Loading...
1986/07/08City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - Jul~ 8, 1986, 10:00 A.M. The City Council of the City of Anaheim met in regular session. PRESENT: ABSENT: PRESENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Kaywood, Overholt, Bay, Pickler and Roth COUNCIL MEMBERS: None CITY MANAGER: William O. Talley CITY ATTORNEY: Jack White CITY CLERK: Leonora N. Sohl CODE ENFORCEMENT SUPERVISOR: John Poole RISK MANAGER: Tom Vance INTERGOVERNMENTAL RELATIONS OFFICER: William Sell ASSISTANT DIRECTOR FOR ZONING: Annika Santalahti Mayor Roth called the meeting to order and welcomed those in attendance to the Council meeting. INVOCATION: Father Cyril Lobe, St. John the Baptist Greek Orthodox Church, gave the Invocation. FLAG SALUTE: Council Member E. Llewellyn Overholt, Jr. led the assembly in the Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag. 119: RESOLUTION OF CONDOLENCE: A Resolution of Condolence was unanimously adopted by the City Council and presented to the family of Cristobal Ramirez, a valued City employee in the Parkway Maintenance Division. Mrs. Ramirez accepted the resolution and sincere condolences were extended to her by Council Members. 119: INTRODUCTION AND PRESENTATION: Mr. Robert Anthony, on behalf of the Anaheim Sister Cities Comm{ttee, introduced and presented Sheila Duffy to the Council explaining that Miss Duffy is the recipient of the Anaheim Sister Cities Scholarship Project Award. Mayor Roth, on behalf of the Council and the City congratulated Miss Duffy and presented her with a replica of the big "A". Council Members wished their best to her and on her forthcoming trip to Mito Japan on July 10, 1986. 119: STATEMENT BY MR. HIROSHI FUJISHIGE: Mr. Hiroshi FuJishige stated that his brother passed away om July 2, 1986. The following day, there was an article in the,Los Angeles Times that was hard on the Council. As far as he im concerned, the City Council has no blame for it. His brother was a sick man. He had a stroke about three years ago. He (Hiroshi) thought he was getting better but evidently there was some brain damage and he never really recovered from it. He did not know what his brother's last thoughts were but he evidently felt that his time on earth was over and he finished himself. He believes that all the honorable Members of the Council should not feel any guilt because of the way his brother died. He has no bad feelings toward the Council. As far as he knows, he will still be living in Anaheim for the rest of his life. He did not realize how sick his brother was. That is all he had to say. 543 City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - July 8, 1986, 10:00 A.M. Mayor Roth, on behalf of the Council, thanked Mr. FuJishige for coming today. It takes a great person to come in on his own accord and speak as he had done. The situation has been a burden on all their hearts particularly the concern of the citizens that what had happened was caused by some action in the past. Mr. FuJishige said that the cause of the loss of his brother was due to a stroke suffered three years ago which was progressively getting worse affecting his daily life. From the bottom of their hearts and all the citizens he thanked Mr. FuJishige for having the courage to ask the City to come forward to speak today. He added their condolences to Hiroshi and his entire family and pledged strong support to him and his family. 127/129: FIREWORKS ISSUE: Councilwoman Kaywood broached the issue of fireworks before continuing with the regular agenda, regarding the placing of the question of fireworks on the November ballot. She knows there are many people present concerned with fireworks on both sides of the question. As she brought up last week, she had talked to the Central City Neighborhood Council two weeks ago and heard of their very grave concern relative to fireworks and not being able to vote on the issue. Last week she said she would be bringing the matter up again. She thereupon moved that the Council place the issue on the November Ballot, the question as to whether or not the people want fireworks in Anaheim. In a democracy, the people should have the right to vote on something that is so controversial. The only way to find out who is the majority is to put it to a vote. Councilman Bay seconded the motion. MOTION: Councilman Overholt offered a substitute motion for the purpose of having the Council discuss the possibility of having the City Attorney prepare an ordinance banning fireworks and then having public hearings on that ordinance. At the conclusion of public hearings, the Council will make a decision as a matter of public safety as to whether fireworks are to be banned in the City. Councilman Roth seconded the motion for the purpose of discussion. Mayor Roth stated he was not going to be the individual to delay a vote of the people. That was not the intent but he had grave concerns about not giving an opportunity to dialogue the matter prior to putting it on the ballot. He understands that ballot measures had to be ready for the ballot by August 8, 1986. Councilman Pickler suggested scheduling the issue on the next week's Council agenda where it could be discussed at that time; Mayor Rothhad no objection to a continuance. Councilwoman Kaywood stated she does not wish to delay the matter any longer. Four or five years has been long enough. Councilman Overholt stated, as the maker of the substitute motion, if the substitute motion fails, he intends to support the motion on the floor. His concern is that the fireworks issue is a public safety issue. He referred to the disastrous fire of July 3, 1986 at the Casa De Valencia apartment house complex where 250 people were evacuated and 90 families were still 544 City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - July 8, 1986, 10:00 A.M. dislocated. As elected officials, they have the responsibility to deal with issues as they come up that are issues of public safety. The problem with putting the matter on the ballot is it then becomes a popularity contest. It would also be on the ballot in a General Election in which the largest number of voters will turn out. It will be a very expensive effort on the part of the proponents and opponents to reach the electorate to try to capture their vote pro and con. They have had a hearing process in the past. He was part of that process having voted against banning fireworks in the City. He feels the time has come to ban fireworks but he would like to hear from the groups that feel the City should continue and those that feel fireworks should be banned. He is leaning in the direction of banning fireworks in the City because the City has now become very complex. Councilman Pickler stated he has been a proponent of safe and sane fireworks and he still is. He feels they keep the illegal fireworks out. He has seen the good that has come from the sale of safe and sane fireworks by charitable organizations. However, he cannot go along with Councilman Overholt's thought that the Council should ban fireworks. It is not the Council's prerogative. It has been such a difficult and emotional issue with the citizens that the Council banning fireworks would not answer the question. Public hearings have been held in the past and nothing was resolved. The issue has to be put to rest. The November Election is a good time to let the people decide. Councilman Overholt clarified that his motion is to hold public hearings and then the Council will make the decision. His motion is not to ban fireworks. Mayor Roth noted that there were many people in the audience who wished to speak. Due to the fact that there was a deadline to meet to get the issue on the ballot, time should be given for them to speak today or next Tuesday. Councilman Overholt assumed that the ballot issue was going to be an advisory vote; Councilwoman Kaywood emphasized that she had no intention that it be an advisory vote. She tried that three or four times in the past and it did not go. It should not be up to the five Members of the Council to determine what the citizens want in this matter. Councilman Overholt stated he was not sure he agreed with that, and would maybe withdraw bis support. His understanding is that it would be an advisory issue and hopefully the Council would then be directed by that advisory vote. City Attorney Jack White stated the matter could be placed on the ballot as an advisory measure, or as an initiative, that if approved by a majority of the electors voting would automatically take effect as an ordinance of the City. He believes that the Council could legally proceed with hearings to determine whether it wishes to adopt an ordinance while at the same time putting the matter on the ballot as an initiative measure. If the Council voted to adopt the ordinance prior to November, then the November vote would become moot. The issue would not automatically be removed from the ballot but action would have been taken prior to November. It would be his intention, if so directed, to bring back an ordinance that would contain identical wording that would go on the ballot and be the subject of any hearings. He then confirmed for 545 City Hall, Anmheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - July 8, 1986, 10:00 A.M. Councilman Bay that fireworks would not be legal again in the City of Anaheim until July 1, 1987. Councilman Bay stated, in effect, fireworks are banned under the existing ordinance between now and next July 1 and, therefore, creating a ban is redundant right now because it already exists. He strongly supports and always has, putting the question on the ballot and doing what the majority of the people in the City want. The issue up to now has been Just getting it on the ballot. He was very pleased to hear there were at least three votes to put the issue on the ballot. He feels the substitute motion, which he will speak against, is "gilding the lily" because they did not need more public hearings on the banning of fireworks although he was not against public hearings. They will have a decision from the people where it should have been all along. He assumed the ballot measure would concentrate on the sale and use of safe and sane fireworks. It will have no effect on fireworks at Disneyland or professionally controlled and permitted fireworks shows. As long as that is the understanding with the original motion, then he will speak strongly for that original motion. Councilman Pickler then moved to continue action for one week and schedule the matter for the Council meeting of Tuesday, July 15, 1986. Councilman Roth seconded the motion. Before action was taken, Mayor Roth stated he did not want to be painted with a brush that he is leading a charge not to put the question on the ballot. There are people who have an interest on both sides and he always feels they should have a right to speak. Councilwoman Kaywood asked for a show of hands of those present with regard to the fireworks issue. (There were approximately 50 people present). She added if they were to advertise a public hearing, they would not get a greater turnout than today. It was in all the newspapers that the issue would be brought up today. Councilman Overholt asked Councilman Pickler if he would be willing to amend his motion to allow those present today to be heard and then continue the matter to next week to allow anybody else who wished to speak to do so; Councilman Pickler felt the best place for people to speak was at the ballot box. ~ Councilwoman Kaywood again expressed her concern. How she felt about the issue was not important but how the people felt is the issue. For at least five years, she has attempted to get the matter on the ballot so the people can vote, do they or do they not want safe and sane fireworks, yes or no. It does not involve professionally-staged fireworks displays. She is concerned over stalling tactics that will prevent the issue from going on the ballot once again. She asked Councilman 0verholt if he was in support of her motion. Councilman 0verholt answered that he would like to have the people present today speak if they chose to do so. He also supports Councilman Pickler's concern to give a date certain when people can speak, which is next week. He 546 City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - July 8, 1986, 10:00 A.M. is supportive of the motion although he feels the Council is abdicating its responsibility in going that route. Councilman Bay stated it is his and Councilwoman Kaywood's position that they do not know where the majority lies on the question and the voters should be making that decision. In the recent City survey and the survey conducted in the last election, most of the comments that he received were from people on both sides of the question but they were in agreement on one thing, that they would like to vote on the issue. The idea that the Council is backing away from its decision making does not hold water in arguments with him. Councilwoman Kaywood asked how many people were present in favor of continuing fireworks. (A majority of those who raised their hands indicated they favored continuing fireworks). She was opposed to continuing the matter for another week and would be willing to hear those who wished to speak today. The following people then spoke on the issue: Harry Baum, 1770 Cerritos, representing B'nai B'rith. Through the years, they have found that selling safe and sane fireworks has been the best form of fund-raising. The problem is not with safe and sane fireworks, but with illegal fireworks. Councilman Bay asked if he supports putting the issue on the ballot; Mr. Baum answered yes. David Zimmerman, 1423 Stella. He supports the sale and use of safe and sane fireworks. People want fireworks and they still want to buy them. He does not object to the issue being placed on the ballot except that it was going to be costly. Edith Hesse, 730 North Lemon. She is against fireworks and has been battling the issue for a long time. She has volunteered when fire disasters have occurred. One big fire such as the one that occurred last Thursday was one too many. Those who sell fireworks as a fund-raiser can do other things that are not at the expense of people who become homeless. It is about time that the issue goes on the ballot. Phil A~uilar, 320 North Anaheim Boulevard. Most people do not handle themselves too well with fireworks. They are used in an unwise fashion. Safe and sane fireworks are definitely not that safe and not that sane. The question should be put on the ballot. Michael Nason, California Pyrotechnics Association, South Laguna, manufacturers, distributors and wholesalers of safe and sane fireworks. 547 City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - July 8, 1986, 10:00 A.M. The issue at hand is that the fire in Anaheim as reported in the newspapers was caused by illegal fireworks called "a bottle rocket". Their 150 member organization ends up taking a great deal of criticism and misdirected fault for fireworks fires when in the majority of almost all instances, they find they are related to illegal and dangerous fireworks that have been illegally imported into California. They have found that in cities that have a safe and sane ordinance, there is a reduction in the use and purchase of illegal fireworks by its citizens. In areas where there is a total prohibition of all fireworks, they have statistics that show that there is a rise in fires and injuries due to fireworks. He confirmed for Councilwoman Kaywood that a safe and sane sparkler thrown on a roof is not safe or sane and it could be a problem. Any misuse is a problem. He then answered questions posed relative to what their organization is doing to try to control illegal fireworks coming in from Nevada. He then stated that his organization would oppose an initiative because of the tremendous cost to defend safe and sane fireworks. The people of Anaheim have spoken by their purchase of fireworks. Going to the ballot box is a waste of money. When voters are educated properly relative to the difference between safe and sane and illegal fireworks, they will be supportive of the issue. He also emphasized there were less problems with safe and sane fireworks than there were with dangerous fireworks. Where there were no safe and sane fireworks, there is an escalation in the use of dangerous fireworks. Bill Ehrle, 552 Sherwood Drive. He opposed the suggestion that an ordinance be proposed banning fireworks. He supports people voting in the issue but only by the right of the people to bring forth the issue by a petition-initiative. If the opponents are truly motivated, they should bring about an initiative rather than a referendum. Answering Council questions, he stated his first preference would be to have the people bring the issue about by a petition initiative. Otherwise if the Council puts the issue on the ballot, he would support that. Joe Ball, representing Carefree Christian School, 3456 East Orangethorpe. He elaborated on the positive things that have come about as a result of the funds raised through selling safe and sane fireworks. It is a political and emotional issue. If the Council is concerned about safety, they should talk about the real problems of safety. He has no objection allowing people to vote on the issue. Under no circumstances would he like to see the City Council take it upon themselves to make that decision. Mel Aguilar, 511 North Anaheim Boulevard. He is speaking in behalf of the Central City Neighborhood Council. He submitted a list containing 38 names of people from the Neighborhood Council in support of placing the fireworks issue on the ballot. Those people attended the June 25, 1986 meeting, the meeting at which Councilwoman Kaywood was present and gave her views on fireworks safety as well as other City issues. It was time for the Council to 548 City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - July 8, 1986, 10:00 A.M. be directed. He is in support of the issue being placed on the ballot. The City Council should not make the final decision on the matter and should have nothing to say after the vote of the people. Anthony Giagnocavo, 322 North Olive Street. Fireworks are not necessary. The Council should discuss the matter, put it on the ballot or make a decision that there should be no fireworks. Kevin Cartwright, 204 South Santa Cruz. He is in favor of safe and sane fireworks. They had nothing to do with the fire. If there had not been inaccurate reports in the media relative to the cause of the fire, this meeting would not have been held today. The Council should do something about stemming the illegal fireworks that come from Nevada and Mexico. Cal Frtesen, 1140 Boden. His neighborhood feels the issue should be on the ballot. Jerry Reeves, 1879 West Cerritos. He feels the petition-initiative process should be utilized to place the issue on the ballot. He is concerned about spending City money to do so. He is in favor of the ballot, but he is concerned if there is support for a fireworks ban as strong as Councilwoman Kaywood indicated it is, then the initiative should be put on the ballot through the proper process and not introduced as a motion by the City Council. Discussion then followed relative to receiving a report from the Fire Department. City Manager Talley explained that there was a verbal report and he has a written report that he would prefer first to review with the City Attorney and Council rather than publicly. Until he reviews the matter with the City Attorney, he would hesitate to give any statements on the fire; City Attorney Jack White concurred. Mayor Roth referred to the motion on the floor for a continuance. Councilman Pickler clarified his motion to continue the fireworks issue and schedule it on'the Council agenda of Tuesday, July 15, 1986 at 1:30 p.m. to receive additional input and take subsequent Council action. Council Members Kaywood and Bay voted no. MOTION CARRIED. RECESS - CLOSED SESSION; Mayor Roth announced that a Closed Session would be held to confer with the City Attorney regarding: a. Pending litigation pursuant to Government Code Section 54956.9(a), to wit: Golden West Baseball Co. vs. City of Anaheim, Orange County Superior Court Case No 40-92-46. b. To confer with the City's designated representative regarding labor relations matters. (Gov't. Code Section 54957.6) 549 City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - July 8, 1986, 10:00 A.M. c. Regarding matters of potential litigation pursuant to Government Code Section 54956.9bl. d. To meet with the Chief of Police regarding matters of public security - Government Code Section 54957. MOTION: break. p.m.) Councilman Roth moved to recess into Closed Session and a lunch Councilwoman Kaywood seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. (12:07 AFTER RECESS: The Mayor called the meeting to order, all Council Members being present. (1:54 p.m.) 176: PUBLIC HEARING - ABANDONMENT NO. 85-12A: In accordance with application filed by George H. Lu, public hearing was held on proposed abandonment of a portion of a public utility easement located on the south side of Lincoln Avenue, west of State College Boulevard, pursuant to Resolution No. 86R-262, duly published in the Anaheim Bulletin and notices thereof posted in accordance with law. Report of the City Engineer dated May 28, 1986 was submitted, recommending approval of said abandonment subject to the dedication of a new public utility easement. Mayor Roth asked if anyone wished to address the Council; there being no response, he closed the public hearing. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT - CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION: The City Engineer determined that the proposed activity falls within the definition of Section 3.01, Class 5, of the City of Anaheim guidelines to the requirements for an Environmental Impact Report and is, therefore, categorically exempt from the requirement to file an EIR. Councilman Roth offered Resolution No. 86R-306 for adoption, approving Abandonment No. 85-12A, subject to the dedication of a new public utility easement as recommended by the City Engineer. Refer to Resolution Book. RESOLUTION NO. 86R-306: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM VACATING A PORTION OF A PUBLIC UTILITY EASEMENT LOCATED ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF LINCOLNAVENUE, WEST OF STATE COLLEGE BOULEVARD. Roll Call Vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: COUNCIL MEMBERS: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Kaywood, Overholt, Bay, Pickler and Roth None None The Mayor declared Resolution No. 86R-306 duly passed and adopted. 179: PUBLIC HEARING - VARIANCE NO. 3564: APPLICANT: Lic, Inc., 431 West 7th Street Los Angeles, Ca. 90014 55O City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - July 8, 1986~ 10:00 A.M. REQUEST/ZONING/LOCATION: To erect a freestanding sign on ML zoned property located at 828 South Anaheim Boulevard, with Code waivers of maximumnumber of freestanding signs and minimum ground clearance of freestanding sign (deleted). PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: Planning Commission Resolution No. PC86-140 denied Variance No. 3564; determined to be categorically exempt from from the requirement to prepare an EIR. HEAI{ING SET ON: Appealed by Lauri J. Burke, A~ent for the applicant. PUBLIC NOTICE ttEQUIREMENTS MET BY: Publication in Anaheim Bulletin June 26, 1986. Postin~ of property June 27, 1986. Mailing to property owners within 300 feet - June 27, 1986. PLANNING STAFF INPUT: See Staff Report to the Planning Commission dated May 28, 1986. APPLICANT'S STATEMENT IN ANSWE~ TO QUESTIONS POSED: Lauri J. Burke, 16146 Tortola, Huntington Beach. She represents California Self Storage and Coast Sign Display in requesting a variance for more than one freestanding sign. It is a new and very aesthetically attractive addition to that section of Anaheim Boulevard paralleling the 5 Freeway. Due to the property location and the curve of the road, the existing freeway sign denies visibility to motorists along Anaheim Boulevard. The existing pole sign left by a previous tenant has been refurbished. The sign is 70 feet in the air. She thereupon submitted a rendering of the sign. The pole sign is not easily visible from Anaheim Boulevard, but provides freeway visibility for which it was intended. Motorists approaching from the north goin~ south cannot see the sign due to the freeway overpass. Approaching from the south, the motorists must contend with the curve in the road and a diminishing lane. Also because of the curve in the road, the building must be set back enough to allow entrance space for a truck possibly towing a trailer. A wall sign would be of little or no value to approachins traffic. ~here are many location~ in thc City which have more than one freestanding sign. She thereupon submitted photographs of other sign situations in Anaheim, not to criticize but to show they were not setting a precedent by their request. The traffic situation in the area is very confusing and to someone unfamiliar with the area towing a truck or trailer trying to gain entrance into the facility would be even more difficult. The sign wilI assist with a safe entrance for both those entering the premises and the peripheral traffic. They feel there are special circumstances warranting the granting of the Variance. A wall si~nwould not provide location of the entrance. She confirmed that the proposed monument sign is 3 feet 3 inches high providing 25 square feet on each side. 551 City ~]1, Amaheim, C~!ifornia - COUNCIL MINUTES - July 8~ 1986~ 10:00 A.M. PUBLIC DISCUSSION- IN FAVOR: John Hathaway, California Self Storage. It is Very important to clearly identify the entrance to the business. Because Anaheim Boulevard parallels the freeway, traffic moves fast. People with U-Haul trucks are new in town. It is necessary to clearly mark the entrance to prevent accidents or problems. PUBLIC DISCUSSION- IN OPPOSITION: None. 'COUNCIL ACTION: Mayor Roth closed the public hearing. COUNCIL CONCERNS: Councilwoman Kaywood. She agrees with Planning Commissioner Herbst and the 7-0 vote by the Commission to deny the freestanding sign. If it is granted in this case, everyone else will want the same thing. They have battled long and hard in the City against one of the major problems, the proliferation of signs. The applicant is permitted to have a sign that says entrance and exit which can be no more than 4 feet high and 3 square feet which is sufficient. She could not see any reason for a Variance in this situation. Councilman Pickler. He agrees. If the applicant installed Just an entrance sign, he could be supportive. Otherwise, additional signing will not help that area. Councilman Bay offered Resolution No. 86R-307 for adoption, granting Variance No. 3564, subject to Interdepartmental Committee recommendations. Refer to ResOlution Book. RESOLUTION NO. 86R-307: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM GRANTING VARIANCE NO. 3564. Before a vote was taken, Councilman Overholt stated he was supportive of the resolution because he feels there is a particular and special problem at the Juncture of Anaheim Boulevard and the Haster Street overpass. It tends to be confusing and it is a situation where a variance should be approved. Mayor Roth. He would be concerned about people missing the entrance and then making a U-turn. A Roll Call Vote was then taken on the foregoing Resolution: 552 Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - Jul7 8~ 1986~ 10:00 A.M. AYES: NOES: ABSENT.' COUNCIL MEMBERS: COUNCIL HEMBERS: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Overholt, Bay and Roth Kaywood and Pickler None The Mayor declared Resolution No. 86R-307 duly passed and adopted. MINUTES: Councilwoman Kaywood moved to approve the minutes of the regular meeting held June 24, 1986. Councilman Roth seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. WAIVER OF READING - ORDINANCES AND RESOLUTIONS: Councilman Bay moved to waive the reading in full of all ordinances and resolutions of the Agenda, after reading of the title thereof by the City Clerk, and that consent to waiver is hereby given by all Council Members, unless after reading of the title, specific request is made by a Council Member for the reading of such ordinances or resolutions in regular order. Councilwoman Kaywood seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. FINANCIAL DEMANDS AGAINST THE CITY in the amount of 32,962,540.55, in accordance with the 1986-87 Budget, were approved. CITY MANAGER/DEPARTMENTAL CONSENT CALENDAR: On motion by Councilman Pickler, seconded by Councilwoman Kaywood, the following items were approved in accordance with the reports, certifications and recommendations furnished each Council Member and as listed on the Consent Calendar; Councilman Pickler offered Resolution Nos. 86R-308 through 86R-329, both inclusive, for adoption. Refer to Resolution Book. 1. 118: The following claims were filed against the City and action taken as recommended: Claims rejected and referred to Risk Management: a. Claim submitted by Stan Woods for property damage sustained purportedly due to actions of the City on or about April 28, 1986. b. Claim submitted by Hazel M. Grant and Bruce E. Grant for property damage sustained purportedly due to actions of the City on or about April 28, 198§. c. Claim submitted by GAB Business Services, Inc. for property damage sustained purportedly due to actions of the City on or about February 11, 1986. d. Claim submitted by Larry Striano for bodily injury sustained purportedly due to actions of the City on or about March 16, 1986. e. Claim submitted by Judy J. Magers for property damage sustained purportedly due to actions of the City on or about May 6, 1986. f. Claim submitted by Lisa Monike Villa for property damage sustained purportedly due to actions of the City on or about May 18, 1986. 553 City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - July 8, 1986, 10:00 A.M. g. Claim submitted by Diem Thuy Truong for bodily injury sustained purportedly due to actions of the City on or about April 15, 1986. h. Claim submitted by Gisele Pielman for property damage sustained purportedly due to actions of the City on or about February 11, 1986. Claims filed against the City - Recommended to be accepted: i. Claim submitted by Chris & Elizabeth Joven for property damage sustained purportedly due to actions of the City on or about April 28, 1986. 2. 108: Approving an application for a Public Dance Permit submitted by Nick Ramirez, for the New Generation Productions, to hold a dance at the Anaheim Convention Center on July 19, 1986, from 8:00 p.m. to 1:00 a.m., in accordance with the recommendations of the Chief of Police. 3. 123: Authorizing an agreement with the City of Garden Grove to provide for parking enforcement services by the City of Anaheim in an area adjacent to the Convention Center, from 7:00 a.m. to 11:30 p.m. daily, for a term of three years. 4. 153/108/117: Approving the transfer of the Business License program from the Community Development and Planning Department to the City Treasurer's Department, and naming the City Treasurer as the License Collector, effective July 8, 1986. 5. 123: Approving the Fourth Amendment to Agreement with E. Del Smith & Co., Inc., to provide services as Washington representative, extending the term through June 30, 1987. 6. 160: Waiving Council Policy No. 306 and authorizing the Purchasing Agent to issue a purchase order to Wang Laboratories in an amount not to exceed $111,500 to cover maintenance contract costs for all Wang equipment city-wide. 7. 160: Authorizing the Purchasing Agent to issue a purchase order to the Anaheim Public Improvement Corporation in the amount of $248,677.06 for various three phase padmount transformers, in accordance with Bid No. A-4333. 8. 160: Authorizing the Purchasing Agent to issue a purchase order to the Anaheim Public Improvement Corporation in the amount of $87,143.66 for three each 75 KVA, three each 150 KVA, three each 225 KVA, two each 75 KVA and two each 750 KVA three phase fused padmount transformers, in accordance with Bid No. A-4334. 9. 160: Authorizing the Purchasing Agent to issue a purchase order to the Anaheim Public Improvement Corporation, in the amount of $32,722.20 for ninety each 150 KVAR, 7200 volt shunt capacitors, in accordance with Bid No. A-4342. 10. 160: Accepting the low bid of Alert Coatings, Inc., in the amount of $29,886.00, for surface preparation and repainting of steel roll-out grandstand floor at Anaheim Stadium, in accordance with Bid No. 4345. 554 City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - July 8, 1986, 10:00 A.M. 11. 158: Authorizing the Mayor and City Clerk to execute the Right of Way Certification for the Safer Off System Streets, Barrier Removal Phase III for the area bounded by Lincoln Avenue, State College Boulevard, Ball Road and Rio Vista Street, as required by the Federal Highway Administration. 12. 175: RESOLUTION NO. 86R-308: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM FINALLY ACCEPTING THE COMPLETION OF A CERTAIN PUBLIC WORK. (UTILITY SERVICE CENTER BLOCK WALL AT 901 EAST VERMONT AVENUE) (Account No. 50-153-6340-03299, Jay Abeln, contractor, and authorizing filing of the Notice of Completion therefor) 13. 136: RESOLUTION NO. 86R-309: A RESOLUTIONAPPROVING THE FORM AND AUTHORIZING AND DIRECTING EXECUTION OF A FIRST AMENDMENT TO TRUST AGREEMENT RELATING TO HEALTH FACILITIES AMONG CHEMICAL BANK, THE CITY AND THE ANAHEIM MEMORIAL HOSPITAL ASSOCIATION. (Authorizing the Finance Director and City Clerk to execute a First Amendment to Trust Agreement with Chemical Bank and The Anaheim Memorial Hospital Association relating to health facilities and making certain technical amendments) 14. 104: RESOLUTION NO. 86R-310: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM LEVYING AN ASSESSMENT ON EACH LOT AND PARCEL OF LAND CONTAINED IN STREET LIGHTING MAINTENANCE DISTRICT 1977-1 FOR THE CONTRACT YEAR JULY 1, 1986 TO JUNE 30, 1987, FOR THE AMOUNT ESTIMATED TO BE NECESSARY TO IMPROVE THE STREET LIGHTING SYSTEM FOR SUCH ENSUING CONTRACT YEAR. (TRACT NO. 1404) (Levying an assessment of $36.37 on each lot and parcel contained in Street Lighting District No. 1977-1 (Tract No. 1404) for the contract year of July 1, 1986 to June 30, 1987, as the amount estimated to be necessary to improve the street lighting system for the year) 15. 104: RESOLUTION NO. 86R-311: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM LEVYING AN ASSESSMENT ON EACH LOT AND PARCEL OF LAND CONTAINED IN STREET LIGHTINGMAINTENANCE DISTRICT 1980-2 FOR THE CONTRACT YEAR JULY 1, 1986 TO JUNE 30, 1987, FOR THE AMOUNT ESTIMATED TO BE NECESSARY TO IMPROVE THE STREET LIGHTING SYSTEM FOR SUCH ENSUING CONTRACT YEAR. (TRACT NO. 1859) (Levying an assessment of $34.75 on each lot and parcel contained in Street Lighting District No. 1980-2 (Tract No. 1859) for the contract year of July 1, 1986 to June 30, 1987, as the amount estimated to be necessary to improve the street lighti~ system for the year) 16. 104: RESOLUTION NO. 86R-312: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM LEVYING AN ASSESSMENT ON EACH LOT AND PARCEL OF LAND CONTAINED IN STREET LIGHTING MAINTENANCE DISTRICT 1980-3 FOR THE CONTRACT YEAR JULY 1, 1986 TO JUNE 30, 1987, FOR THE AMOUNT ESTIMATED TO BE NECESSARY TO IMPROVE THE STREET LIGHTING SYSTEM FOR SUCH ENSUING CONTRACT YEAR. (TRACT NO. 1097) (Levying an assessment of $100.46 on each lot and parcel contained in Street Lighting District No. 1980-3 (Tract No. 1097) for the contract year of July 1, 1986 to June 30, 1987, as the amount estimated to be necessary to improve the street lighting system for the year) 17. 104: RESOLUTION NO. 86R-313: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM LEVYING AN ASSESSMENT ON EACH LOT AND PARCEL OF LAND CONTAINED IN STREET LIGHTING MAINTENANCE DISTRICT 1980-4 FOR THE CONTRACT YEAR JULY 1, 555 City Hall, A, mheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - July 8, 1986~ 10:00 A.M. 1986 TO JUNE 30, 1987, FOR THE AMOUNT ESTIMATED TO BE NECESSARY TO IMPROVE THE STREET LIGHTING SYSTEM FOR SUCH ENSUING CONTRACT YEAR. (TRACT NO. 1392) (Levying an assessment of $24.11 on each lot and parcel contained in Street Lighting District No. 1980-4 (Tract No. 1392) for the contract year of July 1, 1986 to June 30, 1987, as the amount estimated to be necessary to improve the street lighting system for the year. 18. 104: RESOLUTION NO. 86R-314: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM LEVYING AN ASSESSMENT ON EACH LOT AND PARCEL OF LAND CONTAINED IN STREET LIGHTING MAINTENANCE DISTRICT 1980-7 FOR THE 'CONTRACT YEAR JULY 1, 1986 TO JUNE 30, 1987, FOR THE AMOUNT ESTIMATED TO BE NECESSARY TO IMPROVE THE STREET LIGHTING SYSTEM FOR SUCH ENSUING CONTRACT YEAR. (TRACT NO. 2875) (Levying an assessment of $42.50 on each lot and parcel contained in Street Lighting District No. 1980-7 (Tract No. 2875) for the contract year of July 1, 1986 to June 30, 1987, as the amount estimated to be necessary to improve the street lighting system for the year. 19. 104: RESOLUTION NO. 86R-315: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM LEVYING AN ASSESSMENT ON EACH LOT AND PARCEL OF LAND CONTAINED IN STREET LIGHTING MAINTENANCE DISTRICT 1981-1 FOR THE CONTRACT YEAR JULY 1, 1986 TO JUNE 30, 1987, FOR THE AMOUNT ESTIMATED TO BE NECESSARY TO IMPROVE THE STREET LIGHTING SYSTEM FOR SUCH ENSUING CONTRACT YEAR. (TRACT NOS. 1516 AND 1653) (Levying an assessment of $41.57 on each lot and parcel contained in Street Lighting District No. 1981-1 (Tract Nos. 1516 and 1653) for the contract year of July 1, 1986 to June 30, 1987, as the amount estimated to be necessary to improve the street lighting system for the year. 20. 104: RESOLUTION NO. 86R-316: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM LEVYING AN ASSESSMENT ON EACH LOT AND PARCEL OF LAND CONTAINED IN STREET LIGHTING MAINTENANCE DISTRICT 1981-5 FOR THE CONTRACT YEAR JULY 1, 1986 TO JUNE 30, 1987, FOR THE AMOUNT ESTIMATED TO BE NECESSARY TO IMPROVE THE STREET LIGHTING SYSTEM FOR SUCH ENSURING CONTRACT YEAR. (TRACT NO. 2090) (Levying an assessment of 530.14 on each lot and parcel contained in Street Lighting District No. 1981-5 (Tract No. 2090) for the contract year of July 1, 1986 to June 30, 1987, as the amount estimated to be necessary to improve the street lighting system for the year) 21. 104: RESOLUTION NO. 86R-317: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM LEVYING AN ASSESSMENT ON EACH LOT AND PAKCEL OF LAND CONTAINED IN STREET LIGHTING MAINTENANCE DISTRICT 1981-6 FOR THE CONTRACT YEA~ JULY 1, 1986 TO JUNE 30, 1987, FOR THE AMOUNT ESTIMATED TO BE NECESSARY TO IMPROVE THE STREET LIGHTING SYSTEM FOR SUCH ENSURING CONTRACT YEAR. (TRACT NOS. 2228 AND 2705) (Levying an assessment of 536.87 on each lot and parcel contained in Street Lighting District No. 1981-6 (Tract No. 2228 and 2705) for the contract year of July 1, 1986 to June 30, 1987, as the amount estimated to be necessary to improve the street lighting system for the year) 22. 104: RESOLUTION NO. 86R-318: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM LEVYING AN ASSESSMENT ON EACH LOT AND PARCEL OF LAND CONTAINED IN STREET LIGHTING MAINTENANCE DISTRICT 1982-1 FOR THE CONTRACT YEAR JULY 1, 1986 TO JUNE 30, 1987, FOR THE AMOUNT ESTIMATED TO BE NECESSARY TO IMPROVE THE STREET LIGHTING SYSTEM FOR SUCH ENSURING CONTRACT YEAR. (TRACT NOS. 1326 AND 556 City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - July 8~ 1986~ 10:00 A.M. 1563) (Levying an assessment of $24.70 on each lot and parcel contained in Street Lighting District No. 1982-1 (Tract No. 1326 and 1563) for the contract year of July 1, 1985 to June 30, 1987, as the amount estimated to be necessary to improve the street lighting system for the year. 23. 179: RESOLUTION NO. 86R-319: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM TERMINATING ATJ. PROCEEDINGS IN CONNECTION WITH VARIANCE NO. 1274 AND DECLARING RESOLUTION NO. 6265 NULL AND VOID. (Terminating Variance No. 1274, to operate a cocktail bar on property located at 2566-2570 West Lincoln Avenue) 24. 179: RESOLUTION NO. 86R-320: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM TERMINATING ALL PROCEEDINGS IN CONNECTION WITH CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 571 AND DECLARING RESOLUTION NO. 64R-470 NULL AND VOID. (Terminating Conditional Use Permit No. 571, to construct a service station on property located at 2181 West Katella Avenue, as a condition of approval of Variance No. 3506) 179: RESOLUTION NO. 86R-321: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM TERMINATING ALL PROCEEDINGS IN CONNECTION WITH VARIANCE NO. 2407 AND DECLARING RESOLUTION NO. 72R-437 NULL AND V0ID. (Terminating Variance No. 2407, to construct two lighter-box signs in conJunctionwith an existing free-standing sign on property located at 2181 West Katella Avenue, with various Code waivers, as a condition of approval of Variance No. 3506) 25. 179: RESOLUTION NO. 86R-322: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM TERMINATING ALL PROCEEDINGS IN CONNECTION WITH CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 4 AND DECLARING RESOLUTION NO. 3501 NULL AND V0ID. (Terminating Conditional Use Permit No. 4, to construct a swimming pool and operate a private swimming club and swimming school on property located on the north side of Lincoln Avenue, east of Magnolia Avenue, as a condition of approval of Reclassification No. 85-86-18) 26. RESOLUTION NO. 86R-323: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM TERMINATING ALL PROCEEDINGS IN CONNECTION WITH CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 583 AND DECLARING RESOLUTION NO. 64R-529 NULL AND VOID. (Terminating Conditional Use Permit No. 583, to establish an existing service station as a conforming use on CL zoned property within ?5-feet of a residential structure in the RS-A-43,000, located at 2401 West Lincoln Avenue, as a condition of approval of Conditional Use Permit No. 2582) 27. 179: RESOLUTION NO. 86R-324: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM TERMINATING ALL PROCEEDINGS IN CONNECTION WITH VARIANCE NO. 2547 AND DECLARING RESOLUTION NO. 73R-474 NULL AND VOID. (Terminating Variance No. 2547, to permit a gift shop in conJunction with an existing single-family residence on property located at 1655 South Euclid Street, with various Code waivers, as a condition of approval of Variance No. 3501) 28. 123: RESOLUTION NO. 86R-325: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AMENDING THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF COOPERATION AGREEMENT NO. 32 FOR RIGHT OF WAY AND PUBLIC IMPROVEMENTS WITH THE ANAHEIMREDEVELOPMENT 557 City Hall, Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - July 8~ 1986~ 10:00 A.M. AGENCY. (Amending Cooperation Agreement No. 32 with the Agency for construction of a master planned storm drain in Coronado and Van Buren Streets increasing the contract price by $55,000 to a new total of $430,000) 29. 158: RESOLUTION NO. 86R-326: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM ACCEPTING CERTAIN DEEDS CONVEYING TO THE CITY OF ANAHEIM CERTAIN REAL PROPERTIES OR INTERESTS THEREIN. 30. 179: RESOLUTION NO. 86R-327: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM TERMINATING ALL PROCEEDINGS IN CONNECTION WITH CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NOS. 2, 113 AND 1206 AND DECLARING RESOLUTION NOS. 3469, 6920 AND 70R-579 NULL AND VOID. (Terminating Conditional Use Permit No. 2, to permit establishment of a trailer court; Conditional Use Permit No. 113, permitting an increase in the number of overnight trailer spaces; and Conditional Use Permit No. 1206, to permit conversion of existing mobile home spaces into 22 additional overnight travel trailer spaces, on property located at the northeast corner of Wilken Way and Harbor Boulevard, as conditions of approval of Reclassification No. 84-85-9) 179: RESOLUTION NO. 86R-328: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM TERMINATING ALL PROCEEDINGS IN CONNECTION WITH CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2121 AND DECLARING RESOLUTION NOS. 81R-357 AND 82R-470 NULL AND VOID. (Terminating Conditional Use Permit No. 2121, to permit a 104-unit residential condominium project on property located at the northeast corner of Wilken Way and Harbor Boulevard, as a condition of approval of Reclassification No. 84-85-9) 179: RESOLUTION NO. 86R-329: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM TERMINATING AT3. PROCEEDINGS IN CONNECTION WITH RECLASSIFICATION NO. 80-81-14 AND DECLARING RESOLUTION NOS. 81R-356 AND 82R-469 NULL AND VOID. (Terminating Reclassification No. 80-81-14, a proposed change in zone from RS-A-43,000 to RM-3000, on property located at the northeast corner of Wilken Way and Harbor Boulevard, as conditions of approval of Reclassification No. 84-85-9) 170: TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 11305 - TERMINATION: Terminating Tentative Tract Map No. 11305, to establish a 2-lot, 104-unit residential condominium subdivision on,property located at the northeast corner of Wilken Way and Rarbor Boulevard, as a condition of approval of Reclassification No. 84-85-9. 31. 123: Authorizing an agreement with Garden Grove Sanitary District for the Joint use and maintenance of sewage facilities with City share in the amount of $1,152 as a cleaning fee in connection with the detachment from the Sanitary District of 1,163 acres of inhabited City territory. Roll Call Vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: COUNCLLMEMBERS: COUNCIL MEMBERS: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Kaywood, Overholt, Bay, Pickler and Roth None None 558 City Hall, Anahetm~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - July 8~ 1986, 10:00 A.M. The Mayor declared Resolution Nos. 86R-308 through 86R-329, duly passed and adopted. End of Consent Calendar. MOTION CARRIED. both inclusive, Councilman Roth left the Council Chamber. (2:21 p.m.) 160: PURCHASE OPd)EE - ANAHEIM PUBLIC IMPROVEMENT CORPORATION - TWO VANS: Councilman Overholt moved to waive Council Policy 306 and authorize the Purchasing Agent to issue a purchase order to the Anaheim Public Improvement Corporation in the amount of $22,544.08 for the purchase of two vans, as recommended in memorandum dated July 3, 1986 from the Purchasing Agent. Councilman Pickler seconded the motion. Councilman Roth was temporarily absent. MOTION CARRIED. Councilman Roth entered the Council Chamber. (2:23 p.m.) 123/112/152: AGREEMENT TO OBTAIN PROSECUTING ATTORNEYS ON A TEMPORARY BASIS: Councilwoman Kaywood moved to approve as to form, and to authorize the City Attorney to enter into agreements to obtain prosecuting attorneys on a temporary basis, as recommended in memorandum dated June 30, 1986 from the City Attorney's Office. Councilman Pickler seconded the motion. MOTION CARI~IED. 105: APPOINTMENT TO THE INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT BOARD: Appointment to cover a 4 year term ending June 30, 1990. Mayor Roth nominated William "Bill" Taormina. Nominations were closed. Councilman Roth moved to appoint William Taormina to the Industrial Development Board. Councilwoman Kaywood seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. 143/106: OFF-SHORE OIL DRILLING: To consider contributing funds to the California Outer Continental Shell (OCS) Local Government Coordination Program. This matter was discussed by the Council at the meeting of June 17, 1986 (see minutes that date). Submitted was report dated June 30, 1986 from the Intergovernmental Relations Officer William Sell, recommending that the Council determine its position on off-shore otl drilling and whether to contribute funds to the California Outer Continental Shell (OCS) Local Government Coordination Program. Councilman Pickler moved to allocate $2,000 from the Council Contingency Fund as the City's contribution to the California Outer Continental Shell (OCS) Local Government Coordination Program, ensuring local agency involvement in off-shore drilling decisions. Before action was taken, Councilman Bay stated he assumed the $2,000 that is contributed to the group is partially used for political action and lobbying. 559 City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - July 8, 1986, 10:00 A.M. William Sell, Intergovernmental Relations Officer, stated that is correct. The groups hire a lobbyist for that purpose. The intent of the group is to try to reinitiate a moratorium on oil drilling on the entire coast. He did not have a list of other cities participating but until recently it involved primarily all the northern and central counties and cities in the state. Mayor Roth stated his philosophy is to allow off-shore drilling but he is concerned over the fact that each of the platforms is self-contained and thus have to generate their own power. Vast amounts of oil are used in the operation with resultant air pollution due to the prevailing off-shore winds especially during summer months. If it is permitted without curtailment until technology catches up, it will cause a serious problem for the stationary industrial sources. The South Coast Air Quality Management District has taken a hard look at industry and to impose additional sanctions on them would be detrimental with the possibility of loss of Jobs as well. He would rather hold the line on off-shore oil drilling until there is technology available to mitigate any pollution problem. He understands the need for additional exploration and finding new sources of oil for the United States to be self-sufficient but otherwise he is not inclined to force technology on existing industries. He will support the motion and give it a try and ask that the situation be monitored to determine whether or not the City should allocate additional funds in the future. Councilman Overholt noted that the staff report indicated there will be monthly action memos. He would presume that the Council would be receiving information at least every 90 days through the Intergovernmental Relations Office. Councilman Bay was interested in getting financial information showing how many cities donated and how the money is spent at the end of the year; Mr. Sell stated he can request that information. Councilman Overholt seconded the motion. Councilman Bay abstained. MOTION CARRIED. 108/149/142: ORDINANCE NO. 4725 - VENDING FROM VEHICLES: Amending Section 14.32.310 of the Code relating to vending from vehicles. This matter was continued from meetings of June 17, 1986 and July 1, 1986, to this date. Mr. William Sweeney, Orange County Food Service 3071 East Miraloma. They unsuccessfully tried to determine what areas are public and what areas are private in the industrial parks. They came to the conclusion they are facing a "nightmare". There are perhaps 10,000 or 20,000 people who would be affected. They do not know for sure. The estimates given last time were low by about 200 percent. Councilwoman Kaywood had raised the problem last time relative to the possibility that the definition used of "goods and services" was too broad. He called the City Attorney's Office and indicated insofar as the industrial catering industry is concerned, that definition should probably be food, beverages and sundries because they are not interested in getting into clothing or any of the other things which 560 City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - July 8~ 1986, 10:00 A.M. might be suggested by merchandise. He clarified they do not know when they are subject to enforcement and when they are not. Larry Mishlar, 1738 North Cedar Glen. He has been an ice-cream vendor in the City since January 5, 1961. His livelihood is going to be taken away. The Council is concerned about one group of vendors, and now a lot of innocent people are going to have to pay for it. The State of California has insurance laws and the United States Constitution gives us the Free Enterprise System. He works in residential areas. The papers have stated that no vending is allowed from a motor vehicle in the streets of Anaheim. Councilman Bay clarified that was true in a business area but not in single-family residential areas. Jack White, City Attorney, stated that Councilman Bay was correct. The proposed ordinance doesnot change the areas where vending from the streets is currently permitted or prohibited. It clarifies the State definition of business district into the ordinance. The ordinance currently prohibits vending in business districts. The definition of business district is any street frontage that is 300 feet or more linear length and at least 50 percent of which is improved with either businesses or schools or churches or other institutional type uses. It does not prohibit vending in non business districts or residential areas. It would require vendors to obtain permits in those areas. Multiple-family areas would be included in the definition of businesses. Relative to the insurance provision, it is a part of the permit process and requires an insurance policy of $1 million. Mr. Mishlar stated that was unreasonable. It would involve $5,000 or $§,000 on a nickel and dime business. He has $50,000 in liability insurance as required by the State. His insurance costs $1,300 a year now with no claims. Councilman Overholt first noted that the insurance provision would impact Mr. MIshlar and his business. He asked where the $1 million figure came from; City Attorney White stated the recommendation came through the Community Development and Planning Department from Mr. John Poole, Code Enforcement Supervisor. In looking at ordinances in other cities that regulate vending trucks, it appears to be the standard amount required in those ordinances. John Poole, Code Enforcement Supervisor, explained when the City enters into a contract for City services, the City requires $1 million worth of insurance. In the last few years, that has been the standard for contractual agreements and similar things. Councilman Bay stated he was trying to understand the logic of the $1 million coverage when $500,000 might be sufficient. Perhaps it is the differences in the trucks. Maybe rather than $1 million per truck, the insurance should be based on what the liabilities are 561 City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - July 8~ 1986~ 10:00 A.M. connected with that type of truck. There are many different kinds of catering trucks, those that carry gases for cooking whereas on ice-cream trucks they might not even need $500,000 worth of insurance. City Attorney White stated this is a regulatory permit and currently the City in other such permits have insurance requirements that range from 325,000 up to ~1 million depending on the type of permit. He could not say there is a standard insurance requirement for regulatory permits currently in the City. Councilman Bay felt there should be some reasonable lines drawn on liability that are sufficient for what is needed but not something that would put the small businessman out of business. Councilman Overholt agreed and felt the Council should have some kind of report as to the reasonableness of a flat $1 million requirement or as an alternative some kind of a scheduled requirement consistent with the risk involved in the different kinds of businesses. Mayor Roth stated he questioned the situation at the time of first reading of the ordinance. He asked to hear from the City's Risk Manager on an estimated premium for a ~1 million insurance policy for an ice-cream vendor. Tom Vance, Risk Manager, explained there is no set rate for that. The cost should be estimated based on the size of the fleet etc. They are only talking about a "what if" situation and not Just limited to the automobile. The problem they always fight is the responsible party not having sufficient insurance and then looking to the City or someone else. In southern California for automobile exposure that is not an unreasonable level of insurance. He understands also if that puts an unreasonable burden on someone providing a service to the community, that is a decision the Council needs to make. He would be happy to submit a report detailing what he sees would be the exposure of this type of operation usually predicated on the individual analysis of individual company's performance records. MOTION: Councilman Pickier moved to continue Ordinance No. 4725 and the proposed resolution establishing permit application and appeal fees to Tuesday, July 22, 1986 directing the Risk Manager to submit a report and recommendation for Council consideration. Councilman Overholt seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. 166/127/142: ORDINANCE NOS. 4731 AND 4734 - SIGNS IN PUBLIC RIGHTS OF WAY: Amending Section 4.04.130 of the Code pertaining to signs in public rights of way (Version A). Urgency Ordinance Amending Section 4.04.130 of the Code, pertaining to signs in public rights of way. 562 City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - July 8~ 1986, 10:00 A.M. Councilwoman Kaywood asked for clarification that the proposed ordinance, in fact, refers to all signs and not Just political signs as reported in the newspaper. Jack White, City Attorney, answered that was correct. Councilman Pickler offered Ordinance No. 4731 for adoption. Refer to Resolution Book. ORDINANCE NO. 4731: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AMENDING SECTION 4.04.130 OF CHAPTER 4.04 OF TITLE 4 OF THE ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE RRI.ATING TO SIGNS IN PUBLIC RIGHTS-OF-WAY. Roll Call Vote: AYES: NOES: AB SENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: COUNCIL MEMBERS: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Kaywood, Overholt, Bay, Pickler and Roth None None The Mayor declared Ordinance No. 4731 duly passed and adopted. Councilman Pickler offered Ordinance No. 4734 for adoption, the Urgency Ordinance, amending Section 4.04.130 of the Code pertaining to signs in public rights-of-way wh/ch will take effect immediately. City Clerk Leonora N. Sohl read the ordinance in its entirety. Refer to Ordinance Book. ORDINANCE NO. 4731: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AMENDING SECTION 4.04.130 OF CHAPTER 4.04 OF TITLE 4 OF THE ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO SIGNS IN PUBLIC RIGHTS-OF-WAY, DECLARING THE URGENCY THEREOF, AND DECLARING THAT THIS ORDINANCE SHALL TAKE EFFECT IMMEDIATELY. Before a vote was taken, Councilwoman Kaywood emphasized that the ordinance includes garage sale signs, House For Sale, Apartment For Rent, dog lost or anything else affixed to utility poles or anything in the public right-of-way so that it is clear. A vote was then taken on the foregoing ordinance. Roll Call Vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: COUNCIL MEMBERS: COUNCIL I~EMBEES: Kaywood, Overholt, Bay, Pickler and Roth None None The Mayor declared Ordinance No. 4734 duly passed and adopted. Mayor Roth asked that a letter be drawn by the City Attorney to be sent to candidates and potential candidates along with a copy of the ordinance; City Clerk Sohl reported that a copy of the ordinance would be included in the nomination material packets for City Council candidates. 563 City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - July 8~ 1986, 10:00 A.M. Mayor Roth stated he received a letter yesterday from a candidate asking that his signs not be taken down because he is running again in November. A letter should be sent to try to help people rather than have them spend thousands of dollars in signs that will be immediately taken down. Letters should be sent to the sign companies as well. 170: TENTATIVE TRACT NO. 9601: Submitted by Lind & Hillerud, Inc., for an extension of time to Tentative Tract No. 9601, to create a 9-lot, RS-HS-22,000(SC) zoned subdivision at the northeast intersection of Canyon Rim Road and Fairmont Boulevard. The City Planning Commission approved Tentative Tract No. 9601 to expire June 28, 1987. No action taken by Council. 179: ORDINANCE NO. 4732: Councilman Pickler offered Ordinance No. 4732 for adoption. Refer to Ordinance Book. ORDINANCE NO. 4732: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AMENDING THE ZONING MAP REFERRED TO IN TITLE 18 OF THE ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE RRT.ATING TO ZONING. (Amending Title 18, Reclass. 84-85-18, RM-2400, 3639 West Savanna St) Roll Call Vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: COUNCIL MEMBERS: COUNCIL HEMBERS: Kaywood, Overholt, Bay, Pickler and Roth None None The Mayor declared Ordinance No. 4732 duly passed and adopted. 179: ORDINANCE NO. 4733: Councilman Pickler offered Ordinance No. 4733 for adoption. Refer to Ordinance Book. ORDINANCE NO. 4733: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AMENDING THE ZONING MAP REFERRED TO IN TITLE 18 OF THE ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE R~T.&TING TO ZONING. (Amending Title 18, Reclass 84-85-40, RM-3000, 1262 La Palms Avenue) Roll Call Vote: AYES: NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: COUNCIL MEMBERS: COUNCIL MEMBERg~ Kaywood, Overholt, Bay, Pickler and Roth None None The Mayor declared Ordinance No. 4733 duly passed and adopted. 179: ORDINANCE NO. 4735: Councilman Roth offered Ordinance No. 4735 for first reading. ORDINANCE NO. 4735: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AMENDING THE ZONING MAP REFERRED TO IN TITLE 18 OF THE ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO ZONING. (Amending Title 18, Reclass 84-85-17, EM-1200, 2902 West Ball Road) 564 City Hall, Anaheim, California - C0UNCILMINUTES - July 8~ 1986, 10:00 A.M. 129: OFFER TO FIRE VICTIMS: Mayor Roth stated he received a call from Don Nathaniel who owns a new 128-unit apartment building near Harbor Blvd. and Orangethorpe in Fullerton. One-half of the units were still vacant. Mr. Nathaniel indicated that he will provide one month's free rent to any fire victim. He expects them to be qualified, he would like the first month's rent and the second month's rent would be free. He would also allow them many months to get their security deposit together. Mr. Nathaniel's telephone No. is 220-3360. RECESS - CLOSED SESSION: Councilman Roth moved to recess to Closed Session to discuss the balance of the items previously announced by the City Attorney. Councilwoman Kaywood seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. (3:21 p.m.) AFTER RECESS: The Mayor called the meeting to order, all Council Members being present. (5:25 p.m.) ADJOURNMENT: Councilman Roth moved to adjourn. the motion. MOTION CARRIED. (5:26 p.m.) Councilwoman Kaywood seconded LEONORAN. SOHL 565