Loading...
1983/07/19City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - July 19, 1983, 10:00 A.M. The City Council of the City of Anaheim met in regular session. PRE SENT: ABSENT: PRE SENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Kaywood, Pickler, Overholt, Bay and Roth COUNCIL MEMBERS: None ASSISTANT CITY MANAGER: James D. Ruth CITY ATTORNEY: William P. Hopkins EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR OF ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES: Les White ASSISTANT CITY CLERK: Leonora N. Sohl CITY LIBRARIAN: William Griffith PROGRAM DEVELOPMENT & AUDIT MANAGER: Ronald Rothschild FIRE MARSHAL: Garth Menges PLANNING DIRECTOR: Ronald Thompson ASSISTANT DIRECTOR FOR ZONING: Annika Santalahti BUILDING INSPECTOR: Walter Kirkhart Mayor Roth called the meeting to order and welcomed those in attendance to the Council meeting. INVOCATION: The Reverend Harold Headrick, West Anaheim United Methodist Church, gave the Invocation. FLAG SALUTE: Councilman Irv Pickler led the assembly in the Pledge' of Allegiance to the Flag. 119: PRESENTATION - NEW BOOKMOBILE SLIDE SHOW: William Griffith, City Librarian, stated he was present to introduce the new slide show on the Bookmobile produced by Chuck Allee, the out-of-pocket expenses for which were paid by the Friends of the Library. Mr. Chuck Allee, Ascom Corporation, then narrated the Bookmobile slide presentation, the intent of which was to create awareness and support for the Outreach Bookmobile Program. At the conclusion of the presentation, Mayor Roth thanked both Mr. Griffith and Mr. Allee. He reiterated the purpose of producing the slide show was to stage subsequent presentations at service clubs and organizations such as Kiwanis, Rotary and the Lions, urging their support in becoming co-sponsors of the Outreach Program to ensure its continuation as a service for the citizens of Anaheim, particularly for minority groups unable to take advantage of the services offered by the main and branch libraries. 119: RESOLUTION OF COMMENDATION: A Resolution of Commendation was unanimously adopted by the City Council and presented to Janet Parry, R.N., 1982-83 Chair of the Anaheim Community Committee of the American Cancer Society and for instituting the Anaheim 200+ Club, a fund-raising project of the Committee. Miss Parry then presented a check for $200, which was accepted by Elsie Reid, new Chairman of the Committee, who was accompanied by Les Riddell of the Chamber of Commerce. Mrs. Reid also accepted a ~200 donation from Councilwoman Kaywood. 598 City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - July 19, 1983, 10:00 A.M. 119: INTRODUCTION OF JAPANESE EXCHANGE STUDENTS: Mr. Tony Gabler, teacher at Sycamore Junior High School, introduced 27 Japanese Exchange Students who were present in the Chambers audience and guests in the City, hosted by the California Home Stay Institute. He was accompanied by Carolyn McIver, teacher at Orange High School. Mayor Roth, on behalf of the Council and the City, welcomed the 26 ladies and one gentleman. MINUTES: Approval of the minutes was deferred to the next regular meeting. 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 ail Council Members, unless after reading of the title, specific request is made by a Council Member for the reading of such ordinances or resolutions in regular order. Councilman Pickler seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. FINANCIAL DEMANDS AGAINST THE CITY in the amount of $2,328,107.92, in accordance with the 1983-84 Budget, were approved. CITY MANAGER/DEPARTMENTAL CONSENT CALENDAR: On motion by Councilwoman Kaywood, seconded by Councilman Bay, the following items were approved in accordance with the reports, certifications and recommendations furnished each Council Member and as listed on the Consent Calendar; Councilwoman Kaywood offered Resolution Nos. 83R-297 and 83R-314 for adoption. Refer to Resolution Book. Councilwoman Kaywood offered Ordinance No. 4444 for first reading. 1. 118: The following claims were filed against the City and action taken as recommended: A. Claims rejected and referred to Risk Management: 1. Claim submitted by Ralph and Lynda Parkhurst, Individually, and Lynda Parkhurst on behalf of her minor son, Ryan D. Kellett, for personal injury damages purportedly sustained due to placement of electrical transformer in the area of Glenview Avenue, on or about April 27, 1983. 2. Claim submitted by Sandra Sue Dovel, on behalf of her son, Christopher Bouldin, a minor, for personal injury damages purportedly sustained due to placement of electrical transformer in the area of Glenview Avenue, on or about April 27, 1983. 3. Claim submitted by Michele Moreau for personal property damages to car purportedly sustained due to actions of City Street Maintenance Department on Manchester Avenue at the on-ramp to the Santa Ana Freeway, southbound, on or about May 9, 1983. B. Claim rejected and referred to Governmental Programs Division, Markel Service, Inc.: 599 City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - July 19, 1983, 10:00 A.M. 4. Claim submitted by Lawton C. Thomson for personal injury damages purportedly sustained due to actions of Anaheim Police Officers, on or about February 11 and March 29, 1983. C. Application for Leave to Present a Late Claim rejected: 5. Application for Leave to Present a Late Claim submitted by Clyde Reuben Duncan for personal injury damages purportedly sustained due to failure to warn on the part of the City, on or about February 14, 1983. 2. The following correspondence was ordered received and filed: a. 107: Planning Department, Building Division--Monthly Report for June 1983. b. 105: Public Utilities Board--Minutes of June 16, 1983. c. 175: Pacific Telephone and Telegraph Company, Application No. 83-01-22 (General Rate Increase) and No. 82-11-07 (Depreciation Offset), Notice of Application for Authority to Adopt Intrastate Access Charge Tariffs and Notice of Amendment to Application for an Increase in Rates. 3. 170.123: Approving the assignment of a secondary main extension reimbursement agreement with Criterion Development, Inc. to Lighthouse Equities, Inc. and Range View Investments, Inc., relating to Tract Nos. 9143 and 9144. 4. 140/106: Accepting $2,055.91 resulting from payment of lost or damaged Library book fines and donations and appropriating said amount into various Library Material Accounts. 5. 160: Accepting the low bid of TFI Materials Inc. in an amount not to exceed $11,0t8.70 for 900 feet of three single conductor triplexed assembly, 500 KCMIL, copper, 15KV XLP cable, in accordance with Bid No. 3987. 6. 160: Accepting the low bid of Maydwell & Hartzell in the amount of $10,906.89 for thirty-six polyphase meters, in accordance with Bid No. 3986. 7. 160: Accepting the low bid of Maydwell & Hartzell in the amount of . $16,003.80 for forty-ei~ht polyphase meters in accordance with Bid No. 3985. 8. 123: RESOLUTION NO. 83R-314: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM FINALLY ACCEPTING THE COMPLETION AND THE FURNISHING OF ALL LABOR AND EQUIPMENT TO CUT AND REMOVE RUBBISH, REFUSE AND DIRT UPON ANY PARCEL OR PARCELS OF REAL PROPERTY OR ANY PUBLIC STREET IN THE CITY OF ANAHEIM, AS DIRECTED BY THE CHIEF OF THE FIRE DEPARTMENT, ACCOUNT NO. 01-202-6320 (1982-83, Edwin Webber, Inc., contractor). 600 City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - July 19, 1983, 10:00 A.M. 9. 158: RESOLUTION NO. 83R-297: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM ACCEPTING CERTAIN DEEDS AND ORDERING THEIR RECORDATION° (Emkay Development Company, Inc.; Crown Development Company; Emkay Development Company, Inc.; Dot Investments, Inc.; Robert F. Mills) 10. 179/107: ORDINANCE NO. 4444: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM ADDING SUBSECTION .135 TO SECTION 18.41.050 OF CHAPTER 18.41 AND AMENDING SUBSECTION .031 OF SECTION 18.84.062 OF CHAPTER 18.84 OF TITLE 18 OF THE ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO ZONING. (Conditional Uses and Structures in the "CO" zone, and Building and Structural Height Limitations in the "SC" Overlay Zone) 11. 123: Authorizing expansion of the administration of the Deferred Compensation Program to a committee composed Of the City Treasurer, Director of Finance and a representative from the City Manager's office and authorizing an agreement with the firm of "California 457'~ as a Third Party Administrator of the City's Deferred Compensation Program at no cost to the City° Roil Call Vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: COUNCIL MEMBERS: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Kaywood, Pickler, Overholt, Bay and Roth None None MOTION CARRIED. The Mayor declared Resolution Nos. 83R-314 and 83R-297 duly passed and adopted. 140/i81: REHABILITATION OF THE CARNEGIE LIBRARY BUILDING: Assistant City Manager James Ruth briefed the Council on memorandum dated July 18, 1983, from Cindy King, Assistant to the City Manager, recommending that the Council direct staff to develop and distribute a request for proposal for rehabilitation of the Carnegie Library Building. Mayor Roth then explained that on July 13, 1983, he and Councilwoman Kaywood attended a meeting of the Anaheim Historical Museum Group Board, where they witnessed a great deal of enthusiasm for finally moving ahead on the museum project. The proposed action today would get the project started. Mr. Herb Leo, 2906 Bellamy, explained that they had been working on the Carnegie Library site as a museum £or the City ~or approximately eight years. Their organization was now in place, Anaheim Museum, Inc., enabling them to accept funds to continue development of the library. Today they were asking for ~35,000 from Redevelopment funds that were allocated in 1978 to complete the engineering drawings and requirements necessary to bring the library to a point where it could be used. He had submitted a letter signed by Teresa Pawlowski and himself which included a list of 24 people who had committed themselves to support the project. It was their intent to develop a VIP committee made up of prominent citizens in Anaheim who were willing to put their efforts into the library. They also had volunteers of labor from many people. He was hopeful that the Council would direct Mr. Norman Priest, Executive Director of Community Development, to advance the funds to them. 601 City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - July 19, 1983, 10:00 A.M. Councilman Bay noted that the Agency voted for ~50,000 in Redevelopment monies in 1978 for the project. He felt that interest on that appropriation would have accrued that would make up for approximately ~7,300 in City costs, and he asked for information regarding that interest. MOTION: Councilman Bay thereupon moved to direct staff to develop and distribute a request for proposal for rehabilitation of the Carnegie Library Building, thereby using the remaining Redevelopment funds to secure the necessary construction drawings (estimated cost: ~35,000) that will, in turn, identify more specific costs for construction. Councilwoman Kaywood seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. Mrs. Midge Taggart, Chairman, in answer to Councilman Overholt, then reported on the structure of the Anaheim Museum Board. Assistant City Manager James Ruth then reported that the money appropriated from Redevelopment funds in 1978 had never been transferred out of Redevelopment into a special account and, therefore, no interest accrued. Cindy King also reported, in answer to Councilman Overholt, that the resolutions committed ~50,000 from Redevelopment funds, but did not state a transfer of dollars. Councilwoman Kaywood left the Council Chambers. (10:55 a.m.) 175/123: ENGINEERING SERVICES, WELLS 40 and 41: Councilman Roth moved to authorize an agreement with Camp, Dresser and McKee, Inc., in an amount not to exceed ~174,700, for engineering services for Well No. 40, to be located north of the Southern Pacific Railroad right-of-way located east of Brookhurst Street between Crestwood Lane and Pacific Avenue, and Well No. 41 to be located at the northeast corner of Convention Way and West Street, as recommended in memorandum dated July il, 1983. Councilman Pickler seconded the motion. Councilwoman Kaywood was temporarily absent. MOTION CARRIED. Councilwoman Kaywood entered the Council Chambers. (10:56 a.m.) 108: REQUEST FOR REHEARING - HUMDINGER #4: City Attorney William Hopkins stated the item was heard previously and apparently, the full argument was not presented by Mr. Slayton or his attorney~ due to the fact that they were engaged in other activities in Arizona (see letter dated June 28, 1983, from Lloyd Charton, Attorney for Ralph and Scott Slayton). They were requesting a rehearing at this time to bring in additional information not submitted previously. (Also see affidavit of merit in support of a request for rehearing submitted by Scott Slayton dba The Humdinger, through Lloyd Charton.) Mayor Roth asked if it was appropriate today to hear the matter or to set a rehearing; City Attorney Hopkins answered that the Council could hear the matter today, since it was not a formal public hearing. 602 City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - July 19, 1983, 10:00 A.M. Mr. Lloyd Charton, 12862 Fairview, Attorney for Mr. Slayton and the Humdinger, stated their request was based on input received from Anaheim staff. During the past week, they were informed a major item of concern to the Council was the signing advertising the bar. Mr. Slayton had been an owner of The Humdinger bars in Orange County for 21 years and had never been denied an entertainment license until the action taken by the Council this year. Mr. Slayton was in Arizona at the time and he was requesting a rehearing in approximately six weeks, which would give him time to bring the sign into compliance. Other than that, there was a hearing set some time ago and the Council requested a continuance in order to receive input from the Anaheim Police Department. That input was positive and in favor of granting the entertainment license. Throughout the years that Mr. Slayton had owned beer bars in Orange County, there had been no significant problems with the police, ABC nor any City department. He understood that his sign was not in compliance, but it was there before he took over. He reiterated, he would like to have the six weeks within which to comply and asked that they grant a rehearing. Councilman Rickler stated he recalled that the signing had nothing to do with their decision; Annika Santalahti, Assistant Director for Zoning, agreed, stating that was a separate Code enforcement issue. Councilwoman Kaywood stated that the permit was denied for the dancing girl; Mr. Charton explained that he understood that the sign was not in compliance. Further, the dancing girl had been there for years and was not topless or bottomless and never had been. He did not understand the opposition. Discussion then followed between the Council, City Attorney and Mr. Charton revolving around whether or not the issue today was to set the matter for a rehearing, as requested, or to hear the issue. During the discussion, Mr. Charton emphasized the fact that his client was unable to be present at the previous hearing because of the flood disaster that occurred in Arizona affecting his property. At that time, he was represented by one of his managers. He clarified that he was present today not to have the rehearing take place, but to request that it be granted and set for approximately six weeks and allow him to come in fully prepared. Councilman Overholt stated he was going to move to grant the rehearing, but did not want it to be considered a precedent, since the petitioner did have an opportunity to speak but because of a problem, a representative spoke in his stead. MOTION: Councilman Overholt moved to approve the request for a rehearing submitted by Lloyd Charton, Attorney, in connection with the denial of an Entertainment Permit Application for The Humdinger #4, 2660 West Lincoln Avenue, at the Council meeting of May 31, 1983. Councilwoman Kaywood seconded the motion because she did not feel they had received all the information. MOTION CARRIED. 603 City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - July 19, 1983, 10:00 A.M. CITY PLANNING COMMISSION ITEMS: The following actions taken by the City Planning Commission at their meeting held June 27, 1983, pertaining to the following applications were submitted for City Council information. 1. VARIANCE NO. 3340: Submitted by George Joseph and Loyia Elizabeth Toly, to construct a room addition on RS-7200 zoned property located at 4355 Elkstone Avenue, with a Code waiver of maximum lot coverage. The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC83-117, granted Variance No. 3340, and ratified the Planning Director's categorical exemption determination. 2. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2457: Submitted by Chong Sun Paek, to permit a drive-through restaurant on CL zoned property located at 2780 West Ball Road, with a Code waiver of minimum landscaped setback. The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC83-118, granted Conditional Use Permit No. 2457, and granted a negative declaration status. 3. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2458: Submitted by G. Community Hospital Corporation, Inc., to permit a 94-unit senior citizens apartment complex on RM-1200 zoned property located at 950 South Gilbert Street with the following Code waivers: (a) minimum building site area, (b) maximum structural height, and (c) minimum floor area. The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC83-119, granted, in part, Conditional Use Permit No. 2458, and granted a negative declaration status. 4. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2207 - RESOLUTION NO. PC83-120: Amendment to Resolution No. PC83-51, nunc pro tunc, pertaining to Condition No. 6, Conditional Use Permit No. 2207, to permit a portable concrete batch plant on RS-A-43,000(SC) zoned property located on the west side of Richfield Road, south of La Palma Avenue. No action was taken by the City Council on the foregoing items; therefore, the actions of the City Planning Commission became final. 179: REPORT FROM PLANNING DEPARTMENT RELATING TO BILLBOARD REGULATIONS: Annika Santalahti, Assistant Director for Zoning, referred to the four-page report dated May 16, 1983, relative to billboards in Anaheim. At that time, Councilman Pickler asked that they set up a meeting with representatives of the industry, which was held on July 6, 1983. The results of that meeting were reported in the memorandum dated July 12, 1983, which she then read (report on file in the City Clerk's office). Staff recommended no changes be made to the current ordinances, but if Council directs that ordinance be prepared to allow freeway-oriented billboards, then they recommended the annual license fee be increased on a percentage of the gross receipts. She further clarified for Councilwoman Kaywood that the current yearly business license fee is $iO0 for each company and not ~1OO for each billboard. 604 Cit~ Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - July 19~ 1983, 10:00 A.M. Mr. Lloyd Charton, 12862 Fairview, Attorney for Mr. Slayton and the Humdinger, stated their request was based on input received from Anaheim staff. During the past week, they were informed a major item of concern to the Council was the signing advertising the bar. Mr. Slayton had been an owner of The Humdinger bars in Orange County for 21 years and had never been denied an entertainment license until the action taken by the Council this year. Mr. Slayton was in Arizona at the time and he was requesting a rehearing in approximately six weeks, which would give him time to bring the sign into compliance. Other than that, there was a hearing set some time ago and the Council requested a continuance in order to receive input from the Anaheim Police Department. That input was positive and in favor of granting the entertainment license. .Throughout the years that Mr. Slayton had owned beer bars in Orange County, there had been no significant problems with the police, ABC nor any City department° He understood that his sign was not in compliance, but it was there before he took over. He reiterated, he would like to have the six weeks within which to comply and asked that they grant a rehearing. Councilman Pickler stated he recalled that the signing had nothing to do with their decision; Annika Santalahti, Assistant Director for Zoning, agreed, stating that was a separate Code enforcement issue. Councilwoman Kaywood stated that the permit was denied for the dancing girl; Mr. Charton explained that he understood that the sign was not in compliance. Further, the dancing girl had been there for years and was not topless or bottomless and never had been. He did not understand the opposition. Discussion then followed between the Council, City Attorney and Mr. Charton revolving around whether or not the issue today was to set the matter for a rehearing, as requested, or to hear the issue. During the discussion, Mr. Charton emphasized the fact that his client was unable to be present at the previous hearing because of the flood disaster that occurred in Arizona affecting his property. At that time, he was represented by one of his managers. He clarified that he was present today not to have the rehearing take place, but to request that it be granted and set for approximately six weeks and ~llow him to come in fully prepared. Councilman Overholt stated he was going to move to grant the rehearing, but did not want it to be considered a precedent, since the petitioner did have an opportunity to speak but because of a problem, a representative spoke in his stead. MOTION: Councilman Overholt moved to approve the request for a rehearing submitted by Lloyd Charton, Attorney, in connection with the denial of an Entertainment Permit Application for The Humdinger #4, 2660 West Lincoln Avenue, at the Council meeting of May 31, 1983. Councilwoman Kaywood seconded the motion because she did not feel they had received all the information. MOTION CARRIED. 6O5 City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - July 19, 1983, 10:00 A.M. Sherry Bennett, Gannett Outdoor Advertising, 1731 Workman, Los Angeles, stated that they were in agreement with Foster and Kleiser. They would go along with staff's recommendation that the ordinance remain as it was at present. They felt that opening up the freeways at this point would be opening up a "can of worms." They also agreed that they would like to work with the design criteria and with Regency's viewpoint that with a two-sided board it should either be covered with a suitable fabric or signage should be consistent on both sides. They did not agree with the $5,000 fee per structure. They agreed with Councilwoman Kaywood that the present tax was low, but they would like to see their industry given fair and consistent treatment relative to fees, just as with every other business within Anaheim. To be singled out for a specific fee was of concern to them. They would like to sit down and negotiate those fees and work with staff or the Council along those lines. Bob Mickelson, 3823 Glassell, Orange, stated he did not represent any billboard company but a private property owner, La Palma Business Park. He shared Mayor Roth's concern that the rules should apply to everyone, the billboard companies and the City alike. He felt that the proposal submitted by Mr. Reed was a good one in concept at least. He suggested a fee, either on a gross receipts basis, or on a sliding scale based on size and location of the boards. Relative to the design issue, he would support a new ordinance and would be willing to donate some time to working on a committee if appropriate. Chris Norby, Independent Outdoor Advertising, 979 La Brea, Los Angeles, explained that the type of sign his company dealt with was different than other companies. They had only the 12 by 6 stainless steel trimmed sign which was internally illuminated. Ali were mounted on a single pole and most were only a maximum of 15 feet high. The issue of building on the freeway or not had no bearing on them. They were not opposed if it happened. Relative to a fee, they felt any fee should be based on revenue. Relative to having different terms apply to the City, the least the City could do was to have their signs identified that they were, in fact, owned by the City. Mr, Jay Kingry, Metropolitan Outdoor Advertising, 101 East Huntington Drive, Arcadia, stated he would support the conditional use permit procedure as each case is considered individually. What he would like to see would be Title 4 listed as to the freeway locations and be allowed to bring in individual CUP's, each weighed on their own merit. Relative to a license fee, a percentage oF gross receipts was the Fairest and possibly a 2 percent maximum would be equitable with a freeway oriented sign paying a larger percent of gross. Mr. Philip Quarre, Hartmann Corporation, 536 West Lincoln, stated his major concern was the possible random proliferation of outdoor advertising structures along the arterial highways, specifically those designated scenic highways. To have a great number of signs on arterial highways within the City would possibly constitute a visual blight and something that would be unattractive for the City. Adoption of the staff recommendations would reduce greatly the number of variances and CUP's to be processed by the Council and the Planning Department. Basically, he urged that the Council adopt the Planning staff report. 606 City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - July 19, 1983, 10:00 A.M. Mr. Reed stated, to clarify a point relative to his recommendation on criteria for size, height and spacing, what he neglected to state, he felt there should be a policy statement, that the application for a permit would still be under a CUP. If the requirements were met, then they could apply for a CUP. Councilwoman Kaywood stated she felt the existing ordinance was too liberal wherein it allowed eight billboards at an arterial intersection in the City. There were existing businesses on all those corners and it was difficult to discern between the businesses or what was being advertised, and sometimes where the colors were bright and vivid, they even interfered with the traffic signals. In her opinion, the visual pollution resulting from a proliferation of billboards led to the deterioration of the City. Further, she was in "shock" that the only fee paid was the ~100 business license per company per year. Even $100 per billboard would be far too small an amount, plus the fact that there was no return to the City from a billboard as with other businesses. MOTION: Councilwoman Kaywood moved to support the staff recommendation as outlined in report dated July 12, 1983, and that there be no change to the current ordinance. Before action was taken, Councilman Overholt asked for clarification if the motion was to support the staff recommendation not to change the current ordinance and that they not investigate the possibility of a freeway sign ordinance; Councilwoman Kaywood confirmed that was correct. Councilman Overholt stated that he supported the motion in part; Mayor Roth stated that there was no second to that motion. Councilman Pickler stated he was not ready to make a decision today. 'They had received a great deal of input, but as far as freeway signs, that was something he wanted to look at closer. He wanted to see the ordinance changed. Councilwoman Kaywood mentioned that eight signs on a corner was too much. Perhaps there should only be four. It was something that staff and the people in the business had to look at. He also wanted to look at design criteria which he felt had to be changed and should be uniform. The license fee was another issue and $100 was ridiculous. He reiterated that he needed more input and work in the areas discussed before they could vote yes or no. Councilman Overholt stated that he was not dissatisfied with the current ordinance, but felt they should work with the industry in exploring the freeway sign question. Councilwoman Kaywood felt if they were to look into freeway boards, that would be a big step backwards. In California, most cities were finding themselves in a situation where they were grasping at things for revenue that would never have been considered before. Revenue did not make ugly beautiful and she did not want to see them get into that kind of a situation. 607 City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - July 19, 1983, 10:00 A.M. Mayor Roth felt that the hearing should be continued for 30 days; Miss Santalahti stated she would like at least two months to give adequate time to develop the necessary data which would include contacting the State. Councilwoman Kaywood noted that another hearing on billboards was set for next week and they had continued a number of them. She felt many could be worked on, heard and acted upon without having any further input; Miss Santalahti stated those were billboards that were allowable under a CUP under the current ordinance, and not freeway-oriented billboards. MOTION: Councilman Bay moved to continue the discussion of billboards in Anaheim for 90 days. Councilman Pickler seconded the motion. Before a vote was taken, Councilwoman Kaywood stated she first wanted to know whether the billboard issues that were scheduled to be heard at next week's meeting were going to be heard or continued. Councilman Bay stated that the intent was to continue the subject for 90 daYs, but it did not include any delay of CUP's to be considered under the existing ordinance. Councilman Pickler stated, however, it would not prevent anyone from asking for a continuance. A vote was then taken on the foregoing motion of continuance. MOTION CARRIED. 173: APPLICATION FOR A LIMOUSINE SERVICE PERMIT: Ronald L. Cordi, Charter Limousine, Inc., requesting a permit to operate a limousine service at 3141 Rome Avenue (continued from the meeting of July 12, 1983--see minutes that date). MOTION: Councilwoman Kaywood moved to approve the application for a Limousine Service Permit for Ronald L. Cordi, Charter Limousine, Inc., 3141 Rome Avenue, for a period of one year with a review at that time. Councilman Bay seconded the motion. Before a vote was taken, Councilman Overholt asked if they should recess to Closed Session before taking action on the motion; City Attorney Hopkins answered it was the right of Mr. Cordi to request the Closed Session and if Council wished to discuss the matter ~urther, it could be handled in that manner. Councilman Overholt stated he would prefer that they continue in Closed Session before taking any action. He thereupon moved for a Closed Session with Mr. Cordi present, if he wished to join them. Councilman Pickler seconded the motion. Council Members Kaywood, Bay and Roth voted "No." The motion failed to carry. Councilman Overholt stated he could not vote on the matter unless they recessed into Closed Session. 608 City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - July 19, 198.3, 10:00 A.M. In answer to Councilman Overhoit, the City Attorney stated that a Council Member should be allowed to be heard in Closed Session. The applicant also had a right to ask for a Closed Session. He felt it would be appropriate to allow a Council Member to express his opinion. Councilwoman Kaywood stated out of courtesy to Councilman Overholt, she would withdraw her "No" vote. Councilman Roth moved to recess into Closed Session. Councilman Pickler seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. (12:30 p.m.) AFTER RECESS: The Mayor called the meeting to order, all Council Members being present. (12:35 p.m.) Councilwoman Kaywood again moved to approve the application for a Limousine Service Permit for Ronald L. Cordi, Charter Limousine, Inco, 3141 Rome Avenue, for a period of one year with a review at that time. Councilman Bay seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. REQUEST FOR CLOSED SESSION: The City Manager requested a Closed Session to discuss personnel matters with no action anticipated; the City Attorney requested a Closed Session to discuss litigation and potential litigation with no action anticipated. Councilman Bay moved to recess into Closed Session. Councilwoman Kaywood seconded'the motion. MOTION CARRIED. (12:36 p.m.) AFTER RECESS: The Mayor called the meeting to order, all Council Members being present. (2:03 p.m.) 176: PUBLIC HEARING - ABANDONMENT NO. 82-13A: In accordance with application filed by Harold Moore, public hearing was held on proposed abandonment of existing easements for irrigation, incidental and public utility purposes located on the south side of Santa Ana Street, west of Rose Street, pursuant to Resolution No. 83R-257, duly published in the Anaheim Bulletin and notices thereof posted in accordance with law. Report of the City Engineer, Dated June 1, 1983, was submitted recommending approval of said abandonment. Mayor Roth asked if anyone wished to address the Council; there being no response, he closed the public hearing. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT - CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION: On motion by Councilwoman Kaywood, seconded by Councilman Roth, the City Council ratified the determination of the City Engineer that the proposed activity fails within the definition of Section 3.01, Class 5, of the City of Anaheim guidelines to the requirements for an Environmental Impact Report and is, therefore, categorically exempt from the requirement to file an EIR. MOTION CARRIED. 609 City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - July 19, 1983, 10:00 A.M. Councilwoman Kaywood offered Resolution No. 83R-298 for adoption, approving Abandonment No. 82-13A. Refer to Resolution Book. RESOLUTION NO. 83R-298: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM VACATING CERTAIN PUBLIC STREETS, HIGHWAYS AND SERVICE EASEMENTS. (82-13A) Roll Call Vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: COUNCIL MEMBERS: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Kaywood, Pickler, Overholt, Bay and Roth None None The Mayor declared Resolution No. 83R-298 duly passed and adopted. 176: PUBLIC HEARING - ABANDONMENT NO. 82-17A: In accordance with application filed by George K. Bernharth, public hearing was held on proposed abandonment of an existing public utility easement acquired by the City, located east of Artis Court, between Hunter Avenue and Orangethorpe Avenue, pursuant to Resolution No. 83R-259, duly published in the Anaheim Bulletin and notices thereof posted in accordance with law. Report of the City Engineer, dated June 1, 1983, was submitted recommending approval of said abandonment. Mayor Roth asked if anyone wished to address the Council; there being no response, he closed the public hearing. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT - CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION: On motion by Councilman Bay, seconded by Councilman Overholt, the City Council ratified the determination of the City Engineer that the proposed activity falls within the definition of Section 3.01, Class 5, of the City of Anaheim guidelines to the requirements for an Environmental Impact Report and is, therefore, categorically exempt from the requirement to file an EIR. MOTION CARRIED. Councilman Bay offered Resolution No. 83R-299 for adoption, approving Abandonment No. 82-17A. Refer to Resolution Book. RESOLUTION NO. 83R-299: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM VACATING CERTAIN FUBLIC STREETS, HIGHWAYS AND SERVICE EASEMENTS. (82-17A) Roll Call Vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: COUNCIL MEMBERS: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Kaywood, Pickler, Overholt, Bay and Roth None None The Mayor declared Resolution No. 83R-299 duly passed and adopted. 610 City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - July 19, 1983, 10:00 A.M. 179: CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2445 AND NEGATIVE DECLARATION: Application submitted by Margot E. Wright, to permit a bed and breakfast inn on RS-7200 zoned property located at 1327 South Hickory Street. The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC83-107, declared that the subject project be exempt from the requirement to file an Environmental Impact Report pursuant to the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act on the basis that there will be no significant individual or cumulative adverse environmental impact due to the approval of this negative declaration, since the Anaheim General Plan designates the subject property for low density residential land uses commensurate with the proposal; that no sensitive environmental impacts are involved in the proposal; and that the Initial Study submitted by the petitioner indicates no significant individual or cumulative adverse environmental impacts; and further granted Conditional Use Permit No. 2445, subject to certain conditions: A review of the Planning Commission's decision was requested by Councilman Pickler at the meeting of June 21, 1983 and public hearing scheduled this date. Assistant City Clerk Leonora Sohl announced that staff recommended a continuance of the subject public hearing to August 9, 1983. Councilwoman Kaywood moved to continue the public hearing on Conditional Use Permit No. 2445 and negative declaration to August 9, 1983, at 1:30 p.m., as requested by staff. Councilman Roth seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. 179: PUBLIC HEARING - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2142: Application submitted by David A. Jackson, Vice President, California Castles, Inc., to amend conditions of approval, in particular Condition No. 3, that fire sprinklers shall be installed in all kitchen efficiency units and ail third floor units and smoke detectors shall be installed in all units, of Conditional Use Permit No. 2142, to permit a 73-unit motel on CL zoned property located at 800 South Beach Boulevard, with the following Code waivers: (a) maximum structural height, and (b) minimum landscaped setback. A negative declaration status was previously approved for the project at the Council meeting of February 10, 1981. The Mayor asked to hear from the applicant or applicant's agent. Beverly Jackson, 800 South Beach Boulevard, President of California Castles, Inc., stated the request was to clear the record. As the Council would recall, the entire top floor of the motel was going to consist of kitchen units. They subsequently changed their plans, reducing the amount of those units to seven only. Those seven units had sprinklers and smoke alarms. The condition she wanted to have amended was the requirement that all top-floor units have sprinklers, because now there were only seven kitchen units. She reiterated, they presently had sprinklers in the seven units and they wanted to delete the necessity of having sprinklers in all 24 third-floor units. 611 City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - July 19, 1983, 10:00 A.M. (See Mrs. Jackson's letter dated June 27, 1983--"Petition for Amendment to Condition No. 3 of Conditional Use Permit No. 2142--Resolution 81R-53"--made a part of the record.) Councilwoman Kaywood referred to the minutes of the Council meeting of February 10, 1981, Pages 202 and 203, where the matter of sprinklers on the third floor was discussed in depth (see minutes that date). She noted the requirement was very clear in those minutes and she read excerpts evidencing same. At that time, her vote in support was predicated on the stipulation that there be sprinklers in all third floor units and the unanimous vote approving the project was on that basis. Mrs. Jackson stated she was under the impression that the whole top floor would be kitchen units; Councilwoman Kaywood noted it was discussed earlier that kitchen units would be limited to 25 percent. Mrs. Jackson stated she thought their request was that the whole top floor be kitchen units and then all would be sprinklered; Councilwoman Kaywood emphasized that it was clear as evidenced by the minutes and it was clarified that a 25 percent maximum was what the City approved on kitchen units. During further discussion and questioning by Councilwoman Kaywood, Mrs. Jackson reported that the Fire Marshal had been out to the site, that the builder did not realize there was a stipulation that all third floor units be sprinklered, that they had their occupancy certificate and everything was signed off. The only reason she was present was to clarify the situation so that there would be no problem relative to their insurance coverage. She was asking that the particular clause relative to sprinklers for all units on the third floor be eliminated. Otherwise, they would have to go through the roof and redo the whole top floor, which would be a very large job. Councilwoman Kaywood stated she had a problem with the situation, since it would mean that anyone could promise anything and then not do it. Mayor Roth stated if what Mrs. Jackson indicated in her letter of June 27, 1983, was true, that the final inspection was passed by the Anaheim Fire Marshal's office on May 28, 1983, and the final building inspection was signed on June 3, 1983, he wanted to know how they got a final inspection and how could they reverse the final inspection; Miss Annika Santalahti, Assistant Director for Zoning, stated that a~ of last U~dne~day, when the checked with the Building Division, final inspection had not been made at that time. Councilman Bay stated the question that needed to be answered related to the fact that in the letter submitted by California Castles, it implied that there was no inspection or requirement for the sprinklers on the documentation. He wanted to know if that was true, if they had released the permits, what legal position was the City in on the inspection, and where was the "hole" between Condition No. 3 and the building inspectors and fire inspectors, if one existed, as alleged by the letter. 612 City Hall, Anmheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - July 19~ 1983, 10:00 A.M. Mr. Garth Menges, Fire Marshal, explained when they checked plans at the Building Department, they had to assume that the plans had been approved by the department before they made any corrections or before the building was built. As far as the fire inspectors, they normally went out and made a final inspection to make certain the fire extinguishers, exits, etc., or whatever was necessary according to the approved plan was done before they would sign off the final. He had to check with his fire inspectors in the field in this case. Mayor Roth suggested that they trail the item until later in the meeting, in order to receive additional information from staff. Later in the meeting, the Mayor asked the Chief Building Inspector if it was still a policy that before a final inspection, that the gas hookup was never permitted. Mr. Walter Kirkhart, Chief Building Inspector, explained that as long as the building had been inspected, plumbing, gas and electrical inspection, and everything proved to be safe, they had released it before final inspection. The Mayor then asked that when a condition was added at a public hearing, such as had occurred in this instance, was that condition made a part of the plans and the requirements that had to be met. Mr. Kirkhart answered that it should have been and if it was a Fire Department requirement, they stamped all plans that were issued. ~.~yor Roth stated that if the applicant agreed to the requirement, it should have been made a part of the original plans and subsequently, the Fire Department would ensure it was done. He wanted to know if the plans contained that condition. Since the plans were not available, the matter was again trailed and later in the meeting, Ronald Thompson, Planning Director, reported that they had reviewed the plans and the note, while it was somewhat misleading, was on the plans, but it appeared that it was missed in the inspection process. Councilman Bay stated if they failed to pick up that condition on the inspection and the construction was complete, it threw a different light on the cost of installing sprinklers totally on the third floor, which was germane to the Council's decision. He was glad to hear such a candid response from the Planning Department which would make his decision simple. If, through a fault of the inspection and documenting process, they did not inspect and call for the sprinklers, he did not know how he could hold the applicant to tearing the roof out to put them in at this time. Councilwoman Kaywood stated if it were one of the normal conditions listed and not a great deal of attention was paid to that, she would tend to agree, but there was extensive discussion on the item. The third story was overbuilding the property and it was on the basis of sprinkiering the entire story that she had offered the Resolution to approve. 613 City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - July 19, 1983, 10:00 A.M. Extensive discussion and questioning then followed between Council Members and staff from both the Planning and Fire Departments, revolving around the procedures followed in checking and approving plans from their submittal through construction and final inspection. Mr. David Jackson, Vice President, California Castles, also gave input, noting that the approved set of plans and the set of plans on the site were one and the same. At the conclusion of discussion, Councilman Overholt stated his concern was that the building was'built to Code. But for the stipulation, it was built the way it otherwise would have been built. If not, he would not hesitate to have them install sprinklers. Councilwoman Kaywood asked with regard to the ordinance, would a third story be required to have sprinklers; Fire Marshal Menges answered no, but anything over the third floor required sprinklers. Councilman Overholt asked if he felt the 17 units that did not have sprinklers on the third floor were safe; Mr. Menges answered yes. The Mayor closed the public hearing. Councilwoman Kaywood stated she had a problem with the kind of coordination or lack of it that was required in the process. She needed to know how the error happened, some assurance that it would not happen again, and that it had not happened in other areas. Planning Director Thompson stated he believed the circumstances in this case were an exception rather than the rule. They did monitor such situations and the procedures were in place. Councilman Bay offered Resolution No. 83R-300 for adoption, amending Resolution No. 81R-53, eliminating the words, "...and all third floor units..." from Condition No. 3. Refer to Resolution Book. RESOLUTION NO. 83R-300: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM APPROVING AN AMENDMENT TO THE CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL OF CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2142 AS SET FORTH IN RESOLUTION NO. 81R-53. Councilwoman Kaywood stated, because of the extensive discussion that did take place and that being the major reason for her offering the project for approval, she was going to vote in opposition. She had every sympathy for what had occurred, but because the stipulation was so clearly made, she felt if people did stipulate to certain conditions and they did not hold them to it, it became a farce. A vote was then taken on the foregoing resolution. 614 City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - July 19, 1983, 10:00 A.M. Roll Call Vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: COUNCIL MEMBERS: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Pickier, Overholt, Bay and Roth Kaywood None The Mayor declared Resolution No. 83R-300 duly passed and adopted. Before concluding, Councilman Overholt asked staff to submit a short written report of the findings in this matter, noting what, if anything, should be done to prevent it from happening again. 108: CASA CORDOVA - TRANSIENT OCCUPANCY TAX: T. M. Phelan, General Partner, Village Inn Investors, Limited, appealing the Transient Occupancy Tax findings on the Casa Cordova Apartments, 3360 West Lincoln Avenue. This matter was continued from the meeting of July 12, 1983--see minutes that date. The Mayor asked if the applicant was present. Joan Sheets, 630 South Glasseil, Orange, stated she was present representing the applicant. She was not an attorney, but had been manager and supervisor of the subject property at 3360 West Lincoln. She had a package of material which she thereupon submitted to the Council (see packet of materials submitted containing copies of letters, forms, bills, and other data relative to the subject Transient Occupancy Tax under cover letter dated July 19, 1983, from L. Baird Albertsen, Staff Attorney, Village Inn Investors, Ltd.--on file in the City Clerk's office). She did not know if the material contained anything new, but she did not believe it did. The July 19th letter from the attorney, L. Baird Albertsen, explained that she could not be present today and therefor, she (Sheets) would attempt to state the facts. She had worked at the desk at the subject location and felt that the auditor's interpretation of the weekly rate after a 29-day period still included a 6 percent Transient Tax, which they considered unjust. Guests were informed upon their registration that it would not decrease after the 29th day, but the 6 percent would be in effect as far as the weekly rates were concerned. She believed there were other discrepancies found by the City. They had numerous desk clerks on that location and she was sure there were many errors that could be found, but not to the extent of the amount that was found by City auditors. Councilwoman Kaywood noted that the facility was originally built as a motel and the units all had kitchenettes; Mrs. Sheets stated that the period of time she had been there it was much more a permanent resident-type living situation than transient. From time to time, they did have daily occupants, but as a rule, rentals were weekly. Mr. Ronald Rothschild, Program Development and Audit Manager, clarified the following from Page 3 of Executive Summary of Facts, submitted from Program Development and Audit, dated July 5, 1983: Room revenue for the first 29 days of occupancy, tax penalty and interest totaled ~28,050.2i; Room revenue for more than 29 days with tax collected was supported by receipt and registration 615 City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - July 19, 1983, 10:00 A.M. card, tax penalty and interest totaled $13,854.57; the one area Mrs. Sheets brought up, room revenue for more than 29 days where tax collected was supported by registration card only but not by a receipt, tax penalty and interest totaled $32,311.01. The last area of miscellaneous room charges, tax penalty and interest totaled $724.71, the bottom line being a total of $60,636.45 in total taxes, interest and penalties less the amount reported to the City per monthly payments. Councilman Bay asked Mrs. Sheets, since she was present representing Casa Cordova, was she in a position to negotiate a settlement; Mrs. Sheets answered that she was not. Councilman Roth stated he was going to move to assess a penalty in settlement of the matter; Councilman Overholt asked the City Attorney if it was appropriate that the Council suggest a figure that would be deemed satisfaction in full of discrepancies in this hearing. City Attorney Hopkins stated that Council had authority under the ordinance to make a decision based on their findings. If there was any waiver of the penalty, however, it would require four votes. Otherwise, the Council had full leeway to set an amount or confirm the existing amount. Mr. Les White, Executive Director of Administrative Services, explained that they had not received a response from Phelan's attorney and had to assume by that lack of response that the offer was rejected. After further questions were posed to Mr. White and Mr. Rothschild by the Council relative to the penalty assessment and breakdown of that figure, Councilman Roth moved to assess Casa Cordova Motel (The Phelan Group), 3360 West Lincoln Avenue, $26,000 for %ransient Occupancy Tax due, $13,000 in penalties and $1,000 in interest, for a total assessment of $40,000 due and payable to the City. Councilman Pickler seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. 176: ABANDONMENT NO. 79-8A--EXTENSION OF TIME: Councilman Pickler moved to approve the request of Kaufman and Broad, Inc., for an extension of time for fulfillment of certain conditions imposed by Resolution No. 80R-lO, relating to Abandonment No. 79-8A, property composed of certain portions along Santa Aha Canyon Road in the vicinity of Weir Canyon Road, to expire July 19, 1984. Councilman Overholt seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. 175: HEARING - UTILITY BILLING: Mr. George Rodas, protesting an electric billing for his residence at 1301 Paradise Court for the period of November and December 1982. Mr. George Rodas, 1302 Paradise Court, stated he hoped they could arrive at a fair adjustment of his November and December 1982 electric bill (also see letters from Mr. Rodas dated March 9 and June 21, 1983, submitted to the Public Utilities Department, relative to the subject dispute and letters of explanation and clarification from that department dated February 24 and May 3, 1983--on file in the City Clerk's office). 616 City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - July 19, 1983, 10:00 A.M. Mr. Rodas continued that he had no proof other than he was present to protest the bill. He strongly felt that for an individual in a residence to have doubled the usage of electricity was virtually impossible unless such usage was totally unusual. Mayor Roth stated he would have to agree, but on the other hand, he hoped that Mr. Rodas could appreciate Council's position that unless there was proof from him, or an indication from staff that would substantiate an adjustment, it would otherwise be a gift of public funds to grant him one. He asked for a summary of the situation from staff. Mr. Ed Alario, Assistant Public Utilities General Manager, stated that they had done everything they could do up to the point of the meter. As far as explaining where energy or power had gone, that was something they could not do afterwards. He then gave an overview of the steps the Utilities Department had taken in order to resolve the disputed bill (see report dated July 12, 1983 from the Public Utilities General Manager). He reiterated that they determined the energy went through the meter and that with the appliances within the premises, there was the capability for the usage indicated. Mr. Rodas stated that the electricity went through somewhere, but he did not use it and should not be charged for it and that was his point. After extensive discussion and questioning between Councilman Bay, Mr. Rodas and Mr. Alario, Mr. Rodas suggested that they take an average and settle his bill on that basis. He did not want to leave the Chambers without some adjustment. City Attorney Hopkins then explained for the Mayor that Mr. Rodas had exhausted all elements of the appeal procedure and any further appeal would be to the courts. MOTION: Councilman Roth again stated that they were sympathetic with Mr. Rodas, but they could not do anything for him under the circumstances. He thereupon moved to uphold the utility billing for the disputed period of November/December 1982. Councilman Bay seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. 18i/106: INTERNATIONAL MUSIC OLYMPICS 1983: Harriet English, Chairman, International Music Olympics, requesting consideration of City payment of $3,150.16 for balance due for use of Anaheim Stadium and $2,596.47 cost of medals awarded to participants of the May 5, 6 and 7, 1983 competition, for a total of $5,746.63. Submitted was a report from the City Manager's office dated July 11, 1983, recommending that the Council consider the request for additional funding dated June 13, 1983, from the World Music Competition of Anaheim. Harriett English, Chairman, World Music Competition of Anaheim, then gave a report on the second International Music Olympics held on May 5, 6 and 7, 1983. In concluding her presentation, Mrs. English requested the Council's financial assistance in the amount of $5,746.63. 617 City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - July 19, 1983, 10:00 A.M. Questions were then posed to Mrs. English relative to the attendance figures at the event wherein she explained some of the problems involved in the use of Glover Stadium (La Palma Park) and the fact that Anaheim had no stadium between the size of Glover and Anaheim Stadium, which would be more suitable for the Olympics. Councilman Overholt stated he felt the reason for staff questions in the report was the fact that last year Anaheim appropriated $12,813.36 for the activity, with the understanding it would be the last time. Now the City was again being asked to fund an additional $5,746.63 this year. He noted that the City was not a co-sponsor of the event, but were carriers of the public trust and they wanted to be certain those funds were being put to a use that benefited many citizens of the community. Mrs. English, after further elaboration, concluded that they felt bringing in 6,000 people to Anaheim for three days also brought a lot of money into the City. Councilman Overholt then stated, having attended the event, it was a beautiful one and he would agree there were benefits to the City. He did feel, however, that the City would be interested in what they were going to do to "beef-up" the marketing program for ~the Music Olympics in the future. MOTION: Councilman Overholt moved to approve the request of the Chairman of the International Music Olympics (World Music Competition of Anaheim), appropriating ~5,746.63 from the Council Contingency Fund (~3,150.16 for Stadium costs and ~2,596.47 for sponsorship of plaques). Councilman Pickler seconded the motion. Before a vote was taken, Mrs. Cappy Brown stated she was going to be Music Olympic Chairman in 1984 and she felt comfortable that they would be successful in covering all costs in the third year. Councilman Bay stated he would like to vote for the motion, but only under the condition that a stipulation be made that they would not be asking for any funding next year. Mrs. Brown answered that she did not think in all good conscience she could stipulate to that. She felt certain they would be standing before the Council next year, reporting that they made money and were even giving a couple of scholarships. She, alone, could not do that. She could speak as the chairman, but one person could not carry the whole thing. Before concluding, Councilwoman Kaywood asked if Glover Stadium was too small for the event last year; Mrs. Brown stated that all bands did not stay for the awards last year, but this year only one band left the area before the Saturday night event. Glover was not large enough without bleachers being set up on both sides of the field, which was not feasible during baseball season. 618 City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - July 19, 1983, 10:00 A.M. Cindy King, Assistant to the City Manager, stated she would have to check with Parks and Recreation to determine if there was any way to eliminate the barricades at Glover Stadium that Mrs. English referred to in her presentation during the baseball season, but offhand, she felt that would be difficult. Assistant City Manager James Ruth stated he did not believe they could do that, since it would be very expensive to take the bleachers out, because they would have to be put right back in. A vote was then taken on the foregoing motion. Councilman Bay voted "No." MOTION CARRIED. Councilman Overholt stated that the Council would be interested in seeing a scrapbook of the event. 179: RECLASSIFICATION NO. 80-81-14 AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2121 - EXTENSION OF TIME: Floyd L. Farano, requesting a one-year extension of time to Reclassification No. 80-81-14 and Conditional Use Permit No. 2121, to permit a 104-unit residential condominium on property located on proposed RM-3000 zoned property located at 2170 South Harbor Boulevard. Submitted was a report from the Zoning Division dated July 5, 1983, recommending that the Council grant a one-year extension of time, to expire July 28, 1984. MOTION: Councilman Roth moved to grant a one-year extension of time to Reclassification No. 80-81-14 and Conditional Use Permit No. 2121, to expire July 28, 1984. Councilman Overholt seconded the motion. A vote was then taken on the foregoing motion. MOTION CARRIED. 142/101/140: ORDINANCE NO. 4443: Councilman Roth offered Ordinance No. 4443 for adoption. Refer to Ordinance Book. ORDINANCE NO. 4443: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM ADDING TO TITLE 8, CHAPTER 8.04, SECTION 8.04.070 OF THE ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE PERTAINING TO ANIMALS. (to prohibit animals, birds or reptiles, except Guide dogs, from being in City library buildings) Roll Call Vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: COUNCIL MEMBERS: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Kaywood, Pickler, Overholt, Bay and Roth None None The Mayor declared Ordinance No. 4443 duly passed and adopted. 156: COMMENDATION OF POLICE DEPARTMENT ACTIONS: Mayor Roth relayed an incident which took place in his neighborhood on Friday-Saturday, July 15 and 16, 1983, wherein a man had barricaded himself in a nearby residence. He (Roth) had personal observation of the outstanding police work in the matter, which was concluded in a positive fashion. The Police Department was to be commended for the way they handled the incident. 619 City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - July 19, 1983, 10:00 A.M. RECESS - CLOSED SESSION: Councilman Roth moved to recess into Closed Session. Councilman Pickler seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. (4:12 p.m.) AFTER RECESS: The Mayor called the meeting to order, all Council Members being present. (5:04 p.m.) 112: BOYD VS. COW'ELL AND CITY OF ANAHEIM VS. COWELL ET AL: Councilman Roth moved to authorize the City Attorney and Ruston and Nance to settle Orange County Superior Court Case #34-08-44, Boyd vs. Cowell and City of Anaheim vs. Cowell et al, by accepting payment to the City of the sum of 57,500. Councilman Pickler seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. ADJOURN}~NT: Councilman Roth moved to adjourn. Councilman Pickler seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. (5:05 p.m.) LINDA D. ROBERTS, CITY CLERK BY ASSISTANT CITY CLERK 620