Loading...
1980/02/1280-14'1 city Hall, Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES ' February 12, 1980~ 1:30 P.M. The City Council of the City of Anaheim met in regular session. PRESENT: ABSENT: PRESENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Overholt, Kaywood, Bay, Roth and Seymour COUNCIL MEMBERS: None CITY MANAGER: William O. Talley CITY ATTORNEY: William P. Hopkins CITY CLERK: Linda D. Roberts ASSISTANT CITY MANAGER: William T. Hopkins UTILITIES GENERAL MANAGER: Gordon W. Hoyt SUPERINTENDENT OF RECREATION: Jack Kudron ASSISTANT DIRECTOR FOR ZONING: Annika Santalahti LIBRARIAN V: Bettie Vandiver INTERGOVERNMENTAL RELATIONS MANAGER: Nancy Johnson Mayor Seymour called the meeting to order and welcomed those in attendance to the Council meeting. INVOCATION: Mitch Garcia, Melodyland Hotline Center, gave the Invocation. FLAG SALUTE: Councilman Ben Bay led the assembly in the Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag. 119: PROCLAMATION: The following proclamation was issued by Mayor Seymour and adopted by the City Council: Community College Week in Anaheim - February 16-23, 1980 The proclamation was accepted by Dr. Phil Borst, President of Fullerton Community College. MINUTES: Councilwoman Kaywood moved to approve the minutes of the regular meeting of July 24, 1979 and the adjourned regular meeting of January 31, 1980. Councilman Roth seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. WAIVER OF READING - ORDINANCES AND RESOLUTIONS: Councilman Roth 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, unlesm 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 $6,646,626.44, in accordance with the 1979-80 Budget, were approved. CITY MANAGER/DEPARTMENTAL CONSENT CALENDAR: On motion by Councilwoman Kaywood, seconded by Councilman Roth, the following actions were authorized as recommended: a. 160: Bid No. 3609: Supply, $37,311.32. 1,728 Single-Phase Meters. Award to General Electric b. 160: Bid No. 3614: 26 Malibu Police Patrol Vehicles. Award to Cone Chevrolet, $190,984.48 80-142 City Hall~ A~aheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - February 12, 1980~ i:3_0__P_._M~. c. 173: Authorizing the installation of seventeen bus stop shelters, with the option to install an additional ten shelters within one year from the present time. (Convenience & Safety Corp.) MOTION CARRIED. 123: LIBRARY CIRCULATION CONTROL SYSTEM: Proposed agreement to include the Buena Park Library District and Yorba Linda Library District within the City's System, was submitted. Mrs. Bettie Vandiver, Librarian V, first clarified questions posed by both Mayor Seymour and Councilwoman Kaywood relative to the proposed agreements with Buena Park and Yorba Linda on the subject system. Councilman Bay offered Resolution No. 80R-56 and 80R-57 for adoption, as recom- mended in memorandum dated February 6, 1980 from William Griffith, City Librarian, authorizing an agreement with both the Buena Park Library District and the Yorba Linda Library District to provide library circulation system services. Refer to Resolution Book. RESOLUTION NO. 80R-56: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM APPROVING THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF AN AGREEMENT WITH THE BUENA PARK LIBRARY DISTRICT IN CONNECTION WITH LIBRARY CIRCUI~ATION SYSTEM SERVICES AND AUTHORIZING AND DIRECTING THE MAYOR AND CITY CLERK TO EXECUTE SAID AGREEMENT. RESOLUTION NO. 80R-57: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM APPROVING THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF AN AGREEMENT WITH THE YORBA LINDA LIBRARY DISTRICT IN CONNECTION WITH LIBRARY CIRCULATION SYSTEM SERVICES 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 Nos. 80R-56 and 80R-57 duly passed and adopted. 150: DESIGN OF IMPROVEMENTS AT PEARSON PARK: On motion By Councilwoman Kaywood, seconded by Councilman Overholt, the Department of Parks, Recreation and Community Services was authorized to solicit proposals from architectural firms for the design of selected improvements at Pearson Park. MOTION CARRIED. 139: AB 859 (NAYLOR) - SURPLUS SCHOOL PROPERTIES: Councilwoman Kaywood offered a resolution for adoption, as recommended in memorandum dated February 5, 1980 from Deputy City Manager James Ruth, recommending support of AB 859 which gives priority to local governments in the purchasing or leasing of surplus school properties. Before any action was taken, Councilman Overholt asked, if he were sitting on a school board, would he be in favor of the legislation. 80-143 ~ity Ha~, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - February 12~ 1980~ 1:30 P.M. Nancy Johnson, Intergovernmental Relations Manager, answered that he would not. The school districts were voting against the bill basically because it would preclude them from making a profit on the school site. The bill was designed to allow local governments to purchase that land at the same cost at which the school district purchased it. Councilman Overholt asked if it was limited only to recreational land or if it applied to school campuses. Miss Johnson answered that it was limited to outdoor recreational land that had been used for such purposes for at least a year. Councilman Overholt asked if local agencies, other than school districts, acquired the property at 75% of the market value, were there any restrictions on the acquiring agency as to whether they could dispose of the property at other than that figure. Miss Johnson answered "yes", there was a restriction in the sense that if those agencies did not comply in using that land for continuing outdoor recreational services, that the school district may come back and purchase that property. The property had to be used for those services and those services only and if the City or recreational district did not comply, the schools could come back and take the property through a reasonable price compensation. Councilman Overholt stated if the bill were passed and it did affect,'for example the Fremont School Site, the Anaheim Union High School District would have to sell that site to the City, if the City were desirous of acquiring it, at 75% of the fair market value if the City were to use it for recreational purposes. Miss Johnson stated that was correct am long as the City met certain conditions-- that it found that there were recreational needs that other lands within the area could not meet. The first obligation was to offer it exclusively to the City. Councilman Overholt stated he had some difficulties with the bill and was going to vote "no". Miss Johnson confirmed for Councilwoman Kaywood that the land could not be used for any other purpose than open space recreation, otherwise it would revert to the school district. Councilwoman Kaywood then asked in other schools that were being closed and de- clared surplus where the bonds on the school were not completely paid, would the profit go back to the State, rather than the local school district. Miss Johnson stated her understanding was that the bill was written in such a way that it would assure that that payment would be made, i.e., that the school district would not take a loss by offering such property to local governments. Councilwoman Kaywood noted the law presently read, if something was sold that was not fully paid, the money would revert to the State; Miss Johnson stated that was correct and the bill changed that so that the school would be able to recover those costs and would not be losing anything. What they would be losing, however, was the profit and that was the point of contention from the school districts' perspective. 80-144 .~ity Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - February 12, 1980~ 1:30 P.M. Councilman Overholt asked when talking about the loss of profit that was the difference between what the school district paid for it originally and the fair market value today. Miss Johnson confirmed it was what they could be getting on the open market at today's prices for the property, as opposed to the formula which was basically their cost of acquisition adjusted by the cost of living and any improvements. Councilman Overholt noted that Miss Johnson, in answer-to Councilwoman Kaywood's question, stated that any profit that the school district would make would go to the State in any case. Miss Johnson stated her understanding in the way the laws were set up, profits currently made through the sale of land remanded back to the State although she could not point to the passage within the law directly relating to that. Councilman Overholt stated that there had been school sites sold in the City by the districts, and he was not aware that the profits from those sales had been remanded to the State. Mayor Seymour stated that he did not know the exact answer but understood the theory behind the matter. As an example, if there were any profits made on Fremont Junior High School, they would not be remanded to the State, but would accrue to the district because of the time frame in which it was purchased. There was some subsequent date thereafter wherein if the school district were to purchase land and sell it at a profit that, in turn, would be remanded to the State. He reiterated, it was his understanding that Fremont was purchased at a time prior to the legislation, therefore permitting profits to accrue directly to the school district. Councilman Roth stated due to the fact the bill was "doubly dead", he suggested that they hold off on any action until such time when it was again a viable bill and by that time the Council would have sufficient information. He did not think there was any value in acting now. Miss Johnson answered that the bill was going to be reconsidered on the 25th of February, and Senator Briggs who was on the Finance Committee was against the bill at this point. Now would be a prime opportunity to contact Senator Briggs relative to the Council's position. If they waited any longer, it might not make any difference at all. Councilman Overholt favored a continuance in order to obtain more information, Mayor Seymour stated in the event the thrust of the bill was to preclude a school district from accruing a profit unto itself that it may use to cover expenditures of operation, it seemed to him that those who believed they should be running more efficient and cost effective operations, local govern- ment, as well as the school districts, they could not have it both ways. They had to permit the school districts the chance to capture a reasonable profit from the sale of their land and expect that they would then apply those to whatever operating or capital investments they saw fit. If the City was going to take their profit away under the banner of recreational facilities, then they should not complain about the way the schools operated their systems. 80-145 City Hall: AnaheiM~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - February 12~ 1980~ 1:30 P.M. Councilwoman Kaywood stated she would be willing to continue the matter one week. On motion by Councilman Overholt, seconded by Councilman Bay, consideration of a resolution supporting AB 859 was continued one week. MOTION CARRIED° 153: RETIRED PUBLIC EMPLOYEES' ASSOCIATION ORANGE COUNTY CHAPTER - REOUEST TO PROVIDE COST-OF-LIVING ADJUSTMENTS AT AN ANNUAL RATE OF 3 PER CENT: On motion by Councilman Seymour, seconded by Councilman Bay, the request from the Retired Public Employees Association dated December 12, 1979 to amend their contract to provide cost-of-living adjustments at an annual rate of 3 per cent was received and filed, as recommended in memorandum dated February 5, 1980 from the City Manager. MOTION CARRIED. 101/123: STADIUM CONTRACT CHANGE ORDERS: City Manager William Talley briefed the Council on memorandum dated February 8, 1980 from Assistant City Manager William T. Hopkins, including attachment Schedule "A" (on file in the City Clerk's office), recommending that the Council, by resolution, authorize approval of the agreement between the City of Anaheim and the City of Anaheim (California) Stadium, Inc., to fund Stadium Contract Changes; and, by motion, appropriate to the Stadium fund $2,840,000 to cover the estimated cost of, (1) changes in the scope document itself for completion of the Stadium including the score- board; (2) changes brought in through negotiations with the Los Angeles Rams; and (3) moving the Big "A". City Attorney William Hopkins then confirmed for the Mayor that once completed, the flows of revenue would be available to justify the increases in cost, as outlined in the memorandum. Councilman Seymour offered Resolution No. 80R-58 for adoption, as recommended in memorandum dated February 8, 1980 from the Assistant City Manager. Refer to Resolution Book. RESOLUTION NO. 80R-58: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM APPROVING THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF AN AGREEMENT WITH CITY OF ANAHEIM (CALIFORNIA) STADIUM, INC., 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. 80R-58 duly passed and adopted. 106: On motion by Councilman Seymour, seconded by Councilman Bay, $2,840,000 was appropriated in the Stadium Account for the above purposes. MOTION CARRIED. 175: INTERMOUNTAIN POWER PROJECT - FEASIBILITY AND STUDY AGREEMENT: Councilman Seymour moved to approve a $6,311,600 increase in the Intermountain Power Project Feasibility and Study Agreement and authorizing the General Manager to vote in favor of said increase, for a total cost limit of $17,705,300, and appropriating $650,000 from available electric revenue bond funds to pay the City's share of the increased cost, as recommended in memorandum dated February 4, 1980 from the 80-146 c%.ty Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - February 12, 1980~ 1:30 P.M. Public Utilities Board. Councilman Overholt seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. 112: IBM CORPORATION VS. COUNTY OF ORANGE AND CITY OF ANAHEIM, ET AL: On motion by Councilwoman Kaywood, seconded by Councilman Roth, the Orange County Counsel was authorized to defend the City of Anaheim in litigation regarding IBM Corpor- ation vs. County of Orange and City of Anaheim, et al, relating to property taxes, as recommended in memorandum dated February 7, 1980 from the City Attorney's office. MOTION CARRIED. 112: SAN FRANCISCO SUPERIOR COURT CASE NO. 701819: On motion by Councilman Roth, seconded by Councilwoman Kaywood, the Orange County Counsel was authorized to defend the City in 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. 701819; authorizing the Orange County Counsel to acknowledge service of the Summons and Complaint on behalf of the City; and authorizing the Orange County Counsel to arrange for the City's defense by the Santa Clara County Counsel's Office, relating to refund of property taxes, as recommended in memorandum dated February 7, 1980 from the City Attorney's office. MOTION CARRIED. 108: APPLICATION FOR AMUSEMENT DEVICES PERMIT: Submitted by Robert Harlan Jackson, 884 West Lincoln Avenue, for various amusement devices (continued from the meeting of January 15, 1980 for the applicant to obtain approval from the principal of Anaheim High School). Councilwoman Kaywood asked if they could add a condition to the approval of the subject permit, that cooperation between the Anaheim Union High School District (AUHSD) and the prospective owner of the Fun Center be required. She referred to letter dated February 6, 1980 from the AUHSD wherein paragraph one stated that there had been a lack of cooperation in the past and other concerns as well. She asked that that condition be added, along with the condition that the center would not be open during normal school hours. Mr. Norm Johnson, representing the seller of the property, stated that he and Mr. Robert Jackson had met with Dean Shroder, the principal of Anaheim High School, last Wednesday and the agreement was made that the business would not operate during school hours. As a consequence, Mr. Shroder had the Assistant Superintendent of Schools write the letter of February 6, 1980 according to all agreements made. Councilwoman Kaywood reiterated that the letter stated there were concerns because of lack of cooperation with the present manager; Mr. Johnson conceded that could be true. The present owners who lived in San Fernando Valley and Burbank as explained at the previous meeting (see minutes January 15, 1980) could not be present at the Center until approximately 5:00 p.m. and perhaps for two or three days a week. If the permit was approved, when the Fun Center opened at 2:45 p.m., it would have the proper supervision since Mr. Jackson would be present for the first four or five hours and someone else would be running the business other than himself from approximatley 8:00 p.m. until closing. Councilwoman Kaywood questioned what would happen if the Fun Center was open during school hours; Mr. Johnson stated that was supposed to be part of the permit granted, that it would not be open during those hours. 8 0-147 City Ha!l~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - February 12, 1980, 1:30 P.M. Mayor Seymour asked, on behalf of Mr. Johnson's client, if it was acceptable to him to include a requirement in the issuance of the license that the Center would not operate during normal school hours; Mr. Johnson answered that was the understanding. Councilman Roth moved to approve the application for an Amusement Devices Permit submitted by Robert Harlan Jackson, 884 West Lincoln Avenue, for various amuse- ment devices. Councilman Seymour seconded the motion. Before a vote was taken, City Attorney Hopkins stated that the motion should also include a waiver of the requirement that the Center be farther than 600 feet from a school. Councilman Roth and the Mayor were agreeable to including the waiver in their motion. Councilman Overholt noted as did Councilwoman Kaywood that the School District asked that they be assured that Mr. Jackson work cooperatively with the School administration. He asked if it would be appropriate to add that additional condition. If so, he wanted to do so. Mr. Johnson stated that was part of Mr. Shroder's statement to Mr. Jackson-.- that the permit be granted on that basis. Councilman Roth agreed that the condition should be added, and speaking in favor, if the permit were not approved, they would continue to have absentee operators. They would now have a great deal more control with a local owner. In talking with Mr. Shroder, he stated that they did have a number of problems with the present owners particularly in trying to reach them. He (Roth) informed Mr. Shroder that the Council would also like to hear of any problems should they arise. Councilwoman Kaywood asked, if in the event the permit were approved and the business was subsequently sold, would the approval go with that sale or just to Mr. Jackson; City Attorney Hopkins stated it would require a new permit to be issued to the new operator. A vote was then taken on the foregoing motion including the added conditions as follows: (1) That the Fun Center not be operated during normal school hours. (2) That the owner will work cooperatively with the school admini- stration, and (3) Waiving the 600-foot requirement. MOTION CARRIED. 150: CANYON LITTLE LEAGUE - REQUEST FOR FENCING: Mr. Ronald F. Trunk, President of the Canyon Little League and an Anaheim resident, stated that four years ago, the Council approved $25,000 in fencing for the Little League which at that time was in conjunction with the Peralta Park site. They were to remain at and play their games at Vista del Rio Junior High School and Bobby Sox and Pop Warner and other recreational groups in the Canyon were to use the Peralta Park facility. They started with 288 boys and as of today, they had approximately 700 sign-ups. The reason for the request for fencing was to keep all of the boys at that one site and to be able to play all their ball games there. Mr. Trunk also explained for the Mayor that he had gone to the Parks & Recreation Department approximately four to six weeks ago with the request but they stated they did not have $6,000. 80-148 ~itx. Hall, Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - February 12~ 1980, 1:30 P.M. Further discussion followed between the Mayor and Mr. Trunk relative to the $25,000 that was approved four years prior for fencing. At the conclusion of discussion, Mr. Trunk stated if they had not allocated the $25,000 at that time, the City would have had to make other arrangements for their League. Therefore, it was less of an encumbrance that if they had to go another route and that was the same reason for the $6,000 request today. Otherwise, there would be a horrendous scheduling problem with the various recreational groups. Mayor Seymour asked staff if that was the only reason for the referral of Mr. Trunk's request to the Council. Mr. Jack Kudron, Superintendent of Recreation, explained that the League played at the Vista del Rio Junior High School and the Parks & Recreation Department did not have any funds appropriated for that type of expenditure, They had been working with Mr. Trunk and they inventoried their Department and other Departments in the City to see if surplus fencing was available, but there was none. If the Little League were to ask to play on the fields at Peralta Canyon Park and the extended fields of Crescent Elementary School, it would cause some scheduling problems with other softball groups. However, he did not understand what the fencing had to do with the allocation of fields. Mr. Trunk further explained that they had four Leagues in the past at four playing facilities at Vista del Rio. They took on a new program this year of six and seven year olds for "T" ball and added another facility for their usage within the Vista del Rio confines. The proposal had already been approved by the prin- cipal of Vista del Rio, Mr. Davis, and that was the reason for the fencing. They were trying to get another playing field into Vista del Rio which could be accomplished by the fencing. He confirmed for Councilman Roth that they did have permission from the school to fence the property, and they had a layout of their plan. Councilman Seymour moved to approve an allocation of $6,000 from the Council Contingency Fund for 150 lengths of fencing for the purpose requested, subject to the approval of the Parks & Recreation Department as to layout and schematics of their proposal, as well as the concurrent approval of the School District. Councilman Roth seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. Mr. Kudron stated as he understood, it was portable fencing which would not require installation and that the League would set it up and take it down each time; Mayor Seymour stated that was correct. Mr. Trunk clarified that relative to storage, the fencing was presently being stored at Vista del Rio in a locked facility and they did have permission from the principal to do that. They put the fence up and they took it down. 108: SURRENDER OF GAMING PREMISES PERMIT - CAMELOT-ANAHEIM: Offer of Joseph G. London to surrender his Amusement--Gaming Premises Permit for Camelot-Anaheim, 911 North Brookhurst Street (now known as 2232 West Sequoia Avenue), was submitted. City Attorney William Hopkins stated that he requested Mr. London to bring his attorney with him to the meeting to assure that he had been advised of the fact that Ordinance No. 3552 of the City of Anaheim was repealed in June of 1976 and if Mr. London surrendered his Gaming Premises Permit for Camelot-Anaheim, that 80- !49 City. Hal~, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - February 12, 1980~ 1:30 P,M. it could not be reissued and also to assure that Mr. Silver (his attorney) had explained the nature of the action to Mr. London. Mr. Silver indicated also that he has the authority from Mr. London to dismiss the action that was pre- viously filed against the City by Mr. London. Mr. Steven David Silver, attorney, Law Offices of Jerry Refold, Suite 1001, Manufacturers Bank Building, 16255 Ventura Boulevard, Encino, stated Mr. London was present merely to surrender his Gaming Premises Permit. Mr. Hopkins stated that the Council could by motion accept the surrender of Mr. London's Gaming Premises Permit. MOTION: Councilman Roth moved to accept the surrender of Mr. Joseph London's Gaming Premises Permit for the Camelot-Anaheim, 2232 West Sequoia Avenue. Councilwoman Kaywood seconded the motion. Mr. Paul Bell, attorney for Mrs. Lynn London, asked to address the issue. He questioned if the City Attorney had been supplied with copies of a Los Angeles Superior Court Order in regard to transfer of the license. Mr. Hopkins answered they had a copy of a Los Angeles Superior Court Marital Settlement transferring interest in the Camelot-Anaheim, but not transferring the permit. He contended that the permit could only be transferred by the City Council. Mr. Bell informed the City Attorney that he left copies of the Court Order to show to the Council. The premises and the property interests which vests in the license since the license itself was property interest, had been by Court Order, transferred to Mrs. Lynn London, now the owner of the premises. It was their position that would oust the City Council of any power to cancel at the request of Mr. Joseph London. Such a request would have to be made by Mrs. Lynn London to surrender the license. Mr. Joseph London had no status in regard to the license at this time. Mr. Bell continued that relative to the propriety of the transfer, there was a prior license situation between a Mr. and Mrs. Hoskins who operated another club in Anaheim. Aside from the effects of ignoring the Court Order, the Council might be acting in a discriminatory manner against one club and not the other. Further, since the Court transferred the ownership of the Camelot to Mrs. London, there had been no police problems. Employment had been offered and was presently being enjoyed by at least 60 people in the City, and the club was now well run. Mayor Seymour asked if Mr. Bell meant that the 60 jobs were held by Anaheim citizens; Mr. Bell stated that he did not know how many were Anaheim residents. Mr. Bell stated if the club was closed down and there was a business loss, there could be a potential liability contest which they might want to consider litiga- ting prior to any closing down of the club. He asked if there were any questions. 80-150 City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - February 12~ 1980~ 1:~0 P..M~ The Mayor asked the City Attorney if he had any questions of Mr. Bell; Mr. Hopkins stated that he had no questions, but recommended that the Council accept the surrender of the Gaming Premises Permit from Mr. London pursuant to Mr. London's request. If Mr. Bell wished to further address any status of Mrs. London, he suggested that it be done at a future time. The Mayor asked if Mr. Silver had anything to add; Mr. Silver stated it was their understanding that the Gaming Premises Permit was purely personal and not trans- ferable. Also, regarding the marital settlement agreement that Mr. Bell brought up, the validity of that was in dispute and a question which they felt should be decided by the Court. Other than that, the settlement agreement made no mention whatsoever of the permit which was issued in Mr. London's name. Mr. Hopkins stated that Mr. Silver stated the matter accurately. The settlemen~ did not mention the permit which was issued by the Council to Mr. London and it was not transferable pursuant to the terms of the Ordinance. The Mayor asked if there were any questions from the Council, Councilman Overholt, speaking to Mr. Silver, noted it was stipulated that the pending litigation brought by his client against the City would be dismissed forthwith regardless of whatever claim Mr. Bell's client might have. Mr. Silver answered that was correct on both counts. A vote was then taken on the foregoing motion. MOTION CARRIED. CONSENT CALENDAR ITEMS: On motion by Councilman Overholt, seconded by Councilman Roth, 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 or payment allowed: a. Claim submitted by Mary Massarelli for personal injury damages purportedly sustained as a result of ticket seller selling seats directly above the orchestra when many other seats were available at the same price, and claimant attempted to move to other seats away from the uncomfortably loud music, taking a fall in the process, on or about December 30, 1979. b. Claim submitted by James B. Rold, dba Klif's Meats, for damages purportedly sustained as a result of power service interruption to claimant's place of business, on or about December 31, 1979. c. Claim s6bmitted by Robert H. Gibbons for damages to electrical appliance and bulbs purportedly sustained as a result of power surge cause by problem with electrical wires on roof, on or about December 22, 1979. d. Claim submitted by Carl Morgan Davies for damages purportedly sustained as a result of destruction of property without justification by Anaheim Police, on or about January 5 and 6, 1980. 80-151 city Hall, Anahe~m~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - February 12~ 1980~ 1:30 P.M. e. Claim submitted by.Cindy Kruse for damages purportedly sustained as a result of destruction of property without Justification by Anaheim Police, on or about January 5 and 6, 1980. f. Claim submitted by Thelma and Harry Dawson for damages purportedly sustained as a result of destruction of property without justification by Anaheim Police, on or about January 5 and 6, 1980. g. Claim submitted by Yvonne Mercedes Olshefsky for damages purportedly sustained as a result of false imprisonment by Anaheim Police, on or about January 5 and 6, 1980. h. Claim submitted by Art Adams for damages purportedly sustained as a result of destruction of personal property without justification by Anaheim Police, on or about January 5 and 6, 1980. i. Claim submitted by Carl Stephen Evans for damages purportedly sustained as a result of loss of exotic birds, rabbits, rats and personal property through confiscation thereof by Anaheim Police, on or about January 5 and 6, 1980. j. Claim submitted by Cindy Morrow for damages purportedly sustained as a result of destruction of personal property without justification by Anaheim Police, on or about January 5 and 6, 1980. The following claim was allowed: k. Claim submitted by Joe E. Consoli for vehicular damages purportedly sustained as a result of accident caused by City-owned vehicle, on or about December 27, 1979. 2. CORRESPONDENCE: The following correspondence was ordered received and filed: a. 175: Public Utilities Commission, Southern California Commuter Bus Service, Inc., to extend its passenger stage commuter service from Los Angeles and Orange Counties to include the Los Angeles Civic Center. b. 107: Planning Department, Building Division--Monthly Report for January 1980. c. 105: Anaheim Golf Course Advisory Commission--Minutes of January 17, 1980. 3. 108: APPLICATIONS: The following applications were approved in accordance with the recommendations of the Chief of Police: a. Amusement Devices Permit, submitted by Coach Martin's Sports Club, 2222 Colchester Drive, for various amusement devices. (Rondal Joseph Martin, applicant) b. Entertainment Permit, submitted by Club Le Brochette, 1001 North Euclid Street, for a 3-piece band. (Charles Howard Badgwell, applicant) 4. .131/167: RIGHT OF WAY CERTIFICATION - MODIFICATION AND CONSTRUCTION OF TRAFFIC SIGNALS: Approving the Right of Way Certification for modification and construction of traffic signals at 15 intersections in the Canyon Indus- trial Area, Federal Aid Route8 - L073, L074, MO07, M127, M142 and M172. MOTION CARRIED. 80-152 .city Hall, Anaheim~ California - COUNC. IL MINUTES - February 12~ 1980, 1:30 P.M. 170: TENTATIVE TRACT NO. 10940 (Revision No. 1): Submitted by Baldwin Company Ltd., to establish a proposed 68-1ot, RS-5000(SC) subdivision on property located southwesterly of Nohl Ranch Road and southwest of the westerly terminus of Ridgeview Road. The City Planning Commission approved Tentative Tract No. 10940 (Revision No. 1), and EIR No. 166 had previously been approved. Miss Santalahti, Assistant Director for Zoning, explained that the subject tract was one of several tracts considered by the Planning Commission yesterday. At the time of the tract consideration, there were no horse trails indicated on the premises. Yesterday, however, Anaheim Hills, Inc., indicated that there would, in fact, be a horse trail that was depicted on the General Plan and it should be relocated in this instance to this particular tract. She tried to reach the developer and engineer on the tract but had been unable to do So, and therefore, was requesting that the Council withhold any action on the tract until next week. On motion by Councilman Bay, seconded by Councilman Roth, consideration of Tentative Tract No. 10941 (Revision No. 1) was continued one week. MOTION CARRIED. CONSENT CALENDAR ITEMS: Councilwoman Kaywood offered Resolution Nos. 80R-59 through 80R-61, 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. 80R-59: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM ACCEPTING CERTAIN DEEDS AND ORDERING THEIR RECORDATION. (Lease-All La Palma, two deeds; Purushottamdas R. Patel, et ux.; Michael Bond, et ux.) 140: RESOLUTION NO. 80R-60: 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: ANAHEIM HILLS BRANCH LIBRARY SITE GRADING, IN THE CITY OF ANAHEIM, ACCOUNT NO. 01-904- 7105; 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 February 28, 1980 at 2:00 p.m.) 176: RESOLUTION NO. 80R-61: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM DECLARING ITS INTENTION TO VACATE AND ABANDON CERTAIN PUBLIC SERVICE EASEMENTS. (76-26A, setting March 4, 1980, 3:00 p.m. as date and time for public hearing) Roll Call Vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: COUNCIL MEMBERS: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Overholt, Kaywood, Bay, Roth and Seymour None None The Mayor declared Resolution Nos. 80R-59 through 80R-61, both inclusive, duly passed and adopted. 80-153 ~ity ~all, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - February 12~ 1980, 1:30 P.M. 142/150: ORDINANCE NO. 4100: Councilman Bay offered Ordinance No. 4100 for first reading. Refer to Ordinance Book. ORDINANCE NO. 4100: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AMENDING SECTION 17.08.230 OF CHAPTER 17.08, TITLE 17, OF THE ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO SUBDIVISIONS. (park acreage dedications) ORDINANCE NO. 4101 AND 4102: Councilman Roth offered Ordinance Nos. 4101 and 4102 for first reading. Refer to Ordinance Book. ORDINANCE NO. 4101: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AMENDING TITLE 18 OF THE ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO ZONING. (66-67-61(96), CR) ORDINANCE NO. 4102: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AMENDING TITLE 18 OF THE ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO ZONING. (79-80-16, CL) 114: JOINT POWERS FIRE TRAINING AUTHORITY: Councilwoman Kaywood reported on her attendance at the 7:30 a.m. meeting, Wednesday, February 6, 1980, called for the purpose of introducing Anaheim's new Fire Chief Bob Simpson. 114: SOUTH COAST AIR QUALITY MANAGEMENT BOARD: Councilman Roth reported that two additional bills had been introduced in addition to Senator Foran's, revolving around air quality. He noted that yesterday the Los Angeles Times published an editorial criticizing the Senator's proposal. As they were aware, California had a separate set of standards for motor vehicles costing the consumer $250 to $300 for the additional mandated regulations over that of the Federal level. California was also faced with a yearly motor vehicle inspection and the State Senate made it clear that they were not going to pass the bill. There were three similar bills in the Senate at present and all were concerned with one factor--the economic impact of such a mandated inspection and the State saying "no" to such a mandate which would have a far-reaching effect on further develop- ment in California. The bills were calling for a compromise, and it appeared the only compromise was for California to drop the additional standards relative to motor vehicle air pollution and accept the Federal mandate of the yearly motor vehicle inspection for every vehicle in California. It was an extremely contro- versial issue with the ecologists, from the Sierra Club down, testifying at the last meeting in opposition, as well as the ARB along with the Los Angeles Times 'editorial. Within the next 60 days, they would be asking many of the Councils to take the position on one of the bills, for or against. 114: CONGRESSMAN DANNEMEYER BREAKFAST - FEBRUARY 16~ 1980: Councilman Bay stated that he planned to attend a breakfast meeting with Congressman Dannemeyer on Saturday morning, February 16, 1980 where he (Dannemeyer) would be looking for input from local officials, City and County government, on what to work on back in Congress. From his viewpoint, he was going to recommend that Congressman Dannemeyer support a reduction in the Federal income tax on the first $500 of savings account interest. If Congress could put the pressure on to create this type of income tax reduction at the Federal level, it would encourage more savings throughout the country and encourage more loan money coming in for the housing market and other development needs in the industrial area.. RECESS - EXECUTIVE SESSION: By general consent the Council recessed into Executive Session. (2:45 P.M.) 80-154 City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - February 12~ 1980~ 1:30 P.M. AFTER RECESS: Mayor Seymour called the meeting to order, all Council Members being present. (2:55 P.M.) 112: UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT~ CASE NO. 79-02-182 MRP: On motion by Councilman Seymour, seconded by Councilwoman Kaywood, the City Attorney and Kinkle, Rodiger & Spriggs were authorized to settle United States District Court, Central District, Case No. 79-02-182 MRP Pandick Press, Inc. vs. City of Anaheim, et al and City of Anaheim (California) Stadium, Inc., and City of Anaheim vs. Goldman, Sachs and Company for a sum not to exceed $65,000 and to execute all documents related to said settlement. MOTION CARRIED. ADJOURNMENT: Councilman Seymour moved to adjourn to Wednesday, February 13, 1980, at 7:00 p.m. for a joint meeting with the Public Utilities Board. Council- man Roth seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. Adjourned: 2: 5 7 P.M.