. Councilwoman Kaywood then expressed her concern that no one else received a copy of the Police report. She felt it was important that they see that report since it was germane to the case. Discussion and questioning followed between the Council and staff as to why the Police report was not included in the agenda packet for today's meeting although it was ascertained that it had been a part of the Council's packet at the time they received the Planning Commission packets for the May 18, 1981 Planning Commission meeting and the time it appeared on the Planning Commission Consent Calendar at the June 9, 1981 Council meeting. City Attorney Hopkins also confirmed that although he had not seen the report, if it was a routine Police report which did no~ contain anything confidential, he saw no reason why it should not be made public. Further, if it was distributed at the Planning Commission meeting, the confidentiality had already been waived. Mayor Pro Tem Roth felt that the matter should be continued one week so that each Council Member would have an opportunity to evaluate the Police report and to reopen the hearing on that aspect. It would give an opportunity to obtain an updated Police report and further recommendations from that Depart- ment. 81-1016 City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - July 14, 1981, 1:30 P.M. Mr. Williams stated that relative to the Police report, it was perhaps a list of Police calls made to the location. It was necessary to understand what those calls were all about. Just because the Police came to a particular location did not mean that location was responsible for the call. Every day that the matter was delayed was detrimental to them, and he went on to explain why, most importantly the "horrible" financial hardship with which they were faced. If the Council wished to consider the Police calls, that was accept- able to them, but anything they could do to decide one way or the other today would be of great help to them. He would answer any questions relative to those Police calls. Councilwoman Kaywood stated one of the concerns was the fact that the parking lot was insufficient at this time so there was no way she could grant a waiver of additional spaces. Mr. Williams was then provided with a copy of the Police report dated May 11, 1981 containing five police calls (first page), and in reviewing it, stated that he did not think any of the police calls had anything to do with them. He thereupon responded relative to a number of calls listed thereon. Regard- ing Mrs. Keeter's situation, he felt in order to solve her problem, all she had to do was contract with a local impound garage and have them come and tow all the cars away for two or three nights. They would also place a sign in their establishment as well indicating if patrons were parking at the Union Station, that their vehicle must be removed or it would be towed away. Impound garages offered free services since they made a lot of money towing the cars away. The word would get out very fast, thereby solving the problem. He then reiterated that although there were problems in the area, he did not think they were contributing to them and they would help and not hurt the situation. They intended to serve a good meal for the price and felt that with special promotion, they could attract a crowd in the age group of 21 to 35 or 40. The music would be contemporary, and it would not include punk rock. Mayor Pro Tem Roth again stated he felt the same relative to a continuation giving an opportunity to evaluate the Police report in greater depth and looking into additional information including consideration of the aftermath should the present request be denied. It was that important that it should be held over one week. MOTION: Councilman Roth moved to continue public hearing on Conditional Use Permit No. 2212 to July 21, 1981, 3:00 P.M., in order to more fully evaluate the Police report and so that the Council could be provided with additional information from staff in the interim, including the uses that would still be permitted should the requested CUP be denied. Councilman Overholt seconded the motion. Before a vote was taken, Councilman Overholt stated he felt that since Mr. Williams took a risk and had made a major investment without having the matter resolved, he could not see how one week was going to affect him adversely one way or the other. 81-1017 City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - July 14, 1981, 1:30 P.M. A vote was then taken on the foregoing motion of continuance. Councilman Seymour was absent. MOTION CARRIED. Councilman Overholt stated he would also like to have an update on the Police report. 108: ~MUSEMENT DEVICES PERMIT - FAMILY ARCADE: Application by Martha Miranda, Family Arcade, 401 South Brookhurst Street, for 10 to 20 various amusement devices (continued from the meetings of May 19, May 26, June 9 and June 30, 1981--see minutes those dates). Mayor Pro Tem Roth asked if the applicant was present; there was no response. The Mayor Pro Tem then stated that perhaps a continuance was in order. Councilman Bay asked if this particular application would not fall under the ordinance on which they already had first reading last week (Ordinance No. 4239), since 10 to 20 various amusement devices were involved and thus, defined as an arcade under that ordinance. The City Attorney confirmed that any establishment with five or more amusement devices would be covered by the ordinance. Councilman Overholt suggested that they trail the item until after they took action on the ordinance so that if the ordinance were adopted today, they could direct that the provisions in the ordinance be complied with on the application. MOTION: Councilman Overholt moved to trail the item until after they con- sidered the ordinance today. Councilman Roth seconded the motion. Councilman Seymour was absent. MOTION CARRIED. Later in the meeting, after the passage of the ordinance relative to amusement devices, Ordinance No. 4239, Councilwoman Kaywood stated that she would like to see the procedure now approved under the new ordinance followed in this particular case. Councilman Overholt asked if they could approve the application on the condi- tion that the applicant would submit to the provisions of the ordinance and to have staff comply with those provisions with respect to this item. City Attorney Hopkins answered it could be voluntary compliance. Miss Santalahti stated what she had meant to do because the procedure was going to cost them postage and time, they would be timing the first few to see how much time was spent and the cost. They would then be coming back to the Council at some date presumably with a resolution for a suggested application fee. Councilman Overholt stated this would give them an early start. 81-1018 City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - July 14, 1981, 1:30 P.M. Councilwoman Kaywood stated that the proposed arcade was located next door to the Flowing Well Bar where they had a number of Police problems in the past. She knew there was a new owner but did not know whether there had been any problems since the new owner took over. If there were, and the arcade was a business which would be appealing to youngsters, it might be a bad neighbor- hood for them to be in. City Attorney Hopkins explained that the permit would require the approval of the Chief of Police, and the Planning Director would then send out notices. If there was a question, it could be appealed to the Council in accordance with provisions of the ordinance. MOTION: Councilman Roth moved to approve an Amusement Devices Permit for the Family Arcade, 401 South Brookhurst Street for 10 to 20 various amusement devices on the condition the applicant voluntarily submit to the provisions of the new ordinance and to have staff comply with those provisions (Ordinance No. 4239). Councilman Overholt seconded the motion. Councilman Seymour was absent. MOTION CARRIED. 108: AMUSEmeNT DEVICES PERMIT - NUMERO UNO PIZZERIA: Application by Wayne Eugene Smith, Numero Uno Pizzeria, 3010 West Lincoln Avenue, for 24 various amusement devices (continued from the meeting of July 7, 1981--see minutes that date). The Mayor Pro Tem noted that Mr. Franken and Mr. Tabb were again present in the Council Chambers. Councilman Overholt stated that the applicant had done everything that he was asked to do at the meeting of July 7, 1981, as evidenced by the petition sub- mitted (on file in the City Clerk's office). MOTION: Councilman Overholt stated since everything was positive relative to the application, he would move approval of the application for an Amusement Devices Permit for Numero Uno Pizzeria, 3010 West Lincoln Avenue, for 24 various amusement devices. Councilman Roth seconded the motion. Before a vote was taken, Councilwoman Kaywood stated that the applicant went to all the neighbors to see if there was any opposition to an arcade and everyone contacted indicated there was no opposition. A vote was then taken on the foregoing motion. Councilman Seymour was absent. MOTION CARRIED. 156: POLICE OLYMPICS XV, SACRAMENTO, CALIFORNIA, JULY 22-26, 1981: Detective Jim Watkins, Police Olympics Coordinator, submitted a request for use of City business time for the Anaheim Police Olympics Team to compete at the XV Annual California Police Olympics in Sacramento between July 22 and 26, 1981 (con- tinued from the meeting of July 7, 1981--see minutes that date). 81~1019 City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - July 14, 1981, 1:30 P.M. Assistant City Manager William T. Hopkins briefed the Council on report sub- mitted from the City Attorney (July 10), Risk Manager (July 8) and the City Manager's office (July 9) relative to the subject request. Mayor Pro Tem Roth asked Detective Watkins if he had seen the staff recommen- dation relative to having each participating officer in the Olympics sign a hold harmless and release agreement. Detective Jim Watkins answered that he had not seen it, but had discussed the matter with the City Attorney's office. Mayor Pro Tem Roth asked if his orgnization was agreeable to signing the hold harmless release; Detective Watkins answered that he had met with the Police Chief and the Association representatives and had also talked to and polle~ all of the officers that were planning to participate in the Olympics, and there were no objections from anyone to signing the release. They were not interested in that aspect at all, but mainly interested in the time for par- ticipation. Councilman Overholt asked the Risk Manager if he felt in the future it would be possible to get some kind of insurance coverage that would give more pro- tection than a hold harmless agreement. Jack Love, Risk Manager, answered that he thought it was possible, but extremely difficult. They were looking at a type of insurance that they would have to take to an alien market such as Lloyd's. He doubted seriously whether they could find a company in the country that would provide such coverage. Councilman Overholt stated they had a year to work on the matter between now and the next Olympics. He would hope that they would continue to have an open-mind. A hold harmless agreement was the best the City Attorney could do, but it was not an absolute protection. Mr. Love stated there was a Labor Code section stating that an employee could not waive his right to Worker's Compensation benefits. He felt if the hold harmless agreement were tested in the courts, it would be determined to .be invalid. It was conceivable that they could waive their right to disability retirement, but he was fairly certain that they could not waive any right to Worker's Compensation benefits. Councilman Overholt reiterated he would hope that they would continue to seek a more absolute solution to the problem because the Council was unanimously behind the program. Since they now had a year to work on the matter, perhaps they could find a solution that would cover this one event. MOTION: Councilman Bay moved to approve the request of the Police Olympics Coordinator for the use of City business time for the Anaheim Police Olympics team to compete at the 15th Annual California Police Olympics in Sacramento between July 22 and 26, 1981. Councilman Overholt seconded the motion. Councilman Seymour was absent. MOTION CARRIED. 81-1020 City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - July 14, 1981, 1:30 P.M. 105: APPOINTMENT TO THE COb~UNITY SERVICES BOARD: Appointment for the term ending June 30, 1985. The City Clerk announced that the item had been continued from the meeting of June 30, 1981 (see minutes that date) to determine if Mr. West was interested in continuing his service. He indicated that he was interested in doing so. Councilwoman Kaywood, noting that Mr. West was present, stated she understood that he had made the comment that he could not wait for his term to be over. She was, therefore, confused at this point since he now indicated he wanted to be reappointed. Mr. James West answered that it was somewhat difficult trying to serve the City while trying to make a living. At times it became somewhat frustrating but in the long term, he wanted to serve on the Community Services Board. He felt he could serve and if his attendance was less than 100%, he would hope the City would grant him that, because of the facts of life in trying to make a living. He felt that he contributed to the Board and would like to serve. Councilwoman M~ywood stated the problem relative to attendance, if a person did not attend meetings, there could be no input or vote. There were by-laws wherein if a member was absent a certain number of times, they would be auto- matically out. Mr. West confirmed that he would very much like to serve on the Board. MOTION: Councilman Overholt moved to reappoint James West to the Community Services Board for the term ending June 30, 1985. Councilwoman Kaywood seconded the motion. Councilman Seymour was absent. ~TION CARRIED. 166: SIX-MONTH USE OF FLAGS AND BArRiERS - VISTA DEVELOPmeNT CORPORATION: Request by C. K. Knickerbocker, Vista Development Corp., for a six-month use of flags and banners for property located at 1100 East Orangethorpe Avenue, was submitted. The City Clerk announced that the petitioner requested a one-week contiauance; Miss Santalahti explained that the petitioner inadvertently had attended the previous day's Planning Commission meeting on a totally unrelated CUP in the immediate vicinity of the subject property. Since he was not a local person, and did not want to come for a second day to wait for the item to be con- sidered, he thus asked that it be continued. ~{0TION: Councilman Bay moved to continue consideration of the subject request for one week. Councilman Overholt seconded the motion. Councilman Seymour was absent. MOTION CARRIED. 155: REVISION TO EXHIBIT NO. 7 OF THE SANTA ANA CANYON ROAD ACCESS POINTS STUDY: Establishing a date and time for public hearing to consider a revision to Exhibit No. 7 of the Santa Ana Canyon Road Access Points Study in order to provide access to a 6.6-acre commercial site located at the southwest corner of Santa Ana Canyon Road and Fairmont Boulevard (continued from the meeting of July 7, 1981). 81-1021 City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - July 14, 1981, 1:30 P.M. The City Clerk referred to the letter from Mr. Michael Engle, Vice President, C. Robert Langslet and Son, dated July 9, 1981 indicating that he preferred August 4, 1981 as the date for a public hearing on the subject, but he could accept August 11, 1981. She also confirmed that a letter dated July 13, 1981 had been received from Mr. Farano who represented Mr. Kobayshi, but it did not indicate a preference. The Mayor Pro Tem noted that a representative of the applicant was in the Chamber audience, as well as Mr. Farano. Mr. Norman Rasmussen, 444 West Ocean, Long Beach, stated that the matter was heard by the Planning Commission on June 15, 1981 wherein they were asking for approval of the driveway. They would like to have the matter heard as soon as possible. They understood that the July 28, 1981 Council meeting agenda was full, the next was the 4th of August and then the llth. Mr. Farano indicated he was unable to be present on the 4th. In discussing the matter with Mr. Farano, he (Rasmussen) asked if the llth would be acceptable. Mr. Farano stated that he would try to clear his calendar. Mr. Floyd Farano, 2555 East Chapman Avenue, Fullerton, attorney for Mr. Kobayshi, explained that he would be in Chicago on August 11 and would be arriving in California the morning of August 12. There was a possibility that he could be back on August 11, but it was dependent upon six other people besides himself as to whether or not a deposition could be moved around to suit his schedule. He suggested that there be a stipulation between himself and Mr. Rasmussen that if between now and August 11 he (Farano) was not able to return in time for the hearing, that it then be set for August 18, 1981. He would be willing to further stipulate that the hearing as of this time be set for August 11, 1981. Councilman Bay reported that they had received a request from the homeowners association that the hearing be set in the evening whenever it was set. He did not like the idea of setting a hearing based on the possibility that it may not take place on that date and then subsequently have to change the date. He suggested if Mr. Rasmussen and Mr. Farano could not settle on August 18 or something earlier, that the Council set the hearing and that would be the date. He would personally recommend that they set August 18, 1981 in the evening as the hearing date and time. MOTION: After further discussion on the matter, Councilman Bay moved that a public hearing be set for Tuesday, August 18, 1981, at 7:00 p.m., to consider revision to Exhibit No. 7 of the Santa Aha Canyon Road Access Points Study. Councilman Overholt seconded the motion. Councilman Seymour was absent. MOTION CARRIED. CONSENT CALENDAR ITEMS: On motion by Councilwoman Kaywood, seconded by Councilman Overholt, the following actions were authorized in accordance with the reports and recommendations furnished each Council Member and as listed on the Consent Calendar Agenda: 81-1022 City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - July 14, 1981, 1:30 P.M. 1. 118: CLAIMS AGAINST THE CITY: The following claims were denied or allowed payment and referred to the City's Claims Administrator: a. Claim submitted by Cindy L. Brunner and Lori Ann Peebles for personal injury damages purportedly sustained as a result of a pedestrian accident; City allowed a business to have patron parking located across the street from the establishment itself (1160 North Kraemer Boulevard), on or about March 7, 1981. b. Claim submitted by Mr. Duc Huu Nguyen for personal property damages pur- portedly sustained as a result of a malfunctioning signal at the intersection of Harbor Boulevard and Katella Avenue, on or about May 24, 1981. c. Claim submitted by Michael T. Notery, Sr., for personal property damages purportedly sustained as a result of an electrical power surge at 1218 South Beach Boulevard, on or about June 15, 1981. d. Claim submitted by Roberto Rodriguez for personal injury damages purport- edly sustained as a result of false arrest by the Anaheim Police Department, on or about March 18, 1981. e. Claim submitted by Ona Seale for personal injury damages purportedly sus- tained as a result of tripping and falling on sidewalk in front of 1505 East Lincoln Avenue, on or about April 20, 1981. f. Claim submitted by David Samuel Silverburg for personal property loss pur- portedly sustained as a result of arresting officer failing to secure claimant's car at Peter Marshall Park, 801 North Magnolia Avenue, on or about June 15, 1981. g. Claim submitted by Barbara Stegmeyer for personal injury damages purport- edly sustained as a result of stepping into a pot hole in street at 5104 Woodwind Lane, on or about May 20, 1981. h. Claim submitted by Stephen Weslosky for personal property damages purport- edly sustained as a result of low power provided by a blown-out transformer, on or about June 15, 1981. The following claim was allowed: i. Claim submitted by Rick Denis Riegler for personal property damage pur- portedly sustained when a City Utilities truck struck claimant's truck, on or about April 29, 1981. 2. CORRESPONDENCE: The following correspondence was ordered received and filed: a. 105: Public Utilities Board--Minutes of May 7, May 21 and June 18, 1981. b. 105: Youth Commission--Minutes of June 3 and June 10, 1981. c. 105: Anaheim Housing Commission--Minutes of June 3, 1981. 81~1Q23 City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - July 14, 1981, 1:30 P.M. 3. 108: PUBLIC DANCE PERMIT APPLICATION: In accordance with the recommenda- tions of the Chief of Police, a Public Dance Permit was approved for Empresa Frias, for a dance to be held July 25, 1981, 6:00 p.m. to 1:00 a.m., at the Anaheim Convention Center. (Cruz Munoz Frias, applicant) 4. 123/144: PROJECT ADMINISTRATION AGREEMENT: In accordance with the recom- mendation of the City Engineer, a Project Administration Agreement was authorized with the County of Orange for A.H.F.P. Nos. 1016 and 1047, for the right of way and design for the widening of Anaheim Boulevard from Broadway to Ball Road to four travel lanes. Councilman Seymour was absent. MOTION CARRIED. CONSENT CALENDAR ITEMS: Councilwoman Kaywood offered Resolution Nos. 81R-330 through 81R-333, both inclusive, for adoption in accordance with the reports, recommendations and certifications furnished each Council Member and as listed on the Consent Calendar Agenda. Refer to Resolution Book. 158: RESOLUTION NO. 81R-330: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM ACCEPTING CERTAIN DEEDS AND ORDERING THEIR RECORDATION. (The Equitable Life Assurance Society of the United States, et al.; Martin Luther Hospital Medical Center, et al.; Trail Estates; CDH Corporation; Aircoa Anaheim Associates, Ltd.; La Mancha Development Properties, Ltd.; State of California; Homes by John Lyttle; John Tiefenthaler, et al.; Sunnymead Poultry Ranch; Robert N. Jackson) 150: RESOLUTION NO. 81R-331: 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 EASEb~NT FOR ROAD AND PUBLIC UTILITY PURPOSES. (R/W #2800-31, Anaheim Boulevard Widening) 150: RESOLUTION NO. 81R-332: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM FINALLY ACCEPTING THE COMPLETION AND THE FURNISHING OF ALL PLANT, LABOR, SERVICES, MATERIALS AND EQUIPMENT AND ALL UTILITIES AND TRANSPORTATION INCLUDING POWER, FUEL AND WATER, AND THE PERFORMANCE OF ALL WORK NECESSARY TO CONSTRUCT AND COMPLETE THE FOLLOWING PUBLIC IMPROVEMENT, TO WIT: PERALTA CANYON PARK MASONRY SPLIT BLOCK BUILDING/HARDCOURT AREA, IN THE CITY OF ANAHEIM, ACCOUNT NO. 47-805-7105. (Bob N. Smith Contracting) 150: RESOLUTION NO. 81R-333: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM FINALLY ACCEPTING THE COMPLETION AND THE FURNISHING OF ALL PLANT, LABOR, SERVICES, MATERIALS AND EQUIPMENT AND ALL UTILITIES AND TRANSPORTATION INCLUDING POWER, FUEL AND WATER, AND THE PERFORMANCE OF ALL WORK NECESSARY TO CONSTRUCT AND COMPLETE THE FOLLOWING PUBLIC IMPROVEMENT, TO WIT: GEORGE WASHINGTON COMMUNITY CENTER, IN THE CITY OF ANAHEIM, ACCOUNT NO. 25-848-7105-84808. (Builders West) 81-1024 City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - July 14, 1981, 1:30 P.M. Roll Call Vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: COUNCIL MEMBERS: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Overholt, Kaywood, Bay and Roth None Seymour The Mayor Pro Tem declared Resolution Nos. 81R-330 through 81R-333, both inclusive, duly passed and adopted. 142/108: ORDINANCE NO. 4239: Councilwoman Kaywood offered Ordinance No. 4239 for adoption. Refer to Ordinance Book. ORDINANCE NO. 4239: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AMENDING SECTIONS 3.24.030, 3.24.040 AND 3.24.050 OF CHAPTER 3.24, ADDING NEW SECTION 3.24.045 TO CHAPTER 3.24, AND AMENDING SECTION 3.28.010 OF CHAPTER 3.28 OF TITLE 3 OF THE ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO AMUSEMENT DEVICES. Roll Call Vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: COUNCIL MEMBERS: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Overholt, Kaywood, Bay and Roth None Seymour The Mayor Pro Tem declared Ordinance No. 4239 duly passed and adopted. ORDINANCE NO. 4240: Councilwoman Kaywood offered Ordinance No. 4240 for adoption. Refer to Ordinance Book. ORDINANCE NO. 4240: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AMENDING SECTION 6.40.060 OF CHAPTER 6.40 OF TITLE 6 OF THE ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO TEMPORARY FIREWORKS STANDS. Roll Call Vote: AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Overholt, Kaywood, Bay and Roth NOES: COUNCIL b~MBERS: None ABSENT: COUNCIL ~MBERS: Seymour The Mayor Pro Tem declared Ordinance No. 4240 duly passed and adopted. ORDINANCE NO. 4241 THROUGH 4244: Councilman Bay offered Ordinance No. 4241 thorugh 4244, both inclusive, for first reading. ORDINANCE NO. 4241: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AMENDING TITLE 18 OF THE ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO ZONING. (66-67-64(13), ML) 142/149: ORDINANCE NO. 4242: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM ~MENDING TITLE 14, CHAPTER 14.32, SECTION 14.32.190 OF THE ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO PARKING. (No Parking Any Time, Peregrine Street, on both sides, from Lincoln Avenue to Westport Drive) 81-10~25 City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - July 14, 1981, 1:30 P.M. ORDINANCE NO. 4243: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM ~MENDING TITLE 18 OF THE ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO ZONING. (70-71-47(27), ML) ORDINANCE NO. 4244: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AMENDING TITLE 18 OF THE ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO ZONING. (68-69-37(16), ML) 105: LIAISON MEETING - CONVENTION CENTER HOTEL: Councilman Overholt, as a member of the Liaison Committee, reported on last Friday's meeting, July 10, 1981 attended by the Mayor, himself, the City Manager and representatives of the Hilton Corporation and an organization known as C-D Investment Company at the Hilton Hotel in Beverly Hills, the purpose being with reference to the hotel to be built on City property next to the Convention Center. 140: OPENING OF CANYON HILLS LIBRARY: Councilman Overholt reported that on Saturday, July 11, 1981, the Council was present for the opening of the Canyon Hills Library, except for Councilman Bay who had a medical problem. It was an inspirational event because it represented a commitment of the Council. Everyone was very impressed with the facility and the enrichment it was going to bring to that area of the City. There were dignataries from surrounding communities who complimented the City for having the courage to go forward with the library even in the face of Proposition 13. He personally compli- mented everyone and the members of the Council who went forward with the pro- ject. It was an asset that would enhance the City and be appreciated by thousands of citizens, young and old, for years to come. As a member of the Library Board Liaison Committee, such a nice event did not just happen. There were many people, staff, and Members of the Library Board, particularly Elizabeth Schultz, who labored long and hard to make the Canyon Hills Library opening a memorable event. It was enriched by the personal participation of the Women's Club in the area and the Girl Scouts. It was truly a community event. Councilwoman Kaywood added that everything she kept hearing throughout the opening was how marvelous Ed Rozak, Project Engineer from the City's Engineer- ing Office was and what an outstanding job he did. She had heard it before as well that Mr. Rozak was a pleasure to work with and saved the City money by making good decisions on the spot. She wanted a very public thank you to go to Ed Rozak for the great job he was doing for the City. Mayor Pro Tem Roth expressed his f~eling that relative to the Library opening, it was a very thrilling day, especially to see the final product. He also felt that accolades were in order to Mayor Seymour who made his house avail- able for the reception that followed. 111: MEETING OF THE HALLOWEEN FESTIVAL COMMITTEE: Councilwoman Kaywood reported on her attendance at the meeting of the Halloween Festival Committee Monday, July 13, 1981, at 7:30 a.m., at the Jolly Roger. There were 52 enthusiastic volunteers on that committee. The Co-Chairman of the Committee was Mr. Paul Pink, and she felt it was an asset to have him on that committee. They were holding monthly meetings, but they also had an executive committee and thus, were able to make decisions faster. 81-1026 City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - July 14, 1981, 1:30 P.M. 114/148: FEDERAL ESTATE TAX: Councilman Overholt stated that the Council would recall that the League of Cities offered a resolution urging the repeal of the Federal Estate Tax and in the offering of that resolution, Anaheim voted for it on the condition that they would check a statement in the resolution stating that it represented only 1% of the total tax revenues received by the Federal government. He then referred to the letter received from the Executive Director of the League of Cities, Bob Haskell, sent to the Mayor wherein the statement was made, "...he was surprised to learn from Congressman Patterson's office that total Federal revenues for fiscal year 1981-82 was estimated at $657.8 billion and Federal Estate Tax revenue is estimated at ~6.9 billion, or 1%." Councilman Overholt stated, that being the case, Garden Grove was right relative to the 1%; however, that 1% represented $6.9 billion. ADJOURNMENT: Councilman Bay moved to adjourn to Tuesday, July 14, 1981, Noon, to the Civic Center Sixth Floor Conference Room for the purpose of a Closed Session. Councilwoman Kaywood seconded the motion. Councilman Seymour was absent. MOTION CARRIED. (4:58 p.m.) LINDA D. ROBERTS, CITY CLERK