Loading...
1980/03/1880-290 City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - March 18, 1980~ 12:30 P.M. 105: The City Council of the City of Anaheim met in adjourned regular session. PRESENT: ABSENT: PRESENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Overholt, Kaywood, Bay, Roth and Seymour COUNCIL MEMBERS: None CITY MANAGER: William O. Talley CITY CLERK: Linda D. Roberts Mayor Seymour called the adjourned regular meeting to order for a presentation by the Youth Commission. ANAHEIM YOUTH COMMISSION - SLIDE PRESENTATION - "OPERATION HOMETOWN": Steve Pinson and Rebecca Swett of the Governmental Affairs Committee of the Youth Commis- sion showed a slide presentation entitled, "Operation Hometown" to the Council for their edification. At the conclusion of the presentation, Mr. Pinson ad- vised that the Youth Commission would be taking the slide presentation to the Anaheim School Board requesting the Board to encourage government teachers to use the presentation in their classrooms. The Council expressed their sincere appreciation to Commissioners Pinson and Swett, as well as to the entire Youth Commission, for putting together such a fine presentation. They further gave their wholehearted support to the program which would be extremely informative and beneficial to the students of Anaheim. ADJOURNMENT: By general consent, the Council adjourned. Adjourned: 1:15 P.M. 80-291 City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - March 18, 1980, 1:30 P.M. The City Council of the City of Anaheim met in regular session. PRESENT: ABSENT: PRESENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Overholt, Kaywood, Bay, Roth and Seymour COUNCIL MEMBERS: None ASSISTANT CITY MANAGER: William T. Hopkins CITY ATTORNEY: William P. Hopkins CITY CLERK: Linda D~ Roberts TRAFFIC ENGINEER: Paul Singer ASSISTANT DIRECTOR FOR ZONING: Annika Santalahti Mayor Seymour called the meeting to order and welcomed those in attendance to the Council meeting. INVOCATION: Pastor Gordon St. George, Anaheim Friendm Church, gave the Invocation° FLAG SALUTE: Councilman Don Roth led the assembly in the Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag. 150/174: PRESENTATION: REVENUE SHARING FUNDS FOR PEARSON PARK POOL: Supervisor Ralph Clark first stated that Orange was the only county in the United States that shared their funds with the cities. He thereupon presented two checks to Mayor Seymour, one for $18,000 towards the coBt of demolition of the old Pearson Park pool, and the other for $162,000 towards the construction of the new Anaheim sports pool complex at Pearson Park, an exceptionally worthwhile project with regional value. He emphasized that the County was very proud of Anaheim. 119: PROCLAMATIONS: The following proclamations were issued by Mayor Seymour and authorized by the City Council: "Census Month in Anaheim" - April 1980 "Cancer Control Month in Anaheim" - April 1980 Mrs Ken DeAllen accepted the Census Month proclamation, and Mrs. Ruth Vonderloh the Cancer Control Month proclamation. 11.9: RESOLUTION OF COMMENDATION: A resolution of commendation was unanimously adopted by the City Council, commending the Orange County Braille Institute for their new athletic field, which field included the first "beep ball" equipped field in Southern California. Mrs. Wanda Hale, Director of the Braille Institute, accepted the resolution. MINUTES: Councilwoman Kaywood moved to approve the minutes of the regular meetings held November 27, 1979 and January 22, 1980, subject to typographical corrections. Councilman Seymour abstained on the November 27th minutes. MOTION CARRIED. WAIVER OF READING - ORDINANCES AND RESOLUTIONS: Councilman Bay moved to waive the reading in full of all ordinanceB and resolutions of the Agenda, after read- ing 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 in regular order. Councilwoman Kaywood seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. 80-292 City Hall, Anaheim, California ~ COUNCIL MINUTES - March 18, 1980~ 1:30 P.M. FINANCIAL DEMANDS AGAINST THE CITY in the amount of $5,661,476.07, in accordance with the 1979-80 budget, were approved. 160: CITY MANAGER/DEPARTMENTAL CONSENT CALENDAR: On motion by Councilman Bay, seconded by Councilman Roth, the following actions were authorized am recommended by the Purchasing Agent: a. Bid No. 3619: Waiving Council Policy No. 306. Five 150 KVA, Five 300 KVA and Three 750 KVA Three-Phase Padmount Transformers, Item Nos. 1, 2 and 3. Award to Westinghouse Electric Corporation, $60,406.22. b. Bid No~ 3631: Waiving Council Policy No. 306. 33,000 feet of 50 pair #19 Gage Communication Cable. Award to Graybar Electric, $5?,589.36. c. Bid No. 3624: Street Sweeping Signs. Award to Pacific Precision Products, $18,686.21. MOTION CARRIED. 123: HARBOR CENTER SHOPPING CENTER: On motion by Councilwoman Kaywood, seconded by Councilman Overholt, the First Amendment to a Lease Agreement with the Anaheim Redevelopment Agency for lease of real property known as the Harbor Center shop- ping center, extending the term through January 31, 1981, was approved, as recom- mended in memorandum dat~d March 12, 1980 from Executive Director of Community Development Norm Priest. MOTION CARRIED. 158: SALE OF EXCESS CITY LAND - TUSTIN AVENUE SOUTH OF THE RIVERSIDE FREEWAY: Councilman Bay offered Resolution No. 80R-110 for adoption, as recommended in memorandum dated March 7, 1980, from Public Works Executive Director Thornton Piersall, authorizing the sale of excess City property located on the east side of Tustin Avenue, south of the Riverside Freeway (slope easement), to Chapman and Tustin Associates in the amount of $2750 and authorizing execution of a quitclaim deed therefor. Refer to Resolution Book. RESOLUTION NO. 8OR-110: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM ACCEPTING AN OFFER TO PURCHASE CERTAIN CITY-OWNED LAND. Roll Call Vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS; COUNCIL M~MBERS: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Overholt, Kaywood, Bay, Roth and Seymour None None The Mayor declared Resolution No. 8OR-110 duly passed and adopted. 176: On motion by Councilman Bay, seconded by Councilman Roth, the City Engineer was authorized to initiate and process an abandonment of the slope easement (79-14A). MOTION CARRIED. 127: SPECIAL ELECTION - RENTAL HOUSING DEVELOPMENT: Councilman Seymour offered Resolution No. 80R-111 for adoption, as recommended in memorandum dated March 17, 1980 from the Executive Director of Community Development, authorizing Anaheim's 80-293 C__ity H_a~ll, Ana~.e. imj_ C.alifornia - COUNCIL MINUTES - March 18~ 1980~ 1:30 P..M. participation in a Special Election called by the Board of Supervisors to approve rental housing development for elderly, handicapped, low- or moderate- income persons (6-3-80). Refer to Resolution Book. RESOLUTION NO. 8OR-111: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM TO PARTICIPATE IN A SPECIAL ELECTION CALLED BY THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ORANGE COUNTY TO APPROVE RENTAL HOUSING DEVELOPMENT FOR ELDERLY, HANDICAPPED, LOW- OR MODERATE-INCOME PERSONS. Roll Call Vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: COUNCIL MEMBERS: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Overholt, Kaywood, Bay, Roth and Seymour None None The Mayor declared Resolution No. 8OR-111 duly passed and adopted. On motion by Councilman Seymour, seconded by Councilman Overholt, $12,000 was allocated from the Community Development Block Grant funds to pay for Anaheim's pro rata cost of the subject election. MOTION CARRIED. 123: R. W. BECK & ASSOCIATES - INCREASE IN CONTRACT AMOUNT OF AGREEMENT: Council- man Roth offered Resolution No. 80R-112 for adopton, as recommended in memorandum dated March 11, 1980 from the Public Utilities Board, approving an increase of $72,000 in the maximum compensation to be paid to R. W. Beck & Associates pur- suant to their agreement dated April 15, 1975. Refer to Resolution Book. RESOLUTION NO. 80R-112: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM APPROVING AN INCREASE OF $72,000.00 IN THE MAXIMUM COMPENSATION TO BE PAID TO R. W. BECK & ASSOCIATES PURSUANT TO THAT CERTAIN AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AND R. W. BECK & ASSOCIATES DATED APRIL 15, 1975. Roll Call Vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: COUNCIL MEMBERS: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Overholt, Kaywood, Bay, Roth and Seymour None None The Mayor declared Resolution No. 80R-112 duly passed and adopted. 10~/123: On motion by Councilman Roth, seconded by Councilman Bay, $72,000 was appropriated from the $6 million Electric Revenue Bond Fund of 1976 to pay for the said increase. MOTION CARRIED. 108: REQUEST FOR WAIVER OF PENALTY ASSESSMENT - COSMIC AGE LODGE AND GALAXY MOTEL: Request by Mr. Ken Baxter that the penalty assessment not be applied for late payment of the November 1979 Transient Occupancy Tax (continued from the meetings of March 4 and 11, 1980). Mr. Ken Baxter, Manager, reported that he had copies of a signed letter from the Postmaster General of Anaheim dated MarCh 18, 1980 (.on file in the City Clerk's office). He stated it was handwritten because the Post Office was short of help, and also attached to that was a letter from their Controller, 80-294 Cit~ Hall, Anaheim, _California - COUNCIL MINUTES - March 18~ 1980~ 1:30 P.M. Mr. Ray Lowe, who mailed both letters, and copies of the envelopes received by the City's License Collector, one of which had been cancelled on January 3, 1980 by the Post Office, and the other which did not show the Post Office cancellation. Both envelopes had gone through a postage machine on December 31, and the bottom showed the stub of the paid checks that were signed and initialed on December 31 and posted in the mail. In essence, the Postmaster General stated that, "On or about December 31, 1979 mail was deposited at the Holiday Station 92802 by Stovall Motel. This mail was received by the City of Anaheim on Janaury 4, 1980." Evidently nO mail was cancelled outside of the main station. Mr. Baxter concluded that hopefully the items presented would show that they felt they carried out their end of the obligation. He also assured Council- man Roth that such an incident would not occur again, and he explained some recent problems that had taken place. They were now back in shape and able to get the checks out on time. MOTION: Councilman Roth moved that the penalty assessment not be applied for late payment of the November 1979 Transient Occupancy Tax. Councilman Seymour seconded the motion. Before a vote was taken, Councilwoman Kaywood noted that their letter stated, on or about December 31 the mail was deposited. She felt that was part of the problem because payment was due in the City on or before December 31; Mr. Baxter stated it was his understanding that it had to be cancelled and mailed by December 31. Discussion then followed wherein Councilwoman Kaywood emphasized the need for clarification of the matter. City Attorney William Hopkins confirmed if the payment was in the mail on December 31, they would not impose a penalty. The situation had arisen on previous occasions where the Post Office admitted it was their fault. If the payment was in the mail on the 31st, the penalty should not have been applied. They had construed putting the envelope in the mailbox on the last day to De sufficient. There was no waiver provision, and the motion merely stated that the penalty should not be applied rather than waived, would be appropriate. Councilman 0verholt stated for reasons previously given (see minutes March 4, 1980), he was going to abstain, but it would be his suggestion that the Council find that the tax was timely paid by depositing it in the mail on December 31, 1979. There then need be no waiver of the penalty. Councilman Roth stated he would incorporate that in his motion and clarified it as follows: that the penalty assessment to Cosmic Age Lodge and Galaxy Motel not be applied for late payment of the November 1979 Transient Occupancy Tax and that the tax was timely paid by depositing it in the mail on December 31, 1979. Councilman Seymour accepted the amendment in his second. Councilwoman Kaywood reiterated her concern that both the Business License Division and the City Attorney's letter to the Council indicated that the tax was to be paid on the last day of December. 80-295 City Ha~!,. Anaheim, C~l~f0rnia - COUNCIL MINUTES - March 18, 1980, 1:30 P.M. Mayor Seymour stated he was always under the impression that the postmark date was the determining factor, just as April 15 was the postmark date for Federal Income Taxes. City Attorney Hopkins reiterated their interpretation was that the tax payment was due on before December 31, 1979, meaning that if the payment was in the postal system on the 31st, that would be consistent with having it paid on that date. The previous information they had indicated a postmark of January 3, 1980. If mailed after the 31st, their position would be that it would be late. Since the Post Office indicated it was in the mail on December 31, that would be allowed. A vote was then taken on the foregoing motion as alarified. Councilman Overholt abstained. MOTION CARRIED. 149: PARKING RESTRICTIONS ON BLUE GUM STREET: Jim Fletcher requesting a change in parking restrictions from "No Parking Any Time" to "2-Hour Parking" on Blue Gum Street from La Jolla Street (continued from the meeting of March 11, 1980). Mr.. Jim Fletcher referred to his letter dated February 14, 1980 and stated that he would actually like to see the whole street, Blue Gum, with limited parking instead of no parking any time because it put an undue hardship on the small business people in the area and other people were present to speak today. They were in compliance with their variance but the streets were full of cars from some of the large businesses down at the end of the street. Their business was a drive-in truck service and when their lot was full, other customers needed a place to park their vehicles for a temporary period. The setback in front of their business was 8 feet more than anywhere else (see minutes March 11, 1980). He agreed that people took advantage of the opportunity to park on the street, and he especially noted the truck parking that occurred in the street to avoid the $50 a month fee to park in Truck Haven. He reiterated, he would like to see the entire length of Blue Gum with limited parking, but now that lines had been striped in the middle of the street, the places where the setback was not as large as theirs, made it almost impractiCal. From Coronado to La Palma, there was ample room on the west side where their business was located and further down on La Palma there was room on the east side. Personally he could not see the absolute necessity for "No Parking Any Time." He was not informed that it was going to take place. Councilman Roth stated he had been out to Mr. Fletcher's business that morning and noted that many people from the surrounding industries were parking on Coronado. He felt that part of the solution might be to have 2-hour limited parking on that street. He also noticed that Pete's Road Service was three- quarters taken up by storage of wheels and tires, and they had a very little amount of parking for employees. Mr. Fletcher stated that he believed they had eight spaces and were consistent with their variance. Councilman Roth then confirmed the fact that the trucks from Truck Haven trying to avoid the $50 monthly fee were parking on the street, and it was the truck congestion that caused a Mr. Bill Thompson to be upset about the amount of trucks on Blue GuTM which triggered the Traffic Engineer's move to eliminate parking on the street. 80-296 Ci.ty Hall, Anaheim., California - COUNCIL MINUTES - March 18~ 198% 1:30 P.M. Mr. Singer stated that was correct and the photographs shown at last week's meeting were representative of the problem. The large rigs were obstructing the vision of oncoming traffic when exiting the many driveways and street emptying on to Blue Gum, thereby causing a serious hazard. It was felt that at the time the only way to correct the situation was to recommend adoption of an' ordinance prohibiting parking so that access to and from the driveways would become safer. The other reason for doing so was.due to the fact that in order to complete Blue Gum as a secondary street, continuous left-turn lanes had to be provided. The Mayor asked asked if anyone else wished to speak to the matter. Mrs. Jean Springer, stated she owned a sandwich shop on Blue Gum near White Star and business was decreasing drastically because of the newly installed "No Parking" signs. They had a couple of spaces, but they were usually used for carry-out orders. Mayor Seymour asked for confirmation that Mrs. Springer was saying, relative to her luncheon traffic, there was not enough parking off site because all of her business came at one time; Mrs. Springer stated she would like to have temporary parking. Mr. Leonard Loveman, Hallwood Products, 2821 White Star, stated his unit was next door to the sandwich shop. During business hours, vehicles that would normally park on the street were all trying to get into the parking lot due to the fact that "No Parking" signs had been erected. They found that they had no place to park when they came to work and at their end of the block, it was creating a problem. They had no parking problems up until the time the "No Parking" signs were installed. The Mayor presented pictures that were taken March 18, showing that storage was taking up parking spaces. Mr. Loveman explained that those photographs depicted the Graphics Group which utilized four units at the north end of the complex. They were very busy and moved material in and out rapidly. There were no further persons who wished to speak. Mr. Singer stated his concern was for safety and to be able to see around the big trailers parked in the area and also to provide a continuous left-turn lane for that street. There was a section of roadway that was wider by 8 feet where they could possibly restore "2-Hour Parking" or '~o Parking At Any Time" which he pointed to from an arterial photograph. The photograph also depicted Mr. Fletcher's business which revealed that there were no parking stalls available. Mr. Fletcher stated that they had ~hem covered for storage, but since that time had cleaned them out and they were now clearly marked. Since the photo was taken, they had mended their ways relative to their own parking. He also confirmed for the Mayor if they were granted "2-Hour Parking" in front of their business in the setback area, that would solve their problem. He added that he personally did not see the benefit of a divided island for the whole street. 80-297 City Ha~l, Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - March 18~ 1980~ 1:30 P.M. The Mayor stated that it seemed to him, especially regarding the sandwich shop operator whose main business occurred between 11:30 a.m. and 1:30 p.m., it might be reasonable to try "2-Hour Parking". If that did not help and there were more problems, they would then have to take more stringent action. He felt they should provide some latitude with 2-hour parking. The biggest violators were the night truck parkers, and they could have it patrolled'at night, thereby correcting that situation quickly. Mr. Singer stated he would like to have a directive as to where there should be 2-hour parking so that they could write an ordinance accordingly. His recommendation and second choice would be to institute it on the west side, the portion that was widened or as little as possible, because the street was eventually going to be very heavily traveled. Councilman Bay stated he drove to the area on Sunday and took the pictures that they had seen. He could understand the use of the two lanes and the center divider turning lane because of the various driveways up and down the street with fast moving traffic. He felt that the center divider was very important on a strip that had the potential speed of that street. In looking at the way the lanes were painted presently, he could see installing "2-Hour Parking" where there was an extra 8-foot setback. However, before he would agree to that, he wanted to be assured by the Fletchers that they had at least six parking spaces, because their Variance No. 2681 required six marked parking spaces on the premises at all times. With that stipulation, he could go along with trying "2-Hour Parking" where the extra 8-foot width was located. Otherwise, going the whole strip from Coronado to La Palma, both sides, they were going to have to restripe the street. Mr. Singer pointed out that they were planning to restripe the street but were prevented from doing so by the rains. It was intended to be restriped from La Pa]ma to the North City Limits for a continuous left-turn lane. It would still leave the sandwich shop with no parking in the street, and the only place parking would be provided would be north of Coronado on the east side and south of Coronado on the west side. A brief discussion then followed between the Mayor, Mrs. Springer and Mr. Loveman relative to the proposal at the conclusion of which, the Mayor stated that the Council had to decide which side of the street would be involved. It appeared to him that the northeast side of the street would be appropriate to permit limited parking, as well as limited parking on both sides where there was an additional width. Councilman Bay asked the Traffic Engineer, if they allowed parking on the east side of Blue Gum near the sandwich shop, would that wipe out the center divider in that area; Mr. Singer answered "yes", but confirmed that it would only be until such time as the west side of the street developed. Councilman Bay continued that in their survey of the industrial area, they came up with a number of quasi-commercial operations. He was concerned that in that area along Blue Gum, commercial operations were going on adding to the traffic impact that was not expected and not covered by parking requirements for some of the businesses. He suspected that was a part of the problem. He felt if they 80-298 City Hall.,.Ana~eim.,. California - COUNCIL MINUTES - March 18~ 1980~ 1:30 P.M. could add some on street 2-h~ur parking with the least damage to the street for circulation purposes, that would be a good temporary solution. MOTION: Councilman Seymour moved to direct the drawing of an ordinance limiting parking to two hours on the east side of the street and then to the north, those areas where there was an additional 8-foot setback. Before action was taken, Councilman Bay asked how much to the east side; the Mayor answered all the way. Councilman Bay thereupon stated that he could not go along with the motion. Councilman Roth seconded the motion. Before'a vote was taken, Councilman Bay stated if they went the whole eastern side from Coronado to La Palma, in effect, that would be wiping out the center- turn lane. There would be no center turn lane from Coronado to La Palma with that much on street parking. He suggested limited on-street parking only in an area near the sandwich shop. He felt that should be attempted on a tempor- ary basis before wiping out the center turn lane. The Mayor asked with only 50% of west side developed, why was it so necessary to have a center ~urning lane. Mr. Singer answered that there were frontages on White Star and Coronado that were already developed and the center lane would thus provide a turn lane for those businesses. If parking.were permitted, even only 2-hour parking on that section of Blue Gum, they would hold off and not install the continuous left- turn lane until such time as they had adequate pavement to do so. The Mayor asked if the motion were amended to reduce the amount of parking on the west side of the street instead of going from Coronado to La Palma, what would that do to the center turning lane. Mr. Singer answered within that one block, there would be no lane, but they could provide it in the block where there was no parking and the approach to La Palma and Coronado. Councilman Bay stated that was his concern; the Mayor stated that the difficulty would be that there were going to be businesses coming to the Council every week with the same type request. The Mayor then clarified his motion for Councilwoman Kaywood; on the east side of the street,. 2-hour parking only; on the west side, no parking other than in those setback areas where there was an additional 8 feet and in those setbacks, provide 2-hour parking. Councilwoman Kaywood asked what would happen to the left-~urn lanes; the Mayor stated they would be gone until the west side of. the street developed. Mr. Singer stated the whole situation originated from a request to give better visibility. He asked if they found there was visibility obstruction, were they still free to provide red zones to take parking off the corner. He emphasized that they had to have some leeway to override if they found a hazardous condition. 80~299 City ~all~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - March 18~ 1980~ 1:30 P.M. The Mayor stated that the situation was sensitive enough so that he would prefer to have Mr. Singer come back to the Council to explain what he was going to do. Councilman Bay stated he could almost go along with the morion if the Mayor could make one other exception, by leaving some clearance on the east side of near Coronado so that at least a left-turn lane could be provided in the center at the signal at Coronado and Blue Gum. The Mayor amended and clarified his motion am follows: Two-hour parking on the east side of Blue Gum from Coronado Street to La Palma Avenue and on the west side where there is an additional eight foot setback with no parking on the remaining areas on the west side; left-turn lanes to be added as space allows. A vote was then taken on the foregoing motion. MOTION CARRIED. RECESS:' By general consent the Council recessed for 10 minutes. (2:55 P.M.) AFTER RECESS: .Mayor Seymour called the meeting to order, all Council Members being present. (3:05 P.M.) PUBLIC HEARING - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 1923: Frederick R. and Ruth E. Sacher, to consider amendments to conditions of approval to permit sales of home furnish- ings on ML zoned properti located ar 1040 Kraemer Place. Councilman Roth moved to continue consideration of the above requemt to April 15, 1980, at 3:00 p.m., as requested by the attorney for the applicant. Councilman Overholt seconded the motion. Before a vote was taken, Councilwoman Kaywood stated she had a problem with the situation. It had been ongoing for many months with advertising in the paper every week by Curtis Furniture, staring that the City of Anaheim was forcing them to close its retail operations, etc., when, in fact, Curtis Furniture misled everyone. They originally came in for a business license saying they were Strictly wholesale and there was never to be any retail. Mr. Floyd Farano, attorney representing Frederick and Ruth Sachet, owners of the property and the applicants in the zoning action, stated that they categorically denied any participation, knowledge or any cvndoning of anything that Mr. Curtis Kindred or Curti~ Furniture had done. The continual alliance or connection · made between what Curtis Furniture had done and the zoning action that the Sachers were trying to achieve, was being unfair to the Sachers. They were trying to do things in a proper manner and they had their own situation with Mr. Kindred which he was not at liberty to discuss. He amsured the Council that his client did not in any way condone anything Mr. Kindred had done and if there was a way they could stop it, they would do so. Councilman Bay requested that after they voted on the continuance, the situation with Curtis Furniture be discussed under another agenda item today. It had nothing to do with the present request for a continuance. A vote was then taken on the foregoing motion. MOTION CARRIED. 80-300 CitY~ Hal!,_.Anaheim,. C. alifornia - COUNCIL MINUTES -March 18~ 1980~ 1'.'30 P.M. 105: APPOINTMENTS TO THE SENIOR CITIZENS COMMISSION: Councilman overholt stated before getting into the nominations, he would like to share with the Council and the people in the Chamber audience a letter he received from Neva Solt, 121 North La Playa. The YMCA indicated she had a problem with the City and they suggested that he (Overholt) call her, which he did. He then read the letter from Miss Solt which explained a number of difficulties she had and after doing so, he stated that he felt it was very expressive of the concerns of seniors generally, which perhaps they did not appreciate. The Mayor stated he felt the letter set the tone for the purpose and intent of the Senior Citizens Commission. He thereupon declared nominations open for he Senior Citizens Commission. Councilman Overholt nominated Estella Nichols; Councilwoman Kaywood nominated Frances Scherman; Councilman Roth nominated Herb Eggett; Councilman Bay nomin- ated Ed Stringer; Councilman Seymour nominated Irving Willing; Councilman Overholt nominated John Francis Shanahan; Councilwoman Kaywood nominated Elsie Bonnett; Councilmen Roth and Bay had no additional nominations; Councilman Seymour nominated Gene Geary; Councilman Overholt nominated William H. LeMar; Councilwoman Kaywood had no additional nominations. Councilman Roth moved to close nominations for appointments to the Senior Citizens Commission. Councilman Bay seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. Mayor 'Seymour stated there would be a roll call vote on each of the nominations as they were made. There were a total of seven positions to be filled and there were nine nominations. A roll call vote was then taken on the nominees in the order in which they were nominated. Roll Call Vote on the following nominations: Estella Nichols, Frances Scherman, Herb Eggett, Edward Stringer, Irving Willing, and Elsie Bonnett: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: COUNCIL Mtg~BERS: COUNCIL MEMBERS: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Overholt, Kaywood, Bay, Roth and Seymour None None Roll call vote on the nomination of John Francis Shanahan: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: COUNCIL MEMBERS: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Kaywood, Bay and Seymour Overholt and Roth None MOTION CARRIED. MOTION: At the suggestion of Mayor Seymour, Councilman Bay moved to cast a unan- imous ballot for the seven nominations. Councilman Overholt seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. Terms of appointees were then randomly drawn by the Council Members, all terms ending June 30th of the respective years: Councilwoman Kaywood drew 1982 for Estella Nichols; Councilman Bay drew 1981 for Frances Scherman; Councilman Roth drew 1981 for Herb Eggett; Councilman Overholt drew 1981 for Edward Stringer; Councilman Seymour drew 1982 for Irving Willing; Councilwoman Kaywood drew 1983 for John Francis Shanahan; Councilman Bay drew 1983 for Elsie Bonnett. 80-301 City Hall, Anaheim, .California - COUNCIL MINUTES - March 18~'1980~ 1:30 P.M. 127: CHARTER AMENDMENTS RELATING TO MUNICIPAL ELECTION DATES AND ELECTION OF THE MAYOR: Proposed resolutions rescinding Resolution No. 80R-88, relating to Municipal Election dates; ordering, calling, providing for and giving notice of a Special Municipal Election to be held on November 4, 1980, for the purpose of submitting to the voters proposed Charter Amendments relating to Municipal Election dates and election of the Mayor; requesting the Board of Supervisors to consolidate said SpEcial Municipal Election with the Statewide General Election to be held November 4, 1980 were submitted (continued from the meeting of March 11, 1980). Councilwoman Kaywood stated she perhaps had more people interested in the term of the Mayor over the last two weeks than the recall election, and asked to state some of their concerns, some of which were her concerns as well~ With regard to the four-year term, they were very much afraid that it would be opening the office up to an abuse of power with the minimum 30-day residency requirement. She real- ized it was constitutional, but it would allow special interests and big money to move into the City. It would also assure an expensive campaign and eliminate the average person from running. The possibility of having special interests take over was frightening and also with a four-year term, the people would lose control. With five Council Members being elected, that was more or less a check and balance on each other, whereas the Mayor elected as at present could be removed only by recall. She further clarified for the Mayor that now with the Mayor being elected directly for either a two- or four-year term, the only way to remove the Mayor would be by a recall election° Extending the term to four years made it doubly dangerous. That was one of the 1978 Charter Review Committee's concerns that the only way to remove a directly elected Mayor would be through recall, an expensive, devi- cive and long process. That was also why she asked that a choice be put in the resolution as to a two- or four-year term, but the Mayor did not want to confuse the issue. She reiterated those were the concerns people had expressed to her over the last two weeks. They felt it would not be in the best interest of the City because it would give the Mayor the impression of having more power and that could definitely not be in the City's best interest. Mayor Seymour asked how the Mayor would have more power than today; Councilwoman Kaywood stated that the Mayor had it today in the direct election of the Mayor and by extending the term, it would make it even more so. Most of the people she spoke with preferred the old method of the Council selecting the Mayor. The five Council Members represented five direct elections from the people and in the event a problem arose, three of those elected Council Members could act. That was her position in the past. Mayor Seymour asked if it was her position today; Councilwoman Kaywood answered, possibly. The people did elect the entire Council and thus to say that they did not elect the Mayor was not necessarily so. However, what was expressed as an advantage to a four-year term as the Mayor was the cost of an election to th~ individual, but that was not the way it was perceived in the City. Another very great concern expressed was that under the proposed arrangement, on the off year with the four-year term, the Council Members who had a two-year term remaining would be getting a free ride to run for Council. They would not 80-302 City Hal!., Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - March 18~ 1980~ 1:30 P.M. be losing their seats since it would not be possible to run for both Council Member and Mayor. 'If they wanted to make it more than a two-year term, they should start in 1984 rather than 1982, to allow three to run at that time. If a Councilmember ran and won,'that would create a vacancy on the Council. It would be more expensive continually replacing a Councilmember, not knowing whether ~he Council would appoint or if an election were going to take place. With the Councilman going to the office of Mayor, the probability was that the Council would appoint because it would take a long time to set an election and there could be a vacancy for many months. With an appointment, it could be a special interest or a political favor, again bypassing the people's right to choose and elect, add that could happen every four years. Another question raised by two or three was whether they would then limit cam- paign expenditures to eliminate some of the abuses; Mayor Seymour stated that he certainly would. Councilman Roth stated it appeared that Councilwoman Kaywood had received a great deal of input while he had not heard from even one person who cared about how the Council Members or Mayor were elected. He had sent a copy of the proposal to the Chamber of Commerce askiag for comments by the City/County Government Committee, and they had not responded. He was deeply concerned about being able to reach over 90,000 plus registered voters in the City, and the cost of campaigning to do so was very difficult. One of the drawbacks of running for Assembly or Congressman was the fact of having to run every ~wo years and as soon as the person was elected, he or she had to start running for re-election. He had also asked the Mayor if there was any differential or any more power given to the Mayor with the proposed changes relative to the election dates or the four-year term of office vs. the two-year term. The Mayor assured him that there was no other change involved. He (Roth) saw nothing wrong with the four- year term and felt it would be in the best interest not having to continually campaign, as well as assisting in the cost of campaigning. The people still had the ultimate right of recall. Good people interested in getting involved would rather take a four-year Council seat as opposed to a two-year Mayoralty. As well, in most cities in the United States, anyone could run for Mayor if they were of age, a~citizen and registered voter. Councilman Overholt stated as he had the last time, that he favored the four-year term for Mayor. To run for Mayor in the City required a real commitment of the person running for that office and they should be willing to commit to a four-year term, for better or for worse. Two years was far too short a period of time. Relative to the expensive campaign issue, the Council had gone on record as being interested in looking into the possibility of campaign spending limitations, but not in the middle of a ball game. He, too, would be interested in looking into the possibility of campaign spending limitations when they finished with the two elections coming up, one in April and the other in June. He was supportive of the four-year term of Mayor, as well as of the wording of the resolution, subject to the correction of clerical errors. 80-303 City H~ll~ Anaheim.~ Cg.~ifornia - COUNCIL MINUTES - March .18, 1980, 1:30 P.M. Councilman Bay recalled he had spoken for the two-year term when they originally discussed the resolution on the floor. However, the more he saw of the two-year terms, for example, in the State Assembly, the campaigning never stopped. One of the most important factors in arguing for the two-year vs. the four-year term was the fact that people in political office had to look further ahead. The better long-term planning that could be done, the better off the City would be. He was anxious to see people in political office looking five to ten years away, instead of just the next election. He believed that short terms promoted short- range thinking and longer terms promoted long-range thinking, at least four years instead of two. Mayor Seymour stated him whole thrust prior to 1978 had been two-fold: (1) clean up the confusion of the way the Mayor was elected, i.e., running for the office of Council Member, as well as Mayor at the same time, and asking constituents to vote twice for the same person; and (2) offer the people of Anaheim the opportunity to decide how they wanted to elect their Mayor. He emphasized that they clearly wanted to elect their Mayor and did not want to return to the form of selection of the Mayor by the Council, and they said so a number of times. He did not think there was anything more democratic than opening up the office to any citizen of the community. Relative to the two or four years, he stated at the outset he did not want to get involved in that aspect, so that it could not be suggested that it was a power play by him trying to lengthen his term. While personally he could live with a two-year term, he believed a four-year term would be wiser. If a Council Member could be elected for four years, why not the Mayor as well. Further discussion and debate followed between the Mayor and Councilwoman Kaywood, at the conclusion of which, Councilwoman Kaywood stated that many times she had not voted her opinion but voted what she felt the people would want in a specific situation~ She wanted to know how she could vote on the matter to allow the change in date of the election, but noting her objection to a four-year term for the Mayor on the basis of the number of complaints she had received. Mayor Seymour stated all they were voting on at this time was the way the Mayor would be elected and setting the election for November 4. He believed they had taken action last week on the resolution for changing the election date to June 3. City Clerk Linda Roberts confirmed the Mayor's understanding was correct, but explained if they rescinded Resolution No. 80R-88, they would be putting both issues into one resolution. If, in fact, they wiBhed to keep them separate, there was no need to adopt the first proposed resolution, and it would take two resolutions under the ordering and calling--one for Municipal Election dates and one for Election of the Mayor. In order to afford Councilwoman Kaywood the opportunity to vote differently on the two issues, the Mayor aBked how that could be accomplished; City Clerk Roberts stated that the City .Attorney muggested that the matter be held over until next week for rewording of the resolution. The Mayor. did not favor another continuance and suggested that Councilwoman Kaywood vote her conscience and make a statement for the record properly re- flecting her intent. 80-304 City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - March 18~ 1980~ 1:30 P.M. After a brief discussion, Councilwoman Kaywood stated she would abstain on that portion of the resolution relative to the term of Mayor so that she would not be commited to a four-year term; City Attorney Hopkins advised that it would have to be either for the resolution or against it, since both issues were in- cluded in one resolution at this point. Councilwoman Kaywood stated that she would then have to abstain. Councilman Bay suggested that Councilwoman Kaywood vote "yes" on all the resolutions and then state she was unequivocally opposed to the four-year term for Mayor; Councilwoman Kaywood stated when looking at a vote, however, it would reflect a "yes" or a "no". Councilman Overholt stated of concern to him was the fact that there was a recall pending in the City. They were presently voting to put an issue before the.people, some had expressed an opinion and some had not. Basically the matter before them was whether they put the question to the people in the form set forth and let them decide or not. His feeling was if someone did not agree with the four-year term, they could then campaign against it. Councilwoman Kaywood stated that one of the articles of recall was the "nerve" of them (Kaywood and Overholt) having put something on the ballot for the people to vote on; Councilman Overholt stated he was aware of that and noted that the petition against him was an absolute lie. Councilwoman Kaywood noted the same was true for her, but nevertheless, it was there, and the people signed it. Councilman Overholt concluded that he agreed with Councilman Bay's suggestion that the vote in favor of the resolution was to place the matters on the ballot and if a Council Member wished to take a position, there was nothing preventing them from doing so. If against, then speak against, but give the people the opportunity to decide. Councilman Seymour offered Resolution Nos. 80R-113 through 80R-116 for adoption. Refer to Resolution Book. RESOLUTION NO. 80R-113: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM RESCINDING RESOLUTION NO. 80R-88. RESOLUTION NO. 80R-114: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM, CALIFORNIA, ORDERING, CALLING, PROVIDING FOR AND GIVING NOTICE OF A SPECIAL MUNI- CIPAL ELECTION TO BE HELD IN SAID CITY ON NOVEMBER 4, 1980, FOR THE PURPOSE OF SUBMITTING TO THE QUALIFIED VOTERS OF SAID CITY PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO THE CHARTER OF SAID CITY AND CONSOLIDATING SAID ELECTION WITH THE STATEWIDE GENERAL ELECTION TO BE HELD ON SAID DATE. RESOLUTION NO. 80R-115: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM. REQUESTING THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS TO CONSOLIDATE A SPECIAL MUNICIPAL ELECTION OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM WITH THE STATEW~DE GENERAL ELECTION TO BE HELD ON NOVEMBER 4, 1980, PURSUANT TO SECTION 23302 OF THE ELECTIONS CODE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA. 80-305 Ci_ty Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - March 18, 1980~ 1:30 P.M. RESOLUTION NO~ 80R-116: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AUTHORIZING CERTAIN OF ITS MEMBERS TO FILE A WRITTEN ARGUMENT FOR AND AGAINST A PROPOSED AMENDMENT TO SECTIONS 501 AND 504 OF THE CHARTER OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM. Roll Call Vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: COUNCIL MEMBERS: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Overholt, Kaywood, Bay, Roth and Seymour None None The Mayor declared Resolution Nos. 80R-113 through 80R-116, both inclusive, duly passed and adopted. Councilwoman Kaywood then stated on behalf of the many people who had spoken to her relative to their concerns and some of her own concerns, she was opposed to a four-year 'term for Mayor. Councilman 0verholt stated to avoid any misconstruing of his remarks of placing the matter on the ballot, as he stated twice previously, it was his personal view that a four-year term for the Mayor of the City was advantageous to the community, and he was supportive of it. MOTION: Councilman Bay moved to direct the City Clerk to transmit copies of the proposed measures to be placed on the November 4, 1980 ballot to the City Attorney for preparation of an impartial analysis therefor. Councilman Roth seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. The Mayor asked if it was necessary for a motion to write arguments in favor of the two measures, moving the election date and changing the election of the Mayor. City Attorney Hopkins stated that a resolution would be prepared, and he planned to present that later. The Mayor asked if it could be done presently. City Clerk Roberts stated if it were Just the Mayor writing the argument for, there was no problem; but with two elections pending, there was a possibility the resolution would have to be amended if all five Members were authorized to write the argument for at this time. The Mayor suggested that a resolution be offered authorizing him to write the argument for, the reason being he pushed for the amendments from the beginning and tn the event his colleagues wanted to Join downstream, he would be happy to have the resolution amended. Councilman Seymour offered Resolution No. 80R-120 for adoption. Refer to Resolution Book. RESOLUTION NO. 80R-120: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AUTHORIZING CERTAIN OF ITS MEMBERS TO FILE A WRITTEN ARGUMENT FOR AND AGAINST A PROPOSED AMENDMENT TO SECTIONS 500 AND 1300 OF THE CHARTER OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM. 80-306 City Hall, Anahe.~,. California - COUNCIL MINUTES - March 18~ 1980~ 1:'30 P.M. Roll Call Vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: COUNCIL MEMBERS: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Overholt, Kaywood, Bay, Roth and Seymour None None The Mayor declared Resolution No. 80R-120 duly passed and adopted. RECLASSIFICATION NO. 64-65-14 - EXTENSION OF TIME: Request by Joseph R. Murrell, Knights of Columbus of Anaheim, for an extension of time to Reclassification No. 64-65-14, proposed CG zoning on property located at 1127 North Lemon Street, was submitted. Councilman Roth moved to approve the subject request for an extension of time to Reclassification No. 64-65-14, to expire November 4, 1980, with a reminder that street lighting and street tree fees shall be paid at the rate in effect at the time of payment, as recommended by the Zoning Division. Councilman Seymour seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. 179: CURTIS FURNITURE - NEWSPAPER ADVERTISEMENTS - CODE VIOLATIONS: Councilman Bay stated that he wante~ to discuss Curtis Furniture, which company was allowed a three-year time period to do something about their commercial business in an industrial zone. Some weeks ago, he saw a copy of a letter written by the City Attorney's office to Curtis Furniture using strong words about the type of adver- tising that had appeared recently in all three newspapers. He felt that it bor- dered on political advertising. The thrust in the case of Curtis Furniture was that they came in and made statements on their business license that implied very strongly they were going into the wholesale business having a warehouse showroom when, in fact, they had been in the commercial retail sales business of furniture for over three years. The Council approved the Conditional Use Permit that advised them to reduce their retail sales by a certain percentage each year for three years to meet the require- ments not only of the zoning, but also of the statements on their application for a business license. He submitted a recent two-page ad to the City Attorney again, since it was a repeat of some of the advertising that had been emanating from Curtis Furniture, implying that they were being more or less persecuted by the Council and harassed when, in fact, they were an illegal commercial retail sales operation and had been for some years with a record of citations and warnings. He drove to the location on Sunday because he was concerned as to how long the going-out-of-business sale was going to last, and he took his Polaroid camera along. He found flags, banners, balloons flying, painted windows, etc., but did not recall that Curtis Furniture had come to the Council for permission to utilize those items as did Orange County Furniture. He noted under certain rulings for special occasions, a company could get permission to have special type sales which included flags and banners. Sunday, he also found clowns and balloons on the street with large signs along La Palma near Kraemer Way, as depicted in the photographs. His concern was that, to his knowledge, the special occasion permit had expired. 80-307 Cit~ Ha!l,... Anahe.im, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - March 18~ 1980~ 1:30 P.M. He had in front of him information from the Planning Department's, Zoning Enforce- ment Officer on what had been going on at Curtis Furniture. Councilman Bay then asked to read the report dated March 12, 1980 regarding actions that had taken place recently at Curtis Furniture. He thereupon read the report (on file in the City Clerk's office) listing eleven actions involving zoning enforcement that took place from January 14, 1980 through March 12, 1980 which included police back-up when serving a citation on that date. After reading the report, Councilman Bay stated what they were experiencing in this Northeast Industrial Zone was, in his opinion, a flagrant contempt for the ordinances of the City by Curtis Furniture which had been going on for three or four years with their supposedly being in a business allowed in that zone when, in fact, it was not. The implications made on that application for a Business License were not true, nor had the business been true to that license until the Council finally granted a CUP requiring a reduction of retail activities over the next three-year period. The type of circus action he described was taking place right at the entrance to one of the prime industrial areas in the City. It had reached the point, especially as far as Curtis Furniture was concerned, to where if the blatant violations continued, he saw no reason why they should not be called into the Council Chamber to show cause why their CUP should not be revoked totally. Councilwoman Kaywood stated with all the false advertising and the finger pointing, it was all very clear that it was one statement made by Curtis Furniture on their own Business License stating that they were a wholesale operation when they were a retail business. Councilman Roth asked the City Attorney if the newspaper ads were in fact false advertising. City Attorney Hopkins stated they had previously written to the company indicating that they felt Curtis' statements were bordering on libel and action would be taken if they were not discontinued. He would, however,'have to analyze the recent advertisements in detail and if determined to be untrue, and having the effect of creating an incorrect statement or impression about the City, there might be cause for action. That was the warning previously made to Curtis in writing which had not been heeded. Since he was not given a copy of the advertisement until about three minutes ago, he had not had an opportunity to look into the matter, but subsequently would do so to ascertain what action could be taken. Miss Santalahti then answered questions posed by Councilman Bay which revealed the following: A Special Events Permit was issued to Curtis Furniture in January, Curtis Furniture also requested a Going-Out-of-Rusiness-Sale Permit, which permit had a time limitation of three months. That permit was issued approximately the same time as the Special Events Permit. Relative to the banners, balloons, flags, blinking lights, search lights, etc. permission for those had expired. Further discussion and debate relative to the matter followed between Council- woman Kaywood and Councilman Roth including a discussion of some commercial businesses located on Ball Road. At the conclusion of discussion, Mayor Seymour stated, in his opinion, they were overreacting to a specific situation by con- tinuing to debate and question Curtis Furniture. If they were going to take 80-308. CitM.~all,. Anahei~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - March 18~ 1980~ 1:30 P.M. action, they should do so but not continue to "stir the pot." For the type of conduct to result as outlined in the March 12, 1980 report, the situation was blown all out of proportion. He hoped that next Tuesday they could bring the whole issue to a head, make a decision, and proceed in an orderly fashion. Later in the meeting, Councilman Bay stated that he was not trying to make a lot of noise, but felt that if someone was blatantly and openly disregarding City ordinances and if there was to be any control at all within City planning and support of Zoning Enforcement Officers in their duties, that they could not turn the other cheek when defiance became as blatant as it had in some cases. He felt they were going to resolve the problem in Council next week but did not think that they should stand by and ignore such blatant defiance of the City ordinances and Enforcement Officers. 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 the City's Claims Administrator: a. Claim submitted by Stephan Flores for vehicular damages purportedly sustained as a result of pothole ~ the street at the corner of Chippewa and Crescent or or about January 10, 1980. b. Claim submitted by Charles Peter Capper for vehicular damages purportedly sustained as a result of accident involving city vehicle in the alley to the rear of 874 South Brookhurst Street on or about February 26, 1980. c. Claim submitted by Leslie D. Horton for vehicular damages purportedly sus- tained as a result of parkway tree falling on car parked at 411 West Boysen Avenue, on or about February 24, 1980. do Claim submitted by Jose A. Fuentes Bonilla for vehicular damages purportedly sustained as a result of parkway tree falling on gar parked at 516 North Pauline, on or about March 2, 1980. e. Claim submitted by Christopher ~issau, Jr. for damages purportedly sustained as a result of parkway tree roots causing leak in water pipe at 1258 Riviera Street, on or about February 14, 1980. f. Claim submitted by Ernest L. Williams for damages purportedly sustained as a result of personal property loss while confined to Anaheim City Jail, on or about February 17, 1980. g. Claim submitted by Sterling D. Nunn for damages to personal property pur- portedly sustained as a result of power surge at 559 South Clementine Street, on or about February 13, 1980. h. Claim submitted by Regina Kennedy for personalinjury damages purportedly sustained as a result of trip-and-fall accident at the Anaheim Convention Center, Section B, Seat 9, on or about February 22, 1980. 80-309 City Ha~!.,' Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - March 18~ 1980~ 1:30 P.M. i. Elizabeth A. Fisher for personal injury and property damages purportedly sustained as a result of accident in the parking area of the Convention Center caused by employee, on or about December 15, 1979. J. Claim submitted by Automobile Club of Southern California, Subragee of Stanley Krist, for vehicular damages purportedly sustained as a result of parkway tree falling on car at 100 South Kingsley Street, on or about January 5, 1980. k. Claim submitted by Continental Insurance Company for vehicular damages pur- portedly sustained as a result of accident caused by malfunctioning traffic signal at Harbor Boulevard and Katella Avenue, on or about December 28, 1979. 1. Claim submitted by Gary Don James and Corey Cameron James for personal injury damages purportedly sustained as a result of collision with a City-owned Paramedic vehicle at Beach Boulevard and Orange Avenue, on or about February 2, 1980. m. Claim submitted by Tom T. Moretta for damages purportedly sustained as a result of street sweeper striking tire of claimant's vehicle parked at 1831 West Glen Avenue, on or about February 20, 1980. 2. CORRESPONDENCE: The following correspondence was ordered received and filed: a. 107:~ Planning Department, Building Division--Montly Report for February 1980. b. 105: Public Utilities Board--Minutes of February 21, 1980. c. 105: Anaheim Golf Course Advisory Commission--Minutes of February 28, 1980. d. 175: Before the Public Utilities Commission, Application No. 59499, Southern California Edison Company, for authority to modify its Energy Cost Adjustment Billing Factors in accordance with the Energy Cost Adjustment Clause as modified by Interim Decision No. 91277. 3. 161: DOWNTOWN PROJECT ALPHA - PHASE I~ CHANGE ORDER NO. 2: Authorization for Change Order No. 2, in the amount of $9,067, was authorized, bringing the total original contract price to $7,986,887.25, in accordance with the recom- mendation of the City Engineer; Stelny and Company, contractor. MOTION CARRIED. CONSENT CALENDAR ITEMS: Councilwoman Kaywood offered Resolution Nos. 80R-117 through 80R-119, 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. 80R-117: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF · ANAHEIM ACCEPTING CERTAIN DEEDS AND ORDERING THEIR RECORDATION. (William Mohler, et ux.; Bank of America National Trust and Savings Association) 158: RESOLUTION NO. 80R-118: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM ACCEPTING A TEMPORARY CONSTRUCTION EASEMENT DEED, ORANGE COUNTY YOUTH FOR CHRIST, INC., GRANTOR, R/W 1827-10. 80-310 C~ty Ha!!, Anah.eim, california- COUNCIL MINUTES- March 18~ 1980~ 1:30 P.M. 167: RESOLUTION NO. 80R-119: 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: TRAFFIC SIGNAL AND SAFETY LIGHTING AT THE INTERSECTION OF LA PALMA AVENUE AND SUNKIST STREET, IN THE CITY OF ANAHEIM, ACCOUNT NO. 01-795-6325-5120. (Steiny and Company) Roll Call Vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENTi COUNCIL MEMBERS: COUNCIL MEMBERS: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Overholt, Kaywood, Bay, Roth and Seymour None None The Mayor declared Resolution Nos. 80R-117 through 80R-119, both inclusive, duly passed and adopted. 170: FINAL MAP TRACT NO. 10854: Developer, Phillip H. McNamee; tract .is located on the south side of Ball Road, 284 feet west of Loara Street and contains 1 proposed RM-1200 zoned condominium conversion. Councilwoman Kaywood asked staff if the subject project was a new building. Miss Santalahti stated it was a conversion of apartment buildings and did not consist of selling individual units. There was a mixture of 216 units and 22 buildings divided up somehow, but nothing smaller than a duplex. Councilwoman Kaywood asked the age of the buildings; from the audience, a Mr. Mark Doran, representing the developer, stated that the project was 16 years of age. He also confirmed for Councilwoman Kaywood that the buildings were not vacant at present and were completely rented and that all renters were not going to buy. They had just completed sales of three other tracts off Orangewood Avenue under the same concept. They had 16 sales and those were all to inves- tors. The subject project was a change of ownership of the buildings. On motion by Councilman Roth, seconded by Councilman Seymour, the proposed sub- division, together with its design and improvement, was found to be consistent with the City's General Plan, and the City Council approved Final Map Tract No. 10854, as recommended by the City Engineer in his memorandum dated March 11, 1980. MOTION CARRIED. CITY PLANNING COMMISSION IfEMS: The following actions taken by the City Planning Commission at their meeting held February 25, 1980, pertaining to the following applications, as listed on the Consent Calendar, were submitted for City Council information. 1. RECLASSIFICATION NO. 79-80-28 AND VARIANCE NO. 3138: Submitted by William P. and Emma S. Bredger, for a change in zone from RS-A-43,000 to CL to construct a commercial retail and office complex on property located at 2612 West Lincoln Street with certain Code waivers. 80-311 C~ty Hall, Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - March 18~ 1980, 1:30 P.M. The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution Nos. PC80-34 and PC80-35, granted Reclassification No. 79-80-28 and Variance No. 3138, and granted a negative declaration status. 2. RECLASSIFICATION NO. 79-80-30 AND VARIANCE NO. 3139: Submitted by Lincoln School Property, for a change in zone from RS-A-43,000 to CL to establish a barber school on property located at 1814 West Lincoln Avenue with certain Code waivers. The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution Nos. PC80-36 and PC80-37, granted Reclassification No. 79-80-30 and Variance No. 3139, and granted a negative declaration status. 3. VARIANCE NO. 3134: Submitted by Duane D. and Margarita L. Hlavnicka, to construct a room addition on RS-7200 property located at 2648 Russell Avenue, with a Code waiver of minimum side yard setback. The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC80-33, granted Variance No. 3134, and ratified the Planning Director's categorical exemption determination. 4. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2057: Submitted by Wesley Ro Adams, to retain a church on ML zoned property located at 1461Daly Street, with Code waiver of minimum number of parking spaces. 'The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC80-38, granted Con- ditional Use Permit No. 2057, and granted a negative declaration' status. 5. CONDITIONAL USE PEP, MIT NO. 2058: Submitted by William C. and Miria M. Holzwarth, to establish an automotive and marine repair shop on ML zoned property located at 1091 East Pacifico Avenue. The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC80-39, granted Condi- tional Use Permit No. 2058, and granted a negative declaration status. 6. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2059: Submitted by Jack Culp, Jr., and Nancy Culp, to retain a contractor's storage yard and pest control service on proposed ML zoned property located at 2890 and 2898 Miraloma Avenue, with a Code waiver of minimum landscaped structural setback. The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC80-40, granted in part Conditional Use Permit No. 2059, and granted a negative declaration status. 7. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2060: Submitted by Vernon W. Monroe, et al, to permit an Elks Lodge on ML zoned property located at 1600 South Clementine Street, with Code waiver of minimum number of parking spaces. The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC80-41, granted Condi- tional Use Permit No. 2060, and granted a negative declaration status. 8. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2061: Submitted by Sylvia Hammond, to permit an alcoholic and drug rehabilitation center on CG zoned property located at 714 North Anaheim Boulevard with certain Code waivers. 80-312 City Hall, ~naheim~ Ca!~fo~ni.a - COUNCIL MINUTES - March 18~ 1980~ 1:30 P.M. The City Planning 'Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC80-42, granted Con- ditional Use Permit No. 2061, and granted a negative declaration status. 9. 170: RE/~OVAL OF SPECIMEN TREES: Submitted bY Dindial Vernon RamsamooJ, to permit the removal of 4 specimen trees on RS-HS-22,000 zoned property located at 7635 Pleasant Place. The City Planning Commission approved the Removal of Specimen Trees and granted a negative declaration status. 10. RECLASSIFICATION NO. 77-78-50 - EXTENSION OF TIME: Submitted by La Solana Corporation, requesting an extension of time to Reclassification No. 77-78-50, proposed RM-4000 zoning on property located west of Magnolia Avenue and north of the centerline of Lincoln Avenue. The City Planning Commission approved an extension of time to Reclassification No. 77-78-50, to expire April 24, 1981. 11. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NOS. 1542 AND 1692 - REQUEST FOR TERMINATION: Sub- mitred by Anaheim Redevelopment Agency, requesting to terminate Conditional Use Permit Nos. 1542 and 1692, to permit continued use of two existing billboards on CG zoned property located at 254 South Anaheim Boulevard, as a condition of approval of Reclassification No. 79-80-17. The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution Nos. PC80-44 and PC80-45, terminated Conditional Use Permit Nos. 1542 and 1692. 12. RECLASSIFICATION NO. '78-79-14 AND VARIANCE NO. 3054 - APPROVAL OF REVISED PLANS: Submitted by Ed Padilla, requesting approval of revised plans to construct a 70-unit apartment complex on proposed RM-1200 property located at 1803 South Ninth Street. The City Planning Commission approved the revised plans of Reclassification No. 78-79-14 and Variance No. 3054. 13. VARIANCE NO. 3136 - AMENDING PC80-31: Submitted by the City Planning Commission, requesting amendment to Planning Commission Resolution No. PC80-31, by deleting waiver "b", maximum number of lots on a cul-de-sac, and thus granting Variance No. 3136 in part. The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC80-46, amended, Resolution No. ~C80-31, nunc pro tunc. No action was taken by the City Council on the foregoing items; therefore the actions of the Planning Commission became final. 142/129: ORDINANCE NO. 4110: Councilman Bay offered Ordinance No. 4110 for adoption. Refer to Ordinance Book. ORDINANCE NO. 4110: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM ADDING SECTION 17.08.435 TO CHAPTER 17.08 OF TITLE 17 OF THE ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO SUBDIVISIONS. (construction of fire protection facilities) 80-313 Cit2 Hall~ Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - March 18~ 1980~ 1:30 P.M. Roll Call Vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: COUNCIL MEMBERS: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Overholt, Kaywood, Bay, Roth and Seymour None None The Mayor declared Ordinance No. 4110 duly passed and adopted. 142/175: ORDINANCE NO. 4111: Councilwoman Kaywood offered Ordinance No. 4111 for adoption. Refer to Ordinance Book. ORDINANCE NO. 4111: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM ADDING SECTION 17.08.437 TO CHAPTER 17.08 OF TITLE 17 OF THE ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO SUBDIVISIONS. (construction of public utility facilities) Roll Call Vote: AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Overholt, Kaywood, Bay, Roth and Seymour NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: None ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS~ None The Mayor declared Ordinance No. 4111 duly passed and adopted. ORDINANCE NO. 4112: Councilman Overholt offered Ordinance No. 4112 for adoption. Refer to Ordinance Book. ORDINANCE NO. 6112: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AMENDING TITLE 18 OF THE ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO ZONING. (67-68-68(4), RM-1200) Roll Call Vote: AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Overholt, Kaywood, Bay, Roth and Seymour NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: None ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: None The Mayor declared Ordinance No. 4112 duly passed and adopted. ORDINANCE NO. 4113: Councilwoman Kaywood offered Ordinance No. 4113 for adoption. Refer to Ordinance Book. ORDINANCE NO. 4113: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AMENDING TITLE 18 OF THE ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO ZONING. (77-78-22, CL) Roll Call Vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: COUNCIL MEMBERS: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Overholt, Kaywood, Bay, Roth and Seymour None None The Mayor declared Ordinance No. 4113 duly passed and adopted. 80-314 Ci~l Hall~ Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - March 18~ 1980~ 1:30 P.M. 105: RESIGNATION OF FERNANDO GALAVIZ AS TREASURER OF S.A.C.: Councilman Overholt referred to a copy of letter dated March 10, 1980 from Fernando Galaviz to T.B. Catterson, Chairman of the Save Anaheim Coalition, which was sent to the Council indicating that Mr. Galaviz's schedule would be keeping him out of the West for several months. He was therefore tendering his res- ignation as Treasurer of S.A.C., effective March 14, 1980. It also stated that his schedule would prevent any community activity in Anaheim, including the Community Services Board and a number of other things. Councilman Overholt thereupon asked if Mr. Galaviz had also tendered his resignation from the Community Services Board because if he was leaving the area, he could not serve on that board. City Clerk Roberts stated that there was no formal resignation but she would check with staff on the matter. 127: STORM DRAIN BOND ISSUE: Councilwoman Kaywood recalled that two weeks ago she asked for a report on what would be required for storm drains to be included as a ballot measure in November. She had received a letter from a Candice Eberly on East Romneya Drive. The residents in that area were very concerned because every time it rained, that street turned into a canal with water rising all the way up to their lawn. They had attended Council meetings four years prior where they were promised storm drains, but they had never been installed. Assistant City Manager William Hopkins stated that the report would be forthcoming shortly. 181: ANAHEIM HISTORICAL MUSEUM: Councilwoman Kaywood reported that she received a letter from the Chairman of the Anaheim Historical Museum, Midge Taggert, re- questing some kind of City ceremony for the Carnegie Library when it became Anaheim's historical museum. She asked that a report be provided relative to setting a date for such a ceremony and also to insure that there would be good publicity and wide community support. She felt there were others outside the City who would also be interested in such an event. 156: SHOOTING INCIDENT INVOLVING ANAHEIM POLICE OFFICER: Councilman Roth referred to the shooting incident which took place in the vicinity of Euclid Street and Ball Road early Monday, morning, March 17, 1980, when Anaheim Police Officer Bill Verdon was investigating a suspicious vehicle. Subsequently, an individual who had nothing to do with the incident fired 10 shots at the police officer with a high powered 32-caliber carbine. The City was fortunate that the incident did not result in the death of a police officer or further violence. It proved once again that Anaheim had some of the finest professional police officers bY the way they conducted themselves and also later in the capture and search of the suspect. The Council should commend the young police officer at the earliest possible opportunity and again commend Police Chief Tielsch for his outstanding Police Department. 114: GENERAL MOTORS ENERGY ASSESSMENT PROGRAM: Councilman Bay. reported on the visit of the General Motors Energy Assessment group Wednesday, March 12, 1980, at the Convention Center, for a review relative to the work that was taking place in the subject program. They gave a complete overview of the various items 80-315 C%tM H~ll, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - March 18~ 1980~ 1:30 P.M. presented to them in Detroit, and there were representatives in attendance from all areas of the country. He was not able to attend the whole session and thus was looking forward tO a report from staff on the parts of the meeting he was unable to attend. ADJOURNMENT: Councilman Roth moved to adjourn. Councilman Bay seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. Adjourned: 4:40 P.M.