Loading...
1980/04/2980-561 C.i.ty Hall, Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - Apri.1 29~ 1980~ 1:30 .P..M. The City Council of the City of Anaheim met in regular session. PRESENT: ABSENT: PRESENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Overholt, Kaywood, Bay, Roth and Seymour COUNCIL MEMBERS: None CITY MANAGER: William O. Talley CITY ATTORNEY: William P. Hopkins DEPUTY CITY CLERK: Leonora N. Sohl FINANCE DIRECTOR: George P. Ferrone PUBLIC UTILITIES GENERALMANAGER: Gordon Hoyt HUMAN RESOURCES DIRECTOR: Garry McRae DEPUTY CITY MANAGER: James D. Ruth CITY ENGINEER: Willaim G. Devitt ASSISTANT DIRECTOR FOR ZONING: Annika Santalahti DEPUTY CITY ATTORNEY: Malcolm Slaughter SENIOR ACCOUNTANT - UTILITIES: Bob Mullen Mayor Seymour called the meeting to order and welcomed those in attendance to the Council meeting. INVOCATION: ReVerend Robert Campbell, First Presby.terian Church gave the Invocation. FLAG SALUTE: Councilwoman Miriam Kaywood led the assembly in the Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag. 119: PROCLAMATIONS: The following proclamations were issued by Mayor Seymour and authorized by the City Council: "Meals on Wheels Week" - May 4-10, 1980 "Respect for Law Week in Anaheim" - May 4-10, 1980 "Correct Posture Month" - May 1980 "Clean Air Week" - May 4-10, 1980 The Meals on Wheels proclamation was accepted by Mrs. Reynolds; Respect for Law Week by Dean Stockwell; Correct Posture Month by Dr. Lowry Morton, and the Clean Air Week proclamation by Diane Masseh-Jones. MINUTES: Councilwoman Kaywood asked that approval of the minutes of October 2, 1979 be deferred. There was a statement contained therein indicating that there was a verbatim transcript on file of one portion of the minutes that the Council had not yet received. She also believed that a statement had been made which was not included in those minutes. Councilman Bay moved to defer approval of the minutes of October 2, 1979. Councilwoman Kaywood seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. Councilman Bay moved to approve the minutes of the regular meeting held February 5, 1980 subject to corrections. Councilman Roth seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. 80-562 City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - April 29, 1980~ 1:30 P.M. 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. MOTION CARRIED. FINANCIAL DEMANDS AGAINST THE CITY in the amount of $2,118,343.28, in accordance with the 1979-80 Budget, were approved. 123: SCOREBOARD SPONSOR - TOYOTA MOTORS: Councilman Overholt offered Resolution No. 80R-181 for adoption, as recommended in memorandum dated April 15, 1980 from the City Attorney's office authorizing a Scoreboard Sponsor Agreement with Toyota Motors, Inc., in the amount of $125,000 per year for a 10-year period for adver- tising rights on one trivision panel (three face) on the new scoreboard. Refer to Resolution Book. RESOLUTION NO. 80R-181: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM APPROVING THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF A SCOREBOARD SPONSOR AGREEMENT WITH TOYOTA MOTORS, INC. IN CONNECTION WITH ADVERTISING OF PRODUCTS IN THE ANAHEIM STADIUM, AND AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR AND CITY CLERK TO EXECUTE SAID AGREEMENT ON BEHALF OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM. Roll Call Vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: COUNCIL MEMBERS: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Overholt, Kaywood, Bay, Roth and Seymour None None The Mayor declared Resolution No. 80R-181 duly passed and adopted. 158: DIRECTOR'S DEED FOR STATE PARCEL NO. 980312-01-01: Councilman Seymour offered Resolution No. 80R-182 for adoption, as recommended in memorandum dated April 22, 1980, from the Executive Director of Community Development, Norm Priest, accepting a certain Director's Deed from the State Department of Transportation for property identified as State Parcel No. 980312-01-01, located at the northwest corner of Orangethorpe Avenue and Imperial Highway, and author- izing payment to the State, in the amount of $319,900 therefor. Refer to Resolution Book. RESOLUTION NO. 80R-182: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM ACCEPTING A CERTAIN DIRECTOR'S DEED. Roll Call Vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: COUNCIL MEMBERS: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Overholt, Kaywood, Bay, Roth and Seymour None None The Mayor declared Resolution No. 80R-182 duly passed and adopted. 80-563 Hall, Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - April 29, 1980, 1:30 P.M. 128: MONTHLY FINANCIAL STATEMENT - NINE MONTHS ENDED MARCH 31, 1980: Mr. George Ferrone, Finance Director, Gordon Hoyt, Public Utilities General Manager and Bob Mullen, Senior Accountant for the Utilities, clarified questions posed by Mayor Seymour relative to the Water Utility Fund (page 3 of the sUbject report). On motion by Councilman Roth, seconded by Councilman Overholt, the Monthly Financial Statement for the nine months ended March 31, 1980 was received and filed. MOTION CARRIED. 160: PURCHASE OF EQUIPMENT - ONE STANDARD MUNICIPAL FIRE PUMPER - BID NO. 3629: On motion by Councilwoman Kaywood, seconded by Councilman Overholt, the low bid of Seagrave Fire Apparatus Company was accepted and purchase authorized in the amount of $124,921, including tax, as recommended by the Purchasing Agent in his memorandum dated April 23, 1980. MOTION CARRIED. 123: OFFICE SPACE FOR THE CETA SERVICES DIVISION YOUTH PROGRAMS: Authorizing a lease agreement with E. Ray Noxsel, dba Noxsel's Investment Company, for office space at 1020 South Anaheim Boulevard, to house Summer Youth Employment Program CETA staff, at $750 per month for the period of 3une 1, 1980 through May 31,1981. Councilman Roth questioned why the CETA Services Division could not be accommodated in the new City Hall. Human Resources Director, Garry McRae confirmed, as outlined in his report dated April 23, 1980, that the majority of the CETA Services staff was going to be moving into the new City Hall. The space currently being retained at 1020 North Anaheim Boulevard was to accommodate the youth programs which were not planned for the new building and were being absorbed by the City temporarily for the first year. He did not know if there was any space available in the new City Hall. City Manager William Talley suggested that the matter be continued one week until staff was prepared to address the question. On motion by Councilman Seymour, seconded by Councilwoman Kaywood, consideration of the subject agreement was continued one week; staff to ascertain if the oper- ation could be accommodated in the new City Hall. MOTION CARRIED. 123: ORANGEWOOD AVENUE BRIDGE WIDENING - COOPERATIVE AGREEMENT NO. D80-027: On motion by Councilman Roth, seconded by Councilwoman Kaywood, a Cooperative Agreement No. D80-027 with the County was authorized to provide for sharing equally in the Orangewood Avenue Bridge Widening across the Santa Ana River with an estimated construction cost of $180,000. MOTION CARRIED. ' 123: RELOCATION OF EXISTING SANITARY'SEWER FACILITY - AGREEMENT NO. 7Ut-5259: Councilwoman Kaywood offered Resolution No. 80R-183 for adoption, as recommended in memorandum dated April 18, 1980, from the City Engineer, William Devitt, author- ~zing State Utilities Agreement No. 7Ut-5259, to provide for the relocation of existing sanitary sewer facilities in connection with the construction of the new Anaheim Boulevard/Haster Avenue Overcrossing of the Santa Ana Freeway. Refer to Resolution Book. ~ 80-564 City H~ll, ~naheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - April 29~ 1980, 1:30 P.M. RESOLUTION NO. 80R-183: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AUTHORIZING AND DIRECTING THE MAYOR AND CITY CLERK TO EXECUTE UTILITIES AGREEMENT NO. 7Ut-5259 WITH THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA. Roll Call Vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Overholt, Kaywood, Bay, Roth and Seymour COUNCIL MEMBERS: None COUNCIL MEMBERS: None The Mayor declared Resolution No. 80R-183 duly passed and adopted. 158: CONVEYANCE OF REAL PROPERTY - WEST SIDE HARBOR BOULEVARD~ SOUTH OF RIVER- SIDE FREEWAY: Councilman Roth offered Resolution No. 80R-184 for adoption, as recommended in memorandum dated April 22, 1980, from the City Engineer, author- izing the conveyance of certain real property located at the west side of Harbor Boulevard, south of the Riverside Freeway, to Pargas, Inc. (formerly Horn Propane, Inc.). Refer to Resolution Book. RESOLUTION NO. 80R-184: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM APPROVING THE CONVEYANCE OF CERTAIN REAL PROPERTY. Roll Call Vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: COUNCIL MEMBERS: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Overholt, Kaywood, Bay, Roth and Seymour None None The Mayor declared Resolution No. 80R-184 duly passed and adopted. 123: STUDIES AND INFORMATION - POSSIBLE CONDITIONS OF BLIGHT: On motion by Councilman Seymour, seconded by Councilman Overholt, an agreement was authorized with the Anaheim Redevelopment Agency in an amount not to exceed $35,700, pro- viding the Agency with studies and information relating to possible conditions of blight, as recommended in memorandum dated April 24, 1980, from the Executive Director of Community Development. MOTION CARRIED. 150: RECREATION FEE SCHEDULE'ADJUSTMENT: Amending the fees and charges schedule in the Parks, Recreation and Community Services Department, Recreation Division and authorizing the new fees to be effective with the beginning of the 1980 Summer Recreation Program. Mayor Seymour stated he had no problem with the recommended increases as outlined in the attachments to report dated April 24, 1980 from the Deputy City Manager, other than to know how much was windfall. Deputy City Manager James Ruth stated that there was no windfall. Looking at the budget, the problems they had were relative to the differential between the General Fund's support in the past which had not kept up with inflation. Many . of their programs and classes had not been increased in years because they were always General Fund supported. Part of the problem revolved around the fact that 80-565 City Hall~ Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - April 29, 1980, ~:30 P.M. the school district partially funded a number of the programs which represented almost one-third of the recreation program's support. That funding was lost with Proposition 13 which represented a major loss, coupled with the increased inflation factor. The only way to continue the current level of service was to increase fees to compensate for the difference in General Fund support. Mayor Seymour reiterated there was a windfall, although it might not be to the Parks, Recreation and Community Services Department. For example, the change relative to the Pearson Park Theatre showed a 59% increase and they all knew that there had not been a 59% increase in the cost of operating that theatre in one year. The Department was playing catch-up and getting their fees into reasonable line in exchange for what was being used or rented from them.' Thus, in comparison to charges a year ago, there was a windfall going somewhere in the City budget. Mr. Ruth explained the problem they had relative to their budget, as presented to the City Manager through the budget hearings, that if unable to generate the increased revenue, they were going to have to cut services. When talking about windfall, there probably was an increase that was not anticipated last year but if they did not get it this year, they would have to cut services. Mr. Talley eXplained that the arbitrary but necessary way they scheduled the recreation fund was to take the General Fund contribution and indicate to the department that it was entitled to only a certain share and, therefore, if the Recreation programs could not be accommodated with the contribution from the General Fund, they would have to find additional revenue sources or reduce programs. The major problem last year was that the Recreation function, though they should raise approximately $65,000 from special services and fees, actually ra±sed about $30,000. His view was that they had to either cut programs back by $30,000, or if they wanted to maintain services, retain a better fee structure, because the General Fund was not going to give any more. They were willing to give the same contribution as last year plus the increment they raised this year in addition, but that was all. Mayor Seymour asked if the Parks, Recreation and Community Services Department was generating an additional $65,000 as indicated in the subject report, he wanted to know how much of that additional, $65,000 could be legitimately laid off to increases of inflation, etc. and/or new programs. If it all could not be laid off in that fashion, it was going to be done somewhere else. Mr. Talley agreed but he did not want them to think'there was a windfall Other than in the recreation series of programs. Additional discussion followed between Council and staff further clarifying the windfall aspect as broached by the Mayor. Councilman Overholt then noted under Facility Fees/Rentals, Glover Stadium (commer- cial) that it stated under the proposed rate, $500 set-up minus $200 plus 15%. Mr. Ruth confirmed that was an error and it should say--S500 set-up plus $200, plus 15%. 80-566 City Hall~. Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - April 29~ 1980~ 1:30 P.M. Councilman Overholt offered Resolution No. 80R-185 for adoption, as recommended in memorandum dated April 24, 1980 from the Deputy City Manager, amending Res- olution No. 79R-2 relating to fees for City-wide Park and Recreation programs and services. Refer to Resolution Book. RESOLUTION NO. 80R-185: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AMENDING RESOLUTION NO. 79R-2 RELATING TO FEES FOR CITY-WIDE PARK AND RECREATION PROGRAMS AND SERVICES IN THE CITY. Roll Call Vote: AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Overholt, Kaywood, Bay, Roth and Seymour NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: None ABSENT: COUNCIL M~BERS: None The Mayor declared Resolution No. 80R-185 duly passed and adopted. 175: EXPANDING LIMITS ON THE ENERGY COST BALANCING ACCOUNT AND DECREASING THE NON-LIFELINE ECABF: Public Utilities General Manager Gordon Hoyt briefed the Council on report dated April 20, 1980 from the Public Utilities Board, recom- mending that the Council: (1) Expand the limits on the Energy Cost Balancing Account from "between a positive $1,000,000 and a negative $250,000" to between a positive $2,000,000 and a negative $250,000;" and (2) Decrease Anaheim's electric rates by decreasing the non-lifeline ECABF by 1.021c/kwh from 2.506C/kwh to 1.485c/kwh. Mayor Seymour asked the average monthly electrical bill of the residential consumer in Anaheim. Mr. Hoyt answered that the average customer using 500 kilowatts per month was currently paying $29.18. With the proposal, the bill would decrease by 7% for a total of $27.13. Commercial users would see a decrease of approximately 11%; the larger commercials better than 16%. Industrial users would see a decrease in the area of 16.5%. Rates for residential consumers were going to be approximately 26 or 27% under Southern California Edison rates; commer- cial consumers, 15 to 20% under, and industrlal's 20 to 21%, representing a substantial savings. Councilwoman Kaywood offered Resolution No. 80R-186 for adoption, as recommended in memorandum dated April 22, 1980, from the Public Utilities Board. Refer to Resolution Book. RESOLUTION NO. 80R-186: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM DECREASING THE PURCHASE POWER APPROPRIATION FOR FISCAL YEAR 1979-1980 AND AMENDING THE RATES, RULES AND REGULATIONS FOR THE SALE AND DISTRIBUTION OF ELECTRIC ENERGY AS ADOPTED BY CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION NO. 71R-478 AND AMENDED BY CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION NOS. 73R-25, 73R-373, 73R-531, 74R-75, 74R-630, 75R-243, 75R-344, 75R-345, 76R-41, 76R-377, 76R-528, 76R-817, 77R-464, 77R-628, 78R-458, 78R-655, 79R-292, 79R-309, 79R-669 and 80R-81. 80-567 City Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - April 29, 1980~ 1:30 P.M. Roll Call Vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: COUNCIL MEMBERS: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Overholt, Kaywood, Bay, Roth and Seymour None None The Mayor declared Resolution No. 80R-186 duly passed and adopted. 108: AMUSEMENT DEVICES PERMIT: Application by John Paul Weeks, Pinball Madness, 530 South Knott Avenue. The Deputy City Clerk explained that the subject permit was originally sched- uled for today's meeting and the applicant received a postcard to that effect; however, it was later removed from the agenda because of the Police Department's recommendation for denial. Since then, another memorandum was received from the Department indicating that since the property was over 600 feet awav from the Orangeview Jr. High School, they now recommended approval. As well, staff was requested to research two questions relative to zoning on subject property, pre- viously posed by Councilman Bay. Miss Annika Santalahti, Assistant Director for Zoning, stated that the establish- ment was located on the northeast corner of Knott Street and Orange Avenue and the current zoning was Commercial, Limited. Also, there were no massage parlors or similar activities in the subject complex or the one across the street. MOTION: Councilman Roth moved to approve the application for Amusement Devices Permit submitted by John Paul Weeks for Pinball Madness at 530 South Knott Avenue. Councilman Overholt seconded the motion. Before a vote was taken, Councilwoman Kaywood expressed concern over the prolif- eration of such businesses and wanted to know if staff had any record of how many pinball palaces or the like were already established in the City. She also wanted to know if there was any way they could control the hours of Operation. Miss Santalahti stated that they could investigate how many licenses were issued for such operations. Relative to any regulations, theoretically there was no limit on the number they might have in the City or no limits relative to hours of operation. The only regulations were with regard to zoning which had to be Commercial and the distance from schools. Councilman Overholt recalled that the Council previously requested a brief report regarding the City's policy in issuing permits for such amusement device centers (see minutes February 19, 1980). Mr. Talley stated he would check with Police Chief Tielsch and report to the Council on Thursday at the Executive Management Seminar. Councilwoman Kaywood also wanted to know if there was a way to find out if any drug paraphernalia was going to be displayed or whether there was a possibility of stipulating something in order to prevent the display of such material, since those businesses were a hangout for youngsters, similar to record shops. Mr. Weeks, the father of John Paul Weeks who was opening the business, stated he was representing his son who was a minor. However, he had a partner who was an attorney. Mr. Weeks then attested to his sons's character. The boy did not 80-568 City Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - April 29~ 1980~ 1:30 P'M' believe in drinking, smoking or dancing and he had told the Chief of Police there would be no drinking, smoking or eating in the pinball arcade. There would be no drugs. Councilman Overholt questioned the partner in the business; Mr. Weeks explained that he had met him, he was an attorney in New York, and his name was Roman A. Dimeo who would be one-half owner of the business. City Attorney Hopkins explained for Councilman Overholt that the applicant in this case was John Paul Weeks and that would be sufficient for the purpose of the application. If it were desirable to put additional persons on the appli- cation, it might be appropriate to ask the name of the person as a reference showing that he had a financial interest. Councilman Overholt asked Mr. Weeks if his son would object to having Mr. Dimeo's name on the business application; Mr. Weeks answered, none whatsoever, and that their checking account was in both their names. Councilman Overholt stated his concern was that a partnership was running the business and they were interested in knowing who the partners were. City Attorney Hopkins stated they would be interested in anyone who had a part- nership interest. There was nothing that precluded their granting the permit to a minor, but it would be more desirable to have the other name on the appli- cation as a partnership. The application could be amended and the Council could add the name; however, he did not know at this time if the Chief would concur with the recommendation. Councilman Overholt reiterated he was concerned when a minor made an application for a permit and license to operate an amusement establishment along with an attorney living in New York. Whatever had to be done to get the attorney's name on the application should be done otherwise he could not approve the application and there was nothing personal against John Weeks, the applicant. City Attorney Hopkins recommended that the matter be held one week and referred back to the Chief of Police because they had no information about Mr. Dimeo other than his name being mentioned today. The Chief should have an opportunity to review his recommendation. MOTION: Councilman Overholt thereupon moved to continue consideration of the subject application for one week for the purpose of submitting a modified application containing the name and address of his partner, Roman A. Dimeo; application to be referred back to the Police Department for checking and subsequently submitted to the Council on May 6, 1980. Councilwoman Kaywood seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. Before concluding, further discussion followed relative to the procedure that the applicant should follow in carrying out the Council's directive. 103: "FAIR SHARE" OF PROPERTY TAX REVENUE: A proposed motion directing the City Attorney to prepare an emergency ordinance declaring a moratorium on the issuance of any building or grading permits or the approval of any plan, zoning reclassif~cation or tentative tract map for any property annexed between January 2, 80-569 C%.ty Hall~ .Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - April 29, 1980~ 1:30 P.M. 1978 and July 24, 1979, pending a property tax exchange agreement with the County (continued from the meeting of April 8, 1980 - see minutes that date was scheduled for reconsideration.) City Manager Talley reported that since the meeting of April 8, 1980, they met with the Chairman of the County Negotiating Committee and he was attempting to come up with a fair and equitable solution. He (Talley) felt that the County staff was unrealistically trying to maintain a position that would allow them to retain more funds than they deserved. It was also his impression, however, that the majority of the Board of Supervisors were willing to deal equitably with the cities. The Chairman of the City Task Force had been ill and missed some of the meetings and thus there would be some delay. Mr. Talley recommended that the matter be continued another three or four weeks at which time he felt they could give a good progress report. The Planning Department informed that they were not holding anything up that was in progress at this time. He recommended that the Council allow them to continue with the negotiations. MOTION: Councilman Roth moved to continue consideration of the subject moratorium for four weeks. Councilman Overholt seconded the motion. Before a vote was taken, Councilman Bay again suggested as he did at the meeting of April 8, 1980, that they proceed in preparing the ordinance now since the actual execution of it would take a period of time. In that way, they would have more bargaining clout with the County; Mayor Seymour did not agree that an ordinance should be prepared since, in the opinion of the City Manager, it was not going to be necessary. Councilman Bay expressed his concern because, as indicated in the staff report of April 25, 1980, grading had already started on two of the three projects listed, and he feared the vested interests question would become a reality. Mr. Talley concurred that this could become an issue and for that reason had suggested in discussion the Council might want to establish some procedure. However, as noted in the staff report of April 25, grading permits had been issued prior to Council action in all but one instance and in that one, the final grading permit was issued two days after Council action on April 10, 1980. Basically the intent of the staff recommendation was to serve notice on the proposed developers and the County that the City was going to cease that activity unless the County could come up with some negotiations. In effect, they were creating value, the benefits of which were being reaped by the County and they were unrealistically witholding the tax revenues from the cities. They had now indicated a much more reasonable attitude and entered into the negoti- ations with more alacrity. He felt the Committee was working toward an equit- able solution as well as the majority of the Board. Councilman Bay stated he did not want to thwart that negotiation, but at the same time he did not wish to go so far down the road that they would be up against vested rights and if not sold, end up with law suits. That was his concern. 80-5 70 Cit~ Hall, Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - April 29~ 1980~ 1:30 P.M. A vote was then taken on the foregoing motion. MOTION CARRIED. 166: REVIEW OF ORDINANCE NO. 4010 - POSTING OF PRICES AT SERVICE STATIONS: One year review requested at the meeting of May 22, 1979 (see minutes that date). MOTION: Councilman Seymour moved that the subject Ordinance remain in force to be reviewed again in one year. Councilworman Kaywood seconded the motion. Before a vote was taken, Councilman Roth noted that the gas station at the corner of Anaheim Boulevard and Broadway (Texaco) was posting their prices in liters and he had received complaints. Although the Ordinance did not cover whether or not the stations had to post in U.S. dollars, he felt they were circumventing the ordinance. Miss Santalahti explained that the State called out how prices were to be posted indicating that a gas station shall post either by liter or gallon but station would have to indicate whether it was by liter if that was what they were doing. Councilwoman Kaywood stated she believed all Texaco Stations were not posting or by liter, and further she wanted to see the enforcement continue relative to price posting. The stations knew the law and some of them had been flaunting it for a year. A vote was then taken on the foregoing motion. MOTION CARRIED. 148: APPOINTMENT OF REPRESENTATIVES TO THE ORANGE COUNTY HEALTH PLANNING COUNCIL ASSEMBLY OF DELEGATES: Councilwoman Kaywood nominated Mr. William Postma as the delegate to the subject Council. She also noted that the Health Planning Council had been very lax about letting the City's delegate or alternate know about meet- ings that were being held. It was an important post and the Council made far- reaching decisions such as whether or not to build or add to hospitals, etc. and it was important that the City be represented on that Council. On motion by Councilman Bay, seconded by Councilman Overholt, nominations for appointment of a representative to the Orange County Health Planning Council were closed. MOTION CARRIED. Mr. William Postma was thereupon unanimously appointed to serve as the City's delegate on that Council. Before concluding, Councilwoman Kaywood noted that they also had to fill the alternate position and she was concerned that the Council did not let them know that the City had a vacancy. Something needed to be done in that respect. Mayor Seymour suggested that a letter be drafted to be sent to the Orange County Health Planning Council asking them to inform the City more,expeditiously in the future of any vacancies. 108: REQUEST FOR MASSEUSE LICENSE - YURY FERKELMAN: Requesting an exemption from requirements of the Code relating to a massage technician permit. 80-571 City Hall~ Anaheim, Califorqia - COUNCIL MINUTES - April 29, 1980~ 1:30 P.M. Mayor Seymour stated as he understood, Mr. Ferkelman wanted to act as a masseur at the Sports Gallery, 2560 East Katella Avenue, that he had a great deal of education on being a masseur having been trained in a Russian medical school, and that he also had a bachelor's degree or equivalent in electrical engineering. He also presumed that Mr. Ferkelman was aware that the Chief of Police was rec- ommending denial of his request until such time as he received, certification from a recognized school. Mr. Yury Ferkelman, 3955 Locust Avenue, Long Beach, first confirmed the Mayor's understanding and also stated that at first he was told he would be given a positive recommendation and then he found out it was negative. He had just returned from a school in Fullerton where he was told there was nothing they could teach him. However, if he had to, he would go through the 50 hours necessary and spend $300 to receive a piece of paper, but it did not make any sense. Mayor Seymour asked the City Attorney if there would be any violation of the Ordinance if they asked the recognized school or equivalent thereof for some certification, and then let the Chief determine if this was equivalent. City Attorney Hopkins stated that the matter had come up before (see report dated April 22, 1980 from the Chief of Police) and they had a number of applicants from Japan who had been trained in Japan. They did accept their credentials inJapanese and then have the Japanese Consulate in Los Angeles certify them. In the case of Mr. Ferkelman, they felt they could not make an exception because it would set a precedent leading to other persons making a similar request and they had no way of justifying the situation in this case. They were told a Soviet Consul General in San Francisco would assist Mr. Ferkelman in getting his certificates if he would contact them, and his office would be happy to supply him with the phone number of the Visa and Consulate Office. The other alternative would be for Mr. Ferkelman to attend a State licensed school, and there was one in Fullerton. That would enable him to qualify in'order to give some sort of verification of his training. Mr. Ferkelman stated if he had to choose, he would go to school. As a refugee, he could not take any documents out of Russia and to receive any documentation from Russia was impossible. After a brief discussion, Mayor Seymour stated they were certain Mr. Ferkelman was probably qualified but on the other hand he was perhaps familiar with some of the problems in the community relative to massage parlors. The Council would like to find a way to help him out if they could and he were not deprived of all his documentation. Since he could finish the required schooling in a manner of four weeks, in the interest of maintaining a position the Council had adopted with regard to massage parlors, they were going to have to deny the request. MOTION: Councilman Seymour moved to deny Mr. Ferkelman's request for an exemp- tion from the requirements of the AMC relating to a massage technician permit. Councilman Overholt seconded the motion. Before a vote was taken, Mr. Ferkelman asked if it was possible for him to get permission to be in work with the stipulation that he would be going to school. 80-5 72 Cit~ Hall,. Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - April 29~. 1980, 1:30 P.M. Mayor Seymour stated that would be acceptable if they would not jeopardize the ordinance in so doing. If so, he would have to say "no" to such a request. City Attorney Hopkins stated they felt the time involved in schooling was not great. They were told that the state required 100 hours of training which could be reduced by 50% for Mr. Ferkelman because they would give him credit for his past work experience. The City required a diploma or certificate of graduation. A vote was then taken on the foregoing motion of denial. MOTION CARRIED. RECESS: By general consent the Council recessed for 15 minutes. (2:55 P.M.) AFTER RECESS: Mayor Seymour called the meeting to order, all Council Members being present. (3:10 P.M.) 176: PUBLIC HEARING - ABANDONMENT NO. 78-27A: In accordance with application filed by Classic Development Corporation, public hearing was held on proposed abandonment of a portion of the "Old" Santa Ana Canyon Road, lying southerly of the Santa Ana Canyon Road and west of the S.A.V.I. Canal, pursuant to Resolution No. 80R-155, duly published in the Anaheim Bulletin and notices thereof posted in accordance with law. Report of the City Engineer dated March 24, 1980 and recommendations by the Planning Commission were submitted recommending denial of said abandonment. City Engineer William Devitt stated he believed the Council had received the supplemental report dated April 21, 1980 wherein it indicated a hearing was set for July 2, 1980 to determine if the subject parcel was an illegally created parcel; the Mayor confirmed that they had received that report. The Mayor asked if anyone wished to address the Council. Mr. Maury Nickle, Executive Vice President, Classic Development, Irvine, owners of the property stated that he wrote a letter to the Council dated March 6, 1980 (on file in the City Clerk's office) and that the hearing was a result of that letter. He explained that Classic had owned the subject property since approx- imately 1973, and in 1977 it was leased to the then-existing nursery for a parking lot. Upon the sale of that nursery to the present nursery owner, they had dis- continued remitting the lease payments indicating that since the City had the easement on the property he (Nickle) therefore did not have the right to lease it to them. He tried to get clarification of the matter and asked for an aban- donment of the street right of way through the City's Real Property section. Me wanted to have the matter heard so as to resolve it. Upon his arrival at the meeting today, he received a copy of the supplemental finding dated April 21, 1980 from the Engineering Department which he was not aware of before and also a copy of a notice of intention to record notice of violation. Since this was the first information he had regarding that matter, he was not prepared to debate that issue because he did not have an opportunity to look into the facts. He reiterated, he acquired the property in 1973, he did have it leased and was unable to lease it at this point or collect any rent 80-573 City Hall~ Aqaheim, Califorqia - COUNCIL MINUTES - April 29, 1.980, 1:30 P.M. because of the feeling of the tenant that the City had the right to give them the use of the property rather than any right he had. That was why he asked for the abandonment. He was not prepared to debate the conditions in the latter documents. Mayor Seymour stated they should deal with the former, the request for an aban- donment, and not the latter, that an illegal subdivision had been created. Mr. Nickle then respectfully requested that the Council act on his request for abandonment. It was first filed in March of 1979. In February 1980, he received a letter from the Real Property Section indicating that they thought he should discontinue any further action on the application. He believed that the street right of way had been abandoned to the east but was not certain of the parcel to the south. He was also not aware that the Planning Commission acted on the matter. The Mayor confirmed it was not done at a public hearing. He then asked Mr. Nickle how he acquired the property in 1973. Mr. Nickle explained that he purchased approximately 100 acres on the north side of the "Old" Canyon Road and subdivided it into about 9 tracts; the Mayor interjected and asked if, in that process, did he provide the City with an easement across the property. Mr. Nickle answered, "no", an easement for road purposes to the State was originally created in 1928. In approximately 1948, the State took the easement on what was now the "old" canyon road and they severed the property by an easement. At that time, a Mr. Young owned the property. When he acquired approximately 10 acres of the property from Mr. Young in 1973, the condition of the purchase was that he take all the property and that was the only reason he had that small parcel. The Mayor asked if he then built his housing subdivision and then began leasing the piece of property in question to the nursery; Mr. Nickle answered that was correct. He referred to the drawings submitted to the Council previously in order to clarify his explanation. The parcel severed from the main portion was created by two separate State right-of-way easements, the first, the old, "old", canyon road and the second, the present right of way over the old canyon road taken by the State and later granted to the County, later reverting to the City. The Mayor asked why he did not attempt to get the matter clarified at the time he applied for the subdivision. Mr. Nickle stated he believed that was possibly the fault of the situation at present. By the action of the City Engineer in report dated April 21 and the notice of violation, it was evidently their contention that the parcel was illegally created. Although he could not really explain the matter totally, he believed it was the contention that the subdivision map should have included the old canyon road and the parcel across the way. The red line on the map represented the portion presently paved and used for access and parking and the yellow was that portion of their fee property used for parking by the present nursery operator. 80-574 City. Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - April 29, 1980~ 1:30 P.M. Councilman Roth stated it was his understanding when the Classic Homes were developed, they were all on the north side of Santa Ana Canyon Road and thus he wanted to know what parcel other than the subject he was claiming on the south side of Santa Ana Canyon Road. Mr. Nickle answered none, except the sliver of land under discussion, containing approximately 4500 square feet total. In concluding, Mr. Nickle stated he would have no objection to a continuance because he wanted a clarification of the whole situation that would bring about a final resolution. The Mayor asked if anyone else wished to speak. Mr. Paul Sato, 5992 Ridgeway, Yorba Linda, stated that he was a landscape architect and planner and a friend of the Kobayoshi's, Frank and Tom, who were both residents of Anaheim and owners of Koby's Garden Center. Tom was present in the Council Chamber. He then gave the background on how the Kobayoshis came to locate their business and residence in Anaheim. He also explained that the existing land use problem was not created by them or the nursery and it was not the fault of anybody. He understood in reading through some of the correspondence that Cal- trans created the small piece of property and that the size was approximately 3700 square feet including parcel A and B on the map. He wanted to know the purpose of the triangular parcel of land which the staff report indicated was a weed patch. The Kobys wanted to purchase the easement but a lette~ received. by their attorneys indicated the owners did not want to sell. He questioned what could be built on that parcel and if anything, would another driveway be allowed onto Santa Ana Canyon Road. In concluding, Mr. Sato stated he agreed with the staff report 100%'and hoped- that the Council would act accordingly. There being no futher persons who wished to speak, the Mayor closed the public hearing. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT - CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION: On motion by Councilman Roth, seconded by Councilman Overholt, the City Council ratified the determination of the Planning Director 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 fila an EIR. MOTION CARRIED. Councilman Roth thereupon offered a resolution denying Abandonment No. 78-27A. Before any action was taken, Councilwoman Kaywood noted that since there was a hearing set for July 22, 1980, she wanted to have the abandonment continued until they knew of the legality of the parcel. Mr. Malcolm Slaughter, Deputy City Attorney, explained the decision as to whether the parcel was illegal or not was technically and legally a separate issue from the problem of abandonment. The Council could, if they desired abandon the street as requested. The hearing on the illegal parcel, assuming the owner 80-5 75 City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - April 29~ 1980~ 1:30 P.M. contested the hearing, should continue and the notice of intention to record the violation had already been filed in the County Recorder's Office to give notice to any potential buyers of the property from Classic of the problem involved. He could envision a possibility where all of the parties involved might wish to sit down and discuss all of their various interests and perhaps arrive at a resolution that would be satisfactory to everybody. He suggested that be done and it could possibly be done in the period of time before the hearing on the illegal subdivision. Mr. Nickle asked for an opportunity to rebut; the Mayor thereupon reopened the public hearing. Mr. Nickle stated his calculations revealed that the property consisted of 4500 square feet. The property had always been for lease and it was not for sale mostly for tax purposes. The fact that it was available for lease was the material point he wanted to bring out. Relative to a continuance, from talking to the City Attorney, he presumed he would not have the right to lease the pro- perty if the abandonment was not approved. If not approved, he wanted to know if it was then the City's intent to lease it to Koby's Garden Center. He believed that Mr. Kobayoshi or the nursery was using it for their business; it was intended for that use by the previous owner and it was leased for that use. It had been a fact that it was under lease or agreement for use before he was involved in the property in 1973 and he leased it from that time until 1978. He believed they were entitled to their use of the property as much as adjacent properties in which easements were vacated. If one was abandoned, he did not see why an adjacent one would not be abandoned. He emphasized the property was for lease and not for sale. ' Mayor Seymour closed the public hearing. Councilman Bay asked if they fenced the parcels A and B, would that cut off access to the nursery. Mr. Nickle answered that it would, however, he did not have the right to fence off the City's easement. That was his inclination in the first place but he was warned by his attorney that he could not block that easement. Councilman Bay asked how he felt about negotiating with all three parties. Mr. Nickle stated that he would be happy to do so but he did not want to sell the property and that would be his opening position. He felt there were merits to leasing as opposed to purchase. If they arrived at a fair value, they would not have to pay the principle amount and the lease was based on approximately 1% per month of its value. Mayor Seymour asked staff, without beginning to address the question of usability of the parcel in question, was there property sufficiently available so that Kobys could get access to Santa Ana Canyon Road.~ City Engineer William Devitt stated it was his understanding there would be enough available for access; however, it would be restricted and would adversely affect the access. 80-5 76 City Hall, Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - April 29~ 1980~ 1:30 P.M. Mayor Seymour then wanted to know the intentions of the City. Mr. Slaughter explained so long as the portion over parcel C on the map the Council had, the remaining public right of way, remained as a public right of way, the Kobys could get from their property to the public right of way and out to Santa Ana Canyon Road but they would have to make some physical improve- ments in order to do so. The Mayor asked what the City's intention was relative to selling, leasing, permitting the Koby's to park on the property, etc. Mr. Slaughter responded that he did not know that the City was legally able to lease, for private purposes, its public right of way, but it could clearly be used for the public to have access to the abutting private property in this came owned by the Kobys. Most public streets had public parking provided on them. He did not think that the Kobys had a right to use a public right of way as a private parking lot to the exclusion of the public. The City could clearly make the public right of way available for public parking on that property. He did not know whether Kobys were attempting to exercise exclusive position of thier pro- perty to the exclusion of the public or not. Mayor Seymour explained that as he viewed the matter, he saw a piece of property owned by a Mr. Young and subsequently sold to Classic and in the deal, the small piece of property was thrown in. In essence, Classic picked up where the pre- vious owner left off in the continuation of the lease of 'the property to the nursery owner. The owner then found that the City controlled the property and stopped payment on the lease. The owner was not desirous of selling the property and then the City stepped in which, in his opinion, was moving in an area of dealing with private property rights that it should not be doing. He was, therefore, going to vote against the action before the Council and suggest that they grant the Kobayoshis access to Santa Ana Canyon Road. Mr. Nickle could then keep his property and try to develop it. He was not going to meddle with people's private property rights. Mr. Slaughter agreed and stated the reason for the reinstitution of the illegal parcel proceedings was so that the City may review and impose those conditions on the small remaining parcel. It was the entire parcel underlying the entire Santa Ana Canyon Road and not just the 4500 or 3700 square feet that they could have imposed had the subdivision been properly done in the first place. Mayor Seymour stated he knew for a fact that they knew as a City that the Kobys had been using the property to privately park on and he did not have a thin§ ag&inmt the Kobys and they had a fine nursery. He did not want to get into a fight between two property owners and they mhould find a way so-that Kobys could get access to Santa Ana Canyon Road, and then Mr. Nickle would probably be sitting there with a useless piece of property. Councilman Roth asked the reasoning behind the Planning Commission's recommen- dation for denial. 80-577 City Hall, Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - April 29~ 1980~ 1:30 P.M. Mr. Slaughter explained that he was not at the hearing but his understanding was that staff had been recommending denial despite any of the illegal parcel considerations because of underlying public utility easements. Mr. Devitt stated that staff indicated to the Planning Commission that if the abandonment was affected, it would adversely affect the access to Kobys. Mayor Seymour stated if there was excess property then it probably should be abandoned. After further discussion between the Mayor and Mr. Slaughter, Councilwoman Kaywood moved to continue consideration of the subject abandonment to July 22, 1980. Councilman Overholt seconded the motion. Councilman Roth voted "no". MOTION CARRIED. CONSENT CALENDAR ITEMS: On motion by Councilman Roth, seconded by Councilman Overholt, the following actions were authorized in accordance with the reports and recommendations furnished each Council Member and as listed on the Consent Calendar Agenda: i. 118: CLAIMS AGAINST THE CITY: The following claims were denied and referred to the City's Claims Administrator: a. Claim submitted by Rose Daly for damages purportedly sustained as a result of problem with utility lines on or about March 26, 1980. b~ Claim submitted by Gregory T. Danley for personal injury damages purportedly sustained as a result of actions by Anaheim Police during arrest and incarcera- tion of claimant on or about January 8, 1980. c. Claim submitted by Karen Finlay for permonal injury damages purportedly sustained as a result of claimant mtepping on broken water meter door, in parkway, on or about February 9, 1980. d. Claim submitted by Esther Hoyer, mother of Karl M. Hoyer for damages purportedly sustained as a result of accident caused by City driver in City vehicle, on or about March 28, 1980. e. Claim submitted by Pauline M. Hurley for vehicular damages purportedly sustained as a result of City truck backing into claimant's car, on or about April 10, 1980. f. Claim submitted by Charles Linehan for damages purportedly sustained as a result of tree branch falling on light standard during City tree trimming operations in front of 857 South Helena Street, on or about February 11, 1980. g. Claim mubmitted'by Dale Wells for damages to food pur'portedly Sustained as a result of power failure, on or about April 11, 1980. 2. CORRESPONDENCE: The following correspondence was ordered received and filed: 80-5 78 Ci.ty Hall, ~naheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - April 29, 1980, 1:30 P.M. a. 175: Public Utilities Department, Customer Service Division--Monthly Report for March 1980. b. 105: Community Services Board--Minutes of March 13, 1980. Councilman Bay asked that the Council be advised of the existing vacancies on the Community Services Board; the Deputy City Clerk stated that she would con- tact the Chairman in that regard. Councilwoman Kaywood noted that Bill Taormina resigned on March 13, 1980 and she suggested that they receive that resignation in the form of a phone call or letter so that they did not have to wait until the minutes came out before being notified. c. 140: Anaheim Public Library--Monthly Report for March 1980. d. 140: Anaheim Public Library--Minutes of January 23 and March 7, 1980. e. 114: City of Seal Beach, Resolution No. 2959, opposing State Assembly Bill No. 2257 concerning the restriction of the Intra-Agency use of Tax Increment Funds outside of project areas from which ~uch funds are generated. f. 105: Public Utilities Board--Minutes of March 6 and March 20, 1980. g. 105: Anaheim Youth Commission--Minutes of April 9, 1980. 3. 108: DINNER-DANCING PLACE PERMIT: A Dinner-Dancing Place Permit was approved for Casa Manana, 1204 South Harbor Boulevard, for dancing on Friday and Saturday nights, 9:00 p.m. to 2:00 a.m., in accordance with the recommendations of the Chief of Police. (Joseph L. Mendez, applicant) MOTION CARRIED. CONSENT CALENDAR ITEMS: Councilwoman Kaywood offered Resolution Nos. 80R-187 through 80R-190, both inclusive, for adoption in accordance with the reports, recommendations and certifications furnished each Council Member and as listed on the Consent Calendar Agenda. Refer to Resolution Book. 158: RESOLUTION NO. 8OR-187: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM ACCEPTING CERTAIN DEEDS AND ORDERING THEIR RECORDATION. (Secure Proper- ties Incorporated) 169: RESOLUTION NO. 80R-188: 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: INSTALLATION AND REPLACEMENT OF INCANDESCENT STREET LIGHTING LUMINAIRES - IN CENTRAL CITY NEIGHBORHOOD STRATEGY AREA I, IN THE CITY OF ANAHEIM, ACCOUNT NO. 25-676-6328- 11080-37300; APPROVING THE DESIGNS, PLANS, PROFILES, DRAWINGS, AND SPECIFICA- TIONS 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 May 15, 1980 at 2:00 p.m.) 80-579 City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - April 29, 1980~ 1:30 P.M. 176: RESOLUTION NO. 80R-189: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM DECLARING ITS INTENTION TO VACATE AND ABANDON A CERTAIN PUBLIC SERVICE EASEMENT. (public utilities easement north of North Street, east of Lenz, May 27, 1980, 3:00 P.M., 79-12A) 176: RESOLUTION NO. 80R-190: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM DECLARING ITS INTENTION TO VACATE AND ABANDON PORTIONS OF A CERTAIN PUBLIC STREET AND ALLEY AND FIXING A DATE FOR A HEARING THEREON. (portion of Claudina Street, north of Broadway and portion of public alley, east of Anaheim Boulevard, south of Lincoln, May 27, 1980, 3:00 p.m., 79-13A) Roll Call Vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: COUNCIL MEMBERS: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Overholt, Kaywood, Bay, Roth and Seymour None None The Mayor declared Resolution Nos. 80R-187 through 80R-190, both inclusive, duly passed and adopted. CITY PLANNING COMMISSION ITEMS: The following actions taken by the City Planning Commission at their meeting held April 7, 1980, pertaining to the following applications, as listed on the Consent Calendar, were submitted for City Council information. 1. RECLASSIFICATION NO. 79-80-31 AND VARIANCE NO. 3141: Submitted by Holly Wade Davidson, for a change in zone from County of Orange A-1 to City of Anaheim ML, to construct an industrial complex on 6.3 acres of property located on the south side of Frontera Street and the east side of Glassell Street, with certain Code waivers. The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution Nos. PC80-60 and 61, granted Reclassification No. 79-80-31 and Variance No. 3141, and granted a negative declaration status. Councilman Bay noted that at the General Plan Amendment hearing which included the subject property, there was a stipulation made relative to first cleaning out the dump site and recompacting the soil in that area but he could not find that in the documentation. Miss Santalahti stated she did not believe it was necessary to indicate that because such action would be required under the Building Codes in any case and it would be handled at the time building permits were pulled. 2. RECLASSIFICATION NO. 79-80-33: Submitted by General American Life Insurance Company, for a change in zone from'RS-A-43,000 to ML, to construct an industrial complex on 4.66 acres of property located at the easterly terminus of Sinclair Street, north of Katella Avenue. The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC80-62, granted Reclassification No. 79-80-33, and granted a negative declaration status. 80'5 80 City Hall, Anahe'.~m., California - COUNCIL MINUTES - April 29~ 1980~ 1:30 P.M. 3. RECLASSIFICATION NO. 79-80-34: Submitted by the Planning Commission, for a change in zone from RS-7200 to RM-2400, on 5.8 acres of property located on the west side of East Street and on the south and north sides of North Street. The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC80-63, denied Reclassification No. 79-80-34, and granted a negative declaration status. 4. VARIANCE NO. 3143: Submitted by Chester B. and Lavera V. Barry, to construct a room addition on RS-5000 zoned property located at 138 South Gain Street, with a Code waiver of maximum lot coverage. The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC80-65, granted Variance No. 3143, and ratified the Planning Director's categorical exemp- tion determination. 5. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2067: Submitted by Orange County Buddhist Church, to expand an existing church on RS-A-43,000 zoned property located at 909 South Dale Avenue. The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC80-64, granted Conditional Use Permit No. 2067, and granted a negative declaration status. No action was taken by the City Council on the foregoing items therefore the actions of the City Planning Commission became final. 142/156: ORDINANCE NO. 4121: Councilman Bay offered Ordinance No. 4121 for adoption. Refer to Ordinance Book. ORDINANCE NO. 4121: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AMENDING CHAPTER 7.20 OF TITLE 7 OF THE ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO GAMBLING. Before a vote was taken, Councilwoman Kaywood asked if the proposed ordinance would apply to something where a door prize was being given. City Attorney Hopkins explained if the door prize were within the definition of a lottery, it 'could. Normally, if tickets were not sold in the form of a lottery where there was a violation of the Penal Code, it should not be a problem but it could be in certain cases. Councilwoman Kaywood gave as an example a meeting where people paid a dollar for chances, followed by a drawing. City Attorney Hopkins noted that Councilwoman Kavwood mentioned the word, "pay". That would be consideration, and if there was a prize, consideration, or chance, that was the definition of a lottery and thus a State Penal Code violation whether the City had an ordinance or not. If it was a donation with no buying or no consideration, then it would not be a lottery. A vote was then taken on the foregoing ordinance. 80-581 City Hal~. Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - April 29~ 1980, 1:30 P.M. Roll Call Vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: COUNCIL M~2~BERS: COUNCIL MEMBERS: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Overholt, Kaywood, Bay, Roth and Seymour None None The Mayor declared Ordinance No. 4121 duly passed and adopted. ORDINANCE NO. 4122: Councilman Seymour offered Ordinance No. 4122 for adoption. Refer to Ordinance Book. ORDINANCE NO. 4122: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AMENDING TITLE 18 OF THE ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODERELATING TO ZONING. (73-74-36(3), RM-2400) Roll Call Vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: COUNCIL MEMBERS: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Overholt, Kaywood, Bay, Roth and Seymour None None The Mayor declared Ordinance No. 4122 duly pam~ed and adopted. ORDINANCE NO. 4123 AND 4124: Councilwoman Kaywood offered Ordinance Nos. 4123 and 4124 for first reading. ORDINANCE NO. 4123: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AMENDING TITLE 18 OF THE ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO ZONING. (69-70-31(7), ML) ORDINANCE NO. 4124: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AMENDING TITLE 18 OF THE ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO ZONING. (76-77-41(4), RS-HS-10,000) 139: REQUEST FOR SUPPORT OF HR6466 FROM THE AUTOMOBILE CLUB: Councilman Roth referred to letter dated April 25, 1980 from Mr. Edward G. Sullivan, District Mianager of the Automobile Club of Southern California, requesting Council support of HR6466 deleting the Federally-mandated requirement of yearly motor vehicle inspections in California and leaving it to the states to implement such plans. The mandate would have far-reaching effects on California's well-being (see minutes February 12, 1980). He was urging Council support of Mr. Sullivan's request and that Congressmen Dannemeyer and Satterfield also be advised of the City's intentions. Councilman Bay recounted that at the League of Cities meeting in San Francisco, Anaheim made a special point of disagreeing with the Orange County League's position on motor vehicle inspectionm called out by the State. He agreed with Councilman Roth'm view that the State should decide the matter on its own, leaving it up to the prom and cons within the State and not by a Federal mandate. The heaviest argument againmt what he considered boondoggling inspectionm per- formed in the State with more coming, was based on the fact that if the State did not comply, it would be cut off from all kinds of Federal funds. He thum supported Councilman Roth'm requemt. 80-582 City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - A~ril 29~ 1980, 1:30 P.M. MOTION: Councilman Roth moved to support HR6466 as requested by the Automobile Club. Councilman Bay seconded the motion. Before a vote was taken, Councilman Roth stated that the Council was undoubtedly aware that there was presently a great deal of oppomition to the bill. The ARB was violently opposed am well as the majority of his colleagues on the South Coamt Air Quality Management Board (SCAQMB), the League of Women Voters and most ecology groupm. They felt that every motor vehicle in the state should comply with federal mandate. The problem, however, lay in the fact that politi- cians who mumt implement the legislation refused to do so because t~ey were getting a negative reading from their constituents stating it was another intrusion into their lives. Councilwoman Kaywood wanted to review a copy of the bill before taking any action. She also asked Councilman Roth if he was recommending the action with the knowledge of the SCAQMB. Councilman Roth stated he wam recommending the action as a member of the City Council and the Board did not have any control over what he did. Councilwoman Kaywood asked that the matter be continued one week. By general consent, consideration of the subject request was continued one week. 169: FAIRMONT BOULEVARD - IMPROVEMENTS TO SHOULDER: Councilman Roth noted that another accident occurred on Fairmont Boulevard. He suggested that some- how or way there be some improvements made with respect to the shoulder of that street. The heavy rains and erosion had caused some dangerous conditions that need to be corrected. ADJOURNMENT: Councilman Bay moved to adjourn. Councilwoman Kaywood seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. Adjourned: 4:07 P.M. LINDA D. ROBERTS, CITY CLERK