Loading...
1980/12/02 80- C±t~ ~ll, Anaheim, Cal±for~±a- COUNCIT. MZ~I_TT~S -December 2~ 1980~ 1:30 P.M. PRESENT: ABSENT: PRESENT: INVOCATION: The City Council of the City of Anaheim met in regular session. COUNCIL MEMBERS: Overholt, Kaywood, Bay, Roth and Seymour COUNCIL MMMBERS: None CITY MANAGER: William O. Talley CITY ATTORNEY: William P. Hopkins CITY CLERK: Linda D. Roberts CITY ENGINEER: William G. Devitt Mayor Seymour called the meeting to order and welcomed those in attendance to the Council meeting. A moment of silence was observed in lieu of an Invocation. FLAG SALUTE: Councilman E. Llewellyn Overholt, Jr., led the assembly in the Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag. 114: MITO DELEGATION VISIT - SISTER CITIES COMMITTEE: Mayor Seymour, through interpretor Mrs. Chieko Duty, stated on behalf of the Council that he was privileged to welcome the Mayor of Mito, Japan, Mayor Wada, as well as the fifth delegation to visit Anaheim from Mito, who were present in the Council Chambers today, along with members of the Sister Cities Committee. They were particularly proud to have their friends from Mito visit them in the City's new Civic Center. He then explained that portion of the new Civic Center dedicated to Anaheim's Sister City was called Mito Square, located on the front grounds of the building and as depicted on the plan and rendering on the Chambers wall. Mr. Dave Meyer, Parks, Recreation and Community Services Department, again through Mrs. Duty, described Mito Square, the concepts used in its design, how it had evolved and what was planned for its ultimate completion. Since it was an evolving plan, he invited comments from members of the Mito delegation, as well as any others to assist in development of the plan. Mayor Seymour then recognized the leader of the delegation, Mayor Wada, who was now serving his third term as the Mayor of Mito and presiding over his 35-member Council. He also elaborated upon Mayor Wada's background as a prominent business- man in that City. He gave the historical background of the City of Mito from its beginning to the present day. He explained their purpose today was to honor the Mayor and his delegation and asked Mayor Wada to come forward with the members of his City Council present. He thereupon presented the City of Anaheim's flag to the citizens of Mito. After the presentation, Mmyor Wada, through the interpretor, thanked the Mayor and Council. He commented upon the new Civic Center stating that it was a beautiful modern and very efficient structure. He was very overwhelmed with thanks and gratitude that they were presented with Anaheim's beautiful and honorable flag. His desire was to place it in the Mito City Hall upon majority agreement of his Council. In concluding, he stated he would hope that their friendship would grow and again thanked the Mayor and Council. Mayor Seymour then called for a recess to allow for the tree planting ceremony to take place in Mito Square. 8O- 1527 City Hall~ Anahe. im, Calif.or.nia- COUNCIL MINUTES -December 2, 1980, 1:30 P.M. RECESS: Councilwoman Kaywood moved to recess. Councilman Bay seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. (3:20 P.M.) AFTER RECESS: Mayor Seymour called the meeting to order, all Council Members being present. (3:40 P.M.) 119: PROCLAMATION: The following proclamation was issued by Mayor Seymour and authorized by the City Council: Bill of Rights Week in Anaheim - December 14 to 20, 1980 MINUTES: Councilwoman Kaywood moved to approve the minutes of regular meeting held October 21, and November 12, 1980. Councilman Roth seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. WAIVER OF READING - ORDINANCES AND RESOLUTIONS: Councilwoman Kaywood moved to waive the reading in full of all ordinances and resolutions of the Agenda, after reading of the title thereof by the City Clerk, and that consent to waiver is hereby given by all Council Members, unless after reading of the title, specific request is made by a Council Member for the reading of such ordinance or resolution in regular order. Councilman Bay seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. FINANCIAL DEMANDS AGAINST THE CITY in the amount of $586,623.34, in accordance with the 1980-81 Budget, were approved. 160: PURCHASE OF PARAMEDIC RADIO EQUIPMENT AND ACCESSORIES: Councilwoman Kaywood moved to authorize the Purchasing Agent to issue a purchase order, without com- petitive bidding, to Motorola, Inc., at a total price of $17,877.96, for Para- medic radio equipment and accessories, as recommended in memorandum dated November 24, 1980 from the Purchasing Agent. Councilman Overholt seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. 128: MONTHLY FINANCIAL STATEMENT FOR PERIOD ENDED OCTOBER 31~ 1980: On motion by Councilman Roth, seconded by Councilman Overholt, the Monthly Financial State- ment for the four months ended October 31, 1980 was ordered received and filed, as recommended in memorandum dated November 24, 1980 from Director of Finance George Ferrone. MOTION CARRIED. 123: CONTRACT PROGRAMMING SERVICES - AGREEMENT WITH JOHN CAPPELLETTI ASSOCIATES: Councilman Overholt moved to authorize an amendment to the agreement with John Cappelletti Associates, in an amount not to exceed $34,875, increasing the total agreement to $86,750; to provide contract programming services in the Data Processing Department, as recommended in memorandum dated December 2, 1980 from Data Processing Director Phil Grammatica. Councilman Bay seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. 115: AUTOMATIC DOOR OPENERS FOR THE CIVIC CENTER: City Manager Talley briefed the Council on memorandum dated November 24, 1980 from the City Engineer, recom- mending that the Council appropriate $21,000 from the Civic Center fund and authorizing the City Engineer to proceed with plans and specifications for automatic door openers at certain specified locations in the Civic Center. City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - December 2, 1980, 1:30 P.M. Councilman Roth moved that the subject recommendation be approved. Councilman Overholt seconded the motion. Before a vote was taken, Councilwoman Kaywood stated she was going to ask that the item be continued because she had a number of questions to which she would like the answers before they voted to spend any money. Relative to the different types of doors she had seen, there were those that opened in two directions elec- trically, maRing it necessary to step back, so as not to be hit by the door. There were others where a dog or any animal stepping on the activator could open the doors and they would be going into the building. There were also other doors she had seen in department stores as well as supermarkets where a heavy wind activated the doors, keeping them open, thus causing a tornado effect which could blow through the building. She wanted to have some answers to those questions before voting on the item. Also, regarding the ramp leading into the Civic Center from the parking structure, she noted yesterday that it did slant toward the doorway of the Civic Center and she was thinking about what would happen in a rain. She pre- ferred that they occupy the building for at least a year before they started changing things around. She would also direct staff to devise some kind of plan for a cover or roof, or sides, or both sides and top for the ramp to see what it would cost and also to ascertain if the ramp was sturdy enough to hold the weight of any additional structure~on it. Councilman Roth stated the motion did nothing more than to proceed with the plans and specifications for the doors and to receive bids. He felt they should proceed with that action now. Councilwoman Kaywood thereupon offered a substitute motion as follows: That the item be continued for three weeks for a further staff report on the types of doors to be utilized before going to bid. Councilman Overholt stated he was not seconding the motion because he felt they could get answers to those questions now. The motion died for lack of a second. Mayor Seymour noted that Mr. Richard Curtis was in the Council Chamber. Since he was the initiator of the idea and having had meetings with staff relative to alternatives, he asked him to address the Council as to his opinion about what was being proposed today. Mr. Richard Curtis stated that he submitted two different ideas for automatic door openers to Mr. Ralph Harp in the Engineering DivisiOn, but he could not say what happened to that material. As Councilwoman Kaywood indicated, found in hospitals, was a door mat on either side of the door and the door could open towards the person on that particular side. There were also automatic door openers that opened horizontally and did not come toward the individual at all, although he did not know if they would work in the Civic Center. There were also door openers with a touch plate that would not be activated unless touched on the inside or outside which would avoid the problem of dogs. As to the overhang on the second level, he could not address that since he did not use that parking area. He did agree with Councilman Roth that if the City felt they wanted to go ahead with the concept, they could vote on the matter 80-1529. City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - December 2~ 1980, 1:30 P.M. now and then decide what type of door openers they were going to use. Councilman Bay stated with the idea being to make the whole Civic Center acces- sible, including the Council Chambers, his suggestion would be that they change only the second story ramp door for one and the east door into the Council Chambers as number two; that being a double door. To keep the cost down, he believed that if it were possible to come to the Civic Center in a car and handicapped parking was next to the ramp, it would make entrance into the building immediately accessible. If not coming to the Civic Center in a car, he assumed that the walkway up to the east door of the Council Chambers was accessible in a wheelchair; Mr. Curtis stated in principle that was correct, but not when trying to use it. The curb ramp at the south end of the building was poorly constructed and work was going to be done on it. Secondly, handicapped parking behind the multi-deck parking structure was on the northeast section and not on the southeast. Councilman Bay stated from an economical stand, it would be fairly simple to change that parking to bring it to the south to make it more accessible. What he was trying to get to was that two particular openings would provide the necessary access for any part of the building--the second story ramp for one because there was an elevator inside the parking garage where it was possible to go to the second story, come across the ramp, and enter the building. The elevators within the building would then make all of the Civic Center accessible except for the Council Chambers. With the myriad of doors coming into the Chamber, he considered those as being very expensive when looking at the total cost com- pared to installing the one outside door for access. If they installed a single door on the second story ramp and at the east double door to the Chamber, the total outlay would be an estimated $17,000. To see how that worked out for a start would be what he would like to support. He was not certain they would even have to have a double door on the east side of the Chambers because if there was a Council meeting and the inside door, for example, was caught back, then all they would need would be one door at that location. Then the total cost would be around $10,000. He reiterated, as a starter point, those two doors would give the basic access to any place in the building and that is what he would support at this time. He was also interested in the kind of doors those would be. The Mayor asked to hear from staff as to the type of doors, etc. Mr. William Devitt, City Engineer, stated that they had not been fully determined as yet. The attempt was to authorize plan preparation and they would then proceed tO go into the design for doors that would be appropriate. Mayor Seymour stated as he understood, they would then come back to the Council with the plans and speci£ications and if Council approved or amended those, at that time they would go out to bid; Mr. Devitt confirmed that was correct. Councilman Roth stated his concern was relative to those individuals who attended Council meetings occasionally whose main entrance to the Chamber was through the main doors. Automatic doors should then also be in the front of the building because he felt that was where most handicapped people would try to enter the Chambers. 8o_iS3o Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - December 2, 1980, 1:30 P.M. Mr. Curtis stated, in answer to Councilman Bay, he had to address the situation only as to existing conditions and that was why he indicated the curb ramp was a problem for wheelchairs, as well as the parking being at the northeast end. If those things were moved and put in a better location, perhaps it would be more advantageous relative to the east door, but as Councilman Roth just indicated, it would only allow the person into the Council Chambers from the side and then, for instance in his case, he would have to park out back, go to the elevator and up a flight of stairs and come across in order to pay a utility bill on the ground floor. While he felt that CounciLman Bay's suggestion for a start was admirable, he was wondering perhaps if there might be a better start. Councilwoman Kaywood asked, in the event of a power failure, what would happen with the electric doors? Mr. Devitt answered they could be designed to open manually. Sometimes they would open with considerably more difficulty than a regular door. Mr. Curtis stated it was his experience that all of the automatic door openers were adjusted so that in the case of a disaster of any kind, they could be opened manually. If the power failed, they would open manually and they could be pushed out and it would be no more difficult than the existing doors. A vote was then taken on the foregoing motion clarified as follows: That $21,000 be appropriated from the Civic Center Fund and authorizing the City Engineer to proceed with plans and specifications for automatic door openers at certain spe- cified locations in the Civic Center as outlined in staff report dated November 24 1980. CounciLman Bay voted "no". MOTION CARRIED. 123/103: MASTER CITY-COUNTY PROPERTY TKX TRANSFER AGREEMENT: Councilman Seymour offered Resolution No. 80R-524 for adoption, authorizing a Master City-County Property Tax Transfer Agreement with the County for property annexed to the City commencing January 2, 1978, as recommended in memorandum dated November 25, 1980 from Program Development and Audit Manager Ron Rothschild. Refer to Resolution Book. RESOLUTION NO. 80R-524: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM APPROVING A MASTER PROPERTY TAX TRANSFER AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE COUNTY OF ORANGE AND 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 No. 80R-524 duly passed and adopted. 103: ANNEXATION OF WEIGH STATION: Mayor Seymour stated that while they were dealing with the Property Tax Transfer Agreement, he wanted to offer a motion directing the City Manager and appropriate staff to proceed on request for annexation of the weigh station at the east end of the City. Before action was taken, the Mayor stated his purpose in making the motion was due to the fact that $100,000 annually in tax revenues flowed from that weigh station. He believed they had already annexed or were in the process of annexing City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - December 2~ 1980, 1:30 P.M. properties that, in essence, surrounded that property. LAFCO heretofore had not seen fit to approve that annexation giving various reasons, one being that they did not know what was going to happen to adjoining properties, another that the City of Vista del Rio may become a reality and they, therefore, denied the request. He believed, however, the settlement of the foregoing agreement in addition to the annexations that had already taken place surrounding the property, as well as those in the process, that those arguments no longer existed. Thus, he wanted staff to begin work immediately to start the process of annexing the weigh station. Councilwoman Kaywood seconded the motion. She also asked, under the new type of agreement, how much would flow to Anaheim. City Manager Talley stated that the agreement concerned only the property taxes that accrued to the area. The weigh station annexation battle fought before revolved around the fact that if it were located within the City, that the local agency share the fines and they would go to the annexing agency. That would still be the case; however, he felt they might have a more responsive Board of Supervisors at this time for the reasons the Mayor pointed out--(l) that there had been a change in some of the people who were fighting Anaheim, and (2) they had surrounded the property with other annexations. They would bring back a staff report perhaps next week but certainly the week after that. A vote was then taken on the foregoing motion. MOTION CARRIED. 155: ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT - NEGATIVE DECLARATION - WATER TRANSMISSION MAIN IN SANTA ANA CANYON ROAD: City Manager Talley briefed the Council on memorandum dated November 21, 1980 recommending that a negative declaration status be granted for the installation of a water transmission main and pressure reducing station in Santa Ana Canyon Road between Mohler Drive and Weir Canyon Road. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT - NEGATIVE DECLARATION: On motion by Councilman Roth, seconded by Councilman Overholt, the City Council finds that this project would have no significant individual or cumulative adverse environmental impact since the Initial Study indicates that there would be no significant environmental impact because all facilities will be underground and within the existing public right of way and thus, therefore, exempt from the requirement to prepare an EIR. MOTION CARRIED. 108: CAPTAINS QUARTERS MOTEL - REQUEST FOR WAIVER OF PENALTY ASSESSMENT FOR LATE PAYMENT OF AUGUST 1980 TRANSIENT OCCUPANCY TAX: Request submitted by Mr. Paul C. Kao, Partner. Mayor Seymour asked if Mr. Kao or his representative was present to speak to the matter. They had received his request for waiver of the subject penalty assessment. Staff report dated November 19, 1980 from the License Collector indicated that the August 1980 Occupancy Tax for the Captains Quarter Motel was postmarked October 1, 1980 and received by the City on October 2, 1980. As he understood from letter dated November 12, 1980 from Mr. Kao, he was saying his employee gave the envelope containing the check to the mailman, and they did not know what the mailman did with it as a result of it not being postmarked prior to October 1, 1980. 80-iS$2 City Hall~ Anaheim, California- COUNCIL MINUTES -December 2~ 1980~ 1:30 P.M. Mr. Paul Kao, 11670 Cala Mesa Drive, Northridge, stated the Mayor's understanding was correct. Councilman Roth asked if they had ever been late in submitting their check before and if he was familiar with the penalty clause relative to the payment of the Occupancy Tax. Mr. Kao explained that this was the first time they had been late and he had run the motel ~for one year. They were not familiar with the penalty clause, but each time they had been on time with their payment. According to his employee, he submitted the payment on time but it was not received on time. It was postmarked October 1, 1980 and his employee insisted that he did give it to the mailman on time on September 30, 1980. Mayor Seymour asked if he had stated he had no knowledge of the penalty aspects involved; Mr. Kao stated he knew there was going to be a penalty, but he did not realize how much. They never tried to be late. Councilman Overholt asked Mr. Kao if he managed the Captains Quarters personally on a daily basis. Mr. Kao answered that he was a managing partner and he had employees present today. He came from the San Fernando Valley once every other week to sign checks and he was responsible for the total operations. Councilman Overholt then posed a line of questioning to Mr. Kao which he answered as follows: He did not personally take the responsibility of mailing checks. He signed the check in question on the 17th or 18th of September. They had a cash flow problem that month and thus he told his manager to mail it on the 30th. They had a mailman who picked up the mail at the motel office and that was how all the mail was sent. He talked to the postman and tried to get a statement from him but the mailman did not have authorization to give such a statement. The mailman wanted them to talk to the Postmaster which they did. He said he did not know what mail the mailman picked up and therefore he could not provide any statement to that effect. Councilman Roth then asked Mr. Kao if he planned to implement some safeguards or program either to hand carry the check if they waited until the last day, or work out a different procedure in the future. Mr. Kao answered "yes". Councilman Overholt asked if Mr. Kao's manager would speak, would he (Kao) have any objection to his being sworn; Mr. Kao stated that would be acceptable to him. Mr. Jim Razeeghian came forward and stated that he lived at the motel. Councilman Overholt stated they were trying to determine with some degree of proof that he delivered the check to the U.S. Post Office by delivering it to the mailman on September 30, 1980. He asked Mr. Razeeghian if he would have an objection to being sworn in. Mr. Razeeghian answered "no". 80-1555 Ci..ty Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - December 2, 1980, 1:30 P.M. City Clerk Linda Roberts thereupon administered the oath to Mr. Razeeghian that the testimony he was about to give was true and correct to the best of his belief and knowledge; Mr. Razeeghian answered affirmatively. Councilman Overholt stated that according to Mr. Kao's letter, he (Razeeghian) as manager delivered the Captains Quarters check made payable to the City of Anaheim in the sum of $3,501.40 to the U.S. Postal Service delivery man at his motel on September 30, 1980. He asked if that were true and correct. Mr. Razeeghian answered "yes" Councilman Overholt asked the name of the delivery man; Mr. Razeeghian answered that he did not know his name. There were two mailmen who came all the time, one older man and the other a young fellow. They delivered the mail promptly and he remembered that he mailed the check on that day. Councilman Overholt then asked the following questions to which Mr. Razeeghian answered "yes" in each case: Did he personally see the check made payable to the City of Anaheim in the amount of $3,501.40; did he insert it in the enve- lope addressed to the City of Anaheim; and was that the envelope given to the postman on September 30, 1980. MOTION: Councilman Overholt thereupon moved that the Transient Occupancy Tax for the month of August 1980 for the Captains Quarters Motel was deemed to have been mailed on time by delivery to an employee of the U.S. Post Office regularly picking up mail at the Captains Quarters on September 30, 1980. Councilman Roth seconded the motion. Mayor Seymour asked if it was to waive the 10% penalty. Councilman Overholt answered that it was not a waiver, but a finding that the assessment was paid on time on September 30, 1980 by delivery of a check to an employee of the U.S. Postal Service. Councilwoman Kaywood stated she had a problem with the motion and could see it opening up a "Pandora's Box" throughout the City. They would subsequently be receiving all kinds of late payments all deemed to have been handed to somebody. They had an ordinance and should live with it or change it. She would have to oppose the motion. Mayor Seymour stated on this matter he found himself in agreement with Council- woman Kaywood. They had seen the particular ordinance involved, in his opinion, watered down from receipt of the tax payment on the proper day to postmark of an envelope as the first step, and now the second step, the act of payment being considered handed over to a mailman or it could be interpreted, anybody else capable of delivering it on time. He felt they had gone too far. He did not suppose that they or any of the citizens they served and were responsible to would be forgiven by the Internal Revenue Service in a similar situation. Theirs was a hard line responsibility, but one that they had and they were going to have to draw the line. If they began to set a precedent of permitting late payment without penalty by the mere handing over of an envelope to a mailman, he was afraid that would encourage others who paid even more tax than the subject motel of doing the same. Once the ordinance was watered down, that would create a great difficulty in the community. Although he supported the spirit of the motion, he could not support a watering down of the ordinance. 80-~1534 City Hall, ..Anaheim,. California - COUNCIL MINUTES - December 2~ 1980:1:30 P.M. Councilman Overholt stated he believed this was a case in which the tax was in- deed posted. It was the delivery of the check according to the sworn testimony of the manager of the motel in a timely manner to an employee of the U.S. Postal Service, not just anybody which was the manner in which they posted their mail. Had they put it into a mailbox and this gentleman come forward under sworn testimony testifying that he put it a mailbox on September 30, 1980, to say he did not post it on that day was to say that he was lying. He had no trouble with this case whatsoever. It was not opening of "Pandora's Box". If there were a number of motel managers in the City who wanted to perjure them- selves time and again to waive a penalty, then there would be a problem, but he did not assume that people perjured themselves. He felt the facts were very clear--that the manager posted by delivery to an employee of the U.S. Post Office on September 30, 1980 the Transient Occupancy Tax of the motel and that they must recognize that fact. The ordinance did not say receipt. The City Attorney had previously stated posted did constitute payment or delivery to the City. If they did not have the sworn testimony, he would agree with the Mayor 100%. He did not think this case was different from another one similar in nature recently consi- dered. He too, believed there should be strict enforcement, but he considered this to be strict enforcement. Mayor Seymour stated if he wanted to define that mailing had been accomplished by handing an envelope to the mailman or by dropping it in a mailbox, that would be encouraging similar requests. Mr. Kao stated if he had known he had to go through this much trouble, he would have paid the $300 penalty. He did not think if they gave him a waiver at this time that it would influence his future actions or those of other motel owners. They came to the Council in all sincerity and were almost begging. If there was a next time, they would just pay the assessment. Councilman Overholt stated that he would like to correct an impression Mr. Kao was creating. This was not a matter of being nice or good, but a matter of applying the law. The Mayor was correct in saying the law stated there was no basis for waiving a late payment. What he (Overholt) was saying was, he had given them proof that payment was made on time. They were just trying to apply the law and it was not a matter of kindness or concern. Where he differed with the Mayor was to the facts as presented. However, they were in complete agree- ment on the enforcement of the laws. A vote was then taken on the foregoing motion by Councilman Overholt. The motion failed to carry by the following vote: AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Overholt and Roth NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Kaywood, Bay and Seymour MOTION: Councilman Seymour thereupon moved to deny the request for a waiver of the penalty assessment for late payment of the August 1980 Transient Occupancy Tax for the Captains Quarters Motel. Councilman Bay seconded the motion. Coun- cilmen Overholt and Roth voted "no". MOTION CARRIED. 169: WILKEN WAY CLOSURE: A request by Sally Heymers and Pat Rice, for an evening public hearing to consider the closure of Wilken Way at Haster Street, was submitted. 80-1535 City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - December 2, 1980, 1:30 P.M. Mayor Seymour was prepared to make a motion setting a public hearing that perhaps could be combined with an already scheduled evening hearing; City Clerk Roberts reported that December 9 and 16 were two dates already having scheduled evening public hearings. Councilman Roth asked for confirmation that the request was to consider changing the area of the cul-de-sac to the end of the street because the first time they approved the closure, they were unable to acquire the necessary right of way. City Engineer Devitt confirmed that was correct, but only, the new proposed location was in between. Councilman Roth stated he was not opposed to having night meetings but he wond- ered whether this was the right approach. He felt that they should first deter- mine whether right-of-way was available at the new proposed location for the cul-de-sac. Mr. Devitt stated the situation had been explored and determined there was a need for additional righ~of-way. They had a petition signed by a considerable number of people requesting a public hearing for relocation of that cul-de-sac. Councilman Roth recalled that the matter was heard by the Council previously and it was determined that the street be closed but subsequently a property owner would not dedicate the necessary property. Now they were looking at another piece of property and it appeared to him that they could again hold a public hearing and determine what they had already determined. Thereafter they would try to acquire the necessary property; Mr. Devitt stated it was a request from citizens that a public hearing be held to determine whether or not that cul- de-sac should be relocated. Councilwoman Kaywood asked if the Council had given any thought to eminent domain proceedings on the one holdout on the original cul-de-sac? Mr. Devitt answered that it was discussed, but only if it would be at no cost to the City. Councilwoman Kaywood stated she favored the proposed public hearing on December 16, but would like to investigate the possibility of eminent domain and not close the door on it. Mr. Devitt explained that one of the alternatives suggested was a closure from Harbor to Haster, for instance, Alternate B, which he did not believe required any additional right of way. MOTION: Councilman Seymour moved to consider the closure of Wilken Way at a public hearing to be held on December 16, 1980 at 7:00 p.m. Councilwoman Kaywood seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. CONSENT CALENDAR ITEMS: On motion by Councilman Overholt, seconded by Councilman Roth, the following actions were authorized in accordance with the reports and recommendations furnished each Council Member and as listed on the Consent Calendar Agenda: 80-I536 Cit¥ Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - December 2, 1980, 1:30 P.M. 2. CORRESPONDENCE: The following correspondence was ordered received and filed: a. 105: Community Services Board--Minutes of October 9, 1980. b. 105: Senior Citizen Commission Resolution No. SCC80-3, establishing the second Thursday of each month at 1:30 p.m. in the Council Chambers as the time and place of regular Senior Citizen Commission meetings. c. 114: City of Tustin, Resolution No. 80-120, endorsing landscaping for the Newport-Costa Mesa Freeway. d. 175: Before the Public Utilities Commission, Application No. 60075, in the matter of the application of Southern California Edison Company for authority to modify its Energy Cost Adjustment Billing Factors. e. 140: Anaheim Public Library--Monthly Statistical Report for October 1980. 3. 108: APPLICATIONS: In accordance with the recommendations of the Chief of Police, the following applications were approved: a. Amusement Devices Permit: "J" Arcade, 2624 West La Palma Avenue, for various amusement devices. (Matio Perez and Bonifacio Serna, applicants) The City Clerk announced that a name change had been submitted on the request for permit for the "J" Arcade, changing it to Fun Arcade. The Police Depart- ment had no objections to the change. b. Amusement Devices Permit: 7-11 Store, 818 West La Palma Avenue, for three video games. (Mary L. Scarborough, applicant) c. Public Dance Permit: Vietnamese Catholic Community, for a dance to be held December 27, 1980, 8:30 p.m. to 1:00 a.m., at the Anaheim Convention Center. (Hai N. Nguyen, applicant) MOTION CARRIED. CONSENT CALENDAR ITEMS: Councilman Overholt offered Resolution Nos. 80R-525 through 80R-527, 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-525: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM ACCEPTING CERTAIN DEEDS AND ORDERING THEIR RECORDATION. (Edward E. Carter, et ux.; Alan R. Talt, et al.; Van Doren Rubber Company, Inc.; William Kugel; Lynn K. Kelley, et ux.) 169: RESOLUTION NO. 80R-526: 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: HARBOR BOULEVARD STREET IM- PROVEMENT - 2651' N/O KATELLA AVENUE TO 2211' N/O KATELLA AVENUE, IN THE CITY OF ANAHEIM, PROJECT ACCOUNT NO. 13-793-E3430. (Luz Pina General Engineering) 80-1557 City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - December 2~ 1980, 1:30 P.M. 151: RESOLUTION NO. 80R-527: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM APPROVING THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF ENCROACHMENT PERMIT AND AUTHOR- IZING THE MAYOR AND CITY CLERK TO LXECUTE SAID ENCROACHMENT PERMIT WITH HILLVIEW CO., A LIMITED PARTNERSHIP. (for construction of an entry monument on the traffic island located in the middle of River Valley Trail at the intersection of Imperial Highway, 80-1E) Roll Call Vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: COUNCIL M~4BERS: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Overholt, Kayw0od, Bay, Roth and Seymour None None The Mayor declared Resolution No. 80R-525 through 80R-527, both inclusive, duly passed and adopted. 142/156: ORDINANCE NO. 4196: Councilman Bay offered Ordinance No. 4196 for adoption. Refer to Ordinance Book. ORDINANCE NO. 4196: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AMENDING SECTION 1.13.040 OF CHAPTER 1.13, TITLE I, OF THE ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO THE POLICE RESERVE CORPS. 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. 4196 duly passed and adopted. ORDINANCE NOS. 4197 AND 4198: Councilman Seymour offered Ordinance Nos. 4197 and 4198 for first reading. ORDINANCE NO. 4197: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AMENDING TITLE 18 OF THE ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO ZONING. (63-64-62(25), RM-1200) ORDINANCE NO. 4198: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AMENDING TITLE 18 OF THE ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO ZONING. (79-80-5, RM-3000, Tract No. 8117, Anaheim Hills, Inc.) 107: REQUEST FOR RENT MORATORIUM/CONTROL - GOLDEN STATE MOBILE HOME OWNERS LEAGUE: Councilman Overholt referred to letter received from Mr. John Daley, Chairman, Golden State Mobile Home Owners League requesting to address the Council to discuss a rent moratorium for at least six months relating to mobile home parks within the City. He (Overholt) stated his concern was that the newspaper that morning carried an article indicating there had been a temporary restraining order issued by Judge Wallen with respect to the Stanton ordinance instituting a moratorium on rent increases. The matter was going to be heard on December 16, 1980. Therefore, if they were going to honor the subject request, it should be after the matter was heard by the court. Other than that, he favored the request. Mayor Seymour stated it would be nice to know if the Stanton ordinance would stand and assuming that it did, he felt that Mr. Dailey had a right to be heard and also 80-1538 C.it.y Hall, Ana. h. eim, Calffornia - COUNCIL MINUTES - December 2, !980, 1:30 P.M. to hear an expression from the Council. If the ordinance did not stand, and if the Council was interested in offering a rent control ordinance, he was certain there were legal ones that could be adopted. He did not know what impact the outcome would have one way or the other in having a citizen appear to ask for what he obviously wanted, that being rent control. Councilman Overholt stated that the Council was not noted for passing rent control ordinances and Mr. Dailey had been so advised. It seemed that there would be greater benefit if a hearing were held after the court ruled on the Stanton ordinance, and he would rather have that meeting after December 16. After a further brief discussion relative to an appropriate date for a hearing, Councilman Overholt moved to grant the subject request for the matter to be heard on January 13, 1981, at 3:00 p.m. Councilman Bay seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. 148: SOUTH COAST AIR QUALITY MANAGEMENT BOARD (SCAQMB) MEETING: Councilman Roth announced that Anaheim was host for the annual Orange County meeting of the South Coast Air Quality Management Board to be held Friday, December 5, 1980 in the Civic Center Council Chamber. Citizens, the press and anyone interested were welcome to attend the meeting which was a first for Anaheim being host. 163: MEETING WITH THE ORANGE UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT: Mayor Seymour reported that he and Councilman Roth met with the Orange Unified School District (OUSD) last evening, December 1, 1980. Present were Superintendent Don Ingwerson and two of their board members including their Chairman and representation from the City of Orange and Villa Park. Amongst items on the agenda were (1) future school population and financing of schools; (2) graffiti in Orange and, (3) traffic patterns around the school in Villa Park. No decisions were made, merely a request by the School District that City staff provide them with input, or 'likewise that staff raise any questions they might have. As he recalled, the School District was projecting an ultimate need to house 13,000 plus students throughout the District. What the Superintendent said was basically that Anaheim was right relative to the City's historical position that when Anaheim was able to assist in obtaining three different school sites in Anaheim Hills, which sites were donated to the School District by Anaheim Hills, that they had fulfilled the obligations of Anaheim and Anaheim Hills for that area. Dr. Ingwerson went on to indicate that Anaheim now had under consideration six other developments amongst which were the Bauer Ranch, the SAVI and Wallace Ranch, along with the Irvine Company property which, as he recalled, would be contribu- ting 36,000 school population alone. At the meeting, they had maps displaying the areas of Anaheim's ultimate responsibility indicating that they would like the City to think about those and have dialogue as to how those could be addressed, rather than being confronted by citizens demanding schools or complaining of year-round schools which they already had, or double sessions, etc. The reason he broached the matter was (1) to inform the Council that he and Councilman Roth did attend the meeting at the School District's invitation and, (2) to suggest it might be appropriate that Planning Staff take a look at what they were projecting, were their numbers real, were there alternatives. In other words, work with the School District and try to develop the data so that which- ever way the Council would decide on the issue, they would at least be informed. 80-15~9 C_it~. Hall,....Anaheim, Ca.l.i. forn. ia.- COUNCIL MINUTES - December 2, 1980, 1:30 P.M. Councilman Bay asked if the new formula with Orange County on annexation and division of taxes would also change the base school figures used up to now on the cost of adding housing on annexations particularly in the Canyon area. It seemed they had a mathematical study done at one time projecting infrastructure costs, etc. As they expanded out in Anaheim Hills, that new formula had to be changing those figures. City Manager Talley stated not too much, because most of the land when annexed was vacant and undeveloped. The agreement did say that whatever the County was getting in the past, that the City now as a result of providing those services would get roughly 45% and the County 55% except that the County would never get less than what it had before. Consequently, they would annex undeveloped land, structures would be placed on that land and they would split 45%-55%, the incre- ment that normally would have flowed only to the County if they had not been annexed. The School District's share would not be touched one way or the other no matter who would get it. Councilman Roth stated one of the things that was emphasized was a plea to respective cities and their'Planning Staffs to work more closely with the Orange Unified School District relative to growth patterns. In other words, the time elements involved when talking about Bauer Ranch, Wallace Ranch, etc. They needed between a five- and ten-year lag time to initiate some preplanning when building an elementary school to determine if it was justified. Mr. Talley stated they would be willing to work with the District. He was not aware that there was a meeting. He noted also that the District's numbers did not add up, but they would look at them again. Mayor Seymour commented that they had not added up to him before either. He emphasized that there was no rush and there was plenty of time, but it was time to take another look at their numbers. He had no knowledge, for example, that the Irvine Company was talking about developing what led to a 3600 school population and that could be two decades away. Mr. Talley Stated that they would review the matter and also ascertain what information the District shared with the Mayor and Councilman Roth. Councilwoman Kaywood stated in past meetings she had participated in with the District going back a number of years, she constantly asked to see the figures on what money was coming in from Anaheim residents and the District would never provide those figures. They never mentioned them or skirted around them; there- fore, they were never able to know if it was paying its own way or paying for a lot more than its own way. RECESS - EXECUTIVE SESSION: Councilwoman Kaywood moved to recess into Executive Session. Councilman Roth seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. (4:47 P.M.) AFTER RECESS: Mayor Seymour called the meeting to order, all Council Members being present. (5:31 P.M.) 153: EFFECTIVE DATE OF WAGES OF CERTAIN EMPLOYEES OF THE CITY: Councilman Seymour offered Resolution No. 80R-528 for adoption. Refer to Resolution Book. 80-t540 City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - December 2, 1980~ 1:30 P.M. RESOLUTION NO. 80R-528: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM PERTAINING TO THE EFFECTIVE DATE OF WAGES OF CERTAIN EMPLOYEES 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 No. 80R-528 duly passed and adopted. 153: ESTABLISHING RATES OF COMPENSATION FOR JOB CLASSES REPRESENTED BY THE ANAHEIM FIRE ASSOCIATION: Councilman Seymour offered Resolution No. 80R-529 for adoption. Refer to Resolution Book. RESOLUTION NO. 80R-529: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM ESTABLISHING RATES OF COMPENSATION FOR JOB CLASSES REPRESENTED BY THE ANAHEIM FIRE ASSOCIATION, AND SUPERSEDING RESOLUTIONS NO. 77R-743 AND 78R-214. 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-529 duly passed and adopted. 112: WILSON TOIA VS. CITY OF ANAHEIM: Councilman Seymour moved to authorize the City Attorney and Ruston & Nance to settle Orange County Superior Court Case No. 30-90-91 (Wilson Toia vs. City of Anaheim) for a sum not to exceed $5,000. Councilwoman Kaywood ~econded the motion. MOTION,CARRIED. ADJOURNMENT: Councilman Roth moved to adjourn. Councilman Overholt seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. Adjourned: 5:32 P.M.