Loading...
1981/08/0481-1104 City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - August 4, 1981, 1:30 P.M. PRESENT: ABSENT: PRESENT: The City Council of the City of Anaheim met in regular session. COUNCIL M~MBERS: Overholt, Kaywood, Bay, Roth and Seymour COUNCIL MEMBERS: None CITY MANAGER: William O. Talley CITY ATTORNEY: William P. Hopkins CITY CLERK: Linda D. Roberts DEPUTY CITY CLERK: Leonora N. Sohl CITY ENGINEER: William Devitt PUBLIC UTILITIES GENERAL MANAGER: Gordon Hoyt ASSISTANT DIRECTOR FOR ZONING: Annika Santalahti POLICE OLYMPICS COORDINATOR: Jim Watkins INVOCATION: Mayor Seymour called the meeting to order and welcomed those in attendance to the Council meeting. Lieutenant Alan Robinson, The Salvation Army, gave the Invocation. FLAG SALUTE: Councilman Don R. Roth led the assembly in the Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag. 119: INTRODUCTION OF MISS ANAHEIM: Mrs. Fran Mauck introduced Miss Anaheim 1981, Jennifer Burke. On behalf of the Council and City the Mayor congratu- lated Miss Burke and presented her with roses and a briefcase with the City Seal. 119: PROCLAMATION: The following proclamation was issued by Mayor Seymour and authorized by the City Council: "Deaf Bowling Week in Anaheim" - August 10 to 16, 1981 119: RESOLUTION OF COMMENDATION: A resolution of commendation was unani- mously adopted by the City Council and presented to Jamie Eggleton, manager of the pool at Katella High School, by the Mayor on behalf of the Council for saving the lives of two persons. 156: POLICE OLYI~ICS MEDAL WINNERS: Detective James Watkins reported on the ' XV Annual California Police Olympics held July 22 through 26, 1981 in Sacramento. He then introduced Anaheim's Police Officer Medal winners who were present at the meeting. MINUTES: City Clerk Linda Roberts clarified that after verifying with the tape of the meeting of December 9, 1980 as requested, the two corrections were as follows: Page 22, the figure was 85,000 and not 5,000 and Page 52, the figure was 23 and not 28. Councilman Roth moved to approv~ the minutes of December 9, 1980 with the two correc,tions as noted. Councilman Overholt seconded the motion. Councilwoman Kaywood voted "no". MOTION CARRIED. Councilwoman Kaywood explained her "no" vote in that only the two corrections as noted were being allowed and because those minutes had a great many mistakes in them, some of which were articu- lated at the previous meeting, she would not vote to approve them. 81-11Q5 City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - August 4, 1981, 1:30 P.M. Mayor Seymour then referred to the report submitted by the City Clerk recom- mending action-only minutes as delineated by the guideline attached to the report. He was prepared to take action today. MOTION: Councilwoman Kaywood stated that she had not had an opportunity to review the report since it was just submitted to the Council. She thereupon moved to continue consideration and subsequent action on the matter for one week. Councilman Overholt seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. WAIVER OF READING - ORDINANCES AND RESOLUTIONS: Councilman Roth 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 ordinances or resolutions in regular order. Councilwoman Kaywood seconde~ the motion. MOTION CARRIED. FINANCIAL DEMANDS AGAINST THE CITY in the amount of $2,012,328.96, in accord- ance with the 1981-82 Budget, were approved. CITY MANAGER/DEPARTMENTAL MOTION CONSENT CALENDAR: On motion by Councilwoman Kaywood, seconded by Councilman Overholt, the following items were approved, as recommended: a. 160: Bid No. 3787: Three-Phase Padmount Transformers. Award to RTE Corporation, $9,296.20, for two 225KVA Three-Phase Padmount Transformers, Item No. 1; and award to General Electric Company, $58,858.62 for one 500KVA, two 1500KVA and one 2500KVA, Three-Phase Padmount Transformers, Item Nos. 1, 3 and 4. b. 128: Receive and file Financial Statement for the twelve months ended June 30, 1981. c. 123: Authorizing modification to the Automatic Aid Agreement between the Cities of Buena Park and Anaheim, providing cross-boundary response programs of fire protection within the corporate limits of each city. d. 153: Adopting the Plan Document for the City Medical Benefits Plan which details the benefits to be provided through the self-funded medical plan, effective January 1, 1981. e. 158: Authorizing an agreement with C-W Associates generating revenue in the amount of $80,000 from sale of City property for the proposed extension of La Palma Avenue easterly from Weir Canyon Road to connect with the Lomas de Yorba Development. MOTION CARRIED. 81-110~ City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - August 4, 1981, 1:30 P.M. 103: LA PALMuk-LAKEVIEW NO. 5 ANNEXATION: Councilman Bay offered Resolution No. 81R-358 for adoption, requesting the Local Agency Formation Commission to commence proceedings for the annexation of certain uninhabited territory designated as La Palma-Lakeview No. 5, consisting of approximately 18.04 acres of land located on the south side of La Palma Avenue, approximately 2,780 feet east of Lakeview Avenue, as recommended in memorandum from Associate Planner Robert Kelley received July 29, 1981. Refer to Resolution Book. RESOLUTION NO. 81R-358: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM, CALIFORNIA, REQUESTING THE COMMENCEMENT OF PROCEEDINGS FOR THE ANNEX- ATION OF CERTAIN UNINHABITED TERRITORY DESIGNATED AS LA PALMA-L~RiEVIEW NO. 5 ANNEXATION. 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-358 duly passed and adopted. 158: SALE OF CITY-OWNED LAND - 537 WEST CHESTNUT STREET: Councilman Roth offered Resolution No. 81R-359 for adoption, authorizing the sale of a 14-foot by 47-foot strip of City fee-owned land located at the rear of 537 West Chestnut Street to Sheila Peterson for $658 and authorizing the execution of a grant deed therefor, as recommended in memorandum dated July 28, 1981 from City Engineer William Devitt. Refer to Resolution Book. RESOLUTION NO. 81R-359: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM APPROVING THE SALE OF CERTAIN CITY-OWNED PROPERTY AND AUTHORIZING AND DIRECTING THE MAYOR AND CITY CLERK TO EXECUTE SAID DEED ON BEHALF OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM. (Sheila M. Peterson) 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-359 duly passed and adopted. 123: FIRST AMENDMENT TO DUAL FUEL LEASE AND OPTION AGREEMENT WITH UNITED CALIFORNIA BANK: Councilwoman Kaywood offered Resolution No. 81R-360 for adoption, authorizing Amendment No. 1 to the Lease and Option Agreement dated December 23, 1980 with United California Bank for fuel conservation equipment, and authorizing the Finance Director and Mechanical Maintenance Superintendent to execute approval of invoices in connection with agreement, as recommended in memorandum dated July 29, 1981 from Director of Finance George Ferrone. Refer to Resolution Book. 81-1107 City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - August 4, 1981, 1:30 P.M. RESOLUTION NO. 81R-360: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM (1) APPROVING THE TERMS OF ~MENDMEBrf NUMBER ONE TO THE LEASE AND OPTION AGREE~NT DATED DECEMEBER 23, 1980 WITH UNITED CALIFORNIA BANK AND (2) AUTHORIZING THE FINANCE DIRECTOR AND MECHANICAL biAINTENANCE SUPERINTENDENT TO EXECUTE APPROVAL OF INVOICES IN CONNECTION WITH SAID LEASE AND OPTION AGREE- MENTo Roll Call Vote: AYES: NOES: ~HSSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: COUNCIL MEMBERS: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Overholt, Kaywood, Bay, Roth and Seymour None None The Mayor declared Resolution No. 81R-360 duly passed and adopted. 130: STOP. ER CABLE T.V. - REQUEST FOR EXTENSION OF TIME: Councilwoman Kaywood offered Resolution No. 81R-361 for adoption, declaring the City's intention to amend Ordinance No. 4087 granting Storer Cable T.V., Inc. the nonexclusive right, privilege and franchise for the installation and operation of a cable television communication system in the City of Anaheim, and establishing September 8, 1981, 3:00 p.m. as date and time for public hearing, as recom- mended in memorandum dated July 28, 1981 from Assistant to the City Manager James Armstrong. Refer to Resolution Book. RESOLUTION NO. 81R-361: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM DECLARING ITS INTENTION TO ~MEND ORDINANCE NO. 4087 GRANTING STORER CABLE T.V., INC. THE NONEXCLUSIVE RIGHT, PRIVILEGE AND FRANCHISE FOR THE INSTALLATION AND OPERATION OF A CABLE TELEVISION COMMUNICATION SYSTEM IN 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-361 duly passed and adopted. 158: RIGHT OF WAY ACQUISITION - R/W 2800-40 - ANGEL CAR WASH: Councilman Roth moved to authorize payment of $99,990 to Murray Wiseburg for modifica- tions of facilities at the Angel Car Wash located at 558 South Anaheim Boulevard in connection with the Anaheim Boulevard Street widening project, as recommended in memorandum dated July 29, 1981 from the City Engineer. Coun- cilman Overholt seconded the motion. Before a vote was taken, City Engineer William Devitt clarified questions posed by Councilman Bay on the ~ubject right of way acquisition on Anaheim Boulevard. A vote was then taken on the foregoing motion. MOTION CARRIED. 81-1108 City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - August 4, 1981, 1:30 P.M. 156: AUCTION OF UNCLAIMED PROPERTY: Councilman Bay offered Resolution No. 81R-362 for adoption, authorizing the Police Department to conduct an auction of unclaimed property at 425 North Harbor Boulevard on August 29, 1981, 9:00 a.m., as recommended by Police Chief George Tielsch in his memorandum dated July 29, 1981. Refer to Resolution Book. RESOLUTION NO. 81R-362: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AUTHORIZING THE POLICE DEPARTMENT TO CONDUCT AN AUCTION OF UNCLAIMED PROPERTY ON AUGUST 29, 1981. 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-362 duly passed and adopted. 160: On motion by Councilman Roth, seconded by Councilman Bay, the City Clerk was directed to publish a notice of said auction and of the City's intention to transfer unclaimed property to the Purchasing Division for City use. MOTION CARRIED. 175/127: PALO VERDE NUCLEAR GENERATING STATION - CONSIDERATION OF PLACING THE ISSUE ON THE NOVEMBER 3, 1981 BALLOT INCLUDING PROPOSED CHARTER AMENDMENTS: City Manager Talley briefed the Council on the recommendations outlined in memorandum dated July 31, 1981 from the Public Utilities Board supplemented by memorandum dated July 29 and July 30, 1981 from the Public Utilities General Manager which outlined in detail the purpose and reasons for making the following recommendations (on file in the City Clerk's office): 1. An amendment to Section 1210 of the City Charter authorizing the issuance of Bond Anticipation Notes (BANS) in anticipation of the issuance of revenue bonds previously authorized by the voters. 2. A proposition amending Resolution 74R-615 to eliminate the 8% maximum coupon interest rate on the remaining $47.5 million of unissued electric revenue bonds authorized by the voters in March 1975, and to provide instead that the City Council shall set the maximum interest rate at or prior to the sale of the bonds. 3. For an advisory vote only, a measure relating to the purchase of electri- city from the Palo Verde Nuclear Generating Station (Palo Verde) under a long-term contract. Public Utilities General Manager Gordon Hoyt explained that the measures were ones that the Council had seen before in one form or another. See minutes March 10 and March 24, 1981 where extensive discussion took place on the sub- ject issues. The Palo Verde Nuclear Generating Station (PVNGS) Contract to purchase power was originally s~bmitted for the June, 1981, ballot but suffi- cient financial information was not available at that time to express the kind of savings anticipated from participation in the project. They had now 81-1109 City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - August 4, 1981, 1:30 P.M. reviewed those costs, took their current purchase of power from Southern California Edison, Intermountain Power Project (IPP) and San Onofre and deter- mined w~at electricity would cost over the appropriate period of time, 1984 to 1995. That same computation was also made including their share of the PVNGS. It revealed that over that ll-year period, Anaheim electric consumers would save ~11 million by participating in Palo Verde. If so, they were at the end of their base load generation acquisition program and would then have suffi- cient base load to carry the City well into the 1990's. He then confirmed for the Mmyor that the information submitted in the July 29, 1981 memorandum was superceded by the data provided in the July 30, 1981 memorandum which gave the appropriate cost of the project at close to $56 million. The Mayor expressed his concern over an investment of approximately $56 million for a return of approximately 1.7%; Mr. Hoyt agreed but at the end of the ll-year period, savings would then be $3 to $4 million a year, the first 11 years being the worst they would experience and in some of those years they may be in the red. Mr. Hoyt confirmed for Councilman Bay that the proposed investment did not include the use of the $47.5 million remaining as a part of the 1975 $150 million bond issue. After lengthy discussion with, and questioning of, Mr. Hoyt by Council Members, Councilman Roth surmised that Mr. Hoyt was saying they would be taking a calculated risk. He was not interest in acquiring an additional amount of generation until he saw something coming on line. Mr. Hoyt stated he did not want to mislead them. He felt Palo Verde was the best project in the Pacific Southwest at the moment. Extensive discussion again ensued at the conclusion of which, Councilman Bay suggested the following: that Palo Verde not be placed on the ballot but the other two issues placed; and, once the 8% limit is taken off of the previously authorized bonds, that would allow the issuance of $47.5 million worth of bonds with the ability to sell dependent on when the market was best. If they decided after additional study that Palo Verde would turn out to be better than they were convinced it was at the moment, they would have $47.5 million with which to participate. Admittedly, it was not ~56 million but a good portion of it. Later in the meeting, Special Counsel, Alan Watts, explained why the suggestion was theoretically opposed to the whole concept of the Southern California Public Power Authority (SCPPA). That issue had been informally discussed with several members of the Authority. He also confirmed for Councilman 0verholt that if they were unwilling to place the Palo Verde issue on the ballot, it would not affect the role of Anaheim in the Authority except that Anaheim would not be participating. 81-1110 City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - August 4, 1981, 1:30 P.M. Mr. Hoyt reiterated that he felt Palo Verde was a good project and would make money for the citizens of Anaheim but it was not the same clear-cut oppor- tunity they previously had with the San Onofre purchases and the IPP partici- pation. They were reaching the point of diminishing returns as they added to the base load. He particularly did not want to oversell the project or indi- cate this was the same kind of opportunity as they had with the last 1.5% interest in San Onofre. There are less savings involved and more problems associated with getting the power from Palo Verde to Anaheim, etc. The con- struction management on Palo Verde was very good, the operating costs were going to be very low, but the question in his mind was how well the savings were going to measure up to the City's investment. Mayor Seymour interjected and stated that was what it was all about--that last statement, putting aside all the rest--what was the return going to be on the investment. If they were a private corporation, he would feel differently about the risk involved but that not being so, they had a responsibility to be conservative with the public's investment. If the counselors and consultants were not willing to show excitement over the high returns in investments, he did not know why the City Council should do so. The profit margin was too small, approximately one and a half percent on millions of dollars, knowing that the project could be operating in the red for the first few years, and then they did not know for sure how well the project would do after the first 11 years. MOTION: Councilman Seymour moved that the City not participate in the Palo Verde project at this time. Councilman Roth seconded the motion. Before a vote was taken, Councilwoman Kaywood posed questions to Mr. Hoyt for purposes of clarification. Mr. Hoyt emphasized that he wanted to make it clear to the Council, audience and the press that the project itself was a great project and what was trans- piring today should not reflect on it at all, but instead relates to how it would fit into Anaheim's resource plan. A vote was then taken on the foregoing motion. MOTION CARRIED. Mr. Hoyt then stated that the other two items proposed were still recommended--remove 8% coupon limit and permit bond anticipation notes. Mayor Seymour felt that removing the coupon limit was okay but he questioned why they did not include a number, 10%, 12% or some numbers; Councilman Bay felt that was the mistake they made the last time. Mayor Seymour did not feel it was a mistake. He wanted the voters to tell him whether or not he should make a 30-year investment of the funds at some given break. If it was put on the ballot the way it was proposed and passed that way, h~ felt they could go out and buy bonds at a 20% rate. He wanted to be able to go back to the voters some time in the future to ask them if they were willing to pay 20%. He would support an increase from 8%, because in today's market that figure was unrealistic, but would not do so if there was no limit indicated. 81-1111 City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - August 4, 1981, 1:30 P.M. Extensive discussion then followed between Council Members and Mr. Hoyt rela- tive to the issues raised (see minutes March 10, 1981 where the matter was previously discussed) during which Councilman Bay felt the issue was whether they wanted to take the responsibility to have money available for short-term opportunities or whether they did not. As far as limiting the coupon percen- tage due to the Mayor's concern over going into any long-term debt without the approval of the people, in his opinion relative to the $47.5 million, to start changing the coupon percentage or locking down a limit on discount now would immediately kill the basic issue of whether they were going to use this tool for an opportunity to save money. MOTION: Councilman Seymour moved that the matter be placed on the ballot with a rate of interest not to exceed 10% and rate of discount not to exceed 1%. Councilman Roth seconded the motion. Before a vote was taken, Councilwoman Kaywood asled what would happen with that new proposal, and if it would restrict the Council and the Utility to a degree where the users would no longer receive any benefit. Mr. Hoyt answered, in his opinion, yes, and he would rather see nothing done than see that done; Councilman Bay was of the same opinion as well as Council- man Overholt. Mayor Seymour stated that he felt Mr. Hoyt had a responsibility to tell the voters the real story and to let them know the real number. If it was 12 or 13, he was going to tell the voters and let them decide. Councilman Overholt stated it was a combination of the cost of money as measured by the interaction of the discount rate and the interest rate, and by putting a 1% limit on the discount rate they would effectively kill the ability to market at 10%. The Mayor withdrew his motion in favor of someone else introducing a motion as long as they would tell the voters what it was going to be in specific terms. If so, he would support it. If what they wanted was a blank check, he was going to oppose. MOTION: Councilwoman Kaywood moved to approve placing the issue on the ballot as follows and as proposed: In order to improve the marketability and useful- ness of the remaining unissued electric revenue bonds authorized by a majority of the voters in 1975 to provide more economical electric service, shall City Council Resolution No. 74R-615 be amended to eliminate the maximum rate of interest (eight percent) which may be paid on such bonds and to provide instead that the City Council shall establish a maximum rate of interest which may be paid on the bonds then being sold, at or prior to the time of sale of any such bonds. The motion died for lack of a second. Mr. Hoyt stated, that being the case, he would withdraw the request for the third item the issuance of water and electric revenue bond anticipation notes, because he did not think in good conscience he could sell them at the moment. 81-1112 City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - August 4, 1981, 1:30 P.M. Councilman Overholt stated he felt the Mayor was right in that if limits were going to be placed on the Council as to how much they could spend, that the discount and interest had to be limiting features; Mr. Hoyt agreed. Councilman Overholt then proposed that the ballot measure include a maximum interest rate of 10% and a maximum discount rate of 15%. Mr. Hoyt felt if they were going to tie their hands that tightly, from his standpoint, he felt that the bonds would be more salable as they were at present than if they were to limit both interest rates and discount. Even at 20% maximum discount, if they went with the original deep discount and the market improved, their ability to refund the bonds at a later time at a lower interest rate would be gone. It was not too prudent at this time to issue a 20% deep discount. Mayor Seymour felt if they were going to face reality, today's financial market was in such a state of chaos that in order to get the flexibility Mr. Hoyt seeks any decision today would render that an impossibility. He felt the best course of action they could take at this time was no action at all and to wait until the fourth quarter of the year, to look at the financial markets particularly long-term municipals at that time, and then prepare themselves for something in June. MOTION: Councilman Roth moved that no action be taken relative to the pro- posed Charter amendment regarding the maximum rate of interest and that they take another look at interest rates and discount points in late winter or early spring at which time the situation would be evaluated with subsequent possible inclusion of the issues on the June 1982 ballot. Councilman Seymour seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. Councilman Overholt stated he presumed that also covered the proposed Charter amendment on bond anticipation notes since he felt that was also the sense of the motion. Mr. Hoyt stated he would just as soon withdraw that issue as well. RECESS: By general consent the Council recessed for 15 minutes. (4:05 P.M.) AFTER RECESS: Mayor Seymour called the meeting to order, all Council Members being present. (4:20 P,M.) PUBLIC HEARING - VARIANCE NO. 3227: Application by North American Invest- ments, to construct a free-standing sign on CL zoned property located at 2424 West Ball Road, with the following Code waivers: a. permitted location b. maximum height 81-1113 City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - August 4, 1981, 1:30 P.M. The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC81-135, reported that the Planning Director had determined that the proposed activity falls within the definition of Section 3.01, Class 11 of the City of Anaheim guide- lines to the requirements for an environmental impact report and is therefore categorically exempt from the requirement to file an EIR and further granted Variance No. 3227 in part, subject to the following conditions: 1. That subject property shall be developed substantially in accordance with plans and specifications on file with the City of Anaheim marked Exhibit Nos. 1 and 2; provided, however, that the height of said sign shall be reduced to 25 feet. 2. That the owner(s) of subject property shall submit a letter requesting the termination of Conditional Use Permit No. 216 to the Planning Department. 3. That Condition No. 2, above-mentioned, shall be complied with prior to the commencement of the activity authorized under this resolution, or prior to the time that the building permit is issued, or within a period of one year from date hereof, whichever occurs first, or such further time as the Planning Commission may grant. 4. That Condition No. 1, above-mentioned, shall be complied with prior to final building and zoning inspections. The decision of the Planning Commission was appealed by the applicant and public hearing scheduled this date. The Mayor asked if the applicant or applicant's agent was present and wished to be heard. Mr. Peter Valenti, North American Investments, 1940 North Tustin, Suite 100, Orange, stated what was not brought up at the Planning Commission meeting and the basis for denying the sign height variance is that, along Ball Road there were various types of zoning. It was highly commercial but there was also residential. The limits were 25 feet maximum height for signing. The concern was the fact that the sign they were proposing was 29-1/2 feet located within 300 feet of residential property. The additional 4-1/2 feet represented the roof of the sign and not something that would be illuminated, and should not have any impact if the property changed hands. If new owners did want Co change that sign, they would have to go back for another permit. He could take the roof off the sign and be within the limits but it was there for architectural beauty to tie in with the building. He did not believe there was any good reason for not allowing it. The Mayor suggested that they drop the size of the pole so that with the roof, the sign would only be 25 feet; Mr. Valenti felt it would put the sign too close to the ground and might create vandalism problems. He also confirmed that a portion of the sign was already up although he had not authorized the sign company to install it. After further Council questioning of Mr. Valenti, the Mayor asked if anyone else wished to speak. 81-1114 City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - August 4, 1981, 1:30 P.M. Mr. A. F. Mitchell, Mitchco Industries, pointed out the only reason the sign was required to be 25 feet high was due to the fact that it was now closer than 300 feet to the apartment house across the street. Otherwise, it could have been even higher. There being no further persons who wished to speak, the Mayor closed the public hearing. Councilman Bay stated that as he understood, the Planning Commission did okay the difference in 232 feet versus 240 feet on the distance, but denied the 29-1/2 feet versus the 25 feet in height because no hardship was demonstrated and that approval could set an undesirable precedent. He asked staff's opinion on the latter. If he was not mistaken, on Ball Road, Katella Avenue and other streets, there had been variances in sign heights that had been approved not only through the Planning Con=nission, but also the Council. He asked Miss Santalahti if in her opinion this wou~d set an undesirable prece- dent or had that been set long ago relative to height. Miss Santalahti answered, on Ball Road, generally speaking, the precedent had been set. Perhaps the difference that might have been seen here was that a new project was involved and the fear that down the line, someone would sub- divide and come in to ask for a 29 foot sign and make the subject project non- conforming. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT - CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION: On motion by Council- woman Kaywood, seconded by Councilman Bay, the City Council ratified the determination of the Planning Director that the proposed activity falls within the definition of Section 3.01, Class 11, of the City of Anaheim guidelines to the requirements for an Environmental Impact Report and is, therefore, cate- gorically exempt from the requirement to file an EIR. MOTION CARRIED. Councilwoman Kaywood offered Resolution No. 81R-363 for adoption, upholding the decision of the Planning Commission, but denying the added height of the sign to 29-1/2 feet as requested. Refer to Resolution Book. RESOLUTION NO. 81R-363: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAi{EIM GRANTING, IN PART, VARIANCE NO. 3227. Roll Call Vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: COUNCIL MEMBERS: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Overholt, Kaywood, Roth and Seymour Bay None The Mayor declared Resolution No. 81R-363 duly passed and adopted. PUBLIC HEARING - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2198: Application by Beth Adams Ltd., .et al, requesting deletion of Condition Nos. 2 and 5 of Planning Commission Resolution No. PC81-83 pertaining to street light installation and traffic signal assessment fee in connection with Conditional Use Permit No. 2198, for proposed CR zoned property located at 131 West Katella Avenue, was submitted. 81-1115 City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - August 4, 1981, 1:30 P.M. The City Planning Commission pursuant to Resolution No. PC81-83 of April 21, 1981 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 environmental impact due to this project and further granted Conditional Use Permit No. 2198 subject to certain conditions. In their Resolution No. PC81-138 of June 15, 1981, the Planning Commission denied the subject request for the deletion of Condition Nos. 2 and 5 of Conditional Use Permit No. 2198. The decision of the Planning Commission was appealed by David Traub, Agent for the applicant and public hearing scheduled this date. The Mayor asked to hear from the applicant or applicant's agent. Mr. David Traub, 131 West Katella Avenue, briefed the information that was contained in his letter of June 25, 1981 (made a part of the record) appealing the decision of the Planning Commission in denying the Conditional Use Permit, and requesting deletion of Condition Nos. 2 and 5 of Planning Commission Resolution No. PC81-83 pertaining to street light installation and traffic signal assessment fee. Questions were posed to staff by the Mayor during which it was revealed that Conditional Use Permit No. 1761 originally permitting retail art sales in the subject facility included conditions requiring installation of street lights and payment of a traffic signal assessment fee amounting to $333 per 1,000 square feet or $4,495. The fee had since been reduced to $169 per 1,000 square feet or $2,535. The fee for street lighting totalled $1,755 as confirmed by the City Engineer in checking with the Electrical Department. Neither amount had ever been paid under the original conditional use permit. Mr. Traub confirmed that the fees were billed to his landlord, the owner of the building, and at the time he (Traub) was told it was not going to be his responsibility. However, when he reapplied for the subject CUP to allow antique sales as well as the art, the owner suddenly made it his responsi- bility and said that he would not sign the application to apply unless ~hose fees were paid by him (Traub). Mayor Seymour asked why the City had never collected from the landlord; City Manager Talley stated he would find out. Councilman Seymour stated he was going to offer a resolution waiving Condition Nos. 2 and 5 of PC81-83 as requested followed by a motion that the City Manager direct staff to collect the money due from the owner; the City Manager stated he did not need a motion. Councilman Bay asked who the Conditional Use Permit was going to, the owner or Mr. Traub. Miss Santalahti stated that Mr. Traub was the applicant on the property and the owner of the property was getting the CUP in the long term. 81-1116 City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - August 4, 1981, 1:30 P.M. The Mayor then asked the City Attorney if they were to waive the two condi- tions as requested by the applicant and approve the CUP, would they still have the right to go back and collect the debt incurred in 1977. City Attorney Hopkins stated he would like to review the documentation on the case to resolve the question as to the actual applicant or agent. As Council- man Bay pointed out, if they waived the conditions and it turned out that the owner was really the responsible party, the conditions would be waived for him rather than Mr. Traub. MOTION: Councilman Roth moved to continue consideration of the subject request for waiver of Condition Nos. 2 and 5 of PC81-83 for two weeks. cilwoman Kaywood seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. Coun- 148: APPOINTMENT OF ALTERNATE TO THE DELEGATE - ORANGE COUNTY HEALTH PLANNING COUNCIL (OCHPC): (Continued from the meetings of June 23, July 7 and July 21, 1981) The Deputy City Clerk announced that the delegate, Mr. Postma, was presently out of the country and unable to be contacted by phone. On motion by Councilman Roth, seconded by Councilwoman Kaywood, consideration of appointment of an alternate to the delegate on the OCHPC was continued for two weeks. MOTION CARRIED. 148/153: SUPPORT AND REAFFIRMATION OF LEGISLATION RELATIVE TO PERS: Council- man Seymour offered Resolution No. 81R-364 and 81R-365 for adoption, the first urging the Orange County Division of the League of California Cities to sup- port legislation permitting the Public Employees Retirement System Board of Administration to reimburse local agencies for all the costs of wages and benefits paid to members of the Board of Administration by the local agencies, and the second reaffirming support for Senate Bill 680 and urging the Orange County Division of the League of California Cities to adopt a resolution affirming its position of support for this legislation. Refer to Resolution Book. RESOLUTION NO. 81R-364: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM URGING THE ORANGE COUNTY DIVISION OF THE LEAGUE OF CALIFORNIA CITIES TO SUPPORT LEGISLATION PEllMITTING THE PUBLIC EMPLOYEES RETIREM~ENT SYSTEM BOARD- OF ADMINISTRATION TO REIMBURSE LOCAL AGENCIES FOR ALL THE COSTS OF WAGES AND BENEFITS PAID TO MEMBERS OF THE BOARD OF ADMINISTRATION BY THE LOCAL AGENCIES. RESOLUTION NO. 81R-365: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM REAFFIRMING ITS SUPPORT FOR SB 680 AND URGING THE ORANGE COUNTY DIVISION OF THE LEAGUE OF CALIFORNIA CITIES TO ADOPT A RESOLUTION REAFFIRMING ITS POSITION OF SUPPORT FOR THIS LEGISLATION. Before a vote was taken, the Mayor asked that a letter be prepared, explaining the two resolutions in layman's terms, to be distributed to the 26 Orange County, cities prior to the League meeting on August 13, 1981. 81-1117 City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - August 4, 1981, 1:30 P.M. City Manager Talley stated his only concern was that he did not believe any member of the Council would be present at the meeting. He asked that some member of the Council, preferably the Mayor, contact the head of the Resolutions Committee to make arrangements for introduction of the resolutions because it was going to take an elected official to do so. 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 No. 81R-364 and 81R-365 duly passed and adopted. 166: REQUEST FOR WAIVER OF FLAG AND BANNER REGULATIONS - SUPERIOR FURNITURE: Request submitted by Harold Abedur, Vice President, Superior Furniture, for the use of flags and banners for an extended period of time on property located at 1225 South State College Boulevard. The Mayor asked if Mr. Abedur was present; he was not present but someone from the audience requested to speak. Mrs. Cecelia McKnight, 5815 East La Palma Avenue, explained for the Mayor that they wanted to retain the flags and banners as requested for approximately 90 days and that they were quitting business. She did not know if Mr. Abedur would be requesting an additional extension on his request after 90 days. She was an employee in the store and was speaking for Mr. Abedur who was ill and unable to be present. The Mayor stated if they could confirm it was truly a quitting business sale and 90 days would be sufficient, he would favor the request even though the recommendation from staff was not to do so. Without answers to those two questions, he was reluctant to proceed. Councilman Bay stated if he were going to approve the request, he would want written stipulation that they were going out of business at the end of that period. The Mayor stated he would approve the request subject to (1) the City's receipt of a written stipulation that they were going out of business, (2) that there be no further requests for an extension beyond 90 days and (3) that such a written stipulation be in the hands of the City in 10 days. City Attorney Hopkins explained this was a closing-out business sale for which there was a permit that had been issued for 90 days. Flags and banners were a specia,l section of the Code and~ there was no provision in that section allowing for an extension. A variance could be applied for, or the Council could amend the ordinance to provide for a waiver. It was not a Special Event and that was the reason for their recommendation against the continuance. 81-1118 City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - August 4, 1981, 1:30 P.M. MOTION: Councilman Seymour moved to direct the City Attorney to draft an amendment to the ordinance that would provide that, upon appeal to the Council, extensions could be granted provided mitigating circumstances were presented to the Council and the Council approved those; that the petitioner agreed to bring in a letter within the next ten days as previously articulated or, if not received in 10 days, that the City Attorney be instructed to stop drawing the ordinance. Councilman Roth seconded the motion. Before action was taken, Councilman Overholt stated he was going to oppose the motion. He felt the reason for the limited period of time for the use of flags and banners was to preclude interference with surrounding businesses and neighborhoods. A sign in the front window of the store was not going to interfere with the business next door but flags and banners could do so. He felt it gave some assurance to the surrounding businesses that their neighbors were not going to have more than two 14-day events a year with flags and banners. He maintained that the ordinance was a 'good one and should not be amended. City Attorney Hopkins explained that in connection with a special event, if it was converted to a special event, there was a provision under the existing ordinance stating, "the City Council shall also have the exclusive power to grant a renewal or extension of a permit beyond the original 14-day period." If they could convince the Planning Department that it was a bonafide special event, the Council could give an additional period of time. City Attorny Hopkins stated the petitioner should comply with the terms of the ordinance for special events which would be something outside the premises. Mayor Seymour withdrew his motion. MOTION: Councilman Overholt stated it seemed to him that there had been a showing of a special event subject to receipt of the letter indicating what the special event might be. Based on that, he moved that they grant the extension of time on the use of flags and banners for the special event for a period of 90 days subject to the following conditions: That the applicant submit a letter stating a special event is in progress; quitting business in 90 days; owner to sign the letter, and that there be no further requests for an extension of time to use flags and banners. Councilman Roth seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. Before closing, Mrs. McKnight stated she felt they were talking about only 60 days because their quitting business license expires September 27, 1981. 139: AUTOMOBILE CLUB OF SOUTHERN CALIFORIA URGING SUPPORT FOR AB 104: Mr. Edward Sullivan, District Manager, Automobile Club of Southern California at Anaheim, 150 West Vermont, briefed his letter of July 27, 1981 to the Council urging support of Assembly Bill 104--Motorist's Financial Responsibility Legisl.ation, which letter also ~eported on the provisions of the Bill. 81-1119 City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - August 4, 1981, 1:30 P.M. MOTION: Councilman Roth moved to support AB 104 with a letter to be sent to all Orange County State Senators and Assemblymen advising them of the City's support. Councilman Seymour seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. CONSENT CALENDAR ITEMS: On motion by Councilman Roth, seconded by Council- woman Kaywood, 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 Veronica Fleischer for personal injury damages purport- edly sustained as a result of a fall over a raised sidewalk at 1790 Juno on or about June 9, 1981. b. Claim submitted by Roberta Washburn and Thomas Washburn, a minor, for injuries purportedly sustained when child tripped over a crack in the sidewalk and fell while skating, resulting in a broken arm, on Crestwood Lane on or about April 8, 1981. c. Claim submitted by Sheila D. McCarley for property damage purportedly sus- tained when tire hit a nail protruding from street gutter and blew out at the corner of Harbor Boulevard and Anaheim Boulevard, on or about June 16, 1981. d. Claim submitted by Richard Krueger, President, Data Compas Services, Inc., for damages purportedly sustained when power was out and claimant's equipment was damaged on or about July 14, 1981. e. Claim submitted by Rod Nevarez for injury purportedly sustained from slipping and falling on stairs at San Onofre Nuclear Plant, Unit 1 Generator/Platform B, Cold leg side, in the performance of his duties, on or about April 15, 1981. f. Claim submitted by J. E. Bentley for damages purportedly sustained when a damaged City Power line caused claimant's evaporator fan motor to burn put in his refrigerator-freezer, on or about June 14-15, 1981. g. Claim submitted by Steven Ray Vanhorn for injuries purportedly sustained while claimant was riding a bicycle over a dirt mound, on or about April 10, 1981. h. Claim submitted by Ken Hamilton for damages to sprinkler valves ?urport- edly sustained when a City crew drove a vehicle into claimant's flower bed while repairing a line down at an address on the 1200 block of East Flower Street, on or about May 26, 1981. i. Claim submitted by Robert L'. Clark for damages purportedly sustained when the Police Department instructed the Fire Department to remove a bullet from claimant's apartment building at 1112 North Brookhurst on or about December 6, 1980. 81~1120 City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - August 4, 1981, 1:30 P.M. j. Claim submitted by William Strasburg for damages purportedly sustained when a power surge damaged claimant's radio and freezer on or about May 27, 1981. 2. CORRESPONDENCE: The following correspondence was ordered received and filed: a. 105: b. 140: c. 105: Anaheim Public Library--Minutes of June 17, 1981. Anaheim Public Library--Monthly Statistical Report for June 1981. Project Area Committee--Minutes of July 14, 1981. d. 105: Notification of Officers to the Project Area Committee for the period commencing June 1, 1981; Chairman, Earl Rhoads and Vice-Chairman, Tom Bode. e. 105: Public Utilities Board--Minutes of June 4 and 25, 1981. (Unapproved) f. 175: Before the Public Utilities Commission, Application No. 59982, in the matter of the application of Southern California Edison Company for a certificate that the present and future public convenience and necessity require or will require construction and operation by applicant of a 500 kV transmission line between Devers and Valley Substation, a 500 kV transmission line between Serrano and Valley Substations and a 220 kV transmission line between Serrano and Villa Park Substations. g. 173: Before the Public Utilities Commission, Application No. 60431 (filed April 10, 1981), opinion of the Commission regarding the application of The Town Tour Funbus Co., Incorporated for authority to adjust its rates. 3. 150: GEORGE WASHINGTON COMMUNITY CENTER CONTRACT CHANGE ORDER NO. 2: In accordance with the recommendations of the City Engineer, Contract Change Order No. 2 was authorized in the amount of $20,003.79, bringing the original contract price to $365,209.53, Account No. 42-848-7105-48060. (Builders West, contractor) 4. 161: DOWNTOWN PROJECT ALPHA - PHASE I, RELEASE OF 10 PERCENT RETENTION TO STEINY AND COMPANY, INC.: In accordance with the recommendation of the City Engineer, an amendment to the agreement with Steiny and Company, Inc. to delete the requirement of the City to retain the amount deducted from the final estimate for a period of 35 days from the date of recording of Notice of Completion was approved. Account Nos. 46-792-6325-E2190, 46-795-6325-E5210 and 82-366-6327-00957. Amount of retention: $769,859.58. 5. 123: LEGAL PUBLICATION IN ANAHEIM BULLETIN: In accordance with the recommendation of the City Clerk, an agreement was authorized with the Anaheim Bullet,in for legal publication ~or the period ending July 31, 1982. MOTION CARRIED. 81-1121 City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - August 4, 1981, 1:30 P.M. 114: REQUEST THAT STATE ROUTE 55 BE DESIGNATED FAP ROUTE: City of Costa Mesa, Resolution No. 81-66 and City of Newport Beach, Resolution No. 10095, requesting that State Route 55 be designated a Federal Aid Primary (FAP) Route. Councilwoman Kaywood moved that Anaheim concur in the subject resolutions since it was indicated on Page 2 of Resolution 10095 that Anaheim would also be affected. Before action was taken, the Council questioned how Anaheim would be affected. Councilman Overholt seconded the motion but was still interested in knowing the effect on Anaheim. Councilwoman Kaywood thereupon moved that the matter be continued one week so that staff could clarify the effect on Anaheim. Councilman Overholt seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. CONSENT CALENDAR ITEMS: Councilman Roth offered Resolution Nos. 81R-366 through 81R-369, 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: RESOLOTION NO. 81R-366: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM ACCEPTING CERTAIN DEEDS AND ORDERING THEIR RECORDATION. (ABCO Construction Co.; Maynard S. Reynold, Trustee) 176: RESOLUTION NO. 81R-367: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM DECLARING ITS INTENTION TO VACATE CERTAIN PUBLIC STREETS, HIGHWAYS AND SERVICE EASEMENTS. (80-6A, public hearing to be held August 25, 1981, 3:00 P.M.) 176: RESOLUTION NO. 81R-368: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM DECLARING ITS INTENTION TO VACATE CERTAIN PUBLIC STREETS, HIGHWAYS AND SERVICE EASEMENTS. (80-1lA, public hearing to be held August 25, 1981, 3:00 P.M.) 176: RESOLUTION NO. 81R-369: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF' ANAHEIM DECLARING ITS INTENTION TO VACATE CERTAIN PUBLIC STREETS, HIGHWAYS AND SERVICE EASEMENTS. (80-15A, public hearing to be held August 25, 1981, 3:00 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 NOs. 81R-366 through 81R-369, both inclusive, duly passed and adopted. 81-1122 City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - August 4, 1981~ 1:30 P.M. CITY PLANNING COMMISSION ITEMS: The following actions taken by the City Planning Commission at their meeting held July 13, 1981, pertaining to the following applications were submitted for City Council information. 1. RECLASSIFICATION NO. 80-81-42 AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2232: Sub- mitred by Arciero Bros., Inc., for a change in zone from RS-A-43,000 to ML, to permit a contractor's office and storage yard on property located at 950 North Tustin Avenue, with a Code waiver of maximum building height. The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution Nos. PC81-155 and 156, granted Reclassification No. 80-81-42 and Conditional Use Permit No. 2232, and granted a negative declaration status. 2. RECLASSIFICATION NO. 80-81-45 AND VARIANCE NO. 3229 (TENTATIVE TRACT NO. 11568): Submitted by Lesny Development Co., for a change in zone from RS-A-43,000 to RM-3000, to construct a 25-1ot, 2~-unit condominium subdivision on property located on the west side of Magnolia Avenue, south of Ball Road, with various Code waivers. The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC81-150 and 151, granted Reclassification No. 80-81-45 and Variance No. 3229 (Tentative Tract No. 11568), and granted a negative declaration status. 3. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2218: Submitted by Rosa Mary Casella Ulivi and Angelo Casella, to retain an existing auto detail facility and permit auto sales and truck storage on ML zoned property located at 3093 East Miraloma Avenue, with a Code waiver of minimum landscaped setback. The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC81-149, granted, in part, Conditional Use Permit No. 2218, and granted a negative declaration status. 4. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2233: Submitted by Donald R. Curcie, et al, to retain an existing exterminating service on ML zoned property located at 1321 North Jefferson Street. The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC81-153, granted Conditional Use Permit No. 2233~ and ratified the Planning Director's categor- ical exemption determination. 5. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2235: Submitted by Lease-All Orangethorpe, to retain two existing automotive repair facilities on ML zoned property located at 930-F and 970-B East Orangethorpe Avenue. The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC81-152, granted Conditional Use Permit No. 2235, and granted a negative declaration status. 6. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. ~236: Submitted by Lease-All La Palma, to permit certain commercial uses on ML zoned property located at 1240 North Van Buren Street. 81-1123 City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - August 4, 1981, 1:30 P.M. The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC81-154, granted Conditional Use Permit No. 2236, and granted a negative declaration status. 7. TENTATIVE TRACT NO. 10956 - EXTENSION OF TIME: Submitted by Ed Davis, Union Mortgage Bankers, requesting an extension of time to Tentative Tract No. 10956, to establish a l-lot, 142-unit condominium subdivision on RM-3000 zoned property located on the south side of Wilken Way, east of Harbor Boulevard. The City Planning Commission approved an extension of time to Tentative Tract No. 10956, to expire July 14, 1982. 8. TENTATIVE TRACT NO. 8520 - EXTENSION OF TIME: Submitted by Horst J. Schor, Anaheim Hills, Inc., requesting an extension of time to Tentative Tract No. 8520, to establish 18 RS-HS-22,000(SC) lots, plus Lot A (Open Space Lot) on property located at the southwest and southeast corners of Serrano Avenue and Hidden Canyon Road. The City Planning Commission approved an extension of time to Tentative Tract No. 8520, to expire September 12, 1982. No action was taken on the foregoing items, therefore the actions of the City Planning Commission became final. 170: FINAL MAP - TRACT NO. 11466: Developer, Edward and Cheryl Padilla; a 1-lot, 33-unit proposed RM-3000 zoned subdivision located at the southwest corner of Katella Avenue and Ninth Street. On motion by Councilman Roth, seconded by Councilman Overholt, the proposed subdivision, together with its design and improvements, was found to be con- sistent with the City's General Plan, and the City Council approved Final Map, Tract No. 11466, as recommended by the City Engineer in his memorandum dated July 28, 1981. MOTION CARRIED. ORDINANCE NO. 4251: Councilman Overholt offered Ordinance No. 4251 for adop- tion. Refer to Resolution Book. ORDINANCE NO. 4251: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AMENDING TITLE 18 OF . THE ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO ZONING. (80-81-29, RM-3000, Tract No. 11466) 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. 4251 duly passed and adopted. 81-1124 City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - August 4, 1981, 1:30 P.M. 114: AUGUST 3, 1981MEETING'AT'THE-WMITE~HOUSE: Mayor Seymour reported on his attendance at the subject meeting called by President Reagan where 125 elected officials from the western states were briefed by various members of the President's cabinet relative to the current status of the tax cut proposal as well as budget reductions; the Vice-President's program in cutting red tape in regulations, the administration's program of the new federalism, i.e., the transfer of responsibility and authoriting out of Washington, D. C. into Sacramento in some cases, and in others, to the cities and counties. He con- cluded that it was a very positive meeting. Further, the President was looking for support in the U. S. Conference of Mayors organization. As he (Seymour) previously discussed in the past, he felt they should consider the possibility of joining the U. S. Conference of Mayors at a later date. 106: POSSIBLE BUDGET WORKSHOP: Councilman Bay asked if they were going to decide on whether or not they were going to have a budget workshop as pre- viously indicated relative to the effects of the baseball strike. Mr. Talley answered that a report would be going out with the regular agenda outlining their best estimate as to the effect on the budget now with the settlement of the baseball strike. It was staff's view that instead of the $880,000 predicted to be lost if the entire season were cancelled, that now somewhere around $400,000 would be required which could be handled anyway the Council wished. This information could be presented in approximately 15 to 20 minutes. Councilman Bay was also interested in knowing if there was a way to determine any impact that might result on the City's tourist industry due to the Air Traffic Controller's strike. If the strike was still in progress by next Friday, August 7, 1981, he felt they should take steps to see where there might be an impact. ADJOURNMENT: Councilwoman Kaywood moved to adjourn to Tuesday, August 11, 1981 at 12 Noon, 6th Floor Conference Room of the Civic Center for the pur- poses of a Closed Session. Councilman Overholt seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. (6:05 P.M.) LINDA D. ROBERTS, CITY CLERK BY DEPUTY