Loading...
1982/06/15City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - June 15, 1982, 9:00 A.M. The City Council of the City of Anaheim met in adjourned regular session. PRESENT: ABSENT: VACANCY: PRESENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Overholt, Kaywood, Roth and Bay COUNCIL MEMBERS: None COUNCIL MEMBERS: One CITY MANAGER: William O. Talley ASSISTANT CITY MANAGER: William T. Hopkins CITY ATTORNEY: William P. Hopkins CITY CLERK: Linda D. Roberts COMMUNITY SERVICES BOARD CHAIRMAN: Steve Jiminez ACTING POLICE CHIEF: Jimmie Kennedy FIRE CHIEF: Bob Simpson CITY LIBRARIAN: William Griffith LIBRARIAN: Diane Mayo CITY TREASURER: Ruth Redepenning Mayor Ben Bay called the adjourned regular meeting to order for the purpose of a budget workshop with various City departments. Mayor Bay first asked to be supplied with a thorough explanation of the General Benefits Fund (GBF), how they got the funds for the GBF, how they were taken for each department and the prorated basis to build that fund, did they overbudget what went into that fund. Relative to the possibility of the City losing close to ~6 million coming from the State, he wanted to know how much of the ~6 million was in the Resource Allocation Plan, and specifically, where in the budget. City Manager William Talley stated that next week they would provide two reports, giving the composition of the GBF, how it was budgeted, and how money flowed back and forth. He then gave an overview explanation of the GBF. Mr. Taliey then referred to the report dated June 8, 1982, submitted by the Community Services Board (CSB), signed by Steve Jimenez, recommending that ~109,941 be allocated to various community service agencies. Representatives from each of the eleven agencies were also present to speak. He then explained that none of the funds were budgeted, and the subject category had increased 205 percent over the ~ast two years (1980-81 Council approved $36,000--CSB recommendation for 1982-83--$110,000). He suggested that the Council might want to consider policies as far as the amount of monies they wished to allocate to such programs, since they would be approached in greater numbers in the future, but with fewer dollars to spend. Before proceeding, Mayor Bay wanted to state his views relative to the requests for funds from community service organizations. Looking at the increases in those requests, as they were occurring over the years, it was generally his opinion that the Council took great liberties when it gave taxpayer money to community service, non-profit groups. Philosophically, it was his opinion that it was a gift of taxpayer funds. He proposed strongly that they not approve the $110,000 this year, but that they approve a maximum 496 City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MIh~TES - June 15, 1982, 9:00 A.M. of ~60,000 with fair warning that next year the maximum would be ~30,000, and the third year, it would be nothing. He proposed that the subject organizations should seek private funding and have fund-raising activities. As he went through the documentation, he saw no concerted effort to raise money for these agencies from the private sector. He also had a breakdown of how he felt the $60,000 maximum should be allocated, but would wait until they heard from the Community Services Board and comments or opinions from the Council. He clarified for Councilman Overholt that he was speaking for himself alone. Councilman Overholt stated he agreed with some of the things expressed by Mayor Bay, but not with other things. Although the amount allocated would no doubt have to be trimmed, he did not believe there should be a phase-out of the program; Councilman Roth stated his priorities were the Transportation, Lunch and Counseling (TLC) and Retired Senior Volunteer Program (RSVP) programs. Mr. Steve Jimenez, Chairman, Community Services Board, stated this year they visited some of the agencies and the key elements they used for analyzing the requests were the total number of Anaheim residents served by the organization, the type and nature of services, the funding requests increase, feasibility of Revenue Sharing, participation of other cities, and fund-raising activities. He referred to the budget before the Council for 1982-83, totaling $109,941 for the eleven agencies who requested Council Contingency Funds, submitted under memorandum dated June 8, 1982, from the Community Services Board. The memorandum reported in detail on the agencies involved and their functions and requests. Submitted along with the memorandum was a blue brochure listing all of the agencies, including their letter requests and backup material (on file in the City Clerk's office). The following groups then gave a description of the services they provided, in most cases, the percentage of Anaheim residents served through their offices or facilities, and reasons for increases in requested funding. After each presentation, the representatives answered questions posed by the Council: AJ~PARO--Susan D. Taylor, AMPARO Director, request, $10,000; Catholic Social Service--Gloria M. Just, Director, request, $1,000; Christian Temporary Housing--Elmer Holchus, Chairman, request, $10,000; community Pride--Dave Freeman, Assistant Director, request, $2,150; North Orange County ROP Preschool--Pat Giamarino, Supervisor, Instructural Services, and Patti Green, Instructor, request, $16,900; Orange County Community Development Council (Food Bank)--Joni Valadez, Food Bank Manager, and Ronda Satterlee, request, $20,940; Project TLC Feedback Foundation, Inc.--Shirley A. Cohen, Project Director, request, $28,586; RSVP, Retired Senior Volunteer Program--Helen H. Haines, Director, request, $17,105; The Villa--Doris LaMagna, Administrator, request, $18,000; West Orange County Hotline--Mfldred Jones, Executive Director, request, $1,200; We Tip--no representative present, request, $1,000. 497 City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - June 15, 1982, 9:00 A.M. After the presentation by Ms. Just of the Catholic Social Service, Mrs. Margaret Sullivan, 1122 West Diamond Street, expressed her concern over the fact that the organization advertised that the mobile outreach program was exclusively for Hispanics when it came into Anaheim. She then read a clipping from a church bulletin which indicated that was the case. She stated that the organization did a fine job, but when they came to Anaheim, she questioned why they discriminated against all other minorities that belonged to her church. Further, having the mobile unit at Manzanita and Little Peoples Park did not make it easily accessible for others to take advantage of the services, especially the elderly, who could not travel to those locations. It should be more centrally located. At the conclusion of all the presentations, Mr. Jimenez agreed that if they had a funding level to work with, it would make their job, as well as the Council's, much easier. Mayor Bay stated he would like to see a longer range policy to wean back the subject programs. He then gave the following breakdown of the ~60,000 he recommended be allocated, as stated earlier in the meeting: AMPARO, $3,000; Catholic Social Service, $1,000; Christian Temporary Housing, $4,000; Community Pride, $2,000; North Orange County ROP Preschool, $5,000; Food Bank, $2,000; Project TLC, $20,000; RSVP, $10,000; The Villa, $12,000; West Orange County Hotline, no donation because of two-year running questions regarding the telephone listing; and We Tip, $1,000, for a total of $60,000 against the 1981-82 total of $53,900, and against a request of almost $127,000 this year, with a Community Services Board recommendation of $110,000. Councilwoman Kaywood recommended that the matter be returned to the Community Services Board for another look, since they were not given a funding limit to work with initially; Councilman Overholt also felt the matter should again be considered by the CSB. He commented further that the AMPARO organization, an agency of Garden Grove, was reorganizing and that did not appear to be one of the top priority items compared to the ROP North Orange County Preschool, RSVP and TLC. He also shared the Mayor's concern relative to the West Orange County Hotline. They should place priorities on those programs that were taking place at Anaheim facilities. Councilman R0th stated he was concerned about reductions, but sensitive to where the money would come from. He agreed that the CSB should again consider the matter, but prior to a firm decision with regard to a funding level, they should know the numbers they were going to have to work with from Sacramento, relative to the State Budget. His priorities were TLC, RSVP, Christian Temporary Housing and the North Orange County ROP Preschool. MOTION: Councilman Bay moved that the requests for funding from the various community service organizations be returned to the Community Services Board, with priorities planned around a limit of $60,000 in funding. 498 City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - June 15, 1982, 9:00 A.M. Councilwoman Kaywood stated she would second the motion to return the matter to the Community Services Board, but not the amount suggested· The motion died for a lack of a second. MOTION: Councilman Overholt moved to return the matter to the Community Services Board to make recommendations on alternate total amounts of $60,000 and $80,000. Councilman Roth seconded the motion. One Vacancy. MOTION CARRIED. RECESS: Councilman Bay moved to recess for ten minutes. Councilman Overholt seconded the motion. One Vacancy. MOTION CARRIED. (11:07 a.m.) AFTER RECESS: The Mayor called the meeting to order, all Council Members being present. One Vacancy. (11:17 a.m.) City Manager William Talley prefaced each City department's presentation by referencing the page numbers in the submitted budget, control centers, position controls and capital improvement projects, where applicable, as well as the budget total for each department, noting any areas of change and/or other items which needed further explanation. The following department heads then gave an overview of their budgets and plans for 1982-83, followed by questions and comments from the Council: Acting Police Chief Jimmie Kennedy--Police Department: Department 09, Control Center No. 51, Page C-83--budget total, $23,246,135; two capital improvement projects--Police Department Information System (Page D-61), ~50,000, and Police Department Productivity Study (Page D-62), $50,000; Position Control, Pages E-18 and E-19. At the conclusion of the presentation, Councilman Roth stated that he was committed to expanding the Neighborhood Watch Program throughout the entire City. Fire Chief Bob Simpson--Fire Department: Department 10, Control Center No. 56, Page C-99--budget total, $11,209,309; two capital improvement projects--Fire Station No. 8 (Page D-53), $65,000, and Fire Station No. 6, $26,000 (Page D-53); Position Control, Pages E-20 and E-21. Chief Simpson also compared the national goals of the Joint Council of National Fire Service Organizations to what Anaheim was doing, to show the very favorable comparison. City Librarian William Griffith--Library Department: Department 08, Control Center No. 48, Page C-70--budget total, $3,837,564; no capital improvement projects; Position Control, Page E-17. City Manager Talley stated the major and only issue was relative to the bookmobile and an issue the Council would have to address before the adoption of the budget--should the program be continued, and if so, did they wish to do so at an estimated annual cost of $71,065 to service a specialized population which could conceivably access existing libraries. 499 City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - June 15, 1982, 9:00 A.M. Miss Diane Mayo, Librarian, then narrated a slide presentation illustrating the benefits of the bookmobile, which they considered as an outreach program, and justifying the expenditure of $71,065 for that program. Councilman Overhoit left the Council Chambers. (12:25 p.m.) e City Treasurer Ruth Redepenning--City Treasurer's Department: Department 07, Control Center No. 40, Page C-35--budget total, $496,766; no capital improvement projects; Position Control, Page E-9. Mayor Bay asked each department to consider, if they had to cut their operating budget by five percent, where those cuts would occur. The reason he asked was due to the fact that the total operating budget of the City was $140 million and five percent of that would be approximately $7 million, which would approximate the possible $6.2 million cut by the State, and further, taking into consideration the possibility of a football strike. REQUEST FOR CLOSED SESSION: The City Attorney requested a Closed Session to discuss litigation and potential litigation with action anticipated; the City Manager requested a Closed Session to discuss labor relations with no action anticipated. Councilwoman Kaywood moved to recess into Closed Session. Councilman Bay seconded the motion. Councilman Overholt was temporarily absent. One Vacancy. MOTION CARRIED. (12:40 p.m.) AFTER RECESS: The Mayor called the meeting to order, all Council Members being present. One Vacancy. (1:25 p.m.) 112: SMIALOWSKI VS. CITY OF ANAHEIM: On motion by Councilman Bay, seconded by Councilman Roth, the City Attorney was authorized to settle Orange County Superior Court Case No. 34-69-27, Smialowski vs. City of Anaheim, for a sum not to exceed $17,500. One Vacancy. MOTION CARRIED. 106/112: AUI"HORIZING A TRANSFER OF FUNDS TO %'HE CITY ATTORNEY'S PROGRAM NO. 121: Councilman Bay moved to authorize a transfer of $130,0OO to the City Attorney's Program 121, Account No. 6315, from Account No. 01-182-4101. Councilman Roth seconded the motion. One Vacancy. MOTION CARRIED. ADJOURNMENT: Councilwoman Kaywood moved to adjourn. Councilman Overholt seconded the motion. One Vacancy. MOTION CARRIED. (1:27 p.m.) LINDA D. ROBERTS, CITY CLERK 5OO City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL }KNUTES - June 15, 1982, 1:30 P.M. The City Council of the City of Anaheim met in regular session. PRESENT: ABSENT: VACANCY: PRESENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Overholt, Kaywood, Roth and Bay COUNCIL MEMBERS: None COUNCIL MEMBERS: One CITY MANAGER: William O. Talley CITY ATTORNEY: William P. Hopkins CITY CLERK: Linda D. Roberts DATA PROCESSING DIRECTOR: Philip M. Grammatica FACILITY MAINTENANCE SUPERINTENDENT: John H. Roche, Jr. PUBLIC UTILITIES GENERAL MANAGER: Gordon W. Hoyt ASSISTANT PLANNING DIRECTOR--ZONING: Annika Santalahti CITY ENGINEER: William Devitt Mayor Bay called the meeting to order and welcomed those in attendance to the Council meeting. INVOCATION: The Reverend Rick Gastil, Melodyland Hotline Center, gave the Invocation. FLAG SALUTE: Councilwoman Miriam Kaywood led the assembly in the Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag. 119: PROCLAMATION: The following proclamation was issued by Mayor Bay and authorized by the City Council: "Sister Patricia Phillips Day in Anaheim" - June 19, 1982 Sister Patricia Phillips, Principal of Cornelia Connelly High School, was present to accept the proclamation. Sister Phillips was being transferred to another location. MINUTES: Approval of the minutes was deferred to the next regular meeting. WAIVER OF READING - ORDINANCES AND RESOLUTIONS: Councilman Bay moved to waive the reading in full of all ordinances and resolutions of the Agenda, after reading of the title thereof by the City Clerk, and that consent to waiver is hereby given by all Council Members, unless after reading of the title, specific request is made by a Council Member for the reading of such ordinances or resolutions in regular order. Councilwoman Kaywood seconded the motion. One Vacancy. MOTION CARRIED. FINANCIAL DEMANDS AGAINST THE CITY in the amount of $2,233,823.61, in accordance with the 1981-82 Budget, were approved. CITY MANAGER/DEPARTMENTAL MOTION CONSENT CALENDAR: On motion by Councilwoman Kaywood, seconded by Councilman Overholt, the following items were approved as recommended: 501 City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - 3une 15, 1982, 1:30 P.M. a. 160: Bid No. 3875: Three-Phase Padmount Transformers. Award to McGraw-Edison, ~62,582.40 for two 225KVA-120/240 volt, two 300KVA-120/240 volt, three l12.SKVA-480y/277 volt, two 150KVA-480y/277 volt, three 500 KVA-480y/277 volt and one 1500KVA-480y/277 volt three-phase padmount transformers, Item Nos. 1, 2, 4, 5, 6 and 7; and award to Westinghouse Electric Corporation,'$19~082.12 for two 500KVA-120/240 volt three-phase padmount transformer, Item No. 3. b. 158: Authorizing payment in the amount of $22,812 to Adolph Philip Miller for modification to his sales lot facility at 407 South Anaheim Boulevard, as required by the Anaheim Boulevard Street Widening Project, Account No. 13-792-7101-E2580 (R/W 2800-2A). c. 158: Authorizing payment in the amount of ~50,376 to James N. Wingert for modification to the building at 542 South Anaheim Boulevard, as required by the Anaheim Boulevard Street Widening Project, Account No. 13-792-7101-E2580 (R/W 2800-38). d. 123: Authorizing the Data Processing Director to accept the proposal from Honeywell, Inc., for a Computerized Energy System at a cost of $241,775, subject to the finalization of contractual and private financing arrangements, and authorizing the Finance Director to issue a Request for Proposals for financing the acquisition of the system. One Vacancy. MOTION CARRIED. 160: ACCEPTANCE OF BID FOR LIBRARY THEFT DETECTION SYSTEM: City Manager William Talley briefed the Council on memorandum dated June 8, 1982, from the Purchasing Agent, Diane Hughart, recommending the acceptance of the bid from Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Company, in the amount of $11,511.60, for a Library Theft Detection System (Bid No. 3872). Mayor Bay stated he would vote "no" on the award, since he had yet to see any data giving a percentage in loss of books, since the matter was broached at last year's budget work session; Councilman Overholt suggested that the matter be trailed until later in the meeting in order to obtain that data. Councilman Overholt moved to trail the subject matter until later in the meeting. Councilman Roth seconded the motion. One Vacancy. MOTION CARRIED. Later in the meeting, City Manager Talley stated that he had discussed the matter with Berrie Vandiver, Librarian, who reported that although she had statistics on the percentage of loss as a result of theft, they were not presently in the form of a report. He (Talley) thereupon asked that the item be withdrawn, with a report to be prepared by the Library Department, giving the requested data, and the item resubmitted at that time. MOTION: Councilman Roth moved that the subject item be withdrawn and rescheduled at a later date. Councilman Overholt seconded the motion. Vacancy. MOTION CARRIED. One 502 City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - June 15, 1982, 1:30 P.M. CITY MANAGER/DEPARTMENTAL RESOLUTION CONSENT CALENDAR: Councilwoman Kaywood offered Resolution Nos. 82R-314 through 82R-317, both inclusive, for adoption, as recommended. Refer to Resolution Book. 164: RESOLUTION NO. 82R-314: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AWARDING A COh~RACT FOR THE A1TTRAK STATION SEWER, IN THE CITY OF ANAHEIM, ACCOUNT NO. 43-790-6325-E0410. (Five States Plumbing, Inc., $18,615.80) 164: RESOLUTION NO. 82R-315: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AWARDING A CONTRACT FOR THE SOUTH STREET WATER IMPROVEMENTS, IN THE CITY OF ANAHEIM, ACCOUNT NO. 51-606-6329-27230-34340. (Tennyson Pipeline Company, ~27,030) 106: RESOLUTION NO. 82R-316: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM, CALIFORNIA ADOPTING THE ANNUAL APPROPRIATIONS LIMIT FOR THE FISCAL YEAR 1982/83. ($88,503,297) 124: RESOLUTION NO. 82R-317: A RESOLUTION APPROVING PRELIMINARY OFFICIAL STATEMENT AND AUTHORIZING AND DIRECTING CERTAIN ACTIONS WITH RESPECT THERETO. (~52,900,000 Certificates of Participation for the parking facilities project to be located adjacent to the Convention Center) Roll Call Vote: AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Overholt, Kaywood, Roth and Bay NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: None ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: None VACANCY: COUNCIL MEMBERS: One The Mayor declared Resolution Nos. 82R-314 through 82R-317, both inclusive, duly passed and adopted. 131: EXPRESSING DISFAVOR TO A 10-LANE WIDENING ALTERNATIVE TO THE SANTA ANA TRANSPORTATION CORRIDOR STUDY: Councilwoman Kaywood offered Resolution No. 82R-318 for adoption, expressing the City's disfavor to adding a 1J-lane alternative to the Santa Aha Transportation Corridor Study (SATCS) for the reasons outlined in report dated June 10, 1982, to the Orange County Transportation Commission, Technical Advisory Committee, submitted by Pam Lucado, Associate Planner. Refer to Resolution Book. RESOLUTION NO. 82R-318: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM EXPRESSING ITS DISFAVOR TO ADDING A 10-LANE ALTERNATIVE TO THE SANTA ANA TRANSPORTATION COR/{IDOR STUDY (SATCS). 5O3 City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - June 15, 1982, 1:30 P.M. Roll Call Vote: AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Overholt, Kaywood, Roth and Bay NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: None ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: None VACANCY: COUNCIL MEMBERS: One The Mayor declared Resolution No. 82R-318 duly passed and adopted. 153: LETTER OF UNDERSTANDING WITH THE AMEA - CLOTHING ALLOWANCE FOR CERTAIN STREET MAINTENANCE DIVISION EMPLOYEES: Councilwoman Kaywood offered Resolution No. 82R-319 for adoption, thereby adopting a Letter of Understanding between the City of Anaheim and the Anaheim Municipal Employees Association, providing for a clothing allowance of $100 for employees assigned to perform asphalt work in the Street Maintenance Division. Refer to Resolution Book. Roll Call Vote: AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: 0verholt, Kaywood, Roth and Bay NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: None ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: None VACANCY: COUNCIL MEMBERS: One The Mayor declared Resolution No. 82R-319 duly passed and adopted. 123/175: WAIVING REQUIREMENTS OF COUNCIL POLICY NO. 401 AND AUTHORIZING AN AGREEMENT WITH PRICE-WATERHOUSE TO PERFORM A LIMITED PROJECT REVIEW - SONGS UNIT 2 & 3: Councilman Overholt moved to (1) waive the requirements of City Council Policy No. 401 relating to selection of professional consultants and (2) authorize an agreement with Price-Waterhouse in an amount not to exceed $80,000, to perform a limited project review in connection with the City's 3.16% ownership in SONGS, Units 2 & 3, as recommended in memorandum dated June 7, 1982, from the Public Utilities Board. Councilman Bay seconded the motion. One Vacancy. MOTION CARRIED. 123/175: 69 kV RELAY STUDY - R. W. BECK AND ASSOCIATES: On motion by Councilman Roth, seconded by Councilwoman Kaywood, an agreement was authorized with R. W. Beck and Associates in an amount not to exceed $8,900, to perform a 69 kv Relay Study relating to the City's electrical system~ as recommended in memorandum dated June 7, 1982, from the Public Utilities Board. One Vacancy. MOTION CARRIED. 175/123/152: AUTHORIZING THE PUBLIC UTILITIES GENERAL MANAGER TO EXECUTE CERTAIN CONTRACTS ON BEHALF OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM: On motion by Councilman Bay, seconded by Councilman Overholt, the Public Utilities General Manager, Gordon Hoyt, was authorized to negotiate and execute certain agreements with privately-, federally-, state- and locally-owned utilities and agencies in various states for purchase, sale and transmission of electrical energy for the City, as recommended in memorandum dated June 7, 1982, from the Public Utilities Board. One Vacancy. MOTION CARRIED. 5O4 City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - June 15, 1982, 1:30 P.M. 175/157: BUCKS CREEK PROJECT PARTICIPATION: Councilwoman Kaywood moved to sustain the recommendation of the Public Utilities Board not to participate in the Bucks Creek Project additions involving two hydroelectric generating plants located in Plumas County, and as further recommended in memorandum dated June 9, 1982, from the Public Utilities General Manager. Councilman Overholt seconded the motion. One Vacancy. MOTION CARRIED. 175/157: COMPETING APPLICATION TO RE-LICENSE THE HASS-KING RIVER PROJECT: Proposed participation in the competing application to re-license the Haas-King River Project, two hydroelectric generating plants located in Fresno County, and authorizing the Public Utilities General Manager to execute the necessary agreements. Referring to memorandum dated June 7, 1982, from the Public Utilities Board, Councilman Roth noted that there was no clear-cut recommendation from the Board, since the vote on participation resulted in two 'noes," two "ayes" and one abstention. Public Utilities General Manager Gordon Hoyt noted that there were two absences as well. As an aside, Councilman Roth asked that they be provided with the attendance records of the members of the Public Utilities Board. Mr. Hoyt then briefed the Council on the proposed participation in the Haas-King River Project, as outlined in the subject memorandum from the Public Utilities Board, attached to which were a cost comparison chart and su---~ry sheet. It was estimated that the project would yield benefits to Anaheim in the neighborhood of $135 million over the first ten years of operation. Mr. Hoyt's presentation was supplemented by slides showing the exact location of the project. This was a business investment with a risk of $71,000 to $100,000, representing Anaheim's share of the cost of those entities combining to file a competing license. MOTION: Questions were posed by the Council to Mr. Hoyt regarding some of the specifics of the project, after which Councilman Bay moved to approve the City's participation in the competing application to re-license the Haas-King River Project, two hydroelectric generating plans located in Fresno County, and authorizing the Public Utilities General Manager to execute the necessary agreements. Councilwoman Kaywood seconded the motion. Councilman Roth voted "no." One Vacancy. HOTION CARRIED. 105: APPOINTMENT OF TWO MEMBERS TO FILL THE VACANCIES ON THE YOUTH COMMISSION FOR TERMS ENDING DECEMBER 31, 1983: Councilwoman Kaywood moved that the subject appointments be continued one week when the new Council Member would be present. Councilman Overholt seconded the motion. One Vacancy. MOTION CARRIED. 156: ANAHEIM POLICE ASSOCIATION - POLICE OLYMPICS - 1982: Request for use of City time for twenty police officers to compete in the 16th Annual Police Olympics to be held in the San Francisco area from July 5 through 11, 1982, was submitted, together with reports by the Chief of Police and City Attorney. 505 City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - June 15, 1982, 1:30 P.M. Detective Jim Watkins briefed the Council on his letter dated May 20, 1982, which reported in detail on the forthcoming Police Olympics. This year he was again requesting that the Anaheim Police Officers who were competing (20) be allowed to compete as representatives of the City, while on City business time, so they would not have to use their accumulated vacation or compensatory time. MOTION: Councilman Roth moved to approve the request for use of City time for twenty police officers to compete in the 16th Annual Police Olympics to be held in the San Francisco area from July 5 through 11, 1982. Councilman Bay seconded the motion. One Vacancy. MOTION CARRIED. Councilman Overholt left the Council Chambers. (2:22 p.m.) 108: APPLICATION FOR LIMOUSINE SERVICE PERMIT - REGENCY LIMOUSINE SERVICE: A request by Jack A. Faessler, Regency Limousine Service, for a permit to operate a limousine service at 2990 East La Palma Avenue, was submitted, together with reports by the City Attorney's office and Police Department. The Mayor asked if Mr. Faessler or his representative were present in the Chambers audience. No one was present. MOTION: Councilwoman Kaywood moved to deny the application. Before any further action was taken, Councilman Roth felt that they should continue the matter for one week to give Mr. Faessler an opportunity to be present in the event something unforeseen had occurred today. City Clerk Linda Roberts confirmed that the applicant had been notified, but she would be happy to notify him again. MOTION: Councilman Roth moved to continue consideration of the subject application for one week. Councilman Bay seconded the motion. Councilman Overholt was temporarily absent. One Vacancy. MOTION CARRIED. 108: APPLICATION FOR TAXI SERVICE - WHITE CAB COMPANY: A request by Arthur Aguirre Florez, White Cab Company, for a permit to operate a taxi service, was submitted, together with reports by the City Attorney's office and Police Department. Mayor Bay asked to hear from Mr. Florez. Mr. Arthur Florez, owner of White Cab Company, 21871 Huron Lane, E1 Toro, stated that relative to his application, he would serve all the residents of Anaheim and not one particular group. In his application where he'indicated under "Equipment," that three vehicles were involved, he could provide five vehicles instead and could actually have ten vehicles on the road. The vehicles were fully air conditioned and had two-way radios. Mr. Florez then answered questions posed by the Council wherein he answered that he had never 506 City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - June 15, 1982, 1:30 P.M. been stopped by the police relative to operating illegally in Anaheim; that although he was approved to operate in Santa Aha, he had not yet done so; he presently operated in the Irvine, Tustin and E1 Toro area, as well as in Laguna Beach, but in that city, as Yellow Cab; that he received no complaints from those cities; and he would try to use the same stands in Anaheim as the present cab companies. The Mayor asked if anyone else was present who wished to speak. Mr. Thomas McManus, Chief Dispatcher for Yellow Cab of E1 Toro and White Cab, 623 Irvine Avenue, Newport Beach, stated that Blue and White Cab later became American Cab. One of the main reasons they were applying in Anaheim was due to the fact that there was already a demand for their service in the City. They received approximately 30 calls per day for service in and around the Anaheim area. There was a need for further cab service in Anaheim. Mr. Larry Slagle, Vice President, Yellow Cab of North Orange County, stated that they were opposed to the subject application for several reasons--their location was far from the service area proposed; they did not feel they had the vehicles nor the equipment or personnel to handle transportation in Anaheim; there had been no need proven for additional service; and they felt there was already a transportation system intact in Anaheim. Yellow Cab Company was providing very good service, and he urged the Council to oppose the application. Mayor Bay referred to report dated June 4, 1982, from Richard Davenport, Acting Lieutenant to the Acting Chief of Police, Jimmie Kennedy (on file in the City Clerk's office), which was contrary to much of the information given by Mr. Florez. He asked to hear from a representative from the Police Department. Councilman Overholt entered the Council Chambers. (2:43 p.m.) Detective Schroeder, Anaheim Police Department, was present; Mayor Bay stated he assumed that the report of June 4, 1982, was factual, by an investigation of the Police Department. Detective Schroeder answered that it was. Before concluding, Councilman Roth stated he felt if the applicant had a copy of the new ordinance relating to the issuance of taxi cab permits, Mr. Florez would have been aware that he did not meet the requirements o£ the Code ~n making his request. MOTION: Councilman Roth moved that in accordance with the recommendation of the Police Department, the subject request for a permit to operate a taxi service in the City of Anaheim submitted by Arthur Florez, White Cab Company, be denied. Councilwoman Kaywood seconded the motion. Councilman Overholt abstained, since he was not present during the discussion. One Vacancy. MOTION CARRIED. 507 City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - June 15, 1982, 1:30 P.M. 108: HEARING - AMUSEMENT ARCADE APPLICATION NO. 82-19, ANAHEIM BOWL: To consider an appeal filed by Terry J. Brutocao, Anaheim Bowl, and Thomas Greaney, Fairchild Amusement, Inc., of the decision of the Planning Director denying an Amusement Arcade Application for Anaheim Bowl, 1925 West Lincoln Avenue, for 15 amusement devices. The Mayor asked to hear from the applicant or his representative. Mr. Terry Brutocao, Vice President and General Manager of Anaheim Bowl, briefed the Council on the information contained in his letter of appeal to the Planning Director's decision dated April 29, 1982 (on file in the City Clerk's office), explaining that amusement devices had been operating at the Anaheim Bowl building since 1959. He clarified for Councilwoman Kaywood that although the present machines were not identical to those with which they started, the area in which they were located in their establishment was exactly the same. They had not heard serious objections to the machines from the residents until they (residents) received notice of the application, which was sent out as a requirement under the new ordinance. They were asking to maintain what they had been operating for the past 23 years. Councilman Roth felt that Mr. Brutocao should have gone to his neighbors to explain what was occurring, that, in fact, a new arcade was not being created. The Council was faced with the dilemma that 61 percent of those residents and/or businesses within 300 feet of the bowling alley were objecting, and the ordinance stipulated that if there was a majority protest (51 percent or more of those notified), the Planning Director must deny the application for a permit. Personally, he felt that an arcade was ideal for a bowling alley. Mr. Gene Greaney, President of Fairchild Amusement, Inc., stated this was not an amusement arcade per se, but part of another business. It was not advertised to solicit business, nor was there any intent to draw people in for that purpose. The machines were intended for the entertainment of the bowlers. The alley had ample parking and the building was constructed to contain the sound of bowling, and certainly the sound of machines. He urged approval of the application. Councilwoman Kaywood proposed that they continue the item for one month to allow the proponent ~o survey the residents to obtain their approval, informing them that it was an existing use, as it had been for many years. Discussion then followed between Council Members and the City Attorney wherein it was determined that the subject case was within the arcade ordinance. Mrs. Beatrice Hammer, 1800 West Gramercy Place, No. 44, stated she was the parent of a child who was addicted to such arcades to the point where he became non-functional. She was adamant about declining any arcades and felt that there should be an age limit on who was allowed to play the machines, whether one or two machines, or a number of them. She also clarified that she was present to speak, not necessarily on the subject application, but on the next agenda item, which was an amusement arcade application proposed for her neighborhood. 508 City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - June 15, 1982, 1:30 P.M. There being no further persons who wished to speak, the Mayor gave Mr. Brutocao an opportunity to rebut. Mr. Brutocao stated they had some concerned parents tell them that they had children using the machines too much, and they totally cooperated with those parents. The primary users were adults. There was very little usage during school days by youngsters. They were not close to any schools except Gilbert, which was a distance away. He would be happy to contact his neighbors and report back if the Council felt it necessary to do so. MOTION: Councilwoman Kaywood moved to continue consideration of the subject application to July 13, 1982, at 1:30 p.m., to give the applicant an opportunity to conduct a survey, with the understanding that Anaheim BoWl would be allowed to operate their existing game arcade during that period. Councilman Overholt seconded the motion. One Vacancy. MOTION CARRIED. 108: HEARING - AMUSEMENT ARCADE APPLICATION NO. 82-21, ANGEL'S VIDEO ARCADE CENTER: To consider an appeal filed by Angela M/sirian of the decision of the Planning Director denying an Amusement Arcade Application for Angel's Video Arcade Center, 627 North Euclid Street, for 25 amusement devices. The Mayor asked to hear from the applicant. Mr. Jacob Misirian, representing his mother, stated there was nothing to add to their request. The proposed business was a new one and the premises were presently vacant. He also clarified for Mayor Bay that he did understand the procedure relative to requests for arcade applications and that he was aware that 57 percent of the occupants residing with 300 feet were opposed. The Mayor asked if anyone wished to speak, either in favor or in opposition. Mrs. Beatrice Hammer, 1800 West Gramercy Place, No. 44, who gave testimony at the foregoing hearing (Anaheim Bowl), stated as far as she was concerned, and the other residents and tenants who signed the petition in opposition, they did not want the arcade in their neighborhood because of some of the facts she previously stated. She also referred to letter dated June 15, 1982 (made a part of the record) from Janice Lee, a teacher who lived in the area (1777 West Glencrest, Apartment 6), within 300 feet of the proposed arcade. Mrs. Lee lis~ed her three main objections and emphasized that the tenants and residents did not want an arcade, as evidenced by those who signed the petition in opposition. Attached to the letter was a copy of a previously submitted petition containing fifty signatures, as well as newspaper articles reporting detrimental effects of video arcades on young people. Another attachment listed the location of establishments which already had video machines, there being 94 such machines in the area from Glenoaks Plaza to Anaheim Plaza. Trudy Dapman, Widows Anonymous, 613 North Euclid, stated she was also concerned about arcades and although they had beneficial aspects, they needed to be monitored. She had spoken to the other business people in the Center, 509 City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - June 15, 1982, 1:30 P.M. and they were all concerned for the safety of their cars and businesses. Even now, they had a problem with regard to parking and further, there were already two arcades in close proximity and single machines at businesses in between. Those were adequate for the area. There were no further persons who wished to speak. Mayor Bay recommended that the City Attorney submit a reiterating letter on the interpretation of the Amusement Arcade Ordinance to the Planning Department; Councilman Overholt asked for a copy of the ordinance, as well. The Mayor then gave the applicant an opportunity to rebut; Mr. Misirian did not wish to rebut. MOTION: Councilwoman Kaywood moved to deny the application for an Amusement Arcade for Angel's Video Arcade Center, 627 North Euclid Street, for 25 amusement devices, since approval of the said permit would be contrary to the public interest, health, safety, morals or general welfare. Councilman Overholt seconded the motion. Before a vote was taken, Councilman Overholt stated that he was going to vote against the application, because there was an overwhelming opposition to an arcade at the proposed location by residential neighbors. The Gramercy area was one of the most densely populated in the City and to do other than turn the application down in the face of the concerns expressed, would be totally irresponsible. A vote was then taken on the foregoing motion. One Vacancy. MOTION CARRIED. RECESS: By general consent, the Council recessed for ten minutes. (3:27 p.m.) AFTER RECESS: The Mayor called the meeting to order, all Council Members being present. One Vacancy. (3:40 p.m.) 176: PUBLIC HEARING - ABANDONMENT NO. 81-28A: In accordance with application filed by Arciero Brothers, Inc., public hearing was held on proposed abandonment of a portion of an existing storm drain easement located east of Tustin Avenue and south of the Riverside Freeway, pursuant to Resolution No. 82R-283, duly published in the Anaheim Bulletin, and notices thereof posted in accordance w~th law. Report of the City Engineer dated May 4, 1982, and a recommendation by the Planning Commission were submitted, recommending approval of said abandonment. Mayor Bay asked if anyone wished to address the Council; there being no response, he closed the public hearing. 510 City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - June 15, 1982, 1:30 P.M. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT - CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION: On motion by Councilwoman Kaywood, seconded by Councilman Overholt, the City Council ratified the determination of the Planning Director that the proposed activity falls within the definition of Section 3.01, Class 5, of the City of Anaheim guidelines to the requirements for an Environmental Impact Report and is, therefore, categorically exempt from the requirement to file an EIR. One Vacancy. MOTION CARRIED. Councilwoman Kaywood offered Resolution No. 82R-320 for adoption, approving Abandonment No. 81-28A. Refer to Resolution Book. RESOLUTION NO. 82R-320: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM VACATING A PORTION OF AN EXISTING STORM DRAIN EASEMENT LOCATED EAST OF TUSTIN AVENUE AND SOUTH OF THE RIVERSIDE FREEWAY. (81-28A) Roll Call Vote: AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Overholt, Kaywood, Roth and Bay NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: None ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: None VACANCY: COUNCIL MEMBERS: One The Mayor declared Resolution No. 82R-320 duly passed and adopted. CONSENT CALENDAR ITEMS: On motion by Councilman Roth, seconded by Councilwoman Kaywood, the following actions were authorized in accordance with the reports and recommendations furnished each Council Member and as listed on the Consent Calendar Agenda: 1. 118: CLAIMS AGAINST THE CITY: The following claims were denied and referred to Risk Management: a. Claim submitted by State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company, Marvin and Melva Clemens, Insured, for personal property damages and injuries purportedly sustained due to an accident caused by a malfunctioning traffic signal at Sunkist and Wagner, on or about April 21, 1982. b. Claim submitted by William E. Ludwick for personal injuries purportedly sustained while crossing in the crosswalk on Euclid Street at Lincoln Avenue, on or about February 3, 1982. 2. CORRESPONDENCE: The following correspondence was ordered received and filed: a. 107: Planning Department, Building Division--Monthly Report for May 1982. 511 City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - June 15, 1982, 1:30 P.M. b. 105: Project Area Committee--Minutes of May 25, 1982. c. 105: Public Utilities Board--Minutes of May 20, 1982. (Unapproved) One Vacancy. MOTION CARRIED. CONSENT CALENDAR ITEMS: Councilwoman Kaywood offered Resolution Nos. 82R-321 through 82R-323, both inclusive, for adoption in accordance with the reports, recommendations and certifications furnished each Council Member and as listed on the Consent Calendar Agenda. Refer to Resolution Book. 158: RESOLUTION NO. 82R-321: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM ACCEPTING CERTAIN DEEDS AND ORDERING THEIR RECORDATION. (Texaco Anaheim Hills Inc.; Winfield Scott Coryell; E. O. Rodeffer, et al.; Doric Foods Corporation) 169: RESOLUTION NO. 82R-322: 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: IMPERIAL HIGHWAY STREET IMPROVEMENT, NOHL RANCH ROAD TO RIVER VALLEY TRAIL, IN THE CITY OF ANAHEIM, ACCOUNT NO. 13-792-6325-E2720. (Sully-Miller Contracting Company) 164: RESOLUTION NO. 82R-323: 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: LINDA VISTA RESERVOIR REROOFING PROJECT, IN THE CITY OF ANAHEIM, ACCOUNT NO. 53-633-6329-26410-34200. (Penco Builders, Inc.) Roll Call Vote: AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Overholt, Kaywood, Roth and Bay NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: None ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: None VACANCY: COUNCIL MEMBERS: One The Mayor declared Resolution Nos. 82R-321 through 82R-323, both inclusive, duly passed and adopted. ORDINANCE NO. 4344: Councilman Roth offered Ordinance No. 4344 for adoption. Refer to Ordinance Book. ORDINANCE NO. 4344: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AMENDING TITLE 18 OF THE ~NAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO ZONING. (77-78-63(2), CL(SC)) 512 City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - June 15, 1982, 1:30 P.M. Roll Call Vote: AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Overholt, Kaywood, Roth and Bay NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: None ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: None VACANCY: COUNCIL MEMBERS: One The Mayor declared Ordinance No. 4344 duly passed and adopted. ORDINANCE NO. 4345: Councilwoman Kaywood offered Ordinance No. 4345 for adoption. Refer to Ordinance Book. ORDINANCE NO. 4345: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AMENDING ORDINANCE NO. 4068 RELATING TO ZONING. (Bauer Ranch Planned Community, 77-78-64(1)) Roll Call Vote: AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Overholt, Kaywood, Roth and Bay NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: None ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: None VACANCY: COUNCIL MEMBERS: One The Mayor declared Ordinance No. 4345 duly passed and adopted. ORDINANCE NO. 4346: Councilman Overholt offered Ordinance No. 4346 for adoption. Refer to Ordinance Book. ORDINANCE NO. 4346: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AMENDING ORDINANCE NO. 4069 RELATING TO ZONING. (Bauer Ranch Planned Community, 77-78-64(2)) Roll Call Vote: AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Overholt, Kaywood, Roth and Bay NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: None ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: None VACANCY: COUNCIL MEMBERS: One The Mayor declared Ordinance No. 4346 duly passed and adopted. COMMENTS ON THE JUNE 8, 1982, ELECTIONS - CITY OFFICES: Councilman Overholt congratulated those who were winners in last Tuesday's election, in which he was also re-elected to his Council seat. Councilwoman Kaywood again thanked all of her campaign volunteer workers. She looked forward to serving the City for another four years and to a cooperative spirit to solve the problems they were going to be facing; Councilman Bay expressed his pleasure at the outcome of the election, which he had predicted the evening before. He was glad to see the four members of the Council back for at least the next two years, in order to proceed with the important decisions they would have to be making, and the unity that would be required to keep the City operating in an efficient manner. 513 City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - June 15, 1982, 1:30 P.M. Councilman Roth (Mayor Elect) congratulated both Council Members Kaywood and Overholt on their re-election. At this time, he also felt compelled to respond to the headline in the Anaheim Bulletin last week, which indicated he was trying to give himself a pay raise, even before he was sworn in as Mayor. Last Wednesday morning, when he was at the City Clerk's office after a long night awaiting the election results, and when he was walking out of the office with his wife, Jackie, he met Bette Reinhartsen, a reporter from the Anaheim Bulletin. At the same time, a general fire alarm sounded, followed by a vocal alarm (in both English and Spanish) urging the evacuation of the Civic Center building. During the confusion, questions were posed to him by the reporter, revolving around the things he had in mind for the future, as Mayor. He explained several things, one being that he would encourage his Council colleagues to possibly form a Charter Review Committee to review some issues, such as a four-year Mayor, electing the Mayor Pro Tem, not having to vote twice for a candidate, etc. The pay item was also broached and he stated that all such matters should be under the purview or review of a Charter Review Committee. He emphasized that there was no intent on his part of suggesting that he or his Council colleagues receive a pay raise, which in the first place, would be an impossibility, since it would have to go to the vote of the people and require a change in the Charter. Those who called to complain perhaps did not understand that it would be impossible for the Mayor to institute such a change. He wanted to apologize to the citizens for any inconvenience or any impressions that he gave. He was not blaming the reporter, and he reiterated, there was no intent on his part to ask for a pay raise. He hoped that when the Council installation ceremonies took place, that they would continue to respond to the needs of the citizens and work together for the common good of the community. RECESS: By general consent, the Council recessed, due to the sounding of a general fire alarm in the Civic Center building. (3:50 p.m.) AFTER RECESS: The Mayor called the meeting to order, all Council Members being present. One Vacancy. (4:02 p.m.) BUDGET WORK SESSION - RESOURCE ALLOCATION PLAN 1982/83: City Manager William Talley prefaced each department's presentation by referencing =he page numbers in the submitted budget, control centers, position controls and capital improvement projects, where applicable, aa well ag the budget totals For each department, noting any areas of change and/or other items which needed a further explanation or clarification. The following department heads then gave an overview of their budgets and plans for 1982-83, followed by questions and comments from the Council: 1. Data Processing Director, Philip Grammatica, Data Processing Department: Department 16, Control Center No. 76, Page C-219--budget total, $3,147,449. No capital projects. Position Control, Page E-41. 514 City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - June 15, 1982, 1:30 P.M. At the conclusion of Mr. Grammatica's presentation, Councilman Roth asked that he be supplied with information on the increase reported by Mr. Grammatica in contract programming support for the Utilities Department, for the maintenance and development of Utilities systems from $143,000 to $610,000 in 1982-83. Mayor Bay directed a question to the City Manager on an overall cost benefit that he failed to see when he looked across the whole budget on where all the fine work being done in Data Processing was paying off in the reduction of costs elsewhere. City Manager Tall,y, referring to the executive summary, answered the Mayor's question. City Clerk, Linda Roberts, City Clerk's Department: Department 04, Control Center No. 34, Page C-30--budget total, ~338,136. No capital improvement projects. Position Control, Page E-8. City Manager, William Talley, City Administration: Department 02, Control Center No. 32, Page C-16--budget total, $313,533. No capital improvement projects. Position Control, Page E-5. Program Development & Audit: C-19--budget total, $434,179. Control, Page E-6. Department 01, Control Center No. 29, Page No capital improvement projects. Position RECESS: hearing. CARPI ED. Councilwoman Kaywood moved to recess to 7:00 p.m. for a public Councilman Overholt seconded the motion. One Vacancy. MOTION (5:06 p.m.) AFTER RECESS: Mayor Bay called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. PRESENT: ABSENT: VACANCY: PRESENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Overholt, Kaywood, Roth and Bay COUNCIL MEMBERS: None COUNCIL MEMBERS: One CITY MANAGER: William O. Talley CITY ATTORNEY: William P. Hopkins CITY CLERK: Linda D. Roberts ASSISTANT PLANNING DIRECTOR--ZONING: Annika Santalahti CITY ENGINEER: William Devitt TRAFFIC ENGINEER: Paul Singer CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2299 AND NEGATIVE DECLARATION: Submitted by National Distillers Products Corporation, to permit a truck terminal on CG and MR zoned property located at 201 East La Palma Avenue (continued from the meeting of May 18, 1982). The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC82-42, granted a negative declaration from the requirement to prepare an environmental impact report and granted Conditional Use Permit No. 2299, subject to the following conditions: 515 City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - June 15, 1982, 1:30 P.M. 1. That street lighting facilities along La Palma Avenue and Kemp Street shall be installed as required by the Office of the Utilities General Manager, and in accordance with specifications on file in the Office of Utilities General Manager; and/or that a bond, certificate of deposit, letter of credit, or cash, in an amount and form satisfactory to the City of Anaheim shall be posted with the City to guarantee the installation of the above-mentioned requirements prior to occupancy. 2. That sidewalks shall be installed along La Palma Avenue and Kemp Street as required by the City Engineer and in accordance with standard plans and specifications on file in the Office of the City Engineer. 3. That trash storage areas shall be provided in accordance with approved plans on file with the Office of the Executive Director of Public Works. 4. That fire hydrants shall be installed and charged as required and determined to be necessary by the Chief of the Fire Department prior to commencement of structural framing. 5. That subject property shall be served by underground utilities. 6. That drainage of subject property shall be disposed of in a manner satisfactory to the City Engineer. 7. That the owner(s) of subject property shall pay the traffic signal assessment fee (Ordinance No. 3896) in an amount as determined by the City Council, for industrial buildings prior to the issuance of a building permit. 8. That appropriate water assessment fees as determined by the Office of Utilities General Manager shall be paid to the City of Anaheim prior to the issuance of a building permit. 9. In the event that subject property is to be divided for the purpose of sale, lease, or financing, a parcel map, to record the approved division of subject property shall be submitted to and approved by the City of Anaheim and then be recorded in the office of the Orange County Recorder. 10. That~all driveway radii dimensions shall be subject to review and approval by the City Traffic Engineer. 11. That an additional 12-foot wide strip of land shall be dedicated to the City and improved adjacent to La Palma Avenue in accordance with the recommendation of the City Traffic Engineer. Said dedication and improvement shall run from the west side of the existing driveway leading to Electramotors to the west curb of Kemp Street. 12. That prior to the issuance of building permits a sound study shall be conducted by a certified sound engineer. Said study shall be submitted to the City and shall determine whether or not there will be a sound problem for 516 City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - June 15, 1982, 1:30 P.M. residents to the east of subject property. If a potential sound problem is identified, said sound study shall recommend such mitigation measures (i.e. barriers) as may be necessary to alleviate noise from trucks. Any sound barriers or other mitigation measures shall be constructed as recommended by the study. 13. That subject property shall be developed substantially in accordance with plans and specifications on file with the City of Anaheim marked Exhibit No. 1. 14. That Condition Nos. 1, 9, 11 and 12, above-mentioned, shall be complied with prior to the commencement of the activity authorized under this resolution, or prior to the time that the building permit is issued, or within a period of one year from date hereof, whichever occurs first, or such'further time as the Planning Commission may grant. 15. That Condition Nos. 2, 3, 5, 6, 10, and 13 above-mentioned, shall be complied with prior to final building and zoning inspections. A review of the Planning Commission's action was requested by Councilwoman Kaywood at the meeting of April 13, 1982, and public hearing scheduled and continued from May 18, 1982, and continued to this date and time. Mayor Bay called first for the proponent. Mr. Fredrick Fano, Director of Corporate Planning for National Distillers Products Corporation, addressed the Council on behalf of the proponents from the viewpoint of his firm as the property owners, who are quite satisfied with this Anaheim location for their own business, but own more property than they can use, and are seeking to install a tenant, which they hope would be compatible, not only to their operation, but to the general neighborhood. Mr. Floyd Farano, 2555 East Chapman Avenue, Fullerton, Attorney representing National Distillers Products Corporation, discussed the Ryder Truck Company method of operation, which is to utilize a break point truck transfer station located away from heavy traffic areas, at which the cargo is broken down, and then hauled the rest of the way to the delivery point by City trucks, which make the shorter runs. This particular Anaheim site, because of its excellent freeway accessi is planned to be a transfer terminal which would work with a break point terminal located in the City of Fontana. This is part of the method of operation intended to reduce the number of miles their over-the-road units travel. He advised that the truck terminal is planned to take access, both ingress and egress, from La Palma Avenue and would generate no activity on Kemp Street. He displayed a revised site plan, labeled Revision 1, Exhibit 1, which was redrawn to conform to the wishes of the Planning Commission, including the Kemp Street widening. Mr. Farano concluded that this truck terminal operation would place a much less dense development on the location than would otherwise be allowed with current zoning. He described the planned traffic flow in and out of the truck terminal, and that access to and from the 91 freeway would be taken from Lemon Street. 517 City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - June 15, 1982, 1:30 P.M. At the conclusion of his presentation, Mr. Farano responded to questions posed by the City Council and, in particular, described the numbers and kinds of truck activity anticipated in a 24-hour day as 8 to 10 "city trucks" to be leaving sometime between 8:30 and 10:00 in the a.m., and returning between 3:00 and 4:30 p.m. In addition, two to three "road haul" vehicles would be coming in from the break bulk point in Fontana at night. He clarified for Council that although there would be no activity in the truck yard itself after 9:00 p.m., there would still be trucks arriving. Mr. Farano referred to the sound study performed by J. J. VanHouten and Associates, in compliance with City Planning Commission Condition No. 12, and the fact that the applicant intends to comply with whatever recommendations are made concerning noise attenuation measures. In fact, the Planning Commission Condition indicates that if there is any change in sound levels as a result of the trucking operation, that the applicant will complete mitigation measures prior to the issuance of building permits. Councilwoman Kaywood pointed out that nothing was mentioned in the report concerning diesel exhaust fumes. In response to Council questions, Mr. Devitt explained there is a hammerhead cul-de-sac planned for Kemp Street. Mr. Singer explained that a trucking or warehousing operation generally has a very low number of daily vehicle trips as compared to other industrial uses, which would be permitted in this zone, since typically the warehousing operation requires fewer employees. The Mayor asked for those in opposition who wished to address the Council. Steve Valdez, 1014 North Kemp Street, Anaheim, presented a series of slides he had taken of the immediate area surrounding the subject site. Mr. Valdez gave the following reasons for objection to use of the subject property as a trucking terminal and warehouse: (1) That similar operations in other cities have experienced problems with drugs and prostitutes; (2) the traffic congestion existing currently on La Palma Avenue at all times of the day would only be impacted more severely if trucks were coming into and leaving the area; (3) that having large diesel trucks using the local streets would be dangerous to residents of the area; (4) that the diesel engines are extremely noisy; (5) that the trucks are too large to negotiate the existing street and driveway entrances as planned. Mr. Valdez presented slides illustrating his objections. At the conclusion of his presentation, Mr. Valdez was requested by the Mayor to suggest what type of use he would find compatible. Mr. Vaidez stated he felt something that would create more employment would be less objectionable. Councilman Overholt pointed out that from the materials presented, the proposed warehouse operation would anticipate a ~ork force of 17 people and would double those numbers in five years. 518 City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - June 15, 1982, 1:30 P.M. The following people also spoke in opposition to the granting of Conditional Use Permit No. 2299: 1. Jeanne Blackwell, 507 Plymouth Place, Anaheim, representing herself as a citizen of Anaheim and as the President of the League of Women Voters, expressed the opinion that the proposal was not appropriate because the Patt Street area homes were built close to the street and the trucks would be passing very close by. Further, she felt it was not right to ask people to live under conditions of having a 24-hour truck terminal operation that close to their residences. 2. Bob Renzo, 114 East Wilhelmina, Anaheim, stated that the primary access to the southern part of Orange County would be taken by the truck via the Santa Aha Freeway. To reach this freeway, they would have to travel south on Anaheim Boulevard, and this would pose dangers to both senior citizens and school children who have to cross Anaheim Boulevard. He referred to a petition containing signatures of 29 people in his neighborhood in opposition to the proposal. 3. Mrs. Salazar, resident on Patt Street, advised that s'he has been involved with attempts to improve the Patt Street Neighborhood since 1973, and that they have yet to obtain decent streets or sidewalks, and'she certainly was of the opinion that a truck terminal would not improve the residential neighborhood. 4. Virginia Palmieri, 118 Mills Drive, Anaheim, referred to the nursing home across from her on Mills Drive. She felt the residents should be able to enjoy peace and quiet, and further, that the introduction of more trucks on Anaheim Boulevard would make ambulance traffic more difficult. 5. Mary Montano, 314 East La Palma Avenue, Anaheim, spoke on behalf of her mother, Mrs. Salcedo, who has lived in the Patt Street area all her life, and commented that this area was residential long before the industrial uses were introduced. She felt the area proposed for the trucking terminal to be questionable for safety of the children, adults and seniors. There is no sidewalk for the residents to walk on, and she further commented that the entrance to the trucking terminal would be located 70 feet from her parents' home. She further objected to the proposed left turn to be allowed from La Palma Avenue onto this property. She emphasized that the City's Community Development Department has spent more than one-half m~llion dollar~ to improve the Patt Street area and that part of the proposed improvement was to help eliminate effects of truck traffic. 6. Donald R. Anderson, 901 North Clementine, Anaheim, stated his family lived in an adjacent neighborhood, but the use of Lemon Street by these large trucks to access the freeway would put them only two to three blocks away from his home. 519 City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - June 15, 1982, 1:30 P.M. 7. Julie Bond, 701 North Clementine, who owns rental properties at 933-935 North Emily, stated she feels the proposal is entirely inappropriate for the area. She called attention to the fact that the Anaheim Redevelopment Agency had recently constructed new residential units within a block of the truck terminal location. There being no further persons who wished to speak in opposition, the Mayor allowed the proponent time for rebuttal. In rebuttal, Mr. Farano recalled that he had worked with the area residents in 1973-74 to alleviate some of the problems of the Part Street area, but did not think this to be germane to the particular issue at hand. The primary problem is that this residential area is surrounded by industrial development and industrially zoned property. The people who live in the Part Street residential area, however, did wish to maintain their homes there and retain their heritage in this particular community. Mr. Farano assured them that the Ryder Trucks would not be going down Part Street or Olive Street. He reiterated that the proposed truck terminal would not be of the type in which drivers needed to sleep. Ail of the truck drivers would be employees of the Ryder Truck Terminals; they will not be introducing strangers into the terminal area. He explained that there would be one diesel pump located Just inside the westerly exit gate, about 280 feet from Kemp Street. Mayor Bay questioned the exact hours during which freight handling would take place in this facility and was advised that the Company did not anticipate they would do any freight handling except between the hours of 6:30 a.m. to 9:00 p.m. However, they could not stipulate to this. He also wished to make it very clear that it is anticipated the activity at this terminal will increase as the southern portion of Orange County grows. Council Members obtained clarification from the City Attorney that the Council Policy requiring that noise limits of 65 dB CNEL on the outside property line, and 45 dB CNEL from interiors of a residence is not tied to any hour limitation, but rather applies continuously. Mr. John Mangu, Senior Vice President, Ryder Truck Lines, described the sound study conducted on behalf of this application in the City of Orange, where a similar situation exists. Mr. Mangu reminded the Council that part of the Planning Commission recommendation was that all recommendations made by the Acoustical Engineer as a result of his survey were to be incorporated into their project. He stated that his firm intended to fully comply with this recommendation. In response to a stated concern of Mrs. Montano, that from the information given at the hearing, it appears one truck would be arriving or leaving every twelve minutes, Mr. Farano advised that there would be ten "city trucks" to begin with, and in addition to that, two to four trucks per evening from 520 City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - June 15, 1982, 1:30 P.M. Fontana. These trucks would drop one trailer and pick up another. Again, he advised that activity will increase, probably by 50 to 60 percent, to twenty pieces of local city equipment, and seven to eight long haul trucks. This will take them an estimated five years, and the terminal would then be at full capacity. Mayor Bay closed the public hearing. At the request of Council, Mr. Devitt explained that the City has already received bids and is almost ready to award a contract for construction of a cul-de-sac on Patt Street and hammerhead closure on Kemp Street, roughly 500 feet north of La Palma Avenue. At the same time, Kemp Street will be widened. These improvements are part of the Community Development Block Grant Program. During Council discussion, Councilman Roth pointed out that this property is and has been zoned MH for some time, and that the proposed use would be less dense and produce less additional traffic than a normal industrial building, which they would be permitted by right, without any public hearing. With the proposed use, which requires a Conditional Use Permit, the Council has the right to impose conditions, and can revoke the Conditional Use Permit if the operation becomes a problem to the neighborhood. It would, therefore, be in the better interest of the Ryder Trucking firm to be a good neighbor. Councilwoman Kaywood was extremely concerned about the sound impact on the adjacent residential neighborhood and was assured by M/ss Santalahti that the City Council's Sound Policy is effective 24 hours per day with respect to any activity, and that it is not tied to limited hours. Councilman Overholt pointed out that if sound becomes a problem, the Council will have the power to revoke the Conditional Use Permit. Mr. Devitt reported that the proposed truck terminal would accommodate the more favorable option for the proposed Lemon Street realignment between the Santa Ana and Riverside Freeways, with the 800-foot radius alignment, which runs along the westerly boundary of this proposed project. Indications from the plans are there will be no structures on the west side, so that this could be used as a right-of-way. At the conclusion of Council discussion, Mayor Bay commented that this hearing was requested by Councilwoman Kaywood, who had concerns as previously addressed, and further, based on objection received from the manager of Electra Motors due to traffic on La Palma Avenue. It was noted, at this tlme~ that Electra Motors had submitted a letter in support of the truck terminal function because other uses would create higher density development and even more traffic. 521 City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - June 15, 1982, 1:30 P.M. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT - NEGATIVE DECLARATION: On motion by Councilman Bay, seconded by Councilman Roth, the City Council finds that subject project will have no significant individual or cumulative adverse environmental impact due to the approval of this Negative Declaration since the Anaheim General Plan designates the subject property for General Industrial Land Use; that no sensitive environmental impacts are involved in the proposal;' that the Initial Study submitted by the petitioner indicates no significant individual or cumulative adverse environmental impacts; and is, therefore, exempt from the requirement to prepare an EIR. One Vacancy. MOTION CARRIED. Councilman Overholt offered Resolution No. 82R-324 for adoption, upholding the Planning Commission's findings and approving Conditional Use Permit No. 2299, subject to the conditions recommended by the Planning Commission, in accordance with Revision 1 of Exhibit 1, which shows no driveway on Kemp Street, ingress and egress to La Palma Avenue only. Refer to Resolution Book. RESOLUTION NO. 82R-324: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ~NAHEIM GRANTING CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2299. Roll Call Vote: AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Overholt, Kaywood, Roth and Bay NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: None ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: None VACANCY: COUNCIL MEMBERS: One The Mayor declared Resolution No. 82R-324 duly passed and adopted. Councilwoman Kaywood explained that although she is very concerned about the conglomeration of uses in this particular location, and the fact that she has worked very hard to avoid adjacent uses of residential and industrial or commercial, since she feels there are impacts and these are not compatible, she could see no way but to vote reluctantly for this project because the alternatives to this use, available under the current zoning, would be worse. ADJOURNMENT: Councilman Roth moved to adjourn to Tuesday, June 22, 1982, at 9:30 a.m. Councilwoman Kaywood seconded the motion. One Vacancy. MOTION CARRIED. (10:25 p.m.) LINDA D. ROBERTS, CITY CLERK 522