Loading...
1987/04/14City flall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - April 14~ 1987~ 1:30 P.M. The City Council of the City of Anaheim met in regular session. PRESENT: ABSENT: VACANCY: PRESENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Pickler, Hunter, Kaywood and Bay COUNCIL MEMBERS: None COUNCIL MEMBERS: One ASSISTANT CITY MANAGE~: Eonald Bates CITY ATTORNEY: Jack White CITY CLX: Leonora N. Sohl FINANCE DIRECTOR: George Ferrone ZONING ADMINISTRATOR: Annika Santalahti ASSISTANT TRAFFIC ENGINEER: Debbie Fank A complete copy of the agenda for the meeting of the Anaheim City Council was posted at 11:50 a.m. on April 10, 1987 at the Civic Center front lobby window, containing all items as shown herein. Mayor Bay called the regular meeting of the Anaheim City Council to order at 12:10 p.m. REQUEST FOR CLOSED SESSION: City Attorney Jack White requested a Closed Session to consider the following items: a. Pending litigation pursuant to Government Code Section 54956.9(a), to wit: Golden West Baseball Co. vs. City of Anaheim, Orange County Superior Court Case No. 40-92-46.2; City of Anaheim vs. Anaheim Hotel Partnership, et al; City of Anaheim vs. County of Orange; City of Anaheim vs. Escobar, Orange County Superior Court Case No. 51-15-44. b. Labor relations matters - Government Code Section 54957.6. c. Personnel matters - Government Code Section 54957. d. Potential litigation pursuant to Government Code Section 54956.9(c). Councilman Bay moved to recess into Closed Session. Councilman Pickler seconded the motion. One Vacancy. MOTION CARRIED. (12:10 p.m.) /EFTER P. ECESS: The Mayor called the meeting to order, all Council Members being present. One Vacancy. (1:43 p.m.) INVOCATION: Father John Lenihan, St. Boniface Catholic Church, gave the Invocation. FLAG SALUTE: Council Member Miriam Kaywood led the assembly in the Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag. 292 City Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - April. 14~ 1987~ 1:30 P.M. 119: PROCLAMATIONS: The following proclamations were issued by Mayor Bay and authorized by the City Council: Volunteer Recognition Month in Anaheim, May 1987, Professional Secretaries Week, April 19-25, 1987, National Consumer Week in Anaheim, April 19-25, 1987. Claudia Burnette accepted the Professional Secretaries Week proclamation. Mary Ann Terry, Recreation Services Manager, accepted the Volunteer Recognition Month proclamation accompanied by Senior Citizen Volunteers, Penny Hitt and Tony Giancavo. Dan Heil, President, Wildan Associates then presented a check to the City, accepted by Mayor Bay, in the amount of $5,000 to cover the Volunteer Banquet expenses. Mayor Bay, on behalf of the Council and the City, expressed deep appreciation to Mr. Hell for his generosity; Councilman Pickler commented on the many generous things that Mr. Hell has done for the community over the years. 119: RESOLUTION OF COMMENDATION: A Resolution of Commendation was unanimously adopted by the City Council and presented to Michael Lopez of Anaheim Fire Department, for his quick action in assisting injured Southern California Edison Company workers while severely burned as a result of an explosion. Mr. Lopez was off duty at the time. His actions lessened the severity of the injuries sustained. Mayor Bay and each Council Member expressed their appreciation to Mr. Lopez for his courage and his concern for others. 119: RESOLUTION OF COMMENDATION: A Resolution of Commendation was unanimously adopted by the City Council commending the 1987 Good Friday Breakfast Committee for their efforts in planning and holding the breakfast which is a long-standing tradition in the City of Anaheim. 119: RESOLUTION OF WELCOME: A Resolution of Welcome was unanimously adopted by the City Council welcoming the Chairman and Partner of MLMedia, Elton Rule, to the City on the occasion of }EL Media's community open house tours. MINUTES: Approval of the minutes was deferred to the next regular meeting. WAIVER OF READING - ORDINANCES AND RESOLUTIONS: Councilwoman Kaywood moved to waive the reading in full of all ordinances and resolutions of the Agenda, after reading of the title thereof by the City Clerk, and that consent to waiver is hereby given by all Council Members, unless after reading of the title, specific request is made by a Council Member for the reading of such ordinances or resolutions in regular order. Councilman Pickler seconded the motion. One Vacancy. MOTION CARRIED. 293 City Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - April 14~ 1987~ 1:30 P.M. FINANCIAL DEMANDS AGAINST THE CITY in the amount of 34,926,329.76, in accordance with the 1986-87 Budget, were approved. CITY MANAGER/DEPARTMENTAL CONSENT CALENDAR: On motion by Councilman Bay, seconded by Councilman Pickler, the following items were approved in accordance with the reports, certifications and recommendations furnished each Council Member and as listed on the Consent Calendar; Councilman Bay offered Resolution Nos. 87R-137 through 87R-139, both inclusive, for adoption. Refer to Resolution Book. Councilman Bay offered Ordinance No. 4823 for first reading. 1. 118: The following claims were filed against the City and action taken as recommended: Claims rejected and referred to Risk Management: a. Claim submitted by Mrs. Myung Kyun Hahn for bodily injury sustained purportedly due to actions of the City on or about November 21, 1986. b. Claim submitted by Fredo Valencia and Jessie Valencia for bodily injury and loss of consortium sustained purportedly due to actions of the City on or about November 25, 198§. c. Claim submitted by Leslie Wayne Sims for bodily injury sustained purportedly due to actions of the City on or about December 3, 1986. d. Claim submitted by Gayle Alexander for property damage sustained purportedly due to actions of the City on or about October 21, 1986. e. Claim submitted by John I. Johnson for property damage sustained purportedly due to actions of the City on or about January 5, 1987. f. Claim submitted by Donna S. Barton for property damage sustained purportedly due to actions of the City on or about January 31, 1987. g. Claim submitted by Mabel Molesky for property damage sustained purportedly due to actions of the City on or about December 31, 1986. h. Claim submitted by §tewart CreenAssociates ~or property damage sustained purportedly due to actions of the City on or about October 25, 1986. i. Claim submitted by Robert S. Barker for property damage sustained purportedly due to actions of the City on or about January 5, 1987. J. Claim submitted by Pacific Bell (Claim No. JF646-1211) for property damage sustained purportedly due to actions of the City on or about October 28, 1986. k. Claim submitted by Gregg Curwick for lost property sustained purportedly due to actions of the City on or about October 21, 1986. Claims filed against the City - Recommended to be Accepted: 294 City Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES -April 14~ !987~ 1:30 P.M. 1. Claim submitted by E.J. Andrews for property damage sustained purportedly due to actions of the City on or about January 23, 1987. 2. Receivin~ and filing the following correspondence: (on file) a. 114: City of Garden Grove, Resolution No. 6860-87, requesting the Directors of the Orange County Water District to consider alternate financing for their proposed six-year Capital Program. b. 175: Before the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, Docket Nos. ER87-300-000 and ER87-301-000, Notice of Filing agreements with City of Anaheim, Edison-Anaheim Hoover Integration Agreement and the Edison-Anaheim Mead Firm Transmission Service Agreement. c. 105: Community Redevelopment Commission, Minutes of February 25, 1987. d. 105: Public Utilities Board, Minutes of February 11, 1987. e. 105: Public Library Board, Minutes of February 18, 1987. 3. 123: Authorizing an amendment to an agreement with Weston Pringle dba Weston Pringle & Associates to perform engineering services for traffic signal improvements at 28 locations in the south central area of the City (FAU M-3041 (255)), to include additional administrative items. 4. 123: Authorizing an amendment to an agreement with Weston Pringle dba Weston Pringle & Associates to perform engineering services for traffic signal improvements at 5 locations in the City (HES-000S (243)), to include additional administrative items. 5. 175: Authorizing the Mayor to sign letters to Senators Cranston and Wilson and Representatives Dannemeyer and Dornan in support of continued funding for the Colorado River Basin Salinity Control Program for 1988. 6. 123: Authorizing the Purchasing A6ent to issue a second amendment to the agreement with CSG Security Services, Inc., dba Continental Security Guards, to provide security services in enforcing the Code relating to illegal parking in posted street sweeping areas, making minor adjustments thereto. 7. 160: Accepting the bid of Ted Case Painting, in the amount of 5106,105 for repainting structural steel at Anaheim Stadium, in accordance with Bid No. 4418. 8. 160: Accepting the bid of Woody Chevrolet, in the amount of 521,749.02 for one van, walk-in type, in accordance with Bid No. A-4425. 9. 169: RESOLUTION NO. 87R-137: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM FINALI~ ACCEPTING THE COMPLETION OF A CERTAIN PUBLIC WORK. (LAKEVIEW AVENUE STREET IMPROVEMENTS, ORANGETHORPE TO LA PALMA). (Account Nos. 46-792-6325-EZ120 and 54-605-6329-04751, Sully-Miller Contracting Company, contractor, and authorizing filing of the Notice of Completion therefor) 295 City Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - April 14, 1987, 1:30 P.M. 10. 153: RESOLUTION NO. 87R-138: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AMENDING RESOLUTION NO. 87R-82 WHICH ESTABLISHED RATES OF COMPENSATION FOR UNREPRESENTED PART-TIME JOB CLASSIFICATIONS. (Amending Resolution No. 87R-82 which established rates of compensation for unrepresented part-time Job classifications, to include Head Parking Lot Attendant, Convention Center and Stadium; and Head Parking Lot Captain, Convention Center and Stadium; effective February 13, 1987) 11. 158: RESOLUTION NO. 87R-139: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM ACCEPTING CERTAIN DEEDS CONVEYING TO THE CITY OF ANAHEIM CERTAIN REAL PROPERTIES OR INTERESTS THEREIN. 12. 150/142: ORDINANCE NO. 4823: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AMENDING SUBSECTION 13.08.020.200 OF SECTION 13.08.020 OF CHAPTER 13.08 OF TITLE 13 RRIATING TO PROHIBITED CONDUCT IN PUBLIC PARKS. (Amending Subsection 13.08.020.200 of the Code, relating to prohibited conduct in public parks, alcoholic beverages) Roll Call Vote on Resolution Nos. 87R-137 through 87R-139: AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: VACANCY: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Pickler, Hunter, Kaywood and Bay None None One The Mayor declared Resolution Nos. 87R-137 through 87R-139, both inclusive, duly passed and adopted. End of Consent Calendar. 139/114: SUPPORTING CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH RESOLUTION NO. 87-36 RELATIVE TO PRACTICES THAT MINIMIZE HAZARDOUS WASTE: Councilwoman Kaywood recommended that the Council support the City of Newport Beach relative to the subject resolution supporting the use of practices that minimize hazardous waste and the preparation of a hazardous waste management plan by the County of Orange pursuant to AB 2948; Councilman Pickler recalled that the City of Anaheim had previously gone on record in support. He asked that staff subsequently confirm that the Council had acted formerly on the matter. MOTION: Councilwoman Kaywood moved to receive and file City of Newport Beach Resolution No. 87-36. Councilman Bay seconded the motion. One Vacancy. MOTION CARRIED. 173/114: CITY OF CERRITOS~ RESOLUTION NO. 87-7 RELATING TO AIR TRAFFIC SAFETY: Councilwoman Kaywood asked that the Council support the subject resolution to preclude another air tragedy such as the one that occurred over Cerrttos. Mayor Bay stated while he has no disagreement with the resolution, it is not the only way to solve the problem. He would prefer that the matter be continued one week and referred to the Intergovernmental Relations Officer, since at this time there are a number of complex things going on relative to 296 220 City Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - April 14~ 1987~ 1:30 P.M. Air Traffic Control. He was not ready to approve the resolution until there was an in depth look at alternate methods and he did not want to be locked into one method that would possibly defer another. MOTION: Councilwoman Kaywood moved to continue consideration of support of the City of Cerritos, Resolution No. 87-7, relating to Air Traffic Safety and that the matter be referred to the Intergovernmental Relations Officer to provide additional information to the Council. Councilman Bay seconded the motion. One Vacancy. MOTION CARRIED. Later in the meeting it was determined by the Council after Closed Session that staff be given an additional week to submit a report and that the matter be continued to Tuesday, April 28, 1987 instead of Tuesday, April 21, 1987. 139: SAFETY STANDARDS FOR CARPOOL OR HIGH OCCUPANCY VEHICLE (HOV) LANES - ASSEMBLY BILL 699 (SEYMOUR): Assistant City Manager Rom Bates referred to staff report dated April 8, 1987 from the Intergovernmental Relations Officer William Sell, recommending that the Council determine its position on establishing minimum design and safety standards for carpool or high occupancy vehicle lanes throughout California as outlined in Assembly Bill 699 (Seymour) and that the Council communicate that position to the City's elected representatives in Sacramento. Councilman Bay moved to support AB 699 (Seymour) establishing minimum design and safety standards for carpool or high occupancy vehicle lanes throughout California. Before action was taken, Mayor Bay explained that in the Joint Powers Authority (JPA) studies and the standards on future freeways in the County, those standards will be met and there are special HOV lanes which are part of the design for the corridors, but are down the middle and constructed with fly-overs which have their own on and off ramps, planned into the corridors so that they are not part of the actual freeway where a lane as narrow as 11 feet is taken and designated as an HOV lane. Councilman Hunter thereupon seconded the motion noting that anyone who drives the 55 freeway knows that only inches separate the carpool lane from lane #1 which is a dangerous situation. He supports Senator Seymour's proposed bill. Councilman Pickler. He agrees with the concept and has talked to Senator Seymour agreeing that guidelines have to be set. However, he (Pickler) feels this is a Job for Cai Trans. Also, the UCI Institute of Transportation is making a study and analysis of accidents that have occurred on the 55 Freeway. The problem with the Seymour proposal is it would eliminate the H0V lane on the 55 Freeway and he does not agree with that. He feels there should be amendments to the bill and that legislation should not be arbitrarily set in place, without the people who are involved with the safety factors, i.e., Cai Trans. Decisions should be made only after reports are submitted. He feels it is premature at this time to support AB 699. The Council should support the provisions of the bill calling for the development of uniform standards for the design and operation of the HOV lanes. Development of uniform standards will aid local agencies. At one time, he did vote against 297 City Hall~ Anaheimt California - COUNCIL MINUTES - April 14~ 1987~ 1:30 P.M. the HOV lane in his capacity on the Orange County Transportation Commission with the idea that it should be a normal lane Just as the others. He reiterated, the proposed action is premature and the Council should get all the information they can before proceeding. There are many people who like the carpool lane concept and this would eliminate the carpool lane on the 55 Freeway. Councilwoman Kaywood. In view of the crippling traffic, to eliminate the HOV lane at this time, without waiting for the studies that are in progress, would be a mistake. She agrees that to have standards that are uniform throughout the State in the future for anything being built is the best way to proceed but she would rather see those standards coming through Cal Trams and the engineers, experts and professionals in the field rather than a "knee-Jerk" political move that may not answer the question. Mayor Bay stated in his opinion if the bill passes it would very likely eliminate the HOV lanes on the 55 Freeway and he favors doing away with those lanes as soon as possible since there are many differences of opinion on the accidents caused as a direct result of the HOV lane. He feels AB 699 is needed as soon as possible. Councilman Pickler. He feels the study which is expected to be completed in June will give more answers so that the Council can make a better decision. Councilman Hunter. The bill will establish throughout the State of California minimum design and safety standards for carpool lanes. If it passes, it will convert the present HOV lanes into general use lanes. He supports Senator Seymour's bill. If they had such a bill prior to the HOV lanes being established, there would not be the problem now. He feels the studies will show a major increase in serious and fatal accidents. Mayor Bay asked for a Roll Call Vote on the motion to support AB 699: Roll Call Vote: AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: VACANCY: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Hunter and Bay Pickler and Kaywood None One The motion failed to carry. No further action was taken by the Council. Councilman Pickler stated that he will write a letter to Senator Seymour giving his views. 112/123: LEGAL SERVICES PROVIDED BY CERTIFIED LAW STUDENT - CITY COUNCIL CONSENT: Councilman Bay moved to consent to representation by Donald P. Cripe, a California State Bar Certified Law Student, to perform certain legal services for the City, and authorizing the Mayor to execute the Consent Form as recommended in memorandum dated April 1, 1987 from the City Attorney. Councilwoman Kaywood seconded the motion. One Vacancy. MOTION CARRIED. 298 City Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - April 14~ 1987~ 1:30 P.M. 146: APPOINTMENT TO SANTA ANA RIVER FLOOD PROTECTION AGENCY: Councilman Bay moved that Councilman Fred Hunter be appointed a member to represent the City Council on the Santa Ana River Flood Protection Agency. Councilwoman Kaywood seconded the motion. One Vacancy. MOTION CARRIED. 105: APPOINTMENTS TO THE COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT COMMISSION: Appointments to fill two terms created by vacancies on the subject Commission (Leo and Stanton). This matter was continued from the meeting of March 31, 1987, to this date. Councilman Bay moved that the subject appointments be continued one week since letters of application to serve on the Co-mission were still being received. Councilman Pickler seconded the motion. One Vacancy. MOTION CARRIED. 179/106: REQUEST FORREHEARING - GAMES PLUS: Request for a rehearing submitted by Clay Peters, Games Plus, to retain on-sale beer in a billiard parlor and amusement arcade on CL zoned property at 3242 West Lincoln Avenue, denied by Council at a public hearing on March 24, 1987. Mayor Bay asked the City Attorney if the subject request could be referred to a Hearing Officer in this case; the City Attorney answered yes. Rudolfo MonteJano, attorney, 856 North Ross Street, Santa Ana, representing Mr. Clay Peters of Games Plus, stated he assumed the Council had received a copy of their appeal requesting a rehearing. He feels a full and fair hearing is necessary to determine the destiny of the business. He then started to brief the information contained in the affidavit of merit requesting the rehearing. Mayoz Bay interjected and explained that the information being relayed by Mr. MonteJano at this time and anything further would be fully heard if his request for rehearing is approved. MOTION: Councilman Bay moved to approve the request for a rehearing submitted by Clay Peters, Games Plus, to retain on-sale beer in a billiard parlor and amusement arcade on CL zoned property at 3242 West Lincoln Avenue which was denied by the City Council at a public hearing on March 24, 1987. Be/ore action was taken, City Attorney ~;htte explained that under the ordinance the City Council should designate the Hearing Officer and they could do so by designating the City Manager or his designee to act as the Hearing Officer in this particular case unless Council would rather have staff hire an independent member of the Judicial Arbitration Service. He suggests that it could be handled internally. Councilman Bay amended his motion that the rehearing be held before a Hearing Officer designated by the City Manager. Councilman Hunter seconded the motion. City Clerk Sohl noted another agenda item which had previously been set to be heard before a Hearing Officer (CUP No. 2885) requesting that the motion approved on April 17, 1987 to set the matter before a Hearing Officer be rescinded and instead that a public hearing be set to be heard before the 299 City Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - April 14~ 1987~ 1:30 P.M. Council. The new ordinance relative to setting matters before a Hearing Officer makes mention of an administrative record to be prepared by the Hearing Officer but does not set forth any resources whereby that can take place. In addition to the motion, she would request that if it is the City Clerk's Office who is to be responsible to provide the record, then she will require additional resources from the Council Contingency Fund to do so. The ordinance does not specifically mention the Clerk's Office although the City Attorney feels it should be an obligation of her office. Her strategy, therefore, would be to hire a Court Reporter to attend the hearing and prepare the administrative record. Mayor Bay surmised then that this was a budgetary matter. He had no argument with the request which he stated would be handled out of the Council Contingency Fund. Mr. MonteJano stated the applicant would be glad to share the cost of the Court Reporter for the rehearing. City Attorney White asked if that would then be a 50-50 cost split; Mayor Bay confirmed that it would be shared 50-50, 50Z for the City and 50Z for the applicant. Councilman Pickler asked if at the previous hearing (March 24, 1987 public hearing) if the hearing, in fact, complied with all legal requirements. City Attorney White stated that the hearing was fair. The basis for the rehearing is that the applicant believes he did not have an opportunity to prepare in advance knowing what the specific charges were. Even though it was a fair hearing, it is a discretionary matter on which the Council could grant a rehearing. Councilman Pickler stated he feels that the public hearing previously held was sufficient and he is not inclined to grant the rehearing. A vote was then taken on the foregoing motion, granting the rehearing request to be heard before a Hearing Officer designated by the City Manager with the cost to provide the administrative record to be shared by the both the City and the applicant on a 50-50 cost share basis. Councilman Pickler voted no. One Vacancy. MOTION CARRIED. 108: APPLICATION FOR A PUBLIC DANCE PERMIT: Councilman Pickler moved to approve a public Public Dance Permit submitted by Jesus M. Frias, to hold a dance at Anaheim Convention center, April 18, 1987, 7:00 p.m. to 1:00 a.m., in accordance with the recommendations of the Chief of Police. Councilman Bay seconded the motion. One Vacancy. MOTION CARRIED. 179/106: REHEARING - CONDITIONALUSE PERMIT NO. 2885 - AUTOMOBILE REPAIR FACILITY: Rescinding the motion of April 7, 1987 setting Conditional Use Permit No. 2885, to permit an automobile repair facility on ML zoned property located at 1884 South Santa Cruz Street, for a public hearing before a hearing officer and thereby setting it for a public hearing by the City Council. The suggested date and time for the public hearing is April 28, 1987 at 3:00 p.m. 3O0 216 City Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - April 14~ 1987~ 1:30 P.M. Councilman Hunter asked in this case if a rehearing is granted and heard before a Hearing Officer if a call could be made to the Attorney's Office representing the applicant asking if the applicant would share in the cost to provide the administrative record. City Attorney ~hite answered that this was an appeal of a Planning Commission's decision and there is a difference between a request for rehearing and an appeal. In an appeal, the applicant has the right to an appeal and he does not believe that legally the Council can require the appellant to agree to pay for a Hearing Officer especially in a case where the applicant does not want the matter to be heard before a Hearing Officer. The only option would be to build into an appeal fee an amount of money sufficient to cover such costs or set forth a reserve so that in cases where a Hearing Officer is used, there would be a reserve to cover the cost. Mayor Bay stated when an appeal of the Planning Commission decision is made and the appellant indicates he does not want a hearing before a Hearing Officer but before the Council, that is the Council's prerogative; City Attorney White answered it was the Council's right even over the appellant's objection to refer the matter to a Hearing Officer. The final decision is still made by the Council. Mayor Bay stated in the subject case, the hearing should be set before the Hearing Officer as the Council previously voted and the costs will become a secondary problem. Councilwoman Kaywood. She expressed concern over the additional cost for such hearing. She objects to using the Council Contingency Fund to cover the cost since the fund is used for emergency items; Councilman Pickler stated it was a new area that had not been tried before and it is worth a try to see what develops relative to these first two cases. Hayor Bay stated until staff has had an opportunity to determine what the costs are going to be and the comparison made, he has no way of knowing what procedure is going to cost the most. City Clerk Sohl stated if the Council does not wish to rescind the motion and allow staff to hire a Court Reporter, then shew ill proceed the way the motion stands. City Attorney White stated that a motion to remove the item from the agenda was all that was necessary. Councilman Hunter moved that the motion to deny rescinding of the motion previously made by the Council relative to setting a hearing before a Hearing Officer on Conditional Use Permit No. 2885 be taken off the agenda. Councilman Bay seconded the motion. One Vacancy. MOTION CARRIED. 170: TRACT NO. 10974 - FINAL MAP: DEVELOPER: Trider Corporation TRACl LOCATION: North and south side of Camino Grande, southeasterly of Peridot Place. 301 City Hall~ A-~heim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - April 14~ 1987~ 1:30 P.M. PROPOSED SUBDIVISION: 23 residential lots and 10 lettered lots, on RM-3000 zomed property. STAFF INPUT: See report dated April 6, 1987 from the City Engineer, recommending approval of Final Map Tract No. 10974 subject to approval of the conditions, covenants and restrictions for said tract. On motion by Councilman Bay, seconded by Councilman Hunter, the proposed subdivision, together with its design and improvement, was found to be consistent with the City's General Plan, and the City Council approved Final Map Tract No. 10974, as recommended by the City Engineer in his memorandum dated April 6, 1987. One Vacancy. MOTION CARRIED. 179: ORDINANCE NO. 4820: Councilwoman Kaywood offered Ordinance No. 4820 for adoption. Refer to Ordinance Book. ORDINANCE NO. 4820: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AMENDING THE ZONING MAP REFERRED TO IN TITLE 18 OF THE ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO ZONING. (Amending Title 18, Reclass. 86-87-28, C-R, 901 & 909 So. Harbor, 100-220 E. Katella Ave., 300-320 E. Katella Way, 1825-1839 So. Mountain View Ave., 330 E. Katella Way, 1809-1833 So. Manchester Ave., 1845-1901 So. Manchester Ave. and 1929-1931 So. Manchester Ave) Roll Call Vote: AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: VACANCY: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Pickler, Hunter, Kaywood and Bay None None One The Mayor declared Ordinance No. 4820 duly passed and adopted. 142/179: ORDINANCE NOS. 4821 AND 4822: Councilwoman Kaywood offered Ordinance No. 4821 and 4822 for adoption. Refer to Ordinance Book. ORDINANCE NO. 4821: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM ADDING NEW SUBSECTION .2330 TO SECTION 14.32.190 OF CHAPTER 14.32 OF TITLE 14 OF THE ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO PARKING AND STOPPING. (South side of Crescent Avenue, from Dale C0 200 feeC easterly) ORDINANCE NO. 4822: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM ADDING NEW SUBSECTION .2340 TO SECTION 14.32.190 OF CHAPTER 14.32 OF TITLE 14 OF THE ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO PARKING AND STOPPING. (Both sides of Ball Road from West Street/Flore Street to 190 feet easterly) Roll Call Vote: AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: VACANCY: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Pickler, Hunter, Kaywood and Bay None None One 302 City Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - April 14~ 1987; 1:30 P.M. The Mayor declared Ordinance Nos. 4821 and 4822 duly passed and adopted. RECESS: By general consent, the Council recessed until the public hearing time at 3:00 p.m. AFTER RECESS: The Mayor called the meeting to order, all Council Members being present. One Vacancy. (3:05 p.m.) 107: PUBLIC HEARING - HOUSE MOVE-ON: APPLICANT: Sam Difilippo 1525 Dana Place Fullerton, Ca. 92637 REQUEST/ZONING/LOCATION: Request is to move a fourplex from 1009 East Lincoln Avenue to 514 East Broadway. PUBLIC NOTICE REQUIREMENTS MET BY: Publication in Anaheim Bulletin March 26, 1987. Posting of property March 27, 1987. Mailing to property owners within 300 feet -March 27, 1987. PLANNING STAFF INPUT: " See Staff Report to the Planning Commission dated March 19, 1987 from the Chief Building Official, Wayne West, recommending approval of the request conditioned on compliance with the City of Anaheim Building, Plumbing, Electrical and Mechanical Codes. This matter was continued from the meeting of April 7, 1987, to this date. City Clerk Sohl referred to letter received from the applicant, Mr. Difilippo, requesting a continuance of the public hearing but without specifying a specific date. Mayor Bay stated that the Council had received his request and he asked if a one week continuance was sufficient; Mr. Difilippo answered yes. He (Difilippo) also reported in answer to the Mayor that he did not not receive a copy of the report from the Building Division dated April 10, 1987. (A copy of the memorandum was thereupon provided). Councilwoman Kaywood asked if there was more than a majority of ~he homeowners protesting to the move-on. Donna Berry, 511 East Broadway. They have contacted virtually every property owner within the 300 foot radius which contains 43 properties and have received signatures of approximately 2/3rds of those in that area who are opposed. She turned a copy of those signatures into the Zoning Administrator some time ago. She had the original signatures with her. Annika Santalahti, Zoning Administrator. The signatures were submitted to her Just after lunch today. It was going to take a while to check the 27 signatures submitted. 303 City Hall~ Anaheim; California - COUNCIL MINUTES -.April 14; 1987~ 1:30 P.M. Mayor Bay asked the City Attorney if over 50% of the properties were opposed, would that make the hearin~ moot. City Attorney White answered under the language in the Code currently the Council, in order to approve the permit is required to find that less than a majority of the property owners within 300 feet have protested. If there are petitions, letters or personal appearances by a majority of property owners within 300 feet objecting, his opinion is that the Council would be required to deny the permit. Councilman Bay stated with that understanding, he is going to move for a one week continuance on the public hearing on the subject house move-on based on the request of the applicant and to give staff an opportunity to verify the signatures submitted. Councilman Hunter seconded the motion. Before a vote was taken, Councilwoman Kaywood asked that it be scheduled as the first public hearing at the meeting of April 21, 1987. Councilman Bay included in his motion that the house move-on public hearing be the first scheduled on next week's agenda. A vote was then taken on the foregoing motion. One Vacancy. MOTION CARS/ED. 123/136: CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING: To consider an agreement with California Lutheran Homes (CLH) to provide financing in an amount not to exceed $6,000,000 for a 99-bed skilled nursing facility known as Walnut Manor to be located at 891 South Walnut Street. PUBLIC NOTICE REQUIREMENTS MET BY: Publication in Anaheim Bulletin March 24, 1987. STAFF INPUT: See Staff Report dated April 7, 1987 from the Director of Finance George Ferrone to the City Manager/City Council, recommending that the Council approve the financing transaction for California Lutheran Homes and authorizing the Mayor to approve and execute agreements and authorizin~ and directing certain actions with respect thereto. (See report outlining the specific agreements). Eon Bates, Assistant City Manager, stated that Mr. Ferrone was available to answer questions and to bring the Council up to date on the financing itself if the Council wished. Mayor Bay asked if anyone wished to speak relative to the proposed agreement; there was no response. COUNCIL ACTION: Mayor Bay closed the public hearing. Councilman Pickler asked Mr. Ferrone if the City had assisted before in similar circumstances, if this was standard procedure, and the City's responsibilities under such an agreement. 304 2i2 City Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - April 14~ 1987~ 1:30 P.M. George Ferrone, Director of Finance, answered that the City approved a similar arrangement previously with Anaheim Memorial Hospital and Martin Luther Hospital. It is a unique privilege for those kinds of organizations and institutions and the City has traditionally assisted the hospitals when it is an Anaheim operation. The City is merely acting as a conduit for CLH to allow the hospital to raise funds at a lower interest rate and the City is totally indemnified in every regard. The City will require the CLH to maintain a letter of credit for the entire amount of the bond issue, so if for any reason there was a default, there would be a claim against that letter of credit to pay off the bond orders. The entire 36 million is bonded. It is not standard in the fact that in this particular case the City asked for a total assurance. Mayor Bay stated he had discussed the matter with Mr. Ferrone that morning but for purposes of clarification he asked the maximum risk involved and any downside to the City in any sense. Was there any risk on the City's part in the transaction. Mr. Ferrone answered that there is no risk whatsoever on the City's part in the proposed transaction. Councilman Bay offered Resolution No. 87R-140 and 87R-141, the first authorizing the execution and delivery of a First Installment Sale Agreement with California Lutheran Homes, to provide financing in the amount of 36,000,000 for certain health facilities; and the second authorizing the financing transaction for California Lutheran Homes, and authorizing the Mayor and City Clerk to execute the First Installment Sale Agreement and Second Sale Agreement with CLH; Trust Agreement with Security Pacific National Bank and CIA/; First Assignment Agreement with CLH; and Certificate Purchase Agreement offered by Dean Witter Reynolds Inc. to purchase Certificates of Participation; approving as to form the Preliminary Official Statement relating to the Certificates and authorizing the Mayor to execute the Final Official Statement; approving as to form the Reimbursement Agreement between the ~ational Australia Bank and CLH, the Deed of Trust from CLH; and authorizing the Mayor, Finance Director, City Attorney, City Clerk and such other officers the City may deem appropriate to sign related documents. Refer to Resolution Book. RESOLUTION NO. 87R-140: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AUTHORIZING THE EXECUTION AND DELIVERY OF A FIRST INSTAI.T~ENT SAL~ AGREEMENT WITH CALIFORNIA LUTHERAN HOMES, TO PROVIDE FINANCING IN THE AMOUNT OF $6,000,000 FOR CERTAIN HEALTH FACILITIES. RESOLUTION NO. 87R-141: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AUTHORIZING THE FINANCING TRANSACTION FOR CALIFORNIA LUTHERAN HOMES, AND AUTHOKIZING THE MAYORAND CITY CLERK TO EXECUTE THE FIRST INSTA~J~tENT OF SALE AGREEMENT AND SECOND SALE AGREEMENT WITH CLH; TRUST AGREEMENT SECURITY PACIFIC NATIONAL BANI(AND CLH; FIRST ASSIGNMENT AGREEMENT WITH CIA/; AND CERTIFICATE PURCHASE AGREEMENT OFFERED BY DEAN WITTEKKEYNOLDS INC. TO PURCHASE CERTIFICATES OF PARTICIPATION; APPROVING AS TO FORM THE PRELIMINARY 305 City Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - April 14~ 1987~ 1:30 P.M. OFFICIAL STATEMENT RELATING TO THE CERTIFICATES AND AUTHOKIZING THE MAYOR TO EXECUTE THE FINAL OFFICIAL STATEMENT; APPROVING AS TO FORM THE REIMBURSEMENT AGREEMENT BETWgEN THE NATIONALAUSTRALIA BANK AND CLH, THE DEED OF TRUST FROM CLH; AND AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR, FINANCE DLRECTOR, CITY ATTORNEY, CITY CLERK AND SUCH OTHER OFFICERS THE CITY MAY DEEM APPROPRIATE TO SIGN RELATED DOCUMENTS. Roll Call Vote: AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: VACANCY: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Pickler, Hunter, Kaywood and Bay None None One The Mayor declared Resolution Nos. 87R-140 and 87R-141 duly passed and adopted. 179: PUBLIC HEAILING: After conferring with the City Attorney, the Council heard the following two public hearings together since both involved the same property. (Shown below as A & B) (A) RECLASSIFICATION NO. 86-87-22~ VARIANCE NO. 3636 AND NEGATIVE DECLARATION: APPLICANT: Hartman Corp. 536 West Lincoln Avenue Anaheim, Ca. 92805 REQUEST/ZONING/LOCATION: For a change in zone from ML to CL, to construct a commercial center on property located south and east of the southeast corner of Katella Avenue and State College Boulevard, with the following Code waivers: (a) minimum number of required parking spaces, (b) maximum number of freestanding signs, (c) permitted location of freestanding signs, (d) minimum distance between freestanding signs. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: Resolution No. PC87-42 and PC87-43 denied Reclassification No. 86-87-22 and Variance No. 3636; approved EIR - Negative Declaration. HEARING SET ON: Appealed by Floyd Farano, attorney for Banco Development Group, agent for the applicant. PUBLIC NOTICE REQUIREMENTS MET BY: Publication in Anaheim Bulletin April 3, 1987. Posting of property April 3, 1987. Mailing to property owners within 300 feet - April 3, 1987. PLANNING STAFF INPUT: See Staff Report to the Planning Commission dated February 18, 1987. (B) CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2883 AND NEGATIVE DECLARATION: APPLICANT: Same as above 306 City Hall, Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - April 14, 1987~ 1:30 P.M. REQUEST/ZONING/LOCATION: To construct a drive-thru restaurant on ML zoned property located south and east of the southeast corner of Katella Avenue and State College Boulevard, with Code waiver of minimum number of required parking spaces. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: Resolution No. PC87-44 denied Conditional Use Permit No. 2883, approved EIR - Negative Declaration. HEARING SET ON: Same as above. PUBLIC NOTICE EEQUIREMENTS MET BY: Publication in Anaheim Bulletin April 3, 1987. Posting of property April 3, 1987. Mailing to property owners within 300 feet - April 3, 1987. PLANNING STAFF INPUT: See Staff Report to the Planning Commission dated February 18, 1987. APPLICANT'S STATEMENT: Floyd Farano, attorney, representing the agent, Banco Development Group. He first submitted letter dated April 18, 1987 which outlined the presentation he is going to make to the Council on the subject appeal. Before continuing, he referred to the February 18, 1987 staff report regarding Eeclassification No. 86-87-22, Page 3a. He wanted the Council to know that the applicant has stipulated to eliminating waivers b, c and d by virtue of the fact that there has been a change in signing, therefore, those requested waivers are no longer required. He explained for Councilwoman Kaywood that the only change was the elimination of the sign. They had changed the "footprint" of what was earlier the Del Taco restaurant to retail. The new footprint was delivered to staff last week and it is one of the exhibits posted on the Chamber wall. Annika Santalahti, Zoning Administrator. Since staff received a copy only last Thursday afternoon, a report was not prepared to discuss the differences. The exhibit still shows the sign; however, the basic dif~erence is the deletion of the drive-thru restaurant replacing it with retail square footage thereby modifying the overall parking requirement but it still requires a variance based on straight retail use of the site without including any food service or restaurant facilities. Floyd Farano. Briefed the letter report dated April 14, 1987 submitted in support of the appeal - i.e., description of the property, the revised site plan, the increased number of parking spaces, a discussion of the traffic study (also see attachment Exhibit 1 - a s-mmary of a review of traffic and parking factors related to 307 Cit~ Hall; Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - April 14; 1987; 1:30 P.M. the proposal by Weston Pringle and Associates, Traffic and Transportation Engineering firm dated January 22, 1987 - specifically paragraph 2, Page 1), proposed uses, parking vis a vis Anaheim Stadium events, and parking control on event days. He also briefed the site plan posted on the Chamber wall in relation to the various issues presented in the detailed report. During his presentation, Mr. Farano stated he wanted to withdraw the uses listed on Page 3 of Exhibit 1 entitled Table 1, similar center land uses which listed those uses contained in 3 other commercial centers. He stated the uses on the list are not the uses the applicant intends to have in the subject area. Instead, the uses listed on Page 11 of Exhibit 2 (the second page of letter dated February 17, 1987 from Weston Pringle) are the uses proposed for the center. Working from the site plan, he showed how far the closest residential area was located. He also noted that there was no other retail sales area in the subject area to serve any portion of the community. The area depicted is generally referred to as the "Platinum Triangle." He also showed where the drive-thru was originally located, now eliminated, and then elaborated on the meeting that Banco had with Grey Trombley at Anaheim Stadium relative to the possibility of entering into an agreement for 80 parking spaces on the stadium lot for the employees of the proposed center except on event days. Mr. Farano stated it is the applicant's intention, and they would accept as a stipulation, that the stores other than food service facilities will close at 5:00 p.m. in the evening on any event day and that will be written into the leases. City Attorney White. He explained that the City currently had several license agreements for use of parking spaces at the Stadium during the hours that parking would not conflict with the Angels or Rams events or any events of the City's other tenants and it requires that upon a minimum amount of prior notice to the licensee that those spaces are not available on any given day when there are events and further that the license is terminable on 30 days advance notice by either party. The ones entered into up to now have all been license agreements and he assumes this would be the same as well. Mr. Farano continued that the other condition they believe will be beneficial to the continuation of development as a service to commercial office (C-O) and industrial is the condition stated at the bottom of his letter, Page 2, Item D - "Banco is willing to have the following language included in conditions for approval - only sales and retail uses which primarily serve and are compatible with C-O and industrial uses shall be allowed. Sales and products which attract customers other than commercial office and industrial uses shall not be considered compatible." This language was extracted out of the City's Code except it says they will not install retail uses that are not compatible and which do not service C-0 and industrial users in that area. Ctt7 Hall~ Anahelm~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - Apr!l 14~ 1987~ 1:30 P.M. In concluding, Mr. Farano stated that the developer believes the 4.45 miles depicted in the Exhibit is definitely in need of some kind of commercial services. It will be an assistance to the office complexes that are in existence now and that will be constructed in the future. There are no other retail sources within walkin~ distance to obtain any retail goods or merchandise. The proposal will enhance the leasability of the present commercial office space, one of the complaints from one of the largest users of commercial office space in the vicinity being lack of supportin~ services. An office use on the 2.86 acres of land in the area would contribute substantially more traffic to the intersection of State College and Katella than the uses being proposed. Further, in order to preserve the integrity of the area, they are also proposing the following condition: that the applicant will accept the condition restrictin~ those uses that are compatible only with retail and industrial as previously stated and will also insert a condition in their leases which will require all uses in the center except food dispensers to close their business at 5:00 p.m. on any event or game day. Thirdly, they will maintain the park/ng spaces they are using from the Ci..ty pursuant to a license and that during game days, they will institute a system relative to parking similar to that used by Casa Maria and Charlle Browns. After Mr. Farano's presentation, extensive discussion and questioning followed between Council Members, Mr. Farano and staff. A particular concern was the parkin~ situation, the number of spaces and especially the difficulty the Council felt would be encountered in restrictin~ businesses in their hours of operation on game or event days at the Stadium. Miss Santalahti explained on the original request there were 155 spaces or 58.7% of the requirement of 264. That was based on a mix of retail plus the drive-thru restaurant. The revised proposal is 163 spaces proposed which amounts to ?6Z. The requirement of 214 spaces is based on a straight retail requirement. A sit-down restaurant is not included in those 214 spaces. Floyd Farano. Weston FrlnEle did the parkln~ study and used the items on Page 11 of the material he presented (see report submitted). He was given the square footages and those were the uses he considered and quantities that he was given on the studies when he computed 155 spaces would be adequate. Those uses were before him at the time he did the studies. Mayor Bay. He stated he did not doubt what Mr. Farano reported but staff did not have those figures in order to compute what the Code is. Staff would need the same figures Weston PrinEle used in order to compare their opinion on what the Code is. 309 City Hall., Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - April 14~ 1987~ 1:30 P.M. Annika Santalahti. On traffic studies, the original intent of the variance procedure for parking tied into the anticipation that they would have existiu~ users so that an analysis could be site specific. The three centers addressed in the documentation submitted are not comparable to the same location. If a project exists in a certain form, it is clear what uses there are. The subject project, however, is based on projects that do not exist for staff at all except on paper. Councilwoman Kaywood. She noted the project could be all restaurants and then nothing would close and restaurant use would need a full compliment of parking. Any other location in the City is not comparable without having Anaheim Stadium next to it. Debbie Fank, Assistant Traffic Engineer. The project currently has 214 spaces without the additional square footage of the restaurant which means that the project will be even at less than 76% and they cannot accept only 76% at that particular location. Councilman Pickler. He has a problem with the proposal in any case. Everything listed as possible uses in the center caters to retail. This location is in the Platinum Triangle and this project does not fit into what the City wants to see in that area. Services that support commercial will be incorporated into the buildings that are going into the area. He emphasized he feels the proposed retail center is out of place in the subject location. He is also concerned with the proposed parking and especially concerned with the traffic and circulation in that entire area. It will attract more retail customers than Just those people in the surrounding commercial office and industrial. Mayor Bay. He is not ready to give his final opinion on the proposal since the Council is lacklu8 the info,marion that has to be reviewed by the Traffic Engineer. He can also foresee all kinds of problems of enforcement and no matter how many conditions are worked out, he does not know how the City would ever enforce them especially those businesses who would have to close at certain times and the many other issues involved. Floyd Farano. Perhaps he has to assemble more and different information relative to the development to present his case more clearly. There is no doubt in his mind or the minds of the people who do the feasibility studies that this is the right place for the project they are proposing. 310 City Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - April 14~ 1987~ 1:30 P.M. Mayor Bay. The Council is only looking at what the developer proposes to do with his property against the City's basic Codes. At the same time, they have to have firm enough numbers on a change to a design that is before the Council for hearing. Those numbers have to go to the City's professionals in Planning and Traffic so they can give some comparison in order to know what they are looking at. He suggested that Mr. Farano continue the hearing until the information is set up that way. Councilman Pickler. Although he has no problem continuing the public hearing, the facts will only get worse. Staff has figured every space in the proposal as retail without any eating spaces. If eating spaces are added, the percentage of parking spaces projected now will decline. Debbie Fank. She confirmed that was correct. PUBLIC DISCUSSION- IN FAVOR: None. PUBLIC DISCUSSION- IN OPPOSITION: Mr. Don Kiely, 2110 East Katella, Anaheim, Ca. 92803. The applicant has apparently made changes that he (Kiely) has not had an opportunity to review. He has long understood the subject property was going to be an office project. They have serious concerns relative to the intensity of the proposal and the parking proposed. The parking is about 3 quarters of what is required by City Code. Insufficient parking in this proposed parking would have a detrimental effect on his business and tenants. (See Mr. E/ely's letter dated April 9, 1987 outlining in detail the concerns he has relative to the proposed development). Mr. Kiely confirmed for Councilwoman Kaywood that if the proposal complies with parking required under City Codes, he would not be objecting to the development. MOTION: Councilman Bay moved to continue the public hearing on Reclassification No. 86-87-22 and Variance 3636. He assumed that it was not necessary to continue the public hearing on Conditional Use Permit No. 2883 since the drive-thru restaurant was eliminated. Before any action was taken, Mr. Farano stated he would like to request a continuance on both items, the Conditional Use Permit for the drive-thru as well. Mayor Bay stated the key is whether the project is going to be straight commercial, or restaurants since the big factors change in the parking requirements when restaurants are included. If 311 City Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - April 14~ 1987t 1:30 P.M. the developer could determine a limitation on the square footage of sit-down restaurants that require the added parking and commit to that across the whole development, then the uses would fall into the other categories, those requiring 5.5 spaces per 1000 square feet. When talking about the bank and a complete revision of the design, his reaction to that would be that the developer go back to the Planning Commission and start over. If there are time constraints and they want to keep it at the Council level, the developer will have to come up with a square footage on generic uses so the Council will know what to look at relative to parking. It may be they will have to drastically reduce some of the uses that require that parking in order to come closer to the Code and in order to get the approval they are seeking. Councilman Bay then amended his motion for continuance that the public hearing on Reclassification No. 86-87-22, Variance 3636 and Conditional Use Permit No. 2883 be continued to May 12, 1987 at approximately 3:00 p.m. requesting that the information needed by staff be submitted to staff by the applicant within the next two weeks to give sufficient time for a staff report to be prepared. Councilman Pickler seconded the motion for purposes of discussion. Mr. Farano asked instead for a six week continuance. The motion was amended to six weeks or Hay 26, 1982. Councilman Pickler. He reiterated this is a project that is not going to get any better because of the restaurants. This shopping center does not belong in that area and he wants to uphold the Planning Commission's decision of denial. Councilman Hunter. He sees a number of problems and it may be something that needs to start all over from scratch by going back through the Planning Commission process. He is concerned about the parking conditions especially in the Stadium area. With the possibility of an arena being built nearby, he sees major problems with regard to parking. He also does not believe it is feasible telling businesses that they have to close at 5:00 p.m. He is agreeable to a continuance. Councilwoman Kaywood. She has concerns relative to this particular corner. It is a show place entrance into the Platinum Triangle. She will not agree with any parking waivers. A vote was then taken on the motion, continuing the public hearing for six weeks with revised plans to be submitted to staff in four weeks and failed to carry by the following vote: 312 204 City Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - April 14~ 1987~ 1:30 P.M. Roll Call Vote: AYES: COUNCIL HE M BEES: NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: VACANCY: C0UNCILHEHB~: Hunter and Bay Pickler and Kaywood None One ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT - NEGATIVE DECLARATION - (RECLASSIFICATION NO. 86-87-22~ VARIANCE NO. 3636 AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2883: On motion by Councilman Pickler, seconded by Councilman Bay, the City Council approved the negative declaration upon finding that it has considered the negative declaration together with any comments received during the public review process, and further finding on the basis of the initial study and any comments received that there is no substantial evidence that the project will have a significant effect on the environment. One Vacancy. MOTION CARRIED. Councilman Pickler offered a resolution denying Reclassification No. 86-87-22, Variance 3636 and Conditional Use Permit No. 2883, upholding the findings of the City Planning Comm~ssion. Mayor Bay. He is going to oppose the resolutions of denial primarily because in talking about the Platinum Triangle that whole area is as commercial as an area can get and the type of development being proposed will be needed. The project needs to be changed, improved and brought back in. City Attorney Jack White. If the modification in the plans is so significant that a hearing was not even held on the specific project in question i.e., if this is a different project, not only should it go back to the Planning Commission, but legally it would have to go back. He does not know if they are at that point at this time. Floyd Farano. He requested that the Council reconsider its position on the extension of time he requested. All the Council's comments are appropriate. With the thoughts and guidance received from the Council today, the continuance will enable them to revise the plans accordingly. Otherwise the cost and time of starting all over again is substantial. In the event they find that in reconsiderin~ the project the changes are substantial, they would so advise the Council and request that the matter be referred back to the Planning Commission. After further discussion, Councilman Pickler agreed to go along with the continuance period. He thereupon withdrew the resolutions of denial previously offered by him. Councilman Bay again restated his motion to continue the public hearing on the Reclassification, Variance and Conditional Use Permit for six weeks to May 26, 1987 at approximately 3:00 p.m. requesting that the information that is needed 313 City Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - April 14~ 1987~ 1:30 P.M. by staff be submitted to staff by the applicant within the next four weeks to give sufficient time for a staff report to be prepared. A vote was then taken on the foregoing motion. One Vacancy. MOTION CARRIED. Mayor Bay noted that Mr. Farano had made a commitment that if it is their decision to do a major redesign of the project, he will let the Council know and will request that the matter be referred back to the Planning Commission. 144: JOINT PONEES AUTHORITY (JPA) MEETING EASTERN/FOOTHILL CORR.IDORS AND ORANGE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION MEETING - APRIL 13, 1987 - SANTA ANA CITY HALL: Mayor Bay reported that at the OCTC meeting, the Commission unanimously voted approval and support of the JPA's 1987 Legislative Program (see minutes of April 7, 1987). Earlier in the day, the Orange County Board of Supervisors also voted approval. After the OCTC meeting, the JPA Operations Committee met and welcomed the new Supervisor Gaddy Vasquez to that Committee. RECESS - CLOSED SESSION: Councilman Bay moved to recess into Closed Session to discuss the balance of the items announced earlier by the City Attorney. Councilwoman Kaywood seconded the motion. One Vacancy. MOTION CARRIED. (5:02 p.m.) AFTER RECESS: The Mayor called the meeting to order, all Council Members being present. One Vacancy. (5:43 p.m.) ADJOURNMENT: Councilman Bay moved to adjourn. Councilwoman Kaywood seconded the motion, one Vacancy. MOTION CARRIED. (5:44 p.m.) LEONORA N. SOHL, CITY CLERK 314