Loading...
1981/03/3181-518 City Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - March 31, 1981, 1:30 P.M. The City Council of the City of Anaheim met in regular session. PRESENT: ABSENT: PRESENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Overholt, Kaywood, Roth and Seymour COUNCIL MEMBERS: Bay CITY MANAGER: William O. Talley CITY ATTORNEY: William P. Hopkins CITY CLERK: Linda D. Roberts ASSISTANT CITY MANAGER: William T. Hopkins POLICE CHIEF: George Tielsch CITY ENGINEER: William Devitt PLANNING DIRECTOR: Ron Thompson RECREATION SUPERINTENDENT: 3ack Kudron ASSISTANT DIRECTOR FOR ZONING: Annika Santalahti Mayor Seymour called the meeting to order and welcomed those in attendance to the Council meeting. INVOCATION: Canon John K. Saville, St. Michael's Episcopal Church, Retired, gave the Invocation. FLAG SALUTE: Councilman Don R. Roth led the assembly in the Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag. 119: PROCLAMATIONS: The following proclamations were approved by Mayor Seymour and authorized by the City Council: "California's Forgotten Victims Week" _April 20 9o 26, 1981 "Volunteer Month" in Anaheim, April 1981 Police Chief George Tielsch accepted the first proclamation and Jack Kudron, Recreation Superintendent, the latter. 119: RESOLUTION OF COMMENDATION: A resolution of commendation was unanimously adopted by the City Council and presented to Mrs. Ravi Koches, a concession stand Lead Worker for Szabo Food Services at the Anaheim Convention Center, commending her for her heroic actions in saving the life of a woman who was choking on a piece of food by applying the "Heimlich" maneuver. 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 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 Overholt seconded the motion. Councilman Bay was absent. MOTION CARRIED. FINANCIAL DEMANDS AGAINST THE CITY in the amount of $960,833.47, in accordance with the 1980-81 Budget, were approved. 81-519 City Hall, Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - March 31, 1981, 1:30 P.M. Before proceeding, Mayor Seymour announced that it would be necessary to have a Closed Session on a personnel matter and because of some calendars that needed to be coordinated, he would appreciate it if the Council could break as close to 2:30 p.m. as possible. The Closed Session would take about one-half hour. Also, the final drafting of the ballot propositions relative to the San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station Units 2 and 3 (see minutes March 19, 1981) and the refunding question needed to be completed from amongst the number of drafts that had been prepared and on which the Council had provided input. The final drafts must be typed and signed by the City Council as of 5:00 p.m. today. Therefore, he was going to excuse himself from the meeting temporarily for as long as it would take to complete the final version. Mayor Seymour left the Council Chamber. (2:00 P.M.) Mayor Pro Tem Overholt assumed Chairmanship of the meeting. i28: FINANCIAL STATEMENT FOR PERIOD ENDING FEBRUARY 28~ 1981: Councilman Roth moved to receive and file the Financial Statement for the eight months ended February 28, 1981 as recommended in memorandum dated March 25, 1981 from Director of Finance George Ferrone. Councilwoman Kaywood seconded the motion. Council- man Seymour was temporarily absent. Councilman Bay was absent. MOTION CARRIED. 160: CHANGE ORDER TO TRUCK HYDRAULIC EQUIPMENT COMPANY~ INC. TO INCREASE PURCHASE ORDER TOTAL: On motion by Councilwoman Kaywood, seconded by Councilman Roth, the Purchasing Agent was authorized to issue a change order in the amount of $1,933.65 to Purchase Order KO7941-M issued to Truck Hydraulics Equipment Company, bringing original total to $12,018.29, for the overhaul of five Aerial Manlifts in connec- tion with Bid No. 3643, as recommended in memorandum dated Mmrch 25, 1981 from Purchasing Agent John Thomason. Councilman Seymour was temporarily absent. Councilman Bay was absent. MOTION CARRIED. 153: PERSONNEL RULE CHANGES: Councilman Roth offered Resolution No. 81R-151 for adoption, amending certain resolutions which amended Resolution No. 63R-910 and adding new rules thereto, effective October 10, 1980, as recommended in memorandum dated March 25, 1981 from Human Resources Director Garry McRae. Refer to Resolution Book. RESOLUTION NO. 81R-151: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AMENDING CERTAIN PERSONNEL RULES BY RESCINDING CERTAIN RESOLUTIONS WHICH AMENDED RESOLUTION NO. 63R-910 AND ADDING NEW RULES THERETO. Roll Call Vote: AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Kaywood, Roth and Overholt NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: None TEMPORARILY ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Seymour ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Bay The Mayor Pro Tem declared Resolution No. 81R-151 duly passed and adopted. 165: AWARD OF CONTRACT - BARRIER FREE ANAFEIM NO. 5: Account No. 12-793-6325- E3410. Councilman Overholt moved to declare that the irregularity in the bid submitted by Industrial Fence & Supply Inc., be waived as a minor technicality, 81-520 City Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - March 31~ 1981, 1:30 P.M. as recommended in memorandum dated March 23, 1981 from the City Engineer. Councilman Roth seconded the motion. Councilman Seymour was temporarily absent. Councilman Bay was absent. MOTION CARRIED. Councilman Overholt offered Resolution No. 81R-152 for adoption, awarding a contract as recommended by the City Engineer. Refer to Resolution Book. RESOLUTION NO. 81R-152: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM ACCEPTING A SEALED PROPOSAL AND AWARDING A CONTRACT TO THE LOWEST RESPONSIBLE BIDDER FOR THE FURNISHING OF ALL PLANT, LABOR, SERVICES, MATERIALS AND EQUIP- MENT AND ALL UTILITIES AND TRANSPORTATION INCLUDING POWER, FUEL AND WATER, AND PERFORMING ALL WORK NECESSARY TO CONSTRUCT AND COMPLETE THE FOLLOWING PUBLIC IMPROVEMENT: BARRIER FREE ANAHEIM NO. 5 STREET IMPROVEMENT, IN THE CITY OF ANAHEIM, ACCOUNT NO. 12-793-6325-E3410. (Industrial Fence & Supply Inc., $39,057.10) Roll Call Vote: AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Kaywood, Roth and Overholt NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: None TEMPORARILY ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Seymour ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Bay The Mayor Pro Tem declared Resolution No. 81R-152 duly passed and adopted. 106/164: AWARD OF CONTRACT - SLOPE STORM DAMAGE REPAIR: Account No. 01-792- 6325-E2650. Councilman Overholt moved to declare that the irregularity in the bid by Nove Brothers Construction be waived as a minor technicality, as recom- mended in memorandum dated March 25, 1981 from the City Engineer. Councilman Seymour was temporarily absent. Councilman Bay was absent. MOTION CARRIED. Councilwoman Kaywood offered Resolution No. 81R-153 for adoption, awarding a contract as recommended by the City Engineer. Refer to Resolution Book. RESOLUTION NO. 81R-153: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM ACCEPTING A SEALED PROPOSAL AND AWARDING A CONTRACT TO THE LOWEST RESPONSIBLE BIDDER FOR THE FURNISHING OF ALL PLANT, LABOR, SERVICES, MATERIALS AND EQUIP- MENT AND ALL UTILITIES AND TRANSPORTATION INCLUDING POWER, FUEL AND WATER, AND PERFORMING ALL WORK NECESSARY TO CONSTRUCT AND COMPLETE THE FOLLOWING PUBLIC IMPROVEMENT: SLOPE STORM DAMAGE REPAIR, TUSTIN AVENUE, FAIRMONT BOULEVARD AND SANTA ANA CANYON ROAD, IN THE CITY OF ANAHEIM,'ACCOUNT NO. 01-792-6325- E2650. (Nove Brothers Construction, $38,550) Be{ore a vote was taken, Councilman Roth stated that relative to the subject slope damage repair, the most pressing matter relative to Fairmont Boulevard was the erosion taking place between the edge of the road and the parkway area. He was hoping that the proposed award also encompassed the repair of the road. City Engineer William Devitt explained that the federal funds were involved which came out of the disaster that occurred in the last rains, and it was not for normal maintenance. A vote was then taken on the foregoing resolution. 81-521 City Hal. l, Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - March 31, 1981~ 1:30 P.M. Roll Call Vote: AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Kaywood, Roth and Overholt NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: None TEMPORARILY ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Seymour ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Bay The Mayor Pro Tem declared Resolution No. 81R-153 duly passed and adopted. Councilman Roth thereupon recommended to the City Manager that staff be directed to make an insepction of the erosion on Fairmont Boulevard and initiate repairs accordingly and should it require an additional amount of funds that it be presented to the Council. It should be treated as a hazardous condition. The City Manager also explained that as part of the action, staff also recom- mended that the project be partially funded by authorizing a transfer of $20,000 from the Council Contingency Fund into Account No. 01-792-E2650, since the bids that they received were in excess of the amount budgeted. On motion by Councilman Roth, seconded by Councilwoman Kaywood, a transfer of $20,0D0 was authorized from the Council Contingency Fund into Account No. 01- 792-E2650 as recommended. Councilman Seymour was temporarily absent. Council- man Bay was absent. MOTION CARRIED. 159: PREVAILING RATE OF WAGES TO BE PAID WORKMEN AND MECHANICS ON PUBLIC WORKS CONTRACTS: Councilwoman Kaywood offered Resolution No. 81R-154 for adoption, directing the filing and posting of prevailing rates of per diem wages pertaining to workers on Public Works projects, as recommended in memorandum dated March 20, 1981. Refer to Resolution Book. RESOLUTION NO. 81R-154: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM DIRECTING THE FILING AND POSTING OF PREVAILING RATES OF PER DIEM WAGES PERTAINING TO PUBLIC WORKS. Roll Call Vote: AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Kaywood, Roth and Overholt NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: None TEMPORARILY ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Seymour ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Bay The Mayor Pro Tem declared Resolution No. 81R-154 duly passed and adopted. 123: LINCOLN AVENUE - ~5 TO KNQTT STREET - UPDATE OF THE DEFLECTION STUDY BY LA BELLE CONSULTANTS: Councilman Roth moved to authorize Alternate I of La Belle Consultants' quotation dated March 18, 1981 to update their deflection study on Lincoln Avenue at a cost not to exceed $3,600 in connection with Caltrans' proposal to relinquish Lincoln Avenue from the Santa Ana Freeway to Knott Street, as recommended in memorandum dated March 25, 1981, from the City Engineer. Councilwoman Kaywood seconded the motion. Councilman Seymour was temporarily absent. Councilman Bay was absent. MOTION CARRIED. 81-522 City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - March 31~ 1981~ 1:30 P.M. 156/160: PROCUREMENT OF USED HELICOPTER: City Manager William Talley briefed the Council on memorandum dated March 26, 1981 from the Purchasing Agent, con- taining four recommendations relative to the subject procurement (on file in the City Clerk's office) attached to which was report dated December 17, 1980 from the Chief of Police pertainimg to the lease purchase. Councilwoman Kaywood thereupon moved that the Council (1) review the two bids received for procurement of a used helicopter as advertised in Bid No. 3743; (2) waive the requirement of Council Policy No. 306 and authorizing the acceptance of a bid without advertised bidding; (3) authorizing the Purchasing Agent to accept the offer of Ro-Wing, Inc., and to issue a purchase order in the amount of $160,000, plus tax, for a used Hughes 500C Helicopter; and (4) authorize the Finance Director to utilize the Mechanical Maintenance Equipment appropriation to fund the purchase from Ro-Wing on an interim basis and to solicit lease- purchase proposals to finance the purchase on a long-term basis, as recom- mended in memorandum dated March 26, 1981 from the Purchasing Agent. Council- man Roth seconded the motion. -~. Before a vote was taken, City Attorney William Hopkins stated relative to item 4, if the financing was going to be handled through a purchase on a long-term basis as proposed, Charter Section 1222 covered any item over $50,000, whether real or personal property. Therefore, he recommended a two-thirds vote of the Council because it was property that would be transferred to the bank and then subsequently leased. The last item only would require a two- thirds vote of the Council. Mayor Pro Tem Overholt thereupon suggested that the maker and seconder of the motion move only on the first three items and then consider the last item when the Mayor rejoined the meeting. Mr. Talley explained that the fourth item recommended that the Council authorize the Finance Director to utilize the Mechanical Maintenance Equipment appropria- tion to fund the purchase, representing an entire funding, also directing him to solicit lease-purchase proposals which he would present to the Council at a later time. City Attorney Hopkins then stated, if it would come back at a later time, there would be no problem and the two-thirds vote could be handled at that time instead. Mayor Pro Tem Overholt confirmed that all four items would then be considered. Councilman Roth stated, in reading the documentation, he did not see any autho- rization to accept the highest bid for the Enstrom Shark Helicopter. Police Chief George Tielsch explained that they made the recommendation to proceed to sell the helicopter to the highest bidder° He did not know if that was included in the items under consideration or not. City Manager Talley stated he believed the Purchasing Agent was authorized to do that without Council action. Councilman Roth stated he wanted the Purchasing Agent authorized to do so because the $33,190.07 figure given in Page 2 of the March 26, 1981 report seemed to be the highest bid they could get. 81-523 City Hall, Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - March 31~ 1981, 1:30 P.M. Councilwoman Kaywood asked if there was any kind of guarantee on the helicopter. Chief Tielsch answered, on the new replacement parts available on the helicopter, but he did not know exactly what was included; however, it did not include the air frame. A vote was then taken on the foregoing motion. Councilman Seymour was temporarily absent. Councilman Bay was absent. MOTION CARRIED. 123: FIRST AMENDMENT TO AN AGREEMENT WITH ECONOMIC SCIENCES CORPORATION: On motion by Councilman Roth, seconded by Councilwoman Kaywood, a first amendment to the agreement with Economic Sciences Corporation was authorized, providing professional services im connection with the preparation and presentation of the Common Forecasting Methodology III (CFM III) Demand Forecast, extending the term of the agreement to June 30, 1981, as recommended in memorandum dated March 20, 1981 from the Secretary of the Public Utilities Board, Gordon Hoyt. Councilman Seymour was temporarily absent. Councilman Bay was absent. MOTION CARRIED. 123: AGREEMENTS WITH ORANGE COUNTY WATER DISTRCT FOR THE 1981 IN LIEU REPLEN- ~SHMENT PROGRAM: Councilwoman Kaywood moved to (1) authorize an agreement with the Orange County Water District for the delivery of Metropolitan Water District water for the period of February 11, 1981 to June 30, 1981, to purveyors within its boumdaries for use in lieu of groundwater at a net reduced rate of $55 per acre-foot and (2) authorizing am agreement with the Orange County Water District for the delivery of Metropolitan Water District water through the Municipal Water District of Orange County for the period of February 11, 1981 to June 30, 1~81, for use ~n lieu of groundwater at a net reduced rate of $55 per acre-foot for treated water and $30 per acre-foot for untreated water, as recommended in memorandum dated March 20, 1981 from the Secretary of the Public Utilities Board, Gordon Hoyt. Councilman Roth seconded the motion. Councilman Seymour was temporarily absent. Councilman Bay was absent. MOTION CARRIED. 164: FORMATION OF ASSESSMENT DISTRICTS RELATING TO THE $10 MILLION STORM DRAIN BOND ISSUE: Continued from the meetings of January 27, February 10 and March 17, l~81--see m~nutes those dates. Councilwoman Kaywood stated in reviewing the situation thoroughly time and again, she found that the process would be cumbersome and take Over a year before it could be implemented. It would also take engineering staff time or h~r~ng a consultant with the possibility of raising concern with the citizens over the complicated formula involved in determining the property value and the benefit to each parcel. She would, therefore, withdraw her pursuit of the possibility of formation of assessment districts and hope that they could find a better way to fund the storm drains so desperately needed. Councilman Roth stated he felt it was wise to withdraw particularly with no support from the Chamber of Commerce as evidenced from the minutes of their meeting of the City/County Government Committee of February 19, 1981. Mayor Pro Tem Overholt, speaking to Councilwoman Kaywood, commended her for her recommendation. Although he was totally Supportive of the concept of accelera- ting storm drain construction, to do so by the formation of assessment districts 81-524 City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - _March 31, 1981, 1:30 P.M. was unduly cumbersome. Perhaps something would develop further downstream which would enable them to take care of the much needed storm drain improve- ment. Councilwoman Kaywood stated she did not know the Chamber's reason for opposi- tion and she would appreciate it in the future when they gave a recommendation, that they also include a reason for it, and in addition give the names of those who voted for and against an issue. Councilman Roth explained that the City/County Government Committee had Mrs. McElligott, an attorney from Wilson, Morton, Asaf and McElligott, speak at their meeting. When the Committee found out that it would cost $25,000 just to provide the City with information as to procedures on how to place the issue on the ballot, they felt further action should be through the legisla- ~ tive process in amending Proposition t3 which affected the use of General Obligation bonds. That might be a point Councilwoman Kaywood could present before the League of Cities. Councilwoman Kaywood agreed. She attended a League conference in Garden Grove on'Saturday, March 28, 1981 and Senator Briggs was also present. She asked him if he would be interested in sponsoring such legislation or reword Proposi- tion 4 so that it would be possible for local control to be reinstituted. He informed her that his contribution to the budget was that he was not proposing any legislation at all. 139: SENATE BILL 215 (FORAN): Councilwoman Kaywood stated she saw a possibility of freeing up some funds for storm drains under the subject legislation (see memorandum dated March 27, 1981 from the City Engineer) in that Anaheim's share over the five years would be over $4 million. She asked for clarifica- tion from the City Attorney. City Attorney Hopkins stated they had checked on the proposal and had been informed~if the roadway required storm drains, some of the SB 215 funds could be utilized in that respect. It would require engineering certification that the roadway required that. There was also the possibility that some of the funds could be freed up, so that City funds could be used for storm drains under the program. Councilman Roth noted that under the proposed bill, they would be taking some far-reaching action in increasing gasoline costs, truck weight fees, driver's license fees and vehicle registration fees which would be handed back dow~ to the consumer. He was not sure that was the answer to the problem. It was his understanding that the Automobile Club of Southern California was opposing the bill, the reason being that the bill was not yet too far along. That was also the same reason why he could not get support of SB 33 from the Auto Club. He noted that Mr. Sullivan was in the audience and he would like to hear his comments on the group's position on SB 215 before taking action. He also sug- gested that they ask the Chamber of Commerce to review the matter and to give some guidance from a local standpoint as to how they should go on the bill. Mayor Pro Tem Overholt stated he was going to recommend they p~stpone consider- ation of the item because he felt it would be well to have a full Council when doing so. Councilman Bay was absent today due to illness and the Mayor was working on other urgent City business. However, they would hear from Mr. Sullivan with the understanding that they would give further consideration to the issue and would be glad to hear from him again. 81-525 City Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - March 31~ 1981, 1:30 P.M. Mr. Ed Sullivan, District Manager, Automobile Club of Southern California in Anaheim, stated that the Automobile Club was recommending that they not rush into the matter. There had not been many City Council's or City Chambers or the State Chamber who had taken a position on the bill. It had just come out of the Senate Transportation Committee and on April 17, 1981 it was going to the Senate Finance Committee. Foran had also asked that no amendments be made to the bill until it went to the Assembly. He felt there would definitely be amendments to it. Also, the bill did not guarantee at this time that the money collected from it would not be banked. If they collected more taxes, they had no guarantee that those would not be banked. They should first be sure that the bill was going to do what it proposed, repair and maintain high- ways. Councilman Roth recommended that they hold off on final consideration of the bill for two or three weeks; Mr. Sullivan reiterated that it was going to the Senate Finance Committee on April 17. MOTION: Councilman Roth moved to hold consideration of support of SB 215 until April 21, 1981 for full Council action. Councilman Overholt seconded the motion. Before a vote was taken, Councilwoman Kaywood pointed out the problem was that the League of Cities had the item scheduled for their April 9, 1981 general meeting. Councilman Roth suggested that someone recommend to the League to hold off until after the April 17, 1981 Finance Committee hearing. Councilman Roth encauraged the City/County Government Committee of the Chamber to review the matter and to make recommendations. A vote was then taken on the foregoing motion. Councilman Seymour was tempor- arily absent. Councilman Bay was absent. MOTION CARRIED. Councilwoman Kaywood suggested while the Chamber was reviewin~ the bill, that they also look at the shortfall that was occurring in the conditions of the highways, streets and freeways and the need to have funds in order to repair them. Councilman Roth stated he agreed with that but also agreed they should get information relative to the funds being impounded now by the State where, if they were released, they could take care of a major portion of the streets. He did not understand why the Governor's office was holding up the funding of existing monies and then turning around supporting legislation increasing tees. He was hoping that Mr. Sullivan would be present when the Chamber dis- cussed the matter. Councilwoman Kaywood commented that the shortfall would be in the billions. She believed that the money held by the State was a matter which was of top priority. 105/140: REQUEST FROM LIBRARY BOARD THAT HARBOR CENTER PARKING LOT BE USED FOR LIBRARY/POLICE DEPARTMENT PARKING PURPOSES: Request of Earl E Dahl, Chairman, Library Board, for use of the Harbor Center parking lot for Library/ Police Department parking purposes after the leases of the Center expire, was submitted. 81-526 City Hall, Anab_eim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - March'31, 1981, 1:30 P.M. Councilwoman Kaywood moved to receive and file the subject request as outlined in letter dated March 2, 1981 from the Chairman of the Library Board, Earl Dahl. Councilman Roth seconded the motion. Councilman Seymour was temporarily absent. Councilman Bay was absent. MOTION CARRIED. 106/123/150: CINCO DE MAYO FIESTA: Request of Joel Guerena, Chairman, for use of La Palma Park, Glover Stadium and Martin Recreation Center facilities and funding for the Fiesta to be held May 1, 2 and 3, 1981, was submitted. Councilman Overholt asked the specific funding request and if it was the same as last year. Mr. Jack Kudron, Recreation Superintendent, stated that the funding support in the past had been $1,500. Mr. Guerena was present and perhaps would like to address the Council on the issue. Mr. Joel Guerena, Chairman, Cinco De Mayo Fiesta, confirmed that the request was the same as last year, for $1,500. Councilman Overholt moved to approve the request of Mr. Joel Guerena, Chairman, Cinco De Mayo Fiesta in the amount of $1,500. Councilman Roth seconded the motion. Before a vote was taken, Mayor Pro Tem Overholt invited Mr. Guerena to elaborate on the plans for the coming Fiesta. At the conclusion, Councilwoman Kaywood noted that in one part of the March 16, 1981 report it indicated the Fiesta would be held Thursday, April 30 through Sunday, May 3, 1981, whereas in another part of the report it indicated Friday through Sunday. She asked which was correct. Mr. Guerena explained that the Parks & Recreation Department was holding the carnival Thursday, Friday, Saturday and Sunday, whereas the Cinco De Mayo Fiesta Coronation of the Queen was going to take place on Friday evening. Councilman Roth then stated that he almost made a commitment to himself after the problem had occurred at the Fiesta last year not to support it this year. He had since changed his mind. He was going to count on Mr. Guerena and the leadership in the community to assure there would be no problems between citizens or outsiders and the Police Department because it was unconscionable to him to approve funds for the Fiesta and then to have a police problem such as had occurred last year. He was going to support approval again, but it would be the last year if the same problem should arise. He reiterated if he was on the Council next year and there was a problem l. etween the Police and the people participating, he would no longer be able to support the Cinco de Mayo Fiesta. Mr. Guerena stated he would also give his commitment, if there was a problem, he would not be before the Council next year asking for support. Assistant City Manager William T. Hopkins stated his was a request for $1,500 in addition to the amount already budgeted through the Parks and Recreation Department of $2,610. Staff was, therefore, recommending that the $1,500 be appropriated from the Council Contingency Fund and receipts be submitted by the Con~nittee, so that the City would have a record of the cost supported by the $1,500. 81-527 City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - March 31, 1981, 1:30 P.M. Mayor Pro Tem Overholt stated that would be a part of his motion. Councilwoman Kaywood asked Mr. Guerena if he understood there was to be an accounting for the $1,500; Mr. Guerena answered "yes". A vote was the taken on the foregoing motion as amended. Councilman Seymour was temporarily absent. Councilman Bay was absent. MOTION CAi~RIED. RECESS - CLOSED SESSION: The Mayor had previously requested a Closed Session to discuss a personnel matter with no action anticipated; the City Attorney also requested a Closed Session to discuss litigation with action anticipated and potential litigation with no action anticipated. Councilman Roth moved to recess into Closed Session. Councilman Overholt seconded the motion. Councilman Seymour was temporarily absent. Councilman Bay was absent. MOTION CARRIED. (2:40 P.M.) AFTER RECESS: Mayor Seymour called the meeting to order, all Council Members being present, with the exception of Councilman Bay. (3:24 P.M.) 112: CLARK VS. HERTZ RENT-A-CAR: On motion by Councilman Seymour, seconded by Councilman Overholt, the City Attorney was authorized to settle Orange County Superior Court Case No. 28-25-87, Clark vs. Hertz Rent-A-Car, for the sum of $27,000. Councilman Bay was absent. MOTION CARRIED. CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2130: Application by City of Anaheim, to permit a 157-foot high hotel and accessory uses on CR and -PR zoned property located at the northwest corner of Convention Way and Harbor Boulevard, with a Code waiver of minimum number of parking spaces. The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC81-2, reported that EIR No. 238 was certified by the Anaheim City'Council on November 18, 1980 in connection with the hotel lease and the Anaheim City Planning Commission did review and consider the contents of said report and finds that the proposed project is within the scope of said Environmental Impact Report No. 238 and further, granted Conditional Use Permit No. 2130 in part, subject to seven conditions: 1. That appropriate water assessment fees, as determined by the Director of Public Utilities, shall be paid to the City of Anaheim prior to the issuance of a bu~ld±ng permit. 2. That the owner(x) of subject property shall pay the traffic signal assess- ment fee in (Ordinance No. 3896~ ~n an amount as determined by the City Council, for each new dwelling unit prior to the issuance of a building permit. 3. That raised medians shall be installed in Harbor Boulevard to control vehicular access to subject property as required by the City Traffic Engineer. 4. That trash storage areas shall be provided in accordance with approved plans on file with the Office of the Director of Public Works. Said trash areas shall be adequately screened from adjoining public right-of-ways, all vehicular access- ways to the aid trase enclosures shall not exceed a ~0% grade, and the overhead clearance at the trash enclosures shall not be less than 28 feet. 5. That subject property shall be developed substantially in accordance with plans and specifications on file with the City of Anaheim marked Exhibit Nos. 1 81-528 City Hall~ Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - March 31~ 1981, 1:30 P.M. through 17, provided, however, (a) that the design and location of all drive- ways and parkways shall be in accordance with requirements of the City Traffic Engineer, (b) that the maximum over-all building height shall not exceed the height specified by the Anaheim Commercial Recreation Area Height Standard Guideline, and (c) that ?parking shall be provided for a minimum of thirty-two percent (32%) of the 3854 parking spaces required for ~he specific development proposal° 6. That because the City of Anaheim wishes to retain the Arena as the trade- mark of the Convention Center, the greates possible visibility shall be main- tained along Katella Avenue and, therefore, any above-ground level parking in the northerly parking lot of the Convention Center shall be constructed in accordance ~ith,.th~ sn~cif~cat~ons of the Community Center Authority. 7. That Condi~ion:;Nos. 3, 4, and 5, above-mentioned, shall be complied with prior to final building and zoning inspections. At th=. Planning Commission meeting of February 9, 1981, the Commission adopted Resolution No. PC81-41 amending Resolution No. PC81-2, nunc pro tunc, in connection with Conditional Use Permit No. 2130 specifically amending Condition No. 5 as follows: "5. That subject property shall be developed substantially in accor- dance with plans and specifications on file with the City of Anaheim marked Exhibit Nos. 1 through 17, provided, however, (a) that the design and location of all driveways and parkways shall be in accordance with requirements of the City Traffic Engineer, (b) that the maximum overall building height shall not exceed the height specified by the Anaheim Commercial Recreation Area Height Standard Guideline, and (c) that parking shall be provided for a minimum of sixty-eight percent (68%) of the 3854 parking spaces required for the specific development proposal." A review of the Planning Commission's decision was requested by Councilman Bay at the meeting of February 3, 1981, and public hearing scheduled and con- tinued from February 24, 1981 (see minutes that date). City Clerk Linda Roberts announced that staff requested an eight-week continu- ance on the subject matter. On motion by Councilwoman Kaywood, seconded by Councilman Overholt, public hearing on Conditional Use Permit No. 2130 was continued to May 26, 1981, at 3:00 P.M. Councilman Bay was absent. MOTION CARRIED. PUBLIC HEARING - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2169 AND NEGATIVE DECLARATION: Application by Orange County Water District, to permit a private recreational fishing facility with on-sale beer and wine on RS-A-43,000 zoned property located on 4060 East La Palma Avenue. The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC81-34, declared that the subject project be exempt from the requirement to prepare an environmental impact report pursuant to the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act since there would be no significant individual or cumulative adverse environ- mental impact due to this project and further, granted Conditional Use Permit No. 216R, subject to the following conditions: 1. That trash storage areas shall be provided in accordance with approved plans on file with the Office of the Executive Director of Public Works. 81-529 City Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - March 31, 1981, 1:30 P.M. 2. That the radius of the driveway approach to subject property shall be increased and the proposed ticket booth shall be relocated in accordance with the requirements of the Traffic Engineer. 3. That subject property shall be developed substantially in accordance with plans and specifications on file with the City of Anaheim marked Exhibit No. 1. 4. That Condition Nos. 1, 2 and 3, above-mentioned, shall be complied with prior to final building and zoning inspections, or prior to commencement of the activity herein approved, whichever occurs first. A review of the Planning Commission's decision was requested by Councilwoman Kaywood at the meeting of February 24, 1981 and public hearing scheduled this date. The Mayor asked if the applicant or applicant's agent was present. Mr. Douglas Elliot, 497 South Country Hill Road, agent and lessee for the owners and lessors, Orange County Water District, was present. Councilwoman Kaywood stated she thought the facility and the idea were excellent, but had some problem and concern with the beer and wine. That was the only reason she set the matter for a public hearing. Directing her question to the City Attorney, she wanted to know whether the City would have any liability in the case of an accident or altercation by someone on the premises by having granted the CUP. City Attorney Hopkins answered they did not feel the City would have any liability. The possibility was clear that someone might file a lawsuit, but they felt they had good defenses in the form of immunities under the Govern- ment Code and that all they were approving was a zoning action. The operator of the facility would be liable for any damages or injuries. Councilwoman Kaywood stated that was her main concern. She noted also that there was only going to be one employee on duty in a vehicle for the whole facility. She asked if someone would continue to serve beer and wine if they looked like they had too much to drink. Mr. Elliot explained it was not a place where people went to get drunk. Also, they would not be carrying wine, but only cold beer. They had no experiences at Lrvine Lake where they ever had to throw an intoxicated person out, nor had there ever been any problems or fights. He did not anticipate having such problems at the subject fishing facility either. He also explained for Councilman Overholt that the fishermen were not required to buy food, beverages, snacks, bait, etc. at the facility, but could bring their own. It was just a matter that those items would be available at the facility for those who wished them. Councilwoman Kaywood stated she had no other problems relative to the requested CUP. Councilman Roth thereupon commended Mr. Elliot and the people he represented for providing such a fine facility. It was definitely filling a community need, especially for young people, in providing them a place to fish. Councilman Overholt also commented that he felt it was a tremendous facility. 81-530 City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - March 31, 1981~ 1:30 P.M. The Mayor asked if anyone wished to speak either in favor or in opposition; there being no response, he closed the public hearing. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT - NEGATIVE DECLARATION: On motion by Councilwoman Kaywood, seconded by Councilman Roth, the City Council finds that this project would have no significant individual or cumulative adverse environmental impact since the Anaheim General Plan designates the subject property for water conser- vation 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 en- vironmental impacts and is, therefore, exempt from the requirement to prepare an EIR. Councilman Bay was absent. MOTION CARRIED. Councilwoman Kaywood offered Resolution No. 81R-155 for adoption, granting a Conditional Use Permit No. 2169, subject to the City Planning Commission condi- tions. Refer to Resolution Book. RESOLUTION NO. 81R-155: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM GRANTING CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2169. Roll Call Vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: COUNCIL MEMBERS: COUNCIL MEMBERS: 0verholt, Kaywood, Roth and Seymour None Bay The Mayor declared Resolution No. 81R-155 duly passed and adopted. PUBLIC HEARING - VARIANCE NO. 3200: Application by Angelo M. Casella, et al, to retain a billboard on ML zoned property located at 3093 East Miraloma Avenue, with a Code waiver of minimum setback from intersection. The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC81-40, reported that the Planning Director has determined that the proposed activity falls within the definition of Section 3.01, Class 3 of the City of Anaheim guide- lines to the requirements for an environmental impact report and is, therefore, categorically exempt from the requirement to file an EIR and further denied Variance No. 3200. The decision of the Planning Commission was appealed by Mr. Jose Tavera, and public hearin§ scheduled this date. The Mayor asked if Mr. Tavera was present. Mr. Jose Tavera, 3219 Miraloma Avenue, operator of the La-Cabana Restaurant, stated approximately one and erie-half years ago they purchased the restaurant located on Miraloma which at the time was quite run down. They had since in- vested several thousands of dollars to bring the restaurant up to par to service the industrial park employees. They served lunch and dinner and were open from 11:00 a.m. until 9:00 p.m., seven days a week. There were many people who did not know where Miraloma was located and, therefore, they found a need to erect a sign. He subsequently contacted the property owner of the corner of Kraemer and Miraloma where an old "beat up" sign, not used for many years, was located. 81-531 City Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - March 31, 1981, 1:30 P.M. The owner indicated if he (Tavera) could get approval, he would give him the sign. He then contacted the City and spoke to a Mr. Nutto and explained to him exactly where the sign was located and gave a description of the sign. He asked if it would be okey to put a new facing on the sign. Mr. Nutto agreed and said no permit was necessary because it was an existing sign. Based on that infor- mation, he proceeded to have the sign people install a sign comparable to the one in front of his business with regard to colors. A couple of days later, a City inspector came by and asked that the sign be taken down immediately. They felt it was necessary to have the sign because the restaurant was difficult to spot. He then applied to the City but the sign variance was subsequently denied by the Planning Commission and he was, therefore, appealing to the City Council in order to have the sign remain. Councilman Roth stated he made a special effort to locate the restaurant and was surprised how difficult it was to find Miraloma off of Kraemer. Finally he saw the sign which permitted him to find the restaurant. He also visited the restaurant and commended Mr. Tavera on its beautiful appearance. With the obvious investment involved, it was necessary to have a directional sign. While he did not want to start a precedent of oversigning in the industrial area, he felt there should be a compromise in the present situation, especially considering the fact that information was received indicating it was okey to utilize the sign. Evidently there was a misunderstanding because he found out in talking to Planning Director Ron Thompson, the misunderstanding being, they thought the sign was on his (Tavera's) property. He subsequently proceeded in good faith on information provided that he could use the sign, made the $1,500 investment in the sign and after a week, was asked to take it down. He, too, would have gone the same route in asking for a variance. He (Roth) felt it was necessary not only for his business, but also consideration should be given due to the fact that Mr. Tavera was advised that he could proceed by staff. He felt it was a communication problem. Perhaps there should be some way when they receive telephone calls relative to signing in the industrial area that they should not give a verbal opinion over the telephone, but have the person come to City Hall and show the location as to where the signs were going to be in order to avoid the problem. He could not deny Mr. Tavera the right to have the sign after he had been told it was okey and considering the investment involved, not only in the sign, but also in the refurbishing of the restaurant. Mayor Seymour stated if he understood properly, the sign was not located on the restaurant property but on the vacant property at the corner of Kraemer and Miraloma. Miss Santalahti answered that was correct and the advertisement relative to the variance was considered as a billboard, an off-site advertising sign. Tha variance was the setback required for a billboard. It was technically a legitimate billboard location, except it was too close to the intersection. The property had been a service station and had two other zoning actions on it. The Mayor asked Mr. Tavera in the event the property should be opened again for another business and that business would require that sign, what would happen to his sign. Mr. Tavera answered that he discussed the matter with the landlord and the present lessor. They made a verbal agreement that whenever the owner wanted To put up a sign, he would have to give up his sign, and he would take it down. 81-532 City Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - March 31~ 1981~ 1:30 P.M. The Mayor then stated he would have no problem going along with Councilman Roth's position, provided Mr. Tavera would agree and stipulate that in the event there was a request for the sign, that he would agree his sign would come down. Mr. Tavera stated that he would definitely stipulate to that. Councilwoman Kaywood felt they were treading on dangerous ground. Whether it was stated there was no precedent or not, in fact, a certain problem would be established with an off-site advertising sign. She realized it was unfor- tunate that information was given over the phone talking about two different location that created the problem. On the other hand, there were many marginal businesses within the industrial area who would very much like to have an off- site advertising sign and no doubt it would help them too. The next thing, they would have the problem which they had in the past. When Mr. Tavera bought the restaurant, he knew that the location was difficult to find. The only way she could go along with the request, inasmuch as Mr. Tavera did make an investment in the sign, would be to grant it only for a six-month period, so he could get his advertising money out of it, with no sign after that. The Mayor asked if anyone else wished to speak. Mr. Jim Roundtree, Newport Beach, stated he owned the property directly across from the abandoned gas station. A couple of years ago, he developed the property on the northeast corner, three very attractive buildings, and upgraded the prop- erty. He personally did not care for the sign. It was not attractive for the area or the corner, the pole was painted Chartreuse, and it did not enhance the area. He was concerned relative to the dollars he had spent in the area to up- grade and come up with better looking property. He questioned the legality of the off-site sign. He reiterated, he was against the sign. He did not think it was legal or added to the attractiveness of the neighborhood that they were looking for in that area. As a property owner, his concern was for the overall appearance of the area, and he did not think it was in the best interest of the industrial community. Discussion then followed between the Mayor and Mr. Roundtree relative to the sign, the Mayor's point being, whether the Council said yes or no to the variance, the pole and sign box would still remain, the only difference being that the advertising copy in the sign would be removed. Councilwoman Kaywood stated she felt Mr. Roundtree had every right to be con- cerned with everything that went into that area, considering the large invest- ment he had made in his property. She then questioned staff relative to how many r~quests they received from the area. Since there were many businesses that were difficult to find, she knew it was going to cause a problem. Miss Santalahti explained technically as previously stated, the location would allow billboards set back 50 feet from both streets and the intersection. Legally, it could be accomplished per Code. They did not receive many requests on variances. Normally, they found another way of complying with Code and getting the advertising needed. The Mayor then asked if anyone wished to speak. Ms, Kris Flynn, Field Representative to Senator John Briggs, stated she first started out representing her employer, but was now speaking as an individual after hearing Mr. Roundtree speak. Relative to the subject sign, it was Mr. 81-533 City Hall, Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - March 31, 1981~ 1:30 P.M. Roundtree's personal opinion as to the appearance. He was objecting to the copy. The sign, before it was refurbished, was a torn, off-white sign that was "awful" and it made the property look even worse. Now, Mr. Tavera was going to have to pay for an error that Mr. Nutto made. He was told by Mr. Tavera where the sign was located. On November 3, 1980, she talked to Mr. Thompson, the Planning Director, and he talked to Mr. Nutto who knew exactly where the sign was. He said he just made an error and that if Mr. Tavera paid $150 for a variance, he could have the sign. That was why she advised Mr. Tavera to apply for the variance. The sign was a very attractive one. Mayor Seymour asked Miss Santalahti if she could confirm or not confirm what Miss Flynn had stated relative to Mr. Nutto either knowing or not knowing that the sign they were talking about was or was not on the property where the restaurant was located. Miss Santalahti answered that sign information was typically given through the Building Division and that apparently did happen in this case. It was easy to understand as Councilman Roth described it because it happened all the time. People did not come in, they gave information over the phone--staff thought they understood what the person was saying, the person calling heard what they wanted to hear, and it would end up with everybody being happy with the wrong information. ~n this case, the Enforcement Officer picked up the violation within a day or two because off-site advertising was very easy to find when enforcing in one given area. She did not know for sure if the person who was asked the question by the petitioner knew that it was an off-site sign, but she could see a mistake like that happening. Ms. Flynn stated if they had a question on that, they should speak to Mr. Ron Thompson. She then recounted for the Mayor the communication that transpired with Mr. Thompson (letter dated March 12, 1981 to Mayor Seymour from Senator Brigss attached to which was a letter of November 5, 1980 giving the history and background of the problem, also outlining the contact that took place with City staff), concluding with the statement that on Monday morning, November 3, 1980, Mr. Thompson called her at her office. He had checked out the sign and the property upon which it was located and, yes, the Planning Department had made an error. Mr. Nutto had told Mr. Tavera he did not need a permit because this had now become an off-site advertising sign. Miss Santalahti stated she was certain that statement was not correct because off-site advertising, except as a billboard, was not allowed any place in the City. Ms. Flynn stated that Mr. Thompson said Mr. Tavera could do one of two things, either move the sign or pay $150 for a variance. He explained to her the procedures for going through a variance. The reason they opted for the variance was that it would save Mr. Tavera the cost of moving a sign and building a new sign 50 feet back or whatever the regulations would cost which would be more expensive than the variance. Councilman Overholt asked if he assured her that the variance would be granted; Ms. Flynn answered "no" he did not. Mr. Nutto told Mr. Thompson that he did make the error and Mr. Thompson, in turn, told her that on November 3, 1980. 81-534 City Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - March 31, 1981~ 1:30 P.M. Miss Santalahti stated she had misunderstood. Ms. Flynn was saying when it became on off-site sign, then that was when the error was made, because an off- site should not have been approved. That was correct. The Mayor asked if anyone wished to speak; there being no response, he gave .Mr. Tavera an opportunity to rebut or to add anything to his testimony. Mr. Tavera noted that Mr. Roundtree mentioned the color of the sign. He would be happy to paint the pole a different color, whatever color Mr. Roundtree wished. The sign originally was covered with wood letters, half of them broken. The building they moved into (the restaurant) was originally redwood cabin- type siding; they removed that and plastered it. They had approximately $900,000 invested in the restaurant. They also owned the property. It was not just a little business. He was in partnership with others and they were trying to get acquainted with the industrial community. As in any business, they needed more customers all the time in order to exist. There being no further persons who wished to speak, the Mayor closed the public hearing. The Mayor then called upon Mr. Thompson for any light he could shed on the matter. Mr. Ron Thompson, Planning Director, explained upon hearing from Senator Briggs' office, he checked with the individual who gave the information. It appeared to him (Thompson) that an error was made by staff. He could not really tell if there was insufficient information communicated to the staff, but there was an error made. The sign on the corner, as Miss Santalahti indicated, would be appropriate for an on-site advertising sign, but it would not be appropriate for an off-site sign. He reiterated it appeared to him that an error had been made and the only two ways to rectify the error would be to process the variance or to move the sign. Councilman Overholt stated Ms. Flynn was indicating that his staff member made an error. It sounded to him like there was a misunderstanding, whether or not it was a misunderstanding on the part of staff or the applicant, they did not know. Mr. Thompson confirmed they really did not know. In Mr. Tavera's opinion, he gave all the information that was necessary. Councilwoman Kaywood asked the City Attorney if the variance went with the land; City Attorney Hopkins answered "yes". Mayor Seymour also asked the City Attorney, if the variance were approved, would it go with the restaurant land or with the land on which the sign was located. City Attorney Hopkins answered that he had not seen the sign, but would say it would go with the land upon which the sign was located. Mayor Seymour thereupon asked if the sign sitting on the land was legal other than another person advertising on it, then, in fact, the variance as it per- tained to the sign upon which land it was located, was a moot question. 81-535 City Hall, Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - March 31~ 1981~ 1:30 P.M. The City Attorney explained the variance was for the sign on that land and the applicant was applying for that particular section. He would say that the applicant would have to have the variance in order to maintain it. Mayor Seymour asked if he sold the restaurant, would part of that be the variance and the right to use the sign. City Attorney Hopkins answered the person who owned the land was the person who had the variance. The variance for the sign itself and the copy on the sign was immaterial. Councilman Overholt stated perhaps the proper applicant was the owner of the land upon which the sign was located. When talking about signs, if the owner of the property was using it, it would be called a business sign and there was a Code provision covering that. In this case, they had a billboard and that owner had to look at it as if the owner of the corner was coming in and that owner might be the proper applicant and not Mr. Tavera. Miss Santalahti stated that the owner was, in fact, the applicant. Councilman Ore=holt stated then that they should consider it as the owner applying for a billboard and wanting a variance on that billboard. The Mayor then stated, the way to tie it down to insure that the owner would not have a permanent billboard right, was to attach stipulations and conditions that (1) if the property were developed in some other form of business that would require signing, the La-Cabana sign would go, or (2) in the event that the restaurant was no longer in existence, that the sign would go. That way they would be assured they had not created a permanent billboard that could be sold for another form of advertisement. Councilman O~erholt suggested that, (3), they could put a time limit on the use; Miss Sanatalahti stated also, that the specific copy as shown on the exhibits posted on the Chamberm wall be used. Mayor Seymour stated he agreed with what Councilman Roth had said. Relative to the concerns expressed by Mr. Roundtree, it was clear that his frustration was perhaps with wanting to see the existing structure removed and replaced with something else that was respectable looking. He (.Seymour) did not get that frustration mixed up with what the request was all about. There was a pole with a sign on top of it and it was going to be clear whether they said "yes" or "no". Mr. Tavera was trying to protect his $~00,000 investment by putting some copy on top. If they ~aid "no" to Mr. Tavera, they would mot have helped out Mr. Roundtree and his objection. If they said "yes", there would be a slight ~mprovement in the situation. He was not concerned that they were destroying the industrial integrity by merely permitting somebody the right to put some copy on an already existing sign. On the other hand, he would be concerned if the property owner came in indicating that they had granted a variance for the La-Cabana Restaurant and now there was another business opening on that corner needing another sign variance for another sign on the pole, Mr. Tavera had already agreed, if that should happen, his sign would go. They also would want to be sure that they did not approve a permanent billboard. If they gould tie those down, he would be totally supportive of the request. 81-536 City Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - March 31~ 1981, 1:30 P.M. Councilwoman Kaywood noted one other point. She asked if Mr. Tavera were to sell the restaurant to someone else, how that would affect the sign. Mayor Seymour stated it was his understanding that Mr. Tavera had a tenuous agreement with the owner, a verbal agreement, if the sign were asked to be removed, it would be removed. Perhaps that was a legal question for Mr. Tavera to answer if and when he should sell his restaurant. Councilwoman Kaywood stated she was thinking about it from the City's point of view. Should that be up to Mr. Tavera or up to the City, that as long as he owned the restaurant, that particular copy would be acceptable. Mayor Seymour asked if she would support the request if that were so; Council- woman Kaywood answered "yes". Councilman Overholt then asked Mr. Roundtree if there was any way that they could satisfy him and yet ease the burden on Mr. Tavera. Mr. Roundtree answered that he was not that "super" concerned about the looks of the sign. If there was any way of eliminating the sign, that was what he was looking for. He was not opposed to him as a businessman. He also did not care to get into the selection of colors for the pole or the design. He reiterated, that he did not think it was good for the area and questioned if they were getting into an area that he would not like the City to get into. He would not like to see the Codes or laws stretched. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT - CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION: On motion by Councilman Seymour, seconded by Councilman Roth, the City Council ratified the determination of the Planning Director that the proposed activity falls within the definition of Section 3.01, Class 3, 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 E~R. Councilman Bay was absent. MOTION CARRIED. Councilman Seymour thereupon offered Resolution No. 81R-156 for adoption, granting Variance No. 3200 reversing the findings of the City Planning Commission, and subject to the following stipulations: (1) in the event the subject property on which the sign is located is developed into any use requiring signing by the property owner, Variance No. 3200 would cease; (2) in the event that Mr. Tavera should sell his restaurant, then Variance No. 3200 would cease. Refer to Resolution Book. RESOLUTION NO. 81R-156: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM GRANTING VARIANCE NO. 3200. Before a vote was taken, Councilman Overholt asked the present ownership of the restaurant; Mr. Tavera stated he and his partners owned the restaurant. There were four people involved. Councilman Overholt stated it was being represented that there were four partners. It seemed to him it might be well that the condition be specific. If there was any change of ownership, that Variance No. 3200 would cease also. The Mayor asked if that would also mean if Mr. Tavera bought out his partners, that would be a change of ownership; Councilman Overholt stated he would con- sider that a change of ownership. He asked Mr. Tavera if he would agree with that. 81-537 City Hall~ Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - March 31~ 1981, 1:30 P.M. Mr. Tavera answered that would be fine. Councilwoman Kaywood also felt that one of the items previously mentioned should be included--that the land owner on the corner not have a permanent billboard right and also that the variance would apply only to the particular sign copy as is, with no changes. Since some conditions had been added, the Mayor clarified the conditions pre- viously stated, as well as the additions as follows: (1) in the event the prop- erty on which the sign was located developed into any use requiring signing by the property owner, Variance No. 3200 would cease and the sign would have to be taken down; (2) in the event of change of ownership in the business, one of the partners wanted to sell to Mr. Tavera or someone else, Variance No. 3200 would cease; (3) that the owner's variance on the property would only go to Mr. Tavera and nobody else; (4) that the copy on the sign at present remain and not be changed. Mr. Tavera agreed to all of the foregoing conditions. would more than likely soften the colors on the sign. problem with the conditions. He also stated that they He repeated, he had no A vote was then take on the foregoing resolution, including the four conditions as articulated and agreed to. Roll Call Vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: COUNCIL MEMBERS: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Overholt, Kaywood, Roth and Seymour None Bay The Mayor declared Resolution No. 81R-156 duly passed and adopted. 108: DANCE CENTER WEST - REQUEST FOR AN EXTENSION OF TIME FOR PERIOD OF ABATE- MENT: Request by J. Kelvin Rogiers for an extension of time to the period of abatement for Dance Center West to be located at 2238-2240 Sequoia Avenue, as set forth in AMC subsection 18.89.040, was submitted. Councilman Seymour moved to grant the request of Dance Center West for an extension of the abatement period pursuant to Anaheim Municipal Code 18.89.040 for 2238-2240 Sequoia Avenue in order to prevent undue hardship which extension would run to December 20, 1982 as recommended in memorandum dated March 30, 1981 from the City Attorney. Councilwoman Kayw00d seconded the motion. Before a vote was taken, Councilman Overholt stated it seemed to him that based upon the City Attorney's recommendation, the proposed action was entirely appropriate. They previously had an extensive hearing on the question of hard- ship relative to Dance Center West (see minutes December 16, 1980). What they were presently doing, having determined that a hardship existed and having granted the extension to the period of abatement, they were merely saying Mr. Rogiers could still take advantage of that abatement even though he was moving to another location. City Attorney Hopkins confirmed what Councilman Overholt stated was correct. The period of abatement was originally approved for a location which subse- quently could not be utilized and now they were substituting another location. 81-538 City Hall, Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - March 31~ 1981~ 1:30 P.M. Councilman Overholt also noted in the previous lengthy hearing they took sworn testimony as they had done in all such cases. A vote was then taken on the foregoing motion. Councilman Bay was absent. MOTION CARRIED. CONSENT CALENDAR ITEMS: On motion by Councilman Roth, seconded by Councilman Seymour, the following actions were authorized in accordance with the reports and recommendations furnished each Council Member and as listed on the Consent Calendar Agenda: 1. 118: CLAIMS AGAINST THE CITY: The following claims were denied and referred to the City's Claims Administrator or allowed payment: a. Claim submitted by Larry D. Munsey for property damages purportedly sus- tained as a result of street light replacement activities, on or about December 27, 1980. bo Claim submitted by Bryan Cary for personal injury damages purportedly sus- tained as a result of slip-and-fall accident at Anaheim Stadium, on or about October 26, 1980. c. Claim submitted by Pacific Telephone for damages to property at Acacia and La Palma Avenues purportedly sustained as a result of storm drain construction activities on or about December 15, 1980. d. Claim submitted by Russ Ward Auto Body Shop for damages to vehicle purpor- 'redly sustained as a result of power lines blown down at 126 W. Elm Street, on or about February 21, 1981. e. Claim submitted by Joyce Russell Pichon for vehicular damages purportedly sustained as a result of hole in pavement in Orangethorpe Avenue, westbound, at Orangethorpe Park, on or about March 6, 198I. f. Claim submitted by David Frederick Reynolds for damages purportedly sustained as a result of false arrest and false imprisonment, on or about December 6, 1980. g, Claim submitted by Theodore Charles Salvin for damages purportedly sustained as a result of false arrest, illegal search and seizure and violation of civil and constitutional rights, on or about December 9, 1980. h. Claim submitted by Willis J. Barber for personal injury damages purportedly sustained as a result of wrongful arrest, assault and battery and imprisonment, on or about February 3, 1981. The following claims were allowed: i. Claim submitted by Carol H. Frank for vehicular damages purportedly sus- tained as a result of Fire Department equipment hitting claimant's vehicle parked in front of 1160 N. Gilbert Street, on or about December 16, 1981. j. Claim submitted by Marcella F. Geiger for vehicular damages purportedly sustained as. a ~esult of City vehicle backing into claimant's automobile on Via Burton near State College Boulevard, on or about December 15, 1980. 81-539 City Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - March 31, 1981, 1:30 P.M. 2. CORRESPONDENCE: The following correspondence was ordered received and filed: a. 105: Community Redevelopment Commission--Minutes of March 4, 1981. b. 140: Anaheim Public Library--Minutes of February 18, 1981. c. 140: Anaheim Public Library--Monthly Statistical Report for February 1981. d. 175: Public Utilities Department, Customer Service Division--Monthly Report for February 1981. e. 173: Before the Public Utilities Commission, Application No. 60181, in the matter of the application of Nippon Express U.S.A. Inc., a New York cor- poration, qualified to do business in California, for a Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity to operate as a passenger stage corporation pursuant to the provisions of Section 1031, et seq. of the California Public Utilities Code in the Counties of Alameda, Contra Costa, Fresno, Los Angeles, Marin, Mariposa, Merced, Monterey, Orange, Sacramento, San Diego, San Francisco, San Joaquin, San Mateo, Santa Clara, Santa Cruz, Solano, Sonoma Stanislaus, Tuolumne, and Yolo. f. 173: Before the Public Utilities Commission, Application Nos. 60015 and 60018, applications of Airport Service, Incorporated and Orange Coast Sight- seeing Company for authority to adjust their rates. g. 105: Golf Course Advisory Commission--Minutes of March 19, 1981. 3. 108: APPLICATION: In accordance with the recommendations of the Chief of Police, a Dinner-Dancing Place Permit was approved for the Rodeo, 1168 South State College Boulevard, for dancing Tuesday through Sunday, 8:00 p.m. to 1:30 a.m. (Jose T. Hernandez, applicant) Councilman Bay was absent. MOTION CARRIED. 108: ENTERTAINMENT PERMIT: Application by Jose Gusman Castellanos, Never on Sunday, 281Q West Lincoln Avenue, for several dancers on stage, seven nights a week, 8:00 p.m. to 2:Q0 a.m. Councilwoman Kaywood noted that the agenda indicated the hours of 8:00 p.m. to 2:00 a.m., and the application showed the hours of 10:00 a.m. to 2:00 a.m. City Mmnager Talley staked the permit did request 10:00 a.m. and that would 'prevail. Councilwoman Kaywood questioned if that was permitted. She thought that 7:00 p.m. was the earliest dancing was permitted; City Attorney Hopkins stated that he would check on the matter. Councilwoman Kaywood suggested that the matter be held over one week. She also asked if the Magnolia School District had removed their disapproval relative to the Never On Sunday establishment. They had objected before, and she wanted to know if they were no longer objecting. City Clerk Roberts answered that to her understanding, their objection would continue. 81-540 City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - March 31, 1981, 1:30 P.M. MOTION: Councilman Overholt moved to continue consideration of the subject Entertainment Permit for one week. Councilwoman Kaywood seconded the motion. Councilman Bay was absent. MOTION CARRIED. City Manager Talley asked for confirmation relative to direction to staff; Mayor Seymour stated that Councilwoman Kaywood wanted to know if it was legal to have dancing from 10:00 a.m. to 2:00 a.m. Councilwoman Kaywood also wanted to have clarified why there were two different times indicated and if the Magnolia School District was still objecting. City Manager Talley stated there was a mistake on the agenda since the written application clearly stated 10:00 a.m. to 2:00 a.m. The City Attorney could answer as to whether it was legitimate or not. He also understood that Councilwoman Kaywood wanted them to again contact the School District to see if they had any objection. He believed they would still have an objection, but they would contact them. The School District was concerned about the location and anything going on at the business. Mayor Seymour left the Council Chamber. assumed Chairmanship of the meeting. (4:30 P.M.) Mayor Pro Tern Overholt CONSENT CALENDAR ITEMS: Councilwoman Kaywood offered Resolution Nos. 81R-157 through 81R-160, 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. 169: RESOLUTION NO. 81R-157: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM FINDING AND DETERMINING THAT PUBLIC CONVENIENCE AND NECESSITY REQUIRE THE CONSTRUCTION AND COMPLETION OF A PUBLIC IMPROVEMENT, TO WIT: CARBON CREEK BIKEWAY - PHASE I - CRESCENT TO GILBERT, IN THE CITY OF ANAHEIM, ACCOL~T NO. 17-798-6325-E8010; APPROVING THE DESIGNS, PLANS, PROFILES, DRAWINGS, AND SPECI- FICATIONS FOR THE CONSTRUCTION THEREOF; AUTHORIZING THE CONSTRUCTION OF SAID PUBLIC IMPROVEMENT IN ACCORDANCE WITH SAID PLANS, SPECIFICATIONS, ETC.; AND AUTHORIZING AND DIRECTING THE CITY CLERK TO PUBLISH A NOTICE INVITING SEALED PROPOSALS FOR THE CONSTRUCTION THEREOF. (Bids to be opened on April 23, 1981, at 2:00 p,m.) 169: RESOLUTION NO. 81R-158: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM FINDING AND DETERMINING THAT PUBLIC CONVENIENCE AND NECESSITY REQUIRE THE CONSTRUCTION AND COMPLETION OF A PUBLIC IMPROVEMENT, TO WIT: NOfIL RANCH ROAD STREET IMPROVEMENT, IN THE CITY OF ANAHEIM, ACCOUNT NO. 12-792-6325-E2680; APPROVING THE DESIGNS, PLANS, PROFILES, DRAWINGS, AND SPECIFICATIONS FOR THE CONSTRUCTION THEREOF; AUTHORIZING THE CONSTRUCTION OF SAID PUBLIC IMPROVEMENT IN ACCORDANCE WITH SAID PLANS, SPECIFICATIONS, ETC.; AND AUTHORIZING AND DIRECTING THE CITY CLERK TO PUBLISH A NOTICE INVITING SEALED PROPOSALS FOR THE CONSTRUCTION THEREOF. (Bids to be opened on April 30, 1981, at 2:00 p.m.) 104: RESOLUTION NO. 81R-15R: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM FINDING AND DETERMINING THAT PUBLIC CONVENIENCE AND NECESSITY REQUIRE THE CONSTRUCTION AND COMPLETION OF A PUBLIC IMPROVEMENT, TO WIT: STREET LIGHTING 81-541 City Ha.ll~ Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - March 31~ 1981~ 1:30 P.M. ASSESSMENT DISTRICT NO. 1980-7, TRACT NO. 2875, IN THE CITY OF ANAHEIM, ACCOUNT NO. 24-676-6329-11410-37300; APPROVING THE DESIGNS, PLANS, PROFILES, DRAWINGS, AND SPECIFICATIONS FOR THE CONSTRUCTION THEREOF; AUTHORIZING THE CONSTRUCTION OF SAID PUBLIC IMPROVEMENT IN ACCORDANCE WITH SAID PLANS, SPECIFICATIONS, ETC.; AND AUTHORIZING AND DIRECTING THE CITY CLERK TO PUBLISH A NOTICE INVITING SEALED PROPOSALS FOR THE CONSTRUCTION THEREOF. (Bids to be opened on April 30, 1981, at 2:00 p.m.) 169: RESOLUTION NO. 81R-160: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM FINDING AND DETERMINING THAT PUBLIC CONVENIENCE AND NECESSITY REQUIRE THE CONSTRUCTION AND COMPLETION OF A PUBLIC IMPROVEMENT, TO WIT: REPLACEMENT OF INCANDESCENT STREET LIGHTS WITH HIGH PRESSURE SODIUM LUMINAIRES, IN THE CITY OF ANAHEIM, ACCOUNT NO. 24-677-6329-11510-37300; APPROVING THE DESIGNS, PLANS, PROFILES, DRAWINGS, AND SPECIFICATIONS FOR THE CONSTRUCTION THEREOF; AUTHORIZING THE CONSTRUCTION OF SAID PUBLIC IMPROVEMENT IN ACCORDANCE WITH SAID PLANS, SPECIFICATIONS, ETC.; AND AUTHORIZING AND DIRECTING THE CITY CLERK TO PUBLISH A NOTICE INVITING SEALED PROPOSALS FOR THE CONSTRUCTION THEREOF. (Bids to be opened on April 30, 1981, at 2:00 p.m.) Roll Call Vote: AYES: NOES: TEMPORARILY ABSENT: ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: COUNCIL MEMBERS: COUNCIL MEMBERS: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Kaywood, Roth and Overholt None Seymour Bay The Mayor Pro Tem declared Resolution Nos. 81R-157 through 81R-160, both inclusive, duly passed and adopted. CITY PLANNING COMMISSION ITEMS: The following actions taken by the City Planning Commission at their meeting held March 9, 1981, pertaining to the following applications, as listed on the Consent Calendar, were submitted for City Council information. 1. RECLASSIFICATION NO. 80-81-23 AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2170 (READ- VERTISED): Submitted by Title Insurance and Trust Company, for a change in zone from RS-A-43,Q00 to CL, to permit a 45-unit motel on property located at 147 South Beach Boulevard, with various Code waivers. The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC81-50 and 51, granted Reclassification No. 80-81-23 and Conditional Use Permit No. 2170, and granted a negative declaration ~tatus. 2. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 1555 (READVERTISED): Submitted by Dick Van Eck, requesting deletion of Condition No. 2 of Planning Commission Resolution No. PC75-174 pertaining to outdoor mechanical maintenance for ML zoned property located at 3554 East Miraloma Avenue. Conditional Use Permit No. 1555 was withdrawn by the petitioner; a negative declaration was previously approved on September 9, 1975. 3. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2181: Submitted by Brookmore Arms, to permit on-sale alcoholic beverages in an eximting restaurant on CL zoned property located at 8Q8 South Brookhurst Street. 81-542 City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - March 31, 1981, 1:30 P.M. The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC81-52, granted Con- ditional Use Permit No. 2181, and ratified the Planning Director's categorical exemption determination. 4. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2182: Submitted by Robert M. Tepper, et al, to permit a cocktail lounge on CL zoned property located at 3436 West Lincoln Avenue, with a Code waiver of minimum number of parking spaces. The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC81-53, granted Con- ditional Use Permit No. 2182, and granted a negative declaration status. 5. VARIANCE NO. 3202: Submitted by Maria Valdez Salazar, et al, to construct a detached dwelling unit on RM-1200 zoned property located at 1016 North Patt Street, with various Code waivers. The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC81-54, granted Variance No. 3202, and granted negative declaration. 6. 170: TENTATIVE TRACT NO. 9815 (REVISION NO. 1) - EXTENSION OF TIME: Sub- mitted by Salkin Engineering Corporation, requesting an extension of time to Tentative Tract No. 9815, to permit a 1-lot, 35-unit condominium subdivision on RS-A-43,000 zoned property located on the north side of Simmons Avenue, east of Haster Street. The City Planning Commission approved an extenmion of time to Tentative Tract No. 9815, to expire March 10, 1982. 7. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 1229 - EXTENSION OF TIME: Submitted by Charles Talmage, requesting an extension of time to Conditional Use Permit No. 1229, to establish a storage facility for boats, trailers, and recreational vehicles with various Code waivers on ML zoned property located at 2280 East Katella Avenue. The City Planning Commission approved an extension of time to Conditional Use Permit No. 1229, to expire April 5, 1986. 8. RECLASSIFICATION NO. 78-79-32 AND VARIANCE NO. 3078 - EXTENSIONS OF TIME: Submitted by David Whitehead, requesting extensions of time to Reclassification No. 78-7~-32 and Variance No. 3078, to establish a 3-lot, RS-HS-22,000 zoned subdivision with a Code waiver of minimum lot area on property located at 21082 Santa Ama Canyon Road (illl $. Martin). The City Planning Commission approved extenmions of time to Reclassification No. 78-7~-32 and Variance No. 3078, to expire Fe ~uary 26, 1982. ~. RECLASSIFICATION NO. 77-78-45 - EXTENSION OF TIME: Submitted by Calvin Meekhof, requesting an extension of time to Reclassification No. 77-78-45, to permit an 8-unit apartment complex on proposed RM-1200 zoned property located on the west side of Western Avenue, north of Ball Road. The City Planning Commission approved an extension of time to Reclassification No. 77-78-45, to expire March 13, 1982. 10. VARIANCE NO. 3134 - EXTENSION OF TIME: Submitted by Duane Hlavnicka, requesting an extension of time to Variance No. 3134, t~ permit construction of a room addition on RS-A-43,O00 zoned property located at 2648 Russell Avenue. B1-543 City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - March 31, 1981, 1:30 P.M. The City Planning Commission approved an extension of time to Variance No. 3134, to expire February 25, 1982. 11. VARIANCE NO. 3030 - REQUEST FOR TERMINATION: Submitted by Clyde E. Stire$, requesting termination of Variance No. 3030, to permit the construction of a commercial building on CG zoned property located at 351 North Wilshire Avenue. The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC81-55, terminated Variance No. 3030. 12. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 269 - REQUEST FOR TERMINATION: Submitted by Gordon R. Gray, requesting termination of Conditional Use Permit No. 269, to permit a walk-up restaurant on CL zoned property located west of the northwest corner of Ball Road and Gilbert Street. The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC81-56, terminated Conditional Use Permit No. 269. 13. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 16t9 - APPROVAL OF SPECIFIC USE: Submitted by Laurie L. Spink, requesting approval of the specific use, to permit a hair styling salong, under Conditional Use Permit No. i619, on CO zoned property located at 503 West South Street. The City Planning Commission denied the specific use and deter,omed a public hearing would be required. No action was taken on the foregoing items, therefore the actions of the City Planning Commission became final. 130: ORDINANCE NO. 4214: Councilwoman Kaywood offered Ordinance No. 4214 for adoption. Refer to Ordinance Book. ORDINANCE NO. 4214: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AMENDING ORDINANCE NO. 4087 GRANTING THE NONEXCLUSIVE RIGHT, PRIVILEGE AND FRANCHISE TO LAY AND USE LINES, WIRES, COAXIAL CABLE AND APPURTENANCES FOR TRANSMITTING, RECEIVING, DISTRIBUTING AND SUPPLYING RADIO, TELEVISION AND OTHER CABLE COMMUNICATION SERVICES ALONG, ACROSS AND UPON THE PUBLIC STREETS, WAYS, ALLEYS, AND PLACES WITHIN SAID CITY OF ANAHEIM. Roll Call Vote: AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Kaywood, Roth and Overholt NOES.: COUNCIL MEMBERS: None TEMPORARILY ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Seymour ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Bay The Mayor Pro Tem declared Ordinance No. 4214 duly passed and adopted. 142/107: ORDINANCE NO. 4215: Councilman Overholt offered Ordinance No. 4215 for adoption. Refer to Ordinance Book. ORDINANCE NO. 4215: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AMENDING CHAPTER 15.50, TITLE 15, OF THE ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE BY REPEALING SECTION 15.50.513 AND ADDING A NEW SECTION 15.50.513 IN ITS PLACE AND STEAD RELATI-NG TO THE UNIFORM MECHANICAL CODE, (relating to the Noise Abatement section of the Uniform Mechanical Code) 81-544 City. Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - March 31, 1981, 1:30 P.M. Roll Call Vote: AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Kaywood, Roth and Overholt NOES: COLrb!CIL MEMBERS: None TEkPORARILY ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Seymour ABSENT: COUNCIL MEFJ~ERS: Bay The Mayor Pro Tem daclared Ordinance No. 4215 duly passed and adopted. ORDINANCE NO. 4216: Councilwoman Kaywood offered Ordinance No. 4216 for adoption. Refer to Ordinance Book. ORDINANCE NO. 4216: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AMENDING TITLE 18 OF THE ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO ZONING. (70-71-47(26), ML, Lakeview- Orangethorpe No. 5 Annexation) Roll Call Vote: AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Kaywood, Roth and Overholt NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: None TEMPORARILY ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Seymour ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Bay The Mayor Pro Tem declared Ordinance No. 4216 duly passed and adopted. 142/179: ORDINANCE NO. 4217: Councilman Roth offered Ordinance No. 4217 for first reading. ORDINANCE NO. 4217: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AMENDING SUBSECTION .0518 OF SECTION 18.31.020, SU~.SECTIONS .012 AND .020 OF SECTION 18.31.061, SUBSECTIONS .011, .012 AND ,032 OF SECTION 18.31.062, AND SUBSECTION .010 OF SECTION 18.31.066, AND ADDING NEW SUBSECTION .060 TO SECTION 18.31.050, AND NEW SUBSECTION .013 TO SECTION 18.31.062, OF CHAPTEr. 18.31 OF TITLE 18 OF THE ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO ZONING. (RM-3000 zone standards) 148: ALTERNATE ON SUBREGIONAL PLANNING COUNCIL: Councilwoman Kaywood stated as they were aware, she was Chairman of the Subregional Planning Council and it was necessary to have an alternate. She had thought that Councilman Overholt was her alternate. Apparently it was not necessary to have someone from the same City to serve as alternate and they were encouraging that someone from a City of similar population serve in that Overholt did not wish to serve, she would probably ask someone from the City of Huntington BeacL. Mayor Pro Tem Overholt recalled that Councilwoman Kaywood mentioned that he was the alters.ate, but he would be happy to resign to make way for another al- ternate. 148: SECOND CONFERENCE OF THE ORANGE COUNTY DIVISION LEAGUE OF CITIES: Coun- cilwoman Kaywood reported that the subject conference took place in Garden Grove on Saturday, March 28, 1981 which was on housing, lobbying and other topics. She then reported briefly on that conference. 81-545 Ci_tY Hall, Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES -o March 31, 1981, 1:30 P.M. RECESS - CLOSED SESSION: Councilwoman Kaywood moved to again recess into Closed Session in order to finish dicussions on a matter taken up at the earlier session. Councilman Overholt seccnded the motion. Councilman Seymour was temporarily absent. Councilman Bay was absent. MOTION CARRIED. (4:40 P.M.) AFTER RECESS: Mayor Seymour called the meeting to order, all Council Members being present, with the exception of Councilman Bay. (5:30 P.M,,) ADJOURNMENT: Councilman Roth moved to adjourn. Councilwoman Kaywood seconded the motion. Councilman Bay was absent. MOTIO~'I CARRIED. (5:30 P.M.) LINDA D. ROBERTS, CBTY CLERK