Loading...
1983/11/08City Hall, Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - November 8~ 1983~ 10:00 A.M. The City Council of the City of Anaheim met in regular session. PRESENT: ABSENT: PRESENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Kaywood, Pickler, Overholt, Bay and Roth COUNCIL MEMBERS: None CITY MANAGER: William O. Talley CITY ATTORNEY: William Po Hopkins CITY CLERK: Linda D. Roberts PUBLIC UTILITIES GENERAL MANAGER: Gordon Hoyt EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT: Norman J. Priest CITY ENGINEER: William Devitt DEVELOPMENT SERVICES MANAGER: John Buchanan ASSISTANT DIRECTOR FOR ZONING: Annika Santalahtt TRAFFIC ENGINEER: Paul Singer Mayor Roth called the meeting to order and welcomed those in attendance to the Council meeting. INVOCATION: Father John Lenihan, Saint Boniface Catholic Church, gave the Invocation. FLAG SALUTE: Councilman E. Llewellyn Overholt, Jr., led the assembly in the Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag. 119: PROCLAMATION: The following proclamation was issued by Mayor Roth and authorized by the City Council: Winter Storm Preparedness Week in Anaheim, November 13-19, 1983. The proclamation was accepted by Mr. Bob Berg, Disaster Services Manager, who was accompanied by Fire Chief Bob Simpson. 119: RESOLUTION OF CONGRATULATIONS: A Resolution of Congratulations was unanimously adopted by the City Council to be presented to B'nai B'rith on their 70th anniversary of the founding of the Anti-Defamation League. 119: 206TH BIRTHDAY OF THE UNITED STATES MARINE CORPS: Mayor Roth acknowledged that today was the 206th Birthday of the United States Marine Corps, noting also the outstanding job that the Corps was doing throughout the world. 119: SPECIAL OLYMPICS - GLOVER STADIUM~ FRIDAY, NOVEMBER 4, 1983: Councilman 0verholt presented a plaque to Mayor Roth which he had accepted as the City's representative at the Special Olympics held at Glover Stadium on Friday, November 4, 1983. The plaque was in appreciation of the City's hosting the Special Olympics, which was a National program, this year's Olympics involving over 2,000 young people. MINUTES: Councilwoman Kaywood moved to approve the minutes of the regular meeting held October 18, 1983. Councilman Pickler seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. 879 City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - November 8, 1983, 10:00 A.M. WAIVER OF READING - ORDINANCES AND RESOLUTIONS: Councilwoman Kaywood moved to waive the reading in full of all ordinances and resolutions of the Agenda, after reading of the title thereof by the City Clerk, and that consent to waiver is hereby given by all Council Members, unless after reading of the title, specific request is made by a Council Member for the reading of such ordinances or resolutions in regular order. Councilman Roth seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. FINANCIAL DEMANDS AGAINST THE CITY in the amount of ~1,757,665.60, in accordance with the 1983-84 Budget, were approved. CITY MANAGER/DEPARTMENTAL CONSENT CALENDAR: On motion by Councilwoman Kaywood, seconded by Councilman Roth, the following items were approved in accordance with the reports, certifications and recommendations furnished each Council Member and as listed on the Consent Calendar; Councilwoman Kaywood offered Resolution Nos. 83R-428 through 83R-432, both inclusive, for adoption. Refer to Resolution Book. 1. 118: The following claims were filed against the City and action taken as recommended: A. Claims rejected and referred to Risk Management: 1. Claim submitted by Ignacio Lambarena for personal property damages to television purportedly sustained due to a power surge at 871 South Philadelphia Street, #D, on or about August 6, i983. 2. Claim submitted by Donald S. Maples for personal injuries purportedly sustained due to an accident involving a City-owned vehicle at 374/386 East Lincoln Avenue, on or about June 17, 1983. 3. Claim submitted by Edward C. Roluffs for personal property damages to television purportedly sustained due to power surge at 1591 Minerva Avenue, on or about September 12, 1983. 4. Claim submitted by Sherman W. Marsh for personal property damages to television, video recorder and light in fish tank purportedly sustained due to a power surge at 1018 Mayflower, on or about August 20, 1983. 5. Claim submitted by Rodger $chmidt for personal property damages to microwave oven and loss of food purportedly sustained due to lack of sufficient ground wire on an existing transformer pole at 856 Dune Street, on or about August 6, 1983. 6. Claim submitted by Charles Cordes and his minor children, Angela and Russell; Harold Scott for Derek Scott, a minor, for personal property damages and personal injury damages purportedly sustained due to an accident involving a City-owned vehicle on La Palma Avenue, west of Columbine, on or about September 8, 1983. 880 City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - November 8, 1983, 10:00 A.M. 7. Claim submitted by Kathlyn F. Hacke for personal injuries purportedly sustained due to a trip-and-fall accident caused by a defective sidewalk two feet west of 2533 Greenleaf Avenue, on or about July 25, 1983. 8. Claim submitted by Mrs. John Whaley for personal property damages to dishwasher and food loss purportedly sustained due to loss of electrical power for 44 hours at 866 South Dune Street, on or about August 6, 1983. 9. Claim submitted by Mildred A. Suhr for personal injuries purportedly sustained due to a slip-and-fall accident caused by a wet floor at the Anaheim Stadium, on or about July 3, 1983. 10. Claim submitted by Arnel Management Company for property damages to apartment air conditioners purportedly sustained due to explosion of underground cable near the Casa Madrid Apartment complex at 2301 East Ball Road, on or about September 10, 1983. 11. Claim submitted by Charles A. Tomkinson for persomal property damages purportedly sustained due to a faulty wiring at the pole at 629 South Dickel Street, on or about August 24, 1983. 12. Claim submitted by Corinne Swingen for personal property damages and food losses purportedly sustained due to an electrical failure at 1662 West Ball Road, Apartment #A, on or about August 6, 1983. 13. Claim submitted by Kirkwood Electric for indemnification and contribution in re Rasmussen versus City of Anaheim, et al, for personal injury damages purportedly sustained due to a fall while claimant was employed by Heller Construction Company at Anaheim Stadium, on or about October 29, 1979. B. Application for Leave to Present a Late Claim denied: 14. Application for Leave to Present a Late Claim submitted by David Charles Dahms for personal injuries purportedly sustained due to an accident on Harbor Boulevard approximately 226 feet south of Convention Way, on or about October 7, 1982. 2. The following correspondence was ordered received and filed: a. 105: Park and Recreation Commission--Minutes of September 28, 1983. b. 105: Community Redevelopment Commission'-Minutes of October 19, 1983. c. 156: Police Department--Monthly Report for September 1983 and Third Quarter Crime Analysis, 1983. City Manager William Talley, calling the Council's attention to the Third Quarter 1983 Part I Crime Analysis Report dated October 31, 1983, recounted that over three years ago, the Council authorized an additional one million dollar expenditure in the Police Department with the goal being to attempt to 881 City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - November 8, 1983, 10:00 A.M. keep crime rates in the City at the 1979 level for the years i980, 1981 and 1982. In the third quarter of 1983, Part I crime totals were seven percent below 1979, the crime rate per 100,000 population was fifteen percent below 1979, and the clearance rate was two percent above the 1979 rate. Violent crimes were down ten percent and property crimes down seven percent. Even with a twelve percent population increase, they were experiencing the lowest crime levels since 1978. The Neighborhood Watch Program now consisted of 474 groups. He reiterated that he wanted to bring the matter to the Council's attention, specifically to show that the investment they chose to make over three years ago had paid off extremely big dividends to the City. Mayor Roth commended ~he Police Department on behalf of the Council and the City. 3. 123.140: Waiving Council Policy No. 401 and authorizing an agreement with Martha Hale, PhD., in an amount not to exceed 52,500 for community analysis consulting services for the Library. 4. 150: Authorizing Change Order No. 1 to the contract with Parrott & Wright Construction Company in the amount of 52,588.36 to grade and place additional fill in connection with the Olive Hills Parking Lot, Account No. 16-829- 7103-2902C, bringing the original contract price to 517,627.36. 5. 160: Accepting the bid of S & C Electric Company in the amount of 514,918.44 for two each padmounted, three-phase sectionalizing switches with fused lateral taps, in accordance with Bid No. 4042. 6. 160: Accepting the bid of Shepherd Machinery in the amount of 512,901.26 for one heavy duty equipment trailer, in accordance with Bid No. 4046. 7. 160: Accepting the low bid of Mills Ford in the amount of 510,194.44 for one 3/4-ton pickup, in accordance with Bid No. 4047. 8. 160: Accepting the low bid of Mills Ford in the amount of 544,881.48 for four vans, in accordance with Bid No. 4048. 169: RESOLUTION NO. 83R-428: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AWARDING A CONTRACT FOR THE NORTH STREET STREET AND WATER IMPROVEMENT, LOARA STREET TO WEST STREET, IN THE CITY OF ANAHEIM, ACCOUNT NOS. 26-793-6325-E3640 AND 51-606-6329-17320-34340. (Silveri & Ruiz Construction Company, 5249,636.90) 164: RESOLUTION NO. 83R-429: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM FINALLY ACCEPTING THE COMPLETION AND THE FURNISHING OF ALL PLANT, LABOR, SERVICES, MATERIALS AND EQUIPMENT AND ALL UTILITIES AND TRANSPORTATION INCLUDING POWER, FUEL AND WATER, AND THE PERFORMANCE OF ALL WORK NECESSARY TO CONSTRUCT AND COMPLETE THE FOLLOWING PUBLIC IMPROVEMENT, TO WIT: LA PALMA AVENUE SEWER AND WATER IMPROVEMENT, FROM 1200' EAST OF WEIR CANYON TO WEIR CANYON ROAD, IN THE CITY OF ANAHEIM, ACCOUNT NOS. 11-790-6325-E0420 (SEWER) AND 54-605-6329-17420-34350 (WATER). (Bejac Corporation, contractor) 882 Cit~ Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - November 8, 1983, 10:00 A.M. 164: RESOLUTION ~0. 83R-430: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM FINALLY ACCEPTING THE COMPLETION AND THE FURNISHING OF ALL PLANT, LABOR, SERVICES, MATERIALS AND EQUIPMENT AND ALL UTILITIES AND TRANSPORTATION INCLUDING POWER, FUEL AND WATER, AND THE PERFORMANCE OF ALL WORK NECESSARY TO CONSTRUCT AND COMPLETE THE FOLLOWING PUBLIC IMPROVEMENT, TO WIT: BROADWAY STORM DRAIN IMPROVEMENT, EMPIRE STREET TO EAST OF BROOKHURST, IN THE CITY OF ANAHEIM, ACCOUNT NO. 24-791-6325-E1220. (K.E.C. Company/Keith E. Card, a Joint Venture, contractors) 160: RESOLUTION NO. 83R-431: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM DECLARING CERTAIN UNCLAIMED PROPERTY IS NEEDED FOR PUBLIC USE AND TRANSFERRING THE SAME TO THE CITY PURCHASING DEPARTMENT. 158: RESOLUTION NO. 83R-432: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM ACCEPTING CERTAIN DEEDS AND ORDERING THEIR RECORDATION. (Hon Kal Wu; Vanguard Commerce Park, Ltd.) Roll Call Vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: COUNCIL MEMBERS: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Kaywood, Pickler, Overholt, Bay and Roth None None MOTION CARRIED. The Mayor declared Resolution Nos. 83R-428 through 83R-432, both inclusive, duly passed and adopted. 173: SCHEDULE PRESENTATION - ORANGE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION (OCTC) 15-YEAR TRANSPORTATION INVESTMENT PROGRAM: City Manager William Talley briefed report dated November 7, 1983, from the Planning Department, recommending that staff be authorized to schedule a presentation by A1 Hollinden on the OCTC 15-year Transportation Investment Program for the Council meeting of November 15, 1983. Mayor Roth stated he felt the most important aspect of any briefing would be relative to the Eastern Corridor and he asked that that be combined with Mr. Hollinden's presentation. MOTION: Councilwoman Kaywood moved to authorize staff to schedule a presentation by A1H011inden on the Orange County Transportation Commission 15-year Transportation Investment Program for the City Council meeting of November 15, 1983. Councilman Pickler seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. 175: ELECTRIC RATE REVISIONS: Amending the rates, rules and regulations for the sale and distribution of electric energy as adopted by Resolution No. 71R-478 and most recently amended by Resolution No. 83R-264, effective November 9, 1983. Submitted was a report dated November 4, 1983, from the Public Utilities Board (PUB) recommending the following: In connection with the proposed electric rate revisions, the Council adopt by resolution the findings of the Public Utilities Board with respect to the matters contained therein and adopt the electric rates as shown in Exhibit RWE-6, to become 883 City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - November 8, 1983, 10:00 A.M. effective for service rendered on and after November 9, 1983. The Board also voted to recommend that the Council approve establishment of a Rate Stabilization Account funded from refunds received as a result of contested Southern California Edison (SCE) wholesale rate cases. The Board voted three:three to recommend applying current revenues to a Rate Stabilization Account. (See report dated November 4, 1983, subject: Electric Rate Revisions--as well as report dated November 1, 1983, from the PUB, subject: Recommendation for Revision of Electric Rates which transmitted documents for review in considering the recommendations of the Board--Exhibit GWH2, Findings and Recommendations; Exhibit RWE-7, Comparison of Electric Bills and a proposed resolution adopting all the findings and recommendations of the PUB setting forth the rates recommended for adoption, to be effective November 9, 1983--reports and support documents on file in the City Clerk's office.) Also previously submitted was a transcript of the public hearing of the Public Utilities Board hearing which took place November 3, 1983. Public Utilities General Manager Gordon Hoyt explained that the proposed change would result in shifting of costs from the power cost adjustment into the base rate component and would not affect the bill of any customer. When they put the recommendation together, they tried to respond to the signals they felt they were getting from the PUB and Council with regard to an effort to stablize electric rates by establishing a Rate Stabilization Account. The PUB approved the rate proposal of the Department with the exception that the Board did two things: (1) Deleted a paragraph which the Department had inserted recommending findings to the effect that the citizens ad hoc Committee studying lifeline rates had essentially endorsed the recommendation with regard to lifeline rates, and (2) that the PUB tied three:three on whether or not there should be a Rate Stabilization Account where they would use current revenue to fund a Rate Stabilization Account. By separate vote, the PUB approved recommending to the Council that any refunds received as a result of contested rate proceedings in wholesale electrical rates be placed in a Rate Stabilization Account. The effect would be to ease the peaks which they could anticipate as the result of varying expenditures essentially for capital improvements. Councilman Bay asked for confirmation that the Board did approve putting refunds into the Rate Stabilization Account by more than a three:three vote. Mr. Hoyt answered, "yes," by a four:two vote. He explained that following the hearing, there was a motion to adopt the recommendations as submitted. The Board first removed Paragraph 3R with reference to the ad hoc Committee. They then voted on adopting the other recommendations and the vote was tied three-three. In an effort to separate the issues, they suggested to the Board that they remove all reference to rate stabilization and subsequently, the Board approved the recommendation of staff with regard to everything except anything that had to do with rate stabilization. They then dealt with putting refunds into the Rate Stabilization Account and that passed on a four:two vote. They then voted three:three with regard to putting current revenue into the Rate Stabilization Account and the paragraph dealing with that was included in the resolution prepared for approval. 884 City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - November 8, 1983, 10:00 A.M. Additional questions were posed to Mr. Hoyt by Councilman Bay for purposes of clarification. He (Bay) surmised that they were broadening two of the cost factors, while at the same time raising base rates, when they were looking at no increase in costs. It seemed to him, in effect, that they were giving a wider range of an administrative tool to keep stabilization across the rates. He also stated he would like to see a five-year history of capital expenditures in the Electric Utility as to some historical trend. He needed to know when they had a sudden overcharging year with a resultant buildup of a large surplus and whether they were increasing their capital expenditures because the money was there. It all boiled down to holding rate payers' money and using it to keep them from seeing peaks and valleys in their rates. There had to be some limit on how much reserve funding they were holding and many things had to be considered. He also wanted to talk about basic policy on profits by the Utility. Retaining City government ownership and operation of the Utility was only justified by the fact that it was a benefit to the citizens and businesses of Anaheim. He then made an analogy between public and private ownership of utilities across the country relative to the percentage of return to their stockholders, such as Southern California Edison (SCE), who was paying 9.2 percent. He felt that some goals needed to be set in the Utilities of the City and if its return to the "stockholders" could not be better than four percent, which was limited in the Charter, then the other five or six percent should come in the fact that retail rates should be that much below the private utility. Mr. Hoyt stated they needed to be careful when comparing the accounting practices of the two different utilities, since there were different sources of revenue. It was necessary to look at the cost components and they had done so diligently over the last 19 years he had been with the City. In viewing the annual report of SCE, they were spending 52 cents of every dollar for power supply costs and in Anaheim in the 70 to 80 percent range. The place for them to be able to pare their costs down was in the cost of wholesale power supply. At the moment, they acquired that entire wholesale power supply from SCE and they were at the mercy of Edison and the Federal Regulatory Commission with regard to rates imposed upon them and when it was that those rates were to be determined just and reasonable or not. The area that really needed to be looked at in order to keep rates down was power supply, and that was the reason for the City's participation in San Onofre and the Intermountain Power Project. Mayor Roth then recognized Walt Smith from the Chamber of Commerce. Mr. Walt Smith, speaking as Chairman of the Board of Directors of the Chamber of Commerce, stated that when the information was released October 18, 1983, relative to the changes that were to be proposed, their Industrial Energy and Environment Committee (IE&E) examined that data and three major issues evolved, which their members were asked to consider. The IE&E Committee proposed to forward to the Executive Committee of the Chamber and Board of Directors a position on the three major issues. The Executive Committee was scheduled to meet Thursday, and the Board a week from Thursday. They wanted an opportunity to give consideration to the issues and come back with 885 City Hall~ Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - November 8, 1983, 10:00 A.M. recommendations as to how the Chamber viewed those matters and what they felt the Council should give consideration to. In order to do so, they would have to request that the Council continue action until the meeting of November 22, 1983. Councilwoman Kaywood asked if anyone from the Chamber was present at the public hearing of the Public Utilities Board when public testimony was taken; Mr. Smith indicated that no one was present. Councilwoman Kaywood expressed her concern over the time and money spent to advertise and hold the required hearing and no one from the Chamber was present. Mr. Smith, in answer to Councilman Overholt, stated the three issues which were of concern to the Chamber were: (1) Base rate change, (2) Rate Stabilization fund and (3) overcharge made to consumers now proposed not to be returned to them. Relative to the rate increase, the proposal was to raise the base rate and lower the fuel adjustment rate and they wanted to look at that from the standpoint of whether or not it was a detriment to the consumers or a reasonable proposal. Councilman Overholt stated he felt that the rate adjustment was a necessity, because the variation in the cost of power had to be dealt with periodically and urgency was involved. Relative to the rate stabilization issue, he would not be opposed to a continuance on that item, and also the source of funds for that account, since those were new issues. Mayor Roth asked if there would be any detrimental effect if all three issues were held, to be discussed November 22, 1983; Mr. Hoyt answered, the longer they overcollected in the power cost adjustment, the more money they would have in that account and the less money they would be collecting in the base rate. His recommendation would be, if they wanted to act on the rate portion, which was the subject of the prepared testimony and public hearing before the Public Utilities Board, but did not want to act on the rate stabilization concept, they would need only to remove finding No. 15 from the proposed resolution. If they did so, there would then be no references to rate stablization at all. Mayor Roth stated, since the three issues were so interwoven, he would feel more comfortable with additional input on the whole matter before acting; City Manager Talley, in support of the Public Utilities General Manager, stated it was his view when the Council established a PUB~ its primary function was to advise the Council on matters, such as the one before them today. An area of concern to him, if the Chamber for one reason or another chose to waive the ability to appear before the Board, it would seem to him they would want their input. It would be his opinion to encourage them to take the time necessary to come up with a position, but then go back to the PUB, who was supposed to be the recommending body. Otherwise, the Board would be out of the process. If the Chamber wanted a more meaningful dialogue, they could have it first with the Public Utilities Board. 886 City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - November 8, 1983, 10:00 A.M. Mr. Hoyt then reported, in checking with his staff, approximately ~300,000 to 3390,000 a week was going into the balancing account that they wanted in base rates where it belonged in order to support the base rate concepts, the reason being their demand costs had increased from approximately $9.45 to $11.00 a kw month. Further commenting on what Mr. Talley stated, he explained when the City Council designated and delegated to the Public Utilities Board the responsibility for holding the required public hearings on rate increases, those were required by the Public Utilities Regulatory Policies Act (PURPA) of 1979 of the Federal government. There was also a requirement in that law that whatever decisions the Council made had to be able to be defended or supported in a court of law, findings based on the record developed at the public hearing. If they did not like the recommendations, in order to protect their rates, the matter should be sent back to the PUB for reconsideration, with some instruction as to what they should reconsider, so that an expanded record could be created with the Chamber of Commerce recommendations included, so that the City Council could take an action based on the record. For whatever time that we take, he reiterated approximately ~300,000 a week was going to the wrong place. Additional discussion and questioning followed between Council and staff relati%e to continuing the matter to give the Chamber an opportunity to make their recommendations and the ramifications of a continuance, at the conclusion of which Councilman Overholt offered Resolution No. 83R-433 for adoption, amending the rates, rules and regulations for the sale and distribution of electric energy as adopted by Resolution No. 71R-478 and most recently amended by Resolution No. 83R-264, effective November 9, 1983, but deleting Item No. 15 therein. Refer to Resolution Book. RESOLUTION NO. 83R-433: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AMENDING THE RATES, RULES AND REGULATIONS FOR THE SALE AND DISTRIBUTION OF ELECTRIC ENERGY AS ADOPTED BY CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION NO. 71R-478 AND MOST RECENTLY AMENDED BY CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION NO. 83R-264. Before a vote was taken, additional discussion took place as to possible further consequences of a delay. Councilman Pickler then moved to continue the matter for one week, to November 15, 1983, and that the Chamber of Commerce give a presentation at that time. If not, the Council would act. His main concern was rate stabilization, but he did feel that the rate increase was something they had to 100k at immediately. Mr. Talley felt that if given only a week, no one was going to have time to look at a major policy area and the Council would be faced with the same problem. They should take more time, rather than less, but it should go back to the Public Utilities Board. Mr. Smith then stated they did not object to the base rate issue, including the cost of service, which should be included in it; however, rate stabilization and not returning refunds to the rate payers were two new concepts which were their points of concern. 887 City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - November 8, 1983, 10:00 A.M. Councilman Overholt stated the resolution was simply to delete reference to the Stabilization Account and approve the rate change with debate on stabilization or dividends to come back at a proper time. Councilman Pickler felt that the Chamber should consider all three issues in any case. He thereupon withdrew his motion. Mayor Roth stated as he understood it, they were then going to act on approving the rate change today, and on November 22, 1983, they would receive input from the Chamber relative to Rate Stabilization and the so-called Overcharge Funds. Councilman Overholt stated t~at the manner in which input from the Chamber or any other organization was to be received was yet to be determined. One way was to come to the Council, and the other was to give that input to the Public Utilities Board to evaluate the Chamber's recommendation. Councilman Bay stated he felt it was only fair that Mr. Hoyt did get some signals from the Council on rate stabilization, but it was not a clean split at the Public Utilities Board. Perhaps they should look at alternatives in rate stabilization, how would they stabilize residential rates and still refund to industrial or commercial. Those were points that should be directed to the PUB. A roll call vote was then taken on Resolution No. 83R-433, which deleted Finding No. 15. Roll Call Vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: COUNCIL MEMBERS: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Kaywood, Pickler, Overholt, Bay and ~oth None None The Mayor declared Resolution No. 83R-433 duly passed and adopted. It was a consensus of the Council that the Rate Stabilization Account and Overcharge Funds would be discussed on November 22, 1983. 175.123: INTERIM SAN ONOFRE UNIT 2 OPERATING AGREEMENT: Councilman Bay offered Resolution No. 83R-434 for adoption, approving the execution of the Interim SONGS 2 Operating Agreement and authorizing the Public Utilities General Manager to take all necessary and appropriate actions thereunder, as recommended in memorandum dated November 4, 1983, from the Public Utilities Board. Refer to Resolution Book. RESOLUTION NO. 83R-434: RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING THE EXECUTION OF THE INTERIM SAN ONOFRE UNIT 2 OPERATING AGREEMENT AND AUTHORIZING THE PUBLIC UTILITIES GENERAL MANAGER TO TAKE ALL NECESSARY AND APPROPRIATE ACTIONS THEREUNDER. 888 Cit~ Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - November 8~ 1983~ 10:00 A.M. Roll Call Vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: COUNCIL MEMBERS: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Kaywood, Pickler, Overholt, Bay and Roth None None The Mayor declared Resolution No. 83R-434 duly passed and adopted. CITY PLANNING COMMISSION ITEMS: The following actions taken by the City Planning Commission at their meeting held November 8, 1983, pertaining to the following applications were submitted for City Council information. 1. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2498 AND WAIVER OF COUNCIL POLICY NO. 542: Submitted by City of Anaheim, to permit a ll6-space temporary mobilehome relocation park, with waiver of Council Policy No. 542 pertaining to sound attenuation in residential projects, on 10.1 acres at the northwest corner of the proposed extensions of La Palma Avenue and Weir Canyon Road (Portion A), and approximately 9.3 acres at the northeast corner of the proposed extensions of La Palma Avenue and Weir Canyon Road (Portion B), with the following Code waivers: (a) minimum landscaped setback, and (b) minimum number and type of parking spaces. The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC83-196, denied Conditional Use Permit No. 2498; EIR No. 258 was previously certified November 15, 1982. 2. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2501: Submitted by Shao Hsang Liu, et al, (Rustic Motel), to expand an existing motel on CL zoned property located at 916 South Beach Boulevard. The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC83-197, granted Conditional Use Permit No. 2501, and granted a negative declaration status. 3. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2502: Submitted by William C. and Cynthia L. Taormina, (Set Free Christian Fellowship), to retain a church on CG zoned property located at 320 North Anaheim Boulevard, with a Code waiver of minimum number of parking spaces. The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC83-198, granted Conditional Use Permit No. 2502, and ~ranted a negative declaration statu~. 4. VARIANCE NO. 3355: Submitted by Nikiforos and Georgia Valaskantjis, to retain a cabana on RS-HS-22,000(SC) zoned property located at 6931 East Avenida de Santiago, with a Code waiver of minimum sideyard setback. The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC83-201, granted Variance No. 3355, and ratified the Planning Director's categorical exemption determination. 889 City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - November 8, 1983, 10:00 A.M. 5. VARIANCE NO. 3356: Submitted by Gary M. and Deborah M. Snodgrass, to construct a room addition on RS-5000(SC) zoned property located at 6286 Camino Manzano, with a Code waiver of maximum lot coverage. The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC83-202, granted Variance No. 3356, and ratified the Planning Director's categorical exemption determination. 6. VARIANCE NO. 3357: Submitted by Joseph Gandolfo, to construct a room addition on RS-7200 zoned property located at 1316 North Baxter Street, with the following Code waivers: (a) minimum sideyard setback, and (b) minimum rear yard setback. The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC83-203, granted Variance No. 3357, and ratified the Planning Director's categorical exemption determination. 7. VARIANCE NO. 3358: Submitted by Kent Land Company, to construct a commercial office complex on CL(SC) zoned property located on approximately 9.9 acres at the northeast corner of Santa Ana Canyon Road and Weir Canyon Road, with the following Code waivers: (a) minimum structural setback, and (b) minimum landscaped area. The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC83-204, granted Variance No. 3358; EIR No. 241 was previously certified March 23, 1981. 8. VARIANCE NO. 3360: Submitted by First American Trust Company, to construct a 3-unit apartment complex on RM-1200 zoned property located at 828 South Anaheim Boulevard, with the following Code waivers: (a) maximum structural height, (b) minimum sideyard setback, and (c) permitted location of required parking. The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC83-206, granted Variance No. 3360, and granted a negative declaration status. 9. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 1705 - EXTENSION OF TIME: Submitted by Roy A. and Clyde A. Fogler, requesting an extension of time to Conditional Use Permit No. 1705, to permit truck and trailer storage on ML zoned property located on the east side of Red Gum Street, south of La Jolla Street, with a Code waiver of permitted outdoor uses. The City Planning Commission approved an extension of time to Conditional Use Permit No. 1705, to expire May 9, 1985. 10. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2369 - EXTENSION OF TIME: Submitted by Richard Hansen, requesting an extension of time to Conditional Use Permit No. 2369, to permit commercial use of a residential structure on CG zoned property located at 125 South Harbor Boulevard, with a Code waivers of required location of parking spaces and minimum number of parking spaces. 89O City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - November 8, 1983, 10:00 A.M. The City Planning Commission approved an extension of time to Conditional Use Permit No. 2369, to expire September 8, 1984. 11. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2191 - TERMINATION: Submitted by Southland Corporation, (7-Eleven), for termination of Conditional Use Permit No. 2191, to construct an outdoor ski slope on CL zoned property located at 1001 North Harbor Boulevard, with a Code waiver of maximum fence height. The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC83-207, terminated Conditional Use Permit No. 2191. No action was taken by the City Council on the foregoing items; therefore, the actions of the City Planning Commission became final. 134/179: GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 177~ RECLASSIFICATION NO. 83-84-9 AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2497: To consider an amendment to the Land Use Element of the General Plan to change the current General Open Space designation to Low-Medium Density Residential Land Uses, and a change in zone from RS-A-43,000 to RM-2400, to permit a 47-space temporary relocation mobilehome park on approximately 6.38 acres located on the south side of Lincoln Avenue, east of Rio Vista Street, with the following Code waivers: (a) maximum wall height, and (b) minimum number and type of parking spaces. The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution Nos. PC83-193, PC83-194 and PC83-195, denied General Plan Amendment No. 177, Reclassification No. 83-84-9 and Conditional Use Permit No. 2497, and denied Environmental Impact Report No. 259. Councilwoman Kaywood asked for a review of the Planning Commission's decision on the General Plan Amendment and Reclassification only, but not on Conditional Use Permit No. 2497, which was denied by the Planning Commission. Jack White, Assistant City Attorney, then explained that there was a Council Policy providing that all zoning items be considered in conjunction one with the other; however, the Council may, in his opinion, by individual action, determine not to follow that policy and could set particular items individually. In this case, they had the option of setting the General Plan Amendment and Reclassification separately from the CUP and by setting either or both separately, would of necessity require the setting of the EIR, because it needed to be acted upon in conjunction with the General Plan Amendment and Reclassification. After further discussion between Council Members and Mr. White, Councilwoman Kaywood moved to recess into Closed Session to discuss potential litigation before any further action was taken. Councilman Pickler seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. (12:05 p.m.) AFTER RECESS: The Mayor called the meeting to order, ali Council Members being present. (12:20 p.m.) 891 City Hall, Anahe'im, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - November 8, 1983, 10:00 A.M. Councilwoman Kaywood requested a review of the Planning Commission's decision on General Plan Amendment No. 177, Reclassification No. 83-84-9 and EIR No. 259 and, therefore, a public hearing would be scheduled at a later date. No action was taken on Conditional Use Permit No. 2497. RECLASSIFICATION NO. 83-84-11 AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2503: Submitted by Darrell L. and Esther M. Clardy, for a change in zone from RS-7200 to CL, to permit commercial use of a residential structure to establish a self-defense school with caretaker's quarters on property located at 809 South Magnolia Avenue, with the following Code waivers: (a) minimum landscaped setback, and (b) minimum sideyard setback. The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution Nos. PC83-199 and PC83-200, granted Reclassification No. 83-84-11 and Conditional Use Permit No. 2503, and granted a negative declaration status. Councilwoman Kaywood requested a review of the subject Reclassification and Conditional Use Permit and, therefore, a public hearing would be scheduled at a later date. VARIANCE NO. 3359: Submitted by Max and Joyce Rogers, to retain an outdoor basketball backstop on RS-7200(SC) zoned property located at 5960 East Marsha Circle, with a Code waiver of minimum structural setback. The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC83-205, denied Variance No. 3359, and ratified the Planning Director's categorical exemption determination. The Planning Commission's action was appealed by the attorney for the applicant and, therefore, a public hearing would be scheduled at a later date. 134: GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 186: Oak Hills Ranch, (formerly Douglas Ranch), to consider an amendment to the Circulation Element of the General Plan for modifications to proposed highways as follows: (a) realignments of Weir Canyon Road, Serrano Avenue and Monte Vista Road, (b) deletion of E1 Rancho Road as a Hillside Secondary Arterial Highway, (c) inclusion of the Eastern Transportation Corridor Study Area, and (d) Renaming a major portion of Monte Vista Road to Oak Hills Drive. The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC83-192, recommended adoption of Exhibit "A" of General Plan Amendment No. 186 and further granted a negative declaration. MOTION: On motion by Councilman Roth, seconded by Councilman Pickler, the date and time set for a public hearing on General Plan Amendment No. 186 and negative declaration therefor, was Tuesday, December 6, 1983, at 1:30 p.m. MOTION CARRIED. 892 City Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - November 8~ 1983~ 10:00 A.M. 179.107: INTENT TO CONTINUE PUBLIC HEARING ON RECLASSIFICATION NO. 81-82-5 AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2259: A request for a 45-day continuance of the public hearing on Reclassification No. 81-82-5 and Conditional Use Permit No. 2259 (Orangewood Acres Mobile Home Park), from Terry Tweedt of American National Properties, was submitted. Mr. Philip Schwartz of Phillips, Brandt and Reddick, explained that the applicant felt additional time was needed to address concerns expressed to the Council from the Planning Commission, which might include a possible market study and a complete redesign of the intended land use. MOTION: Councilwoman Kaywood moved to declare the intent of the Council to continue the November 22, 1983 public hearing dare'on Reclassification No. 81-82-5 and Conditional Use Permit No. 2259 to January 10, 1984 at 1:30 p.m. Councilman Pickler seconded the motion. Before a vote was taken, Councilman Bay clarified that the item would still be included on the Council agenda of November 22, 1983, but at that time, it was their intent to continue the matter, and they were taking that action today, so that all those interested in hearing the issue would be so advised. A vote was then taken on the foregoing motion. MOTION CARRIED. REQUEST FOR CLOSED SESSION: The City Manager requested a Closed Session to discuss labor relations with no action anticipated; the City Attorney requested a Closed Session to discuss litigation and potential litigation with action anticipated. Councilman Roth moved to recess into Closed Session and a lunch break. Councilman Pickler seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. (12:24 p.m.) AFTER RECESS: The Mayor called the meeting to order, all Council Members being present. (1:38 p.m.) REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY: Chairman Roth reconvened the Anaheim Redevelopment Agency, all Agency Members being present, for the purpose of conducting a joint public hearing with the City Council. (1:40 p.m.) 161.123/155: JOINT PUBLIC HEARING - DISPOSITION AND DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT - MEYER INVESTMENT PROPERTIES: A joint public hearing between the City Council and the Redevelopment Agency to consider the proposed Disposition and Development Agreement with Meyer Investment Properties for the sale of real property located at the northeast corner of Broadway and Harbor Boulevard, south of Lincoln Avenue and west of Lemon Street, Redevelopment Parcels 8 and 9. Submitted was a report from the Community Development Department dated November 1, 1983. 893 City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - NovemSer 8, 1983, 10:00 A.M. Mr. Norman Priest, Executive Director of Community Development, briefed the staff report recommending that the Council/Agency certify the final subsequent Environmental Impact Report pertaining to Parcels 8 and 9 and approving the Disposition and Development Agreement between the Agency and the developer. With the assistance of a staff member working from a posted map of the 13-acre project site, Mr. Priest summarized each of the parcels involved, explaining that the development would be a mixed use, multi-phased project of no more than six phases on 14 acquisition parcels. The basic concept plan and proposed use of each acquisition parcel was shown on Attachment No. 2 of the Disposition and Development Agreement. He also briefed the schedule of the six phases, with construction to commence on July 31, 1984, Phase I, Parcel A. (See, Summary of the Agreement--Meyer Investment Properties, dated August 1983, outlining the scope of development, the schedule, the financing and purchase plan and also Summary of Disposition and Development Agreement By and Between The Anaheim Redevelopment Agency (A Public Body) and Meyer Investment Properties (the Developer)--on file in the City Clerk's office.) Mr. Priest also pointed out that following the initial parcel, the agreement was so structured that the developer could proceed with that parcel and then on to any other parcel. He could work them in a variety of combinations to take full advantage of the market. Mayor/Chairman Roth asked the status of the First Interstate Bank at Broadway and Harbor Boulevard; Mr. Priest answered that they were working with the bank to acquire property. They had been having discussions with Mr. Meyer relative to participating in his development, but in the event they did not do that, the Agency would assist the bank as they had with other lending institutions to relocate them. The Mayor/Chairman asked if anyone wished to speak. Mr. Richard Meyer, Meyer Investment Properties, stated he was as enthusiastic, perhaps more so today than he was a year ago, relative to his development. He was certain that they were going to do a first class job for the City and was looking forward to July 1, 1984 or sooner, as well as meeting the time schedule outlined by Mr. Priest. Mrs. Hentges, 204 South Helena Street, posed questions relative to when negotiations were scheduled to take place regarding her property, since 33,000 square feet were involved; Mr. Priest explained the procedure they followed and assured Mrs. Hentges that the Agency would be meeting with her within a short period of time. There being no further persons who wished to speak, the Mayor/Chairman closed the public hearing. Council/Agency Member Roth offered Resolution Nos. ARA83-44, 83R-435, ARA83-45 and 83R-436 for adoption, as recommended in memorandum dated November 1, 1983, from the Community Development Department. Refer to Resolution Book. 894 Cit~ Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - November 8, 1983, 10:00 A.M. RESOLUTION NO. ARA83-44: A RESOLUTION OF THE ANAHEIM REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY CERTIFYING THE FINAL SUBSEQUENT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT FOR REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT ALPHA PERTAINING TO PARCELS 8 AND 9; MAKING CERTAIN FINDINGS REGARDING THE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS OF THE PROPOSED DISPOSITION AND DEVELOPMENT OF SUCH PARCELS; AND ADOPTING A STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS. RESOLUTION NO. 83R-435: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM CERTIFYING THE FINAL SUBSEQUENT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT FOR REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT ALPHA PERTAINING TO PARCELS 8 AND 9; MAKING CERTAIN FINDINGS REGARDING THE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS OF THE PROPOSED DISPOSITION AND DEVELOPMENT OF SUCH PARCELS; AND ADOPTING A STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS. RESOLUTION NO. ARA83-45: A RESOLUTION OF THE ANAHEIM REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY APPROVING THE PROPOSED SALE OF REAL PROPERTY IN REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT ALPHA; APPROVING THE PROPOSED DISPOSITION AND DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT WITH MEYER INVESTMENT PROPERTIES, INCORPORATED, PERTAINING THERETO; AND AUTHORIZING THE EXECUTION OF SAID DISPOSITION AND DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT. RESOLUTION NO. 83R-436: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM APPROVING THE PROPOSED DISPOSITION AND DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE ANAHEIM REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY AND MEYER INVESTMENT PROPERTIES, INCORPORATED, A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION, AND FINDING THAT THE CONSIDERATION FOR THE SALE OF THE PROPERTY THEREUNDER IS NOT LESS THAN FAIR MARKET VALUE IN ACCORDANCE WITH COVENANTS AND CONDITIONS GOVERNING SUCH SALE. Roll Call Vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: COUNCIL/AGENCY MEMBERS: COUNCIL/AGENCY MEMBERS: COUNCIL/AGENCY MEMBERS: Kaywood, Pickler, Overholt, Bay and Roth None None The Mayor/Chairman declared Resolution No. ARA83-44, 83R-435, ARA83-45 and 83R-436 duly passed and adopted. Agency Member Roth moved to approve the Basic Concept Plan (Exhibit A), Anaheim Financial Center, a development of Meyer Investment Properties. Agency Member Bay seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. ADJOURNMENT OF T~E REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY: Agency Member Roth moved to adjourn. Agency Member Kaywood seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. p.m.) (1:58 183/137: PUBLIC HEARING - INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT BONDS: To consider the issuance by the Industrial Development Authority of Anaheim Industrial Development Bonds in the principal amount not to exceed 35 million for the purpose of providing financing to Quality Systems, Inc., for the development of a computerized information processing system design and marketing center and related auxiliary facilities to be located on approximately 5 acres at the intersection of Lakeview and La Palma Avenues in Project Alpha in the Northeast Industrial Area. 895 City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - November 8, 1983, 10:00 A.M. Mr. Norman Priest, Executive Director of CommunitY Development, briefed his report dated November 1, 1983, recommending the issuance of the subject Industrial Development Bonds. Mayor Roth asked if anyone wished to speak relative to the issuance of the Industrial Bonds; there being no response, he closed the public hearing. MOTION: On motion by Councilman Bay, seconded by Councilwoman Kaywood, the City Council authorized the issuance of Industrial Development Bonds by the Industrial Development Authority of Anaheim in the amount of 35 million for the purpose of providing financing for the Quality Systems, Inc., development. MOTION CARRIED. 103: PUBLIC HEARING - LA PALMA-LAKEVIEW NO. 6 ANNEXATION: City of Anaheim, to consider the annexation of approximately 223 acres located in the Canyon Industrial Area in the vicinity of the Santa Ana River, west of Imperial Highway. Submitted was a report from the Planning Division dated October 27, 1983, recommending that the Council make a finding regarding the value of written protests filed and not withdrawn, and either terminating proceedings or ordering the territory annexed (report on file in the City Clerk's office). The Mayor asked if anyone wished to speak to the proposed La Palma-Lakeview No. 6 annexation; there being no response, he closed the public hearing. Councilwoman Kaywood offered Resolution No. 83R-437 for adoption. Refer to Resolution Book. RESOLUTION NO. 83R-437: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM MAKING A FINDING REGARDING THE VALUE OF WRITTEN PROTESTS FILED AND NOT WITHDRAWN IN ANNEXATION PROCEEDINGS FOR LA PALMA-LAKEVIEW NO. 6 ANNEXATION AND ORDERING THE TERRITORY ANNEXED PURSUANT TO SECTION 35229 OF THE GOVERNMENT CODE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA. Roll Call Vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: COUNCIL MEMBERS: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Kaywood, Pickler, Overholt, Bay and Roth None None The Mayor declared Resolution No. 83R-437 duly passed and adopted. 176: CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING - ABANDONMENT NO. 83-4A: In accordance with application filed by Tait and Associates, Inc., public hearing was held on proposed abandonment of portions of three public utility easements acquired by the City for sewer and drainage purposes, located east of Citron Street and south of Lincoln Avenue, pursuant to Resolution No. 83R-400, duly published in the Anaheim Bulletin and notices thereof posted in accordance with law. This public hearing was scheduled and continued from the meeting of October 11, 1983 to this date. 896 City Hall, Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - November 8~ 1983, 10:00 A.M. Report of the City Engineer dated October 31, 1983, was submitted recommending approval of said abandonment. 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 Planning Director 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 Pickier offered Resolution No. 83R-438 for adoption, approving Abandonment No. 83-4A. Refer to Resolution Book. RESOLUTION NO. 83R-438: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM VACATING CERTAIN EASEMENTS EXTENDING NORTHERLY FROM CHESTNUT STREET AND ON PROPERTY SOUTH OF LINCOLN AVENUE, EAST OF CITRON STREET, AND NORTH OF BROADWAY. (83-4A) Roll Call Vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: COUNCIL MEMBERS: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Kaywood, Pickler, Overholt, Bay and Roth None None The Mayor declared Resolution No. 83R-438 duly passed and adopted. 176: PUBLIC HEARING - ABANDONMENT NO. 83-6A: In accordance with application filed by Barisic Company, public hearing was held on proposed abandonment of a former Southern California Edison Company public utility easement acquired by the City, as successor, located west of Beach Boulevard, north of Rome Avenue, pursuant to Resolution No. 83R-392, duly published in the Anaheim Bulletin and notices thereof posted in accordance with law. Report of the City Engineer dated September 20, 1983, was submitted recommending approval of said abandonment. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT - CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION: The Planning Director 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. Mayor Roth asked if anyone wished to address the Council. Mary Tenney, 725 South Hayward Street, stated at the last hearing held when Mr. Barisic spoke (see minutes August 9, 1983, and also July 26, 1983, re: Abandonment No. 82-15A), he continued to reassure the Council that the people of the neighborhood would not be bothered by the traffic from his development 897 City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - November 8, 1983, 10:00 A.M. and that he would use an easement off of Beach Boulevard for construction traffic. Within three weeks, he built a structure in the middle of the easement. He obviously never had any intent of using the easement for construction traffic. Cement was dropped off of trucks and construction traffic went through the neighborhood constantly. She still had great concern about the development. Further, the City had allowed Mr. Barisic to build his garage three inches from the garages in her development and his garage was backed with plywood. It would be a place for insects to breed. They were still concerned over the same issues discussed before the Council on July 26, 1983, such as hydrology, drainage, etc. This was an opportunity to again express their concerns. City Engineer William Devitt explained that they prepared a report on the drainage and that information was given to the Council. It was also available in his office and Ms. Tenney could obtain a copy after the meeting. Mr. Jim Barisic, Barisic Company, then explained that relative to the back of the garages, because of some of the parking structures being located on property lines, it was impossible to apply normal exterior materials such as stucco. They had to come up with materials that were safe, long lasting, and would do the job. They were only applying that type of material where it did not show, and it complied with Code fully. Councilwoman Kaywood then posed questions to Mr. Barisic relative to the setback, drainage, etc.; Councilman Bay stated during the hearing process, the developer implied, promised or stipulated or did not, that the construction trucks were going to come off of Beach Boulevard and through an easement for that purpose and now they were not doing so. He wanted to know if there was a stipulation and commitment to do that and if it was not being done, it was an enforcement problem. If he did not stipulate doing it, the charge was unfounded. Annika Santalahti, Assistant Director for Zoning, stated that the rezoning actions on the property did not include any conditions requiring that an easement be established at Beach. There was comment at the public hearing on that, but it was not a condition of the City's approving the project. There being no further persons who wished to speak, the Mayor closed the public hearing. Councilwoman Kaywood stated she recalled that Beach Boulevard was going to be the access and they were not going to come through Rome or Hayward. She then. read the following from the minutes of the Planning Commission meeting of July 26, 1982. "Concerning traffic, Mr. Barisic stated they do have an agreement with the Kubo family that during construction and during sales for a 12-month period, they will have exclusive right to use the easement for ingress and egress for trucks and sale purposes only and that it would be controlled very carefully and there would not be dirt haulers moving up and down Hayward and Rome Streets during construction." It was a stipulation by Mr. Barisic. If people could stipulate to anything and subsequently it did not mean anything, she was going to look at every future public hearing more carefully. 898 City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - November 8, 1983, 10:00 A.M. Councilman Bay asked for an opinion from the City Attorney; City Attorney Hopkins stated that he would have to review the file and make certain there was a stipulation on the record. If there was such a stipulation, then enforcement would be the next step. Mr. Barisic stated he would like to be apprised in a legal fashion if any action was going to be taken by the City, because his was a multi-million dollar project and he had a lot at stake. If someone was going to go back and enforce a requirement that was not a requirement, he would expect that he would receive advance notice so that he could have counsel present also. He did not believe it was fair or reasonable if that would be a condition imposed. It was not a direct stipulation unequivocally. His intent had always been to work with the c~tizens. He had not tried to impinge negligently and he urged each Council Member to view the area personally to see if he was creating a negative environment. He was not doing so and he would not do so, because he cared. Councilman Roth offered Resolution No. 83R-439 for adoption, approving Abandonment No. 83-6A. Refer to Resolution Book. RESOLUTION NO. 83R-439: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM VACATING PUBLIC UTILITY EASEMENTS EXTENDING FROM HAYWARD STREET, WEST OF BEACH BOULEVARD AND NORTH OF ROME AVENUE. (83-6A) Roll Call Vote: AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Pickler, Overholt, Bay and Roth NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: None ABSTAINED: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Kaywood ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: None The Mayor declared Resolution No. 83R-439 duly passed and adopted. Later in the meeting, Councilman Bay expressed his concern with regard to statements made at public hearings by developers, proponents or opponents that truly could have had an effect on his vote, the subject case having involved a Planning Commission hearing. He was also concerned with the difference between a stipulation and a statement when that statement implied a very material condition regarding the neighbors, i.e., the statement quoted by Councilwoman Kaywood from th~ minut~ of the Planning Commission meeting and the fact that it was not a stipulation but it became an understanding of one of the issues during that hearing. He reiterated the reason he was concerned was that they were very germane to the decision-making on a number of hearings. If it turned out that statements made by proponents during critical hearings were not binding on the developer, then during hearings before the Council, he was going to be asking if statements made were stipulations. The Planning Commissioners might also be forewarned that statements made that were not stipulations were not necessarily binding. 899 City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - November 8~ i983, 10:00 A.M. Councilman Bay also asked, relative to the Barisic development, if Condition No. 9 with regard to ingress and egress off of Beach Boulevard did exist at that hearing. He wanted that particular case researched by both Planning's side and also from the City Attorney's viewpoint, so that the Council and Planning Commission had a very clear view on how such statements were accepted and how much weight they would bear in the decision making of those meetings. Miss Santalahti explained in the resolution ultimately accepted by the Planning Commission, certain findings were included giving the reasons for their decision, and then there were conditions which required that certain things shall be done. In this instance, they did not read it in the solid sense that both he and Councilwoman Kaywood had. They did not use the term stipulations; if stipulations were made, they became conditions of the resolution. Councilman Bay stated he wanted to know. exactly what did occur. If there was a question as to statements versus stipulations versus conditions, they should be aware of that fact. Councilwoman Kaywood stated that she would like the City Engineer to take a look to see exactly where the ultimate drainage of the Wind Rivers Project (Ba~isic) was. 176: PUBLIC HEARING - ABANDONMENT NO. 83-10A: In accordance with application filed by Eugene F. Tutt, A.I.A., public hearing was held on proposed abandonment of an existing alley and public utility easement beginning at the south line of Santa Ana Street and extending south approximately 152 feet, located parallel with and approximately 144 feet east of the centerline of Harbor Boulevard, pursuant to Resolution No. 83R-405, duly published in the Anaheim Bulletin and notices thereof posted in accordance with law. Report of the City Engineer dated September 27, 1983, was submitted recommending approval of said abandonment, subject to the following reservation: That a public utility easement be reserved unto the City of Anaheim for electrical purposes together with all reasonable rights of ingress and egress. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT - CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION: The Planning Director 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. The Mayor asked if anyone wished to address the Council; there being no response, he closed the public hearing. Councilman Pickler offered Resolution No. 83R-440 for adoption, approving Abandonment No. 83-10A, in accordance with the recommendation of the City Engineer, including the foregoing reservation. Refer to Resolution Book. 900 City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - November 8, 1983, 10:00 A.M. RESOLUTION NO. 83R-440: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM VACATING A CERTAIN PUBLIC ALLEY LOCATED EAST OF HARBOR BOULEVARD, SOUTH OF SANTA ANA STREET. (83-10A) Roll Call Vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: COUNCIL MEMBERS: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Kaywood, Pickler, Overholt, Bay and Roth None None The Mayor declared Resolution No. 83R-440 duly passed and adopted. 179: PUBLIC HEARING - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2474 AND NEGATIVE DECLARATION: Application submitted by the Orange County Water District, to permit a portable asphalt concrete plant on RS-A-43,000(SC) (FP) zoned property located at 1101 Richfield Road. The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC83-152, disapproved the proposed negative declaration and denied Conditional Use Permit No. 2474. The decision of the Planning Commission was appealed by Blair Paving, Inc., agent, and public hearing scheduled this date. The Mayor asked to hear from the applicant or applicant's agent. Mr. Keith Walden, Spray Gould and Bowers, attorney representing Blair Paving, 3550 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 1100, Los Angeles, first asked Mr. Ben Day to make the opening comments and he would subsequently address himself to the issues he felt should be addressed. Mr. Ben Day, President of Blair Paving, gave the background of his business, which had been operating in Orange County for 15 years. They selected their present site because of the close proximity to Orange County construction projects and considered it to be an excellent one for recycling asphalt pavements. The equipment selected for the plant was the most advanced for producing asphalt and controlling pollution. Out of the ~1 million invested, ~3OO,0OO was spent on air filtering systems alone. They had spent a great deal of time trying to meet with the neighbors and he had personally been to the other side of the Santa Ana River where there was controversy. They had also taken the followimg steps above and beyond the conditions of the or~glnal permit: ~16,000 noise barrier construction around the end of his plant as shown on the model presented; a ~19,000 suppressor; paving of one-half of Richfield Road at the point of truck ingress and egress; paving of the majority of the plant site to control dust; installation of a water sprayer on their system to control dust; 95 percent of truck traffic taken off of the River levee road. He also emphasized that he was willing to do anything within reason to satisfy all the people's concerns short of losing his million dollar investment. He then explained for the Mayor that they were operating a plant under CUP 2207, 901 City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - November 8~ 1983, 10:00 A.M. which had been challenged in court over some alleged procedures that were taken in the notification process. They also had a need for a slight increase in trucking. Miss Santalahti explained the primary reason for CUP 2474 was the difference between the truck traffic under the previous CUP which was conditioned to have a maximum of 8 trucks daily or six loads. The proposal before the Council involved an average of fifty loads per day with a possible maximum of 70. Mr. Walden then basically briefed the seven-page Blair Paving Appeal to City Council of the Action of the Anaheim City Planning Commission taken on September 7, 1983, Concerning Conditional Use Permit No. 2472, dated October 18, 1983 (previously made a part of the record). The Commission specifically requested that Blair retain experts to' conduct a traffic and sound study, which they did, and their findings were contained in Exhibit A to the Appeal--Report of Van Houten and Associates, Inc., dated August 29, 1983--Subject: Noise Assessment and Noise Control Recommendations for the Blair Paving Asphalt Plant Operation, Anaheim, and Exhibit B--Report of Weston Pringle and Associates, dated August 2, 1983, s,,mmarizing their review of traffic factors related to the plant. The reports were also made a part of the record. The essence of the Van Houten report was that the sound emitted by Blair's plant after completion of the sound deadening improvements recommended by the expert were well within the levels accepted by the City. The traffic engineer's (Weston Pringle) findings were that the proposed use in terms of trucking in and out of the property would not have a significant effect on the environment. (Also see minutes of the City Planning Commission meetings of July 25, 1983 and September 7, 1983, where extensive testimony and input were given by both the applicant and those in opposition.) In his presentation, Mr. Walden also referred to testimony given by Mr. Lee Binz of Barber Green, a pollution control engineer, at the meeting of July 25, 1983, the essence of his testimony being that the subject plant had the finest pollution controls available for portable asphalt plants. He (Walden) noted that his presentation would be the sum total of what they had to offer, but incorporating by reference expert testimony previously given by Mr. Binz, Weston Pringle and Van Houten. He also reported that the lawsuit filed by Hunt Mix, an asphalt paving competitor and contractor, in June of 1983, was defended by Blair Paving in Orange County Superior Court and just today, the case was dismissed at trial by Judse Ryan with prejudice against Hunt Mix. Blair was lesally operating under CUP No. 2207 and currently no lawsuit was pending. He further explained that the two reasons they filed for CUP 2474 was (1) to anticipate any potential problem with CUP 2207 and, (2) to increase the number of truck trips per day that would be allowed to ingress and egress the plant, which was originally a miscalculation by Blair. At the City Planning Commission meeting of September 7, 1983, after the testimony given by Van Houten and Pringle, the Commission disapproved a negative declaration status and denied CUP 2474. It was Blair Paving's strong conviction that a different result should have been reached, the reasons being that the items they anticipated they would be hearing from the opposition 902 City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - November 8, 1983, 10:00 A.M. revolving around traffic, noise and pollution had all been mitigated. Mr. Walden then spoke to those three areas of contention. Blair had voluntarily removed 95 percent of its truck traffic off the levee road and it now entered and exited by Richfield Road onto La Palma and onto the freeway. There was no reason for trucks to drive through the residential area. They also had installed one of the finest pollution control systems available and emissions from the plant were well below those acceptable by the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD). Some citizens were extremely irate with operations at night before the noise suppression was installed. Blair was operating between 6:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m. under CUP 2207. They were not requesting that those hours be enhanced, and under CUP No. 2474, would leave the operation during those periods of time and would never operate the plant during the evening hours. Councilman Bay asked if that was a stipulation; Mr. Walden answered, "yes." Mr. Walden stated that many of the initial concerns regarding truck noise, equipment noise, traffic problems and pollution had been dealt with since the hearing on July 25, 1983, and the subsequent hearing on September 7, 1983, and this was now a different situation. There had been an ongoing effort to make the plant as acceptable as possible. He also reiterated the stipulations listed, starting on page 5 of the October 18, 1983 appeal, that they would finish paving Richfield Road, double insulate the noise barrier (as broached by Mr. Day, and plant a screening of eucalyptus trees along the River to screen the plant from the residential area across the River. Councilwoman Kaywood specifically questioned the number of truck trips, noting that on Page 7 of the appeal, "In order to ship 60 truckloads of finished asphalt, 120 trucks must enter the plant and leave the plant each day, that is, to bring in 60 truckloads of raw material and to remove 60 truckloads of finished asphalt product." That figure was still half, because it was 240 truck trips, her point being, if Mr. Walden did not have it accurate in his letter there was confusion and it was expected, unless someone was in the business and understood that each load being talked about meant times 4. Mr. Walden stated that was true. Mr. Pringle in his report, Page 2 under Project Traffic, stated, "The project would generate a maximum of 280 daily trip ends due to truck traffic." He did use the 4 times equation referred to by Councilwoman Kaywood, but he (Walden) did not. He suggested the safest thing to do from this point forward was to use the equation Councilwoman Kaywood referred to--times 4, and if they were going to have 60 truck trips a day, it was going to be 240 movements of trucks, and if 70, it would be 280 movements of trucks. The Mayor then asked to hear from those who wished to speak. The following are people who spoke in opposition, including a summation of their major points of concern: Agatha Kerry, 4371 East Alderdale (also see her letter of October 11, 1983, previously submitted and made a part of the record with attachments--photographs, petitions signed in opposition, public 903 City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - November 8, 1983, 10:00 A.M. notice on the Santa Aha River flood threat, etc.). Her home was located across the River from the plant. She referred to the groups of petitions previously submitted in opposition, listing the concerns of the residents, and also a letter sent to the SCAQMD dated September 26, 1983. They had to tolerate odors in their back yards, loud noises that sounded like construction work constantly during the day, and a rumbling vibration from the plant. It was an injustice to them as homeowners and citizens that since July they had to tolerate such detrimental living conditions resulting from the plant. In spite of the promises made by Mr. Day as quoted from the minutes of the Planning Commission meeting, it was obvious that he was going to continue to do as he pleased (see Planning Commission minutes of July 25 and September 7, 1983). She then cited dates and times of alleged violations of the CUP relative to truck trips, their method of ingress and egress, and pollution, the latter having caused the residents on Alderdale to suffer eye irritation from tar vapors (also submitted was a survey taken on October 3, 1983, by Mrs. Kerry and Debra Lucas listing truck traffic to and from Blair Paving, times in and out, the streets used, including ten trucks which made a left-hand turn off of Richfield Road onto La Palma Avenue--made a part of the record). Also see Mrs. Kerry's extensive testimony given at the Planning Commission meeting of September 7, 1983. Mrs. Sandra Philippi, 4353 Alderdale, discussed the Santa Ana River flood threat due to the archaic Prado Dam. She referred to a notice received in her property tax bill recently which required cities and counties to adopt flood plan regulations requiring new structures to be elevated above the level of anticipated flooding or to be floodproof. She questioned why Mr. Day was allowed to move into the flood area. Blair Paving was not built above the flood level and thus, flood waters could easily carry Blair Pavings entire portable operation downstream to block flood waters, causing even more severe flooding than occurred in previous years when flooding took place. She also reiterated the concerns expressed relative to noise pollution, hazardous 18-wheeler trucks, air pollution and vibration from the plant (also see Mrs. Philippi's extensive testimony given at the City Planning Commission meeting of September 7, 1983). Debra Lucas, 4365 Alderdale, first submitted a letter from two neighbors unable to be present today who wanted to voice their opposition to CUP No. 2474. She emphasized that they would like CUP No. 2474 denied and the asphalt plant removed ~rom the area. It had been a constant nuisance, and the noise and pollution were unbearable. Her husband was also unable to be present today to present medical evidence regarding damage from air and noise pollution they were experiencing, but the reports were previously submitted at the September 7, 1983 meeting (made a part of the record). There was also a great deal of evidence before the Council today from that meeting (also see Mrs. Lucas' testimony given at the meeting of September 7, 1983) regarding the many violations Blair Paving, one being the failure to uphold correct operating hours from the beginning, the failure to comply with the SCAQMD regulations and the promise of Mr. Day to strictly comply with the recommendations of his own experts regarding the traffic study. Trucks had made dangerous left-hand turns as witnessed by Mrs. Kerry herself and her 904 City Hall, Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - November 8~ 1983~ 10:00 A.M. husband. Mr. Day had proved himself unable and unwilling to abide by any of the conditions set down by the Planning Commission and the SCAQMD. Before concluding her presentation, Mrs. Lucas submitted pictures of trucks making the left-hand turns to which she referred. The Mayor then asked Mr. Walden to give his rebuttal and summation. Mr. Walden then spoke to the concerns expressed as follows: In terms of truck traffic, they were complying with the standard set by CUP 2207. In addition to Blair Paving's use of Richfield Road, there was a rock crushing, truck operation and forklift operation in the vicinity, all utilizing the same type of trucks Blair Paving used and also, Blair Paving did not own any trucks. He was interested in seeing evidence that the plant was not above flood levels. It was a portable asphalt plant and best suited for the area, since it could be moved off the site quickly. Further, the type of construction equipment on the job site would be extremely helpful and useful in a disaster. He then stipulated that they would contribute a partial assessment to the installation of a traffic signal if the City's engineers believed it would enhance the intersection of Richfield Road and La Palma Avenue. The comments concerning fuel oil were unfounded, since the plant burned propane gas. Relative to the noise, he urged consideration of the statements of the sound control engineer, who was an objective expert in that field. They were willing to install an additional barrier which would bring the sound level even closer to the normal level in the area. The situation at present was an entirely new one and most of the measures taken were done voluntarily by Blair Paving. Questions were then posed to Mr. Day by Council Members, during which he (Day) reported the following: In an emergency, it would take one and one-half days to move the plant out; the double insulation would reduce noise to an ambient level or slightly above; they operated five days a week, even though he had permission under the permit to operate six days. If he did not have any choice, he could operate five days a week. They had the most sophisticated state-of-the-art pollution control equipment installed at the plant currently. He had some difficulty in accepting that any odors were carrying as far as the residential area across the River. He had never been able to smell them and Mr, Haynie of the enforcement office of $CAQMD had never been able to verify that there were odors. When he filled the tank where they stored the liquid asphalt, there was a slight emission of blue smoke and he felt they could eliminate that which could conceivably be carried over to the residential tract. He might be able to put a water condenser on that which would go through a process that would dissipate the smoke. He would be willing to do that and it could possibly be a stipulation of the SCAQMD to get a permit to operate. In concluding, Mr. Day stated he would like the opportunity to try to reduce the noise further and mitigate the odors. He never at any time tried to alienate himself from the residents, but was trying to work with them. He had 905 City Hall~ Anaheim'~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - November 8, 1983, 10:00 A.M. also expressed a public apology for some of his excesses in his operation. What he wanted to do was to operate his business at its present site and he wanted to take any step technologically possible to accomplish that. Mr. Walden stated they would make it a stipulation of part of Conditional Use Permit No. 2474 that the additional equipment Mr. Day just referred to would be appended to that use permit and be a condition precedent to the permit's issuance or the continuation under that permit. Mr. Paul Singer, Traffic Engineer, then explained that the report prepared by Weston Pringle regarding the plant was predicated upon splitting the trips between Lakeview Avenue and Tustfn Avenue in order to dissipate the impact of the truck traffic. Since the levee road was no longer used, the split was no longer practical and 95 percent of the truck traffic was now impacting Richfield Road. He did not believe the volume of traffic was too serious except during peak hours. He did not want to see another traffic signal installed, but would recommend, if signs did not work as shown on.the plans presented by the.applicant indicating right turn only, that a median island be constructed on La Palma to preclude any left turn movement whatsoever, and all traffic would then be coming in from Tustin Avenue and leaving at Lakeview Avenue, and it would be one-way traffic essentially on La Palma Avenue. This would split the trips more evenly on the arterial system rather than impacting all of the truck traffic to Tustin. It would now split it between Tustin and Lakeview Avenues and would force the issue. He did not know how inconvenient that would be for the rest of the businesses on the street. Ail vehicular traffic would then have to make a right turn, and that might not be too convenient for most people. He also stated, in answer to Councilwoman Kaywood, that he did not call 280 truck trips an insignificant amount of traffic, but rather a substantial amount. Annika Santalahti, Assistant Director for Zoning, stated relative to the flood plain, the applicant referred to several other similar businesses in the area which had permanent structures. The Flood Plain Overlay was adopted in the last few years and there were a number of operations that did not comply with current regulations. While it appeared unusual, the Code was more recently amended and Blair Paving was under a new set of regulations. A number of complaints relative to air quality was an issue they could not address in enforcement at all, and they did depend upon County or Federal agencies. In terms of traffic exceeding the previous CUP on the property, when they received complaints from a neighborhood regarding that type of violation, it would depend on the observations and counts by those people. Because of the pending litigation and pending CUP, they had not made an effort to make a count themselves. When other CUP's had been taken to court by the City for violation of the conditions, generally speaking, the determination of the violation would depend on the neighborhood saying that a problem did exist and their willingness to show up in court to testify. Additional questions were then posed to Miss Santaiahti by Councilwoman Kaywood for purposes of clarification. 906 City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - November 8, 1983, 10:00 A.M. Mr. Day stated if the Council had any grave doubts about odors or ruling disfavorabiy on his application, he would invite them to visit the site to see it firsthand, if at all possible. Mayor Roth stated what he probably should have done was to ask a representative from the SCAQMD to be present to relay what was going on at the plant and to speak to the history of violations. Councilman Overholt asked if it would be possible to adopt the suggestion of Mr. Day to actually view the property. He would personally like to do so and if they could delay the decision today, he would be supportive of that approach. He agreed with Councilman Bay who previously stated that the issue was not one of standards imposed by the Air Quality Control people, but a five- or six-day a week nuisance imposed on the people living in the area, as compared to what existed before. He was sympathetic to the investment of Blair Paving as well. He would also like to go into the back yards of the residents. It was a very difficult question and it was not clear in his mind if Mr. Day would ever be able to reduce the nuisance stemming from his activity to the satisfaction of the residents who also had an investment to protect. Mayor Roth stated that under the Lewis Act, the SCAQMD had a tremendous responsibility for monitoring any nuisance. He was certain they could obtain an additional amount of information from the District; Councilman Bay asked if it was also possible to check with the City of Orange on another plant located on Lincoln Avenue at Batavia Avenue. He agreed that he did not know any other way but to go to the area during the public hearing continuation period, and one long enough so that when he went out, he did not want anybody to know when he was coming. He suggested that they continue the final decision for three or four weeks, so that they could all take a personal look on both sides of the River. Councilwoman Kaywood stated the very personal issue of a difference in sensitivity had to be taken into account. The residents did not have the problems they expressed prior to Blair Paving, and it could be assumed that the plant was the problem. She asked, however, that the residents try to blot out everything that occurred before and to start noticing what impact the plant had on them, starting now. MOTION: Councilman Overholt moved that the public hearing on Conditional Use Permit No. 2474 be continued to November 29, 1983, at 1:30 p.m. Councilman Pickler seconded the motion. Before a vote was taken, Mayor Roth stated during that time it was to be expected that all five Council Members would be visiting the plant and residents. He also noted at this point that he was Vice-Chairman of the SCAQMD, but was trying to stay neutral during the hearing. At the meeting of November 29, 1983, he was going to call an expert witness to address the problem areas as discussed. A vote was then taken on the foregoing motion. MOTION CARRIED. 907 City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - November 8, 1983, 10:00 A.M. 144/148: VACANCY ON THE ORANGE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION (OCTC): Mayor Roth stated that on Thursday, November 10, 1983, he would be attending the League of California Cities meeting and the City Selection Committee would be required to vote for a new member of the OCTC to fill a vacancy. The appointee must be from the Third Supervisorial District and the two candidates presently were Placentia Councilman Don Holt and Fullerton Councilman Dick Ackerman. Mr. Holt had called him and wanted him to advise the Council that if he were elected to the Commission, he would give up his position on the Orange County Transportation District Board, which would subsequently create a vacancy on that Board. He (Roth) was looking for direction from the Council as to how they wished him to cast his ballot. The consensus of the Council Members favored Don Holt. Councilman Bay moved that the Mayor be directed to vote for Don Holt to fill the vacancy on the OCTC at the November 10, 1983 League of Cities meeting. Councilwoman Kaywood seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. 148: OFF-SHORE OIL MORATORIUM: Councilman Overholt explained that he received a call from Sally Bellerue, Councilwoman in Laguna Beach, asking for the Council to support San Clemente's resolution, which was going to be brought forward at the League meeting on Thursday. The resolution dealt with an off-shore oil moratorium. The United States Congress had imposed a one-year moratorium and perhaps that was sufficient to give Congress an opportunity to evaluate the situation further. The moratorium was suggested by Senator Pete Wilson to limit oil drilling to the area north of Newport Beach, beyond the three-mile limit, to preserve the recreational and natural habitat of the shoreline. Mayor Roth felt that the issue was moot, since Congress imposed the one-year moratorium. He felt they should follow the leadership of Placentia and abstain. He could not support a permanent moratorium, because he did not have enough facts and information at this time to do so. Councilman Overholt reported that the Intergovernmental Relations Officer indicated that San Clemente may withdraw the resolution, but if they pressed for support of a permanent moratorium, he shared the Mayor's view that they still did not have enough information before them to go that route. He was totally supportive of oil exploration, but the question wan whether it should be every place or if there should be some areas reserved for the natural habitat. He joined in the study and support of an abstention if it was going to be proposed. Councilwoman Kaywood stated as a City that had a very large portion of the tourist industry, they needed to give thought to the beaches which were also one of the attractions. She had lived in Santa Barbara and recalled the oil spill that occurred there and the detrimental effect it had on the number of tourists visiting that city. She felt for Orange County she would like to see them stick together on a number of things that affected all of them. 9O8 City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - November 8~ 1983, 10:00 A.M. Councilman Pickler felt the proposed action would be premature. If there was no moratorium, it would perhaps sway him the other way. MOTION: Councilman Bay moved that the Council oppose any resolution presented at the League of Cities meeting for a permanent off-shore oil moratorium at this time. Before any action was taken, Councilman Bay stated the reason for his motion was that since there was a one-year moratorium with a study to be undertaken, he felt to go ahead and resolve a permanent one at this time would be premature. It did not mean the City would always oppose a permanent moratorium. If they put out the word that Anaheim was going to abstain, it might encourage a push for a permanent moratorium before the year's study. Councilman Roth agreed and thereupon seconded the motion. Councilman Bay clarified that he was opposing the moratorium for the reasons just stated, with no prejudice to a future decision. A vote was then taken on the foregoing motion. Councilwoman Kaywood voted "No." MOTION CARRIED. 108: HEARING - AMUSEMENT ARCADE APPLICATION NO. 83-16~ STARCADE I: Fred Mattox, to consider an appeal of the decision of the Planning Director denying an Amusement Arcade Application for Starcade I, 2136 East Lincoln Avenue, for a maximum of 70 amusement devices. Submitted was a report from the Zoning Division dated November 3, 1983, which gave the background relative to the application. The Mayor asked to hear from the applicant or applicant's agent. Mr. Douglas "Doc" Livingston, 1904 East Romneya, No. 106, clarified that the proposed business was going to be located at 2136 East Lincoln Avenue. He stated when they discovered that the Planning Director denied the application, they immediately went to the surrounding businesses and found that the basic reasons for denial were two-fold--they did not know who they (Starcade) were, and the poor experience they had with the previous arcade. They introduced themselves and during the past two weeks, they met with the people who objected and had made their plans known. The booklet on their operation (previously submitted and made a part of the record) was also d~strtbuted to the people who objected. Their concerns were based on a much older arcade where they had experienced problems, the reason being improper management in controlling the area outside the establishment as well as inside. After they explained their operation, those in opposition stated they were generally not going to object to their presence in the proposed arcade at this time. Mayor Roth asked if Mr. Livingston had petitions or documentation from those who were previously opposed indicating that they had now changed their position. He noted that the reason the Planning Director denied the 909 City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - November 8, 1983, 10:00 A.M. application was due to the fact that 52.9 percent of the people were opposed. He (Livingston) was saying that there was now no opposition, but the Council needed proof that this was true. Mr. Livingston did not have any documentation, but felt he could get the necessary signatures. The Mayor reiterated that he was looking for proof. Perhaps the Council would be favorable to continuing the matter to give Mr. Livingston an opportunity to obtain signatures showing support and refiling those with the Planning Director; Mr. Livingston stated he could do that within a short period of time. Councilman Bay asked for clarification if Mr. Livingston took the address list used by the Zoning Division for polling and went back out to get a petition signed that would give him a majority, would he have to come back to the Council. Miss Santalahti clarified that under the procedures, it would have to come back to the Council. The Mayor asked if anyone else wished to speak to the matter; there was no response. MOTION: Councilman Roth moved to continue the hearing on the appeal of the decision of the Planning Director denying an Amusement Arcade Application for Starcade I for one week. Councilman Overholt seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. 179: ORDINANCE NO. 4460: Councilman Roth offered Ordinance No. 4460 for first reading. ORDINANCE NO. 4460: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AMENDING TITLE 18 OF THE ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO ZONING. (83-84-3, CO, 401 South Euclid Street) 114: PROPOSED CHANGE'IN MEETING TIMES - REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY~ HOUSING AUTHORITY AND COUNCIL: Councilman Overholt stated the City Attorney had advised him that if the motion he made at the previous meeting (see minutes November 1, 1983) was carried, it would not result in changing the time of the Council meeting, but instead, it was necessary to do so by ordinance. He thereupon requested the City Attorney to prepare an ordinance relative to his proposal changing the Council meeting times, to be presented at the next Council meeting, where he would offer it for first reading with a vote on the entire matter to be taken at the meeting of November 22, 1983. He understood it was not necessary for an ordinance to change the meeting time of the Redevelopment Agency and Housing Authority. City Attorney Hopkins stated the latter could be done by resolution. Councilman Overholt stated that he would ask for a vote on all three matters two weeks hence. 910 City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - November 8, 1983, 10:00 A.M. RECESS - CLOSED SESSION: Councilman Roth moved to recess into Closed Session. Councilwoman Kaywood seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. p.m.) (4:55 AFTER RECESS: Mayor Pro Tem Bay called the meeting to order, all Council Members being present with the exception of Mayor Roth. (6:40 p.m.) 112: SETTLEMENT OF CLAIMS - SIMLOG LEASING COMPANY OF CALIFORNIA, INC: Councilman Bay moved to approve the payment of $25,000 to Simlog Leasing Company of California, Inc., doing business as Hawaiian American Equipment Leasing Company, in full settlement of ail its claims against the City of Anaheim. Councilman Pickler seconded the motion. Councilman Roth was absent. MOTION CARRIED. ADJOURNMENT: Councilman Pickler moved to adjourn. Councilman Overholt seconded the motion. Councilman Roth was absent. MOTION CARRIED. (6:41 p.m.) LINDA D. ROBERTS, CITY CLERK 911