Loading...
1981/06/3081-913 City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL bllNUTES - JUNE 30, 1981, 1:30 P.M. 2he City Council of the City of Anaheim met in regular session. PRESENT: ABSENT: PRESENT: COUNCIL b~MBERS: Overholt, Kaywood, Bay, Roth and Seymour COUNCIL b~MBERS: None CITY P~Ai~AGER: William O. Talley CITY ATTORNEY: William P. Hopkins CITY CLERK: Linda D. Roberts PUBLIC UTILITIES GENERAL YiANAGER: Gordon Hoyt TRAFFIC ENGINEER: Paul Singer ASSIST~NT DIRECTOR FOR ZONING: Annika Santalahti ASSISTAIqT DIRECTOR FOR PLANNING: Joel Fick UTILITIES RATE REqUIREFtENT MANAGER: Robert Erickson POLICE VNOC BUREAU COb~tANDER: Lt. Dale Wilcox Mayor Seymour called the meeting to order and welcomed those in attendance to the Council meeting. INVOCATION: Reverend Tom Favreau, Melodyland Hotline Center, gave the Invoca- tion. FLAG SALUTE: ~ouncilman Ben Bay led the assembly in the Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag. MINUTES: Councilwoman Kaywood moved to approve the minutes of the regular meeting held ~rch 10, 1981, subject to typographical corrections. Councilman Overholt seconded t~e motion. MOTION CARRIED. WAIVER OF READING - ORDINANCES ~D 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 ordinance or resolution id regular order. Councilman Overholt seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. FIN~N~CiA_L DEbiANDS AGAINST THE CITY in the amount of 31,853,671.03, in accor- dance with the 1980-81 Budget, were approved. 128: MONTHLY FliqAi~CiAL STATEb~NT - ELEVEN MONTHS ENDED MAY 31, 1981: On motion by Councilman Roth, seconded by Councilman Overholt, the monthly Financial Statement for the eleven months ended biay 31, 1981, was ordered received and filed. ~iOTION CARRIED. 1~0: PURCHASE OF EQUIPMENT - DUCTILE IRON PIPE ~qD FITTINGS - BID NO. 3778: On motion by Councilwoman Kaywood, seconded by Councilman Bay, the low bid of United States Pipe and Foundry Company was accepted and purchase authorized in the amount of $202,376.50, as recommended by Purchasing Agent John %homason in ~is memorandum dated June 24, 1981. MOTION CARRIED. 153: iNCORRECT SALARY SCHEDULES IN RESOLUTION NO. 80R-498: Councilman Ro~h offered Resolution No. 81R-297 for adoption, as recommended in memorandum dated June 24, 1981 from Human Resources Director Garry McRae. Refer to Resolution Book. 81-914 City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - JUNE 30, 1981, 1:30 P.M. RESOLUTION NO. 81R-297: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAME~vl Ab~NDING RESOLUTION NO. 80R-498, NUNC PRO TUNC, WHICH ESTABLISHED RATES OF COb~ENSATION FOR CLASSES REPRESENTEDD BY THE ANAHE~! POLICE ASSOCIA- TIOa, BY CORRECTING THE PREFIXES TO THE SALARY SCHEDULES FOR CERTAIN CLASSIFI- CATIONS. Roll Call Vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: COUNCIL i~b~iBERS: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Overholt, Kaywood, Bay, Roth and Seymour None None The bhyor declared Resolution No. 81R-297 duly passed and adopted. 123/174: M~RALS PROJECT - APPROVAL OF INSTRUCTOR CON%RACT ~A[ENDMENT: Court- cilwoman Kaywood moved to authorize a fourth amendment to an agreement with Emigdio C. Vasquez, at the rate of $11.15 per hour, to a maximum of 1,000 hours, for services relating to the Youth Murals Project, extending the term through June 30, 1982, as recommended in memorandum dated June 23, 1981 from Executive Director of Community Development Norm Priest. Councilman Overholt seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. 182: ESTABLISHING THE INDUSTRIAL DEVELOP~tENT AUTHORITY OF ANAHE~,~: Council- woman Kaywood offered Ordinance No. 4237 for first reading, establishing the Industrial Development Authority of Anaheim, pursuant to the California Indus- trial Development Financing Act. ORDINanCE NO. 4237: ~N ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ~AHEIM DECLARING THE NEED FOR THE INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPmeNT AUTHORITY OF ANAHEIM AND THAT THE AUTHORITY SHALL FUNCTION. Councilman Bay offered Resolution No. 81R-298 for adoption, declaring that the City Council shall be the'~Board of Directors of the Industrial Development ~tnority and that the City Clerk and City Treasurer of the City shall be the Secretary and Treasurer, respectively, of the ~thority, as recommended in memorandum dated June 23, 1981 from the Executive Director of Community Development. Refer to Resolution Book. RESOLUTION NO. 81R-298: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ~NAHEIM DECLARING THAT THIS CITY COUNCIL SHALL BE THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY OF Before a vote was taken, ~uncilman Bay stated that the Anaheim Economic Development Corporation strongly recommended that the financing tool, the Industrial Development A~thority, be set up. The proposed action was merely setting up the basic structure. He was certain Council would be interested in the Corporation's recommendation relative to priorities as to who might qualify for the financing. He felt that the AEDC would see to it that the recommended uses would be limited to the basic premise of the law, to create job-producing industry in the City. Whether they did so now or later, he wanted to make his position clear that the intent of the subject type of financing was for job-producing industry. 81-915 City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - JUNE 30, 1981, 1:30 P.M. A vote was ~nen taken on the foregoing resolution. Roll Call Vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: COUNCIL b~MBERS: COUNCIL b~MBERS: COUNCIL blEMBERS: Overholt, Kaywood, Bay, Ruth and Seymour None No ne The Mayor declared Resolution No. 81R-298 duly passed and adopted. 148: MEMBERSHIP IN THE U.S. CONFERENCE OF MAYORS: City Manager William Talley briefed the Council on memorandum dated June 24, 1981 from the Inter- governmental Relations Officer, Cynthia Cave, recommending that the Council determine their position on membership in the U.S. Conference of Mayors. b~yor Seymour stated since the Conference was now moving toward the center of the political spectrum, a philosophy with which they would be much more com- fortable, he would be prepared to dedicate the time to it. If they did so, they would be looking at an expenditure of approximately ~6,000. With the Budget concerns they nad all expressed, he felt they should delay the decision and continue the matter until such time as they considered the refinement of the proposed Budget. b~. Talley suggested that the request for determination be brought back after the baseball strike was settled. MOTION: Councilman Bay moved to continue determination of the City's member- ship in the U.S. Conference of Mayors until sometime in August when refinement of the budget was accomplished or when the baseball strike was settled. Coun- cilman Ruth seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. 170: TRACT NO. 5735--PEDESTRIAiq EASEMENTS ~qD CLOSING OF THE ACCESS WAY AT THE NORTH ~qD SOUTH END 0F VICKI L~NE: On motion by ~uncilman Ruth, seconded by Councilwoman Kaywood, the date and time for a public hearing to consider deleting a condition of approval relating to pedestrian easements under Tract No. 6735, located south of Broadway and east of Dale Avenue, was set for Tuesday, July 21, 1981, at 3:00 p.m. MOTION CARRIED. 123: PROPOSAL FOR WORKERS' COb~ENSATION CLAIMS: Councilman Bay offered Resolution No. 81R-299 for adoption, authorizing an agreement with Warren, McVeign, Griffin & Savage in the amount of ~5,000, to perform an audit of City's Workers' Compensation Claims ~ministration, commencing July 6, 1981 and terminating August 3, 1981, as recommended in memorandum dated June 22, 1981 from Risk ~nager Jack Love. Refer to Resolution Book. RESOLUTION NO. 81R-299: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ~NAHEIM APPROVING THE TERMS ~ND CONDITIONS OF AN AGREEP~NT WITH WARREN, McV~IGH, GRIFFIN & SAVAGE FOR PROFESSIONAL SERVICES TO PERFOR>I AN AUDIT OF CITY'S WORKERS' COMPENSATION CLAIMS ADMINIS%~RATION, AND AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR ~\D CiTY CLERK ~O EXECUTE SAID AGRE~NT O~ BEHALF OF THE CITY OF ANAHELM. 81-916 City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - JUNE 30, 1981, 1:30 P.M. Roll Call Vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: COUNCIL i~EMBERS: COUNCIL PhEMBERS: COU~C IL bYEMBERS: Overholt, Kaywood, Bay, Roth and Seymour None No ne The Mayor declared Resolution No. 81R-299 duly passed and adopted. 175: ~NDING ELECTRIC ENERGY RATES, EFFECTIVE JULY 1, 1981: At its meeting of June 25, 1981, the Public Utilities Board recommended, in connection with the proposed electric rate revisions, that the Council adopt the findings of the Public Utilities Board (PUB) with respect to the findings contained there- in and to adopt tme electric rates as shown in Exhibit RWE-4, to become effec- tive for service rendered on and after July 1, 1981 (see June 26, 1981 memo- randum from t~e PUB, attached to which were documents as outlined on Page 2 and 3 of the memorandum, including a transcript of the public hearing held by the Board on June 25, 1981--on file in the City Clerk's office). Mayor Seymour then invited members of the public in attendance to give their views on the p~oposed rates. Following are summaries of the comments and questions solicited: Mrs. Roberta Finch, 327 South State College Boulevard, was not opposed to an electric rate increase but to a varying schedule of rate increases. She believed the breakdown was unfair to those who must use 500 kilowatt hours (kwh) or more per month. 7he proposed increase should be the same amount by kilowatts regardless of the usage; Mrs. Rita Ray, 1927 Chateau Avenue, posed questions relative to the interest being paid on Utility Bonds, as well as the true percentage increase in the rates being proposed; Dr. Robert Conklie, i230 South Euclid, felt there should be some regulatory measure to protect Anaheim from all the energy studies initiated; P~. Ralph Burch, Anaheim, felt that the proposed increase would cause his bill to increase 35% on a bO-day prorated basis because of the lowering of the life- line kilowatns to 240 from 300. b~. Gordon Hoyt, Public U~ilities General Manager, Council Members and staff then clarified the questions posed by the public which included an explanation of the lifeline rates, how a cost-of-service study was performed, the fact than the percentage of increase in the residential rates was higher now ~o bring residential customers in line wi~h the cost of service, as was presently the case with industrial and commercial customers and that utility funds were kepn separate and did not go to the General Fund of the City. At the conclusion of ~iscussion, Councilman Bay offered Resolution 81R-300 for adoption, adopting the new electric rates as shown in Exhibit RWE-4, to become effective for service rendered on and after July 1, 1981, as recommended by the Public Utilities Board. Refer to Resolution Book. RESOLUTION NO. 81R-300: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ~NAHE~i ~NDiNG THE RATES, ROLES AND REGULATIONS FOR THE SALE AND DISTRIBU- TION OF ELECTRIC ENERGY AS ADOPTED BY CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION NO. 71R-478 AND ~£ENDED BY CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION NOS. 73R-25, 73R-373, 73R-531, 74R-75, 74R-630, 75R-243, 75R-344, 75R-345, 76R-41, 76R-377, 76R-528, 76R-gl7, 76R-464, 77R-628, 78R-458, 78R-665, 79R-292, 79R-309, 79R-335, 79R-669, 80R-81, 80R-186, 80R-480, ~D 81R-t23. 81-917 City hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - JUNE 30, 1981, 1:30 P.M. Roll Call Vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: COUNCIL P~MBERS: COUNCIL MEMBERS: COUNCIL ~MBERS: Overholt, Kaywood, Bay, Roth and Seymour None None The Mayor declared Resolution No. 81R-300 duly passed and adopted. 114: DANISH VISITORS WELCOMED: ~yor Seymour then welcomed a contingent of Danish visitors who were present in the Council Chambers, accompanied by other local Southern California officials. RECESS: By general consent, the Council recessed for 10 minutes. (3:25 P.M.) AFTER RECESS: b~yor Seymour called the meeting to order, all Council Members being present. (3:55 P.}i.) CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING - RECLASSIFICATION NO. 71-72-21, VARIANCE NO. 2310 AND 2948 AND NEGATIVE DECLARATION: Application by Harry S. Rinker, to consi- der amending conditions of approval relating to Reclassification No. 71-72-21 and Variance N6s. 2310 amd 2948, CL zoned property located at the northeast corner of Santa Aha Canyon Road and Imperial Highway; and to consider a Nega- tive Declaration for t~e proposed temporary vehicular access between Canyon Plaza Shopping Center and Imperial Highway (continued from the meeting of May 12, 1981--see minutes that date), was submitted. Before proceeding, Mayor Seymour stated he was going to abstain from discus- sion and voting on t~e subject matter, as he nad done in the past, because his company had an office within the Canyon Plaza Shopping Center. He thereupon turned the Chairmanship of the meeting over to Y~ayor Pro Tem Roth. Mayor Seymour left the Council Chamber. (3:37 P.M.) After a brief recapitulation of the matter by staff, P~yor Pro Tem Roth then asked to hear from the applicant or applicant's agent. Mr. Chan LeFebvre, General Partner of Harry Rinker, 28 Linda Isle, Newport Beach, seated he had no new information or testimony to present. He felt the matter had been fully discussed and evidence submitted at prior public hear- ings. He would be happy to answer any concerns of the Council. Councilwoman Kaywood asked staff, in the event the requested access was per- mitted and they found that accidents began happening, would there be some provision for closing that access. b~. Paul Singer, Traffic Engineer, sta~ed that the Council could choose to put a time limit on the permit and through a review, prior to presenting the matter to Council, they would submit a collision report to the Council each time as a method of evaluation. b~r. LeFebvre added that per the discussion at the last Council hearing (see minutes b~y 12, 1981) with regard to one of the conditions of approval, the action was to refer the matter of modifications of an existing driveway to the 81-918 City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - JUNE 30, 1981, 1:30 P.M. shopping center to the City Attorney, with the understanding that they would abide by his findings. The City Attorney had made that review and advised them as to his recommendations (see letter June 12, 1981 from the City Attorney to Harry S. Rinker on file in the City Clerk's office). The City Attorney's recommendations were fully agreeable to the applicant and he would so stipulate. The b~yor Pro Tem then asked if anyone else wished to speak either in favor or in opposition. M_r. Bob Miller, 5908 Camino Correr, not being familiar with what had pre- viously transpired relative to the matter, stated he assumed that the access, being of a temporary nature, envisioned some other permanent plan at a later date. He would hope that the Council would commit itself to proceed with the permanent access. Mr. Singer thereupon explained for Mr. Miller the situation regarding the future permanent access plans as discussed in detail at the meeting of May 12, 1981. There being no further persons who wished to speak, the Mayor Pro Tem closed the public hearing. Mayor Seymour entered the Council Chambers. (3:45 P.M.) Councilwoman Kaywood then posed questions to Mr. Singer and the City Attorney relative to the burden of responsibility for the engineering and design of the present access to the Canyon Plaza Shopping Center off of Santa Ana Canyon Road wherein the redesign and reconstruction costs were apportioned, with the City being required to pay two-thirds and the Shopping Center one-third. She felt it should be the other way around if heavy trucks were now using that access which were not previously anticipated. City Attorney William Hopkins stated that he felt the apportionment of the cost as outlined was apprdpriate. ~ir. LeFebvre then confirmed for Councilman Overhott that they had no objection to having the reconstruction of the radius at the access point on Santa Aha Canyon Roa~ stipulated as a condition. They were resolved that should be repaired and were in agreement with the recommendation of the City Attorney. Councilman Bay commented, however, the timing might be dependent upon when the City could appropriate two-thirds of the cost, but he did not think that need- ed to be locked down today. Councilwoman Kaywood suggested the solution might be to have Mr. Rinker put up the total monies and for the City to reimburse him when the funds were avail- able. b~. Singer explained that the estimated cost for the work was ~7,000 to increase the size of the curb radius, push the storm drain up and move it back. The money was not in the budget. Councilman Overholt asked the City Attorney if he felt they could approve the Negative Declaration; City Attorney Hopkins answered "yes". 81-919 City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MIhUTES - JUNE 30, 1981, 1:30 P.M. ENVIRON%~NTAL IMPACT REPORT - NEGATIVE DECLARATION: On motion by Councilman Bay, seconded by Councilman Overholt, the City Council finds that subject pro- ject will have no significant individual or cumulative adverse environmental impact; that no significant individual or cumulative adverse environmental impacts; and is, therefore, exempt from the requirement to prepare an EIR. MOTION CARRIED. Councilman Bay offered Resolution No. 8tK-301 for adoption. Refer to Resolution Book. RESOLUTION NO. 81K-301: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM A~fENDING CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL OF VARIANCE NO. 2948 AS APPROVED BY RESOLUTION NO. 77R-603. Before a vote was taken, Councilwoman Kaywood asked if the resolution included a six-month time limit and review; Councilman Bay stated that he agreed with a six-month review, but did not necessarily agree that six months as a temporary solution would be enough time from his view to start the final solution. Councilman Overholt asked if they were thinking of six months or a longer period of time'wnen the matter was discussed previously; Mr. Singer answered that the discussion last time was centered around six months following instal- lation. Councilman Overholt stated further that at the end of that time, a showing should be made that they were actively and diligently pursuing a permanent solution and an extension would be considered at that time. Councilwoman Kaywood stated she was going to vote in favor but felt the situa- tion was a clear example of a self-created hardship. It should never have been designed that way in the first place. It was done deliberately with knowledge and forethought t~at it was going to create a problem. As well, the northern property which w~s purchased by Katella Realty was a freeway remnant wit~ no access, and it wa~ landlocked. They were told there would never be any access ~o Imperial Highway. In the long harangue and process, many inno- cent people were hurt by the difficulty of getting into the Center and that was the basis upon which she was going to vote for it. She did not like to see this kind of thing occur and to have the City go back on what they said would happen. Councilman Bay thereupon included as part of his resolution approving the amendment to conditions of approval under Reclassification No. 71-72-21, as recommended in the April 7, 1981 memorandum from the City Engineer (1) Rela- tive to Condition a) that the period be six months and (2) Condition "c", that the City be required to pay two-thirds and Imperial Properties one-third. A vote was then taken on ~he foregoing resolution as amended. Roil Call Vote: AYES: COUNCIL b£EI1B£RS: Overholt, Kaywood, Bay and Roth ~qOES: COU[~'CIL ~£BERS: None AB~TAI~ ~.D: ~O U~qCIL ~f~M~EKS: Seymour ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: i~one The ~.'layor Pro Yem declared Resolution No. 81R-301 duly passed and adopted. 81-920 City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - JUNE 30, 1981, 1:30 P.M. Mayor Pro Tem Roth turned the Chairmanship of the meeting back to Mayor Seymour. 134: PUBLIC HEARING - GENERAL PLAIN A~MENDMENT NO. 164 AND EIR NO. 244: To consider amending the City's Housing Element of the General Plan to include an update of housing needs, goals, policies, plans and programs City-wide. Mr. Joel Fick, Assistant Director for Planning, briefed the status report to the Planning Commission dated June 1, 1981 (Page 15-c), concluding with the recommendation that the Planning Commission recommend to the Council adoption of General Plan Amendment No. 164, an amendment to Anaheim's Housing Element with the following revisions: A) Incorporation by reference of "A Study of Underdeveloped Sites and Residential Land Uses in the City of Anaheim", noting that sites identified in the Study may be appropriate for manufactured housing assuring compliance with City codes; B) "Nonsubstantive" timing and status changes to programs as noted in attached exhibits labeled "Programs: !mple- merited, To Be implemenned, and To Be Studied"; and that the Planning Commis- sion recommend to the City Council that staff be directed to notify the State Department of Housing and Community Development of this action for certifica- tion of an amendment to the City's adopted Housing Element prior to October 1, 19~1. Further, pursuant to Resolution No. PC81-125, it was recommended that the Council certify that EIR No. 244 is in compliance with the California Environ- mental Quality Act and with the City and State EIR guidelines. Mr. Ralph Castanada of Castanada-Berg & Associates, the consulting firm who prepared Draft EIR No. 244, City of Anaheim, Housing Element, April 1981, (made a part of the record) was present to answer any questions. (Also see City of Anaheim Housing Element of the General Plan, Revised: August 1980, made a part of the record). Councilwoman Kaywood referred to Page 1-16 of the Housing Element, the para- graph referring to "Second Units", i.e., a second dwelling on a lot in a single-family neighborhood. She asked if that would require a public hearing or would the Council have the authority to allow such units. Mr. Fick explained that the second units identified in the Housing Element were specified as being programs not yet approved by the Council. In imple- menting that program, if the zoning were not appropriate and would not permit that item as a matter of course, it would come before the Council for some type of Code amendment or public hearing. '~hus, it could automatically be done in single-family residential neighborhoods. Councilman Roth pointed out that on Page 55 where it said Southern California Air Pollution Control District, that group was now called the South Coast Air Quality Management District; ~. Fick replied that they would make that change in the document. The Mayor then asked if anyone wished to speak to the proposed GPA No. 164 and EIR No. 244. 81-921 City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - JUNE 30, 1981, 1:30 P.M. Mr. Jean Blackwell, 507 Plymouth Place, Chairman of the Citizens Advisory Committee, stated she would hope that the Council would adopt the program today. They had worked hard on it and they had received a great deal of input from the Commiteee members who represented a wide spectrum of the community. They also had excellent cooperation from staff~ She reiterated that the Council should adopt and implement the Housing Element as proposed. Councilman Bay asked the City Attorney, in his opinion relative to the GPA, specifically what was the City committing to do t~at it had not done in the past under State law. City Attorney Hopkins answered it merely formalized the General Plan guide- lines and supplemented those items that had already been done by the City. was a requirement of the law that they have such an Element and this would formalize it in the General Plan. It Councilman Bay then asked if there was anything to his knowledge that they were once and for all committing to under the law that once they approved the GPA, they would fall under certain mandatory regulations from the State to accomplish certain goals. He wanted to know if there were spec%fic goals as stated in the General Plan that they were then legally bound to meet. City Attorney Hopkins answered they were generally requirements of the State law and that was the reason for the General Plan Element that had been man- dated. Tmus they were committed to those once the plan was approved. Councilwoman Kaywood noticed under affordability it was vague enough as to how it would be implemented. There was no commitment that she could see where any kina of control was required. She knew there was a division on the Council relative to assuring the affordability of a unit that had received a density bonus or something other than direct financial benefit. She asked Mr. Fick if he saw any problem with regard to that considering the differences of opinion on the Council. ~ i~. Fick stated the portions addressing that aspect of ~he Housing Element were purposely written to be general, reflecting the unknown circumstances with which the individual projects would be implemented. P~s. Lisa Stipkovich, Housing Manager, stated she agreed. The way she read the Housing Element, they would not be tying themselves down to any specific resale control mechanisms. There would be some kind, but that was not identi- fied. Councilman Overholt stated for purposes of clarification, there was a differ- ence of opinion on the Council related to resale controls, but he did not think it had been articulated. They had not debated the issue or taken a position by roll call vote on the issue as yet. Councilwoman Kaywood stated that was precisely why she wanted to be sure the way it was written in the Element would not preclude any changes coming about later on. 81-922 City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - JUNE 30, 198i, 1:30 P.M. There being no further persons who wished to speak, the Mayor closed the public hearing. ENViRONMENTAL Ib~ACT R~PORT - CERTIFICATION: Environmental Impact Report No. 244 having had been reviewed by the City staff and recommended by the City Planning Commission to be in compliance with City and State guidelines and the State of California Environmental Quality Act, the City Council acting upon such information and belief, does hereby certify, on motion by Councilman Roth, seconded by Councilwoman Kaywood, that Environmental Impact Report No. 244 is in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act and City and State guidelines, as recommended by the City Planning Commission. Coun- cilman Bay voted "no". MOTION CARRIED. Councilman Roth offered Resolution No. 81RU302 for adoption, as recommended by the City Planning Commission. Refer to Resolution Book. RESOLUTION NO. 81R-302: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF Ai~AHEIM APPROVING AN AP~ENDbLENT TO THE HOUSING ELEMENT OF THE GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATED AS AMENDb, F. NT N'O. 164, EXHIBIT "A". Before a vote Qas taken, Councilman Bay wanted to explain his "no" vote on the EIR and what would be a "no" vote on the proposed resolution. Ihe general consistency policies and guidelines within the General Plan Am9ndment pointed to things he could not totally agree with in principle, such as rent stabili- zation, rent control policies, fair housing for children, construction loans, condominium conversions and many other things. What the EIR admitted to was that the policies strongly implied in the GPA included density bonuses, second units, site inventories for residential use of perhaps even abandoned service stations and surplus public land. The neighborhood scale adverse impacts in the EIR stated the high possibility of increased demands on public service facilities, including all schools, park and recreation facilities, water, sew- age, waste disposal, increased traffic on local residential streets, potential traffic congestion, increased noise, possible negative revenue-to-cost ratio in municipal revenues andtcost, and incremental degradation of air quality. Basically his disagreement with that type of overall guidelines, although the staff nad done an excellent job in leaving many of the questions open, he felt that there were guidelines pointed at densities, flag lots and a number of things he strongly opposed relative to impact on the existing residents in order to provide more and more housing in the City. Therefore, he could not in principle vote for the Amendment. ~yor Seymour asked if he would then like to have the matter continued and re- directed; ~uncilman Bay answered "no" He just wanted to go on record that he wanted to keep his options open. b~yor Seymour felt that was what they ail wanted and thus, if Councilman Bay wanted to send it back with specific directions to achieve that objective, there would undoubtedly be three votes to do so. 81-923 City Ball, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - JUNE 30, 1981, 1:30 P.bl. Discussion followed between Council Members during which the Mayor stated there were a number of things in the Element with which he could find fault, but he felt they were general enough so that he could express his opposition at the time an attempt was made to implement any portion of the guidelines. The easy thing was to say "no", but they had to have some guidelines since it was a State mandate. Councilman Bay stated he had no intention of changing the Element at this level, nor to defeat it. He merely wanted to make his position clear that when they starte~ fiat lotting, increasing densities and the like, he was not going to vote approval and then be asked why he voted approval initially. Councilwoman Kaywood stated she was voting on the generality of the Element and the fact t~at they did need guidelines. She had been opposed to density for density sake, which they had too much of impacting existing neighborhoods, and would continue to find that where it did not make sense, but she was ready to vote on the Housing Element at this time. Mayor Seymour reiterated he would prefer a continuance until whatever differ- ences Councilman Bay had with t~e Housing Element were discussed and a proper Amendment took place. b~s. Blackwell stated it should be very clear that the people on the Committee were not people who were in the habit of taking orders from the State. They were residents of the City who were interested in it. There were proposals in the Element that in order to take care of housing needs, they were going to have to be looked at sometime by the City, but it did not mean they had to be adopted. In their adoption today of the Element, they were not adopting every suggestion included, but the basic ideas. There were perhaps items in the plan they did not like and the Council did not like, but the Committee as a whole felt that they were things that should be at least considered, and then vote "no" on individual items when they came up. She did not feel this was the place to take the Element apart and say no to one thing or the other, but a time to accept the general idea. Councilman Roth asked if Anaheim did not adopt the Housing Element, what would the State do; Mr. Fick answered that the State Housing and Community Develop- ment Department had taken several cities to court. A vote was then taken on the foregoing resolution. Roll Call Vote: AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Overholt, Kaywood, Roth and Seymour NOES: COUNCIL b~MBERS: Bay ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: None ~ae Mayor declared Resolution No. 81R-302 duly passed and adopted. 106/174: CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING - 1981-82 RESOURCE ALLOCATION PLAN AND THE 1981-82 FEDERAL GEi~ERAL REVE~qJE SHARING BUDGET: To consider the proposed i981-82 Resource Allocation Plan (continued from the meetings of May 12, 81-924 City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - JUNE 30, 1981, 1:30 P.M. May 19 and June 9, 1981) and the proposed Federal General Revenue Sharing Budget for the Fiscal Year 1981-82 (continued from the meetings of May 19 and June 9, 1981--see minutes those dates). City Manager Talley stated relative to the Federal General Revenue Sharing Budget, this was the final hearing on that Budget and unless there were changes to the plan presented to the Council and considered at the meetings of May 19 and June 9, 1981, it could be adopted with a motion. With regard to the Resource Allocation Plan, staff had prepared several reports which he thereupon briefed (see memorandum dated June 24, 1981 from Program Development and Audit and memorandum dated June 30, 1981 from the City Manager, subject: Impact of Major League Baseball Strike On City Revenues and Proposed Revenue and Expenditure Adjustments For Fiscal Year 1980-81 and 1981-82--on file in the City Clerk's office). A~ the conclusion of P~. Talley's briefing, Mayor Seymour stated since they were not going to take action relative to the impact of the Major League Base- ball strike on City revenues today and since he (Talley) had assured them that all their optiqns would remain open in the future, he asked that they continue that aspect until sometime in August, but in the event the strike was settled before that time, that it be brought back. A discussion then followed between Council Members and Mr. Tatley relative to the scheduling of a meeting to discuss the impact of the baseball strike and for the Council to determine its policy with respect to the recommended actions designed to mitigate losses in revenues caused by the strike, as well as changes in estimates of revenues from other sources. It was determined that such discussion would take place on Tuesday, August 11, 1981, either at a work session starting at 11:00 a.m. or at the afternoon session at 3:00 p.m., dependent upon the extent of the agenda for that meeting. The decision on the time would be made at the meeting of August 4, 1981. Mr. Talley then briefed the Council on report dated June 29, 1981 from Deputy City Manager James Ruth, recommending an appropriation of ~2,100 and 520 work hours to Program 344 for funding a driver for the Meals On Wheels Program for fiscal year 1981-82. He also introduced six proposed resolutions adopting new job classifications, salary adjustments and title changes necessary to imple- ment the fiscal year 1981-82 Resource Allocation Plan. He also had two other items of a labor relations and personnel nature that he would like to discuss after public testimony and before they acted on the Resource Allocation Plan. The Mayor then asked to hear from any member of the public who wished to speak to the proposed 1981-82 Resource Allocation Plan or the Federal General kevenue Sharin~ Budget; there being no response, he closed the public hearing. 106/150: MOTION: Councilwoman Kaywood stated relative to the request for funding a driver for t~e Meals on ~eels Program, she felt that program was one of the best of existing programs in the City. She thereupon moved to appropriate $2,100 and 520 work hours to Program 344 for funding a driver for the Meals on Wheels program for FY 1981-82. Councilman Roth seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. 81-925 City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - JUNE 30, 1981, 1:30 P.M. Mayor Seymour asked relative to the proposed resolutions involving new job classifications representing salary schedules and ranges for the additional employees being recommended in the Budget, if in the judgment of the City Council in August as a result of a continuation of the Baseball strike one of the options the Council wanted to exercise was to put a freeze on any new aires in those positions, would taking action today preclude that as an alter- native to the Council at that time. b~. Talley answered it would not. He had requested the ability to approve all job offers before they were made and undoubtedly in mid-August most of those could not be hired even they wanted to. However, there were a number where if he were asked, he would approve those positions. For example, there was an Industrial Engineer, a Housing Code Inspector, a Generation Project Manager and an Economist, all being hired by enterprise operations or non-General Fund Departments, such as Housing. A freeze there would not in any way alleviate the problem. Therefore, unless the Council wanted to give him instructions to the contrary, he was approving those. At present, he was approving revenue generating positions, public safety positions with the exception of the new ones such as the Fire Prevention Inspectors, and he was also approving enter- prise operations positions and non-General Fund positions. Otherwise, the Council could take action with complete confidence. MOTION: Councilman Seymour moved to adopt the 1981-82 Resource ~%llocation Plan and the 1981-82 Federal General Revenue Sharing Budget as proposed by the City ~nager. Councilwoman Kaywood seconed the motion. Before action was taken, Mayor Seymour stated they should make it very clear that subject to the continuation and extension of the current Baseball strike and the potential loss of revenues as a result thereof, the Council would be prepared to take action to amend the proposed budget to bring it into line to cover those revenue losses. He for one had stated his position relative to those potential reductions and to the best of his ability he was going to in- sure that those reduction~ would not reduce service levels in the community. He was satisfied with the~amendments that they had made to the Budget as pro- posed and ~opefuliy would be adopted today as the City Charter required. Pm felt that they had a very open hearing process on the Budget consisting of a number of work sessions and hearings and they were actually prepared to con- clude the Budget several weeks ago. He reiterated he for one would do every- thing in his power to see that the cuts which may be necessitated as a result of the Baseball strike would not impact service levels. Councilman Bay stated he would like to second the Mayor's whole statement and that was the way he was approaching the matter as well. Councilman Roth then commended the City Manager and his sta££ on what he con- sidered to be an excellent Budget. They had proved once again that they were an admirable group of people who knew how to prepare a Budget which was in the best interest of the whole City. Councilwoman Kaywood stated she felt the Budget process in the City went on all year long and she too wanted to commend everyone involved. There was a truly cooperative spirit with some very difficult decisions to make. The more 81-926 City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL ldNUTES - JUNE 30, 1981, 1:30 P.bl. efficient ways of working and the innovative things that had been done in Anaheim were second to no other City she had ever seen, and she was very proud of all those who had anything to do with the Budget. Councilman Overholt stated he was pleased to second everything everybody else had said. The Budget process was perhaps the most painful, but certainly the most important process that any in City government had to go through. He com- plimented Mr. Talley and his staff, as well as the Council. A vote was then taken on the foregoing motion. MOTION CARRIED. Councilman Roth offered Resolution Nos. 81R-303 through 81R-308, both inclu- sive, for adoption. Refer to Resolution Book. 153: RESOLUTION NO. 81R-303: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ~NAtiEIM AMENDING RESOLUTION NO. 80R-548 WHICH ESTABLISHEDRATES OF CObfPENSA- TION FOR CLASSES REPRESENTED BY THE ANAHE~[ MUNICIPAL EI~LOYEES ASSOCIATION GENERAL CITY EMPLOYEES UNIT. (effective July 3, 1981) 153: RESOLUTION NO. 81R-304: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ~AttE~i A~fENDING RESOLUTION NO. 81R-83 W~ICH ESTABLISHED RATES OF COMPENSATION FOR uLASSES REPRESENTED BY THE INTERNATION,kL BROTHERHOOD OF ELECTRICAL WORKERS, LOCAL UNION NO. 47, UTILITY EMPLOYEES UNIT. (effective July 3, 1981) 153: RESOLUTION NO. 81R-305: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ~NAitEIM AMENDING RESOLUTION NO. 80R-549 WHICH ESTABLISHED RakTES OF COMPENSA- TION FOR CLA~SES REPRESENTED BY THE ANAHELM MUNICIPAL Eb~LOYEES ASSOCIATION, CLERICAL Eb~LOYEES bNIT. (effective July 3, i981) 153: RESOLUTION NO. 81R-306: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ~NAHEi~i Ab~NDING RESOLUTION NO. 80R-546 WHICH ESTABLISHED RATES OF COM]PENSA- TiON FOR CONFIDENTIAL JOB CLASSIFICATIONS. (effective July 3, 1981) 153: RESOLUTION NO. 81R-~07: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ~NAHE~i ~NDiNG RESOLUTION NO. 80R-550 WttlCH ESTABLISHED RATES OF COP~ENSA- TION FOR CLASSES DESIGNATED AS STAJFF ~qD SUPERVISORY M_ANAG~M~NT. (effective July 3, 1981) 153: RESOLUTION NO. 81R-308: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ~NAHE~ ~NDING RESOLUTION NO. 80R-577 ~HICH ESTABLISHED RATES OF COMPENSA- TION FOR CLASSES DESIGNATED AS ADb~NISTRATIVE MANAG~V~NT. (effective July 3, 1981) Roll Call Vote: AYES: NOES: A~SENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: COUNCIL ~iBER$: COUNCIL >iEMBERS: Overholt, Kaywood, Bay, Roth and Seymour No ne Jone Tae Mayor declared Resolution Nos. 8iR-303 ~hrough 8!R-308, both inclusive, duly passed and adopted. 81-927 City hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - JUNE 30, 1981, 1:30 P.M. 142/108: PROPOSED AMENDMENT TO ORDINANCE - AbaSEMENT DEVICE ARCADES: Con- tinued from the meetings of May 19, June 2 and June 9, 1981--see minutes those dates. City Attorney William Hopkins summarized the situation resulting in tis being requested to prepare an amendment to the subject ordinance requiring a conditional use permit for arcades if they had a certain number of machines. Councilwoman Kaywood then reiterated the reason she asked for a CUP process was so the neighbors, whether commercial in a shopping center or residential within an area that would be impacted directly by the opening of an arcade, could be informed about that business beforehand. She asked if it were to be a process whereby the Chief of Police would make the decision, how would the neighbors be aware of the fact. City Attorney ~opkins answered that the provision giving the Chief the author- ity to investigate the area could also include checking the immediate vicin- ity. Lt. Wilcox was present to speak to the matter. Mayor Seymour stated one way would be to utilize the same procedure as with a public nearing. The Chief could mail out to every property owner within 300 feet. He did not care whose budget would be involved because it was not a budgetary concern. He asked where the budget for public hearings was and the cost for advertising those hearings. City Clerk Linda Roberts noted that on zoning matters, such expenditures were in the Planning Department's budget; the Mayor stated if they wanted to have such an ordinance, they had to pay for it, and they were talking about how best to accomplish that. He preferred an amendment such as the one the City Attorney had drafted empowering the Chief with an appeal. If they wanted to broaden the notification process in that ordinance, he would have no objection to that. Councilwoman Kaywood noted that they had received a letter dated June 29, 1981 from a Doris and T. G. Sm~ltzer attached to which was a petition showing sup- port for a CUP process which process they felt would give them a chance to protect their families and neighborhood from detrimental effects. The letter expressed the difficulty of the neighborhood in trying to live with the Video Palace Arcade which was located across the street from their home and the resultant problems ~on file in the City Clerk's office). Mrs. Doris Smeltzer, 413 West Vermont Street, stated if the Council had the opportunity to review her letter, she did not have much more to add other than the fact that it had been difficult living across the street from a pinball arcade. Further, last evening at 7:30 p.m. they were served with papers wherein they were now being sued by Mr. Pinto, the owner of the arcade busi- ness, because of the petition they started which they never brought before the City Council. The last time Chat they had spoken with Mr. Pinto, the owner, was with the agreement that they would wait and see what he (Pinto) could do to alleviate the problem the arcade was causing. She felt in trying to do what they could, they were in a sense being harassed as well. Councilwoman Kaywood, reading from the letter, noted that the arcade was open until Midnight every week-day night and until 2:00 a.m. on the weekends, a fact which disturbed her greatly. 81-928 City hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - JUNE 30, 1981, 1:30 P.M. Mrs. Smeltzer stated that s~e had not heard noise from the arcade itself. It was what the business attracted and what took place outside and how they were affected by it. Councilman Overholt then posed questions to Mrs. Smeltzer relative to some of the problems articulated in her letter of June 29, 1981 for purposes of clari- fication. Councilwoman Kaywood stated she had received a number of calls over the past few months relative to game arcades with some giving reasons for their opposi- tion. It was interesting to note that Mrs. Smeltzer had listed all of the reasons that people did not want the arcades located near them. She reiter- ated her feeling was that a CUP was a positive measure. If no one was going to be impacted or bothered by an arcade business, that would be fine; however, if they would be impacted, it was only known after the fact. The business was already opened and she did not think that anyone on the Council wanted to tell a business owner who had invested thousands of dollars that they must cease and desist. She saw the CUP process as a favor to the person going into busi- ness as well. She then asked to hear from Lt. Wilcox relative to the proposal that the Police Chief institute the new method of notification of the neigh- borhood and if he considered that a police function. Lt. Dale Wilcox explained at present on the background investigations they performed on some of the permits, they were required to notify business people or people within a certain distance from the proposed business. He did not know whether that was a part of the ordinance, but he felt there was a possi- bility in the investigation they would miss some people who would be con- cerned. At present, an investigator would visit the location and make a contact in the area to see if there was any protest to the business. Councilman Over~olt felt the question being raised was, if in the Police Department's investigation they talked to Mrs. Smeltzer, for instance, and she reported that beer botale~ would be thrown on her front lawn and people would be in the neighborhood at 2:00 a.m., would that be sufficient evidence for the Police Department to deny the permit or should they go through the laborious process of a public hearing. Lt. Wilcox felt they would have difficulty in establishing whether the prob- lems were a result of the business. Further, he questioned in this case whether they would have contacted people at 413 West Vermont when the business faced Harbor Boulevard. With a CUP, they would have been notified and un- doubtedly would have responded. Councilman Overholt stated that a citizen would have the right to appeal a decision of the Police Chief within 10 days from a determination of the issuance of a new permit under the proposed ordinance. H~ asked if they some- how could provide for notice to the neighbors that the Chief had approved an application for an arcade in the neighborhood to give them time if they wanted to bring the matter before the Council. i.~yor Seymour stated that was his thought--to use the same notification pro- cess to property owners within 300 feet as they did in the CUP process. Perhaps they had the wrong department and that it should not be the Police 81-929 City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - JUNE 30, 1981, 1:30 P.M. Chief, but the Planning Department or a committee within that Department to be responsible, since it was not so much a matter of criminal activity as a zoning action. He felt they might be better served to consider an administra- tive process for approval, with an appeal process for a public hearing. MOTION: Councilwoman Kaywood noted in the staff report there were 13 cities surveyed and of those, 11 required a CUP. Santa Ana did a case-by-case analy- sis and Anaheim was the only city without a CUP process. She thereupon moved that they introduce the proposed ordinance requiring a CUP in order to see how it would go. If it became a laborious process, they could subsequently amend it. SUe was concerned that there were too many businesses being established without proper notification to those surrounding businesses followed by situa- tions where a neighborhood was heavily impacted. The Mayor asked if there was a second to the motion; Councilwoman Kaywood stated she could have a first reading on the proposed ordinance requiring a CUP and she would not need a second. Councilman Bay stated he would first like to voice some opinions on why he did not second the motion. He felt what the Council was starting to lean toward was an administrative process equal to the CUP process without the attendant red tape. He'agreed with the intent of the notification and appeal process and if they could do that without going through a formal CUP route requiring staff, Planning Commission and Council time and effort through that whole pro- cess, welch was expensive and time consuming, that was what they ought to be exploring. Councilwoman Kaywood asked Miss Santalahti how expensive and time consuming was a CUP process with regar~ to an arcade; Annika Santalahti, Assistant Director for Zoning answered it would be similar to an on-sale liquor CUP in terms of staff ~ime which would be somewhere around $500. It occurred to her when the Mayor was speaking that one procedure the City followed which was also similar to what she (Councilwoman Kaywood) was speaking about was the notification that was se~t out wmen a House Move-on was proposed. Property owners were notified and~if there was objection within 300 feet, it would come to the Council for a public ~earing. It removed it from the realm of merely being approved without anybody realizing what was occurring. Councilwoman Kaywood and Councilman Bay felt that was the kind of process they were looking for; Councilwoman Kaywood stated she had no objection to such a process because everyone would be notified. She felt that would be the way to go and proposed chat they institute that process. Councilman Roth suggested that they continue the matter for one week so that Miss Santalahti could come up with a new recommendation; ~ty Attorney ~pkins stated that his office would prepare another ordinance for consideration along the lines articulated for a House Moving Permit. MOTION: Councilman Bay moved to continue further consideration of the pro- posed amendment to the ordinance on Amusement Device Arcades for one week. Councilwoman Kaywood seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. ! 81-930 City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - JUNE 30, 1981, 1:30 P.M. City Clerk Roberts pointed out that there were a number of Amusement Device Permit Applications pending in her office. She asked if they wished those scheduled next week. The Mayor stated they should hold those until they could get direction rela- tive to the matter. If there was an applicant who felt some sense of urgency, the Council would be happy to hear from them and deal with them on an indivi- dual basis. They would like to express to any and all applicants what they were doing and to further express that the Council would be reluctant to con- sider approval of those requests until the finalization of the ordinance. Councilwoman Kaywood recognized a woman from the audience who wished to speak; Karyn Silfies, 9872 Dewey Drive, Garden Grove, stated she was interested in opening an arcade. After hearing the problems tnat the Smeltzer's had encountered, she felt badly about that. From different arcades that she had been exposed to and having known some of the managers, it seemed that a great deal was depen- dent upon the managers and not necessarily the location. After further discussion, the Mayor clarified for staff, just as he felt a sensitivity from Lt. Wilcox that they not be burdened with the process, he sensed the same with bliss Santalahti's Department. However, it was his atti- tude and he f~lt the attitude of the Council that they wanted her to take that responsibility on to insure that the process was trimmed down and moved quickly. On the other hand, they did not want to avoid the appeal process. Perhaps the House Moving Permit process was the one or perhaps they had to go the step further as he had outlined. He asked that they give consideration to the fact that they were asking ~er Department to take the responsibility on. If there was an appeal made upon their decision, the Council was prepared to hear that. They should not duck t~e issue. Miss Santalahti stated what concerned her, right now there was nothing that came into the Planning Department that she was aware of personally where they had the option of saying "yes" or "no" because the Code specifically addressed t~e matter and there was~lways a clear cut decision that could be made. She was concerned about getting into a position where somebody in the Department could receive five letters of opposition and on that basis deny an application. Mayor Seymour stated, in that case, there would be an appeal process and the Council would rely on that. He urged them not to be afraid to use that pro- cess for fear that the Council was going to say that they made the decision this way and they were wrong. Councilwoman Kaywood questioned whether they would want to limit the hours of operation as well, since operating until ~idnight and 2:00 a.m. seemed very long; City Attorney Hopkins stated t~ere was no stipulation of hours a~ the present time. 105: APPOISTb~NTS TO BOARDS AND COb~SSiONS: Appointments to Boards and Commissions due to vacancies or expiration of terms ending June 30 of the following years: Community Redevelopment Commission: Councilman Bay moved to reappoint Mr. Stewart Moss to the Community Redevelopment Commission for the term ending June 30, 1985. Councilwoman Kaywood seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. 81-931 City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - JUNE 30, 1981, 1:30 P.M. Councilman Bay moved to reappoint Mr. Ian Skidmore to the Community Redevelop- ment Commission for the term ending June 30, 1985. Councilman Roth seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. Community Services Board: The Mayor declared nominations open for the one vacancy on the Community Services Board. Councilwoman Kaywood nominated Joan Burda to fill the vacancy on the Community Services Board for the term ending June 30, 1983. Councilman Bay had offered her name in nomination at the meeting of June 9, 1981 (see minutes that date) upon Ms. Burda's letter to the Council indicating her interest in serving. Councilwoman Kaywood moved to close nominations. Councilman Overholt seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. Councilman Roth suggested that they continue the matter for one week in order to obtain additional background on Ms. Burda and perhaps solicit for addi- tional applicants. Councilwoman K~ywood noted that the vacancy was advertised and posted and Ms. Burda's was the only other letter other than that of ~. Judge who withdrew; City Clerk Roberts then read Ms. Burda's letter of April 26, 1981 expressing her interest in being appointed a member of the Community Services Board. Councilwoman Kaywood moved to appoint Ms. Joan Burda to the Community Services Board filling the unexpired term of Mrs. Joan Dean ending June 30, 1983, sub- ject to verification of the residency requirement. Councilman Seymour seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. Councilwoman Kaywood moved to reappoint Donna Gaston to the Community Services Board for the term ending June 30, 1985. Councilman Roth seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. Councilman Roth moved to ~eappoint Margaret Sullivan to the Community Services Board for the term ending June 30, 1985. Councilman Bay seconded the motion. MOTION C~RRiED. Relative to the reappointment of Mr. James West to the Community Services Board, Councilwoman Kaywood stated that she understood that Mr. West had indicated he was glad his term was coming to an end and he was not applying again. His attendance at Board meetings had not been good and he had missed the last several meetings. Councilman Roth suggested that they hold the appointment in order to get additional information; Councilman Bay asked if there was anything in writing stating that Mr. West was not interested in being reappointed. Councilwoman Kaywood answered member of the Board. The information was given to her by a On motion by Councilman Roth, seconded by Councilman Overholt, consideration of the reappoin~ment of Mr. James West to the Community Services Board was continued for two weeks. MOTION CARRIED. 81-932 City Hall, Anaheim, ~lifornia - COUNCIL P~NUTES - JUNE 30, 1981, 1:30 P.M. Housing Commission: Councilwoman Kaywood moved to reappoint Edward Gardner to the Housing Commission as a Tenant Member for the term ending June 30, 1983. Councilman Overholt seconded the motion. MOTION C~%RIED. Councilman Roth moved to reappoint Stella Sandoval to the Housing Commission for the term ending June 30, 1985. Councilman Bay seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. Library Board: Councilman Overholt moved to reappoint Earl Dahl to the Library Board for the term ending June 30, 1985. Councilman Roth seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. Councilman Overholt moved to reappoint Elizabeth Schultz to the Library Board for the term ending June 30, 1985. Councilwoman Kaywood seconded the motion. MOTIO£~ CARRIED. Planning Commission: Councilman Overholt moved to reappoint Gerald Bushore to the Planning Commission for the term ending June 30, 1985. Councilman Bay seconded the motion, blOTION CARRIED. Councilman Rot~ moved to reappoint Paul King to the Planning Commission for the term ending June 30, 1985. Councilman Overholt seconded the motion. Council Members Kaywood and Bay voted "no". MOTION C~HtRIED. Pro~ect A=ea Committee: Ralative to the vacancy of Ron Waltz, Councilwoman Kaywood noted that they received a recommendation from the Committee that Louise Rhoads be appointed. Councilwoman Kaywood thereupon nominated blrs. Khoads for appointment to the Project Area Committee to fill the unexpired term of Mr. Waltz ending June 30, 1982. Councilman Overholt seconded the motion.. Councilman Roth moved to close nominations. Councilman Bay seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. ~7 ~s. Rhoads was declared appointed to t~e Project Area Committee for the term ending June 30, 1982. Councilman Roth moved to reappoint Arley Beeson to the Project Area Committee for the term ending June 30, 1983. Councilman Bay seconded the motion. Before a vote was taken, Councilwoman Kaywood stated she had some concern relative to the proposed reappointment and would, therefore, vote "no". A vote was then taken on the foregoing motion. Councilwoman Kaywood voted "no" MOTION CARRIED. Councilwoman Kaywood moved to reappoint Warren Hunziker to the Project Area Committee for the term ending June 30, 1983. Councilman Overholt seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. Councilwoman Kaywood moved to reappoint Paul Wimer to the Project Area Committee for the term ending June 30, 1983. Councilman Bay seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. 81-933 City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - JUNE 30, 1981, 1:30 P.M. Public Utilities Board: Councilman Roth moved to reappoint Ken K~esee to the Public Utilities Board for the term ending June 30, 1985. Councilman Bay seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. Councilman Bay moved to reappoint Richard Haynie to the Public Utilities Board for the term ending June 30, 1985. Councilman Overholt seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. Councilman Bay moved to reappoint Dale Stanton to the Public Utilities Board for the term ending June 30, 1985. Councilwoman KaywoOd seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. Senior Citizen Commission: Councilwoman Kaywood moved to reappoint George Collins to the Senior Citizen Commission for the term ending June 30, 1984. Councilman Bay seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. Councilwoman Kaywood moved to reappoint Frances Scherman to the Senior Citizen Commission for the term ending June 30, 1984. Councilman Overholt seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. Councilman Ove~holt moved to reappoint Edward Stringer to the Senior Citizen Commission for the term endin~ June 30, 1984. Councilman Roth seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. 154: ANAHE~ ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION (aEDC): Councilman Bay announced the resignation of l~. Edward Leahy, the ~amber of Commerce appointee to the AEDC, who was replaced by Mr. Bob Barton. He requested that a letter of appreciation be sent to Mr. Leahy for his past services to the Corporation. Councilman Bay also announced the resignation of Mr. Tom Shuter from the Corporation, a Council appointee. Proposed recommendations for his replace- ment were also discussed ~t the Corporation's last meeting and they came to him (Bay) with their recommendation, P~. Walt Smith. Councilman Bay thereupon nominated Mr. Walt Smith to be appointed to the AEDC for the term ending June 30, 1983. Councilwoman Kaywood seconded the nomina- tion. Councilwoman Kaywood moved to close nominations. Councilman Bay seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. Y~. Walt Smith was thereupon appointed to the AEDC for the term ending June 30, 1983. ~uncilman Bay also requested that a letter of appreciation be sent to Mr. Shuler for his past services no the Corporation. 108: A~IUSEMENT DEVICES PERMIT - F~MILY ARCADE: Application by P~rtha M_iran~a, Family Arcade, 401 South Brookhurst Street, for various amusement devices, was submitted (continued from the meetings of May 19 and 26 and June 9, 19~l--see minutes those dates). Councilwoman Kaywood suggested that the matter still be continued since they were wor~ing on a new procedure relative to amusement devices. 81-934 City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - JUNE 30, 1981, 1:30 P.M. Councilman Overholt moved to continue consideration of the subject application for an Amusement Devices Permit for two weeks. Councilman Bay seconded the motion. Before a vote was taken, the Mayor asked if anybody representing the Family Arcade was present; there was no response. A vote was then taken on the foregoing motion. MOTION CARRIED. 158: REQUEST OF C-W ASSOCIATES FOR A GRA~qT OF EASEb~NT FOR THE EXTENSION OF LA P~ AVENUE EASTERLY OF WEIR C~NYON ROAD: Hugo H. Prestinary, Director of Land Development for C-W Associates, requesting a grant of easement in order to extend La Palma Avenue easterly from Weir Canyon Road to connect with the proposed secondary arterial (Esperanza Road) with the Lomas de Yorba Develop- ment ~continued from the meeting of June 9, 1981--see minutes that date). Councilman Roth moved to continue consideration of the subject easement to July 14, 1981, as requested in letter dated June 24, 1981 from the representa- tives of C-W Associates. Councilman Bay seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. 129/142: Tlb~ L~iITATION ON SET UP OF FIREWORKS STANDS: Councilwoman Kaywood referred to a report dated June 29, 1981 from the Fire Marshal/Fire Prevention Bureau, Garth Menges, indicating that the staff concurred that two weeks, (June 15) would be sufficient time for the erection of fireworks stands prior to July 1 of any year and the fireworks companies were agreeable as well. City Attorney William P~pkins stated the change would be an amendment to the Anaheim Municipal Code 6.40.060 and if approved as proposed would state, "No such temporary stand shall be erected or maintained within the City of Anaheim prior to June 15 of any year. No person shall erect or maintain such tempor- ary stands or sell such fireworks..." He would bring that amendment to the Council in the fo~m of an ordinance in one week. Councilwoman ~aywood requested the City Attorney to prepare an amendment to the A~iC (6.40.060) providing that fireworks stands not be erected earlier than June 15 of each year. b~yor Seymour further suggested that they mail a copy of the proposed amend- ment to the ordinance to the known manufacturers of fireworks for any comments. 108: REQUEST FOR EXTENSION OF YI~E TO THE ABATEb[ENT PERIOD - KONA MOTEL: Request submitted by Re~ina Shaw and Gerald Wang, for t~e Kona Motel, 331 North Brookhurst Street, for an extension of time to the period of abatement pursuant to Code Section 18.89.040 relating to Adult Entertainment, was sub- mitred. Councilman Overholt honed that according to t~e staff report (see report dated June 23, 1981 from the Assistant Director for Zoning--on file in the City Clerk's office) the present owners of the motel acquired title after the one year period of abatement under the Adult Entertainment Ordinance had expired. 81-935 City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - JUNE 30, 1981, 1:30 P.M. After the period of abatement had elapsed, the former owner came to the Council and full hearing was held at which time the Council ruled there was no hardship sufficient to grant an extension of abatement. New people had now purchased the motel and wanted an extension. Ha asked the City Attorney whether at this point they had to ~o through the whole hearing process again. City Attorney Hopkins answered that their recommendation was to deny an exten- sion (see report dated June 15, 198i from the City Attorney--on file in the Ciny Clerk's office) because of the fact that the owners purchased the motel after the denial by the Council. He felt there was sufficient notice by the fact that the gouncil had a full hearing on the former owner's request, Mr. Ruis. Councilman Overnolt asked if he felt it was necessary for the Council to con- duct a hearing such as they had done on previous requests and take sworn tes- timony. Mr. Hopkins answered "no" He merely felt that perhaps if someone was pre- sent, that the Council listen to their comments, but not conduct a full hear- ing since the request for an extension of the abatement period was previously denied (see minutes January 13, 1981). The Mayor asked to hear from the owners. Ms. Regina Shaw, 1522 Ramona Avenue, South Pasadena, stated she and C~rald Wang, who had to leave the meeting, were the new owners and they did not know anything was going on when they purchased the motel. ~yor Seymour stated then that their problem was with the man from whom they purchased the motel because he did not make a disclosure to them. The Council did not have a responsibility no them if they were not informed by the person who sold them the motel. Ms. Shaw stated t~at she~as a real estate agent and she had sold many motels of different types; the ~ayor felt, with a real estate license, she should understand about disclosure. P~ss Shaw stated that the owner who sold her the motel was also a real estate agent. They had checked the title and it was clear. He told her that every- thing was all right with regard to the motel. She then referred to her letter dated June 5, 1981 (on file in the City Clerk's office) which she read aloud indicating t~at they had suffered undue hardship due to the fact that they paid $450,000 as a down payment on the purchase of the motel with monthly pay- ments of $3,800 on the loan for 14 years. They needed to recover their investment and were asking that they be allowed to show the adult movies. Mayor Seymour asked if she knew before February 3, 1981, the date of the close of escrow, that the City took action on January 13, 1981, revoking the ability to show X-rated movies. Ms. Shaw stated they found out after they opened escrow and before closing, but they could not withdraw from the escrow or they would have lost the money they put in. They had no contingency against the escrow. ! 81-936 City hall, Anaaeim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - JUNE 30, 1981, 1:30 P.M. Tae Mayor reiterated that the situation that occurred was not the Council's responsibility; Ms. Shaw conceded it was not their responsibility, but she was asking for their sympathy or something they could do to help them get their money back. Councilwoman Kaywood stated that on January 13, 1981 the Council had a hearing with the prior owner and denied his request for continuing the showing of X-rated movies. If he sold the motel to the new owners with the understanding that they could saow those movies, he was lying. If he told her that it was denied, then she knew. One way or the other, the Council was not responsible since the request for extension of the abatement period was denied. Ms. Shaw stated that the former owner received a letter on January 20 and not Oanuary 13; Councilwoman Kaywood stated the hearing with Mr. Ruis' attorney occurred on January 13, 1981 and thus he knew that the Council denied his request on a unanimous vote. At the request of the Mayor, the City Attorney then explained the background and the provisions of the Adult Entertainment Ordinance. After the City Attorney's explanation, Councilman 0verholt clarified for Ms. Shaw that it was illegal to show X-rated movies at the motel. She had a legal problem and me suggested that she hire her own attorney. He (Overholt) had not heard anything that would indicate there was any reason on the part of the Council for granting relief . Councilman Roth stated Ms. Shaw was not only a real estate agent, but also she was aware that the request for the extension of the abatement period to the Adul~ Entertainment Ordinance was denied. MOTION: Councilman Roth moved to deny the request submitted by Regina Shaw and Gerald Wang, for the Kona Motel, 33i North Brookhurst Street, for an extension of time to the period of abatement pursuant to Code Section 18.89.040 relating to AdUlt Entertainment. Councilman 0verholt seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED.~ Councilwoman Kaywood confirmed for bis. Shaw that she could operate the motel, but without the X-rated movies. She emphasized that they would have to stop showing those movies immediately; Councilman 0verholt also explained that they could show non-X-rated movies, not X-rated. 108: A_NAHEIM RELitEATION CENTER: Request by Dorothy I. Hoskins for an exten- sion to her Gaming Premises ~rmi~ to allow the continued operation of the Anaheim Recreation Center located at 62i North Euclid Street, was submitted. b~. Jack Rizzoto, attorney representing Dorothy ~bskins, first relayed background information on Mrs. Hoskins who had been a resident of the City since 1958 and who was initially issued a business license in 1971 (see letter dated May 20, 1981 from Mrs. Hoskins--on file in the City Clerk's office). W'nat they were requesting of the ~uncil, since the five-year moratorium was passed in June 1~7o, w~ich authorized continuation of a similar type of operation as b~s. Hoskins, was that she be allowed what some might term a 81-937 City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - JUNE 30, 1981, 1:30 P.M. "grandfather clause" which would allow her, as an individual, to keep opera- ting within the City. She was the only one operating in 1976 and was the only club operating today. He realized chat the ordinance passed in April 1980 would prohibit her type of operation as of July 22, 1981. They also realized that there were problems with the Camelot Card Parlor followed by litigation, but at this point it was his understanding that matter had been resolved and they were no longer in business. He requested that the Council consider giving Mrs. Hoskins a permanent license renewable under the previous regula- tions, Section 4.20, repealed by Ordinance No. 3552, and allow her to remain in operation. In the alternative, Mrs. Hoskins had recently applied for an application through the State for a school and teaching license. That license would be similar to that presently held by the Ungambling Club which was licensed as a school and training area within the City. If Mrs. Hoskins was unable to retain her license permanently, he requested that an extension for a minimum of six months be given to her since by that time all phases of the licensing through the State should be completed. In the interim, they were requesting that the Police Department, the City Attorney and City Council be assured that only games of skill would be played within the club. Mrs. Hoskins' operation consisted of 18 tables, generally six to eight players at a table, an~ there were presently approximately 70 employees. Most of her patrons were senior citizens, primarily female, who enjoyed playing cards. It was not the type of operation that would cause any form of disturbance in the area, and there had been no complaints either through the Police Department, City or the County regarding the operation. He requested that consideration be given so t~at if the Council deemed it inappropriate to give b~s. Hoskins a sole license, to at least give her an extension of six months so that they could attempt to comply with State regulations and switch the operation into a school and training center. %ae County of Ventura, faced with a similar situation, deemed it appropriate to use the term "grandfather in" and that particular license could be revoked with cause, but upon the death of the license holder, the license would be extinguished. The ~yor stated it was h~s understanding t~e Anaheim Recreation Center had been in business in the City for a decade; ~s. Dorothy Hoskins confirmed that the business first known as the Anaheim Pool Hall was established sometime prior to 1945. Councilman Bay noted that in June of 1976 when Ordinance No. 3572 was passed, it was intended to give such businesses ample notice so that at the end of the five-year period, they were no longer going to be in the card business. Mr. Rizzoto stated as he understood, no prior notice was given to Mrs. Hoskins since she was the only one affected and in business at that particular time. However, the 1976 ordinance eliminated any possibility of selling the business since it was prohibited according to the ordinance. Councilman Bay surmised then that it was clear in 1976 and they were now asking for a minimum six months' extension to do something with regard to a State license. He asked why during the whole five-year period that action had not been taken prior to now. 81-938 City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - JUNE 30, 1981, 1:30 P.M. Mr. Rizzoto answered that after Mrs. Hoskins' divorce in 1978, she was awarded the Anaheim Recreation Center and as a result of a difficult emotional prob- lem, was unable to operate the Club on her own. Thus her actual ability to run the Club other than the knowledge that sooner or later it would become extinct, was not known until recently. The Mayor asked if the Council granted an extension to the current use, was it his client's intention to pursue the license for an ungambling casino; ~. Rizzoto answered "yes". Additional questions relative to the business were then posed to Mr. Rizzoto by the Mayor and Councilman Overholt for purposes of clarification at the con- clusion of which, Mrs. Hoskins relayed additional background information rela- tive to the personal difficulties she experienced and what occurred after her acquisition of the business in 1978. Councilman Overnolt asked the City attorney if the Council was empowered under the present status of the ordinances to grant a further extension. bM. Hopkins anpwered "no". Ordinance No. 3552 repealed Chapter 4.20 upon which the original permit was granted and set forth the five-year moratorium. In April 1980 the ordinance making certain card games illegal was passed, and there was no provision for any type of such activity at the present time. There was a provision that those gaming permits in effect were allowed to con- tinue to the end of the moratorium period. Once that period expired, there was no present ordinance permitting an extension. It was for that reason they wrote to ~s. Hoskins on April 1, 1981 stating that she was required to ter- minate all activities which would be in violation of Ordinance No. 4121, the prohibition against card rooms, by July 22, 1981. ~Xir. Rizzoto stated he understood there had been one attack on the ordinance to date and per~aps an appeal might be coming forth. The particular ordinance specified any game and no~ just card games. He thanked them for anything that could be done under the a~spices of the City Attorney and City Council. b~yor Seymour asked the City Attorney, since the ordinance specified any game, was his opinion that the Ungambling Casino would also be illegal. City Attorney Hopkins stated Mr. Rizzoto was not quite accurate in his quota- tion of the ordinance. He thereupon read from the ordinance. The Ungambling Casino purported to be a school, and the Police Department had inspected their school activities. As far as he knew, they were not in violation of the ordinance. Mayor Seymour stated, to his knowledge, the only card parlor in the City was Mrs. Hoskins'. He asked if they were to amend the ordinance to permit the "old Anaheim Pool Hall" to continue their current operation only, what impact, if any, that would have on the Camelot or other operations that would desire to be located in the City. City Attorney Hopkins answered that the present Ordinance No. 4121 prohibited all types of card rooms. It would have to be an ordinance that would allow persons to play cards and it would open the door for Camelot Anaheim or any- body else to engage in that type of activity. 81-939 City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - JUNE 30, 1981, 1:30 P.M. The bt~yor asked if there was a legal way to permit the continuation of Mrs. Hoskins' business on an exclusive basis and not permit other similar opera- tions in the City. rt. Hopkins answered "no". The provisions of the original Ordinance No. 3552 were quite explicit. The desire to "grandfather" or provide for a specific organization to continue operating, in his opinion, would be illegal. It would be granting permission to an organization to operate contrary to the ordi~mnce which would have to be equally applied to all operations tha~ would so desire to come into the City. Mr. Rizzoto stated basically what would be required was no different than the initial moratorium. Reading the minutes of the meeting where that ordinance was passed, there were 17 other requests for permits at the time. In con- cluding, he stated it was his opinion that something could be worked out and if they were given the time, he would make himself available to the City Attorney or his staff to attempt to find something that would be amenable to both the City and Mrs. Hoskins. Councilwoman Kaywood stated that was the reason for the five-year moratorium in 1976--to gi~e the existing card parlor the opportunity to phase out with plenty of time. Councilman Ovarholt asked if the Council would be in a position to direct a stay of enforcement of the ordinance for a period of time. City Attorney Hopkins stated he believed they could stay enforcement, but he would not recommend it because of the litigation that had been horrendous. He then gave the status of the Camelot litigation, as requested by Councilman Overholt. Councilman Bay stated, in his opinion, the Council was toying with opening Pandora's Box. He was nor in any mood to go to the extent of starting to modify or stay or change ~hen there had been a full five years of notice of termination. MOTIOn: Councilman Bay thereupon moved to deny the request by Dorothy Hoskins for an extension period to her Gaming Premises Permit to allow the continued operation of the Anaheim Recreation Center located at 621 North Euclid Street. Councilman Overholt seconded the motion as he felt that regrettably they had no other choice. Before a vote was taken, Mayor Seymour stated he was going to oppose the motion, not that it ultimately might be the motion that would have to pass; however, he wanted to have some time to do more research to see if there was a legal way to insure the continuation of what he considered to be almost a his- torical landmark in the community. %he business went back to the days of pro- hibition, and he knew many of the people who played at the Center, fine people and citizens of the City. He also did not know of any Police complaints on the operation. Thus, becausa of the historical tradition involved, he was inclined to try to find a way to continue the operation, although he did not know that could be found if the proposed motion passed. 81-940 City Hail, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MI~UTES - JUNE 30, 1981, 1:30 P.M. MOTION: Councilman Seymour moved to continue consideration of the subject request for two weeks. Councilman Overholt seconded the motion. Before a vote was taken, Councilman Roth stated he would support the motion for continuance. He felt that perhaps the applicant and the City Attorney could look at an early move into a school status relative to the requested extension of time. The Mayor stated if Mrs. Hoskins was going to change her operation into a school as an alternative, then she would be destroying the historical signifi- cance of the business. He would be opposed to that change. His concern was for her customers. Mrs. Hoskins stated she definitely did not want the school, but rather than just closing her doors, that would be an alternative. Councilman Overholt asked the City Attorney if the Camelot matter could be terminated for all time, would his feeling about amending the ordinance to grant relief in this case be different. City Attorney ~opkins answered "no". He felt there were many organizations waiting for something such as this to occur so that they could move in. There was an entire group of people, not only Mr. London, former owner of the Camelot, but also his former wife and a number of people who would welcome the opportunity to have another legal battle with Anaheim. ~s. hoskins stated that she talked with Mrs. London two weeks ago who told her that any legal proceeding she had with the City, if it meant that it would take her (Hoskins) livelihood, she would drop those proceeedings rather than bury both of them. A vote was then taken on the foregoing motion. Councilman Bay voted "no". MOTION CARRIED. .~ CONSENT CALENDAR ITEMS: On motion by Councilwoman Kaywood, seconded by Coun- cilman Moth, the following actions were authorized in accordance with the reports and recommendations furnished each Council Member and as listed on the Consent Calendar Agenda: 2. CORRESPONDENCE: The following correspondence was ordered received and filed: a. 105: Project Area Committee-~inutes of bey 26 and June 9, 1981. b. 105: Communiny Redevelopment Commission-~linutes of May 13, 20, and 27, 1981. c. 175: Public Utilities Department, Customer Service Division--Monthly Report for May 1981. d. 114: City of Buena Park, Resolution No. 7139, endorsing the concept of local control of cable television franchises and supervision of such franchise operations. 81-941 City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - JUNE 30, 1981, 1:30 P.M. e. 105: Anaheim Public Library--Minutes of May 20, 1981. f. 140: Anaheim Public Library-~lonthly Statistical Report for May 1981. g. 105: Community Center Authority-~Minutes of June 8, 1981. h. 105: Golf Course Advisory Commission--Minutes of June 4, 1981. i. 114: Cities of Santa Aha and &arden Grove, Resolution Nos. 81-95 and 6104-81, respectively, recommending legislation to increase parental responsi- bility for the misconduct of minor children. j. 105: Public Utilities Board--Minutes of May 21, 1981. (Unapproved) MOTION CARRIED. CONSENT CALENDAR ITEMS: Councilwoman Kaywood offered Resolution Nos. 81R-309 through 81R-312, both inclusive, for adoption in accordance with the reports, recommendations and certifications furnished each Council Member and as listed on t~e Consent~Calendar Agenda. Refer to Resolution Book. 164: RESOLUTION NO. 81R-309: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF A~N~IHEiM FINALLY ACCEPTING T~E COMPLETION AND THE FURNISHING OF ALL PLANT, LABOR, SERVICES, MATERIALS AND EQUIPMENT AND ALL UTILITIES AND TRANSPORTATION INCLUDING POWER, FUEL ;2{D WATER, A~ND THE PERFORMANCE OF ALL WORK NECESSARY TO CO~STRUCT AND COb~LETE THE FOLLOWING PUBLIC IM_PROVEMENT, TO WIT: SLOPE STOP~M DAb[AGE REPAIR, TUSTIN AVENUE, FAIRMONT BOULEVARD AND SANTA ANA CAi~fON ROAD, IN TB_E CITY OF ANAHELM, ACCOUNT NO. 01-792-6325-E2650. (Nove Brothers Construc- tion) 150: RESOLUTION NO. 8iR-310: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM FINALLY ACCEPTING TME COMPLETION A~ND THE FURNISHING OF ALL PLANT, LABOR, SERVICES, i~ATERIAL~ A~ND EQUIt~iENT AND ALL UTILITIES AiqD TRANSPORTATION INCLUDING POWER, FUEL A~ND~ WATER, BiND THE PERFORbhkNCE OF ALL WORK NECESSAiiY TO CONSTRUCT A~D COP~LETE THE FOLLOWING PUBLIC I~tPROVEMENT~ TO WIT: PELA~CONI PARK $TREAMBED i?iPROVE~!~TS, IN THE CITY OF AJ~AHEIbi, ACCOUNT NO. 16-809-7103. (J. W. Mitchel Company, Inc.) 150: RESOLUTION NO. 8iR-311: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF A~NAHEIM FINALLY aCCEPTING THE COMPLETION AND THE FURNISHING OF ALL PLANT, L~kBOR, SERVICES, MATERIALS AiqD EQUIPMENT AND ALL UTILITIES A~ND TRANSPORTATION INCLUDING POWER, FUEL AND WATER, AND THE PERFORMA~NCE OF ALL WORK NECESSARY TO CONSTRUCT A/~D COb~LETE THE FOLLOWING PUBLIC IbLPROVEMENT, TO WIT: SENIOR CITI- ZEN CENTER REMODELING, IN THE CITY OF A~NAHELM, ACCOUNT NOS. 16-821-7105 AND 17-821-7105. (Vance Construction Company) 167: RESOLUTION NO. 81R-312: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF A2~AJiELM FINDING AND DETEK~fINiNG THAT PUBLIC CONVENIENCE AND NECESSITY REQUIRE THE CO~qSi~RUCTION A2{D COMPLETION OF A PUBLIC IMPROVEbfENT, TO WIT: MODIFICATION OF TRAFFIC SIGNALS AND SAFETY LIGHTING AT THE INTERSECTION OF BALL ROAD AND WALNUT STREET, IN THE CITY OF ANAHEIM, ACCOUNT NO. 49-795-6325-E5280; APPRO- VING THE DESIGNS, PLAi'~S, PROFILES, DRAWINGS, AND SPECIFICATIONS FOR THE CON- STRUCTION THEREOF; AUTHORIZING THE CONSTRUCTION OF SAID PUBLIC iMPROVEPtENT iN ACCORDA~qCE WITH SAID PLANS, SPECIFICATIONS, ETC.; AND AUTHORIZING A~ND DIRECT- lNG THE CITY CLERK TO PUBLISH A NOTICE I[~-ViT!NG SEALED PROPOSALS FOR THE CONSTRUCTION THE~CEOF. (Bids Co be opened on July 30, 1981, at 2:00 p.m.) 81-942 City Hail, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - JUNE 30, 1981, 1:30 P.M. Roll Call Vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: COUNCIL M~IBERS: COUNCIL ~LKMBERS: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Overholt, Kaywood, Bay, Roth and Seymour No ne No ne The b~yor declared Resolution No. 81R-309 through 81It-312, both inclusive, duly passed and adopted. 142/159: ORDINANCE NO. 4235: Continued from the meeting of June 16, 1981 due to a tie vote--see minutes that date. F~yor Seymour asked for a roll call vote on the final reading of the ordinance. A tie vote occurred at the meeting of June 16, 1981 when Council- man Roth was absent--he and Councilman Bay voted against and Councilman Overhoit and Councilwoman Kaywood for it. The proposed ordinance would create the organizational recommendation from the City Manager relative to the Public Works Director, tied with the salary increases of the other people invovled. City Manager T~lley interjected and emphasized that the ordinance merely established, "the Public Works Department shall be under the supervision of the Deputy City Manager--Public Works and the Superintendent of Streets, which office is created." Ail of the positions and salaries were created sometime back and had nothing to do with the rest of the reorganization, since that had already been done. He reiterated, the proposed ordinance had nothing to do with salaries. The Mayor stated if that were the case, he would no longer oppose the proposed ordinance. Councilman Roth offered Ordinance No. 4235 for adoption. Refer to Ordinance Book. ORDINA~NCE NO. 4235: Aiq OkDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHELM AMENDING TITLE 1, CHAPTER 1.04, SECTION 1.04.120 OF THE A~NAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO THE PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT. Call Vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: COUNCIL MEMBERS: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Overholt, Kaywood, Bay, Roth and Seymour None None The Mayor declared Ordinance ~o. 4235 duly passed and adopted. ORDIm~NCE NO. 4258: Councilwoman Kaywood offered Ordinance No. 4238 for first reading. ORDiNaNCE NO. 423~: ~h ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF &NAHE~M ~iENDING TITLE 18 OF THE ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL COD~ RELATING TO ZONING. (80-81-i7 and 80-81-35, ~i200) 81-943 City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - JUNE 30, 1981, 1:30 P.M. 114: S~NTAANA RIVER FLOOD PROTECTION AGENCY MEETING: Councilman Overholt stated as alternate to Councilman Roth, he attended the subject meeting held Wednesday, June 24, 1981. At that meeting, Councilman Roth was elected Chair- man of the Agency. RECESS--CLOSED SESSION: The City Manager requested a Closed Session to discuss a personnel matter and labor relations with action anticipated. Before going into recess, the Mayor noted that there were several people in the Council Chambers wao he ascertained were present to attend the 7:00 p.m. public hearing relative to the Westwinds Mobilehome ParK. He announced that a request had been received from the attorney for the developer and attorney for the mobilehome residents that there be a continuance to July 28, 1981. He explained that the chance that the matter would be continued was almost assured and a motion on the continuance would be made when the Council returned from Closed Session. Councilman Bay moved to recess into Closed Session. Councilwoman Kaywood seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. (6:55 P.M.) After Closed ~ession, the Mayor called the meeting to order, all Council Members being present. (7:25 P.M.) 153: PERS - CONTRACT AGENCY MEMBER REPRESENTATIVE: On motion by Councilman Overholt, seconded by ~uncilman Bay, as part of the 1981-82 Council policy, it was determined that the City would no longer pay wages for the time spent attending Board of ~ministration meetings by Jake Petrosino, the Contract Agency Member Representative to the Public Employees Retirement System. MOTION CARRIED. CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING - RECLASSIFICATION NO. 80-81-i4, CONDITIONAL USE PER- MIT NO. 2121, TENTATIVE TRACT NO. 11305, AND NEGATIVE DECLJ~V~ATION: Applica- tion by Bank of California, N. A. Trustee, for a change in zone from RS-A-43,000 to RM-3000, ~o permit a 2-lot, 99-unit condominium subdivision (Revision No. i) on property located at 2170 South harbor Boulevard, with Code waivers. Public hearing had been scheduled and continued from the meetings of January 20, b~rcn 10, April 7 and 21 and May 12, 1981 (see minutes those dates). %he City Clerk announced that letter dated Oune 29, 1981 from the Law Offices of Floyd L. Farano had been received requesting a continuance of the public hearing on the subject to July 28, i981 and Mr. Deitch, the a~torney for the residents, was in agreement with the request. MOTION: Councilwoman Kaywood moved to continue public hearing on Reclassifi- cation No. 80-81-14, Conditional Use Permi~ No. 2121 and Tentative Tract No. 11305 to July 28, 1981, at 8:00 p.m. Councilman Overholt seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. AJ~JOURNb'~NT: Councilwoman Kaywood moved to adjourn to Tuesday, July 7, 1981 at 10:00 a.m., fifth floor conference room of the Civic Center for the purpose of a Closed Session. Councilman 0verholt seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. (7:28 P.M.) LINDA D. ROBERTS, CITY CLERK