Loading...
1979/10/0979-1112 City Hall~ Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - October 9, 1979~ 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 CITY ENGINEER: William G. Devitt TRAFFIC ENGINEER: Paul Singer ASSISTANT DIRECTOR FOR ZONING: Annika Santalahti Mayor Seymour called the meeting to order and welcomed those in attendance to the Council meeting. INVOCATION: Reverend George Brown, 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: RESOLUTION OF APPRECIATION: A resolution of appreciation was adopted by the City Council and presented to Mr. Glen L. Johnson for his years of service as a City Planning Commissioner. 119: RESOLUTION OF CONGRATULATIONS: A resolution of congratulations was adopted by the City Council and presented to Mr. Walter Frederick, 71 years of age, for his recent outstanding achievements in the International Track and Field Meet. MINUTES: Councilwoman Kaywood moved to approve the minutes of tbe regular meeting held May 15 and June 5, 1979. Councilman Roth seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. WAIVER OF READING - ORDINANCES AND RESOLUTIONS: Councilwoman Kaywood moved to waive the reading, in full, of all ordinances and resolutions and that consent to the waiver of reading is hereby given by all Council Members unless, after reading of the title, specific request is made by a Council Member for ~the read- ing of such ordinance or resolution. Councilman Bay seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. FINANCIAL DEMANDS AGAINST THE CITY in the amount of $6,653,750.70, in accordance with the 1979-80 Budget, were approved. 160: PURCHASE OF EQUIPMENT - TWO DUMP BODIES - BID NO. 3570: On motion by Councilwoman Kaywood, seconded by Councilman Roth, the iow bid of Paramount Truck Body was accepted and purchase authorized in the amount of $10,775.96, including tax, as recommended by the Purchasing Agent in his memorandum dated October 2, 1979. MOTION CARRIED. 158: SALE OF CITY-OWNED PROPERTY: On motion by Councilman Roth, seconded by Councilman Bay, the offer from Mr. David K. Ehl and Augustin V. Lopez in the amount of $25,000 to purchase an excess parcel of City-owned property located on the south side of Tyler Avenue, east of Western Avenue, Lot 73, Tract No. 1820 was accepted. MOTION CARRIED. 79-1113 City Hall,, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - October 9, 1979, 1:30 P.M. Councilman Roth stated that Mr. Augie Lopez should be commended for a job well done relative to his innovative ideas in putting property back on the tax rolls and making housing available to the community. 123: PURCHASE OF GEORGE WASHINGTON SCHOOL FOR USE AS NEIGHBORHOOD COM}CONITY CENTER: Councilwoman Kaywood offered Resolution No. 79R-579 for adoption as recommended in memorandum dated October 3, 1979 from the Executive Director of Community Development Norm Priest authorizing a buy and sell agreement with the Redevelopment Agency for the purchase of the George Washington School, 233 East Chartres Street, from the Agency, for use as a neighborhood Community center. Refer to Resolution Book. RESOLUTION NO. 79R-579: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM APPROVING THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF A BUY AND SELL AGREEMENT WITH THE ANAHEIM REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY TO PURCHASE THE GEORGE WASHINGTON SCHOOL FOR USE AS A NEIGHBORHOOD COMMUNITY CENTER, AND AUTHORIZING 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. 79R-579 duly passed and adopted. 175: FINALIZATION OF DETAILS FOR THE AWARD OF A CATV FRANCHISE: Authorizing staff to enter into negotiations with Storer Cable Television, Inc., to finalize the details for the award of CAtV franchise and to prepare a franchise granting ordinance. (continued from September 18, 1979) City Manager William Talley briefed the Council on memorandum of his office dated October 5, 1979 which was a supplementary report regarding cable tele- vision proposals with an attached revised evaluation prepared by ALTA California Services, Inc. (ACSI) and a matrix summary of each item which was addressed by the applicants in their written clarifications, a summary of the comments re- ceived from each applicant, and the response to those comments (on file in the City Clerk's office). The additional analyses further reinforced staff's ori- ginal recommendation to enter into final negotiations with Storer Cable Television for award of the CATV franchise. Mr. Micheal McCrudden, Senior Vice President of American Television & Communications Corporation (ATC), parent company of American Cable Vision of Anaheim, 20 Inverness Place East, Englewood, Colorado, stated that he wanted to expand on the comments submitted previously contained in letter of September 25, 1979 (on file in the City Clerk's office). The first issue the consultant identified was the distinction between the 35 channels of capacity his company proposed, and the 45 proposed by Storer. They referenced Sylvania as the manufacturer of the equipment they proposed to use, but Sylvania did not presently have that equipment available on the market. He was also going to submit a letter from the General Manager of Sylvania stating in part that each of the items would 79-1114 City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - October 9~ 1979~ 1:30 P.M. require special selection and alignment and, in most cases, minor redesign and special handling throughout manufacturing. Initial delivery was expected to be 12 months after receipt of order, and if lead times continued to expand, it could be 18 months or longer. The construction schedule Storer proposed was not realistic, and the citizens and City would be highly disappointed entering into a contract with the knowledge that it would not be filled, given the state- ments from the manufacturer. The consultant, after their additional comments did, in fact, conclude that even he would recommend that Storer not attempt to build the system they had originally proposed, and he suggested that they reduce the band width of the system down from 330 which had been proposed. Relative to the construction schedule with regard to the underground areas, for the Canyon and entire City, starting and completing the undergrounding plant in $ to 11 months was unrealistic. They could only suggest once again a very dis- appointed citizenry if they were to rely on a submission which could not be met. In the report from staff and the consultant, there was a significant difference in the total time that they (ACI) would build, 24 months, vs. the total time it would take Storer to serve the entire City, or 36 months. The third major item was a question of rates. The State Legislature passed and the Governor signed into action a new bill effectively deregulating cable TV in many respects. Their company had anticipated that bill and knowing that rates were very important to consumers and citizens, proposed a guarantee to hold to their rates for three years. None of the other applicants offered to make that proposal. Storer wanted to resubmit information and apparently now determined it was important and wanted to rebid. In fairness to the applicants and in keeping with the policies the City set forth, if the City accepted rebids, they (ATC) would be pleased to do so, but it should be done in an orderly fashion, treating all applicants fairly. The question was raised as to whether or not the City should request detailed financials of the companies. In good conscience in making a decision, that information should be requested, and staff and the public should have an oppor- tunity to look at the business being proposed. The question of whether or not the company would have to raise rates was important. Any company finding them- selves in financial difficulty in the next year or two would be back before the Council if there was an opportunity for them to do so. It would be in the best interest to know in advance what the financials looked like, so that it was possible to know if they proposed realistic rates. They believed the system would cost $9 million and not $1 million as noted in earlier press releases from the City. If there were those kinds of discrepancies, the City needed to know that information. Relative to the question of services, the company was proud of the record they built in cable systems because they believed the key to good cable service was community involvement. They were the only company who performed an in depth survey of various institutions in the community. Those oommunity groups who would be served better by their proposal needed to have more opportunity to evaluate the benefits to them before a decision was made. They were the only company to propose a fully developed "B" cable network for community institutions to develop ~programs for the community. They built their proposal to maximize 79-1115 City ~all~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - October 9, 1979~ 1:30 P.M. the advantages to the community so that the people could not only see programming on the cable system, but also could create programming that reflected their interests and views. In concluding, Mr. McCrudden started to introduce another speaker; however, Mayor Seymour interjected and explained that they were not going into a formal presentation because they had been through two presentations previously. There was no need to be repetitive unless there was new and different information tht had not been provided in writing. What they agreed to last~time was a submittal of the consultant's report giving them (ACI) an opportunity to submit all questions which would then be answered. They could not continue such questions indefinitely. Mr. McCrudden stated in the report they received that morning, the consultant's concluded that their proposal with regard to broadcasting equipment did not meet the exact letter of the specifications. To their knowledge, they were the only company to submit an exact list of what was going to be provided. It was true that the equipment they provided was not the same as indicated in the specifica- tions, but it was their belief if they installed equipment that met the City's specifications, the citizens would never have a chance to use that equipment. It was their best judgment that the way to serve the people was to give them equipment they could use and take with them into the community and produce programming. They respectfully requested that more consideration be given to those types of benefits from their type of equipment. Dr. Ronald Dyas, Associate Professor of Communications, Cal State University, Fullerton, stated that the City's consultant, ACSI, could respond to most of the technical questions posed, but he agreed with the Mayor and the Council that those items had been previously discussed. He then read a prepared two-page statement dated October 9, 1979 (on file in the City Clerk's office) which discussed the il-point analysis of the three CATV proposals arrived at by ACSI. The essence of the statement was that the important element of the analysis strengthened and reinforced his belief that among the three applicants, Storer Cable TV offered the City of Anaheim the most attractive CATV proposal and without reservation, he recommended that the Council award the CATV franchise to Storer. Councilman Seymour moved to authorize staff to enter into negotiations with Storer Cable Television to finalize the details for the award of a CATV franchise and to prepare a franchise granting ordinance. Councilwoman Kaywood seconded the motion. Before a vote was taken, Councilman Roth asked staff, (1) if they had enough financial data on Storer to insure they had the capabilities of completing the whole system in Anaheim; (2) could the existing agreement be amended to assure some type of rate guarantees; (3) relative to the eight-month deadline, he was interested in a performance bond or agreement that would stipulate the levying of heavy penalties against Storer or anybody else to insure that the deadline was met. Mr. Cy Humphries, ACSI, answered the questions posed: (1) information from Storer left no doubt they had the resources necessary to complete the systems; (2) it was possible and Storer had agreed to guarantee their rates; (3) at the top of the list of negotiating items was the matter of an additional penalty relief in case they did not meet the deadline promised. 79=1116 City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - October 9, 1979~ 1:30 P.M. A vote was then taken on the foregoing motion. MOTION CARRIED. A gentlemen from the audience indicated he was from Storer and gave their assurance that they would speed ahead with the finalization of the franchise which included the concerns expressed by Councilman Roth. 179: INDUSTRIAL AREA ZONING ENFORCEMENT PROGRAM: On motion by Councilman Bay, seconded by Councilwoman Kaywood, $20,614 from the Council Contingency Fund for the remainder of the fiscal year 1979-80 was approved for the Industrial Area Zoning Enforcement Program, as recommended in memorandum dated October 3, 1979 from the Assistant Director for Zoning, Annika Santalahti. Councilman Roth voted "no". MOTION CARRIED. 124: ACTION FOR IRISH RIGHTS: Request to address the Council relating to a Black Watch Highland Regiment scheduled for November 2 and 4, 1979, at the Convention Center. Mayor Seymour stated that the presentation was to be limited to 10 minutes. Mr. Don Brady, Action For Irish Rights, P.O. Box 10905, Santa Aha, stated that they were told differently; City Clerk Linda Roberts explained they were advised that they would be allowed approximately 5 to 10 minutes per speaker. Mr. Brady stated that they had three speakers and they wanted one-half hour to present those speakers since they had traveled a long distance to be heard. Councilman Seymour moved to limit discussion to 15 minutes. Councilman Roth seconded the motion. Before a vote was taken, Councilman Overholt inquired of the City Clerk as to whether any indication was given regarding the maximum time allowed. Mrs. Roberts stated she was advised there were approximately five people that wished to speak. She then informed them that they would be allowed approximately 5 minutes per speaker, but it was entirely up to the Council as to the length of the presentation. Mayor Seymour then withdrew his motion but limited the presentation to 25 minutes. Mr. Don Brady, residential address, 4842 Sleeping Indian Road, Fallbrook, stated as Irish Americans and Americans concerned with the defense of hnmmn rights throughout the world, they were petitioning for the cancellation of the Black Watch Military Regiment appearing at the Anaheim Convention Center on November 2 and 4, 1979 which was the essence of their request in addressing the Council. He then read from a prepared statement which elaborated upon the reasons for their opposition to the appearance of the regiment. He then submitted a petition to the Council containing over 2,000 signatures of Anaheim and Orange County residents as evidence that they were as concerned about human rights violations as was his organization. The following people also spoke in protest to the Black Watch Highland Regiment event citing violations of human rights suffered from the policies of British forces stationed in Northern Ireland, each speaking in his or her field of 79-1117 City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - October 9~ 1979~ 1:30 P.M. expertise on the subject: Mr. Mike McDermott, San Francisco attorney, represen- ting the Irish National Conference in Washinton D.C.; Dr. Rona Fields, Washington D.C., expert in the field of human rights and psychological studies of brutality and torture in Northern Ireland; John Lafferey, 11632 Truro Avenue, Hawthorne, who read an amnesty international report from Belfast. In summary, Mr. Brady stated, (1) the Black Watch was a regiment of the British Army and, (2) they had been found guilty in International Court of massive human rights violations. Thus, to allow the performance of the British Army in the City of Anaheim was to condone those actions which were not only an insult to the Irish American community, but also to each of them as Americans concerned with the issue of human rights. Mayor Seymour stated first on behalf of the Council, there was not a Council Member nor anyone in the Chamber who did not have humanistic feelings. Although there was obviously some truth to the presentation, they had a responsibility to the citizens and community-at-large that was different from the position of the Action for Irish Rights. They were charged with operating a public community center, not run on international policy which was much beyond their domain, since it was the responsibility of the Federal government. Although they might individually or collectively be in sympathy with some of the humanistic principles presented, they had to look at the use of the community center and its functions as a place in which meetings and entertainment could take place, whether local, national, or international. The key was the type of entertainment that took place at the center and not what it might stand for. As long as it was not in violation or contrary to the wishes of the citizens they served, they would approve that type of entertainment. There was nothing threatening or unhumanistic about the per- formance of the Black Watch. Until such time as the majority of the Council should decide differently, they would continue to permit the type of entertainment their citizens wanted, as well as the greater community surrounding Anaheim. MOTION: Councilman Seymour moved to deny the request of the Action for Irish Rights to cancel the Black Watch Highland Regiment event scheduled for November 2 and 4, 1979 at the Anaheim Convention Center. Councilman Overholt seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. 170: TRACT NO. 9524 - REQUEST FOR SUBSTITUTION OF THE ENGINEER: Request of Mr. Kit Kenyon, President, Sunburst Development, Inc., to substitute Dale K. Price and Associates for Toups Corporation as the engineer of record for Tract No. 9524, was submitted. Mayor Seymour stated although there was no conflict, he was going to abstain from discussion and voting on the subject because he had purchased one of Mr. Kenyon's homes last year. Mayor Seymour left the Council Chamber (2:37 P.M.); Mayor Pro Tem Overholt assumed chairmanship of the meeting. City Attorney William Hopkins then briefed the Council on memorandum from his office dated September 25, 1979 relative to the subject request. 79-1118 City Hall~ Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - October 9~ 1979, 1:30 P.M. Mr. William Devitt, City Engineer stated he had not received a letter releasing Mr. Kenyon or the engineer from setting the monument. He concurred with the recommendation of the City Attorney, that the developer either, (1) obtain a letter from Toups to the City Engineer wherein Toups releases its right to set the final monuments, or (2) the developer execute an agreement (and possibly posting a bond) indemnifying the City against any actions brought by Toups based upon the approval of such substitution. Mr. Kenyon was in the Chamber and he had discussed the matter with him. He (Kenyon) indicated that alternative 2 would be acceptable, and he might like to address the Council on that basis. Mr. Kit Kenyon, President of Sunburst Development, stated that he did have such a letter from Toups although it was an informal one. He believed he had a claim against Toups which they would settle sooner or later, but they had to "clear the air" on the tract itself. Toup$ was not his original engineer; he had purchased the tract from another builder and Toups was the engineer who signed the original map, but they did not do the work on the change of plans or any subsequent work. Mr. Kenyon stated he would be willing to submit a hold harmless agreement or some- thing of that nature and he was certain that Toups and he would come to some agreement in the future. However, the necessity of setting the monuments might come sooner, and he wanted to get a substitute now in order to proceed. Councilman Roth asked the City Attorney, if they approved Mr. Kenyon's request and downstream there was a dispute regarding the $1,748.53 amount, in what position that would place the City in regard to liability. Mr. Hopkins answered, if the Council wished to take action today, he recommended that it be contingent upon receipt of an agreement from Mr. Kenyon referred to in their report indemnifying the City. Councilman Roth moved to approve the request of Mr. Kenyon to substitute Dale K. Price and Associates for Toups Corporation as the engineer of record for Tract No. 9524, contingent upon option 2 of the City Attorney's report of Septemer 25, 1979, including the posting of a bond. Councilwoman Kaywood seconded the motion. Before a vote was taken, Councilman Bay asked if a hold harmless agreement was adequate or if a bond was also required and also, if the Council took action today, would the approximate $17,000 disputed total be the limit of the liability the City might incur. Mr. Hopkins stated either an agreement or a bond or both. Relative to the liability aspect, he could not say that would be the limit and, therefore, they might want an indemnification agreement and a bond as well. Mayor Seymour entered the Council Chamber (2:45 P.M.). Councilman Roth stated his motion included the recommendation of the City Attorney. It said nothing more than to ask the City Attorney to draw up the necessary docu- ments that would most likely protect the taxpayer8 of the community. City Attorney Hopkins confirmed that encompassed alternative No. 2; Councilman Bay stated on that basis, he could support the motion. A vote was then taken on the foregoing motion. Councilman Seymour abstained. MOTION CARRIED. 79-1119 ' City Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - October 9~ 1979~ 1:30 P.M. 156/105: POLICE COMMUNITY RELATIONS COMMITTEE: Request from James West, Chair- man, Community Services Board (CSB), to address the Council relating to the subject committee, was submitted. Mr. James West, Chairman, Community Services Board, stated the structure he was reporting on was one on which he had worked very hard and a result to some degree of his own personal efforts. Going back to last Spring to the CSB Subcommittee on Police Community Relations, the first tentative recon~nendation proposed was for a Police Community Relations Committee (PCRC) appointed by the City Council to report to the Council. He subsequently discussed the matter with City Manager Talley and Police Chief Tielsch and was told why it was not a good structure. The Chief reiterated a commitment he had made on the oral board when he was being considered for hire by the City - to open communication. He (West) then worked diligently under the commitment that there would be open and complete communications between the Police Department and all citizens of the community. Chief Tielsch never said he would change his professional opinion or buckle under to any requests, but he would always listen. A meeting was held in the basement of the Police Department on September 21, 1979 to discuss the merits of ongoing psychological testing for police officers, and it was at that meet- ing that the Chief said, "I won't deal with them (PCD - People for Community Development) on principle." He considered that a direct repudiation of his commitment to the Council and to the City. The Chief contended he would meet with anyone halfway. However, he refused to deal with unsigned mailgrams, but not with people. Mr. West stated that was not true. He had a copy of the infamous unsigned mailgram of June 8, 1979 which contained the sender's nmme and address, Joey Vargas, 317½ West Santa Ana Street and the PCD, and thus it was not anonymous. Mr. West then referred to other communications between the Chief and Mr. Richard Ornelas, PCD, and specifically to a letter of June 18, 1979 from Chief Tielsch to Mr. Ornelas, the next to last paragraph which stated, "therefore, I do not see any value in meeting with the PCD to discuss the matter and will decline your offer of a meeting to pursue the issue." It was not only the PCD Chief Tielsch was refusing to meet with, but also the CSB as well. The Chief was a member of that Board, but had never attended a meeting or sent a delegate as did Chief Bastrup. The issue was one of not dealing with people and the fact of just firing Chief Tielsch was not the answer because the problem was within the structure. Chief Tielsch was the best man available of 15; he questioned why the structure allowed the best man the discretion to omit a segment of the community and not deal with it. Ail the actions and reforms in the Police Department happened because of a~tions of the Council and those actions were initiated by a crisis. The Council appointed commissions and boards to make recommendations. If they saw the value of citizen input in those advisory groups, why did they not see any value of citizen input relative to the Police Department and why did it not have a police commission to report to it so that kind of discrimination was not allowed. Councilman Roth then questioned why Mr. West released his letter to Chief Tielsch dated September 25, 1979, wherein he resigned from the PCRC to the press a day or two ahead of time and did not have the courtesy to deliver it to the Chief. 79-1120 City Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - October 9, 1979~ 1:30 P.M. Mr. West stated that he mailed all the letters at the same time although he mailed Chief Tielsch's in the morning and those to the press in the afternoon. Councilman Roth contended that such important subject matter should have been hand-delivered to the Chief or the Police Department and marked "urgent", and thereafter given to the press. He felt that Mr. West was inflaming the situation by that time of publicity-seeking. Mr. West reiterated the point was the Chief's documented refusal to deal with a segment of the community. He then relayed the difficulties he had in obtaining transcripts of the CSB's September 27, 1979 meeting, as well as minutes of the PCRC meeting when the PCD made their presentation. Mayor Seymour asked the City Manager to respond relative to his request of Mr. Talley last Thursday for a transcript of the meeting of the 27th; Mr. Talley stated that the Mayor asked if a transcript existed and, if not, that one be created at the earliest possible date and provided to Mr. West. Those instruc- tions were presently being carried out. Mayor Seymour stated that, on behalf of the Council, he did not think they should be getting "hung-up" on the dotting of "i's" and crossing of "t's" of the technical structure of sentences, words or dates of things that were put in the mail and assumptions made on behalf of Mr. West as to what other people meant or their intentions. He felt he could say clearly to Mr. West, to the CSB, the PCD, Chief Tielsch and the PCRC, the Council had gone on record as being unwilling to pursue ongoing psychological testing on a number of occasions. Historically, going back to the summer 1978 and subsequent to Little People's Park, a list of demands were presented and all of those demands were eventually delivered because the Council believed in the~, except for ongoing psychological testing. He had to say to Mr. West, to the CSB and PCD, that there must be things other than psychological testing that could be discussed between them. If there was nothing more to discuss, then there was not the problem they were led to believe existed. He felt Mr. West was engaging in political confrontation and showmanship, and manuevering behind the scenes and through his own CSB and doing it at a good price to the community he said he wanted to serve. The process through which Mr. West railroaded the action through the CSB was substantiated by the letter signed by ten members of that 15-member body dated October 8, 1979 (on file in the City Clerk's office). The action passed by the CSB - "this body, charged by the City Council to monitor the police community relations committee, reports that the spirit of communication that was to be the base of the committee is not there, and therefore, in our opinion, is making that committee ineffective." - was based on a seven "aye" vote with ten members present of the 15-member board. If Mr. West was truly interested in serving the Mexican-American community, as well as all citizens, he would not be seeking a rush for judgment on his personal opinions, but rather could take his feelings to the CSB and ask them to prepare some positive alternatives. He would support the Chief entirely and believed the Council would support the Chief in continuing to refuse to talk about ongoing psychological testing until the Council was prepared to consider it. He suggested that Mr. West go to the CSB and ask them to assist him in developing a positive program that would form a basis of communication about matters which could be discussed. To continue to chip away at an issue the City 79-1121 City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - October 9~ 1979~ 1:30 P.M. Council publicly time and again had said, there was no movement on that - and to continue to perpetuate conflict of all kinds was to throw gasoline on the fire. He (Seymour) was personally sadly disappointed in Mr. West's performance on the CSB. Mr. West asked if the letter from the 10 members of the CSB was an official action of the Board; Mayor Seymour stated that he recognized the signatures of 10 members of the Board. Mr. West then asked if that was a violation of the Brown Act, since the CSB was a public body and if they met in private, that was a violation. Mayor Seymour stated that such a conflict emphasized that all he (West) wanted was confrontation and getting involved with technicalities, rather than meeting the heart of the problem. If he was interested in serving the community, he should get his act together and do it. Mr. West stated an important point was the fact that his letter and statements today were not in support of ongoing psychological testing, but the much broader issue of Chief Tielsch's unwillingness to listen. Mayor Seymour stated if he believed what he was saying, he would have already submitted a positive program to the CSB as their basis for discussion and he had yet to do so in 15 months. He suggested that Mr. West prepare a list of positive ideas on which they could begin communications. Mr. West felt the only positive structure would be a board appointed by the Council to report to it on police community relations. Further discussion followed between Councilwoman Kaywood and Mr. West revolving around CSB meetings and topics of discussion. Councilwoman Kaywood also read from approved minutes of the CSB meeting of August 23, 1979 to emphasize a point of discussion. MOTION: Councilman Seymour moved that the motion as contained in memorandum dated October 2, 1979 from the Chairman of the CSB be sent back to the CSB for further study and consideration. Councilman Overholt seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2006 AND NEGATIVE DECLARATION: Application by La Palma Business Park to permit a gymnastics academy on ML zoned property located at 1015 North Armando Street. On motion by Councilman Roth, seconded by Councilman Overholt, request for continuance of the subject application by the applicant to October 16, 1979, at 3:00 P.M., was approved. MOTION CARRIED. 167: REQUEST FOR REFUND OF TRAFFIC SIGNAL ASSESSMENT FEE: Request of Mr. Paul D. Kiely, Kayco, Inc., for refund of fees paid in connection with property located at 2100 East Katella, was submitted. On motion by Councilman Seymour, seconded by Councilman Roth, a refund of $4,941, representing a refund of traffic signal assessment fees prepaid at a higher assessment than now exists, was approved, as recommended in memorandum dated September 26, 1979 from the City Engineer. MOTION CARRIED. 79-1122 City Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - October 9, 1979~ 1:30 P.M. 167: REQUEST FOR REFUND OF TRAFFIC SIGNAL ASSESSMENT FEES: Request of Mr. R.M. Rindt, Truck and Auto Supply, Inc., for a partial refund in the amount paid for traffic signal assessment fees in connection with Project Douglass Annex, located at 1654 Douglass Road, was submitted. (continued from October 2, 1979) Councilman Roth moved to approve the subject request in the amount of $915, as recommended in memorandum dated September 26, 1979 from the City Engineer, and setting November 1, 1979 as the deadline for granting any additional requests for refunds. Councilwoman Kaywood seconded the portion of the motion having to do with the deadline. Before action was taken, Councilwoman Kaywood stated that she wanted the items taken separately because she was going to vote differently on each one. Mayor Seymour stated that the record would show that she favored the deadline, but that she had not voted in the past nor on the present motion favoring rebate of the fees. Councilwoman Kaywood stated that was correct and also added that since the situation involved something that was done in March 1978, that was reaching too far back for a refund. Councilwoman Kaywood again requested that the motion be separated into two parts. She then withdrew her second. Councilman Bay thereupon seconded the motion. A vote was taken on the foregoing motion. Councilwoman Kaywood voted "no". MOTION CARRIED. 175: FINAL DETERMINATION OF A DISPUTED UTILITY BILL: Request by Mr. Willis A. Smith for a final determination of a disputed utility bill for the period of service from July 12, 1978 to September 11, 1978, was submitted. On motion by Councilman Roth, seconded by Councilman Overholt, final determination of the subject bill was continued to October 30, 1979, upon a verbal request from Mr. Smith. MOTION CARRIED. 172: REQUEST TO RECLAIM STREETS IN THE ANAWEIM SHORES DEVELOPMENT: Request of Mr. O. L. Holt, Road Committee Chairman, Anaheim Shores Homeowners Association, (ASHA) to reclaim the streets in the Anaheim Shores development, was submitted. Mr. Oscar Holt, 1995 Bayshore Drive, duly appointed representative of the ASHA stated that the major problem concerned that portion of Romneya Drive between Coronet and La Palma Avenues. That stretch of road had become an unencumbered divided four-lane highway and was being used a raceway by reckless drivers. Three accidents had occurred on that section of the road which he knew of from his own personal observation in the last nine months due to an excessive amount of speed. 79-1123 City Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - October 9~ 1979~ 1:30 P.M. Mayor Seymour left the Council Chamber (3:12 P.M.); Mayor Pro Tem Overholt assumed the Chairmanship of the remainder of the meeting. Mr. Holt continued that at the present time, there were no stop signs, speed limit signs or crosswalk signs, nor any other deterrent to abate the problem. His letter of August 22, 1979 to the Council had done nothing to change the condition and in examining the recommendations of the City Engineer, it was his understanding that nothing would be done or that any action would be likely to do any good. Another primary concern was the well-being of children in the community living east of Romneya who must cross the street to get to the John Marshall School. It was his understanding from Councilman Roth that a crosswalk on the street would be contrary to the effect sought. Their project was going to expand to approximately 380 homes in the future which would mean that a great deal more children would be faced with that dangerous crossing, as well as all residents living east of Romneya who must cross the street to get to the recrea- tional area. With regard to fire trucks and ambulances which now occasionally used Romenya, if they were allowed to implement their proposal, those vehicles would be blocked from using that route. However, in the past, they used the main arteries of La Palma and Euclid Street and a return to that route would rep- resent no more than an additional 30 seconds of travel time. Relative to the park area at La Palma and Romneya, with their proposal, there would be no impediment of access to City park vehicles. Since the entrance of the community would be right at the park, there would be no problem with access to the park by any of the public. It was their intention to make Romneya a two-lane road with public parking on both sides which would increase the amount of parking available to the public who would like to use the park. All the streets in the project with the exception of the streets they wanted to reclaim were privately owned and maintained by ASHA. It was a planned community unique to that area of the City and their proposal would allow them the option of creating a quiet res- idential area devoid of excessive, uncontrolled traffic, making it safe for their children and residents to visit all parts of the community, allowing them to make it the community it was originally designed to become. They had the resources to maintain those streets. The ASHA respectfully requested that Coronet from Romneya to the end of the project, Falmouth from Romneya to end of the project, and that portion of Romneya between Coronet and La Palma be returned to the homeowners of Anaheim Shores. City Engineer William Devitt explained that Romneya was established and developed as a secondary highway and initially was constructed by Martin Luther Hospital in cooperation with the City and considered to be vital and necessary for cir- culation in the area. It would not be their recommendation that the homeowners be permitted to claim these streets. As pointed out in his memorandum dated September 25, 1979, gas tax funds were expended on the construction of certain portions of the work done in the area and those funds would be necessary in order to make reimbursement if the streets were reclaimed. Martin Luther Hospital 79-1124 C,~i.ty. Hal!,, Anaheim~ California- COUNCIL MINUTES- October 9~ 1979~ 1:30 P.M. was a large generator of traffic, and he felt it was absolutely vital that that secondary highway be maintained. The Traffic Engineer could speak to the situation from him standpoint in terms of the speed limit, traffic control, etc. It was a 25 mile per hour zone and any speed in excess was a violation. Councilman Roth stated that the people in the area were trying to live in peace and harmony, but were plagued with fast traffic, sirens and ambulances. Not only were speed limits necessary, but also somewhere halfway in between, there needed to be a stop sign. A crosswalk was out, however, because of the problems involved with unprotected walks. Mr. Paul Singer, Traffic Engineer, explained that it was a 25-mile per hour zone and under normal circumstances, they did not post signs; however, there would be no problem doing so, but prior to posting, they wanted to have the opportunity of conducting a radar study so that the signs could be enforced. Perhaps it would be posted at 25 or 30 miles per hour, but he would not know until they developed a speed study which had to be done in accordance with the ordinance, and it would be before the Council if more than 25 miles per hour. Relative to stop signs, as had been discussed previously, they did not slow traffic down because drivers would make up the time they had been delayed at the stop sign, and an unjustified stop sign, especially on a private street, tended to create annoyance in a driver and created dangerous conditions not necessarily reflecting itself in the location of the stop sign, but rather at another location. If the Council wished, they would install them, but it was not his recommendation. Regarding crosswalks, Mr. Singer felt they would be a disservice to the children. Councilman Bay stated he was familiar with the Anaheim Shores area and when it was originally planned, it was nothing like it was at present but planned for 36 apartments to the acre. He agreed with the original circulation plan within the development which was totally closed and had no circulation going into the adjoining neighborhoods where he lived, but it was not approved that way by previous Councils. It was passed to make Coronet, Romneya and Falmouth circula- tion streets. There was a stop sign at Falmouth going on to Romneya at present and what he had complained about the most had become the easiest access to his house. The City had invested a great deal of money in those streets and also in the traffic light on Romneya and La Palma. That type of commitment had already been made and completed, and there would also be the added impact of access to John Marshall Park. He was concerned that the answer from the Traffic Division did not answer the question on speed limit signs, and he had to agree with Councilman Roth. The least they could do was install 25 mph signs and also some concentration should be placed on enforcement. He did not know the ADT at this time on Romneya or Falmouth, but his experience showed it to be very light and it was extremely light for a second class highway. He did not see any way at this time where they could give the streets back to the association. He felt the answer was to start out with speed limit signs and some enforcement. If that did not work, then they should consider some stop signs along Romneya to see if those would help and, if not, then perhaps they would have to install a light or something else that would slow the traffic down. 79-1125 City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - October 9~ 1979~ 1:30 P.M. Mr. Holt strongly suggested that they add stop signs immediately - one at Bayshore and Romneya on one side of the street, and one at Windward and Romneya on the other side of the street since it was a divided road. Councilman Bay stated with stop signs in residential areas there would be stopping and burning of rubber at that stop sign, and the neighborhood should be prepared to listen to that. He felt the stop sign should be installed on a temporary basis, so they could do something about removing them when found to be creating more problems. Mr. Devitt explained that they had not had an opportunity to meet with Mr. Holt to discuss problems in that area and inasmuch as he (Holt) was the Chairman, they would welcome the opportunity to have meetings with him to discuss those problems and make every effort to mitigate them. Councilwoman Kaywood stated that there were many such traffic problems throughout the City. Anaheim Shores was unique and should be protected more than it was at present. Relative to crosswalks, however, people tended to think of them as a barrier and they accomplished the reverse of what they were intended to do, and much the same with stop signs. Particularly with children, they imagined that everyone would stop and therefore she hoped that the parents and adults would caution them. MOTION: Councilman Roth moved to deny the request of the Anaheim Shores Home- owners Association to reclaim the streets in the Anaheim Shores development; streets to be posted at 25 miles per hour; stop signs to be installed at Bayshore and Romneya and Windward and Romneya. Councilwoman Kaywood seconded the motion. Councilman Seymour was absent. MOTION CARRIED. 173: REQUEST FOR EXPANSION OF TAXICAB PERMIT - LOZANO TAXICAB: Request by Mr. Manuel Lozano for an expansion of their taxicab permit to allow the operation of two to four vans in the Disneyland area during convention and peak periods, at $1 per person per destination, up to $4 maximum charge per trip per destin- ation, was submitted. Mr. Manuel Lozano, Lozano Taxicab Service, 1432 East South Street, first explained that he found out from someone else of the expansion of the Yellow Cab permit by the Council on August 28, 1979 (see minutes that date). He emphasized that with that kind of service approved, Lozano Taxicab would be out of business right away. Mr. Lozano then elaborated upon items of concern to him that were a threat to his business such as outside cab companies picking up passengers in Anaheim, the courtesy service provided by hotels, Anaheim Plaza Transportation asking for additional stops, and Dial-a-Ride. They were only requesting to provide the same service as that provided by Yellow Cab - to operate two vans in the Dis- neyland area. He noted that their original request as outlined in letter dated August 31, 1979 for two to four vans had changed and their request at present was for only two vans. He had one van and was requesting one more. Questions were then posed to Mr. Lozano by Council Members Kaywood, Bay and Roth for purposes of clarification revolving around the present services Lozano Taxi- cab provided. During the questioning, Mr. Lozano stated that he would have 79-1126 City Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - October 9, 1979~ 1:30 P.M. opposed the Yellow Cab Company request for expansion of service on August 28, 1979 if he had been present, but only on principle, that being, that he be allowed to provide the same service. Mayor Pro Tem Overholt noted that Yellow Cab was granted an expansion but with the restriction that they could not take anyone in the vans to Anaheim Plaza or pick up there, as pointed out by Councilman Roth, which was done to protect the Plaza Transportation Company. If Mr. Lozano was willing to accept that restriction as well, he would be willing to support the request. Miss Monica Keppel, Plaza Transportation, first stated that the merchants at Anaheim Plaza had never subsidized their company. On one occasion, one of the merchants did try to buy their company because he said it was profitable. She reported that up to this point, they had transported 63,277 passengers to the Plaza. She then stated that she had no problem in their approving expansion of Lozano Taxicab Service, as lonR as he was not allowed to take passengers to the Plaza. In the past, she had an argument with one of Mr. Lozano's drivers two or three times because five minutes before Plaza Transportation was to pick up passengers at their regular stop, Lozano Taxicab was found "hustling" those passengers first. One very busy day in the Spring when they had only two vans and had to rent two more, she caught Lozano Cab seven or eight times pulling up to their stops. Mr. Larry Slagle, Yellow Cab of Northern Orange County, stated that he did not see where Yellow Cab would put Mr. Lozano out of business. They made an appli- cation for the vans in response to certain demand periods which they could not cover ncr could Lozano Cab Company. To complicate the situation, two more vans in the area could run either company down somewhat. Relative to the hotels jitneys, they were in the business primarily because there were certain peak times when it was difficult to get cabs and that was part of the reason they had requested the van service. He would have preferred Mr. Lozano's request coming along a little later so that they could determine if it was feasible to operate the vans because they were expensive to insure due to their greater capacity, they were more expensive than a regular van, and were not as efficient gas wise. Thus, he opposed the request just on principle. Plaza Transportation was the innovator and were allowed to operate; Yellow Cab then made a suggestion and before they had an opportunity to implement it fully, there was another application. He opposed the original application of Plaza Transportation and for the same reason, he would oppose the extension of Lozano's present application. Councilwoman Kaywood stated from the beginning when Mr. Lozano came in and asked for taxi service, it was to be a different kind of service for the Spanish- speaking community. Subsequently, constant requests and complaints had been received from him relative to other cabs, with almost a request to subsidize and protect one operator over and above everybody else. She was concerned with the particular service being requested because there was a dense traffic situation in the Disneyland area now and to have vans and taxis fighting for position, it would be clogging the situation, rather than aiding it. She was also concerned over the complaint that the Lozano van was running the route of Plaza Transportation minutes before the arrival of Plaza Transportation vans. Further, at the time that rate increases were granted, Mr. Lozano requested a higher increase than Yellow Cab and also wanted an extra surcharge when exceeding certain distances, which would not have been a service to the City, tourist or 79-1127 City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - October 9, 1979~ 1:30 P.M. regular residential users of the service. She concluded it would be in the best interest of the citizens of Anaheim and the Tourist Center to monitor the service Yellow Cab had just implemented for approximately one year to see how it worked out. Councilman Roth again referred to a telephone call received from a merchant in Anaheim Plaza opposing the restriction of Yellow Cab Company from coming to the Plaza in a van. The merchant questioned what would prevent Yellow Cab from saying that they could not go to Anaheim Plaza, but could take passengers to the Orange Mall or another shopping center. He felt if Mr. Lozano wanted two more vans, they should give it a try. Councilman Overholt and Councilwoman Kaywood were both under the impression that Mr. Lozano was requesting one more van since he already had one van ded- icated to limousine service. Mr. Lozano clarified he wanted two vans. Councilman Bay stated at the time they approved the jitney service for Yellow Cab, he asked the specific question as to whether the vans were going to take customers outside of the City to shopping centers and he was informed that the vans were not allowed to go outside the City limits. If that were true, he questioned how passengers could be taken to any regional shopping center other than Anaheim Plaza, and they could not do that because there was already a service there. Councilman Roth explained that they could operate a partial route as a jitney and partially as a taxi because the vans would use either the meter or a flat rate. Councilman Bay stated as long as they allowed vans with meters to run as a taxi or jitney, they were inviting customers to be taken out of the City for business elsewhere. That was the reason why he was against it in the first place, and he was still aginst it. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT - NEGATIVE DECLARATION: On motion by Councilman Roth, seconded by Councilwoman Kaywood, the City Council finds that this project would have no significant individual or cumulative adverse environmental impact and is, therefore, exempt from the requirement to prepare an EIR. Councilman Seymour was absent. MOTION CARRIED. Councilman Roth offered a resolution authorizing the expansion of Lozano Taxicab Service as requested to operate two vans in the Disneyland area during conventions and heavy peak periods at $1 per person per destination, up to a $4 maximum charge per trip per designation, excluding Anaheim Plaza as a destination. Before any action was taken, Councilwoman Kaywood stated she could not support that resolution. Councilman Bay stated he wanted to offer a substitute resolution with the same wording, but adding that they could not take passengers outside the City limits as well. 79 -1128 City Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - October 9, 1979~ 1:30 P.M. Councilman Roth stated that they could not do so as a jitney. City Manager Talley interjected, not as a jitney, but using the $1 per person, per desti- nation because Jitney had specfic stops with a fixed route, there was nothing that would prohibit them from going to a destination at the border, turning on the meter, and taking a group of passengers anywhere.~ Mayor Pro Tem Overholt asked Councilman Bay if he wanted to withdraw his amend- ment; Councilman Bay stated he would withdraw but they should look at the problem. Thereupon, Mayor Pro Tem Overholt suggested that it could perhaps be the subject matter of another hearing. A vote was taken on the resolution offered by Councilman Roth and failed to carry: AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Overholt and Roth NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Kaywood and Bay ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Seymour City Attorney Hopkins explained that since the vote was tied, it would have to be hold for another meeting as a matter of law to get an additional vote, from another Council Member. Councilman Overholt moved to continue the vote on the resolution for two weeks. Before any action was taken, Councilwoman Kaywood asked Mr. Slagle if he wanted to have the matter continued longer so that they could look into the situation in depth. She also asked if his drivers were doing what Mr. Talley articulated. Mr. Slagle answered "no" his drivers were not doing that, and it was necessary to have a Public Utilities Commission permit to go outside the City unless as a taxicab. They were more productive when they could take someone from Disneyland to Anaheim Plaza or some place in Anaheim. He was not aware of any of his drivers of a van taking customers to the City line and then becoming a taxi to go to whatever destination they wished. Councilwoman Kaywood seconded the foregoing motion. Councilman Seymour was absent. MOTION CARRIED. RECESS: By general consent, the Council recessed for 20 minutes. (4:10 P.M.) AFTER RECESS: Mayor Pro Tem Overholt called the meeting to order, all Council Members being present, with the exception of Councilman Seymour. (4:30 P.M.) CONSENT CALENDAR ITEMS: On motion by Councilman Roth, seconded by Councilman Bay, the following actions were authorized in accordance with the reports and recommendations furnished each Council Member and as listed on the Consent Calendar Agenda: 1. 118: CLAIMS AGAINST THE CITY: The following claims were denied and referred to the City's Claims Administrator: a. Claim submitted by Jo Nell Beeler for personal injury damages purportedly sustained as a result of fall on steps at Anaheim Stadium, view level, 3rd Base side, on or about August 15, 1979. 79-1129 City Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - October 9~ 1979~ 1:30 P.M. b. Claim submitted by Antoinette M. Caldarella for personal injury damages purportedly sustained as a result of slip-and-fall accident in ladies' restroom at Anaheim Stadium, 2nd floor, on or about June 23, 1979. c. Claim submitted by James Thomas O'Rourke, Jr., for personal injury damages purportedly sustained as a result of actions by the Anaheim Police at a public restroom located at Anaheim Stadium, top level, 3rd Base side, on or about June 21, 1979. d. Claim submitted by Kevin Louis Phillips for personal injury damages purpor- tedly sustained as a result of actions by the Anaheim Police at Anaheim Stadium, on or about June 19, 1979. e. Claim submitted by Irene Helen Shorey for personal injury damages purportedly sustained as a result of slip-and-fall accident on wet floor at an Anaheim Stadium snack stand, on or about July 8, 1979. f. Claim submitted by Mr. and Mrs. Joseph Jaworski for damages purportedly sustained as result of a power failure, on or about September 15, 1979. g. Claim submitted by Rocky Richardson, the Angelina Hotel Corporation, for damages purportedly sustained as a result of City sewer backing up and flooding basement of Angelina Hotel, on or about September 1, 1979. h. Claim submitted by Orris K. & Rita H. Johnson for vehicular damages purportedly sustained as a result of accident which occurred on the Anaheim Stadium parking lot and involved a City vehicle, on or about August 17, 1979. i. Claim submitted by Gerald L. Rosen for damages to vehicle purportedly sus- tained as a result of accident which occurred on the Anaheim Stadium parking lot and involved a City vehicle, on or about September 9, 1979. j. Claim submitted by Jackie Bruscato for personal injury damages purportedly sustained as a result of a 2- or 3-inch drop in sidewalk in front of 4896 Gayann Drive, causing claimant to trip and fall, on or about July 12, 1979. 2. CORRESPONDENCE: The following correspondence was ordered received and filed: a. 175: Before the Public Utilites Commission, Application No. 59146, and Advice Letter No. 1184, Southern California Gas Company for authority to increase rates due to increases in natural gas supplied. b. 175: Before the Public Utilities Commission, Application No. 58227, the Pacific Telephone and Telegraph Company for authority to split and rearrange the present Yellow Pages sections of the Orange County and Orange Coast South Directories into five Yellow Pages directories to be known as Fullerton, Anaheim, Santa Ana, E1 Toro, and Orange Coast South Yellow Pages Directories. c. 175: Before the Public Utilities Commission, Application Nos. 57359 and 60, Pacific Western Stage Lines, Inc., for a Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity to operate a sightseeing tour service between points in Los Angeles and Orange Counties and The Burbank Studios, and certain points in the City of Newport Beach. 79-1130 City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - October 9~ 1979~ 1:30 P.M. d. 175: Before the Public Utilities Commission, Application No. 58979, Michael A. Kadletz, an individual, dba Goodtime Tours and Company, for authority to sell his Certificate of Public Convenience to Jeanne Mollica, an individual. e. 105: Community Services Board - Minutes of August 23, 1979. f. 105: Park and Recreation Commission - Minutes of August 22, 1979. g. 107: Planning Department, Building Division - Monthly Report for September 1979. h. 114: City of Yorba Linda, Resolution No. 367, relating to noise control. 3. 170: TENTATIVE TRACT NO. 10854: Submitted by Regency Plaza, to establish a 1-lot, 22-building subdivision on RM-1200 zoned property located at 1540 West Ball Road. The City Planning Commission approved Tentative Tract No. 10854 and granted a negative declaration status. Councilwoman Kaywood noted that an existing apartment complex was involved and they were not looking to change them into condominiums but selling the buildings themselves. In the staff report on Page 7a, No. 6, however, it stated it allowed condominiums and she wanted to be certain that it did not. Miss Santalahti, Assistant Director for Zoning, stated she believed it was not intended to read as individual apartments but actual buildings and this was definitely a building sale only with individual units not to be sold. That information would be placed on the tract map and recorded appropriately so that the units could not be sold without another subdivision being approved by the City. She considered that a miswording because it was definitely buildings and not units. 4. 108: APPLICATION: An application for a Dinner Dancing Place Permit sub- mitted by Gerald Joseph Roach for Casablanca, 945 South Knott Street, for dancing six night a week, 9:00 P.M. to 1:30 A.M., was approved in accordance with the recommendation of the Chief of Police. Councilman Seymour was absent. MOTION CARRIED. CONSENT CALENDAR ITEMS: Councilwoman Kaywood offered Resolution Nos. 79R-580, 79R-581, 79R-583, and 79R-584, 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. 79R-580: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM ACCEPTING CERTAIN DEEDS AND ORDERING THEIR RECORDATION. (Albert Miguel Hernandez) 176: RESOLUTION NO. 79R-581: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM DECLARING ITS INTENTION TO VACATE AND ABANDON A CERTAIN PUBLIC SERVICE EASEMENT. (79-7A, October 30, 1979, 3:00 P.M.) 79-1131 City Ha.lip Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - October 9~ 1979, 1:30 P.M. 169: RESOLUTION NO. 79R-583: 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: CERRITOS AVENUE-STATE COLLEGE BOULEVARD STREET IMPROVEMENT, IN THE CITY OF ANAHEIM, ACCOUNT NO. 12-793-6325-3110, A.H.F.P. NOS. 941 & 942; 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 November 1, 1979, at 2:00 P.M.) 150: RESOLUTION NO. 79R-584: 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: PEP. ALTA CANYON PARK MULTI-PURPOSE BUILDING, IN THE CITY OF ANAHEIM, ACCOUNT NO. 47-805-7105-80514; 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 November 8, 1979, at 2:00 P.M.) Roll Call Vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: COUNCIL MEMBERS: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Kaywood, Bay, Roth and Overholt None Seymour The Mayor Pro Tem declared Resolution Nos. 79R-580, 79R-581, 79R-583, and 79R-584, duly passed and adopted. 176: ABANDONMENT NO. 79-8A: Mr. Bruce B. Bowman, United California Bank, Trustees, to abandon and quitclaim a portion of the north side of City-owned fee title to right-of-way of Santa Aha Canyon Road, approximately 1,500 feet east and west of Weir Canyon Road, together with related slope easements. The recommended action was to set October 30, 1979, at 3:00 P.M., as the date and time for a public hearing. William Devitt, City Engineer, stated they had some concerns relative to the proposed abandonment and it was their contention that an agreement be prepared encompassing the conditions for the abandonment and those be completed prior to the public hearing on October 30, 1979. It would also be their recommendation that the hearing be continued if the agreement had not been completed. They concurred with the City Attorney's office that the document be signed and approved by the Council before the Council approved the abandonment. Councilman Overholt offered Resolution No. 79R-582 for adoption, setting October 30, 1979, at 3:00 P.M., as the date and time for a public hearing on Abandonment No. 79-8A. Refer to Resolution Book. 79-1132 City Hall~ Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - October 9, 1979, 1:30 P.M., RESOLUTION NO. 79R-582: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM DECLARING ITS INTENTION TO VACATE AND ABANDON CERTAIN PUBLIC STREETS AND FIXING A DATE FOR A HEARING THEREON. (79-8A, October 30, 1979, 3:00 P.M.) Roll Call Vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: COUNCIL MEMBERS: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Kaywood, Bay, Roth and Overholt None Seymour The Mayor Pro Tem declared Resolution No. 79R-582 duly passed and adopted. Councilman Overholt moved that an agreement be prepared encompassing the condi- tions of abandonment to be completed prior to the October 30, 1979 public hearing and if the agreement was not completed at that time, the City Engineer would recommend that the hearing be continued. Councilman Roth seconded the motion. Councilman Seymour was absent. MOTION CARRIED. 170: FINAL MAP - TRACT NOS. 9212 AND 9215: Developer, The Baldwin Company of Irvine; tracts located northwest of the intersection of Nohl Ranch Road and Serrano Avenue and containing 48 proposed RS-5000 zoned lots and 55 proposed RS-5000 zoned lots, respectively. Councilman Roth asked Miss Santalahti for the record if, due to the huge amount of slope areas involved in the subject tracts, if those slope areas would be placed in the Master Association or the Sub-association. Miss Santalahti answered that Mr. Dan Salceda, Anaheim Hills, Inc., was present to speak on the subject, but had to leave the meeting. However, within about 60 days, they expected to have the slopes in the Master Association rather than the local one. It was dependent upon Anaheim Hills' approval of the archi- tectural plans for the developer of the project. Councilman Roth asked for clarification if Dan Salceda was stipulating that the slope areas would be in the Master Assocation and not in the Sub; Miss Santalahti answered "yes". On motion by Councilman Roth, seconded by Councilwoman Kaywood, the proposed subdivisions, together with their design and improvements, were found to be con- sistent with the City's General Plan, and the City Council approved Final Maps of Tract No. 9212 and Tract No. 9215, as recommended by the City Engineer in his memorandum dated October 2, 1979. Before a vote was taken, Councilman Bay asked, on a secondhand stipulation with- out Mr. Salceda being present, how legal that would be. Miss Santalahti stated the tract itself was not within Anaheim Hills' juris- diction, but was a Baldwin Tract, and they were not present today. Anaheim Hills had control of them, however, in terms of the architectural plans having to be approved by Anaheim Hills as a result of an agreement with Baldwin. Baldwin, in turn, wanted the plans approved and that would not occur until they put the slopes into the Master Association. 79-1133 C.ity...Hall~ Anaheim~ CalifOrnia - COUNCIL MINUTES - October 9~ 1979~ 1:30 P.M. Councilman Bay asked if it would be safer on the motion for Final Map approval to add that as a condition of the motion; City Attorney Hopkins stated it would be more binding and effective to include it. Councilman Roth stated he had talked with Mr. Salceda, and Baldwin would not do a thing until they would go along with the Master Association and that was why he wanted it stipulated. Councilman Roth included an addition to his motion that approval of the Final Maps were subject to the condition that the slopes be placed in the Master Association; Councilwoman Kaywood accepted that addition in her second. A vote was then taken on the foregoing motion with the added condition. Council- man Seymour was absent. MOTION CARRIED. Councilman Roth asked that a letter be sent to Baldwin indicating same with a copy to Anaheim Hills, Inc. ORDINANCE NO. 4055 THROUGH 4057: Councilwoman Kaywood offered Ordinance No. 4055 through 4057, both inclusive, for adoption. Refer to Ordinance Book. 142/156: ORDINANCE NO. 4055: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM REPEALING SECTION 16.16.030, 16.16.040 AND 16.16.050 OF CHAPTER 16.16, TITLE 16, OF THE ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE AND ADDING NEW SECTIONS 16.16.030, 16.16.040 AND 16.16.050 TO CHAPTER 16.16 IN ITS PLACE AND STEAD RELATING TO FIRE ZONES. (projects in downtown Redevelopment area) 142/124: ORDINANCE NO. 4056: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM (A) APPROVING A THIRD AMENDMENT TO COMMUNITY CENTER FACILITY LEASE DATED FOR CONVENIENCE AS OF OCTOBER 1, 1979, BETWEEN THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AND THE COM- MUNITY CENTER AUTHORITY, (B) APPROVING A THIRD AMENDMENT TO SITE LEASE DATED FOR CONVENIENCE AS OF OCTOBER 1, 1979, BETWEEN THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AND THE COMMUNITY CENTER AUTHORITY, AND (C) AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR AND CITY CLERK TO EXECUTE AND DELIVER SAID THIRD AMENDMENTS TO COMMUNITY CENTER FACILITY LEASE AND SAID THIRD AMENDMENT TO SITE LEASE. 142/179: ORDINANCE NO. 4057: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AMENDING SECTION 18.84.042.012 OF CHAPTER 18.84, TITLE 18, OF THE ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO ZONING. (deleting requirement for a CUP for roof-mounted solar collector panels) R011 Call Vota: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: COUNCIL MEMBERS: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Kaywood, Bay, Roth and Overholt None Seymour The Mayor Pro Tem declared Ordinance No. 4055 through 4057 both inclusive duly passed and adopted. ' ' 142/156: ORDINANCE NO. 4058: Councilman Roth offered Ordinance No. 4058 for adoption. Refer to Ordinance Book. 79-1134 City Hall~ Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - October 9, 1979~ 1:30 P.M. ORDINANCE NO. 4058: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AMENDING TITLE 18 OF THE ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO ZONING. (79-80-6, ML) Roll Call Vote: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Kaywood, Bay, Roth and Overholt COUNCIL MEMBERS: None COUNCIL MEMBERS: Seymour The Mayor Pro Tem declared Ordinance No. 4058 duly passed and adopted. 142/156: ORDINANCE NO. 4059: Councilman Bay offered Ordinance No. 4059 for adoption. Refer to Ordinance Book. ORDINANCE NO. 4059: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM ADDING CHAPTER 6.72 TO TITLE 6 OF THE ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO AMPLIFIED SOUND. AYES: NOES: ABSENT: Roll Call Vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: COUNCIL MEMBERS: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Kaywood, Bay, Roth and Overholt None Seymour The Mayor Pro Tem declared Ordinance No. 4059 duly passed and adopted. ORDINANCE NO. 4060: Councilwoman Kaywood offered Ordinance No. 4060 for adoption. Refer to Ordinance Book. ORDINANCE NO. 4060: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AMENDING TITLE 18 OF THE ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO ZONING. (72-73-51(35), (36), and (37), RS-HS-22,000) Roll Call Vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: COUNCIL MEMBERS: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Kaywood, Bay, Roth and Overholt None Seymour The Mayor Pro Tem declared Ordinance No. 4060 duly passed and adopted. ORDINANCE NO. 4061: Councilman Overholt offered Ordinance No. 4061 for adoption. Refer to Ordinance Book. ORDINANCE NO. 4061: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AMENDING TITLE 18 OF THE ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO ZONING. (75-76-26, CO, parcels A & B) Roll Call Vote: COUNCIL MEMBERS: COUNCIL MEMBERS: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Kaywood, Bay, Roth and Overholt None Seymour AYES: NOES: ABSENT: The Mayor Pro Tem declared Ordinance No. 4061 duly passed and adopted. 79-1135 City Hall~ Anaheim, Ca.~.if.0rnia - COUNCIL MINUTES - October 9, 1979~ 1:30 P.M. ORDINACE NO. 4062: Councilman Bay offered Ordinance No. 4062 for adoption. Refer to Ordinance Book. ORDINANCE NO. 4062: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AMENDING TITLE 18 OF THE ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO ZONING. (66-67-64(11), ML) Roll Call Vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: COUNCIL MEMBERS: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Kaywood, Bay, Roth and Overholt None Seymour The Mayor Pro Tem declared Ordinance No. 4062 duly passed and adopted. 114: ATTENDANCE AT VARIOUS FUNCTIONS - MAYOR PRO TEM OVERHOLT: Mayor Pro Tem Overholt reported on recent appearances he made for the City - the 13th Annual Photography Festival held in Pearson Park, Sunday morning, October 7, 1979; Newport Harbor Art Museum 17th Anniversary celebration Sunday night. He also attended the California Angels game on Friday night. 114: ATTENDANCE AT VARIOUS FUNCTIONS - COUNCILWOMAN KAYWOOD: Councilwoman Kaywood reported on the presentation of a resolution she made to Reverend Satoshi Hiata, Pastor of Orange County Buddhist Church (Dale and Ball Road), Sunday, October 7, 1979, as well as her attendance at the Orange County Chamber of Commerce Economic Outlook Conference, and the Angels game Friday, October 5, 1979, 173: BUS SHELTER PROGRAM: Councilwoman Kaywood requested a status report in one week regarding the Bus Shelter Program since a promise was made that 25 shelters would be in place in the City by Labor Day. 119: SPECIAL LETTER OF THANKS TO DR. RONALD DYAS: Councilman Roth stated it would be appropriate to send a special letter of thanks to Dr. Ronald Dyas for the many hours he devoted in assisting the Council in bringing the Cable TV franchise to fruition. 156: COM]PLAINTS ON HEAD MOST IMPORTS: Councilman Roth explained that they had received complaints on the Mayor's Hotline, as well as calls he received personally from friends in West Anaheim relative to a new business, Head Most Imports located on Euclid Street at Katella Avenue, one-half mile south of Loara High School. Some parents with junior high school children were outraged over the opening of this new business. In a memorandum from the License Collector, it was noted that a field inspection was made of the business at 1738 South Euclid (Head Most Imports), and there were no restrictions relative to retail sales in that location. He then asked staff to investigate Garden Grove's ordinance relative to the control and sale of drug-oriented materials in stores. He felt there was a possibility that ordinance might be useful in trying to control Head Most Imports from flourishing. City Attorney Hopkins reported that they had reviewed the Garden Grove ordinance. Section 11364 of the California Health & Safety Code specifically made it unlawful 79-1136 City Ha~l, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - October 9, 1979, 1:30 P.M. to possess an opium pipe or any device, contrivance, instrument or paraphemnalia used for unlawful injecting or smoking a controlled substance. The Garden Grove ordinance merely restated that existing Code Section which probably would be preempted by the State if it became a court issue. However, they would pre- pare an ordinance based on the Garden Grove ordinance for Council consideration. Councilman Roth suggested that it might be appropriate to have a police or vice officer investigate the sales that were going on, which might be applicable to the law already stated. City Attorney Hopkins stated that he had already requested that the Police Department send a police officer to investigate the matter. He further reported that they had received numerous letters and there had been Hotline calls con- cerning the business in question. He referred to the show, "60 Minutes", a recent segment of which reported on smaller operations where an investigator had youngsters go in and buy some of the items. In the eastern cities, however, some of the devices were not specifically illegal, but nevertheless could be used in an illegal manner. 114: NgWSRACK ORDINANCE: Councilman Roth stated that Mrs. Margaret Sullivan asked him to convey to the Council how pleased she was that so many of the pornographic newsracks were now off the streets of Anaheim as well as commend- ing the Council for taking some action against those types of newsracks. 139: SUPPORT OF PROPOSITION 2: Councilman Roth reported that they had received a letter from lan Whyte, Senior Vice President of a Beverly Hills Security Company, requesting the Council to support and endorse Proposition 2 on the November ballot. He (Roth) felt it was imperative the Council support Proposition 2 if they were really concerned about providing low and moderate income housing. California had suffered a loss of mortgage bankers, those who made loans of 80% and above, into the conventional market due to some Constitutional provisions in the State which were now obsolete because of the present maximum interest rate. MOTION: Councilman Roth moved that the Council support Proposition 2 in a letter to the 25 other cities in Orange County soliciting their support. Councilwoman Kaywood seconded the motion. Before a vote was taken, Councilwoman ~aywood stated that there was a League of Cities meeting on Thursday night, October 11, 1979, and rather than sending 25 letters, the matter could be broached at that time. Councilman Roth was agreeable to amending his motion accordingly. A vote was then taken on the foregoing motion. Councilman Bay abstained. Council- man Seymour was absent. MOTION CARRIED. Councilman Bay stated he abstained because he did not feel he could vote one way or another at this time, since he had not studied all of the propositions in detail as yet. 79-1137 City Hall~. Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - October 9~ 1979, 1:30 P.M. 124: USE OF COUNCIL CHAMBER AS PRESS CONFERENCE ROOM OR PUBLIC FORUM: Council- man Bay stated that after listening to the Black Watch protest today, he got the strong feeling the Council Chamber was being used as a press conference room to voice philosophical opinions on various political subjects, particularly in relation to events taking place at the Convention Center. Whether or not he agreed or disagreed was not the question, but he felt they should investigate the possibility of establishing a clear cut policy in the Council Policy book on the way they dealt with happenings at the Convention Center. He was tired of the Council being used for those groups to propagate their position one way or another. He asked the City Manager if there was a way to set up such a Council Policy clearly stated. As he understood at present, the decisions as to the events scheduled into that community center were the decisions of the Manager in charge of that operation. He preferred that the Council not be open to the groups coming in and using them as a conveyance to the media, and he wanted to find some way where they would not have to listen to those groups. Mr. Talley stated the current policy, although not enumerated, was that the Director of that public facility, Mr. Tom Liegler, was charged with renting it out in the best interest of the City primarily to serve conventions, trade shows, tourists and other types of legal activities with primary emphasis on filling hotel rooms and renting large spaces for trade shows and tourist- or convention- type business. A policy relative to what the Council might want in the Convention Center would be difficult to establish other than to say, just to maximize revenue. Without finding any fault, the Council allowing people to express their concern about events scheduled at the Center was a matter whether it was appropriate on the Council agenda. There would always be somebody who did not like something if they were allowed to come and complain about it. Councilman Bay stated the answer was always the same, they would not put themselves in the position of censoring what went into that community center; therefore, if that was the position of the Council, he was trying to find some way of putting it into effect so that when various groups wanted to use the Chamber for that type of activity, they could give them a solid answer before coming to the Council. Mayor Pro Tem Overholt stated that as long as the majority of the Council was willing to listen, they would be doing so. It was a public forum and the Council had gone on record as being rather generous in their attitude of letting people speak. They had already stated their policy twice this year, that being they did not intend to censor every booking at the Convention Center. They were polled before hearing the issue today, and apparently three out of five members answered affirmatively. Councilman Roth stated as much as he might oppose something, he could never deny the right of those groups to be heard. Mr. Talley explained the problem with the Council wanting to be so responsive, they had tended to become a focal point. For instance, Black Watch was sched- uled for 55 cities throughout the United States and Anaheim was the only place, to staff's knowledge, that type of presentation had been allowed. Mayor Pro Tem Overholt stated the greatest problem emerging, threatened demonstra- tions, were becoming more frequent at the Convention Center. They might want to take a hard look at the situation on what actions, if any, they could take to 79-1138 City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - October 9, 1979, 1:30 P.M. minimize the inconvenience and interference with the use of that facility by other tenants against whom the demonstrations were not directed. Mr. Talley reiterated the more the Council permitted the forum to be used, the more attractive it would be for groups to use. Therefore, when they agreed to let someone come in and literally bring the Northern Ireland problem to the City Council, they were encouraging similar exhibitions from many other groups. He needed more direction and wanted to know if there was something the Council wanted, as far as a policy was concerned, regarding events the Council would want them to book at the Convention Center. The Council indicated "no"; Councilman Bay repeated what he was searching for, without closing the forum, was some way to stop their being taken advantage of in the Council Chamber. Everything said in the presentation today could have been said in five minutes and the arguments presented had nothing to do with what they were asking the Council to do in finality. Further Council discussion followed revolving around present Council Policy No. 110 relating to oral presentations before the Council and the absence of a time element for making presentations. Mayor Pro Tem Overholt stated his thought would be to set the amount of time for the presentation and how many speakers were involved. At that time, they could make a determination as to whether or not they would want to give that much time dependent upon the subject matter. Whenever he was polled in the future, he was going to ask for that information before making a determination. City Clerk Linda Roberts stated to do so would cause a slight delay in requests received because the majority of people would only give the bare minimum and she would have to call or write a letter to get more information. Many people were reluctant to give the whole story and sometimes even the subject matter. 114: LIAISION COMMITTEE MEETING WITH REDEVELOPMENT COMMISSION: Councilman Bay reported on the recent subject meeting wherein the Brashears development was discussed. The negotiation period was going to be ending quickly and due to the scope of the project, there would more than likely be a request to extend that negotiation period. They did see a site plan and various phases of the development at the meeting and that information should be coming into the Redevelopment Commission on both the Brashears and the Collins-Drabkin develop- ment. 156: LIAISON MEETING WITH AEDC: Councilman Bay reported on his Liaison work, noting that the Anaheim Economic Development Corporation (AEDC) had received a report, and it was being studied at this time by members of AEDC and staff people in the City. Action regarding that report would be taken up during the next two or three weeks. 156: AJ. LEGED INCIDENT OF FORCE BY POLICE - CALIFORNIA ANGELS GAME~ SATURDAY~ OCTOBER 6~ 1979: Mrs. James Perkins, 1025 North Loara stated that she and her family attended the subject play-off game at Anaheim Stadium where, after the game, they waited in the stands as did many fans to applaud the Angels on their year's performance. She then referenced and read from a newspaper article 79-1139 City Hall~ Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - October 9, 1979, 1:30 P.M. published in The Register relative to the arrests made after the game as a result of fans running on to the field and the alleged incidents of force used by the Police which she and her family witnessed as well. Her interest was in the humane treatment of people, and she did not want the City to become involved in more lawsuits. Mrs. Pat Clancy, 303 North Bush, stated that she also attended the game and also waited in the stands when it was over. She emphasized that it was a known standing rule at the Stadium that fans were not to go onto the field. Thus, anyone who did so was aware of the consequences. Mrs. Clancy stated the fans who persisted in running onto the field were first waved back, but they did not heed that warning. Mayor Pro Tem Overholt then thanked Mrs. Perkins for expressing her concern and assured her of the Council's concern as well. He noted that Lt. Hutcheson had responded publicly to the situation and that the Police Department would investigate the matter. RECESS - EXECUTIVE SESSION: By general consent, the Council recessed into Executive Session. (5:27 P.M.) AFTER RECESS: Mayor Pro Tem Overholt called the meeting to order, all Council Members being present with the exception of Councilman Seymour. (6:04 P.M.) 112: BONNIE THOMAS VS. CITY OF ANAHEIM: On motion by Councilman Overholt, seconded by Councilman Roth, the City Attorney and Carl Warren & Company were authorized to settle Orange County Superior Court Case No. 311826, Bonnie Thomas vs. City of Anaheim, for a sum not to exceed $2,500. Councilman Seymour was absent. MOTION CARRIED. 112: CITY OF ANAHEIM VS. DEBORAH STACK, ET AL: On motion by Councilman Overholt, seconded by Councilman Roth, the City Attorney was authorized to settle its interest in Orange County Superior Court Case No. 26-30-04, City of Anaheim vs. Deborah Stack, et al, for the sum of $4,000. Councilman Seymour was absent. MOTION CARRIED. 112: CLAIM AGAINST WEST COAST LIGHTING AND TRADE SHOW SUPPLY COMPANY~ INC.: On motion by Councilman Overholt, seconded by Councilman Bay, the City Attorney was authorized to settle its claim against West Coast Lighting and Trade Show Supply Company, Inc. for the sum of $8,000. Councilman Seymour was absent. MOTION CARRIED. ADJOURNMENT: Councilman Roth moved to adjourn. Councilman Bay seconded the motion. Councilman Seymour was absent. MOTION CARRIED. Adjourned: 6:05 P.M. ~OBERTS, CITY CLERK