Loading...
1981/02/1781-220 City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - February 17, 1981~ 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 CITY CLERK: Linda D. Roberts CITY LIBRARIAN: William J. Griffith PLANNING DIRECTOR: Ronald L. Thompson CITY ENGINEER: William G. Devitt STREETS & SANITATION SUPT.: William S. Lewis ASSISTANT DIRECTOR FOR ZONING: Annika Santalahti ASSOCIATE PLANNER: Pamela Lucado Mayor Seymour called the meeting to order and welcomed those in attendance to the Council meeting. INVOCATION: Reverend Robert Campbell, First Presbyterian Church of Anaheim gave the Invocation. FLAG SALUTE: Councilman Ben Bay 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: "Public Schools Month in Anaheim" - April 1981 "Dental Assistants Day in Anaheim" - May 6, 1981 Mr. Jesse Burroughs, Mason's Lodge, was present to accept the Public Schools Month proclamation. 119: RESOLUTION OF SUPPORT: A resolution of support was unanimously adopted by the City Council for the Easter Seals Fund Raising event to be held Sunday, March 22, 1981 at the Ramada Inn of Anaheim/Disneyland. Present to accept the resolution was Susan Hausey, General Manager of the Ramada Inn and also Mr. Mark Linz, and Mark Rocero, the National Easter Seal Child for the Stamp Program with Easter Seals. 119: RESOLUTION OF COMMENDATION: A resolution of commendation was unanimously adopted by the City Council honoring Herbert W. Sutton, recipient of the City of Hope's Spirit of Life Award to be presented at a Testimonial Dinner, March 21, 1981. 119: LETTER OF CONGRATULATIONS: A letter of congratulations was authorized by the City Council to be presented to Mr. William "Bud" Fassell upon his retire- ment from 25 years with the Anaheim Union High School District. 173/111: PRESENTATION - ANAHEIM CHAMBER OF COMMERCE ON THE SANTA ANA TRANSPORTA- TION CORRIDOR STUDY: Mr. Joseph Wright, Chairman of the Board, Anaheim Chamber of Commerce, restated the Chamber's position. (See minutes Anaheim Redevelopment Agency, February 17, 1981 where the matter was discussed at length. Mr. Wright and Mr. Larry Sierk gave their input relative to the Chamber's position at that 81-221 City ~a. ll, Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - February 17, 1981, 1:30 P.M. meeting prior to the Council meeting). The Santa Ana Transportation Corridor Study was inappropriate as it was presently written. The Orange County Trans- portation District had slighted the City of Anaheim and used the City's recrea- tional facilities to enhance their study without taking into consideration the overall business community, particularly the Downtown area. MOTION: Councilman Seymour moved that the Council go on record as being in opposition to the Santa Ana Transportation Corridor Study and Plan as pre- sently configurated until much time am further consideration is given the City of Anaheim in the extension of an approximate two-mile link to Central and Downtown Anaheim. Councilman Bay seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. MINUTES: Councilman Roth moved to approve the minutes of the adjourned regular meeting held October 10, 1980, subject to typographical corrections. Council- woman Kaywood seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. WAIVER OF READING - ORDINANCES AND RESOLUTIONS: Councilwoman Kaywood moved to waive the reading in full of all ordinances and resolutions of the Agenda, after reading of the title thereof by the City Clerk, and that consent to waiver is hereby given by all Council Members, unless after reading of the title, specific request is made by a Council Member for the reading of such ordinance or resolution in regular order. Councilman Bay seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. FINANCIAL DEMANDS AGAINST THE CITY in the amount of $1,718,970.45, in accordance with the 1980-81 Budget, were approved. CITY MANAGER/DEPARTMENTAL CONSENT CALENDAR: On motion by Councilman Roth, seconded by Councilwoman Kaywood, the following items were approved as recom- mended: a. 160: Bid No. 3732--Authorizing the Purchasing Agent to issue a purchase order for one arterial device with service body to Great Pacific Equipment Co., at a total price of $17,754.52. b. 160: Bid No. 3734--Two each Centrifugal Pumps and Electric Drive Motors. Award to Orange County Pump, $13,899.20. c. 160: Bid No. 3736--250 Fluorescent Fixtures. Award to General Electric Supply Co., $12,693.50. d. 160: Bid No. 3737--500 12KV, 10-Foot Crossarms. Award to Cascadian Company, $10,324.40. e. 123: Continuing the award of contract on the Anaheim Police Facility Lobby Addition to March 3, 1981. Account No. 24-988-6325. f. 123/175: Authorizing a letter agreement with the Smith-Emery Company in the amount of $4,506 to perform soil and concrete testing for the Fairmont Boulevard and Lewis Street Electrical Substations. MOTION CARRIED. 81-222 City Hall~ Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - February 17, 1981, 1:30 P.M. 177: LETTER OF ENDORSEMENT FOR APPLICATION FOR SECTION 8 EXISTING "HOUSING UNITS": Councilwoman Kaywood moved to authorize the Mayor to sign a letter of endorsement for an application for 202 units of Section 8 "existing" housing submitted by the Anaheim Housing Authority, as recommended in memorandum dated February 10, 1981 from Executive Director of Community Development Norm Priest. Councilman Overholt seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. Councilwoman Kaywood asked what they could do to have HUD review their require- ments so that more than 25% was possible to be paid by the person applying for the subject housing, i.e., to make it more in line with the rest of the country paying approximately 35% to 45%. She wanted to see what could be done legisla- tively to have HUD's requirements changed to be more realistic relative to a person paying a higher percentage towards housing if they could afford to do SO. Councilman Bay stated that he would like to see more information from staff on such a proposal before taking any action. City Manager William Talley suggested two weeks for staff to provide a report; Councilwoman Kaywood stated that there was no rush and it could be a month if necessary. 123/150: AWARD OF CONTRACT - PERALTA CANYON PARK MULTIPURPOSE BUILDING: Ac- count No. 47-805-710. Councilwoman Kaywood offered Resolution No. 81R-61 for adoption awarding a contract as recommended by the City Engineer in his memo- randum dated February 11, 1981. Refer to Resolution Book. RESOLUTION NO. 81R-61: 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: PERALTA CANYON PARK MASONRY SPLIT BLOCK BUILDING/HARDCOURT AREA, IN THE CITY OF ANAHEIM, ACCOUNT NO. 47-805-7105. (Bob N. Smith Contracting, $109,224) Before a vote was taken, Councilman Bay asked for some explanation as to why only one bid was received. City Manager Talley explained as indicated in the subject report, plans and specifications were picked up by nine firms. Of those, five were subcontractors who did not bid, two stated that they did not receive quotes from subcontractors in time to bid and one could not be reached for comment. The project was ad- vertised well enough to have received nine responses but only one bid. Staff's estimate for the job was approximately $100,000 and while the proposed award was slightly over that amount, they were recommending that it be awarded to Bob N. Smith Contracting. City Engineer William Devitt then confirmed for Councilman Bay that the two who did not receive quotes from the subcontractors in time did not ask for additional time. Councilman Roth stated what he would like to see and a policy he believed they set previously, was a list of the names of those companies to whom bids were sent, but where no response or bid was received. 81-223 City ~all~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - February 17, 1981, 1:30 P.M. Mr. Devitt stated they could do that in the future. Historically, they had always listed those bidders who did submit a bid; Councilman Roth also wanted a list of those solicited, but where no bid was submitted. Mr. Devitt stated that they could provide that information in the future insofar as contractors were involved. As noted in the s~aff report, five of the firms who picked up bids were not contractors but subcontractors. City Manager Talley stated that some time ago they did list all the firms pri- marily when automotive and fleet purchases were involved because they were get- ting no bids on those purchases. In an effort to be more aggressive, they actually mailed the bids to the firms, thereby putting it in their hands. On construction projects, however, they normally advertised in the trade papers and expected bidders to come in and pick up the bid package instead of mailing it. He suggested in the future if they had less than three bids, they would list other people who picked up plans. He felt that any time they had three bids or more, such a listing would not be required. Mayor Seymour asked if the Executive Director of Public Works or the City Manager was prepared to provide an opinion to the Council that, in fact, they thought the bid was a reasonable one. City Manager Talley answered that the bid received was approximately 9% over estimate. Staff did review it for an additional week and their recommendation was that the contractor, who was very reputable, be accepted. He reiterated although it was slightly over the estimate and without the competitive factor, he would say that it was a bid that should be accepted. A vote was then taken on the foregoing resolution. 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. 81R-61 duly passed and adopted. 123: PREPARATION OF PLANS - MECHANICAL AND STREET MAINTENANCE FACILITY: Council- man Roth moved to authorize an amendment to an agreement with Shamma Enterprises, Inc., to provide an additional payment of $11,608.18 for the preparation of plans for the construction of a Mechanical and Street Maintenance Facility on City-owned property located at 400 East Vermont Street, as recommended in memorandum dated February 6, 1981 from the City Engineer. Councilman Overholt seconded the motion MOTION CARRIED. 123/169: STATE COLLEGE BOULEVARD AND ORANGETHORPE AVENUE TRAFFIC SIGNAL UP- G~DING: On motion by Councilwoman Kay-wood, seconded by Councilman Overholt, an agreement was authorized with the City of Fullerton, in the amount of $15,000, to participate in proposed traffic signal upgrades at State College Boulevard and Orangethorpe Avenue, as re¢o~ended in memorandum dated February 5, 1981 from the City Engineer. MOTION CARRIED. 103: LAKEVIEW-ORANGETHORPE NO. 4 ANNEXATION: Councilman Roth offered Resolution No. 81R-62 for adoption, requesting the County to reallocate property tax revenues 81-224 City Hall., Anah.eim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - February 17, 1981, 1:30 P.M. 103: LAKEVIEW-ORANGETHORPE NO. 4 ANNEXATION: Councilman Roth offered Resolution No. 81R-62 for adoption, requesting the County to reallocate property tax revenues accruing to the Yorba Linda Library District to the City in connection with the Lakeview-Orangethorpe No. 4 Annexation, as recommended in memorandum dated February 10, 1981 from Robert Kelly, Associate Planner. Refer to Resolution Book. RESOLUTION NO. 81R-62: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM PERTAINING TO PROPERTY TAX ALLOCATION FOR LAKEVIEW-ORANGETHORPE NO. 4 ANNEXATION TO 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. 81R-62 duly passed and adopted. 173/174: TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM MANAGEMENT (TSM) GRANT PROPOSALS: Councilwoman Kaywood offered Resolution No. 81R-63 through 81R-67, both inclusive, for adop- tion, as recommended in memorandum dated February 6, 1981 from the Deputy City Manager James Ruth. Refer to Resolution Book. RESOLUTION NO. 81R-63: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM APPROVING AN APPLICATION TO THE FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION FOR GRANT FUNDS TO BE USED FOR A CONTINGENCY PARKING MANAGEMENT PROGRAM (CPMP); AND AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER OR HIS DESIGNATED REPRESENTATIVE TO EXECUTE AND FILE SAID APPLICATION. ($565,000) RESOLUTION NO. 81R-64: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM APPROVING AN APPLICATION TO THE FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION FOR GRANT FUNDS TO BE USED FOR A CENTRAL BUSINESS DISTRICT PERIPHERAL PROJECT; AND AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER OR HIS DESIGNATED REPRESENTATIVE TO EXECUTE AND FILE SAID APPLICATION. ($1,158,900) RESOLUTION NO. 81R-65: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM APPROVING AN APPLICATION TO THE URBAN MASS TRANSPORTATION ADMINISTRATION (UMTA) FOR GRANT FUNDS TO BE USED FOR A COMMUNITY RIDE INFORMATION SERVICE PROGRAM (CRIS) AND AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER OR HIS DESIGNATED REPRESENTATIVE TO EXECUTE AND FILE SAID APPLICATION. ($30,000) RESOLUTION NO. 81R-66: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM APPROVING AN APPLICATION TO THE URBAN MASS TRANSPORTATION ADMINISTRATION (UMTA) FOR GRANT FUNDS TO BE USED FOR A WEST ANAHEIM TRANSIT PROGRESSION SYSTEM; AND AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER OR HIS DESIGNATED REPRESENTATIVE TO EXECUTE AND FILE SAID APPLICATION. ($500,000) RESOLUTION NO. 81R-67: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM APPROVING AN APPLICATION TO THE NATIONAL HIGHWAY TRAFFIC SAFETY ADMINISTRATION (NHTSA) FOR GRANT FUNDS TO BE USED FOR A STAGE I STREETSCAPE PROGRAM; AND AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER OR HIS DESIGNATED REPRESENTATIVE TO EXECUTE AND FILE SAID APPLICATION. ($165,000) 81-225 City Hall~ Anahe. im, California - COUNCIL MINUTES. - Febru.ary 17, 1981, 1:30 P.M. Before a vote was taken, Miss Pam Lucado, Associate Planner, clarified questions posed by. Councilman Roth relative to Item 3 of the subject staff report regarding the application to the Urban Mass Transportation Administration (UMTA) for grant funds in an amount not to exceed $30,000 to be used for a community-wide infor- mation service program. This was to include the designing and printing of a map that would combine the public and private carrier services that could be provided to an Anaheim visitor. Councilman Bay questioned if the map would be bilingual. Considering the many out of country visitors to Anaheim's Convention Center/Disneyland area, he was wondering if they could perhaps look at printing less than 100,000 maps, as indicated by Miss Lucado, and add some additional language to the map such as Spanish or Japanese in order to cover the higher percentage of out of country visitors that would need the map more than United States citizens; Miss Lucado stated that could be made a portion of the specifications. A vote was then taken on the foregoing resolutions. 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. 81R-63 through 81R-67, both inclusive, duly passed and adopted. 109/144/150: PROPOSITION 1 - 1980 CALIFORNIA PARKLANDS BOND ACT - FUNDING DISTRIBUTION FORMULA: Councilman Overholt offered Resolution No. 81R-68 for adoption, endorsing the Priority Plan for expenditures of the County's allo- cation of funds under the California Parklands Act of 1980 to cities and eligible districts, as recommended in memorandum dated February 10, 1981 from the Deputy City Manager. Refer to Resolution Book. RESOLUTION NO. 81R-68: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM ENDORSING THE PRIORITY PLAN FOR EXPENDITURE FOR JURISDICTIONS WITHIN THE COUNTY OF ORANGE UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF THE CALIFORNIA PARKLANDS ACT OF 1980. 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. 81R-68 duly passed and adopted. 123: AGREEMENT FOR MARKETING THE ANAHEIM FLEET MANAGEMENT SYSTEM: Councilman Bay offered Resolution No. 81R-69 for adoption, authorizing an agreement with Science & Technology International, Inc., for the sale of copies of the Anaheim Fleet Management Program software to cities and counties in the United States and declaring said copies surplus City property and available for sale pursuant to Section 518 of the City Charter, as recommended in memorandum dated February 12, 1981 from Assistant City Manager William T. Hopkins. Refer to Resolution Book. 81-226 ~ity Hall~. Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - February 17, 1981, 1:30 P.M. RESOLUTION NO. 81R-69: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM APPROVING AN AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AND SCIENCE & TECHNOLOGY INTERNATIONAL, INC., AND DECLARING CERTAIN CITY PROPERTY SURPLUS AND AVAILABLE FOR SALE PURSUANT TO SECTION 518 OF THE ANAHEIM CITY CHARTER. Before a vote was taken, Councilman Bay stated in reading the subject report, this was the first payoff they were going to receive in the program that the City had joined, and he was glad to see that the program was working. Councilwoman Kaywood stated that she would like to give some recognition to staff on the excellent innovative programs devised which were now being recog- nized nationwide. Mayor Seymour noted that there was no mention of any cost to the City. He wanted to know in the marketing, set-up and installation of the program if there would be any cost. City Manager Talley stated that the City would agree to provide certain staff assistance on a cost reimbursable basis if required. When the system was first installed, they probably would not charge someone for telephone calls; however, should staff have to go on site or spend any extensive time on the installation of the program, they would bill accordingly. He also confirmed for the Mayor that it was a different approach than last year in trying to sell some of their data processing systems. It was a no risk venture for the City. A vote was then taken on the foregoing resolution. 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. 81R-69 duly passed and adopted. 123: UTILITIES AGREEMENT NO. 7UT-5228 WITH THE STATE DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION: Councilman Roth moved to authorize Utilities Agreement No. 7UT-5228 with the State Department of Transportation for reimbursement of co,tm to the City for the Water Utility's relocation work in conjunction with construction of the Santa Ana Freeway at Anaheim Boulevard/Haster Street, am recommended in memo- randum dated February 5, 1981 from Public Utilities General Manager Gordon Hoyt. Councilman Bay seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. 164/106: DISTRICT 17 STORM DRAIN - APPROPRIATION OF FUNDS: Councilman Roth first asked for confirmation as to where the funds for the subject project were coming from; City Engineer Devitt confirmed that they were 100% Redevelopment funds. MOTION: Councilman Bay moved to appropriate $3,912,000 into Program 46-791 for the construction of the District 17 Storm Drain, Harbor Boulevard and Chartres Street to the Carbon Creek Channel at West Street, as recommended in memorandum dated February 12, 1981 from the City Engineer. Councilwoman Ka~vwood seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. 81-227 City Ha.~l~ .Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - February 17, 1981, 1:30 P.M. 106/169/140: AWARD OF CONTRACT - SCOUT TRAIL STREET IMPROVEMENT: Account No. 24-904-6325. On motion by Councilman Overholt, seconded by Councilwoman Kaywood, an advance of $360,000 was authorized from the General Benefits Fund for com- pletion of the Canyon Hills Library wi~h repayment to be made in Fiscal Year 1981-82 from General Revenue Sharing, as recommended in memorandum dated February 12, 1981 from the City Engineer. MOTION CARRIED. Councilman Overholt offered Resolution No. 81R-70 for adoption, awarding a contract for the Scout Trail Street Improvement, the primary accems road to the Canyon Hills Library, as recommended by the City Engineer in his memorandum dated February 12, 1981. Refer to Resolution Book. RESOLUTION NO. 81R-70: 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: SCOUT TRAIL STREET IMPROVEMENT, N/O NOHL RANCH ROAD, IN THE CITY OF ANAHEIM, ACCOUNT NO. 24-904-6325. (Ruiz Engineering Company, $54,889.84) 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. 81R-70 duly passed and adopted. 165: STATUS REPORT - POSTED STREET CLEANING PROGRAM: Councilwoman Kaywood moved to receive and file the report dated January 30, 1981 from William Lewis, Street Maintenance and Sanitation Superintendent, relative to the subject program. Councilman Overholt seconded :he motion. Before a vote was taken, Councilwoman Kaywood commented that in reading the report, she had some concern that an arrest was an overreaction, but she did not know how else to handle non-payment of a ticket. Councilman Overholt stated this was the first time he was aware that they were issuing warrants for arrests. He asked if they had ever been told that before. City Manager Talley explained that at the last meeting when the program was discussed, Mr. Lewis had mentioned that they had secured a number of warrants. He did not know if the Council had been advised as to whether any had been served or not. Councilman Roth asked if during a heavy rain streets were swept that day or not; Mr. Talley explained if a light rain, they were swept, but if a heavy rain, they were not. He also clarified that the only time a citation was given was when the sweeper must go around the vehicle. Councilman Roth then asked if there had been a true determination made that there was an adequate amount of signing to inform citizens of the street sweeping days and hours; Mr. Talley answered that the City had "bent over backwards" in can- celing tickets where there was the slightest doubt involved. Citizens did not 81-228 City Hall, Aqahgim~ Cal~ifornia - COUNCIL MINUTES - February 17, 1981, 1:30 P.M. want anymore signing than was necessary and nobody wanted the signs in front of their home. Trying to do an adequate job with the bare minimum of signs had been a continuing problem. Mr. William Lewis, Streets & Sanitation Superintendent, explained that they had also received petitions in their office asking that no signs be posted in an area with the idea that they would still honor the intent and the spirit of the posted street sweeping program. In terms of sign posting, they had posted on what would be considered a minimum posting program or a tract entry program. They had been reminded by citizens and others that there could be a few more signs posted specifically in areas where they received complaints. They addressed those on an individual basis and if the requests seemed reasonable, they author- ized more signs. He also explained for Councilman Roth that in terms of com- plaints, they were almost non-existent with regard to the first areas to come under the program. Most of the complaints, or 90% of them, came from the newest posted areas and those were now one and one-half monthm old. The entire City was completely posted and under the program as of January 8, 1981. Mayor Seymour asked the criteria used to define where problem areas existed as outlined on the maps provided (see subject report and attachments thereto). Mr. Lewis answered, the areas of concern were determined to be where he had to send out a secondary parking checker. The normal team was one sweeper and one parking checker. When they had to send out an additional checker or "rover" for any period of time during the day, resulting in a higher incidence of citation issuance, they defined ~hat as an area of concern. Since the report of January 30, 1981 was written, they had under that definition reduced the number of areas of concern. Included were certain streets in the Chevy Chase area near the Riverside Freeway between Euclid and Harbor Boulevard off of Romneya, more particularly the residential single-family areas in the westerly end of that section. There was also one apartment house area that was removed recently from the areas of concern, that being Pampas Lane, a long cul-de-sac apartment house street running easterly off of Euclid, just south of Lincoln. Mayor Seymour, speaking to Ron Thompson, Acting Public Works Executive Director, stated that it seemed dichotomous to him considering the many older sections in the City having apartments which had been constructed with parking ratios of one and one-quarter to one or to the old standards that, unless he was mis- interpreting what Mr. Lewis was saying, some of those were not a problem area for parking. He asked which was so. Mr. Ron Thompson answered that thos~ could be problem araas bacausa of the lack of on-site parking, but once the people became accustomed to the sweeping program, they modified some of their parking habits during that brief period. They could park somewhere in the immediate area, i.e., move their cars long enough during the four-hour period of sweeping. They had noted that some used commercial parking areas in the nearby vicinity, but apparently not long enough to create any additional complaints, or to an area just outside of the street sweeping boundary, or parking in alleys for brief periods in such as fashion so as not to obstruct traffic. 81-229 City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - February 17, 1981, 1:30 P.M. The Mayor then asked specifically the status of the program in the Robin, Chevy Chase, Bluejay apartment house area. Mr. Lewis answered that they were under the same program in that area as well. The degree of success was variable but greatly improved. He had not visited the area in the past several weeks but from reports he had received, the situation had improved. Mayor Seymour asked Mr. Lewis for an explanation of the 80% factor as discussed on Page 4 of his report under Scheduling Variations--"Sweeping Cost Increases Approximately 80% Within the Selected Areas" with regard to sweeping alternate sides of the street on different days. Mr. Lewis, referring first to a tract entry type area where there was limited access rather than a grid pattern type area, stated they would have to drive in and around that area on approximately the same sweeping pattern to perform an alternate sides sweeping program. They found that they were unable to reduce the amount of time and curb miles the sweeper would actually have to operate under an alternate sides plan. The Mayor asked for a more detailed explanation, noting that the City was not one made up entirely of cul-de-sac streets and to his knowledge, specifically in the downtown area, there was a small percentage of cul-de-sacs to grid pat- tern streets. Mr. Lewis then explained the actual mechanics in performing the street sweeping function in different areas of the City. In concluding, he noted that in central Anaheim, most of lhe streets were a grid pattern and that pattern did lend itself to more savings with regard to the program. On the cul-de-sac street, it was necessary to make the same trip twice, whereas on grid pattern streets it was different, and there would be a reduced amount of street mileage involved in alternate day sweeping. The Mayor surmised that Mr. Lewis was going on the presumption that the City was made up of cul-de-sacs and if he did not know what percentage of the City streets were cul-de-sacs and the percentage that were grid pattern streets, how he could make a cost comparison. Mr. Lewis stated what he was trying to focus in on, from ~he simplest example of a cul-de-sac to the other type of extreme where everything was grid pattern, somewhere in-between there was a series of streets that meandered throughout a tract in cul-de-sacs and in knuckles, etc. What ~hey found was they almost had to retrace all of their steps in those tracts, the same as on a simple cul- de-sac, and go back and pick up the knuckle or one cul-de-sac within the tract. The Mayor felt that was fallacious and it did not have to be done that way. He felt the problem was that Mr. Lewis was trying to treat the whole City the same and it was not the same. He :ook, for example, a neighborhood made up of through streets grid pattern with some knuckles and cul-de-sacs such as that area west of Gilbert Street, south of La Palma, Greenbriar and surrounding area. He asked why they could not set up a program where they swept the cul-de-sacs all at one time, but provided all the grid type streets in that area alternate sides sweeping. He questioned why it was not possible to provide different types of sweeping schedules for different areas that had different needs, the bottom line being there were many neighborhoods in the City whereby residents could not remove their vehicles from the street. 81-230 City ~all~ Anah~im~ Califorqia - COUNCIL MINUTES - February 17,. 1.981, 1:30 P.M. Mr. Lewis explained, the difficulty in writing a report of the type submitted which was a general report applied to all areas of the City. In such a report it was possible to single out any one area, and it would have to be treated separately. If he were asked to address any one given area, he would define the sweeping pattern according to Council's desire in that area and there could be efficiencies of 80%, 60% or it could be 100% depending upon the area. That was how they would treat any given area if that were the program, but in writing a general report, they were trying to give the Council an impression of how they saw the street system as a whole. Mayor Seymour stated what he was interested in, now that they had a good pro- gram and he was totally supportive of it, was the fine tuning of the program which would mean that in those areas where there was not sufficient parking, that they provide some flexibility by sweeping one side one day and coming back and sweeping the other side another day. For example, on every cul-de-sac in the City they could sweep them only one day a week, but on certain grid pattern type streets they would do alternate day sweeping. That seemed to him to be a viable proposal. What he gleaned from the report was that staff had said they had put the program through its paces, they thought it through at the outset and now they felt they should not change it. He did not agree with that but felt that it needed fine tuning. City Manager Talley stated the reason that the report was submitted two weeks after Mr. Lewis prepared it was due to the fact that he (Talley) had some of the same concerns. So as not to be confused about the statistics, the 80% rep- resented what Mr. Lewis felt the added cost would be on all of the small areas involved. If the Council were to look at each of those areas, they would see that most of them had only one way in or out or perhaps two but they were not very well shaped parcels. They then asked what the cheapest way would be to bring the matter to the Council. At present, they had specific street sweeping routes and in order to maximize the efficiency, if Council wished, Mr. Lewis was recommending that they go to nine routes which was only a 12¼% increase to the City-wide program but probably an 80% order of magnitude relative to cost to sweep the small individual areas at present. Therefore he was saying if they did not want everything done on alternate sides on different days or the same day they ought to spend about $150,000. He (Lewis) did not feel it sounded to reasonable to buy another sweeper and truck loader that would have to travel all over town and then $50,000 a year for the operator and to maintain the street sweeper. Mayor Seymour asked if he understood Mr. Talley to say if the Council were to adopt that alternative it would cover the whole City or just the problem areas. Mr. Talley answered it would cover the whole City's problem areas as defined by two cars writing tickets rather than one. That was the only standard they used to go by. If the Council wanted to do something else, staff could do any- thing the Council wished. The minute they moved away from the present plan, however, they were going to have a sign proliferation which was a fact. They believed that the routes were well scheduled at present because they swept the City in blocks and if they started going back, there was a possibility of at least one more route in order to do it differently and some efficiency would be lost by alternate sweeping days--the only exception being going to alternate weeks. 81-231 City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - February 17, 1981, 1:30 P.M. Mayor Seymour stated he felt the whole program needed some flexibility because it was totally unfair and inequitable to force somebody to break the law by having to park his car in a shopping center or elsewhere or to inconvenience him greatly in those sections where there was not adequate off-street parking. Rather than continue what he believed to be a totally unfair situation in those areas where there was a shortage of parking, he proposed that they spend the $158,000 in capital outlay and then the annual cost of an additional operator and sweeper, if that was the solution, although he was not totally convinced that that was the answer to the problem. Councilwoman Kaywood sta~ed she would have to object to that on two grounds-- one that if they were not going to treat the whole City equally and their ob- jective was to have clean streets, they should not have instituted the program. Secondly, if they began to treat areas differently, they would be opening a "hornets nest." Many neighborhoods were being inconvenienced and if they were going to show a preference to one area and no~ another, that would be unfair. Mayor Seymour stated making the program flexible merely admitted to the fact that there was some sections of the City where there was a greater amount of off-street parking than in other sections and nothing more. Councilman Bay stated from one side of the argument, i.e., do not change any- thing, to getting a new sweeper and adding more cost, he felt they should first look at some of the middle ground alternates to solve the problem. Looking at Alternate 3 in the report (see page 5 of the subject report)--sweeping of alternate sides on succeeding weeks, would be what he would favor for the prob- lem areas because, in effect, it would not increase the cost other than the additional signing that would be necessary. At the same time, the sweeping would be reduced to once every two weeks rather than once every week on each side. The reason he did not see any other increased cost other than signing was due to the fact that the amount of sweeping would be decreased by 50%. In the areas where there were problems with on-street parking in the higher density apartment areas, if the Council wanted to try something to modify the intensity of the problem, ~hey should look at the possibility of Alternate 3 in those specific problem areas for a period of time to see how it would work. Mayor Seymour stated if they were to adopt such a policy, they would be looking to those areas of the City that needed their street swept more than any other area in the City--the high density areas. The other inconsistency in such a policy would be that one property owner or tenant would be paying to have their streets swept once a week while another every other week, but they would still be paying the same. Councilman Bay stated at the same time they were going to have to spend more money in those areas because they were going to have to double up on the sign- ing. They would also be giving them :he alternate of parking on the other side of the stree~ when sweeping occurred. MOTION: Councilwoman Kaywood moved to table the matter for two months to see if the number of complaints decreased in that time where people were being innovative enough in removing their vehicles from the street. She wanted to wait and see with regard to the last area which fell under the program in January. Councilman Overholt seconded the motion for the purpose of discussion 81-232 City Hal~, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - February 17, 1981, 1:30 P.M. Before a vote was taken, Councilman Roth asked if there were any cities in Orange County whose sweeping program encompassed alternate day street sweeping; Mr. Lewis answered that there were none to him knowledge in Orange County. Councilman Roth questioned if it would be worthwhile to ask those cities in Orange County who had a sweeping program to give some input relative to how they worked their program in the high density areas of the City; Mr. Lewis stated they could do that. Councilman Roth continued that, as well, they perhaps had not done enough as far as educating Anaheim citizens to, the street sweeping program. He felt there was a broad misconception that the signs indicating, for example, no parking 8:00 a.m. to 12 Noon, they were under the impression that they could not park in that area for four straight hours. However, the mweeper started in some areas at 8:00 a.m. and one or two minutes later after the sweeper went by, the cars could be reparked on the street. He felt that specific information on the street sweeping program should be included in utility billings as part of a citizen education program. Mayor Seymour, speaking to the motion on the floor, stated that he was opposed to it. He felt they had plenty of time to study the program which had been in place for one and one-half years. He was certain if the Council were to stick to the current program long enough, there would come a time when they would have no complaints. That did not mean, however, that it was an inequitable, rea- sonable or fair program or that it provided a flexibility of service. He did not think it was appropriate to conclude whether the program should be more flexible or not merely by measuring the number of complaint calls received or tickets written. He felt that with sensitivity they had to evaluate the various n~ighborhoods because they were entirely different. He was not saying what he suggested or what staff was recommending was the answer, but that to do nothing and force the program down the citizen's throat who was having a difficult time in removing his car from a public street, because he had nowhere else to put it, was patently unfair. He preferred to see the Council take an action or perhaps another two weeks to try and ascertain what other cities did. If the current motion passed, he was concerned that the matter would get buried. Mrs. Patricia Clancy, 303 North Bush, first explained that a few months ago the California Supreme Court passed a ruling that a City could no longer regulate the number of people renting an apartment. In many cases there were two and three families living in one apartment. There was nothing that could be done legally, but they could do something to help eliminate the overcrowding and that was to leave the street sweeping program alone. As soon as one of the families arrived in the City, they immediately purchased an automobile that was not insured and the driver not licensed, and the automobile would just sit in the street. She was very much opposed to any change in the street sweeping program. Her area was one of the first to have the program implemented. Ini- tially there were some problems in adjusting, but they since have done so. It also was not practical to sweep only every other week in heavy density areas. MOTION: Councilman Overholt thereupon offered a substitute motion to continue the matter for one month and to direct staff to investigate what other commun- ities were doing in their sweeping program and subsequently propose positive recommendations. Councilwoman Kaywood seconded the motion. 81-233 City Hall~ Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - February 17, 1981, 1:30 P.M. Before action was taken, Councilman Roth asked that the motion include pro- viding information in utility billings to provide citizens with more informa- tion relative to specifics of the City's street sweeping program. A vote was then taken on the foregoing motion. MOTION CARRIED. RECESS: By general consent the Council recessed for 15 minutes. (3:45 P.M.) AFTER RECESS: Mayor Seymour called the meeting to order, all Council Members being present. (4:00 P.M.) 161.123: PUBLIC HEARING - DISPOSITION AND DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT, LEWIS AND MARION FREEDMAN (NORTHEAST CORNER OF ANAHEIM BOULEVARD AND LINCOLN AVENUE, REALIGNED): Public hearing was held to consider a proposed Disposition and Development Agreement between the Redevelopment Agency and Lewis and Marion Freedman for the sale and development of certain real property bounded on the south by realigned Lincoln Avenue, on the west by Anaheim Boulevard, on the north by Cypress Street, and on the east by Claudina Street. Executive Director of Community Development Norm Priest briefly outlined his report and recommendations dated February 6, 1981. Mayor/Chairman Seymour asked if anyone present wished to address the City Council and Redevelopment Agency. Mrs. Diana Torgerson, 216 North Claudina Street, advised that her residence faced the subject property, and she read from a letter received in the office of the City Clerk this date (copies furnished each Council/Agency Member), and signed by herself and other residents on her street. Noted therein was the repeated refusal by the proposed developers to meet with those residents until after today's public hearing; therefore they were unable to make informed comments on the compatibility and impact of the project on the neighborhod. It was re- quested that the decision on the proposal be deferred until a meeting between the developers and the residents could be held. Responding to Council/Agency questions, Mrs. Torgerson further advised that she had resided at her present address for more than one year, and when they purchased the property they were advised that adjacent properties were under redevelopment. She had visited the Redevelopment Office and viewed the plan for Project Alpha, however, no specific plans for subject property were shown at that time. She questioned whether a concept approved today could be modi- fied at a later date. Mr. Priest explained that the site concept plan could be shown this date, how- ever, plans for proposed construction and landscaping would have to be approved by the Redevelopment Agency at a later date. This preliminary plan would, in effect, become part of the agreement. He pointed out that he had recently met with residents of the area and assured them that their location was at a point where commercial and residential uses came together. Mr. Dan L. Rowland, Architect for the project, came forward and displayed a general site plan. The corner one-story portion of the proposed development would house a jewelry store, with a diagonal plaza and a two-story element for 81-234 City Hall~ Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - February 17, 1981, 1:30 P.M. commercial offices to the rear. Fifty-four off-street parking spaces would be provided, and the development would be shielded from view of the residential area by a six-foot wall. In response to questions by Council/Agency Members, Mr. Rowland stated that the building would be approximately 80 feet from the nearest public right-of-way, and 140 feet from the nearest residence. The Lincoln Avenue access drive was located where shown on the plan for safety reasons. Mr. Priest called attention to the fact that the Traffic Engineer had reviewed and approved ~he traffic pattern shown on the plan, and further studies would be made during discussions with neighbors. Mayor/Chairman Seymour asked if anyone else wished to address the City Council/ Redevelopment Agency. Floyd L. Farano, Attorney representing applicants Mr. and Mrs. Freedman, stated that brief conversations had been held wi~h area residents, however, there was not a great deal of information available at the time, and they had been advised that when the proposed agreement was approved by the City, all materials would be available for the residents' inspection. He noted the possibility that this response may have been inadequate, however, they had no intention of causing a delay. Mayor/Chairman Seymour asked if anyone else wished to address the City Council/ Redevelopment Agency; there being no response, he declared the public hearing closed. Upon noting that the applicants were willing to work with residents of the area to alleviate their concerns, Mr. Seymour offered the following resolutions for adoption. Refer to Resolution Book. RESOLUTION NO. ARA81-5: A RESOLUTION OF THE ANAHEIM REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY MAKING ENVIRONMENTAL FINDINGS NECESSARY FOR THE PROPOSED DISPOSITION AND DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE ANAHEIM REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY AND LEWIS AND MARION FREEDMAN OF ANAHEIM FOR THE SALE AND DEVELOPMENT OF THAT CERTAIN REAL PROPERTY. RESOLUTION NO. ARA81-6: A RESOLUTION OF THE ANAHEIM REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY MAKING CERTAIN FINDINGS WITH RESPECT TO THE CONSIDERATION TO BE RECEIVED BY THE ANAHEIM REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY PURSUANT TO A DISPOSITION AND DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE ANAHEIM REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY AND LEWIS ~ MARION FREEDM~kN FOR THE SALE AND DEVELOPMENT OF CERTAIN REAL PROPERTY; APPROVING THE PROPOSED SALE OF SAID REAL PROPERTY AlqD THE DISPOSITION AND DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT PERTAINING THERETO; AiqD AUTHORIZING THE EXECUTION AND IMPLEMENTATION OF SAID DISPOSITION AND DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT. RESOLUTION NO. 81R-71: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM MAKING ENVIRONMENTAL FINDINGS NECESSARY FOR THE PROPOSED DISPOSITION AND DEVELOP- MENT AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE ~NAHEIM REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY AND LEWIS AND MARION FREEDMAN OF ANAHEIM FOR THE SALE AND DEVELOPMENT OF THAT CERTAIN REAL PROPERTY IN REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT ALPHA. 81-235 City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - February 17, 1981, 1:30. P.M. RESOLUTION NO. 81R-72: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM MAKING CERTAIN FINDINGS WITH RESPECT TO THE CONSIDERATION TO BE RECEIVED BY THE ANAHEIM REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY PURSUANT TO A DISPOSITION AND DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE ANAHEIM REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY AND LEWIS AND MARION FREEDMAN FOR THE SALE AND DEVELOPMENT OF CERTAIN PUBLIC IMPROVEMENTS BY THE AGENCY; AND APPROVING THE DISPOSITION AND DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT PERTAINING THERETO. Roll Call Vote (Resolution Nos. ARA81-5, ARA81-6, 81R-71 and 81R-72): AYES: NOES: ABSENT: COUNCIL/AGENCY MEMBERS: COUNCIL/AGENCY MEMBERS: COUNCIL/AGENCY MEMBERS: Overholt, Kaywood, Bay, Roth and Seymour None None Mayor/Chairman Seymour declared Resolution Nos. ARA81-5, ARA81-6, 81R-71 and 81R-72 duly passed and adopted. ADJOURNMENT: There being no further business to come before the Anaheim Redevelopment Agency, Mr. Seymour moved to adjourn. Mr. Roth seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. (4:27 P.M.) PUBLIC HEARING - VARIANCE NO. 3192, TENTATIVE TRACT NO. 11362, AND NEGATIVE DECLARATION: Application by Conrad J. and Josephine M. Letter, to establish a 1-lot, 7-unit condominium subdivision on RM-1200 zoned property located at 1260 East La Palma Avenue, east of East Street, with the following Code wiavers: a) b) c) d) e) f) minzmum building site area maximum structural height max]mum site coverage minimum landscaped setback minimum recreational-leisure area minzmum number of parking spaces The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC81-3, 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, denied Variance No. 3192 and Tentative Tract No. 11362. The decision of the Planning Commission was appealed by Conrad J. and Josephine M. Letter, owners, and Walter K. Bowman, agent, and public hearing scheduled this date. The Mayor asked if the applicant or applicant's agent was present. Mr. Walter K. Bowman, 7936 Cerritos Avenue, Stanton, explained that they had the site plan approved on July 2, 1980 after numerous public hearings on the parcel for seven apartment units. During the process of getting his working drawings prepared and submitting them to :he City, Mr. Letter was unable to obtain finan- cing for apartments which was a common problem today. He could, however, obtain financing for condominiums and tha: was the reason he was requesting the change. He wanted to use the same site plans and he had all of his working drawings together. They had a number of meetings with the neighbors (.t254 to 1242 East 81-236 qiqy Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - February 17, 1981, 1:30 P.M. La Palma) relative to the project and the majority of the interested neighbors reviewed the site plan at that time and there was a general consenus that they wished they were condominiums instead of apartments. As it turned out, if the Council approved the project, it would make most of the neighbors happy, as well as Mr. Letter. At ~he Planning Commission meeting, there was one neighbor who was opposed, and he (Bowman) met with him on February 10 and showed him the site plan. He did not know if that person was present today. Mayor Seymour asked if Mr. Bowman was aware that he was coming before the Council at a most inopportune time, meaning that they had a scheduled work session to- morrow evening to discuss the whole realm of condominium development standards~ affordable housing, etc. Mr. Bowman stated he was aware that there was going to be a work session. They had not had much control over the timing on the units. They had started over a year ago on the project as apartments and they had a number of problems to dis- cuss and to try to change. During that time, they found it was not feasible to build apartments in today's money market and that was why they were back. The Mayor asked if there was any other member of the public who wished to speak to the matter; there was no response. City Clerk Roberts then confirmed for Councilman Roth that the neighborhood was advised of the public hearing today. Legal publication was made and posting performed. The Mayor closed the public hearing. He also stated it was his opinion if they proceeded to make a decision on the project today they would be "flying blind." Tomorrow evening they would at least have a better feel from the Planning Com- mission, as well as the Council, to see if they could get some unanimity of feeling or direction. He, for one, would be concerned about making a decision today one way or the other and thus would be reluctant to vote on the matter. He would prefer to look at it a couple of weeks from now. Mr. Bowman said that would be acceptable. MOTION: After a brief discussion relative to an appropriate date and time, Councilman Seymour moved to continue public hearing on Variance No. 3192 and Tentative Tract No. 11362 to Tuesday, March 17, 1981, a~ 3:00 p.m. MOTION CARRIED. 130/173: REPAIR AND MAINTENANCE OF SURFACE OVERCROSSING OF RAILROADS IN THE CITY: On motion by Councilman Overholt, seconded by Councilman Bay, the City Manager's and City Attorney's offices wer~ authorized to negotiate an agreement with the various railroad companies serving the City for the repair and main- tenance of surface overcrossing of railroads in the City, as recommended in joint memorandum dated February 9, 1981 from the City Manager and City Attorney. MOTION CARRIED. 139: SENATE BILL 33 - VEHICLE INSPECTION AND MAINTENANCE: Supporting the passage of Senate Bill 33, Vehicle Inspection and Maintenance (continued from the meetings of January 27 and February 3, 1981--see minutes that date). 81-237 City Hall~ Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - February 17, 1981, 1:30 P.M. Councilman Roth first stated that he had a message from Supervisor McCandless thanking each of the Council Members for the resolution of congratulations recently presented to him, am well as a thank you to the City Clerk. He pre- sented the resolution to Supervisor McCandless at the South Coast Air Quality Management Board (SCAQMB) m~eting last Friday where it turned out that he (Roth) was elected Vice-Chairman of the four-county area. The pro-business people who had a concern about the balance between industry and air quality won a decisive battle by having Dr. Heinsheimer elected as its new Chairman. Relative to SB 33, there was a meeting in Sacramento with Senator Presley, A1 McCandless and Mayor HeimsheLmer and hhe staff from the South Coast Air Quality Management Board District. He wanted to explain what had now evolved or what was left of SB 33. They completely deleted all the centralized test stations which would also include phasing out the existing State-fun Hamilton Test stations presently in service, which should be completed by 1984. Thus, all testing could be done by free enterprise. The $15 up-front fee was also deleted which would have been added to the annual automobile registration fee. A motorist would pay between $3 and $5 for the inspection of his vehicle in a free enterprise service activity. The bill had, therefore, moved completely into the concept of keeping the automobile tuned up annually with the fee to be paid to the business who provided the tune-up and a certificate would be given at that time. The last and major provision which evolved out of the Anaheim City Council was a "sunset" provision. Ail those items had been incorporated into the bill according to Mr. McCandless, Mayor Heinsheimer and Senator Presley. They were still looking for support from various cities and counties. Last Wednesday night at the Sanitation District meeting, 23 cities were present, plus four members of the Board of Supervisors, and they voted unanimously to support SB 33 with the amendments as just articulated. In addition, Mr. Harper, the Executive Officer of the Sanitation District, indicated that the District could lose up to $11 million. He (Roth) did not like the sanctions any more than anybody else, but it was obvious that there was a serious problem relative to dollars and cents if some type of plan was not implemented. He pointed out that even if SB 33 received approval this year, it would be 1983 before it took effect. He felt the bill also would be amended again before being finalized. It was appropriate, however, to indicate that the City of Anaheim with the amended provisions was supportive of some type of motor vehicle inspection and that they were interested in clean air. Councilman Roth thereupon offered a resolution supporting the passage of Senate Bill 33, Vehicle Inspection and Maintenance. Before any action was taken, Mayor Seymour referred to a letter from Congressman Bill Dannemeyer dated February 4, 1981. He asked if he (Roth) or any other Council Member had received that letter. Councilman Roth stated that he had received one, and the District was responding to it. He then mentioned the breakfast meeting they had attended with Congressman Dannemeyer where they discussed the sanctions that were being mandated by the Federal government and found that Congressman Dannemeyer was not even familiar with them. His (Dannemeyer's) bill may or may not pass but in the meantime he (Roth) was opposed just as the Chamber of Commerce. The Chamber had proposed a resolution stating thac some type of motor vehicle inspection was necessary to clean up the air. He was dismayed when any type of sanctions were handed down; however, he was not using Chose sanctions as reasons for supporting SB 33. 81-238 City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - February 17, 1981, 1:30 P.M. Councilman Bay stated he had a problem with the resolution for three reasons. It was obvious that the bill was changing dramatically as predicted by staff and the Chamber. He also received a copy of the Dannemeyer letter and he agreed with the positions he was taking relative to the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) edicts. With the new administration, he could foresee some of the "blocks kicked out" from some of those edicts coming from the bureaus in Washington to the states. His problem in voting on the resolution today was that with the dramatic changes that had occurred, he was not certain what he was voting for. He had not seen the bill with the amendments and felt it presumptuous for the Council to support a resolution that was in a constant state of change until they knew what they were voting on. Councilman Overholt acknowledged Mr. Davenport from the Automobile Club. Mr. Skip Davenport, Automobile Club of Southern California, 150 West Vermont, stated that they were also concerned about SB 33 but more concerned with cleaning up the air, contrary to some thought that anyone opposed to SB 33 was in favor of smog. Councilman Roth asked what the Automobile Club had done to clean up the air. Mr. Davenport explained that they had introduced legislation in 1978 on a, maintain the current program upon transfer basis, which they felt was more responsive and also instructing the State government to mandate a study by the Stanford Research Institute in order to get the best possible means of vehicle inspection by the State. Councilman Roth stated he would appreciate it if Mr. Davenport would supply in writing a position paper from the Automobile Club as to what they had done 'relative to cleaning up the air in the last ten years; Mr. Davenport stated that he would be happy to meet with him in person and provide that data. Mr. Davenport continued that the problem they had with SB 33 at present was the fact that they did not know what it looked like today. Further, evidence from the existing program did not show any substantial amount of reduction, more than 4% could be seen for the multi-million dollar project. Even at the $5 per car charge on the new proposed amendments, it would still run $60 million when considering there were 12 million cars in the State currently with 1,068,000 cars in Orange County alone. The EPA itself on February 3, 1981, in its testi- mony before the Senate Transportation Commission, stated that they had not ana- lyzed the bill or had sta~ed it would be acceptable. The legislative counsel of the State had some concerns stating that the phase-in portion from 1983 to 1986 failed to comply with the Federal requirements for implementation by December 31, 1982. Therefore, even if SB 33 were put in place, it probably would not comply or have any effect on the sanctions. However, that was a moot question because the EPA was denying to say that other than four actions had been taken in the State to withhold funds and they were not going to say where or when. The State Legislative counsel also stated that SB 33 in its original form did not provide for a repayment of a current $8.4 million deficit in the present Hamilton Test Program. In concluding, Mr. Davenport stated, on behalf of the Board of Directors of the Automobile Club of Southern California, the major concern was that the proposed program be cost effective. For the millions of dollars it would generate, they 81-239 City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - February 17, 1981, 1:30 P.M. were not going to be able to tell the difference of 4% in air quality in Southern California. They were looking forward to other scientific means and engineering improvements on the vehicles to meet those things. Later in the meeting, Councilman Roth asked the City Clerk to have a verbatim transcript prepared of Mr. Davenport's foregoing remarks (on file in the City Clerk's office). He wanted to be able to present those remarks to the South Coast Air Quality Management Board to let them know of the statements being made by the Automobile Club to the cities in the community. Councilwoman Kaywood stated that she felt SB 33 was a good first step and she would gladly support the proposed resolution. Councilman Overholt stated he would very much like to be supportive, but that he could not be at this point. He was convinced that the Federal sanctions were the greatest motivating factor. The bill had taken on a different form in order to gain sufficient support to pass. He was not going to support the resolution, but that should not prejudice Councilman Roth from coming back next week with the amended bill. He also stated that he would like to see the data as to what the Automobile Club had done in the past ten years relative to air quality. biayor Seymour stated that he had previously expressed his feelings on the matter and asked Councilman Roth if he would prefer to withdraw the proposed resolution or call for a vote. Councilman Roth stated he would withdraw the resolution until they received a copy of the bill as amended. 177: RESALE CONTROLS - GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 65916: Establishing, in com- pliance with State law, resale controls in order to assure continued afford- ability for 30 years, for housing developments that involve a direct financial contribution of public funds; establishing said resale controls in the form of deed restrictions with the Consumer Price Index as an indicator of equity, re- strictions on rental and a first right of refusal to the Housing Authority (continued from the meetings of February 3 and 10, 1981-,see minutes those dates). City Attorney William Hopkins briefed the Council on his memorandum dated February 12, 1981, advising that there was no published opinion of the Attorney General concerning the subject Code and that none were being prepared by the Office of the Attorney General at this time. They were drafting questions to be submitted through appropriate channels to the Attorney General for a formal opinion. Councilman Overholt asked if they were required to take any action at all; Mr. Hopkins answered that he would recommend continuing the matter for an additional week, and he would check with Mr. Norm Priest, Executive Director of Community Development, as to whether or not any action was required by his Department. MOTION: Councilman Overholt moved to continue the subject for one week to await input from Mr. Priest. 81-240 City Hall, Anaheim, Cal%fornia - COUNCIL MINUTES - February 17, 1981, 1:30 P.M. Before any action was taken, Councilman Bay questioned why they would have to take action on the first portion of the proposed motion at all, since at the previous Council meeting (February 10, 1981), the Council took action stating it did not intend to approve any direct funding that would require 30-year resale controls. Councilman Overholt stated the reason he wanted the matter continued was to ask Mr. Priest if there still might be a requirement for them to take some action on the matter. Councilwoman Kaywood seconded the motion. Mayor Seymour stated he was going to oppose the motion to continue. He suspected what Councilman Overholt was saying, other than a direct financial contribution, was there a law mandating the City to adopt 30-year price controls. City Attorney Hopkins answered that there was no law requiring the City to take such action. The Mayor continued that last week they unanimously passed a motion stating they would not offer a direct financial contribution if there were 30-year resale price controls, and he saw no reason to belabor that. Councilman Overholt stated his understanding was that the first portion of the motion would constitute compliance with the law and they had chosen not to im- plement that law by saying they would not get involved. The second portion implemented that restraint. He was only asking for a continuance of one week to see if there was any reason why they should take no action. He wanted to be certain they were not required to take action in implementing the law. If no action was required, he intended to vote "no". The Mayor stated he would then support the motion of continuance. A vote was then taken on the foregoing motion. MOTION CARRIED. CONSENT CALENDAR ITEMS: On motion by Councilwoman Kaywood, seconded by Councilman Roth, the following actions were authorized in accordance with the reports and recommendations furnished each Council Member and as listed on the Consent Calendar Agenda: 1. 118: CLAIMS AGAINST THE CITY: The following claims were denied and referred to the City's Claims Administrator: a. Claim submitted by Wallace E. Wilson for vehicular damages purportedly sus- tained as a result of police officer driving claimant's automobile into parking lot at 1771S. Brookhurst Street, on or about November 16, 1980. b. Claim submitted by David L. Windbigler for damages purportedly sustained as a result of electrical problem at utility pole serving 3126 W. Rome, causing damage to personal property, on or about December 20, 1980. c. Claim submitted by Metropolitan Property and Liability, on behalf of Josephine Patti, for vehicular damages purportedly sustained as a result of accident invol- ving City-owned vehicle at North Street near Lido Avenue, on or about December 2, 1980. 81-241 City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - February 17, 1981, 1:30 P.M. d. Claim submitted by Ray F. Dailey for damages purportedly sustained as a result of power failure at 1733 Belmont Avenue, on or about January 20, 1981. e. Claim submitted by Penny J. Fla:tum for personal injury damages purportedly sustained as a result of slip-and-fall accident at Anaheim Convention Center, on or about December I0, 1980. f. Claim submitted by Mary Lou Grimes for damages to personal property purpor- tedly sustained as a result of problem with power line to 1010 Iroquois from City power pole, on or about January 25, 1981. g. Claim submitted by Kelly Wagner for personal injury damages purportedly sustained as a result of slip-and-fall accident at the Convention Center, on or about December 28, 1980. 2. CORRESPONDENCE: The following correspondence was ordered received and filed: a. 105: Community Redevelopmen: Commission--Minutes of January 28, 1981. b. 107: Public Works Department, Building Division--Monthly Report for January 1981. c. 156: Police Department--Monthly Report for January 1981. d. 105: Anaheim Housing Commission--Minutes of December 3, 1980 and January 22, 1981. 3. 108: APPLICATIONS: The following applications were approved in accordance with the recommendations of the Chief of Police: a. Amusement Devices Per~it: Video Palace, 910 South Harbor Boulevard, for various amusement devices. (Maurice Pinto, applicant) b. Amusement Devices Permit: Hi-Score, aka Polish Arcade, 1214 South Dale Avenue, for various amusement devices. (Sandra S. Marquez, applicant) c. Amusement Devices Permit: The Sub Shack, 5761 East Santa Ana Canyon Road, for one electronic game. (John William Ritzer, applicant) d. Amusement Devices Permit: Pizza Rosa, 2825 East Lincoln Avenue, for one pinball machine. (Robert Harlan Jackson, applicant0 e. Entertainment Permi:: The Bavarian Inn, 2822 Wes: Ball Road, for one musician, two nigh:s a week, 8:30 p.m. to 1:00 a.m. (Maxine M. Berger, applicant) MOTION CARRIED. 114: GARDEN GROVE RESOLUTION NO. 6049-81 - SUPPORTING ELIMINATION OF FEDERAL ESTATE TAX: Councilman 0verholt noticed that the subject resolution contained the following statement--"WHEREAS, the monies raised by the Federal Estate Tax did not cover the cost of the Federal government in collecting the said tax"-- he would be interested to know if that statement was true, since it was his guess that it was untrue. 81-242 City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - February 17, 1981, 1:30 P.M. MOTION: Councilman Overholt moved to receive and file the subject resolution. Councilman Bay seconded the motion. Before a vote was taken, Councilwoman Kaywood asked if they were going to obtain an answer to the question posed by Councilman Overholt. City Manager Talley suggested they write a letter to the City Clerk of Garden Grove. Councilman Overholt agreed that a letter should be sent expressing interest in the proposed resolution and statement and asking where they received their information. He also noted tha~ there was a great deal of interest at present for the repeal of the inheritance tax in California. A vote was then taken on the foregoing motion. MOTION CARRIED. CONSENT CALENDAR ITEMS: Councilwoman Kaywood offered Resolution Nos. 81R-73 through 81R-77, 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. 81R-73: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM ACCEPTING CERTAIN DEEDS AND ORDERING THEIR RECORDATION. (Anaheim Hills Medical Development Co.; David W. Ward, et al.; H. Bill Ehrlich, et ux.; Gilbert M. Reel, et al.) 176: RESOLUTION NO. 81R-74: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM DECLARING ITS INTENTION TO VACATE AND ABANDON A CERTAIN PUBLIC STREET AND ALLEYS AND FIXING A DATE FOR A HEARING THEREON. (80-4A, March 17, 1981, 3:00 P.M.) 169: RESOLUTION NO. 81R-75: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM FINALLY ACCEPTING THE COMPLETION AND THE FURNISHING OF ALL PLANT, LABOR, SERVICES, MATERIALS AND EQUIPMENT AND ALL UTILITIES AND TRANSPORTATION INCLUDING POWER, FUEL AND WATER, AND THE PERFORMANCE OF ALL WORK NECESSARY TO CONSTRUCT AND COMPLETE THE FOLLOWING PUBLIC IMPROVEMENT, TO WIT: CLEMENTINE STREET STREET IMPROVEMENT, FREEDMAN WAY TO KATELLA AVENUE, IN THE CITY OF ANAHEIM, ACCOUNT NO. 13-792-6325-2480 & 51-605-6329-26280-76100, 12-79406325-E4150. (R. J. Noble Company) 169: RESOLUTION NO. 81R-76: 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: BARRIER FREE ANAHEIM NO. 5 STREET IM]PROVEMENT, IN THE CITY OF ANAHEIM, ACCOUNT NO. 12-793- 6325-E3410; APPROVING THE DESIGNS, PLANS, PROFILES, DRAWINGS, AND SPECIFICATIONS FOR THE CONSTRUCTION THEREOF; AUTHORIZING THE CONSTRUCTION OF SAID PUBLIC IMPROVE- MENT 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 March 19, 1981, at 2:00 P.M.) 113/153: RESOLUTION NO. 81R-77: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AUTHORIZING THE DESTRUCTION OF CITY RECORDS MORE THAN 2~WO YEARS OLD. (Human Resources Department records) 81-243 City Ha!l~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - February 17, 1981, 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. 81R-73 through 81R-77, both inclusive, duly passed and adopted. CITY PLANNING COMMISSION ITEMS: The following actions taken by the City Planning Commission at their meeting held January 26, 1981, pertaining to the following applications, as listed on the Consent Calendar, were submitted for City Council information. 1. VARIANCE NO. 3193: Submitted by Wen Tsun Wu, et al, to retain two freestand- ing signs on CL zoned property located at 1538 East Lincoln Avenue, with various Code waivers. The City Planning Con~nission, pursuant to Resolution Nos. PC81-28, denied Variance No. 3193, and ratified the Planning Director's categorical exemption determination. 2. VARIANCE NO. 3194: Submitted by Anaheim Insurance Leaseco, to erect a canopy on C1 zoned property located at 2165 South Manchester Avenue, with a Code waiver of minimum landscaped setback. The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC81-29, granted Variance No. 3194, and ratified the Planning Director's categorical exemption determination. 3. VARIANCE NO. 3196 (TENTATIVE TRACT NO. ii211--REVISION NO. 1): Submitted by Cheryl Jo Matlock, to establish a 49-1ot, 44-unit condominium subdivision on RS-A-43,000 zoned property located at 649 South Beach Boulevard, with a Code waiver of required lot frontage. The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC81-30, granted Variance No. 3196, and granted a negative declaration status. 4. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2056 - REVOCATION PROCEEDINGS: Submitted by the City of Anaheim, to revoke Conditional Use Permit No. 2056, to retain a con- tractor's storage yard on ML zoned property located at 2920 East La Jolla Street, under authority of Code Section 18.03.091, for failure to comply with the conditions of approval. The City Planning Commission terminated all proceedings to revoke Conditional Use Permit No. 2056, as conditions have been satisfied. 5. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2143 (TENTATIVE TRACT NO. 11347): Submitted by M. J. Brock & Sons, Inc., to permit a 125-unit, 153-1ot detached condominium subdivision on RS-A-43,000 zoned property located on the north side of Falmouth, south side of Coronet Avenue, west of Romneya Drive, with Code waivers of maximum structural height and minimum landscaped setback. The City Planning Co~nission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC81-24, granted, in part, Conditional Use Permit No. 2143 (Tentative Tract No. 11347), and EIR No. 113 was previously approved on March 16, 1974. 81-244 City Halls. Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - February 17, 1981, 1:30 P.M. 6. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2154: Submitted by Robert Eugene and Sharon Lynn Bentley, to permit two freestanding signs on CO zoned property located at 100 North Harbor Boulevard. The City Planning Con~nission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC81-23, granted Con- ditional Use Permit No. 2154, and ratified the Planning Director's categorical exemption determination. 7. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2162: Submitted by Bank of America, N.T. & S.A., to permit a truck terminal on ML zoned property located on the north side of La Jolla Street, east of Red Gum Street. The City Planning Commission, pursuan: to Resolution No. PC81-26, granted Con- ditional Use Permit No. 2162, and granted a negative declaration status. 8. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2168: Submitted by J. Kent Bewley, et al, to permit on-sale beer and wine in an existing drive-through restaurant on CL zoned property located at 117 South Western Avenue, with a Code waiver of minimum distance of drive-through lane. The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC81-27, granted Con- ditional Use Permit No. 2168, and ratified the Planning Director's categorical exemption determination. 9. VARIANCE NO. 2864 - REQUEST FOR TERMINATION: Submitted by Abel and Carol A. Mendez, requesting termination of Variance No. 2864, to waive permitted uses to establish an auto repair shop on CG zoned property located at 1039 North Anaheim Boulevard. The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC81-31, terminated Variance No. 2864. 10. VARIANCE NO. 979 - REQUEST FOR TERMINATION: Submitted by Lincoln Group, requesting termination of Variance No. 979, to erect a temporary subdivision sign on CL zoned property located at 1743 West Lincoln Avenue. The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC81-32, terminated Variance No. 979. 11. TENTATIVE TRACT NOS. 10409 AND 10410 - EXTENSIONS OF TIME: Submitted by Anaheim Hills, Inc., requesting extensions of time to Tentative Tract Nos. 10409 and 10410, a 40-1o~, RS-HS-10,000 zoned subdivision and a 38-1ot, RS-HS-10,000 zoned subdivision, on property located on the south side of Willowick Drive, south of Nohl Ranch Road. The City Planning Commission approved an extension of time to Tentative Tract Nos. 10409 and 10410, to expire February 28, 1982. 12. RECLASSIFICATION NO. 79-80-25 AND VARIANCE NO. 3136 - EXTENSIONS OF TIME: Submitted by Anaheim Hills, Inc., requesting extensions of time to Reclassifi- cation No. 79-80-25 and Variance No. 3136, for a change in zone from County A-1 and RS-A-43,000 to RS-2400, RM-3000, RS-HS-22,000 and OS zones with certain Code waivers, on property located southwesterly of Nohl Ranch Road between the inter- section of Nohl Ranch Road with Canyon Rim Road and Serrano Avenue. 81-245 City. Hall,. Anah~e. im, C.a. lifornia - COUNCIL MINUTES - February 17~ 1981, 1:30 P.M. The City Planning Commission approved extensions of time to Reclassification No. 79-80-25 and Variance No. 3136, to expire February 11, 1982. 13. TENTATIVE TRACT NO. 10784 - EXTENSION OF TIME: Submitted by Anaheim Hills Inc., requesting an extension of time to Tentative Tract No. 10784, to establish a 19-lot, 16-unit subdivision on RM-3000 zoned property located on the north side of Canyon Rim Road, west of Serrano Avenue. The City Planning Commission approved an extension of time to Tentative Tract No. 10784, to expire March 10, 1982. 14. RECLASSIFICATION NO. 78-79-25 AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 1935 - EXTEN- SIONS OF TIME: Submitted by Anaheim Hills, Inc., requesting extensions of time to Reclassification No. 78-79-25 and Conditional Use Permit No. 1935, for a change in zone from RS-A-43,000 to RS-HS-iO,000, to permit a 27-1ot, 25-unit, planned unit development, with certain Code waivers, on property located on the east side of Imperial Highway, south of Nohl Ranch Road. The City Planning Commission approved extensions of time to Reclassification No. 78-79-25 and Conditional Use Permit No. 1935, to expire January 29, 1982. 15. VARIANCE NO. 3175 - REVIEW OF REVISED PLANS: Submitted by Bill Z. and Betty Wehunt, requesting review of revised plans for Variance No. 3175, to construct a 4-unit apartment building on RM-1200 zoned property located at 211 East Valencia Avenue, with certain Code waivers. The City Planning Commission determined that a public hearing was necessary. 16. 155: TIME RESTRAINTS FOR CONDOMINIUM CONVERSIONS: Determined that it would be appropriate for the Planning Commission and the City Council to dis- cuss time restraints for condominium conversions at a scheduled work session. (INFORMATION ONLY) No action was taken on the foregoing items; therefore the actions of the City Planning Commission became final. RECLASSIFICATION NO. 80-81-22: Submitted by Eileen A. Druiff, for a change in zone from RS-7200 to RM-2400, to construct a duplex on property located at 123 South Grand Avenue. The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC81-25, granted Reclassification No. 80-81-22, and granted a negative declaration status. Councilwoman Kaywood removed the subject reclassification from the Planning Commission Consent Calendar and requested a review of the Planning Commission's action. The applicant, Mrs. Eileen A. Druiff, was in the Chambers audience. She stated she had appeared before the Planning Commission and they voted five to one that she be allowed to construct a duplex on the subject lot. Mayor Seymour then explained the process on the setting of a public hearing before the Council even after approval by the Planning Commission. 81-246 City ~all, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - February 17, 1981, 1:30 P.M. Councilwoman Kaywood then stated that she had received complaints from the neighborhood that the proposal was for a duplex right in the middle of single- family new homes, and they were concerned about that. In checking with the City Clerk, it was determined that the hearing would be set for March 17, 1981, at 3:00 P.M. 170: TENTATIVE TRACT NO. 8418 (PREVIOUSLY APPROVED) - APPROVAL OF SPECIFIC PLANS: Submitted by Jerry M. Shulman, requesting approval of specific plans, to construct two-story dwellings on seven lots within Tentative Tract No. 8418, to permit a 79-1ot, RS-HS-10,O00 zoned subdivision on property located on the north side of Nohl Ranch Road, east of Villa Real Drive. The Mayor asked if anyone was present representing Mr. Shulman; no one was present. MOTION: Councilwoman Kaywood moved to deny approval of specific plans as recommended by the Planning Commission, noting that the reason for initial approval was that two-story dwellings would not be constructed on these seven lots within Tract No. 8418. Councilman Bay seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. 170: FINAL MAP - TRACT NO. 8116: Developer, Boulevard Development Company, tract is located south of Nohl Ranch Road and west of Meats Avenue and contains 35 proposed RS-HS-iO,000 zoned lots. On motion by Councilman Roth, seconded by Councilman Bay, the proposed sub- division, together with its design and improvement, was found to be consistent with the City's General Plan, and the City Council approved the Final Map of Tract No. 8116, subject to CC & R's being approved by the City Attorney and Engineering Division, with recordation thereof being made concurrently with the tract map, as recommended by the City Engineer in his memorandum dated February 11, 1981. MOTION CARRIED. ORDINANCE NO. 4207 AND 4208: Councilman Seymour offered Ordinance Nos. 4207 and 4208 for first reading. ORDINANCE NO. 4207: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AMENDING TITLE 18 OF THE ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO ZONING. (66-67-61(98), C-R) ORDINANCE NO. 4208: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AMENDING TITLE 18 OF THE ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO ZONING. (80-81-15, CL) 114: PREMIERE OPENING MARRIOTT HOTEL FOR THE BENEFIT OF THE ORANGE COUNTY MUSIC CENTER, ARTURO TOSCANINI CHAPTER: Councilman Overholt reported on the Premiere Opening of the Marriott Hotel on Saturday evening, February 14, 1981 in support of the Orange County Music Center under the sponsorship of the local Anaheim Arturo Toscanini Chapter. He considered it to be an outstanding evening and a tremendous contribution by the Marriott Corporation to an event for the County in that they picked up the cost for the meals. The ladies who formed the Chapter were to be highly complimented for staging a very successful event. The City should be proud of them and the outstanding progress they were making to build a music center in Orange County. 81-247 City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - February 17, 1981, 1:30 P.M. 114: SUBREGIONAL PLANNING COUNCIL MEETING: Councilwoman Kaywood reported on the subject meeting held Wednesday, February 11, 1981. She was now Chairman of that Council. At that meeting, they voted to recommend the draft proposal of the Air Quality Management Plan to the Orange County Board of Supervisors on March 3rd and subsequently it would be forwarded to SCAG. 120: PROPOSED GARDENING BLOWER ORDINANCE: (Continued from the meeting of January 27, 1981) Mayor Seymour recalled that Mr. Herb Eggett had requested that they consider an ordinance relative to the subject blowers. A report had been received from the City Manager's office, the bottom line being, staff was saying "no" too expensive to using hhe blower equipment and secondly they cited, were much to expensive to using the blower equipment and secondly they cited, even if the ordinance were adopted, it would be difficult to enforce. He was now again looking for input from the Council in order to respond to Mr. Eggett. Councilwoman Kaywood suggested that they take no action. Every governing body seemed to wind up passing a resolution or ordinance to prohibit what was essentially a neighborhood feud. In this case, she did not feel that the ordinance was the way to go. Councilman Roth suggested that they send a copy of the staff report to Mr. Eggett. Councilman Overholt stated that the one ordinance that was given to them was the Newport Beach ordinance, but they had other things to think about such as the pollution of the bay and matters such as that which was a part of the or- dinance. He also felt that this was an area in which good common sense might be the way to handle the matter, rather than government telling people how to use the equipment. It was the consensus of the Council that a letter be sent to Mr. Eggett ad- vising him that no action would be taken. 148: NATIONAL LEAGUE OF CITIES MEETING AND OTHER SUCH CONFERENCES: Mayor Seymour referred to the National League of Cities meeting to be held in Washington, D. C., (February 28 through March 3, 1981) that he and Councilman Overholt were going to attend. He stated he was looking for policy direction from the Council as to whether one or all of the Council members should attend, a matter which would become somewhat important at budget time relative to travel allowances. Councilwoman Kay-wood stated having attended many State conferences she knew that one person could not cover a conference. She felt that if everyone could attend, it would be a good idea. Mayor Seymour stated that Councilwoman Kaywood felt that one or all should attend. Councilman Bay stated he felt the same way; Councilman Roth stated it was up to the individual because each member had to answer to his or her constituents. If a Council member wished to attend, they should do so and if the constituents were not happy with that action, they would let them know. Mayor Seymour stated he agreed with Councilman Roth that it was an individual decision and if that individual was going to accomplish business, not only the Council, but the constituents would know. If it was a political junket, the constituents would also know that. 81-24~ CitZ~al~, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - February 17, 1981, 1:30 P.M. Councilman Overholt, having attended the Conference in Washington in 1979, stated his experience was that the staff people both in Washington and from the City found it was very beneficial for the elected official to meet the Federal staff, the people with whom they dealt daily, to show support and interest in the things they were doing. If there was no large purpose to be derived from his going, he had plenty of demands on his time, rather than going to Washington. The Mayor stated this was a departure from what they had specifically accom- plished since he had been on the Council in 1974. Perhaps if they were going to involve themselves as a Council along those lines, they should reconsider a much more aggressive participation nog only in the National League of Cities, by seeking committee appointments etc., but also joining and participating in other organizations such as the U. S. Conference of Mayors. Up to this point, they had adopted a low key attitude. He reiterated he was suggesting that they give consideration as ~o how far they should go. They now had a favorable administration back in Washington and he, for one, felt they should capitalize upon that to whatever degree they could improve life and the economy in the City. Councilman Bay stated they should all be thinking about the matter. Mayor Seymour then asked the City Manager to provide for the Council's information what would be involved relative to a more committed involvement in the National League of Cities, as well as a committed involvement to the U. S. Conference of Mayors and other such conferences as well. Councilman Roth stated that they might also conmider more aggressive action in the California League of Cities where he felt that more could be done than in National. He stated that many of them had not been participating in anything statewide because of the policies established by a prior Mayor and Council Members in 1974, not to leave the boundaries of Anaheim. In concluding, the Mayor reiterated that they wanted to look at the participation in all arenas and that the City Manager submit a report to the Council so that they could determine what general direction they might take. RECESS - CLOSED SESSION: Councilman Seymour moved to recess into Closed Session. Councilman Bay seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. (5:32 P.M.) AFTER RECESS: Mayor Seymour called the meeting to order, all Council Members being present. (6:23 P.M.) 112: PETERSON VS. CITY OF ANAHEIM: On motion by Councilman Seymour, seconded by Councilman Roth, the City Attorney and Kinkle, Rodiger & Spriggs were authorized to settle Orange County Superior Court Case No. 28-12-95, Peterson vs. City of Anaheim for a sum not to exceed $2,500. MOTION CARRIED. ADJOURnmENT: Councilman Seymour moved to adjourn to Wednesday, February 18, 1981, at 7:00 P.M., for a work session with the Planning Commission. Councilman Overholt seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. (6:24 P.M.) ~OBER~RK